¿ſaeſae ***¿¿.- ſaeſſae; - wº¿ë#########¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡######################### &&%、、、。、、。aerºſ，¿$*ºrſ，!·、、、、、、、。 ·-------- -¿ſaem§§·§§§§§∞∞∞∞ſiſi∞∞∞ſaeºſſiſſä‹› ‹› ‹› ‹‹.ſț¢&&ſºſiºſ ~--|- º.-----*ț¢：*¿¿.£88;;ſae;|- ~***************ſ）;w. ：ae， ， ， ， ，- Åge ✉ &&3&&3&& gº¿?§::-§§！…， ， ·- ·· …∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞，ſºs，：× -* * · -·§§§§§§·ae*&&aesaegſæký*-ſae§， ſººſºs，· iſ.º.&###**¿¿.-§§ſaeſț¢;:¿•）››- **ț¢&######$¿ſae§！！！!！！！！！！！!！!！！！！!！®， §§§§º ºſºÞºrſºgº-ſºſtº：！ſae sºrºsz-ºſºſ，ºſ ººk ，&{} --#################### ¿№， praeſ）、。įſ. ſ - ： * · · · · ·§. ******， ******************* × ° ≈ ≠ ±） -R*|×- ·|×· #:::：：::::：:::：:::::Ē§§~-§§~šſiſ，ſaeſaežtė §§§ſſſſſſſ####:}-ſiſ:± ：~:::::::::::::::::::::::：::::::：:::::::::::::::::::· - ſae;ſiſſ.§§§¿§§§s√≠√∞a ſ√≠√∞::::：：::::：::：:：<;£;ţă， şčešķiſaeſºxae· -••·&.ººº -- -ș， №ž#ff;§§§§§§§·ſae:،ſaeſ， pvz.ſaepsae~ t.！«■• · №ſ ſaetraeae。…·ſaegaeaeaeſae，&&***********）§:ſſ::：::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::：::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::- șaeğșae~·¿wºgaeae::::：::::::::::：:::::::::::::：::::：:::::::::× （-∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞§§§§§§§¶√∞i√∞ √æeſſae|- ------~ · ·.·ț¢3ךķ·，·≡≡≡≡≡≡≡ șºg:::：:::::::：：::::№j ſaeță și gaeae：· :gaeae，ſaetae aes&&&&^^^∞∞∞-ſ*=~، |（į：ſº ſeſºrº， №ºaeae， ſºţim.-|-∞∞∞ſaevaesſaeſaeae|-gºq&ş，affaeţžąſų， ežeče. - * * * * * * * * * * * ***：،§§§§§-：gaeºsae£&*ſaeesſae，-，**） ș****************************）~--~…£ſf， №rºſºſ，- -×·· ：šťae****：saevaeſſae ********** √æa√∞ √°√∞- |-ſºſºzºïſtiĢ ~--~------···---···· ---------¿:::::::::：:::::::::：:：:：:::：:::::::::::::::: №ſi：ſae|× ≤….….…….--~-， ， ， ，·-saevae aerºſſbaeae: ≡：¿sººs*，*\ſ*$æ√≠√∞-·|-∞:· ·……………<--…ſă-șģäčbº º， ę，-、·ºskaeaeaeaeaegſ ºzeae ae≡sºsesse，***#！*®Äğ，waeſaeaeaesă， essae№ſſae;;;;ſ::№ sae， sººs º włą iš šº * * * *·-saesäaegae§|-&raeeraessaesſºſ…a¿.*¿¿.* ،#：，·::::::::::::::::Ë： ·-æææ æææ æ）saegs ºg æ aegae ſººººº！！！！！！38:~vaeſſae，|× *****№， º sº*$'*****Uſº***********^ '^-^ ∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞ √° ſ√≠√∞ ſae;&#*******şł ·،●ſeº，- ·· ·m··saetaesſaeſaeiſl §¶√∞::::::::::::::::::::-|-ſaetae išķºſ， --<§§ſae********ſae- ،§Ķī£§№ſſae; &&！!！！！！！！！！！！!！！！！!！！ § gasſgae; ***********）##### ſaessae &## §§§§§！!！！！！！！ ∞ſ ſęł4$$$$$$$$$$$$… ſae: ſaevae ºg ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: -# '...'） . . .----- ±kjº， 2.~ºº-，;“, }~ 4¿¿.， ， , ， ， , ，∞ſ:¿.* ： -**，№ſſae، % ）####################&#####!!!!!！!！！ſae ， ：·*********************¿¿.ſſ∞ √≠ √æ√≠√∞∞∞ ſº， ºſº: {· ： ·~∞∞∞ſae:kº************* # *.p************~： - ************- ~§ 53 ， ∞ √æ√≠≤≥±，±，±，±，±，±，±）， ſºs， ºs resºsºs， ſººs ****** ſaesae ſaei :::::::::：::#ffaes！ :） «…，∞，∞）， ， ， , ， . *** * * *$%， 3 ***± • ſae … ****. 3. *** ********************** &***** O， zī£ --> CO a TO3. §§§"0022 ig iversity of Michi Un ae … ……–……. ， ……–…….…..* ---- -№： 8iſ, į # º g- # º § & º § s: º gº ~·saegael§ ¶ ¡ ¿|-§. 3. ….....……….…………-~ -ſ tºº ** ** *****ſ ſ,، ، ، -： >>>∞TY™ș*$$（ ）！ſaeº £-ſaeſºpsp№ſºs r .*¿¿ ſºț;-- -š-ššðºí，§§#… ：-） !! !！---：¡¡¡¡¡¡!iſ.§§§！… --º-º-ºſºgaetºſ§§} · |-…&*）（.*¿¿.*¿¿.*?）&â A.&#á：، ،- ·-§§§§§§：• ……-…-… £（; * * $§§ .§§§§§§-~， ! - "- - - … ：-） ------· -- ·№ssae -####§§-m· ●-،： §§§§§ ·§§- ###### aet. œț¢ £ © ® §§§§§§§5;&### ſae aetae§. {{№ſſae № gae ！ ºr rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrrrrrrry Tappall PróSb]{6rial ASS06iation LAIE ERA FRY. - (Presented by 4, 9. J% 7. Ø\ f f º t Engraved º, jº. 22.2, … Zºº”, zºº//?” ºr Zºrrºyº” /ø/º Zºº Mºjº - - - - - Tú 1 +/ | THE COMPLETE WO RIKS OF THE REV. A N D R E W FULL ER, WITH A MEMOIR OF HIS LIFE. BY A N D R E W G U N T O N F U L L E R. LONDON : HENRY G. BOHN, YORK STREET, COVENT GARDEN. MDCCCLIX. Joli N CHILDS AND son, PRINTERs. Ju-wºo. 4.-- £26-1723 AD VERTIS EMENT TO THE FIRST COLLECTED EDITION. THE editor in presenting to the public what has been long called for, viz. a complete edition of the works of his revered father, thinks it unnecessary for him to offer any remarks on the character of writings, most of which have for many years been before the public, and must now be supposed to stand on their own merits. It may however be proper to state, that the present edition not only contains a great number of valuable pieces which had before been unavoidably omitted, but also a portion of original manuscript, part of which is inter- woven in the Memoir, and part inserted in the miscellaneous volume. He is not unaware of the fact that some individuals, of whose judgment he entertains a high opinion, would have preferred a selection of those pieces possessed of the greatest permanent interest. Yet, to say nothing of the extreme difficulty, or perhaps impracticability, of making such a selection as should afford general satisfaction, ample opportunities have presented themselves, during the last few years, of ascertaining that such a course would by no means meet the public wishes. On the other hand, he does not profess to have inserted every fragment of Mr. Fuller's writings, some pieces being totally destitute of present interest, and others superseded by the insertion of the substance of them in another form by the author. Of the latter de- scription, indeed, are the letters to the late Dr. Ryland, relative to the controversy with Mr. Booth, published in the Baptist Journals in 1827; and in the insertion of these the editor confesses he has rather consulted what he thought to be the wish of the public than his own private judgment. The Memoirs of the Rev. S. Pearce, containing so large a portion of auto-biography, are by some considered as possessing a doubtful claim to insertion in the works of Mr. Fuller. In attempting, however, to avoid extremes, the editor has rather wished to steer clear of the error of omission ; while it must be borne in mind that the rejection of every piece the in- terest of which might be considered temporary and local could have had little influence on the price of the work, which, considering the number and fulness of the pages, he trusts is entitled to rank among the cheap editions of celebrated writers for which the present period is so happily distinguished. - iv s ADVERTISEMENT. In arranging the materials of the present edition, the editor has aimed as much as pos- sible to preserve a similarity of character in the subjects of the respective volumes. This will be found more especially exemplified in the second volume, which comprises the Controversy on Faith, in its various aspects; the third, which contains the Expository matter; and the fourth, which includes the Sermons and Sketches. - . In the compilation of the Memoir little more is professed than a selection, arrangement, and compression of the ample materials to which the editor has had free access. The reader is requested to observe that all the references made by the author to different parts of his own writings are adjusted to the pages they severally occupy in these volumes, except in the Reply to Mr. Button and Philanthropos, where they are unavoidably made to the first edition of the “Gospel Worthy of all Acceptation.” - - In concluding this brief announcement the editor cannot omit his grateful acknowledg- ments to those friends who have kindly furnished him with original manuscript sermons and other valuable materials. And he feels his thanks especially due to R. Bowyer, Esq., whose kind superintendence of the engraving accompanying this volume has enabled him to present to the public a portrait of his father far surpassing in correctness, as well as execution, any that has yet appeared. West Drayton, Oct. 5, 1831. Page Missing in Original Volume Page Missing in Original Volume C O N T E N T S. MEMOIR, PAGES SecT. I.-1754 To 1776. Mr. Fuller’s Birth—Ances- try—Narrative of his early Religious Impressions, Conversion, Theological Difficulties, and Entrance on the Pastoral Charge at Soham–Gradual Change of Sentiments—Narrative of the Progress of his Mind on Justification—Marriage . - º . XV II.-1777 to 1783. Change in his Manner of Preach- ing—Alienation of some of his Hearers—Embar- rassment in his temporal Circumstances—Distress- ing Agitation of Mind in the Prospect of leaving Soham—Extracts from his Diary—Letters to Mr. Wallis—Removal to Kettering—Mutual Testimo- nies to and from the Church at Soham—Statement at his Ordination . º º º e © . e. III.-1784 To 1792. Labours at Kettering—North- amptomshire Association—Union of Ministers for Prayer and Conference relative to the Promotion of vital Religion—Extracts from his Diary—Pub- lication of his Treatise on the Universal Obligation of Faith—Controversies arising out of it—Diary resumed—Letters to Dr. Ryland on the Illness and Death of his Daughter Sarah—Further Extracts from his Diary—lllness and Death of his Wife xxxviii IV.-1793 To 1814. Formation of Baptist Mission— Departure of Missionaries—Letters on Socinianism —Second Marriage—Preaching in Braybrook Church—Journey to Scotland—Trouble relative to his eldest Son—Publications on Deism, Universal Salvation, Backsliding, Spiritual Pride–Second Journey to Scotland—Journey to Ireland—Corre- spondence with America—Diplomas—Third Jour- ney to Scotland—Correspondence—Publication of Dialogues, &c.——Attack on the Mission—Fourth Journey to Scotland—Charge of Persecution— Joseph Fuller—Journey to Wales–Fire at Seram- ore-East India Charter—Death of Mr. Sutcliff, xxvii V. 1814, 1815. Journeys into various parts of Eng- land—Ordination of Mr. Yates at Leicester—Com- mencement of last Illness—Attempted Excursion tº the North of England—Last Visit to Londom— Publication of Sermons—Preparation of MSS. on the Revelation and on Communion—Return of Pisorder–Ordination of Mr. Mack—Aggravated Symptoms of Disease—Last Sermon, and Distri- bution of the Lord's Supper—Visit to Cheltenham $9ntemplated and relinquished—Last Letter to Dr. Ryland–Dying Expressions—Concluding Scene -Funeral—Extract from Mr. Toller's Sermon– Marble Tablet—Testimonies of the Rev. R. Hall, r; Newman, and Bible Society—Letter of Mrs. Fuller to Dr. Ryland–Appendix, containing No- tices of his Family, &c. * º . lxxxii THE GOSPEL ITS OWN WITNESS, &c. &c. PA G 8. Preface . e º º e o º ... 3 Introduction tº & e e º º º © 5 PART I. THE HOLY NATURE OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION con- TRASTED witH THE IMMORALITY OF DEISM. CHAP. I. Christianity reveals a God glorious in Holiness; but Deism, though it acknowledges a God, yet denies or overlooks his Moral Character . º & ... 6 II. Christianity teaches us to acknowledge God, and to devote ourselves to his Service; but Deism, though it confesses one Supreme Being, yet refuses to worship Him . e ſº º & * tº * * * III. The Christian Standard of Morality is enlarged, and free from Impurity; but Deism confines our Obliga- tions to those Duties which respect our own Species, and greatly palliates Vice with regard to a Breach even of them . º & de g e " - . ~ * IV. Christianity furnishes Motives to a virtuous Life, which Deism either rejects, or attempts to undermine ll V. The Lives of those who reject the Gospel will not bear a Comparison with the Lives of those who em- brace it . © * & e e º . . . . 14 VI. Christianity has not only produced good Effects in those who cordially believe it, but has given to the Morals of Society at large a tone, which Deism, so 19 far as it operates, goes to counteract . . . . . º VII. Christianity is a Source of Happiness to Individuals and Society; but Deism leaves both the one and the other without Hope . e . . . . . 24 PART II. THE HARM on Y of THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION CONSIDERED As AN EvilDENCE of ITs DIVINITY. CHAP. I. The Harmony of Scripture with historic Fact evinced by the Fulfilment of Prophecy . e . 28 II. The Harmony of Scripture with 'Truth evinced from - its Agreement with the Dietates of an enlightened Conscience, and the Result of the closest Observation 30 III. The Harmony of Scripture with its own Professions argued from the Spirit and Style in which it is written 32 IV. #. Consistency of the Christian Doctrine, particu- larly that of Salvation through a Mediator, with sober Reason . e º e e e e e V. The Consistency of the Scripture Doctrine of Re- demption with the modern Opinion of the Magnitude of Creation . . . . . . . . . . 39 WI11 CONTENTS. CoNCLUDING ADDRESSEs. To Deists ſº tº © e g g To the Jews . * e º ſº & e To Christ 3DS º tº º g ſº * e THE CALVINISTIC AND SOCINIAN SYSTEMS IEXAMINED AND COMPARED AS TO THEIR IMORAL TENDENCY. Preface . . . . . . . . . 50 LeTT. I. Introduction and General Remarks . . 52 II. The Systems compared as to their Tendency to con- vert Profligates tº ſe • • e . 53 III. Tendency to convert Professed Unbelievers . . . 57 IV. The Argument from the number of Converts to So- cinianism examined . . . . . . 60 V. On the Standard of Morality ... • 63 VI. Promotion of Morality in General . . . 65 VII. Love to God . © & ſº tº • e 70 VIII. Camdour and Benevolence to Men . . . 74 IX. Humility . e ſº e tº e . . 78 X. Charity; in which is considered the charge of bigotry 80 XI. Love to Christ . . e tº º $ tº 86 XII. Veneration for the Scriptures ê º 89 XIII. Happiness, or Cheerfulness of Mind . . . . . 94 XIV. Motives to Gratitude, Obedience, and Heavenly- mindedness . . . . . . . . . 97 XV. On the Resemblance and Tendency of Socinianism to Infidelity - 00 PostScript. Establishing the Principle of the Work against the Exceptions of Dr. Toulmin, Mr. Bel- sham, &c. e - º gº © e tº & e 105 SOCINIANISM INDEFENSIBLE, &c. &c.; CON- TAINING A REPLY TO DR. TOULMIN AND MR. ICENTISH. 110 Introduction . © G ge g © ge gº * REPLY To DR. Toulm IN. SECT. I. Ground of Argument Stated and Defended . ]]] II.—Further Remarks on Dr. Toulmin, with Replies to his Animadversions, viz. His Complaint of the Attack not being made on the Fundamental Principles of his System—Principles of Calvinism not essential to Devotion—Want of Piety tacitly admitted by Dr. T.—His Method of accounting for it ruinous to his Cause—His Method of accounting for the Unsuccess- fulness of their Preaching—Complaint of the Appella- tion Socinians, and plea for i. of Unitarians— Socimianism leads to Deism—Case of the Puritans and Socimians dissimilar—Grounds of Love to Christ —Complaint of Injustice—Criminality of Error and judging the Heart º e * º & * APPENDIx. Remarks on Dr. Toulmin’s Review of the Acts of the Apostles . e e e * 113 REPLY To M.R. KENTISH. the Title of his Discourse—On his Declining a full Discussion of the Subject—The concluding Passage of the “Systems Compared '' defended against Mr. K. and the Reviewers—Reply to Mr. K.’s Six Pre- liminary Remarks . g * tº e º © Mr. Kentish’s Four Heads of Inquiry examined: I. On the Divine, the Social, and Personal Virtues— Love to God—Love to Christ—Fear of God— Confidence in God—Trusting in Christ—His Ap- peal to Fact—lmnocence of Error—Further Ap- peal to Fact gº º e § & iº gº II. Support and Consolation afforded in Temptation, Affliction, and Death. . . & * * . 128 III. Conversion of Profligates and Unbelievers . . ib. IV. Veneration for the Scriptures and Confirmation of 119 121 Faith in Christianity & © * * sº . ib. Gloss on John xiv. 28, “My Father is greater than I’” ... 129 Review of the Reviewers . tº gº & e . 130 PAGEſ REFLECTIONS ON MIR. BELSHAM'S REVIEW OF MER. WILBERFORCE’S TREATISE ON CHRISTIANITY 131 LETTERs To M.R. VIDLER ON UNIVERSAL SALVATION. Advertisement . e ‘º LETT. I. Expostulation : ſº e g º & II. Reasons for mot continuing the Controversy, and Replies to Mr. Vidler’s Objections to the foregoing 134 III. Difficulties attending Mr. Widler’s Scheme, and its 135 137 . 133 ib. Inconsistency with Scripture . tº IV. Replies, and Defences of former Reasonings W. Evidences of Endless Punishment from Scriptures describing the future States of Men in contrast—Fu- ture Punishment described by the terms “everlast- ing, eternal, for ever, and for ever and ever ‘’— Scripture Phraseology implying the Doctrine—Pas- sages intimating that the present is the only State of Probation & º * : e * o & . 139 VI. Replies to Objections . © tº . . . 142 VII. Examination of Mr. Widler’s System, and his Ar- guments in support of it . & * * * . 145 VIII. Further Examination, with Replies to Animad- versions . & gº tº § tº tº e . 147 THE GOSPEL WORTHY OF ALL ACCEPTATION. Advertisement to the Second Edition . 150 Preface . . tº - ib. PART I. THE SUBJECT SHOwn To BE IMPORTANT, STATED, AND FXPLAIN ED e • • • e 152 PART II. ARGUMENTS TO PROVE FAITH IN CHRIST To BE THE DUTY OF ALL WHO HEAR, OR HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR, THE Gospel. PROP. I. Unconverted Sinners are commanded, &c. to believe in Christ . g * e º tº . 157 II. Every Man is bound cordially to receive what God reveals . * te e . . . . . . 159 III. The Gospel, though, strictly speaking, mot a Law, virtually requires §j. and such as includes saving Faith . g º & tº * ſº . 161 IV. Unbelief is ascribed to Men’s Depravity, and is it- self a heinous Sin . e te © a º ſº . 162 W. God has threatened and inflicted the most awful Punishments on Sinners, for their not believing on Jesus Christ . e g & e e e . 163 VI. Other spiritual Exercises, inseparably connected with Faith in Christ, are represented as the Duty of Men in general . º e wº te iº . 165 PART III. OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. On the Principle of Holiness possessed by Man in Inno- CenCe . wº g & * * > 168 Concerning the Decrees of God . 169 On Particular Redemption 170 On Sinners being under the Covenant of Works . On the Inability of Sinners to believe in Christ, &c. . ib. Of the Work of the Holy Spirit . . . . . . . . 173 On the Necessity of a Divine Principle, in order to be- lieving º te ſº * º e CoNCLUDING REFLECTIONs. On the Warrant to believe * © ū tº º . 175 On the Influence of Faith on Justification . e o ib. CONTENTS. 1X. PAGE On the alarming Situation of Umbelievers . e . 175 On the Duty of Ministers in dealing with the Unconverted 176 APPENDIx. . On the Question, Whether a holy Disposition of Heart be 179 necessary, in order to believing . DEFENCE OF THE “ GOSPEL WORTHY OF ALL ACCEPTATION,” IN REPLY TO MR. BUTTON AND PHILANTHROPOS. REPLY To M.R. BUTTON. Preface . e . & o º e e º . 191 SECT. I. Introduction and General Remarks º . 193 II. On the Nature and Definition of Faith . º . 194 III. On Faith being commanded by God . . . 196 IV. On the Obligation of Men to embrace whatever God reveals; on Mr. B.’s Charge of Illiberality, &c. 198 V. On the causes to which the Want of Faith is ascribed . e º º º e -> º . 199 VI. On Punishments being threatened and inflicted for Umbelief . -> - e e e • º e VII. On Spiritual Dispositions . e º & . 202 VIII. IX. On the State of Man in Innocence . 203, 204 X. Divine Decrees, Use of Means, Particular Re- demption, &c. . . . . º e . . . 206 XI. Tendency of these Principles to establish the Doc- trimes of Human Depravity, Divine Grace, Work of the Spirit, &c. 207 XII. Considerations recommended to Reader º o e g Mr. B. and the e $º e . 209 REPLY TO PHILANTHRopos. Introduction . º & © * > o º e . 210 SECT. I. Whether Regeneration is prior to our coming to Christ 211 II. Whether Moral Inability is, or is not, excusable 216 On our being born in Sin g º - e . ib. On our Moral Inability being insuperable . . 218 On Grace being provided to ãelive: Men from it. . ib. III. Whether Faith is required by the Moral Law 221 IV. On the Death of Christ . e © * * . 223 1. Whether it included an absolute Design to save SOIOle e - e • - - - - - Z.4% 2. The Arguments of Philanthropos considered . 226 3. Universal Calls consistent with its limited Extent . 229 4. General Reflections . . . . 231 THE REALITY AND EFFICACY OF DIVINE GRACE, &c. &c., BY AGNOSTOS. Advertisement from Dr. Ryland’s Edition of the Works 234 LETT. I. General Remarks º . . . . ib. II. On the Work of the Spirit, . e e º . 235 III. IV. V. VI. VII. On Inability to do the Will of God. Mr. Taylor's Notions of Free Agenc º . 237 Confounds the Subject of Natural and Moral Ability, by a misapplication of Terms e . 238 His Plea for a joint Consideration of his Arguments ib. Evil Propensities blameworthy, though derived from the Fall . e - e e e te If not blameworthy, in themselves considered, those Circumstances mentioned by Mr. T. cannot ren- der them so * @ e ſº e te . 240 The bringing in the Grace of the Gospel to this end subversive of both Law and Gospe e e Natural Ability sufficient to render Men account. *ble Beings, with respect to Moral and Spiritual vul oº i.i. the Morniaw'? - alth being a Requirement of the Moral Law 246 IX. On the Death of ë.”'. of the Sub- ject-Argument from Divine Goodness con- sidered e e º º º º - . 247 * Proof that all who are saved are saved in conse. quence of a Special Design te e . . XI. M.F.T.'s answer to Mr. A.’s Arguments for a limit- ation of Design considered tº º PAGE LETT. XII. Reply to Mr.T.’s Defence of his former Argu- ments for the Universal Extent of Christ's Death 251 XIII. Defence of Arguments for the consistency of a General Call with Necessity of special and ef- Jicacious Grace. ſe e º e tº © STRICTURES ON SANDEMANIANISM, IN TWELVE LETTERS TO A FRIEND. LETT. I. Introduction . . º a º ºs . 256 II. General View of the System, with its leading points of Difference from the Systems which it op- OSCS , & & e g º e e e III" Consequences of Mr. Sandeman’s view of justify- ing j º º © -> ë … º tº IV. Faith of Devils and Nominal Christians . . 266 V. Connexion between Repentance and Faith . . . 269 VI. Connexion between Knowledge and Disposition 272 VII. Connexion between Regeneration and Faith . 276 VIII. Influence of these Principles on the Doctrine of free Justification by Faith in the Righteousness of Christ . - • e e & o © 279 IX. On certain New Testament Practices . 283 X. Constitution of Apostolic Churches . 286 xi. Öºh. Kingdom föhrist ". . . . . . .283 XII. The Spirit of the System compared with that of Primitive Christianity . © * º © & DIALOGUES AND LETTERS BETWEEN CRISPUS AND GAIUS. DIAL. I. On the Peculiar Turn of the present Age . 294 II. Importance of Truth º - tº s . 295 III. Connexiom of Doctrine, Experience, and Practice 296 IV. Moral Character of God . © e . 297 V. Free Agency of Man e 298 VI. Goodness of the Moral Law . 299 VII. Antinomianism. e º Ǻ º . . ib. VIII. Human Depravity e e º º e . 300 IX. Total Depravity of Human Nature . º . 301 () LETT. 1,2,3. Total Depravity of Human Nature 302,303, 304 4, 5. Consequences resulting from this Doctrine 305, 306 CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN PETER, JAMEs, AND JOHN. CoNy. I. On Imputation e e ºf . 309 II. On Substitution e º . 312 III. On Particular Redemption . . 31.4 LETTERS ON THE CONTROVERSY WITH THE R.E.W. A. BOOTH. LETT. I. Narrative . . 317 II. Imputation . . 319 III. Substitution e . 320 IV. Change of Sentiments . 322 V. Calvinism . 323 VI. Baxterianism 324 LETTERS RELATIVE TO MR. MARTIN’S PUB- LICATION ON THE DUTY OF FAITH IN CHRIST. LETT. I. Mr. Martin’s Accusations . 325 II. General Observations . . 327 III. Love to God . 329 IV. Divine Efficiency . 331 W. Human Endeavour e º e e - . 333 Postscript. Mr. Martin’s Treatment of Mr. Evans . 334 ANTINOMIANISM CONTRASTED WITH THE RELIGION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 334 Introduction . º tº tº * tº & © tº PART I. Brief View of Antinomiamism, with Arguments X CONTENTS. PAGE against the leading Principle from which it is de- nominated . . . e tº e tº & . 337 PART II. Its Influence in perverting some of the Princi- cipal Doctrines of the Gospel tº e º & EXPOSITORY DISCOURSES ON THE BOOK OF GENESIS. Dedication & & e t tº e tº & . 347 Disc. l. On the book in general, and the first day’s crea- tion, chap. i. 1–4 º * e gº * . ib. 2. On the last five days’ creation, chap. i. 6—31 348 3. Creation reviewed, chap. ii. . d e . 349 4. The fall of man, chap. iii. 1–7 . e . 351 5. The trial of the transgressors, chap. iii. 8–14 . 352 6. The curse of Satan, including a blessing to man —Effects of the fall, chap. iii. 15–24 . * * 7. The offerings of Cain and Abel, chap. iv. 1–8 354 %cº's punishment and posterity, chap. iv. 9. The generations of Adam, chap. iv. 25, 26; chap. v. © tº º . . . . . 357 10. #. cause of the deluge, chap. vi. 1–7. . 358 ll. Noah favoured of God, and directed to build the ark, chap. vi. 8–22 . tº e tº e . 359 12, 13. The flood, chap. vii. viii. & . 361, 362 14, God’s covenant with Noah, chap. ix. 1–24 . 363 15. Noah’s prophecy, chap. ix. 25–27 * . 364 16. The generations of Noah, chap. x. . 366 17. The confusion of tongues, chap. xi. 1–9 . . 367 18. The generations of Shem, and the call of Abram, chap. xi. 10–32; xii. 1–4 . * g § . 36 19. Abram in Canaan—removal to Egypt, chap. xii. 6—20 . * {º e tº º e . 37 20. The separation of Abram and Lot, chap. xiii. ib. 21. Abram’s slaughter of the kings, chap. xiv. . 372 22. Abram justified by faith, chap. xv. 1–6 . 373 23. Renewal of promises to Abram, chap. xv. 7–21 375 24. Sarai’s crooked policy, chap. xvi. ". tº . ib. 23. Covenant with Abram and his seed, chap. xvii. 377 26. Abraham entertains angels — intercedes for Sodom, chap. xviii. . e e . . . 379 27. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, chap. xix. sº . 380 28. Abraham and Abimelech, chap, xx. 382 29. The birth of Isaac, &c., chap. xxi. tº . 383 30. Abraham commanded to offer up Isaac, chap. XX11. . * g º & e e g º 31. The death and burial of Sarah, chap. xxiii. 386 32, 33. Abraham sends his servant to obtain a wife for Isaac, chap. xxiv. . & e e . 387, 389 34. Abraham marries Keturah — dies—Ishmael’s posterity and death—birth, &c. of Esau and Jacob, chap. xxv. . . . . . tº º º º 390 35. Isaac and Abimelech, chap. xxvi. 393 36. Jacob obtains the blessing, chap. xxvii. 395 37. Departs from Beersheba, chap. xxviii. 397 38. Arrives at Haram, chap. xxix. . e e e 39. Residence in Haram, chap. xxx...; xxxi. 1–-16 400 40. Departs from Haran, chap. xxxi. 17–55. . 401 41. Is afraid of Esau—wrestles with the angel, chap. xxxii. . 404 42. Interview with Esau–arrives in Canaan, chap. XXX111. , * º g * g & e 43. Dinah defiled, and the Shechemites murdered, chap. xxxiv. wº * ſº ſº g * o 44. Jacob removes to Beth-el—covenant renewed— death of Deborah, Rachel, and Isaac—Esau’s generations, chap. xxxv, xxxvi. . . . . 408 45. Joseph sold for a slave, chap. xxxvii. . 4ll 46. Judah’s conduct — Joseph’s promotion and temptation, chal xxxviii. xxxix. g © . 413 47. Joseph in prison, chap. xl. tº . 415 48. Joseph’s advancement, chap. xli. . g . 416 49. First interview between Joseph and his brethren, chap. xlii. . & e g sº g & e 50. Second interview between Joseph and his bre- thren, chap. xliii. e g e º e . 42 51. The cup in Benjamin’s sack, chap. xliv. 1–17 422 52. Judah’s intercession, chap. xliv. 18–34 . . 423 53. Joseph makes himself known to his brethren, chap. xlv. . & e wº º º * . 424 54. Jacob goes down into Egypt, chap. xlvi. . 426 55, Joseph’s conduct in the settlement of his bre- thren, and in the affairs of Egypt, chap. xlvii. . 427 405 • * PAGE Disc. 56. Interview with his dying father—blessing of 429 his sons, chap. xlviii. . . gº tº " .. 57. Jacob’s blessing on the tribes, º xlix. . . . 430 58. Jacob’s burial-Joseph removes the fears of his brethren—death of Joseph, chap. 1. . Conclusion * 434 EXPOSITORY DISCOURSES ON THE APOCALYPSE. Dedication . 436 Abstract of the Prophecy . . . * -- . . " . ... ib. Disc. 1. Introduction and Preparatory, Vision, chap. i., 439 2, 3, Epistles to the Churches, chap. ii., iii. 440, 442 4. Vision of the Throne of God, chap. iv. . 444 5. The Book with Seven Seals, chap. v. . * ib. 6, 7. The Seals opened, chap. vi. . 445, 447 8. Sealing of the Servants of God, chap. vii. 447 9. Seventh Seal subdivided into Seven Trumpets, chap. viii. 1–12 . º 448 Appendia.--History of the First Four Trumpets g 449 Disc. 10. First Woe Trumpet; or the Smoke and Lo- custs, chap. viii. 13; ix. 1–1. 451 ll. Second Woe Trumpet; or the Army of Horse- men, chap. ix. #"; ſe g º e . 452 12. Introduction to the Western Papal Apostacy, chap. x. e º tº e tº . 453 THE FIRST GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PAPAL APOSTACY. Disc. 13. State of the Church under the Papal Apostacy, chap. xi. 1–6. . . ..... e * g & . 454 Appendia.--History of the Witnesses . º : . 455 Disc. 14. Slaughter and Resurrection of the Witnesses, with the Falling of the Tenth Part of the City, chap. xi. 7–13 . & e * * * . 457 15. Sounding of the Seventh Angel, chap. xi. l 9 * > & o º tº e o . 459 THE SEcond GENERAL DESCRIPTION. Disc. 16. The Great Red Dragon, and the Woman flee- ing into the Wilderness, chap. xii. 1–6 . . 460 17. War between Michael and the Dragon, chap. xii. 7–17 . tº º º © & & . 461 THE THIRD GENERAL DESCRIPTION. DISC, 18. The Beast with Seven Heads and Ten Horns, chap. xiii. 1–10 g g & e & . 4 19. The Beast with Two Horns like a Lamb, chap. xiii. 11–18 . 464 20. The Lamb’s Company, chap. xiv. 1–5 . 465 21. Messages of the Three Angels, the Harvest, and the Vintage, chap. xiv. 6—20 . 466 22. Introduction to the Vials, chap. xv. . . 467 23, 24. On the Vials, chap. xvi. tº . 468, 469 25. The Great Harlot and the Beast, chap. xvii. 470 26. Fall of Babylon–Marriage of the Lamb, chap. xviii.; xix. 1–10 . . g tº . . 472 27. Beast and False Prophet taken, chap. xix. 474 * º ſº g ‘p * e ge . 47 28. The Millennium, chap. xx. 1–6 475 29. The Falling away—End of the World—Resur- rection—Last Judgment, chap. xx. 7–15 . . 477 30. New Heaven—New Earth—New Jerusalem, chap. xxi.; xxii. 1–5 ſº e g & e 31. Attestations to the Truth of the Prophecy, 79 wº e g ... 4 chap. xxii. 6—21 & g Conclusion . * e . 480 Addition in 1814 . 482 ExPOSITION OF THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. SECT. l. The Beatitudes, Matt. v. 1–12 $ 483 2. ghºster of Christians and Ministers, ver, l *-*. tº { } * w ge ſº CONTENTS. X1 PAGE SECT. 3. º and Spirituality of the Moral Law, ver. 17—3. . * * & e e . 486 4. On Oaths, ver. 33–37 . & 487 5. On resisting Evil, ver. 38–42 . 488 6. Love to Enemies, ver. 43–48 ib. 7. Almsgiving and Prayer, vi. 1–8 . 489 8. The É. Prayer, ver. 9—15 . . 490 9. Fasting and other duties, ver. 16–34 º . 493 10. Judging others—Casting Pearls before Swine, chap. vii. 1–6 . * & g e g ſº 11. Prayer and Equity, ver 7–12 . . . . . . ib. 12. Broad and Narrow Way—Criterion of Teach- ers, ver. 13—20 . ſº tº tº © * . 495 13. Last Judgment—Test of Religion, ver. 21–29 ib. EXPOSITION OF PASSAGES RELATING TO THE CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. LETT. l. Ezekiel xxxvii. . 497 2. Hosea i. ii. iii. ſº tº & e . 498 3. Hosea xi. xiii. xiv.; Jer. xxxi. 15–21 . . 499 4. Isa. xi. xii. º e o e e . 500 5. Zech. xi. xii. xiii. 1 . . 502 EXPOSITION OF CERTAIN PROPHECIES RELATING TO THE MILLENNIUM. Isaiah xxvi., &c. . 503 EXPOSITION OF THOSE SCRIPTURES WHICH REFER, TO THE UNIFARDONABLE SIN. John ix. 41; xii. 42; Acts viii. 22; 1 Tim. i. 13; Heb. vi. 4; 2.36; 2 Fet. ii. 20; i join vić ". . . . 505 EXPOSITORY NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. Appearance to Elijah, 1 Kings xix. e g de . 507 Lying Spirit persuading Ahab, 1 Kings xxii. 21–23 50S Mystery of Providence, Job xii. 6—25 . º gº . 509 Wisdom proper to Man, Job xxviii. g º ... ib. Inward Witness of the Spirit, Psal. lxxxv. 8; xxxv. 3 . 510 Prov. xii. 1. 3. 5; xiii. 11. 14. 19; xiv. 2. 6, 7. 23; xxx. 24–28 . . . . e tº & O * . 5ll Mºjº in Wisdom and Virtue Satirized, Eccles. vii. — 19 . a s a , e tº e & & . 512 Fulfilment of Prophecy, Isa. ix. 7 e 513 The Burden of Dumah, Isa. xxi. 11, 12 . 514 Application of Promises, as Isa. xliii. 25 . te 515 Destruction of the Mystical Babylon, Isa. lxiii. 1–6 ib. Ezekiel’s Visions, Ezek. i. and x. te tº {e . 516 Daniel’s Conflict with the Persian Court, Dan. x. 13 . ib. The Royal Tribe, Zech. x. 4 e tº © . 517 Qm the Latter Days, Mal. iii. 18 . $ g wº . ib. Kingdom of Heaven forced, Matt. xi. 12, 13 . . . 519 The Duty of Christian Forgiveness, Matt. xviii. 23, &c. . ib. Parable of the Unjust Steward, Luke xvi. 1–12 . 520 Case of the Converted Thief, Luke xxiii. 39–43 521 John’s Testimony to Jesus, John iii. 22–26 523 Qm the Trial of the Spirits, John iv. 1 g ib. Christ washing the Disciples’ Feet, John xiii. 524 Final Restitution, Acts iii. 21 . tº g 525 Weaker Disciples Honoured, 1 Cor. xii. 24 526 Yindication of the Apostle Paul, 2 Cor. xii. 16 tº . 527 Evangelical Truth the object of Evangelical Research, l Pet. i. 12 . . . . º . . te . 528 Regeneration by the Word of God, i Pet. i. 23 529 EXPOSITION OF PASSAGES APPARENTLY CONTRADICTORY. John v. 40, with vi. 44, 45.65 . . 529 Gen. vi. 9, with 1 Sam. xv.29 531 I Cor. x. 33, with Gal. i. 10 * . ib Gen. viii. 22, with xlv. 6 sº . 532 Prov. Kxvi. 4, with xxvi. 5 . ib. Gal. ii. 16, with James ii. 21 tº gº tº ib. . - - PAGE Exod. xx. 5, with Ezek. xviii. 20 . tº tº 532 Gen. xiii. 17; xxiii. 17, 18, with Acts vii. 5 . ib. Gen. xxxii. 30, with Exod. xxxiii. 20 533 2 Sam. xxiv. 1, with 1 Chron. xxi. 1 ib. Matt. vii. 7, 8, with Luke xiii. 24 . º ſº ib. Prov. xxvii. 2, with 1 Cor. xv. 10; 2 Cor. xii. 11 ib. Matt. v. 16, with Matt. vi. 1 . º ſº * 534 Matt. ix. 30, with Mark v. 19 ib. Matt. xi. 14, with John i. 21 ib. Matt. xxi. 38, with 1 Cor. ii. 8 ib. Luke i. 33, with 1 Cor. xv. 24 . 535 Luke x. 23, with John xx. 29 ib. John v. 31, with viii. 14 . e ib. Heb. xi. 33, with xi. 39 ib. John xx. 17, with xx. 27 . e ib. Rom. ii. 14, with Eph. ii. 3 . g ib. Rom. xiv. 5, with Gal. iv. 10, 11 . ib. Acts ix. 7, with xxii. 9 g p 536 1 Cor. x. 13, with 2 Cor. i. 8 ib. Gal. vi. 2, with Gal. vi. 5 . ib. Phil. iv. 5, with 2 Thess. ii. 2 . ib. 1 John i. 8, with l John iii. 9 tº tº ib. 2 Tim. iii. 12, with Prov. xvi. 7 g g 537 1 Cor. viii. 8–13, with 1 Cor. x. 20, 21 ib. SERMONS AND SKETCHES. SERM. l. The Nature and Importance of Walking by 38 . 5 Faith, 2 Cor. v. 7 tº 2. The Qualifications and Éncouragements of a Faithful Minister, illustrated by the Character and success of Barnabas, Acts xi. 24 . 3. The Instances, the Evil Nature, and the É. Tendency of Delay in the Concerns of eligion, Hag. i. 2 4. The #lessedness of the Dead who die in the Lord, Rev. xiv. 13 . 546 553 5. The Nature and Importance of a Deep and Intimate Knowledge of Divine Truth, Heb. v. 12–14 e e & e te & & . 557 6. The Christian Doctrine of Rewards, Gal. vi. 56 . 563 7. God’s Approbation of our Labours necessary to the Hope of Success, Numb. xiv. 8 . º . 567 8. The Obedience of Churches to their Pastors explained and enforced, Heb. xiii. 17 tº º 9. Christian Patriotism; or the Duty of Religious People towards their Country, Jer. xxix. 7 . 576 10. Jesus the True Messiah, Psal. xl. 6–8 . 579 ll. Solitary Reflection; or the Sinner directed to look into himself for Conviction, Psal. iv. 4 . 584 12. Advice to the Dejected; or the Soul directed to look out of itself for Consolation, Psal. xiii. 2 587 13. The Prayer of Faith; exemplified in the Woman of Canaan, Matt. xv. 21–28 d . 591 14. The Future Perfection of the Church, con- trasted with its present Imperfections, Eph. v. - e e g e * e te . 594 15. The Gospel the only Effectual Means of pro- ducing Universal Peace among Mankind, Mal. iv. 5, 6 g e & e * & tº & 16. The Reception of Christ the Turning Point of Salvation, John i. 10–12 . * sº & . 604 17, 18, 19. On Justification, Rom. iii. 24 608, 611, 614 20. The Believer’s Review of his Past and Present state, Eph. ii. 13 * º * ſº tº . 617 21. The Nature and Importance of Love to God, Josh. xxiii, ll . & & g te . 62 22. Conformity to the Death of Christ, Phil. iii. 10 623 23. The Life of Christ the Security and Felicity of his Church, Rev. i. 18 * g & e . 626 24, Christianity the Antidote to Presumption and Despair, l John ii. 1... º * tº . . 62 25. The Sorrow attending Wisdom and Know- ledge, Eccles. i. 17, 18 e & † g º 26. The Magnitude of the Heavenly Inheritance, Rom. viii. 18–23 . & e & e e 27. The Principles and Prospects of a Servant of Christ, Jude §. 21 . te & * e * 28, Pºlº Prayer for the Philippians, Phil. i. 29. The Peace of God, Phil. iv. 7 . 646 30. Soul Prosperity, 3 John 2 © tº * . 649 31. The Common Salvation, Jude 3 . & º 32. The Good Man’s Desire for the Success of God’s Cause, Psal. xc. 16, 17 * tº e ë e 598 65 xii CONTENTs. - - PAGE SERM. % Fºyer of David in the Decline of Life, Psal. XXl. e & tº º º tº g © 34. Advantages of Early Piety, Psal. xc, 14 . 656 35. The Choice of Moses, Heb. xi. 24–26 . . 657 36. Paul’s Prayer for the Ephesians, Eph. iii. 14–16 659 37 individual and Social Religion, 1 Pet. ii. 4,5 6% 38. On the Vanity of the Human Mind, Psal. xciv. 11 g tº e cº g tº a 661 39. Equity of the Sentence recorded against those who love not the Lord Jesus Christ, 1 Cor. xvi. 22 . e wº * o & g Ö 40. Fellowship of God’s People in Evil Times, Mal. iii. 16, 17 . . gº tº º e e . 664 41. Public Worship, Psal. lxviii. 26–28 . . . . 665 42. Great Sinners encouraged to return to God, Deut. iv. 29 * e º g * º . ib. 43. Consolation to the Afflicted, John xiv. 2–4 666 44. On Covetousness, Luke xii. 15 © te . 667 45. Mysterious Nature of Man, Psal. cxxxix. 14 668 46. Life and Death; or the Broad and the Narrow Way, Matt. vii. 13, 14 . tº * © . 669 47. Hope in the Last Extremity, Jonah ii. 4 670 48. Past Trials a Plea for Future Mercies, Psal, xc. 15. - . . 672 49. The Changes of Time, 1 Chron. xxix. 29, 30 673 50. On True Wisdom, Prov. xiv. 8 * ë 674 5l. Irremediable Evils, Eccles. i. 15 . . . . 675 52. Importance of Union of Public and Private In- terests in the Service of God, Neh. iii. 28–30 . 676 53. Christ our Substitute in Death and Judgment, Heb. ix. 27, 28 . . . is ſº º . 678 54. Pastors required to feed the Flock of Christ, John xxi. 16 ... 6 55. Spiritual Knowledge and Holy Love necessary for the Gospel Ministry, John v. 35. . . . . 680 56. On an Intimate and Practical Acquaintance with the Word of God, Ezra vii. 10 . º * 57. Ministers are appointed to root out Evil and to Cultivate that which is Good, Jer. i. 10 . * 58. Ministers should be concerned not to be De- spised, Tit. ii. 15 . . . . . . . . . 684 *Mººn are Fellow Labourers with God, I Cor. 1II. ſº 60. The Nature of the Gospel, and the Manner in which it ought to be Preached, Col. iv. 3, 4 . 687 61. The Work and Encouragement of the Christian Minister, Matt. xxv. 21 . tº º e g 62. On Preaching Christ, &c., 2 Cor. iv. 5 ge 63. The Influence of the Presence of Christ on the Mind and Work of a Minister, 2 Tim. iv. 22 . 64. Habitual Devotedness to the Work of the Mi- mistry, 1 Tim. iv. 15, 16 . © te º e 65. Affectionate concern of a Minister for the Salva- tion of his Hearers, l Thess. ii. 7, 8 . g & 66. The Nature and Encouragements of the Mis- sionary Work, John xx. 21 º tº . . 69 67. The Christian Ministry a Great Work, Neh. 69 & 5 Vl. 5 . . . gº tº s & © e 68. Faith in the Gospel a necessary Prerequisite to Preaching it, 2 Cor. iv. 13 . o & * 69. The Young Minister exhorted to make full Proof of his Ministry, 2 Tim. iv. 5, 6 ". . . 70. Importance of Christian Ministers considered as the Gift of Christ, Psal. lxviii. 18 698 71. Nature and Importance of Christian John xiii. 34, 35 . e f : tº & e . 699 72._Christian Churches Fellow Helpers with their Pastors to the Truth, 3 John 8 . tº tº . 700 73. On Christian Stedfastness, 1 Thess. iii. 8 . 701 74. Churches Walking in the Truth the Joy of Mi- misters, 3 John 4 e Q & e & . 702 75. Churches should exhibit the Light of the Gos- pel, Rev. ii. 1 . . . . . . . 703 76. On Cultivating a Peaceful Disposition, Rom. 697 Love, XIV. e º gº g * gº e . 704 77. Christian Churches are God’s Building, 1 Cor. iii. 9 . g ſº e g ſº & { } . 706 78. The Satisfaction derived from a Consciousness that our Religious Exercises have been charac- terized by § Simplicity, 2 Cor. i. 12 . . ib. 79"; Reward of a Faithful Minister, 1 Thess. ll. * wº e te tº te * & e 80. Ministers and Churches exhorted to serve one another in Love, Gal. v. 13 * e e . 708 81. Ministerial and Christian Communion, Rom. . 709 1. e tº e * ge tº ſº - PAG [. SERM, 82. Ministers and Christians exhorted to hold fast the Gospel, 2 Tim. i. 13 . . . . . . . .. 710 83. Nature of True Conversion and Extent of it under the Reign of the Messiah, Psal., xxii. 27 84. Effect of Things differ according to the State of the Mind, Tit. i. 15 . & e te * ſº 7] I 712 CIRCULAR LETTERS. The Excellence and Utility of Hope, A.D. 1782 . . . . 714 Causes of Declension in Religion, and Means of Revival, Why Christians in the present Day possess less Joy than the Primitive Disciples, 1795 o e * & • * The Discipline of the Primitive Churches Illustrated and Enforced, 1799 . & tº * e & ... 7 The Practical Uses of Christian Baptism, 1802 . 728 The Pastor’s Address to his Christian Hearers, entreating their Assistance in promoting the Interest of Christ, išjá 730 On Moral and Positive Obedience, 1807 . o g , 733 The Promise of the º: the grand Encouragement in , 1810 . 737 promoting the Gospe º g & tº g The Situation of the Widows and Orphans of Christian Ministers, &c., 1815 . e jº e º o . 738 LETTERS ON SYSTEMATIC DIVINITY. LETT. 1. Importance of Systematic Divinity . 740 2. Importance of a True System . tº . ib. 3. Plan Proposed to be Pursued . . 742 4. On the Being of God . ſe tº * 744 5. On the Necessity of a Divine Revelation 745 6. On the Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures 7.46 7. On the uniform bearing of the Scriptures on the Person and Work of Christ e . tº . 748 8. On the Perfections of God . e 749 9. On the Doctrine of the Trinity e 750 THOUGHTS ON PREACHING. LETT. 1. On Expounding the Scriptures e is . 752 2. On Sermons, and the Subject-matter of them 753 3. On the Composition of a Sermon . e . 755 4. On the Composition of a Sermon . . 757 On the Abuse of Allegory in Preaching . . 758 MEMOIRS OF THE REW. SAMUEL PEAR.C.E. Dedication . e e º º © º e . 760 Introduction . dº e º * © * © . ib. CHAP. l. His parentage, conversion, call to the ministry, and settlement at Birmingham ib. 2. Laborious exertions in promoting missions to the heathem, and his offering himself as a mis- sionary . . . . . . . . 764 3. Exercises and labours from the time of his giving up the idea of going abroad to the com- mencement of his last affliction . . . . . 771 4. Account of his last affliction, and the holy and happy exercises of his mind under it . . . 778 5. General outlines of his character . . . 787 Letters . . . . . . . . 789 Concluding reflections . º º . . 793 Specimen of devotional poetry g . 795 AN APOLOGY FOR THE LATE CHRISTIAN MISSIONS TO INDIA, IN THREE PARTS, WITH AN APPENDIX. PART I. SecT. 1. Address to Edw. Parry, esq., Chairman of the East India Company . * . . . . 796 2. Strictures on the Preface of a Pamphlet entitled, “Observations on the present State of the East India Company” * tº ºt tº e CONTENTS. xiii PART II. - PAGE Introduction . * - ~ : " ... --- . " tº gº º SecT. 1. Remarks on Major Scott Waring’s Letter to the Rev. Mr. Owen . . 2. Remarks on “A vindication of the Hindoos, by a Bengal Officer” . . . . . . 809 PART III. Preface . . . * @ . . . . . . . . . ; 815 SECT. 1. Strictures on Major Scott Waring's third pamphlet . º © º d e e . 816 2. Remarks on “A Letter to the President of the Board of Control on the Propagation of Chris- tianity in India.” © tº e e e & 3. Remarks on the propriety of confining mission- ary undertakings to the Established Church . 823 APPENDIX. Recent testimonies to the character of the missionaries . 825 The principles of the petitioners to parliament for religious toleration in India; a letter to John Weyland, jun., esq., occasioned by his letter to sir Hugh Inglis, bart., on the state of religion in India . e * > Q Answer to an anonymous letter from “An Observer,” on his objections to foreign missions . is ſº e & ESSAYS, LETTERS, &c., ON ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. An inquiry into the right of private judgment in matters of religion . e e º & e e e tº On creeds and subscriptions , - º & - º Thoughts on the principles on which the apostles pro- gºed in forming and organizing Christian churches, A brief statement of the principles of dissent • Windication of protestant dissent, in reply to the Rev. Thomas Robinson, M.A. e 830 834 On the presence of Judas at the Lord's supper . . . . Šíð On dissent e º e º e e e . 841 State of dissenting discipline 842 Discipline of the inglis and Scottish Baptist churches . State of the Baptist churches in Northamptonshire . Decline of the dissenting interest . º º tº . 845 Agreement in sentiment, the bond of Christian union . 847 813 844 ON ORDINATION:— Re-ordination and imposition of hands . . . 849 Walidity of lay ordination . . . . . . . 850 Administering the Lord’s supper without ordination . ib. Administering the Lord’s supper without a minister ib. Counsel to a young minister in prospect of ordination 851 On the apostólic office . . . . . . . ib. ON TERMS OF CoMMUNION:— 'Remarks on infant baptism and infant communion . 852 Strictures on the Rev. John Carter’s “Thoughts on Baptism and Mixed Communion” Q. º * Thoughts on open communion, in a letter to the Rev. W. Ward, missionary at Serampore . . . 854 Štrict communion in the church at Serampore The admission of unbaptized persons to the Lord's Supper inconsistent with the New Testament ... ib. . 859 . 861 - Qu instrumental music in Christian worship Thoughts on singing tº e e MISCELLANEOUS TRACTs, ESSAYS, LET- TERS, &c. On Truth. e o e e The Great Question Answered The Awakened Sinner; or iletters between Archippus and Epaphras . . . . 863 870 ON SPIRITUAL PRIDE, &c.:— Introduction . . 881 * a PAGE SECT. 1. Occasions or objects of spiritual pride . . 881 2. Causes of spiritual pride . & & e . 885 Remarks on two sermons by R. W. Horne of Yarmouth 887 The moral law the rule of conduct to believers . 890 Strictures on sentiments of the Rev. Robert Robinson . 892 On spiritual declension and means of revival . . 904 THE BACKSLIDER, &c. :- Introduction . º º * º e . . 91 General nature and different species of backsliding 913 Symptoms of a backsliding spirit . g o . 916 Injurious and dangerous effects of sin lying upon the conscience unlamented e © e Means of recovery • Q . . . . 920 Progressiveness of sin and of holiness . . . . . . 923 Persuasives to a general union in prayer for the revival of religion . º e º e e . . 926 THOUGHTs on CIVIL Polity :- Attachment to government º . 928 Reflections on the Epistle of Jude . . . 930 Influence of the conduct of religious people on the well-being of a country . * tº gº º . ib., Political self-righteousness . . . . . ib. The proper and improper use of terms . . . . 931 The immaculate life of Christ . e to º 935 ON THE DEITY OF CHRIST :— The Deity of Christ essential to the atonement . . . 938 The Deity of Christ essential to our calling on his name, and trusting in him for salvation . . 939 Defence of the Deity of Christ . e e . 940 Remarks on the indwelling scheme . º tº e . 941 On the Sonship of Christ . º . . . . 943 On the Trinity e - e o e º & . 944 JUSTIFICATION : Qm the doctrine of imputed righteousness... . . . 945 On imputation and original sin (from a MS.) . 950 To the afflicted . . . . . . . . 951 THE HEAVENLY GLORY :— Nature and progressiveness of heavenly glory . 953 Degrees in glory proportioned to works of piety con- sistent with salvation by grace alone . . . 960 REVIEWS. The abuse of reviews e o e e & © . 962 Scott’s “Warrant and Nature of Faith” . - . 964 Booth’s “ Glad Tidings,” &c. . e & tº e . 965 Booth’s Sermon—the “Amen of Social Prayer” . 966 Memoirs of the Rev. James Garie . & e wº . ib. Bevan’s defence of the doctrine of the Friends . 967 Jerram’s “Letters on the Atomement” . º e . ib. “The Voice of Years concerning the late W. Hunting- ton, S. S.” . e e e e sº º . 968 ANSWERS TO QUERIES. The fall of Adam . . . . . . . . 971 The accountability of man . º e o e . ib. Moral inability te o e e & e º . 972 The love of God, and its extension to the non-elect 973 The prayer of the wicked . . . . . . . . . 974 Aspect of gospel promises to the wicked . . . ib. Power and influence of the gospel . e • * 975 The mature of regeneration . º e . . . 976 Faith not merely intellectual . e ‘º e ºs 978 Faith required by the moral law . . . . . ib. Christian love . e e º • º . ib. Christian charity . © º º . . . . ib. Character not determined by individual acts . . 979 Satan’s temptations - © & • • . ib. Obedience and suffering of Christ . . º 980 Jesus growing in wisdom and knowledge . ſº . ib. Reading the Scriptures e º e º e State of the mind in social and secret prayer . . ib. Nature of indwelling sin . e & º e Preservation against backsliding . e º & ... ib. Ministerial ...i and qualifications . . tº de e xiv . CONTENTS. { - - Funeral oration for the Rev. Robert Hall of Arnsby . 992 FUGITIVE PIECES. Lines to the memory of Mr. Hall . . . . . 993 - Nature of true virtue . • * • e ... ib. - PAGE | Morality not founded in utility . º tº tº e 994 Necessity of seeking important things first . º . 984 || Sin its own punishment . e º gº e ſº ... ib. On party spirit . . . . . . . . . . . . . 985 | The vision of dry bones . . . . . . 997 On evil things which pass under specious names . . ib. | The satisfaction of Christ • C . . . . . 998 Scriptural treatment of rich and poor Christians , , ; 986 | Credulity and disingenuity of unbelief... . . . . . . .999 Dangerous tendency of the doctrine of universal salvation 987 On the establishment of the Glasgow, Missionary Society 1000 Mystery of Providence, especially towards different parts : Importance of a lively faith, especially in missionary un- of the world in different ages • e • . . 988 dertakings . ſº e • * • tº G e Connexions in which the doctrine of election is used in the Infinite evil of sin º e e & O . 1002 Scriptures . • e • ... • º e e . 989 || The leper * e º e e e e tº ... ib. Remarks on the English translation of the Bible. . 990 || The êitian sabbath. º º e e Q • ib. On commendation . . . . . . . . 991 || Picture of an Antinomian . . . . . . 1003 M EM O IRS OF THE REV. ANDREW FULLER. SECTION I.-1754 to 1776. HIS BIRTH-ANCESTIRY-NAIRIRATIVE OF ELIS EAR- LY RELIGIOUS IMPRESSIONS, CONVERSION, THE- OLOGICAL DIFFICULTIES, AND ENTRANCE ON THE PASTOIRAL CHARGE AT SOFIAM—GRADUAL CIHANGE OF SENTIMIENTS-NAIRRATIVE OF THE PIROGRESS OF HIS MINID ON JUSTIFICATION.— MIAIR.R.I.A.G.E. - THE celebrity attained by the subject of the follow- ing Memoir was in no degree attributable to adven- titious aids of birth or education. Possessing no other advantages than were open to the son of any farmer in the middle of the last century, Mr. Fuller was indebted to no one, except for the barest rudi- ments of English instruction, as many of his earlier manuscripts sufficiently evince. He was born Fe- bruary 6th, 1754, at Wicken, near Ely, Cambridge- shire, for several centuries the residence of his pa- ternal ancestors, some of whom, as well as those on his mother's side, had been distinguished for piety and sufferings in the cause of Christ. In order to avoid the persecutions of the heartless and profligate Charles II., they were accustomed to meet in the woods of Cambridgeshire, with Holcroft and Oddy, two eminent ejected ministers, the former of whom had been the medium of conversion to one of them.* His father, Robert Fuller, married Philippa, daughter of Andrew Gunton, by whom he had three sons, Andrew being the youngest. The others, Robert and John, followed the occupation of their ancestors, the former at Isleham, Cambridge- shire, where he died in 1829; the latter at Little Pentley, Essex, where he still resides ; both having been for many years pious and respectable deacons of Baptist churches. The account given by Mr. Fuller of his early re- * Palmer, in his Nonconformists’ Memorial, informs us that these excellent men, who both suffered a long imprisonment in b . ligious impressions affords an interesting exhibition of the mysterious operations of Divine grace in the midst of youthful depravity, while it also shows the gradual development of those traits of character which afterwards excited such admiration and esteem, and led to results of such importance to the religious world, and especially to his own immediate connexion. The system of doctrine which had at that time prevailed to a considerable extent was a caricature of Calvinism, exercising under some of its forms a peculiarly degrading and pernicious in- fluence. From this he was the happy means of rescuing many of the churches, and of leading them to recognise the perfect consistency of the most ele- wated views of the sovereignty of Divine grace with the most extensive obligations of men to moral and spiritual duties, and the most unlimited invitations to unconverted hearers of the gospel. The following extracts comprise the substance of two series of letters, which, being written to friends at different periods, and consequently containing in many cases a repetition of the same incidents, it is judged most expedient to reduce to a uniform and continuous narrative, preserving at the same time a scrupulous adherence to the words of the writer. “You need not be told, my dear friend, that the religious experience of fallible creatures, like every thing else that attends them, must needs be marked with imperfection, and that the account that can be given of it on paper, after a lapse of many years, must be so in a still greater degree. I am willing, however, to comply with your request; and the ra- ther because it may serve to recall some things which, in passing over the mind, produce interesting and useful sensations, both of pain and pleasure. “My father and mother were Dissenters, of the Calvinistic persuasion, and were in the habit of Cambridge castle, were the founders of nearly all the congre- gational churches in that county. - xvi MEMOIRS OF MER. FULLER. hearing Mr. Eve, a Baptist minister, who being what is here termed high in his sentiments, or tinged with false Calvinism, had little or nothing to say to the unconverted. I therefore never considered my- self as any way concerned in what I heard from the pulpit. Nevertheless, by reading and reflection I was sometimes strongly impressed in a way of con- viction. My parents were engaged in husbandry, which occupation, therefore, I followed to the twen- tieth year of my age. I remember many of the sins of my childhood, among which were lying, cursing, and swearing. It is true, as to the latter, it never became habitual. I had a dread upon my spirits to such a degree, that when I uttered an oath or an imprecation, it was by a kind of force put upon my feelings, and merely to appear manly, like other boys with whom I associated. This being the case, when I came to be about ten years old, I entirely left it off, except that I sometimes dealt in a sort of minced oaths and imprecations when my passions were excited. “In the practice of telling lies I continued some years longer; at length, however, I began to con- sider this as a mean vice, and accordingly left it off, except in cases where I was under some pressing temptation. “I think I must have been nearly fourteen years old before I began to have much serious thought about futurity. The preaching upon which I at- tended was not adapted to awaken my conscience, as the minister had seldom any thing to say except to believers, and what believing was I neither knew, nor was I greatly concerned to know. I remember about this time, as I was walking alone, I put the question to myself, What is faith ? there is much made of it, What is it 2 I could not tell, but satis- fied myself in thinking it was not of immediate concern, and I should understand it as I grew older. “At times conviction laid fast hold of me, and rendered me extremely unhappy. The light I had received, I know not how, would not suffer me to go into sin with that ease which I observed in other lads. One winter evening, I remember going with a number of other boys to a smith's shop, to warm myself by his fire. Presently they began to sing vain songs. This appeared to me so much like revel- ling, that I felt something within me which would not suffer me to join them, and while I sat silently, in rather an unpleasant muse, those words sunk into my mind like a dagger, “What doest thou here, Elijah 2' I immediately left the company; yet, shocking to reflect upon, I walked home, murmur- ing in my heart against God, that I could not be let alone, and be suffered to take my pleasure like other young people ! “Sometimes I was very much affected, in think- ing of the doctrines of Christianity, or in reading such books as Bunyan's Grace abounding to the Chief of Sinners, and his Pilgrim's Progress. One day, in particular, I took up Ralph Erskine's Gospel Sonnets, and opening upon what he entitles .4 Gospel Catechism for young Christians, or Christ All in All in our Complete Redemption, I read, and as I read I wept. Indeed I was almost overcome with weeping, so interesting did the doc- trine of eternal salvation appear to me; yet, there being no radical change in my heart, these thoughts passed away, and I was equally intent on the pur- suit of folly as heretofore. “Yet I often felt a strange kind of regard to- wards good people, such of them especially as were familiar in their behaviour to young persons, and would sometimes talk to me about religion. I used to wish I had many thousand pounds, that I might give some of it to those of them who were poor as to their worldly circumstances. “I was at times the subject of such convictions and affections that I really thought myself converted, and lived under that delusion for a long time. The ground on which I rested that opinion was as fol- lows:—One morning, I think about the year 1767, as I was walking alone, I began to think seriously what would become of my poor soul, and was deeply affected in thinking of my condition. I felt that I was the slave of sin, and that it had such power over me that it was in vain for me to think of extri- cating myself from its thraldom. Till now, I did not know but that I could repent at any time ; but now I perceived that my heart was wicked, and that it was not in me to turn to God, or to break off my sins by righteousness. I saw that if God would forgive me all the past, and offer me the kingdom of heaven on condition of giving up my wicked pur- suits, I should not accept it. This conviction was accompanied with great depression of heart. I walked sorrowfully along, repeating these words: —Iniquity will be my ruin Iniquity will be my ruin While poring over my unhappy case, those words of the apostle suddenly occurred to my mind, ‘Sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under the law, but under grace.” Now the suggestion of a text of Scripture to the mind, espe- cially if it came with power, was generally con- sidered, by the religious people with whom I occasionally associated, as a promise coming imme- diately from God. I therefore so understood it, and thought that God had thus revealed to me that I was in a state of salvation, and therefore that iniquity should not, as I had feared, be my ruin. The effect was, I was overcome with joy and transport. I HIS EARLY RELIGIOUS IMPRESSIONS. xvii shed, I suppose, thousands of tears as I walked along, and seemed to feel myself as it were in a new world. It appeared to me that I hated my sins, and was resolved to forsake them. Thinking on my wicked courses, I remember using those words of Paul, “Shall I continue in sin, that grace may abound Ž God forbid!' I felt, or seemed to feel, the strongest indignation at the thought. But, strange as it may appear, though my face that morn- ing was, I believe, swollen with weeping, yet before night all was gone and forgotten, and I returned to my former vices with as eager a gust as ever. Nor do I remember that for more than half a year after- wards I had any serious thoughts about the salva- tion of my soul. I lived entirely without prayer, and was wedded to my sins just the same as before, or rather was increasingly attached to them. “Some time in the following year I was again walking by myself, and began to reflect upon my course of life, particularly upon my former hopes and affections, and how I had since forgotten them all, and returned to all my wicked ways. Instead of sin having no more dominion over me, I per- ceived that its dominion had been increased. Yet I still thought that must have been a promise from God to me, and that I must have been a converted person, but in a backsliding state ; and this per- suasion was confirmed by another sudden impres- sion, which dispelled my dejection, in these words: ‘I have blotted out as a thick cloud thy transgres- sions, and as a cloud thy sins.’ This, like the former, overcame my mind with joy. I wept much at the thoughts of having backslidden so long, but yet considered myself now as restored and happy. But this also was mere transient affection. I have great reason to think that the great deep of my heart's depravity had not yet been broken up, and that all my religion was without any abiding prin- ciple. Amidst it all, I still continued in the neg- lect of prayer, and was never, that I recollect, in- duced to deny myself of any sin when temptations Were presented. I now thought, however, surely I shall be better for the time to come. But, alas! in a few days this also was forgotten, and I returned to my evil courses with as great an eagerness as ever. “I was now about fifteen years of age ; and as, *Withstanding my convictions and hopes, the bias of my heart was not changed, I became more and more addicted to evil, in proportion as my powers and passions strengthened. Nor was I merely Pºmpted by my own propensities; for having *med acquaintance with other wicked young peo- ple, *y Progress in the way to death became great- ly accelerated. Being of an athletic frame and of * a daring spirit, I was often engaged in such exer- cises and exploits as, if the good hand of God had not preserved me, might have issued in death. I also frequently engaged in games of hazard, which, though not to any great amount, yet were very be- witching to me, and tended greatly to corrupt my mind. These, with various other sinful practices, had so hardened my heart, that I seldom thought of religion. Nay, I recollect that on a Lord’s-day evening about that time, when my parents were reading in the family, I was shamefully engaged with one of the servants, playing idle tricks, though I took care not to be seen in them. These things were nothing to me at that time; for my conscience, by reiterated acts of wickedness, had become seared as with a hot iron : they were, however, heavy bur- dens to me afterwards. “Notwithstanding various convictions and tran- sient affections, I was pressing on in a lamentable career of wickedness; but about the autumn of 1769 my convictions revisited me, and brought on such a concern about my everlasting welfare as issued, I trust, in real conversion. “It was my common practice, after the business of the day was over, to get into bad company in the evening, and when there I indulged in sin without restraint. But after persisting in this course for some time, I began to be very uneasy, particularly in a morning when I first awoke. It was almost as common for me to be seized with keen remorse at this hour as it was to go into vain company in the evening. At first I began to make von's of reform- ation, and this for the moment would afford a little ease; but as the temptations returned, my vows were of no account. It was an enlightened con- science only that was on the side of God: my heart was still averse to every thing that was spiritual or holy. For several weeks I went on in this way; vowing and breaking my vows, reflecting on myself for my evil conduct, and yet continually repeat- ing it. * “It was not now, however, as heretofore ; my convictions followed me up closely. I could not, as formerly, forget these things, and was therefore a poor miserable creature; like a drunkard, who carouses in the evening, but mopes about the next day like one half dead. “One morning, I think in November, 1769, I walked out by myself with an unusual load of guilt upon my conscience. The remembrance of my sin, not only on the past evening, but for a long time back, the breach of my vows and the shocking termination of my former hopes and affections, all uniting together, formed a burden which I knew not how to bear. The reproaches of a guilty con- b 9 xviii MEMOIRS OF MER. FULLER. science seemed like the gnawing worm of hell. I thought surely that must be an earnest of hell itself. The fire and brimstone of the bottomless pit seemed to burn within my bosom. I do not write in the language of exaggeration. I now know that the sense which I then had of the evil of sin and the wrath of God was very far short of the truth; but yet it seemed more than I was able to sustain. In reflecting upon my broken vows, I saw that there was no truth in me. I saw that God would be per- fectly just in sending me to hell, and that to hell I must go unless I were saved of mere grace, and, as it were, in spite of myself. I felt that, if God were to forgive me all my past sins, I should again de- stroy my soul, and that in less than a day's time. I never before knew what it was to feel myself an odious lost sinner, standing in need of both pardon and purification. Yet, though I needed those bless- ings, it seemed presumption to hope for them, after what I had done. I was absolutely helpless, and seemed to have nothing about me that ought to ex- cite the pity of God, or that I could reasonably ex- pect should do so; but every thing disgusting to him, and provoking to the eyes of his glory. “What have I done? what must I do?’ These were my inquiries, perhaps ten times over. Indeed I knew not what to do | I durst not promise amendment, for I saw that such promises were self-deception. To hope for forgiveness in the course that I was in was the height of presumption; and to think of Christ, after having so basely abused his grace, seemed too much. So I had no refuge. At one moment I thought of giving myself up to despair. ‘I may (said I within myself) even return and take my fill of sin; I can but be lost.’ This thought made me shudder at myself! My heart revolted. What, thought I, give up Christ, and hope, and heaven Those lines of Ralph Erskine's then oc- curred to my mind— “But say, if all the gusts And grains of love be spent, Say, farewell Christ, and welcome lusts— Stop, stop; I melt, I faint.” I could not bear the thought of plunging myself into endless ruin. “It is difficult at this distance of time to recollect with precision the minute workings of my mind; but as near as I can remember I was like a man drowning, looking every way for help, or rather catching for something by which he might save his life. I tried to find whether there were any hope in the Divine mercy—any in the Saviour of sinners; but felt repulsed by the thought of mercy having been so basely abused already. In this state of mind, as I was moving slowly on, I thought of the resolution of Job, ‘Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him.’ I paused, and repeated the words over and over. Each repetition seemed to kindle a ray of hope mixed with a determination, if I might, to cast my perishing soul upon the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation, to be both pardoned and purified; for I felt that I needed the one as much as the other. “I was not then aware that any poor sinner had a warrant to believe in Christ for the salvation of his soul, but supposed there must be some kind of qualification to entitle him to do it; yet I was aware I had no qualification. On a review of my resolu- tion at that time, it seems to resemble that of Esther, who went into the king's presence contrary to the law, and at the hazard of her life. Like her, I seemed reduced to extremities, impelled by dire ne- cessity to run all hazards, even though I should perish in the attempt. Yet it was not altogether from a dread of wrath that I fled to this refuge; for I well remember that I felt something attracting in the Saviour. I must—I will—yes, I will trust my soul—my sinful lost soul in his hands. If I perish, I perish. However it was, I was determined to cast myself upon Christ, thinking peradventure he would save my soul; and, if not, I could but be lost. In this way I continued above an hour, weep- ing and supplicating mercy for the Saviour's sake (my soul hath it still in remembrance, and is hum- bled in me); and as the eye of the mind was more and more fixed upon him, my guilt and fears were gradually and insensibly removed. “I now found rest for my troubled soul; and I reckon that I should have found it sooner, if I had not entertained the notion of my having no warrant to come to Christ without some previous qualifica- tion. This notion was a bar that kept me back for a time, though through Divine drawings, I was en- abled to overleap it. As near as I can remember in the early part of these exercises, when I sub- scribed to the justice of God in my condemnation, and thought of the Saviour of sinners, I had then relinquished every false confidence, believed my help to be only in him, and approved of salvation by grace alone through his death; and if at that time I had known that any poor sinner might warrantably have trusted in him for salvation, I conceive I should have done so, and have found rest to my soul sooner than I did. I mention this because it may be the case with others, who may be kept in darkness and despondency by erroneous views of the gospel much longer than I was. “I think also I did repent of my sin in the early part of these exercises, and before I thought that Christ would accept and save my soul. I conceive that justifying God in my condemnation, and ap- HIS CONVERSION. xix proving the way of salvation by Jesus Christ, ne- cessarily included it; but yet I did not think at the time that this was repentance, or anything truly good. Indeed I thought nothing about the exercises of my own mind, but merely of my guilty and lost con- dition, and whether there were any hope of escape for me. But, having found rest for my soul in the cross of Christ, I was now conscious of my being the subject of repentance, faith, and love. When I thought of my past life, I abhorred myself, and repented as in dust and ashes; and when I thought of the gospel way of salvation, I drank it in, as cold water is imbibed by a thirsty soul. My heart felt one with Christ, and dead to every other object around me. I had thought I had found the joys of salvation heretofore ; but now I knew I had found them, and was conscious that I had passed from death unto life. Yet even now my mind was not so engaged in reflecting upon my own feelings as upon the objects which occasioned them. “From this time, my former wicked courses were forsaken. I had no manner of desire after them. They lost their influence upon me. To those evils, a glance at which before would have set my pas- sions in a flame, I now felt no inclination. My soul, said I, with joy and triumph, is as a weaned child ! I now knew experimentally what it was to be dead to the world by the cross of Christ, and to feel an habitual determination to devote my future life to God my Saviour, and from this time con- sidered the vows of God as upon me. “In recollecting the early exercises of my mind, I see a great difference between respect and love. I never knew the time when I did not respect good men; but I did not always love them for Christ's sake. There was one poor man in particular, who used to travel about three miles on a Lord’s-day morning to worship, and as I often attended at the same place, I was frequently very eager to get his company. I have run miles to overtake him, though when I was with him I had nothing to say. In the autumn of this year he became my father's thrasher, and I was delighted on account of it, though I scarcely knew for what reason. My mind Was now at rest in Christ; yet I had never spoken to any one on the subject, nor did I think of doing so for the present. But whether the thrasher per- ceived some alteration in me as I went about my business, or how it was, I know not, he talked to ºne rather freely, and I told him all my heart. After this, other Christians conversed with me, and in- vited me to their prayer-meetings, and I engaged With them in prayer, and other religious exercises. I Was in this accidental way, and not from my own *ution, that I became known among serious people. But, having opened my mind to the thrasher, I often visited him in the barn; and, be- cause I hindered him in his work, I made it up by thrashing for him sometimes for an hour or two to- gether. “From the month of November, 1769, I had entirely broken off all my ungodly connexions and courses; yet, being a boy under sixteen, I found at times boyish inclinations and strong struggles of mind respecting youthful follies. At Shrove-tide, in particular, when the young men met together, and practised various athletic exercises, their shouts, which were within my hearing, would throw me into agitations which rendered me very unhappy. But my good friend, the thrasher, warned me ten- derly and solemnly to keep out of the way of tempt- ation, and I was enabled, though with some diffi- culty, to follow his counsel. As the spring of 1770 came on, the young people of the town, as usual, would meet every evening for youthful exer- cises. This was especially the case at the wake or feast ; and though I always kept at a distance, yet I found such times very insnaring to my mind. To avoid this, I began a practice which I continued with great peace and comfort for several years. Whenever a feast or holiday occurred, instead of sitting at home by myself, I went to a neighbouring village to visit some Christian friends, and returned By this step I was delivered from those mental participations in folly which had given me so much uneasiness. Thus the seasons of temptation became to me times of refreshing from the presence of the Ilord. “In March, 1770, I witnessed the baptizing of two young persons, having never seen that ordinance administered before, and was considerably affected by what I saw and heard. The solemn immersion of a person, on a profession of faith in Christ, car- ried such a conviction with it that I wept like a child on the occasion. The words of the psalmist, in Psal. cxi. 10, ‘A good understanding have all they that do his commandments,’ left a deep and abiding impression on my mind. when all was over. I was fully per- suaded that this was the primitive way of baptizing, and that every Christian was bound to attend to this institution of our blessed Lord. About a month after this I was baptized myself, and joined the church at Soham, being then turned of sixteen years of age. “Within a day or two after I had been baptized, as I was riding through the fields, I met a company of young men. One of them especially, on my having passed them, called after me in very abusive language, and cursed me for having been ‘dipped.’ My heart instantly rose in a way of resentment; XX MEMOIRS OF MR. FULLER. but though the fire burned, I held my peace; for before I uttered a word I was checked with this passage, which occurred to my mind, “In the world ye shall have tribulation.’ I wept, and entreated the Lord to pardon me; feeling quite willing to bear the ridicule of the wicked, and to go even through great tribulation, if at last I might but enter the kingdom. In this tender frame of mind I rode some miles, thinking of the temptations I might have to encounter. Amongst others, I was aware of the danger of being drawn into any ac- quaintance with the other sex, which might prove injurious to my spiritual welfare. While poring over these things, and fearful of falling into the snares of youth, I was led to think of that passage, “In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall di- rect thy paths.” This made me weep for joy; and for forty-five years I have scarcely entered on any serious engagement,without thinking of these words, and entreating Divine direction. I have been twice married, and twice settled as the pastor of a church; which were some of the leading ways in which I had to acknowledge the Lord; and in each, when over, I could say, as Psal. cxix. 26, “My ways have I declared, and thou heardest me.” “In reviewing the early years of my life, I see much ignorance, vanity, and folly. I feel the force of Paul's considering the terms carnal, and babes ăn Christ, as synonymous. But, amidst all my youthful follies and sins, I bless God that I was al- ways kept from any unbecoming freedom with the other sex, or attempting to engage the affections of any female, except with a view to marriage. “The summer of 1770 was a time of great reli- gious pleasure. I loved my pastor, and all my bre- thren in the church ; and they expressed great af. fection towards me in return. I esteemed the righteous as the excellent of the earth, in whom was all my delight. Those who knew not Christ seemed to me almost another species, towards whom I was incapable of attachment. About this time I formed an intimacy with a Mr. Joseph Diver, a wise and good man, who had been baptized with me. He was about forty years of age, and had lived many years in a very recluse way, giving himself much to reading and reflection. He had a great delight in searching after truth, which rendered his conversation peculiarly interesting to me; nor was he less devoted to universal practical godliness. I account this connexion one of the greatest blessings in my life. Notwithstanding the disparity as to years, we loved each other like David and Jonathan. My life this summer resembled the description given by Dr. Watts:— * The day glides swiftly o’er their heads, Made up of innocence and love; And soft and silent as the shades Their mightly minutes gently move.” But in the autumn of the same year an unhappy affair occurred in the church, which occasioned a breach between our pastor, Mr. Eve, and the people, which terminated in his leaving them ; and, what rendered it the more afflicting to me, I was much concerned in it. The case was this: one of the members having been guilty of drinking to excess, I was one of the first who knew of it. I immediately went and talked to him, as well as I could, on the evil of his conduct. His answer was, “He could not keep himself; and that, though I bore so hard At this I felt indignant, considering it as a base excuse. I there- fore told him that he could keep himself from such sins as these, and that his way of talking was merely to excuse what was inexcusable. I knew not what else to say at that time; yet the idea of arrogating to be my own keeper seemed too much. He, how- ever, was offended, and told me that I was young, and did not know the deceitfulness of my own heart. Well, I went and told my pastor, who highly com- mended me, and said, “We certainly could keep ourselves from open sins. We had no power,’ he observed, “to do things spiritually good; but as to outward acts, we had power both to obey the will of God and to disobey it.’ “The business soon came before the church, and the offender was unanimously excluded: the excuse which he had made, too, was considered by all, I believe, as an aggravation of his offence. But, this affair being disposed of, the abstract question of the pomyer of sinful men to do the rvill of God, and to keep themselves from sin, was taken up by some of the leading members of the church, amongst whom was my friend Joseph Diver. They readily excused me, as being a babe in religion; but thought the pastor ought to have known better, and to have been able to answer the offender without betraying the truth. They alleged that the greatest and best of characters, as recorded in Scripture, never arro- gated to themselves the power of keeping themselves from evil, but constantly prayed for keeping grace; that, were it not for the restraining goodness and constraining grace of God, earth would be a hell, and the best of men incarnate devils; in short, that though we are altogether blameworthy for our evil propensities, yet, if they were restrained or conquered, it was altogether to be ascribed to God, and not to us. To support these ideas, they alleged the pray- ers of the faithful to be kept from evil, even from presumptuous sins, Psal. xix. 13; the declaration on him, I was not my own keeper.’ THEOLOGICAL DISPUTES IN THE CHURCH AT SOHAM. xxi of the prophet, that ‘the way of man is not in him- self: it is not in him that walketh to direct his steps,’ Jer. x. 23; the case of Hezekiah, whom the Lord left, that he might try him, that he might know all that was in his heart, 2 Chron. xxxii. 31 ; and the acknowledgments of such men as John Bradford the martyr, who, on seeing a man go to be publicly executed, said, “There goes John Bradford by nature.’ “On the other hand, the pastor distinguished be- tween internal and external power. He allowed that men had no power of themselves to perform any thing spiritually good; but contended that they could yield external obedience, and keep themselves from open acts of sin. In proof of this he alleged a great number of Scripture exhortations; asking, If we had no power to comply with them, why were they given us? The opponents did not deny our being exhorted to do good and to avoid evil, nor that it was our duty to do both and our sin to act other- wise; but they denied that this implied our being sufficient of ourselves to do any thing, even to think a good thought. - “In these disputes I continued for some time on the side of my pastor; but after a few months I felt difficulties on the subject which I could not answer, and which rendered me unhappy. I perceived that some kind of power was necessary to render us ac- countable beings. If we were like stocks or stones, or literally dead, like men in a burying ground, we could with no more propriety than they be com- manded to perform any duty; if we were mere machines, there could be no sin chargeable upon us. Yet, on the other hand, the Scriptures expressly affirm that ‘the way of man is not in himself,’ and represent the godly as crying to Heaven for pre- servation from evil, ascribing all the good that was in them to Him who worketh in us to will and to do of his own good pleasure. I prayed much, and laboured hard to solve this difficulty. “My worthy friend Joseph Diver, who sustained a high character for wisdom and integrity, would reason thus with me:— We ought to hate evil, and love the Lord; but it is the grace of God alone that can make us what we ought to be.’ He would often speak of the equity of the Divine requirements in the words of David, ‘I esteem all thy precepts in all things to be right; and I hate every false way.” And again, ‘Thou hast commanded us that we should keep thy precepts diligently: O that my Ways were directed to keep thy statutes 1’ ‘Thus it is,' said he, “that we should turn every precept into a prayer, instead of inferring from it a suffi- Ciency in ourselves to conform to it. formity to the Divine precepts is of grace; it will All our con- never do to argue from our obligations against our dependence, nor from our dependence on grace against our obligations to duty. If it were not for the restraining goodness and preserving grace of God, we should be a kind of devils, and earth would resemble hell.” “In October, 1771, our pastor, Mr. Eve, left us. I loved him, and he loved me, and took it hard that I had in some respects changed my views. I learned afterwards that he had entertained thoughts of me as being formed for the ministry, but this contention damped his hopes on that subject. He settled, when he left Soham, with a people at Wisbeach. I never look back upon these contentions but with strong feelings. They were to me the wormwood and the gall of my youth; my soul hath them still in re- membrance, and is humbled in me. But though, during these unpleasant disputes, there were many hard thoughts and hard words on almost all hands, yet they were ultimately the means of leading my mind into those views of Divine truth which have since appeared in the principal part of my writings. They excited me to read, and think, and pray, with more earnestness than I should have done without them; and, if I have judged or written to any ad- vantage since, it was in consequence of what I then learned by bitter experience, and in the midst of many tears and temptations. God's way is in the deep. “About this time I met with a passage in Dr. Gill, (I think it was in his Cause of God and Truth,) in which he distinguished between a thing being “in the power of our hand, and in the power of our heart.” This, thought I, is the clue to our dispute. Every man has it in the power of his hand to do good and abstain from evil; and this it is which makes us accountable beings. We can do, or forbear to do, this and that, if we have a mind; but many have not a mind, and none would have such a mind but for the restraining goodness or con- straining grace of God. We have it in the power of our hands to do good, but we are disposed to do evil, and so to do good is not naturally in the power of our hearts. “It was some time after this that I became ac- quainted with Mr. Robert Hall of Arnsby, who, in conversation on the subject, recommended Edwards on the J/ill. On reading this work, and some other pieces on physical and moral impotence, I saw the same things clearly stated, in other words, which I had learned by bitter experience. “Mr. Eve having removed, and the church being divided into parties, it was thought by some that we should be dissolved ; and I went several Lord's days to hear an Independent minister in the neigh- xxii MEMOIRS OF MR. FULLER, bourhood. Those members, however, who were of one mind, and who formed the majority, met to- gether on Lord's days; and having no minister, and being situated too far from other Baptist churches to get supplies, they carried on the worship by singing, prayer, reading, and expounding the Scrip- tures. They also appointed a day for fasting and prayer, and invited all the members to unite in it. I went to this meeting, and from that time con- tinued to assemble with them. My friend Joseph Diver was at that time chosen to be a deacon; and, having some talent for expounding the Scriptures, he used, at the request of the church, to take up a part of every Lord's day in that exercise. “As the disputes in the church were the occasion of turning my thoughts to most of those subjects on which I have since written, so were they the occa- sion of my engaging in the Christian ministry. “In November, 1771, as I was riding out on business, on a Saturday morning, to a neighbouring village, my mind fell into a train of interesting and affecting thoughts, from that passage of Scripture, ‘Weeping may endure for a night; but joy cometh in the morning.’ I never had felt such freedom of mind in thinking on a Divine subject before; nor do Irecollect ever having had a thought of the ministry; but I then felt as if I could preach from it, and in- deed I did preach in a manner as I rode along. I thought no more of it, however, but returned home when I had done my business. In the afternoon of the same day, I went to meet my mother, who had been to London, to see her mother, who was then very unwell. As we rode a few miles together, she told me she had been thinking much about me while in town, and added, “My dear, you have often ex- pressed your wish for a trade: I have talked with your uncle at Kensington about it, and he has pro- cured a good place in the city, where, instead of paying a premium, you may, if you give satisfaction, in a little time receive wages, and learn the business. I thought (continued she) that as we had now lost the gospel, and perhaps shall never have it again, you could have no reason for wishing to continue here. In London you can hear the gospel in its purity.’ That which my mother suggested was very true ; I had always been inclined to trade; but, how it was I cannot tell, my heart revolted at the proposal at this time. It was not from any de- sire or thought of the ministry, nor any thing else in particular, unless it were a feeling towards the little scattered society of which I was a member, a kind of lingering to see what would become of the city. I said but little to my mother, but seemed to wish for time to consider of it. This was Saturday evening. “The next morning, as I was walking by myself to meeting, expecting to hear the brethren pray, and my friend Joseph Diver expound the Scriptures, I was met by one of the members whom he had re- quested to see me, who said, ‘Brother Diver has by accident sprained his ancle, and cannot be at meet- ing to-day; and he wishes me to say to you, that he hopes the Lord will be with you.’ ‘The Lord be with me / thought I, ‘what does brother Diver mean 2 He cannot suppose that I can take his place, seeing I have never attempted any thing of the kind, nor been asked to do so.’ It then occurred, however, that I had had an interesting train of thought the day before, and had imagined at the time I could speak it, if I were called to it. But though I had repeatedly engaged in prayer publicly, yet I had never been requested to attempt any thing further, and therefore I thought no more of it. “We walked on to the meeting, and took our places, when, after singing, one of the brethren went to prayer. After which the eldest deacon asked me if I would read some part of the Scriptures, and, if I found liberty, drop any remarks as I went on, which might occur. At first I was startled, but, conscious of what had passed in my mind the day before, I thought as brother Diver was absent it might be my duty to try, and therefore making no objections, which as it appeared to me would have been mere affectation, I rose and spoke from Psal. xxx. 5 for about half an hour, with considerable freedom. After this I was again invited by brother Diver to speak, and I did so; but, not enjoying that liberty which I did the first time, I was discouraged, and, though frequently asked, declined all such exercises for more than a year. But early in 1773, I think it was, brother Diver was absent again through an affliction, and I was invited once more to take his place. Being induced to renew the at- tempt, I spoke from those words of our Lord, ‘The Son of man came to seek and save that which is lost.’ On this occasion, I not only felt greater free- dom than I had ever found before, but the attention of the people was fixed, and several young persons in the congregation were impressed with the subject, and afterwards joined the church. “From this time the brethren seemed to entertain an idea of my engaging in the ministry, nor was I without serious thoughts of it myself. Sometimes I felt a desire after it ; at other times I was much discouraged, especially through a consciousness of my want of spirituality of mind, which I considered as a qualification of the first importance. As to other qualifications, it certainly would have been of great use to me, if for a few years I had had the in- structions of some father in the ministry; and I have HIS ENTRANCE ON THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. xxiii often since regretted that, from 1771 to 1774, I lived to so little purpose. But none of my connexions had any idea of the kind, and, being conscious of knowing about as much as those around me, I my- self thought nothing of it. At one time, when se- riously reflecting on my own defects and insuffi- ciency, I was greatly relieved and encouraged by that passage, Psal. lxxxiv. 11, “The Lord will give grace and glory.’ It was now usual for my friend Diver to speak on one part of the Lord's day, and for me to be engaged on the other; and these exercises appeared to be blessed to several young people, who afterwards joined the church. “In January, 1774, an elderly lady, a member of the church, died, and left a request that, if the church did not think it disorderly, I might be allow- ed to preach a funeral sermon on the occasion. As the members were nearly of one mind respecting me, they agreed to set apart the twenty-sixth of that month, which was previous to the funeral, for fast- ing and prayer; and they then called me to the ministry. From that time I exercised from the pulpit. - e “Being now devoted to the ministry, I took a review of the doctrine I should preach, and spent pretty much of my time in reading, and in making up my mind as to various things relative to the gospel. Impressed with the importance of the connexions I should probably form in a few years, both as a man and as a minister, to my future happiness and useful- ness, I earnestly besought the Lord to be my guide; and those words in Prov. iii. 6 were very sweet to me, “In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.” In most of the important turns of my life, I have thought of that passage with re- newed tenderness, as one would think of a friendly hint given him in early life, and make it a rule of conduct. “Settling in a town where I had lived from the age of six years, I could not expect to be much respected by the inhabitants. In this, however, I had no occasion to complain. I had, indeed, more respect shown me than I looked for ; partly owing to the prevalence of an opinion when I was at school of my being more learned than my master; an opinion which I am certain was far from being true. But it indicated a partiality in my favour, which Perhaps was of some use in leading people to hear the word. “With respect to the system of doctrine which I had been used to hear from my youth, it was in the high Calvinistic, or rather hyper Calvinistic, strain, admitting nothing spiritually good to be the duty of the unregenerate, and nothing to be addressed to them in a way of exhortation, excepting what re- lated to external obedience. Outward services might be required, such as an attendance on the means of grace; and abstinence from gross evils might be enforced; but nothing was said to them from the pulpit in the way of warning them to flee from the wrath to come, or inviting them to apply to Christ for salvation. And though our late dis- putes had furnished me with some few principles inconsistent with these notions, yet I did not per- ceive their bearings at first, and durst not for some years address an invitation to the unconverted to come to Jesus. I began, however, to doubt whether I had got the truth respecting this subject. This view of things did not seem to comport with the ideas which I had imbibed concerning the power of man to do the will of God. I perceived that the will of God was not confined to mere outward actions, but extended to the inmost thoughts and intents of the heart. The distinction of duties, therefore, into in- ternal and external, and making the latter only con- cern the unregenerate, wore a suspicious appear- ance. But as I perceived this reasoning would affect the whole tenor of my preaching, I moved on with slow and trembling steps; and, having to feel my way out of a labyrinth, I was a long time ere I felt satisfied. “My mind was also frequently diverted to other subjects of inquiry. In the first year of my minis- try, books were put into my hands which led me to consider certain questions in divinity, which it might easily be thought were improper for me at the age of twenty. One of these, by Mr. Stockell, was on the pre-earistence of Christ's human soul, be- fore he was born of the virgin. Another, by Mr. Allen, was on the Sonship of Christ, or whether the character of the only begotten Son of God would ever have belonged to him if he had not been the son of Mary 2 These things would not have occu- pied my mind had they not been suggested by others. Yet I have reason to thank God that they were the occasion of fixing my judgment; and I have since perceived that every thing pertaining to the person of Christ is of more than ordinary im- portance. “As to the pre-eatistence of Christ's human soul, it seemed to me, in itself, a strange conceit, and such as I should never have thought of in reading the Scriptures. The texts on which it was founded seemed to be forced into the service, especially Prov. viii. and Ps. cxxxix. 15, 16; and though some who professed to believe in the Divinity of Christ were partial to the notion, yet I suspected it was invent- ed to undermine that important doctrine. It is true, this notion was held by Dr. Watts, and I examined his reasoning, but without obtaining satisfaction. xxiv. MEMOIRS OF MR. FULLER. In consequence of the examination I made at that time I was enabled afterwards to repel an attack from a company of ministers, who were warm for that opinion. When they put it to me, I offered to prove that it led to atheism or relinquish the ar- gument. They accepted my offer. I began by saying, ‘You suppose the human soul of Christ to be a party in the everlasting counsels of God?” —‘Yes, God could not take counsel with himself, for a council implies more than one; but God is one.’ —‘Yet you do not suppose the soul of Christ to have alrvays existed ?’ ‘No ; it was created, and therefore could not be eternal.”—“Then you must suppose that, till the great God had a creature to take counsel with, he had no plan—prior to the act of creation he was without counsel, without plan, without design But a being without plan, purpose, or design, is not God | | | Thus you are landed on atheism. The truth is, God never was without his plan, purpose, or design. By applying, too, those passages of Scripture which express the pre-exist- ence of Christ, and thereby prove his Divinity, to the pre-existence of his human soul, you undermine his Divinity and favour the Arian hypothesis.” “Concerning the Sonship of Christ, I had more hesitation. I conversed upon it with my friend Diver, who was favourable to Mr. Allen's idea, namely, that Christ is called the Son of God, not as a Divine person, but as assuming human nature, and being both God and man. He, however, very generously advised me to read the New Testament with an eye to the question, and to observe, as I went along, whether in any instances where Christ is represented as the Son of God, it respected him as a Divine person antecedent to his incarnation; and whether the Scripture name for Christ's pre- incarnate person was not the World rather than the SoN of God. In reading and thinking on the subject I found such proof as quite satisfied me that he was the Son of God, antecedently to his being born of a woman, and that in calling God his onym Father he made himself equal with God. The fol. lowing passages appeared to me to admit of no other fair interpretation than that which I was in- vited to reject, John v. 18; Gal. iv. 4; Heb. i. 8; v. 8, 9; 1 John iii. 8.* Had I not been initiated into these principles at an early period, I should not have been able to write the treatise against So- cinianism, which I have no cause to regret having written. “Besides these, I was much perplexed about the same time with the writings of Mr. John Johnson, of Liverpool, and for some time favoured his senti- * For further remarks on this subject, see Index, Art. Som- ship of Christ. ments. There was something imposing in his man- ner, by which a young and inexperienced reader is apt to be carried away; my pastor had also been one of his admirers. His denial of God's having decreed to permit sin, and his notion of the pur- poses of grace being eacecuted upon the elect, even though sin had never intervened, much en- tangled me. It seemed as if he were concerned to vindicate his Creator from being the author of sin ; and in this view I could not but approve; but on the other hand, it appeared to me idle to speculate on what God could or would have done concerning his elect, if sin had never intervened, when all his revealed counsels went on the suppo- sition of its existence ; even the incarnation of his Son was ‘to destroy the works of the devil.” And all the grace given us in Christ Jesus supposed the intervention of sin; his scheme, therefore, appeared to have no foundation in the Scriptures. And, re- specting the decree to permit sin, I was one day conversing with a friend upon it, who observed, ‘It is a fact, is it not, that God has permitted sin 2 And can it be a reproach to his character that he should have decreed to do what he has dome 2' - “This remark carried conviction to my mind. I saw that, if there were any thing inconsistent with the Divine perfections in the affair, it must be in permitting evil, and not in the decree to permit it. If the one were right the other could not be wrong, unless it were wrong to determine to do what is right. But to say that it is wrong for God to per- mit evil is either to arraign the Divine conduct, or to maintain that evil exists without being permitted. I perceived, too, that Mr Johnson availed himself of the ambiguity of the word permit, and because it signifies on some occasions to give leave, would have it thought that God could not be said to per- mit it. After this, I thought but little more of it, but rested in this, The Judge of the whole earth will do right. “In reviewing some of these questions, which occupied my attention at so early a period, I have seen reason to bless God for preserving me at a time when my judgment was so immature. When I have seen the zeal which has been expended in maintaining some such peculiarities, I have thought it a pity. Bunyan would have called them “nuts which spoil the children's teeth.’ They have ap- peared to me as a sort of spiritual narcotics, which, when a man once gets a taste for them, he will pre- fer to the most wholesome food. It was in recol- lection of these things that I lately wrote, in an Es- say on Truth, as follows, “A man who chews opium, or tobacco, may prefer it to the most whole- some food, and may derive from it pleasure, and IS ORDAINED PASTOR OVER THE CHURCH AT SOHAM. XXV even vigour for a time; but his pale countenance and debilitated constitution will soon bear witness to the folly of spending his money for that which is not bread.’ “In the spring of 1775 I accepted the invitation of the church at Soham, and was ordained their pastor. The pastors of the other churches, who attended the ordination, took that opportunity to in- quire into the controversy which had divided us from our former minister, and requested me to state the difference. Mr. Robert Hall, of Arnsby,” who was one of them, expressed his satisfaction in the statement, but recommended Ednyards on the I/ill to my careful perusal, as the most able per- formance on the power of man to do the will of God. Not being much acquainted with books at that time, I confounded the work of Dr. John Edwards, of Cambridge, an Episcopalian Calvinist, entitled Pe- zitas Redoza, with that of Jonathan Edwards, of New England. I read the former, and thought it a good book; but it did not seem exactly to answer Mr. Hall's recommendation. Nor was it till the year 1777 that I discovered my mistake. Mean- time, however, I was greatly exercised upon the subject, and upon the work of the Christian ministry. “The principal writings with which I was first acquainted were those of Bunyan, Gill, and Brine. I had read pretty much of Dr. Gill's Body of Di- vinity, and from many parts of it had received con- siderable instruction. I perceived, however, that the system of Bunyan was not the same with his; for that, while he maintained the doctrines of elec- tion and predestination, he nevertheless held with the free offer of salvation to sinners without distinc- tion. These were things which I then could not reconcile, and therefore supposed that Bunyan, though a great and good man, was not so clear in his views of the doctrines of the gospel as the writers who succeeded him. I found, indeed, the same things in all the old writers of the sixteenth and se- venteenth centuries that came in my way. They all dealt, as Bunyan did, in free invitations to sinners to come to Christ and be saved ; the con- sistency of which with personal election I could not understand. It is true, I perceived the Scriptures abounded with exhortations and invitations to sin- hers; but I supposed there must be two kinds of holiness, one of which was possessed by man in in- *90ence, and was binding on all his posterity—the other derived from Christ, and binding only on his People. I had not yet learned that the same things which are required by the precepts of the law are * This great and excellent man was the father of the late Roºt Hall, A. M., and author of “Help to Zion's Travel- lers,” &c. Mr. Fuller, alluding to the commencement of his bestowed by the grace of the gospel. Those exhort- ations to repentance and faith, therefore, which are addressed in the New Testament to the unconverted, I supposed to refer only to such external repentance and faith as were within their power, and might be complied with without the grace of God. The ef- fect of these views was, that I had very little to say to the unconverted, indeed nothing in a way of ex- hortation to things spiritually good, or certainly connected with salvation. “But in the autumn of 1775, being in London, I met with a pamphlet by Dr. Abraham Taylor, con- cerning what was called The Modern Question. I had never seen any thing relative to this contro- versy before, although the subject, as I have stated, had occupied my thoughts. I was but little im- pressed by his reasonings till he came to the ad- dresses of John the Baptist, Christ, and the apos- tles, which he proved to be delivered to the ungodly, and to mean spiritual repentance and faith, inasmuch as they were connected with the remission of sins. This set me fast. I read and examined the Scrip- ture passages, and the more I read and thought, the more I doubted the justice of my former views. “About the same time, I met with a sermon by Mr. John Martin, from Rom. x. 3, On the Cazases and Consequences of not submitting to the Right- eousness of God. The drift of this discourse, as nearly as I can remember, was to show that sub- mission to the righteousness of God was the same thing for substance as believing in Christ for right- eousness; and that non-submission to it was owing to wilful ignorance, pride, prejudice, and unbelief. I was equally unable to answer this reasoning as that of Dr. Taylor, and therefore began more and more to suspect that my views had been antiscrip- tural. I was very unhappy. I read, thought, and prayed. Sometimes I conversed on these subjects with my friend Joseph Diver, and some others. He was nearly as much at a loss as myself. I made a point however of not introducing the question in the pulpit till my judgment was fixed. - “In 1776 I became acquainted with Mr. Sutcliff, who had lately come to Olney, and soon after with Mr. John Ryland, jun., then of Northampton. In them I found familiar and faithful brethren ; and who partly by reflection, and partly by reading the writings of Edwards, Bellamy, Brainerd, &c., had begun to doubt of the system of false Calvinism to which they had been inclined when they first entered on the ministry, or rather to be decided against it. But as I lived sixty or seventy miles from them, I acquaintance with him, observes, “He came seventy miles to my ordination, and continued my father and friend till his death.” xxvi MEMOIRS OF MR, FULLER. seldom saw them, and did not correspond upon the subject. I therefore pursued my inquiries by myself, and wrote out the substance of what I afterwards published under the title of The Gospel northy of all Acceptation ; or the Obligations of Men cor- dially to believe whatever God makes known. “My change of views on these subjects never abated my zeal for the doctrine of salvation by grace, but in some respects increased it. I never had any predilection for Arminianism, which appeared to me to ascribe the difference between one sinner and an- other, not to the grace of God, but to the good im- provement made of grace given us in common with others. Yet I saw those whom I thought to be godly men, both among Arminians and high, or, as I now accounted them, hyper Calvinists. I per- ceived that men's characters were not always formed by their avowed principles; that we may hold a sound faith without its having such hold of us as to form our spirit and conduct; that we may profess an erroneous creed, and yet our spirit and conduct may be formed nearly irrespective of it; in short, that there is a difference between principles and opinions ; the one are the actual moving causes which lie at the root of action, the other often float in the mind without being reduced to practice.” On the important and responsible work of the ministry Mr. Fuller entered with that humility and devotedness which it demands, and which the pe- culiar exigences of the people among whom he la- boured called for in no ordinary degree. Though his acceptance of the pastorate added somewhat to the pressure of those theological diffi- culties by which his early engagements were em- barrassed, as giving to them more of a practical aspect, it had nevertheless a favourable influence on their solution, as prompting him to more vigorous efforts of thought, a more rigid examination of the word of God, and more strenuous applications at a throne of grace, and also bringing him into contact with eminent individuals who, like himself, were ac- customed to pursue inquiries with a view to a prac- tical purpose, and whose means of information had been more extensive than his own. Owing however to the distance of their residence from his, as well as to the independence of his own mind, they might be said to have done little more than give an impetus to his thoughts, of which they were afterwards happy in acknowledging the benefit. Among the investigations which occupied his at- tention at this period, that on the subject of justi- fication was not the least important. The follow- ing record of the progress of his mind on this topic, written in 1796, may not be uninteresting:— “When I first set out in the ministry I had no other ideas of justification than those which are stated by Dr. Gill. “Justification,’ he says, “may be dis- tinguished into active and passive. Active justifi- cation is the act of God. It is God that justifieth, Passive justification is the act of God terminating on the conscience of a believer, commonly called a transient act passing upon an external object. The former is an act internal and eternal, taken up in the Divine mind from eternity, and is an immanent, abiding one in it. It is, as Dr. Ames expresses it, a sentence conceived in the Divine mind by the decree of justifying.’ “In his Bod. Div. vol. ii. p. 797, the Doctor speaks of justification as it ‘terminates in the con- science of a believer, and which (he says) the Scrip- tures style justification by faith.” “These, till within a few years, were my views. But, thinking over these subjects, I felt dissatisfied; I felt that my views did not quadrate with the Scriptures; I endeavoured, therefore, to examine the matter closely. It occurred to me that, what- ever disputes had arisen on this subject, all parties that I had read were agreed in considering justifica- tion as the opposite of condemnation. I found this idea also plentifully supported by the Scrip- tures, Deut. xxv. 1; 1 Kings viii. 32; Rom. viii. 33, 34; I therefore set myself to examine—What is condemnation ? Is it, said I, the decree of God finally to condemn a sinner ? No; for every un- believer, elect or non-elect, is under condemnation, John iii. 18. 36, ‘the wrath of God abideth on him.’ Believers “were by nature children of wrath, even as others;’ Saul, therefore, while a persecutor, was a child of wrath, or was under condemnation; yet God “had not appointed him to wrath, but to obtain salvation by Jesus Christ.’ “Hence I concluded, if condemnation be not the decree of God finally to condemn, justification is not the decree of God finally to acquit. It also ap- peared to me inconsistent with the nature of things to conceive of justification as Dr. Ames expresses it, namely, as “a sentence conceived in the Divine mind;’ for, whatever purpose may be conceived in a judge's mind in favour of a prisoner, it is not jus- tification till it is declared in open court. “Further, Does condemnation, said I, consist in any sense or persuasion which a sinner possesses that he shall be condemned ? No; for many who are under condemnation according to the Scriptures have no such persuasion, but the reverse, as was the case with the Jews, who were persuaded that God was their Father while in fact they were of their father the devil; and others, who are not under condemnation according to the Scriptures, are yet HIS MARRIAGE. xxvii at times under apprehension that they are so. But if condemnation, continued I, consists not in a sense or persuasion that we are or shall be condemned, justification consists not in a sense or persuasion that we are or shall be justified. “On the whole, it seemed evident that the sen- tence of justification was neither a purpose in the Divine mind, nor a sense or persuasion in the human mind. The question then returned, What is it 2 Still keeping hold of my clue, I proceeded to in- quire, Is not condemnation that state or condition of a sinner in which, according to the revealed will of God in his holy law, all the threatenings and curses stand against him 2 Is it not the same thing as a being under the curse, which all are who are of the norks of the lany, whether they be elect or non-elect 2 And, if so, is not justification that state or condition of a sinner believing in Jesus, in which, according to the revealed will of God in the gospel, all the promises and blessings of the new covenant belong to him 2 Is it not the same thing as a being wnder grace, (Rom. vi. 14,) and which is true only of believers? The sentence of justification is not a revelation or manifestation of something to the mind which was true before, though unknown to the party; but consists of the voice of God, in the gospel, declaring that whosoever believeth shall be saved. In this court believers in Jesus stand acquitted from all things from which they could not have been ac- quitted by the law of Moses.” The above may be regarded as an elementary sketch of the writer's sentiments on this great sub- ject: the reader will find it amplified and exhibited in its several relations in various parts of his works, particularly in three discourses on Rom. iii. 24. On the 23d December, 1776, Mr. Fuller married Miss Sarah Gardiner, a member of the church at Soham, and daughter of Stephen and Sarah Gar- diner, of Burwell. This was esteemed one of those important events of his life on which, as he said, he never entered without a reference to the Divine direction, “In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths;” and in the re- trospect of which he could say, “My ways have I declared, and thou heardest me.” An affecting narrative is given in this memoir of the last hours of this truly pious woman, whose valuable domestic qualities were augmented by a more than ordinary display of “the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit.” SECTION II. CHANGE IN HIS MANNER OF PREACHING-ALIEN- ATION OF SOME OF HIS HEAREIRS-EMIBAIR- RASSMENT IN EIIS TIEMIPORAL CIRCUIMISTANCES —DISTRESSING AGITATION OF IMIND IN THE PROSPECT OF LEAVING SOELAM — EXTRACTS IFROM HIIS DIARY-LETTERS TO MR. WALLIS —REMOVAL TO KETTERING—MTUTTU AI, TESTI- MIONIES TO AND FROM THE CIHITU RCIH. A.T. SO- HAM—STATEMENT AT HIS ORDINATION. MR. Full ER's strain of preaching, which at first nearly corresponded with the views which he had ear- ly imbibed, soon underwent a change of a most im- portant and valuable character; for although, as he himself tells us in relation to a kindred subject, “he made a point of not introducing the question in the pulpit till his judgment was fixed,” he was not the man to reserve a store of speculative sentiments at variance with the character of his public ministra- tions. Though he was not without cheering instances of success, it was no matter of surprise that many, especially those whose lethargy was disturbed by the searching and practical character which his ministry had now begun to assume, should express their dissatisfaction in a manner that served to de- press a mind naturally susceptible of the tenderest emotions, and the earliest religious sensibilities of which had grown up among them. The increased disposition among the inhabitants of the town to attend his ministry was not met by a corresponding concern on the part of the church to afford them the accommodation which their place of worship would not supply; though an increase in their rent, at that time, furnished an inducement to some effort for securing it in another direction. - To these causes of unhappiness was added the extreme depression of his temporal circumstances— his whole yearly income from the people having never exceeded thirteen pounds, and his attempts to derive support, first from a small shop, and then from a school, both proving unsuccessful; so that, notwithstanding all his exertions, he could not pre- vent an annual inroad upon his little property, most distressing to himself and ruinous to the future prospects of a rising family: Under such compli- cated trials his health suffered a shock from which he with difficulty recovered. He was, however, destined by the providence of God yet to undergo an ordeal not less trying to his physical powers than to his religious principles. With him the question of leaving a station which he thought the providence of God had assigned him, in which he had experi- d enced tokens of Divine approbation, and which was xxviii MEMOIRS OF MR. FULLER. especially endeared to him by early associations, was not very easily disposed of. It has been thought, and perhaps not without reason, that he carried his conscientious scruples on this point to an unjustifi- able extent. Be that as it may, this important era of his life is allowed on all hands to have elicited two features the most characteristic and the most godlike; it is difficult to say whether his integrity or his love was the more conspicuous, whether his conscience or his feelings appeared the more exquisitely tender. “Men who fear not God,” observes the late excellent Dr. Ryland, “would risk the welfare of a nation with fewer searchings of heart than it cost him to determine whether he should leave a little dissenting church, scarcely con- taining forty members besides himself and his wife.” That distressing and protracted hesitation, which enslaved a mind afterwards distinguished for a promptitude and decision equal to the most varied and complicated difficulties, marks an important peculiarity in the present case. Here he feared “lest haply he should be found even to fight against God:” there, satisfied that God was on his side, it was utterly beyond the compass of human power to baffle or daunt him. A selection from his diary, kept during the last two years of his residence at Soham, while it furnishes a history of the progress of events, will exhibit the exercises of his mind on this subject, as well as others relative to his ex- perience and the discharge of his pastoral functions; and as it is not so much the object. of this memoir to hasten through the narrative of events as to con- vey a correct portraiture of the subject of it during their progress, no apology is deemed necessary for the miscellaneous character of these extracts. “ 1780, Jan. 10.-A solemn vow or renewal of covenant with God. “O my God, (let not the Lord be angry with his servant for thus speaking,) I have, thou knowest, heretofore sought thy truth. I have earnestly en- treated thee that thou wouldest lead me into it; that I might be rooted, established, and built up in it, as it is in Jesus. I have seen the truth of that saying—‘It is a good thing to have the heart estab- lished with grace;’ and now I would this day so- lemnly renew my prayer to thee, and also enter afresh into covenant with thee. “O Lord God! I find myself in a world where thousands profess thy name; some are preaching, some writing, some talking about religion. All profess to be searching after truth; to have Christ and the inspired writers on their side. I am afraid lest I should be turned aside from the simplicity of the gospel. I feel my understanding full of dark- ness, my reason exceedingly imperfect, my will ready to start aside, and my passions strangely vo- latile. O illumine mine understanding, “teach my reason reason,’ my will rectitude, and let every faculty of which I am possessed be kept within the bounds of thy service. “O let not the sleight of wicked men, who lie in wait to deceive, nor even the pious character of good men, (who yet may be under great mistakes,) draw me aside. Nor do thou suffer my own fancy to misguide me. Lord, thou hast given me a deter- mination to take up no principle at second-hand; but to search for every thing at the pure fountain of thy rvord. Yet, Lord, I am afraid, seeing I am as liable to err as other men, lest I should be led aside from truth by mine own imagination. Hast thou not promised, ‘The meek thou wilt guide in judg- ment, and the meek thou wilt teach thy way?’ Lord, thou knowest, at this time, my heart is not haughty, nor are mine eyes lofty. O “guide me by thy counsel, and afterwards receive me to glory.’ “One thing in particular I would pray for ; namely, that I may not only be kept from erroneous principles, but may so love the truth as never to keep it back. O Lord, never let me, under the specious pretence of preaching holiness, neglect to promulge the truths of thy word; for this day I see, and have all along found, that holy practice has a necessary dependence on sacred principle. O Lord, if thou wilt open mine eyes to behold the won- ders of thy word, and give me to feel their trans- forming tendency, then shall the Lord be my God; then let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I shun to declare, to the best of my knowledge, the whole counsel of God. “June 14.—Went out to visit some fallen bre- thren. Convinced that no art was necessary in re- ligion, resolved to proceed with all plainness and openness. Did so ; and hope for good effects. Left each party with weeping eyes. But oh how liable to sin myself! “17.—I think I have seen one thing to-day— that speaking ostentatiously of any thing laudable in ourselves is the way to mar all the peace or pleasure that we enjoy in it. I think I see that this is a sin which easily besets me, and which needs being guarded against. “21.—What have the powers of grace and sin concluded a truce 2 "I feel to-day as if both lay nearly still, as if I were strangely destitute of all thought; devoid of pleasure, carnal or spiritual; of sorrow, whether godly or worldly. “24.—I see what a strait course it is to steer between legality and libertinism. I have been for some time trying to walk more closely with God; EXTRACTS FROM HIS DIARY. xxix and now I find the sparks of self-righteous pride begin to kindle—yet I think I have tasted a sweet- ness in that plan of redemption which stains the pride of all flesh. “28.—Have found my heart tenderly affected several times, especially to-night, in prayer respect- ing my critical situation. O providence, how in- tricate | If rough roads are marked out for me, may my ‘shoes be iron and brass.’ I found a pe- culiar sympathy towards poor people under trying providences, thinking I may have to go that road. “29.—It is good to visit the poor, that we may know their cases, exercise sympathy and charity to- wards them, and learn gratitude and many a lesson in the doctrine of providence. Oh what a horrid depth of pride and hypocrisy do I find in my heart! Surely I am unfit for any company. If I am with a superior, how will my heart court his praise, by speaking diminutively of myself, not forgetting to urge the disadvantages under which I have laboured to excuse my inferiority; and here is a large vacancy left, in hope he will fill it up with something like this: Well, you must have made good improvement of what advantages you have enjoyed On the other hand, when in company with an inferior, how full of self am I While I seem to be in- structing him, by communicating my observations, how prone to lose sight of his edification, and every thing but my own self-importance—aiming more to discover my own knowledge than to increase his While I make these observations I feel the truth of them. A thought has been suggested to write them, not as having been working in my heart to- day, but only as discovered to-day. O horridly deceitful and desperately wicked heart! Surely I have little else in my religious exercises but these workings. I am afraid of being deceived at last. If I am saved, what must the Son of God have endured - “30.—Much affected to-day in thinking on my situation. I prayed to the Lord earnestly, that if there were any thing in his word which might direct me, he would lead my mind to it. Here I must Wait. The Lord may have designed to lead me in a Way that I have not known. “July 1–My soul has been dejected to-day in thinking on the plague of the human heart. Had * Sweet time in prayer to-night. Through the glass of my depravity I see, oh I see, the preciousness of that blood which flowed on Calvary Oh that the ideas I have had to-night were indelibly written on *y heart! But, alas ! one hour of sin will, I fear, ellace them all. **-Surely my views of myself, of Divine love, and of the blood of Christ, never were clearer, nor | yielded me greater satisfaction, than last night and to-day. I retained the savour throughout this fore- noon, though it seems abated this afternoon. Well, it has been a time of refreshment to my soul | But perhaps I may have somewhat at hand to balance it. Oh that I could retain the ideas I have had to- day ! I thought God was such an infinitely lovely Being, that it was a great sin not to love him with our whole hearts. I thought one perpetual flame of supreme love was his natural due from every in- telligent creature, and that the want of such love merits damnation.—And I am under peculiar obli- gations to love him. “4.—Alas, how strange it is Those things of which a day or two ago I could not think without a flood of tears I now feel make little impression on my mind; which seems in a sluggish, jaded, and almost sceptical frame. Ah, how soon are those ideas effaced When shall my love be one eternal flame 2 I fear some trial is at hand. Oh may the Lord keep me. “5.—I found some pleasure to-day in preaching from Hos. xiii. 9, ‘O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself,’ &c. I love to open the purity and extent of God’s righteous law, and thereby the depravity of human nature. Here I see the greatness of grace. “6.—Dull and unaffected. I sometimes feel a spirit of idle, sceptical despair; as if the difficulties that attend the finding out what is truth and duty were insurmountable.—O Lord, keep up in me a spirit of activity, and teach me to know and do thy will. May I know what is that good, perfect, and acceptable will of God. “10.—I had an affecting time to-night, in going a road where, several years ago, I had many a sea- son of sorrow and joy. Oh here I saw myself lost, there I had a sight of the Saviour; here I went bowed down with fear and despair, there I was sweetly checked with a view of the faithfulness of God; in this place I mourned my desolate state, in that the state of the church lay heavily upon me; gyonder my hopes respecting the church were ex- cited by thinking of Psal. cxxii. 1, 2, 8, 9. Oh what strange events since | By the help of God I have continued to this day. When my soul is cast down within me, may I remember thee, from Her- mon, and Jordan, and the hill Mizar. “12.—‘O wretched man that I am who shall deliver me from the body of this death?’ O mine iniquity Surely I had rather die than feel again what I have felt of the odious risings of this unholy heart. Oh the wormwood and the gall ! Tremble, my soul, at the rising of that which has so often filled thy cup with bitterness; that which made XXX MEMOIRS OF MR. FULLER. thy Lord as it were shrink back from suffering. Oh may the remembrance of this make thee shrink back from sinning. Surely the renewal of a fresh conflict with old corruptions is not the trial I feared. Lead me not into temptation, but deliver me from evil, O Lord. “15.—Alas! with what can I go forth to-mor- row 2 My powers are all shackled, my thoughts contracted. Yesterday and this morning I seemed to feel some savour, but now all is gone; like the seed by the way-side, which the fowls of the air devoured. - “Bless the Lord ' To-night I have felt a melt- ing sense of the heinous nature of backsliding from the Lord, while thinking on Jer. ii. 5. 31–33. Bless the Lord, O my soul, and all that is within me, bless his holy name; he maketh me to renew my strength like the eagle, dissolves my hardness, disappoints my fears, and touches my lips as with a live coal from his altar. Bless the Lord, O my soul. “17.—O my dear brother Diver ! When shall we recover our loss in losing you ? What disorders have we now in the church Our hands, heads, and hearts, how full ! O my father, my father, the cha- riots of Israel, and the horsemen thereof l—Methinks I shall go all my days, at times, in the bitterness of my soul.—Ah ! we took sweet counsel together, and walked together to the house of God—but all is over. As he said on his dying bed, ‘I have done with that life.”—Alas, he has done his all with us. “Ah, woe is me, I am a man of unclean lips, and dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips. My heart is ready to sink beneath its load. More bad conduct among my brethren. The Lord have mercy on them and me ! Surely I labour in vain, and spend my strength for nought. All my warn- ings, instructions, reproofs, &c., whether in or out of the pulpit, seem to have no effect. “18.—Great part of this day sadly mispent; but have had a sweet evening, in views of the latter-day glory, from reading Isaiah xi. xii. How dark the day in which I live Watchman, what of the night? Watchman, what of the night? “20.—O peace, thou inestimable jewel ! The Ilord grant I may never enter the polemical lists. “21.—Dejected through worldly and church concerns, but had some relief to-night in casting all my care upon the Lord, hoping that he careth for me. The Lord undertake for me ! O thou that managest worlds unknown, without one disappoint- ment, take my case into thy hand, and fit me for thy pleasure. If poverty must be my portion, add ºthereto contentment. “22.—Ah how heavily do I drag on without the Lord ' I can neither think nor do any thing to pur- pose. Lord, help me. Sin, how deceitful | While we may obtain an apparent victory over one sin, we may be insensibly enslaved to another: it may seem to flee before us, like the Benjamites before Israel, and yet retain an ambushment to fall upon OUll real'. “27.—Oh what an ocean of impurity have I still in me! What vain desires lodge in my sinful heart Rich must be the blood that can atone, infinitely efficacious the grace that can purify, and inconceiva- ble the love that can remain without the shadow of turning amidst all this vileness. Oh, had every creature in heaven and earth joined in assuring me of God’s love to me, I could never have believed it but for the assurances grounded on his own word. “29.—Surely I do not study the cases of the people enough in my preaching. I find by convers- ation to-day, with one seemingly in dying circum- stances, that but little of my preaching has been suited to her case. Visiting the sick, and convers- ing sometimes even with the unconverted part of my hearers about their souls, and especially with the godly, would have a tendency to make my preaching more experimental. “Am not I a fool and slow of heart to believe 2 Notwithstanding all the Scripture says of my impo- tency, all the experience I have had of it, and all my settled and avowed principles, how hard is it for me to believe that I am nothing / Ah ! can I live near to God, set or keep the springs of godli- ness a-going in my soul, or investigate the things of God to any purpose ? No, I cannot : “When I am weak, then (and then only) am I strong !’ “Aug. 6, Lord's day.—Alas! how disconsolate this morning ! What a fool am I to lay God under a necessity (if I may use such an expression) of leaving me to myself to let me and others see that I am nothing ! “30.—I found my soul drawn out in love to poor souls while reading Millar's account of Elliott's labours among the North American Indians, and their effect on those poor barbarous savages. I found also a suspicion that we shackle ourselves too much in our addresses; that we have bewildered and lost ourselves by taking the decrees of God as rules of action. Surely Peter and Paul never felt such scruples in their addresses as we do. They addressed their hearers as men—fallen men; as we should warn and admonish persons who were blind and on the brink of some dreadful precipice. Their work seemed plain before them. Oh that mine might be so before me ! “Sept. 5.—I longed in prayer to-night to be more useful. Oh that God would do somewhat by me ! EXTRACTS FROM HIS DIARY. XXX1 Nor is this I trust from ambition, but from a pure desire of working for God, and the benefit of my fellow sinners. “10.—Earnest in prayer with God this afternoon. Humbled for our little love; yet found such desire that, could I obtain my wish, the brightest seraph should not outvie me in love to my Lord. I saw plainly that my salvation must be from first to last of free grace. “12.—Very much in doubt respecting my being in a state of grace. I cannot see that I have, or ever had, for any constancy, such an idea of myself as must be implied in true humility. The Lord have mercy upon me; for I know not how it is with me. One thing I know, that if I be a Christian at all, real Christianity in me is inexpressibly small in degree. Oh what a vast distance is there between what I ought to be and what I am | If I am a saint at all, I know I am one of the least of all saints: I mean, that the workings of real grace in my soul are so feeble that I hardly think they can be feebler in any true Christian. “There is not only an inexpressible distance be- tween what I ought to be and what I am, but be- tween what primitive believers, yea, the Scripture saints in all ages, seem to have been, and what I am. I think, of late, I cannot in prayer consider myself as a Christian, but as a sinner casting myself at Christ's feet for merey. “22.—I was somewhat moved this morning, in thinking of the mercy of God, how it was a hedge about us, preserving us from the ravages of the very beasts and birds, nay, from the very stones. The whole creation groans and suffers through us, and Would retaliate the injuries we have done them, Were not a covenant made on our behalf with them. See Hos. ii. 18; Job v. 13.” 23–After recording a season of mental dark- ness, he adds—“O blessed be God, he has appear- ed once again. To-night, while I prayed to him, how sweet has Col. i. 19 been to me. That which has pleased the Father pleases me. I am glad all fulness dwells in him. It is not fit it should dwell in me, nor that I should have the keeping of my °Wm Stock. Oh for some heavenly clue to guide me to the fulness of Christ “Oct. 24.—Observed our proneness to think of *lves as others speak of us. For example, If I * Praised at any particular place as a preacher, how prone am I at that place to keep pace with their esteem, if not to outgo it, in the estimation of my- self ! On the other hand, at places where I have felt myself embarrassed, how prone to despair, and º, .. delight in the work Oh how much of in me! how far from that excellent cha- C *=º racter of being dead to the smiles and the frowns of men “27.—My heart often aches in thinking of my situation. Lord, what is duty ? “Oh that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes ' ' “30.—Had some view to-night of the hardships of poverty. What mercies do I enjoy, yet how un- grateful am I? What a world of self-sufficiency is there in our hearts | Whence springs our desire of riches, dominion, &c., but from an idea of our suffi- ciency to manage each as we ought ! at least this is implied in those desires. Were we truly emptied of self-sufficiency, we should be, like Agur, afraid of these. “Nov. 4.—How apt are we to think ourselves rather pitiable than blamable for having such re- mains of corruption in us! Perhaps one cause of this may be our viewing sin in us as an army, or something we have to oppose and press through. These ideas are good, provided we remember that they are figurative, and that this army is nothing earternal, but internal ; and that the opposition is not like that wherein the combatant’s inclination is all one way, but he finds himself overcome wholly against his will: were this the case, we should be wholly pitiable. But it is as if a debtor were going to pay his creditor; but by the way found great struggles whether he should go forward, and behave like an honest man, or whether he should turn aside, and spend his money in riot and luxury. In this case, he certainly ought to have had no struggle, nor to have made a moment's scruple. Neither ought we to make a moment's scruple about loving the Lord with all our hearts, and refraining wholly from sinning against him. We may, indeed, be pitiable with respect to each other; but in the sight of God we are wholly blamable. “A hard heart is a symptom of distance between God and us. As the Lord is nigh to those who are of a broken heart, so he is far from those who are of a hard heart. “ 17–25.-Have been under very heavy afflic- tion for above a week, and incapable of writing. One day I dreamed that I was dead : waking, and finding it but a dream, I trembled at the thought of what would become of such a sinful creature were this dream realized Here I stopped—painfully stopped. At length I answered, Lord, I have hoped in thy salvation. Here I wept and thought I would hope still. Oh that it may not be in vain “28.—For some days past, have been tenderly concerned about my situation. Oh that the Lord would bestow upon me his counsels and his care I am afraid of pride being in my motives both ways. Oh that God would hear and help me ! The parable xxxii MEMOIRS OF MR. FULLER. of the talents has been something to me. I am fre- quently told that my talents are buried here; but I do not know. Oh that I may not have to go upon this principle, that some plainer path might appear if I must go “Dec. 26—29.—Afflictions having returned, I think I might make too light of the former; this, though lighter on the body, yet seems heavier on the mind. I am sometimes pressed with guilt for my lightness under the other: sometimes ready to sink into a kind of despondency almost like that of Jo- nah, “It is better for me to die than to live.” “ 1781, Jan. 1.-Alas! my affliction, instead of taking away sin, seems to be attended with new risings of evil. O wretched man that I am Surely it does not seem consistent that a heart so full of stupidity and unholiness, and in so constant a man- ner too, can be the residence of the Spirit of God. Surely those great things said to be done in the hearts of the godly are not done in me ! Yet I have found some outgoings of soul to God after keeping and quickening grace. “15.—Much disheartened in seeing the coolness of some in providing for the future welfare of the church. “26.—Much affected to-day for my dear father, who I fear will die. Oh his immortal soul | How can I bear to bury him unconverted ? Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me ! I have had many earnest outgoings of soul for him, and some little conversation with him. ‘Have you any out- goings of soul, father, to the Lord?”—“Yes, my dear, I have.”—“Well, father, the Lord is rich in mercy to all that call upon him : this is great en- couragement.”—“Yes, my child, so it is; and I know, if I be saved, it must be by him alone. I have nothing to recommend me to his favour: but my hopes are very small.’ “27.—Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me ! Give me some good hopes of the welfare of his soul; then I could almost be willing to part with him. This would be letting the cup pass from me. “But oh the soul that never dies l’ The woman of Canaan made her daughter's case her own, and cried, ‘Lord, help me !” Surely I may do likewise by my father. “28. Lord's day.—Affected with nothing else to-day but the thoughts of my father's death. This I know not how to bear.—Preached somehow from Job xiv. 1, and Heb. ii. 14. “29.—O he is gone !—he is gone!—for ever gone! “His course is finished now, his race is o’er; The place which knew him knows him now no more; The tree is fallen, and ever there must lie, To endless ages of eternity.’ “Feb. 3–I think I have never yet entered into the true idea of the work of the ministry. If I had, surely I should be like Aaron, running between the dead and the living. I think I am by the ministry, as I was by my life as a Christian before I read Edwards on the JAffections. I had never entered into the spirit of a great many important things. Oh for some such penetrating, edifying writer on this subject Or, rather, oh that the Holy Spirit would open my eyes, and let me into the things that I have never yet seen! “5.—A pulpit seems an awful place —An op- portunity for addressing a company of immortals on their eternal interests—Oh how important We preach for eternity. We in a sense are set for the rising and falling of many in Israel. And our own rise or fall is equally therein involved. “8.—Oh would the Lord the Spirit lead me into the nature and importance . of the work of the ministry ! Reading a wise and spiritual author might be of use; yet could I, by Divine assistance, but penetrate the work myself, it would sink deeper and be more durable. “13.—I think when we are in company, and address ourselves to any one in particular, it too often happens that the applause of the company, rather than the edification of the person or ourselves, is the object. Hence witticisms, and such sayings as sting the party addressed, are introduced. Pride, how pernicious ! “March 5.—To-night it seems as if it would break my heart to remove. The seal and fruits of my ministry are dear to me, yet how it can be otherwise I cannot see. “26.—My soul is discouraged because of the way; I am full of confusion: see thou mine afflic- tion. Oh that I knew what was my duty Let me not err for want of knowledge, and pierce myself through with many sorrows. I think my soul is like the body of an aged man : even a grasshopper becomes a burden. I seem unable to do any thing more. I had an affecting time in prayer on these subjects. I thought what an immense fulness of light and happiness dwelt in God how easily could he inform my mind and comfort my heart! “29.—What a wonder am I to myself! Com- pared with what I deserve to be, how happy / . compared with what I desire to be, how miserable! “April 1.—It seems as if the church and I should break each other's hearts | To-night I have been but truly charged with having “an irregular mind.” How heartily could I embrace death, if it pleased God to send it ! How far are peace and happiness from me ! “2.—Affected in prayer. Oh for an unerring EXTRACTS FROM HIS DIA.R.Y. xxxiii guide Oh that I knew the Lord's will! Verily, if I know mine own heart, I would do it. I had rather, I think, much rather walk all my days in the most miserable condition, than offend the Lord by trying to get out of it. “10.—The thoughts of my situation now return, and overpower me! To-night I was exceedingly affected in prayer, earnestly longing that I might know the will of God. I have entered to-night into a solemn vony, which I desire it may please God to accept at my worthless hands. With all the powers of my soul, with the utmost effusion of feelings, I have vowed to this effect before the Lord :—‘O Lord! if thou wilt give me so much light as plainly to see in this case what is my duty, then, if I do not obey the dictates of conscience, let my tongue for ever cleave to the roof of my mouth; let my ministry be at an end; let me be made an example of thy displeasure against falsehood l’ “The case of those who asked counsel of Jere- miah (chap. xlii.) seemed to excite in me a jealousy of my own heart; but, so far as I know any thing of myself, I am resolved to stay or go as it should please God, did I but know his will. “18.—Earnest outgoings to God in prayer. To- morrow seems a day of great importance. Then I must give my reasons to the church for what I have intimated concerning my removal. The Lord guide and bless them and me ! “19.—I went to meeting to-day with very little premeditation, thinking an upright heart would be prepared. I assigned two reasons for my removal— the complaints some have made of non-edification, and my wasting my property every year. Neither of these objections being answered, the church despairs, all is in confusion Ah! what can I do? what can they do? My heart would say, Stay; would freely go and gather them together, and pour oil into their wounds. My judgment only forbids me . . . . . No . . . . . No! Surely I cannot go! My heart is overwhelmed—lead me to the rock that is higher than Iſ Have been pouring out my heart to the Lord since I came from the meeting; think I could rather choose death than departure. My heart is as if it would dissolve. It is like wax, it is melted in the midst of my bowels. “21,– Vast are the trials tied to time, And all my thoughts confusion still. My spirit is overwhelmed within me; my heart Within me is desolate. Now my mind seems to lean temporal ruin. O fluctuating soul! “May 1–Have been praying to the Lord that * may keep to that direction which has been so *ch to me ten or eleven years ago. “In all thy ingloriously reduced to dust 1 removal thither. stance of Mr. Hall, a man whose piety and wisdom ways acknowledge him,’ &c. This passage has been several times like a present help in time of need. Oh that it may be such now ! “4.—All my powers of body and mind absorbed in my extreme affliction. I thought towards night that, as these limbs had been ingloriously employed in the service of sin, how reasonable, though par- doning mercy be extended, that they should be blasted, confined by a series of affliction, and, at last, Can think of little else now but that I must leave Soham; yet it seems an affair of so much importance, I dread it. “6.—Confined by bodily affliction from public worship this Lord's day. To-night my heart melts with compassion towards the church. I think, after all, if I go from them, it is as if it must be in a coffin. - “14.—O my heart! it is as if it must break. Thought, this morning, ‘There is a way that seem- eth right to a man, but the end thereof is death.’ This makes me jealous lest specious appearances should beguile me. My load seems heavier than I can bear ! O Lord, for thine own sake, suffer me not to act contrary to thy will. Oh for an unerring guide “20.—To-night I stopped the church, and asked them if they could prove it wrong for me to leave them, and assured them if they could I would abide with them whatever was the consequence. “22.—One thing I desire of the Lord, whateser be my portion here, if it be to wear out my years in pining sadness, let me so walk as to enjoy his approbation. Into thy hands I commit my spirit.” So much were Mr. Fuller's thoughts absorbed in the welfare of the church at Soham, that throughout this diary no mention appears to be made of that at Kettering, which being at this time destitute of a pastor, and acquainted with Mr. Fuller's difficulties, had repeatedly suggested to him their wishes for his This, it appears, was at the in- eminently qualified him to advise, in cases of diffi- culty, especially where opposing claims seemed to present themselves; and who also judged his young friend to be possessed of talents suited to a more enlarged sphere of labour. In May, 1781, Mr. Fuller attended the association with which both of these churches were connected, tº and which this year assembled at Kettering. Here as if I must stay, even though it terminate in my | he referred his case to the opinions of the following ministers, Messrs. Booth, Evans, Gill, Guy, Hall, Hopper, Ryland senior, Ryland junior, and Sut- cliffe, who unanimously advised his removal. This was not, however, esteemed by him a suffi- c 2 xxxiv MEMOIRS OF MR. FULLER. cient indication of his duty, “O my soul,” he exclaims, “what shall I do? Oh for an unerring guide l’’ . “June 26.—Have been reading Mosheim, cent. xiii. and xiv., to-day. Really I am sick in reading so much about monks, mendicant friars, &c.: I could have wished the history had more answered to its title—a history of the church ;...but it seems little else than a history of locusts. “28.—Some sacred delight in reading more of Mosheim on the coming forth of those champions of the Reformation—Luther, Melancthon, Zuinglius, Calvin, &c., into the field. I think I feel their generous fervour in the cause of God and truth. How were the arms of their hands made strong by the mighty God of Jacob “29.—The conduct and condition of some wicked people make me bless God for conscious integrity. Christ's yoke is truly easy. Purity carries its own reward with it. Oh the guilt, the misery that re- sults from a submission to the yoke of Satan! Well, it is by the grace of God I am what I am; nor is any sin so black or so detestable but that I am liable to fall into it. Lord, keep me ! “July 3.−I was occupied to-day with Mosheim, whose partial account of the English Baptists would lead me to indulge a better opinion of various sects who have been deemed heretics. “12.—Have been trying to-day to examine my heart, by putting such questions as these to myself: Would it be most agreeable to my conscience, after all, to continue with my people? Is it likely in so doing I should please God, and contribute to the welfare of his cause on the whole 2 To these ques- tions I could not see how I could in any degree answer in the affirmative. But God knows my heart. I have been trying to pray, and surely it is my sincere desire, if I am wrong, to be set right. I am now going to the church-meeting. The meet- ing-house has been a Bochim to-day, a place of weeping ! I have told the church to expect my removal in a quarter of a year's time. O my soul, I seem unable to endure such attacks on my feel- Ings. *. “August 11.-Have been ravished, as it were, to-day, in reading the account of the council held by the apostles and elders, Acts xv. Oh the beauty and simplicity of primitive Christianity? “27.—I had pleasure in conversing on Rom. viii. 33. Methought, it indicated the fulness of the Re- deemer's righteousness; partly from the character of the justified, and partly from that of the justifier —God, the all-scrutinizing, impartial Judge. “September 15.—What a difference between the book which I keep, and that which God keeps | Oh what an awful, black diary could he produce against me in judgment l” An attempt being made about this time to de- termine the question of Mr. Fuller's removal by a reference, both on his part and that of the church, to the arbitration of three ministers, he writes thus:– “September 21.-Earnestly affected in prayer, that, if it would be most pleasing to God for me to stay, I might do so after all. I should not be sorry if the arbitrators should judge this to be my duty. My soul trembles for the ark of God. What will betide the interest of Christ here? Unto thee I lift up mine eyes, O thou that dwellest in the hea- vens ! - •. “22.—O God, thou knowest that I am willing to be any thing. It is my unfeigned desire that not my will but thine be done. Let not my ease, but thine honour, be consulted. Yes; O thou searcher of hearts I humbly, earnestly, and un- feignedly desire of thee, that, if my departure would issue in the failure of thine interest here, never let me depart | Let me rather go mourning all my days in the bitterness of my soul.” From this arbitration, however, nothing was elicited, and Mr. Fuller thus expresses himself:— “October 6.—Very heavy in heart. Be not far off, O Lord, for trouble is near ! Exceedingly melted in thinking on, “O Ephraim, what shall I do unto thee ?’” The following is an extract from a letter written about this time to Mr. Wallis, a deacon of the church at Kettering:— “We then agreed that I and an officer of the Church should take the letters from all parties on the subject, and lay them before Mr. Robinson of Cambridge, and that which he should judge duty in the case we would follow, unless it should ap- pear to both parties that he was wrong. We wait- ed on Mr. R. yesterday, and, after an investigation of the affair for three or four hours, he gave it as his opinion, ‘That Mr. Fuller ought to continue pastor of the said church for one whole year from this day, and after that time if it should appear that he can live on his income; and that the people ought to abide by their proposal to raise Mr. Ful- ler's income to twenty-six pounds a-year, as they had proposed, clear of all deductions.” “On the 3rd of October I received a note from Mr. Hall, who was in London, wherein he wishes me not to enter into an engagement to be governed by the arbitration; and suggests that, if my con- tinuance at Soham should be thus determined, it would be a reflection either on the wisdom or in- CORRESPONDENCE WITH MER, WALLIS. XXXV tegrity of the nine ministers whom I consulted at Kettering, or else on myself for having related a partial tale, tending to lead them into a deception. As to the former, I have only to say, however it may look, that I have certainly no inferior opinion of the wisdom or integrity of the nine ministers to that of the arbitrators. I impute it wholly to their hearing the matter but from one party; and as to the partiality of my tale, I refer you to what I said in my last to you. “I dare not, indeed I dare not, go contrary to the above decision. I think it would be mocking God and the arbitrators to be previously resolved what way to take. Would it not be like Ahab's asking counsel of Micaiah 2 or the Jews of Jere- miah 2 (chap. xlii.)—I therefore must not comply with your invitation. Mr. Robinson referred me to what it is that approves a minister of God, in 2 Cor. vi. 4–8, and such things have no small impression on my heart. “I am at this time a compound of feelings. I feel, dear brethren, I painfully feel for you. I am distressed that a church whose troubles were many before should have them increased through me. I feel myself unhappy lest my worthy brethren and fathers in the ministry should think themselves slighted, of which there is nothing that I am less conscious; and should they on this account slight me, it will very much grieve me, but I cannot help it. I hope they will consider what must necessarily be my motives in this matter, and excuse me. I am not without feelings on my own account, but these are not so great as those for you. Blessed be God, I feel peace within, let things issue as they will. I enjoy a consciousness of having done every thing in this matter as in the sight of Christ; at least to the best of my knowledge. A passage in Mr. Hall's letter to me of April 28, 1780, has both yesterday and to-day been sweet to me.—“How awfully mysterious are Divine providences ! The Lord help us to approve and adore with cordial affections the dispensations of God. We shall one day see we could not have been so well in any other condition as in that in which the Lord has Placed us, nor without the various afflictions we meet with by the way. I have lately thought that religion is not designed to please us now, but to £"Qſº us—to teach and dispose us to please God. And those who please him, he will please them hereafter.” “I * not without some fears that, as the time of trial is limited to one 8/ear, you should some of you be hankering still in your minds after me, which if you should it will make me exceedingly unhappy. I do not mean to spend what I have, but if possible to live according to what I shall have coming in, and to bow my shoulder to the yoke with contentment. It is therefore likely I shall stay longer, perhaps all my life. I therefore humbly and most earnestly beseech you, by all that belongs to your own welfare and my future peace, to drop all thoughts whatever of my removal, and to look up and look out for some other person to be your pastor: the Great Head of the church direct your choice “Great happiness is what I do not look for now; but it would serve to increase the little I have re- maining to receive one more letter from the church at Kettering, or, if that is too much trouble, from Mr. Wallis, by the church's consent, expressing these two things—That you entertain no hard thoughts of me, as if I had in any respect used you ill; and that you give up all thoughts of my re- moval, and intend to look out elsewhere. Give my love to any of the ministers whose judgment I con- sulted, and tell them what I say. Accept the same to yourselves. That Jehovah-Jireh may see and provide for you is, my dear brethren, the prayer of “Yours very affectionately, A. F.” Thus the decision appeared to be thrown further off than before. The church at Kettering satisfied Mr. Fuller on the subject of his conduct, and en- deavoured without effect to procure a suitable minis- ter from the institution at Bristol. Their minds being still directed to him, Mr. Fuller, in July, 1782, thus replies to a letter of Mr. Wallis:— “You ask in yours, ‘Will the Lord raise desires in his own people merely to disappoint them 2’ You think not, seeing that God hath said, The desires of the righteous shall be granted. Cer- tainly if God doth excite desires, and then disap- point them, it is for some higher end than merely their disappointment. You will not think, dear sir, that I mean to discourage you, if I should say the above explanation of the text in Proverbs is inconsistent with truth. I once heard a sermon” from Psal. cxlv. 19. The minister proposed first to earplain his subject, and in so doing he delivered something like this:—‘God will not grant us every desire. That is our mercy; for, (1.) Some of them are sinful. David desired to be revenged on Nabal and his innocent family. Jonah desired Nineveh's ruin. (2.) Others would not be for our good. David desired the life of the child he had by Bath- sheba; David also desired the life of Jonathan ; neither of which would have been for his good. (3.) Nay, not every righteous desire. It is a righteous desire for a minister to desire the salvation * Since ascertained to have been his own. xxxvi MEMOIRS OF MER. FULLER. of those that hear him. So Paul declared, I would to God that all that are here present were altogether such as I am, Acts xxvi. 29. So again, I could qvish myself accursed from Christ, for my brethren's sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh, Rom. ix. 1. David desired to build a house for God, and it was a righteous desire, for God took it well at his hands; yet he did not grant it. Kings and prophets desired to see the Lord Messiah, and yet did not see him. How then are we to understand it? Answer. The sum or sub- stance of their desires shall be fulfilled. What is the main desire of a seaman 2 that he may arrive at the haven. So saints will be brought to their de- sired haven. What of a pilgrim ?—See Heb. xi. 16. So all the desires of a Christian are summed up in this, That he may eternally enjoy God and be like him.—See 2 Sam. xxiii. 2.' Doubtless there is great mystery in these things. However, I think it is certain, that when God raises a spirit- ual desire in a person, it is often, though not al- ways, with an intention to bestow the object desired.” On the 20th of August, 1782, after a visit from Mr. Wallis, he thus addresses him:—“Since I saw you, though it is but a little time, yet I have had great exercises. The day I parted with you, call- ing in the evening on one of my friends, my feelings were tried by what you know is the most effectual battery on my heart of any thing; I mean bitter weeping. The Lord's day following, the meeting- house, to say all in one word, was a Bochim / The most unfeigned sorrow I believe prevailed in almost every heart. For my own part, I found it exceed- ingly difficult to go on in spreaching, and keep from weeping quite out. I hastened as soon as worship was over to get alone, and there give full vent to all my sorrow. We had a private evening meeting, which was more trying to me than the day. I saw a spirit in the church in general, which had I seen half a year ago, I could never have left them, come what would, whatever I do now ! I went home to my house with a heart full of distress, and my strength nearly exhausted with the work and weep- ing of the day. “The next day, August 12, I devoted to fasting and prayer: found special outgoings of heart, and encouragement to pray from many scriptures. I scarcely remember such a day for tenderness and importunity in prayer in my life. Two days after, I felt my spirits all the morning exceedingly de- pressed ; got alone, and found a heart to pray, with, I think, greater importunity than I had done before. Oh it seemed as if I must have my petitions granted, or I could not live. This last Lord's day was a tender day, but not like the Lord's day pre- ceding. “Truly, sir, nothing but the thoughts of an open door for greater usefulness in Christ's cause, (surely this is not an illusion () and my having been so engaged to pray for the coming of Christ's kingdom, could have kept me from dropping all opposition, and yielding to the church's desire. All their for- mer treatment towards me I cannot remember. I am constrained not only to forgive it, but to forget it. And as to profit or reputation, things at which I have been charged with aiming, these seemed no more to me than the mire in the streets. I cannot say what I shall do. I desire to be governed by judgment, and mean to be so; but these things in- fluence my judgment, and that which appeared clear before has appeared doubtful since. Some of my friends also, who thought my way clear before, think it doubtful now. Oh! it pains me to the heart to put you and my dear friends to so much pain. I have often of late lamented before the Lord my unhappy situation, that it should be my lot to be re- duced to the painful necessity, to say the least, of injuring, at one place or other, that cause which of all things in the world I most dearly love My dear friend, I must beg of you not to have your expect- ations raised too much. Indeed, I am ashamed to mention their being raised at all by the thoughts of my coming; only I know how you are. Truly I am not without a dread of being made a curse to you if I come. I feel such barrenness and carnal- mindedness habitually prevail as often has made me think my labours would be blasted, be where I might. I know not but such is your partial opinion of me, that you will be apt to impute this to a pecu- liar sensibility of the plague of my own heart; but verily this is not the case. My soul is indeed, like the lands of Jericho, barren, and almost all my services, like its waters, naught, and unless some- thing extraordinary be done to the spring-head of all, to heal the waters, like what was done by the prophet Elisha, my barrenness will be my plague and the plague of those about me. “I must further beg of you not to move it to the church to give me any further call. If I leave So- ham I shall come, not doubting their willingness to receive me; and, if not, the more there is done by the church, as a church, towards it, the greater will be their disappointment. For my own part, the language of my heart is, ‘Here am I, let him do with me as seemeth good to him.’ I do not expect nor wait for extraordinary directions. All I look for is to have my way plain, my judgment clear, and my conscience satisfied. Pray to the Lord, my dear sir, earnestly, yet submissively. I thought it LETTER TO THE CHURCH AT KETTERING. xxxvii right to give you an honest account of things as above; and I think it but right as honestly to say, on the other hand, that, all things considered, not- withstanding the check I have lately met with, the evidence for removing rather preponderates than that for continuing. Meanwhile, till we see the issue of things, may we each become dead to all cre- ated good, any further than as it may subserve the glory of God. So desires “Your affectionate but distressed friend, A. F.” To a further invitation Mr. F. gave the following anSWe] :- TO THE CHURCH OF CHRIST AT KIETTERING. “DEAR BRETHREN, Soham, Sept. 22, 1782. “Yours I received, and quite approve of your de- voting a day to fast and pray to the Lord on such a solemn occasion. I thank you for your remembrance of me, and the church at Soham, on that day, as well as for your kind and repeated invitation; to which I can only say, that, if I should leave Soham at the time you expect, I have no other thoughts than to comply. God only knows how it will be with me when the time comes. True it is, I give the church here no reason to expect any thing but my removal; but such a spirit of tenderness now takes place among them that it shakes my confidence, and threatens to destroy my happiness if I remove. It is true I do habitually think of removing, but do not you expect it too much. Hold Christ and your religion with a close hand, but me and every other creature with a loose one ! God can bless you without me, and blast you with me ! If I come, oh that the Spirit of God may come with me! Surely it is my habitual prayer—‘If thy presence go not with me, carry me not up hence.” With great re- Spect and esteem, I remain, dear brethren, “Yours in the gospel, A. F.” Mr. Fuller removed to Kettering in October, 1782, and in the following October was ordained pastor of the church. He was succeeded at Soham by his friend Mr. West, one of the deacons, who sub- sequently became pastor of a church in Dublin. An extract from a letter written by the church at Soham to that of Kettering, respecting his dismis- Sion, Will show their estimation of him: “DEAR BRETHREN, “Inasmuch as you have requested that our bro- ther and former pastor, Mr. Andrew Fuller, should be dismissed to you, we accordingly comply there- with, though it pains our hearts, and renews our former grief. On the thoughts of such a request we are ready to give ear to the voice that cried in Ezekiel's hearing, O myheel / His ways are in the great deep, and his footsteps past finding out. “Oh that Peter's wish may be accomplished in us, ‘That the trial of our faith, being much more pre- cious than that of gold which perisheth, might be found to praise and glory at the appearing of the Lord Jesus Christ.’ “With regard to Mr. Fuller's conduct as a Chris- tian, while with us, we have nothing to lay to his charge. It was in many respects very amiable. Relative to his ministerial character, his faithfulness, wisdom, tenderness, and freeness with his friends, &c., were the things which captivated our hearts, and united our affections to him, which make our parting the more trying. But we wish that our loss may be your gain. We therefore consent,” &c. &c. While the above demonstrates the feelings of the church towards their late pastor, a letter to a friend at Soham, written by him a few weeks after his or- dination at Kettering, will testify the deep interest he still felt in their concerns:— “DEAR BROTHER, “How deep are the designs of Providence 1 ‘Too deep to sound with mortal lines.’ Since I have been here, I have had various exercises of mind; but the state of the church at Soham has lain nearest of any thing ! Such has been the union of affection between them and me, that I suppose no events in time, and I hope none in eternity, will ever dissolve it. This, I know, some would think to be scarcely reconcilable with my conduct in leaving them; but, however it may appear, so it is. I can truly say, ‘Who among them is afflicted, and I burn not?' My earnest prayers have been in their calamity. I have not yet seen any reason to repent of what I have done. The Lord, I think, has been with me hitherto, in my work, and in my private retirements. But, alas, poor people, they are destitute Oh! this, after all, wounds me. Oh may He, whose name is Jehovah-jireh, see and provide for them I trust in God they will be provided for. I hear that they keep together, and are in a good spirit. The Lord, who loves his cause better than we can, will not suffer, I think, people of such a spirit to fall to the ground. I have many other things to say to you; but I trust shortly to see you. Meanwhile, fare- well. The Lord be with you ! A. F.” The following summary of the preceding cir- cumstances, addressed by Mr. Fuller to the con- xxxviii MEMOIRS OF MR. FULLER. gregation on the occasion of his ordination at Ket- tering, will be read with interest :— “For me to enter minutely into this affair might, perhaps, be attended with too great a revival of feelings for me, at this time and place, to sustain; and as the affair is so well known by many here present, I must beg to be indulged in being short. “It seems a strange thing that is come upon me ! I seem still, at times, as if I could scarcely believe it to be true ! I was always averse to removals, and had inured myself to look upon them with a jealous eye. I do not therefore wonder that others have done the same by mine. I suppose there was a time when, if any one had suggested the idea of my removal, it would have seemed to me a strange, unlikely thing. But, however, it was so it is come to pass! - “I imagine it will not be expected that I should enter upon a vindication of my conduct in that affair. I only say this: several things concurred to make me, first, hesitate whether it was my duty to abide where I was ; and, afterwards, to think it was not. Desirous, however, of doing nothing rashly, I was determined to wait a considerable time before I did any thing. My chief desire, I think, was to preserve a conscience void of offence, towards God and towards.man. I had, all along, much jealousy of my own heart, and many fears. I frequently laid my case before God, in prayer, with much more importunity than I usually feel. I sometimes devoted days on purpose for fasting and prayer, on the occasion. On some of those days, partly for the church at Soham, and partly for myself, I had, I think, the most earnest out- goings of heart to the Lord that ever I felt in my life. I consulted many friends, ministers upon the spot (who knew the case) and ministers at a distance. I think to nine of them, some of whom are here present, I told the case as impartially as I was able, and asked their advice. Still my heart felt reluct- ant at the thoughts of a removal. I submitted the case to three or four different persons, who heard the particulars on both sides.—The issue was, I staid another year. At that time, it was my pur- pose to remain for life. I told the church at Ket- tering, in a letter, to that effect. But I soon found that reproach—reproach unlamented—had broken my heart! The bond of my affection was dissolved. I could not feel a union of spirit; without which I could not continue. In proportion as I despaired of this, I felt my heart incline towards the church at Kettering. At length, impelled by several motives, (of some of which, especially, I think I shall not be ashamed at the day of judgment,) I removed ſ—a painful event to me. I have, how- © e º e º º ever, one consolation remaining—that, as far as I know, I acted herein to the best of my judgment and conscience. Yet, after all, I have had many relentings, and many reflections upon some parts of my conduct; as well as fears lest the Lord should blast me in the future part of my life: for though I have never, to this day, thought the thing itself to be wrong; yet I have, upon review, seen a great deal of vanity mixing itself in my motives, and a great deal of folly in some parts of my conduct, for all which I desire to be ashamed. “Since my removal hither, I have found much outgoing of heart for the welfare of Christ king- dom, particularly in this part of Zion. When re- peatedly requested to take this office upon me, I have not been without my fears; and, might I have indulged that sort of feeling, I suppose I should not have accepted their invitation for the present. But I wish to attend to the voice of duty. Duty seemed to call for my compliance. I therefore ap- plied for, and received, a dismission from the church at Soham to the church at Kettering; and have resigned myself up, to serve them in the Lord. I wish it may be for the glory of Christ and their good; though, I must own, the pleasure of this day is marred to me, because a union with the one church cannot be effected but by a disunion with the other.” SECTION III. LABOUR'S AT RETTERING—NORTHAMPTONSIHIRE ASSOCIATION — UNION OF MINISTERS FOR PRAYER AND CONIFERENCE RELATIVE TO THE IPIROMOTION OF WITAL RELIGION.—EXTRACTS FIROM HIS IDIARY - PUIBILICATION OF HIS TREATISTE ON THE UNIVERSAL ORLIGATION OF FAITH-CONTROVERSIES ARISING OUT OF IT –DIARY IRESUMED–LETTERS TO DF. IRYLAND ON THE II,I,NESS AND DEATH OF HIS IDATU GH- TEIR SARAIH-FURTHER IBXTRACTS FROM HIS DIARY-ILLINESS AND DIEATH OF HIS WIFE. CoNscIous of having entered on a more extended, and, consequently, a more responsible field of labour, Mr. Fuller addressed himself to his work with his constitutional ardour. The increase of occupation which he had anticipated was chiefly, if not alto- gether, of a local nature; but the great Disposer of events rendered his removal to Kettering subservient to engagements to which those of his pastoral office bore a small proportion, whether viewed in relation to their bearing on the interests of mankind, or on his own personal exertions. The first two years of his residence at Kettering EXTRACTS FROM HIS DIARY. xxxix were, however, distinguished by no operations be- yond the immediate sphere of pastoral labour, if we except those arising out of his connexion with the churches of the Northamptonshire Association,” a register of whose statistics and history, for a succes- sion of years, forms the subject of a private memo- randum, accompanied with remarks on their cir- cumstances, indicative of a heart devoted to their welfare. The influence of his talents and character began early to be felt among them. His assistance was claimed in their public services, his advice sought in their difficulties; nor is it too much to say that his judgment became the standard of appeal to an extent altogether unprecedented. The friendship which Mr. Fuller had previously commenced with those excellent men, the late Messrs. Sutcliffe, of Olney, and Ryland, of North- ampton, was now cemented by frequent intercourse, by which the interests of their respective churches, as well as those of the cause of Christ at large, were materially benefited. A pamphlet, written by the celebrated President Edwards, on the importance of general union in prayer for the revival of true religion, having found its way into their hands, was printed and diligently circulated. This was follow- ed by a small publication, entitled “Persuasives to extraordinary Union in Prayer for the Revival of Real Religion,” appended by Mr. Fuller to a ser- mon which he published about this time “On Walking by Faith: ” periodical meetings for prayer were instituted among the ministers in their imme- diate neighbourhoods; resolutions were also passed at a meeting of the Association, at Nottingham, and subsequently at similar meetings in other districts, recommending the setting apart of the first Monday evening in every month for prayer for the extension of the gospel. It is, perhaps, not too much to say that these gave the impetus to that missionary spirit which afterwards extended itself successively through every denomination of the Christian world, and with which the origin of the British and Fo- reign Bible Society is closely identified: be that as it may, the importance of these meetings became more and more obvious in connexion with mission- ary efforts, the practice being almost universally adopted by the various communions of Dissenters, and continuing in existence to the present day. A few extracts from Mr. Fuller's private memorandums, about this time, will show with what singleness of heart he entered into the spirit of the apostolic *phorism—“None of us liveth to himself.” “ 1784, April 11.—A tender forenoon in public Pºyer. My heart aches for the congregation, * g e * g This Association embraced at that period the churches in *Veral adjoining counties. young and old, especially for some who seem to be under concern. Oh if Christ might but be formed in them | But I am so carnal that I fear God will never do any thing by me. . “25.—Expounded Matt. iv. this evening, on Christ's temptation; noticed its importance, time, circumstances, and issue, inferring that as Christ did not run into temptation, but was led up, so we must not; but pray, as he has directed, that we enter zot into it. “30.—Very little exercise to-day. What rea- son have I to pray for a revival in my soul | Surely I am to a sad degree sunk into a spirit of indiffer- ence: ‘My soul cleaveth to the dust.’ “May 3.—Some tenderness in preaching at Stagsden: endeavoured to speak plain and home to the understandings and consciences of some poor plain people, on Christ's being a may that men know not. “7.—Heard Mr. Robert Hall, jun., from, “He that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.’ Felt very solemn in hearing some parts | The Lord keep that young man “8.—Conversation with Robert Hall on various subjects. Some tenderness and earnestness in prayer after his departure. Oh could I but keep more near to God! How good is it to draw near to Him “11.—Devoted this day to fasting and prayer, in conjunction with several other ministers, who have agreed thus to spend the second Tuesday in every other month, to seek the revival of real religion, and the extension of Christ's kingdom in the world. Feel very unhappy, to think that my heart should be no more in it. But very little of the true spirit of prayer throughout the whole day. “16.—A good forenoon: tender in prayer for the revival of religion, and the carrying on of a good work among our young people. Very tender to- night, at Thrapston, and greatly concerned for the salvation of souls while preaching on sinners being like Moab–at ease from his youth. Here I am child enough to think—surely some good must be done l “26.—Some sense of the importance of everlast- ing things, occasioned by hearing the conversation of some wicked men. Oh! if I had an abiding sense of the danger and worth of souls, surely I should feel more like Aaron, when he ran, with his censer, between the living and the dead. “June 11.—Spoke to-night from, ‘Learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart.” Indeed, I have need to learn more of this. I find applauses to be fiery trials. “13.—At Olney. A poor cold day, except in the xl MEMOIRS OF MR. FULLER. evening. I am weary of being out from home so much. I want to be more at home, that I may be more with God. “21.—Much affected to-day in visiting some poor friends; especially in going to see a little boy, of seven or eight years old, in a decline, not likely to continue long. My heart felt for his everlasting state. Conversed with him a little on Divine sub- jects. “July 9.—Some serious tenderness of spirit and concern for the carnality of my heart, for some days past. Read to our friends, this evening, a part of Mr. Edwards's.Attempt to promote Prayer for the Revival of Religion, to excite them to the like practice. Felt my heart profited and much solemnized by what I read. “11.—A good forenoon in preaching on fellony- ship with Christ. Felt some tenderness of heart several times in the day, longing for the coming of Christ's kingdom and the salvation of my hearers. “12.—Read part of a poem, by John Scott, Esq., on the cruelties of the English in the East Indies, causing artificial famines, &c. My heart felt most earnest desires that Christ's kingdom might come, when all these cruelties shall cease. Oh for the time when neither the sceptre of oppression nor heathen superstition shall bear the sway over them | Lord Jesus, set up thy glorious and peaceful kingdom all over the world ! Found earnest desire this morn- ing, in prayer, that God would hear the right, as to them, and hear our prayers, in which the churches agree to unite, for the spread of Christ's kingdom. “13.—Spent this day in fasting and prayer, in conjunction with several of my brethren in the mi- mistry, for the revival of our churches and the spread of the gospel. Found some tenderness and earnest- ness in prayer, several times in the day. Wrote a few thoughts on the desirableness of the coming of Christ's kingdom. “16.—Rode to Arnsby, this morning; had some profitable conversation with Mr. Hall. Returned and heard Mr. , of , with grief. Surely the system of religion [false Calvinism] which he, with too many others, has imbibed, enervates every part of vital godliness. “18.—A good forenoon in preaching from, “All my springs are in thee;' but a better time in prayer. Found my heart go out for the children and youth of the congregation; owing, perhaps, to my having spoken last night at the grave of the little boy men- tioned June 21. Poor child ! he seemed to like that I should talk with him before he died. “ 19.-Chiefly employed in writing and visiting poor friends. Think I get good, and hope I do some good, by the latter, g “27.—Dull and unaffected. Nothing seems to lay hold of me. Some fear to-night in prayer. An accident that has befallen my youngest child now lays sufficient hold of me ; I fear lest he should be taken from me. Very much moved in prayer for him. O Lord, I must have something trying to move me. How I shall endure this I know not. O prepare him, and prepare me ! Feel my heart tender to-day, and some thankfulness of heart for hope afforded of the child. Ah, how easy to speak of resigning our whole selves, and all that pertains to us, to the Lord ; but how difficult to do so when it comes to the trial ” A more extended sphere of labour began now to open itself, and more varied and painful exercises of mind awaited Mr. Fuller, than those indicated in the preceding extracts; it was not for him to enjoy that freedom from polemical engagements for which he had so ardently longed and prayed. The change of sentiments which took place during his residence at Soham had not been lightly effected, and a manu- script on this subject, which had lain by him from that time, though written at so early a period of his life, bears evident marks of an acuteness of percep- tion, and a patience and candour of investigation, rarely combined in the productions of those of riper years. The preface to this essay is characterized by beautiful simplicity of statement, and anticipates the distinguishing feature of the work, which, though not less remarkable than his other productions for logical acumen, assumes less of a polemical aspect, and more of the attitude of honest inquiry. The difference between them, however, originated only in the circumstances under which they were respectively produced; the one being written ex- pressly for private use, the others as a defence of truth. The value of the sentiments contained in this manuscript, and the methodical and masterly man- ner in which the subject was argued, were too ob- vious any longer to admit of its suppression ; and the persuasion of friends, aided by the sincere de- sire of doing good, at length prevailed over the na- tive modesty of the author. The leading sentiment advocated is the universal obligation of the hearers of the gospel to its cordial and entire reception. This was argued on the general principle that man is bound to approve and receive ºvhatever God presents to his attention, a principle supported not less by the sanctions of Scripture than the dic- tates of reason—on the testimony borne to the claims of the gospel in particular by the commands, eachortations, and invitations, abounding both in PUBLICATION OF A TREATISE ON FAITH. xli the Old and New Testaments—on the obedience required to the gospel necessarily involving previous obligation—on zºnbelief being represented as a heinous sin, subjecting to the most anyul pun- ishments—and, finally, on other spiritual eater- cises, inseparably connected with faith, being re- presented as universal duties. The leading objections to these views are fully considered : these chiefly relate to the decrees of God—to the particularity of redemption—the ânability of the carnal mind to receive spiritual things, and the consequent necessity of Divine influence. These doctrines were not only believed by Mr. Fuller, but invested with great importance in his esteem. The conclusion drawn from them against the universal obligation of faith is, how- ever, shown to be fallacious. That from the first position would equally exculpate men from any moral delinquency, and also render means for the attainment of temporal subsistence vain and incon- sistent. to arise from an overstrained comparison of the atonement of Christ to the discharge of a debt, the extreme of which view is shown to be at variance with the doctrine of free forgiveness, and with the application of sinners as suppliants rather than as claimants. In correcting this notion, Mr. Fuller insists that the atonement proceeds not on the prin- ciple of commercial, but of moral justice, and that the reasoning thereon must correspond with this view. The objection founded on the inability of man, Mr. F. meets, by showing that this inability is no where represented in Scripture as of a proper or physical, but of a figurative or moral kind,” an &nwillingness so inveterate as to require a Divine influence to overcome it, which, so far from excusing an inattention to the claims of the gospel, is in itself a gross aggravation of the evil—that the arguments used to justify it on the ground of alleged incapacity annul a distinction founded not less in reason than in Scripture, and would equally justify any grade of moral delinquency and a total disre- gard of the law of God, and at once exculpate men from the imputation of sin. The subtle distinction of duties into moral and spiritual, by which the force of this reasoning is evaded, is proved to have * existence in Scripture—and it is shown that, in fact, there can be no true morality which is not • Mr. ** in reply to an opponent, thus explains his views of this subject:—“All such terms as necessary, cannot, impos- sible, &c., when applied to these subjects, are used improperly: they always denote, in strict propriety of speech, an obstruction *ě from something distinct from the state of the will.” This W*W “represents man as not only possessing great advantages, but as able to comply with every thing that God requires at * hands and that all his misery arises from his voluntary The inference from the second is shown spiritual, nor can God require an insincere or de- fective obedience. Powerful as were the arguments advanced by Mr. Fuller in this treatise, it was not to be expected that a view of religion so practically identified with the whole system of theology which had prevailed nearly half a century, and had been partially em- braced and defended by men of acknowledged talent and piety, would readily surrender its claims on the public regard. Some excellent men of the same connexion as Mr. F. were grieved that the doctrines of free grace should, as they considered, sustain an injury from one who professed an adher- ence to them. One of these addressed himself re- spectfully in reply; while others, less mindful of the interests of truth than of their own personal importance, poured forth torrents of illiterate abuse, unaccompanied with the shadow of an argument. A neighbouring minister, whom we must, in the judgment of charity, hope to have been in some measure influenced by the former of these feelings, but who cannot claim an exemption from a portion of the latter imputation, earnestly importuned a sight of the MS. With this request Mr. Fuller complied, at the same time observing that any animadversions he might make should receive a serious and candid attention, provided they were accompanied by evidence. The manuscript was soon returned, accompanied with a letter replete with illiterate abuse, while all argument was de- clined, on the pretext that “enough had been said already.” He charges Mr. F. with having “gathered those scriptures used by Arminians,” to the neglect of those parts which “speak distinctly and clearly the Jews’ language, and not the language of Ash- dod.” He further charges him with disrespect to Drs. Gill, Owen, Ridgely, &c.; and concludes by expressing his conviction that “time was when no such calf would ever have been suffered to be born or nourished at the little meeting at Kettering.” The respect Mr. Fuller bore to the private cha- racter of this individual induced him to reply. “If,” he writes, “a friend of mine had called on me purely in a way of respect; if he had written anything that I did not approve; if I had requested and even importuned a sight of it upon the footing of friendship ; if he had desired me with all the frankness of a Christian to point out any of his mis- abuse of mercy, and his wilful rebellion against God. It is not a want of ability, but of inclination, that proves his ruin.” —p. 249. In a mote, he adds, “I maintain that men have the same power, strictly speaking, before they are wrought upon by the Holy Spirit, as after, and before conversion as after ; that the work of the Spirit endows us with no new rational powers, nor any powers that are necessary to moral agency.” xlii MEMOIRS OF MR. FULLER. takes, promising to rectify or suppress any thing that should be found amiss, adding, however, this caution, that I should not barely call them mistakes, but prove them so ; if, on perusing his papers, I had, instead of making any candid remarks tending to conviction, written a letter fraught with reproach- ful sneers and low invective, unaccompanied by any kind of evidence; I should have thought, had I thought right, that I had acted beneath the minister, the Christian, or the man. “Texts of Scripture are none the worse for hav- ing been quoted by Arminians. You wonder that any who call themselves Calvinists should talk thus; and I wonder any should call themselves Calvinists who talk otherwise. It is very singular to charge me with disrespect to Drs. Gill and Owen, when there is not a single animadversion on their writings in the whole MS. As to the former, I have not taken a single quotation from his writings, nor spoken a syllable about his sentiments, but barely 'n'ritten his name on a blank page for the purpose of transcribing something from him tending to con- Jirm what I have written, when I should copy it again. As to the latter, I never met with any thing of importance in his writings on which I saw any reason to animadvert ; so far from it, that I know of no writer for whom I have so great an esteem ; it would be a faint expression for me to say I approve his principles—I admire them. I suppose you saw the names of these worthies, and observed that I said or intended to say something about them, and you concluded it must be against them. This re- minds me of an old woman who, hearing her clergy- man frequently preach against popery, exclaimed, ‘Our parson is certainly a papish ; for he talks so much about the pope.” Alas! into what misconstruc- tions and misrepresentations will not a partial spirit insensibly betray us! I believe if Drs. G. and O. were living, they would defend their principles against some things which certain writers since their death have attempted to father upon them: the same may be said of Dr. Ridgely; I never saw more than one passage in his writings unfavourable to my views, and could produce twenty for them. “But I have ‘treated the sacred Scriptures with partiality, by collecting those parts which suit my turn, and omitting others that clearly speak the Jews' and not my Ashdod language.’ Truly, sir, I never thought it necessary to collect scriptures ir- relative to the purpose for which I was writing. I suppose you would have had me occupy half the work in proving the doctrine of election, as Mr. Wayman did—a doctrine believed by his antagonist as much as himself. I assure you, sir, I never ob- served a studied silence of any one argument or scripture that might be thought to make against me. It seems, according to your account, that one part only of the Scripture speaks clearly and dis- tinctly what you call the Jervs’ language. I used to think, sir, the Scriptures were all of a piece, but I understand you—that part which does not agree with your creed does not speak Jenys’ language. This comes too from the pen of the man who in the same letter, and even the same sentence, was charging his friend with treating the sacred Scrip- tures with partiality “You must go on, sir, if you choose, calling me Arminian, Baxterian, or any thing else it may please you best. These are things which I hope will not move me. I only say that though I verily believe it is every man's duty to be of a right spirit— such a spirit as cordially to embrace rvhatever God makes known, yet such is my opinion of hu- man nature, that I have not the most distant idea of either the probable or possible salvation of any one but those who ‘according to God’s purpose ’ are ‘made rvilling in the day of his power,’ and this you must have fully known had you with any candour attended to what I have written. “I desire to seek both ‘truth and peace,’ and so far as I can enjoy the latter without sacrificing the former, I hope it will be one chief object of my pursuit. Should what I have written be published, and should any number of persons, instead of seri- ously attending to evidence, take fire, call names, and set their churches in a flame—and should they after this upbraid me with having ‘stirred up divi- sions in the churches,’ for all or any of this I hope I shall never be thought accountable.” This reply called forth a second and a third letter equally abusive ; but as for evidences, the demand for them is a mere “come off.” “Are there not,” he asks, “ reasons enough, evidences in plenty, already extant?” Mr. Fuller's polemical propensities were hardly strong enough to be attracted, by this sagacious re- ference to “evidences already extant,” to the con- tinuance of a correspondence in which he could gain nothing but scurrility; he therefore respect- fully declined it. - This correspondence would not have been thought deserving of notice, but that it fairly represents the temper, talents, and information of a large portion of the opposition it was Mr. Fuller's fate to encoun- ter in private intercourse; while no small degree of it actually struggled into print in the shape of vari- ous pamphlets, some of which are fraught with dog- gerel of the very lowest grade. It was refreshing amidst all this to find a few opponents capable of observing the rules of civilized CONTROVERSY ON FAITH. xliii intercourse, and of addressing themselves for the most part to the consideration of the points in dis- pute; such were the Rev. Messrs. Button, A. Booth, A. Maclean, and, on the Arminian side, Dan Taylor. It was a matter, however, of grave complaint, that much misconception and consequent misrepresentation of his views was to be found in each of their publications, a considerable portion of which was devoted to the elaborate proving of doc- trines cordially received by their opponent; nor was there any thing in the course of his polemical career which furnished Mr. Fuller with so much cause of grief as the reiterated disingenuousness of conduct manifested towards him by a man so de- servedly esteemed for learning, integrity, and holi- ness of character, as Mr. Booth, between whom and himself there was moreover but a slight difference of opinion. The circulation of certain incorrect and injurious representations of Mr. Fuller's sentiments, the subsequent publication of the same after a dis- tinct avowal of their incorrectness, and their re- publication after a serious and respectful letter of remonstrance, of which Mr. B. takes no notice, fur- nish evidence of the power of prejudice over even an upright mind. Impartiality requires the admission that Mr. Fuller was, in more than one instance, chargeable with misrepresentation, the discovery of which was, however, followed by the most prompt and unqualified acknowledgment. The reply to Mr. Button was accompanied by an answer to “Observations, &c., by Philanthropos,” a work in which the Rev. D. Taylor attacks with considerable spirit and ingenuity the Calvinistic positions of “The Gospel worthy,” &c. “It may appear somewhat extraordinary,” says Mr. Fuller, in his reply, “that the same sentiment should be liable to opposition from gentlemen of such contrary principles as MR. BUTTON and PHILANTHRopos. It may be less surprising, however, when it is con- sidered that there are certain points in which the most opposite extremes are known to meet. An attentive reader will perceive a great affinity in the tendency of their reasonings on various subjects. If I am not greatly mistaken, they both particularly agree in denying faith in Christ to be a duty re- quired by the moral law, and in excusing the sinner, unless grace is bestowed upon him, in his noncompliance with ever thing spiritually good.” The exceptions taken by Mr. Maclean were of a complexion different from either of those before stated, and were grounded on certain views of the nature of faith, and its priority to regeneration and repentance, peculiar to the bulk of the Baptist churches in Scotland and parts of Ireland. Mr. M. argued that Mr. Fuller's position of a holy change of heart being requisite in order to true faith in Christ, was “subversive of the great doctrine of justification by grace alone without the works of the law,” and maintained that faith was a mere intel- lectual exercise, ascribing to it, nevertheless, all the fruits of a holy principle. To this view of things Mr. Fuller first replied in an appendix to the second edition of his work, which, giving rise to further observations on the part of his opponent, resulted in the production of “Strictures on Sandemanianism, in Twelve Letters to a Friend,” a work worthy alike of the talents of its author and of the powerful antagonist against whose writings it was directed. The controversy on faith, which in all its branches extended, with some intervals, to a period of more than twenty years, was by far the most considerable in which Mr. Fuller was engaged; and it being that which was the most identified with his name, and which gave rise to the grossest misrepresentations of his character and views, especially in his own de- nomination, no apology will be offered for the pe- culiar prominence given to it in this memoir. A continuation of the diary from which extracts have already been made, while it exhibits the feel- ings under which Mr. Fuller commenced and con- tinued these engagements, will serve to fill up the portraiture of his character at this period of his life. “Aug. 10, 1784.—Occupied in writing for the press some persuasives to united prayer for the re- vival of real religion. “20.—Many misgivings of heart, about engaging in defence of what I esteem truth, lest the cause of Christ should be injured through me. Surely, if I did not believe that in defence of which I write to be important truth, I would hide my head in ob- scurity all my days. “21.—Much pain at heart to-day, while reading in Dr. Owen. Feel almost a sacred reverence for his character. Surely I am more brutish than any man, and have not the understanding of a man | Oh that I might be led into Divine truth ! ‘Christ and his cross be all my theme.’ I love his name, and wish to make it the centre in which all the lines of my ministry should meet ! The Lord direct my way in respect of publishing. Assuredly he knows my end is to vindicate the excellence of his cha- racter, and his worthiness of being loved and credited. “23.—The weight of publishing still lies upon me. I expect a great share of unhappiness through it. I had certainly much rather go through the world in peace, did I not consider this step as my duty. I feel a jealousy of myself, lest I should not be endued with meekness and patience sufficient for xliv MEMOIRS OF MR. FULLER. controversy. The Lord keep me ! I wish to sus- pect my own spirit, and go forth leaning on him for strength. I heard yesterday that Mr. William Clarke is likely to come to Carlton; the Lord grant he may ! Oh that I were of such a meek and lowly spirit as that good man “24.—Some tenderness in prayer of late, yet fear lest I should be blasted in my ministry on ac- count of my barrenness. Conversation with Mr. Toller on various subjects affecting to me. The Lord keep me and lead me into all truth. “25.—Enjoyed delight for some days in reading over the Acts of the Apostles before family prayer. Sweet times in that duty. “26.—I felt some tenderness to-day at the church- meeting; but much depression of spirit generally now attends me. I feel a solid satisfaction that the cause in which I am about to engage is the cause of truth and righteousness; but I am afraid lest it should suffer through me. “29.—A very tender and affectionate time in prayer for the congregation, especially the young people.—Finished expounding Christ's sermon on the mount. Some cautions I had given me to- night I wish I may attend to. The Lord lead me into the spirit of the gospel, and keep me from extremes. “Sept. 3.—Very earnest and fervent this even- ing, preaching on love to Christ's salvation. Oh if God would but make use of it ! “6.—Feel myself vile before God. My vileness is as if it were restless, and could never be still night nor day. “19.—A letter from Soham much depresses me Co hear of their jarrings. Know not how to preach. “21.—Occupied all day in writing letters into Cambridgeshire. good | Very tender in writing them. “22.—Chiefly employed in preparing a MS. for the press on the obligations of men in respect to the gospel of Christ. Felt some pleasure in the sentiments I have written. “26.—Deeply affected this morning in thinking and preaching on the poor and needy seeking water and finding none, &c. Some tenderness too in the afternoon: this thought was moving, that our hard- ness of heart broke Christ's heart, and our stupidity made his soul exceedingly sorronyſul, even unto death. “Oct. 4.—To-morrow, ministers’ meeting; the Lord meet with us. The ministers met to-night, it being the monthly exercise of prayer for the revival of religion. “7.—Spent the day chiefly in the company of some of the ministers. Much depressed in spirit, heart. Oh may God bless them to their | and grieved at seeing such levity and wanton folly in a certain person. My heart is sick of all know- ledge and accomplishments unless made to subserve the cause of the blessed Redeemer. How empty and frothy, unless sanctified by the grace of God | Felt my heart go out in prayer for that person. “18.—Much depressed in spirit on account of my want of spirituality: prayed with tenderness of Sensibly felt my entire dependence on the Spirit of God for the continuance of the work of grace as well as for the beginning of it. “21.—Feel some pain in the thought of being about to publish On the Obligations of JMen to Believe in Christ, as supposing I shall thereby expose myself to much abuse, which is disagreeable to the flesh. Had I not a satisfaction that it is the cause of God and truth, I would drop all thoughts of printing. The Lord keep me meek and lowly in heart. “22.—[In allusion to the termination of a do- mestic trial] This day the Lord has been merciful. A saying of Mr. Hall, which I heard him use in prayer, has been much to me of late. ‘Lord, we are bound this night to love thee more than ever we did before.” “24.—I have many fears concerning certain flesh-pleasing doctrines lately agitated, particularly that of the final salvation of all, men and devils. I have no doubt that this notion will have a great spread in twenty years' time, however contrary to the word of God, seeing it is what just suits the flesh. “31.—Preached this afternoon on the dimensions of the love of Christ. Great delight at the Lord's supper. Oh to know more of and live upon Christ! he must be our daily bread. Sweet pleasure to- night. Can hardly forbear singing as I go about, “Oh for this love let rocks and hills Their lasting silence break,” &c. “Nov. 12.-Feel my mind earnestly engaged in longing for the salvation of souls; earnest in prayer for this. Oh what an awful thing it seems to me for sinners under a fatal disease not to desire a remedy “22.—Walked to Northampton. Some prayer that God would bless that about which I am going, namely, the printing of a manuscript on faith in Christ being the duty of unregenerate sinners. “Dec. 18.-Feel myself to-day a poor carnal wretch | Casting my eye on “Woe to the idol shep- herd,’ &c., thought that was my character. Reading in James, “with meekness receive the ingrafted ovord,” methought there was something in that which I could not reach. Felt my heart go up to God that I might understand it. - EXTRACTS FROM HIS DIARY. xlv. “22.—Some tender feelings under my frequent indisposition of body. Thought how I should bear it, if God should lay me by from the work of the ministry. “31.—Deeply affected on Wednesday night, in singing with little R. in my arms:– “O mayst thou live to reach the place,’ &c. If I should die before him, let him remember this, and S. the verses in the diary, &c. “ 1785, Jan. 2, Lord's day.—Preached this af. ternoon a new-year's sermon to young people, from ‘Come, ye children,’ &c. Some sweet and solemn feelings, as I sat in the vestry, while a hymn for the new year was sung: felt my heart very tender, and a longing desire for the welfare of the young peo- ple: preached to them with some earnestness. Felt much also this day in reading Bunyan's Holy War, particularly that part where the four captains agree to petition the King for more force: felt a great satisfaction in my principles concerning preaching to sinners, and a desire to pray, like them, for help from on high, to render the word effectual. “8.—Much affected to-day in hearing my little girl say, ‘How soon sabbath day comes again l’ Felt grieved to see the native aversion of the carnal heart to God so early discovering itself. Was led to importune God at a throne of grace on her behalf. “9.—This evening expounded Acts vi. One verse in particular carries in it conviction to me: That we may give ourselves wholly to prayer and the ministry of the word. “11.—Some outgoings of heart in prayer to-day for the revival of real religion, first in my own soul, and then in the churches in general. My own mental departures from God have been long and great! Went several times to the Lord, with some satisfaction, but found not such nearness of access as I could wish. “14.—Spoke to-night with some freedom on Psal. cxvi. 9, ‘I will walk before the Lord,’ &c. Explained it as consisting in viewing ourselves al- ways as in God's sight, and not merely in the sight of creatures, whether godly or ungodly; in striving to please God; and in attending in a constant way to the most spiritual duties. Observed the good- ness of the resolution; because this course was safe, honourable, and happy. “Feb. 8.—Visited Mr. Toller to-day, who has been very ill: some serious conversation with him on the importance of real religion in a dying hour. “11.—Read part of the life of J. Janeway to-day, with much conviction and tenderness. O my life, how low to his 1 “13.—Some earnestness to-day in preaching on pressing fornward, and on the desire accomplished being snveet to the soul, but little spirituality. Very earnest to-night in preaching from ‘What will ye do in the end thereof.” “16.—In the company of Christian friends. Some good conversation, but no free tender talk on things spiritual and experimental. I find Mr. and the people at —— carry their resentments very high, on account of what they reckon my erroneous principles. I need grace not so much at present to keep me from resenting again as to keep me from rejoicing in their iniquity. Undoubtedly they could not take measures that would more conduce to the reputation of what I have written and of what I preach, as well as to their own detriment. “19.—Feel an earnest desire that my mind might be well furnished with gospel sentiments. Found encouragement in observing several in the congre- gation who are likely soon to join the church. “22.—Tenderness in private prayer, attended with shame. An agreeable visit with Mr. B. W. at Mr. T.'s. Conversation very serious and profit- able, chiefly on closet prayer and experimental subjects. “March 11.-Feel a general lowness of spirits; partly occasioned by the bitter spirit of some neigh- bouring ministers, respecting my late publication and my preaching; and partly by sympathy with some of my friends under trials. “16.—Visited Mr. Toller to-day, and had some good conversation. “21.—Have been somewhat stirred beyond due bounds to-day, in talking with a member of the church who has sinned. It would have been better for me to have thought more of myself, and to have spoken to him with more humility. “25.—Returning from Woodford, (where I preached last night, with earnestness and solemnity of spirit, on the ways of sin being movable, like those of the adulteress,) I was led into a profitable strain of meditation, on our good Shepherd's care of his flock, occasioned by seeing some lambs exposed to the cold, and a poor sheep perishing for want of CàI’6. “28.—Some heaviness of heart, because some of my friends do not take that freedom with me which I wish they did; at least it seems so to me. “April 19.-Preached at Wellingborough, with some freedom, on Christ's commanding us to watch. Some conviction by conversing with Mr. Carver, whose carefulness not to circulate an evil report I admire. * “28.—I find it is often observed that persons in my condition, without greater advantages as to learning, are generally apt to be more censorious xlvi MEMOIRS OF MB, FULLER. than others whose learning is far greater. I wish I may be always on the watch here. “29.—Somewhat unhappy to see the disrelish, as I think, of one of my friends to the doctrines of so- vereign grace. Oh that I may not only believe the truth, but love it! - “30.—Thought to-day I could wish to die if I had but done my generation work. Last Monday I heard a young man at N. speak of the advantage of mixing prayer with reading the word. This morning I have been trying to read in that way. Read the second chapter of Hosea thus; longing to use that sweet and holy freedom which the Lord designs to encourage, when he directs the church to call him not Baali, but Ishi. Oh that I could dwell nearer to God I fear some trials in the church; but were I kept near to him, I should be able to bear any thing. “May 1.—Found earnestness in preaching on the nords of God doing good to the upright, and on Christ's being the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever. Felt my heart drawn out in prayer this morning that God would make some use of me for good. Praying that I might not labour in vain and spend my strength for nought, I felt a check of this kind—What then is my labour, and of what account is my strength ? On this I found much outgoing of heart, in pleading Christ's merits as the ground, and the welfare of souls as the end. “2.—Returning from Brigstock, where I preach- ed last night, some conversation with Mr. Porter, of Thrapston, makes me reflect on myself for impru- dence. I feel how far off from a right spirit I often am. This evening I felt tender all the time of the prayer-meeting for the revival of religion; but, in hearing Mr. Beeby Wallis pray for me, I was over- come : his having a better opinion of me than I deserve cuts me to the heart! Went to prayer myself, and found my mind engaged more than ordinarily in praying for the revival of religion. I had felt many sceptical thoughts; as though there were room to ask, What profit shall I have if I pray to God? for which I was much grieved. Find a great satisfaction in these monthly meetings: even supposing our requests should not be granted, yet prayer to God is its own reward. Felt many bitter reflections for my stupid carnal way of living. “8.—Impressed this morning in thinking of the wants of the people, how they would probably be coming from many places round, in quest of spiritual food, while I was barren, and scarcely knew what to say to them. Affected in thinking of Micah vii., “Feed thy people with thy rod,’ &c.” After alluding to a journey to Soham, and giving the details of a week's exercise in preaching and conversation in that neighbourhood, he adds— “June 2.--To-day I go for home, laden with the burdens of others as well as some of my own. “4.—An uncommon load lies all day on my spi- rits. I am incapable of all profitable meditation : feel pained for the people to-morrow. Some few exercises on subjection to the Father of spirits; but very heavy in heart. “5.—Feel myself quite ill with sorrow of heart: had a very tender forenoon on the subject mentioned above; but a poor wretched afternoon: very much depressed all day. “6.—But little exercise till towards night, when the sorrows of yesterday returned, and for two hours preyed upon my heart stronger than ever, so as to make me very ill. Darkness and confusion of mind overwhelm me. “7.—Engaged in writing out the circular letter on Declensions in Religion for the press: found some very tender feelings towards the latter part of it ; and enjoyed a good deal of pleasure on the whole in writing it. “14.—Taken up with the company of Mr. Ro- bert Hall, jun. : feel much pain for him. The Lord, in mercy to him and his churches in this country, keep him in the path of truth and righteousness. “25.—Some pain of mind through a letter from Mr. , of London, expressing his fears lest my publication should occasion some uncomfortable dis- putes. Some outgoings of heart to God that this might not be. - “But a poor day yesterday in meditation; yet this day has been, I think, one of the best I have experienced for years. Most tenderly and earnestly affected, both in prayer and in preaching. In the morning I could scarcely go on for weeping, while preaching from Acts iv. 33, ‘Great grace was upon them all !” Not quite so well in the afternoon, though I was upon the earcellency of the know- ledge of Christ. Yet I felt a sweet serenity at the Lord's supper, and spoke of it under the idea of a feast. “29.—Pleasant conversation with some persons newly awakened. Heard Dr. Addington to-night, on our light afflictions, with pleasure and profit; but walked alone in the fields exceedingly discon- solate. “July 3.−Another exceedingly melting sabbath: very tender and earnest in prayer, and in preaching on casting our care on the Lord; and, in the after- noon, on the caution given to glory, not in rvisoom, strength, or riches, but in the knowledge of God. Preached in the evening from “Turn away mine eyes from beholding vanity;’ occasioned by my own EXTRACTS FROM HIS DIARY. xlvii past exercises, and applied to the warning of peo- ple against the vanities of the world, particularly against improper behaviour at their feast, which is to-morrow; found great tenderness, particularly in warning the youth from the example of the young woman who last week came to such an awful end. “5.—Rode to Walgrave; somewhat discouraged to see disunion; attempted a reconciliation, which I hope may be effected; felt tender and much concerned. “6.—This morning a reconciliation was brought about, and Mr. Payne was ordained their pastor : Mr. Ryland, jun., delivered the charge, and I had much profit in hearing him. “16.—Some pleasure in thinking on God's power to do abundantly more than we can ask or think. Surely he had need have more power in giving than I have in asking. “25.—I was much impressed this morning in reading JMason's Remains. Felt much affected and very solemn in prayer and conversing with a poor woman at Barton, who seems not likely to be here long, and is much in the dark as to her state. “Aug. 1.-Some affectionate emotions of heart in prayer to-night at the monthly prayer-meeting. Surely unbelief damps our near addresses to God, and something of that ungrateful suspicion which asks, “What profit shall we have if we pray unto him 2 * lies at the bottom of our indifference in this duty. - “3.—Chiefly employed to-day in visiting poor friends. I have been too deficient in this practice. “4.—Visited several more poor friends; some conversation profitable; but I mix all with sin. “6.—Some tenderness in thinking on Jonah iii. 4, ‘I said, I am cast out of thy sight; yet will I look again,’ &c. We have had some awful pro- vidences of late. Mr. , a clergyman of C 2 has hanged himself, and a poor woman of B. seems in the very jaws of desperation. These things have led me to think on something that may be an anti- dote to despair. “8.—Some exercises of mind this week through an advertisement of Dr. Withers, wherein I think he in a very vain manner threatens to reduce to dust my late publication. I wish I may be kept in a right spirit. I find myself, on seeing what I have hitherto seen, much subject to a spirit of contempt ; but I wish not to indulge too much of that temper. Doubtless, I am wrong in some things. I wish I may be all along open to conviction; found some desires go up to heaven for such a spirit as this. “26.—A letter from Mr. Thomas” of Leominster, * It appears that this venerable minister afterwards fully embraced Mr. Fuller's views. d on the piece I lately published, has some effect upon my heart in a way of tender grief and fear. “Sept. 30.—We had a ministers' meeting at Northampton. I preached, and brother Sutcliff, and brother Skinner. But the best part of the day was, I think, in conversation. A question was dis- cussed, to the following purport:—To rvhat causes àn ministers may much of their nant of success be imputed? The answer turned chiefly upon the want of personal religion; particularly the neglect of close dealing with God in closet prayer. Jer. x. 21 was here referred to, ‘Their pastors are become brutish, and have not sought the Lord ; therefore they shall not prosper, and their flocks shall be scattered.’ Another reason assigned was the want of reading and studying the Scriptures more as Christians, for the edification of our own souls. We are too apt to study them merely to find out something to say to others, without living upon the truth ourselves. If we eat not the book, before we deliver its contents to others, we may expect the Holy Spirit will not much accompany us. If we study the Scriptures as Christians, the more fa- miliar we are with them, the more we shall feel their importance; but, if otherwise, our familiarity with the word will be like that of soldiers and doc- tors with death—it will wear away all sense of its importance from our minds. To enforce this sen- timent, Prov. xxii. 17, 18 was referred to—‘Apply thine heart to knowledge—the words of the wise will be pleasant if thou keep them within thee; they shall withal be fitted in thy lips.” To this might be added Psal. i. 2, 3. Another reason was, Our want of being emptied of self-sufficiency. In pro- portion as we lean upon our own gifts, or parts, or preparations, we slight the Holy Spirit; and no wonder that, being grieved, he should leave us to do our work alone. Besides, when this is the case, it is, humanly speaking, 2&n safe for God to prosper us, especially those ministers who possess consider- able abilities. Reference was also had to an or- dination sermon lately preached by Mr. Booth of London, to Mr. Hopkins, Dr. Gifford's successor, from ‘Take heed to thyself.’ Oh that I may re- member these hints for my good! “Oct. 3.—Preached at Corby with much tender- ness; felt some encouragement on hearing of one person to whose conversion it is hoped my ministry has been made instrumental. “7.—Some tremor of mind in hearing that Dr. W.’s book is in the press. What I fear is lest his manner of writing should be provoking, and lest I should fall into an unchristian spirit. “9.—A miserable afternoon. After service I was told of a young man, to whom I had been made xlviii MEMOIRS OF MR. FULLER. useful about two years ago, having a desire to join the church. spair in preaching to sinners; thinking that, on ac- count of my being so carnally-minded, God would never bless any thing I said. This instance, and that of last Wednesday, seem to afford some en- couragement, and to make me think that it is possible, however, for God to work even by me / and that when I think nothing can be done, then it is possible for God to work. I have long sown in tears: oh that I might, in some degree at least, reap in joy! Preached at night with an unusual af- fection of heart, and sense of everlasting things, from Job xvi. 22, “When a few years are come,’ &c. “30.—After baptizing several persons, preached on the fellowship of Christians affording joy to mi- nisters, from Phil. i. 3—5. “Nov. 21. –For above a fortnight past have been chiefly out on journeys. At Bedford, saw Mr. , of ; glad to see his spirit soften- ed, and his prejudices, I hope, giving way. Much grieved to find the spirits of people about the neigh- bourhood of G hurt by controversy. I find there are several whose conversation almost entirely, and on all occasions, turns on these subjects. It seems to be one of Satan's devices, in order to de- stroy the good tendency of any truth, to get its ad- vocates to hackney it out of its senses, dwelling upon it in every sermon or conversation, to the ex- clusion of other things. Thus the glorious doc- trines of free and great grace have been served in the last age, and so have fallen sadly into disre- pute. If we employ all our time in talking about what men ought to be and to do, it is likely we shall forget to put it into practice, and then all is over with us. “Dec. 7.—This week received a treatise written by Mr. Button in answer to mine. There seems to be an abundance of things in it very foreign from the point, and very little evidence. “16.—Set off for home with my little girl, who has been ill at Northampton. My heart greatly misgives me. If God should take either of my children from me, I seem as if I could scarcely sus- tain it. On this account I have many fears. Oh, I could give up their bodies, but I want to see piety reigning in their souls, before they go hence and are no more seen. I tried, as I rode home, to converse with my child, and to instil religious prin- ciples into her mind. Oh that God would bless my endeavours to that end | “18.—To-day I had a very tender forenoon, in preaching from Jer. l. 4, 5. Oh how my heart went forth in desire after the salvation of souls, for some of the greatest of sinners; particularly for a poor I have for some time felt a kind of de- wretched young woman, the daughter of one of our members. She had been, through her own wicked conduct, kept away from public worship for a year past. I lately heard that she was in a state of de- spair, and had resolved never to come to meeting again. But this morning she appeared in the meet- ing. The sight of her much affected me, and was the means of a very tender forenoon. In the after- noon, I preached on the great things of God's law being counted as strange things; but, alas ! my heart seems as strange and as alien from the spirit of true religion as any thing I can talk about ! Oh what a poor mutable creature am Il Somewhat re- vived to-night in hearing more about a Mrs. D. I hope she is a godly woman. I find she had a daughter who died about twelve months ago, and who gave strong evidence of her piety while her fa- ther and mother were in ignorance. The mother now says that she believes the means of her daugh- ter's conversion was her attending on a child's bu- rial, with some other children, and hearing me speak to the young people present on that occasion. It seems a strange thing that God should do any thing by me ! “ 1786, Jan. 1.—Some painful reflections in thinking on my vast deficiencies. Another year is gone, and what have I done for God? Oh that my life were more devoted to God! I feel as if I could wish to set out afresh for heaven, but, alas ! my desires seem but too much like those of the sluggard. “8.—Very earnest this morning in public prayer. Oh that God may work on the minds of our youth and children | I hope there is somewhat of a work of God going on amongst us. I have been visited by a young man who gives very promising evidence of being a subject of true religion, so far as can be judged by a conversation. Also a young woman has been with me who appears to be very tender- hearted, meek, and lowly in mind. Exceedingly distressed on Wednesday night. I fear God will take away my child. I have reason to fear some awful chastisement is at hand, either spiritual or temporal. Methought I was like the Israelites, who had little or no heart to call upon God except in times of trouble. I tried, however, to pray to him now. I think I could willingly submit to God in all things, and bear whatever he should lay upon me, though it were the loss of one of the dear parts of myself, provided I could but see Christ formed in her. I know also that I have no demand on the Lord for this; but surely I ought to bless his name that he does not require me to be willing to be lost myself, or that this should be the end of any whom he has put under my care. The chief exercise of my mind this week has been respecting my poor EXTRACTS FROM HIS DIARY. xlix child. Methought I felt some resignation to Divine Providence. ‘The Lord liveth, and blessed be my rock.’ “19.—I hear that a piece is coming out, against what I have written, on the Arminian side. I have no fears as to the cause itself, but many as to my capacity to defend it. “20.—Had some very affecting conversation with Miss M. W. I feel reluctant in being obliged to attend to controversy. My heart seems to delight in my work, and I hope the Lord, in some measure, is owning it. “This week I received Dr. Withers’s treatise against what I have written. What horrid senti- ments does he advance “Feb. 5.-Our dear little girl has this week much alarmed our fears. On Thursday morning the measles came out: we hope the illness may be carried off hereby. As I sat by her that morning alone, she requested me to pray with her, saying, though she was greatly afflicted with pain, yet she would try to lie still. I did so, and found some tenderness of heart on her behalf. My mind is generally much engaged now in perusing the trea- tises which are published against what I have writ- ten. This morning I received another, written by Mr. Dan Taylor. “6. Monday.—I read the above piece. The author discovers an amiable spirit, and there is a good deal of plausibility in some things that he ad- vances. My mind has been much employed all the week on this piece. The more I examine it, the more I perceive that it is open to a solid and effect- ive reply. “10. Some edifying conversation this morning with Mr. Jones, a clergyman lately come to Creaton. “12.—Great are the mercies of the Lord towards us, who has now given me another daughter. Mercy and judgment both visit us. Now my fears chiefly turn on the child that is afflicted. “19. My sabbaths, I fear, are spent to little purpose, I have so little love to God and the souls of men; but I felt much impressed to-night in catechising the children. I thought and spoke to them about my own dear little girl. “26.—Except Thursday, all this week has been miserably spent I sin against God repeatedly, and yet remain wretchedly insensible. I tremble at myself, and have reason to do so much more. “April 16.—For this month past I have had great exercise of heart, on account of my poor little daughter. Sometimes pleading hard with God on her account; at other times ready to despair, fearing God would never hear me. “Lord's day, March 19, was a distressing day * - d 2 to me. My concern for the loss of her body is but trifling, compared with that of her soul. I preached and prayed much, from Matt. xv. 25, ‘Lord, help me !’ on Monday I carried her towards Northamp- ton; was exceedingly distressed that night; went to prayer with a heart almost broken. Some en- couragement from conversation with dear brother Ryland. I observed that “God had not bound himself to hear the prayers of any one for the sal- vation of the soul of another.” He replied, “But if he has not, yet he frequently does so; and hence, perhaps, though grace does not run in the blood, yet we frequently see it runs in the line. Many more of the children of God's children are gracious than of others.’ I know neither I nor mine have any claim upon the Almighty for mercy; but as long as there is life, it shall be my business to im- plore his mercy towards her. “Methought I saw, on Tuesday, (21,) the vanity of all created good. I saw, if God were to cut off my poor child, and not to afford me some extraordi- nary support under the stroke, that I should be next to dead to the whole creation, and all creation dead to me! Oh that I were but thus dead, as Paul was, by the cross of Christ. “On the 27th, riding towards Northampton, I think I felt greater earnestness and freedom with God than I ever had before in this matter. I seemed likewise more willing to leave her in the hands of God. Some tender opportunities in prayer with her and for her. I now feel more of an habitual resignation to God. If I could take the reins into my own hand, I would not, I feel a satisfaction that my times, and the times of all that pertain to me, are in the Lord's hands. This also I have felt all along, never to desire the life of the child, unless it be for her present and eternal good. Unless she should live to the Lord, I had rather, if it please God, she might not live at all. “To-day I felt some encouragement in my work from hearing of a young man hopefully converted in hearing me preach. “My time and attention are now much taken up with my poor little girl, particularly on the 28th. Exceedingly affected and importunate with God in prayer for her.—I felt, indeed, the force of those words, “To whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.” Oh of what worth to an immortal creature, subject to eternal death ! My heart seem- ed to be dissolved in earnest cries for mercy. “May 7.—I was tolerably supported under the approaching death of my poor child, which I saw drawing on apace. I saw I must shortly let her fall. With floods of tears, with all the bitterness of an afflicted father mourning for his first-born, I com- l \. MEMOIRS OF MR. FULLER. mitted her to God, to his everlasting arms, when she should fall from mine. “21.—Death ! Death is all around me ! My friends die. Three I have buried within a fortnight, and another I shall have to bury soon | Death and judgment are all I can think about 2 At times I feel reconciled to whatever may befall me. I am not without good hopes of the child’s piety, and as to her life, desirable as it is, the will of the Lord be done. “30.—But at other times I am distressed beyond due bounds. On the 25th, in particular, my dis- tress seemed beyond all measure. I lay before the Lord, weeping like David, and refusing to be com- forted. This brought on, I have reason to think, a bilious cholic; a painful affliction it was, and the more so as it prevented my ever seeing my child alive again ' Yes, she is gone ! On Tuesday morning, May 30, as I lay ill in bed in another room, I heard a whispering. I inquired, and all were silent . . . . . . all were silent . . . . . but all is well. I feel reconciled to God! I called my family round my bed. I sat up, and prayed as well as I could; I bowed my head and worshipped, and blessed a taking as well as a giving God. “June 1.—I just made a shift to get up to-day, and attend the funeral of my poor child. My dear brother Ryland preached on the occasion, from 2 * A narrative of this interesting child was written by her father, but as it contains little more than a detail of the events which are recorded in a more impressive form in the above diary, it will only be necessary to give the following extract: “At the time of her birth I committed her to God, as I trust I have done many times since. Once in particular viewing her as she lay smiling in the cradle, at the age of eight months, my heart was much affected; I took her up in my arms, retired, and in that position wrestled hard with God for a blessing; at the same time offering her up as it were and solemnly pre- senting her to the Lord for acceptance. In this exercise I was greatly encouraged by the conduct of Christ towards those who brought little children in their arms to him for his blessing.” Speaking of her residence a short time at Northampton, he adds,-" During this fortnight I went two or three times to see her; and one evening, being with her alone, she asked me to pray for her. “What do you wish me to pray for, my dear?' said I. She answered, “That God would bless me, and keep me, and save my soul.” “Do you think, then, that you are a sinner P’ ‘Yes, father.” Fearing lest she did not understand what she said, I asked her, “What is sin, my dear?” She answered, ‘Telling a story.” I comprehended this, and it went to my heart. “What, then,” I said, ‘you remember, do you, my having corrected you once for telling a story?’ ‘Yes, father.” “And are you grieved for having so offended God?” ‘Yes, father.” I asked her if she did not try to pray herself. She answered, ‘I sometimes try, but I do not know how to pray; I wish you would pray for me, till I can pray for myself.” As I continued to sit by her, she appeared much dejected. I asked her the reason. She said, ‘I am afraid I should go to hell.’ ‘My dear,’ said I, ‘who told you so 2° ‘Nobody,” said she, “but I know if I do not pray to the Lord, I must go to hell.’ I then went to prayer with her, with many tears. “She was accustomed to pray over the hymn which Mr. .*.*.* Kings iv. 26,- It is well.’ I feel, in general now, a degree of calm resignation. I think there is solid reason to hope that she has not lived in vain; and if she is but reared for God, it matters not when she died. I feel a solid pleasure in reflecting on our own conduct in her education; we endeavoured to bring her up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and I trust our endeavours were not in vain. Her visit to Northampton, too, was blessed for her good; she has certainly discovered ever since great tenderness of conscience, and much of the fear of God; great regard for the worship of God, espe- cially for the Lord's day; and great delight in reading, especially accounts of the conversion of some little children. But all is over now, and I am in a good degree satisfied. “3.—To-day I felt a sort of triumph over death. I went and stood on her grave with a great deal of composure | Returned, and wrote some verses to her memory. “4.—Had a good day in preaching on these light afflictions. My mind seems very calm and serene, in respect of the child; but, alas! I feel the insufficiency of trouble, however heavy, to de- stroy or mortify sin. I have had sad experience of my own depravity, even while under the very rod of God | * Ryland composed for her.” I used to carry her in my arms into the fields, and there talk with her upon the desirableness of dying and being with Christ, and with holy men and women, and with those holy children who cried, Hosanna to the Son of David. Thus I tried to reconcile her, and myself with her, to death, without directly telling her she would soon die. One day, as she lay in bed, I read to her the last eight verses of Rev. vii., “They shall hunger no more, nor thirst, &c.” I said nothing upon it, but wished to observe what effect the passage might have upon her; I should not have wondered if she had been a little cheered by it. She said nothing, however, but looked very dejected. I said, ‘My dear, you are unhappy.” She was silent. I urged her to tell me what was the matter. Still she was silent. I them asked her whether she was afraid she should not go to that blessed world of which I had been reading P She answered, ‘Yes.”—“But what makes you afraid, my dear?”—“Because (said she, with a tone of grief that pierced me to the heart) I have sinned against the Lord.”— “True, my dear, (said I,) you have simmed against the Lord; but the Lord is more ready to forgive you, if you are grieved for offending him, than I can be to forgive you when you are grieved for offending me; and you know how ready I am to do that.’ I then told her of the great grace of God, and the love of Christ to sinners. I told her of his mercy in forgiving a poor wicked thief, who, when he was dying, prayed to him to save his soul. At this she seemed cheered, but said nothing. “A few weeks before she died, she asked her aunt to read to her. “What shall I read, my dear?” said her aunt. “Read (said she) some book about Christ.' Her aunt read part of the twenty-first chapter of Matthew, concerning the children who shouted Hosanna to the Son of David.” She died May 30, 1786, aged six years and a half. * The well-known hymn—“Lord, teach a little child to pray,” &c. LETTERS ON THE DEATH OF HIS DAUGHTER. li “6.—Rode to Northampton, to our annual asso- ciation. I am glad to find the state of the churches upon the whole encouraging. The next day I and Mr. Hopper and Mr. Sutcliff preached; but I wanted more spirituality. - “8.—We had a very affecting time in communi- cating experiences. For my part, I fear something more awful than the death of the child awaits me. Though I have been in the fire, yet my dross is not removed; nay, it seems to be increased. My fami- ly is afflicted nearly throughout! ‘For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.” * “11. Lord's day.—Had a good day, on the Lord's giving us peace by all means. I know not how I go on. On the Lord's days I am tender-hearted, and seem disposed to lie low before God, and to be more watchful and spiritual; but, alas, how soon do I forget God! I have a fountain of poison in my very nature. Surely I am as a beast before thee I I have been preaching at Moulton and Harding- stone this week, and seemed to feel at both places; and yet I am far from a spiritual frame of mind. Had a pretty good day, in preaching from Jer. xxxi. 2,-‘The people that were left of the sword found grace in the wilderness.’ I heard last week that Mr. Hall, of Arnsby, had been preaching from Prov. xxx. 2,-‘Surely I am more brutish than any man,’ &c. I am sure that passage is more applica- ble to me than it can be to him ; I therefore preached from it to-day. At night I preached a very search- ing discourse, from Lam. iii. 40, chiefly for the pur- pose of self-conviction.” Several leaves are here wanting, which have been destroyed; nor is any further entry made for up- wards of three years. The following short extracts from letters written to Dr. Ryland, during the illness of the child, will be read with interest.:— “I have, for a day or two past, been greatly afraid of her recovering just so much as to raise my expectations, so that I should have all the work to do over again. But perhaps that is best. If there is a need be for trials, then there is a need for such circumstances to attend the events which befall us as shall make them trials. And one of David's trials was, ‘Thou hast lifted me up and cast me down.' I feel, however, how much I am indebted to mercy for many things which attend this afflic- tion. I sometimes think how if my two other children should be left, and grow up wicked, and then be cut off like Eli's sons ! Ah, in many of my prayers I know not what I ask. May God in mercy do that for me and those that pertain to me which is best I feel a sweet satisfaction in the reins being in his hand, the government upon his shoulders. I have just now been preaching from Matt. xx. 20–24. I fear I am not yet able to drink the cup, and if not to drink the cup, perhaps I am less able to bear a deliverance from it. “Yesterday my wife had pretty much talk with her, and seemed much satisfied of her piety, and resigned to her death. For my part, I feel very different at different times. But generally speaking, except when my feelings are attacked by the child's heavy afflictions, or any fresh symptom of death, I find a far greater degree of composure and resignation to God than ever I could have expected. I can easily see it may be best for us to part. I have been long praying, in I know not what manner, that I might be brought nearer to God; find some particular evils in my heart subdued; have my mind enlarged in eaſperimental knowledge, and my heart more rvedned from things below, and set on things above. Perhaps by “terrible things in righteousness’ God may answer these petitions. Oh that it may be so indeed I feel, however, that it must be something more than affliction to effect that I have long found, to my shame, that though drawing and living near to God are the happiest things in the world, yet such is the carnality of my heart, that I have long been in a habit of despairing of ever attaining them. I have often, of late, said of holiness what Solomon said of wisdom—‘I thought to be holy, but it was far from me.” “Some time ago I spoke at a child's grave, and addressed the children. It appears that a little girl was wrought upon, who is since dead. At that time her father and mother were very ignorant. She talked much to them before her death. I hope the Lord has lately wrought upon her mother. She seems very tender-hearted, and in real earnest after the salvation of her soul. Her husband has opposed her coming to meeting, but in vain. He beat her, but to no purpose. He then despaired, and began to think her right and himself wrong. * If it had not been of God,” said he, “I had over- come it before now.” The man invited me to visit his wife. I went, expecting him to dispute with me, as he had threatened to stop me in the street for that purpose: accordingly I gave him an oppor- tunity; but, says the poor man, “I have done with that now, my chief concern is, What must I do to be saved ?' I cannot tell how it may issue as to him ; he comes sometimes to meeting, and some- times goes to hear Mr. Lydiat, at Warkton. Last Tuesday I was visited by a lad, who has lately been observed to weep very much under the word. lii MEMOIRS OF MR, FULLER. . . . . . - He appears to have every mark of true and deep contrition, and says a sermon I preached, two or three months ago, on sinners being under the curse of the Almighty, was first of use to him. The Lord carry on his work “Last night I preached a funeral sermon for one person, and buried two others within nine days. Can I be supposed to be otherwise than dejected ? We attend all we can to our own health, but is it to be wondered at that we should be sensibly affected and very ill? To nurse a child with her afflictions is great work for the hands; but to nurse altogether without hope is far greater work for the heart. “But the hope of a better world.’—True—and I never felt the worth of that consideration so much as now. Ten thousand worlds seem nothing in consideration of the hope of the gospel. Surely I know something more than I did of the meaning of * Thanks be to God for his unspeakable gift l’ and, “Underneath are the everlasting arms!” with many other passages. And yet, after all, oh what shall I say ? I am not without hope—hope, as I said, with which I would not part for ten thousand worlds; but I have as well painful fears. My dear brother, the matter is of too great importance to be thought of lightly. However, the nearer I am to God, the better it is with me. I thought last night it was some relief that God had enjoined us to train up our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Methought there was never a command but what had a promise connected with it; for God does not say to the seed of Jacob, Seek ye my face in vain. I also felt some satisfaction in reflecting on my conduct towards the child, and thought of the psalmist's words—‘Lord, I have hoped in thy sal- vation, and have done thy commandments.’ “I enjoy great satisfaction and pleasure when- ever I think of her being at Northampton. If there is any change in her, I think your conversation, or the instructions she received at Northampton, were the means. Those few verses you wrote for her she will still repeat, though obliged to rest, for want of breath, between almost every word. She says, “Mr. Ryland told me, when I had got them, he would make me some more,’ and requested I would write to you for them.” Mr. Fuller thus resumes his diary:— “October 3, 1789–For above a year and a half I have written nothing. It has seemed to me that my life was not worth writing. Two or three years ago my heart began wretchedly to degenerate from God. Soon after my child Sally died, I sunk into a sad state of lukewarmness; and have felt the ef. fects of it ever since. the lost joys of God’s salvation; but cannot recover them. I have backslidden from God; and yet I may 10,—‘The joy of the Lord is your strength.’ again, from Mark xi. 24,- Whatsoever things ye I feel at times a longing after rather be said to be habitually dejected on account of it than earnestly to repent of it. I find much hardness of heart, and a spirit of inactivity has laid hold of me. I feel that to be carnally-minded is death. My spiritual enemies have been too much for me. Some time ago I set apart a day for fasting and prayer, and seemed to get some strength in pleading with God. The very next day, as I re- member, I found my heart so wandering from God, and such a load of guilt contracted, that I was af- frighted at my own prayer the preceding day, lest it should have provoked the Lord to punish me, by leaving me so suddenly; and I have not set apart a day to fast and pray since. But surely this was one of Satan's devices, by which I have been im- posed upon. Perhaps, also, I trusted too much to my fasting and praying, and did not, on that account, follow it with sufficient watchfulness. “In the month of May I preached with some feeling from Job xxix. 2, “Oh that it were with me as in months past,’ &c. During this summer, I have sometimes thought what joy Christians might pos- sess in this world, were they but to improve their opportunities and advantages. What grounds of joy does the gospel afford ' What joy was possessed by the primitive Christians ! I have preached two or three times upon these subjects. Once from John xv. 11,–“These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full !’ Another time from Neh. viii. And desire when ye pray, believe that ye shall receive them, and ye shall receive them :’ in which the chief sentiment on which I insisted was, that conft- dence in God's goodness rvas necessary to our success in prayer. Another time I preached from ‘Count it all joy when ye fall into divers tempt- ations.” “These subjects have tended sometimes to make me long after that joy and peace in believing which I have heretofore found. But joy of heart is a feel- ing I cannot yet recover.” “January 20, 1790.-During the last quarter of a year I seem to have gained some ground in spi- ritual things. I have read some of Jonathan Ed- ward's sermons, which have left a deep impression on my heart. I have attended more constantly than heretofore to private prayer, and feel a little renew- ed strength. Sometimes also I have been much af- fected in public prayer, particularly on Monday, January the 4th, at the monthly prayer-meeting. I *** EXTRACTS FROM HIS DIARY. liii felt much afraid lest some uncomfortable debates which we have had in the church, though now finished, should have grieved the Holy Spirit, and quenched our affection for each other, and so lest our spiritual welfare as a church should be essen- tially injured. “Sometimes I have been discouraged, and afraid that God would never bless me again. In my preaching, though I am at times affected with what I say, yet, as to doing good to others, I go on as if I had no hope of it. Repeated disappointments, and long want of success, make me feel as if I were not to expect success. “Last Friday evening I was affected with the subject of Divine ruithdrawment, and especially with the thought of being contented in such a state. If we lose our daily bread we cannot live; if we lose our health we are miserable; if we lose a dear friend we are the same : and can we lose the bread of life, the health of our souls, and the best friend of all, and be unconcerned ? Last Lord's day I preached upon the desirableness of nearness to God, from Psal. xxvii. 9—“Hide not thy face from me; put not thy servant away in anger; thou hast been my help ; leave me not, neither forsake me, O God of my salvation.’ “Feb. 16.—For these last three weeks I have too much again relapsed into a kind of thoughtless- ness. I have felt a little in preaching, but not much. One day I was looking over Dr. Owen on the Mortification of Sin. Speaking of the evil of sin in the soul unmortified, he says, “It will take away a man's usefulness in his generation. His works, his endeavours, his labours seldom receive a blessing from God. If he be a preacher, God com- monly blows upon his ministry, so that he shall la- bour in the fire, and not be honoured with success.’ This, in a great degree, is realized in me. “March 27.—Some weeks ago I thought I felt myself to gain ground by closet prayer; but I have lately relapsed again too much into indifference. Yesterday I read Jonathan Edwards's two ser- mons On the Importance of a thorough Knoxv- Wedge of Divine Truth, from Heb. v. 12. I felt this effect, a desire to rise earlier, to read more, and to make the discovery of truth more a business. This morning I have read another of his sermons, on God the Christian's Portion, from Psal. lxxiii. 25. The latter part comes very close, and I feel myself at a loss what to judge as to God's being my chief good. He asks, whether we had rather live in this world rich, and without God, or poor and With him 2 Perhaps I should not be so much at a loss to decide this question as another; namely, had I rather be rich in this world, and enjoy but little of God; or poor, and enjoy much of God? I am confident the practice of great numbers of profess- ing Christians declares that they prefer the former; and in some instances I feel guilty of the same thing. “In the course of this summer (1790) I have sometimes enjoyed a tenderness of heart in preach- ing. On June 27th, at the Lord's supper, I was affected with this subject, “Do this in remembrance of me.’ I was also greatly affected on Sept. 5, in preaching from Gal. vi. 7, ‘Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.’ But yet in general I have but little of the joys of salvation. I do not feel tempted to evil as heretofore, but yet all is not right. “Oh for a closer walk with God!’ “At the close of this year the review of my life afforded me neither pleasure nor what may be call- ed pain; but rather a kind of discouragement too common of late with me. “From last April I have been expounding the book of Psalms, and sometimes have enjoyed plea- sure therein.” “ 1791–In the spring of this year there appear- ed a religious concern among some of our young people. I proposed to meet them once a week at the vestry, to talk and pray with them. I hope this has been of use both to me and them. I find there are some hopeful appearances at Northampton. The Lord revive his own work. “I feel some return of peace, but am not as I would be. Reading Owen on Spiritual-minded- ness, I feel afraid lest all should not be right with me at last. What I have of spirituality, as I ac- count it, seems rather occasional than habitual. “Towards the latter end of this summer, I heard of some revival of religion about Walgrave and Guilsborough; and that the means of it were their setting apart days for fasting and prayer. Hence I thought we had been long praying for the revival of God's cause, and the spread of the gospel among the heathen, &c., and perhaps God would begin with us at home first. I was particularly affected with this thought, by finding it in the 67th Psalm, which I was expounding about the same time: Oh that God’s being merciful to us, and blessing us, might be the means of his way being made known upon earth, and his saving health among all nations; at least among a part of them. “Oh to be spiritually alive among ourselves | One Monday evening, I think in October, I told our friends of some such things, and prayed with them with more than usual affection. I was particularly encouraged by the promise of giving the Holy Spi- rit to them that ask. Surely if ever I wrestled with God in my life I did so then, for more grace, liv MEMOIRS OF MR. FULLER. . . . . . . . for forgiveness, for the restoration of the joys of salvation; and that not only for myself, but for the generality of Christians among us, whom I plainly perceived to be in a poor lukewarm state, when compared with the primitive Christians. I have lately been reading several Socinian writers; viz. Lindsey, Priestley, Belsham, &c., and have em- ployed myself in penning down thoughts on the moral tendency of their system. I felt an increas- ing aversion to their views of things, and feel the ground on which my hopes are built more solid than heretofore. “The 27th of December I set apart for fasting and prayer. I felt tender in the course of the day. Thought with some encouragement of Psal. cxix. 176,-‘I have gone astray like a lost sheep; seek thy servant, for I do not forget thy commandments.’ I employed a considerable part of the day in reading over Owen on the Mortification of Sin. A review of the past year, and of several past years, tended to humble me. - “I felt tender on Friday evening, Dec. 30, in addressing my friends from Psal. xc. 14, on the mercy of God as the origin of all solid joy. “ 1792.-This year was begun, or nearly so, with a day of solemn fasting and prayer, kept by us as a church. It was a most affecting time with me and many more. Surely we never had such a spirit of prayer amongst us! “On the 2d of April we lost our dear and worthy deacon, Mr. Beeby Wallis.” The next church meeting was kept as a day of solemn fasting and prayer, and a very tender occasion it was. During this and the last year we have had a good deal of religious concern among the young people of the congregation. I set up a private meeting in which I might read and pray and converse with them, and have found it good both to them and me. This spring several of them joined the church. “June 1.-I seem to have trials before me in the afflictions of my family. It has of late been a thought which has much affected me, that our con- duct in this world under the various afflictions and temptations of life is the seed of eternity I Have dwelt upon these thoughts in preaching from Matt. vi. 19, 20. “It was a thought, likewise, which lately struck me, that ºve have no more religion than what rve * Some interesting particulars of this excellent man will be found in a funeral sermon, entitled “The Blessedness of the Dead who die in the Lord.”—See p. 553. The following inscription, by Mr. Fuller, was placed on his tomb, which stands under a sycamore, planted by his own hand:— Kind sycamore, preserve beneath thy shade The precious dust of him who cherished thee; have in times of trial. On this subject I preached from Exod. xvi. 4. It seems as if these things were. preparative to a time of trial to me. “July 10.—My family afflictions have almost overwhelmed me, and what is yet before me I know not l For about a month past the affliction of my dear companion has been extremely heavy. On reading the fourth chapter of Job this morning, the 3d, 4th, and 5th verses affected me.—“My words have upholden many. Oh that now I am touched I may not faint l’ “25.—O my God, my soul is cast down within me! The afflictions in my family seem too heavy for me. O Lord, I am oppressed, undertake for me ! My thoughts are broken off, and all my pros- pects seem to be perished 1 I feel, however, some support from such scriptures as these : “All things work together for good,’ &c.—‘God, even our own God, shall bless us.”—“It is of the Lord's mercies that we are not consumed.” One of my friends ob- served, yesterday, that it was difficult in many cases to know wherefore God contended with us. But I thought that there was no difficulty of this kind with me. I have sinned against the Lord; and it is not a little affliction that will lay hold of me. Those words have impressed me of late: “It was in my heart to chastise them.’ A record of the death of his amiable and pious wife forms the last entry in the diary for nearly two years. The following affecting letter to her father, Mr. Gardiner, furnishes the melancholy details of the concluding scene:— “DEAR AND HonourED FATHER, Aug. 25, 1792. “You have heard, I suppose, before now, that my dear companion is no more! For about three months back our afflictions have been extremely heavy. About the beginning of June she was seized with hysterical affections, which, for a time, deprived her of her senses. In about a week, however, she recovered them, and seemed better; but soon relapsed again; and during the months of July and August, a very few intervals excepted, her mind has been constantly deranged. In this unhappy state, her attention has generally been turned upon some one object of dis- tress; sometimes that she had lost her children; sometimes that she should lose me. For one whole day she hung about my neck, weeping; for that I Nor thee alone; a plant to him more dear He cherished, and with fostering hand upreared. Active and generous in virtue’s cause, With solid wisdom, strict integrity, And unaffected piety, he lived Beloved amongst us, and beloved he died. Beneath an Allon-bachuth Jacob wept ; Beneath thy shade we mourn a heavier loss. IDEATH OF MRS. FULLER. ly was going to die, and leave her | The next morn- ing she still retained the same persuasion; but, in- stead of weeping for it, she rejoiced with exceeding joy. “My husband,” said she, ‘is going to heaven . . . . . . and all is well !—I shall be provided for,” &c. Sometimes we were her worst enemies, and must not come near her; at other times she would speak to me in the most endearing terms. Till very lately, she has been so desirous of my company, that it has been with much difficulty that I have stolen away from her about two hours in the twenty-four, that I might ride out in the air, my health having been considerably impaired. But lately her mind took another turn, which to me was very afflictive. It is true she never ceased to love her husband. ‘I have had,” she would say, “as tender a husband as ever woman had ; but you are not my husband l’ She seemed for the last month really to have con- sidered me as an impostor, who had entered the house, and taken possession of the keys of every place, and of all that belonged to her and her hus- band. Poor soul! for the last month, as I said, this and other notions of the kind have rendered her more miserable than I am able to describe She has been fully persuaded that she was not at home, but had wandered some where from it; had lost her- self, and fallen among strangers. She constantly wanted to make her escape, on which account we were obliged to keep the doors locked, and to take away the keys. “No,' she would say to me, with a countenance full of inexpressible anguish, “this is not my home . . . . you are not my husband . . . . these are not my children. Once I had a good home . . . . and a husband who loved me . . . . and dear children . . . . and kind friends . . . . but where am I now 2 I am lost ! I am ruined ' What have I done? Oh! what have I done? Lord, have mercy upon me!’ In this strain she would be fre- quently walking up and down, from room to room, bemoaning herself, without a tear to relieve her, wringing her hands, first looking upwards, then downwards, in all the attitudes of wild despair | You may form some conception what must have been my feelings, to have been a spectator of all this anguish, and at the same time incapable of affording her the smallest relief. “Though she seemed not to know the children about her, yet she had a keen and lively remem- brance of those that were taken away. One day, when I was gone out for the air, she went out of the house. The servant missing her, immediately followed, and found her in the grave-yard, looking at the graves of her children. She said nothing; but, with a bitterness of soul, pointed the servant's eyes to the wall, where the name of one of them, *. who was buried in 1783, was cut in the stone. Then turning to the graves of the other children, in an agony, she with her foot struck off the long grass, which had grown over the flat stones, and read the inscriptions with silent anguish, alternately looking at the servant and at the stones. “About a fortnight before her death, she had one of the happiest intervals of any during the affliction. She had been lamenting on account of this impostor that was come into her house, and would not give her the keys. She tried for two hours to obtain them by force, in which time she exhausted all her own strength, and almost mine. Not being able to obtain her point, as I was necessarily obliged to resist her in this matter, she sat down and wept—threatening me that God would surely judge me for treating a poor helpless creature in such a manner | I also was overcome with grief: I wept with her. The sight of my tears seemed to awaken her recollection. With her eyes fixed upon me, she said . . . . “Why, are you indeed my husband 2’-‘Indeed, my dear, I am l’—‘O! if I thought you were, I could give you a thousand kisses l’ ‘Indeed, my dear, I am your own dear husband ' ' She then seated herself upon my knee, and kissed me several times. My heart dissolved with a mixture of grief and joy. Her senses were restored, and she talked as rationally as ever. I then persuaded her to go to rest, and she slept well. “About two in the morning she awoke, and con- versed with me as rationally as ever she did in her life : said her poor head had been disordered; that she had given me a great deal of trouble, and feared she had injured my health; begged I would excuse all her hard thoughts and speeches; and urged this as a consideration—“Though I was set against you, yet I was not set against you as my husband.’ She desired I would ride out every day for the air; gave directions to the servant about her family; told her where this and that article were to be found, which she wanted; inquired after various family concerns, and how they had been conducted since she had been ill: and thus we continued talking to- gether till morning. “She continued much the same all the forenoon; was delighted with the conversation of Robert, whose heart also was delighted, as he said, to see his mother so well. “Robert,” said she, “we shall not live together much longer.”—“Yes, mother,’ replied the child, ‘I hope we shall live together for ever !” Joy sparkled in her eyes at this answer: she stroked his head, and exclaimed, “O bless you, my dear ! how came such a thought into your mind?” “Towards noon she said to me, ‘We will dine together to-day, my dear, up stairs.” We did so. lvi MEMOIRS OF MR. FULLER. Dut while we were at dinner, in a few minutes her senses were gone; nor did she ever recover them again. From this happy interval, however, I enter- tained hopes that her senses would return when she was delivered, and came to recover her strength. “On Thursday, the 23d instant, she was deliver- ed of a daughter; but was all the day very restless, full of pain and misery, no return of reason, except that from an aversion to me, which she had so long entertained, she called me ‘my dear,’ and twice kissed me; said she ‘must die,” and “let me die, my dear,’ said she, “let me die l’ Between nine and ten o'clock, as there seemed no immediate sign of a change, and being very weary, I went to rest; but about eleven was called up again, just time enough to witness the convulsive pangs of death, which in about ten minutes carried her off. “Poor soul | What she often said is now true. She was not at home . . . . I am not her husband . . these are not her children . . . but she has found her home . . . . a home, a husband, and a family better than these ! It is the cup which my Father hath given me to drink, and shall I not drink it? Amidst all my afflictions I have much to be thankful for. I have reason to be thankful, that though her intellects were so deranged, yet she never uttered any ill language, nor was ever disposed to do mischief to herself or others; and when she was at the worst, if I fell on my knees to prayer, she would instantly be still and attentive. I have also to be thankful, that though she has been generally afraid of death all her lifetime, yet that fear has been remarkably removed for the last half year. While she retained her reason, she would sometimes express a willingness to live or to die, as it might please God; and about five or six weeks ago would now and then possess a short interval in which she would converse freely. One of our friends, who staid at home with her on Lord's days, says that her conversation at those times would often turn on the poor and imperfect manner in which she had served the Lord, her desires to serve him better, her grief to think she had so much and So often sinned against him. On one of these oc- casions, she was wonderfully filled with joy on over- hearing the congregation while they were singing over the chorus, ‘Glory, honour, praise, and power,’ &c. She seemed to catch the sacred spirit of the song. “I mean to erect a stone to her memory, on which will probably be engraved the following lines:— The tender parent wails no more her loss, Nor labours more beneath life’s heavy load; The anxious soul, released from fears and woes, Has found her home, her children, and her God. “To all this I may add, that, perhaps, I have reason to be thankful for her removal: however the dissolution of such a union may affect my present feelings, it may be one of the greatest mercies both to her and me. Had she continued, and continued in the same state of mind, which was not at all im- probable, this, to all appearance, would have been a thousand times worse than death. “The poor little infant is yet alive, and we call her name Bathoni ; the same name, except the difference of sex, which Rachel gave to her last- born child.* Mr. West preached a funeral sermon last night, at the interment, from 2 Cor. v. 1.” Several months afterwards, Mr. Fuller composed the following plaintive lines, during a solitary ride through Corby woods:— “I, who erewhile was blessed with social joys, With joys that sweetened all the ills of life, And shed a cheerful light on all things round, Now mourn my days in pensive solitude. There once did live a heart that cared for me; I loved, and was again beloved in turn; Her tender soul would soothe my rising griefs, And wipe my tears, and mix them with her own : But she is not; and I forlorn am left, To weep unheeded, and to serve alone. “I roam amidst the dreary woods,-Here once I walked with her who walks no more with me. The fragrant forest then with pleasure smiled, Why wears it now a melancholy hue P Ah me! nor woods, nor fields, nor aught besides, Can grateful prove where grief corrodes the heart : “God of my life, and guide of all my years, May I again to thee my soul commend, And in thee find a Friend to share my griefs, And give me counsel in each doubtful path, And lead me on through every maze of life, Till I arrive where sighs no more are heard I.” SECTION IV.-1793 TO 1814. FORMATION OF BARTIST MISSION — DEPARTURE OIF MISSIONARIES – I, ETTERS ON SOCINIANISM —SECONIO MARIFIAGE – FIREACHING IN BRAY- BROOK CHURCH – JOUIRNEY TO SCOTLAND — TROUBLE RELATIVE TO HIS EIDEST SON — PUBLICATIONS ON DEISM, UNIVERSAL SALVA- TION, BACKSLIDING, SPIRITUAL PRIDE–SE- cond Journ EY To scoTLAND-Journ EY To IRELAND – CORRESPONDENCE WITH AMIERICA –DIIPLOMAS-TEIIRD J OTſ RNIEY TO SCOTLAND — CORRESPONDENCE - PUBLICATION OF DIA- LoGUEs, &c. — ATTACK ON THE MISSION.— FOURTH JOURNEY TO SCOTLAND–CIELAR GIE OF PERSECTUTION-JOSEPH FULLER—JOURNEY TO W.A.L.E.S — FIRE AT SERAMIPORE — IEAST INDIA CHARTER—DEATH OF MR. SUTCLIFF, &c. THE employments of life have been ranked among its greatest blessings; and never does their value * Gen. xxxv. 16–18. EXTRACTS FROM HIS DIARY. lvii appear more striking than when they are directed to the relief of a mind overwhelmed with distress. In conjunction with a few individuals, who had united with him in strenuous efforts to induce com- passion on behalf of the heathen world, Mr. Fuller was, in the midst of his afflictions, occupied in ma- turing plans which issued in the formation of the “Particular Baptist Society for propagating the Gospel among the Heathen.” A meeting was con- vened for that purpose, at Kettering, on the 2d of October, 1792, on which occasion the contributions amounted to £13 2s. 6d., which then constituted the whole of its pecuniary resources. The meetings for prayer and conference, estab- lished in 1784, contained the germ of this institu- tion; but the specific design of a missionary under- taking originated with the venerable Dr. Carey, at that time pastor of the church at Leicester. This distinguished individual, though of obscure origin, displayed at an early period an astonishing facility in the acquirement of languages,” which, united with eminent piety and enthusiastic ardour in the most sacred of causes, and aided by the association and counsels of such men as Ryland, Sutcliff, Pearce, and the subject of these memoirs, led to results truly astonishing. The Baptist mission has extended its operations over a large portion of the continent of India, having circulated in that vast tract of country copies of the New Testament in nineteen different languages, and of the whole Bible in six, established schools for the instruction of the heathen youth, and already resulted in the hopeful conversion of several hundreds of Hindoos and Mussulmans, besides upwards of 20,000 of the negro population of the West Indies. In this mighty enterprise, the commencement of which was distinguished by extraordinary modesty of preten- sion and silence of operation, Mr. Fuller found ample scope for the exercise of those powers of mind with which he was endowed; and to this, beyond a doubt, he sacrificed his life. The characteristic qualities severally displayed by Mr. F.'s associates in this work illustrate an in- teresting peculiarity in the Divine procedure. In the accomplishment of any great design, men of various and even opposite temperament are selected, (as was strikingly exemplified in the Reformation,) to operate as a mutual check upon that tendency to extremes which too often neutralizes individual ef- forts.—Thus the singular wisdom of Sutcliff, and the scrupulous integrity of Ryland, served not only to strengthen and develope those qualities already so * Evidence of this is afforded in his early appointment to the professorship of Sanscrit in the college of Fort William. conspicuous in Mr. Fuller, but happily to temper that constitutional ardour which might otherwise have betrayed him into indiscretions. That Provi- dence which had for so many years guided the work- ings of these elements, and at length brought them into such happy contact, now marked out the scene of operations, and opened a way for the departure of Carey, who, from the first, appears secretly to have resolved on a consecration of himself to this work.—Mr. John Thomas, a gentleman recently returned from Bengal, was introduced to the Society by the venerable Abraham Booth; and it was ulti- mately agreed that he and Mr. Carey should pro- ceed forthwith to India. In a letter to Dr. Ryland, Mr. Fuller says, “You see things of great consequence are in train. My heart fears while it is enlarged. I have this day been to Olney to converse with brother Sutcliff, and to request him to go with me to Leicester this day se’nnight to conciliate the church there, and to sound Mrs. Carey's mind, whether she will go and take the family. . . . . I am much concerned with the weight that lies upon us; it is a great undertaking, yet surely it is right. We have all felt much in prayer. We must have one solemn day of fasting and prayer on parting with our Paul and Barnabas.” This meeting took place at Leicester, and was truly affecting. In concluding his charge to the missionaries, Mr. Fuller thus addressed them: “Go, then, my dear brethren, stimulated by these pros- pects. We shall meet again. Crowns of glory await you and us. Each, I trust, will be addressed in the last day, ‘Come, ye blessed of my Father, enter ye into the joy of your Lord.” A difficulty now arose as to the propriety of making formal application for a passage in one of the Company's ships; but as this might be follow- ed with a refusal, compelling them to go in a less direct form, it was judged most advisable to wave it, and to proceed unobserved. Matters being ad- justed, the missionaries embarked amid the prayers and tears of their friends. They had waited three weeks at the Isle of Wight for a convoy, when the secretary received a letter from Mr. Carey, dated Ryde, May 21, 1793, in which he says, “I have just time to inform you that all our plans are entirely frustrated for the pre- sent. On account of the irregular manner of our going out, an information is laid against the cap- tain, for taking a person on board without an order from the Company: the person not being specified, Mr. T. and myself and another passenger are or- + Mrs. Carey's circumstances did not admit of her accom- panying her husband, but she contemplated following him at an early period. lviii MEMOIRS OF ME, FULLER. dered to quit the ship. I leave the island to-day or to-morrow, and on Thursday the ship sails with- out us.” Though Mr. Fuller had rather yielded to this method of going out than approved it, yet the dis- appointment deeply affected him. He lost no time in forwarding the above epistle to Dr. Ryland, ac- companied with the following:— “Perhaps Carey has written to you. We are all undone ! I am grieved; yet, perhaps, ’tis best. I am afraid leave will never be obtained now for Carey or any other, and the adventure seems to be lost. He says nothing of the £250 for voyage— 'tis well if that be not lost.” The delay thus occasioned was not however with- out its advantages, as will be seen by Dr. Ryland's description of an interview with Messrs. Thomas and Carey. “At seeing them I said, ‘Well, I know not whether to say I am glad or sorry to see you !” They replied, “If you are sorry, your sor- row may be turned into joy; for it is all for the best. We have been at Hackleton, and have seen Mrs. Carey; she is well recovered from her con- finement, and is now able to accompany her hus- band, and is willing to go.' I think they said that she had at first refused: they left the house, and had walked half a mile, when Mr. Thomas proposed to go back again, an additional argument having struck his mind to use with her. They went back: she said she would go if her sister would go with her. They then pleaded with the sister that it de- pended on her whether the family should be separ- ated or not. Since Mrs. Short's return from India, she has told me that she hastened up-stairs to pray, and, when she came down, told them she was will- ing to go. Having related the above, they told me they had heard of a Danish ship which would be in the Downs in four days, and had room for them all.” Having taken a second and final leave of the missionaries, Mr. Fuller addressed himself with re- doubled ardour to the promotion of the domestic interests of the mission. His intense application to these important objects occasioned a paralytic af- fection most alarming to his friends, during which his indefatigable pen was engaged in the defence of evangelical religion at home. In the course of this year he produced his “Calvinistic and Socinian Systems Compared,” a work justly entitled to a principal place among his polemical writings. The ground taken was new, and was suggested by the tedious iteration of the stale charge of licentious- ness made by the “Unitarians” against the doc- trines of Calvinism. The sentiments of the late Rev. R. Hall relative to this treatise are thus expressed in a letter to the author:—“You will please to accept my hearty thanks for your book; which, without flattery, ap- pears to me by far the most decisive confutation of the Socinian system that ever appeared. There are some particulars in which I differ from you; but, in general, I admire the spirit no less than the reasoning: it will be read not merely as a pamphlet of the day, but for years to come.” . Notwithstanding the acknowledgment of several leading persons among the Socinians, that these letters were “well worthy of their attention,” it was not till after the lapse of three years that an answer appeared, in the publications of Dr. Toul- min and Mr. Kentish. The former of those gentle- men undertook to prove ‘The Practical Efficacy of the Unitarian Doctrine,’ from the successes of the apostles and primitive Christians ! Mr. Fuller re- plied to both. Some passages in his diary, written in 1794, exhibiting the influence of these labours on his character and happiness, and furnishing a pious record of an important domestic occurrence, may here be transcribed. *. - “July 18.-Within the last year or two we have formed a Missionary Society, and have been enabled to send out two of our brethren to the East Indies. My heart has been greatly interested in this work. Surely I never felt more genuine love to God and to his cause in my life. I bless God that this work has been a means of reviving my soul. If nothing else comes of it, I and many more have obtained a spiritual advantage. My labours, however, in this harvest, I have reason to think, brought on a paralytic stroke, by which, in January, 1793, for a week or two, I lost the use of one side of my face. That was recovered in a little time; but it left behind it a headache, which I have reason to think will never fully leave me. I have ever since been incapable of reading or writing with intense application. At this time I am much better than I was last year, but, even now, reading or writing for a few hours will bring on the headache. Upon the whole, however, I feel satisfied. It was in the service of God. If a man lose his limbs or his health by intemperance, it is to his dishonour; but not so if he lose them in serving his country. Paul was desirous of dying to the Lord, so let me !” “The reflection I made on June 1, 1792,-that we have no more religion than ne have in times of trial, has again occurred. God has tried me, within the last two or three years, by heavy and sore afflictions in my family, and by threatening complaints in my body. But, of late, trials have been of another kind: having printed “Letters on Socinianism,” they have procured an unusual tide of respect and applause. Some years ago I en- EXTRACTS FROM HIS DIARY. lix dured a portion of reproach on account of what I had written against false Calvinism ; now I am likely to be tried with the contrary: and, perhaps, good report, though more agreeable, may prove not less trying than evil report. I am apprehen- sive that God sees my heart to be too much elated already, and therefore withholds his blessing from my ordinary ministrations. I conceive things to be very low in the congregation. It has been a thought which has affected me of late—The church at Lei- cester have lost their pastor, as have also the church at JWorthampton ; but neither of them have lost their God : whereas, at Kettering, the man and the means are continued ; we have the mantle, but ‘where is the Lord God of Elijah 2 ' God has, as it were, caused it to rain upon those places, but not upon us. Though without pastors, yet they have had great increase; whereas we have had none of late, and many disorders among us. I am afraid I am defective as to knowing the state of my own church, and looking well to their spiritual COncerns. “Within the last two years, I have experienced, perhaps, as much peace and calmness of mind as at any former period. I have been enabled to walk somewhat nearer to God than heretofore ; and I find that there is nothing which affords such a pre- servative against sin. “If we walk in the Spirit, we shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh.” This pas- sage has been of great use to me ever since I preached from it, which was on June 3, 1792. The idea on which I then principally insisted was, that sin is to be overcome, not so much by a direct or mere 7'esistance of it, as by opposing other principles and considerations to it. This sentiment has been abundantly verified in my experience: so far as I have walked in the Spirit, so far has my life been holy and happy; and I have experienced a good degree of these blessings compared with for- mer times, though but a very small degree compared with what I ought to aspire after. I have lately spoken some strong language against the sin of covetousness. Oh that I may never be left to that spirit myself! I have been concerned this morning lest I should. We know but little of what we are, till we are tried. I dreamed last night that a person of a religious and generous character was making his observations upon Dissenters—that there were but few eminently holy and benevolent characters among them. On waking, my thoughts ran upon this subject. I felt that there was too much truth in it (though, perhaps, no truth, if they were viewed in comparison with other denominations); and pos- sessed an ardent desire that, let others do what they Would, I and mine might live, not to ourselves, but to Him who died for us! It seemed a lovely thing which is said of Christ—‘He went about doing good!’ Oh that whatever I may at any time possess of this world's good, it might be consecrated to God | The Lord ever preserve me from the mean vice of covetousness! “Of late my thoughts have turned upon another marriage—that passage which has been with me in all my principal concerns through life—“In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths’—has recurred again. I have found much of the hand of God in this concern. - “Oct. 27.-Of late I have been greatly employed in journeying and preaching, and endeavouring to collect for the East India Mission. I find a frequent removal from place to place, though good for my health, not good for my soul. I feel weary of jour- neys on account of their interfering so much with my work at home. I long to visit my congregation, that I may know more of their spiritual concerns, and be able to preach to their cases. “I devote this day to fasting and prayer on ac- count of my expected marriage, to entreat the bless- ing of God upon me and upon her that may be con- nected with me, and upon all that pertains to us.” On the 30th Dec., 1794, Mr. Fuller married Ann, only daughter of the late Rev. W. Coles, pas- tor of the Baptist Church at Maulden, near Ampthill, on which occasion he thus writes:— “This day I was married; and this day will probably stamp my future life with either increasing happiness or misery. My hopes rise high of the former; but my times and those of my dear com- panion are in the Lord's hand. I feel a satisfaction that in her I have a godly character as well as a I bless God for the prospect I have of an increase of happiness. It is no small satisfac- tion that every one of our relations was agreeable ; that there are no prejudices to afford ground for future jealousies. Two days after our marriage we invited about a dozen of our serious friends to drink tea and spend the evening in prayer.” About this period an incident occurred which introduced Mr. Fuller into one of the pulpits of the Establishment, and which he thus describes in a letter to Dr. Ryland:— “Oct. 26, 1796. “The report of my preaching in Braybrook church is true; but that of the clergyman, or my- self, having suffered any inconvenience, is not so; nor have I any apprehensions on that score. The fact was thus: Mr. Broughton, of Braybrook Lodge, lx MEMOIRS OF MER, FULLER. had a son, about twenty years of age, who died. The young man's desire was that I should preach a funeral sermon at his interment, from Jer. xxxi. 18–20. Mr. Ayre, the Baptist minister, came to me the day before his burial, to inform me. I said to him, ‘And where are we to be 2 the meeting- house will not hold half the people.’ He said, he did not know. “I do not know,” said I, ‘where we can be, unless they would lend us the church.” This I said merely in pleasantry, and without the most distant idea of asking for it. Mr. A., how- ever, went home, and told the young man's father what I had said. “I will go,' said he, “and ask the clergyman.’ He went. “I have no objection,” said the old man, (who is a good-tempered man, but lies under no suspicion of either evangelical senti- ments or of being righteous over-much,) “if it could be done with safety; but I reckon it would be un- safe.” Mr. B. took this for an answer in the nega- tive. But, the same day, the old clergyman rode over to Harborough, and inquired, I suppose, of some attorney. He was told no ill consequences would follow towards him : if any, they would fall upon ne. He then came back, and, just before the fu- neral, told Mr. B, what he had learned, adding, “I do not wish Mr. F. to injure himself; but, if he choose to run the hazard, he is welcome to the church.” Mr. B. told me this. We then carried the corpse up to the church, and the old man went through the service out of doors. It was nearly dark, very cold and damp; and about five hundred or six hundred were gathered together. The meet- ing-house would not hold above one hundred, and I should have taken a great cold to have been abroad. I did not believe the attorney's opinion, that they could hurt me, unless it were through the clergy- man. I, therefore, went up to him, thanked him for his offer, and accepted it. He staid to hear me; and I can truly say, I aimed and longed for his salvation. After sermon he shook hands with me before all the people; saying, ‘Thank you, sir, for your serious pathetic discourse : I hope no ill con- sequences will befall either thee or me.' Next day I rode with him some miles on my way home. “I like charity,” said he ; ‘Christians should be cha- ritable to one another.' I have heard nothing since, and expect to hear no more about it.” coadjutors in the mission, it may with truth be af. firmed, that the increasing weight of the Society's concerns mainly devolved on Mr. Fuller, whose * The venerable clergyman was however summoned before his superior, and interrogated. “Did he pray for the king 2* —“Yes, very fervently.”—“And what did he preach about 7” —“The common salvation.” admonition not to repeat the offence. gratuitous services, on its behalf, engrossed the greater part of his time for about twenty years. Much of this was spent in journeys to Scotland, Ireland, Wales, and various parts of England, where he used, as he says, to “tell the mission tale,” and leave the results. These, in most cases, far ex- ceeded his anticipations; which, though never san- guine, were equally removed from despondency. “Only let us have faith,” said he, “ and we shall not want money.” In addressing a congregation he has sometimes expressed himself to this effect: —“If I only wished for your money, I might say, ‘Give, whatever be your motive l’ No; I am not so concerned for the salvation of the heathen as to be regardless of that of my own countrymen I ask not a penny from such a motive; and, more- over, I solemnly warn you, that if you give all your substance in this way, it will avail you nothing.” He was not, however, always successful; and some of the less frequented streets of the metropolis af. forded him a temporary asylum, in which his tears bore witness to the lamentable coldness of religious professors. There was at that time little or no precedent for the management of the affairs of such institutions, nor had Mr. Fuller any predilection for that busi- ness-like apparatus which the more extended con- cerns of the Society at length imperatively demand- ed, and for the want of which they suffered during the latter part of his life. Besides his utter repug- nance to that parade which has in too many in- stances been made an appendage to the business of religious institutions, he entertained serious objec- tions of another kind. “Friends,” said he, “talk to me about coadjutors and assistants, but, I know not how it is, I find a difficulty. Our undertaking to India really appeared to me, on its commence- ment, to be somewhat like a few men, who were de- liberating about the importance of penetrating into a deep mine, which had never before been explored. We had no one to guide us; and, while we were thus deliberating, Carey, as it were, said, ‘Well, I will go down if you will hold the rope.” But, be- fore he went down, he, as it seemed to me, took an oath from each of us at the mouth of the pit to this effect, that while rve lived we should never let go the rope. You understand me. There was great re- sponsibility attached to us who began the business.” Without any disparagement of the labours of his various parts of the empire and the management of the accounts, the correspondence of the Society in- creased rapidly on his hands. In addition to the numerous collections made in To him was chiefly Here the matter ended, with an FIRST JOURNEY TO SCOTLAND. lxi committed the drawing up of official letters to the Haldane, Innes, Ewing, and the venerable David missionaries, all of whom received additional tokens of his affection in private communications. The interests of the institution demanded a still more extensive correspondence at home: its cause re- quired a frequent advocacy with cabinet ministers, members of parliament, and East India directors; not for the purpose of procuring exclusive privileges, but for securing a legal passage for the missionaries, and the protection justly due to every peaceable sub- ject of the colonial governments. Nor were there wanting bitter and subtle enemies both at home and abroad, who left no means untried to accomplish the ruin of the mission, and whose machinations were successively exposed and defeated by the un- wearied pen of the secretary. The labours connected with the immediate object of his journeys were probably exceeded by those to which they incidentally gave rise. This was espe- cially the case in Scotland and Ireland, where, not to mention the frequent appeals to his judgment in cases of ecclesiastical discipline by those of his own connexion, he was led into tedious controversies, chiefly originating in certain views of faith at vari- ance with the sentiments maintained in his first polemical treatise, and to which their advocates at- tached an importance that led to constant discussion in the parlour, in the pulpit, and from the press. The first of these journeys into the north was un- dertaken in 1799, at the pressing solicitation of some highly respectable individuals in Edinburgh and Glasgow, who had taken a deep interest in the proceedings of the mission, and by whom Mr. Fuller was much esteemed on account of his pub- lications, particularly that on Socinianism. In an- ticipation of this visit is the following entry in his diary:— “Oct. 2, 1799. I am going out for a month altogether among faces which I have never seen. My spirits revolt at the idea, but duty calls. I go to make collections for the translation of the Scrip- tures into Bengalee. “I am subject to many faults in company, and often incur guilt. The Lord keep me in the way I go, and enable me to keep my heart with all dili- gence. Oh that I may be spiritual, humble, and watchful in all companies 1 May the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ prosper my way. May the God of Israel preserve my family, friends, and connexions, during my absence.” His reception was truly generous and gratifying, and conveyed to his mind a high idea of the intelli- gence and principle of his northern friends. He particularly mentions in his journal interviews with Dr. Stuart, Mr. M'Lean, Dr. Erskine, Messrs. * Dale. It was at Glasgow that he received the mournful tidings of the death of his “beloved Pearce.” “O Jonathan,” he exclaims, “very pleasant hast thou been to me. I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan 1 O Jonathan, thou wast slain upon thy high places !” He describes the congregations at Edinburgh and Glasgow as exceedingly large. “My heart was dismayed at the sight, especially on a Lord’s-day evening. Nearly 5000 people attended, and some thousands went away unable to get in.” He re- turned after collecting upwards of £900, and preach- ing nearly every evening during his journey. To Mr. Fuller was assigned the melancholy task of furnishing the public with memoirs of the excellent Pearce, of which invaluable piece of biography it was remarked by the late Sir H. Blossett, chief justice of Bengal, that he scarcely knew which most to admire—the lovely character of Mr. Pearce, or the happy talent displayed by Mr. Fuller in sketch- ing it. The overwhelming pressure of this and numerous other avocations is thus described in his reply to the solicitations of the editor of a periodical work:—“My labours will increase without any con- sent on my part. As to magazines, there are se- veral to which I contribute, for the sake of the mis- sion and other public interests, and, through such a number of objects as press upon me daily, my own vineyard, my own soul, my family, and congregation, are neglected. Every journey I take only makes way for two or three more; and every book I write only occasions me to write others to explain or de- fend it. “All is vanity and vexation of spirit !” “I gave my heart to know wisdom; I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit. For in much wisdom is much grief; and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.’ Some are pressing me to write more largely on the mediation of Christ, and others to review the second edition of Mr. Booth's Glad Tidings. Controversies perplex me; and I am already engaged with a gross and subtle sophist.* My northern correspondents are ever raising ob- jections against my views of faith, &c.; all of which I could answer, but cannot get time. I have sent your remarks to my friend at Edinburgh; they will serve as a tub for the whale to play with, and per- haps for a time he will let me alone. “Pearce's memoirs are now loudly called for.— I sit down almost in despair and say, ‘That which is crooked cannot be made straight, and that which is lacking cannot be numbered.’ My wife looks at * Mr. Fuller was at that time engaged in the universalist, as well as other controversies. lxii MEMOIRS OF ME, FULLER. me, with a tear ready to drop, and says, “My dear, you have hardly time to speak to me.’ My friends at home are kind, but they also say, ‘You have no time to see or know us, and you will soon be worn out.” Amidst all this, there is ‘Come again to Scotland—come to Portsmouth—come to Plymouth —come to Bristol.” “Excuse this effusion of melancholy. My heart is willing to do every thing you desire that I can do, but my hands fail me. Dear brother Ryland complains of old age coming upon him, and I ex- pect old age will come upon me before I am really old. Under this complicated load my heart has often of late groaned for rest, longing to finish my days in comparative retirement.” It has not unfrequently been the lot of men the most eminently pious to be tried with miscon- duct in their families. In this respect the case of Mr. Fuller, though in some of its details much more afflictive than that of his excellent friend Legh Richmond, in others strongly resembled it. Each lamented over the supposed loss of his first- born under most distressing circumstances, yet to both of them God was gracious, enabling them to say, “This my son was dead and is alive again, was lost and is found,” and giving them cheering hope in the end. On no point has the writer of these memoirs felt such painful hesitation as in determining relative to the presentation of the following records. Desirous on the one hand of avoiding any exposure of the faults of so near a relative, and, on the other, of ex- hibiting every circumstance strikingly eliciting the virtues of his revered parent, he would have suffered the former feeling to predominate, had not the de- tails of the unhappy event already been given to the public. It is due, however, to the character of the departed youth, to remove an impression, too gener- ally conceived, that he possessed an inveterate pro- pensity to vicious and abandoned courses. This was not the case; his disposition was in many re- spects amiable, and amid all his wanderings, which arose from a restless instability of character, it does not appear that he abandoned himself to any of those grosser vices incident to a naval and military life. In May, 1796, a respectable situation was pro- cured for him in London, which circumstance, with its result, is thus noticed in Mr. Fuller's diary:— “May 12. This day, my eldest son is gone to London, upon trial at a warehouse belonging to Mr. B. My heart has been much exercised about him. The child is sober and tender in his spirit; I find, too, he prays in private ; but whether he be really godly I know not. Sometimes he has expressed a desire after the ministry, but I always considered that as arising from the want of knowing himself. About a year and a half ago, I felt a very affecting time in pleading with God on his behalf. Nothing appeared to me so desirable for him as that he might be a servant of God. I felt my heart much drawn out to devote him to the Lord, in whatever way he might employ him. Since that time, as he became of age for business, my thoughts have been much engaged on his behalf. As to giving him any idea of his ever being engaged in the ministry, it is what I carefully shun; and whether he ever will be is altogether uncertain; I know not whether he be a real Christian as yet, or, if he be, whether he will possess those qualifications which are requisite for that work; but this I have done, I have mentioned the exercises of my mind to Mr. B., who is a godly man, and if at any future time within the next five or six years he should appear a proper object of encouragement for that work, he will readily give him up. “I felt very tenderly last night and this morning in prayer. I cannot say, ‘God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk; ” but I can say, ‘God who hath fed me all my life long unto this day, the Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lad.” “July. I perceive I have great unhappiness be- fore me in my son, whose instability is continually appearing ; he must leave London, and what to do with him I know not. I was lately earnestly engaged in prayer for him that he might be renewed in his spirit, and be the Lord's ; and these words occurred to my mind—" Hear my prayer, O Lord, that goeth not forth out of feigned lips;’ and I prayed them over many times.” Other situations were successively procured, but in none of them could he feel satisfied to remain. In a letter to a friend about this time, his father thus expresses himself:— º “My heart is almost broken. Let nothing that I said grieve you ; but make allowance for your afflicted and distressed friend. When I lie down, a load almost insupportable depresses me. Mine eyes are kept waking, or if I get a little sleep it is disturbed ; and as soon as I awake my load re- turns upon me. C Lord. I know not what to do ; but mine eyes are up unto thee. Keep me, O my God, from sinful despondency. Thou hast promised that all things shall work together for good to them that love thee; fulfil thy promise, on which thou hast caused thy servant to hope. O my God, this child which thou hast given me in charge is wicked before thee, and is disobedient to me, and is plunging • = ** * TROUBLE RELATIVE TO HIS ELL) EST SON. lxiii himself into ruin. Have mercy upon him, O Lord, and preserve him from evil. Bring him home to me, and not to me only, but also to thyself. “If I see the children of other people it aggra- vates my sorrow. Those who have had no instruc- tion, no pious example, no warnings or counsels, are often seen to be steady and trusty; but my child, who has had all these advantages, is worthy of no trust to be placed in him. I am afraid he will go into the army, that sink of immorality; or, if not, that being reduced to extremity he will be tempted to steal. And oh, if he should get such a habit, what may not these weeping eyes witness, or this broken heart be called to endure | O my God, whither will my fears lead me? Have mercy upon me, a poor unhappy parent : have mercy upon him, a poor ungodly child.” The former of these fears was realized ; in 1798 he entered into the army, on which occasion his father thus writes to Dr. Ryland:— “I have indeed had a sore trial in the affair you mention; but I do not recollect any trial of my life in which I had more of a spirit of prayer, and con- fidence in God. Many parts of Scripture were precious, particularly the following:—“O Lord, I know not what to do ; but mine eyes are up unto thee.—C Lord, I am oppressed, undertake for me. —Commit thy way unto the Lord, and he shall bring it to pass.-Cast thy burden on the Lord, and he shall sustain thee.—All things work together for good,’ &c. Even while I knew not where he was, I felt stayed on the Lord, and some degree of cheer- ful satisfaction that things would end well. I know not what is before me; but hitherto the Lord hath helped me; and still I feel resolved to hope in his mercy.” His discharge from the army was obtained on the ground of his being an apprentice, but he subse- quently enlisted in the marines, soon after which he appeared sensible of his folly. The influence of early religious education was felt. Shocked at the heathenism of his present situation, and calling to remembrance the peaceful sabbaths and pious in- structions of home, he addressed his father, earnestly entreating him to use efforts for his liberation. This appeal to the piety and affection of a Christian parent was promptly responded to. His father's heart went forth to meet him, and he was once more re- stored to the bosom of his family. Notwithstanding the influence of his mother-in- law, to whom as well as to every other branch of the family he was fondly attached, a dislike to busi- ness, increased by habits recently contracted, once more induced his departure. “The sorrows of my heart,” says his father, “have € been increased, at different times, to a degree almost insupportable; yet I have hoped in God, and do still hope that I shall see mercy for him in the end. The Lord knows that I have not sought great things for him, and that I have been more concerned for the rvicked course he was following than on account of the meanness of his taste. Oh may the Lord bring me out of this horrible pit, and put a new song in my mouth ! “My heart is oppressed; but yet I am supported. Yesterday I fasted and prayed the day through. Many scriptures were sweet to me; particularly Matt. xv. 25—‘Lord, help me !’—a petition in which a parent was heard for a child, after repeated repulses. And Psal. xxxiii. 22. I believe I shall live to see good, in some way, come out of it. My soul is at rest in God.” Finding that he was bent on a seafaring life, his father procured him a comfortable situation on board a merchant ship, apparently much to his satisfaction. The hopes which this new arrangement raised in the minds of his friends were, however, suddenly destroyed, before he could join his ship, by the operation of the savage laws of impressment. Thus, against his inclination, he found himself once more on board a man-of-war, in the capacity of a common sailor. In a few months an account was received by his friends of his having been tried for desertion, and sentenced to a most severe punishment, after the infliction of which he immediately expired “Oh !” says his agonized parent, “this is heart- trouble / In former cases, my sorrows found vent in tears; but now I can seldom weep. A kind of morbid heart-sickness preys upon me from day to day. Every object around me reminds me of him he was wicked; and mine eye was not over him to prevent it. . . . he was detected, and tried, and condemned ; and I knew it not . . . . he cried under his agonies; but I heard him not . . . . he expired, without an eye to pity or a hand to help O Absalom my son my son I would God I had died for thee, my son “Yet, O my soul! let me rather think of Aaron than of David. He “held his peace’ in a more trying case than mine. His sons were both slain, and slain by the nºrath of Heaven ; were probably ântoaxicated at the time: and all this suddenly, without any thing to prepare the mind for such a trial Well did he say, ‘Such things have befallen me.’” A few days brought the joyful intelligence that the report was an entire fabrication. “Blessed be God,” says his father, “I find the above report is unfounded ! I have received a letter from my poor lxiv MEMOIRS OF MR, FULLER. boy. Well, he is yet alive, and within the reach of mercy.” Other and painful vicissitudes befell this unhappy young man, whose last station was among the ma- rines, with whom he went on a voyage to Brazil. On his return, he addressed his father in the most pathetic terms, entreating one more written testi- mony of his forgiveness, urging that he was on the point of sailing for Lisbon, “whence,” says he, “I may never return.” This was answered by an affecting epistle, of which the following extracts are all that can be found:— “MY DEAR Rob ERT, “I received with pleasure your dutiful letter, and would fain consider it as a symptom of a re- turning mind. I cannot but consider you as having been long under a sort of mental derangement, piercing yourself through, as well as me, with many sorrows. My prayer for you continually is, that the God of all grace and mercy may have mercy upon you. You may be assured that I cherish no animosity against you. On the contrary, I do, from my heart, freely forgive you. But that which I long to see in you is repentance towards God and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ, without which there is no forgiveness from above. “My dear son | you had advantages in early life; but, being continually in profligate company, you must be debased in mind, and, in a manner, reduced to a state of heathenism. In some of your letters, I have observed your dashing, as it were, against the rocks of fatalism; suggesting as if you thought you were appointed to such a course of life. In others I find you flattering yourself that you are a penitent; when, perhaps, all the penitence you ever felt has been the occasional melancholy of re- morse and fear. “My dear son I am now nearly fifty-five years old, and may soon expect to go the way of all the earth! But, before I die, let me teach you the good and the right way. “Hear the instructions of a father.’ You have had a large portion of God's preserving goodness, or you had, ere now, perished in your sins. Think of this, and give thanks to the Father of mercies, who has hitherto preserved you. Think, too, how you have requited him, and be ashamed for all that you have done. Nevertheless, do not despair! Far as you have gone, and low as you are sunk in sin, yet if hence you return to God, by Jesus Christ, you will find mercy. Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners, even the chief of sinners. If you had been ever so sober and steady in your behaviour towards men, yet, without repentance towards God and faith in Christ, you could not have been saved; and if you return to God by him, though your sins be great and ag- gravated, yet will you find mercy . . . . . . . . . . . This affecting narrative cannot be better con- cluded than in the words of the late Dr. Ryland:— “As this poor young man foreboded, this rvas his last voyage. He died off Lisbon, in March, 1809, after a lingering illness, in which he had every at- tention paid him of which his situation would admit. “From the testimony of his captain, and one of his messmates, we learn that his conduct was good, and such as to procure him much respect; and, from letters addressed to his father and his sister, a short time before his death, we hope still better things; we hope he was led to see the error of his way, and to make the Lord his refuge from the tempest and the storm. “His death, under such circumstances, was less painful to his friends than it would otherwise have been ; and, in a sermon preached the Lord's day after the intelligence was received, in allusion to this event, from Rom. x. 8, 9, his father seemed to take comfort from three ideas; that, “ 1. The doc- trine of free justification by the death of Christ is suited to sinners of all degrees. It asks not how long, nor how often, nor how greatly we have sin- ned; if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins. 2. It is suited to the helpless condition of sinners. We have only to look and live. 3. It is suited to sinners in the last eactremity. It answers to the promised mercy in Deut. iv. 29—IF FROM THENCE thow seek the Lord thy God, thou shalt find him. Some are far from home, and have no friend, in their dying moments, to speak a word of comfort . . . . but this is near ! When Jonah was compassed about by the floods, when the billows and waves passed over him, he prayed to the Lord, and the Lord heard him.’.... “Here he was obliged to pause, and give vent to his feelings by weeping ; and many of the con- gregation, who knew the cause, wept with him His heart was full, and it was with difficulty he could conclude, with solemnly charging the sinner to apply for mercy ere it was too late; for if it were rejected, its having been so near, and so easy of access, would be a swift witness against him.” But to return. It was in the midst of these afflictions and overwhelming engagements that Mr. Fuller, in the year 1800, produced his celebrated treatise in defence of the Christian religion, under the title of “The Gospel its own Witness, or the Holy Nature and Divine Harmony of the Christian SECOND JOURNEY TO SCOTLAND. lxv Religion, contrasted with the Immorality and Ab- surdity of Deism.” JHe was at the same time engaged in writing a succession of letters on the subject of universal salvation, the first of which consisted of a private remonstrance, written in 1793, to an individual, once resident in his own family, who had embraced the views above mentioned. After a lapse of four years, some reply to this letter was made in a pe- riodical work, of which the person to whom it was addressed was the editor, the letter having been in the mean time inserted in the Evangelical Magazine, under a private signature. The series of letters which followed were published in 1802. In 1801 Mr. Fuller published his small but va- luable work entitled “The Backslider,” which was soon followed by another on “Spiritual Pride.” In reference to these, he thus writes to Dr. Ryland:— “A respected friend has repeatedly pressed me to write a treatise on ‘Spiritual Pride,” on the same plan as “The Backslider.' I have thought somewhat on the subject, and begun writing. This would tend to detect that subtle spirit which is I am persuaded fostered by Sandemanianism—‘Stand by thyself, for I am holier than thou.’ But I feel myself much more capable of depicting Antinomian pride than the other. For this purpose I have procured Hunt- ington's works. But in reading them I am stopped for a time. I have eight or nine volumes I never read any thing more void of true religion. I do not intend to name him or his works, or those of any other person, but merely to draw pictures, and let the reader judge who they are like.” His allusion to Sandemanianism is thus illustrated in another letter to the Doctor:— Sept. 9, 1801. “I had a letter about a week ago from one of the Scotch Baptists about order, discipline, &c. Ill as I was, I scratched out the following parable. Dr. Stuart” saw it, and he was so much amused with it that he must needs copy it. “In one of the new Italian republics, two independent companies are formed for the defence of the country. Call the one 4. and the other B. In forming themselves, and learning their exercise, they each profess to follow the mode of discipline used by the ancient Romans. Their officers, uniforms, and evolutions, however, are after all somewhat different from each other. Hence disputes arise, and B. refuses to march against the enemy with 4. as being disorderly. A. gives his reasons why he thinks himself orderly; * This gentleman, a physician of considerable practice in Edinburgh, was induced by his friendship for Mr. Fuller to visit him during his affliction. but they are far from satisfying B., who not only treats him as deviating from rule, but as almost knowing himself to do so, and wilfully persisting in it. A., tired of jarring, marches against the enemy by himself. B. sits at home deeply engaged in stu- dying order and discipline. “If your form and rules,” says 4., “are so preferable to ours, why do you not make use of them 2 Discipline is a means, not an end. Be not always boasting of your order, and reproaching others for the want of it; let us see the use of it. It is true, like the Quakers in 1745, you have bought waistcoats for our soldiers, and we thank you for them; but we had rather you would fight yourselves.’” Notwithstanding the difference of views between Mr. Fuller and some of his northern friends, who were tinctured with some of Mr. Sandeman's pecu- liarities, he accepted a pressing invitation to revisit Scotland in 1802. A journal of this excursion is preserved in letters to Mrs. Fuller, from which the following are ex- tracts:— “Barton on the Humber, Aug. 25. “At ten we arrived here. My sleep having been regular, I was not weary, and am now very well. With tenderness and earnest solicitude, I have im- portuned preserving mercy for my dear family, and that I may visit it in due time, and not sin. “I begin to feel awkward, having reduced my four guineas to four shillings; I am afraid I should. be in the situation of a number of small ships here- abouts, at low tide—run aground ! I am thinking whether I must not take a walk before dinner, in- stead of having one ! If I could but get over the water, I should do. º “26.—I was detained last night till half-past six, and so strong a westerly wind blew that it was thought the hoy or daily passage-boat could not have come out, in which case I must have staid longer still. It did come, however, but a num- ber of the passengers were sick through our being tossed about. There were nearly sixty of us on board, and we arrived safely at Hull about half-past seven. It was a fine sight to see the waves, each as large as the roof of a small house, continually beat- ing against our vessel, while she rode triumphantly above them all. I felt no sickness, but stood above deck, having hold of a rope with my hand, and gazed all the time with a kind of sublime pleasure at the majestic scene. I had eleven-pence in my pocket when I came to the house last night. I am to spend my sabbath in the two Baptist churches. I have hitherto been mercifully preserved in all re- spects. My mind is peaceful and happy; and my e 2 lxvi MEMOIRS OF MIR. FULLER. approaches to a throne of grace, at which I do not forget you all, have been free and tender.” “York, Aug. 31, “Arrived here last night at nine o'clock. De- termined to stop a day here and try what I could do among the serious Church people. Dissenters there are none, except a few Socinian Baptists. Went immediately to the house of Hepworth and Crosby, who have for some time been subscribers to our mission. Met with a kind reception. Supped there with Mr. Overton, the author of ‘The True Churchman,’ who is a clergyman of this city. Much mutual pleasure. I am here well known by the evangelical clergy, of whom there are three, if not more: Richardson, Graham, and Overton. Among other things in our conversation, were the follow- ing : O. “In the course of my work I have said some things which some Dissenters have thought severe.”—F. “I suppose you mean in calling them schismatics.”—O. ‘Yes, in part.”—F. ‘I never felt it; for it did not appear to be aimed to hurt us, but merely to screen yourselves in the view of your bishops from the suspicion of favouring us.” He admitted this a fair construction. I added, ‘It did not hurt me, because I perceived no justice in it. The term schism is relative, and has reference to the society from which separation is made. Before you can fix the guilt of schism upon us, you must prove —1. That the Church of England is a true church. Yea, more. 2. That it is the only true church in this kingdom.’ He did not go about it, and we were very sociable till eleven o’clock, when I went to bed at Mr. Hepworth's. “This morning, when I have breakfasted, I shall call on Old Mr. JRichardson, who is here a man of weight and renown. Mr. Overton asked me if I had seen the account of the York Baptists.—F. ‘Yes; I have it.”— O. “And Mr. Graham's an- swer ?’—F. “I have read that also.”—O. “What do you think of it?'—F. “I think he has answered them in some things, but not in all.’ I had once written a private letter to Mr. G., pointing out some things wherein I conceived he was wrong; but I destroyed it, lest it should involve me in more work and more correspondence than I knew how to dis- charge. I presently found that those things in which I had thought G. in the wrong were so con- sidered by O. * “At Hull I visited two evangelical clergymen, who very readily contributed to our case, and se- veral of their people followed their example. I had one if not both of them for hearers on Friday evening. Their names are Dykes and Scott : the latter is the son of Mr. Scott of the Lock. “I cannot help mentioning the singular kindness I received from a Mr. Kidd, an Independent minis- ter of Cottingham, four or five miles from Hull. He not only walked over on Friday to see and hear me, and stopped all night for an evening's convers- ation, but came again with some of his friends on the Lord’s-day evening, and, unsolicited, brought with him £4 15s. He is a modest, intelligent man. “Tuesday night. I have collected about £12 12s. in York. Have had a great deal of Mr. Over- ton's company; also of Mr. Richardson's and Mr. Graham's ; and, what is surprising, was informed by Mr. Overton in the afternoon that a little Baptist church had lately been formed here. He told me this, as supposing I should like to call upon some of them. I thanked him, and soon after went in search of them. I found the principal persons, and they would have been very glad of a sermon this evening if they had known in time. I gave them all the good counsel I could, prayed with them, and then returned to the company of Messrs. Over- ton, Graham, &c., with whom I have enjoyed much free and friendly conversation. They cheerfully went round with me to their friends for a few guineas, and also subscribed themselves.” In a subsequent letter, Mr. Fuller details a con- versation at the dinner table with the three clergy. men above mentioned. “Mr. Richardson, after saying many friendly and respectful things, added in a tone of familiarity, ‘I had almost thrown your Gospel its onwn Witness aside, owing to what you said against establishments in the Preface.”—F. “Why, sir, could you not have construed it as the British Critic has 2’—R. “How is that?”—F. “I think they say to this effect: The author protests against establishments of Christian- ity for political purposes; but as ours assuredly is not for such ends, he cannot mean that ; and, therefore, we recommend it to our readers.—Both replied, “We apprehend they construed you more favourably than you deserved.”—F. “Well; it seems then I should have put it at the end instead of the beginning of the book.”—R. “I see you do not approve of establishments.’—F. “I do not, sir.’ —R. “Well; I am persuaded we are greatly in- debted to ours.”—F. “The friends of Christ would be such without it.”—R. “True ; but the enemies would not be kept in such decency.’—F. “I was riding last night from Hull to York, with a drunken sea-officer; passing through Beverly, he pointed to the cathedral and said, “That is our relision . . . . we are all for relision /’—O. ‘Ah! that was honey to you.”—F. “I felt for the poor man.’—O. “You think hard of Bishop Horsley?'—F. “I do.’—‘O. SECOND JOURNEY TO SCOTLAND. lxvii ‘I think his remarks about Sunday schools have been made too much of; he does not condemn the institution, but the abuse of it.”—F. “He represents village preaching as a political measure, and as pursued, under the newly assumed garb of zeal and spirituality, by the same men as formerly cried up rationality; which is absolutely false.”—R. “He had heard some things of Dissenters.”—F. ‘Yes; and I have heard some things of Yorkshiremen.’— O. “What, that they are bites ?'—F. “Well; you would not be willing I should condemn you all on hearsay?'—R. “He is a man of a bad temper.’— I'. “I have heard that he is, after all, an infidel: I do not know how true that may be ; but he is a violent man, and full of misrepresentation.”—R. “What he has said of the body of the Dissenters being turned from Calvinism is true of the old Dissenters: those that you now call the body of your people have come from the Church.”—F. “That may be true, in part, especially respecting the Presby- terians, but not of the Independents or Baptists; and we can account for the decline of Presbyterian- ism in England, on the ground of their Paedobap- tism.’—[All laughed, as though they should say, ‘Bravo! How is that ??]—F. ‘The old orthodox English Presbyterians made so much of their seed, and the dedication of them to God, as they called it, by baptism, that; preszzming on their conversion, they sent them to seminaries of learning, to be ministers, before they were Christians; and as they grew up, being destitute of any principle of re- ligion, they turned aside to any thing rather than the gospel. The effect of this was, some of the people, especially the young and graceless, followed them; the rest have become Independents or Bap- tists.”—R. “All your old places that were opened at the Revolution are now Socinianized.”—F. “The Presbyterian places are mostly so; but we do not mind the places being Socinian, so long as the people have left them. As to the body of our people coming from the Church, it is little more than fifty years since the Church was almost destitute of serious ministers and people; yet there were, at that time, perhaps, nearly as many serious Dissenters as now.’ “CONVERSATION on DocTRINE. “R. “There are different shades of Calvinism, I suppose, amongst you?'—F. “Yes; there are three by which we commonly describe; namely, the high, the moderate, and the strict Calvinists. The first are, if I may so speak, more Calvinistic than Calvin himself; in other words, bordering on Antinomianism.”—R. “Have you many of these ?' -F. ‘Too many.’—O. “Do they not reckon you a legal preacher?"—F. ‘Yes; at this very time I am represented, throughout the religious circles of London, as an Arminian.”—R. ‘ On what ground 2’ —F. “What I have written in a note in the Gospel Žts own Witness.”—R. “I remember that note. We all approve of it, and think it agrees with the doctrine held by our Church. But what do you call a moderate Calvinist?”—F. ‘ One that is a half Arminian, or, as they are called with us, Baxterians.” —R. “And what a strict Calvinist 2’—F. ‘ One that really holds the system of Calvin. I do not believe every thing that Calvin taught, nor any thing because he taught it ; but I reckon strict Calvinism to be my own system.’” “Glasgow, Sept. 19. “The pastor of a church which professes to be in fellowship with the English Baptists brought a message from them, that they would be glad to hear my faith, and, if it accorded with theirs, to have me preach, and join them at the Lord's supper. I told him, he had sent their faith to me, and I ap- proved of it : but I should make no other confession of faith than that ; that I did not come to Glasgow as a candidate for their pulpit, and it was indifferent to me whether I occupied it. I said, I had no ob- jection to answer him any question he thought proper to ask me as a Christian; but I had no notion of being interrogated as a condition of preach ing, &c. At nearly eleven, a deacon came with their decision, that, if I would not make a confes- sion, they could not admit me. ‘Very well, then I shall go to the Tabernacle, and consider your conduct as a renunciation of connexion with us, as English churches; for it implies you have no con- fidence in us.” He said, it was all owing to two or three, and that the church in general wished it to be otherwise. I heard at Tabernacle, in the morn- ing, notice was given that I should preach in the afternoon and evening. The Baptists repented; but it was too late. I preached in the afternoon to 4000 people; in the evening to nearly 5000. Col. lected £200.” “Liverpool, Sept. 25. “I have just arrived here, and found yours, after a long and tedious journey of 225 miles; in which I put off my clothes only for two hours since Thurs- day morning. “On Monday, Sept. 20, I was seized at Glasgow with violent sickness and vomiting of bile, and kept my bed till three in the afternoon. While in bed, I was visited by Mr. L. and the deacons of the Bap- tist church. I learnt that the refusal of their pulpit was against the will of the church, except two mem- lxviii MEMOIRS OF MR. FULLER. bers; that the church at P., with which they are in connexion, had sent deputies to oppose my being admitted to preach and commune with them; and these, with the two members, carried their point: but, on Lord’s-day noon, the church were so hurt at my being refused, that they resolved to invite me. The two deacons were deputed to request that I would look over the affair of Lord's day, and consider them as one with us. Accordingly I preached there in the evening, and collected £45, after about £200 had been collected, on Lord's day, at the Tabernacle. Tuesday morning set off in a chaise for Greenock; preached, and collected £33. Wednesday returned, and preached at Paisley; have not yet received their collection, but suppose it may be about £40. I found myself getting better daily, though travelling and preaching. “On Thursday morning, I met with all the mem- bers of the Baptist church, who appear to be a sim- ple-hearted people, and regret my not preaching and communing with them. They wished for a connex- ion with the English churches. I told them that the distance was such that our connexion could answer but few ends. We might, once in a while, hear from each other, might pray for one another, and, if the minister or members of either came to the other, they might be admitted to communion ; but that was all. They assented to this. I then told them that I had heard of the Baptists in Scot- land being negligent of free preaching to the uncon- verted, and of family religion. Whether this charge was true, or not, I could not tell; but I earnestly exhorted them to make it evidently appear that they were far more anxious that those around them should become Christians than that they should embrace our opinion as to baptism: if sinners were converted to God among them, and made Christians, they would probably be Baptists also, of their own accord; but I reminded them that, if family religion was neglected, Paedobaptists would be furnished with the most weighty objection against our sentiments as Baptists. They seemed to receive what I said in love, and to approve of it. I prayed with them, and so we parted. - “Thursday noon, Sept. 23.−Being disappointed of a place in the mail, I ordered a post-chaise, and advertised for a partner to Liverpool. A Jew wanted to go thither, and we took a post-chaise to- gether. He proved an intelligent, but rather pro- fane man. We had much talk on Christianity, and sometimes I thought him somewhat impressed. We had scarcely got out of Glasgow before he ob- served something of the dissatisfaction we found in all our enjoyments. I acquiesced, and suggested that there must be some defect in the object, and thence inferred a future state. He did not seem free to pursue the subject; but said, ‘I am a Jew, and I consider you as a Christian divine; I wish to do every thing to accommodate you during the jour- ney.’ I thanked him, and said I wished to do the same towards him in return. I presently found, however, that he was a Sadducee, holding with only the Five Books of Moses, and those very loose- ly; suggesting of Moses, that though he was a great and good man in his day, yet, it was his opinion, there had been much more learned men since. He also began “accommodating' me with curses and oaths on the most trifling occasions. Finding I had a compound of infidelity and profliga- cy to contend with, and about a fifty-hours' journey before me, in which I should be cooped up with him night and day, I did not oppose him much at first ; but let him go on, waiting for fit occasions. I asked for a proof of Moses's ignorance.—Jemy. ‘He spoke of the earth as stationary, and the sun as rising and setting.’—Fuller. “And do not those that you call learned men speak the same in their ordinary conversation ?'—J. “To be sure they do.’ —F. “They could not be understood, nor under- stand themselves, could they, if they were to speak of the earth's rising and setting ?'—J. “True.” After a while, he praised the ten commandments. I acquiesced, and added, ‘I have been not a little hurt, sir, in observing, since we have been together, how lightly you treat one of them, Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain /’— J. “I must own that is a bad habit : I have been told of it before.” We had no more swearing. “He talked, after this, of the merit of good works, and told me, at my request, much about their worship and ceremonies; particularly their great day of atonement, which he said was very impressive.—F. “Do you offer sacrifices 2 –J. No ; not since the destruction of the temple; ex- cept it be a fowl or so, just as a representation of what has been.’—F. “And do you really think that the blood of any animal, or any of those ceremonies, can take away sin 2’—J. “If you deny that, you deny the laws of Moses.”—F. “No ; the sacrifices of Moses were not designed to take away sin, but to prefigure a greater sacrifice.’ He paused . . . . . I added, ‘Sir, you are a sinner, and I am a sinner; we must both shortly appear before God. I know not upon what you rest your hopes. You have talked of human merit. I have nothing of the kind on which to place my trust. I believe we have all merited the displeasure of our Creator, and, if dealt with according to our deserts, must perish for ever. Sir, if our sins be not atoned for by a greater sacrifice than any that were offered under CONVERSATION WITH A JEW. lxix the law of Moses, we are undone.” He seemed impressed by this, and owned that according to their law, and confessions on the day of atonement, they were all sinners, and that their good works could not save them. I then endeavoured to point him to Christ, as the only hope; but he began to make objections to his conception by the power of the Holy Spirit.—F. “That was no more impossible than God’s making the first man and woman.’—J. “True; but God having made these, the rest are born by ordinary generation.’—F. “You might as well say that God having given the sea its laws, it moves in future according to them, and therefore the Red Sea could not have been divided. Your argument goes to deny all miracles.”—J. ‘We think charitably of you, but you do not of us.”—F. “How can you think well of us, when you consider us as deluded by an impostor ?'—J. ‘We think well of all that do good.’—F. “So do we. But what a singular impostor must Jesus have been, if he was one ! Did you ever know or read of such a one, either as to doctrine or manners?”—J. “Who wrote the life of Jesus?”—F. ‘Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.’—J. ‘Very well: were not they his disciples, and therefore partial to him 2 –F. “You might as well object to all the books of the Old Testament; they were not written by adversaries.” . . . . . . J. “Ah, he should have come down from the cross, and then all would have believed on him ' '-F. ‘If evidence had been the thing that was wanted, why did not the resurrection of Lazarus satisfy them 2' —J. ‘That was a doubtful matter. I reckon Jesus was a learned man; Lazarus might not be dead, but only apparently so; and he might make an experi- ment upon him ; as many have done since, and re- stored suspended animation.’—F. “Did you ever read the New Testament?'—J. ‘Yes, I read it when a boy of eight years old.’—F. “And not since 2°–J. “No.’—F. “What then can you know about it? You only take up the objections of your rabbis” (whom he had a little before acknowledged to be, many of them, no better than learned knaves); “if you had read and considered the history of the resurrection of Lazarus, you could not object as you do.” “After this, I asked him what he thought of pro- phecy? ‘Prophecy!’ said he, “I have often, when a boy, looked at the clouds, and seen in them horses and chariots, and I know not what!'—F. “I un- derstand you; but it is strange that imagination should find, in the prophecies, the substance of all succeeding history. Were not all the great empires that have been in the world, from the times of Daniel to this day, namely, the Babylonian, the Persian, the Grecian, and the Roman, with their various subdivisions, clearly foretold by him 2'. He would make no answer to this, but treated it all as fable. “They talk,” said he, ‘of our being restored to the Promised Land. I will tell you the whole mystery of it. Those of us who have plenty wish for no other promised land; but those that are poor would be glad enough to better their condition l' “He complained of the persecutions that the Jews had undergone from Christians. I disavowed all such treatment, as the conduct of wicked men. “But,” said he, “you have been, even in this war, fighting for your religion.” I answered, “Those who profess to fight for religion, fight for the want of it; and Christianity employs none but spiritual weapons.” I also assured him that real Christians felt a tender regard towards them, and loved them for their fathers' sake. ‘Yes,’ said he, Sneeringly, ‘the good people at Glasgow pray, every Sunday, for our conversion l’ I answered, “Very likely; it is what I have often done myself.” -- “When we got to Liverpool, he requested that, when I came to London, I would call and see him. I told him I would, on one condition, which was that he would permit me to present him with a New Testament, and promise to read it carefully. He consented; but, that he might put far from him the evil day, proposed that if, when I called to see him, I would bring one with me, he would read it. I saw no more of him; but meeting with a ‘Gospel its own Witness,’ in Liverpool, in which is an “Ad- dress to the Jews,' I wrapt it up in paper, and sent it to him at his inn, having written withinside as fol- lows: “A small token of respect from the author, to Mr. D. L. A., for his friendly attentions to him on a journey from Glasgow to Liverpool, Sept. 23, 24, 25, 1802. - “After all, in reflecting upon it, I felt guilty in having said so little to purpose; and was persuaded that, if I had been more spiritually-minded, I should have recommended my Lord and Saviour better than I did.” On returning home, Mr. Fuller made the follow- ing memorandum :- “In riding from Manchester to Harborough, in the mail, I found myself in very profane company. I therefore, for the greater part of the journey, com- posed myself, as if asleep. Near Loughborough, two gentlemen followed us in a post-chaise, one of them wishing to take my place when we got to Harborough. We dined at Leicester, and, the gentleman being in the inn-yard, I went to him, and offered him my place from Leicester, proposing to ride on the outside as far as Harborough. He thanked me, but declined it. He added, ‘I think I have seen you, sir, before.’ He dined with us; lxx MEMOIRS OF MR. FULLER. and, while at dinner, seeing my portmanteau mark- ed A. F. K., he asked me, before our company, if my name was not Fuller. I told him it was. He then thanked me, not only for my kind offer of my place, but for a late publication, which he had read with unusual satisfaction. I made but little answer; only inquiring his name, which I found to be Lee, of the Old Jewry, a hearer of Mr. Newton. As soon as we got into the coach, (Mr. Lee was not with us, but followed in a post-chaise,) my former swearing companions were all mute, and continued so for the greater part of the journey. One of them, however, who had been more civil and sober than the rest, addressed himself to me: “I perceive, sir,’ said he, ‘by what was said at dinner, that you are an author. Will you excuse me if I ask what it is that you have published ?’ I told him I was a Christian minister, and had published a piece in de- fence of Christianity. He expressed a wish to see it. He then talked to me, as one would talk to a literary man, on the English language, composi- tion, &c. I asked him if he was an Englishman 2 He answered, “No ; I am a Prussian.’ He in- quired if I had read Junius's Letters. I told him I had heard pretty much of them, but had not read them, as they were not particularly in my way. ‘Oh,' said he, “you must read them, by all means; I will send you a copy of them.’ I thanked him, and, as he had expressed a wish to see what I had written, we would, if agreeable to him, make an exchange. To this he agreed, and we exchanged addresses. His was Count D., at the Prus- sian ambassador's, London. Finding him to be one of the Prussian ambassador's suite, I asked him many questions about the civil and ecclesias- tical affairs of Prussia. Respecting the former, he said, what advantages we had by the law they had, in a good measure, by custom ; that, though the king's will was law, yet custom so swayed it as to make it very little oppressive. He mentioned the king's having a desire for a poor man's field that lay near his ; that the owner was unwilling, and the matter was referred to the College of Justice, who advised the king not to insist upon it; and he did not. He spoke of religious matters as attended with toleration. The Mennonites, who I suppose are Antipaedobaptists, he described as enthusiasts, much like the Quakers, who have no regular cler- gymen, but any of them get up and speak, as they feel themselves inspired. How far his account is to be depended upon I cannot tell. On parting with my company, I came home, and found all well. Thanks, as dear brother Pearce said after his jour- ney to Ireland, thanks to the Preserver of men l’” Though the journeys thus undertaken on behalf of the mission introduced Mr. Fuller to scenes of controversy, their advantages soon became sufficient- ly apparent, irrespective of the promotion of the missionary cause ; for, besides the tendency of free discussion to elicit and establish truth, the inter- course maintained exercised a favourable influence on the minds of many who had suffered themselves to be carried away by partial representations of his sentiments. Not only was this the case in Scotland and the north of England, but a visit to the southern coast, in the beginning of 1804, also furnished a remarkable example of it. Mr. Fuller mentions a person at Portsea, where he met with much unexpected kindness, as thus accosting him: “‘Sir, I was greatly disappointed in you.’—‘Yes, and I in you.”—“I mean in hearing you last Lord’s-day morning; I did not expect to hear such a sermon from you.’—‘Perhaps so ; and I did not expect such treatment from you. I had heard things of the Portsea people which gave me but a mean opinion of them ; but I have hitherto no cause to complain; so that we are both agree- ably disappointed.”—“Well, but I do not like your book.”—“You do not understand it.”—“Oh, I can- not believe faith to be a duty : we cannot believe.” —‘You seem to think we ought to do nothing but what we can do.”—“True.”—“And we can do no- thing.”—“True.”—“Then we ought to do nothing . and if so we have no sin, and need no Sa- viour.”—“Oh no, no, no l I want to talk more with you.”—“Yes, but the mischief is, you cannot count five.”—“What do you mean?”—“First, you say, we ought to do nothing but what we can do. Second- ly, we can do nothing. Then I say, thirdly, we ought to do nothing. Fourthly, we have no sin. Fifthly, we need no Saviour.” After all, this per- son, and all of that stamp, were greatly interested in the preaching, and pressed me to go to their houses; would have it that I was of their princi- ples, &c., and were much concerned when I went away. I told them I thought very differently from them in various respects; but they took all well ; and I prayed with them before we parted.” His attention was this year drawn to one of those intolerant enactments for which the Jamaica legis- lature has so pre-eminently distinguished itself. He immediately drew up a memorial on the subject, which being presented to the privy council was favourably received. It was in June, 1804, that Mr. Fuller visited Ire- land, hoping not only to receive pecuniary aid for the mission from the wealthy professors of religion in Dublin, but to confirm the important services rendered to the churches of that city and neighbour- JOURNEY TO IRELAND. lxxi hood by the lamented Pearce, and establish a con- nexion which, while it tended to remove from those churches the frigid influence of Sandemanianism, might prove mutually beneficial to the spiritual in- terests of both countries. Writing, soon after his arrival, to his friend Dr. Ryland, he says, “My heart is dismayed to see the state of things here. The great body of the people are papists. Even the servants, in almost every family, are papists. The congregations are only a few genteel people scattered about the place. They appeared to me like the heads at Temple Bar, without bodies. A middle class of people is want- ing; and the poor are kept distinct by what appears as strong as the caste in India. I preached at the Baptist meeting, in Swift's Alley, morning and evening, and for Dr. M'Dowal, at the Presbyterian chapel: I might preach, perhaps, to fifty in the morning; to two hundred in the afternoon, in a place that would hold a thousand; and to fifty more in the evening. “I have been much engaged in company, yester- day and Monday. I was visited yesterday by Mr. Walker, a Sandemanian clergyman, who has con- siderable influence in this city, and who pronounces of one of the dissenting ministers here that he preaches the gospel (because he seems likely to em- brace Sandemanianism); but the Baptist and the Moravian ministers do not l I found him, like most of the sect, calm, acute, versed in the Scripture, but void of feeling. He reminded me of Dr. By- ron's lines:– ['Tis] Athens’ owl, and not Mount Zion's dove, The bird of learning, not the bird of love. “I am told that one of this stamp lately prayed in public, ‘Lord, give me head knowledge; the rest I leave to thee.’ The clergyman said to me, ‘There are many who call themselves Calvinists who are as far from the truth as Arminians.' I asked what Calvinists he referred to, and what senti- ments. He said, “Those who hold with qualifica- tions as necessary to warrant a sinner's believing.’ I answered, I did not know who they were that be- lieved so. Mr. Stennett, who sat by, said, “Some of the high Calvinists might.’ I assented to this, but said I utterly disapproved of it; though I could not, as Mr. W. seemed to do, condemn all as grace- less who held it. He seemed surprised, and ex- pressed his pleasure that I disapproved of the principle; plainly proving that he, with other San- demanians, confounds our pleading for a holy dis- position as necessary to believing (or necessary to incline us to believe) with pleading for it as giving us a warrant to believe.” In a letter addressed to Mr. Coles, Mrs. F.'s fa- ther, he thus alludes to this visit:-‘‘I have enjoyed but little comfort in Ireland; yet I hope I have de- rived some profit. The doctrine of the cross is more dear to me than when I went. I wish I may never preach another sermon but what shall bear some relation to it. I see and feel, more and more, that except I eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of man I have no life in me either as a Chris- tian or as a minister. Some of the sweetest oppor- tunities I had in my journey were in preaching Christ crucified: particularly on those passages, “ Unto you that believe he is precious’—‘This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him '—“He that hath the Son hath life,’ &c.— ‘That they all may be one,’ &c. But I feel that if I were more spiritually-minded I should preach bet- ter and bear trials better.” It does not appear that the objects of his visit to this country were, at that time, in any considerable degree realized. He was grieved to find the prin- cipal Baptist community in Dublin under the influ- ence of the most pernicious errors in doctrine and practice. Many of the members had imbibed prin- ciples which, to say the least, verged on Socinian- ism, while the amusements of the theatre and the card-table were tolerated, and even defended. Having refused, under these circumstances, to comply with their invitation to the Lord's table, he encouraged the more godly portion of the church to form themselves into a separate community, who, on their secession, left behind them this assurance, “that if at any future time the church should re- store that purity of communion which is essential to a Christian society, they should be ready to join heart and hand with them.” Having on his return written some “Remarks on the State of the Baptist Churches in Ireland,” with especial reference to the disorders above alluded to, a reply to them was made in the Irish circular letter addressed to the members of those churches respect- ively, and accompanied with an ambiguous declara- tion of the theological sentiments of the parties. This was inserted in a monthly journal, in which Mr. Fuller offered some observations in reply; par- ticularly noticing the absence of all mention of the vicarious sacrifice and imputed righteousness of Christ—of the distinct personality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—and of any avowed intention of supplying their acknowledged deficiency in dis- cipline. He further remarked, that if his construc- tion of their statement, as it related to these parti- culars, was not founded in truth, he knew of no obstacle to the reunion of the seceding portion of the church. Though this was not effected, considerable good lxxii MEMOIRS OF MR. FULLER. was elicited by the discussion, and the subsequent operations of the “Baptist Irish Society” have been accompanied in a remarkable degree by the Divine blessing, not only in reviving the drooping interests of religion in the churches already established, but in the formation of others, chiefly by accessions from the Roman Catholic portion of the community, multitudes of whom have been truly converted to God by the instrumentality of itinerant readers of the Scriptures. Greatly as Mr. Fuller was esteemed in the various parts of the British empire, in no country were his talents and character more fully appreciated than in the United States, where his writings ob- tained an extensive circulation ; while some of the divines of that country, of whose piety and talents he cherished the highest possible opinion, were in frequent habits of communication with him. As early as 1798 the college of New Jersey had conferred on him the honorary degree of D. D., the use of which, however, he respectfully declined, alleging his deficiency of those literary qualifications which would justify the assumption of academic honours, as well as his conscientious disapprobation of such distinctions in connexion with religion. In May, 1805, he received a similar testimony from Yale College, accompanied by the following letter from the celebrated Dr. Dwight:— “New Haven, (Connecticut,) March 18, 1805. “SIR, “The corporation of Yale College at the last pub- lic commencement conferred on you the degree of Doctor of Divinity. The diploma, which is the evi- dence of this act, you will receive with this letter. Both will be conveyed, and, if it should not be too inconvenient, handed to you by Benjamin Silliman, Esquire, professor of chemistry in this seminary. “As this act is the result of the knowledge of your personal character and your published works only, and as such degrees are not inconsiderately given by this body, I flatter myself that it will be regarded by º you in the light of a sincere testimony of respect to you. “The gentleman who is the bearer of this letter is holden in high esteem here, as a man, a scholar, and a Christian. Such civilities as you may think proper to render to him will be gratefully acknow- ledged by me. “Please to accept my best wishes for your per- sonal welfare and your success in your ministerial labours, and be assured that I am, very respectfully, your affectionate friend and brother, “TIMOTHY Dwig HT, “President of Yale College. * Rev. Doctor Fuller.” To this communication Mr. Fuller returned the following answer: “DEAR SIR, “Kettering, June 1, 1805. “I yesterday received, enclosed in a letter from Mr. Silliman, a diploma from Yale College, with a letter from yourself. Considering it as a token of respect, and expressive of approbation of what I have published, I feel myself greatly obliged by it; and could I reconcile it to my judgment and feelings to make use of such a title of distinction from any quarter, there is none which I should prefer to that which you have done me the honour to communi- cate. Eight years ago I received the same expres- sion of esteem from the college of New Jersey, and acknowledged it in much the same manner in a letter to Dr. Hopkins. With this it is possible you are not unacquainted ; and, if so, I may presume you and your colleagues meant it purely as a token of respect, without supposing that, after having de- clined it in one instance, I could with any propriety, even were I so disposed, accept it in another. “The writings of your grandfather, President Edwards, and of your uncle, the late Dr. Edwards, have been food to me and many others. Our bre- thren Carey, Marshman, Ward, and Chamberlain, in the East Indies, all greatly approve of them. The President's sermons on justification have afford- ed me more satisfaction on that important doctrine than any human performance which I have read. Some pieces which I have met with of yours have afforded me much pleasure. “I have requested Mr. Silliman to procure of my bookseller all that he can furnish of what I have published, which I hope you will accept and furnish with a place in the college library, as a token of my grateful esteem.” “I am, dear Sir, “Yours with respect and affection, “ANDREW FULLER.” In June this year, the interests of the mission again. called Mr. Fuller to Scotland. His journal of this vi- sit records the following interesting occurrences:— “Saturday, July 12th, reached Aberdeen at about six in the evening. Paid my respects to several of the ministers, professors, &c., and ad- justed the work of the sabbath. I agreed to spend the forenoon with a few Baptists, who meet in an upper room ; the afternoon to preach and collect among the Independents in Mr. Haldane's connex- ion; and in the evening at the Independents' place called the Lock Chapel. “Lord’s-day.—At the morning meeting I found eight or ten Baptists, residing in Aberdeen. They THIRD JOURNEY TO SCOTLAND. lxxiii were not in a state of fellowship; and whether they were sufficiently united to be formed into a church appeared rather doubtful. At the same time three persons applied to me for baptism. The first was a young man who had been a Socinian, but pro- fessed of late to be convinced of the way of salva- tion through the atonement of Christ, and of all the other corresponding doctrines. The next was a simple-hearted man, with whose religious profession I was well satisfied. The third was a woman, and hers was a singular case. “As I was going to the morning meeting, I was called aside by a respectable minister, and told to this effect—‘You will be requested to baptize a woman before you leave Aberdeen. I have no pre- judice against her on account of her being a Bap- tist; but I think it my duty to tell you that she was a member of one of our churches in this neighbour- hood, and was excluded for bad conduct.”—“What conduct 2'-' Dishonesty towards her creditors.”— “Very well; I thank you for the information, and will make a proper use of it.’ “Though I was applied to at the morning meet- ing to baptize these persons, I did not hear their personal professions till after the evening sermon. They then came to my inn, where I conversed with each one apart. When the woman was introduced, the following is the substance of what passed be- tween us.-‘Well, Margaret, you have lived in the world about forty years; how long do you think you have known Christ?”—“A little more than a year.’ —‘What, no longer?”—“I think not.”—“And have you never professed to know him before that time?’— ‘Yes, and was a member of an Independent church for several years.”—“A member of a church, and did not know Christ !—how was that?”—“I was brought up to be religious, and deceived myself and others in professing to be so.”—“And how came you to leave that church 2’—“I was cut off.”—“What, because you were a Baptist?”—“No, because of my bad conduct.”—“Of what, then, had you been guilty?’ -‘My heart was lifted up with vanity—I got in debt for clothes and other things; and then prevari- cated, and did many bad things.”—“And it was for these things they cut you off?”—“Yes.”—“And do you think they did right?”—“Oh yes.”—“And how came you to the knowledge of Christ at last?”— ‘When I was cut off from the church, I sunk into the deepest despondency—I felt as an outcast from God and man—I wandered about, speaking, as it Were, to nobody, and nobody speaking to me. My burden seemed heavier than I could bear. At that time a passage or two of Scripture came to my mind, and I was led to see that through the cross of Christ there was mercy for the chief of sinners. I wept much, and my sin was very bitter. But I saw there was no reason to despair; for the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin. It is from thence I date my conversion.”—“And do the minister, and the church of which you were a member, know of all this?’—Yes.”—“Why did you not go and con- fess it before them, and be restored ?”—“Partly be- cause I have removed my situation some miles from them ; and partly because I felt in my conscience that I was a Baptist.’ “After the conversation, I saw the minister who had told me of her, and informed him of the whole; adding that the church in his connexion had done well in excluding Margaret, and the Lord, I hoped, had blessed it to her salvation. He could not ob- ject to the propriety of my conduct in baptizing her, on my own principles. Next morning I rose at five o'clock, and baptized the three persons at a mill-dam, about five miles from the city; whither we went in a post-chaise, and returned about eight o'clock. There were upwards of a hundred people present.” “Thursday, July 24, travelled nearly forty miles to-day along the western coast, bearing southward. About six o'clock we reached Saltcoats. Here I found that the parish minister, on hearing that I was to collect at the Burgher meeting-house, re- solved to have a sermon at the same hour in the church, and a collection for the Bible Society. He said, however, that if I chose to preach the sermon in the church, and let the collection be applied to the Bible Society, I was welcome to do so. As soon as this was mentioned to me by another person, I immediately sent to the clergyman, offering to relin- quish my own object, and, if he was agreeable, to preach the sermon in the church, in favour of the Bible Society. This he acceded to, and I called on him before worship. I then observed that he must be aware of what he had proposed being contrary to the rules of the Assembly of the Church of Scot- land; and that I should be sorry if any ill conse- quences were to follow on my account. He replied that his presbyters were well disposed, and he had no fears on that head. I then preached the sermon, and pleaded with all the energy I could for the Bible Society. After worship, I went to my inn: then called to sup and lodge with the clergyman. (Such is the custom in Scotland.) While sitting in his house, I told him I felt happy in the oppor- tunity of expressing my regard for the Bible So- ciety, and requested him to add my guinea to the collection. But during my call at the inn, after worship, he had consulted with his friends on the subject of my having been deprived of a collec- tion. He therefore answered me by saying, “I can- not accept your guinea; and, moreover, I must lxxiv. MEMOIRS OF MR, FULLER. insist on your accepting half the collection for your object; and you must make no objection whatever to it. Such is the conclusion of our session.’ Finding him quite resolute, I yielded, and took half the col- lection, which, however, did not amount to £6.” The departure of some missionaries with their wives, early in 1806, gave occasion to a valuable epistolary communication from Mr. Fuller, an ex- tract from which may serve as a specimen of the affectionate correspondence which he maintained with his missionary brethren. MY VERY DEAR BRETHREN AND SISTERs, “There is the greatest necessity for us all to keep near to God, and to feel that we are in that path of which he approves. This will sustain us in times of trial. The want of this cannot be supplied by any thing else. Beware of those things which draw a veil between him and you, or that render a throne of grace unwelcome. If God be with you, you shall do well; you shall be blessings among the sailors, among the brethren in India, and among the natives. Be very conversant with your Bibles. The company we keep, and the books we read, in- sensibly form us into the same likeness. I love to converse with a Christian whose mind is imbued with the sentiments of the Scriptures. I find it advantageous to read a part of the Scriptures to myself before private prayer, and often to turn it into prayer as I read it. Do not read the Scrip- tures merely as preachers, in order to find a text, or something to say to the people, but read them that you may get good to your own souls. Look at the Saviour as he walks, as he walks before you; and then point others to him, John i. 35. “Next to communion with your God and Saviour, cherish love to one another. Good sense and good temper may preserve you from falling out by the Way, and exposing yourselves to the censure of spectators; but this is not enough. The apostolic precept which is so often repeated—‘Little children, love one another,’ includes more than an abstinence from discord, or the routine of civility. You must know one another, and love each other in the Lord. To do this, you must often think of the dying love of Christ towards you. When I have sometimes surveyed the church of which I am a pastor, in- dividually, my mind has revolted from this member for this fault, and from another for that; but when I have met them at the table of the Lord, one thought has dissipated all these hard things:— Feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood l’ Oh, (thought I,) if my Saviour could find in his heart to lay down his life for them, who am I that I should withhold the tenderest regards from them 2 If he can forgive them, shall I be un- forgiving 2 Nay, more . . . . . If he could lay down his life for me, and forgive me, who am I that I should cherish a hard and unforgiving heart towards my brethren? “My dear brethren, know nothing but Jesus Christ and him crucified. Be this the summit of your ambition. For you to live must be Christ. You may never be of that literary consequence which some are ; but if you possess a savour of Christ, you will be blessings in your generation; and, when you die, your names will be precious not only in India and Britain, but in the sight of the Lord. “My dear sisters, it is not much that I have known of you; but what I have has tended to en- dear you to me. My heart is toward those young people in our Israel, of both sexes, who have offered themselves willingly in this Divine war ! Treat your husbands with an attentive, respectful, and obliging carriage, as I trust they will treat you. Treat each other as sisters, and the young wo. man that goes out with you too. Compel her, when she parts with you, to part weeping. Tears of this sort are worth more than thousands of com- pliments. Do not make confidants of one another in matters of offence; but, in a gentle and tender way, get into the habit of communicating to the party her faults; and encourage her to do the same by you. This rule will be necessary not only on your voyage, but through life. The God of all grace be with you ! Present my kind love to the dear Cap- tain Wickes. Accept the same to yourselves. My wife and daughter unite in wishing you prosperity in the name of the Lord.” The limits of this memoir will not admit of an extended selection from Mr. Fuller's correspondence with his friends; but the following will suffice to show how feelingly he was accustomed to enter into their circumstances, and how deeply he was con- cerned to promote their best interests. “MY DEAR FRIEND, “I find, by a letter, that you are in constant ex- pectation of losing your son. Since the time that you and I corresponded, our circumstances, tempt- ations, afflictions, and almost every thing else per- taining to us, have undergone a change. We have each had a portion of parental care; and now, hav- ing passed the meridian of life, we begin to taste the cup of parental sorrow. We often talk of trials, without knowing much of what we say: that is a trial, methinks, which lays hold of us, and which we cannot shake off. If we say, ‘Surely I could bear any thing but this ' ' this shall often be the ill CORRESPONDENCE WITH FRIENDS. lxxv hat we are called to bear; and this it is that con- itutes it a trial. And why are afflictions called ials, but on account of their being sent to try that manner of spirit we are of ? It is in these cir- umstances our graces appear, if we are truly gra- ious, and our corruptions, if we be under the do- minion of sin; and too often, in some degree, if we e Christians. When I have experienced heavy ials, I have sometimes thought of the case of Laron. He had two sons, fine young men, col- *agues with their father; God accepted of their ffering, and the people shouted for joy: every hing looked promising . . . . . . when, alas ! in the midst of their glory, they sinned; and there went ut a fire from the Lord, and devoured them. Well night the afflicted father say as he did: “And such hings have befallen me!’ yet he “held his peace.” say, I have sometimes thought of this case, when have been heavily afflicted; and have employed ny mind in this manner:—Such things befell Aaron, he servant of the Lord, a much better man than I m: who am I that I should be exempted from the ls which are common to men, to good men, to the est of men? Such things befell Aaron as have not et befallen me. He had two children cut off to- 'ether; I have never yet lost more than one at nce. His were cut off by an immediate judgment rom Heaven, and without any apparent space being iven for repentance : thus have not mine been. Čet even Aaron held his peace; and shall I mur- nur? “The just shall live by faith.” God is telling ls, in general, that all things work together for Wood to them that love him; but he has not informed is how : nor is it common, under afflictions, to jerceive the good arising from them. It is after- wards that they yield the peaceable fruits of right- !ousness. If the Lord should remove your son, jerhaps you are not without hopes of his salvation; ind if the event should cause you to feel more than wou have yet felt of the perishable nature of all hings under the sun, and draw your heart more owards himself and things above, where Jesus is, you may have occasion in the end to bless God for t. God knows we are strange creatures; and that We stand in need of strange measures to restrain, numble, and sanctify us. “Give my love to your afflicted child, and give me leave to recommend to him, Him in whom alone he can be saved. I doubt not but you have recom- mended Christ to him, as the Saviour of the chief of sinners; yet you will not take it amiss if I ad- dress the following few lines to him — “MY DEAR YouNG FRIEND, “You know but little of me, nor I of you; but I love you for your parents sake. While health and spirits were afforded you, you thought, I pre- sume, but little of dying; and perhaps what you heard by way of counsel or warning, from the pul- pit or from other quarters, made but little impres- sion upon you. A future world appeared to you a sort of dream, rather than a reality. The gratifi- cation of present desire seemed to be every thing. But now that Being against whom you have sinned has laid his hand upon you. Your present affliction seems to be of the nature of a summons: its lan- guage is, ‘Prepare to meet thy God, O sinner l’ Perhaps you have thought but little of your state as a lost sinner before him; yet you have had suf- ficient proof, in your own experience, of the de- generacy and dreadful corruption of your na- ture. Have you learned from it this important lesson ? If you have, while you bewail it before God, with shame and self-abhorrence, you will em- brace the refuge set before you in the gospel. The name of Christ will be precious to your heart. God has given him to be the Saviour of the lost; and, coming to him as worthy of death, you are welcome to the blessing of eternal life. No man is so little a sinner but that he must perish for ever without him ; and no man so great a sinner as that he need despair of mercy in him. He has died, the just for the unjust, that he may bring us to God. His blood cleanseth from sin, and the benefits of it are free. The invitations of the gospel are universal. Though God would never hear the prayers or regard the tears of a sinner, like you, for your on n sake; yet he will hear from heaven, his dwelling-place, that petition which is sincerely offered in the name of his Son. Repent of your sin, and you shall find mercy: believe his gospel with all your heart, and you shall live. Plead the worthiness of Christ as the ground of acceptance, to the utter rejection of your own, and God will graciously hear, forgive, and save you. Every one that thus asketh receiv- eth ; and he that seeketh findeth ; and to him that knocketh the door of mercy shall be opened. In all your supplications for mercy, be sure you found your petitions on the worthiness of Christ alone. But if you can see no loveliness in him, nor beauty that you should desire him, depend upon it you are yet in your sins, and, so dying, you must perish. I do not know whether you have, at any time, been inclined to listen to the abominable suggestions of infidels; but if you have, you now perceive that those are principles that will not stand by you in the near approach of death. If the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world, be not now a comfort to you, you are comfortless. Look to him, my dear young friend, and live.” lxxvi MEMOIRS OF MR. FULLER. To a member of the church:— “MY DEAR FRIEND 2 “I received your letter, and was affected in read- ing it. Ah! is it so, that you have indulged in se- cret sin for seven or eight years past, and that God, the holy and the jealous God, has now given you up to open sin, and that you have in a manner lost all power of resistance - “It is not in my power, nor that of any creature, to enable you to decide upon your former experience, while you are in this state of mind. If an apostle stood in doubt of a backsliding people, (Gal. iv. 20,) we must do the same—and even of ourselves, or, which is worse, our confidence will be delusion. The tree can only be known by its fruits. If the reproaches of the world, and the censures of the church, lead you to repentance—if you not only confess but forsake both your secret and open sins, and return to God by Jesus Christ—you will yet ob- tain mercy; and these visitations of God will prove to have been the ‘stripes’ of a Father on a disobedient child. But if you persist in your sins, you will prove yourself an enemy, and ‘God will wound the head of his enemies; and the hairy scalp of such a one as goeth on still in his trespasses,’ Psal. lxviii. 21. & “There certainly is such a thing as for a man to “hear the word and not do it,” and this is compared to the case of one who seeth his natural face in a glass, and straightway goeth away and forgetteth what manner of man he was,” and such are described as ‘deceiving their own selves,’ James i. 22–24. Perhaps there are few who have long sat undér the preaching of the truth, but have at times beheld their own character and condition by it. Simon trembled, (Acts viii. 24,) and Felix trembled, Acts xxiv. 25. Often will conscience answer to the truth of what is spoken, even while some lust has the do- minion over the soul. If, instead of producing a change of heart and life, these convictions be only transient—if, on going from the means of grace and plunging into worldly cares and company, all is for- gotten—it is as when the seed was “picked up by the fowls of the air.’ And where these transient im- pressions are mistaken for the grace of God in the heart, there men ‘deceive their own selves.” “In your present condition do not attempt to de- cide upon your past experiences. Your immediate concern is, whether you have ever repented and be- lieved in Jesus before or not, now to repent and come to him. You may not be able to come as a backsliding Christian, but come as a guilty, perish- ing sinner. The door of mercy is not yet shut upon you. Read and pray over the 130th Psalm; also the 32nd and 51st. When we think of the abound- ings of sin, it would seem as if none could be saved; yet when we think of the superaboundings of grace, and of the preciousness of that blood that was shed upon the cross, and which cleanseth from all sin, we must acknowledge that none need despair. O friend , retrace your steps Come back—come back lest you plunge ere you are aware into the pit whence there is no redemption.—Read Jer. xxxi. 18–21. ** “When a parent loses, or is in danger of losing, a child, nothing but the recovery of that child can heal the wound. If he could have many other chil- dren, that would not do it. Thus it was with Paul and the Corinthians:—‘If I make you sorry, who is he that maketh me glad, but the same that is made sorry by me?’ 2 Cor. ii. 2. Thus it is with me towards you. Nothing but your return to God and the church can heal the wound. What is my hope or joy or crown of rejoicing 2 Are not ye? Do not bereave me of my reward | But and if it be so, the loss will be yours more than mine. If I have but the approbation of God, I shall be re- warded; my loss will be made up; but who is to repair yours? - “I am still affectionately yours, “A. FullLER.” In 1806, Mr. Fuller published his “Dialogues, Letters, and Essays on various Subjects.” The latter part of this publication, under the title of Conversations between Peter, James, and John, personating Mr. Booth, himself, and Dr. Ryland, was designed to furnish the public with the sub- stance of a series of private letters to Dr. R. on the topics in discussion between himself and Mr. Booth, which, as they contained some pointed ani- madversions on the conduct of Mr. B., he had no wish to publish. The “Conversations” were dis- tinguished not only by the absence of asperity, but by the development of the tenderest feelings of Christian affection. g It had been more than once insinuated that the views which Mr. Fuller had so long and so strenuous- ly advocated, respecting the universal obligation to a cordial reception of the gospel, would not admit of a practical application to the consciences of un- godly persons, without a compromise of other im- portant doctrines not less explicitly avowed. To evince the incorrectness of this surmise, as well as with the general design of doing good, he wrote the tract well known under the title of the “Great Question Answered.” This address, which now forms one of the publications of the Religious Tract Society, has been translated into several of the con- CHARGE OF PERSECUTION. lxxvii tinental languages, and obtained a most extensive circulation; it has been rendered eminently useful in the conversion of sinners, and has not been want- ing in testimonies of approbation from some of his most strenuous opponents. In the same year he published his “Expository Discourses on the Book of Genesis,” a portion of sacred history which his own patriarchal simplicity, united with his deep knowledge of human nature, enabled him to illustrate with great felicity, and which the richness of evangelical sentiment per- vading his mind qualified him to invest with pecu- liar charms. It has been already intimated that the missionary undertaking had to encounter violent hostility, with which the secretary more than once successfully grappled. A remarkable example of this occurred in 1807. Certain individuals, not content with ex- citing apprehensions in the minds of the authorities in India, circulated among the proprietors at home pamphlets of an alarming and inflammatory charac- ter. These were written by Mr. Twining, Major Scott Waring, and a Bengal officer, and were fol- lowed by the introduction of the subject in a general court of proprietors. Having speedily replied to those pamphlets, Mr. Fuller, who had received intimation of the meditated attack, attended the court for the purpose of watching the enemy's pro- ceedings. It is sufficient to say that their attempts were triumphantly defeated, leaving them no alter- native, but to seek new weapons of attack. In the mean time, an application to the Marquis Wellesley, who had recently retired from the presidency of In- dia, secured to the Society his Lordship's cordial and powerful support. It was not long, however, before a favourable pretext was afforded to the enemies of religion for renewing the subject of their hostility before a court of proprietors. An expression re- flecting on the character of Mahomet had, by the in- advertency or maliciousness of a native translator, found its way into one of the tracts circulated by the missionaries in Bengal. This, for a time, brought them into disagreeable contact with the go- Vernment abroad, till a candid explanation and apo- logy fully satisfied the governor in council. At the period of the introduction of this business to the court at home, which was early in 1808, Mr. Fuller received communications from the missionaries, giving a complete detail of the case, the circulation of which, accompanied by powerful appeals to the Public, had the effect of once more defeating the pro- Jects of the enemy. The pamphlets written by Mr. *uller, during this contest, appeared under the title Q of “An Apology for the late Christian Missions to India.” Under date of January 27, 1808, he thus ad- dresses his friend Dr. Ryland:—“I last night re- turned from Leicester, with a strong fever upon me, through excess of labour. I am a little better to- day. My Apology for the Mission would have been finished by this time; but there are new pieces come out, as full of wrath as possible, which I am told I must notice. I am really distressed with public and private labours.” Towards the close of this year, the generous and pressing calls of his northern friends once more brought him to Scotland.—“I have been enabled,” said he, on his return, “to collect as much as £2000 in the course of six weeks, after a journey of 1200 miles. God be praised for all his goodness, and for the abundant kindness shown towards me and towards the mission.” In 1809 a case occurred in relation to which the most strenuous efforts have been made to involve Mr. Fuller in the charge of persecution. To these efforts the gratuitous admissions of some of his friends have given considerable countenance. An attempt having been made by certain Socinians re- sident at Soham to obtain possession of the place of worship belonging to the Calvinistic Dissenters, an appeal was made by the latter to the quarter ses- sions, which Mr. Fuller, upon the footing of former friendship, was requested to aid in conducting. It was discovered in the course of the action that such was the ambiguity of the legal tenure by which their chapel was held, that no effectual method presented itself of maintaining their just right, but an appeal to certain statutes at that time in force against “im- pugners of the Holy Trinity.” This, it appears, was made by some of Mr. Fuller's colleagues, less versed than himself in the principles of religious liberty. He was certainly chargeable with indiscre- tion in placing himself in such a position as that others should be able to act without his knowledge, while he bore the principal share in the general pro- ceedings and the responsibility connected with them. His “Narrative of Facts,” published a considerable time afterwards, when the pressure of other matters had intervened, probably conveyed to the public mind a less favourable impression than a more dis- tinct recollection of some minor particulars would have enabled him to make ; but the charge of nil- ful falsehood must be added to that of persecution, if his own solemn declaration is not to be received, that he no sooner learned from his attorney the grounds on which the case was proceeding than lxxviii MEMOIRS OF MR. FULLER. he most unequivocally refused to advance an- other step, alleging his unqualified disapproba- tion of the larvs in question. Had the writer of these lines the slightest demur respecting the truth of this statement, he would deem it most advisable to omit all reference to the subject. On the other hand, he can see no reason why, in order to escape the charge of partiality, he should suffer a character so beloved to lie under an unjust imputation, the more especially as one of his biographers, who at first laboured under the impression that Mr. Fuller's reputation must in this particular be sacrificed to justice, has since unequivocally declared, upon the most competent authority, that the onus of this proceeding lay upon another and not upon him— that the charge against Mr. Fuller is transferred “from his character to his discretion, from his prin- ciples to his prudence; and that it is to the latter only that any imputation can fairly attach.” From this ungracious contest Mr. Fuller found relief in the most cheering proofs of the success of his ministry. Writing to Dr. Ryland in 1810, he says, “There appears to be so much of an earnest inquiry after salvation among our young people, that I feel it necessary to be absent from them as short a time as possible. We have a weekly meet- ing in the vestry for all who choose to come for con- versation . . . . Our Monday and Friday night meetings are much thronged—the discourses in the latter have been mostly addressed to persons under some concern about their salvation.” It was, nevertheless, during these pleasing do- mestic engagements, in which his soul delighted, that he produced one of his most elaborate con- troversial pieces, entitled “Strictures on Sande- manianism.” This publication, which closes a twenty years’ controversy on faith, was suggested by the repeated attacks he had sustained from the followers of Messrs. Glass and Sandeman in Scot- land and Ireland, and contains, in addition to the main questions in debate, some animadversions on the ecclesiastical polity of that body, which had in a greater or less degree influenced the organization of most of the churches in those countries. In March, 1812, Mr. Fuller received intelligence of the death of his nephew Joseph Fuller, of whose future eminence and usefulness in the cause of God he had cherished the fondest hopes. The following account of this extraordinary youth is communicated in a letter to his beloved preceptor, Dr. Ryland:— “MY DEAR BROTHER, “I have just received yours, and by the same post one from Little Bentley, dated the 23d, of which the following is an extract:—‘This morning, about a quarter after seven o'clock, our dear Joseph left this world of sin and sorrow, and we trust is entered into rest. He could not talk much ; but said, That gospel which I have recommended to others is all my support in the prospect of death. He was sensible to the last.” Thus God has blasted our hopes concerning this lovely youth. He was eighteen years old last October. “Now it is fresh upon my mind, I will give you a few particulars of such things concerning him as fell under my notice:— “In July, 1806, I took Mrs. Fuller to Bentley, on a visit to my brother and his family. Joseph was then under thirteen years old. We observed in him a talent for learning; and his parents seemed to think him not much suited to their business. Mrs. F. therefore proposed that he should come and live with us, and improve his learning. The following October he came, and we sent him to school, to our friend Mr. Mason, of Rowell. After being there three months, he spent the winter holi- days at our house. One day he was looking over the Greek alphabet, and soon got it by heart. He obtained a few instructions before the holidays were ended ; and, on his returning to school, I spoke to my worthy friend, the Rev. Mr. Brotherhood, of Desborough, near Rowell, requesting the favour of his teaching him the Latin and Greek languages. With this request Mr. B. not only readily complied, but generously declined any recompence for his trouble. On an evening, after the school-hours at Rowell, Joseph would walk over to Desborough, and spend an hour or two with Mr. B., who with Mrs. B. treated him as a young friend, rather than as a pupil. His diligence, sobriety, and good sense raised him in their esteem; and he had a great re- spect and esteem for them. In this course he con- tinued through the years 1807 and 1808. He could talk of religion, and, I believe, from his childhood, had thoughts of the ministry; but as I saw no signs of real personal Christianity, I never encouraged any thing of the kind. In the autumn, I think, of . 1808, we perceived an evident change in his spirit and behaviour. This was observed, not only at Kettering, but at Rowell. I found, too, that he wished to open his mind to me; and I soon gave him an opportunity. The result was, we were satisfied of his being the subject of repentance to- wards God and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ. On April 30, 1809, I baptized him, and he became a member of the church at Kettering. Under these circumstances, I could not but think of his being employed in the work of the ministry, provided his own heart was in it. On gently sounding him upon it, I found it was. He was too much of a child to wº JOSEPH FULLER. lxxix be asked to speak before the church; and yet we thought no time should be lost in improving his talents. A letter was therefore sent to the Bristol Education Society, through your hands, recom- mending him as a pious youth of promising talents for the ministry. In August, the same year, he went to Bristol. At the vacation, in the summer of 1810, he went home, and, on his return, towards the end of July, came by Kettering. At the church- meeting, he preached from 1 Cor. ii. 2, “For I de- termined not to know any thing among you save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” He was then under seventeen years of age, and a mere lad in ap- pearance; but his thoughts were just and mature. “From the first of his religious impressions, he expressed a desire to go to India as a missionary, if he were thought a suitable person. I did not discourage him, but told him he was too young, at present, to determine on a matter of such importance. On the above visit to us, in July, 1810, I inquired whether his mind continued the same on that sub- ject. He answered, it did. “His journey from Kettering to Bristol, which (being very fond of walking) he principally per- formed on foot, was, I fear, injurious to him. He got wet, as I afterwards learned, several times on the road. Towards the following Christmas, he told me, he began to feel the complaint on his lungs. It is now nearly a year, I suppose, since he left Bristol, to go to his father's house. After he had been there the greater part of the summer of 1811, he paid a visit, for a month or two, to the new academy at Stepney, where he was treated with great kindness by Mr. and Mrs. Newman, as he had been, in the spring of the same year, by Mr. and Mrs. Burls. Indeed, I may say, at every place he “grew in favour with God and man.” “Being myself in London, early in November, I took him with me down to Kettering. Here he stopped about six weeks; during which we used means for the recovery of his health, but without effect. So far as his affliction would permit, he here enjoyed the company of his friends. He got over to Rowell, and to Desborough, to see his dear friends, Mr. Mason and Mr. Brotherhood. About Dec. 20, 1811, I took him to Cambridge, whence he was conducted home. On parting, we both wept, as not expecting to see each other again in the flesh. So it has proved. His father informs me, that on the last Lord's day in January, he was very desirous of going with him to Thorpe, to join in the Lord's Supper; which, though with much difficulty, he ac- complished. His death is one of those mysteries in providence, not of very unfrequent occurrence, Wherein God, after apparently forming and fitting an instrument for usefulness in this world, removes it to another. But “it is well.’ I do not remember to have known a lad of his years who possessed more command of temper, or maturity of judgment, or whose mind seemed more habitually directed to the glory of God.” Dr. Ryland, speaking of the first discourse de- livered by this youth, in the lecture room of the college, says, “I was obliged to suppress my feelings and hurry out of the room, that I might not let a lad of sixteen see how much I was delighted with what he had been uttering.” A pulmonary attack, during the preceding sum- mer, had seriously affected Mr. Fuller's health; and though he was so far restored as to undertake a journey of 600 miles, his exhausted powers and in- creasing labours suggested the necessity of stated assistance in his pastoral duties, a service which was supplied by the Rev. J. K. Hall, a nephew of the late Rev. R. Hall. Early in May, Mr. Fuller took a journey into Wales. From Abergavenny he wrote to Mr. Sut- cliff. After speaking of the low state of his health, and alluding to some malicious censures against the Baptists and their missionary undertaking, he thus concludes, “Our wisdom is to be still and quiet, and to mind our own business. For my own part, my afflictions say to me, “Study to shon, thyself approved unto God.” What empty things are the applauses of creatures, and how idle the pursuit of them | I seem near the end of my course, and hope, through grace, and grace only, to finish it with joy. I have no transports, but a steady hope of eternal life, on the ground of my Saviour's death. I feel some freedom in my applications to God in his name. If I should die, I shall be able to say to the rising generation, “God rvill surely visit you.’ A work is begun that will not end till the world be subdued to the Saviour. We have done a little for him, accompanied with much evil; the Lord grant that this may not be laid to our charge in that day.” - The close of this year brought the afflictive in- telligence of the destruction of the printing estab- lishment at Serampore by fire. The loss occasioned by this calamity was estimated at upwards of £12,000. Much as this news affected Mr. Fuller, he predicted the speedy reparation of the injury. Being then on a tour in Norfolk, he hastened home to arrange for a general appeal to the benevolence of the Christian public. This was answered by prompt and liberal subscriptions in all parts of the United Kingdom, and in the United States of lxxx MR. FULLER. MEMOIRS OF America, which in a few weeks more than repaired the loss. On this occasion Mr. Fuller received the following testimony of Christian liberality from an eminent minister of the Establishment now de- ceased :- “From the time I heard of the fire at Serampore, I felt desirous to assist in repairing the loss, and promoting the important work of translating the Scriptures into the Oriental languages. I view the subject as presenting a common claim upon the Christian world, and regard, with highest estimation, the labours of your Society in the East Indies. “I have the pleasure to state that, including a donation remitted to me by my respected friend Dr. Kilvington, our collection at Bentinck Chapel, on Sunday last, has produced £130. “With my unfeigned prayer that the eternal God may prosper all these exertions to the pro- motion of his glory and the benefit of his church, I am, dear sir, “Yours very faithfully, “BASIL WooDD.” On communicating to the late Rev. Legh Rich- mond some pleasing intelligence from India, ac- companied with specimens of type recast from the materials found in the ruins at Serampore, Mr. Ful- ler received the following affectionate reply: “REv. AND DEAR BROTHER, “I receive your papers with thankful pleasure— they seem like specimens dropped from the midst of heaven by the angel in his flight with the ever- lasting gospel in his hand Happy are those that can cultivate true brotherly love and respect, although they cannot in every thing think and act together. There is still a wide field for mutual operation—there may be a few hedges and ditches to separate portions of the land; but it is all one farm—Glory be to the chief Husbandman and great Shepherd l—His grace and mercy be on such sub- ordinate husbandmen and shepherds as you, and far more so “Your unworthy fellow labourer, “LEGH RICHMOND.” It will be seen from the preceding pages that it was Mr. Fuller's happiness to be acquainted with many of the most eminent and pious of the estab- lished clergy. Besides those to whom reference has already been made, we may mention Drs. Ers- kine and Chalmers in Scotland; and in this coun- try the Rev. John Owen and the venerable Ber- ridge : in a letter to his friend Ryland, he thus describes an interview with the latter:— As to my Everton journey, I wrote some- thing, as it was then fresh upon my mind, better than I can now. I greatly admired that Divine savour which all along mingled itself with Mr. Berridge's facetiousness, and sufficiently chastised it. His conversation tended to produce a frequent but guiltless smile, accompanied with a tear of pleasure. His love to Christ appears to be intense. I requested him to give us a few outlines of his life and ministry. These were interesting, but too long to write. They will enrich an evening's conversa- tion, if I come to Northampton. When he had gone through, I asked him to pray for us. He said he was so faint he could not yet, and requested me to pray. I prayed, and concluded as usual by asking all in Christ's name. He, without getting off his knees, took up the prayer where I had left it, in some such manner as this—“O Lord God! this prayer has been offered up in the name of JESUS: accept it, I beseech thee,’ &c., for five or six minutes, in a most solemn and savoury manner. We then took leave, with solemn prayer for blessings on each other, as if we had been acquainted for forty years, and were never to see each other again in this world. The visit left a strong and lasting impression on my heart of the beauty of holiness—of holiness almost matured.” © tº g º º In 1813, on the renewal of the East India charter, Mr. Fuller visited the metropolis with a view to obtain the insertion of a clause granting a passage to the missionaries in British ships, instead of com- pelling them to make a circuitous voyage by America, as well as affording that legal protection in India to which the peaceable conduct of the missionaries in that country, not less than their natural privileges as British subjects, entitled them. Accompanied by Messrs. Sutcliff, Ivimey, and Burls, he obtained an interview with the Earl of Buckinghamshire, which ended in the request of his Lordship to be furnished with a written statement of their wishes. Mr. Fuller lost no time in forwarding this to his Lordship, and a similar communication was also made to the Earl of Liverpool. Petitions to parliament were forwarded from the various communities of Dissenters, while vast numbers of pious Episcopa- lians, feeling it to be a subject of common interest, joined in the appeal, which proved successful. The following short epistle from the venerable philanthropist whose name it bears was written to Mr. Fuller in allusion to the above event, and to certain interesting intelligence received from India. “My DEAR SIR, “London, Nov. 29, 1813. “I return you many thanks for your friendly DEATH OF MR. SUTCLIFF. lxxxi communication, and am sorry I did not receive it on Saturday till too late to write to you by return of the post. How striking that, at the very time when we were prosecuting our endeavours, Dr. Carey should be experiencing the need of such a regula- tion as we solicited, and express his wishes for such permission as, through God’s blessing, we finally ob- tained In what manner we should proceed in respect of these transactions I am by no means as yet clear. The question deserves the most mature considera- tion; and I shall be happy to confer on it with like- minded friends. But it might assist us in forming a right decision to read the original correspondence, (if there are no parts of it which you had rather we should not peruse,) and, indeed, to receive all other information that you can give us: the more detailed and particular the better. But, my dear sir, joy —joy!—joy I have scarcely restrained myself, from my first taking up the pen, from breaking out into these notes of exultation on the glad tidings which Dr. Carey's letter conveys—tidings so glad, and so important, that the value of them can scarce- ly be overrated. Five natives of high caste become Christians, keeping the Lord's day, and meeting for religious edification, without having had any inter- course with the missionaries—merely from reading the Scriptures, tracts, &c.—besides the hundred hopefuls | When I consider who and what Dr. Carey is and has been, and what encouragement the translations of the Scriptures into the native languages have received, I seem to hear in this incident the voice of the Almighty, saying, You are in the right path, press forward in it. I am much pressed for time to-day, and must break off, assuring you that I am ever, with cordial esteem and regard, yours very sincerely, “W. WILBERFORCE.” In the summer of this year Mr. Fuller paid his fifth and last visit to Scotland, where he was re- ceived with renewed proofs of affection perfectly. overwhelming to his feelings. An incident occur- red at Edinburgh which evinces, amidst his ardu- ous labours, a deep interest in the welfare of his fellow townsmen. Learning that the Northampton- shire militia were in quarters at the castle, he went to see them, and, on finding four young men from Kettering, entered into conversation with them, in- vited them to attend Divine worship, and, on his departure, presented one of them with a Bible. In 1814, Mr. Fuller received a warning of his own dissolution in that of his valued friend and Counsellor Mr. Sutcliff. Under date of March 24, he writes to Dr. Ryland as follows:– “I have just received an alarming letter from Olney, and must go, if possible, to see our dear brother to-morrow. Brother Sutcliff was kept ten days in London, took two days to get home, his legs swelled, blisters were applied, which drew water. They fear he has water in his chest: he cannot lie down, for want of breath, but sits, night after night, in a large chair. Well; the government is on His shoulders; ours will soon be from under the load; but while we are reducing in number and increasing in labour, it may be the heavier for a time. God grant we may finish our course with joy.” - Of this venerable man, who entered into his rest on the 22d of June, the late Rev. R. Hall engaged, at the solicitation of Mr. F., to furnish some ac- count to the public—an engagement from which he subsequently excused himself. His letter to Mr. Fuller on this occasion affords a striking specimen of his characteristic diffidence. “MY DEAR BROTHER, “I am truly concerned to be obliged to tell you that I cannot succeed at all in my attempts to draw the character of our dear and venerable brother Sutcliff. I have made several efforts, and have ‘sketched out, as well as I could, the outlines of what I conceive to be his character, but have failed in producing such a portrait as appears to me fit for the public eye. I am perfectly convinced that your intimacy with him, and your powers of discrimina- tion, will enable you to present to posterity a much juster and more impressive idea of him than I can. I am heartily sorry I promised it. But promises I hold sacred; and therefore, if you insist upon it, and are not willing to release me from my engage- ment, I will accomplish the task as well as I can. But if you will let the matter pass without re- proaching me, sub silentio, you will oblige me con- siderably. It appears to me, that if I ever pos- sessed a faculty of character-drawing, I have lost it, probably for want of use, as I am far from taking any delight in a minute criticism on character, to which, in my younger days, I was excessively ad- dicted. Both our taste and talents change with the progress of years. The purport of these lines, how- ever, is to request you to absolve me from my pro- mise, in which light I shall interpret your silence; holding myself ready, however, to comply with your injunctions. I am, my dear Sir, “Your affectionate Brother, ** R. HALL.” An outline of Mr. Sutcliff's character was sub- sequently given in his funeral discourse, published by Mr. Fuller, and now inserted in this volume. f 2 lxxxii MR. FULLER. MEMOIRS OF SECTION V.—1814, 1815. JOURNEYS INTO VARIOUS PARTS OF ENGLAND– ORIDINATION OF MIR. YATES AT I, EIC ESTER– COMMENCEMENT OF LAST II, LNESS—ATTEMPTED EXC UIRSION TO THE NORTH OF ENGILAND–LAST VISIT TO LONDON.—PUIBLICATION OF SERMIONS —PREPARATION OF MISS. ON TEIE REWIELATION AND ON COMMITUNION-RETURN OF DISORDER— ORDINATION OF MIR. MACFO-AG GIRAVATED STYIMP- TOMs of DISEASE—LAST SERMON, AND DIS- TRIBUTION OF THE LORD’s SUPPER—VISIT To CIHIELTEN BIAM CONTEMPLATED AND RELIN- QUISHED-LAST LETTER TO DR. RYLAND- IDYING IFXPRESSIONS – CONCLUDING SCENIE– FUNERAL–EXTRACT FROM MR. To LLER's SER- MON — TESTIMONIES OF THE REV. R. HALL, DIR. NEWMAN, AND BIBLE SOCIETY-MARBLE TAIBLET-LETTER OF MIR.S. FTULLIER TO DR, IRY- LAND–APPENDIX, CONTAINING NOTICES OF HIS FAMILY, &c. UNDER the powerful impression of his favourite inspired maxim, “Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with all thy might,” Mr. Fuller continued his unwearied efforts on behalf of the mission. He thus writes to Dr. Ryland on the 26th May, 1814: —“Between now and the first week in August I have no rest. I give you my routes, that you may write no letters to me at Kettering while I am out, and may write, if occasion should require, to other places. June 6, I set off for Essex, where I shall collect between the 8th and the 20th; thence I go to London, to the annual meeting, on the 22nd ; come down to Kettering on the 24th or 25th ; set off for the north of England on the 27th for five Lord's days. I expect to spend the first at Liver- pool, the second at Manchester, the third at Leeds, the fourth at Newcastle, and the fifth at Hull.” The termination of his labours was, however, rapidly approaching, an event of which he had re- cently received repeated intimations, and to which he looked forward with feelings equally removed from ecstasy and dismay. In the summer of 1814 he travelled through several of the midland counties, attended the annual meeting of the mission in Lon- don, and, after paying the last tribute to the remains of his beloved friend at Olney, set off for Lancashire and the north of England. From Durham he ad- dressed a request to the East India directors for the passage of Mr. Yates, a missionary to Serampore, when a contumacious opposition to the provisions of the new enactment compelled him, after repeated and respectful solicitations, to appeal to the Board of Control. For this purpose he again visited Lon- don, where he obtained an interview with the Earl of Buckinghamshire. This matter being satis- factorily adjusted, he returned home, and the fol- lowing week attended the designation of Mr. Yates at Leicester. He preached with unusual solemnity and affection, but could not do as at other times. His debilitated frame sank under the fatigue of the engagements. - During his stay at Leicester he appeared so ab- sorbed in the concerns of the mission, that his friends enjoyed but little of his society. On parting with them he intimated that he was very ill, that he should probably see them no more, that his work was nearly done, but that he could not spare time to nurse himself, and must labour as long as he could. - On Lord's day, Sept. 4, after preaching in the morning, he was taken seriously ill. On the 18th, addressing his friend Ryland, he says, “For the last fortnight I have been laid by and nearly con- fined to my bed. I know not when I have had so violent an attack of the bile. I had an inflammation about the liver, the effects of which are still upon me, so that I can scarcely walk. I hope to get out to meeting once to-day. I know not what to do with the missionary students, (from Olney,) being utterly unfit to entertain care of any kind. I thought it best to let them come to you. Here I must leave it. The writing of this letter has overcome me.” Having partially recovered, he proceeded with two friends on another journey to the north of Eng- land, to complete those engagements which had been abruptly broken off on his last excursion; but on reaching Newark he was compelled to return, leaving them to prosecute the object. - Writing to a friend soon after, he says, “I have preached only twice for the last five or six weeks, but am gradually though slowly recovering. Since I was laid by from preaching, I have written out my sermon, and drawn up a memoir for my dear brother Sutcliff. Your partiality for the memoir of dear Pearce will insure me one reader at least for that of Sutcliff. I hope the great and good Mr. Charles of Bala will find some one who will do jus- tice to his memory. Mrs. Sutcliff died on the 3rd of September, less than eleven weeks after her husband. Death has swept away almost all my old friends, and I seem to stand expecting to be called for soon. It matters not when, so that we be found in Christ.” In another letter he says, “Brother Sutcliff's last end was enviable : may mine be like his Death has been making havoc of late among us. Yester- day I preached a funeral sermon, if so it might be called, for three of the members of our church, lately deceased. I feel as one who has the sentence of death, and whose great concern it is whether my re- ligion will bear the test Almost all my old friends are dead, or dying. Well, I have a hope that bears ORDINATION lxxxiii OF MER. MACK. me up ; and it is through grace. In reviewing my life, I see much evil—God be merciful to me a sinner | * In December, having somewhat recruited his strength, he paid another visit to London, on which occasion he delivered a powerful and animated dis- course on behalf of the British and Foreign School Society. Though this was one of his happiest ef. forts, it was evident to his London friends that they could expect to see his face no more. He was strongly advised to try the air and waters of Chel- tenham, but deferred it to a milder season, using the “salts” as a substitute in the interim. It was during the numerous engagements and af. flictions of this year that he published his “Sermons on Various Subjects.” This work consisted of six- teen discourses, worthy of the talents and piety of the author, and will be found at p. 538 of these works. In the commencement of 1815 he prepared for the press his “Exposition of the Revelation ” and “Letters on Communion.” The latter treatise he consigned to the care of his esteemed friend Dr. Newman, with a request to publish it, in case an anticipated production from the pen of Mr. Hall on the other side should seem to render it necessary. This publication, though not without marks of that shrewd and penetrating judgment which distinguish- ed his controversial writings, is not remarkable for the most conclusive reasoning; and though it were too much to admit the justice of Mr. Hall's insinua- tion, that his mind was not fully made up on the subject, there is perhaps reason to suppose that a more ample discussion would have effected a con- siderable alteration in his views. The charge of bigotry, however, made against him, and others cherishing the same sentiments on this subject, says little for the understanding or charity of those who prefer it. True charity will never require the sur- render of a man's principles as an evidence of his candour; and happy they who have learned that an honest refusal to unite in the partial use of some minor tokens of affection may consist with the ex- ercise of the tenderest feelings of Christian love. Mr. Fuller describes a conversation with a Paedo- baptist minister on this subject, which is highly cre- ditable to both —“I never saw more godliness, candour, or humility in any one. He talked with **, *mong other things, about baptism and strict °ommunion. “I think,’ said he, before a number of his friends, “you have a catholic heart: I should like to know the grounds on which you act; and I am almost sure they are not temper nor bigotry !’ When I had stated them, he answered, “Well; I think I can see the conscientiousness of your con- duct, and am therefore glad I asked you.’” In 1815, within three or four months of his de- cease, while labouring under the most depressed state of body and mind, occasioned by a disordered liver, he sat at his desk upwards of twelve hours a day. On Feb. 1, he wrote to his brother at Isleham as follows: “. . . Well; ‘the Lord liveth, and blessed be my rock ' ' I am conscious of no wicked way in me; but I feel myself to be an unprofitable servant. We shall soon finish our course: may it be with joy | If I am able next summer, it is in my mind to take a tour eastward to Wisbeach, Lynn, Faken- ham, Norwich, Yarmouth, and some other places in Norfolk and Suffolk, and return by Isleham and Soham; but perhaps I may prove like Samson, who went out to do as at other times, and wist not that his strength was departed from him.” He was under the necessity of placing himself under medi- cal direction, to enable him to fulfil an engagement at Clipstone, a few miles from home, where on the 29th of March he attended the ordination of the Rev. J. Mack. He addressed the church in a most impressive manner, from 2 John 8. On re- tiring from the pulpit, he said, in reply to the in- quiries of his friends, “I am very ill—a dying man.” On taking his leave, he said, “All is over—my work is nearly finished. I shall see you no more : the blessing of the Lord attend you—farewell.” There can be no doubt that this exercise contribut- ed greatly to the aggravation of his disorder. The following sabbath, April 2, he delivered his last sermon, from Isa. lxvi. 1, 2, “Thus saith the Lord, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my foot- stool,” &c. His discourse on this occasion was marked by a peculiar earnestness, and his subse- quent pathetic though short address at the Lord's table, interrupted by solemn pauses, conveyed to the minds of the communicants a powerful impres- sion that they were receiving the memorials of a Saviour's love from his hands for the last time. He seemed absorbed in the contemplation of a crucified, risen, and exalted Redeemer, and quoted with pe- culiar emphasis those lines:– “Jesus is gone above the skies,” &c. On the 9th, after sitting up in his bed, and speak- ing in affecting terms relative to some family affairs, he said, “I feel satisfaction in the thought that my times are in the Lord's hands. I have been impor- tuning the Lord that whether I live it may be to him, or whether I die it may be to him. Flesh and heart fail; but God is the strength of my heart, and my portion for ever.” April the 11th, he said, “Into thy hands I com- mit my spirit, my family, and my charge : I have done a little for God; but all that I have done lxxxiv. MEMOIRS OF MR, FULLER. needs forgiveness. I trust alone in sovereign grace and mercy. I could be glad to be favoured with some lively hopes before I depart hence. God, my supporter and my hope, I would say, “Not my will, but thine be done !” “God is my soul’s etermal rock, The strength of every saint ’ I am a poor sinner; but my hope is in the Sa- viour of sinners.” He now determined, by the advice of his physi- cian, on going to Cheltenham; and his beloved flock, anxious that every possible accommodation should be afforded him, contributed most liberally to the supply of his wants. Writing to a friend in the town, who was prevented by illness from visiting him, he says—“April 19, I am ordered to go next Monday for Cheltenham. I should be happy to come and see you before I go ; but whether the weather and my afflictions will permit I know not. When I shall return is uncertain. The Lord's supper must be suspended ; my times are in the Lord’s hand ; but to me all is uncertain.” On the following sabbath his disorder assumed a new and alarming appearance, and the journey was relin- quished as impracticable. “On the 28th of April, he dictated the following letter to Dr. Ryland, and subscribed it with his own hand :— “MY DEAREST FRIEND, . “We have enjoyed much together, which I hope will prove an earnest of greater enjoyment in another world. We have also wrought together in the Lord’s vineyard, and he has given us to reap toge- ther in his vintage. I expect this is nearly over; but I trust we shall meet, and part no more. I have very little hope of recovery; but I am satisfied to drink of the cup which my heavenly Father giveth me to drink. Without experience, no one can conceive of the depression of my spirits; yet I have no despondency. “I know whom I have be- lieved, and that he is able to keep that which I have committed to him against that day.” I am a poor guilty creature; but Christ is an almighty Saviour. I have preached and written much against the abuse of the doctrine of grace; but that doc- trime is all my salvation and all my desire. I have no other hope than from salvation by mere sove- reign, efficacious grace, through the atonement of my Lord and Saviour. With this hope, I can go into eternity with composure. Come, Lord Jesus ! Come when thou wilt! Here I am ; let him do with me as seemeth him good | “We have some who have been giving out, of late, that “If Sutcliff and some others had preach- ed more of Christ, and less of Jonathan Edwards, they would have been more useful.” If those who talked thus preached Christ half as much as Jona- than Edwards did, and were half as useful as he was, their usefulness would be double what it is. It is very singular that the mission to the East should have originated with men of these principles; and, without pretending to be a prophet, I may say, If ever it falls into the hands of men who talk in this strain, it will soon come to nothing. “If I should never see your face in the flesh, I could wish one last testimony of brotherly love, and of the truth of the gospel, to be expressed by your coming over and preaching my funeral sermon, if it can be, from Rom. viii. 10. I can dictate no more, but am “Ever yours, “ A. F.” On the same day one of his deacons, to whom he expressed himself as in great depression of body, replied, “I do not know any person, sir, who is in a more enviable situation than yourself—a good man on the verge of a blessed immortality.” He modestly assented, and lifting up his hands ex- claimed, “If I am saved, it will be by great and so- vereign grace—BY GREAT AND SOVEREIGN GRACE l' On attempting to raise himself in bed, he said, “All my feelings are sinking, dying feelings.” Seeing his wife in tears, he said, “We shall meet again ' It will be well.” While in a bath, he ob- served to his medical attendant, “I never before recollect to have had such depression of animal spirits, accompanied with such. calmness of mind.” Though the disorder with which he was afflicted was such that many of the best regulated minds had been reduced almost to despair under its in- fluence, he was frequently heard to say, “My mind is calm—no raptures, no despondency.” And on one occasion he used the following emphatic ex- pression, “My hope is such that I am not afraid to plunge into etermity /* Addressing himself to one of his sons, he ex- claimed, “All misery is concentrated in me!”— “Bodily misery only, father?”—“Yes, I can think of nothing else.” More than once he said, “My breath is corrupt, my days are extinct.” On Lord's day, May the 7th, within an hour of his departure, overhearing the congregation singing in the chapel, which adjoined his house, he said to his daughter Sarah, “I wish I had strength enough.” —“To do what, father ?” He replied, “To wor- ship, child; ” and added, “my eyes are dim.” On his daughter Mary entering the room, (the rest of the family surrounding the bed of their dying parent,) HIS DEATH AND FUNERAL. lxxxv he said, “Come, Mary, come and help me.” He was raised up in bed, and in that attitude continued for nearly half an hour, apparently joining in the devotions of his flock. The only words that could be distinctly heard were “help me,” when, with his hands clasped and his eyes fixed upwards, he fell back, uttered two or three sighs, and expired. Thus died this devoted servant of Christ, May 7, 1815, in the sixty-second year of his age. A letter from his colleague, the Rev. J. K. Hall, gives a further detail of the circumstances attendant on his death and funeral, of which the following are extracts :- “I intend to fill this letter with news; though, as it will chiefly relate to Mr. Fuller's death, it will be news of a doleful kind. You have heard, I suppose, that this great and good man departed this life about half-past eleven, last Lord’s-day morning. I was, at the time, preaching from Psal. xxiii. 4—‘Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil,’ &c. He experienced what, at that moment, I was at- tempting to describe. Mr. Toller, the Independent minister, was, at the same time, preaching from Psal. lxxiii. 26—“My flesh and my heart faileth; but God is the strength of my heart and my portion for ever.” As soon as we left our places of worship, every individual in the town probably heard the afflictive words, “He is gone ! He is gone !’ and the melancholy news was soon despatched to different parts of the kingdom. As I had to preach in the afternoon, you may easily suppose that this circum- stance would increase those feelings which I could not prevent on so solemn an occasion: I preached from Isa. ix. 6—“And the government shall be upon his shoulder.” This was the text from which Mr. Fuller preached, when he returned from my grand- father's funeral.” After describing the particulars of his illness and death, he adds, “The funeral is to be next Monday. I shall not send this off till it is over. You know that Dr. Ryland, by Mr. Fuller's request, is to preach; and my uncle is to deliver the funeral Oration.” “Tuesday Afternoon [May 16]. “Mr. Hall has resigned to me (says Mrs. Hall) the task of finishing this letter; but as the mail Will leave Kettering very soon, I can do little more than just mention that the last sad tribute of respect Was yesterday evening paid to the remains of the great and good Mr. Fuller. The crowd which at- tended was immense. All the ministers in the town were invited, both Churchmen and Dissenters -Mr. Toller, Mr. Hogg, Mr. Bugg, with Mr. Brown and Mr. Towers, the Methodist preachers. No formal invitation was sent to any minister in the country, it being difficult to know where to draw the line; but numbers were attracted to the spot by motives of respect and affection. Mr. Grimshaw, a clergyman of the Establishment, came on purpose from Bedford. Mr. Hinton, of Oxford, and many others, with whom I was not acquainted, were there. I went to the meeting through Mr. Fuller's house (the doors not being open quite so soon) at three o'clock in the afternoon. About a quarter of an hour afterwards, the crowds assembled at the doors were admitted; the rush of people was astonishing; but no one, that I have heard of, received any injury. It was supposed there might be 2000 persons. The galleries were propped in several places, to prevent any accident; and, I am happy to say, there was not the slightest alarm. A quarter before five the funeral procession entered. The coffin was placed in the table-pew; the mourners in the seats on the right hand of the pulpit. Mr. J. H. first gave out a hymn. Mr. Toller then engaged in prayer, with great fervour and devotion: another hymn was sung. Dr. R. preached from Rom. viii. 10, and Mr. Robert Hall, preceded by another hymn, de- livered the funeral oration. The corpse was then carried out and interred. A few words only were spoken, by Dr. Ryland, after the body was put into the grave.” The following is an extract from a discourse de- livered by Mr. Toller, the Independent minister, on the sabbath following the death of his friend, and subsequently to Mr. Fuller's congregation at their request. The text was chosen from 1 Kings xiii. 30, “Alas, my brother l’” “With regard to the much-respected friend and Christian minister lately removed, it might appear unbecoming and indelicate in me to enter far into his character and case; particularly as this will be done to so much greater advantage on the approach- ing day; but thus much I could hardly satisfy my- self without advancing on this occasion. “I trust I am sincerely disposed to join in the gene- ral and just tribute which his friends and the public are disposed to pay to his abilities, his sound sense, and solid understanding, and to his unwearied dili- gence and unconquerable ardour in supporting and pursuing the interests of the best of causes; and that not only in the common duties of his profession, but more particularly in the propagation of Christianity in the foreign climes of India. Perhaps no individual, next to the unequalled Carey, no in- dividual, at least at home, has done so much to promote that cause; and, considering the few ad- vantages of early education which he enjoyed, the lxxxvi MEMOIRS OF MR. FULLER. eminence to which he has risen, the influence he acquired, and the means of usefulness which he has collected and secured, are so much the more ex- traordinary, and reflect the greater credit on his memory. The variety and compass of his writings, though all bearing on one grand point, yet serve to show what sheer abilities, sound principle, ardent zeal, and persevering application can do. I have read his works (some of them more than once) with much satisfaction, and, I trust, some improvement: that that improvement has not amounted to more, ought to be attributed to myself. I have not a doubt but that they have been of real and extensive use in the Christian church, in support of the radical principles of evangelical religion, and will continue to be so after his dust shall mingle with the ‘clods of the valley.’ It is a satisfaction to me to reflect that, in the great leading views of vital Christianity, he expresses very nearly my own sentiments; though it is not to be expected that persons who think for themselves on sacred subjects should, in every point, ‘see eye to eye.’ You will not, therefore, expect that I should profess myself able to subscribe to every article in his theological creed: still, how- ever, it is a pleasure to me to reflect now, that, dif- fering only on points of subordinate importance, wherever that was the case we always agreed to differ. “Though living in the same town, engaged in the same profession, and that under the banners of different denominations, for about thirty years, I do not recollect that ever an angry word passed be- tween us, or a single jar occurred, by our means, among our respective connexions. At the same time, I would not mention this in the spirit of a vain compliment, either to him or to myself; but desire to be deeply sensible of a thousand deficiencies and errors in other respects; nor would I be under- stood, in a servile spirit of fulsome flattery, as re- presenting him as a faultless character, or holding him up, in all respects, as a model of the Christian temper and disposition ; for, alas ! of whom can you say, ‘Be ye followers of him, unless you in- sert the restrictive clause—so far as he was “a fol- lower of Christ?” “While, then, I think him an eminent loss to his family, a general loss to society and the church of Christ, and perhaps an irreparable loss to his own denomination, I trust I can, with truly Christian cordiality, follow him up to the footstool of his Master's throne, and congratulate him on that “Well done, good and faithful servant,’ which, I have no doubt, he has received. “I conclude with remarking that, in no one point, either from his writings, which I have read, or the sermons I have heard from him, or the interviews and conversations I have had with him, in nothing can I so fully join issue with him as in the manner of his dying. Had he gone off full of rapture and transport, I might have said, “O let me die the triumphant death of the righteous!’ but it would have been far more than I could have realized or expected in my own case : but the state of his mind towards the last appears to have been, if I may so express it, “after my own heart.” He died as a penitent sinner at the foot of the cross. At my last parting with him I shook hands with him twice, and observed, with some emotion, not expecting to see him more, ‘We have lived harmoniously, many years, in the same place: I trust we shall, one day, meet above.’ I think the last religious sentence he dropped to me was, ‘Looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.” He said to a young minister, “I have no religious joys; but I have a hope, in the strength of which I think I could plunge into eternity.’ “Being reminded of his missionary labours, he replied, ‘Ah! the object was unquestionably good;’ but adverted to the mia:ture of motives to the in- fluence of which we are liable in supporting the best of causes. To another friend, who was con- gratulating him in a similar style, he replied, ‘I have been a great sinner; and, if I am saved at all, it must be by great and sovereign grace.’ Here the dying minister—the dying friend, speaks all my heart; here, I come nearer to him at his death than I have ever dome through the whole course of his life. The testimony of a Christian conscience is, at all times, invaluable; but, in the dying moments of a fallen creature, it can afford no more than auxiliary support; the grand prominent hold of the trembling soul must be “the golden chain that comes down from heaven.” It is the immediate, personal, realizing application; it is the broad palpable hope of salvation for penitent sinners, through the riches of Divine grace in Christ Jesus our Lord, that throws every thing else into shades. It is not the voice of congratulation on the best-spent life, how- ever just, that is most acceptable, in those awful moments, to pious minds: that is often heard with trembling diffidence and conscious apprehension of contaminating motives and counteracting defects. The sweetest music, in the ears of expiring piety, must be struck from another string: ‘This is the record, that God hath given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son—The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord.” “In all probability, my bones will be deposited not far from his ; God grant that I may die in the TESTIMONY OF MER. HALL. lxxxvii same temper and the same hope; and that our spirits may be united in the day of the Lord Amen.” A tomb was erected over the remains of Mr. Fuller, in the burial-ground adjoining his place of worship, and a tablet to his memory is placed by the side of the pulpit, with this inscription:— IN MEMORY OF THEIR REVERED AND BELOVED PASTOR, THE REveREND ANDREW FULLER, THE CHURCH AND CONGREGATION HAVE ERECTED THIS TABLET. HIS ARDENT PIETY, THE STRENGTH AND sound Ness of HIs JUDGMENT, HIS INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE OF THE HUMAN HEART, AND HIS PROFOUND ACQUAINTANCE WITH THE scriptures, EMINENTLY QUALIFIED HIM FOR THE MINISTERIAL OFFICE, WHICH HE SUSTAIN ED AMONGST THEM THIRTY-TWO YEARS. THE Force AND ORIGINALITY of HIs GENIUS, AIDED BY UNDAUNTED FIRMNEss, RAISED HIM FROM OBSCURITY TO HIGH DISTINCTION IN THE RELIGIOUS WORLD. BY THE WIsDonſ of HIS PLANs, AND BY HIS UNWEARIED DILIGENCE IN ExecutING THEM, HE RENDERED THE MOST IMPORTANT SERVICES To THE BAPTIST MISSIONARY SOCIETY; of WHICH HE was THE SECRETARY FROM ITs commence MENT, AND TO THE PROSPERITY OF WHICH HE DEVOTED HIS LIFE. IN ADDITION TO HIS OTHER LABOURs, HIS WRITINGS ARE NUMEROUS AND CELEBRATED, HE DIED MAY 7TH, 1815, AGED 61. The following testimonies will show the general estimation in which the character of the deceased was held. The first is from the pen of the late Rev. Robert Hall, A. M. “I cannot refrain from expressing, in a few words, the sentiments of affectionate veneration with which I always regarded that excellent person while living, and cherish his memory now that he is no more; a man whose sagacity enabled him to penetrate to the depths of every subject he explored, whose concep- tions were so powerful and luminous, that what was recondite and original appeared familiar; what was intricate, easy and perspicuous in his hands; equally Successful in enforcing the practical, in stating the theoretical, and discussing the polemical branches of theology: without the advantages of early edu- cation, he rose to high distinction among the re- ligious writers of his day, and, in the midst of a most active and laborious life, left monuments of his piety and genius which will survive to distant Posterity. Were I making his eulogium, I should necessarily dwell on the spotless integrity of his Private life, his fidelity in friendship, his neglect of self-interest, his ardent attachment to truth, and “specially the series of unceasing labours and exer- tions, in superintending the mission to India, to Which he most probably fell a victim. He had nothing feeble or undecisive in his character; but, \ to every undertaking in which he engaged, he brought all the powers of his understanding, all the energies of his heart; and if he were less distin- guished by the comprehension than the acumen and solidity of his thoughts—less eminent for the gentler graces than for stern integrity and native grandeur of mind, we have only to remember the necessary limitation of human excellence. While he endeared himself to his denomination by a long course of most useful labour, by his excellent works on the Socinian and deistical controversies, as well as his devotion to the cause of missions, he laid the world under lasting obligations.” The same eloquent writer, in his brief memoir of Mr. Toller, has sketched, with a masterly hand, a comparative delineation of the peculiar excellences of both his friends. “It has rarely been the privilege of one town, and that not of considerable extent, to possess at the same time, and for so long a period, two such eminent men as Mr. Toller and Mr. Fuller. Their merits as Christian ministers were so equal, and yet so different, that the exercise of their religious functions in the same place was as little adapted to produce jealousy as if they had moved in distant spheres. The predominant feature in the intellectual character of Mr. Fuller was the power of discrimi- nation, by which he detected the minutest shades of difference among objects which most minds would confound. Mr. Toller excelled in exhibiting the common sense of mankind in a new and impressive form. Mr. Fuller never appeared to so much ad- vantage as when occupied in detecting sophistry, repelling objections, and ascertaining, with a mi- croscopic accuracy, the exact boundaries of truth and error: Mr. Toller attached his attention chiefly to those parts of Christianity which come most into contact with the imagination and the feelings, over which he exerted a sovereign ascendency. Mr. Fuller convinced by his arguments, Mr. Toller sub- dued by his pathos; the former made his hearers feel the grasp of his intellect, the latter the contagion of his sensibility. Mr. Fuller's discourses identified themselves after they were heard with trains of thought; Mr. Toller's with trains of emotion. The illustrations employed by Mr. Fuller (for he also excelled in illustration) were generally made to sub- serve the clearer comprehension of his subject ; those of Mr. Toller consisted chiefly of appeals to the imagination and the heart. Mr. Fuller's mi- nistry was peculiarly adapted to detect hypocrites, to expose fallacious pretensions to religion, and to separate the precious from the vile; he sat as ‘the refiner's fire, and the fuller's soap.” Mr. Toller was most in his element when exhibiting the con- lxxxviii MEMOIRS OF MR. FULLER. solations of Christ, dispelling the fears of death, and painting the prospects of eternity. Both were original; but the originality of Mr. Fuller appeared chiefly in his doctrinal statements, that of Mr. Toller in his practical remarks. The former was unques- tionably most conversant with speculative truth, the latter possessed, perhaps, the deeper insight into the human heart. “Nor were the characters of these eminent men, within the limits of that moral excellence which was the attribute of both, less diversified than their mental endowments. Mr. Fuller was chiefly dis- tinguished by the qualities that command veneration; Mr. Toller by those which excite love. Laborious, zealous, intrepid, Mr. Fuller passed through a thou- sand obstacles in the pursuit of objects of public interest and utility: Mr. Toller loved to repose, de- lighting and delighted, in the shade of domestic privacy. The one lived for the world; the other for the promotion of the good of his congregation, his family, and friends. An intense zeal for the advancement of the kingdom of Christ, sustained by industry that never tired, a resolution not to be shaken, and integrity incapable of being warped, conjoined to a certain austerity of manner, were the leading characteristics of Mr. Fuller; gentleness, humility, and modesty those of Mr. Toller. The secretary of the Baptist Mission attached, in my opinion, too much importance to a speculative ac- curacy of sentiment; while the subject of this me- moir leaned to the contrary extreme. Mr. Fuller was too prone to infer the character of men from their creed; Mr. Toller to lose sight of their creed in their character. “Between persons so dissimilar, it was next to impossible a very close and confidential intimacy should subsist: a sincere admiration of each other's talents, and esteem for the virtues which equally adorned them both, secured, without interruption, for more than thirty years, those habits of kind and respectful intercourse which had the happiest effect in promoting the harmony of their connexions, and the credit of religion. “Much as Mr. Fuller was lamented by the re- ligious public in general, and especially in his own denomination, I have reason to believe there was not a single individual, out of the circle of his immediate relatives, who was more deeply affected by his death than Mr. Toller. From that moment he felt him- self nearer to eternity; he accepted the event as a most impressive warning of his own dissolution; and, while a thousand solemn and affecting recol- lections accompanied the retrospect of a connexion which had so long and so happily subsisted, one of his favourite occupations was to revive a mental in- tercourse, by the frequent perusal of the sermons of his deceased friend. It is thus that the friendship of high and sanctified spirits loses nothing by death but its alloy; failings disappear, and the virtues of those whose “faces we shall behold no more 'ap- pear greater and more sacred when beheld through the shades of the sepulchre.” “It is pleasing to reflect,” observes Dr. Newman, “that a spontaneous homage was paid to him by persons of all ranks and degrees. Men of education and learning, men of distinction in wealth and office, the poor and illiterate, Christians in the Estab- lishment and out of it, of all denominations, hung delighted on his lips.” The Committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society, in a minute dated May 22, 1815, testify their estimate of his worth in the following terms:— “This Committee learn, with deep regret, the de- cease of the late Rev. Andrew Fuller, secretary to the Baptist Missionary Society; and, impressed with a sense of the valuable services rendered by that excellent individual, in promoting the trans- lation and publication of the sacred Scriptures in the East, desire to unite their condolence on this afflictive event with that of their Baptist brethren, to whom he was more particularly allied, and of the Christian world, by whom his memory will deserve to be held in affectionate and grateful veneration.” To these public testimonies may be added one relative to his domestic virtues, from his bereaved widow, who thus writes to Dr. Ryland:— “I think, dear sir, there was no one better ac- quainted with the dear deceased, in his public cha- racter, than yourself: we can, therefore, give you no information on that head; but far be it from me to wish it to be held up in the style of panegyric. I am certain that would have ill accorded with his sentiments and feelings; and I know that this may be safely left to your discretion. But I cannot for. bear adding my testimony to my late dear husband's conduct in his domestic character; which, so far as his mind was at liberty to indulge in such enjoy- ments, I must testify to have been, ever since I had the happiness of being united to him, of the most amiable and endearing kind. But to so great a de- gree was he absorbed in his work as scarcely to allow himself any leisure or relaxation from the se- verest application; especially since, of late years, his work so accumulated on his hands. I was sometimes used to remark, how much we were oc- cupied; (for, indeed, I had no small share of care devolved upon me in consequence ;) his reply usu- ally was, “Ah, my dear, the way for us to have any joy is to rejoice in all our labour, and then we shall .* ANECDOTES. lxxxix have plenty of joy.” If I complained that he allow- ed himself no time for recreation, he would answer, “Oh no ; all my recreation is a change of work.” If I expressed an apprehension that he would soon wear himself out, he would reply, ‘I cannot be worn out in a better cause. We must work while it is day;” or, “Whatever thy hand findeth to do, do it with all thy might.” “There was a degree of bluntness in his manner; which yet did not arise from an unsociable or churl- ish disposition, but from an impatience of interrup- tion in the grand object of his pursuit. In this sense, he seemed not to know his relations or friends. Often, when a friend or an acquaintance on a jour- ney has called, when they had exchanged a few words, he would ask, ‘Have you any thing more to say ?'—or something to that effect—“if not, I must beg to be excused; at the same time, asking them to stay and take some refreshment, if they chose. Yet, you know, dear sir, he had a heart formed for the warmest and sincerest friendship with those whose minds were congenial with his own, and who were engaged in similar pursuits; and I never knew him to be weary of their company. I am fully persuaded that my dear husband fell a sacrifice to his unremitting application to the concerns of the mission; but I dare not murmur. The Lord has done as it pleased him; and I know that whatever he does is right.” The following anecdotes will illustrate some of the most distinguishing features of Mr. Fuller's character. Among these none was more conspicu- ous than his originality, which is thus referred to by himself, in a conversation with a friend on the philo- sophical character of Dr. Franklin: “Well, said Mr. Fuller, what do you call a philosopher, or in what respect was he one 2 ” “Oh he seems to have made rules for himself in childhood, which regulated him even in old age.” Mr. Fuller replied, “If this be any mark of a philosopher, you will make me one.-My father was a farmer, and in my younger days it was one great boast among the ploughmen that they could plough a straight line across the furrows or ridges of a field. I thought I could do this as well as any of them. One day, I saw such a line, which had just been drawn, and I thought, ‘Now I have it.’ Accordingly, I laid hold of the Plough, and, putting one of the horses into the fur- row which had been made, I resolved to keep him Walking in it, and thus secure a parallel line. By and by, however, I observed that there were what might be called wriggles in this furrow; and, when I came to them, they turned out to be larger in *ne than in the original. On perceiving this, I threw the plough aside, and determined never to be an imitator.” There were times when he could appreciate and enjoy the works of art, but these were evidently made to yield to matters of higher moment; and what was observed of John Howard, by an eloquent living writer, was equally true of Mr. Fuller, that “as invisible spirits, who fulfil their commission of philanthropy among mortals, do not care about pic- tures, statues, and sumptuous buildings; no more did he, when the time in which he must have in- spected and admired them would have been taken from the work to which he had consecrated his life.” A friend, conducting Mr. F. through the University of Oxford, pointed out an object of peculiar interest among the splendid edifices that surrounded them: “Brother, replied he, I think there is one question which, after all that has been written on it, has not been yet answered:—What is justification ?” His friend proposed to return home and discuss the sub- ject; to which Mr. F. readily agreed, adding, “that inquiry is far more to me than all these fine buildings.” Though rarely accustomed to obtrude himself on the attention of strangers, no man could more ad- mirably preserve the consistency of his character in all companies. On one occasion, travelling in the Portsmouth mail, he was much annoyed by the profane conversation of two young men who sat op- posite. After a time, one of them, observing his gra- vity, accosted him with an air of impertinence, in- quiring, in rude and indelicate language, whether on his arrival at Portsmouth he should not indulge himself in a manner evidently corresponding with their own intentions: Mr. Fuller, lowering his ample brows, and looking the inquirer full in the face, replied in measured tones, “Sir, I am a man that fears God.” Scarcely a word was uttered during the remainder of the journey. “His aversion to display, and especially of at- tainments to which he could lay but a moderate claim, is remarkablein his disclaimer of any thing ap- proaching to erudition; and though his remarks on the English Translation of the Scriptures evince a shrewd perception of its merits, and those on the proper and improper use of terms discover an equal acquaintance with the general principles of language, it is observable that he more freely availed himself of the use of critical comment in one page of his “Letters of Agnostos,” where he was concealed from public view, than in all the rest of his works united. XC MEMOIRS OF MER. FULLER. Under the influence of those pensive feelings to which he was subject, especially in later life, he would often sing, to a tune remarkable for its plain- tive simplicity, a hymn commencing with the fol- lowing stanzas :— “I sojourn in a vale of tears, Alas, how can I sing 2 My harp doth on the willows hang, Distuned in every string : My music is a captive’s chain; Harsh sounds my ears do fill:— How can I sing sweet Zion’s song On this side Zion’s hill 2 ” One evening, having composed a tune, not re- markable for its scientific structure, he carried it for the inspection of a musical friend. “It’s in a flat key, sir,” observed his friend.—“Very likely,” replied Mr. F. in a plaintive tone, “very likely; I was born in a flat key.” His ideas of psalmody, which will be found among his miscellaneous pieces, are singular and not unworthy of attention. His mode of living was characterized by simpli- city, and he would frequently remark that the great difference between the comfort of one man and another often depended on the fact, that the one simplified his wants—the other multiplied them. Though his manners were occasionally harsh, and there were times in which he might be betrayed into needless severity, it was less attributable to a morose disposition than to an unpolished manner, of which his intercourse with society never entirely divested him. No man more sincerely estimated the importance of what he emphatically termed “Christian politeness,” which he esteemed as equally removed from the heartless complaisance of a Chesterfield and the affected moroseness of a Johnson. Mr. Fuller excelled principally as a writer, yet his preaching was exceedingly interesting and in- structive. His phraseology, though occasionally quaint, was, for the most part, clear, dignified, and emphatic. His arrangement was comprehensive, and he was remarkable for a felicitous discovery and a happy application of all the attributes of his subject and the terms of his text. Exposition was a favourite exercise ; and he was accustomed to re- gard a ministry in which this occupied a subordinate place as equally wanting in Scriptural authority and practical advantage. He expounded a large por- tion of the books of the Old and New Testament. Such of these as are not published were left in short-hand, in an unfinished state, and part of them perished by fire. Mr. Fuller was succeeded by his colleague, the Rev. John Keen Hall, M. A., who, after sustaining the pastoral office fourteen years, during which he was greatly endeared to his people, was suddenly called to his reward, in the prime of life, a few weeks after his second marriage; and was succeeded by the Rev. J. Robinson, the present pastor. APPENDIX. MR. FullLER left an aged mother, a widow, three sons, and two daughters, to mourn his loss. His mother, who had been for several years confined to her bed by infirmity, died in the faith of the gospel, in May, 1816, her age being upwards of ninety. His daughter Sarah, who was in a debilitated state of health at the time of his death, regarded that event as conveying a peculiarly solemn lesson to herself. Viewing with complacency his pallid corpse, she observed, “I shall lie there very soon,” —a presentiment which, alas, was realized. Her bereaved and disconsolate mother witnessed the only remaining companion of her widowhood falling under premature decay. Some of the distinguish- ing characteristics of this amiable and interesting young female were exhibited in a narrative com- posed by her mother, and inserted in the second edition of Dr. Ryland's Memoir of Mr. Fuller. A few extracts from this may not be unacceptable :- “Her disposition, from a child, was amiable. Integrity was a prominent feature in her character. She appeared to possess an habitual tenderness of conscience, and was the subject of early convictions of sin, which, though transient in childhood, were more permanent as she advanced in years; but, owing to a natural reservedness, accompanied by a fear of deceiving herself and others, it was very dif- ficult to ascertain the real state of her mind and feelings; and, when she had unbosomed herself, she seemed to repent, as though she had said some- thing which, after all, might not be true: and this suspicion of herself continued almost to the last. About the beginning of her last illness, in reply to the affectionate inquiries of her sister, she said, ‘I feel a great deal; but am afraid to speak it, lest I should deceive myself and others. Having had a re- ligious education, it is easy to talk about religion; and I am afraid lest what I have felt should be merely the effect of having enjoyed such a privilege, and so entirely wear off. I know religion in theory; but am fearful lest it should be in theory only.” She wept much, and promised to communicate as much. APPENDIX. xci of her mind as she could ; begging, however, that her sister would not mention it to any one; ‘for,” said she, “possibly, what I now feel may be only on account of my affliction ; and then, if I recover, it may all wear off, and I may bring a disgrace upon religion.’ “On being told of a young person who wished that, whenever she died, it might be of a consump- tion, that time might be afforded her to repent, she said, it was ‘so unreasonable to expect mercy, after having lived in sin as long as she could /’ “In public worship she was a very attentive hearer, and clearly understood and approved the doctrines of the gospel. Prayer-meetings were her peculiar delight; and her punctuality in attending them was truly exemplary: if any of her friends seemed indifferent to them, observing, “It is only a prayer-meeting,” she would express great disap- probation. “It was pleasing to observe the earnest desire she manifested for the spiritual welfare of others, especially of the young. Her diligence as a teacher in the Sunday school was worthy of observation; and she was extremely anxious for the adoption of a plan which had been proposed for the private re- ligious instruction of some of the elder children of the school, nor would she rest till she saw it accom- plished, though her diffidence would not allow her to take any active part in it. She once said to her mother in reference to this subject—‘Mother, when will you speak about it? I feel as if we were doing no good; and it is so rvicked to live here only to eat and drink, and sleep !’ “During her illness, she spent most of her time, when able, in reading the Psalms and the New Testament; and when too weary herself to read, she would hear the Bible read with great pleasure. “Though, doubtless, she felt the natural love of life, yet she was never heard to express the smallest degree of impatience under her long and trying af. fliction; and her mind became more calm and com- posed, as her prospects of being restored to her friends declined. The only concern she manifest- ed in this particular was in the idea of leaving her mother, to whom, after her father's death, she was especially endeared by her tender and dutiful atten- tions, and who she knew would deeply feel the loss of her society. She one time said to her—“I am quite happy, and have little wish to live but on your account.' * Seeing her mother greatly distressed, * She was peculiarly distressed at the thought of leaving her *other, confined by the charge of an aged and infirm parent ° a house already the scene of melancholy recollections, which *st be much increased by her own departure, and prayed *nestly and continually that God world spare her life beyond she in the tenderest manner endeavoured to recon- cile her to the loss of her by saying, ‘Dear mother, do not lay your account with pining after me when I am gone; you have other children who will need your care, and you don’t know what trouble you might have on my account if I were to live.” Being asked if she did not feel happy in the thought of meeting her dear departed friends in glory, she replied—‘I do not think of that, so much as of seeing God and praising him.’ A few days before she died, she requested her sister to pray for her speedy release. The next day she said to her mother—‘I think I am going . . . . I feel so calm and comfortable.” A short time before, she said she had no desire to live longer, unless it might be for the glory of God, and that she might serve him. To a friend who was speaking of his trials being so great, that, were it not for his family, he could be glad to leave the world, she said—“Take care of your motives, whether they are to glorify God, or merely to get rid of trouble.”—In short, the thoughts of serving and glorifying God, whether in this world or another, seemed to take place of all other consider- ations. She did not, however, attach any merit to the best of services; and her reliance for salvation was solely on the atonement of the Redeemer. She said he was all her hope, and all her desire. “When her younger brothers visited her a few weeks previous to her death, her earnestness with them was very affecting. On the morning of the day on which she died, she expressed an anxious desire of speaking to all the young people of her acquaintance, (mentioning several by name,) in order, if possible, to convey to them the strong im- pression of the weight of eternal things which filled her own mind, in the near prospect of eternity; and said, if she had a wish to live, it was that she might see them come forward, and declare themselves on the side of Christ. Being asked if she was happy, she replied, “Quite so; but I feel no raptures: and, if my dear father did not, how can I expect it?’ “At her request, Mr. Hall was sent for, to whom she spoke with much earnestness, lamenting to how little purpose she had lived, and desiring him, if he thought proper, to improve her death in a sermon to young people; entreating him to be very par- ticular in warning them not to put off the concerns of religion : and especially the children of the sab- bath school; expressing her regret that she had so much neglected speaking to them on that important that of her grandmother, a request which was remarkably an- swered, her grandmother, who had enjoyed a series of uninter- rupted internal health till within a few weeks of her decease, being interred a few days before the death of Miss Fuller. xcii MEMOIRS OF MR. FULLER. subject, and her intention if she had been spared to have attended more to her duty in this respect. “This was her last effort, as she scarcely spoke a sentence afterwards, but lay with great composure and serenity of aspect, waiting for her change, which took place between four and five o’clock in the afternoon of June 11, 1816. Her age was nineteen years. “She was interred on sabbath evening, June 16; when an impressive discourse was addressed to a crowded audience, by Mr. Hall, from Psalm cii. 23, 24.” To her bereaved mother Miss Fuller had been a wise and faithful counsellor in difficulty, and a sym- pathizing friend in affliction. Mrs. Fuller now re- moved to a small house near the residence of her daughter-in-law Mrs. Levet; but subsequently was induced, by several considerations, to remove to Bristol, where, after a residence of two years, she died, October 29, 1825, in the sixty-second year of her age. She was a woman of superior mind, and much reading and reflection. Though a constitutional reserve, confirmed by the retired scenes of her early life, rendered her less adapted to that social intercourse which her station required, this defect was counterbalanced by a pre-eminent share of dis- cretion, by which she not only avoided many of those evils which an incautious deportment on the part of a minister's wife has been known to occa- sion; but, with the aid of a sound judgment, ren- dered the most essential service to her husband as a confidential adviser in difficulties. Mr. Fuller, in a passage of his diary, has recorded the follow- ing brief testimony:-“I have found my marriage contribute greatly to my peace and comfort, and the comfort of my family; for which I render humble and hearty thanks to the God of my life.” Though she was peculiarly at home in domestic engagements, her unwearied industry afforded op- portunity for the record of her private views and feelings on a variety of subjects, as well as of nu- merous extracts from approved authors. After the lamented decease of her husband, and amidst various perplexing avocations, chiefly connected with the publication of the first edition of his works, and distressing anxiety relative to her daughter, she transcribed the exposition of the Psalms from Mr. Fuller's short-hand MS. Her sight suffered from the intense application; nor was it till within a short time of her death that the laborious under- taking was completed. Few persons have maintained a more close and devout intercourse with God than Mrs. Fuller; her exercises of mind were pre-eminently devotional; and the Psalms of David, and the poetical works of her favourite Watts, were a never-failing source of interest and profit. As she was not accustomed to keep a chronological diary, and frequently com- mitted her writings to the flames, the following fragments are nearly all that can be found, and probably these owe their present existence to an oversight:— “‘That I may be found in Him.”—Oh what a word is that When any person departs this life, it is usual to say of their friends and relatives, they have lost such a friend. True it is, they are lost to this world. They have no more share in any thing that is done under the sun; but, if they were believers in Christ, they will be found in Him, at the last day. Who can estimate the full extent of such an expression as this, or the state of blessed- ness it includes 2 To be found in Christ is to be interested in all he has done and suffered—his atonement, his righteousness, his intercession. O Lord, grant that I may thus be found in that day: not having on my own righteousness; but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteous- ness which is of God by faith.” “I have this evening heard of the death of a member of the church, who died full of peace and hope. I desire to feel thankful for the support af- forded her, and would humbly pray that I may be so favoured in my latter end. Oh to be a follower of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises 1’’ “I have been thinking, this morning, of the pri- vileges the people of God enjoy in the communion of spirits—if I may so call it. However distantly they may be situated from each other in person, there is one general place of rendezvous for kindred minds—this is a throne of grace. Oh how much we live below our mercies, and wrong each other and ourselves, when we do not to the full avail our- selves of this distinguishing privilege Surely this, improved as it ought, would in a great degree com- pensate for the absence of dear friends from each other. We might here be the means of rendering the most effectual assistance to each other, O my soul | I would now charge thee, before the Father of mercies and the God of all grace, to be found more constantly and more earnestly engaged in this important branch of Christian duty. O Thou, from whom every good and perfect gift cometh ! I look up to thee for grace and strength to enable me to discharge this and every other part of duty; for all my sufficiency is of thee.” “O Lord! thy footsteps are in the deep waters. All things seem dark around me, as it respects thy dispensations, both in a way of providence and APPENDIX. xciii grace. Will light and deliverance ever arise? “To the upright there ariseth light in darkness.” Oh may I be found of that number 1 O Lord, I have no distrust of thy veracity and faithfulness to thy promises, but I distrust myself. May it be my chief concern to seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, both for myself and my children; and then I may safely trust that every other needful good will be added.” A continual dread of death was a bar to much of that enjoyment which the consolations of the gospel are calculated to yield when “flesh and heart fail.” This, however, near the close of her life was hap- pily dissipated, and she met her “last enemy” with composure in the full possession of “a good hope through grace.” Her remains, agreeably to her own request, were conveyed to Kettering, and deposited beneath the same tomb as those of her beloved husband and daughter; on which occasion a discourse was de- livered by Mr. Hall from the words above quoted, which had been frequently used by her as indicative of the foundation of her confidence in the prospect of death. THE G O S P E L IT S OWN WITN E S S ; OR, THE HOLY NATURE AND DIVINE HARMONY OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION CONTRASTED WITH THE IMMORALITY AND ABSURDITY OF DEISM. Laying his hand on the Bible, he would say, “There is true philosophy. This is the wisdom that speaks to the heart. A bad life is the only grand objection to this Book.”—EARL OF RocBESTER. P. R. E. F. A. C. E. THE struggle between religion and irreligion has existed in the world in all ages; and if there be two opposite inter- ests which divide its inhabitants, the kingdom of Satan and the kingdom of God, it is reasonable to expect that the contest will continue till one of them be exterminated. The peaceful nature of Christianity does not require that we should make peace with its adversaries, or cease to repel their attacks, or even that we should act merely on the defen- sive. On the contrary, we are required to make use of those weapons of the Divine warfare with which we are fur- nished, for the pulling down of strong holds, casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ. The opposition of the present age has not been confined to the less important points of Christianity, nor even to its first principles: Christianity itself is treated as imposture. The same things, it is true, have been advanced, and as frequently repelled, in former ages; but the adversaries of the gospel of late, encouraged it should seem by the temper of the times, have renewed the attack with redoubled vigour. One of their most popular writers, hoping to avail him- self of this circumstance, is pleased to entitle his performance The Age of Reason. This writer is aware that flattery is one of the most powerful means of gaining admission to the human mind; such a compliment, therefore, to the present age, was doubtless considered as a master-stroke of policy. Nor is Mr. Paine less obliging to himself than to his read- ers, but takes it for granted that the cause for which he pleads is that of reason and truth. The considerate reader, however, may remark, that those writers who are not ashamed to beg the question in the title page are seldom the most liberal or impartial in the execution of the work. One thing which has contributed to the advantage of infidelity, is the height to which political disputes have arisen, and the degree in which they have interested the passions and prejudices of mankind. Those who favour the senti- ments of a set of men in one thing, will be in danger of thinking favourably of them in others; at least, they will not be apt to view them in so ill a light, as if they had been advanced by persons of different sentiments in other things as well as in religion. It is true, there may be nothing more friendly to infidelity in the nature of one political system than another; nothing that can justify professing Christians in accusing one another merely on account of a difference of this kind, of favouring the interests of atheism and irreligion: nevertheless it becomes those who think favourably of the political principles of infidels to take heed, lest they be insensibly drawn away to think lightly of religion. All the nations of the earth, and all the disputes on the best or worst modes of government, compared with this, are less than nothing and vanity. - To this it may be added, that the eagerness with which men engage in political disputes, take which side they may, is unfavourable to a zealous adherence to the gospel. Any mere worldly object, if it become the principal thing which occupies our thoughts and affections, will weaken our attachment to religion ; and if once we become cool and indif- ferent to this, we are in the high road to infidelity. There are cases, no doubt, relating to civil government, in which it is our duty to act, and that with firmness; but to make such things the chief object of our attention, or the principal topic of our conversation, is both sinful and injurious. Many a promising character in the religious world has, by these things, been utterly ruined. - The writer of the following pages is not induced to offer them to the public eye from an apprehension that the church of Christ is in danger. Neither the downfal of popery, nor the triumph of infidels, as though they had hereby overturned Christianity, have ever been to him the cause of a moment’s uneasiness. If Christianity be of God, as he Verily believes it to be, they cannot overthrow it. He must be possessed of but little faith who can tremble, though in * Storm, for the safety of the vessel which contains his Lord and Master. There would be one argument less for the divinity of the Scriptures, if the same powers which gave existence to the antichristian dominion had not been employed in taking it away.” But though truth has nothing to fear, it does not follow that its friends should be inactive ; if we have no apprehensions for the safety of Christianity, we may, nevertheless, feel for the rising generation. The Lord °onfers an honour upon his servants in condescending to make use of their humble efforts in preserving and promoting his interest in the world. If the present attempt may be thus accepted and honoured by Him, to whose name it is *incerely dedicated, the writer will receive a rich reward. Rettering, Oct. 10, 1799. t * The powers of Europe (signified by the ten horns, or kings) into which the Roman empire should be divided, were to give their kingdoms o the beast. They did so, and France particularly took the lead. The same powers, it is predicted, shall hate the whore, and burn her flesh With fire. They have begun to do so; and in this business also France has taken the lead. Rev. xvii. 12, 13, 16–18. gº B 2 INTROD UCTION. THE controversies between believers and unbelievers are confined to a narrower ground than those of professed be- lievers with one another. Scripture testimony, any further than as it bears the character of truth, and approves itself to the conscience, or is produced for the purpose of ex- plaining the nature of genuine Christianity, is here out of the question. Iteason is the common ground on which they must meet to decide their contests. On this ground Christian writers have successfully closed with their an- tagonists; so much so that, of late ages, notwithstanding all their boast of reason, not one in ten of them can be kept to the fair and honourable use of this weapon. On the contrary, they are driven to substitute dark insinu- ation, low wit, profane ridicule, and gross abuse. Such were the weapons of Shaftesbury, Tindal, Morgan, Boling- broke, Voltaire, Hume, and Gibbon; and such are the weapons of the author of The Age of Reason. Among various well-written performances, in answer to their several productions, the reader may see a concise and able refutation of the greater part of them in Leland's Review of the Deistical Writers. It is not my design to go over the various topics usually discussed in this controversy, but to select a single one, which, I conceive, has not been so fully attended to but that it may yet be considered with advantage. The internal evidence which Christianity possesses, particularly in respect of its holy nature and Divine harmony, will be the subject of the present inquiry. Mr. Paine, after the example of many others, endeavours to discredit the Scriptures by representing the number of hands through which they have passed, and the uncertainty of the historical evidence by which they are supported. “It is a matter altogether of uncertainty to us,” he says, “whether such of the writings as now appear under the names of the Old and New Testament are in the same state in which those collectors say they found them ; or whether they added, altered, abridged, or dressed them up.” “ It is a good work which many writers have un- dertaken, to prove the validity of the Christian history, and to show that we have as good evidence for the truth of the great facts which it relates as we have for the truth of any ancient events whatever.f. But if, in addition to this, it can be proved that the Scriptures contain internal characteristics of divinity, or that they carry in them the evidence of their authenticity, this will at once answer all objections from the supposed uncertainty of historical evidence. Historians inform us of a certain valuable medicine called Mithridate, an antidote to poison. It is said that this medicine was invented by Mithridates, king of Pontus; that the receipt of it was found in a cabinet, written with his own hand, and was carried to Rome by Pompey; that it was translated into verse by Damocrates, a famous physician; and that it was afterwards translated by Galen, from whom we have it. Now, supposing this medicine to be efficacious for its professed purpose, of what account would it be to object to the authenticity of its history? If a modern caviller should take it into his head to allege that the preparation has passed through so many hands, and that there is so much hearsay and uncertainty attend- ing it, that no dependence can be placed upon it, and that it had better be rejected from our Materia Medica,-he would be asked, Has it not been tried, and found to be ef. fectual ; and that in a great variety of instances 2 Such are Mr. Paine's objections to the Bible, and such is the answer that may be given him. This language is not confined to infidel writers. Mr. Locke speaks of what he calls “traditional revelation,” or revelation as we have it, in such a manner as to convey the idea that we have no evidence of the Scriptures being the word of God, but from a succession of witnesses hav- ing told us so. But I conceive these sacred writings may contain such internal evidence of their being what they profess to be, as that it might, with equal reason, be doubted whether the world was created by the power of God, as whether they were written by the inspiration of his Spirit ; and if so, our dependence is not upon mere tradition. It is true, the Scriptures having been conveyed to us through the medium of man, the work must necessarily, in some respects, have been humanized; yet there may be sufficient marks of divinity upon it to render it evident, to every candid mind, that it is of God. We may call the Mosaic account of the creation a tra- dition, and may be said to know through this medium that the heavens and the earth are the productions of Divine power. But it is not through this medium only that we know it; the heavens and the earth carry in them evident marks of their Divine original. These works of the Al- mighty speak for themselves, and in language which none but those who are wilfully deaf can misunderstand: “Their sound is gone forth throughout all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.” Were any man to pre- tend that its being a matter of revelation, and to us merely traditional revelation, that God made the heavens and the earth, and therefore that a degree of uncertainty must me- cessarily attend it, he would be reminded that the thing itself carried in it its own evidence. Let it be candidly considered whether the same may not be said of the Holy Scriptures. They will admit of historical defence, but they do not require it. Their contents, come through whose hands they may, prove them to be of God. It was on this principle that the gospel was proclaimed in the form of a testimony. The primitive preachers were not required by Him who sent them to prove their doctrine in the manner in which philosophers were wont to estab- lish a proposition; but to “declare the counsel of God,” and leave it. In delivering their message, they “com- mended themselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.” & It is no objection to this statement of things that the Scriptures are not embraced by every man, whatever be the disposition of his mind. This is a property that no Divine production whatever possesses; and to require it is equally unreasonable, as to insist that for a book to be per- fectly legible it must be capable of being read by those who shut their eyes upon it. Mr. Paine holds up the advan- tages of the book of nature in order to disparage that of Scripture, and says, “No deist can doubt whether the works of nature be God’s works.” An admirable proof this that we have arrived at the age of reason 1 Can no atheist doubt it ! I might as well say, No Christian doubts the truth of the Scriptures: the one proves just as much as the other. A prejudiced mind discerns nothing of * Age of IReason, Part I. pp. 10, 11. + Lardner, Simpson, and others. f Chambers’s Dictionary, Art. Mithridate. # Human Understanding, Book IV. Chap. XVIII. INTRODUCTION. 5 Divine beauty either in mature or Scripture ; yet each may include the most indubitable evidence of being wrought by the finger of God. If Christianity can be proved to be a religion that in- spires the love of God and man; yea, and the only religion in the world that does so ; if it endues the mind of him that embraces it with a principle of justice, meekness, chastity, and goodness, and even gives a tone to the morals of society at large ; it will then appear to carry its evidence along with it. The effects which it produces will be its letters of recommendation, written, “not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.” Moreover, if Chris- tianity can be proved to be in harmony with itself, corre- spondent with observation and experience, and consistent with the clearest dictates of sober reason, it will further appear to carry in it its own evidence; come through whose hands it may, it will evince itself to be what it pro- fesses to be—a religion from God. I will only add, in this place, that the Christianity here defended is not Christianity as it is corrupted by popish superstition, or as interwoven with national establishments, for the accomplishment of secular purposes; but as it is taught in the New Testament, and practised by sincere Christians. There is no doubt but that, in many in- stances, Christianity has been adopted by worldly men, even by infidels themselves, for the purpose of promoting their political designs. Finding the bulk of the people inclined to the Christian religion under some particular form, and attached to certain leading persons among them who sustained the character of teachers, they have con- sidered it as a piece of good policy to give this religion an establishment, and these teachers a share in the govern- ment. It is thus that religion, to its great dishonour, has been converted into an engine of state. The politician may be pleased with his success, and the teacher with his honours, and even the people be so far misled as to love to have it so; but the mischief resulting from it to religion is incalculable. Even where such establishments have arisen from piety, they have not failed to corrupt the minds of Christians from the simplicity which is in Christ. It was by these means that the church, at an early period, from being the bride of Christ, gradually degenerated to a harlot, and, in the end, became the mother of harlots, and abo- minations of the earth. The good that is done in such communities is not in consequence of their peculiar ecclesi- astical constitution, but in spite of it; it arises from the virtue of individuals, which operates notwithstanding the disadvantages of their situation. These are the things that afford a handle to unbelievers. They seldom choose to attack Christianity as it is drawn in the sacred writings, and exemplified in the lives of real Christians, who stand at a distance from worldly parade, political struggles, or state intrigues; but as it is corrupted and abused by worldly men. Mr. Paine racks his imagin- ation to make out a resemblance between the heathen mythology and Christianity. While he is going over the ground of Christianity as instituted by Christ and his apos- tles, the resemblance is faint indeed. There are only two points in which he even pretends to find an agreement, and these are formed by his misrepresenting the Scrip- tures. “The heathen deities were said to be celestially begotten ; and Christ is called the Son of God.” The heathens had a plurality of deities, even twenty or thirty thousand; and Christianity has reduced them to three '' It is easy to see that this is ground not suited to Mr. Paine’s purpose : he therefore hastens to corrupted Chris- tianity; and here he finds plenty of materials. “The statue of Mary,” he says, “succeeded the statue of Diana of Ephesus. The deification of heroes changed into the canonization of saints. The mythologists had gods for every thing. The Christian mythologists had saints for every thing. The church became as crowded with the one as the pantheon had been with the other ; and Rome was the place of both.”f Very true, Mr. Paine; but you are not so ignorant as to mistake this for Christianity. Had you been born and educated in Italy, or Spain, you might have been excused in calling this “the Christian theory;” but to write in this manner with your advan- tages is disingenuous. Such conduct would have dis- graced any cause but yours. It is capable, however, of some improvement. It teaches us to defend nothing but the truth as it is in Jesus. It also affords presumptive evidence in its favour; for if Christianity itself were false, there is little doubt but that you, or some of your fellow labourers, would be able to prove it so ; and this would turn greatly to your account. Your neglecting this, and directing your artillery chiefly against its corruptions and abuses, betray a consciousness that the thing itself, if not invulnerable, is yet not so easy of attack. If Christianity had really been a relic of heathenism, as you suggest, there is little reason to think that you would have so strenuously opposed it. PART I. THE HOLY NATURE OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION CONTRASTED WITH THE IMMORALITY OF DEISM. THE greatest enemies of Christianity would still be thought friendly to morality, and will plead for it as necessary to the Well-being of mankind. However immoral men may be in their practice, and to whatever lengths they may proceed in extenuating particular vices, yet they cannot Plead for immorality in the gross. A sober, upright, hum- ble, chaste, and generous character, is allowed, on all hands, to be preferable to one that is profligate, treacherous, Pººl, unchaste, or cruel. Such, indeed, is the sense which mon possess of right and wrong, that, whenever they attempt to disparage the former, or vindicate the latter, they are reduced to the necessity of covering each With a false guise. They cannot traduce good as good, or ; To give a colour to this statement, he is obliged to affirm a most #º falsehood, that only Gentiles believed jesus to be the son justify evil as evil. The love of God must be called fanati- cism, and benevolence to men Methodism, or some such opprobrious name, before they can depreciate them. Theft, cruelty, and murder, on the other hand, must assume the names of wisdom and good policy ere a plea can be set up in their defence. Thus were the arguments for the abo- lition of the slave trade answered, and in this manner was that imiquitous traffic defended in the British parliament. Doubtless there is a woe hanging over the heads of those men who thus called evil good, and good evil; never- theless we see, even in their conduct, the amiableness of righteousness, and the impossibility of fairly oppos- ing it. + Age of Reason, Part I. p. 5. 6 THE MORAL CHARACTER OF GOD. CHAPTER I. cHRISTIANITY REVEALs A GoD GLORIOUS IN HOLINESS; BUT DEISM, THOUGH IT ACKNOWLEDGES A GOD, YET DENIES OR OVERLOOKS IIIS MORAL CHARACTER, THERE are certain perfections which all who acknowledge a God agree in attributing to him ; such are those of wis- dom, power, immutability, &c. These, by Christian di- vines, are usually termed his natural perfections. There are others which no less evidently belong to Deity, such as goodness, justice, veracity, &c., all which may be expressed in one word—holiness ; and these are usually termed his moral perfections. Both natural and moral attributes tend to display the glory of the Divine character, but especially the latter. Wisdom and power, in the Supreme Being, render him a proper object of admiration; but justice, veracity, and goodness attract our love. No being is be- loved for his greatness, but for his goodness. Moral ex- cellence is the highest glory of any intelligent being, created or uncreated. Without this, wisdom would be subtlety, power tyranny, and immutability the same thing as being unchangeably wicked. We account it the glory of revelation that, while it dis- plays the natural perfections of God in a way superior to any thing that has been called religion, it exhibits his moral excellence in a manner peculiar to itself. It was with good reason that Moses affirmed, in behalf of Israel, “ Their rock is not as our Rock, our enemies themselves being judges.” The God, or Rock, of Israel is constantly described as a Being “glorious in holiness,” and as re- quiring pure and holy worship : “The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and in truth.” “The Lord our God is holy.” “Holy and reverend is his name.” “ Glory ye in his holy name.” “And one cried to another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.” “He is of purer eyes than to behold evil; and cannot look on iniquity.” “A God of truth, and without iniquity; just and right is he.” Is any thing like this to be found in the writings of the ancient heathems? No. The generality of their deities were the patrons of vice, and their worship was accompanied with the foulest abominations that could disgrace the nature of man. Justice, benevolence, and veracity were not considered as necessary in any part of their religion; and a large pro- portion of it consisted in drunkenness, lewdness, and the offering up of human sacrifices. The object of Christian adoration is Jehovah, the God of Israel ; whose character for holiness, justice, and good- ness, is displayed in the doctrines and precepts of the gos- pel in a more affecting light than by any of the preceding dispensations. But who or what is the god of deists 3 It is true they have been shamed out of the polytheism of the heathens. They have reduced their thirty thousand deities into one ; but what is his character 3 What attri- butes do they ascribe to him 3 For any thing that appears in their writings, he is as far from the holy, the just, and the good, as those of their heathen predecessors. They enjoy a pleasure, it is allowed, in contemplating the pro- ductions of wisdom and power; but, as to holiness, it is foreign from their inquiries: a holy God does not appear to be suited to their wishes. Lord Bolingbroke acknowledges a God, but is for re- ducing all his attributes to wisdom and power; blaming divines for distinguishing between his physical and moral attributes ; asserting that “we cannot ascribe goodness and justice to God, according to our ideas of them, nor argue with any certainty about them ; and that it is ab- surd to deduce moral obligations from the moral attributes of God, or to pretend to imitate him in those attributes.” + Voltaire admits “a supreme, eternal, incomprehensible Intelligence,” but passes over his moral character.f. Mr. Paine says, “I believe in one God, and no more;”f and in the course of his work ascribes to him the natural perfections of wisdom and power; but is very sparing in what he says of his moral excellence, of his being the moral * See Leland's Review, Let. XXIII. + Ignorant Philosopher, Nos, XV. XVI. XVII. Governor of the world, and of man’s being an accountable creature. He affects, indeed, to be shocked at the im- purity of the ideas and expressions of the Bible, and to feel for “the honour of his Creator in having such a book called after his name.” This is the only passage, that I recollect, in which he expresses any concern for the moral character of God, and whether this would have appeared, but for the sake of giving an edge to reproach, let the reader judge. How are we to account for these writers thus denying or overlooking the moral character of the Deity, but by supposing that a holy God is not suited to their inclina- tions? If we bear a sincere regard to moral excellence, we shall regard every being in proportion as he appears to possess it ; and if we consider the Divine Being as pos- sessing it supremely, and as the source of it to all other beings, it will be natural for us to love him supremely, and all other beings in subserviency to him. And if we love him supremely on account of his moral character, it will be no less natural to take pleasure in contemplating him under that character. On the other hand, if we be enemies to moral excellence, it will render every being who possesses it unlovely in our eyes. Virtuous or holy characters may indeed command our respect, and even admiration ; but will not attract our affection. Whatever regard we may bear to them, it will not be on account of their virtue, but of other qualities of which they may be possessed. Virtuous characters may be also wise and mighty; and we may admire their in- genuity, be delighted with their splendour, and take plea- sure in visiting them, that we may inspect their curiosities; but, in such cases, the more things of a moral nature are kept at a distance, the more agreeable will be our visit. Much the same may be said of the Supreme Being. If we be enemies to moral excellence, God, as a holy Being, will possess no loveliness in our eyes. We may admire him with that kind of admiration which is paid to a great genius, and may feel a pleasure in tracing the grandeur and ingenuity of his operations; but the further his moral character is kept out of sight, the more agreeable it will be to us. Lord Shaftesbury, not contented with overlooking, at- tempts to satirize the Scripture representations of the Divine character. “One would think,” he says, “it were easy to understand that provocation and offence, anger, revenge, jealousy in point of honour or power, love of fame, glory, and the like, belong only to limited beings, and are me- cessarily excluded a Being which is perfect and universal.” || That many things are attributed to the Divine Being in a figurative style, speaking merely after the manner of men, and that they are so understood by Christians, Lord Shaftesbury must have well known. We do not think it lawful, however, so to explain away these expressions as to consider the Great Supreme as incapable of being of- fended with sin and sinners, as destitute of pleasure or displeasure, or as unconcerned about his own glory, the exercise of which involves the general good of the universe. A being of this description would be neither loved nor feared, but would become the object of universal contempt. It is no part of the imperfection of our nature that we are susceptible of provocation and offence, of anger, of jealousy, and of a just regard to our own honour. Lord Shaftesbury himself would have ridiculed the man, and still more the magistrate, that should have been incapable of these properties on certain occasions. They are planted in our nature by the Divine Being, and are adapted to an- swer valuable purposes. If they be perverted and abused to sordid ends, which is too frequently the case, this does not alter their nature, nor lessen their utility. What would Lord Shaftesbury have thought of a magistrate who should have witnessed a train of assassinations and mur- ders, without being in the least offended at them, or angry with the perpetrators, or inclined to take vengeance on them, for the public good? What would he think of a British House of Commons which should exercise no jealousy over the encroachments of a minister; or of a king of Great Britain who should suffer, with perfect in- difference, his just authority to be contemned ? # Age of Reason, Part I. p. 1 § Ibid. p. 16. p; i. | Characteristics, Vol. I. $5, THE WORSHIP OF GOD. 7 “But we are limited beings, and are therefore in danger of having our just rights invaded.” True ; and though God be unlimited, and so in no danger of being deprived of his essential glory, yet he may lose his just authority in the esteem of creatures ; and were this to take place uni- versally, the whole creation would be a scene of anarchy and misery. But we understand Lord Shaftesbury. He wishes to compliment his Maker out of all his moral ex- cellences. He has no objection to a god, provided he be one after his own heart, one who shall pay no such regard to human affairs as to call men to account for their un- godly deeds. If he thought the Creator of the world to bear such a character, it is no wonder that he should speak of him with what he calls “good humour, or pleasantry.”* In speaking of such a Being, he can, as Mr. Hume ex- presses it, “feel more at ease ’’ than if he conceived of God as he is characterized in the Holy Scriptures. But let men beware how they play with such subjects. Their conceptions do not alter the nature of God; and however they suffer themselves to trifle now, they may find in the end that there is not only a God, but a God that judgeth &n the earth. CHAPTER II. CHRISTIANITY TEACHEs Us To ACKNOWLEDGE GOD, AND TO DevoTE ourselves To HIs SERVICE; BUT DEISM, THOUGH IT CONFESSES ONE SUPREME BEING, YET REFUSES TO WORSHIP HIM, IF there is a God he ought to be worshipped. This is a principle which no man will be able to eradicate from his bosom, or even to suppress, but at great labour and ex- pense. The Scriptures, it is well known, both inculcate and inspire the worship of God. Their language is, “O come, let us sing unto the Lord ; let us make a joyful noise to the Rock of our salvation. Let us come before his presence with thanksgiving, and make a joyful noise unto him with psalms.” “O come, let us worship and bow down : let us kneel before the Lord our Maker.” “Give unto the Lord glory and strength; give unto the Lord the glory due unto his name: bring an offering, and come into his courts. O worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness; fear before him all the earth.” “Give thanks unto the Lord ; call upon his name ; make known his deeds among the people.” “Glory ye in his holy name: let the heart of them rejoice that seek the Lord. Seek the Lord and his strength ; seek his face evermore.” The spirit also which the Scriptures inspire is favourable to Divine worship. The grand lesson which they teach is love; and love to God delights to express itself in acts of obedience, adoration, supplication, and praise. The na- tural language of a heart well affected to God is, “I will call upon him as long as I live.” “Bless the Lord, O my Soul; and all that is within me, bless his holy name.” “ Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and Supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known unto God.” Is it thus with our adversaries? They speak, indeed, of: true and fabulous theology,” and of “true and false religion; ” and often talk of “adoring” the Supreme Being. But if there be no true religion among Christians, where are we to look for it? Surely not among deists. Their “adorations” seem to be a kind of exercises much *sembling the benevolent acts of certain persons, who are sº extremely averse from ostentation, that nobody knows of their being charitable but themselves. *: Paine professes to believe in the equality of man, and that religious duty consists in “doing justice, loving *y.”-and what? I thought to be sure he was going to add “ walking humbly with God.” But I was mis- taken, Mr. Paine supplies the place of walking humbly With God, by adding, “ and endeavouring to make our fel- * Characteristics, vol. I. 3. * Age of Reason, Part I. p. 2. # Ibid, p. 21. low creatures happy.”f Some people would have thought that this was included in doing justice and loving mercy ; but Mr. Paine had rather use words without meaning than write in favour of godliness. “Walking humbly with God” is not comprehended in the list of his “religious duties.” The very phrase offends him. It is that to him, in quoting Scripture, which a nonconductor is to the electrical fluid : it causes him to fly off in an oblique di- rection; and, rather than say any thing on so offensive a subject, to deal in unmeaning tautology. Mr. Paine not only avoids the mention of “walking humbly with God,” but attempts to load the practice itself with the foulest abuse. He does not consider himself as “an outcast, a beggar, or a worm ; ” he does not approach his Maker through a Mediator; he considers “redemption as a fable,” and himself as standing in an honourable situ- ation with regard to his relation to the Deity. Some of this may be true, but not the whole. The latter part is only a piece of religious gasconade. If Mr. Paine really thinks so well of his situation as he pretends, the belief of an hereafter would not render him the slave of terror." But, allowing the whole to be true, it proves nothing. A high conceit of oneself is no proof of excellence. If he choose to rest upon this foundation, he must abide the consequence; but he had better have forborne to calum- niate others. What is it that has transported this child of reason into a paroxysm of fury against devout people 3 By what spirit is he inspired, in pouring forth such a tor- rent of slander ? Why is it that he must accuse their hu- mility of “ingratitude,” their grief of “affectation,” and their prayers of being “dictatorial” to the Almighty 3 “Cain hated his brother. And wherefore hated he him 3 Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s right- eous.” Prayer and devotion are things that Mr. Paine should have let alone, as being out of his province. By attempting, however, to deprecate them, he has borne wit- ness to the devotion of Christians, and fulfilled what is written in a book which he affects to despise, “Speaking evil of the things which he understands not.” To admit a God, and yet refuse to worship him, is a modern and inconsistent practice. It is a dictate of reason as well as of revelation, “If the Lord be God, worship him ; and if Baal, worship him.” It never was made a question, whether the God in whom we believe should re- ceive our adorations. All nations, in all ages, paid re- ligious homage to the respective deities, or supposed deities, in which they believed. Modern unbelievers are the only men who have deviated from this practice. How this is to be accounted for is a subject worthy of inquiry. To me it appears as follows:– In former times, when men were weary of the worship of the true God, they exchanged it for that of idols. I know of no account of the origin of idolatry so rational as that which is given by revelation. “Men did not like to retain God in their knowledge; therefore they were given up to a mind void of judgment; to change the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and to four-footed beasts, and creeping things; and to defile themselves by abominable wicked- mess.” || It was thus with the people who came to inhabit the country of Samaria after the Israelites were carried captives into Assyria. At first, they seemed desirous to know and fear the God of Israel ; but when they came to be informed of his holy character, and what kind of wor- ship he required, they presently discovered their dislike. They pretended to fear him, but it was mere pretence ; for every nation “made gods of their own.”T Now gods of their own making would doubtless be characterized accord- ing to their own mind: they would be patrons of such vices as their makers wished to indulge ; gods whom they could approach without fear, and in addressing whom they could “be more at ease,” as Hume says, than in address- ing the one living and true God; gods, in fine, the worship of whom might be accompanied with banquetings, revel- lings, drunkenness, and lewdness. These, I conceive, rather than the mere falling down to an idol, were the ex- ercises that interested the passions of the worshippers. These were the exercises that seduced the ungodly part of * Age of Reason, Part II. near the end. | Rom. i. TI 2 Kings xvii. 29. 8 THE WORSHIP OF GOD. r the Israelitish nation to an imitation of the heathens. They | found it extremely disagreeable to be constantly employed in the worship of a holy God. Such worship would awe their spirits, damp their pleasures, and restrain their in- clinations. It is not surprising, therefore, that they should be continually departing from the worship of Jehovah, and leaning towards that which was more congenial with their propensities. But the situation of modern unbelievers is singular. Things are so circumstanced with them, that they cannot worship the gods which they prefer. They never fail to discover a strong partiality in favour of hea- thens, but they have not the face to practise or defend their absurd idolatries. The doctrine of one living and true God has appeared in the world, by means of the preaching of the gospel, with such a blaze of evidence, that it has forced itself into the minds of men, whatever has been the temper of their hearts. The stupid idolatry of past ages is exploded. Christianity has driven it out of Europe. The consequence is, great numbers are obliged to acknowledge a God whom they cannot find in their hearts to worship. If the light that is gone abroad in the earth would per- mit the rearing of temples to Venus, or Bacchus, or any of the rabble of heathen deities, there is little doubt but that modern unbelievers would, in great numbers, become their devotees; but seeing they cannot have a god whose wor- ship shall accord with their inclinations, they seem de- termined not to worship at all. And, to come off with as good a grace as the affair will admit, they compliment the Deity out of his sovereign prerogatives; professing to “love him for his giving them existence, and all their pro- perties, without interest, and without subjecting them to any thing but their own nature.” + The introduction of so large a portion of heathen my- thology into the songs, and other entertainments of the stage sufficiently shows the bias of people's hearts. The house of God gives them, no pleasure ; but the resurrection of the obscenities, intrigues, and Bacchamalian revels of the old heathems affords them exquisite delight. In a country where Christian worship abounds, this is plainly saying, ‘What a weariness is it! Oh that it were no more Since, however, we cannot introduce the worship of the gods, we will neglect all worship, and celebrate the praises of our favourite deities in another form.’ In a country where deism has gained the ascendency, this principle is carried still further. Its language there is, “Seeing we cannot, for shame, worship any other than the one living and true God, let us abolish the day of worship, and sub- stitute in its place one day in ten, which shall be devoted chiefly to theatrical entertainments, in which we can in- troduce as much heathenism as we please.” Mr. Hume acknowledges the justice of considering the Deity as infinitely superior to mankind; but he represents it, at the same time, as very generally attended with un- pleasant effects, and magnifies the advantages of having gods which are only a little superior to ourselves. He says, “While the Deity is represented as infinitely superior to mankind, this belief, though altogether just, is apt, when joined with superstitious terrors, to sink the human mind into the lowest submission and abasement, and to repre- sent the monkish virtues of mortification, penance, hu- mility, and passive suffering, as the only qualities which are acceptable to him. But where the gods are conceived to be only a little superior to mankind, and to have been many of them advanced from that inferior rank, we are more at our ease in our addresses to them, and may even, without profaneness, aspire sometimes to a rivalship and emulation of them. Hence activity, spirit, courage, mag- nanimity, love of liberty, and all the virtues which ag- grandize a people.” f . It is easy to perceive, from this passage, that though Mr. Hume acknowledges the justice of conceiving of a God infinitely superior to us, yet his &nclination is the other way. At least, in a nation the bulk of which will be supposed to be inclined to super- stition, it is better, according to his reasoning, and more friendly to virtue, to promote the worship of a number of imaginary deities, than of the one only living and true God. Thus “the fool saith in his heart, No God ..." * Ignorant Philosopher, No. XXIV. + Dissertation on the Natural History of Religion, ; 10. The sum of the whole is this : Modern unbelievers are deists in theory, pagans in inclination, and atheists in practice. * If deists loved the one only living and true God, they would delight in worshipping him ; for love cannot be inoperative, and the only possible way for it to operate towards an infinitely glorious and all-perfect Being is by worshipping his name and obeying his will. If Mr. Paine really felt for “the honour of his Creator,” as he affects to do, he would mourn in secret for all the great wicked- ness which he has committed against him ; he would lie in the dust before him, not merely as “an outcast, a beggar, and a worm,” but as a sinner, deserving his eternal dis- pleasure. He would be glad of a Mediator, through whom he might approach his offended Creator; and would con- sider redemption by his blood, not as “a fable,” but a Divine reality, including all his salvation, and all his desire. Yea, he himself would “turn devout ; ” and it would be said of him, as of Saul of Tarsus, “Behold, he prayeth !” Nor would his prayers, though importunate, be “dicta- torial,” or his grief “affected.” On the contrary, he would look on Him whom he had pierced, and mourn, as one mourneth for an only son ; and be in bitterness, as one that is in bitterness for his first-born. But these are things pertaining to godliness ; things, alas for him the mention of which is sufficient to inflame his mind with malignity, and provoke him to the most outrageous and abusive language. CHAPTER III. THE CHRISTIAN STANDARD OF MORALITY IS ENLARGED, AND FREE FROM IMPURITY ; BUT DEISM con FINEs our OBLIGATIONS TO THOSE DUTIES WHICH RESPECT OUR OWN SPECIES, AND GREATLY PALLIATES VICE WITH REGARD TO A BREACH EVEN OF THEMI. PERSONs who profess the strictest regard to the rule of duty, and carry the extent of it to the highest pitch, may, it is allowed, be insincere, and contradict by their practice what they advance in their professions. But those whose ideas of virtue are low and contracted, and who embrace every opportunity to reconcile the vices of the world with its sacred precepts, cannot possibly be accounted any other than its enemies. That which the Scriptures call holiness, spirituality, &c., as much surpasses every thing that goes under the names of morality and virtue among unbelievers as a living man surpasses a painting, or even a rude and imperfect daub- ing. If, in this controversy, I have used these terms to express the Scriptural ideas, it is not because, in their or- dinary acceptation, they are equal to the purpose, but for the sake of meeting unbelievers upon their own ground. I have a right, however, to understand by them those dis- positions of the mind, whatever they be, which are right, jit, or amiable ; and, so explained, I undertake to prove that the morality and virtue inculcated by the gospel is enlarged and free from impurity, while that which is taught by its adversaries is the reverse. It is a distinguishing property of the Bible, that all its precepts aim directly at the heart. It never goes about to form the mere exterior of man. To merely external duties it is a stranger. It forms the lives of men no otherwise than by forming their dispositions. It never addresses itself to their vanity, selfishness, or any other corrupt pro- pensity. You are not pressed to consider what men will think of you, or how it will affect your temporal interest; but what is right, and what is necessary to your etermal well-being. If you comply with its precepts, you must be, and not merely seem to be. It is the heart that is re- quired, and all the different prescribed forms of worship and obedience are but so many modifications or varied expressions of it. Is any thing like this to be found in the writings of # Age of Reason, Part I. p. 16. THE STANDARD OF MORALITY. 9 deists 3 No. Their deity does not seem to take cognizance of the heart. According to them, “There is no merit or crime in intention.” “ Their morality only goes to form the exterior of man. It allows the utmost scope for wicked desires, provided they be not carried into execution to the injury of society. The morality which the Scriptures inculcate is summed up in these few words: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, with all thy mind, with all thy strength; and thy neighbour as thy- self.” This single principle is competent to the govern- ment of all intelligent nature. It is a band that would hold together the whole rational creation, and diffuse peace, order, and happiness wherever it existed. If mankind loved God supremely, there would be no idolatry upon earth, nor any of its attendant abominations; no profaning the name of God, nor making a gain of god- liness; no opposing, corrupting, perverting, nor abusing the truth ; no perjuries, nor hypocrisies ; no despising of those that are good; no arrogance, ingratitude, pride, nor self-complacency under the smiles of providence ; and no murmuring, heart-rising, sullenness, nor suicide under its frowns. Love would render it their meat and drink to fear, honour, and obey him, and induce them to take every thing well at his hands.—And if they loved their fellow creatures as themselves, for his sake, there would be no wars, rivalships, antipathies, nor breach of treaties between nations; no envyings, strifes, wrongs, slanders, duels, liti- gations, nor intrigues between neighbours; no flattering complaisance nor persecuting bitterness in religion ; no deceit, fraud, nor overreaching in trade ; no tyranny, venality, haughtiness, nor oppression among the great ; no envy, discontent, disaffection, cabals, nor evil-devisings among common people; no murders, robberies, thefts, burglaries, nor brothels in city or country; no cruelty in parents or masters; no ingratitude nor disobedience in children or servants; no umkindness, treachery, nor im- placable resentments between friends ; no illicit con- nexions between the sexes; no infidelities, jealousies, nor bitter contentions in families ; in short, none of those streams of death, one or more of which flow through every vein of society, and poison its enjoyments. Such is the principle and rule of Christian morality; and what has deism to substitute in its place 3 Can it find a succedaneum for love 3 No, but it proposes the love of ourselves instead of the love of God. Lord Bolingbroke resolves all morality into self-love, as its first principle. “We love ourselves,” he says, “we love our families, we love the particular societies to which we belong ; and our benevolence extends at last to the whole race of mankind. Like so many different vortices, the centre of all is self- love.” + Such also are the principles of Volney. Could this disposition be admitted as a proper source of moral action, the world would certainly not be wanting in morality. All men possess at least the principle of it, whether they carry it to the extent which Lord Bolingbroke proposes or not ; for though some may err in the choice of their end, and others in the means of obtaining it, yet no man was ever so wanting in regard to himself, as inten- tionally to pursue his own injury. But if it should prove that to render self-love the source of moral action is the same thing as for every individual to treat himself as the Supreme Being, and therefore that this principle, instead of being a source of virtue, is the very essence of vice, and the source of all the mischief in the universe, consequences may follow of a very different complexion. . To subordinate self-love I have no objection. It occu- Pies a place in the Christian standard of morality, being the measure of that love which we owe to our fellow crea- tures. And as the universal love which we owe to them does not hinder but that some of them, by reason of their situation or peculiar relation to us, may require a larger Portion of our regard than others, it is the same with re- Spect to ourselves. Our own concerns are our own imme- diate charge ; and those which are of the greatest import- ºnce, such as the concerns of our souls, undoubtedly *quire a proportionate degree of attention. But all this 9es not affect the present subject of inquiry. It is our - * Volney's Law of Nature, p. 18. * Posthumous works, vol. v. p. 82. # Works, Vol. V. p. 90. * B supreme, and not our subordinate regard, that will ever be the source of action. I take it for granted that it is the intention of every good government, human or Divine, to unite its subjects, and not to set them at variance. But there can be no union without a common object of regard. Either a character whom all love and venerate, or an end which all pursue, or both, is that to a community which a head-stone is to an arch; nor can they keep together without it. It is thus that the love of God holds creation together. He is that lovely character to whom all holy intelligences bear su- preme affection ; and the display of his glory, in the uni- versal triumph of truth and righteousness, is that end which they all pursue. Thus united in their grand object, they cannot but feel a union of heart with one another, arising from what is common to every other voluntary union—a congeniality of sentiments and pursuits. But if our supreme affection terminate on ourselves, and no being, created or uncreated, be regarded but for our own sakes, it is manifest there can be no union beyond the sphere in which other beings become voluntarily subservi- ent to our wishes. The Supreme Being, if our plan do not comport with his, will be continually thwarting us; and so we shall be always at variance with him. And as to created beings, those individuals whom we desire to be subservient to our wishes, having the same right, and the same inclination, to require that we should be subservient to theirs, will also be continually thwarting us; and so we shall always be at variance with them. In short, nothing but an endless succession of discord and confusion can be the consequence. Every one setting up for pre-eminence, every one must, of course, contribute to the general state of anarchy and misery which will pervade the community. Such is, in fact, the state of this apostate world ; and but for Divine Providence, which for wise ends balances all human affairs, causing one set of evils to counteract the influence of another, and all to answer ends remote from the intention of the perpetrators, it must be overset by its own disorders. To regard every other being, created or uncreated, only for our own sakes, is supreme self-love ; and, instead of being a source of virtue, is itself abominable, and the source of all the mischief and misery in the universe. All the evils just enumerated are to be traced to this principle as their common parent; nor is there any ground of hope that it will ever produce effects of a different nature. Some persons have talked much of “self-love ripening into benevolence.” Had it been said malevolence, it had been nearer the truth; for it is contrary to all experience that any thing should change its nature by becoming more ma- ture. No, a child in knowledge may discern that, if ever genuine benevolence exist in the breast of an individual, or extend its healing wings over a bleeding world, it must be by the subversion of this principle, and by the prevalence of that religion which teaches us to love God supremely, ourselves subordinately, and our fellow creatures as our- selves. To furnish a standard of morality, some of our adver- saries have had recourse to the laws of the state ; avowing them to be the rule or measure of virtue. Mr. Hobbes maintained that the civil law was the sole foundation of right and wrong, and that religion had no obligation but as enjoined by the magistrate. And Lord Bolingbroke often writes in a strain nearly similar, disowning any other sanc- tion or penalty by which obedience to the law of nature is enforced than those which are provided by the laws of the land.j. But this rule is defective, absurd, contradictory, and subversive of all true morality. First, It is grossly defective. This is justly represented by a prophet of their own. “It is a narrow notion of innocence,” says Seneca, “to measure a man’s goodness only by the law. Of how much larger extent is the rule of duty, or of good offices, than that of legal right ! How many things are there which piety, humanity, liberality, justice, and fidelity re- quire, which yet are mot within the compass of the public statutes : " " Secondly, It is absurd; for if the public statutes be the only standard of right and wrong, legislators in framing them could be under no law ; nor is it possible * In Leland's Advantages and Necessity of Revelation, Vol. II. Part II. Chap. III. p. 42. 10 THE STANDARD OF MORALITY. that in any instance they should have enacted injustice. Thirdly, It is contradictory. Human laws, we all know, require different and opposite things in different nations, and in the same nation at different times. If this princi- ple be right, it is right for deists to be persecuted for their opinions at one period, and to persecute others for theirs at another. Finally, It is subversive of all true morality. “The civil laws,” as Dr. Leland has observed, “take no cognizance of secret crimes, and provide no punishment for internal bad dispositions or corrupt affections. A man may be safely as wicked as he pleases on this principle, provided he can manage so as to escape punishment from the laws of his country, which very bad men, and those that are guilty of great vices, easily may, and frequently do evade.” • Rousseau has recourse to feelings as his standard. “I have only to consult myself,” he says, “ concerning what I ought to do. All that I feel to be right is right. What- ever I feel to be wrong is wrong. All the morality of our actions lies in the judgment we ourselves form of them.” + By this rule his conduct through life appears to have been directed ; a rule which, if universally regarded, would deluge the world with every species of iniquity. But that on which our opponents insist the most, and with the greatest show of argument, is the law and light of nature. This is their professed rule on almost all occa- sions, and its praises they are continually sounding. I have no desire to depreciate the light of nature, or to dis- parage its value as a rule. On the contrary, I consider it as occupying an important place in the Divine government. Whatever may be said of the light possessed by the heathen, as being derived from revelation, I feel no difficulty in ac- knowledging that the grand law which they are under is that of nature. Revelation itself appears to me so to re- present it ; holding it up as the rule by which they shall be judged, and declaring its dictates to be so clear as to leave them without excuse.f. Nature and Scripture ap- pear to me to be as much in harmony as Moses, and Christ; both are celebrated in the same Psalm.j: By the light of nature, however, I do not mean those ideas which heathens have actually entertained, many of which have been darkness, but those which were presented to them by the works of creation, and which they might have possessed, had they been desirous of retaining God in their knowledge. And by the dictates of nature, with re- gard to right and wrong, I understand those things which appear, to the mind of a person sincerely disposed to un- derstand and practise his duty, to be natural, fit, or reason- able. There is, doubtless, an eternal difference between right and wrong; and this difference, in a vast variety of instances, is manifest to every man who sincºrely and im- partially considers it. So manifest have the power and Godhead of the Creator been rendered, in every age, that no person of an upright disposition could, through mere mistake, fall into idolatry or impiety; and every one who has continued in these abominations is without eaccuse. The desire also which every human being feels of having justice done to him from all other persons must render it sufficiently manifest, to his judgment, that he ought to do the same to them ; and, wherein he acts otherwise, his conscience, unless it be seared as with a hot iron, must accuse him. : But does it follow from hence that revelation is un- necessary 3 Certainly not. It is one thing for nature to afford so much light in matters of right and wrong, as to leave the sinner without excuse ; and another to afford him any well-grounded hope of forgiveness, or to answer his difficulties concerning the account which something within him says he must hereafter give of his present conduct. Further, It is one thing to leave sinners without excuse in sin, and another thing to recover them from it. That the light of nature is insufficient for the latter is demon- strated by melancholy fact. Instead of returning to God and virtue, those nations which have possessed the highest degrees of it have gone further and further into immorality. There is not a single example of a people, of their own * Emilius, Vol. I. pp. 166–168. + IRom. ii. 12–16; i. 20. # Psal. xix. | accord, returning to the acknowledgment of the true God, or extricating themselves from the most irrational species of idolatry, or desisting from the most odious kinds of vice. Those nations where science diffused a more than ordinary lustre were as superstitious and as wicked as the most barbarous, and in many instances exceeded them. It was, I doubt not, from a close observation of the different effi- cacy of nature and Scripture, that the writer of the nine- teenth Psalm, (a Psalm which Mr. Paine pretends to ad- mire,) after having given a just tribute of praise to the former, affirmed of the latter, “ The law of Jehovah is per- fect, converting the soul.” Again, It is one thing for that which is natural, fit, or reasonable, in matters of duty, to approve itself to a mind Sincerely disposed tº understand and practise it, and another to approve itself to a mind of an opposite description. The judgments of men concerning the dictates of nature are greatly influenced by their prevailing inclinations. If under certain circumstances they feel prompted to a par- ticular course of conduct, they will be apt to consider that incitement as a dictate of nature, though it may be no other than corrupt propensity; and thus, while the law of mature is continually in their mouth, their principles, as well as their conduct, are a continual violation of it. How was it that, notwithstanding the light of nature shone around the old philosophers, their minds, in matters of morality, were dark as night, and their precepts, in many instances, full of impurity ? Did nature inspire Plato to teach the doctrine of a community of wives; Lycurgus to tolerate dexterous thieving ; Solon to allow of sodomy; Seneca to encourage drunkenness and suicide; and almost all of them to declare in favour of lewdness? § No, verily; it is a perversion of language to call the principles of such men the dictates of nature ; they are unnatural and abominable, as contrary to reason as to religion. It is true, what is called nature by modern infidels is not quite so gross as the above, but it falls very little short of it. So far as relates to the encouragement of theft, and perhaps of unnatural crimes, they would disavow ; and for this we are indebted to Christianity; but as to fornication and adultery, they are not a whit behind their predecessors. Lord Herbert, the father of the English deists, and whose writings are far more sober than the generality of those who have come after him, apologizes for lewdness, in certain cases, as resembling thirst in a dropsy, and inactivity in a lethargy.| Lord Bolingbroke unblushingly insinuates that the only consideration that can reconcile a man to confine himself by marriage to one woman, and a woman to one man, is this, that nothing hinders but that they may indulge their desires with others." This is the same as accusing the whole human race of incontinency, and denying that there is any such thing as conjugal fidelity; a plain proof that, whoever was clear of this indecent charge, Lord Bolingbroke was not. Mr. Hume, who has written a volume on the principles of morality, scruples not to stigmatize self-denial as a “monkish virtue ;” and adopts the opinion of a French writer, that “adultery must be practised if we would ob- tain all the advantages of life; that female infidelity, when known, is a small thing, and when unknown, nothing.” These writers will, on some occasions, descant in favour of chastity, as being conducive to health and reputation ; but on others they seldom fail to apologize for the con- trary, and that under the pretence of indulging the dictates of nature. Yet the same things might be alleged in be- half of oppression, revenge, theft, duelling, ambitious war, and a thousand other vices which desolate the earth: they are practices which men, placed in certain circumstances, will feel themselves prompted to commit; nor is there a vice that can be named but what would admit of such an apology. Finally, It is one thing for the light of nature to be so clear as to render idolatry, impiety, and injustice inex- cusable ; and another thing to render the whole will of our Creator evident, and that in the most advantageous man- ner. If a person, possessed of only the light of nature, were ever so sincerely desirous of knowing God; or & See Leland's Advantages and Necessity of Revelation, Vol. II. pp. 147. 50, 59. 210. 213. | Leland's lèeview, &c. Vol. I. Let. 1. T Works, Vol. V. p. 167. THE STANDARD OF MORALITY. 11 grieved for the sins of which his conscience accused him; or attached to the holy, the just, and the good; or disposed to obey his Creator's will if he did but understand it; though he should be in no danger of confounding the dic- tates of nature with those of corrupt propensity; yet he must labour under great disadvantages, which, allowing they might not affect his eternal state, yet would greatly injure his present peace and usefulness. To illustrate this remark, let us suppose the inhabitants of a province to throw off the government of a just and lawful prince. Being once engaged, they may feel themselves impelled to go forward. They may choose new rulers, and use all possible means to efface every sign and memorial of the authority of their ancient sovereign. They may even labour to forget, and teach their children to forget, if possible, that there ever was such a character in being, to whom they owed allegiance. Yet, after all, there may be certain traces and memorials of his government which it is not in their power to efface. Yea, there may be continued in- stances of forbearance and clemency, which, in spite of all their efforts, will bear witness of his goodness and just authority over them. Thus it was that God, while he “suffered all nations to walk in their own ways, never- theless left not himself without a witness, in that he did good, and gave them rain from heaven, and fruitful sea- sons, filling their hearts with food and gladness.” But as the memorials of just authority, in the one case, though sufficient to leave the rebellious without excuse, would not contain a full expression of the prince's will, nor be conveyed in so advantageous a manner as that in which he treated his professed subjects; so the light afforded by the works of nature and the continued goodness of God, in the other, though sufficient to leave the world without excuse, does not express his whole will, nor convey what it does express so advantageously as by revelation. And as an individual, residing in the midst of the rebellious province, whose heart might relent, and who might long to return to his allegiance, would be under inexpressible dis- advantages, so it must necessarily be with a heathen whose desire should be towards the God against whom he had sinned. The amount is, that modern unbelievers have no stand- ard of morals, except it be their own inclinations. Morality with them is any thing, or nothing, as convenience re- quires. On some occasions they will praise that of Jesus Christ; but ere we can have time to ask them, Why then do you not submit to it? they are employed in opposing it. Attend to their general declamations in favour of vir- tue, and you will be ready to imagine they are its warmest friends; but follow them up, and observe their exposition of particular precepts, and you will be convinced that they are its decided enemies, applauding in the gross that which they are ever undermining in detail. By the foolish and discordant accounts which these writers give of morality, it should seem that they know not what it is. Every new speculator is dissatisfied with the definition of his predecessor, and endeavours to mend it. “Wirtue,” says Lord Shaftesbury, “is a sense of beauty, of harmony, of order, and proportion, an affection towards the whole of our kind or species.” “It is,” says Lord Bolingbroke, “only the love of ourselves.” “It is everything that tends to preserve and perfect man,” says Volney; and as “good reputation ” has this tendency, it is, in his account, “a moral good.” + “It is whatever is *śćful in society,” says Mr. Hume ; and as “health, cleanliness, facility of expression, broad shoulders, and taper legs” are of use, they are to be reckoned among the Virtues. To this might be added a large portion of ºffrontery, as the last-named writer assures us (it may be Tom his own experience) that “nothing carries a man through the world like a true, genuine, natural impu- dence.”f Mr. Paine brings up the rear, and informs us, “It is doing justice, loving mercy, and . . . . endeavouring to make our fellow creatures happy.” O Paine ! had yºu but for once suffered yourself to be taught by a pro- Phet, and quoted his words as they stand, you would, un- doubtedly, have borne away the palm ; but you had rather * Law of Nature, p. 17. M. Inquiry concerning the Principles of Morals, Sec. 6,7,8. Essays oral and Political, Essay III. p. iś. write nonsense than say any thing in favour of god- liness. It is worthy of notice, that, amidst all the discordance of these writers, they agree in excluding the Divine Being from their theory of morals. They think after their man- ner; but “God is not in all their thoughts.” In com- paring the Christian doctrine of morality, the sum of which is love, with their atheistical jargon, one seems to hear the voice of the Almighty, saying, “Who is this that darken- eth counsel with words without knowledge 3 Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole of man.” The words of Scripture are spirit and life. They are the language of love. Every exhortation of Christ and his apostles is impregnated with this spirit. Let the reader turn to the twelfth chapter to the Romans, for an example, and read it carefully; let him find, if he can, any thing, in the purest part of the writings of deists, that is worthy of being compared with it. No ; virtue itself is no longer virtue in their hands. It loses its charms when they affect to embrace it. Their touch is that of the cold hand of death. The most lovely object is deprived by it of life and beauty, and reduced to a shrivelled mass of inactive formality. CHAPTER IV. CHRISTIANITY FURNISPIEs MoTIves To A virtuous LIFE, WHICH DEISM EITHER REJECTS OR ATTEMPTS TO UNIDER- MINE, So long as our adversaries profess a regard to virtue, and, with Lord Bolingbroke, acknowledge that “the gospel is in all cases one continued lesson of the strictest morality, of justice, of benevolence, and of universal charity,” they must allow those to be the best principles which furnish the most effectual motives for reducing it to practice. Now there is not a doctrine in the whole compass of Christianity but what is improvable to this purpose. It is a grand peculiarity of the gospel that none of its principles are merely speculative ; each is pregnant with a practical use. Nor does the discovery of it require any extraordi- nary degree of ingenuity; real Christians, however weak as to their natural capacities, have always been taught, by the gospel of Christ, that “denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, they should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present world.” Ancient philosophers have taught many things in favour of morality, so far at least as respects justice and goodness towards our fellow creatures ; but where are the motives by which the minds of the people, or even their own minds, have been moved to a compliance with them They framed a curious machine, but who among them could discover a power to work it? What principles have appeared in the world, under the name either of philosophy or religion, that can bear a comparison with the following 3 “God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitia- tion for our sins.” “Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.” “Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil-speaking, be put away from you, with all malice : and be ye kind one to another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you.” “Be ye there- fore followers (or imitators) of God, as dear children; and walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God of a sweet- smelling savour.” “Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.” “Come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch t Works, Vol. V. p. 188. 12 MOTIVES TO A VIRTUOUS LIFE. not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.” “Having therefore these pro- mises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” “If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies, fulfil ye my joy:—be of one accord, of one mind.” “Let nothing be done through strife or vain-glory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.” “Dearly beloved, I beseech you, as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul; having your con- versation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evil-doers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.” “Ye are bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.” “The love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that, if one died for all, then were all dead: and that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him who died for them, and rose again.” “The day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burnt up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God . " “Hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.” “To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.” These are motives by which Christians in every age have been induced to practise that morality which, while writ- ing against Christianity, Paine, Bolingbroke, and many others, have been compelled to applaud. But the far greater part of them are rejected by deists; and what will they substitute, of equal efficacy, in their place 3 The love of Christ constraineth ws ; but what have they to con- strain them? ...Will self-love, or the beauty or utility of virtue, answer the purpose ? Let history and observation determine. It may be alleged, however, that deists do not reject the whole of these important motives; for that some, at least, admit the doctrine of a future life, which, with the ac- knowledgment of one living and true God, may be thought sufficient for all the purposes of morality. That the doctrine of a future life is of great importance in the moral system is allowed ; but the greatest truth, if dissevered from other truths of equal importance, will be divested of its energy. As well might a hand dissevered from the body be represented as sufficient for the purposes of labour, as one or two unconnected principles for the purpose of morality. This is actually the case in the present instance. The doctrine of a future life, as held by Christians, has stimulated them to labour and suffer without intermission. From a “respect to this recom- pence of reward,” a kingdom has been refused, where the acceptance of it would have interfered with a good con- science. Yea, life itself has been sacrificed, and that not in a few, but in innumerable instances, where it could not be retained but at the expense of truth and uprightness. But is it thus among deists 3 Does the doctrine of a future life, as held by them, produce any such effects? When was it known, or heard, that they sacrificed any thing for this or any other principle of a moral nature ? Who among them ever thought of such a thing, or who expected it at their hands 3 But this is not all : There is such a connexion in truth, that, if one part of it be given up, it will render us less friendly towards other parts, and so destroy their efficacy. This also is actually the case in the present instance. Our adversaries do not cordially embrace even this truth; but, on the contrary, are continually undermining it, and ren- dering it of no effect. Lord Herbert, it is true, considered it as an essential article of natural religion ; and it was * Age of Teason, Part I. p. 1. Part II. pp. 100, 101. + Works, Vol. W. his opinion that he could scarcely be accounted a reason- able creature who denied it; but this is far from being the case with later deistical writers, the greater part of whom either deny it, or represent it as a matter of doubt. Some of them disown every principle by which it is supported, and others go so far as to hold it up to ridicule, labouring withal to prove the hope of it unfriendly to the disin- terested love of virtue. Volney, in his Law of Nature, or Catechism for French Citizens, says nothing about it. Paine just touches upon it in his Age of Reason, by in- forming us that “he hopes for happiness beyond this life; ” but as happiness has its counterpart, and stands upon the general doctrine of retribution, he is afraid to say he be- lieves it. It must be reduced to a mere matter of “pro- bability,” lest the thought of it should damp him in his present pursuits, and render him “the slave of terror.”” Bolingbroke, though he acknowledges its antiquity, and great utility in promoting virtue, yet represents it as a “mere invention of philosophers and legislators,” and as being “originally an hypothesis, and which may, there- fore, be a vulgar error.” “Reason,” he says, “will neither affirm nor deny a future state.” By this the reader might be led to expect that this writer was neither for it nor against it; yet the whole of his reasonings are directed to undermine it.f. Hume, like the writer last mentioned, acknowledges the utility of the doctrine, but questions its truth. He would not have people disabused, or delivered from such a prejudice, because it would free them from one restraint upon their passions. Any person who should undertake this work, he allows, would be a bad citizen ; yet he might, for aught he knows, be a good reasoner.; Shaftesbury employs all his wit and satire in endeavouring to raise a laugh at the very idea, representing the heathen world as very happy till Christianity arose, and teased them about an hereafter. “A new sort of policy,” he says, “which extends itself to another world, and considers the future lives and happiness of man rather than the present, has made us leap beyond the bounds of natural humanity, and, out of a supernatural charity, has taught us the way of plaguing one another most devoutly.” & Lord Shaftesbury's wit may very well be passed by, as being what it is : in connexion with the foregoing quota- tions, it suffices to show us what efficacy the doctrine of a future life, as held by deists, may be expected to possess. But this writer is not contented with raillery: he must also attempt to reason against the doctrine ; contending that it has a permicious influence on the morals of men; that it is a mercenary principle, and opposed to the disin- terested love of virtue, for its own sake. “The principle of self-love,” he observes, “which is naturally so prevailing in us, is improved and made stronger by the exercise of the passions on a subject of more extended interest : and there may be reason to apprehend that a temper of this kind will extend itself through all the parts of life. And this has a tendency to create a stricter attention to self- good and private interest, and must insensibly diminish the affection towards public good, or the interest of society, and introduce a certain narrowness of spirit, which is observable in the devout persons and zealots of almost every religious persuasion.” || - This objection, the reader will recollect, is in direct contradiction to the principles of Bolingbroke, and, it may be added, of Volney, and other deistical writers, who maintain self-love to be the origin of virtuous affection. Some Christian writers, in answering it, have given up the doctrine of disinterested love, allowing that all religious affection is to be traced to the love which we bear to our- selves, as its first principle. To me, this appears no other than betraying the truth, and ranking Christianity with every species of apostacy and false religion which have at any time prevailed in the world. A clear idea of the nature of self-love, if I mistake not, will enable us to determine this question, and to answer the deistical objec- tion without rendering Christianity a mercenary system. Every man may be considered either singly or con- nectedly; either as a being by himself, or as a link in a certain chain of beings. Under one or other of these views every man considers himself, while pursuing his own # Philosophical Essays, p. 231. § Characteristics, Vol. I. p. 18. | Characteristics, Vol. II. p. 58. MOTIVES TO A WIRTUOUS LIFE. 13 interest. If the former, this is to make himself the ulti- mate end of his actions, and to love all other beings, created or uncreated, only as they subserve his interest or his pleasure : this is private self-love : this is mean and mercenary, and what we commonly understand by the term selfishness. But if the latter, there is nothing mean or selfish in it. He who seeks his own well-being in con- nexion with the general good seeks it as he ought to do. No man is required directly to oppose his own welfare, though, in some instances, he may be required to sacrifice it for the general good. Neither is it necessary that he should be indifferent towards it. Reason, as well as Scripture, requires us to love ourselves as we love our neighbour. To this may be added, every man is not only a link in the chain of intelligent beings, and so deserving of some regard from himself, as well as from others, but every man’s person, family, and connexions, and still more the concerns of his soul, are, as it were, his own vineyard, over the interests of which it is his peculiar province to exercise a watchful care. Only let the care of himself and his immediate connexions be in subserviency to the general good, and there is nothing mercenary in it. I need not multiply arguments to prove that the doctrine of rewards does not necessarily tend to encourage a merce- nary spirit, or that it is consistent with the disinterested love of virtue. Lord Shaftesbury himself has acknow- ledged this: “If by the hope of reward,” he says, “be understood the love and desire of virtuous enjoyment, or of the very practice or exercise of virtue in another life, the expectation or hope of this kind is so far from being derogatory to virtue, that it is an evidence of our loving it the more sincerely, and for its own sake.”* This single concession contains an answer to all that his lordship has advanced on the subject; for the rewards promised in the gospel are all exactly of the description which he mentions. It is true they are often represented under the images of earthly things; but this does not prove that, in themselves, they are not pure and spiritual. “That there is nothing in them adapted to gratify a mercenary spirit, the following observations will render plaim to the meanest capacity:— First, The nature of heavenly enjoyments is such as to admit of no monopoly, and consequently to leave no room for the exercise of private self-love. Like the beams of the Sun, they are equally adapted to give joy to a world as to an individual; nay, so far is an increase in the number of the participants from diminishing the quantum of happi- ness possessed by each individual, that it has a tendency to increase it. The interest of one is the interest of all, and the interest of all extends to every one. Secondly, The sum of heavenly enjoyments consists in a holy likeness to God, and in the eternal enjoyment of his favour.f. But holy likeness to God is the same thing as “the very practice or exercise of virtue,” the hope of which, Lord Shaftesbury acknowledges, “ is so far from being derogatory to it, that it is an evidence of our loving it the more sincerely, and for its own sake.” And as to the enjoyment of the Divine favour, a proper pursuit of this object, instead of being at variance with disinterested affection, clearly implies it; for no man can truly desire the favour of God as his chief good, without a proportion- ate esteem of his character, and that for its own excellency. It is impossible that the favour of any being whose cha- racter we disapprove should be sought as our chief good, in preference to every other object in the universe. But a cordial approbation of the Divine character is the same thing as a disinterested affection to virtue. Thirdly, The only method by which the rewards of the gospel are attainable, faith in Christ, secures the exercise of disinterested and enlarged virtue. No man has any Warrant, from the Scriptures, to expect an interest in the Promises of the gospel, unless he cordially acquiesce in his mediation. But to acquiesce in this is to acquiesce in the holy government of God, which it was designed to glorify -to feel and acknowledge that we deserved to have been made sacrifices to Divine displeasure—to forego all claim or hope of mercy from every selfish consideration; and be Willing to receive forgiveness as an act of mere grace, and *long with the chief of sinners. In fine, to acquiesce in § Characteristics, Vol. II. pp. 65, 66. # 1 John iii. 2; Rev. xxi. 3, 4. this is to be of one heart with the Saviour of sinners, which, our adversaries themselves being judges, is the same thing as to be filled with devotedness to God and benevolence to men; and this, if any thing deserves that name, is true, disinterested, and enlarged virtue. It is very possible that the objections which are made by this writer, as well as by Mr. Paine and others, against the doctrine of rewards, as being servile and mercenary, may, after all, in reality be against their counterpart. It does not appear to be “the hope of happiness beyond this life” that excites their disgust, though the nature of the Christian's happiness might be disagreeable to them ; but the fear of being “called to account for the manner in which they have lived in this world.” This it is which even the daring author of The Age of Reason cannot en- dure to consider as a certainty, as the thought of it would render him “the slave of terror.” Yet, as though he would not have it thought that the dread of futurity ren- dered him afraid of believing it, he alleges another reason: “Our belief, on this principle,” he says, “would have no merit, and our best actions no virtue.” . In order then to our actions being virtuous, it is necessary, it seems, that we be under no law but that of our own inclination ; and this will be loving virtue for its own sake. This is at once shaking off the Divine authority; which, if it could be ac- complished, might be very agreeable to some men ; and if with this they could get fairly rid of a judgment to come, it might be still more agreeable ; but, alas, if they should be mistaken It is a fact that the passions of hope and fear are planted in our nature by Him who made us ; and it may be pre- sumed they are not planted there in vain. , The proper exercise of the former has, I conceive, been proved to be consistent with the purest and most disinterested love ; and the same thing is provable of the latter. The hope and fear against which these writers declaim are those of a slave; and where love is absent, these, it is granted, are the only effects which the doctrine of rewards and punish- ments will produce. But even here they have their use. Terror is the grand principle by which vicious minds are kept in awe. Without this their licentiousness would be intolerable to society. It is not, however, for the mere purpose of restraint that threatenings are exhibited, but to express the displeasure of God against all unrighteous- Iness and ungodliness of men, and his resolution to punish them. Some are hereby taught the evil of their ways to a good purpose, and all are fairly warned, and their perse- verance in sin is rendered inexcusable. Before our adversaries object to this, they should show the impropriety of human laws being accompanied with penalties. Let them furnish us with a system of govern- ment in which men may be guilty of crimes without fear of being called to account for them, and in which those who are enemies to virtue are to be governed by merely the love of it. If it be improper to threaten sinners, it is improper to punish them ; and if it be improper to punish them, it is improper for moral government to be exercised. But if it be thus in the government of God, there is no good reason to be given why it should not be the same in human governments; that is, there is no good reason why servants, unless they choose to do otherwise, should not disobey their masters, children their parents, and private individuals in a state be continually rising up to destroy all just authority. The above may suffice to ascertain the weight of Lord Shaftesbury's objections to the doctrine of rewards; and now I shall take the liberty to retort the charge, and at- tempt to prove that the epithets “narrow and selfish,” which he applies to the Christian system, properly belong to his own. In his “Inquiry concerning Virtue,” contained in the second volume of his “Characteristics,” though he allows it to consist in our being proportionably affected towards the whole system to which we bear a relation, (p. 17,) and acknowledges that this world may be only a part of a more extended system, (p. 20,) yet he studiously leaves out God as the head of it. Among all the relations which he enu- merates, there is no mention of that between the creature # Age of Reason, Part II. pp. 100, 101. 14 CONDUCT OF BELIEVERS AND UNBELIEVERS. and the Creator. His enlarged and disinterested scheme of morality is at last nothing more than for a creature to regard those “ of its own kind or species.” Not only is all gentleness, kindness, and compassion to inferior crea- tures left out, but the love of God is not in it. On the contrary, it is the professed object of his “Inquiry” to prove that virtue, goodness, or moral excellence, may ex- ist without religion, and even “in an atheist” (p. 6). In short, it is manifest that it is the love of God, and not self- love, to which his love of virtue, for its own sake, stands opposed. That for which he pleads is the impious spirit of a child who, disregarding his father's favour, pays no attention to his commands as his commands ; but complies with them only on account of their approving themselves to his own mind. But this is no other than self-will, which, instead of being opposed to self-love, is one of its genuine exercises. “Our holy religion,” says this sneering writer, “takes but little notice of the most heroic virtues, such as zeal for the public and our country.” “ That Christianity takes but little notice of what is commonly called patriotism is admitted ; and if Lord Shaftesbury had been free from that “narrowness of mind” which it is his intention here to censure ; yea, if he had only kept to his own definition of virtue—“a regard to those of our own kind or species;” he would have taken as little. By the public good, he evidently means no more than the temporal prosperity of a particular country, which is to be sought at the expense of all other countries with whom it happens, justly or un- justly, to be at variance. Christianity, we acknowledge, knows nothing of this spirit. It is superior to it. It is not natural for a Christian to enter into the antipathies, or em- broil himself in the contentions of a nation, however he may be occasionally drawn into them. His soul is much more in its element when breathing after the present and future happiness of a world. In undertakings, both public and private, which tend to alleviate the miseries and en- large the comforts of human life, Christians have ever been foremost ; and when they have conceived themselves law- fully called, even into the field of battle, they have not been wanting in valour. But the heroism to which they prin- cipally aspire is of another kind; it is that of subduing their own spirit, doing good against evil, seeking the pre- sent and eternal well-being of those who hate them, and laying down their lives, if required, for the name of the Lord Jesus. Such is the “narrow spirit” of Christians; and such have been their “selfish pursuits.” But these are things which do not emblazon their names in the account of un- believers. The murderers of mankind will be applauded before them. But they have enough; their blood is pre- cious in the sight of the Lord, and their names are em- balmed in the memory of the upright. CHAPTER W. - THE LIVES OF THOSE WHO REJECT THE GOSPEL WILL NOT BEAR A COMPARISON WITH THE LIVES OF THOSE WHO EMBRACE IT. No books are so plain as the lives of men, no characters so legible as their moral conduct. If the principles of a body of men will not bear this criterion, we may expect to hear them exclaim against it as unfair and uncertain ; but when they have said all, they will endeavour to avail themselves of it, if possible. It is thus that the virtues of idolaters are the constant theme of deistical panegyric ; and all the corruptions, intrigues, persecutions, wars, and mischiefs, which of late ages have afflicted the earth, are charged to the account of Christians. It is thus that Christian minis- ters, under the name of priests, are described as mercenary, * Characteristics, Vol. I. pp. 98, 99. + Hume's Essays Moral and Political, Essay XXIV. # Age of Reason, Part I. p. 21. ? Ignorant Philosopher, p. 60. | Enchiridion, Cap. 38, p. m. 56. Diog. Laërtius. designing, and hypocritical; and the lives of hectoring pro- fligates praised in comparison of them.f. In short, it is thus that Christians are accused of fanaticism, affectation, ingratitude, presumption, and almost every thing else that is mean and base ; and men are persuaded to become deists, with an assurance that, by so doing, they will live more consistently and morally than by any other system.j: But let us examine whether these representations accord with fact. Is it fact that the ancient philosophers of Greece and Rome were virtuous characters ? It is true that, like the deists, they talked and wrote much about virtue ; and if the latter may be believed, they were very virtuous. “They opposed each other,” says Voltaire, “ in their dogmas; but in morality they were all agreed.” After loading each of them with encomiums, he sums up by affirming, “There has been no philosopher in all an- tiquity who has not been desirous of making men better.” This is a very favourable report; and, if well founded, the writer of the first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans must not only have dealt largely in calumny, but must have possessed the most consummate effrontery, to address such an Epistle to the citizens of Rome, who from their own knowledge must have been able to contradict him. There are other reports, however, of a very different complexion. It is no part of my design to enter minutely into this subject ; nor is it necessary. Many able writers have proved, from the most authentic sources of information, that the account given of the heathens by the apostle is not exaggerated. An extract or two from their writings will be sufficient for my purpose. “Epictetus bids you “temporize, and worship the gods after the fashion of your country.’ || Pythagoras forbids you to ‘pray to God, because you know not what is conve- nient.” Plutarch commends Cato Uticensis for killing himself amidst philosophic thoughts, with resolution and deliberation, after reading Plato on the immortality of the soul.” Cicero pleads for self-murder. Herein he was seconded by Brutus, Cassius, and others who practised it. Many of their learned men applauded their opinion and practice. Seneca thus pleads for it : “If thy mind be melancholy and in misery, thou mayst put a period to this wretched condition : wherever thou lookest, there is an end to it. See that precipice there thou mayst have liberty. Seest thou that sea, that river, that well ? liberty is at the bottom of it: that little tree ? freedom hangs upon it. Thy own neck, thy own throat, may be a refuge to thee from such servitude; yea, every vein of thy body.”ff “We may find in the heathen philosophers customary swearing commended, if not by their precepts, yet by the examples of their best moralists, Plato, Socrates, Seneca, and Julian the emperor; in whose works numerous oaths by Jupiter, Hercules, the Sun, Serapis, and the like, do occur. In the same manner we see the unnatural love of boys recommended.j: Aristippus maintained that it was “lawful for a wise man to steal, commit adultery, and sa- crilege, when opportunity offered ; for that none of these actions were naturally evil, setting aside the vulgar opinion, which was introduced into the world by silly and illiterate people,_that a wise man might publicly, without shame or scandal, keep company with common harlots, if his inclina- tions led him to it.’ ‘May not a beautiful woman be made use of,’ he asks, “because she is fair, or a youth be- cause he is lovely 3 Certainly they may.’”$$ If, as Voltaire asserts, it was the desire of these philoso- phers to make men better, assuredly they employed very extraordinary means to accomplish their desire. What are the lives recorded by Plutarch 3 Many of them, no doubt, entertained a high sense of honour, and possessed a large portion of patriotism. But was either of these morality? If by this term be meant such dispositions of the mind as are right, fit, and amiable, it was not. Their sense of honour was not of that kind which made them scorn to do evil; but, like the false honour of modern duellists, consisted merely in a dread of disgrace. It in- duced many of them to carry about them the fatal means of self-destruction; and, rather than fall into the hands of ** Plutarch's Life of Cato, near the end. ++ De Ira, Lib. iii. Cap. 15. p. m. 319. #f Juvenal Satir. II. ver, 10. ?? Diog. Laërtius, Vol. I. p. m. 165, 166. See in Millar's History of the Propagation of Christianity, Vol. I. p. 63–65. CONDUCT OF BELIEVERS AND UNEELIEVERS. 15 an adversary, to make use of them. And as to their pa- triotism, generally speaking, it operated not merely in the preservation of their country, but in endeavours to extend and aggrandize it at the expense of other nations. It was a patriotism inconsistent with justice and good will to men. Add to this, that fornication, adultery, and unnatural crimes were common among them. As to the moral state of society among heathens, both ancient and modern, we may have occasion to consider this a little more particularly hereafter. At present I would inquire, Is it fact that the persecutions, intrigues, wars, and mischiefs of late ages are to be charged to the account of Christianity? With regard to persecution, nothing is more common with our adversaries than to lay it wholly at our door. They are continually alleging that the heathens all agreed to tolerate each other till Christianity arose. Thus writes Shaftesbury, * Hume, f Voltaire, Gibbon, and Paine. || That the heathen tolerated each other before the introduc- tion of Christianity is allowed; and they did the same after it. It was not against each other that their enmity was directed. In the diversity of their idols and modes of worship there were indeed different administrations, but it was the same lord; whereas, in the religion of Jesus Christ, there was nothing that could associate with heathen- ism, but every thing that threatened its utter subversion. It is allowed also that individual persecution, except in a few instances, commenced with Christianity: but who began the practice? Was it Jesus that persecuted Herod and Pontius Pilate; or they him 2 Did Peter, and James, and John, and Paul set up for inquisitors, and persecute the Jews and Romans; or the Jews and Romans them 3 Did the primitive Christians discover any disposition to persecute 3 By whom was Europe deluged with blood in ten successive persecutions during the first three centuries? Were Christians the authors of this? When the church had so far degenerated as to imbibe many of the principles and superstitions of the heathen, then indeed it began to imitate their persecuting spirit; but not before. When Christ's kingdom was transformed into a kingdom of this World, the weapons of its warfare might be expected to become carnal, and to be no longer, as formerly, mighty through God. The religious persecutions among Christians have been compared to the massacres attending the French revolution in the times of Robespierre. The horrid barbarities of the latter, it has been said, by way of apology, “ have not even been equal to those of the former.” If deists may be allowed to confound Christianity and popery, I shall not dispute the justness of the comparison. There is, no doubt, a great resemblance between the papal and the in- fidel spirit; or rather they are one. Both are the spirit of this world, which is averse from true religion. The differ- ence between them is but as that between the wolf and the tiger." But those who reason thus should prove that the reformers in religion have been guilty of excesses equal to those of the deistical reformers in politics. Were there any such assassinations among the protestants towards one another, or towards the papists, as have been wantonly committed by infidels It is true there were examples of Persecution among protestants, and such as will ever re- main a dishonour to the parties concerned ; but those which affected the lives of men were few in number com- Pared with those of the other, and these few, censurable as they are, were not performed by assassination. Mr. Paine affirms that “all sects of Christians, except the Quakers, have persecuted in their turn.” That much 9f this spirit has prevailed is too true; but this assertion is unfounded. I could name more denominations than 9ne whose hands, I believe, were never stained with blood, and whose avowed principles have always been in *Your of universal liberty of conscience. But let us inquire into the principles and spirit of our adversaries on this subject. It is true that almost all their Writers have defended the cause of liberty, and levelled * Sharacteristics, Vol. I. p. 18. + Essay on Parties. # Ignorant Philosopher, p. 83. } History of Dec. Chap. ii. p. 29. Age of Reason, Part II. Preface. "The resemblance between popery and infidelity is pointed out with their censures against persecution. But where is the man that is not an enemy to this practice, when it is directed against himself? Have they discovered a proper regard to the rights of conscience among Christians ? This is the question. There may be individuals among them who have ; but the generality of their writers discover a shame- ful partiality in favour of their own side, and a contemptu- ous disregard of all who have suffered for the name of Christ. While they exhibit persecution in its deservedly infamous colours, they as constantly hold up the perse- cuted, if found among Christians, in a disadvantageous point of view. Mr. Hume allows that “the persecutions of Christians in the early ages were cruel,” but lays the blame chiefly on themselves;** and all through his History of England he palliates the conduct of the persecutors, and represents the persecuted in an unfavourable light. The same may be said of Gibbon, in his Eſistory of the Decline of the IRoman Empire ; of Shaftesbury, in his Character- *stics; and indeed of the generality of deistical writers. Woltaire, boasting of the wisdom and moderation of the ancient Romans, says, “They never persecuted a single philosopher for his opinions, from the time of Romulus, till the popes got possession of their power.”ff. But did they not persecute Christians ? The millions of lives that fell a sacrifice in the first three centuries after the Chris- tian era are considered as nothing by Voltaire. The be- nevolence of this apostle of deism feels not for men if they happen to be believers in Christ. If an Aristotle, a Py- thagoras, or a Galileo suffer for his opinions, he is a “mar- tyr;” but if a million of French protestants, “ from a desire to bring back things to the primitive institutes of the church,” endure the most cruel treatment, or quit their country to escape it, they, according to this writer, are “weak and obstinate men.” Say, reader, are these men friends to religious liberty 3 To what does all their declamation against persecution amount but this—that such of them as reside in Christianized countries wish to enjoy their opinions without being exposed to it? Till of late deists have been in the minority in all the nations of Europe, and have therefore felt the necessity of a free enjoyment of opinion. It is not what they have pleaded under those circumstances, but their conduct when in power, that must prove them friends to religious liberty. Few men are known to be what they are till they are tried. They and protestant dissenters have, in some re- spects, been in a similar situation. Of late, each in a dif- ferent country have become the majority, and the civil power has been intrusted in their hands. The descend- ants of the puritans in the western world, by dispensing the blessings of liberty even to Episcopalians, by whose persecutions their ancestors were driven from their native shores, have shown themselves worthy of the trust. But have the deists acted thus in France and other countries which have fellen into their hands ! It is true we believe them to have been the instruments, in the hand of God, of destroying the papal antichrist; and in this view we re- joice : howbeit they meant not so. If we judge of their proceedings towards the catholics in the ordinary way of judging of human actions, which undoubtedly we ought, I fear it will be found not only persecuting, but perfidious and bloody in the extreme. I am not without hope that liberty of conscience will be preserved in France ; and if it should, it will be seen whether the subversion of the national establishment will prove, what the advisers of that measure without doubt expected, and what others who abhorred it apprehended— the extinction of Christianity. It may prove the reverse, and issue in things which will more than balance all the ills attending the revolution. These hopes, however, are not founded on an idea of the just or tolerant spirit of in- fidelity; but, so far as human motives are concerned, on that regard to consistency which is known to influence all mankind. If the leading men in France, after having so liberally declaimed against persecution, should ever enact laws in favour of it, or in violation of the laws encourage great beauty and energy in a piece which has appeared in some of the periodical publications, entitled, “The Progress of the Moderns in Knowledge, Refinement, and Virtue.” See Theological Magazine, Vol. I. No.V. p. 344; Evangelical Magazine, Vol. IV. p. 405. ** Essay on Parties in general, ++ Ignorant Philosopher, pp. 82,83. 16 CONDUCT OF BELIEVERS AND UNRELIEVERS. it, they must appear in a most disgraceful light in the opinion of the whole civilized world. Not only persecution, but unjust wars, intrigues, and other mischiefs, are placed to the account of Christianity. That such things have existed, and that men who are called Christians have been deeply concerned in them, is true. Wicked men will act wickedly by whatever name they are called. Whether these things be fairly attributable to the Christian religion, may be determined by a few plain Inquiries. First, Did these evils commence with Christianity, or have they increased under its influence 3 Has not the world, in every age with which history acquaints us, been a scene of corruption, intrigue, tumult, and slaughter? All that can plausibly be objected to Christianity is, that these things have continued in the world notwithstanding its influence ; and that they have been practised in as great a degree by men calling themselves Christians as by any other persons. Secondly, Are those who ordinarily engage in these practices real Christians, and do our adversaries themselves account them so They can distinguish, when they please, between sincere and merely nominal Christians. They need not be told that great numbers, in every nation, are of that religion which happens to prevail at the time; or, rather, that they are of no religion. Thirdly, Have not the courts of princes, notwithstand- ing Christianity may have been the professed religion of the land, been generally attended by a far greater propor- tion of deists than of serious Christians ; and have not public measures been directed by the counsels of the former much more than by those of the latter ? It is well known that great numbers among the nobility and gentry of every nation consider religion as suited only to vulgar minds; and therefore either wholly absent themselves from worship, or attend but seldom, and then only to save ap- pearances towards a national establishment, by which provision is made for the younger branches of their fami- lies. In other words, they are unbelievers. This is the description of men by whom public affairs are commonly managed, and to whom the good or the evil pertaining to them, so far as human agency is concerned, is to be at- tributed. Finally, Great as have been the evils abounding in nations professing Christianity, (and great they have been, and ought greatly to be deplored,) can unbelievers pretend to have given us any hope, at present, of the state of things being meliorated 3 It is true they have talked and written much in this way, and many well-wishers to the human race have been disposed to give them credit. But it is not words that will prove any thing. Have they done any thing that justifies a hope of reformation? No; they themselves must first be reformed ; or rather, to use an appropriate term of their own, regenerated. Far be it from me that, in such a cause as this, I should write under the influence of national prejudice, or side with the ene- mies of civil and religious freedom ; but I must say there never was a representation more necessary than that which was given in an Address from the Executive Directory of Trance to the Council of Five Hundred, about the be-, ginning of the year 1796. In this address they “request the most earnest attention of the Council towards adopting some measure for the regeneration of the public morals.” This is the regeneration wanted, and which, having rejected Christianity, they may be ever seeking, but will never be able to obtain. They may continue to revolutionize as long as a party shall be found that wishes for an increase of power, and perceives an opportunity of gaining it; and every party in its turn may talk of “saving liberty:” but never will they be free indeed until they are emancipated in some good degree from the dominion of vice; and never will this be effected but by a knowledge of evangelical truth. The friends of legitimate liberty have deeply to regret that, under that revered name, has been perpetrated almost every species of atrocity ; and that not only towards in- dividuals, but nations, and nations the most peaceable and inoffensive, whose only crime was that of being unable to resist. Liberty has suffered more from the hands of in- fidels, amidst all their successes and declamations, than from its professed enemies; and still it bleeds beneath their wounds. Without entering into political disputes, I may safely affirm that, if ever the nations of the earth be blessed with equal liberty, it will be by the prevalence, not of the pretended illuminations of infidel philosophy, but of that doctrine which teaches us “to do unto others as we would that others.should do unto us.” Finally, Mr. Paine affirms that men, by becoming deists, would “live more consistently and morally than by any other system.” As to living more consistently, it is possible there may be some truth in it; for the best Chris- tians, it must be allowed, have many imperfections, which are but so many inconsistencies ; whereas, by complying with this advice, they would be uniformly wicked. And as to their living more morally, if Mr. Paine could coin a new system of morals, from which the love of God should be excluded, and intemperance, incontinency, pride, pro- fane swearing, cursing, lying, and hypocrisy exalted to the rank of virtues, he might very probably make good his assertion. Mr. Paine professes to “detest the Bible on account of its obscene stories, voluptuous debaucheries, cruel execu- tions, and unrelenting vindictiveness.” “ That the Bible relates such things is true; and every impartial history of mankind must do the same. The question is, whether they be so related as to leave a favourable impression of them upon the mind of a serious reader. If so, and if the Bible be that immoral book which Mr. Paine repre- sents it to be, how is it that the reading of it should have reclaimed millions from immorality ? Whether he will acknowledge this, or not, it is a fact too notorious to be denied by impartial observers. Every man residing in a Christian country will acknowledge, unless he have an end to answer in saying otherwise, that those people who read the Bible, believe its doctrines, and endeavour to form their lives by its precepts, are the most sober, upright, and useful members of the community ; and, on the other hand, that those who discredit the Bible, and renounce it as the rule of their lives, are, generally speaking, addicted to the grossest vices ; such as profane swearing, lying, drunkenness, and lewdness. It is very singular, I repeat it, that men, by regarding an immoral book, should learn to practise morality; and that others, by disregarding it, should learn the contrary. - How is it that, in countries where Christianity has made progress, men have almost universally agreed in reckoning a true Christian, and an amiable, open, modest, chaste, conscientious, and benevolent character, as the same thing 3 How is it, also, that to say of a man, He rejects the Bible, is nearly the same thing, in the account of people in general, as to say, He is a man of a dissolute life 3 If there were not a general connexion between these things, public opinion would not so generally associate them. Indi- viduals, and even parties, may be governed by prejudice; but public opinion of character is seldom far from truth. Besides, the prejudices of merely nominal Christians, so far as my observation extends, are as strong against those Christians who are distinguished by their devout and serious regard to the Scriptures as against professed infidels, if not stronger. How is it then to be accounted for, that, although they will call them fanatics, enthusiasts, and other unpleasant names, yet it is very rare that they reckon them immoral? If, as is sometimes the case, they accuse them of unworthy motives, and insinuate that in secret they are as wicked as others, either such insinuations are not seriously believed, or if they be, the party is con- sidered as insincere in his profession. No man thinks that genuine Christianity consists with a wicked life, open or secret. But the ideas of infidelity and immorality are associated in the public mind; and the association is clear and strong ; so much so, as to become a ground of action. Whom do men ordinarily choose for umpires, trustees, guardians, and the like 3 Doubtless they endeavour to select persons of intelligence : but if to this be added Christian principle, is it not of weight in these cases 3 It is seldom known, I believe, but that a serious intelligent Christian, whose situation in the world renders him con- versant with its concerns, will have his hands full of em- * Age of Reason, Part I. p. 12. CONDUCT OF BRLIEVERS AND UN BELIEVERS. 17 ployment. Ask bankers, merchants, tradesmen, and others, who are frequently looking out for persons of probity to occupy situations of trust, in whose hands they would choose to confide their property? They might object, and with good reason, to persons whose religion rendered them pert, conceited, and idle; but would they not prefer one who really makes the Bible the rule of his life to one who professedly rejects it? The common practice in these cases affords a sufficient answer. How is it that the principles and reasonings of infidels, though frequently accompanied with great natural and ac- quired abilities, are seldom known to make any impression on sober people 3 Is it not because the men and their communications are known 3 * How is it that so much is made of the falls of Noah, Lot, David, Jonah, Peter, and others ? The same things in heathen philosophers, or modern unbelievers, would be passed over without ngtice. All the declamations of our adversaries on these subjects plainly prove that such instances with us are more singular than with them. With us they are occasional, and afford matter for deep repentance; with them they are habitual, and furnish employment in the work of palliation. The spots on the garments of a child attract attention; but the filthy condition of the animal that wallows in the mire is disregarded, as being a thing of course. The morality, such as it is, which is found among deists, amounts to nothing more than a little exterior decorum. The criminality of intention is expressly disowned. The great body of these writers pretend to no higher motives than a regard to their safety, interest, or reputation. Ac- tions proceeding from these principles must not only be destitute of virtue, but wretchedly defective as to their in- fluence on the well-being of society. If the heart be to- wards God, a sober, righteous, and godly life becomes a matter of choice; but that which is performed, not for its own sake, but from fear, interest, or ambition, will extend no farther than the eye of man can follow it. In domestic life it will be but little regarded, and in retirement not at all. Such, in fact, is the character of infidels. “Will you dare to assert,” says Linguet, a French writer, in an ad- dress to Voltaire, “that it is in philosophic families we are to look for models of filial respect, conjugal love, sincerity in friendship, or fidelity among domestics 3 Were you disposed to do so, would not your own conscience, your own experience, suppress the falsehood, even before your lips could utter it?” f “Wherever society is established, there it is necessary to have religion ; for religion, which watches over the crimes that are secret, is, in fact, the only law which a man car- ries about with him ; the only one which places the punish- ment at the side of the guilt, and which operates as forcibly in solitude and darkness as in the broad and open face of day.” Would the reader have thought it 3 These are the words of Voltaire.) Nothing is more common than for deistical writers to level their artillery against the Christian ministry. Under the appellation of priests, they seem to think themselves at liberty to load them with every species of abuse. That there are great numbers of worldly men who have engaged in the Christian ministry, as other worldly men engage in other employments, for the sake of profit, is true; and where this is the case, it may be expected that hunting, gaming, and such kinds of amusements, will be their fa- Wourite pursuits, while religious exercises will be performed as a piece of necessary drudgery. Where this is the case, “their devotion must be feigned, and their seriousness mere hypocrisy and grimace.” But that this should be represented as a general case, and that the ministry itself should be reproached on account of the hypocrisy of Worldly men, who intrude themselves into it, can only be ." It is said of a gentleman lately deceased, who was eminent in the literary World, that in early life he drank deeply into the free-thinking scheme. He and one of his companions, of the same turn of mind, 8ſten carried on their conversations in the hearing of a religious but illiterate countryman. This gentleman, afterwards becoming a serious hristian, was concerned for the Countryman, lest his faith in the Christian religion should have been shaken. One day he took the liberty to ask him, Whether what had sp frequently been advanced in * hearing had not produced this effect upon him? Tº By no means,” *yered the countryman, “it never made the least impression upon *” “No impression upon you!” said the gentleman," why, you C \ owing to malignity. Let the fullest subtraction be made of characters of the above description, and I appeal to im- partial observation whether there will not still remain in only this particular order of Christians, and at almost any period, a greater number of serious, upright, disinterested, and benevolent persons, than could be found among the whole body of deists in a succession of centuries. It is worthy of notice that Mr. Hume, in attempting to plunge Christian ministers into the mire of reproach, is obliged to descend himself, and to drag all mankind with him, into the same situation. He represents ministers as “drawn from the common mass of mankind, as people are to other employments, by the views of profit;” and sug- gests that “therefore they are obliged, on many occasions, to feign more devotion than they possess,” which is friendly to hypocrisy. The leading motive of all public officers, it séems, is to aggrandize themselves. If Mr. Hume had accepted of a station under government, we can be at no loss, therefore, in judging what would have been his pre- dominant principle. How weak, as well as wicked, must that man have been, who, in order to wound the reputa- tion of one description of men, could point his arrows against the integrity of all ! But the world must forgive him. He had no ill design against them, any more than against himself. It was for the purpose of destroying these Philistines, that he aimed to demolish the temple of human virtue. - - Nor is his antipathy, or that of his brethren, at all to be wondered at. These are the men who, in every age, have exposed the sophistry of deists, and vindicated Christianity from their malicious aspersions. It is reasonable to sup- pose, therefore, that they will always be considered as their natural enemies. It is no more a matter of surprise that they should be the objects of their invective, than that the weapons of nightly depredators should be pointed against the watchmen, whose business it is to detect them, and expose their nefarious practices. After all, Mr. Hume pretends to respect “clergymen, who are set apart by the laws to the care of sacred mat- ters; ” and wishes to be understood as directing his censures only against priests, or those who pretend to power and dominion, and to a superior sanctity of character, distinct from virtue and good morals." It should seem, then, that they are dissenting ministers only that incur Mr. Hume's displeasure: but if, as he represents them, they be “drawn to their employment by the views of profit,” they certainly cannot possess the common understanding of men, since they could scarcely pursue an occupation less likely to ac- complish their design. The truth is, Mr. Hume did not mean to censure dissenting ministers only; nor did he feel any respect for clergymen set apart by the laws. Those whom he meant to spare were such clergymen as were men after his own heart ; and the objects of his dislike were truly evangelical ministers, whether churchmen or dissent- ers, who were not satisfied with his kind of morality, but were men of holy lives, and consequently were respected by the people. These are the men against whom the en- mity of deists has ever been directed. As to other priests, they have no other difference with them than that of rivalship, wishing to possess their wealth and influence, which the others are not always the most willing to relin- quish. In professing, however, to “respect” such clergy- men, Mr. Hume only means to flatter them, and draw them on to a little nearer alliance with his views. Respect is excited only by consistency of character, and is fre- quently involuntary. A clergyman of loose morals may be preferred, and his company courted, but respected he cannot be. As to those ministers against whom Mr. Hume levels his artillery, and against whom the real enmity of his party must know that we have read and thought on these things much more than you had any opportunity of doing.” “O yes,” said the other, “but I knew also your manner of living : I knew that, to maintain such a course of conduct, you found it necessary to renounce Chris- tianity.” + Volney's Law of Nature, p. 18. f Linguet was an admirer of Voltaire, but disapproved of his oppo- sition to Christianity. See his Review of that author's Works, p. 264. § In Sullivan's Survey of Nature. | Essay on National Characters, Note. ** > . . . * Essays Moral and Political, Essay XII, pp. 107, 108, Note. 18 CONDUCT OF BELIEVERS AND UNBELIEVERS. has always been directed, there is not a body of men in the world, of equal talents and industry, who receive less, if so little, for their labours. If those who have so liber- ally accused them of interested motives gained no more by their exertions than the accused, they would not be so wealthy as many of them are. Compare the conduct of the leading men among deists with that of the body of serious Christian divines. Amidst their declamations against priestly hypocrisy, are they honest men 3 Where is their ingenuousness in continually confounding Christianity and popery 3 . Have these work- ers of iniquity no knowledge 3 “No,” say some, “they do not understand the difference between genuine and corrupted Christianity. They have never had opportunity of viewing the religion of Jesus in its native dress. It is popish superstition against which their efforts are directed. If they understood Christianity, they would embrace it.” Indeed! And was this the case with Shaftesbury, Boling- broke, Hume, or Gibbon 3 or is this the case with Paine 3 No ; they have both seen and hated the light; nor will they come to it, lest their deeds should be made manifest. It may be thought, however, that some excuse may be made for infidels residing in a popish country; and this I shall not dispute as it respects the ignorant populace, who may be carried away by their leaders; but as it respects the leaders themselves, it is otherwise. The National Assembly of France, when they wished to counteract the priests, and to reject the adoption of the Roman catholic faith as the established religion, could clearly distinguish between genuine and corrupted Christianity.” Deists can distinguish between Christianity and its abuses, when an end is to be answered by it ; and when an end is to be answered by it, they can, with equal facility, confound them. Herbert, Hobbes, Shaftesbury, Woolston, Tindal, Chubb, and Bolingbroke are all guilty of the vile hypocrisy of professing to love and reverence Christianity, while they are employed in no other design than to destroy it. Such faithless professions, such gross violations of truth, in Christians, would have been proclaimed to the universe, by these very writers, as infamous desertions of principle and decency. Is it less infamous in themselves? All hy- pocrisy is detestable; but I know of none so detestable as that which is coolly written, with full premeditation, by a man of talents, assuming the character of a moral and re- ligious instructor. Truth is a virtue perfectly defined, mathematically clear, and completely understood by all men of common sense. There can be no haltings between uttering truth and falsehood; no doubt, no mistakes, as between piety, and enthusiasm, frugality and parsimony, generosity and profusion. Transgression, therefore, is always a known, definite, deliberate villamy. In the sud- den moment of strong temptation, in the hour of unguarded attack, in the flutter and trepidation of unexpected alarm, the best man may, perhaps, be surprised into any sin; but he who can coolly, of steady design, and with no unusual impulse, utter falsehood, and vend hypocrisy, is not far from finished depravity. The morals of Rochester and Wharton need no com- ment. Woolston was a gross blasphemer. Blount so- licited his sister-in-law to marry him, and, being refused, shot himself. Tindal was originally a protestant, then turned papist, then protestant again, merely to suit the times ; and was at the same time infamous for vice in general, and the total want of principle. He is said to have died with this prayer in his mouth, “If there be a God, I desire that he may have mercy on me.” Hobbes wrote his Leviathan to serve the cause of Charles I., but, finding him fail of success, he turned it to the defence of Cromwell, and made a merit of this fact to the usurper, as Hobbes himself unblushingly declared to Lord Clarendon. Morgan had no regard to truth, as is evident from his mu- merous falsifications of Scripture, as well as from the vile hypocrisy of professing himself a Christian in those very writings in which he labours to destroy Christianity. Voltaire, in a letter now remaining, requested his friend D'Alembert to tell for him a direct and palpable lie, by denying that he was the author of the Philosophical Dic- tionary. D'Alembert, in his answer, informed him that he had told the lie. Voltaire has, indeed, expressed his own moral character perfectly in the following words, “ Monsieur Abbe, I must be read, no matter whether I am believed or not.” He also solemnly professed to be- lieve the catholic religion, although at the same time he doubted the existence of a God...' Hume died as a fool dieth. The day before his death he spent in a pitiful and affected unconcern about this tremendous subject, playing at whist, reading Lucian’s Dialogues, and making silly attempts at wit, concerning his interview with Charon, the heathen ferryman of hades.f. Collins, though he had no belief in Christianity, yet qualified himself for civil office by partaking of the Lord’s supper. Shaftesbury did the same ; and the same is done by hundreds of infidels to this day. Yet these are the men who are continually declaiming against the hypocrisy of priests | Godwin is not only a lewd character, by his own confession; but the unblushing advocate of lewdness. And as to Paine, he is well known to have been a pro- fame swearer and a drunkard. We have evidence upon oath that “religion was his favourite topic when intoxi- cated;” i and, from the scurrility of the performance, it is not improbable that he was frequently in this situation while writing his “ Age of Reason.” I shall conclude this catalogue of worthies with a brief abstract of the “Confessions of J. J. Rousseau.” After a good education in the protestant religion, he was put apprentice. Finding his situation disagreeable to him, he felt a strong propensity to vice—inclining him to covet, dissemble, lie, and at length to steal—a propensity of which he was never able afterwards to divest himself. “I have been a rogue,” says he, “and am so still sometimes, for trifles which I had rather take than ask for.” He abjured the protestant religion, and entered the hospital of the Catechumens at Turin, to be instructed in that of the catholics; “ for which in return,” says he, “I was to receive subsistence. From this interested conver- sion,” he adds, “nothing remained but the remembrance of my having been both a dupe and an apostate.” || After this he resided with a Madame de Warrens, with whom he “lived in the greatest possible familiarity.” This lady often suggested that there would be no justice in the Supreme Being, should he be strictly just to us; because, not having bestowed what was necessary to make us essentially good, it would be requiring more than he had given. She was, nevertheless, a very good catholic, or pretended at least to be one, and certainly desired to be such. If there had been no Christian morality estab- lished, Rousseau supposes she would have lived as though regulated by its principles. All her morality, however, was subordinate to the principles of M. Tavel (who first seduced her from conjugal fidelity by urging, in effect, that exposure was the only crime); or rather, she saw nothing in religion that contradicted them. Rousseau was far enough from being of this opinion ; yet he confessed he dared not combat the arguments of the lady; nor is it supposable he could, as he appears to have been acting on the same principles at the time. “Finding in her,” he adds, “all those ideas I had occasion for, to secure me from the fears of death and its future consequences, I drew confidence and security from this source.” T The writings of Port Royal, and those of the Oratory, made him half a Jansenist ; and, notwithstanding all his confidence, their harsh theory sometimes alarmed him. A dread of hell, which, till then, he had never much appre- hended, by little and little disturbed his security, and had not Madame de Warrens tranquillized his soul, would at length have been too much for him. His confessor also, a Jesuit, contributed all in his power to keep up his hopes.** After this, he became familiar with another female, Theresa. He began by declaring to her that he would never either abandon or marry her. Finding her pregnant with her first child, and hearing it observed, in an eating * Mirabeau’s Speeches, Vol. II. pp. 269—274. t The last two paragraphs are taken from Dr. Dwight's excellent gºes on “The Nature and Danger of Infidel Philosophy,” pp, 5–4 # See Trial of T. Paine at Guildhall, for a Libel, &c., p. 43. * Confessions, London Ed. 1796, Vol. I. pp. 52.55. 68. | Vol. I. pp. 125, 126. TI Vol. Il. pp. 88, 89, 103–106. ** Vol. II. p. 127. EFFECTS OF CHRISTIANITY ON THE STATE OF SOCIETY 19 house, that he who had best filled the Foundling Hospital was always the most applauded, “I said to myself,” he tells us, “ since it is the custom of the country, they who live here may adopt it. I cheerfully determined upon it with- out the least scruple; and the only one I had to overcome was that of Theresa ; whom, with the greatest imaginable difficulty, I persuaded to comply.” The year following a similar inconvenience was remedied by the same expe- dient ; no more reflection on his part, nor approbation on that of the mother. “She obliged with trembling. My fault,” says he, “ was great; but it was an error.” + He resolved on settling at Geneva ; and on going thither, and being mortified at his exclusion from the rights of a citizen by the profession of a religion different from his forefathers, he determined openly to return to the latter. “I thought,” says he, “the gospel being the same for every Christian, and the only difference in religious opinions the result of the explanations given by men to that which they did not understand, it was the exclusive right of the sovereign power in every country to fix the mode of worship, and these unintelligible opinions ; and that, consequently, it was the duty of a citizen to admit the one, and conform to the other, in the manner prescribed by the law.” Accordingly, at Geneva, he renounced popery.f After passing twenty years with Theresa, he made her his wife. He appears to have intrigued with a Madame de H . Of nis desires after that lady, he says, “Guilty without remorse, I soon became so without measure.”f Such, according to his own account, was the life of uprightness and honour which was to expiate for a theft which he had committed when a young man, and laid to a female servant, by which she lost her place and character. Š Such was Rousseau, the man whom the rulers of the French nation have delighted to honour; and who, for writing this account, had the vanity and presumption to expect the applause of his Creator. “Whenever the last trumpet shall sound,” says he, “I will present myself before the sovereign Judge, with this book in my hand, and loudly proclaim, Thus have I acted ; these were my thoughts; such was I, Power eternal | Assemble round thy throme the innumerable throng of my fellow mortals. Let them listen to my confessions; let them blush at my depravity; let them tremble at my sufferings; let each in his turn expose, with equal sincerity, the failings, the wanderings of his heart; and, if he dare, aver—I was better than that man.” || CHAPTER WI. CHRISTIANITY FIAS NOT ONLY PRODUCED GOOD EFFECTS IN THOSE WHO CORDIALLY BELIEVE IT, BUT HAS GIVEN TO THE MORALS OF SOCIETY AT LARGE A TONE, WHICH DEISM, so FAR AS IT OPERATES, GOES TO COUNTERACT. No man walks through life without a rule of some kind, by which his conduct is directed, and his inclinations restrained. They who fear not God are influenced by a regard to the opinions of men. To avoid the censure and gain the applause of the public, is the summit of their ambition. Public opinion has an influence, not only on the conduct of individuals in a community, but on the formation of its laws. Legislators will not only conform their systems to what the humours of the people will bear, but will themselves incline to omit those virtues which are the most ºleful, and to spare those vices which are most agree- & Ole. Nor is this all: so great is the influence of public opinion, that it will direct the conduct of a community against its 9Wn laws. There are obsolete statutes, as we all know, the breach of which cannot be punished : and even statutes which are not obsolete, where they operate against this * Part II. Vol. I. pp. 123. 154, 155, 183, 187. 315. * Part II. Vol. 1. pp. 263,264. + Vol. I. pp. 311. 378. C principle, have but little effect; witness the connivance at the atrocious practice of duelling. Now if public opinion be so potent a principle, what- ever has a prevailing influence in forming it must give a decided tone to what are considered as the morals of a nation. I say to what are considered as the morals of a nation; for, strictly speaking, so much of the love of God and man as prevails in a nation, so much morality is there in it, and no more. But as we can judge of love only by its expressions, we call those actions moral, though it is possible their morality may only be counterfeit, by which the love of God and man is ordinarily expressed. If we perform from some other motive those actions which are the ordinary expressions of love, our good deeds are thereby rendered evil in the sight of Him who views things as they are : nevertheless, what we do may be equally bene- ficial to society as though we acted from the purest motive. In this indirect way Christianity has operated more than any thing that has been called by the name of religion, or by any other name, towards meliorating the state of man- kind. It has been observed, and with great propriety, that, in order to know what religion has done for an individual, we must consider what he would have been without it. The same may be said of a nation, or of the world. What would the nations of Europe have been at this time if it had not been for the introduction of Christianity? It cannot reasonably be pretended that they would have been in any better situation, as to morality, than that in which they were previously to this event; for there is no instance of any people having, by their own efforts, emerged from idolatry and the immoralities which attend it. Now, as to what that state was, some notice has been taken already, so far as relates to the principles and lives of the old philosophers. To this I shall add a brief review of the state of society among them. Great praises are bestowed by Plutarch on the customs and manners of the Lacedemonians. Yet the same writer acknowledges that theft was encouraged in their children by a law, and that in order to “sharpen their wits, to render them crafty and subtle, and to train them up in all sorts of wiles and cunning, watchfulness and circumspec- tion, whereby they were more apt to serve them in their wars, which was upon the matter the whole profession of this commonwealth. And if at any time they were taken in the act of stealing, they were most certainly punished with rods, and the penance of fasting; not because they esteemed the stealth criminal, but because they wanted skill and cunning in the management and conduct of it.” T Hence, as might be expected, and as Herodotus observes, their actions were generally contrary to their words, and there was no dependence upon them in any matter. As to their chastity, there were common baths in which the men and women bathed together; and it was ordered that the young maidens should appear naked in the public exercises, as well as the young men, and that they should dance naked with them at the solemn festivals and sacri- fices. Husbands also were allowed to impart the use of their wives to handsome and deserving men, in order to the producing of healthy and vigorous children for the commonwealth. Children which were deformed, or of a bad constitution, were murdered. This inhuman custom was common all over Greece ; so much so that it was reckoned a singular thing, among the Thebans, that the law forbad any Theban to expose his infant, under pain of death. This practice, with that of procuring abortion, was encouraged by Plato and Aristotle. The unnatural love of boys was so common in Greece that in many places it was sanctioned by the public laws, of which, Aristotle gives the reason; namely, to prevent their having too many children. Maximus Tyrius cele- brates it as a singularly heroic act of Agesilaus, that, being in love with a beautiful barbarian boy, he suffered it to go no further than looking at him and admiring him. Epic- tetus also praises Socrates in this manner: “Go to Socrates, and see him lying by Alcibiades, yet slighting his youth and beauty. Consider what a victory he was com- § Vol. I, pp. 155. 160. | Vol. I. p. 1. Tl Plutarch's Morals, Vol. I. p. 96. 20 EFFECTS OF CHRISTIANITY ON THE STATE OF SOCIETY. scious of obtaining ! What an Olympic prize So that, by heaven, one might justly salute him, Hail, incredibly great, universal victor : " What an implication does such language contain of the manners of those times : The Romans were allowed by Romulus to destroy all their female children except the eldest: and even with regard to their male children, if they were deformed or monstrous, he permitted the parents to expose them, after having shown them to five of their nearest neighbours. Such things were in common use among them, and were celebrated upon their theatres. - Such was their cruelty to their slaves, that it was not unusual for the masters to put such of them as were old, sick, and infirm into an island in the Tiber, where they left them to perish. So far did some of them carry their luxury and wantonness as to drown them in the fish-ponds, that they might be devoured by the fish, to make the flesh more delicate | Gladiatory shotts, in which a number of slaves were en- gaged to fight for the diversion of the multitude till each one slew or was slain by his antagonist, were common among them. Of these brutish exercises the people were extremely fond ; even the women ran eagerly after them, taking pleasure in seeing the combatants kill one another, desirous only that they should fall genteelly, or in an agree- able attitude : They were exhibited at the funerals of great and rich men, and on many other occasions. So frequent did they become, that no war, it is said, caused such slaughter of mankind as did these sports of pleasure, throughout the several provinces of the Roman empire. That odious and unnatural vice, which prevailed among the Greeks, was also common among the Romans. Cicero introduces, without any mark of disapprobation, Cotta, a man, of the first rank and genius, freely and familiarly owning, to other Romans of the same quality, that worse than beastly vice as practised by himself, and quoting the authorities of ancient philosophers in vindication of it. It appears also, from Seneca, that in his time it was practised at Rome, openly and without shame. He speaks of flocks and troops of boys, distinguished by their colours and na- tions, and affirms that great care was taken to train them up for that detestable employment. The religious rites performed in honour of Venus, in Cyprus, and at Aphae, on Mount Libanus, consisted in lewdness of the grossest kinds. The young people, of both Sexes, crowded from all parts to those sinks of pollution; and filling the groves and temples with their shameless Practices, committed whoredom by thousands, out of pure devotion. All the Babylonian women were obliged to prostitute themselves once in their lives, at the temple of Venus or Mylitta, to the first man that asked them ; and the money earned by this means was always esteemed sacred. Human sacrifices were offered up in almost all heathen countries. Children were burnt aſive by their parents, to Baal, Moloch, and other deities. The Carthaginians, in times of public calamity, not only burnt alive the children of the best families to Saturn, and that by hundreds, but sometimes sacrificed themselves in the same manner, in great numbers. Here in Britain, and in Gaul, it was a common practice to surround a man with a kind of wicker- work, and burn him to death, in honour of their gods. * In addition to the above, Mr. Hume has written as fol. lows:– “What cruel tyrants were the Romans over the world, during the time of their commonwealth It is true they had laws to prevent oppression in their provincial magistrates ; but Cicero informs us that the Romans could not better consult the interest of the provinces than by re- pealing these very laws. For in that case, says he, our magistrates, having, entire impunity, would plunder no more than would satisfy their own rapaciousness; whereas, at present, they must also satisfy that of their judges, and of all the great men of Rome, of whose protection they stand in need.” The same writer, who certainly was not prejudiced against them, speaking of their commonwealth in its more * The authorities on which this brief statement of facts is founded may be seen in Dr. Leland's Advantages and Necessity of the Chris- tian Revelation, Vol. II. Part II. Chap. III. IV., where the subject is more particularly handled. See also Deism Revealed, Vol. I. pp. 77, 78. early times, further observes, “The most illustrious period of the Roman history, considered in a political view, is that between the beginning of the first and end of the last Punic war; yet, at this very time, the horrid practice of poisoning was so common, that, during part of a season, a praetor punished capitally, for this crime, above three thou- sand persons in a part of Italy, and found informations of this nature still multiplying upon him . So depraved in private life,” adds Mr. Hume, “were the people, whom, in their history, we so much admire.” f Prom the foregoing facts we may form some judgment of the justness of Mr. Paine's remarks. “We know no- thing,” says he, “ of what the ancient Gentile world was before the time of the Jews, whose practice has been to calumniate and blacken the character of all other nations. As far as we know to the contrary, they were a just and moral people, and not addicted, like the Jews, to cruelty and revenge, but of whose profession of faith we are unac- quainted. It appears to have been their custom to personify both virtue and vice by statues and images, as is done now-a-days by statuary and painting; but it does not fol- low from this that they worshipped them any more than we do.”f Unless heathens, before the time of the Jews, were to- tally different from what they were in all after-ages, there can be no reasonable doubt of their worshipping a plurality of deities, of which images were supposed to be the repre- sentations. Mr. Paine himself allows, and that in the same performance, that prior to the Christian era they were “ idolaters, and had twenty or thirty thousand gods.” Yet, by his manner of speaking in this place, he manifestly wishes to insinuate, in behalf of all the heathen nations, that they might worship idols no more than we do. It might be worth while for this writer, methinks, to bestow a little more attention to the improvement of his memory. With respect to their being “just and moral people,” unless they were extremely different before the time of the Jews from what they were in all after-ages, there can be no reasonable doubt of their being what the sacred writers have represented them. If those writers have said nothing worse of them than has been said by the most early and authentic historians from among themselves, it will be easy for an impartial reader to decide whether heathens have been “calumniated and blackened” by the Jewish writers, or the Jewish writers by Mr. Paine. But it is not by the state of the ancient heathens only that we discover the importance of Christianity. A large part of the world is still in the same condition, and the same immoralities abound among them which are reported to have abounded among the Greeks and Romans. I am aware that deistical writers have laboured to hold up the modern as well as the ancient heathens in a very favourable light. In various anonymous publications, much is said of their simplicity and virtue. One of them suggests that the Chinese are so “superior to Christians, in relation to moral virtues, that it may seem necessary that they should send missionaries to teach us the use and prac- tice of natural theology, as we send missionaries to them to teach them revealed religion.” || Yea, and some who wish to rank as Christians, have, on this ground, objected to all missionary undertakings among the heathen. Let us examine this matter a little closely. Almost all the accounts which are favourable to heathen virtue are either written by the adversaries of Christianity, and with a design to disparage it, or by navigators and travellers, who have touched at particular places, and made their reports according to the treatment they have met with, rather than from a regard to universal righteousness. An authentic report of the morals of a people requires to be given, not from a transient visit, but from a continued residence among them ; not from their occasional treat- ment of a stranger, but from their general character; and not from having an end to answer, but with a rigid regard to truth. It is worthy of notice, that the far greater part of these representations respect people with whom we have little + Essay on Politics a Science. # Age of Reason, Part II. pp. 39,40. & Ibid. p. 5. | Christianity as old as the Creation, pp. 366, 367. EFFECTS OF CHRISTIANITY ON THE STATE OF SOCIETY. 21 or no acquaintance, and therefore, whatever the truth may be, are less liable to contradiction. As to China, Hin- dostan, and some other parts of the world, with whose moral state we have had the means of acquiring some con- siderable degree of knowledge, the praises bestowed on them by our adversaries have proved to be unfounded. From the accounts of those who have resided in China, there does not seem to be much reason to boast of their virtue. On the contrary, their morals appear to be full as bad as those of the ancient heathens. It is allowed that they take great care of their outward behaviour, more per- haps than is taken in any other part of the world besides —that whatever they do or say is so contrived that it may have a good appearance, please all, and offend none—and that they excel in outward modesty, gravity, good words, courtesy, and civility. But, notwithstanding this, it is said that the sin against nature is extremely common—that drunkenness is considered as no crime—that every one takes as many concubines as he can keep—that many of the common people pawn their wives in time of need, and some lend them for a month, or more, or less, according as they agree—that marriage is dissolved on the most tri- fling occasions—that sons and daughters are sold when- ever their parents please, and that is frequently—that many of the rich, as well as the poor, when they are de- livered of daughters, stifle and kill them—that those who are more tender-hearted will leave them under a vessel, where they expire in great misery—and, finally, that not- withstanding this they all, except the learned, plead hu- manity and compassion against killing other living crea- tures, thinking it a cruel thing to take that life which they cannot give. Montesquieu says, “The Chinese, whose whole life is governed by the established rites, are the most void of common honesty of any people upon earth ; and the laws, though they do not allow them to rob or to spoil by violence, yet permit them to cheat and defraud.” With this agrees the account given of them in Lord An- son's Voyages, and by other navigators—that lying, cheat- ing, stealing, and all the little arts of chicanery abound among them ; and that, if you detect them in a fraud, they calmly plead the custom of the country.* Such are the people by whom we are to be taught the use and practice of natural theology If credit could be given to what some writers have ad- vanced, we might suppose the moral philosophy and vir- tuous conduct of the Hindoos to be worthy of being a pattern to the world. The rules by which they govern their conduct are, as we have been told, “Not to tell false tales, nor to utter any thing that is untrue ; not to steal any thing from others, be it ever so little ; not to defraud any by their cunning, in bargains or contracts ; not to oppress any when they have power to do it.”f Very opposite accounts, however, are given by numerous and respectable witnesses, who do not appear to have writ- ten under the influence of prejudice. I shall select but two or three. Francis Bernier, an intelligent French traveller, speak- ing of the Hindoos, says, “I know not whether there be in the world a more covetous and sordid nation.—The Brahmins keep these people in their errors and supersti- tions, and scruple not to commit tricks and villanies so in- Jamous, that I could never have believed them, if I had not made an ample inquiry into them.” + Governor Holwell thus characterizes them : “A race of People who, from their infancy, are utter strangers to the idea of common faith and homesty.”—“This is the situa- tion of the bulk of the people of Hindostan, as well as of the nodern Brahmins: amongst the latter, if we except one in a thousand, we give them over measure. The Gentoos * general are as degenerate, superstitious, litigious, and Yicked a people as any race of people in the known world, if not eminently more so; especially the common run of Brahmins; and we can truly aver that, during almost five years that we presided in the Judicial Cutchery Court of pºi Fº Advantage. and Necessity of Revelation, Vol. II. + Harris's Voyages and Travels, Vol. I. Chap. II. § 11, 12. l d; Voyages de Francois Bernier, Tome i. pp. 150, 162, et Tome II. p. * Holwell's Historical Events, Vol. I. p. 228; Vol. II. p. 151. Calcutta, never any murder, or other atrocious crime, came before us, but it was proved, in the end, a Brahmin was at the bottom of it.” Mr., afterwards Sir John, Shore, and governor-general of Bengal, speaking of the same people, says, “A man must be long acquainted with them before he can believe them capable of that bare-faced falsehood, servile adula- tion, and deliberate deception, which they daily practise. —It is the business of all, from the Ryott to the Dewan, to conceal and deceive ; the simplest matters of fact are designedly covered with a veil, through which no human understanding can penetrate.” || In perfect agreement with these accounts are others which are constantly received from persons of observation and probity, now residing in India. Of these the follow- ing are extracts :–“ Lying, theft, whoredom, and deceit, are sins for which the Hindoos are notorious. There is not one man in a thousand who does not make lying his constant practice. Their thoughts of God are so very light, that they only consider him as a sort of plaything. Ava- rice and servility are so united in almost every individual, that cheating, juggling, and lying are esteemed no sins with them ; and the best among them, though they speak ever so great a falsehood, yet consider it no evil, unless you first charge them to speak the truth. When they de- fraud you ever so much, and you charge them with it, they coolly answer, It is the custom of the country.—In Eng- land, the poor receive the benefit of the gospel, in being fed and clothed by those who know not by what principles they are moved. For when the gospel is generally ac- knowledged in a land, it puts some to fear, and others to shame; so that to relieve their own smart they provide for the poor: but here (O miserable state ;) I have found the pathway stopped up by sick and wounded people, perish- ing with hunger, and that in a populous neighbourhood, where numbers pass by, some singing, others talking, but none showing mercy; as though they were dying weeds, and not dying mem.” “I Comparing these accounts, a reader might be apt to suppose that the people must have greatly degenerated since their laws were framed ; but the truth is, the laws are nearly as corrupt as the people. Those who examine the Hindoo Code ** will find them so ; and will perceive that there is scarcely a species of wickedness which they do not tolerate, especially in favour of the Brahmins, of which order of men, it may be presumed, were the first framers of the constitution. Let the reader judge, from this example of the Hindoos, what degree of credit is due to antichristian historians, when they undertake to describe the virtues of heathens. From this brief statement of facts it is not very difficult to perceive somewhat of that which Christianity has ac- complished with regard to the general state of society. It is by no means denied that the natural dispositions of heathens, as well as other men, are various. The Scrip- tures themselves record instances of their amiable deport- ment towards their fellow creatures.ff Neither is it denied that there are characters in Christianized nations, and those in great numbers, whose wickedness cannot be exceeded, nor equalled, by any who are destitute of their advantages. There is no doubt but that the general moral character of heathems is far less atrocious than that of deists, who re- ject the light of revelation, and of multitudes of nominal Christians who abuse it. The state of both these descrip- tions of men, with respect to unenlightened pagans, is as that of Chorazin and Bethsaida with respect to Sodom and, Gomorrha. But that for which I contend is the effect of Christianity upon the general state of society. It is an in- disputable fact, that it has banished gross idolatry from every nation in Europe. It is granted that, where whole nations were concerned, this effect might be accomplished, not by persuasion, but by force of arms. In this manner many legislators of former times thought they did God service. But whatever were the means by which the wor- | Parliamentary Proceedings against Mr. Hastings, Appendix to Vol. II. p. 65. *I Periodical Accounts of the Baptist Mission, No. II. p. 129; Ne. III. pp. 191. 230; No. IV. p. 291. ** Translated from the Shanscrit, and published in 1773. ++ Gen. xxiii. 22 EFFECTS OF CHRISTIANITY ON THE STATE OF SOCIETY: ship of the one living and true God was at first introduced, it is a fact that the principle is now so fully established in the minds and consciences of men, that there needs no force to prevent a return to the old system of polytheism. There needs no greater proof of this than has been afforded by unbelievers of a neighbouring nation. Such evidently has been their predilection for pagan manners, that had the light that is gone abroad among mankind permitted it, they would at once have plunged into gross idolatry, as into their native element. But this is rendered morally impossible. They must be theists or atheists; polytheists they cannot be. By accounts which from time to time have been re- ceived, it appears that the prevailing party in France has not only laboured to eradicate every principle of Chris- tianity, but, in one instance, actually made the experi- ment for restoring something like the old idolatry. A re- spectable magistrate of the United States, * in his Address to the Grand Jury in Luzerne County, has stated a few of these facts to the public. “Infidelity,” says he, “having got possession of the power of the state, every nerve was exerted to efface from the mind all ideas of religion and morality. The doctrine of the immortality of the soul, or a future state of rewards and punishments, so essential to the preservation of order in society, and to the prevention of crimes, was publicly ridiculed, and the people taught to believe that death was an everlasting sleep.” “They ordered the words ‘Temple of Reason’ to be inscribed on the churches, in contempt of the doctrine of revelation. Atheistical and licentious Homilies have been published in the churches, instead of the old service; and a ludicrous imitation of the Greek mythology exhibited, under the title of ‘The Religion of Reason. Nay, they have gone so far as to dress up with the most fantastic de- corations a common strumpet, whom they blasphemously styled ‘The Goddess of Reason,’ and who was carried to church on the shoulders of some Jacobins selected for the purpose, escorted by the National Guards and the con- stituted authorities. When they got to the church, the strumpet was placed on the altar erected for the purpose, and harangued the people, who, in return, professed the deepest adoration to her, and sung the Carmagnole and other songs, by way of worshipping her. This horrid scene–almost too horrid to relate—was concluded by burn- ing the prayer-book, confessional, and every thing ap- propriated to the use of public worship; numbers, in the mean time, danced round the flames with every appearance of frantic and infernal mirth.” These things sufficiently express the inclinations of the parties concerned, and what kind of blessings the world is to expect from atheistical philosophy. But all attempts of this kind are vain: the minds of men throughout Europe, if I may for once use a cant term of their own, are too ºn. lightened to stoop to the practice of such fooleries. We have a gentleman in our own country who appears to be a sincere devotee to the pagan worship, and who, it seems, would wish to introduce it; but, as far as I can learn, all the success which he has met with is to have obtained from the public the honourable appellation of the Gentile priest. Whatever we are, and whatever we may be, gross idol- atry, I presume, may be considered as banished from Europe; and, thanks be to God, a number of its attendant abominations, with various other immoral customs of the heathen, are, in a good measure, banished with it. We have no human sacrifices; no gladiatory combats; no pub- lic indegencies between the sexes; no law that requires prostitution ; no plurality or community of wives; no dissolving of marriages on trifling occasions; nor any legal murdering of children, or of the aged and infirm. If an. natural crimes be committed among us, they are not com- mon ; much less are they tolerated by the laws, or coun- tenanced by public opinion. On the contrary, the odium which follows such practices is sufficient to stamp with perpetual infamy the first character in the land. Rapes, incests, and adulteries are not only punishable by law, but odious in the estimation of the public. It is with us, at least in a considerable degree, as it was in Judea, where * Judge Rush. he that was guilty of such vices was considered as a fool in Israel. The same, in less degrees, may be said of forni- cation, drunkenness, lying, theft, fraud, and cruelty: no one can live in the known practice of these vices, and retain his character. It cannot be pleaded in excuse with us, as it is in China, Hindostan, and Otaheite, that “such things are the custom of the country.” We freely acknowledge, that if we turn our eyes upon the great evils which still exist, even in those nations where Christianity has had the greatest influence, we find abund- ant reason for lamentation ; but, while we lament the evil, there is no reason that we should overlook the good. Comparing our state with that of former times, we cannot but with thankfulness acknowledge, What hath God wrought ! - I can conceive of but one question that can have any tendency to weaken the argument arising from the forego- ing facts; viz. Are they the effects of Christianity ? If they be not, and can be fairly accounted for on other prin- ciples, the argument falls to the ground; but if they be, though Shaftesbury satirize, Hume doubt, Voltaire laugh, Gibbon insinuate, and Paine pour forth scurrility like a torrent, yet honest men will say, “An evil tree bringeth not forth good fruit: if this religion were not of God, it could do nothing.” If there be any adequate cause, distinct from Chris- tianity, to which these effects may be ascribed, it becomes our adversaries to state it. Meanwhile, I may observe, they are not ascribable to any thing besides Christianity that has borne the name of religion. As to that of the an- cient heathens, it had no manner of relation to morality. The priests, as Dr. Leland has proved, “made it not their business to teach men virtue.”f. It is the same with modern heathens; their religion has nothing of morality pertaining to it. They perform a round of superstitious observances, which produce no good effect whatever upon their lives. What they were yesterday, they are to-day; “No man repenteth himself of his wickedness, saying, What have I done l’’ Nor is it materially different with Mahometans. Their religion, though it includes the ac- knowledgment of one living and true God, yet, rejecting the Messiah as the Son of God, and attaching them to a bloody and lascivious impostor, produces no good effect upon their morals, but leaves them under the dominion of barbarity and voluptuousness. In short, there is no re- ligion but that of Jesus Christ that so much as professes to “bless men by turning them from their iniquities.” Neither can these effects be attributed to philosophy. A few great minds despised the idolatries of their country- men; but they did not reform them : and no wonder ; for they practised what they themselves despised. Nor did all their harangues in favour of virtue produce any substantial effect, either on themselves or others. The heathen nations were never more enlightened as to philo- sophy than at the time of our Saviour's appearance ; yet, as to morality, they never were more depraved. It is Christianity then, and nothing else, which has de- stroyed the odious idolatry of many nations, and greatly contracted its attendant immoralities. It was in this way that the gospel operated in the primitive ages, wherever it was received ; and it is in the same way that it continues to operate to the present time. Real Christians must needs be adverse to these things, and they are the only men living who cordially set themselves against them. This truth will receive additional evidence from an ob- servation of the different degrees of morality produced in different places, according to the degree of purity with which the Christian religion has been taught, and liberty given it to operate. In several nations of Europe popery has long been established, and supported by sanguinary laws. By these means the Bible has been kept from the common people, Christian doctrine and worship corrupted, and the consciences of men subdued to a usurper of Christ's authority. Christianity is there in prison, and antichris- tianism exalted in its place —In other nations this yoke is broken. Every true Christian has a Bible in his family, and measures his religion by it. The rights of conscience also being respected, men are allowed, in religious matters, t Advantages and Necessity of Revelation, Vol.II, p. 38. EFFECTS OF CHRISTIANITY ON THE STATE OF SOCIETY. 23 to judge and act for themselves; and Christian churches are formed according to the primitive model. Christianity is here at liberty; here, therefore, it may be expected to produce its greatest effects. Whether this does not corre- spond with fact, let those who are accustomed to observe men and things with an impartial eye determine. In Italy, France, and various other countries, where the Christian religion has been so far corrupted as to lose nearly all its influence, illicit connexions may be formed, adulterous intrigues pursued, and even crimes against nature committed, with but little dishonour. Rousseau could here send his illegitimate offspring to the Foundling Hospital, and lay his accounts with being applauded for it, as being the custom of the country. It is not so in Britain, and various other nations, where the gospel has had a freer course; for though the same dispositions are discovered in great numbers of persons, yet the fear of the public frown holds them in awe. If we except a few abandoned characters who have nearly lost all sense of shame, and who by means either of their titles or fortunes on the one hand, or their well-known baseness on the other, have almost bid defiance to the opinion of mankind, this observation will hold good, I believe, as to the bulk of the inhabitants of protestant countries. And it is worthy of notice, that in those circles or con- nexions where Christianity has had the greatest influence, a sobriety of character is carried to a much higher degree than in any other. Where there is one divorce from among protestant dissenters, and other serious professors of Christianity, there are, I believe, a hundred from among those whose practice it is to neglect the worship of God, and to frequent the amusements of the theatre. And, in proportion to the singularity of cases, such is the surprise, indignation, and disgrace which accompany them. Simi- lar observations might be made on public executions for robbery, forgery, tumults, assassinations, murders, &c. It is not among the circles professing a serious regard to Christianity, but among its adversaries, that these practices ordinarily prevail. Some have been inclined to attribute various differences in these things to a difference in national character; but national character, as it respects morality, is formed very much from the state of society in different nations. A number of painful observations would arise from a view of the conduct and character of Englishmen on foreign shores. To say nothing of the rapacities committed in the East, whither is our boasted humanity fled when we land upon the coasts of Guinea 3 The brutality with which millions of our fellow creatures have been torn from their con- nexions, bound in irons, thrown into a floating dungeon, sold in the public markets, beaten, maimed, and many of them murdered for trivial offences, and all this without any effectual restraint from the laws, must load our national Character with everlasting infamy. The same persons, however, who can be guilty of these crimes at a distance, are as apparently humane as other people when they re- enter their native country. And wherefore? Because in their native country the state of society is such as will not *dmit of a contrary behaviour. A man who should violate the principles of justice and humanity here would not 2nly be exposed to the censure of the laws, but, supposing he could evade this, his character would be lost. The State of Society in Guinea imposes no such restraints; in that situation, therefore, wicked men will indulge in ...ine. Nor is it much otherwise in our West India * * * is there of Christianity in those quarters, framing ºn. to º ". any influence in the There are, doubt, ws, or the forming of the public opinion. islands : but the º just and humane individuals in those al"e devotees to * greater part of them, it is to be feared, other of them is c . to which, as to a Moloch, one or Vicious pºetic." inually offering up human victims. and populous citi * commonly more prevalent in large Worst characters : º in other places. Hither the COWert from their jº º àS . º to a the conduct of individual n places but thinly inhabited, Imunity : b S is conspicuous to the com- *Y; but here they can assemblé with others of their °º description, and strengthen each other's hands in evil, without much fear of being detected. Christianity, therefore, may be supposed to have less effect in the way of restraining immoral characters in the city than in the country. Yet even here it is sensibly felt. Though the metropolis of our own nation abounds with almost every species of vice, yet what reflecting citizen will deny that it would be much worse but for the influence of the gos- pel? As it is, there are numbers, of different religious denominations, who constantly attend to public and family worship, who are as honourable in their dealings as they are amiable in domestic life, and as liberal in their bene- factions as they are assiduous to find out deserving cases. The influence which this body of men have upon the citizens at large, in restraining vice, promoting schemes of benevolence, and preserving peace and good order in so- ciety, is beyond calculation. But for their examples, and unremitted exertions, London would be a Sodom in its guilt, and might expect to resemble it in its punishment. In country towns and villages it is easy to perceive the influence which a number of serious Christians will have upon the manners of the people at large. A few families in which the Bible is daily read, the worship of God per- formed, and a Christian conversation exemplified, will have a powerful effect. Whether characters of an opposite description regard their conduct, or not, their consciences favour it. Hence it is that one upright man, in a question of right and wrong, will often put to silence a company of the advocates of unrighteousness; and that three or four Christian families have been known to give a turn to the manners of a whole neighbourhood. In fine, let it be closely considered whether a great part of that sobriety which is to be found among deists them- selves (as there are, doubtless, sober characters among deists, and even among atheists) be not owing to Chris- tianity. It has often been remarked, and justly too, that much of the knowledge which our adversaries possess is derived from this source. To say nothing of the best ideas of the old philosophers on moral subjects being de- rived from revelation, of which there is considerable evi- dence, it is manifest that, so far as the moderns exceed them, it is principally, if not entirely, owing to this medium of instruction. The Scriptures having diffused the light, they have insensibly imbibed it ; and finding it to accord with reason, they flatter themselves that their reason has discovered it. “After grazing,” as one expresses it, “ in the pastures of revelation, they boast of having grown fat by nature.” And it is the same with regard to their so- briety. So long as they reside among people whose ideas of right and wrong are formed by the morality of the gospel, they must, unless they wish to be stigmatized as profligates, behave with some degree of decorum. Where the conduct is uniform and consistent, charity, I allow, and even justice, will lead us to put the best construction upon the motive ; but when we see men uneasy under restraints, and continually writing in favour of vices which they dare not openly practise, we are justified in imputing their sobriety, not to principle, but to the circumstances attending their situation. If some of those gentlemen who have deserted the Christian ministry, and commenced professed infidels, had acted years ago as licentiously as they have done of late, they must have quitted their situ- ation sooner; and were they now to leave their country and connexions, and enter into such a state of society as would comport with their present wishes, their conduct would be more licentious than it is. On these principles that great and excellent man WASH- INGTON, in his farewell address to the people of the United States, acknowledges the necessity of religion to the well- being of a nation. “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,” he says, “religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labour to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firm- est props of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it be simply asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the in- struments of investigation in the courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality 24 CHRISTIANITY A SOURCE OF HAPPINESS. can be maintained without religion.—Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of a peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.’ g Upon the whole, the evidence of this chapter proves not only that Christianity is a living principle of virtue in good men, but that it affords this further blessing to so- ciety, that it restrains the vices of the bad. It is a tree of life whose fruit is immortality, and whose very leaves are for the healing of the nations. *s CHAPTER WII. CHRISTIANITY IS A SOURCE OF HAPPINESS TO INDIVIDUALS AND SOCIETY, BUT DEIsM LEAVES BOTH THE ONE AND THE OTHIER WITHOUT FIOPE. THough the happiness of creatures be not admitted to be the final end of God’s moral government, yet it is freely allowed to occupy an important place in the system. God is good, and his goodness appears in having so blended the honour of his name with the felicity of his creatures, that in seeking the one they should find the other. In so im- portant a light do we consider human happiness, as to be willing to allow that to be the true religion which is most adapted to promote it. To form an accurate judgment on this subject, it is necessary to ascertain wherein happiness consists. We ought neither to expect nor desire, in the present life, such a state of mind as wholly excludes painful sensations. Had we less of the exercises of godly sorrow, our sacred pleasures would be fewer than they are ; or were we un- acquainted with the afflictions common to men, we should be less able to sympathize with them, which would be in- jurious, not only to society, but to ourselves, as it would deprive us of one of the richest sources of enjoyment. Mr. Hume, in one of his Essays, very properly called The Sceptic, seems to think that happiness lies in having one’s inclinations gratified; and as different men have different inclinations, and even the same men at different times, that may be happiness in one case which is misery in another. This sceptical writer, however, would hardly deny that in happiness, as in other things, there is a false and a true, an imaginary and a real; or that a studied in- dulgence of the appetites and passions, though it should promote the one, would destroy the other. The light of nature, as acknowledged even by deists, teaches that self- denial, in many cases, is necessary to self-preservation; and that to act a contrary part would be to ruin our peace and destroy our health.* I presume it will be granted that no definition of happiness can be complete which in- cludes not peace of mind, which admits not of perpetuity, or which meets not the necessities and miseries of human life. .* But if nothing deserves the name of happiness which does not include peace of mind, all criminal pleasure is at once excluded. Could a life of unchastity, intrigue, dis- honour, and disappointed pride, like that of Rousseau, be a happy life 3 No ; amidst the brilliancy of his talents, remorse, shame, conscious meanness, and the dread of an hereafter, must corrode his heart, and render him a stranger to peace. Contrast with the life of this man that of Howard. Pious, temperate, just, and benevolent, he lived for the good of mankind. His happiness consisted in “ serving his generation by the will of God.” If all men were like Rousseau, the world would be abundantly more miserable than it is ; if all were like Howard, it would be abundantly more happy. Rousseau, governed by the love of fame, is fretful and peevish, and never satisfied with the treatment he receives: Howard, governed by the love of mercy, shrinks from applause, with this modest and just reflection, “ Alas! our best performances have such a mixture of sin and folly, that praise is Vanity, and pre- • Volney's Law of Nature, p. 12. sumption, and pain to a thinking mind.” Rousseau, after a life of debauchery and shame, confesses it to the world, and makes a merit of his confession, and even pre- sumptuously supposes that it will avail him before the Judge of all : Howard, after a life of singular devotedness to God, and benevolence to men, accounted himself an unprofitable servant, leaving this for his motto, his last testimony, “ Christ is my hope.” Can there be any doubt which of the two was the happier man 2 Further, If nothing amounts to real happiness which admits not of perpetuity, all matural pleasure, when weighed against the hopes and joys of the gospel, will be found wanting. It is an expressive characteristic of the good things of this life, that “they all perish with the using.” The charms of youth and beauty quickly fade. The power of relishing natural enjoyments is soon gone. The plea- sures of active life, of building, planting, forming schemes, and achieving enterprises, soon follow. In old age none of them will flourish, and in death they are exterminated. “The mighty man, and the man of war, the judge, and the prophet, and the prudent, and the ancient, the captain of fifty, and the honourable man, and the counsellor, and the cunning artificer, and the eloquent orator,” all descend in one undistinguished mass into oblivion. And as this is a truth which no man can dispute, those who have no prospects of a higher nature must often feel themselves unhappy. Contrast with this the joys of the gospel. These, instead of being diminished by time, are often in- creased. To them the soil of age is friendly. While nature has been fading and perishing by slow degrees, how often have we seen faith, hope, love, patience, and resignation to God in full bloom | Who but Christians can contemplate the loss of all present enjoyments with satisfaction ? Who else can view death, judgment, and etermity with desire ? I appeal to the hearts of libertines and unbelievers, whether they have not many misgivings and revoltings within them ; and whether, in the hour of solitary reflection, they have not sighed the wish of Ba- laam, “Let me die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like his ” The following extract from a letter of a late nobleman, of loose principles, well known in the gay world, and pub- lished as authentic by a respectable prelate, deceased, will show the dreadful vacancy and wretchedness of a mind left to itself in the decline of life, and unsupported by Christian principle.—“I have seen the silly round of business and pleasure, and have dome with it all. I have enjoyed all the pleasures of the world, and consequently know their futility, and do not regret their loss. I ap- praise them at their real value, which in truth is very low ; whereas those who have not experienced always overrate them. They only see their gay outside, and are dazzled with their glare ; but I have been behind the scenes. I have seen all the coarse pulleys and dirty ropes which exhibit and move the gaudy machine ; and I have seen and smelt the tallow candles which illuminate the whole decoration, to the astonishment and admiration of the ignorant audience. When I reflect on what I have seen, what I have heard, and what I have done, I cannot persuade myself that all that frivolous hurry of bustle and pleasure of the world had any reality; but I look on all that is past as one of those romantic dreams which opium commonly occasions, and I do by no means wish to re- peat the nauseous dose for the sake of the fugitive dream. Shall I tell you that I bear this melancholy situation with that meritorious constancy and resignation that most men boast? No, sir, I really cannot help it. I bear it because I must bear it, whether I will or no. I think of nothing but killing time the best way I can, now that time is be- come my enemy. It is my resolution to sleep in the carriage during the remainder of the journey.” “You see,” reflects the worthy prelate, “in how poor, abject, and unpitied a condition, at a time when he most wanted help and comfort, the world left him, and he left the world. Compare these words with those of another person, who took his leave in a very different manner: “I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord the right- CHRISTIANITY A SOURCE OF HAPPINESS. 25 eous Judge shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also who love his appearing.” It is ob- servable that even Rousseau himself, though the language certainly did not become his lips, affected in advanced life to derive consolation from Christian principles. In a letter to Voltaire he says, “I cannot help remarking, sir, a very singular contrast between you and me. Sated with glory, and undeceived with the inanity of worldly grandeur, you live at freedom, in the midst of plenty, certain of immor- tality; you peaceably philosophize on the nature of the soul; and if the body or the heart be indisposed, you have Tronchin for your physician and friend. Yet with all this you find nothing but evil on the face of the earth. I, on the other hand, obscure, indigent, tormented with an in- curable disorder, meditate with pleasure in my solitude, and find every thing to be good. Whence arise these apparent contradictions ? You have yourself explained them. You live in a state of enjoyment, I in a state of hope; and hope gives charms to every thing.”.” Finally, If nothing deserves the name of happiness which meets not the necessities nor relieves the miseries of human life, Christianity alone can claim it. Every one who looks into his own heart, and makes proper observa- tions on the dispositions of others, will perceive that man is possessed of a desire after something which is not to be found under the sun–after a good which has no limits. We may imagine our desires are moderate, and set bound- aries, beyond which we may flatter ourselves we should never wish to pass ; but this is self-deception. He that sets his heart on an estate, if he gain it, will wish for some- thing more. It would be the same if it were a kingdom, or even if all the kingdoms of the world were united in one. Nor is this desire to be attributed merely to human depravity, for it is the same with regard to knowledge: the mind is never satisfied with its present acquisitions. It is depravity that directs us to seek satisfaction in something short of God; but it is owing to the nature of the soul that we are never able to find it. It is not possible that a being created immortal, and with a mind capable of con- tinual enlargement, should obtain satisfaction in a limited good. Men may spend their time and strength, and even sacrifice their souls, in striving to grasp it, but it will elude their pursuit. It is only from an uncreated source that the mind can drink its fill. Here it is that the gospel meets our necessities. Its language is, “Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread, and your labour for that which satisfieth not? Hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness. Incline your ear, and come unto me; hear, and your soul shall live.” “In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.” “He that °ometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.” How this language has been Yerified, all who have made the trial can testify. To them, * to the only competent witnesses, I appeal. It is not merely the nature of the soul however, but its Jepravity, whence our necessities arise, we are sinners. Every man who believes there is a God, and a future State, or even only admits the possibility of them, feels the N. of merºy. The first inquiries of a mind awakened to i. Sººn, Will be how he may escape the wrath to come— °W.he shall get over his everlasting ruin. A heathem, Previously to any Christian instruction, exclaimed, in the º of alarm, “What must I do to be saved ?”+ 㺠mi.º being lately warned by a Chris- to him with this * sinful state, came the next morning —“How shall J. * Question—Keman par hoibof is beyond the ...º. f To answer these inquiries pel. Philoso ; º any principles but those of the gos- and even a ;', . º superstition may deceive, abetting ; each mº .. º Christianity may be aiding and but none of them à. º º lull the conscience to sleep, believing in J Cl Yield, it satisfaction. It is only by *ē " "esus Christ, the great sacrifice that taketh * Works, Vol. IX, * Acts º 336. * C away the sin of the world, that the sinner obtains a relief which will bear reflection—a relief which, at the same time, gives peace to the mind and purity to the heart. For the truth of this also I appeal to all who have made the trial. Where, but in the gospel, will you find relief under the innumerable ills of the present state 3 This is the well- known refuge of Christians. Are they poor, afflicted, per- secuted, or reproached ? They are led to consider Him who endured the contradiction of sinners, who lived a life of poverty and ignominy, who endured persecution and reproach, and death itself, for them ; and to realize a blessed immortality in prospect. By a view of such things their hearts are cheered, and their afflictions become toler- able. Looking to Jesus, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is now set down at the right hand of the throne of God, they run with patience the race which is set before them.—But what is the comfort of unbelievers? Life being short, and having no ground to hope for any thing beyond it, if they be crossed here, they become inconsolable. Hence it is not uncommon for persons of this description, after the example of the philosophers and statesmen of Greece and Rome, when they find themselves depressed by adversity, and have no prospect of recovering their fortunes, to put a period to their lives | Unhappy men : Is this the felicity to which ye would introduce us? Is it in guilt, shame, remorse, and desperation that ye descry such charms ? Admitting that our hope of immortality is visionary, where is the injury # If it be a dream, is it not a pleasant one 3 To say the least, it beguiles many a melancholy hour, and can do no mischief; but if it be a reality, what will be- come of you? I may be told that, if many put a period to their lives through unbelief, there is an equal number who fall sacri- fices to religious melancholy. But, to render this objection of force, it should be proved that the religion of Jesus Christ is the cause of this melancholy. Reason may con- vince us of the being of a God, and conscience bear witness that we are exposed to his displeasure. Now if in this state of mind the heart refuse to acquiesce in the gospel way of salvation, we shall of course either rest in some de- lusive hope, or sink into despair. But here it is not religion, but the want of it, that produces the evil; it is unbelief, and not faith, that sinks the sinner into despondency. Christianity disowns such characters. It records some few examples, such as Saul, Ahithophel, and Judas; but they are all branded as apostates from God and true re- ligion. On the contrary, the writings of unbelievers, both ancient and modern, are known to plead for suicide, as an expedient in extremity. Rousseau, Hume, and others have written in defence of it. The principles of such men both produce and require it. It is the natural offspring of unbelief, and the last resort of disappointed pride. Whether Christianity or the want of it be best adapted to relieve the heart, under its various pressures, let those testify who have been in the habit of visiting the afflicted poor. On this subject the writer of these sheets can speak from his own knowledge. In this situation cha- racters of very opposite descriptions are found. Some are serious and sincere Christians; others, even among those who have attended the preaching of the gospel, appear neither to understand nor to feel it. The tale of woe is told perhaps by both ; but the one is unaccompanied with that discontent, that wretchedness of mind, and that in- clination to despair, which is manifest in the other. Often have I seen the cheerful smile of contentment under cir- cumstances the most abject and afflictive. Amidst tears of sorrow, which a full heart has rendered it impossible to suppress, a mixture of hope and joy has glistened. “The cup which my Father hath given me to drink, shall I not drink it?” Such have been their feelings, and such their expressions; and where this has been the case, death has generally been embraced as the messenger of peace. Here, I have said, participating of their sensations,—“here is the patience and the faith of the saints. Here are they that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. This is the victory that overcometh the world, even our i.eriodical Accounts of the Baptist Missionary Society, No. IV. p. 326. 26 CHRISTIANITY A SOURCE OF HAPPINESS. faith.-Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?” From individual happiness, let us proceed to examine that of society. Let us inquire whether there be any well-grounded hope of the future melioration of the state of mankind, besides that which is afforded by the gospel. Great expectations have been raised of an end being put to wars, and of universal good-will pervading the earth, in consequence of philosophical illumination, and the pre- valence of certain modes of civil government. But these speculations proceed upon false data. They suppose that the cause of these evils is to be looked for in the ignorance, rather than in the depravity of men; or if depravity be allowed to have any influence, it is confined to the pre- cincts of a court. Without taking upon me to decide which is the best mode of civil government, or what mode is most adapted to promote the peace and happiness of mankind, it is sufficient, in this case, to show that wars generally originate, as the apostle James says, in the lusts, or corrupt passions, of mankind. If this be proved, it will follow that, however some forms of government may be more friendly to peace and happiness than others, yet no 2-adical cure can be effected till the dispositions of men are changed. Let power be placed where it may, with one or with many, still it must be in the hands of men. If all governments were so framed as that every national act should be expressive of the real will of the people, still, if the preponderating part of them be governed by pride and self-love rather than equity, we are not much the nearer. Governors taken from the common mass of society must needs resemble it. If there be any difference at the time of their first elevation to office, owing, as may be supposed, to the preference which all men give to an upright character for the management of their concerns, yet this advantage will be balanced, if not overbalanced, by the subsequent temptations to injustice which are af- forded by situations of wealth and power. What is the source of contentions in common life 2 Observe the discords in neighbourhoods and families, which, notwithstanding all the restraints of relationship, interest, honour, law, and reason, are a fire that never ceases to burn, and which, were they no more controlled by the laws than independent nations are by each other, would in thousands of instances break forth into assassinations and murders. Whence spring these wars? Are they the result of ignorance # If so, they would chiefly be confined to the rude or uninformed part of the community. But is it so? There may, it is true, be more pretences to peace and good-will, and fewer bursts of open resentment, in the higher than in the lower orders of people ; but their dispositions are much the same. The laws of politeness can only polish the surface; and there are some parts of the human character which still appear very rough. Even politeness has its regulations for strife and murder, and establishes iniquity by a law. The evil disposition is a kind of subterraneous fire, and in some form it will have vent. Are they the result of court influence? No. The truth is, if civil government in some form did not influ- ence the fears of the unjust and contentious part of the community, there would be no security to those who are peaceably inclined, and especially to those who are withal religious, and whose pious conduct, like that of Noah, condemns the world. Now the same disposition which, in persons whose power extends only to a cottage, will operate in a way of domestic discord, in others, whose influence extends to the affairs of nations, will operate on a more enlarged scale, producing war, and all the dire ca- lamities which attend it. The sum of the whole is this : When the preponderating part of the world shall cease to be proud, ambitious, envious, covetous, lovers of their own selves, false, malignant, and intriguing—when they shall love God and one another out of a pure heart—then, and not till then, may we expect wars to cease, and the state of mankind to be essentially meliorated. While these dispositions remain, they will be certain to show themselves. If the best laws or constitution in the world stand in their way, they will, on certain occasions, bear down all before them. An anonymous writer in the Monthly Magazine * (a * For February, 1799, p. 9. work which, without avowing it, is pretty evidently de- voted to the cause of infidelity) has instituted an inquiry into “the probability of the future melioration of man- kind.” A dismal prospect indeed it is which he holds up to his fellow creatures; yet were I an infidel, like him, I should acquiesce in many things which he advances. The anchor of his hopes is an increase of knowledge, and the effects of this are circumscribed within a very narrow boundary. With respect to what we call civilization, he reckons it to have undergone all the vicissitudes of which it is capable. Scientific refinement may contribute to the happiness of a few individuals; but, he fears, cannot be made a ground of much advantage to the mass of man- kind. Great scope, indeed, remains for the operation of increased knowledge in improvement in government; but even here it can only cure those evils which arise from ignorance, and not those which proceed from intention, which, “while the propensity to prefer our own interests above that of the community is,” as he acknowledges, “interwoven into our very mature,” will always form the mass of existing ills. If, indeed, the majority of a com- munity, he says, became so enlightened concerning their interests, and so wise, steady, and unanimous in the pur- suit of them, as to overcome all that resistance which the possessors of undue advantages will always make to a change unfavourable to themselves, something might be hoped for. But this, while they are under their old mas- ters, he reckons as next to impossible. As to political "evolutions, he did form high expectations from them ; but his hopes are at an end. “I have only the wish left,” says he; “the confidence is gone.” As to improved systems of morality, which he considers as the art of living happy, though it might seem promising, yet history, he very justly remarks, does not allow us to expect that men, in propor- tion as they advance in this species of knowledge, will become more just, more temperate, or more benevolent. Of the extinction of wars he has no hope. The new order of things which seemed opening in Europe, and to bid fair for it, has rather increased the evil; and as to Chris- tianity, it has been tried, it seems, and found to be insuf- ficient for the purpose. Commerce, instead of binding the nations in a golden chain of mutual peace and friend- ship, seems only to have given additional motives for war. The amount is, There is little or no hope of the state of mankind being meliorated on public principles. All the improvement he can discern in this way consists in there being a little more lenity in the government of some coun- tries than formerly ; and as to this, it is balanced by the prodigious increase of standing armies, and other national burdens. The only way in which an increase in knowledge is to operate to the melioration of the state of mankind is in private life. It is to soften and humanize men’s manners, and emancipate their minds from the shackles of super- stition and bigotry—names which writers of this class commonly bestow upon Christianity. This is the boundary beyond which, whatever be his wishes, the hopes of this writer will not suffer him to pass; and even this respects only Europe and her immediate connexions, and not the whole of them. The great mass of mankind are in an absolutely hopeless condition ; for there are no means of carrying our improvements among them but by conquest, and conquest is a Pandora's box, at the mention of which he shudders. Such are the prospects of unbelievers ; such is the horrid despondency under which they sink when Providence counteracts their favourite schemes; and such the spirit which they labour to infuse into the minds of men in order to make them happy! Christian reader, have you no better hopes than these ? Are you not acquainted with a principle which, like the machine of Archimedes, will remove this mighty mass of evils? Be they as great and as numerous as they may, if all can be reduced to a single cause, and that cause removed, the work is done. All the evils of which this writer complains are reducible to that one principle, which, he says, (and it is well he says it,) “is interwoven into our very mature ; namely, The pro- pensity to prefer our own interest above that of the com- munity.” It is this propensity that operates in the great, and induces them to “oppose every thing that would be CHRISTIANITY A SOURCE OF HAPPINESS. 27 unfavourable to their power and advantage; and the same thing operates among common people, great numbers of whom, it is well known, would sell their country for a piece of bread. If this principle cannot be removed, I shall, with this writer, for ever despair of any essential changes for the better in the state of mankind, and will content myself with cultivating private and domestic hap- piness, and hoping for the blessedness of a future life ; but if it can, I must leave him to despair alone. My hopes are not founded on forms of government, nor even on an increase of knowledge, though each may have its value ; but on the spirit by which both the rulers and the people will be governed. All forms of government have hitherto rested on the basis of self-love. The wisest and best statesmen have been obliged to take it for granted that the mass of every people will be governed by this principle ; and, consequently, all their schemes have been directed to the balancing of things in such a manner as that people, in pursuing their own interest, should promote that of the public. If in any case they have presumed on the contrary, experience has soon taught them that all their schemes are visionary, and inapplicable to real life. But if the mass of the people, composed of all the differ- ent orders of society, were governed by a spirit of justice and disinterested benevolence, systems of government might safely be formed on this basis. It would then be sufficient for statesmen to ascertain what was right, and best adapted to promote the good of the community, and the people would cheerfully pursue it; and, pursuing this, would find their own good more effectually promoted than by all the little discordant arts of a selfish mind. The excellence of the most admired constitutions which have hitherto appeared in the world, has chiefly consisted in the balance of power being so distributed, among the different orders of society, as that no one should materially oppress or injure the other. They have endeavoured to set boundaries to each other’s encroachments, and con- trived, in some degree, to counteract venality, corruption, and tumult. But all this supposes a corrupt state of so- ciety, and amounts to no more than making the best of things, taking them as they are. As things are, locks, and keys, and bolts, and bars are necessary in our houses; but it were better if there were no occasion for them. I do not take upon me to say that things will ever be in such a state as that there shall be no need of these political precautions; but I believe they will be far less necessary than at present. If the Bible be true, the knowledge of the Lord will cover the earth as the waters cover the sea; the kingdoms of this world will become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ; idolatry, and every species of false religion, shall be no more ; the arts and instruments of war shall be laid aside, and exchanged for those of husbandry; the different tribes of man shall be united in one common band of brotherly love; slavery and oppression will cease; righteousness will be established in the earth ; and “the work of righteousness shall be peace, and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance for ever.” . But “Christianity has been tried,” it seems, “and found insufficient.” That it has not been, as yet, sufficient to banish unjust wars from the earth is true; and it were more than wonderful if it had, seeing it has never yet been cordially embraced by the majority, nor perhaps by the preponderating part of any nation. Nevertheless it has had its influence. This gloomy writer himself acknow- ledges that the state of society in Europe and America, that is to say, in Christendom, is far preferable to what it is in other parts of the earth. Of the rest of the world he has no hope. Has Christianity done nothing in this case ? That thousands in different nations are, by a cordial belief of it, rendered sober, just, disinterested, and peace- able, and that the state of society at large is greatly meliorated, have, I hope, been already proved.* To be- lieve then in the future accomplishment of the foregoing prophecies is only to believe that what is already effected in individuals will be extended to the general body of mankind, or, at least, to such a proportion of them as shall be sufficient to give a preponderance in human affairs. Moreover, the same book which declares that the king- doms of this world shall become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ, has foretold, in great variety of language, the downfal of the papal antichrist, and that by means of the same powers from which its dominion was first de- rived. We have, in part, seen the fulfilment of the one, and live in expectation of the other. We are not ignorant of the evil designs of infidels; but we believe that God is above them, and that they are only instruments in his hand in the fulfilment of his word. While, therefore, we feel for the miseries of mankind, occasioned by the dread- ful devastations of war, we sorrow not as those who have no hope ; but are persuaded that all things, even now, are working together for good; and while we pity indi- vidual sufferers, we cannot join the whining lamentations of interested men—“Alas, alas, that great city l’” On the contrary, we feel disposed to join the song of the heavenly host, “Alleluia ; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God; for true and righteous are his judgments.-Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him ; for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his bride hath made herself ready.” If, according to the doctrine of Bolingbroke, Volney, and other deists, we knew no other source of virtue and happiness than self-love, we should often be less happy than we are. Our blessedness is bound up with that of Christ and his followers throughout the world. His friends are our friends, and his enemies our enemies; they that seek his life seek ours; the prosperity of his kingdom is our prosperity, and we prefer it above our chief joy. From the public stock of blessedness being thus considered as the common property of every individual, arises a great and constant influx of enjoyment. Hence it is that, in times when temporal comforts fail, or family troubles de- press, or a cloud hangs over our particular connexions, or death threatens to arrest us in a course of pleasing labour, we have still our resources of consolation. “Affairs with me are sinking ; but he must increase.”—“My house is not so with God; but the kingdom of my Lord shall be established for ever.”—“His interest sinks in this congre- gation; but it rises elsewhere.”—“I die ; but God will surely visit you!” Such is the heritage of the servants of the Lord ; and such the blessedness of those whose chief desire it is “that they may see the good of his chosen, that they may rejoice in the gladness of his nation, and that they may glory with his inheritance.” * Chap. V. VI. FULFILMENT OF PROPHECY. PART II. THE HARMONY OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION CONSIDERED AS AN EVIDENCE OF ITS DIVINITY. IF Christianity be an imposture, it may, like all other im- postures, be detected. Falsehood may always be proved to clash with fact, with reason, or with itself; and often with them all. If, on the contrary, its origin be Divine, it may be expected to bear the character of consistency, which distinguishes every other Divine production. If the Scrip- tures can be proved to harmonize with historic fact, with truth, with themselves, and with sober reason, they must, considering what they profess, be Divinely inspired, and Christianity must be of God. CHAPTER I. THE HARMONY OF SCRIPTURE WITH HISTORIC FACT EVINCED BY THE FULFILMICNT OF PROPHECY. IF the pretence which the Scriptures make to Divine in- spiration be unfounded, it can be no very difficult under- taking to prove it so. The sacred writers, besides abound- ing in history, doctrine, and morality, have dealt largely in prophecy—and this not in the manner of the heathen priests, who made use of dark and dubious language. Their meaning, in general, is capable of being understood, even at this distance of time, and, in many instances, cannot be mistaken. The dispute, therefore, between believers and unbelievers, is reducible to a short issue. If Scripture prophecy be Divinely inspired, it will be accomplished; if it be imposture, it will not. Let us suppose that by digging in the earth a chest were discovered containing a number of ancient curiosities, and, among other things, a tablet inscribed with calculations of the most remarkable eclipses that should take place for a great while to come. These calculations are examined and found to correspond with fact for more than two thousand years past. The inspectors cannot agree, perhaps, in de- ciding who was the author, whether it had not gone through several hands when it was deposited in the chest, and various other questions ; but does this invalidate the truth of the calculations, or diminish the value of the tablet? It cannot be objected that events have been predicted from mere political foresight which have actually come to pass; for though this may have been the case in a few instances, wherein causes have already existed which afforded ground for the conclusion, yet it is impossible that the successive changes and revolutions of empires, some of which were more than a thousand years distant, and de- pended on ten thousand unknown incidents, should be the objects of human speculation. Mr. Paine seems (9 feel the difficulty attending his cause on this subject. His method of meeting it is not by soberly examining the agreement or disagreement of pro- phecy and history: that would not have suited his pur- pose. But, as though he had made a wonderful discovery, he in the first place goes about to prove that the prophets wrote poetry; and hence would persuade us that a prophet was no other than an ancient Jewish bard. That the pro- phecies are what is now called poetic, Mr. Paine need not have given himself the trouble to prove, as no person of common understanding can doubt it: but the question is, Did not these writings, in whatever kind of language they were written, contain predictions of future events? yea, * Age of Reason, Part II. pp. 53.44. 47. + Lowth's translation of Isaiah xxi. 2. Other prophecies of the and of the most notorious and remarkable events, such as should form the grand outlines of history in the following ages? Mr. Paine will not deny this ; nor will he soberly undertake to disprove that many of those events have already come to pass. He will, however, take a shorter method—a method more suited to his turn of mind. He will call the prophets “impostors and liars; he will roundly assert, without a shadow of proof, and in defiance of historic evidence, that the prediction concerning Cyrus was written after the event took place ; he will labour to pervert and explain away some few of the prophecies, and get rid of the rest by calling the writer “a false prophet,” and his production “a book of falsehoods.” “ These are weapons worthy of Mr. Paine's warfare. But why all this rage against an ancient bard 3 Just now a prophet was only a poet, and the idea of a predictor of future events was not included in the meaning of the term. It seems, however, by this time, that Mr. Paine has found a number of predictions in the prophetic writings, to dismiss which he is obliged, as is usual with him in cases of emer- gency, to summon all his talents of misrepresentation and abuse. I take no particular notice of this writer’s attempts to explain away a few of the predictions of Isaiah and other prophets. Those who have undertaken to answer him have performed this part of the business. I shall only notice that he has not dared to meet the great body of Scripture prophecy, or fairly to look it in the face. To say nothing of the predictions of the destruction of mankind by a flood; of that of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire; of the descendants of Abraham being put in posses- sion of Canaan within a limited period; and of various other events, the history as well as the prophecy of which is confined to the Scriptures; let us review those predic- tions, the fulfilment of which has been recorded by histo- rians who knew nothing of them, and, consequently, could have no design in their favour. It is worthy of notice that sacred history ends where profane history, that part of it at least which is commonly reckoned authentic, begins. Prior to the Babylonish cap- tivity, the Scriptural writers were in the habit of narrating the leading events of their country, and of incidentally in- troducing those of the surrounding nations; but shortly after this time the great changes in the world began to be recorded by other hands, as Herodotus, Xenophon, and others. From this period they dealt chiefly in prophecy, leaving it to common historians to record its fulfilment. Mr. Paine says the Scripture prophecies are “a book of falsehoods.” Let us examine this charge. Isaiah, above a hundred years before the captivity, predicted the destruction of the Babylonish empire by the Medes and Persians, and Judah’s consequent deliverance. “The plunderer is plundered, and the destroyer is destroyed ; Go up, O Elam ; form the siege, O Media! I have put an end to all her vexations.” f Ask Herodotus and Xenophon, Was this a falsehood 3 Daniel, fourteen years before the establishment of the Medo-Persian dominion by the taking of Babylon, de- scribed that dominion with its conquests, and the supe- riority of the Persian influence to that of the Median, under the symbol of a ram with two horns. “I lifted up mine eyes and saw, and, behold, there stood before the river a ram which had two horns, and the two horns were high ; but one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last. I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward; so that no beasts might stand same event may be seen in Isa, xiii.; xiv.; xxi.; xliii. 14—17; xliv, 28; xlv. 1-4; xlvii.; Jer. xxv. 12–26; l. ; li. ; Hab. ii. FULFILMENT OF PROPHECY. 29 before him, neither was there any that could deliver out of his hand ; but he did according to his will, and became great.” This is expounded as follows: “ The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia.” + Ask the aforementioned historians, Was this a falsehood - The same Daniel, at the same time, two hundred and twenty-three years before the event, predicted the over- throw of this Medo-Persian dominion, by the arms of Greece, under the command of Alexander; and described the latter government under the symbol of a he-goat, with a notable horn between his eyes. “As I was considering, behold, a he-goat came from the west on the face of the whole earth, and touched not the ground: and the goat had a notable horn between his eyes. And he came to the ram that had two horns, which I had seen standing before the river, and ran unto him in the fury of his power. And I saw him come close unto the ram, and he was moved with choler against him, and smote the ram, and brake his two horns; and there was no power in the ram to stand before him, but he cast him down to the ground, and stamped upon him ; and there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand.” The exposition of this vision follows: “ The rough goat is the king of Grecia ; and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king.” f Ask Diodorus Siculus, Plutarch, and other his- torians of those times, Was this a falsehood The same Daniel, at the same time, two hundred and thirty years before the event, predicted the death of Alex- ander, and the division of his empire among four of his principal commanders, each of whom had an extensive dominion. “The he-goat waxed very great; and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones, toward the four winds of heaven.” The interpretation of this was as follows: “Now that be- ing broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power.”f Ask the aforementiomed historians of those times, Was this a falsehood 3 The same Daniel, at the same time, three hundred and eighty years before the event, foretold the outrageous reign and sudden death of Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria : particularly, that by flattery and treachery he should ac- complish his end ; and, on account of the degeneracy of the Jews, should be permitted for a time to ravage their country, interrupt their ordinary course of worship, pro- fane their temple, and persecute, even to death, those who refused to comply with his heathen abominations; but that, in the midst of his career, he should be cut off by a sudden visitation from heaven. “And out of one of them (the four branches of the Grecian empire) came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land. And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them. Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice Was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. And an host was given him against the daily sacri- fice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground ; and it practised, and prospered.” Of this the following is the exposition : “In the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sen- tences, shall stand up. And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power; and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people. And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall nagnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy Anany: he shall also stand up against the prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.” $ - Daniel also foretells, in the eleventh chapter of his pro- Pºecies, the wars between this king of Syria and Ptolemy Philometor king of Egypt, with the interposition of the * Dan. viii. 3, 4.20. See also Chap. vii. 5. * Dan. viii.5–7, 21. See also Chap. xi. 2–4. # Dan. viii. 8. 22. See also Chap. vii. 6. : Dan. viii. 9–12. 23–25. * See Prideaux's Connexion, Part I. Book II. VIII. Part II. Book Itomans, whose ambassadors should come over in ships from Chittim, and compel him to desist; also that, being thus disappointed of his object in Egypt, he should return full of wrath and indignation to his own land, and wreak his vengeance upon the Jews, whose country lay in his way, though they had done nothing to offend him. I will not say, ask Josephus, Diodorus Siculus, and Polybius if these were falsehoods; ask Porphyry, a professed enemy to the Holy Scriptures, both of the Old and New Testa- ment, and who wrote against them about the middle of the third century. He has proved, from the testimony of six or seven historians of those times, that these predictions were all exactly fulfilled ; and, like Mr. Paine by the pro- phecies concerning Cyrus, is driven, merely on account of their being true, to fly in the face of historic evidence, and maintain that they could not be the production of Daniel, but must have been written by some Jew after the events took place.| As, in the eighth and eleventh chapters of his prophe- cies, Daniel has foretold the Persian and Grecian govern- ments, with the subdivisions of the latter, and how they should affect the Jewish people; so, in the seventh chap- ter, he has, in connexion with them, foretold the govern- ment of Rome. This singular empire he represents as exceeding all that had gone before in power and terror; and as that of Greece, soon after the death of Alexander, should be divided into four kingdoms, signified by the four heads of the third beast, so this, it is foretold, should be, at the time of its dissolution, divided into ten kingdoms, which are signified by the ten horns of the fourth beast. Ask universal history, Is this a falsehood 3 Those who adopt the cause of Porphyry must, in this instance, desert his hypothesis; they cannot say that this part of the pro- phecy was written by some Jew after the event took place, seeing Porphyry himself has acknowledged its existence some hundreds of years before it was accomplished. The predictions of this prophet did not end here : he at the same time foretold that there should arise among the ten kingdoms, into which the Roman empire should be broken, a power diverse from all the rest, “a little horn” which should “speak great words against the Most High, and wear out the saints of the Most High ;” and that this power should continue until “a time, and times, and the dividing of time.” At the end of this period, he adds, “the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy unto the end.” Are these falsehoods? Let the history of the last twelve hundred years, and the present state of the papal hierarchy, determine. Passing over the predictions of the Messiah, whose birth, place of nativity, time of appearance, manner of life, doc- trine, miracles, death, and resurrection were each par- ticularly pointed out," let us examine a few examples from the New Testament. Our Lord Jesus Christ fore- told the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, and limited the time of its accomplishment to the then “pre- sent generation.”** Ask Josephus, the Jewish historian, Is this a falsehood & It was intimated, at the same time, that the Jewish people should not only fall by the edge of the sword, but that great numbers of them should be “led away captive into all nations ; ” and that “Jerusalem should be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles should be fulfilled.”ff Ask the present descendants of that un- happy people, Is this a falsehood 3 The apostle of the Gentiles foretold that there should be “a falling away,” or a grand apostacy, in the Christian church ; wherein “the man of sin should be revealed, even the son of perdition ; who would oppose and exalt himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped ; and who as God would sit in the temple of God, showing himself to be God.”fi Also in his Epistle to Timothy : “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; III., where the accomplishment of all the foregoing events is clearly narrated, and the authorities cited. T Isa. ix. 6; Micah v. 2; Dan. ix. 20–27; Isa. xlii. 2; xxxv. 5, 6 liii.; Psal. xvi. 10, Il. ** Matt. xxiv. 1–35; Luke xxi. ++ Luke xxi. 24. # 2 Thess. ii. 3, 4. 30 UORRESPONDENCE OF SCRIPTURE WITH TRUTH. having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.”% A large proportion of the Apocalypse of John respects this grand apostacy, and the corrupt community in which it was accomplished. He describes it with great variety of expression. On some accounts it is represented under the form of a “city,” on others of a “beast,” and on others of a “woman sitting upon a beast.” That we might be at no loss to distinguish it on its appearance, it is intimated that it should not be so much a civil as an apos- tate ecclesiastical power: it is a “harlot,” opposed to the bride, the Lamb's wife;—that it should greatly abound in wealth and worldly grandeur : “The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls;–that its dominion should not be con- fined to its own immediate territories: “Power was given it over all kingdoms and tongues and nations;”—that its authority should not be derived from its own conquest, but from the voluntary consent of a number of independent kingdoms to come under its yoke : “The kings of the earth have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast;”—that it should be distinguished by its blasphemies, idolatries, and persecuting spirit: “Upon her were the names of blasphemy, They should make an image of the beast, and as many as would not worship the image of the beast were to be killed. And the woman was drunk with the blood of the saints;”— that its persecutions should extend to such a length as for no man to be allowed the common rights of men, unless he became subject to it : “No man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name;”—that its power should continue for “a time, times, and half a time, forty and two months, or one thousand two hundred and sixty days;” during which long period God’s witnesses should prophesy in sackcloth, be driven as into a wilderness, and, as it were, slain, and their bodies lie unburied :-finally, that they who gave it an existence should be the instruments in taking it away : “The kings,” or powers, “ of the earth shall hate the whore, and burn her flesh with fire.” + Whether all, or any part of this, be falsehood, let history and observation determine. - It has often been observed, that the prophecies of the Messiah were so numerous and explicit, that, at the time of his appearance, there was a general expectation of it, not only in Judea, but in all the neighbouring nations; and is not the same thing observable at this time, of the fall of antichrist, the conversion of the Jews, and the general spread of the gospel ? Once more : The sacred writers have predicted the op- position which Christianity should encounter, and de- scribed the characters from whom it should proceed : “In the last days,” say they, “perilous times shall come. For Inen shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, truce-breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God.” Again, “There shall be mockers in the last time, who shall walk after their own ungodly lusts; filthy dreamers, who defile the flesh, despise do- minion, and speak evil of dignities; raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.”f Let Mr. Paine, and other infidels, consider well the above picture, and ask their own consciences, Is this a falsehood 3 Bishop Newton, in his Dissertations, has clearly evinced the fulfilment of several of these and other Scripture pro- phecies; and has shown that some of them are fulfilling at this day. To those Dissertations I refer the reader. Enough has been said to enable us to determine which production it is that deserves to be called “a book of falsehoods,”—the prophecies of Scripture, or the Age of Ičeason. * 1 Tiiu iv. 1–3 + Rev. xi.; xiii.; xvii. CHAPTER II. THE HARMONY OF SCRIPTURE WITH TRUTH EVINCED FROM ITS AGREEMENT WITH THE DICTATES OF AN EN LIGHT- ENED CONSCIENCE, AND THE RESULT OF THE CLOSEST OBSERVATION, IF a brazen mirror were found in some remote, uninhabit- ed island, it might be a doubtful matter how it came thither; but if it properly reflected objects, there could be no doubt of its being a real mirror. * The Bible was written with the professed design of being “profitable for reproof;” nor was there ever a book so adapted to the purpose, or so effectual in its operation in disclosing the inward workings of the human mind. Thousands can bear witness from experience, that it is “quick and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” Its entrance into the mind gives light, and light which discovers the works of darkness. Far from flattering the vices of mankind, it charges, without ceremony, every son of Adam with possessing the heart of an apostate. This charge it brings home to the conscience, not only by its pure precepts, and awful threatenings, but oftentimes by the very invitations and promises of mercy, which, while they cheer the heart with lively hope, carry conviction by their import to the very soul. In reading other books you may admire the ingenuity of the writer; but here your attention is turned inward. Itead it but seriously, and your heart will answer to its descriptions. It will touch the secret springs of sensibility; and if you have any in- genuousness of mind towards God, the tears of grief, mingled with those of hope and gratitude, will, ere you are aware, trickle from your eyes. To whatever particular vices you may have been addict- ed, here you will discover your likeness; and that, not as by a comic representation on the theatre, which, where it reclaims one person by shaming him out of his follies, cor- rupts a thousand ; but in a way that will bring conviction to your bosom. “Come see a man which told me all things that ever I did : is not this the Christ 3’” Such was the reasoning of the woman of Samaria ; and who could have reasoned better? That which makes manifest must be light. But this reasoning is applicable to other things as well as to the Messiahship of Jesus. No man can forbear saying of that book, that doctrine, or that preaching which tells him all that ever he did, Is not this the truth 3 The satisfaction afforded by such evidence approaches near to intuitive cer- tainty; it is having the witness in ourselves. Should it be objected, that though this may satisfy our own minds, yet it can afford no evidence to others; I answer, It is true that they who shun the light cannot be supposed to possess the same evidence of its being what it is, as those who have come to it that their deeds may be made manifest ; yet even they, if at all acquainted with the Bible, must be aware that the likenesses which it draws are, in a considerable degree, their own. It is not to serious Christians only that the gospel is a mirror. Many who never look into that perfect law of liberty from choice and delight, so as to be blessed in their work, but only glance at it in a transient and occasional way, yet perceive so much of their own character in it as to be convinced that it is right, and that they are wrong. The secret con- viction of thousands who hear the word, and do it not, re- sembles that of Pharaoh, “The Lord is righteous, and I and my people are wicked.” The impressions of such people, it is true, are frequently short in their duration ; like a man who seeth his natural face in a glass, they go away, and straightway forget what manner of persons they are : but the aversion which they discover seriously to re- sume the subject places it beyond all reasonable doubt, that, let their hearts be as they may, the Scriptures have com- mended themselves to their consciences. They have felt the point of this two-edged sword, and are not disposed to renew the encounter. That this is the case not only with + 2 Tim iii. 1–4; Jude. CORRESPONDENCE OF SCRIPTURE WITH TRUTH. 31 nominal Christians, but with great numbers of professed deists, is manifest from the acknowledgments of such men as the Earl of Rochester, and many others who have relented on the near approach of death. This is often a time in which conseience must and will be heard ; and, too often for the happiness of surviving acquaintances, it proclaims to the world that the grand source of their hatred to the Bible has been that for which Ahab hated Micaiah—its prophesying no good concerning them. The Scriptures are a mirror in which we see not only individual characters, our own and others, but the state of things as they move on in the great world. They show us the spring-head whence all the malignant streams of idol- atry, atheism, corruption, persecution, war, and every other evil originate; and, by showing us the origin of these de- structive maladies clearly instruct us wherein must consist their cure. It has already been observed,” that Christian morality is summed up in the love of God and our neighbour, and that these principles, carried to their full extent, would render the world a paradise. But the Scriptures teach us that man is a rebel against his Maker; that his carnal mind is enmity against God, and is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be ; that instead of loving God, or even man, in the order which is required, men are become “ lovers of their own selves,” and neither God nor man is regarded but as they are found necessary to subserve their wishes. This single principle of human depravity, supposing it to be true, will fully account for all the moral disorders in the world; and the actual existence of those disorders, unless they can be better accounted for, must go to prove the truth of this principle, and, by consequence, of the Chris- tian system which rests upon it. We are affected in considering the idolatry of so great a part of the human race, but we are not surprised at it. If men be destitute of the love of God, it is natural to sup- pose they will endeavour to banish him from their thoughts, and, provided the state of society will admit of it, from their worship; substituting gods more congenial with their inclinations, and in the worship of which they can in- dulge themselves without fear or control. Neither are we surprised at the practical atheism which abounds among unbelievers, and even among nominal Christians, in European nations. If the state of things be such as to render gross idolatry inadmissible, still, if aver- sion to God predominate, it will show itself in a neglect of all worship, and of all serious conversation, or devout exer- cises; in a wish to think there is no God, and no here- after; and in endeavours to banish every thing of a re- ligious nature from society. Or if this cannot be, and any thing relating to such subjects become matter of discussion, they will be so explained away, as that nothing shall be left which can approve itself to an upright heart. The holiness of the Divine character will be kept out of sight, his precepts disregarded, and morality itself made to con- sist in something destitute of all true virtue. We are not surprised at the corruption which Christianity has undergone. Christianity itself, as we have already seen, foretold it; and the doctrine of human depravity fully accounts for it. When the Christian religion was adopted by the state, it is natural to suppose there were great numbers of unprincipled men who professed it; and where its leading characters in any age are of this descrip- tion, it will certainly be corrupted. The pure doctrine of Christ is given up in favour of some flesh-pleasing system, the holy precepts of Christian morality are lowered to the standard of ordinary practice, and the worship and ordi- nances of Christ are mingled with superstition, and model- led to a worldly temper. It was thus that Judaism was corrupted by the old Pharisees, and Christianity by the papal hierarchy. The success with which evil men and seducers meet, in • Part I. Chap. III. + Men are much more easily deceived in these matters than in the ordinary concerns of life. . If a London merchant were to open ware- 'aouses in different parts of the city, and make it his business to tra- duce the characters and commodities of all other merchants; if his opposition were directed especially against men of probity and emi- nence, whose situations were contiguous to his own; in fine, if the only traders in the kingdom who could obtain his good word were certain propagating false doctrine, is no more than, from the pre- sent state of things, may be expected. So long as a large proportion of the professors of Christianity receive not the love of the truth, error will be certain to meet with a wel- come reception. The grossest impostor has only to ad- vance a system suited to corrupt nature, to assert it with effrontery, and to flatter his adherents with being the fa- vourites of heaven, and he will be followed.ſ The persecutions which have been carried on against re- ligion are grievous to humanity, and equally repugnant to justice and to good policy; but they are not in the least surprising. There was not a truth more prominent in our Saviour's addresses to his followers than this, that, having received his word, the world would hate them, because they were not of the world, as he was not of the world. When he sent them forth to preach the gospel, it was “as sheep among wolves;” and they were treated accordingly. When he took leave of them, previously to his death, he left them his peace, as knowing that in the world they should have tribulation. All this was no more than might be expected ; for if it be the character of true religion, that it sets itself against every vicious propensity of the human heart, it is natural to suppose that every one who is under the dominion of such propensity will feel averse from true religion, and from those who adhere to it. The manner in which mankind have stood affected towards godly men has been nearly uniform from the beginning. Cain slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him 3 Be- cause his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous. Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian mocking : as he that was born after the flesh then persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Why was Jerusalem a burdensome stone to the nations? Why were they continually forming leagues to root out its remem- brance from the earth 3 The same spirit that was dis- covered by Edom, Moab, and the children of Ammon to- wards Israel, was apparent in Sanballat, Tobiah, Geshem, and their companions towards Judah ; and the part acted by the Horonite, the Ammonite, and the Arabian, was afterwards reacted, with additional zeal, by Herod and Pontius Pilate, and the governors and people of Israel. Those who could agree in nothing else could agree in this. The persecutions of pagan and papal Rome, and of all who have symbolized with her, have been only a continu- ation of the same system ; and the descriptions which de- istical historians give of these works of darkness, notwith- standing their pretended regard to religious liberty, bear witness that they allow the deeds of their fathers, and in- herit their dispositions. The same malignant spirit which was discovered by the heathens towards the ancient Israel- ites is discoverable in all the writings of unbelievers towards that people to this day. It is true, they are more recon- ciled to the modern Jews; and for a very plain reason : they feel them to be near akin to themselves. Herod and Pilate were made friends by the crucifixion of Christ. Since that time, the old enmity has been transferred to believing Gentiles, who, being grafted into the Jewish olive, and partaking of its advantages, partake also of its persecutions; and by how much the Christian church, at any period, has exceeded the Jewish in purity and spirit- uality, by so much more force has the wrath of a wicked world burned against it. After all the pains that unbelievers take to shift the charge of persecution, and to lay it at the door of Chris- tianity, it is manifest, to an observant eye, that there is a deep-rooted enmity in all wicked men, whether they be pagans, papists, protestants, or deists, towards all godly men, of every nation, name, and denomination. This en- mity, it is true, is not suffered to operate according to its native tendency. He who holdeth the winds in his hand restrains it. Men are withheld by laws, by policy, by in- terests, by education, by respect, by regard founded on qualities distinct from religious, and by various other agents whom he had stationed in different parts of the eountry for the purpose of retailing his wares; would not his designs be evident? He might puff, and pretend to have the good of the public much at heart; but the public would despise him, as a man whose object was a for- tune, and whose practices evinced that he would hesitate at no means to accomplish his end. Yet, in religion, such deceptions may be practised with success. 32 CORRESPONDENCE OF SCRIPTURE WITH TRUTH. things. There are certain conjunctions of interests, espe- cially, which occasionally require a temporary cessation of hostilities; and it may seem on such occasions as if wicked men were ashamed of their animosities, and were all on a sudden become friendly to the followers of Christ. Thus at the revolution, in 1688, those who for more than twenty years had treated the nonconformists with unrelenting severity, when they found themselves in danger of being deprived of their places by a popish prince, courted their friendship, and promised not to persecute them any more. And thus, at the commencement of the French revolution, deists, catholics, and protestants, who were engaged in one prlitical cause, seemed to have forgotten their resent- ments, all amicably uniting together in the opening of a place for protestant worship. But let not the servants of Christ imagine that any temporary conjunction of interests will extinguish the ancient enmity. It may seem to be so for a time; and all things being under the control of Providence, such a time may be designed as a season of respite for the faithful; but when self-interest has gained its end, if other worldly considerations do not interpose, things will return to their former channel. The enmity is not dead, but sleepeth. - Finally, The wars which, from the earliest period of his- tory, have desolated the earth, grievous as they are to a feeling mind, contain in them nothing surprising. The Scriptures, with singular propriety, describe the world as a great sea, which is ever casting up its mire and dirt ; and great conquerors as so many wild beasts, which, in succession, rise from its troubled waters, and devour the inhabitants of the earth.* Nor is this all : they describe not only the fact, but the cause of it. Wars among men, as has been already stated, f have their immediate causes in “the lusts which war in their members;” but, besides this, the Scripture leads us to a cause more remote, and of still greater importance. They denominate the sword of war “ the sword of the Lord,” and constantly intimate that it is one of those means by which he “pleadeth with all flesh.” A part of the curse entailed on men for their de- parture from the living God consists in this, that, till they return to him, they shall not be able, for any length of time, to maintain amity among themselves. It appears to be one of those laws by which God governs the world, THAT PEOPLE ENGAGED IN AN Evil, CAUSE, HOWEVER HAR- MONIOUS THEY MAY BE IN THE OUTSET, SHALL PRESENTLY BE AT WARIANCE. Thus it was between Abimelech and the men of Shechem, as Jotham had forewarned them in his parable. Though at first they appeared to rejoice in each other; yet, in a little time, “fire came out from Abimelech and devoured the men of Shechem, and fire came out from the men of Shechem and devoured Abime- lech.”f Such is commonly the issue of all unprincipled confederacies, traitorous conspiracies, illegal combinations, and illicit amours. Union, in order to be lasting, requires to be cemented with honour. Where this is wanting, however appearances may for a while be flattering, all will prove transitory : mutual jealousies will produce mutual enmities, which are certain to issue in confusion and every evil work. These remarks are no less applicable to the whole human race than to particular parts of it. Men have revolted from God, and yet think to live in harmony among themselves. God, in just judgment, appears to have determined the contrary; and that, till they return to him, they shall be given up to an evil spirit towards each other, and to the ravages of a succession of ambitious leaders, who shall destroy them in great numbers from the face of the earth. It is morally impossible, indeed, that it should be otherwise ; for the same principle which induces them to renounce the Divine government dissolves the bands of human society. Supreme self-love is the origin of both, and is sufficient to account for all the disorder in the universe. - Candid reader, review the subject of this chapter. In the last, we traced the agreement of the Holy Scriptures with historic fact; in this, we have seen their correspond- ence with living truth, or with things as they actually eacist, in the mind and in the world. Similar arguments might + Part I. Chap. VI.1. Also Melmoth’s Sublime and * Dan, vii. # Judg. ix. g * See Blackwall's Sacred Classics. also have been drawn from the characters of believers and unbelievers. Not many wise, not many mighty, not many noble were called in the early ages of Christianity; and it has been the same in every age. To the Jews the gospel was from the first a stumbling-block, and to philosophers foolishmess; and such it continues to this day. The ex- istence of the Jews as a distinct people, their dispersion, their attachment to the Old Testament and rejection of the New, their expectation of a Messiah, their acknow- ledgment of the truth of the historical facts concerning our Lord, the malignity of their spirit; in a word, their exact resemblance, even at this remote period, to the picture drawn of them in the New Testament, are facts which can- not be controverted. Judge impartially : Is there any thing in all this that bears the marks of imposture ? A connoisseur will distinguish between paintings taken from life, and such as are the work of mere imagination. An accurate judge of moral painting will do the same. If the Scriptures gave false descriptions of men and things, if they flattered the vices of mankind, or exhibited the moral state of the world contrary to well-known fact, you would conclude them to be a work of falsehood. On the other hand, if they speak of things as they are, if con- science echo to their charges, and fact comport with their representations, they must have been taken from life ; and you must conclude them to be what they profess to be— a work of truth. And, since the objects described are many of them beyond the ken of human observation, you must conclude that they are not only a work of truth, but what they also profess to be—the true sayings of God. CHAPTER III. THE HARMONY OF SCRIPTURE WITH ITS OWN PROFESSIONS ARGUED FROM THE SPIRIT AND STYLE IN WHICH IT IS WRITTEN. IF the Scriptures be what they profess to be—the word of God, it may be presumed that the spirit which they breathe, and even the style in which they are composed, will be different from what can be found in any other pro- ductions. It is true that, having been communicated through human mediums, we may expect them, in a mea- sure, to be humanized; the peculiar turn and talents of each writer will be visible, and this will give them the character of variety; but, amidst all this variety, a mind capable of discerning the Divine excellence will plainly perceive in them the finger of God. With respect to style, though it is not on the natural, but the moral, or rather the holy beauties of Scripture that I would lay the principal stress; yet something may be observed of the other. So far as the beauty of language consists in its freedom from affectation, and its conformity to the nature of the subject, it may be expected that a book written by holy men, inspired of God, will be pos- sessed of this excellence. A divinely-inspired production will not only be free from such blemishes as arise from vanity, and other evil dispositions of the mind, but will abound in those beauties which never fail to attend the genuine exercises of modesty, sensibility, and godly sim- plicity. It will reject the meretricious ornaments of art, but it will possess the more substantial beauties of nature. That this is true of the Scriptures has been proved by several able writers.' - Mr. Paine, however, can see nothing great, majestic, or worthy of God, in any part of the Bible. Among the numerous terms of reproach with which he honours it, he is pleased to censure the writings of Isaiah as “bombast, be- neath the genius of a school-boy;” and to compare the command of the great Creator in the first chapter of Gene- sis, “Let there be light,” to the “imperative manner of speaking used by a conjuror.”| This writer has given us no example of the bombast from Isaiah. Bombast is that species of writing in which great swelling words are used Beautiful of Scripture; to which is added Dwight's Dissertation on the Poetry, History, and Eloquence of the Bible. | Age of Reason, Part II. p. 105. Note. THE SPIRIT AND STYLE OF SCRIPTURE. 33 to convey little ideas. But is it thus in the writings of Isaiah 3 “And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory.—Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and com- prehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance % Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or, being his coun- sellor, hath taught him 3 With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and showed to him the way of understanding 3 Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance : behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing. And Lebanon is not sufficient to burn, nor the beasts thereof sufficient for a burnt-offering. All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity.”* Are the ideas too little, in these instances, for the words? The prophets wrote in a poetic style; and how could they write otherwise 3 Poetry is the language of passion; and such as theirs, of passion raised and inflamed by great and affecting objects. Their language is not that of common poetry, but, as an elegant writer expresses it, “It is the burst of inspiration.” As to the objection against the sublimity of the passage in the first chapter of Genesis, it is sufficient to observe that there is nothing, be it ever so majestic and worthy of God, but a profane and ludicrous imagination may distort it. A rainbow may be compared to a fiddle-stick, but it does not follow that it is an object of equal insignificance. Thunder and lightning may be imitated by a character not less contemptible than a conjuror; but should any one infer that there is nothing more grand, more awful, or more worthy of God, in these displays of nature, than in the exhibitions of a country show, he would prove himself to be possessed of but a small portion of either wit or good sense. I do not pretend to any great judgment in the beauties of composition ; but there are persons of far superior judgment to this writer who have expressed themselves in a very different language. The late Sir William Jones, who for learning and taste, as well as character, has left but few equals, thus expresses himself: “I have regularly and attentively read these Holy Scriptures, and am of opinion that this volume, independent of its Divine origin, contains more sublimity and beauty, more pure morality, more important history, and finer strains of poetry and eloquence, than can be collected from all other books, in whatever age or language they may have been composed.” The acknowledgments of Rousseau, likewise, whose taste for fine writing, and whose freedom from prejudice in favour of Christianity, none will call in question, will serve to confront the assertions of Mr. Paine. After de- claring that, as there were some proofs in favour of reve- lation which he could not invalidate, so there were many objections against it which he could not resolve—that he neither admitted nor rejected it—and that he rejected only the obligation of submitting to it—he goes on to acknow- ledge as follows: “I will confess to you, further, that the majesty of the Scripture strikes me with admiration, as the Purity of the gospel hath its influence on my heart. Pe- ruse the works of our philosophers; with all their pomp of diction, how mean—how contemptible—are they, com- Pared with the Scripture | Is it possible that a book at once so simple and sublime should be merely the work of iman Is it possible that the sacred personage whose his- tory it contains should be himself a mere man? Do we find that he assumed the air of an enthusiast or ambitious §§ºtary 3 What sweetness, what purity in his manners : What an affecting gracefulness in his delivery : What Sublimity in his maxims : What profound wisdom in his discourses : What presence of mind What subtilty : What truth in his replies How great the command over * passions ! ...Where is the man, where the philosopher, Who could so live and die, without weakness, and without 9stentation ?—Shall we suppose the evangelic history a *ere fiction ? Indeed, my friend, it bears not the marks of fiction? On the contrary, the history of Socrates, which nobody presumes to doubt, is not so well attested as that of Jesus Christ. The Jewish authors were incapable of the diction, and strangers to the morality, contained in the Gospels; the marks of whose truth are so striking and in- vincible, that the inventor would be a more astonishing character than the hero.” f Rousseau's praises of the Scripture remind us of the high encomiums bestowed by Balaam on the tabernacles of Israel. It is no unusual thing for men to admire that which they do not love. Let us examine a little more minutely the spirit in which the Scriptures are written. It is this which consti- tutes their holy beauty, distinguishes them from all other writings, and affords the strongest evidence of their being written by inspiration of God. In recording historical events, the sacred writers invari- ably eye the hand of God; in some instances they entirely overlook second causes ; and in others, where they are mentioned, it is only as instruments fulfilling the Divine will. Events that come to pass according to the usual course of things, and in which an ordinary historian would have seen nothing Divine, are recorded by them among the works of the Lord : “The Lord was very angry with Israel, and removed them out of his sight.—And the Lord sent against Jehoiakim bands of the Chaldees, and bands of the Syrians, and bands of the Moabites, and bands of the children of Ammon, and sent them against Judah to destroy it, according to the word of the Lord, which he spake by his servants the prophets. Surely at the com- mandment of the Lord came this upon Judah, to remove them out of his sight for the sins of Manasseh, according to all that he did ; and also for the innocent blood that he shed, (for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood,) which the Lord would not pardon.” { In their prophecies, while they foretold the heaviest ca- lamities upon nations, their own and others, and, viewing the hand of God in all, acquiesced in them, as men they felt tenderly for their fellow creatures, even for their ene- mies: “My bowels, my bowels . I am pained at my very heart; my heart maketh a noise in me : I cannot hold my peace, because thou hast heard, O my soul, the sound of the trumpet, the alarm of war.—O thou sword of the Lord, how long will it be ere thou be quiet! Put up thy- self into thy scabbard, rest, and be still.” $ When Israel was exposed to calamities, all the neighbouring nations, who hated them on account of their religion, exulted over them ; but when the cup went round to them, the pro- phets who foretold it were tenderly affected by it : “I will bewail with the weeping of Jazer the vine of Sibmah : I will water thee with my tears, O Heshbon, and Elealeh ; for the shouting for thy summer fruits and for thy harvest is fallen : and gladness is taken away, and joy out of the plentiful field ; and in the vineyards there shall be no singing, neither shall there be shouting : the treaders shall tread out no wine in their presses; I have made shouting to cease. Wherefore my bowels shall sound like a harp for Moab, and mine inward parts for Kir-haresh.” || The miracles which they record are distinguished from the signs and lying wonders of following ages, in that there is always to be seen in them an end worthy of God. The far greater part of them were works of pure compassion to the parties, and the whole of them of benevolence to society. There is nothing in the Scriptures adapted to gratify presumptuous speculation or . curiosity. Such a spirit, on the contrary, is frequently checked, and every thing is directed to the renovation or improvement of the heart. The account given of the creation of the sun, moon, and stars is not intended, as Mr. Henry observes, to describe things “as they are in themselves, and in their own nature, to satisfy the curious; but as they are in relation to this earth, to which they serve as lights; and this is enough to furnish us with matter for praise and thanksgiving.” The miracles of Jesus were never performed to gratify curiosity. If the afflicted, or any on their behalf, present their peti- tion, it is invariably heard and answered; but if the Phari- sees come and say, “Master, we would see a sign from thee,” or if Herod “hope to see a miracle done by him,” it is refused." When one said to him, “Lord, are there & Jer. iv. 19 : xlvii. 6. * Isa. vi. 3 ; xl. 12–17. + Works, Vol. V. pp. 215–218. D + 2 Kings xvii. 18; xxiv, 2–4. a s º T. Matt. xii. 38; Luke xxiii. 8, 9. | Isa. xvi. 9—ll. 34 THE SPIRIT AND STYLE OF SCRIPTURE. few that be saved 3” he answered, “ Strive to enter in at the strait gate ; for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.” + There is nothing in the Scriptures tending, in its own nature, to excite levity or folly. They sometimes deal in the most cutting irony; but it is never for the sake of dis- playing wit, or raising a laugh, but invariably for the ac- complishment of a serious and important end. A serious mind finds every thing to gratify it, and nothing to offend it ; and even the most profligate character, unless he read them in search of something which he may convert into ridicule, is impressed with awe by the pointed and solemn manner in which they address him. It may be said of the Scriptures, and of them only, that they are free from affectation and vanity. You may some- times find things of this sort described by the sacred writers; but you will never discern any such spirit in the descriptions themselves. Yet, as men, they were subject to human imperfections: if, therefore, they had not been influenced by Divine inspiration, blemishes of this kind must have appeared in their writings, as well as in those of other men. But in what instance have they assumed a character which does not belong to them, or discovered a wish to be thought more religious, more learned, or more accomplished in any way than they were ? Nor were they less free from vanity than from affectation. They were as far from making the most of what they were, as from aim- ing to appear what they were not. Instead of trumpeting their own praise, or aiming to transmit their fame to pos- terity, several of them have not so much as put their names to their writings; and those who have are generally out of sight. As you read their history, they seldom occur to your thoughts. Who thinks of the evangelists when read- ing the four Gospels 2 or of Luke while reading the Acts of the Apostles 2 Mr. Paine weaves the laurel on his own brows, vainly boasting that he has “written a book under the greatest disadvantages, which no Bible believer can answer;” and that, with his axe upon his shoulder, like another Sennacherib, he has passed through, and cut down the tall cedars of our Ilebanon.f. But thus did not the sacred writers, even with regard to heathenism, because of the fear of God. Paul in one instance, for the sake of answering an important end, was compelled to speak the truth of himself, and to appear to boast; yet it is easy to perceive how much it was against his inclination. A boaster and a fool were, in his account, synonymous terms.; The sacred writers, while they respect magistracy, and frown upon faction, tumult, and sedition, are never known to flatter the great. Compare the fustian eloquence of Tertullus with the manly speeches of Paul. Did he flatter Felix 3 No ; he “reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come ; and Felix trembled.” Did he flatter Festus, or even Agrippa'ſ No ; the highest compli- ment which proceeded from him was, that “he knew " the latter “to be expert in all customs and questions among the Jews,” and to maintain the Divine inspiration of the prophets; which declaration, with the whole of this ad- mirable apology, contained only the words of truth and soberness. They discover no anariety to guard against seeming in- consistencies, either with themselves or one another. In works of imposture, especially where a number of persons are concerned, there is need of great care and caution, lest one part should contradict another; and such caution is easily perceived. But the sacred writers appear to have had no such concern about them. Conscious that all they * Luke xiii. 24. See also xxi. 5–19. + Age of Reason, Part II. Preface, p. vi., and p. 64. f 2 Cor. xii. & “There is one argument,” says Mr. Wilberforce, in his late ex- cellent treatise, “which impresses my mind with particular force. This is the great variety of the kinds of evidence which have been adduced in proof of Christianity, and the confirmation thereby af. forded of its truth —the proof from prophecy—from miracles—from the character of Christ—from that of his apostles—from the nature of the doctrines of Christianity—from the nature and excellence of her practical precepts—from the accordance we have lately pointed out between the doctrinal, and practical system of Christianity, whether considered each in itself, or in their mutual relation to each other—from other species of internal evidence, afforded in the more abundance in proportion as the sacred records have been scrutinized with greater care—from the accounts of contemporary, or nearly con- temporary, writers—from the impossibility of accounting, on any other wrote was true, they left it to prove its own consistency. Their productions possess consistency; but it is not a studied one, nor always apparent at first sight; it is that consistency which is certain to accompany truth.Ş There is an inimitable simplicity in all their writings, and a feeling sense of what they write. They come to the point without ceremony or preamble ; and, having told the truth, leave it, without mingling their own reflections. This remark is particularly exemplified by the four evan- gelists, in narrating the treatment of their Lord. Writers who had felt less would have said more. There is something in all they say which leaves behind it a sensation produced by no other writings; something peculiarly suited to the mind when in its most serious frames, oppressed by affliction, or thoughtful about a future life; something which gives melancholy itself a charm, and produces tears more delicious to the mind than the most high-flavoured earthly enjoyments. By what name shall I express it? It is a savour of life, a savour of God, an unction from the Holy One. Mr. Paine can see no beauty in the New Testament narratives: to him there appears nothing but imposture, folly, contradiction, falsehood, and every thing that marks an evil cause. And I suppose he could say the same of the things narrated ; of the labours, tears, temptations, and sufferings of the Lord Jesus, and of every thing else in the New Testament. Mr. Paine, however, is not the only instance wherein men have lacked understanding. The Jews saw no beauty in the Saviour that they should desire him ; and there are persons who can see no beauty in any of the works of God. Creation is to them a blank. But though “the eyes of a fool are at the ends of the earth,” for want of objects to attract them, yet “wisdom is before him that understandeth.” If Mr. Paine can see no beauty in the sacred pages, it does not follow that there is no beauty to be seen. Let any person of candour and discernment read over the four evangelists, and judge whether they bear the marks of imposture. If he have any difficulty, it will be in preserving the character of a critic. Unless he be perpetually on his guard, he will in- sensibly lose sight of the writers, and be all enamoured of the great object concerning which they write. In reading the last nine chapters of John, he will perceive the writer to be deeply affected. Though a long time had elapsed since the events had taken place, and he was far advanced in years, yet his heart was manifestly overwhelmed with his subject. There is reason to think that the things which Mr. Paine attempts to ridicule drew tears from his eyes while he narrated them ; as an ingenuous mind will find it difficult to review the narrative without similar sensations. Mr. Paine is pleased to say, “Any person that could read and write might have written such a book as the Bible ;” but nothing can be further from the truth. It were saying but little to affirm that he could not produce a single page or sentence that would have a similar effect. Stranger as he has proved himself to be to the love of God and righteousness, he could not communicate what he does not feel. The croaking raven might as well endeavour to imitate the voice of the dove, or the song of the night- ingale, as he attempt to emulate the Holy Scriptures. Mr. Paine's spirit is sufficiently apparent in his pages, and that of the sacred writers in theirs. So far from writing as they wrote, he cannot understand their writings. . That which the Scriptures teach on this subject is sufficiently verified in him, and all others of his spirit : “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, neither supposition than that of the truth of Christianity, for its promulgation and early prevalence: these and other lines of argument have all been brought forward, and ably urged by different writers, in propor- tion as they have struck the minds of different observers more or less forcibly. Now, granting that some obscure and illiterate men, residing in a distant province of the Roman empire, had plotted to impose a forgery upon the world; though some foundation for the imposture might, and indeed must, have been attempted to be laid; it seems, at least to my understanding, morally impossible that so many dif- ferent species of proofs, and all so strong, should have lent their con- current aid, and have united their joint force, in the establishment of the falsehood. It may assist the reader in estimating the value of this argument to consider upon how different a footing, in this respect, has rested every other religious system, without exception, which was ever proposed to the world, and indeed every other historical fact of which the truth has been at all contested.”—Practical View, &c. pp. 361—363. Third Edition. THE MEDIATION OF CHRIST CONSISTENT WITH REASON. 35 can he know them, for they are spiritually discerned.”* As easily might the loveliness of chastity be perceived, or the pleasures of a good conscience appreciated, by a debauchee, as the things of God be received by a mind like that of Mr. Paine. Finally, If the Bible be the word of God, it may be ex- pected that “such an authority and Divine samction should accompany it,” that, while a candid mind shall presently perceive its evidence, those who read it either with neg- ligence or prejudice shall only be confirmed in their unbe- lief. It is fit that God’s word should not be trified with. When the Pharisees captiously demanded a sign or mira- cle, they were sent away without one. They might go, if they pleased, and report the inability of Jesus to work a miracle. The evidence attending the resurrection of Christ is of this description. He had exhibited proofs of his Di- vine mission publicly, and before the eyes of all men; but seeing they were obstinately rejected, he told his enemies that they should see him no more till he should come on a different occasion : f and they saw him no more. They might insist, if they pleased, that the testimony of his dis- ciples, who witnessed his resurrection, was insufficient. It is thus that heresies, offences, and scandals are permitted in the Christian church, that they who are approved may be made manifest; and that occasion may be furnished for them who seek occasion to reproach religion and per- sist in their unbelief. If men choose delusion, God also will choose to give them up to it. “The scorner shall seek wisdom, and shall not find it; ” and the word of life shall be a “savour of death unto death to them that perish.” Mr. Paine, when he wrote the First Part of his Age of Reason, was without a Bible. Afterwards, he tells us, he procured one ; or, to use his own school-boy language, “a Bible and a Testament; and I have found them,” he adds, “to be much worse books than I had conceived.”f In all this there is nothing surprising. On the contrary, if such a scorner had found wisdom, the Scriptures themselves had not been fulfilled. If an insolent coxcomb had been of opinion that Sir Isaac Newton was a mere ignoramus in philosophy, and had gone into his company that he might catechise, and afterwards, as occasion should offer, expose him; it is not unlikely that this great writer, perceiving his arrogance, would have suffered him to depart without answering his questions, even though he might know at the time that his unfavourable opinion of him would thereby be the more confirmed. Let us but come to the Scriptures in a proper spirit, and we shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God; but if we approach them in a cavilling hu- mour, we may expect not only to remain in ignorance, but to be hardened more and more in unbelief. CHAPTER IV. THE CONSISTENCY OF THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE, PARTICU- LARLY THAT OF SALVATION THROUGH A MEDIATOR, WITH SOBER REASON, If there is a God who created us, if we have all sinned against him, and if there is reason to believe that he will call us to account for our conduct, all which principles are admitted by Mr. Paine, a gloomy prospect must needs present itself, sufficient indeed to render man “the slave of terror.” It is not in the power of this writer, nor of any man living who rejects the Bible, to assure us that pardon will have any place in the Divine government; and however light he may make of the Scripture doctrine of hell, He that calls men to account for their deeds will be at no loss how or where to punish them. But, allowing that God is disposed to show mercy to the guilty, the Question is, Whether his doing so by or without a mediator e most consistent with what we know of fitness or pro- priety That pardon is bestowed through a mediator in a vast * 1 Cor. ii. 14. # Age of Reason, Part II. Preface, p. xii. | Age of Reason, Part I. p. 1; .."; II. p. 100. D + Matt. xxiii. 39. & Prov. xiv. 6. variety of instances among men cannot be denied ; and that it is proper it should be so must be evident to every thinking mind. All who are acquainted with the common affairs of life must be aware of the necessity of such pro- ceedings, and the good effects of them upon society." It is far less humbling for an offender to be pardoned at his own request than through the interposition of a third person; for, in the one case, he may be led to think that it was his virtue and penitence which influenced the de- cision ; whereas, in the other, he is compelled to feel his own unworthiness: and this may be one reason why the mediation of Christ is so offensive. It is no wonder, in- deed, that those who deny humility to be a virtue ** should be disgusted with a doctrine the professed object of which is to abase the pride of man. As forgiveness without a mediator is less humbling to the offender, so it provides less for the honour of the offended, than a contrary proceeding. Many a compas- sionate heart has longed to go forth, like David towards Absalom ; but, from a just sense of wounded authority, could not tell how to effect it; and has greatly desired that some common friend would interpose, to save his honour. He has wished to remit the sentence, but has felt the want of a mediator, at the instance of whom he might give effect to his desires, and exercise mercy with- out seeming to be regardless of justice. An offender who should object to a mediator would be justly considered as hardened in impenitence, and regardless of the honour of the offended; and it is difficult to say what other construc- tion can be put upon the objections of sinners to the medi- ation of Christ. - . Again, To exercise pardon without a mediator would be fixing no such stigma upon the evil of the offence as is done by a contrary mode of proceeding. Every man feels that those faults which may be overlooked on a mere ac- knowledgment are not of a very heinous nature ; they are such as arise from inadvertence, rather than from ill de- sign ; and include little more than an error of the judg- ment. On the other hand, every man feels that the calling in of a third person is making much of the offence, treat- ing it as a serious affair, a breach that is not to be lightly passed over. This may be another reason why the media- tion of Christ is so offensive to the adversaries of the gospel. It is no wonder that men who are continually speaking of moral evil under the palliating names of error, frailty, im- perfection, and the like, should spurn at a doctrine the implication of which condemns it to everlasting infamy.ff Finally, To bestow pardon without a mediator would be treating the offence as private, or passing over it as a matter unknown, an affair which does not affect the well-being of society, and which therefore requires no public manifest- ation of displeasure against it. Many a motorious offender would, doubtless, wish matters to be thus conducted, and, from an aversion to public exposure, would feel strong objections to the formal interposition of a third person. Whether this may not be another reason of dislike to the mediation of Christ I shall not decide ; but of this I am fully satisfied, that the want of a proper sense of the great evil of sin, as it affects the moral government of the uni- verse, is a reason why its adversaries see no necessity for it, nor fitness in it. They prove by all their writings, that they have no delight in the moral excellency of the Divine nature, no just sense of the glory of moral government, and no proper views of the pernicious and widely extended influence of sin upon the moral system : is it any wonder, therefore, that they should be unconcerned about the plague being stayed by a sacrifice 3 Such views are too enlarged for their selfish and contracted minds. The only object of their care, even in their most serious moments, is to escape punishment; for the honour of God, and the real good of creation, they discover no concern. The amount is this: If it be indeed improper for a guilty creature to lie low before his Creator, if it be unfit that any regard should be paid to the honour of his cha- racter, if the offence committed against him be of so small account that it is unnecessary for him to express any dis- pleasure against it, and if it have been so private and in- T See President Edwards's Remarks on Important Theological Con- troversies, Chap. VI. * * * ** Volney's Law of Nature, p. 49. ++ Rom. viii. 3. 36 THE MEDIATION OF CHRIST CONSISTENT WITH REASON. sulated in its operations, as in no way to affect the well- being of the moral system, the doctrine of forgiveness through a mediator is unreasonable. . But if the contrary be true—if it be proper for a guilty creature to lie in the dust before his offended Creator, if the honour of the Di- vine character deserve the first and highest regard, if moral evil be the greatest of all evils, and require, even where it is forgiven, a strong expression of Divine displeasure against it, and if its pernicious influence be such that, if suffered to operate according to its native tendency, it would dethrone the Almighty, and desolate the universe, the doctrine in question must accord with the plainest dictates of reason. The sense of mankind, with regard to the necessity of a mediator, may be illustrated by the following similitude: —Let us suppose a division of the army of one of the wisest and best of kings, through the evil counsel of a foreign enemy, to have been disaffected to his government; and that, without any provocation on his part, they traitorously conspired against his crown and life. The attempt failed; and the offenders were seized, disarmed, tried by the laws of their country, and condemned to die. A respite how- ever was granted them during his majesty's pleasure. At this solemn period, while every part of the army and of the empire was expecting the fatal order for execution, the king was employed in meditating mercy. But how could mercy be shown 4 “To make light of a conspiracy,” said he to his friends, “would loosen the bands of good go- vernment: other divisions of the army might be tempted to follow their example ; and the nation at large be in danger of imputing it to tameness, fear, or some unworthy motive.” * Every one felt, in this case, the necessity of a mediator, and agreed as to the general line of conduct proper for him to pursue. “He must not attempt,” say they, “to com- promise the difference by dividing the blame; that would make things worse. He must justify the king, and con- demn the outrage committed against him ; he must offer, if possible, some honourable expedient, by means of which the bestowment of pardon shall not relax, but strengthen just authority; he must convince the conspirators of their crime, and introduce them in the character of supplicants; and mercy must be shown them out of respect to him, or for his sake.” But who could be found to mediate in such a cause 3 This was an important question. A work of this kind, it was allowed on all hands, required singular qualifications. “He must be perfectly clear of any participation in the offence,” said one, “ or inclination to favour it; for to par- don conspirators at the intercession of one who is friendly to their cause would be not only making light of the crime, but giving a sanction to it.” “He must,” said another, “be one who on account of his character and services stands high in the esteem of the King and of the public ; for to mediate in such a cause is to become, in a sort, responsible for the issue. A medi- ator, in effect, pledges his honour that no evil will result to the state from the granting of his request. But if a mean opinion be entertained of him, no trust can be placed in him, and, consequently, no good impression would be made by his mediation on the public mind.” “I conceive it is necessary,” said a third, “ that the Weight of the mediation should bear a proportion to the magnitude of the crime, and to the value of the favour re- quested ; and that for this end it is proper he should be a person of great dignity. I'or his majesty to pardon a com- pany of conspirators at the intercession of one of their former comrades, or of any other obscure character, even though he might be a worthy man, would convey a very diminutive idea of the evil of the offence.” A fourth remarked, that “he must possess a tender com- passion towards the unhappy offenders, or he would not cordially interest himself on their behalf.” Finally. It was suggested by a fifth, “that, for the greater fitness of the proceeding, it would be proper that some re- lation or connexiom should subsist between the parties.” “We feel the propriety,” said he, “ of forgiving an offence at the intercession of a father, or a brother ; or if it be committed by a soldier, of his commanding officer. With- out some kind of previous relation or connexion, a media- *~. tion would have the appearance of an arbitrary and formal process, and prove but little interesting to the hearts of the community.” - Such were the reasonings of the king’s friends; but where to find the character in whom these qualifications were united, and what particular expedient could be de- vised, by means of which, instead of relaxing, pardon should strengthen just authority, were subjects too difficult for them to resolve. Meanwhile, the king and his son, whom he greatly loved, and whom he had appointed generalissimo of all his forces, had retired from the company, and were conversing about the matter which attracted the general attention. “My son P’ said the benevolent sovereign, “what can be done in behalf of these unhappy men : To order them for execution violates every feeling of my heart; yet to pardon them is dangerous. The army, and even the em- pire, would be under a strong temptation to think lightly of rebellion. If mercy be exercised, it must be through a mediator; and who is qualified to mediate in such a cause? And what expedient can be devised by means of which pardon shall not relax, but strengthen just authority ? Speak, my son, and say what measures can be pursued ‘’” “My father P’ said the prince, “I feel the insult offered to your person and government, and the injury thereby aimed at the empire at large. They have transgressed without cause, and deserve to die without mercy. Yet I also feel for them. I have the heart of a soldier. I can- not endure to witness their execution. What shall I say? On me be this wrong ! Let me suffer in their stead. In- flict on me as much as is necessary to impress the army and the nation with a just sense of the evil, and of the importance of good order and faithful allegiance. Let it be in their presence, and in the presence of all assembled. When this is done, let them be permitted to implore and receive your majesty's pardon in my name. If any man refuse so to implore, and so to receive it, let him die the death !” “My son P’ replied the king, “you have expressed my heart | The same things have occupied my mind; but it was my desire that you should be voluntary in the under- taking. It shall be as you have said. I shall be satisfied; justice itself will be satisfied ; and I pledge my honour that you also shall be satisfied in seeing the happy effects of your disinterested conduct. Propriety requires that I stand aloof in the day of your affliction ; but I will not leave you utterly, nor suffer the beloved of my soul to re- main in that condition. A temporary affliction on your part will be more than equivalent to death on theirs. The dignity of your person and character will render the suffer- ings of an hour of greater account, as to the impression of the public mind, than if all the rebellious had been exe- cuted; and by how much I am known to have loved you, by so much will my compassion to them, and my displea- sure against their wicked conduct, be made manifest. Go, my son, assume the likeness of a criminal, and suffer in their place P’ The gracious design being communicated at court, all were struck with it. Those who had reasoned on the qualifications of a mediator saw that in the prince all were united, and were filled with admiration ; but that he should be willing to suffer in the place of rebels was beyond all. that could have been asked or thought. Yet, seeing he himself had generously proposed it, would survive his suf- ferings, and reap the reward of them, they cordially acqui- esced. The only difficulty that was started was among the judges of the realm. They, at first, questioned whether the proceeding were admissible. “The law,” said they, “makes provision for the transfer of debts, but not of crimes. Its language is, ‘The soul that sinneth shall die.’” But when they came to view things on a more enlarged scale, considering it as an expedient on an extra- ordinary occasion, and perceived that the spirit of the law would be preserved, and all the ends of good government answered, they were satisfied. “It is not a measure,” said they, “for which the law provides; yet it is not con- trary to the law, but above it.” The day appointed arrived. The prince appeared, and suffered as a criminal. The hearts of the king's friends bled at every stroke, and burned with indignation against THE MEDIATION OF CHRIST CONSISTENT WITH REASON. 37 tle conduct which rendered it necessary. His enemies, however, even some of those for whom he suffered, con- tinuing to be disaffected, added to the affliction, by deriding and insulting him all the time. At a proper period, he was rescued from their outrage. Returning to the palace, amidst the tears and shouts of the loyal spectators, the suffering hero was embraced by his royal father; who, in addition to the natural affection which he bore to him as a son, loved him for his singular interposition at such a crisis: “Sit thou,” said he, “at my right hand . Though the threatenings of the law be not literally accomplished, yet the spirit of them is preserved. The honour of good government is secured, and the end of punishment more effectually answered than if all the rebels had been sacri- ficed. Ask of me what I shall give thee! No favour can be too great to be bestowed, even upon the unworthiest, nor any crime too aggravated to be forgiven, in thy name. I will grant thee according to thine own heart! Ask of me, my son, what I shall give thee!” He asked for the offenders to be introduced as suppli- cants at the feet of his father, for the forgiveness of their crimes, and for the direction of affairs till order and hap- piness should be perfectly restored. A proclamation addressed to the conspirators was now issued, stating what had been their conduct, what the con- duct of the king, and what of the prince. Messengers also were appointed to carry it, with orders to read it publicly, and to expostulate with them individually, be- seeching them to be reconciled to their offended sovereign, and to assure them that, if they rejected this, there re- mained no more hope of mercy. A spectator would suppose that in mercy so freely offered, and so honourably communicated, every one would have acquiesced ; and if reason had governed the offend- ers, it had been so : but many among them continued under the influence of disaffection, and disaffection gives a false colouring to every thing. The time of the respite having proved longer than was at first expected, some had begun to amuse themselves with idle speculations, flattering themselves that their fault was a mere trifle, and that it certainly would be passed over. Indeed the greater part of them had turned their attention to other things, concluding that the king Was not in good earnest. When the proclamation was read, many paid no manner of attention to it; some insinuated that the messengers were interested men, and that there might be no truth in what they said; and some even abused them as impostors. So, having delivered their message, they withdrew ; and the rebels, finding themselves alone, such of them as paid . attention to the subject expressed their mind as fol- OWS :— “My heart,” says one, “rises against every part of this proceeding. Why all this ado about a few words spoken one to another ? Can such a message as this have pro- ceeded from the king 3 What have we done so much against him, that so much should be made of it 3 No petition of ours, it seems, would avail any thing; and nothing that we could say or do could be regarded, unless presented in the name of a third person. Surely if we present a petition in our own names, in which we beg pardom, and promise not to repeat the offence, this might suffice. Even this is more than I can find in my heart to comply with ; but every thing beyond it is unreasonable; and who can believe that the king can desire it?” , “If a third person,” says another, “must be concerned in the affair, what occasion is there for one so high in rank and dignity ? To stand in need of such a mediator must Stamp our characters with everlasting infamy. It is very unreasonable : who can believe it? If the king be just and good, as they say he is, how can he wish thus publicly to expose us?” “I observe,” says a third, “that the mediator is wholly on the king's side ; and one whom, though he affects to Pity us, we have, from the outset, considered as no less our enemy than the king himself. If, indeed, he could Compromise matters, and would allow that we had our provocations, and would promise us redress, and an easier yoke in future, I should feel inclined to hearken; but if the have no concessions to offer, I can never be reconciled.” relent. “I believe,” says a fourth, “that the king knows very well that we have not had justice done us, and therefore this mediation business is introduced to make us amends for the injury. It is an affäir settled somehow betwixt him and his son. They call it grace, and I am not much con- cerned what they call it, so that my life is spared ; but this I say, if he had not made this or some kind of pro- vision, I should have thought him a tyrant.” “You are all wrong,” says a fifth : “I comprehend the design, and am well pleased with it. I hate the govern- ment as much as any of you : but I love the mediator; for I understand it is his intention to deliver me from its tyranny. He has paid the debt, the king is satisfied, and I am free. I will sue out for my right, and demand my liberty 1" In addition to this, one of the company observed, he did not see what the greater part of them had to do with the proclamation, unless it were to give it a hearing, which they had done already. “I'or,” said he, “pardon is pro- mised only to them who are willing to submit, and it is well known that many of us are unwilling; nor can we alter our minds on this subject.” After a while, however, some of them were brought to They thought upon the subject matter of the proclamation, were convinced of the justness of its state- ments, reflected upon their evil conduct, and were sin- cerely sorry on account of it. And now the mediation of the prince appeared in a very different light. They cor- dially said Amen to every part of the proceeding. The very things which gave such offence, while their hearts were disaffected, now appeared to them fit, and right, and glorious. “It is fit,” say they, “that the king should be honoured, and that we should be humbled ; for we have transgressed without cause. It is right that no regard should be paid to any petition of ours, for its own sake ; for we have done deeds worthy of death. It is glorious that we should be saved at the intercession of so honour- able a personage. The dignity of his character, together with his surprising condescension and goodness, impresses us more than any thing else, and fills our hearts with peni- tence, confidence, and love. That which in the procla- mation is called grace is grace ; for we are utterly un- worthy of it; and if we had all suffered according to our sentence, the king and his throne had been guiltless. We embrace the mediation of the prince, not as a reparation for an injury, but as a singular instance of mercy. And far be it from us that we should consider it as designed to deliver us from our original and just allegiance to his majesty's government : No, rather it is intended to restore us to it. We love our intercessor, and will implore forgiveness in his name; but we also love our sovereign, and long to prostrate ourselves at his feet. We rejoice in the satisfaction which the prince has made, and all our hopes of mercy are founded upon it; but we have no notion of being freed by it previously to our acquiescence in it. Nor do we desire any other kind of freedom than that which, while it remits the just sentence of the law, restores us to his majesty's government. Oh that we were once clear of this hateful and horrid conspiracy, and might be permitted to serve him with affection and fidelity all the days of our life . We cannot suspect the sincerity of the invitation, or acquit our companions on the score of un- willingness. Why should we ? We do not on this account acquit ourselves. On the contrary, it is the remembrance of our unwillingness that now cuts us to the heart. We well remember to what it was owing that we could not be satisfied with the just government of the king, and after- wards could not comply with the invitations of mercy: it was because we were under the dominion of a disaffected spirit—a spirit which, wicked as it is in itself, it would be be more wicked to justify. Our counsel is, therefore, the same as that of his majesty's messengers, with whom we now take our stand. Let us lay aside this cavilling humour, repent, and sue for mercy in the way prescribed, ere mercy be hid from our eyes . " The reader, in applying this supposed case to the medi- ation of Christ, will do me the justice to remember that I do not pretend to have perfectly represented it. Probably there is no similitude fully adequate to the purpose. The distinction between the Father and the Son is not the 38 THE MEDIATION OF CHRIST CONSISTENT WITH REASON. same as that which subsists between a father and a son among men : the latter are two separate beings; but to assert this of the former would be inconsistent with the Divine unity. Nor can any thing be found analogous to the doctrine of Divine influence, by which the redemption of Christ is carried into effect. And with respect to the innocent voluntarily suffering for the guilty, in a few ex- traordinary instances this principle may be adopted; but the management and application of it generally require more wisdom and more power than mortals possess. may, by the help of a machine, collect a few sparks of the electrical fluid, and produce an effect somewhat resembling that of lightning; but we cannot cause it to blaze like the Almighty, nor “thunder with a voice like Him.” Imperfect, however, as the foregoing similitude may ap- pear in some respects, it is sufficient to show the fallacy of Mr. Paine's reasoning. “The doctrine of redemption,” says this writer, “ has for its basis an idea of pecuniary justice, and not that of moral justice. If I owe a person money, and cannot pay him, and he threatens to put me into prison, another person can take the debt upon him- self, and pay it for me; but if I have committed a crime, every circumstance of the case is changed. Moral justice cannot take the innocent for the guilty, even if the inno- cent would offer itself. To suppose justice to do this is to destroy the principle of its existence, which is the thing itself. It is then no longer justice, but indiscriminate re- venge.”* This objection, which is the same for substance as has been frequently urged by Socinians as well as deists, is founded in misrepresentation. It is not true that re- demption has for its basis the idea of pecuniary justice, and not that of moral justice. That sin is called a debt, and the death of Christ a price, a ransom, &c., is true; but it is no unusual thing for moral obligations and deliver- ances to be expressed in language borrowed from pecuniary transactions. The obligations of a son to a father are commonly expressed by such terms as owing and paying: he owes a debt of obedience, and in yielding it he pays a debt of gratitude. The same may be said of an obligation to punishment. A murderer owes his life to the justice of his country; and when he suffers, he is said to pay the awful debt. So also if a great character, by suffering death, could deliver his country, such deliverance would be spoken of as obtained by the price of blood. No one mistakes these things by understanding them of pecuniary transactions. In such connexioms, every one perceives that the terms are used not literally, but metaphorically; and it is thus that they are to be understood with refer- ence to the death of Christ. As sin is not a pecuniary, but a moral debt, so the atonement for it is not a pecu. niary, but a moral ransom. There is, doubtless, a sufficient analogy between pecu- niary and moral proceedings to justify the use of such language, both in Scripture and in common life; and it is easy to perceive the advantages which arise from it; as, besides conveying much important truth, it renders it peculiarly impressive to the mind. But it is not always safe to reason from the former to the latter; much less is it just to affirm that the latter has for its basis every prin- ciple which pertains to the former. The deliverance effected by the prince, in the case before stated, might, with propriety, be called a redemption; and the recollec- tion of it, under this idea, would be very impressive to the minds of those who were delivered. They would scarcely be able to see or think of their commander-in-chief, even though it might be years after the event, without being reminded of the price at which their pardon was obtained, and dropping a tear of ingenuous grief over their unworthy conduct on this account. Yet it would not be just to say that this redemption had for its basis an idea of pecuniary justice, and not that of moral justice. It was moral justice which in this case was satisfied : not, however, in its ordinary form, but as exercised on an extraordinary occasion ; not the letter, but the spirit of it. * Age of Reason, Part I. p 20. + Treatise of Jesus Christ the Saviour, Part III. Chap. I. # Dissertation on Divine Justice, Chap. IX. Section VII. VIII. % The Christian reader, it is presumed, may hence obtain a clear view of the ends answered by the death of Christ, a subject which has occupied much attention among divines. Some have asserted that Christ by his satisfaction accomplished this only, “That God now, We . The Scripture doctrine of atonement, being conveyed in language borrowed from pecuniary transactions, is not only improved by unbelievers into an argument against the truth of the gospel, but has been the occasion of many errors among the professors of Christianity. Socinus, on this ground, attempts to explain away the necessity of a satisfaction. “God,” says he, “ is our Creditor. Our sins are debts which we have contracted with him ; but every one may yield up his right, and more especially God, who is the supreme Lord of all, and extolled in the Scrip- tures for his liberality and goodness. Hence, then, it is evident that God can pardon sins without any satisfaction received.” f Others, who profess to embrace the doctrine of satisfaction, have, on the same ground, perverted and abused it; objecting to the propriety of humble and con- tinued applications for mercy, and presuming to claim the forgiveness of their sins past, present, and to come as their legal right, and what it would be unjust in the Supreme Being, having received complete satisfaction, to withhold. To the reasoning of Socinus Dr. Owen judiciously re- plies, by distinguishing between right as it respects debts and as it respects government. The former, he allows, may be given up without a satisfaction, but not the latter. “Our sins,” he adds, “are called debts, not properly, but metaphorically.”f This answer equally applies to those who pervert the doctrine as to those who deny it ; for though in matters of debt and credit a full satisfaction from a surety excludes the idea of free pardon on the part of the creditor, and admits of a claim on the part of the debtor, yet it is otherwise in relation to crimes. In the interposition of the prince, as stated above, an honourable expedient was adopted, by means of which the sovereign was satisfied, and the exercise of mercy rendered consistent with just authority; but there was no less grace in the act of forgiveness than if it had been without a satisfaction. However well-pleased the king might be with the conduct of his son, the freeness of pardon was not at all diminished by it; nor must the criminals come before him as claim- ants, but as supplicants, imploring mercy in the mediator's IOla Iſle, - Such are the leading ideas which the Scriptures give us of redemption by Jesus Christ. The apostle Paul espe- cially teaches this doctrine with great precision : “Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God hath set forth to be a pro- pitiation, through faith in his blood, to declare his right- eousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at this time, his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.” From this passage we may remark, first, That the grace of God, as taught in the Scriptures, is not that kind of liberality which Socinians and deists ascribe to him, which sets aside the necessity of a satisfaction. Free grace, according to Paul, requires a propitiation, even the shedding of the Saviour's blood, as a medium through which it may be honourably communi- cated. Secondly, Redemption by Jesus Christ was ac- complished, not by a satisfaction that should preclude the exercise of grace in forgiveness, but in which, the displea- sure of God against sin being manifested, mercy to the sinner might be exercised without any suspicion of his having relinquished his regards for righteousness. In “setting forth Jesus Christ to be a propitiation,” he “de- clared his righteousness for the remission of sins.” Third- ly, The righteousness of God was not only declared when Christ was made a propitiatory sacrifice, but continues to be manifested in the acceptance of believers through his name. He appears as just while acting the part of a jus- tifier towards every one that believeth in Jesus. Fourthly, That which is here applied to the blessings of forgiveness and acceptance with God is applicable to all other spirit- ual blessings: all, according to the Scriptures, are freely communicated through the same distinguished medium. See Ephes. i.) consistently with the honour of his justice, may pardon (returning) sinners if he willeth so to do.” This is, doubtless, true, as far as it goes; but it makes no provision for the return of the sinner. This scheme, therefore, leaves the sinner to perish in impenitence and un- belief, and the Saviour without any security of seeing of the travail of his soul. For how can a sinner return without the power of the Holy Spirit? And the Holy Spirit, equally with every other spiritual bless- THE MEDIATION OF CHRIST CONSISTENT WITH REASON. 39 These remarks may suffice to show, not only that Mr. Paine's assertion has no truth in it, but that all those pro- fessors of Christianity who have adopted his principle have so far deviated from the doctrine of redemption as it is taught in the Scriptures. As to what Mr. Paine alleges, that the innocent suffer- ing for the guilty, even though it be with his own consent, is contrary to every principle of moral justice, he affirms the same of God’s “visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children.” + But this is a truth evident by uni- versal experience. It is seen every day, in every part of the world. If Mr. Paine indulge in intemperance, and leave children behind him, they may feel the consequences of his misconduct when Jhe is in the grave. The sins of the father may thus be visited upon the children to the third and fourth generation. It would, however, be their afflic- tion only, and not their punishment. Yet such visitations are wisely ordered as a motive to sobriety. Nor is it be- tween parents and children only that such a connexion ex- ists, as that the happiness of one depends upon the conduct of others; a slight survey of society, in its various rela- tions, must convince us that the same principle pervades creation. To call this injustice is to fly in the face of the Creator. With such an objector I have nothing to do : “He that reproveth God, let him answer it.” If the idea of the innocent suffering in the room of the guilty were in all cases inadmissible, and utterly repug- nant to the human understanding, how came the use of ea piatory sacrifices to prevail, as it has, in every age and nation ? Whether the idea first proceeded from a Divine command, as Christians generally believe, or whatever was its origin, it has approved itself to the minds of men; and not of the most uncultivated part of mankind only, but of the most learned and polite. The sacrifices of the Gen- tiles, it is true, were full of superstition, and widely differ- ent, as might be expected, from those which were regulated by the Scriptures; but the general principle is the same : all agree in the idea of the displeasure of the Deity being appeasable by an innocent victim being sacrificed in the place of the guilty. The idea of expiatory sacrifices, and of a mediation founded upon them, is beautifully expressed in the Book of Job ; a book not only of great antiquity, but which seems to have obtained the approbation of Mr. Paine, having, as he supposes, been written by a Gentile. “And it was so that, after the Lord had spoken these words unto Job, the Lord said to Eliphaz, the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends; for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath. Therefore take unto you now seven bullocks and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt-offering; and my servant Job shall pray for you, for him will I accept; lest ing, is given in consideration of the death of Christ. Others, to remedy this defect, have considered the death of Christ as purchasing repentance and faith, as well as all other spiritual blessings, on behalf of the elect. The writer of these pages acknowledges he never could perceive that any clear or determinate idea was conveyed by the term purchase, in this connexion; nor does it appear to him to be applica- ble to the subject, unless it be in an improper or figurative sense. He has no doubt of the atonement of Christ being a perfect satisfaction to Divine justice; nor of his being worthy of all that was conferred upon him, and upon us for his sake; nor of that which to us is sovereign mercy being to him an exercise of remunerative justice: but he wishes it to be considered, Whether the moral Governor of the world was laid under such a kind of obligation to show mercy to sinners as a greditor is under to discharge a debtor, on having received full satis- faction at the hands of a surety : If he be, the writer is unable to perceive how there can be any room for free forgiveness on the part of God, or how it can be said that justice and grace harmonize in a sin- ner's salvation. Nothing is further from his intention than to depre- ciate the merit of his Lord and Saviour: but he considers merit as of two kinds; either on account of a benefit conferred, which on the footing of justice requires an equal return, or of something done or Suffered, which is worthy of being rewarded by a Being distinguished by his love of righteousness. In the first sense it cannot, as he sup- poses, be exercised towards an infinite and perfect Being. The good- ness of Christ himself, in this way, eactendeth not to him. It is in the last sense that the Scriptures appear to him to represent the merit of the Redeemer. upon him the form of a servant, and be made in the likeness of men, and humble himself, and become obedient unto death, even the death of the cross,” was so glorious an undertaking, and so acceptable to the Pather, that on this account he “set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come : and hath put all things under his feet, That he “who was in the form of God should take I deal with you after your folly, in that ye have not spoken of me the thing which is right, like my servant Job. So Eliphaz the Temanite, and Bildad the Shuhite, and Zo- phar the Naamathite, went and did according as the Lord commanded them : the Lord also accepted Job.” The objections which are now made to the sacrifice of Christ equally apply to all expiatory sacrifices, the offering up of which, had not the former superseded them, would have continued to this day. If an innocent character offer to die in the room of a guilty fellow creature, it is not ordinarily accepted, nor would it be proper that it should. For he may have no just right to dispose of his life; or if he have, he has no power to resume it ; there may likewise be no such rela- tion between the parties, as that the suffering of the one should express displeasure against the conduct of the other. Besides this, there may be no great and good end ac- complished to society by such a substitution : the loss sustained by the death of the one might be equal, if not superior, to the gain from the life of the other. If the evil to be endured might be survived—if the relation be- tween the parties were such that, in the sufferings of the one, mankind would be impressed with the evil of the other—and if by such a proceeding great advantage would accrue to society, instead of being accounted inadmissible, it would be reckoned right, and wise, and good. If a dig- nified individual, by enduring some temporary severity from an offended nation, could appease their displeasure, and thereby save his country from the destroying sword, who would not admire his disinterested conduct 3 And if the offended, from motives of humanity, were contented with expressing their displeasure, by transferring the effect of it from a whole nation to an individual who thus stepped forward on their behalf, would their conduct be censured as “indiscriminate revenge 3’” The truth is, the atone- ment of Christ affords a display of justice on too large a scale, and on too humbling a principle, to approve itself to a contracted, selfish, and haughty mind. CHAPTER W. THE CONSISTENCY OF THE SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF RE- DEMPTION WITH THE MODERN OPINION OF THE MAGNI- TUDE OF CREATION, IT is common for deists to impute the progress of their principles to the prevalence of true philosophy. The world, they say, is more enlightened; and a great number of dis- coveries are progressively making, which render the credi- and gave him to be the Head over all things to the church.” Nor was this all : so well pleased was he with all that he did and suffered, as to reward it not only with honours conferred upon himself, but with blessings on sinners for his sake. Whatever is asked in his name, it is given us. It is true, as the writer apprehends, that a way was opened, by the mediation of Christ, for the free and consistent exercise of mercy in all the methods which Sovereign Wisdom saw fit to adopt. There are three kinds of blessings, in particular, which God, out of regard to the death of his Son, bestows upon men : First, He sends forth the gospel of salvation, accompanied with a free and indefinite invitation to embrace it, and an assurance that whosoever complies with the invitation (for which there is no ability wanting in any man who possesses an honest heart) shall have everlasting life. This fa- your is bestowed on sinners as sinners. God “giveth the true bread from heaven” in this way to many who never receive it. He inviteth those to the gospel supper who refuse and make light of it, John vi. 32–36; Matt. xxii. 4, 5. Secondly, He bestows his Holy Spirit to re- new and sanctify the soul; gives a new heart and a right spirit, and takes away the heart of stone. “Christ is exalted to give repentance,” Acts v. 31. “Unto us it is given, in behalf of Christ, to believe in him,” Phil. i. 29. “We have obtained like precious faith through the righteousness of God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ,” 2 Pet. i. 1. This favour is conferred on elect sinners. See Acts xiii. 48; Rom. viii. 28–30. Thirdly, Through the same medium is given the free pardon of all our sins, acceptance with God, power to become the sons of God, and the promise of everlasting life. “Your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake,” l John ii. 12. “God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you,” Eph. iv. 32. “We are accepted in the Beloved,” Eph. i. 6. By means of his death we “receive the promise of eternal inherit- ance,” Heb. ix. 15. This kind of blessings is conferred on believing Sz72726.7°S. * Age of Reason, Part I. p. 4. Note. 4) REDEMPTION CONSISTENT WITH bility of the Scriptures more and more suspicious. It is now a commonly received opinion, for instance, among men of science, that this world is but a point in creation ; that every planet is a world, and all the fixed stars so many suns in the centres of so many systems of worlds; and that, as every part of creation within our knowledge teems with life, and as God has made nothing in vain, it is highly probable that all these worlds are inhabited by in- telligent beings, who are capable of knowing and adoring their Creator. But if this be true, how incredible is it that so great a portion of regard should be exercised by the Supreme Being towards man as the Scriptures represent : how incredible, especially, it must appear, to a thinking mind, that Deity should become incarnate, should take human nature into the most intimate union with himself, and thereby raise it to such singular eminency in the scale of being ; though, compared with the whole of the crea- tion, if we comprehend even the whole species, it be less than a nest of insects compared with the unnumbered mil- lions of animated beings which inhabit the earth ! This objection, there is reason to think, has had a very considerable influence on the speculating part of mankind. Mr. Paine, in the first part of his Age of Reason, (pp. 40– 47,) has laboured, after his manner, to make the most of it, and thereby to disparage Christianity. “Though it is not a direct article of the Christian system,” he says, “that this world which we inhabit is the whole of the habitable creation ; yet it is so worked up therewith, from what is called the Mosaic account of the creation, the story of Eve and the apple, and the counterpart of that story—the death of the Son of God, that to believe otherwise, that is, to believe that God created a plurality of worlds, at least as numerous as what we call stars, renders the Christian sys- tem of faith at once little and ridiculous, and scatters it in the mind like feathers in the air. The two beliefs cannot be held together in the same mind; and he who thinks he believes both has thought but little of either,” p. 40. Again, Having discoursed on the vast extent of creation, he asks, “But, in the midst of these reflections, what are we to think of the Christian system of faith, that forms it- self upon the idea of only one world, and that of no greater extent than twenty-five thousand miles 3 °–% Whence could arise the solitary and strange conceit, that the Al- mighty, who had millions of worlds equally dependent on his protection, should quit the care of all the rest, and come to die in our world, because they say one man and one woman had eaten an apple º And, on the other hand, are we to suppose that every world in the boundless crea- tion had an Eve, an apple, a serpent, and a Redeemer ? In this case, the person who is irreverently called the Son of God, and sometimes God himself, would have nothing else to do than to travel from world to world, in an endless succession of death, with scarcely a momentary interval of life,” p. 46. . - To animadvert upon all the extravagant and offensive things, even in so small a part of Mr. Paine's performance as the above quotation, would be an irksome task. A few remarks, however, may not be improper. First, Though Mr. Paine is pleased to say, in his usual style of naked assertion, that “the two beliefs cannot be held together, and that he who thinks he believes both has thought but little of either;” yet he cannot be ignorant that many who have admitted the one have at the same time held fast the other. Mr. Paine is certainly not over- loaded with modesty, when comparing his own abilities and acquisitions with those of other men ; but I am in- clined to think that, with all his assurance, he will not pretend that Bacon, or Boyle, or Newton, to mention no more, had thought, but little of philosophy or Christianity. I imagine it would be within the compass of truth, were I to say that they bestowed twenty times more thought upon these subjects than ever Mr. Paine did. His ex- treme ignorance of Christianity, at least, is manifest by the numerous gross blunders of which he has been de- tected. Secondly, Supposing the Scripture account of the crea- tion to be inconsistent with the ideas which modern phi- lºsophers entertain of its extent, yet it is not what Mr. Paine represents it. It certainly does not teach “that this world which we inhabit is the whole of the habitable creation.” Mr. Paine will not deny that it exhibits a world of happiness, and a world of misery; though this, in the career of his extravagance, he seems to have over- looked. Thirdly, If the two beliefs, as Mr. Paine calls them, cannot be consistently held together, we need not be at a loss to determine which to relinquish. All the reasoning in favour of a multiplicity of worlds, inhabited by intelli- gent beings, amounts to no more than a strong probability. No man can properly be said to believe it: it is not a matter of faith, but of opinion. It is an opinion too that has taken place of other opinions, which, in their day, were admired by the philosophical part of mankind as much as this is in ours. Mr. Paine seems to wish to have it thought that the doctrine of a multiplicity of inhabited worlds is a matter of demonstration ; but the existence of a number of heavenly bodies, whose revolutions are under the direction of certain laws, and whose returns, therefore, are the objects of human calculation, does not prove that they are all inhabited by intelligent beings. I do not deny that, from other considerations, the thing may be highly probable; but it is no more than a probability. Now, before we give up a doctrine which, if it were even to prove fallacious, has no dangerous consequences attend- ing it, and which, if it should be found a truth, involves our eternal salvation, we should endeavour to have a more solid ground than mere opinion on which to take our stand. But I do not wish to avail myself of these observations, as I am under no apprehensions that the cause in which I engage requires them. ADMITTING THAT THE INTELLI- G ENT CIREATION IS AS EXTENSIVE AS MODERN PHILOSOPHY SUPPOSES, THE CREDIBILITY OF REDEMPTION IS NOT THERE- BY WEAKENED ; BUT, ON THE CONTRARY, IN MANY RESPECTS, Is STRENGTIIENED AND AGGRANDIZED. I shall offer a few observations on each of the branches of the above position. The Scripture doctrine of redemption, it is acknowledged, supposes that man, mean and little as he is in the scale of being, has occupied a peculiar portion of the Divine re- gard. It requires to be noticed, however, that the ene- mies of revelation, in order it should seem to give the greater force to their objection, diminish the importance of man, as a creature of God, beyond what its friends can admit. Though Mr. Paine expresses his “hope of happi- ness beyond this life,” and though some other deistical writers have admitted the immortality of the soul; yet this is more than others of them will allow. The hope of a future state, as we have seen, is objected to by many of them as a selfish principle ; and others of them have at- tempted to hold it up to ridicule. But the immortality of man is a doctrine which redemption supposes; and if this be allowed, man is not so insignificant a being as they might wish to consider him. A being that possesses an immortal mind, a mind capable of increasing knowledge, and, consequently, of increasing happiness or misery, in an endless duration, cannot be insignificant. It is no exag- geration to say that the salvation of one soul, according to the Scriptural account of things, is of inconceivably greater moment than the temporal salvation of a nation, or of all the nations in the world for ten thousand ages. The eternal salvation, therefore, of a number of lost sinners, which no man can number, however it may be a matter of infinite condescension in the great Supreme to accom- plish, is not an object for creatures, even the most exalted, to consider as of small account. - Having premised thus much, I shall proceed, in the first place, to offer a few observations in proof that THERE Is NOTHING IN THE SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF REDEMIPTION WHICH IS IN CONSISTENT WITH THE MODERN OPINION OF THE MAGNITUDE OF CREATION, 1. Let creation be as eatensive as it may, and the number of worlds be multiplied to the utmost boundary to which *magination can reach, there is no proof that any of them, except men and angels, have apostatized from God. If our world be only a small province, so to speak, of God’s vast empire, there is reason to hope that it is the only part of it where sin has entered, except among the fallen angels, and that the endless myriads of intelligent beings, in other worlds, are all the hearty friends of virtue, of order, and of God. THE MAGNITU IDE OF CRIEATION 41 If this be true, (and there is nothing in philosophy or divinity I believe to discredit it,) then Mr. Paine need not have supposed, if he could have suppressed the plea- sure of the witticism, that the Son of God would have to travel from world to world in the character of a Redeemer. 2. Let creation be ever so extensive, there is nothing inconsistent with reason in supposing that some one par- ticular part of it should be chosen out from the rest, as a theatre on which the great Author of all things would per- form his most glorious works. Every empire that has been founded in this world has had some one particular spot where those actions were performed from which its glory has arisen. The glory of the Caesars was founded on the event of a battle fought near a very inconsiderable city: and why might not this world, though less than “twenty- five thousand miles in circumference,” be chosen as the theatre on which God would bring about events that should fill his whole empire with glory and joy! It would be as reasonable to plead the insignificance of Actium or Agin- court, in objection to the competency of the victories there obtained (supposing them to have been on the side of righteousness) to fill the respective empires of Rome and Britain with glory, as that of our world to fill the whole empire of God with matter of joy and everlasting praise. The truth is, the comparative dimension of our world is of no account. If it be large enough for the accomplishment of events which are sufficient to occupy the minds of all intelligences, that is all that is required. 3. If any one part of God's creation, rather than an- other, possessed a superior fitness to become a theatre on which he might display his glory, it should seem to be that part where the greatest efforts have been made to dishonour him. A rebellious province in an empire would be the fittest place in it to display the justice, goodness, and be- nignity of a government. Here would naturally be erected a banner of righteousness; here the war would be carried on ; here pardons and punishments to different characters would be awarded; and here the honours of the govern- ment would be established on such a basis, that the remot- est parts of the empire might hear and fear, and learn obedience. The part that is diseased, whether in the body natural or the body politic, is the part to which the remedy is directed. Let there be what number of worlds there may, full of intelligent creatures ; yet if there be but one world which is guilty and miserable, thither will be di- rected the operations of mercy. The good shepherd of the sheep will leave the minety and nine in the wilderness, and seek and save that which is lost. 4. The events brought to pass in this world, little and insignificant as it may be, are competent to fill all and every part of God’s dominions with everlasting and increasing joy. Mental enjoyment differs widely from corporeal: the bestowment of the one upon a great number of objects is necessarily attended with a division of it into parts, and those who receive a share of it diminish the quantity re- maining for others that come after them ; but not so the other. An intellectual object requires only to be known, and it is equally capable of affording enjoyment to a million as to an individual, to a world as to those, and to the whole universe, be it ever so extensive, as to a world. If, as the Scriptures inform us, “God was manifest in the flesh, jus- tified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, and received up into glory ; if there be enough in this mysterious transaction to fill with joy the hearts of all who believe it ; if it be so interesting that the most exalted intelligences become comparatively indifferent to every other object, “desiring to look into it;” then is it, sufficient to “fill all things,” and to exhibit the Divine glory “in all places of his do- Iminion.” # Mr. Paine allows that it is not a direct article of the Christian system that there is not a plurality of inhabited Worlds; yet, he affirms, it is so worked up with the Scrip- ºre account, that, to believe the latter, we must relinquish the former as little and ridiculous. The Scriptures, it is true, do not teach the doctrine of *, nultitude of inhabited worlds; but neither do they teach the contrary. Neither the one nor the other forms any part of their design. The object they keep in view, though Mr. Paine may term it “little and ridiculous,” is infinitely superior to this, both as to utility and magnitude. They were not given to teach us astronomy, or geography, or civil government, or any science which relates to the present life only; therefore they do not determine upon any system of any of these sciences. These are things upon which reason is competent to judge, sufficiently at least for all the purposes of human life, without a reve- lation from heaven. The great object of revelation is to instruct us in things which pertain to our everlasting peace ; and as to other things, even the rise and fall of the mightiest empires, they are only touched in an inci- dental manner, as the mention of them might be necessary to higher purposes. The great empires of Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome are predicted and described in the Scriptures, by the rising and ravaging of so many beasts of prey. Speaking of the European part of the earth, which was inhabited by the posterity of Japheth, they do not go about to give an exact geographical description of it ; but, by a synecdoche, call it the “isles of the Gen- tiles;”f and this, as I suppose, because its eastern bound- ary, the Archipelago, or Grecian Islands, were situated contiguous to the Holy Land. And thus, when speaking of the whole creation, they call it “the heavens and the earth,” as being the whole that comes within the reach of OUIT Sen SeS. It is no dishonour to the Scriptures that they keep to their professed end. Though they give us no system of astronomy, yet they urge us to study the works of God, and teach us to adore him upon every discovery. Though they give us no system of geography, yet they encourage us to avail ourselves of observation and experience to ob- tain one; seeing the whole earth is in prophecy given to the Messiah, and is marked out as the field in which his servants are to labour. Though they determine not upon any mode or system of civil government, yet they teach obedience in civil matters to all. And though their at- tention be mainly directed to things which pertain to the life to come, yet, by attending to their instructions, we are also fitted for the labours and sufferings of the present life. The Scriptures are written in a popular style, as best adapted to their great end. If the salvation of philosophers only had been their object, the language might possibly have been somewhat different; though even this may be a matter of doubt, since the style is suited to the subject, and to the great end which they had in view ; but being addressed to men of every degree, it was highly proper that the language should be fitted to every capacity, and suited to their common modes of conception. They speak of the foundations of the earth, the ends of the earth, the greater and less lights in the heavens, the sun rising, standing still, and going down, and many other things in the same way. If deists object to these modes of speak- ing, as conveying ideas which are inconsistent with the true theory of the heavens and the earth, let them, if they can, substitute others which are consistent : let them, in their common conversation, when describing the revo- lutions of evening and morning, speak of the earth as rising and going down, instead of the sum ; and the same with regard to the revolution of the planets; and see if men, in common, will better understand them, or whether they would be able even to understand one another. The popular ideas on these subjects are as much “worked up.” in the common conversation of philosophers as they are in the Scriptures; and the constant use of such language, even by philosophers themselves, in common conversation, sufficiently proves the futility and unfairness of their ob- jecting to revelation on this account. By the drift of Mr. Paine's writing, he seems to wish to convey the idea that, so contracted were the views of the Scriptural writers, that even the globularity of the earth was unknown to them. If, however, such a sentence as that of Job, “He hangeth the earth upon nothing,” had been found in any of the old heathen writers, he would readily have concluded that “this idea was familiar to the ancients.” Or if a heathen poet had uttered such lan- guage as that of Isaiah—“Behold, the nations are as a * 1 Pet. i. 12; Eph. iv. 10; Psal. ciii. 22. t Gen. x. 5; Isa. xlix. l. # Chap. xxvi. 7. * I) 42 REDEMETION CONSISTENT WITH drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance; behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing : all nations before him are as nothing ; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity,”—he might have been applauded as possessing a mind as large, and nearly as well informed, as the geniuses of modern times. But the truth is, the Scriptural writers were not intent on displaying the greatness of their own concep- tions, nor even of creation itself; but rather of the glory of Him “who filleth all in all.” The foregoing observations may suffice to remove Mr. Paine’s objection ; but if, in addition to them, it can be proved that, upon the supposition of a great number of inhabited worlds, Christianity, instead of appearing “little and ridiculous,” is the more enlarged, and that some of its difficulties are the more easily accounted for, this will be still more satisfactory. Let us therefore proceed, Secondly, To offer evidence that THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF RE- T) EMPTION IS STRENGTHENED AND AGGRANDIZED BY THE SUPPOSED MAGNITUDE OF CREATION. 1. The Scripture teaches that God’s regard to man is an astonishing instance of condescension, and that on account of the disparity between him and the celestial creation.— “When I consider thy heavens,” saith David, “the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained ; what is man, that thou art mindful of him 7 and the son of man, that thou visitest him 2'' “Will God in very deed,” saith Solomon, “dwell with men upon the earth º ''< The Divine condescension towards man is a truth upon any system ; but, upon the supposition of the heavenly bodies being so many inhabited worlds, it is a truth full of amazement, and the foregoing language of David and Solo- mon is forcible beyond all conception. The idea of Him who upholds a universe of such extent “by the word of his power” becoming incarnate, residing with men, and setting up his kingdom among them, that he might raise them to eternal glory, as much surpasses all that philoso- phy calls great and noble as the Creator surpasses the work of his hands. 2. The Scriptures inform us that, before creation was begun, our world was marked out by Eternal Wisdom as the theatre of its joyful operations. This idea is forcibly ex- pressed in the eighth chapter of Proverbs: “Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth : while as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there ; when he set a compass upon the face of the depth ; when he established the clouds above ; when he strengthened the fountains of the deep ; when he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment; when he ap- pointed the foundations of the earth: then I was by him, as one brought up with him : and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him ; rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.” On this interesting passage I shall offer a few remarks. First, Among the variety of objects which are here speci- fied as the works of God, the earth is mentioned as being, in a sort, his peculiar property. Doubtless the whole creation is the Lord’s ; but none of his other works is here claimed as his own in the manner that the earth is. It is called his earth. And this seems to intimate a de- sign of rendering it the grand theatre on which his greatest work should be performed ; a work that should fill all creation with joy and wonder. Secondly, The Wisdom of God is described as rejoicing in the contemplation of this part of the creation. Whether Wisdom in this passage be understood of the promised Messiah, or of a Divine attri- bute personified, it makes no difference as to the argu- ment. Allow it to mean the latter; and that the rejoicing of Wisdom is a figurative mode of speaking, like that of “mercy rejoicing against judgment ;”f still, redemption by Jesus Christ is the object concerning which it was ex- ercised : nothing less can be intimated than this, that the earth was the place marked out by Eternal Wisdom as the theatre of its joyful operations. Thirdly, The habitable part of the earth was more especially the object of Wis- dom’s joyful contemplation. The abodes of men, which through sin had become scenes of abomination, were, by the interposition of the Mediator, to become the abodes of righteousness. Here the serpent’s head was to be bruised, his schemes confounded, and his works destroyed; and that by the “woman’s seed,” the human nature, which he had despised and degraded. Here a trophy was to be raised to the glory of sovereign grace ; and millions of souls, delivered from everlasting destruction, were to present an offering of praise to HIM “that loved them, and washed them from their sins in his own blood.” Here, in a word, the peculiar glory of the Godhead was to be displayed in such a manner as to afford a lesson of joyful amazement to the whole creation “throughout all ages” of time, yea, “world without end.” + Lastly, Not only were the abodes of men contemplated with rejoicing, but the sons of men themselves regarded with delight. The operations of Eternal Wisdom were directed to their salva- tion; and their salvation was appointed to become, in re- turn, a mirror in which the whole creation should behold the operations of Eternal Wisdom. This expressive pas- sage contains a fulness of meaning, let the extent of the intelligent creation be what it may ; but if it be of that extent which modern philosophy supposes, it contains a greater fulness still. It perfectly accords with all those ideas suggested of this earth being the chosen theatre upon which events should be brought to pass that shall fill crea- tion with everlasting joy; and well they may, if the pros- pect of them rejoiced even the heart of God. 3. The mediation of Christ is represented in Scripture as bringing the whole creation into union with the church or people of God. In the dispensation of the fulness of times, it is said that God would “gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth, even in him.” & Again, “It pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; and (having made peace through the blood of his cross) by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether things in earth, or things in heaven.”|| $ The language here used supposes that the introduction of sin has effected a disunion between men and the other parts of God’s creation. It is natural to suppose it should be so. If a province of a great empire rise up in rebellion against the lawful government, all communication between the inhabitants of such a province, and the faithful ad- herents to order and obedience, must be at an end. A line of separation would be immediately drawn by the sovereign, and all intercourse between the one and the other prohibited. Nor would it less accord with the in- climation than with the duty of all the friends of right- eousness, to withdraw their connexion from those who were in rebellion against the supreme authority and the general good. It must have been thus with regard to the holy angels, on man’s apostacy. Those who at the crea- tion of our world had sung together, and even shouted for joy, would now retire in disgust and holy indignation. But, through the mediation of Christ, a reunion is effected. By the blood of the cross we have peace with God; and being reconciled to him, are united to all who love him throughout the whole extent of creation. If Paul could address the Corinthians, concerning one of their ex- cluded members, who had been brought to repentance, “To whom ye forgive any thing, I also ; ” much more would the friends of righteousness say, in their addresses to the great Supreme, concerning an excluded member from the moral system, “To, whom thow forgivest any thing, we also l’’ Hence angels acknowledge Christians as brethren, and become ministering spirits to them while inhabitants of the present world." There is another consideration which must tend to cement the holy part of God’s creation to the church ; which is, their being all united under one Head. A central point of union has a great effect in cementing mankind. We see this every day in people who sit under the same * Psal. viii. 3, 4; 2 Chron. vi. 18. In this part of the subject con- siderable use is made of the Scriptures; but it is only for the purpose of ascertaining what the Christian doctrine of redemption is ; and this is undoubtedly consistent with every rule of just reasoning, as, whether they be true or false, they "are the standard by which this doctrine is to be measured. * # Eph. iii. 21. & Eph. i. 10. + James ii. 13. e * | Col. i. 19, 20. T Rev. xix. 10; Heb. i. 14. THE MAGNITUDE OF CREATION. 43 ministry, or serve under the same commander, or are sub- jects of the same prince; whether minister, general, or prince, if they love him, they will be, more or less, united together under him. Now it is a part of the reward of our Redeemer, for his great humiliation, that he should be exalted as Head over the whole creation of God. “Being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of heavenly beings, of earthly, and of those under the earth.-He is the Head of all principality and power.— God raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come : and put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the Head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.”* These passages, it is true, represent the dominion of Christ as extending over the whole creation, enemies as well as friends, and things as well as persons. But if the very enemies of God are caused to subserve the purposes of redemption, much more his friends; what the others do by constraint, these do willingly; and the consideration of their having one Head must make them feel, as it were, nearer akin. And as Christ is “ Head over all things to the church, which is his body,” it is hereby intimated that the happiness of the church is by these means abundantly enlarged. To what extent creation reaches I do not pretend to know : be that however what it may, the foregoing pas- sages teach us to consider the influence of redemption as commensurate with it; and in proportion to the magni- tude of the one, such must be the influence of the other, as to the accomplishment of reunion and the restoration of happiness. 4. Through the mediation of Christ, not only is the whole creation represented as augmenting the blessedness of the church, but the church as augmenting the blessedness of the whole creation. As one member, be it ever so small, can- not suffer without the whole body, in some degree, suffer- ing with it ; so, if we consider our world as a member of the great body or system of being, it might naturally be supposed that the ill or well being of the former would, in some measure, affect the happiness of the latter. The fall of a planet from its orbit, in the solar system, would pro- bably have a less effect upon the other planets, than that of man from the moral system upon the other parts of God’s intelligent creation. And when it is considered that man is a member of the body, distinguished by sove- reign favour, as possessing a nature which the Son of God delighted to honour, by taking it upon himself, the interest which the universe at large may have in his fall and re- covery may be greatly augmented. The leprosy of Miriam Was an event that affected the whole camp of Israel; nor did they proceed on their journeys till she was restored to her situation; and it is not unnatural to suppose that Something analogous to this would be the effect of the fall and recovery of man on the whole creation. The happiness of the redeemed is not the ultimate end of redemption, nor the only happiness which will be pro- duced by it. God is represented in the Scriptures as con- ferring his favours in such a way as that no creature shall be blessed merely for his own sake, but that he might com- municate his blessedness to others. With whatever powers, talents, or advantages we are endued, it is not merely for our gratification, but that we may contribute to the gene- *al good. God gives discernment to the eye, speech to the tongue, strength to the arm, and agility to the feet, not for the gratification of these members, but for the accom- *odation of the body. It is the same in other things. $od blessed'Abraham ; and wherefore? That he might ** a blessing. He blessed his posterity after him ; and for what purpose ? That “in them all the nations of the earth might be blessed.”f Though Israel was a nation chosen and beloved of God, yet it was not for their right- * Phil. ii. 8–10; Col. ii. 10; Eph. i. 20–22. * Gen. xii. 2; xxii. 18. # Deut. ix. 5; vii. 7, 8, "t Psal, lxvii. eousness, nor merely with a view to their happiness, that they were thus distinguished; but that he “might per- form the oath which he sware unto their fathers;”f the substance of which was that the true religion should pros- per among them, and be communicated by them to all other nations. The ungodly part of the Jewish nation viewed things, it is true, in a different light; they valued themselves as the favourites of Heaven, and looked down upon other nations with contemptuous dislike. But it was otherwise with the godly; they entered into the spirit of the promise made to their fathers. Hence they prayed that God would “be merciful to them, and bless them, and cause his face to shine upon them ;” to the end, that his “way might be known upon earth, and his saving health among all nations.” The same spirit was manifested by the apostles and primitive Christians. They perceived that all that rich measure of gifts and graces by which they were distin- guished was given them with the design of their communi- cating it to others; and this was their constant aim. Paul felt himself a debtor both to Jews and Greeks, and spent his life in diffusing the blessings of the gospel, though in return he was continually treated as an evil-doer; and the same might be said of the other apostles. Nor is this social principle confined to the present life. According to Scripture representations, the happiness of saints in glory will be conferred on them, not that it might stop there, but be communicated to the whole moral sys- tem. The redemption of the church has already added to the blessedness of other holy intelligences. It has fur- nished a new medium by which the glory of the Divine perfections is beheld and admired. To explore the wis- dom of God in his works is the constant employment of holy angels, and that in which consists a large proportion of their felicity. Prior to the accomplishment of the work of redemption they contemplated the Divine character through the medium of creation and providence ; but “ now unto principalities and powers, in heavenly places, is known, by the church, the manifold wisdom of God.” || And so much does this last display of Divine glory exceed all that have gone before it, that those who have once ob- tained a view of it, through this medium, will certainly prefer it to every other; “which things the angels desire to look into.”" They do not, however, become indifferent to any of the Divine operations; creation and providence continue to attract their attention, and are abundantly more interesting ; they now study them according to the order in which they exist in the Divine mind, that is, in subserviency to redemption.** But that which is already accomplished is but small in comparison of what is in reserve. At the final judgment, when all the faithful will be collected together, they will become a medium through which the Lord Jesus will be glorifted and admired by the whole creation : “ He shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe—in that day.”ff. It is a truth that the saints of God will themselves glorify and admire their great Deliverer, but not the truth of this passage; the de- sign of which is to represent them as a medium through which he shall be glorified by all the friends of God in the universe. The great Physician will appear with his re- covered millions, every one of whom will afford evidence of his disinterested love, and efficacious blood, to the whole admiring creation. Much the same ideas are conveyed to us by those repre- sentations in which the whole creation are either called upon to rejoice on account of our redemption, or described as actually rejoicing and praising the Redeemer. Thus David, having spoken of God’s mercy which was from everlasting to everlasting towards the children of men, addresses ALL HIS WORKS, IN ALL PLACES OF HIs Dom(INION, “to bless his name.” if John also informs us, saying, “I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne, and the living creatures, and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thou- sands of thousands; saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing. | Eph. iii. 10. T 1 Pet. i. 12. ** Col. i. 16, by him, and for him. ++ 2 Thess. i. 10. # Psal. ciii. 17–22. 44 REDEMIPTION CONSISTENT WITH And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.” + The phraseology of these passages is such that no one can reasonably doubt whether the writers intended to express the whole upright intelligent creation, be it of what extent it may ; and if it be of that extent which philosophy supposes, the greater must be the influence and importance of the work of redemption. 5. The Scriptures give us to expect that the earth itself, as well as its redeemed inhabitants, shall at a future period be purifted, and reunited to the whole empire of God.—We are taught to pray, and consequently to hope, that, when “the kingdom of God.” shall universally prevail, “his will shall be done on earth as it is now in heaven; ” f but if so, earth itself must become, as it were, a part of heaven. That we may form a clear and comprehensive view of our Lord's words, and of this part of the subject, be it observed that the Scriptures sometimes distinguish between the kingdom of God and that of Christ. Though the ob- ject of both be the triumph of truth and righteousness, yet the mode of administration is different. The one is natural, the other delegated : the latter is in subserviency to the former, and shall be finally succeeded by it. Christ is represented as acting in our world by delegation ; as if a king had commissioned his son to go and reduce a certain rebellious province, and restore it to his dominion. The period allotted for this work extends from the time of the revelation of the promised Seed to the day of judgment. The operations are progressive. If it had seemed good in his sight, he could have overturned the power of Satan in a short period; but his wisdom saw fit to accomplish it by degrees. Like the commander of an invading army, he first takes possession of one post, then of another, then of a third, and so on, till by and by the whole coun- try falls into his hands. And as the progress of a conqueror would be more rapid after a few of the strongest fortresses had surrendered, (inasmuch as things would then approach fast to a crisis, to a breaking up, as it were, of the powers of the enemy,) so it has been with the kingdom of Christ, and such will be its progress before the end of time. In the early ages of the world but little was done. At one time true religion appears to have existed only in a few families. Afterwards it assumed a national appearance. After this it was addressed to all nations. And before the close of time all nations shall be subjected to the obe- dience of Christ. This shall be the “breaking up" of Satan’s empire. Now as, on the conquest of a rebellious province, the delegated authority of the conqueror would cease, and the natural government of the empire resume its original form, so Christ is represented as “delivering up the kingdom to his Father, that God may be all in all.”f . This is the ultimatum of the Messiah's kingdom; and this appears to be the ultimate object for which he taught his disciples to pray: but as the final end involves the preceding gradations which lead on to its accomplish- ment, in directing them to pray for the coming of God's kingdom, he directed them to pray for the present preva- lence of his own. As on the conquest of a rebellious province some would be pardoned, and others punished ; as every vestige of rebellion would be effaced, and law, peace, and order flow in their ancient channels; such a period might with pro- priety be termed “a restitution of all things.” $ Such will be the event of the last judgment, which is described as the concluding exercise of the delegated authority of Christ. And as on the conquest of a rebellious province, and the restitution of peace and order, that province, instead of being any longer separate from the rest of the empire, would become a component part of it, and the king's will would be done in it as it had been done without inter- ruption in the loyal part of his territories; such is the representation given with respect to our world, and the holy parts of God’s dominions. A period will arrive when * Rev, V. l I— 13. + Matt. vi. 10. 4 1 Cor. xv. 24. 28. the will of God shall be done on earth as it is now done in heaven. This, however, will never be the case while any vestige of moral evil remains. . It must be after the general conflagration ; which, though it will destroy every kind of evil, root and branch, that now prevails upon the face of the earth, and will terminate the generations of Adam, who have possessed it, yet will not so destroy the earth itself but that it shall survive its fiery trial, and, as I apprehend, become the everlasting abode of righteousness —a part of the holy empire of God. This was to be the mark on which the disciples were to keep their eye in all their prayers: but as, in desiring a perfect conformity to Christ in their own souls, they would necessarily desire the present progress of purity in the use of all the appointed means ; so in praying that God’s will might be perfectly done on earth, even as it is done in heaven, they would pray for the progressive prevalence of righteousness in the world, as that by which it should be accomplished. It is not improbable that the earth, thus purified, may ever continue the resort, if not the frequent abode, of those who are redeemed from it. . Places where some of the most interesting events have been transacted, when visited at some distance of time, often become, in the present state of things, a considerable source of delight. Such was Bethel to Jacob, and Tabor, no doubt, to the three disciples ; and if any remains of our present sensations should attend us in a state of immortality, a review of the scenes of our Lord’s birth, life, agony, and crucifixion, as well as many other events, may furnish a source of ever- lasting enjoyment. However this may be, the Scriptures give us to under- stand, that though “the elements shall melt with fervent heat, and the earth, and the works that are therein, shall be burnt up; ” yet, “according to promise,” we are to “ look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.”| By the “new heavens” here is plainly to be understood so much of the elements as shall have been affected by the general conflagration; and by “the new earth,” the earth after it is purified by it. Much to the same purpose is the account given towards the close of the Revelation of John. After a description of the general judgment, it follows, “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth ; for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away.—And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.” When the earth shall have become a part of God’s holy empire, heaven itself may then be said to be come down upon it ; seeing all that is now ascribed to the one will be true of the other. “Behold, the tabernacle of God shall be with men, and he will dwell with them ; and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and shall be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain; for the former things shall be passed away. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write ; for these words are true and faith- ful.” “I - If the great end of redemption be the reunion of this world to the holy empire of God, and if such reunion be accompanied with a mutual augmentation of blessedness, then the importance of the one must bear some propor- tion to the magnitude of the other. Upon any system of philosophy, redemption is great ; but upon that which so amazingly magnifies intelligent creation, it must be great beyond expression. 6. The Scriptures represent the punishment of the finally âmpenitent as appointed for an example to the rest of the creation.—“Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them, in giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”—“And her smoke ’’ (the smoke of Babylon) “rose up for ever and ever. And the four and twenty elders and the four living creatures fell down and worshipped God that sat on the throne, saying, Amen; Alleluia.”** - The miseries of the damned are never represented as ? Acts iii. 21. | 2 Pet. iii. 12, 13. TI Itev. xxi. 1–5. ** Jude 7; Rev. xix. 3, 4. THE MAGNITUDE OF CREATION. 45 inflicted upon them from such a kind of wrath or venge- ance as bears no relation to the general good. “God is love ;” and in none of his proceedings does he violate this principle, or lose sight of the well-being of creation in general. The manifestation of his glory is not only in- separably connected with this object, but consists in ac- complishing it. It is necessary for the general good that God’s abhor- rence of moral evil should be marked by some strong and durable expression of it, so that no one subject of his empire can overlook it. Such an expression was the death of Christ, his only begotten Son ; and this availeth on be- half of all who acquiesce in his salvation : but all who do not, or who possess not such a temper of heart as would acquiesce in it if it were presented to them, must them- selves be made sacrifices to his justice ; and so, like ene- mies and traitors to a human government, must be made to answer such an end by their death as shall counteract the ill example afforded by their life. What is said of the barren vine is applicable to the finally impenitent, “It is not fit for any work—it is good for nothing but to be burned "* The only way in which they promote the general good is by their overthrow ; like the censers of Korah and his company, which were made into “broad plates for a covering to the altar, that they might be a sign to the children of Israel in future generations;”f or like Lot's wife, who was converted into a “pillar of salt,” or a lasting monument of Divine displeasure : If the grand end of future punishment be easample, this must suppose the existence of an intelligent creation, who shall profit by it; and it should seem of a creation of mag- nitude; as it accords with the conduct of neither God nor man to punish a great number for an example to a few. This truth affords a satisfactory idea of the Divine go- vernment, whether there be a multiplicity of inhabited worlds or not ; but if there be, it is still more satisfactory; as on this supposition the number of those who shall be finally lost may bear far less proportion to the whole of the intelligent creation than a single execution to the in- habitants of a great empire. It is true the loss to those who are lost will be nothing abated by this consideration ; perhaps, on the contrary, it may be augmented ; and to them the Divine government will ever appear gloomy: but to those who judge of things impartially, and upon an ex- tensive scale, it will appear to contain no more of a dis- paragement to the government of the universe than the execution of a murderer, once in a hundred years, would be to the government of a nation. And now I appeal to the intelligent, the serious, and the candid reader, whether there be any truth in what Mr. Paine asserts, that to admit “ that God created a plurality of worlds, at least as numerous as what we call stars, renders the Christian system of faith at once little and ridiculous, and scatters it in the mind like feathers in the air.” On the contrary, it might be proved that every system of philosophy is little in comparison of Christianity. Philosophy may expand our ideas of creation ; but it neither inspires a love to the moral character of the Cre- ator, nor a well-grounded hope of eternal life. Philosophy, at most, can only place us at the top of Pisgah : there, like Moses, we must die; it gives us no possession of the good land. It is the province of Christianity to add, “All is yours : " When you have ascended to the height of human discovery, there are things, and things of infinite moment too, that are utterly beyond its reach. Revelation is the medium, and the only medium, by which, standing, as it were, “on nature’s Alps,” we discover things which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, and of which it never hath entered into the heart of man to conceive. CONCLUDING ADDRESSES TO DEISTS, JEWS, AND CHRISTIANS. Whether the writer of these sheets can justly hope that what he advances will attract the attention of unbelievers, he does not pretend to say. If, however, it should fall into the hands of individuals among them, he earnestly entreats that, for their own sakes, they would attend to what follows with seriousness. TO DEIST.S. FELLOW MEN, IT is hoped that nothing in the preceding pages can be fairly construed into a want of good-will towards any of you. If I know my heart, it is not you, but your mis- chievous principles, that are the objects of my dislike. In the former part of this performance, I have endea- youred to prove that the system which you embrace over- looks the moral character of God, refuses to worship him, affords no standard of right and wrong, undermines the most efficacious motives to virtuous action, actually pro- duces a torrent of vice, and leaves mankind, under all their miseries, to perish without hope; in fine, that it is an im- moral system, pregnant with destruction to the human race. Unless you be able to overlook what is there ad- * Ezek. xv. 2–5. + Numb. xvi. 38. vanced, or at least be conscious that it is not true with re- gard to yourselves, you have reason to be seriously alarmed. To embrace a system of immorality is the same thing as to be enemies to all righteousness, neither to fear God nor regard man; and what good fruit you can expect to reap from it, in this world or another, it is difficult to conceive. But, alas ! instead of being alarmed at the immorality of your principles, is there no reason to suspect that it is on this very account you cherish them 3 You can occasionally praise the morality of Jesus Christ ; but are you sincere ? Why then do you not walk by it 3 However you may magnify other difficulties, which you have industriously laboured to discover in the Bible, your actions declare that it is the holiness of its doctrines and precepts that more than any thing else offend you. The manifest object at which you aim, both for yourselves and the world, is an exemption from its restraints. Your general conduct, if put into words, amounts to this: “Come, let us break his bands, and cast away his cords from us.” Circumstances of late years have much favoured your 46 ADDRESS TO DEISTs. design. Your party has gained the ascendency in a great nation, and has been consequently increasing in other na- tions. Hence it is, perhaps, that your spirits are raised, and that a higher tone is assumed in your speeches and writings than has been usual on former occasions. You are great, you are enlightened; yes, you have found out the secret, and have only to rid the world of Christianity in order to render it happy. But be not too confident. You are not the first who have set themselves against the Lord, and against his Anointed. You have overthrown superstition; but vaunt not against Christianity. Of a truth you have destroyed the gods of Rome, for they were no gods; but let this suffice you. It is hard to kick against the pricks. Whatever success may attend your cause, if it be an immoral one, and espoused on that very account, it cannot possibly stand. It must fall, and you may expect to be buried in its ruins. It may be thought sufficient for me to reason on the system itself, without descending to the motives of those who imbibe it; but where motives are manifested by actions, they become objects of human cog- nizance. Nor is there any hope of your unbelief being removed, but by something that shall reach the cause of it. My desire is neither to insult nor flatter, but seriously to expostulate with you; if God peradventure may give you repentance to the acknowledgment of the truth. Three things, in particular, I would earnestly recommend to your serious consideration. How it was that you first imbibed your present principles—How it is that almost all your writers, at one time or other, bear testimony in favour of Christianity—and How it comes to pass that your prin- ciples fail you, as they are frequently known to do, in a dying hour. First, How WAS IT THAT You FIRST RENounced CHRIS- TIANITY, AND IMBIBED You R PRESENT PRINCIPLEs Re- trace the process of your minds, and ask your consciences, as you proceed, whether all was fair and upright. Nothing is more common than for persons of relaxed morals to at- tribute their change of conduct to a change of sentiments or views relative to those subjects. It is galling to one’s own feelings, and mean in the account of others, to act against principle ; but if a person can once persuade himself to think favourably of those things which he has formerly accounted sinful, and can furnish a plea for them, which, at least, may serve to parry the censures of mankind, he will feel much more at ease, and be able to put on a bet- ter face when he mingles in society. Whatever inward stings may annoy his peace under certain occasional qualms, yet he has not to reproach himself, nor can others re- proach him, with that inconsistency of character as in former instances. Rousseau confesses he found, in the reasonings of a certain lady, with whom he lived in the greatest possible familiarity, all those ideas which he had occasion for.—Have you not found the same in the con- versation and writings of deists? Did you not, previously to your rejection of Christianity, indulge in vicious courses; and while indulging in these courses, did not its holy precepts and awful threatenings gall your spirits? Were you not like persons gathering forbidden fruit amidst showers of arrows; and had you not recourse to your pre- sent principles for a shield against them 3 If you cannot honestly answer these questions in the negative, you are in an evil case. You may flatter yourselves, for a while, that perhaps there may be no hereafter, or at least no judgment to come ; but you know the time is not far dis- tant when you must go and see ; and then, if you should be mistaken, what will you do? Many of you have descended from godly parents, and have had a religious education. Has not your infidelity arisen from the dislike which you conceived in early life to religious exercises Family worship was a weariness to you ; and the cautions, warnings, and counsels which were given you, instead of having any proper effect, only irritated your corruptions. You longed to be from under the yoke. Since that time your parents, it may be, have been removed by death; or if they live, they may have lost their control over you. So now you are free. But still something is wanting to erase the prejudices of educa- • Works, Vol. IV. pp. 394, 395; Vol. W. pp. 188, 189. tion, which, in spite of all your efforts, will accompany you, and imbitter your present pursuits. For this pur- pose, a friend puts into your hands The Age of Reason, or some production of the kind. You read it with avidity. This is the very thing you wanted. You have long sus- pected the truth of Christianity, but had not courage to oppose it. Now then you are a philosopher; yes, a philo- pher “Our fathers,” say you, “might be well-meaning people, but they were imposed upon by priests. The world gets more enlightened now-a-days. There is no need of such rigidness. The Supreme Being (if there be one) can never have created the pleasures of life but for the pur- pose of enjoyment. Avaunt, ye self-denying casuists : Nature is the law of man ’’ Was not this, or something nearly resembling it, the process of your minds? And are you now satisfied ? I do not ask whether you have been able to defend your cause against assailants, nor whether you have gained con- verts to your way of thinking : you may have done both ; but are you satisfied with yourselves 3 Do you really be- lieve yourselves to be in the right way? Have you no misgivings of heart? Is there not something within you which occasionally whispers, “My parents were right- eous, and I am wicked : oh that my soul were in their souls’ stead 3” Ah, young men l if such be the occasional revoltings of your mind, what are you doing in labouring to gain others over to your way of thinking 3 Can you from experience honestly promise them peace of mind? Can you go about to persuade them that there is no hell, when, if you would speak the truth, you must acknowledge that you have al- ready an earnest of it kindled in your bosoms? If coun- sels were not lost upon you, I would entreat you to be contented with destroying your own souls. Have pity on your fellow creatures, if you have none upon yourselves. Nay, spare yourselves so much, at least, as not to incur the everlasting execrations of your most intimate acquaintance. If Christianity should prove what your consciences in your most serious moments tell you it is, you are doing this every day of your lives. Secondly, Consider How IT IS THAT ALMosT ALL YoUR WRITERS, AT ONE TIME OR OTHER, BEAR TESTIMONY IN FAvour of CHRISTIANITY. It were easy to collect, from those very writings which were designed to undermine the Christian religion, hundreds of testimonies in its favour. Voltaire and Rousseau, as we have seen already, have in their fits gone far towards contradicting all which they have written against it. Bolingbroke has done the same. Such sentences as the following may be found in his pub- lications: “Supposing Christianity to have been a human invention, it has been the most amiable invention that was ever imposed on mankind for their good.-Christianity, as it came out of the hand of God, if I may use the expression, was a most simple and intelligible rule of belief, worship, and manners, which is the true notion of a religion.—The gospel is in all cases one continued lesson of the strictest morality, of justice, of benevolence, and of universal charity.” + Paine, perhaps, has said as little in this way as any of your writers, yet he has professed a respect for the character of Jesus Christ. “He was,” says he, “a virtuous and an amiable man. The morality he preached and practised was of the most benevolent kind.”f In what manner will you go about to account for these concessions Christian writers, those at least who are sincerely attached to the cause, are not seized with these fits of inconsistency. How is it that yours, like the wor- shippers of Baal, should thus be continually cutting them- selves with knives You must either give up your lead- ers as a set of men who, while they are labouring to persuade the world of the hypocrisy of priests, were them- selves the most infamous of all hypocrites; or, which will be equally fatal to your cause, you must attribute it to oc- casional convictions, which they felt and expressed, though contrary to the general strain of their writings. Is it not an unfavourable character of your cause, that in this par- ticular it exactly resembles that of vice itself? Vicious men will often bear testimony in favour of virtue, espe- cially on the near approach of death; but virtuous men + Age of Reason, Part I. p. 5. ADDRESS TO DEISTS. 47 never return the compliment by bearing testimony in fa- vour of vice. We are not afraid of Christians thus betray- ing their cause ; but neither your writers nor your con- sciences are to be trusted in a serious hour. Thirdly, Consider How IT comes To PASS THAT YOUR PRINCIPLES FAIL YOU, AS THEY ARE FREQUENTLY KNOWN To Do, IN A DYING Hour. It is a rule with wise men, “so to live as they shall wish they had when they come to die.” How do you suppose you shall wish you had lived in that day? Look at the deaths of your greatest men, and see what their principles have done for them at last. Mark the end of that apostle and high priest of your profession, Voltaire ; and try if you can find in it either integrity, or hope, or any thing that should render it an object of envy.” Why is it that so many of you faint in the day of trial? If your cause were good, you would defend it with uprightness, and die with inward satisfaction. But is it so 3 Mr. Paine flatters himself that his principles will bear him up in the prospect of death ; f and it is possible that he may brave it out in some such manner as David Hume did. Such instances, however, are rare. . For one unbeliever that maintains his courage, many might be produced whose hearts have failed them, and who have trembled for the consequences of their infidelity. On the other hand, you cannot produce a single instance of a Christian, who at the approach of death was troubled or terrified in his conscience for having been a Christian. Many have been afraid in that day lest their faith in Christ should not prove genuine ; but who that has put his trust in him was ever known to be apprehensive lest he should at last deceive him 3 Can you account for this difference 3 If you have discovered the true religion, and ours be all fable and imposture, how comes it to pass that the issue of things is what it is ? Do gold, and silver, and precious stones perish in the fire? and do wood, and hay, and stubble endure it 3 I have admitted that Mr. Paine may possibly brave it out to the last ; but if he does, his courage may be merely assumed. Pride will induce men to disguise the genuine feelings of their hearts on more occasions than one. We hear much of courage among duellists ; but little credit is due to what they say, if, while the words proceed from their lips, we see them approach each other with paleness and trembling. Yea more, if Mr. Paine's courage in death be not different from what it already is in the prospect of it, it certainly will be merely assumed. He has given full proof of what his courage amounts to in what he has ad- vanced on the certainty of a future state. He acknow- ledges the possibility of a future judgment; yea, he admits It to be rational to believe that there will be one. “The Power,” he says, “that called us into being, can, if he please, and when he pleases, call us to account for the manner in which we have lived here ; and therefore, with- out seeking any further motive for the belief, it is rational to believe that he will, for we know beforehand that he can.” # I shall not stop to inquire into the justness of Mr. Paine's reasoning, from what God can do to what he will do ; it is sufficient for me that he admits it to be “rational to believe that God will call men to account for the manner in which they have lived here.” And can he admit this truth, and not tremble 3 Mark his firmness. After acknowledging that a future judgment is the object of rational belief, he retracts what he has said by reducing it to only a probability, which is to have the influence of lelief; yea, and as if that were too terrible an idea, he brings it down to a mere possibility. The reason which he gives for these reductions is, that “if we knew it as a fact, we should be the mere slaves of terror.” Indeed But wherefore ? Christians believe in a judgment to come, and they are not the slaves of terror. They have an * The following particulars, among many others, are recorded of this writer by his biographer, Condorcet, a man after his own heart. First, That he conceived the design of overturning the Christian re- ligion, and that by his own hand. “I am wearied,” said he, “of hearing it repeated that twelve men were sufficient to establish Chris- tianity; and I wish to prove there needs but one to destroy it.” Secondly, That in pursuit of this object he was threatened with a per- secution, to avoid which he received the sacrament, and publicly de- clared his respect for the church, and his disdain of his detractors, namely, those who had called in question his Christianity I Thirdly, Advocate as well as a Judge, by believing in whom the terror of judgment is removed. And though Mr. Paine rejects this ground of consolation, yet if things be as he has represented them, I do not perceive why he should be terrified. He writes as though he stood on a very respect- able footing with his Creator; he is not “an outcast, a beggar, or a worm ; ” he needs no mediator: no indeed . He “stands in the same relative condition with his Maker he ever did stand since man existed.” $ Very well: of what then is he afraid? “God is good, and will exceed the very best of us in goodness.” On this ground, Lord Shaftesbury assures us, “Deists can have no dread or sus- picion to render them uneasy ; for it is malice only, and not goodness, which can make them afraid.” || Very well, I say again, of what then is Mr. Paine afraid : If a Being full of goodness will not hurt him, he will not be hurt. Why should he be terrified at a certain hereafter. Why not meet his Creator with cheerfulness and confidence 3 Instead of this, he knows of no method by which he may be exempted from terror but that of reducing future judg- ment to a mere possibility; leaving room for some faint hope, at least, that what he professes to believe as true may, in the end, prove false. Such is the courage of your blustering hero. Unhappy man ; unhappy people ! Your principles will not support you in death, nor so much as in the contemplation of an hereafter. Let Mr. Paine’s hypothesis be admitted, and that in its lowest form, that there is only a possibility of a judgment to come, this is sufficient to evince your folly, and, if you thought on the subject, to destroy your peace. This alone has induced many of you in your last moments to wish that you had lived like Christians. If it be possible that there may be a judgment to come, why should it not be equally possible that Christianity itself may be true And if it should, on what ground do you stand 2 If it be otherwise, Christians have nothing to fear. While they are taught to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, and to live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world, whatever may prove true with respect to another, it is presumed they are safe ; but if that Saviour whom you have despised should be indeed the Son of God—if that name which you have blasphemed should be the only one given under heaven and among men by which you can be saved—what a situation must you be in You may wish at present not to be told of him ; yea, even in death it may be a vexation, as it was to Voltaire, to hear of him; but hear of him you must, and, what is more, you must appear before him. I cannot conclude this address without expressing my earnest desire for your salvation; and whether you will hear, or whether you will forbear, reminding you that our Redeemer is merciful. He can have compassion on the ignorant, and them who are out of the way. The door of mercy is not yet shut. At present you are invited and even entreated to enter in. But if you still continue hardened against him, you may find to your cost that the abuse of mercy gives an edge to justice ; and that to be crushed to atoms by falling rocks, or buried in oblivion at the bottom of mountains, were rather to be chosen than an exposure to the wrath of the Lamb. TO THE JEWS. BELOVED FOR THE FATHERS’ SAIXES 1 HE whom you have long rejected looked upon Jerusalem and wept over it. With tears he pronounced upon that That in his last illness, in Paris, being desirous of obtaining what is called Christian burial, he sent for a priest, to whom he declared that he “ died in the catholic faith, in which he was born.” Fourthly, That another priest (curate of the parish) troubled him with questions. Among other things he asked, “Do you believe the Divinity of Jesus Christ?” “In the name of God, sir,” replied Voltaire, “speak to me no more of that man, but let me die in peace.” + Age of Reason, Part II. Preface. # Age of Reason, Part II. p. 100. * Age of Reason, Part I. p. 21. | Characteristics, Vol. I. : 5, 48 A DIDRESS TO THE JEWS. famous city a doom, which, according to your own writer, Josephus, was soon afterwards accomplished. In imitation of our Lord and Saviour, we also could weep over your present situation. There are thousands in Britain, as well as in other nations, whose daily prayer is, that you may be saved. Hear me patiently and candidly. Your present and everlasting good is the object of my desire. It is not my design, in this brief address, to go over the various topics in dispute between us. Many have engaged in this work, and I hope to some good purpose. The late addresses to you, both from the pulpit and the press, as they were dictated by pure benevolence, certainly deserve, and I trust have gained, in some degree, your candid at- tention. All I shall say will be comprised in a few sug- gestions, which I suppose to arise from the subject of the preceding pages. You have long sojourned among men who have been called Christians. You have seen much evil in them, and they have seen much in you. The history of your own nation, and that of every other, confirms one of the leading doctrines of both your and our Scriptures—the depravity of human nature. But in your commerce with mankind, you must have had opportunity of distinguishing between nominal and serious Christians. Great numbers in your Ination, even in its best days, were wicked men; and great numbers in every nation, at present, are the same. But cannot you perceive a people scattered through various denominations of Christians, who fear God and regard man ; who, instead of treating you with a haughty con- tempt, as being strangers scattered among the nations, discover a tender regard towards you on that very account; who, while they are grieved for the hardness of your hearts, and hurt at your scornful rejection of Him whom their soul loveth, are nevertheless ardently desirous of your sal- vation ? Are you not acquainted with Christians whose utmost revenge, could they have their will of you, for all your hard speeches, would be to be instrumental in turning you, from what they believe to be the power of Satan, unto God 3 Let me further appeal to you, Whether Christians of this description be not the true children of Abraham, the true successors of your patriarchs and prophets, rather than those of an opposite spirit, though literally descended from their loins. You must be aware that, even in the times of David, a genuine Israelite was a man of a pure heart; and, in the times of the prophets, apostate Israelites were accounted as “Ethiopians.”* Your ancestors were men of whom the world was not worthy: but where will you now look for such characters among you as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ; as Samuel, David, Hezekiah, and Josiah; as Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and many others? While you garnish their sepulchres, have you not manifestly lost their spirit This is a fact that ought to alarm you, and lead you seriously to examine whether you have not forsaken their faith. One thing, which has particularly struck my mind, I would earnestly recommend to your consideration; namely, the temper of modern infidels towards your fathers, towards you, and towards us. You need not be told that deistical writers invariably treat your fathers with scorn and dislike. Just as Appion and other Greek writers poured contempt upon your na- tion ; just as the more ancient “Moabites” reproached and “proudly magnified themselves against the people of the Lord of hosts;”f so do all our modern infidels. But from the time that your fathers rejected Him in whom we believe as the Lord Messiah, though you have been ex- posed to the chastisements of Heaven, and to much injuri- ous treatment from pretended Christians; yet deists, the common enemies of revelation, have been, comparatively speaking, reconciled to you. So, however, it appears to me. I do not recollect to have met with a single reflec- tion upon you in any of their writings. On the contrary, they seem to feel themselves near akin to you. Your en- mity to Jesus seems to be the price of their forgiveness : like Herod and Pontius Pilate, you became friends in the day of his crucifixion. Mr. Paine, though his writings abound in Sneers against your nation prior to its rejection * Amos iz. 7. ? Psal. xxii. 8; iv. 2; xlii. 3; xl. 15. || Psal. lxix. 10; cxv.2; Joel ii. 17; Micah vii. 8–10; Isa. lxvi. 5. + Zeph. ii. 10. # Age of Iłeason, Part I. pp. 6, 7. being stolen away.f of Christ, yet appears to be well reconciled to you, and willing to admit your lame account of the body of Jesus Ought you not to be alarmed at these things 3. Seriously examine whether you have not forsaken the God of your fathers, and become the friends and allies of men who hate both him and them. The hatred of infidels has long been transferred from you to us. Whether, in the language of the New Testament, we be the true “children of Abraham,” or not, we in- herit that reproach and dislike from unbelievers which was heretofore the portion of the godly Israelites. On what account were your fathers hated by the practical atheists of their day ? Was it not because of their devotedness to God? It was this in David that provoked the resentment of the children of Belial, and rendered them his determined enemies. They were continually jeering at his prayers, his tears, and his trust in Jehovah ; turning that which in reality was his glory into shame ; and afflicting him in his affliction, by scornfully inquiring, “Where is thy God?”; Such is the treatment which the godly part of your nation received in all ages, both from heathems abroad and im- pious characters at home ; || and such is the treatment which serious Christians continue to receive from ungodly men to this day; but are you hated and reproached on this accozzzzt 2 Of late years it has been frequently pleaded that the principal objections to your embracing the Christian re- ligion are found in the doctrines of the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, and atonement by his death ; doctrines which the greater part of Christians hold to be taught in the New Testament. But those who impute your conduct to these causes must have nearly as mean an opinion of your rationality as they have of ours, with whom, they say, “ there is no reasoning; and that we are to be pitied, and considered as under a debility of mind in one respect, however sensible and rational in others.”'ſ What have the principles, which in our judgment are taught in the New Testament, to do with your acknowledging Jesus to be the Messiah, and the Christian religion to be of God? Let these positions be admitted, and examine the New Testament for yourselves. If you were not considered as possessing a sufficient degree of good sense to distinguish between Christianity and the creed of any particular party of Christians, it is surprising that “rational Christians” should think of writing addresses to you. For our parts, we could almost be satisfied that you should decide the controversy, whether the doctrines before mentioned be taught in the New Testament, or not. As to removing these stumbling-blocks, as some call them, out of your way, we have no inclination to attempt it. Only imbibe the spirit of your ancestors, and they will presently cease to be stumbling-blocks. Believe Moses, and you will be- lieve Jesus; and, believing Jesus, neither his claiming to be the “Son of God,” and consequently “equal with God,” nor his insisting upon his “flesh being the life of the world,” will offend you. On the contrary, whenever the Spirit of grace and of supplications is poured out upon you, and you come to look on Him whom you have pierced, and mourn, you will join in the worship of him ; and the doctrine of atonement will be to you a fountain set open for sin and uncleanness.” You live in expectation of being restored to your own land. We expect the same thing, and rejoice in the belief of it. The Old and the New Testament agree in predict- ing it.ff But the same prophets that have foretold your return to Canaan have also foretold that you must be brought to “repent of your sins, and to seek Jehovah your God, and David your king.”: Your holy land will avail you but little, unless you be a holy people. Finally, You admit, I suppose, that though we should err in believing Jesus to be the Messiah, yet while we deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, and live soberly, righteous- ly, and godly, in this present world, it is an error that may not affect our eternal salvation : but if the error be on your side, on what ground do you stand 4 Your fathers, in this case, were murderers of the Prince of life ; and, by adopting their principles, you make the deed your own. "I Lindsey's Catechists, Hºly 6. ** Zech. xii. 10–14; xiii. 1. ++ Ezek. xxxvii.; Luke xxi. 24. # Hos. iii. 5. ADDRESS TO CHRISTIANS. 49 His blood lies upon you, and upon your children. The terrible destruction of your city by the Romans, and the hardness of heart to which you have been given up, are symptoms of that wrath which is come upon you to the uttermost. Repent, and believe the gospel, that you may escape the wrath to come ! TO CHRISTIANS. BELovED BRETHREN . IT is witnessed of David, that he “ served the will of God in his generation.” Every generation has its pecu- liar work. The present age is distinguished, you know, by the progress of infidelity. We have long been ex- empted from persecution ; and He whose fan is in his hand, perceiving his floor to stand in need of purging, seems de- termined by new trials to purge it. The present is a winnowing time. If we wish to serve the will of God in it, we must carefully attend to those duties which such a state of things imposes upon us. In the first place, Let us look well to the sincerity of our hearts; and see to it that our Christianity is vital, practical, and decided. An army called to engage after a long peace requires to be examined, and every one should examine himself. Many become soldiers when danger is at a distance. The mighty host of Midianites were overcome by a selected band. A proclamation was issued through the army of Israel, “Whosoever is fearful and afraid, let him return ;” and after a great diminution from coward- ice, the rest must be brought down to the water to be tried. Such, or nearly such, may be the trials of the church : those who overcome may be reduced to a small company in comparison of those who have borne the Christian name. So indeed the Scriptures inform us. They that obtain the victory with Christ are “called, and chosen, and faithful.” + The manner in which things of late ages have moved on, in the religious world, has been such as to admit of a larger outer-court, if I may so speak, for a sort of half worshippers. A general religious reputation has been hitherto obtained at a small expense. But should infidelity prevail throughout Christendom, as it has in France, the nominal extent of the Christian church will be greatly reduced. In taking its dimensions, the outer-court will, as it were, be left out and given to the Gentiles. In this case, you must come in or keep out; be ome thing or another; a decided friend of Christ, or an avowed infidel. It is possible the time may come when all parties will be reduced, in effect, to two—believers and wnbelievers. “Never,” says a late masterly and moving writer, “were times more eventful and critical than at present; never were appearances more singular and interesting, in the political or in the religious world. You behold, on the one hand, infidelity with dreadful irruption extending its ravages far and wide ; and, on the other, an amazing accession of zeal and activity to the cause of Christianity. Error in all its forms is assiduously and successfully pro- pagated; but the progress of evangelical truth is also great. The number of the apparently neutral party daily dimin- ishes ; and men are now either becoming worshippers of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, or receding fast through the mists of scepticism into the dreary regions of speculative and practical atheism. It seems as if Chris- tianity and infidelity were mustering each the host of the battle, and preparing for some great day of God. The enemy is come in like a flood; but the Spirit of the Lord hath lifted up a standard against him. “Who, then, * Rev. xvii. 14. + Ferrier's Two Discourses at Paisley, in June, 1798. # Rev. xvii. 8. 11. * & & Dan, vii. 26, 27. The writer has since read a very able discourse is on the Lord’s side 3 who 7–Let him come frth to the help of the Lord, to the help of the Lord against the mighty " ' " + Secondly, Let a good understanding be cultivated among sincere Christians of different denominations. Let the friends of Christ know one another; and let not slighter shades of difference keep them at variance. The enemies of Christianity know how to avail themselves of our dis- cords. The union which is here recommended, however, is not a merely nominal one, much less one that requires a sacrifice of principle. Let us unite, so far as we can act in concert, in promoting the interest of Christ ; and hold ourselves open to conviction with regard to other things. Let not the free discussion of our differences be laid aside, or any such connexion formed as shall require it ; only let them be conducted with modesty, frankness, and candour, and the godly will find their account in them. Let it be the great concern of all, not so much to maintain their own peculiarities, as to know and practise the truth ; not so much to yield, and come nearer to other denominations, as to approximate towards the mind of Christ. The mind of Christ, as expressed in his doctrines and precepts, must be the central point in which we meet: as we approach this, we shall come nearer to each other. So much agreement as there is among us, so much is there of union ; and so much agreement as there is in the mind of Christ, so much of Christian union. Finally, Let not the heart of any man fail him, on ac- count of the high tone and scornful airs assumed by in- fidels. The reign of infidelity may be extensive, but it must be short. It carries in it the seeds of its own disso- lution. Its immoralities are such that the world cannot long sustain them. Scripture prophecy has clearly foretold all the great governments of the world, from the time of the Jewish captivity to this day—the Babylonian, Persian, Macedonian, and Roman ; together with the ten king- doms into which the last of these empires has been di- vided, and the papal government which sprung up among them ; but it makes no explicit mention of this. It has no individual subsistence given it in the system of pro- phecy. It is not a “beast,” but a mere putrid excrescence of the papal beast—an excrescence which, though it may diffuse death through every vein of the body on which it grew, yet shall die along with it. “The beast,” and all which pertains to him, “goeth into perdition.” . There is no space of time allowed for this government : no sooner is it said, “Babylon is fallen,” than voices are heard in heaven declaring that “the marriage of the Lamb is come.” No sooner does “the judgment sit, to take away the dominion of the little horn, to consume and to destroy it unto the end,” than it follows, “And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High.” $ Popery is not yet destroyed, though it has received a deadly blow ; and from what is said of the little horn, that they shall take away his dominion, “to consume and to destroy it unto the end,” it should seem that its over- throw will be gradual. While this is accomplishing, the reign of infidelity may continue, with various success ; but no longer. Only let us “watch and keep our gar- ments clean,” (a caution given, it is probable, with imme- diate reference to the present times,) and we have nothing to fear. It is a source of great consolation that the last of the four beasts, which for more than two thousand years have persecuted the church, and oppressed mankind, is drawing near to its end. The government that shall next prevail will be that of Christ, “whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him. Even so, Amen. Blessed be his glorious name for ever; and let the whole earth be filled with his glory; Amen, and Amen : * by Mr. Nathan Strong, of Hertford, Connecticut, entitled, “Political lmstructions from the Prophecies of God's Word ;” in which the above sentiments are stated with great force of evidence. THE CALVINISTIC ANT) SOCINIAN SYSTEMS EXAMINED AND COMPARED, AS TO THEIR MORAL TENDENCY, IN A SERIES OF LETTERs, ADDRESSED TO THE FRIENDS OF VITAL AND PRACTICAL RELIGION. TO WIHICH IS ADDED A POSTS CR IPT, ESTABLISHING THE PRINCIPLE of THE work, AGAINST THE EXCEPTIONS OF DR. ToULMIN, MR. BELSHAM, &c., PREFACE. THE following Letters are addressed to the friends of vital and practical religion, because the author is persuaded that the very essence of true piety is concerned in this controversy; and that godly men are the only proper judges of Divine truth, being the only humble, upright, and earnest inquirers after it. So far from thinking, with Dr. Priestley, that “an unbiassed temper of mind is attained in consequence of becoming more indifferent to religion in general, and to all the modes and doctrines of it,” he is satisfied that persons of that description have a most powerful bias against the truth. Though it were admitted that false principles, accompanied with a bigoted attachment to them, are worse than none ; yet he cannot admit that irreligious men are destitute of principles. He has no notion of human minds being unoccupied or indifferent : he that is not a friend to religion in any mode is an enemy to it in all modes ; he is a liber- time ; he “doeth evil,” and therefore “hateth the light.” And shall we compliment such a character, by acknowledg- ing him to be in “a favourable situation for distinguishing between truth and falsehood 3” + God forbid! It is “he that doeth his will that shall know of his doctrine.” The humble, the candid, the upright inquirers after truth are the persons who are likely to find it ; and to them the author takes the liberty to appeal. The principal occasion of these Letters was the late union among Protestant Dissenters, in reference to civil affairs, having been the source of various misconceptions, and, as the writer apprehends, improved as a means of disseminating Socinian principles. In the late application to parliament, for the repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts, the Dissenters have united, without any respect to their doctrinal principles. They considered that they were applying merely for a civil right; and that, in such an application, difference in theological sentiments had no more concern than it has in the union of a nation under one civil head, or form of government. This union, however, has become an occasion of many reflections. Serious men of the Established Church have expressed their surprise that some Dissenters could not unite with others, so opposite in their religious principles; and, had the union been of a religious nature, it must, indeed, have been surprising. Others have supposed that the main body of Dissenters had either imbibed the Socinian system, or were hastily approaching towards it. Whether the suggestion of Dr. Horsley, that “the genuine Calvinists, among our modern Dissenters, are very few,” has contributed to this opinion, or whatever be its origin, it is far from being just. Every one who knows the Dissenters knows that the body of them are what is commonly called orthodox. Dr. Priestley, who is well known to be sufficiently sanguine in estimating the numbers of his party—so sanguine that, when speaking of the common people of this country, he reckons “nine out of ten of them would prefer a Unitarian to a Trinitarian liturgy;” f yet acknowledges, in regard to the Dissenters, that Unitarians are by far the minority. In Birmingham, where the proportion of their number to the rest of the Dissenters is greater than in any other town in the kingdom, it appears, from Dr. Priestley’s account of the matter, that those called orthodox are nearly three to one ; and throughout England and Wales they have been sup- posed to be “as two, if not as three to one, to the Socinians and Arians inclusive.”f * Discourses on Various Subjects, p. 95. + Defence of Unitarianism, for 1786, p. 61. # See Dr. Priestley's Familiar Letters to the Inhabitants of Birmingham, Letters III. XI. Also Mr. Parry's Remarks on the Resolutions of the Warwick Meeting. BREFACE. 51 If Dr. Horsley found it necessary, in support of his cause, to overturn Dr. Priestley's assertion, that “great bodies of men do not change their opinions in a small space of time,” some think he might have found an example, more to his purpose than that of the body of Dissenters having deserted their former principles, in the well-known change of the major part of the Church of England, who, about the time of Archbishop Laud, went off from Calvinism to Arminian- ism. Had this example been adduced, his antagonist might have found some difficulty in maintaining his ground against him, as it is an undoubted fact, and a fact which he himself acknowledges, with several others of the kind.* The supposition, however, of the Dissenters being generally gone, or going off, to Socinianism, though far from just, has not been without its apparent grounds. The consequence which Socinians have assumed, in papers and pamphlets which have been circulated about the country, has afforded room for such a supposition. It has not been very uncom- mon for them to speak of themselves as THE Dissent ERs, THE MODERN DISSENTERs, &c. It was said, in a paper that was published more than once, “The ancient, like the modern Dissenters, worshipped one God; they knew nothing of the Nicene or Athanasian creeds.” The celebrated authoress of The Address to the Opposers of the Repeal of the Cor- poration and Test Acts is not clear in this matter. That otherwise admirable performance is tinged with the pride of party consequence. “We thank you, gentlemen,” she says, “for the compliment paid the Dissent ERs, when you suppose that, the moment they are eligible to places of power and profit, all such places will at once be filled with them. We had not the presumption to imagine that, inconsiderable as we are in numbers, compared to the Established Church ; inferior, too, in fortune and influence ; labouring, as we do, under the frowns of the court and THE ANATHEMA of THE ORTHODox; we should make our way so readily into the recesses of royal favour.” Even the Monthly Reviewers, though they have borne testimony against mingling doctrinal disputes with those of the repeal of the Test laws, f yet have sometimes spoken of Dissenters and Socinians as if they were terms of the same meaning and extent. “It appears to us as absurd,” they say, “to charge the religious principles of THE DISSENTERs with republicanism, as it would be to advance the same accusation against the Newtonian philosophy. The doctrine of gravitation may as well be deemed dangerous to the state as SocINIANISM.” f Is it unnatural, from such representations as these, for those who know but little of us to consider the Socinians as constituting the main body of the Dissenters, and the Calvinists as only a few stragglers, who follow these leading men at a distance in all their measures; but whose numbers and consequence are so small, that even the mention of their names, among Protestant Dissenters, may very well be omitted ? This, however, as it only affects our reputation, or, at most, can only impede the repeal of the Test laws, by strength- ening a prejudice, too strong already, against the whole body of Dissenters, might be overlooked. But this is not all; it is pretty evident that the union among us, in civil matters, has been improved for the purpose of disseminating religious principles. At one of the most public meetings for the repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts, as the author was credibly informed, Socinian peculiarities were advanced, which passed unnoticed, because those of contrary principles did not choose to interrupt the harmony of the meeting, by turning the attention of gentlemen from the immediate object for which they were assembled. What end could Dr. Priestley have in introducing so much about the Test Act in his controversy with Mr. Burn, on the person of Christ, except it were to gild the pill, and make it go down the easier with Calvinistic Dissenters ? The writer of these Letters does not blame the Dissenters of his own persuasion for uniting with the Socinians. In civil matters, he thinks it lawful to unite with men, be their religious principles what they may ; but he, and many others, would be very sorry if a union of this kind should prove an occasion of abating our zeal for those religious prin- ciples which we consider as being of the very essence of the gospel. The term Socinians is preferred in the following Letters to that of Unitarians, not for the mean purpose of reproach, but because the latter name is not a fair one. The term, as constantly explained by themselves, signifies those professors of Christianity who worship but one God; but this is not that wherein they can be allowed to be distinguished from others. For what professors of Christianity are there who profess to worship a plurality of Gods 3 Trinitarians profess also to be Unitarians. They, as well as their opponents, believe there is but one God. To give Socinians this name, therefore, exclusively, would be granting them the very point which they seem so desirous to take for granted; that is to say, the point in debate. Names, it may be said, signify little ; and this signifies no more on one side than the term orthodox does on the other. The writer owns that, when he first conceived the idea of publishing these Letters, he thought so ; and intended, all along, to use the term Unitarians. What made him alter his mind was, his observing that the principal writers in that scheme have frequently availed themselves of the above name, and appear to wish to have it thought, by their readers, that the point in dispute between them and the Trinitarians is, Whether there be three Gods, or only one. If he had thought the use of the term Unitarians consistent with justice to his own argument, he would have pre- ferred it to that of Socinians; and would also have been glad of a term to express the system which he has defended, instead of calling it after the name of Calvin ; as he is aware that calling ourselves after the names of men (though it be merely to avoid circumlocution) is liable to be understood as giving them an authority which is inconsistent with a conformity to our Lord's command, “Call no man master upon earth; for one is your Master, even Christ.” He may add that the substance of the following Letters was written before the riots at Birmingham. His regard to justice and humanity made him feel much, on that occasion, for Dr. Priestley, and others who suffered with him ; but his regard to what he esteems important truth made him feel more. The injury which a doctrine receives from those who would support it by the unhallowed hands of plunder and persecution is far greater, in the esteem of many, than it can receive from the efforts of its avowed adversaries. For his own part, he has generally supposed that both the con- trivers and executors of that iniquitous business, call themselves what they will, were men of no principle. If, however, those of the high-church party, who, instead of disavowing the spirit and conduct of the misguided populace, have manifestly exulted in it, must be reckoned among the Trinitarians, he has only to say they are such Trinitarians as he utterly disapproves, and concerning whom he cannot so well express his sentiments and feelings as in the words of the patriarch : “Instruments of cruelty are in their habitations. O my soul, come not thou into their secret ; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united : for in their anger they slew a man, and in their self-will they digged down a wall. Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce; and their wrath, for it was cruel.” Detestable, however, as were the riots at Birmingham, no one can plead that they render the religious principles of Dr. Priestley less erroneous, or less pernicious; or an opposition to them, upon the fair ground of argument, less neces- sary. On the contrary, the mere circumstance of his being a persecuted man will have its influence on some people, and incline them not only to feel for the man, the gentleman, and the philosopher (all which is right); but to think favourably of his religious opinions. On this consideration, if the following Letters would, previous to that event, have been in any degree proper and seasonable, they are not, by any thing that has since occurred, become improper, or unseasonable. Since the first edition, the author has attempted, in some places, to strengthen his argument, and to remove such objections as have hitherto occurred. The principal additions will be found in Letters IV. and XV. The note, towards * Sce Letter III. + Monthly Review Enlarged, Vol. I. p. 233. # Ibid. 1790, p. 247. E 2 52 INTRODUCTORY HEMARKS. the latter end of the former, was occasioned by a report that Dr. Priestley complained of being masrepresented by the quotation in the first page of the Preface. This note contains a vindication, not only of the fairness of the quotation from Dr. Priestley, but of another, to the same purpose, from Mr. Belsham; and an answer to what is advanced on its behalf in the Monthly Review. 1802. LETTER. I. INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL REMARKs. CHRISTIAN BRETHREN, MUCH has been written of late years on the Socinian controversy; so much that the attention of the Christian world has, to a considerable degree, been drawn towards it. There is no reason, however, for considering this cir- cumstance as a matter of wonder, or of regret. Not of wonder ; for supposing the Deity and atonement of Christ to be Divine truths, they are of such importance in the Christian scheme as to induce the adversaries of the gospel to bend their main force against them, as against the rock on which Christ hath built his church. Not of regret; for, whatever partial evils may arise from a full discussion of a subject, the interests of truth will, doubtless, in the end prevail; and the prevalence of truth is a good that will outweigh all the ills that may have attended its discovery. Controversy engages a number of persons of different talents and turns of mind; and by this means the subject is likely to be considered in every view in which it is capable of being exhibited to advantage. The point of light in which the subject will be con- sidered in these letters, namely, as influencing the heart and life, has been frequently glanced at on both sides. I do not recollect, however, to have seen this view of it professedly and separately handled. In the great controversy in the time of Elijah recourse was had to an expedient by which the question was de- cided. Each party built an altar, cut in pieces a bullock, and laid the victim upon the wood, but put no fire under; and the God that should answer by fire was to be acknow- ledged as the true God. We cannot bring our controver- sies to such a criterion as this: we may bring them to one, however, which, though not so suddenly, is not much less sensibly evident. The tempers and lives of men are books for common people to read ; and they will read them, even though they should read nothing else. They are, indeed, warranted by the Scriptures themselves to judge of the nature of doctrines, by their holy or unholy tendency. The true gospel is to be known by its being a “ doctrine according to godliness;” teaching those who embrace it “to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, and to live sober- ly, righteously, and godly in the present world.” Those, on the other hand, “who believe not the truth,” are said to “ have pleasure in unrighteousness.” “Profane and vain babblings,” as the ministrations of false teachers are called, “will increase unto more ungodliness,” and their word “will eat as doth a canker.” To this may be added, that the parties themselves, engaged in this controversy, have virtually acknowledged the justice and importance of the above criterion, in that both sides have incidentally endeavoured to avail themselves of it. A criterion, then, by which the common people will judge, by which the Scripture authorizes them to judge, and by which both sides, in effect, agree to be judged, cannot but be worthy of particular attention. I feel, for my own part, satisfied, not only of the truth and importance of the doctrines in question, but also of N their holy tendency. I am aware, however, that others think differently, and that a considerable part of what I have to advance must be on the defensive. “Admitting the truth,” says Dr. Priestley, “ of a Trinity of persons in the Godhead, original sin, arbitrary predes- tination, atonement by the death of Christ, and the ple- nary inspiration of the Scriptures; their value, estimated by their influence on the morals of men, cannot be sup- posed, even by the admirers of them, to be of any moment, compared to the doctrine of the resurrection of the human race to a life of retribution : and, in the opinion of those who reject them, they have a very unfavourable tendency; giving wrong impressions concerning the character and moral government of God, and such as might tend, if they have any effect, to relax the obligations of virtue.”* In many instances Dr. Priestley deserves applause for his frankness and fairness as a disputant: in this passage, however, as well as in some others, the admirers of the doctrines he mentions are unfairly represented. They who embrace the other doctrines are supposed to hold that of arbitrary predestination; but this supposition is not true. The term arbitrary conveys the idea of caprice ; and, in this connexion, denotes that in predestination, ac- cording to the Calvinistic notion of it, God resolves upon the fates of men, and appoints them to this or that, with- out any reason for so doing. But there is no justice in this representation. There is no decree in the Divine mind that we consider as void of reason. Predestination to death is on account of sin; and as to predestination to life, though it be not on account of any works of right- eousness which we have done, yet it does not follow that God has no reason whatever for what he does. The sove- reignty of God is a wise, and not a capricious sovereignty. If he hide the glory of the gospel from the wise and pru- dent, and reveal it unto babes, it is because it seemeth good &n his sight. But if it seem good in the sight of God, it must, all things considered, be good; for “the judgment of God is according to truth.” It is asserted, also, that the admirers of the forementioned doctrines cannot, and do not, consider them as of equal importance with that of the resurrection of the human race to a life of retribution. But this, I am satisfied, is not the case; for whatever Dr. Priestley may think, they consider them, or at least some of them, as essential to true holi- ness; and of such consequence, even to the doctrine of the resurrection of the human race to a life of retribution, that, without them, such a resurrection would be a curse to mankind, rather than a blessing. There is one thing, however, in the above passage, wherein we all unite ; and this is—that the vaLUE or IM- PoRTANCE of religious principles is to be estimated by their £nfluence on the morals of men. By this rule let the fore- mentioned doctrines, with their opposites, be tried. If either those or these will not abide the trial, they ought to be rejected. Before we enter upon a particular examination of the subject, however, I would make three or four general ob- servations. First, Whatever Dr. Priestley or any others have said of the immoral tendency of our principles, I am persuaded that I may take it for granted they do not mean to suggest that we are not good members of civil society, or worthy of the most perfect toleration in the state; nor have I any such meaning in what may be suggested concerning theirs. I do not know any religious denomination of men who are unworthy of civil protection. So long as their prac- tices do not disturb the peace of society, and there be nothing in their avowed principles inconsistent with their giving security for their good behaviour, they, doubtless, ought to be protected in the enjoyment of every civil right to which their fellow-citizens at large are entitled. • Letters to a Philosophical Unbeliever, Part II. p. 33, 35. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 53 Secondly, It is not the bad conduct of a few individuals, in any denomination of Christians, that proves any thing on either side, even though they may be zealous advo- cates for the peculiar tenets of the party which they espouse. It is the conduct of the general body from which we ought to form our estimate. That there are men of bad character who attend on our preaching is not denied ; perhaps some of the worst : but if it be so, it proves nothing to the dishonour of our principles. Those who, in the first ages of Christianity, were not humbled by the gospel, were generally hardened by it. Nay, were it allowed that we have a greater number of hypocrites than the Socinians, (as it has been insinuated that the hypo- crisy and preciseness of some people afford matter of just disgust to speculative Unitarians,) I do not think this supposition, any more than the other, dishonourable to our principles. The defect of hypocrites lies not so much in the thing professed, as in the sincerity of their profes- sion. The thing professed may be excellent, and, perhaps, is the more likely to be so from its being counterfeited ; for it is not usual to counterfeit things of no value. Those persons who entertain low and diminutive ideas of the evil of sin and the dignity of Christ must, in order to be thought religious by us, counterfeit the contrary; but, among Socinians, the same persons may avow those ideas, and be caressed for it. That temper of mind which we suppose common to men, as being that which they possess by nature, needs not to be disguised among them, in order to be well thought of ; they have, therefore, no great temptations to hypocrisy. The question in hand, however, is not—What influence either our principles or theirs have upon persons who do not in reality adopt them 3 but, What influence they have upon those who do?” Thirdly, It is not the good conduct of a few individuals, on either side, that will prove any thing. Some have adopted a false creed, and retain it in words, who yet never enter into the spirit of it, and consequently do not act upon it. But merely dormant opinions can hardly be called principles ; those rather seem to be a man's prin- ciples which lie at the foundation of his spirit and con- duct. Further, good men are found in denominations whose principles are very bad; and good men, by what- ever names they are called, are more nearly of a sentiment than they are frequently aware of. Take two of them, who differ the most in words, and bring them upon their knees in prayer, and they will be nearly agreed. Besides, a great deal of that which passes for virtue amongst men is not so in the sight of God, who sees things as they are. It is no more than may be accounted for without bringing religion or virtue into the question. There are motives and considerations which will commonly influence men, living in society, to behave with decorum. Various occu- pations and pursuits, especially those of a mental and re- ligious kind, are inconsistent with profligacy of manners. “False apostles,” the very “ministers of Satan,” are said to “transform themselves into the apostles of Christ,” and to appear as the “ministers of righteousness;” even as “Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.” There are certain vices which, being inconsistent with others, may be the means of restraining them. Covetous- ness may be the cause of sobriety; and pride restrains thousands from base and ignoble gratifications, in which, nevertheless, their hearts take secret and supreme delight. A decent conduct has been found in Pharisees, in infidels, nay, even in atheists. Dr. Priestley acknowledges that “an atheist may be temperate, good-natured, honest, and, in the less-extended sense of the word, a virtuous man.” f Yet Dr. Priestley would not hence infer any thing in favour of the moral tendency of atheism. Lastly, Neither zeal in defence of principles, nor every kind of devotion springing from them, will prove those principles to be true, or worthy of God. . Several gentle- men, who have gone over from the Calvinistic to the So- cinian system, are said to possess greater zeal for the pro- * Though the Socinians be allowed, in what is said above, to have but few hypocrites among them; yet this is to be understood, as re. lating merely to one species of hypocrisy. , Dr. Priestley, Speaking of Unitarians who still continue in the Church of England, says, “From a just aversion to every thing that looks like hypocrisy and precise; ness, they rather lean to the extreme of fashionable dissipation.” Yet he represents the same persons, and that in the same page, as “con- pagation of the latter than they had used to discover for that of the former. As this, however, makes nothing to the disadvantage of their system, neither does it make any thing to its advantage. This may be owing, for any thing that can be proved to the contrary, to their having found a system more consonant to the bias of their hearts than that was which they formerly professed. And as to devotion, a species of this may exist in persons, and that to a high degree, consistently enough with the worst of principles. We know that the gospel had no worse ene- mies than the “devout and honourable” amongst the Jews, Acts xiii. 50. Saul, while an enemy to Jesus Christ, was as sincere, as zealous, and as devout in his way, as any of those persons whose sincerity, zeal, and devotion are frequently held up by their admirers in favour of their cause. These observations may be thought by some, instead of clearing the subject, to involve it in greater difficulties, and to render it almost impossible to judge of the tendency of principles by any thing that is seen in the lives of men. The subject, it is allowed, has its difficulties, and the foregoing observations are a proof of it; but I hope to make it appear, whatever difficulties may, on these ac- counts, attend the subject, that there is still enough, in the general spirit and conduct of men, by which to judge of the tendency of their principles. LETTER II. THE SYSTEMS COMPARED AS TO THEIR TENDENCY TO CONVERT PROFLIGATES TO A. LIFE OF HOLINESS. YoU need not be told that being born again—created in Christ Jesus—converted—becoming as a little child, &c., are phrases expressive of a change of heart, which the Scriptures make necessary to a life of holiness here, and to eternal life hereafter. It is on this account that I begin with conversion, considering it as the commencement of a holy life. A change of this sort was as really necessary for Nico- demus, whose outward character, for aught that appears, was respectable, as for Zaccheus, whose life had been de- voted to the sordid pursuits of avarice. Few, I suppose, will deny this to be the doctrine taught in the New Testa- ment. But should this be questioned, should the neces- sity of a change of heart in some characters be denied, still it will be allowed necessary in others. Now, as a change is more conspicuous, and consequently more con- vincing, in such persons as have walked in an abandoned course, than in those of a more sober life, I have fixed upon the conversion of proftigates as a suitable topic for the present discussion. There are two methods of reasoning which may be used in ascertaining the moral tendency of principles. The first is, comparing the nature of the principles themselves with the nature of true holiness, and the agreement or disagreement of the one with the other. The second is, referring to plain and acknowledged facts, and judging of the nature of causes by their effects. Both these methods of reasoning, which are usually expressed by the terms a priori, and a posteriori, will be used in this and the fol- lowing Letters, as the nature of the subject may admit. True conversion is comprehended in those two grand topics on which the apostles insisted in the course of their ministry—“Repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ.” Let us, then, fix upon these great outlines of the apostolic testimony, and examine which of the systems in question has the greatest tendency to produce them. tinuing to countenance a mode of worship which, if they were ques- tioned about it, they could not deny to be, according to their own principles, idolatrous, and blasphemous.” . Discourses on Parious Subjects, p. 96. The hypocrisy, then, to which these gentlemen have so just an aversion seems to be only of one kind. + Let. Unb. Part I. p. 6, Pref. 54 CONVERSION OF PROFLIGATES. Repentance is a change of mind. It arises from a con- viction that we have been in the wrong; and consists in holy shame, grief, and self-loathing, accompanied with a determination to forsake every evil way. Each of these ideas is included in the account we have of the repentance of Job. “Behold, I am vile; what shall I answer thee ? I will lay my hand upon my mouth. Once have I spoken, but I will not answer; yea, twice, but I will proceed no further.”—“I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.” It is essential to such a change as this that the sinner should realize the evil nature of sin. No man ever yet repented of a fault without a conviction of its evil nature. Sin must appear eacceedingly sinful before we can, in the nature of things, abhor it, and ourselves on account of it. Those sentiments which wrought upon the heart of David, and brought him to repentance, were of this sort. Through- out the fifty-first Psalm, we find him deeply impressed with the evil of sin, and that considered as an offence against God. He had injured Uriah and Bathsheba, and, strictly speaking, had not injured God; the essential honour and happiness of the Divine nature being infinitely beyond his reach : yet, as all sin strikes at the Divine glory, and actually degrades it in the esteem of creatures, all sin is to be considered, in one view, as committed against God; and this view of the subject lay so near his heart as to swallow up every other—“Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight !” It follows, then, that the system which affords the most en- larged views of the evil of sin must needs have the greatest tendency to promote repentance for it. Those who embrace the Calvinistic system believe that man was originally created holy and happy; that of his own accord he departed from God, and became vile ; that God, being in himself infinitely amiable, deserves to be, and is, the moral centre of the intelligent system ; that re- bellion against him is opposition to the general good; that, if suffered to operate according to its tendency, it would destroy the well-being of the universe, by excluding God, and righteousness, and peace, from the whole system; that Seeing it aims destruction at universal good, and tends to universal anarchy and mischief, it is, in those respects, an infinite evil, and deserving of endless punishment; and that, in whatever instance God exercises forgiveness, it is not without respect to that public expression of his dis- pleasure against it which was uttered in the death of his Son. These, brethren, are the sentiments which furnish us with motives for self-abhorrence; under their influence millions have repented in dust and ashes. But those, on the other hand, who embrace the Socinian system, entertain diminutive notions of the evil of sin. They consider all evil propensities in men (except those which are accidentally contracted by education or example) as being, in every sense, natural to them ; supposing that they were originally created with them : they cannot, therefore, be offensive to God, unless he could be offended with the work of his own hands for being what he made it. Hence, it may be, Socinian writers, when speaking of the sins of men, describe them in the language of palliation,-- language tending to convey an idea of pity, but not of blame. Mr. Belsham, speaking of sin, calls it “human frailty,” and the subjects of it tº the frail and erring chil- dren of men.” “ The following positions are for substance maintained by Dr. Priestley, in his treatise on Necessity: “That, for any thing we know, it might have been as im- possible for God to make all men sinless and happy, as to have made them infinite ;” that all the evil there is in sin arises from its tendency to injure the creature; that if God punish sin, it is not because he is so displeased with it as in any case to “take vengeance” on the sinner, sacri- ficing his happiness to the good of the whole; but, know- ing that it tends to do the sinner harm, he puts him to temporary pain, not only for the warning of others, but for his own good, with a view to correct the bad disposition in him ; that what is threatened against sin is of such a trifling account, that it needs not be an object of dread. “No necessarian,” says he, “supposes that any of the hu- man race will suffer eternally; but that future punish- ments will answer the same purpose as temporal ones are | found to do, all of which tend to good, and are evidently admitted for that purpose ; so that God, the author of all, is as much to be adored and loved for what we suffer as for what we enjoy, his intention being equally kind in both. And since God has created us for happiness, what misery can we fear? If we be really intended for ultimate, un- limited happiness, it is no matter, to a truly resigned per- son, when, or where, or how.”f Sin is so trifling an affair, it seems, and the punishment threatened against it of so little consequence, that we may be quite resigned, and in- different whether we go immediately to heaven, or whether we first pass through the depths of hell! The question at present is not, Which of these repre- sentations is true, or consonant to Scripture ? but, Which has the greatest tendency to promote repentance 2 If re- pentance be promoted by a view of the evil of sin, this question, it is presumed, may be considered as decided. Another sentiment intimately connected with that of the evil of sin, and equally necessary to promote repent- ance, is, The equity and goodness of the Divine law. No man ever truly repented for the breach of a law the pre- cepts of which he considered as too strict, or the penalties too severe. In proportion as such an opinion prevails, it is impossible but that repentance must be precluded. Now the precept of the Divine law requires us to love God with all the heart, soul, mind, and strength, and our neighbour as ourselves. It allows not of any deviation or relaxation during the whole of our existence. The penalty by which this holy law is enforced is nothing less than the curse of Almighty God. But, according to Mr. Belsham, if God “mark and punish every instance of transgression,” he must be a “merciless tyrant ; ” and we must be “tempted to wish that the reigns of universal govern- ment were in better hands.”f Mr. Belsham, perhaps, would not deny that perfect obedience is required by the law, according to the plain meaning of the words by which it is expressed, or that the curse of God is threatened against every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them ; but then this rule is so strict that to “mark and punish every instance ’’ of deviation from it would be severe and cruel. It seems, then, that God has given us a law by the terms of which he cannot abide ; that justice itself requires him, if not to abate the precept, yet to remit the penalty, and connive at smaller instances of transgression. I need not inquire how much this reflects upon the moral character and govern- ment of God. Suffice it at present to say, that such views must of necessity preclude repentance. If the law which forbids “every instance” of human folly be unreasonably strict, and the penalty which threatens the curse of the Almighty on every one that continueth not in all things therein written be indeed cruel, then it must so far be un- reasonable for any sinner to be required to repent for the breach of it. On the contrary, God himself should rather repent for making such a law than the sinner for break- ing it ! - º towards our Lord Jesus Christ is another essential part of true conversion. Faith is credence, or belief. Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ is belief of the gospel of salvation through his name. A real belief of the gospel is necessarily accompanied with a trust or confidence in him for the salvation of our souls. The term believe itself sometimes expresses this idea ; particularly in 2 Tim. i. 12, “I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.” This belief, or trust, can never be fairly understood of a mere confidence in his veracity, as to the truth of his doctrine; for if that were all, the ability of Christ would stand for nothing; and we might as well be said to trust in Peter, or John, or Paul, as in Christ, seeing we believe their testimony to be valid as well as his. Believing, it is granted, does not necessarily, and in all cases, involve the idea of trust, for which I here con- tend ; this matter being determined by the nature of the testimony. Neither Peter, nor any of the apostles, ever pretended that their blood, though it might be shed in martyrdom, would be the price of the salvation of sinners. We may, therefore, credit their testimony, without trusting * “ Sermon on the Importance of Truth,” pp. 33–35. t Pages 118. 122.65. 149, 150. 128. # Sermon, p. 34. CONVERSION OF PROFLIGATES. 55 in them, or committing any thing, as Paui expresses it, into their hands. But Christ's blood is testified of as the way, and the only way, of salvation. He is said to be “the propitiation for our sins;” and “by himself to have purged our sins.”—“Through his blood we have forgiveness.”— “Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.”—“Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” Hence it follows that, to believe his testimony, must of necessity involve in it a trusting in him for the salvation of our souls. * ~. If this be a just representation of faith in Jesus Christ, we cannot be at a loss to decide which of the systems in question has the greatest tendency to promote it ; and as faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ is essential to true conversion, we cannot hesitate in concluding which has the greatest tendency to turn a sinner from the evil of his ways. Not to mention, at present, how Socinian writers disown an “implicit belief” in the testimony of the sacred writers,” and how they lean to their own understanding, as the criterion by which Scripture is to be tried; that which I would here insist upon is, That, upon their prin- ciples, all trust or confidence in Christ for salvation is utterly excluded. Not only are those principles unadapted to induce us to trust in Christ, but they directly tend to turn off our attention and affection from him. Dr. Priest- ley does not appear to consider him as “the way of a sin- ner's salvation ” in any sense whatever, but goes about to explain the words of Peter, Acts iv. 12, “Neither is there salyation in any other,” &c., not of salvation to eternal life, but “of salvation, or deliverance, from bodily dis- eases.”f And another writer of the same cast, (Dr. Har- wood,) in a volume of Sermons lately published, treats the sacred writers with still less ceremony. Paul had said, “Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ; ” but this writer, as if he designed to affront the apostle, makes use of his own words in order to contradict him. “Other foundation than this can no man lay,” says he ; “other expectations are visionary and groundless, and all hopes founded upon any thing else than a good moral life are merely imaginary, and contrary to the whole tenor of the gospel,” p. 193. Whether these things be not aimed to raze the foundation on which the church is built ; and whether this be any other than “stumbling at the stumbling-stone,” and a “setting him at nought,” in the great affair for which he came into the world, let every Christian judge. It particularly deserves the serious consideration, not only of the above writers, but of those who are any way inclined to their mode of think- ing ; for if it should be so that the death of Christ, as a propitiatory sacrifice, is the only medium through which sinners can be accepted of God, and if they should be found fighting against God, and rejecting the only way of escape, the consequence may be such as to cause the ears of every one that heareth it to tingle. Meanwhile, it re- quires but little penetration to discover that whatever takes away the only foundation of a sinner's confidence cannot be adapted to promote it. Brethren, examine these matters to the bottom, and judge for yourselves, whether you might not as well expect grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles, as to see repentance to- wards God, or faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ, pro- ceeding from Socinian principles. The foregoing observations serve to show what may be eacpected from the Socinian doctrine, according to the na- ture of things: let us next make some inquiry into matters of fact. We may judge, from the nature of the seed sown, what will be the harvest; but a view of what the harvest actually is may afford still greater satisfaction. First, then, let it be considered whether Socinian con- gregations have ever abounded in conversions of the pro- fame to a life of holiness and devotedness to God. Dr. Priestley acknowledges that “the gospel, when it was first preached by the apostles, produced a wonderful change in the lives and manners of persons of all ages,” Let. Unb. Pref. * Dr. Priestley's Defence of Unitarianism, 1787, p. 66. + Fam. Let. XVI. - # Let, Unb. II. Pref.—It is true Dr. Priestley is not here speaking of the profligates among nominal Christians, but of those among avowed infidels. This, however, makes nothing to the argument. The dis- ix. Now, if the doctrine which he and others preach be the same, for substance, as that which they preached, one might expect to see some considerable degree of similarity in the effects. But is any thing like this to be seen in Socinian congregations ? Has that kind of preaching which leaves out the doctrines of man's lost condition by nature, and salvation by grace only through the atone- ment of Christ, and substitutes, in their place, the doctrine of mercy without an atonement, the simple humanity of Christ, the efficacy of repentance and obedience, &c. . . . . has this kind of preaching, I say, ever been known to lay much hold on the hearts and consciences of men # The way in which that “wonderful change” was effected, in the lives and manners of people who attended the first preach- ing of the gospel, was by the word preached laying hold on their hearts. It was a distinguishing mark of primitive preaching, that it “commended itself to every man’s con- science.” People could not in general sit unconcerned under it. We are told of some who were “cut to the heart,” and took counsel to slay the preachers; and of others who were “pricked in the heart,” and said, “Men and brethren, what shall we do 3’” But, in both cases, the heart was the mark at which the preacher aimed, and which his doctrine actually reached. Has the preaching of the Socinians any such effect as this? Do they so much as expect it should 3 Were any of their hearers, by any means, to feel pricked in their hearts, and come to them with the question, What shall we do would they not pity them as enthusiasts, and be ready to suspect that they had been among the Calvinists 2 If any counsel were given would it not be such as must tend to impede their repent- ance, rather than promote it; and, instead of directing them to Jesus Christ, as was the practice of the primitive preachers, would they not endeavour to lead them into another course 3 Socinian writers cannot so much as pretend that their doctrine has been used to convert profligate sinners to the love of God and holiness. Dr. Priestley’s scheme will not enable him to account for such changes, where Christianity has ceased to be a novelty. The absolute novelty of the gospel, when first preached, he represents as the cause of its wonderful efficacy; but in the present age, among per- sons who have long heard it, and have contracted vicious habits notwithstanding, he looks for no such effects. He confesses himself “less solicitous about the conversion of unbelievers who are much advanced in life than of younger persons, and that because he despairs of the principles of Christianity having much effect upon the lives of those whose dispositions and habits are already formed.”f Some- times he reckons that the great body of primitive Christians must have been “well-disposed with respect to moral vir- tue, even before their conversion to Christianity; else,” he thinks, “they could not have been so ready to have abandoned their vices, and to embrace a doctrine which required the strictest purity and rectitude of conduct, and even to sacrifice their lives in the cause of truth,” II. 167, 168. In his treatise on Philosophical Necessity, (p. 156,) he declares that, “upon the principles of the neces- sarian, all late repentance, and especially after long and confirmed habits of vice, is altogether and necessarily in- effectual; there not being sufficient time left to produce a change of disposition and character, which can only be done by a change of conduct, and of proportionably long con- tinuance.” I confess I do not perceive the consistency of these pas- sages with each other. By the power of novelty a wonder- ful change was produced in the lives and manners of men; and yet the body of them must have been well-disposed with respect to moral virtue—that is, they must have been in such a state as not to need any wonderful change—else they could not have been so ready to abandon their vices. A wonderful change was produced in the lives and man- ners of men of all ages; and yet there is a certain age in which repentance is “altogether and necessarily ineffect- ual.” Inconsistent, however, as these positions may be, positions and habits of profane nominal Christians are as much formed as those of avowed infidels; and their conversion to a holy life is as much an object of despair as the other. Yea, Dr. Priestley in the same place acknowledges that “to be mere nominal Christians is Worse than to be no Christians at all.” 56 CONVERSION OF PROFLIGATES. one thing is sufficiently evident; namely, that the author considers the conversion of profligates, of the present age, as an object of despair. Whatever the Gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John may affirm, that accord- ing to Dr. Priestley affords but very little, if any, hope to those who in Scripture are distinguished by the name of “sinners,” “chief of sinners,” and “ lost.” He does “not expect such conversion of profligate and habitually wicked men as shall make any remarkable change in their lives and characters. Their dispositions and habits are already formed, so that it can hardly be supposed to be in the power of new and better principles to change them.” It cannot be unnatural, or uncandid, to suppose that these observations were made from eagerience ; or that Dr. Priestley writes in this manner on account of his not be- ing used to see any such effects arise from his ministry, or the ministry of those of his sentiments. There is a sort of preaching, however, even since the days of inspiration, and where Christianity has ceased to be a novelty, which has been attended in a good degree with similar effects to that of the apostles. Whatever was the cause, or however it is to be accounted for, there have been those whose labours have turned many, yea, many proftigates, to righteousness; and that by preaching the very doctrines which Dr. Priestley charges with being the “ corruptions of Christianity,” and which a once-humble admirer of his attempted to ridicule.* It is well known what sort of preaching it was that produced such great effects in many nations of Europe, about the time of the Reformation. Whatever different sentiments were pro- fessed by the Reformers, I suppose they were so far agreed, that the doctrines of human depravity, the Deity and atone- ment of Christ, justification by faith, and sanctification by the influence of the Holy Spirit, were the great topics of their ministry. - Since the Reformation there have been special seasons in the churches in which a religious concern has greatly pre- vailed, and multitudes were turned from their evil ways; some from an open course of profaneness, and others from the mere form of godliness to the power of it. Much of this sort of success attended the labours of Perkins, Bolton, Taylor, Herbert, Hildersham, Blackerby, Gouge, Whit- aker, Bunyan, great numbers of the ejected ministers, and many since their time, in England; of Livingstone, Bruce, Rutherford, M’Cullock, M'Laurin, Robe, Balfour, Suther- land, and others, in Scotland ; of Franck and his fellow labourers in Germany; and of Stoddard, Edwards, Ten- nant, Buel, and many others, in America.f. And what Dr. Watts and Dr. Guyse, in their Preface to Mr. Ed- wards's Narrative, said of his success, and that of some others, in America, might with equal truth have been said of the rest : “That it was the common plain protestant doctrine of the Reformation, without stretching towards the Antinomians on the one side, or the Arminians on the other, that the Spirit of God had been pleased to honour with such illustrious success.” Nor are such effects peculiar to past ages. A consider- able degree of the same kind of success has attended the Calvinistic churches in North America, within the last ten years; especially in the States of Virginia, the Caro- linas, and Georgia. Nor is it peculiar to the western world, though they have been greatly favoured. I believe there are hundreds of ministers now in this kingdom, some in the Established Church, and others out of it, who could truly say to a considerable number of their auditors, as Paul said to the Corinthians, “Ye are our epistle, known and read of all men”—“ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.” There are, likewise, hundreds of congregations, which might with propriety be addressed in the language of the same apostle to the same people, “And such were some of you (viz. fornicators, adulterers, thieves, covetous, drunkards, re- vilers, extortioners); but ye are washed, but ye are sanc- tified, but ye are justified.” And those ministers by whose instrumentality these effects were produced, like their predecessors before mentioned, have dwelt principally P. S. * See Fam. Let. XXII. + See Gillies’ Hist. Coll. on the protestant doctrines of man's lost condition by nature, and salvation by grace only, through the atoning blood of Christ, together with the necessity of the regener- ating influence of the Holy Spirit. When, therefore, they see such effects attend their labours, they think themselves warranted to ascribe them, as the apostle did, to “the name of the Lord Jesus, and to the Spirit of our God,” l Cor. vi. 11. The solid and valuable effects produced by this kind of preaching are attested by the late Mr. Robinson of Cam- bridge, as well as by Dr. Watts and Dr. Guyse. “Pre- sumption and despair,” said that ingenious writer, “are the two dangerous extremes to which mankind are prone in religious concerns. Charging home sin precludes the first, proclaiming redemption prevents the last. This has been the method which the Holy Spirit has thought fit to seal and succeed in the hands of his ministers. Wickliffe, Luther, Knox, Latimer, Gilpin, Bunyan, Livingstone, Franck, Blair, Elliot, Edwards, Whitefield, Tennant, and all who have been eminently blessed to the revival of practical godliness, have constantly availed themselves of this method; and, prejudice apart, it is impossible to deny that great and excellent moral effects have followed.”: Should it be alleged that Mr. Robinson, before he died, changed his opinions in these matters, and reckoned all such things as these enthusiasm, it might be answered, A change of opinion in Mr. Robinson can make no change in the “facts,” as he justly calls them, which he did him- self the honour to record. Besides, the effects of this kind of preaching are not only recorded by Mr. Robinson, but by those who triumph in his conversion to their principles. Dr. Priestley professes to think highly of the Methodists, and acknowledges that they have “civilized and Christian- ized a great part of the uncivilized and unchristianized part of this country.” Also, in his Discourses on Various Subjects, p. 375, he allows their preaching to produce “ more striking effects” than that of Socinians, and goes about to account for it. - A matter of fact, so notorious as this, and of so much consequence in the controversy, requires to be well ac- counted for. Dr. Priestley seems to have felt the force of the objection that might be made to his principles on this ground; and therefore attempts to obviate it. But by what medium is this attempted ? The same principle by which he tries to account for the wonderful success of the gospel in the primitive ages is to account for the effects produced by such preaching as that of the Methodists: the ignorance of their auditors giving what they say to them the force of Novel.T.Y. The Doctor is pleased to add, “Our people having in general been brought up in habits of virtue, such great changes in character and conduct are less necessary in their case.” A few remarks in reply to the above shall close this letter. First, If novelty be indeed that efficacious prin- ciple which Dr. Priestley makes it to be, one should think it were desirable, every century or two, at least, to have a new dispensation of religion. Secondly, If the great success of the primitive preachers was owing to this curious cause, is it not extraordinary that they themselves should never be acquainted with it, nor communicate a secret of such importance to their suc- cessors? They are not only silent about it, but, in some cases, appear to act upon a contrary principle. Paul, when avowing the subject-matter of his ministry before Agrippa, seemed to disclaim every thing novel, declaring that he had said “none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come.” And as to the cause of their success, they seem never to have thought of any thing but “ the hand of the Lord that was with them ’’—“ The working of his mighty power”—“Who caused them to triumph in Christ, making manifest the savour of his knowledge by them in every place.” Thirdly, If novelty be what Dr. Priestley makes it to be, the plea of Dives had much more of truth in it than the answer of Abraham. He pleaded that “if one rose from the dead, men would repent:” the novelty of the thing, he supposed, must strike them. But Abraham answered as if he had no notion of the power of mere novelty, “If # Translation of Claude. Vol. II. p. 364. Note. & Fam. Let. VII. CONVERSION OF PROFLIGATES. 57 they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.” Fourthly, If the success of the apostles was owing to the novelty of their mission, it might have been expected that at Athens, where a taste for hearing and telling of new things occupied the whole attention of the people, their success would have been the greatest. Every body knows that a congeniality of mind in an audience to the things proposed wonderfully facilitates the reception of them. Now, as the gospel was as much of a novelty to them as to the most barbarous nations, and as they were possessed of a peculiar turn of mind which delighted in every thing of that nature, it might have been expected, on the above hypothesis, that a harvest of souls would there have been gathered in. But instead of this, the gospel is well known to have been less successful in this famous city than in many other places. - - & Fifthly, Some of the most striking effects, both in early and later ages, were not accompanied with the circumstance of novelty. The sermon of Peter to the inhabitants of Jerusalem contained no new doctrine; it only pressed upon them the same things, for substance, which they had heard and rejected from the lips of Christ himself; and, on a prejudgment of the issue by the usual course of things, they would probably have been considered as more likely to reject Peter's doctrine than that of Christ; because, when once people have set their hands to a business, they are generally more loth to relinquish it, and own them- selves in the wrong, than at first to forbear to engage in it. And as to later times, the effects produced by the preach- ing of Whitefield, Edwards, and others, were many of them upon people not remarkably ignorant, but who had at- tended preaching of a similar kind all their lives without any such effect. The former, it is well known, preached the same doctrines in Scotland and America as the people were used to hear every Lord’s day; and that with great effect among persons of a lukewarm and careless descrip- tion. The latter, in his Narrative of the Work of God in and about Northampton, represents the inhabitants as hav- ing been “a rational and understanding people.” Indeed, they must have been such, or they could not have under- stood the compass of argument contained in Mr. Edwards's Sermons on Justification, which were delivered about that time, and are said to have been the means of great reli- gious concern among the hearers. Nor were these effects produced by airs and gestures, or any of those extraordinary things in the manner of the preacher which give a kind of novelty to a sermon, and sometimes tend to move the affections of the hearers. Mr. Prince, who, it seems, had often heard Mr. Edwards preach, and observed the remark- able conviction which attended his ministry, describes, in his Christian History, his manner of preaching. “He was a preacher,” says he, “of a low and moderate voice, a natural delivery, and without any agitation of body, or any thing else in the manner to excite attention, except his habitual and great solemnity, looking and speaking as in the presence of God, and with a weighty sense of the matter delivered.” + × Sixthly, Suppose the circumstance of novelty to have great efficacy, the question is, with respect to such preach- ing as that of the Methodists, Whether it has efficacy enough to render the truth of the doctrine of no account. It is well known that the main doctrines which the Method- ists have taught are man’s lost condition by nature, and salvation by the atonement of Christ; but these, according to Dr. Priestley, are false doctrines; no part of Chris- tianity, but the “corruptions” of it; and “such as must tend, if they have any effect, to relax the obligations to virtue.” But if so, how came it to pass that the preaching of them should “civilize and Christianize mankind 3’’ Novelty may do wonders, it is granted ; but still the nature of those wonders will correspond with the nature of the principles taught. All that it can be supposed to do is to give additional energy to the principles which it accom- panies. The heating of a furnace seven times hotter than usual would not endue it with the properties of water; and Water, put into the most powerful motion, would not be capable of producing the effects of fire. One would think * Gillies’s Hist. Coll. II. 196. + Sermon, p. 32. * E it were equally evident that falsehood, though accompanied with novelty, could never have the effect of truth. Once more, It may be questioned whether the gener- ality of people who make up Socinian congregations stand in less need of a change of character and conduct than others. Mr. Belsham says that “rational Christians are often represented as indifferent to practical religion;” and admits, though with apparent reluctance, that “there has been some plausible ground for the accusation.” f Dr. Priestley admits the same thing, and they both go about to account for it in the same way. Now, whether their method of accounting for it be just or not, they admit the fact ; and hence we may conclude that the generality of “rational Christians” are not so righteous as to need no repentance; and that the reason why their preaching does not turn sinners to righteousness is not owing to their want of an equal proportion of sinners to be turned. But supposing the Socinian congregations were gener- ally so virtuous as to need no great change of character ; or, if they did need it, so well informed that nothing could strike them as a novelty; that is not the case with the bulk of mankind amongst whom they live. Now if a great change of character may be produced by the mere power of novelty, why do not Dr. Priestley and those of his sentiments go forth, like some others, to the highways and hedges 2 Why does not he surprise the benighted po- pulace into the love of God and holiness with his new doctrines 3 (New he must acknowledge they are to them.) If false doctrine, such as that which the Methodists have taught, may, through the power of novelty, do such won- ders, what might not be expected from the true : I have been told that Dr. Priestley has expressed a wish to go into the streets, and preach to the common people. Let him, or those of his sentiments, make the trial. Though the peo- ple of Birmingham have treated him so uncivilly, I hope both he and they would meet with better treatment in other parts of the country; and if, by the power of novelty, they can turn but a few sinners from the error of their ways, and save their souls from death, it will be an object worthy of their attention. But should Dr. Priestley, or any others of his senti- ments, go forth on such an errand, and still retain their principles, they must reverse the declaration of our Lord, and say, We come not to call sinners, but the righteous to repentance. All their hope must be in the uncontaminated youth, or the better sort of people, whose habits in the path of vice are not so strong but that they may be over- come. Should they, in the course of their labours, behold a malefactor approaching the hour of his execution, what must they do? Alas! like the priest and the Levite, they must pass by on the other side. They could not so much as admonish him to repentance with any degree of hope, because they consider “all late repentance, and especially after long and confirmed habits of vice, as absolutely and necessarily ineffectual.” $ Happy for many a poor wretch of that description, happy especially for the poor thief upon the cross, that Jesus Christ acted on a different principle ! These, brethren, are matters that come within the know- ledge of every man of observation ; and it behoves you, in such cases, to know “not the speech of them that are puffed up, but the power.” IETTER. III. CONVERSION OF PROFESSED UNIBELIEVERS. SocINIAN writers are very sanguine on the tendency of their views of things to convert infidels; namely, Jews, heathens, and Mahometans. They reckon that our notions of the Trinity form the grand obstacle to their conversion. Dr. Priestley often suggests that, so long as we maintain the Deity of Jesus Christ, there is no hope of converting the Jews, because this doctrine contradicts the first prin- ciple of their religion, the writy of God. Things not # Disc. War. Sub. p. 95. & Ibid. p. 238. Also Phil. Nec. p. 156. 58 CONVERSION OF PROFESSED UNBELIEVERs. altogether, but nearly similar, are said concerning the con- version of the heathens and Mahometans, especially the latter. On this subject, the following observations are submitted to your consideration. With respect to the Jews, they know very well that those who believe in the Deity of Christ profess to believe in the unity of God; and if they will not admit this to be consistent, they must depart from what is plainly implied in the language of their ancestors. If the Jews in the time of Christ had thought it impossible, or, which is the same thing, inconsistent with the unity of God, that God the Father should have a Son equal to himself, how came they to attach the idea of equality to that of sonship 2 Jesus asserted that God was his “ own Father ; ” which they understood as making himself “equal with God;” and therefore they sought to kill him as a blasphemer. Had the Jews affixed those ideas to sonship which are entertained by our opponents, namely, as implying no- thing more than simple humanity, why did they accuse Jesus of blasphemy for assuming it? They did not deny that to be God's own Son was to be equal with the Father; nor did they allege that such an equality would destroy the Divine unity: a thought of this kind seems never to have occurred to their minds. The idea to which they objected was, that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God; and hence, it is probable, the profession of this great article was considered in the apostolic age as the criterion of Christianity, Acts viii. 37. Were this article admitted by the modern Jews, they must reason differently from their ancestors, if they scrupled to admit that Christ is equal with the Father. The Jews were greatly offended at our Lord’s words; and his not explaining them so as to remove the stumbling- block out of the way may serve to teach us how we ought to proceed in removing stumbling-blocks out of the way of their posterity. For this cause they sought to kill him —“ because he had said that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.”—“Jesus said, I and my Father are one. Then they took up stones to stone him.” When he told them of “many good works that he had shown them,” and asked, “For which of those works do ye stone me?” they replied, “For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” Hence it is evident that, whether Jesus Christ be truly God, or not, they understood him as as- serting that he was so ; that is, they understood his claim- ing the relation of God's own Son, and declaring that He and his Father were one, as implying so much. This was their stumbling-block. Nor does it appear that Jesus did any thing towards removing it out of their way. It is certain he did not so remove it as to afford them the least satisfaction ; for they continued to think him guilty of the same blasphemy to the last, and for that adjudged him worthy of death, Matt. xxvi. 63, 66. If Jesus never thought of being equal with God, it is a pity there should have been such a misunderstanding between them,--a misunderstanding that proved the occasion of putting him to death ! Such an hypothesis, to be sure, may answer one end ; it may give us a more favourable idea of the conduct of the Jews than we have been wont to entertain. If it does not entirely justify their procedure, it greatly ex- tenuates it. They erred, it seems, in imagining that Jesus, by declaring himself the Son of God, made himself equal with God; and thus, through mistaking his meaning, put him to death as a blasphemer. But then it might be pleaded, on their behalf, that Jesus never suggested that they were in an error in this matter; that, instead of in- forming them that the name Son of God implied nothing more than simple humanity, he went on to say, among other things, “That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father ;” and instead of disowning with abhorrence the idea of making himself God, he * Millar's Propagation of Christianity, Vol. II. pp. 388. 438. + Mr. Levi’s Iletters to Dr. Priestley, pp. 76, 77 # “Rational, that is, Unitarian Christians.”—Why need Dr. Priestley be so particular in informing his reader that a rational Christian sig- nifies a Unitarian Christian To be sure, all the world knew, long enough ago, that rationality was confined to the Unitarians ! Doubt- less, they are the people, and wisdom will die with them : When Dr. Priestley speaks of persons of his own sentiments, he calls them seemed to justify it, by arguing from the less to the greater —from the image of the thing to the thing itself, John x. 34–36. Now, these things considered, should an impar- tial jury sit in judgment upon their conduct, one would think they could not, with Stephen, bring it in murder; to make the most of it, it could be nothing worse than manslaughter. All this may tend to conciliate the Jews, as it tends to roll away the reproach which, in the esteem of Christians, lies upon their ancestors for crucifying the Lord of glory; but whether it will have any influence towards their conversion is another question. It is pos- sible that, in proportion as it confirms their good opinion of their forefathers, it may confirm their ill opinion of Jesus, for having, by his obscure and ambiguous language, given occasion for such a misunderstanding between them. Could the Jews but once be brought to feel that temper of mind which it is predicted in their own prophets they shall feel—could they but “ look on Him whom they have pierced, and mourn for him as one mourneth for his only son, and be in bitterness for him as one that is in bitter- ness for his first-born”—I should be under no apprehen- sions respecting their acknowledging his proper Divinity, or embracing him as the great atonement, to the “foun- tain’’ of whose blood they would joyfully repair, that they might be cleansed from their sin and their unclean- ness, Zech. xii. 10; xiii. 1. . Nearly the same things might be observed respecting heathens and Mahometans. We may so model the gospel as almost to accommodate it to their taste; and by this means we may come nearer together: but whether, in so doing, we shall not be rather converted to them, than they to us, deserves to be considered. Christianity may be so heathenized that a man may believe in it, and yet be no Christian. Were it true, therefore, that Socinianism had a tendency to induce professed infidels, by meeting them, as it were, half way, to take upon them the Christian name, still it would not follow that it was of any real use. The popish missionaries, of the last century, in China, acted upon the principle of accommodation; they gave up the main things in which Christians and heathens had been used to differ, and allowed the Chinese every favourite species of idolatry. The consequence was, they had a great many converts, such as they were ; but think- ing people looked upon the missionaries as more converted to heathenism, than the Chinese heathens to Christianity.” But even this effect is more than may be expected from Socinian doctrines among the heathem. The popish mis- sionaries had engines to work with which Socinians have not. They were sent by an authority which, at that time, had weight in the world ; and their religion was accom- panied with pomp and superstition. These were matters which, though far from recommending their mission to the approbation of serious Christians, yet would be sure to recommend it to the Chinese. They stripped the gospel of all its real glory, and, in its place, substituted a false glory. But Socinianism, while it divests the gospel of all that is interesting and affecting to the souls of men, sub- stitutes nothing in its place. If it be Christianity at all, it is, as the ingenious Mrs. Barbauld is said in time past to have expressed it, “ Christianity in the frigid zone.” It may be expected, therefore, that no considerable number of professed infidels will ever think it worthy of their at- tention. Like the Jew, they will pronounce every attempt to convert them by these accommodating principles muga- tory ; and be ready to ask, with him, What they shall do more, by embracing Christianity, than they already do.f. Dr. Priestley, however, is for coming to action. “Let a free intercourse be opened,” says he, “between Mahomet- ans and rational, that is, Unitarian Christians, and I shall have no doubt with respect to the consequence.” And, again, “Let the Hindoos, as well as the Mahometans, become acquainted with our literature, and have free in- tercourse with Unitarian Christians, and I have no doubt “rational Christians; ” when, in the same page, he speaks of such as differ from him, he calls them “those who assume to themselves the distinguishing title of orthodox.” Considerations on Difference of Opinion, & 3. Query, Is the latter of these names assumed any more than the former; and is Dr. Priestley a fit person to reprove a body of people for assuming a name which implies what their adversaries do not admit? CONVERSION OF PROFESSED UNEELIEVERS. 59 but the result will be in favour of Christianity.”* So, then, when heathens and Mahometans are to be converted, Trinitarians, like those of Gideon's army that bowed down their knees to drink, must sit at home ; and the whole of the expedition, it seems, must be conducted by Unitarians, as by the three hundred men that lapped. Poor Trinita- rians, deemed unworthy of an intercourse with heathens ! Well, if you must be denied, as by a kind of Test Act, the privilege of bearing arms in this Divine war, surely you have a right to expect that those who shall be possessed of. it should act valiantly, and do exploits. But what ground have you on which to rest your expectations —Nome, ex- cept Dr. Priestley’s good conceit of his opinions. When was it known that any considerable number of heathens or Mahometans were converted by the Socinian doctrine 3 Sanguine as the Doctor is on this subject, where are the facts on which his expectations are founded ? Trinitarians, however, whether Dr. Priestley think them worthy or not, have gone among the heathens, and that not many years ago, and preached what they thought the gospel of Christ; and I may add, from facts that cannot be disputed, with considerable success. The Dutch, the Danes, and the English have each made some attempts in the East, and, I hope, not without some good effects. If we were to call that conversion which many professors of Christianity would call so without any scruple, we might boast of the conversion of a great many thousands in those parts. But it is acknowledged that many of the conver- sions in the East were little, if any thing, more than a change of denomination. The greatest and best work, and the most worthy of the name of conversion, of which I have read, is that which has taken place by the labours of the Anglo-Americans among the natives. They have, indeed, wrought wonders. Mr. Elliot, the first minister who engaged in this work, went over to New England in 1632; and being warmed with a holy zeal for converting the natives, learned their language, and preached to them in it. He also, with great labour, translated the Bible, and some English treatises, into the same language. God made him eminently useful for the turning of these poor heathens to himself. He settled a number of Christian churches, and ordained elders over them, from among themselves. After a life of unremitted labour in this im- portant undertaking, he died in a good old age, and has ever since been known, both among the English and the º by the name of The Apostle of the American In- $0,72S, Nor were these converts like many of those in the East, who professed they knew not what, and, in a little time, went off again as fast as they came : the generality of them understood and felt what they professed, and persevered to the end of their lives. Mr. Elliot's example stimulated many others: some in his lifetime, and others after his death, laboured much, and were blessed to the conversion of thousands among the Indians. The names and labours of Bourn, Fitch, Mahew, Pierson, Gookin, Thatcher, Raw- son, Treat, Tupper, Cottom, Walter, Sargeant, Davenport, Park, Horton, Brainerd, and Edwards, are remembered with joy and gratitude in those benighted regions of the earth. Query, Were ever any such effects as these wrought by preaching Socinian doctrines 7 Great things have been done among the heathens, of late years, by the Moravians. About the year 1733, they sent missionaries to Greenland—a most inhospitable country indeed, but containing about ten thousand in- habitants, all enveloped in pagan darkness. After the labour of several years, apparently in vain, success attended their efforts; and in the course of twenty or thirty years, about seven hundred heathens are said to have been bap- tized, and to have lived the life of Christians.# They have done great good also in the most northern parts of North America, among the Esquimaux j and still more among the negroes in the West India islands, where, at the close of 1788, upwards of thirteen thousand of those poor, injured, and degraded people were formed into Christian societies. The views of Moravians, it is true, are different from ours in several particulars, especially in matters relating to church government and discipline; but * Let. Unb. II. 116, 117. * See Crantz's History of Greenland. they appear to possess a great deal of godly simplicity; and as to the doctrines which they inculcate, they are, mostly, what we esteem evangelical. The doctrine of atonement by the death of Christ, in particular, forms the great subject of their ministry. The first person in Green- land who appeared willing to receive the gospel was an old man who came to the missionaries for instruction. “We told him,” say they, “as well as we could, of the creation of man, and the intent thereof—of the fall and corruption of nature—of the redemption effected by Christ —of the resurrection of all men, and eternal happiness or damnation.” They inform us, afterwards, that the doc- trine of the cross, or “ the Creator's taking upon him hu- man nature, and dying for our sins,” was the most power- ful means of impressing the minds of the heathen, and of turning their hearts to God. “On this account,” they add, “we determined (like Paul) to know nothing but Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” Now consider, brethren, were there ever any such effects as the above wrought by the Socinian doctrine ! If there were, let them be brought to light. Nay, let a single in- stance be produced of a Socinian teacher having so much virtue or benevolence in him as to make the attempt, so much virtue or benevolence as to venture among a race of barbarians, merely with a view to their conversion. But we have unbelievers at home ; and Dr. Priestley, persuaded of the tendency of his principles to convert, has lately made some experiments upon them, as being within his reach. He has done well. There is nothing like ex- periment, in religion as well as in philosophy. As to what tendency his sentiments would have upon heathens and Mahometans, provided a free intercourse could be obtained, it is all conjecture. The best way to know their efficacy is by trial; and trial has been made. Dr. Priestley has addressed Letters to a Philosophical Umbeliever, and Letters to the Jews. Whether this seed will spring up, it is true, we must not yet decide. Some little time after he had published, however, he himself acknowledged, in his Let- ters to Mr. Hammon, “I do not know that my book has converted a single unbeliever.” Perhaps he might say the same still ; and that, not only of his Letters to a Philo- sophical Unbeliever, but of those to the Jews. If the opinion of the Jews may in any degree be col- lected from the answer of their champion, Mr. David Levi, so far are they from being convinced of the truth of Chris- tianity by Dr. Priestley's writings, that they suspect whether he himself be a Christian. “ Your doctrine,” says Mr. Levi, “ is so opposite to what I always under- stood to be the principles of Christianity, that I must in- genuously confess I am greatly puzzled to reconcile your principles to the attempt. What a writer that asserts that the miraculous conception of Jesus does not appear to him to be sufficiently awthenticated, and that the original Gospel of St. Matthew did not contain it, set up for a de- fender of Christianity against the Jews, is such an incon- sistency as I did not expect to meet with in a philosopher, whose sole pursuit hath been in search of truth. You are pleased to declare, in plain terms, that you do not believe in the miraculous conception of Jesus, and that you are of opinion that he was the legitimate son of Joseph. After such assertions as these, how you can be entitled to the appellation of ‘a Christian,’ in the strict sense of the word, is to me really incomprehensible. If I am not greatly mistaken, I verily believe that the honour of Jesus, and the propagation of Christianity, are things of little moment in your serious thoughts, notwithstanding all your boasted sincerity.” To say nothing of the opinion of the Jews concerning what is Christianity having all the weight that is usually attributed to the judgment of impartial by- standers, the above quotations afford but little reason to hope for their conversion to Christianity by Socinian doc- trimes. But still, it may be said, We know not what is to come. True : but this we know, that if any considerable fruit arise from the Addresses above referred to, it is yet to come ; and not from these Addresses only, but, I am inclined to think, from any thing that has been attempted by Socini- ans for the conversion of unbelievers. Is it not a fact that Socinian principles render men in- different to this great object, and even induce them to treat * 60 THE NUMBER OF SOCINIAN CONVERTS. it with contempt The Monthly Reviewers, (Dec. 1792,) in reviewing Mr. Carey's late publication on this subject, infer from his acknowledgments of the baneful influence of wicked Europeans in their intercourse with heathens, and the great corruptions among the various denominations of professing Christians, that if so, “far better is the light of nature, as communicated by their Creator, than any light that our officiousness disposes us to carry to them.” By Europeans who have communicated their vices to heathens, Mr. Carey undoubtedly meant, not those minis- ters of the gospel, or those serious Christians, who have gone among them for their good; but navigators, mer- chants, and adventurers, whose sole object was to enrich themselves: and though he acknowledges a great deal of degeneracy and corruption to have infected the Christian world, yet the qualifications which he requires in a mission- ary might have secured his proposal from censure, and doubtless would have done so, had not the Reviewers been disposed to throw cold water upon every such under- taking. If, indeed, there be none to be found among pro- fessing Christians, except such as, by their intercourse with heathens, would only render their state worse than it was before, let the design be given up ; but if other- wise, the objection is of no force. The Reviewers will acknowledge that great corruptions have attended the civil government of Europe, not except- ing that of our own country, and that we are constantly engaged in dissensions on the subject; yet I have no doubt but they could find certain individuals who, if they were placed in the midst of an uncivilized people, would be capable of affording them substantial assistance—would teach them to establish good laws, good order, and equal liberty. Nor would they think of concluding, because European conquerors and courtiers, knowing no higher motive than self-interest, instead of meliorating the con- dition of uncivilized nations, have injured it, that there- fore it was vain for any European to think of doing other- wise. Neither would they regard the sneers of the ene- mies of civil liberty and equity, who might deride them as a little flock of conceited politicians, or, at best, of inex- perienced philanthropists, whose plans might amuse in the closet, but would not bear in real life. Why is it that we are to be sceptical and inactive in nothing but re- ligion? Had Mr. Carey, after the example of Dr. Priestley, pro- posed that his own denomination only should open an inter- course with heathens, the Reviewers would have accused him of illiberality; and now, when he proposes that “other denominations should engage separately in promoting mis- sions,” this, it is said, would be “spreading our religious dissensions over the globe.” How, them, are these gen- tlemen to be pleased ? By sitting still, it should seem, and persuading ourselves that it is impossible to find out what is true religion; or if not, that it is but of little im- portance to disseminate it. But why is it, I again ask, that we are to be sceptical and inactive in nothing but religion ? The result is this : Socinianism, so far from being friendly to the conversion of unbelievers, is neither adapted to the end nor favourable to the means—to those means, at least, by which it has pleased God to save them that believe. : LETTER IV. THE ARGUMENT FROM THE NUMBER OF CONVERTS TO SOCIN IAN ISM EXAMINED. If facts be admitted as evidence, perhaps it will appear that Socinianism is not so much adapted to make converts of Jews, heathens, Mahometans, or philosophical unbe- lievers, as of a speculating sort of people among professing Christians. These in our own country are found, some in the Established Church, and others among the Dissenters. Among people of this description, I suppose, Socinianism has gained considerable ground. Of this Dr. Priestley, and others of his party, are frequently making their boast, Disc. pp. 93, 94. But whether they have any cause for boasting, even in this case, may be justly doubted. In the first place, let it be considered that, though Socinianism may gain ground among speculating individuals, yet the congregations where that system, or what bears a near re- semblance to it, is taught, are greatly upon the decline. There are, at this time, a great many places of worship in this kingdom, especially among the Presbyterians and the General Baptists, where the Socinian and Arian doctrines have been taught till the congregations have gradually dwindled away, and there are scarcely enow left to keep up the form of worship. There is nothing in either of these systems, comparatively speaking, that alarms the con- science, or interests the heart; and therefore the congrega- tions where they are taught, unless kept up by the acci- dental popularity of a preacher, or some other circum- stances distinct from the doctrine delivered, generally fall into decay. But, further, let us examine a little more particularly what sort of people they, in general, are who are con- verted to Socinianism. It is an object worthy of inquiry, whether they appear to be modest, humble, serious Chris- tians, such as have known the plague of their own hearts; in whom tribulation hath wrought patience, and patience experience ; such as know whom they have believed, and have learned to count all things but loss for the ex- cellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus their Lord ; such as, in their investigation of sentiments, have been used to mingle earnest and humble prayer with patient and impar- tial inquiry; such, in fine, as have become little children in their own eyes. If they be, it is a circumstance of con- sequence, not sufficient, indeed, to justify their change of sentiments, but to render that change an object of atten- tion. When persons of this description embrace a set of new principles, it becomes a matter of serious consideration, what could induce them to do so. But if they be not, their case deserves but little regard. When the body of converts to a system are mere speculatists in religion, men of little or no seriousness, and who pay no manner of at- tention to vital and practical religion, it reflects neither honour on the cause they have espoused, nor dishonour on that which they have rejected. When we see persons of this stamp go over to the Socinian standard, it does not at all surprise us: on the contrary, we are ready to say, as the apostle said of the defection of some of the professors of Christianity in his day, “They went out from us, but they were not of us.” That many of the Socinian converts were previously men of no serious religion, needs no other proof than the ac- knowledgment of Dr. Priestley, and of Mr. Belsham. “It cannot be denied,” says the former, “that many of those who judge so truly, concerning particular tenets in religion, have attained to that cool and unbiassed temper of mind in consequence of becoming more indifferent to religion in general, and to all the modes and doctrines of it.” And this indifference to all religion is considered by Dr. Priest- ley as “favourable to a distinguishing between truth and falsehood,” Disc. p. 65. Much to the same purpose is what Mr. Belsham alleges, (p. 32,) as quoted before, that “men who are most indifferent to the practice of religion, and whose minds, therefore, are least attached to any set of principles, will ever be the first to see the absurdity of a popular superstition, and to embrace a rational system of faith.” It is easy to see, one should think, from hence, what sort of characters those are which compose the body of Socinian converts. Dr. Priestley, however, considers this circumstance as reflecting no dishonour upon his principles. He thinks he has fully accounted for it. So thinks Mr. Belsham ; and so think the Monthly Reviewers, in their Review of Mr. Belsham’s Sermon.* * I have not scrupled to class the Monthly Reviewers among So- cinians. Although in a work of that kind there is frequently, no doubt, a change of hands; yet it is easy to see that, of late years, (a very short interval º it has been principally, if not entirely, under Socinian direction; and, so far as religion is concerned, has been used as an instrument for the propagation of that system. Im- partiality towards Calvinistic writers is not, therefore, to be expected from that quarter. . It is true they sometimes affect to stand aloof from all parties, but it is mere affectation. Nothing can be more absurd than to expect them to judge impartially in a cause wherein they THE NUMBER OF SOCINIAN CONVERTS. 61 Surely Socinians must be wretchedly driven, or they would not have recourse to such a refuge as that of ac- knowledging that they hold a gospel the best preparative for which is a being destitute of all religion 1 : “What a reflection,” says Dr. Williams, in his answer to this ser- mon, “is here implied ” on the most eminent reformers of every age, who were the first to see the absurdities of a popular superstition, and the falsity of reigning principles | What a poor compliment to the religious character of Uni- tarian reformers . According to this account, one might be tempted to ask, Was it by being indifferent to the prac- tice of religion that Mr. Belsham was qualified to see and pronounce Calvinism to be gloomy and erroneous, an un- amiable and melancholy system 3 Charity forbids us to think he was thus qualified ; and if so, by his own rule he is no very competent judge ; except he is pleased to adopt the alternative, that he is only the humble follower of more sagacious but irreligious guides.” We read of different kinds of preparatives in the Scrip- tures, but I do not recollect that they contain any thing like the above. Zeal and attention, a disposition to search and pray, according to Solomon, (Prov. ii. 1–9,) is a pre- parative for the discovery of truth. The piety of Cornelius, which he exercised according to the opportunities he pos- sessed of obtaining light, was a preparative for his reception of the gospel as soon as he heard it. And this accords with our Lord’s declaration, “ He that will do his will shall know of his doctrine.” On the other hand, the cold indifference of some in the apostolic age, “who received not the love of the truth,” but, as it should seem, held it with a loose hand, even while they professed it, was equally a preparative for apostacy. We also read of some, in Isaiah’s time, who “ leaned very much to a life of dissipa- tion;” they “erred through wine.” “All tables are full of vomit and filthiness,” (saith the prophet, describing one of their assemblies,) “so that there is no place.” He adds, “Whom shall he teach knowledge, and whom shall he make to understand doctrine 3’’ And what is the an- swer ? ... Were the men who “ leaned to a life of dissipa- tion,” who loved to suck at the breasts of sensual indul- gence, the proper subjects 3 No : “ those that were weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.” But now, it seems, the case is altered, and, in order to find out the truth, the most likely way is to be divested of all re- ligion 1 It is true these things are spoken of what are called “speculative Unitarians,” whom Dr. Priestley calls “men of the world,” and distinguishes from “serious Chris- tians.” He endeavours also to guard his cause by observ- ing that the bulk of professing Christians, or of those who should have ranked as Christians, in every age, had been of this description. It must be acknowledged that there have been lukewarm, dissipated, and merely nominal Christians, in all ages of the church, and in every denomi- nation: I suspect, however, that Dr. Priestley, in order to reduce the state of the church in general to that of the Unitarians, has rather magnified this matter. But, be that as it may, there are two circumstances which render it im- proper for him to reason from this case to the other :— First, whatever bad characters have ranked with other denominations (at least with ours) as to their religious creed, we do not own, or consider them as “converts ;” much less do we glory in the spread of our principles, when men of that character profess to embrace. them, as this writer does.* If we speak of converts to our prin- ciples, we disown such people, and leave them out of the account, as persons whose walk and conversation, what- ever be their speculative opinions, discover them to be “enemies to the cross of Christ.” But were the Socinians to do so, it is more than probable that the number of con- verts of whom they boast would be greatly diminished. Secondly, whenever irreligious characters profess to imbibe our principles, we do not consider their state of mind as friendly to them. That which we account truth is a sys- tem of holiness; a system, therefore, which men of “no religion” will never cordially embrace. Persons may, in- deed, embrace a notion about the certainty of the Divine decrees, and the necessity of things being as they are to be, whether the proper means be used or not ; and they may live in the neglect of all means, and of all practical religion, and may reckon themselves, and be reckoned by some others, among the Calvinists. To such a creed as this, it is allowed, the want of all religion is the best pre- parative ; but then it must be observed that the creed itself is as false as the practice attending it is impure, and as opposite to Calvinism as it is to Scripture and common sense. Our opponents, on the contrary, ascribe many of their conversions to the absence of religion, as their pro- per cause, granting that “many of those who judge so truly, concerning particular tenets in religion, have at- tained to that cool, unbiassed temper of mind in conse- quence of becoming more indifferent to religion in general, and to all the modes and doctrines of it.” Could this ac- knowledgment be considered as the mistake of an un- guarded moment, it might be overlooked: but it is a fact; a fact which, as Dr. Priestley himself expresses it, “can- not be denied ;”f a fact, therefore, which must needs prove a millstone about the neck of his system. That doctrine, be it what it may, to which an indifference to religion is friendly, cannot be the gospel, or any thing pertaining to it, but something very near akin to infidelity. If it be objected, that the immoral character of persons, previously to their embracing a set of principles, ought not to be alleged against the moral tendency of those prin- ciples, because, if it were, Christianity itself would be dis- honoured by the previous character of many of the primi- tive Christians,—it is replied, there are two circumstances necessary to render this objection of any force. First, the previous character of the convert, however wicked it may have been, must have no influence on his conversion. Secondly, this conversion must have such an influence on him that, whatever may have been his past character, his future life shall be devoted to God. Both these circum- stances existed in the case of the primitive Christians; and if the same could be said of the converts to Socinian- ism, it is acknowledged that all objections from this quarter ought to give way. But this is not the case. Socinian converts are not only allowed, many of them, to be men of no religion ; but the want of religion, as we have seen already, is allowed to have influenced their con- version. Nor is this all : it is allowed that their conver- sion to these principles has no such influence upon them as to make any material change in their character for the better. This is a fact tacitly admitted by Mr. Belsham, in that he goes about to account for it, by alleging what was their character previously to their conversion. It is true he talks of this being the case “ only for a time,” and, at length, these converts are to “ have their eyes opened; are to feel the benign influence of their prin- ciples, and demonstrate the excellency of their faith by the superior dignity and worth of their character.” But these, it seems, like “the annihilation of death '' and the con- version of Jews and Mahometans by the Socinian doctrine, are things yet to come.: themselves are parties; absurd, however, as it is, some persons are weak enough to be imposed upon by their pretences. Perhaps of late years the Monthly Review has more contributed to the spreading of Socinianism than all other writings put together. The plan of that work does not admit of argumentation: a sudden flash of wit is gener- ally reckoned sufficient to discredit a Calvinistic performance; and this just suits the turn of those who are destitute of all religion. A laborious investigation of matters would not suit their temper of mind; they had rather subscribe to the well-known maxim, that “ridicule is the test of truth;” and then, whenever the Reviewers hold up a doctrine as ridiculous, they have nothing to do but to coin the laugh, and conclude it to be a “vulgar error, or a popular super- Stition.” * Disc. pp. 91.93, 94. + Ib. p. 95. # Since the publication of the first edition of these Letters, a report has been circulated that Dr. Priestley has been misrepresented by the quotation in page 60, which also was referred to at the commence- ment of the Preface. Dr. P., it has been said, in the place from which the passage is taken, “was not commending a total indifference to re- ligion, but the contrary; and his meaning was, not that such a disre- gard to all religion is a better qualification for discerning truth than a serious temper of mind, but that it is preferable to that bigoted attachment to a system which some people discover.” That Dr. P.’s leading design was to commend a total indifference to religion was never suggested. I suppose this, on the contrary, was to commend good discipline among the Unitarians, for the purpose of promoting religious zeal. His words are (accounting for the want of zeal among them)—“It cannot be denied that many of those who judge so truly, concerning particular tenets in religion, have attained to that cool, unbiassed temper of mind in consequence of becoming more indifferent to religion in general, and to all the modes and doctrines of it. Though, therefore, they are in a more favourable situation for 62 THE NUMBER OF SOCINIAN CONVERTS. But, it will be pleaded, though many who go over to Socinianism are men of no religion, and continue to “lean to a life of dissipation,” yet this is not the case with all : there are some who are exemplary in their lives, men of eminent piety and virtue, and who are distinguished by Dr. Priestley by the name of “serious Christians.” “ To this it is replied— First, Whatever piety or virtue there may be among Socinian converts, it may be doubted whether piety or virtue led them to embrace that scheme, or was much in exercise in their researches after it. It has been observed by some who have been most conversant with them, that as they have discovered a predilection for those views of things, it has been very common for them to discover at the same time a light-minded temper, speaking of sacred things, and disputing about them, with the most unbecoming levity and indecent freedom ; avoiding all conversation on experimental and devotional subjects, and directing their whole discourse to matters of mere speculation. Indeed, piety and virtue are, in effect, acknowledged to be unfavour- able to the embracing of the Socinian scheme; for if “an indifference to religion in general be favourable to the distinguishing between truth and falsehood,” and if “those men who are the most indifferent to the practice of religion will ever be the first to embrace the rational system,” it must follow, by the rule of contraries, that piety, virtue, and zeal for religion, are things unfavourable to that sys- tem, and that pious and virtuous persons will ever be the !ast to embrace it ; nay, some may think it very doubtful whether they ever embrace it at all. Serious Christians, according to the account of Mrs. Barbauld, are the most difficult sort of people that Socinian writers and preachers have to deal with ; for though they are sometimes brought to renounce the Calvinistic doctrines in theory, yet there is a sort of leaning towards them in their hearts, which their teachers know not how to eradicate. “These doc- trines,” she says, “it is true, among thinking people, are losing ground ; but there is still apparent, in that class called serious Christians, a tenderness in exposing them; a sort of leaning towards them, as in walking over a pre- cipice one should lean to the safest side; an idea that they are, if not true, at least good to be believed, and that a salutary error is better than a dangerous truth.”f Secondly, Whatever virtue there may be among Socinian converts, it may be questioned whether the distinguishing principles of Socinianism have any tendency towards pro- moting it. The principles which they hold in common with us, namely, the resurrection of the dead, and a fu- ture life, and not those in which they are distinguished from us, are confessedly the springs of their virtue. As to the simple humanity of Christ, which is one of the distin- guishing principles of Socinianism, Dr. Priestley acknow- ledges that “the connexion between this simple truth and a regular Christian life is very slight.” + “That,” says the same author, “which is most favourable to virtue in Chris- tianity is the expectation of a future state of retribution, grounded on a firm belief of the historical facts recorded in the Scriptures; especially the miracles, the death, and resurrection of Christ. The man who believes these things only, and who, together with this, acknowledges a universal providence, ordering all events—who is persuaded that our very hearts are constantly open to Divine inspection, so distinguishing between truth and falsehood, they are not likely to acquire a zeal for what they conceive to be the truth.” The leading design of Dr. P. in this passage, it is allowed, was to recommend good discipline, as friendly to zeal; and, as a previous indifference to religion in general was unfavourable to that temper of mind which he wished to inspire, in this view he is to be understood as blaming it. Yet, in an incidental manner, he as plainly acknow- ledges it to have been favourable for distinguishing between truth and falsehood; and, in this view, he must be understood as commending it. That he does commend it, though in an incidental way, is mani- fest from his attributing their judging so truly concerning particular tenets in religion to it; and that not merely as an occasion, but as an adequate cause, producing a good effect; rendering the mind more cool and unbiassed than it was before. To suppose that Dr. P. does not mean to recommend indifference to religion in general, as friendly to truth, (though unfriendly to zeal,) is supposing him not to mean what he says. As to the question, Whether Dr. P. means to compare an indiffer- ence to religion in general with a serious temper of mind, or with a spirit of bigotry, it cannot be the latter,-unless he considers the characters of whom he speaks as having been formerly bigoted in their attachment to modes and forms; for he is not comparing them with other people, but with themselves at a former period. So long as they regarded religion in general, according to his account, they were in a less favourable situation for distinguishing between truth and false- hood than when they came to disregard it. Dr. P.'s own account of these characters seems to agree with mere men of the world, rather than with religious bigots. They were persons, he says, who troubled themselves very little about religion, but who had been led to turn their attention to the dispute concerning the person of Christ, and, by their natural good sense, had decided upon it. To this effect he writes in pages 96, 97, of his “ Discourses on Parious Suljects.” Now this is far from answering to the character of religious bigots, or of those who at any time have sustained that character. But, waving this, let us suppose that the regard which those cha- racters bore towards religion in general was the regard of bigots. In this case they were a kind of Pharisees, attached to modes and forms, which blinded their minds from discovering the truth. Afterwards they approached nearer to the Sadducees, became more indifferent to religion in general, and to all the modes and doctrines of it. The amount of Dr. P.'s position would then be, that the spirit of a Sadducee is preferable, with respect to discerning truth, to that of a Pharisee, possessing more of a cool, unbiassed temper of mind. The reply that I should make to this is, that neither Pharisees nor Sadducees possess that temper of mind of which Dr. P. speaks, but are both “a genera- tion of vipers,” different in some respects, but equally malignant to- wards the true gospel of Christ; and that the humble, the candid, the serious, and the upright inquirers after truth are the only persons likely to find it. And this is the substance of what I advanced in the first page of the Preface, which has been charged as a misrepresenta- tion. I never suggested that Dr. P. was comparing the characters in question with the serious or the candid; but rather that, let the com- parison respect whom it might, his attributing an unbiassed temper of mind to men, in consequence of their becoming indifferent to religion in general, was erroneous; for that he who is not a friend to religion in any mode is an enemy to it in all modes, and ought not to be com- plimented as being in a favourable situation for distinguishing between truth and falsehood. A writer in the Monthly Review has laboured to bring JMr. Belsham off in the same manner; but instead of affording him any relief, he has betrayed the cause he has espoused, and made Mr. B. reason in a manncr unworthy of his abilities. “We apprehend,” says this writer, “that Mr. B. does not mean to assert, nor even to intimate, that indifference to religious practice prepared the mind for the ad- mission of that religious truth ...} prompts virtuous conduct.” Mr. B., however, does intimate, and even assert, that “the men who are the most indifferent to the practice of religion will ever be the first not only to see the absurdity of a popular superstition, but to embrace a rational system of faith.” Does the Reviewer mean, then, to ac- knowledge that the rational system does not include that kind of truth which prompts virtuous conduct? There is no truth in his expressions but upon this supposition. But this writer not only informs us what Mr. B. did not mean, but what he did mean. (One would think the Reviewer of Dr. Williams must have been very intimate with Mr. B.) Mr. Belsham meant, it seems, “that the absurdities of a popular superstition are more apt to strike the mind of those who are even indifferent to religion than of those who are bigoted in their attachment to particular creeds and rites; and, therefore, that the former will be more inclined to allow reason to mould their faith than the latter.”—Review of Dr. Williams’s Answer to Mr. Belsham. Jan. 1792. To be sure, if a Reviewer may be allowed to add a few such words as more, and than, and even to Mr. B.’s language, he may smooth its rough edges, and render it less exceptionable; but is it true that this was Mr. B.’s meaning, or that such a meaning would ever have been invented, but to serve a turn ? If there be any way of coming at an author's meaning, it is by his words, and by the scope of his reasoning; but neither the one nor the other will warrant this construction. Mr. B.’s words are these : “The men who are the most indifferent to the practice of religion will ever be the first to embrace a rational system of faith.” If he intended merely to assert that immoral characters will embrace the truth before bigots, his words are abundantly too strong for his meaning; for though the latter were allowed to be the last in embracing truth, it will not follow that the former will be the first. If the rational system were on the side of truth, surely it might be expected that the serious and the upright would be the first to embrace it. But this is not pre- tended. Serious Christians, by the acknowledgment of Mrs. Barbauld, are the last that come fully into it. The scope of Mr. Belsham's reasoning is equally unfavourable to such a construction as his words are. There is nothing in the objec- tion which he encounters that admits of such an answer. It was not alleged, That there was a greater proportion of immoral charac- ters than of bigots among the Unitarians; had this been the charge, the answer put into Mr. B.’s lips might have been in point. But the charge, as he himself expresses it, was simply this—“Rational Chris- tians are often represented as indifferent to practical religion.” To suppose that Mr. B. would account for this by alleging that immoral characters are more likely to embrace the truth than bigots, (unless he denominate all bigots who are not Unitarians,) is supposing him to have left the objection unanswered. How is it that there should be so great a proportion of immoral characters, rather than of humble, serious, and godly men, or of what Mr. Belsham calls.“ practical believers?” This was the spirit of the objection; and if the above construction of Mr. B.’s words be admitted, it remains unanswered. Let Dr. Priestley, or Mr. Belsham, or any of their advocates, who have charged the above quotations with misrepresentation, come forward, and, if they be able, make good the charge. Till this is done, I shall consider them as fair and just, and as including conces- sions, which, though possibly made in an unguarded moment, contain a truth which must prove a millstone about the neck of the Socinian system. * Disc. p. 98. + Remarks on Wakefield’s Inquiry on Social Worship. # Disc. p. 97. THE STANDARD OF MORALITY. 63 that no iniquity, or purpose of it, can escape his observa- tion, will not be a bad man, or a dangerous member of so- ciety.”* Now these are things in which we are all agreed; whatever virtue, therefore, is ascribed to them, it is not, strictly speaking, the result of Socinian principles. If, in addition to this, we were to impute a considerable degree of the virtue of Socinian converts to “the principles in which they were educated, and the influence to which they were exposed in the former part of their lives,” we should only say of them what Dr. Priestley says of the vir- tuous lives of some atheists; and perhaps we should have as good grounds for such an imputation in the one case as he had in the other.f. Among the various Socinian converts, have we ever been used to hear of any remarkable change of life or behaviour which a conversion to their peculiar principles effected? I hope there are few Calvinistic congregations in the king- dom, but what could point out examples of persons among them, who, at the time of their coming over to their doc- trinal principles, came over also from the course of this world, and have ever since lived in newness of life. Can this be said of the generality of Socinian congregations 3 Those who have had the greatest opportunity of observing them say the contrary. Yea, they add that the conversion of sinners to a life of holiness does not appear to be their aim ; that their concern seems to be to persuade those who, in their account, have too much religion, that less will suffice, rather than to address themselves to the irreligious, to convince them of their defect. A great part of Dr. Priestley's sermon on the death of Mr. Robinson is of this tendency. Instead of concurring with the mind of God, as expressed in his word, “Oh that my people were wise, that they would consider their latter end ’’ the preacher goes about to dissuade his hearers from thinking too much upon that unwelcome subject. You will judge, from these things, brethren, whether there be any cause for boasting, on the part of the So- cinians, in the number of converts which they tell us are continually making to their principles; or for discourage- ment on the side of the Calvinists, as if what they account the cause of God and truth were going fast to decline. LETTER. W. ON THE STANDARD OF MORALITY. You have observed that Dr. Priestley charges the Calvin- istic system with being unfriendly to morality, “as giving Wrong impressions concerning the character and moral government of God, and as relaxing the obligations of vir- tue.” That you may judge of the propriety of this heavy charge, and whether our system, or his own, tend most to “relax the obligations of virtue,” it seems proper to in- quire, which of them affords the most licentious motions of virtue itself. To suppose that the scheme which pleads for relaxation, both in the precept and in the penalty of the great rule of Divine government, should, after all, relax the least, is highly paradoxical. The system, be it which it may, that teaches us to lower the standard of obedience, or to make light of the nature of disobedience, must surely be the system which relaxes the obligations of virtue, and, consequently, is of an immoral tendency. The eternal standard of right and wrong is the moral law, summed up in love to God with all the heart, soul, ºmind, and strength, and to our neighbour as ourselves. This law is holy, just, and good : holy, as requiring perfect conformity to God; just, as being founded in the strictest equity; and good, as being equally adapted to promote the happiness of the creature and the glory of the Creator. Nor have we any notion of the precept of the law being abated, or a jot or tittle of it being given up, in order to suit the inclinations of depraved creatures. We do not conceive the law to be more strict than it ought to be, even considering our present circumstances, because we con- sider the evil propensity of the heart, which alone renders * Letter V. to Mr. Burn. + Let. Unb. P. I. Pref. vi. # Apology, 4th ed. p. 48. us incapable of perfect obedience, as no excuse. Neither do we plead for the relaxation of the penalty of the law upon the footing of equity; but insist that, though God, through the mediation of his Son, doth not mark iniquity in those that wait on him, yet he might do so consistently with justice; and that his not doing so is of mere grace. I hope these sentiments do not tend to “relax the obliga- tions of virtue.” Let us inquire whether the same may be said of the scheme of our opponents. It may be thought that, in these matters, in some of them at least, we are agreed. And, indeed, I suppose few will care to deny, in express terms, that the moral law, consisting of a requisition to love God with all the heart, and our neighbour as ourselves, is an eternal standard of right and wrong. But let it be considered whether the Socinians, in their descriptions of virtue and vice, do not greatly overlook the former branch of it, and almost confine themselves to those duties which belong to the latter. It has been long observed, of writers of that stamp, that they exalt what are called the social virtues, or those virtues which respect society, to the neglect, and often at the ex- pense, of others which more immediately respect the God that made us. It is a very common thing for Socinians to make light of religious principle, and to represent it as of little importance to our future well-being. Under the specious name of liberality of sentiment, they dispense with that part of the will of God which requires every thought to be in subjection to the obedience of Christ; and, under the guise of candour and charity, excuse those who fall under the Divine censure. The Scripture speaks of those “who deny the Lord that bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction ”—and “ of those who receive not the love of the truth, being given up to believe a lie.” But the minds of Socinian writers appear to revolt at ideas of this kind: the tenor of their writings is to per- suade mankind that sentiments may be accepted, or rejected, without endangering their salvation. Infidels have some- times complained of Christianity, as a kind of insult to their dignity, on account of its dealing in threatenings ; but Dr. Priestley, in his Letters to the Philosophers and Politicians of France, has quite removed this stumbling- block out of their way. He accounts for their infidelity in such a way as to acquit them of blame, and enforces Christianity upon them by the most inoffensive motives. Not one word is intimated as if there was any danger as to futurity, though they should continue infidels, or even atheists, till death. The only string upon which he harps, as I remember, is, that could they but embrace Chris- tianity, they would be much happier than they are : If I entertain degrading notions of the person of Christ, and if I err from the truth in so doing, my error, according to Mr. Lindsey, is innocent,i and no one ought to think the worse of me on that account. But if I happen to be of opinion that he who rejects the Deity and atonement of Christ is not a Christian, I give great offence. But where- fore ? Suppose it an error, why should it not be as inno- cent as the former ? and why ought I to be reproached as an illiberal, uncharitable bigot for this, while no one ought to think the worse of me for the other ? Can this be any otherwise accounted for, than by supposing that those who reason in this manner are more concerned for their own honour than for that of Christ 3 Dr. Priestley, it may be noted, makes much lighter of error when speaking on the supposition of its being found in himself, than when he supposes it to be found in his opponents. He charges Mr. Venn, and others, with “striving to render those who differ from them in some speculative points odious to their fellow Christians ; ” and elsewhere suggests that “we shall not be judged at the last day according to our opinions, but our works ; not according to what we have thought of Christ, but as we have obeyed his commands :” $ as if it were no distin- guishing property of a good work that it originate in a good, principle; and as if the meanest opinion, and the most degrading thoughts of Jesus Christ, were consistent with obedience to him. But when he himself becomes the accuser, the case is altered, and instead of reckoning the supposed errors of the Trinitarians to be merely specu- & Considerations on Differences of Opinion, III. Def, Unit. 1786, p. 59. Ditto 1787, p. 68. 64 THE STANDARD OF MORALITY. lative points, and harmless opinions, they are said to be “idolatrous and blasphemous.” + But idolatry and blas- phemy will not only be brought into account at the day of judgment, but be very offensive in the eyes of God, 1 Cor. vi. 9. For my part, I am not offended with Dr. Priestley, or any other Socinian, for calling the worship that I pay to Christ idolatry and blasphemy; because, if he be only a man, what they say is just. If they can acquit themselves of sin in thinking meanly of Christ, they certainly can do the same in speaking meanly of him; and words ought to correspond with thoughts. I only think they should not trifle in such a manner as they do with error, when it is supposed to have place in themselves, any more than when they charge it upon their opponents. If Dr. Priestley had formed his estimate of human virtue by that great standard which requires love to God with all the heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to our neighbour as ourselves, instead of representing men by nature as having “more virtue than vice,” + he must have acknowledged, with the Scriptures, that “the whole world lieth in wickedness”—that “every thought and imagina- tion of their heart is only evil continually ”—and that “there is none of them that doeth good, no, not one.” If Mr. Belsham, in the midst of that “marvellous light” which he professes lately to have received, had only seen the extent and goodness of that law which requires us to love God with all our hearts, and our neighbour as our- selves, in the light in which revelation places it, he could not have trified, in the manner he has, with the nature of sim, calling it “human frailty,” and the subjects of it “the frail and erring children of men ; ” nor could he have represented God, in “marking and punishing every in- stance of it, as acting the part of a merciless tyrant.”f Mr. Belsham talks of “Unitarians being led to form just sentiments of the reasonableness of the Divine law, and the equity of the Divine government; ” but of what Divine law does he speak 3 Not of that, surely, which requires love to God with all the heart, soul, mind, and strength, and our neighbour as ourselves ; nor of that government which threatens the curse of God on every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them ; for this allows not of a single transgression, and punishes every instance of human folly, which Mr. Belsham considers as “merciless tyranny.” He means to insinuate, I suppose, that for the law to take cognizance of the very thoughts and intents of the heart, at least of every instance that occurs, is unreasonable ; and that to inflict punishment accordingly is inequitable. He conceives, therefore, of a law, it seems, that is more ac- commodated to the propensities, or, as he would call them, frailties, of the erring children of men; a law that may not cut off all hopes of a sinner's acceptance with God by the deeds of it, so as to render an atoning Mediator absolutely necessary, and this he calls reasonable; and of a government that will not bring every secret thing into judgment, nor make men accountable for every idle word, and this he calls equitable. And this is the “marvellous light” of Socinianism ; this is the doctrine that is to promote a holy life ; this is the scheme of those who are continually branding the Calvinistic system with Anti- nomianism : : If the moral law require love to God with all the heart, and soul, and mind, and strength, and to our neighbour as ourselves, it cannot allow the least degree of alienation of the heart from God, or the smallest instance of malevo- lence to man. And if it be what the Scripture says it is, holy, just, and good, then, though it require all the heart, and soul, and mind, and strength, it cannot be too strict; and if it be not too strict, it cannot be unworthy of God, nor can it be “merciless tyranny ” to abide by it. On the contrary, it must be worthy of God to say of a just law, “Not a jot or tittle of it shall fail.” Dr. M'Gill, in his Practical Essay on the Death of Jesus Christ, (p. 252,) maintains that “the Supreme Lawgiver • Disc. p. 96. + Let. Phil. Unb. Part I, p. 80. t Serm. p. 33–35. * Fam. Let. VI. | The intelligent reader who is acquainted with the different senti- ments that are embraced in the religious world, will easily perceive the agreement between the Socinian, and Arminian systems on this subject. By their exclamations on the injustice of God as represented by the determined from the beginning to mitigate the rigour of the law, to make allowances for human error and imper- fection, and to accept of repentance and sincere obedi- ence, instead of sinless perfection.” But if this were the determination of the Lawgiver, it was either considered as a matter of right or of undeserved favour. If the former, why was not the law so framed as to correspond with the determination of the Lawgiver ? How was it, especially, that a new edition of it should be published from Mount Sinai, and that without any such allowances 3 Or, if this could be accounted for, how was it that Jesus Christ should declare that “not a jot or tittle of it should fail,” and make it his business to condemn the conduct of the Scribes and Pharisees, who had lowered its demands and softened its penalties, with a view to “make allow- ance for human error and imperfection ?” It could answer no good end, one should think, to load the Divine precepts with threatenings of cruelty. A law so loaded would not bear to be put in execution; and we have been taught by Dr. Priestley, in what he has written on the Test Act, to consider “the continuance of a law which will not bear to be put in execution as needless and oppressive, and as what ought to be abrogated.” $ If repentance and sincere obedience be all that ought to be required of men in their present state, then the law ought to be so framed, and allowance to be made by it for error and imperfection. But then it would follow, that where men do repent, and are sincere, there are no errors and imperfections to be allowed for. Errors and imperfections imply a law from which they are deviations; but if we be under no law, except one that allows for deviations, then we are as holy as we ought to be, and need no forgiveness. If, on the other hand, it be allowed that the relaxation of the law of innocence is not what we have any right to expect, but that God has granted us this indulgence out of pwre grace, I would then ask the reason why these gen- tlemen are continually exclaiming against our principles as making the Almighty a tyrant, and his law unreasonable and cruel ? Is it tyrannical, unreasonable, or cruel, for God to withhold what we have no right to expect? || Dr. Priestley defines justice as being “such a degree of severity, or pains and penalties so inflicted, as will produce the best effect with respect both to those who are exposed to them, and to others who are under the same govern- ment; or, in other words, that degree of evil which is cal- culated to produce the greatest degree of good ; and if the punishment exceed this measure—if, in any instance, it be an unnecessary or useless suffering, it is always censured as cruelty, and is not even called justice, but real injustice.” To this he adds, “If, in any particular case, the strict exe- cution of the law would do more harm than good, it is universally agreed that the punishment ought to be remit- ted.” T With an observation or two on the above passage, I shall close this letter. - First, That all punishments are designed for the good of the whole, and less (or corrective) punishments for the good of the offender, is admitted. Every instance of Di- vine punishment will be not only proportioned to the laws of equity, but adapted to promote the good of the universe at large. God never inflicts punishment for the sake of punishing. He has no such pleasure in the death of a sinner as to put him to pain, whatever may be his desert, without some great and good end to be answered by it; but that, in the case of the finally impenitent, this end should necessarily include the good of the offender, is as contrary to reason as it is to Scripture. It does not appear, from any thing we know of governments, either human or Divine, that the good of the offender is necessarily, and in all cases, the end of punishment. When a murderer is executed, it is necessary for the good of the community : but it would sound very strange to say it was necessary for his own good ; and that, unless his good were promoted by it, as well as that of the community, it must be an act of cruelty Calvinistic system, they both render that a debt which God in the whole tenor of his word declares to be of grace. Neither of them will admit the equity of the Divine law, and that man is thereby righteously condemned to eternal punishment, antecedently to the grace of the gospel; or if they admit it in words, they will be ever contradicting it by the tenor of their reasonings. - * Let. Unb. P. I. pp. 100, 101 OF MORALITY IN GENERAL. 65 Secondly, That there are cases in human governments in which it is right and necessary to relax in the execu- tion of the sentence of the law is also admitted. But this arises from the imperfection of human laws. Laws are general rules for the conduct of a community, with suit- able punishments annexed to the breach of them. But no general rules can be made by men that will apply to every particular case. If legislators were wise and good men, and could foresee every particular case that would arise in the different stages of society, they would so frame their laws as that they need not be relaxed when those cases should occur. But God is wise and good ; and previously to his giving us the law which requires us to love him with all our hearts, and our neighbour as ourselves, knew every change that could possibly arise, and every case that could occur. The question, therefore, is not, “whether, if in any particular case the strict execution of the law would do more harm than good, it ought not to be remitted ; but whether an omniscient, wise, and good Lawgiver can be supposed to have made a law, the penalty of which, if put in execution, would do more harm than good. Would a being of such a character make a law, the penalty of which, according to strict equity, requires to be remitted; a law by which he could not in justice abide ; and that not only | in a few singular cases, but in the case of every individual, in every age, to whom it is given 3 It is possible these considerations may suffice to show that the Divine law is not relaxed ; but, be that as it may, the question at issue is—What is the moral tendency of supposing that it is ? To relax a bad law would indeed have a good effect, and to abrogate it would have a better; but not so respecting a good one. If the Divine law be what the Scripture says it is, holy, just, and good, to relax it in the precept, or even to mitigate the penalty, without Some expedient to secure its honours, must be subversive of good order; and the scheme which pleads for such re- laxation must be unfavourable to holiness, justice, and goodness. LETTER WI. ON THE PROMOTION OF MORALITY IN GENERAL, WHAT has been advanced in the last letter on the standard of morality may serve to fix the meaning of the term in this. The term morality, you know, is sometimes used to express those duties which subsist between man and man, and in this acceptation stands distinguished from religion ; but I mean to include under it the whole of what is con- tained in the moral law. Nothing is more common than for the adversaries of the Calvinistic system to charge it with immorality; nay, as if this were self-evident, they seem to think themselves ex- cused from advancing any thing like sober evidence to support the charge. Virulence, rant, and extravagance are the weapons with which we are not unfrequently com- bated in this warfare. “I challenge the whole body and being of moral evil itself,” says a writer of the present day,” “to invent, or inspire, or whisper any thing blacker or more wicked ; yea, if sin itself had all the wit, the tongues and pens of all men and angels, to all etermity, I defy the whole to say any thing of God worse than this. O sin, thou hast spent and emptied thyself in the doctrine of John Calvin And here I rejoice that I have heard the utmost that malevolence itself shall ever be able to say against infinite benignity I was myself brought up and tutored in it, and being delivered, and brought to see the evil and danger, am bound by my obligations to God, angels, and men, to warn my fellow sinners; I therefore, here, before God, and the whole universe, recall and condemn every Word I have spoken in favour of it. I thus renounce the doctrine as the rancour of devils; a doctrine the preaching of which is babbling and mocking, its prayers blasphemy, and whose praises are the horrible yellings of sin and hell. And this I do, because I know and believe that God is love; and therefore his decrees, works, and ways are also * Ilewellyn's Tracts, p. 292. F love, and cannot be otherwise.” It were ill-spent time to attempt an answer to such unfounded calumny as this, which certainly partakes much more of the ravings of in- sanity than of the words of truth and soberness; yet this, according to the Monthly Review, (July, 1792,) is “the true colouring of the doctrine of Calvinism.” Had any thing like this been written by a Calvinist against Socinianism, the Reviewers would have been the first to have exclaimed against Calvinistic illiberality. This gentleman professes to have been a Calvinist, and so does Dr. Priestley. The Calvinism of the latter, how- ever, seems to have left an impression upon his mind very different from the above. “Whether it be owing to my Calvinistic education,” says he, “ or my considering the principles of Calvinism as generally favourable to that lead- ing virtue, devotion, or to their being something akin to the doctrine of necessity, I cannot but acknowledge that, notwithstanding what I have occasionally written against that system, and which I am far from wishing to retract, I feel myself disposed to look upon Calvinists with a kind of respect, and could never join in the contempt and insult with which I have often heard them treated in con- versation.”f But Dr. Priestley, I may be told, whatever good opinion he may have of the piety and virtue of Calvinists, has a very ill opinion of Calvinism ; and this, in a certain de- gree, is true. Dr. Priestley, however, would not say that “the preaching of that system was babbling and mocking, its prayers blasphemy, or its praises the horrible yellings of sin and hell:” on the contrary, he acknowledges “its prin- ciples to be generally favourable to that leading virtue, devotion.” I confess Dr. Priestley has advanced some heavy accusa- tions on the immoral tendency of Calvinism, accusations which seem scarcely consistent with the candid concessions just now quoted ; and these I shall now proceed to ex- amine. “I do not see,” says he, (p. 154,) “what motive a Calvinist can have to give any attention to his moral conduct. So long as he is unregenerate, all his thoughts, words, and actions are necessarily sinful, and in the act of regeneration he is altogether passive. On this account, the most consistent Calvinists never address any exhorta- tions to sinners; considering them as dead in trespasses and sins, and, therefore, that there would be as much sense and propriety in speaking to the dead as to them. On the other hand, if a man be in the happy number of the elect, he is sure that God will, some time or other, and at the most proper time, (for which the last moment of his life is not too late,) work upon him his miraculous work of saving and sanctifying grace. Though he should be ever so wicked immediately before this Divine and effect- wal calling, it makes nothing against him. Nay, some think that, this being a more signal display of the wonders of Divine grace, it is rather the more probable that God will take this opportunity to display it. If any system of speculative principles can operate as an axe at the root of all virtue and goodness, it is this.” On this unfavourable account of Calvinism I will offer the following observa- tions:— First, If Calvinism be an axe at the root of virtue and goodness, it is only so with respect to those of the “unre- generate;” which certainly do not include all the virtue and goodness in the world. As to others, Dr. Priestley acknowledges, as we have seen already, that our principles are “generally favourable to devotion ;” and devotion, if it be what he denominates it, “a leading virtue,” will doubtless be followed with other virtues correspondent with it. He acknowledges also (pp. 163, 164) “there are many (among the Calvinists) whose hearts and lives are, in all respects, truly Christian, and whose Christian tempers are really promoted by their own views of their system.” How is it, then, that Dr. Priestley “cannot see what motive a Calvinist can have to give any attention to his moral con- duct;” and why does he represent Calvinism as “an axe at the root of all virtue and goodness?” By all virtue and goodness he can only mean the virtue and goodness of wicked men. Indeed, this appears plainly to have been his meaning; for after acknowledging that Calvinism has something in it favourable to “an habitual and animated - + Pllil. Nec. 163, & 66 OF MORALITY IN GENERAL, devotion,” he adds, p. 162, “but where a disposition to vice has preoccupied the mind, I am very well satisfied, and but too many facts might be alleged in proof of it, that the doctrines of Calvinism have been actually fatal to the remains of virtue, and have driven men into the most desperate and abandoned course of wickedness; whereas the doctrine of necessity, properly understood, cannot pos- sibly have any such effect, but the contrary.” Now, sup- pose all this were true, it can never justify Dr. Priestley in the use of such unlimited terms as those before men- tioned. Nor is it any disgrace to the Calvinistic system that men whose minds are preoccupied with vice should misunderstand and abuse it. The purest liquor, if put into a musty cask, will become unpalatable. It is no more than is said of some who professed to embrace Chris- tianity in the times of the apostles, that they turned the grace of God into lasciviousness. Is it any wonder that the wicked will do wickedly; or that they will extract poison from that which, rightly understood, is the food of the righteous It is enough if our sentiments, like God's words, do good to the upright. Wisdom does not expect to be justifted but of her children. The Scriptures them- selves make no pretence of having been useful to those who have still lived in sin, but allow the gospel to be “a savour of death unto death in them that perish.” The doctrine of necessity is as liable to produce this effect as any of the doctrines of Calvinism. It is true, as Dr. Priest- ley observes, “it cannot do so, if it be properly under- stood :” but this is allowing that it may do so if it be misunderstood; and we have as good reason for ascribing the want of a proper understanding of the subject to those who abuse predestination, and other Calvinistic doctrines, as he has for ascribing it to those who abuse the doctrine of necessity. Dr. Priestley speaks of the remains of virtue, where a disposition to vice has preoccupied the mind; and of the Calvinistic system being as an axe at the root of these remains : but some people will question whether virtue of such a description have any root belonging to it, so as to require an axe to cut it up ; and whether it be not owing to this circumstance that such characters, like the stony-ground hearers, in time of temptation fall away. Secondly, The Calvinistic system is misrepresented by Dr. Priestley, even as to its influence on the unregenerate. In the passage before quoted, he represents those persons “who are of the happy number of the elect as being sure that God will, some time or other, work upon them this work of sanctifying grace.” But how are they to come at this assurance 3 Not by any thing contained in the Cal- vinistic system. All the writers in that scheme have con- stantly insisted that no man has any warrant to conclude himself of the happy number of the elect, till the work of sanctifying grace is actually wrought. With what colour of truth or ingenuousness, then, could Dr. Priestley repre- sent our system as affording a ground of assurance pre- viously to that event? This is not a matter of small ac- count in the present controversy; it is the point on which the immoral tendency of the doctrine wholly depends. As to the certainty of any man’s being sanctified and saved at some future time, this can have no ill influence upon him, while it exists merely in the Divine mind. If it have any such influence, it must be owing to his knowledge of it at a time when, his heart being set on evil, he would be disposed to abuse it ; but this, as we have seen, upon the Calvinistic system, is utterly impossible, because nothing short of a sanctified temper of mind affords any just grounds to draw the favourable conclusion. Dr. Priestley has also represented it as a part of the Calvinistic system, or, at least, “as the opinion of some,” that “ the more wicked a man is, previously to God's work of sanctifying grace upon him, the more probable it is that he will, some time, be sanctified and saved.” But though it be allowed that God frequently takes occasion from the degree of human wickedness to magnify his grace in delivering from it, yet it is no part of the Calvinistic system that the former affords any grounds of probability to expect the latter; and whoever they be to whom Dr. Priestley alludes, as entertaining such an opinion, I am inclined to think they are not among the respectable writers of the party, and probably not among those who have written at all. Thirdly, Let it be considered, whether Dr. Priestley's J own views of philosophical necessity do not amount to the same thing as those which he alleges to the discredit of Calvinism ; or, if he will insist upon the contrary, whether he must not contradict himself, and maintain a system which, by his own confession, is less friendly to piety and humility than that which he opposes. A state of wºmregeneracy is considered by Calvinists as being the same thing which Dr. Priestley describes as “the state of a person who sins with a full consent of will, and who, disposed as he is, is under an impossibility of acting other- wise ; but who,” as he justly maintains, “is nevertheless accountable, even though that consent be produced by the efficacy and unconquerable influence of motive. It is only,” continues he, (pp. 63–65,) “where the necessity of sinning arises from some other cause than a man's own disposition of mind that we ever say, there is an impro- priety in punishing a man for his conduct. If the impos- sibility of acting well has arisen from a bad disposition or habit, its having been impossible, with that disposition or habit, to act virtuously, is never any reason for our for- bearing punishment, because we know that punishment is proper to correct that disposition and that habit.” Now if it be consistent to punish a man for necessary evil, as Dr. Priestley abundantly maintains, why should it be in- consistent to exhort, persuade, reason, or expostulate with him ; and why does he call those Calvinists “the most consistent” who avoid such addresses to their auditors? If “the thoughts, words, and actions of unregenerate men, being necessarily sinful,” be a just reason why they should not have exhortations addressed to them, the whole doc- trine of necessity must be inconsistent with the use of means, than which nothing can be more contrary to truth, and to Dr. Priestley’s own views of things. As to our being passive in regeneration, if Dr. Priestley would only admit that any one character could be found that is so depraved as to be destitute of all true virtue, the same thing would follow from his own necessarian prin- ciples. According to those principles, every man who is under the dominion of a vicious habit of mind will con- tinue to choose vice, till such time as that habit be changed, and that by some influence without himself. “If,” says he, (p. 7,) “I make any particular choice to-day, I should have done the same yesterday, and should do the same to- morrow, provided there be no change in the state of my mind respecting the object of the choice.” Now can any person in such a state of mind be supposed to be active in the changing of it; for such activity must imply an inclina- tion to have it changed; which is a contradiction, as it supposes him at the same time under the dominion of evil and inclined to goodness? But, possibly, Dr. Priestley will not admit that any one character can be found who is utterly destitute of true virtue. Be it so ; he must admit that, in some characters, vice has an habitual ascendency: but the habitual ascend- ency of vice as certainly determines the choice as even a total depravity. A decided majority in parliament carries every measure with as much certainty as if there were no minority. Wherevervice is predominant (and in no other case is regeneration needed) the party must necessarily be passive in the first change of his mind in favour of virtue. But there are seasons, in the life of the most vicious men, in which their evil propensities are at a lower ebb than usual ; in which conscience is alive, and thoughts of a serious nature arrest their attention. At these favour- able moments, it may be thought that virtue has the ad- vantage of its opposite, and that this is the time for a per- son to become active in effecting a change upon his own mind. Without inquiring whether there be any real virtue in all this, it is sufficient to observe that, if we allow the whole of what is pleaded for, the objection destroys itself. For it supposes that, in order to a voluntary activity in favour of virtue, the mind must first be virtuously disposed, and that by something in which it was passive ; which is giving up the point in dispute. Dr. Priestley often represents “a change of disposition and character as being effected only by a change of con- duct, and that of long continuance,” p. 156. But what- ever influence a course of virtuous actions may have upon the disposition, and however it may tend to establish us in the habit of doing good, all goodness of disposition cannot OF MORALITY IN GENERAL. Ö7 arise from this quarter. There must have been a disposi- tion to good, and one too that was sufficiently strong to outweigh its opposite, ere a course of virtuous actions could be commenced; for virtuous action is nothing but the effect, or expression, of virtuous disposition. To say that this previous disposition was also produced by other previous actions is only carrying the matter a little further out of sight ; for unless it can be proved that virtuous action may exist prior to and without all virtuous dispo- sition, let the one be carried back as far as it may, it must still have been preceded by the other, and, in obtaining the preceding disposition, the soul must necessarily have been passive.* Dr. Priestley labours hard to overthrow the doctrine of immediate Divine agency, and contends that all Divine influence upon the human mind is through the medium of second causes, or according to the established laws of na- ture. “If moral impressions were made upon men's minds by an immediate Divine agency, to what end,” he asks, “has been the whole apparatus of revealed religion ?”f This, in effect, is saying that, if there be laws for such an operation on the human mind, every kind of influence upon it must be through the medium of those laws; and that, if it be otherwise, there is no need of the use of means. But might he not as well allege that, if there be laws by which the planets move, every kind of influence upon them must have been through the medium of those laws; and deny that the Divine Being immediately, and prior to the operation of the laws of nature, put them all in motion ? Might he not as well ask, If an immediate influence could be exercised in setting the material system in motion, of what use are all the laws of nature, by which it is kept in motion ? Whatever laws attend the movements of the material system, the first creation of it is allowed to have been by an immediate exertion of Divine power. God said, “Let there be light, and there was light;” and why should not the second creation be the same? I say the second creation ; for the change upon the sinner's heart is represented as nothing less in the Divine word; and the very manner of its being effected is expressed in language which evidently alludes to the first creation—“ God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined into our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” Not only Scripture, but reason itself, teaches the necessity for such an immediate Divine interposition in the changing of a sinner's heart. If a piece of machinery (suppose the whole material system) were once in a state of disorder, the mere exercise of those laws by which it was ordained to move would never bring it into order again; but, on the con- trary, would drive it on further and further to everlasting confusion. As to election, Dr. Priestley cannot consistently main- tain his scheme of necessity without admitting it. If, as he abundantly maintains, God is the author of every good disposition in the human heart; ; and if, as he also in the same section maintains, God, in all that he does, pursues one plan, or system, previously concerted ; it must follow that wherever good dispositions are produced, and men are finally saved, it is altogether in consequence of the appoint- ment of God; which, as to the present argument, is the same thing as the Calvinistic doctrine of election. - So plain a consequence is this from Dr. Priestley's ne- cessarian principles, that he himself, when writing his Treatise on that subject, could not forbear to draw it. “Our Saviour,” he says, (p. 140,) “seems to have con- sidered the rejection of the gospel by those who boasted of their wisdom, and the reception of it by the more despised part of mankind, as being the consequence of the express appointment of God: “At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, * Since the publication of the second edition of these Letters, it has been suggested by a friend, that there is no necessity for confining these observations to the case of a man totally depraved, or of one \nder, the habitual ascendency of vice; for that, according to Dr. Priestley's necessarian principles, all volitions are the effects of mo- tives; therefore every man, in every volition, as he is the subject of the influence of motive operating as a cause, is passive; equally so as * is supposed to be, according to the Calvinistic system, in regener- UlOIls and hast revealed them unto babes; even so, Father, for so it seemeth good in thy sight.’” To the same purpose, in the next page but one, he observes that God is considered as “the sovereign Disposer both of gospel privileges here, and future happiness hereafter, as appears in such passages as 2 Thess. ii. 13, ‘God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.’” If there be any difference between that election which is involved in Dr. Priestley’s own scheme, and that of the Calvinists, it must consist, not in the original appointment, or in the certainty of the event, but in the intermediate causes or reasons which induced the Deity to fix things in the manner that he has done ; and it is doubtful whether even this can be admitted. It is true Dr. Priestley, by his ex- clamations against unconditional election, would seem to maintain that, where God hath appointed a sinner to obtain salvation, it is on account of his foreseen virtue ; and he may plead that such an election is favourable to virtue, as making it the ground or procuring cause of eternal felicity, while an election that is altogether un- conditional must be directly the reverse. But let it be considered, in the first place, whether such a view of elec- tion as this does not clash with the whole tenor of Scrip- ture, which teaches us that we are “saved and called with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to the Divine purpose and grace given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.”—“Not of works, lest any man should boast.”—“At this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then it is no more of works : otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace : otherwise work is no more work.” “I Secondly, Let it be considered whether such an election will consist with Dr. Priestley’s own scheme of necessity. This scheme supposes that all virtue, as well as every thing else, is necessary. Now whence arose the necessity of it ! It was not self-originated, nor accidental ; it must have been established by the Deity. And then it will follow that, if God elect any man on account of his foreseen virtue, he must have elected him on account of that which he had determined to give him ; but this, as to the origin of things, amounts to the same thing as unconditional election. As to men's taking liberty to sin from the consideration of their being among the number of the elect, that, as we have seen already, is what no man can do with safety or consistency, seeing he can have no evidence on that subject but what must arise from a contrary spirit and conduct. But suppose it were otherwise, an objection of this sort would come with an ill grace from Dr. Priestley, who en- courages all mankind not to fear, since God has made them all for unlimited ultimate happiness, and (whatever be their conduct in the present life) to ultimate unlimited happiness they will all doubtless come.** Upon the whole, let those who are inured to close thinking judge whether Dr. Priestley’s own views of phi- losophical necessity do not include the leading principles of Calvinism 3 But should he insist upon the contrary, then let it be considered whether he must liot contradict himself, and maintain a system which, by his own confes- sion, is less friendly to piety and humility than that which he opposes. “The essential difference,” he says, “between the two schemes is this : the necessarian believes his own dispositions and actions are the necessary and sole means of his present and future happiness ; so that, in the most proper sense of the words, it depends entirely on himself whether he be virtuous or vicious, happy or miserable. The Calvinist maintains, on the other hand, that so long as a man is unregenerate, all his thoughts, words, and actions are necessarily sinful, and in the act of regenera- tion he is altogether passive.” ff. We have seen already that, on the scheme of Dr. Priestley, as well as that of + Disc. p. 221. # Phil. Nec. 3 XI. 3 Query, Were not these the rational religionists of that age? | Considerations on Difference in Religious Opinions, & III. *I See also those scriptures which represent election as the cause of faith and holiness, particularly leph. i. 3, 4; John vi. 37; Rom. viii. 22. 30; Acts xiii. 48; I Pet. i. 1; Rom. ix. 15, 16. But if it be the cause, it cannot be the effect of them. **. Phil. Nec. pp. 128, 129. ++ Ibid., pp. 152—154. .# F 2 68 OF MORALITY IN GENERAL. the Calvinists, men, in the first turning of the bias of their hearts, must be passive. But allow it to be other- wise ; allow what the Doctor elsewhere teaches, (p. 156,) that “a change of disposition is the effect, and not the cause, of a change of conduct;” and that it depends en- tirely on ourselves whether we will thus change our con- duct, and by these means our dispositions, and so be happy for ever : all this, if others of his observations be just, instead of promoting piety and virtue, will have a con- trary tendency. In the same performance (p. 107) Dr. Priestley acknowledges that “those who, from a principle of religion, ascribe more to God and less to man than other persons, are men of the greatest elevation of piety.” But if so, it will follow that the essential difference be- tween the necessarianism of Socinians and that of Calvinists (seeing that it consists in this, that the one makes it depend entirely upon a man's self, whether he be virtuous or vicious, happy or miserable ; and the other upon God) is in favour of the latter. Those who consider men as de- pending entirely upon God for virtue and happiness ascribe more to God and less to man than the other, and so, ac- cording to Dr. Priestley, are “men of the greatest elevation of piety.” They, on the other hand, who suppose men to be dependent entirely upon themselves for these things, must, consequently, have less of piety, and more of “heathen stoicism ; ” which, as the same writer in the same treatise (p. 67) observes, “allows men to pray for eacternal things, but admonishes them that, as for virtue, it is our own, and must arise from within ourselves, if we bave it at all.” But let us come to facts. If, as Dr. Priestley says, there be “something in our system which, if carried to its just consequences, would lead us to the most abandoned wickedness,” it might be expected, one should think, that a loose, dissipated, and abandoned life would be a more general thing among the Calvinists than among their op- ponents. This seems to be a consequence of which he feels the force, and therefore discovers an inclination to make it good. In answer to the question, “Why those persons who hold these opinions are not abandoned to all wickedness, when they evidently lay them under so little restraint 3'' he answers, “This is often the case of those who pursue these principles to their just and fatal conse- quences ; ” adding, “for it is easy to prove that the Anti- nomian is the only consistent absolute predestinarian.” + That there are persons who profess the doctrine of abso- lute predestination, and who, from that consideration, may indulge themselves in the greatest enormities, is ad- mitted. Dr. Priestley, however, allows that these are “only such persons whose minds are previously depraved; ” that is, wicked men, who turn the grace of God into las- civiousness. Nor are such examples “often " to be seen among us; and, where they are, it is commonly in such people as make no serious pretence to personal religion, but who have just so much of predestination in their heads as to suppose that all things will be as they are ap- pointed to be, and therefore that it is in vain to strive, just so much as to look at the end, and overlook the means ; which is as wide of Calvinism as it is of Socinian- ism. This may be the absolute predestimation which Dr. Priestley means ; namely, a predestination to etermal life, let our conduct be ever so impure ; and a predestination to eternal death, let it be ever so holy : and if so, it is granted that the Antinomian is the only consistent believer in it; but them it might, with equal truth, be added, that he is the only person who believes in it at all. The Cal- vinistic doctrine of predestimation supposes that holiness of heart and life are as much the object of Divine ap- pointment as future happiness, and that this connexion can never be broken. To prove that the Antinomian is the only consistent believer in such a predestination as this may not be so easy a task as barely to assert it. I cannot imagine it would be very easy, especially for Dr. Priestley; seeing he acknowledges that “the idea of every thing being predestinated from all etermity is no objection to prayer, because all means are appointed as well as ends; and therefore, if prayer be in itself a proper means, the end to be obtained by it, we may be assured, will not be had * Con. Dif. Opin. & III. + Let. Phil. Unb., Part I. p. 111. # Consid. Dif. Opin. III. without this, any more than without any other means, or necessary previous circumstances.”f Dr. Priestley may allege that this is not absolute predestination ; but it is as absolute as ours, which makes equal provision for faith and holiness, and for every means of salvation, as this does for prayer. Will Dr. Priestley undertake to prove that a loose, dissi- pated, and cabandoned life is a more general thing among the Calvinists than among their opponents 2 I am persuaded he will not. He knows that the Calvinists, in general, are far from being a dissipated or an abandoned people, and goes about to account for it, and that in a way that shall Teflect no honour upon their principles. “Our moral con- duct,” he observes, “is not left at the mercy of our opinions; and the regard to virtue that is kept up, by those who maintain the doctrines above mentioned, is owing to the influence of other principles implanted in our nature.”f Admitting this to be true, yet one would think the worst principles will, upon the whole, be pro- ductive of the worst practices. They whose innate prin- ciples of virtue are all employed in counteracting the influence of a pernicious system, cannot be expected to form such amiable characters as where those principles are not only left at liberty to operate, but are aided by a good system. It might, therefore, be expected, I say again, if our principles be what our opponents say they are, that a loose, dissipated, and abandoned life would be a more general thing among us than among them. I may be told that the same thing, if put to us, would be found equally difficult; or that, notwithstanding we contend for the superior influence of the Calvinistic system to that of Socinus, yet we should find it difficult to prove that a loose, dissipated, and abandoned life is a more general thing among Socinians than it is among Calvinists. And I allow that I am not sufficiently acquainted with the bulk of the people of that denomination to hazard an assertion of this nature. But if what is allowed by their own writers (who ought to know them) may be admitted as evidence, such an assertion might, nevertheless, be supported. “Rational Christians are often represented,” says Mr. Belsham, “as indifferent to practical religion.” Nor does he deny the justice of this representation, but admits, though with apparent reluctance, that “there has been some plausible ground for the accusation;” and goes about to account for it, as we have seem in Letter IV., in such a way, however, as may reflect no dishonour upon their principles. § The same thing is acknowledged by Dr. Priestley, who allows that “a great number of the Unita- rians of the present age are only men of good sense, and without much practical religion;” and that “there is a greater apparent conformity to the world in them than is observable in others.” || Yet he also goes about to account for these things as Mr. Belsham does, in such a way as may reflect no dishonour on their principles. It is rather extraordinary that, when facts are introduced in favour of the virtue of the general body of the Calvinists, they are not denied, but accounted for in such a way that their principles must share none of the honour; and when facts of an opposite kind are introduced in proof of the want of virtue in Unitarians, they also are not denied, but ac- counted for in such a way that their principles shall have none of the dishonour. Calvinism, it seems, must be im- moral, though Calvinists be virtuous ; and Socinianism must be amiable, though Socinians be vicious ! I shall not inquire whether these very opposite methods of ac- counting for facts be fair or candid. On this the reader will form his own judgment; it is enough for me that the facts themselyes are allowed. If we look back to past ages, (to say nothing of those who lived in the earliest periods of Christianity, because I would refer to none but such as are allowed to have be- lieved the doctrine in question,) I think it cannot be fairly denied that the great body of holy men, who have main- tained the true worship of God (if there was any true worship of God maintained) during the Romish apostacy, and who, many of them, sacrificed their earthly all for his name, have lived and died in the belief of the Deity and atonement of Christ. Our opponents often speak of these * Sermon, p. 32. || Dis, War, Sub., p. 100. OF MORALITY IN GENERAL. 69 doctrines being embraced by the apostate Church of Rome; but they say little of those who, during the long period of her usurpation, bore testimony for God. The Waldenses, who inhabited the valleys of Piedmont, and the Albigenses, who were afterwards scattered almost all over Europe, are allowed, I believe, on all hands, to have preserved the true religion in those darkest of times; and it is thought, by some expositors, that these are the people who are spoken of in the twelfth chapter of the Revelation, under the re- presentation of a woman, to whom were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness—and there be nourished for a time, from the face of the serpent. It was here that true religion was maintained and sealed by the blood of thousands from age to age, when all the rest of the Christian world were wondering after the beast. And as to the doctrines which they held, they were much the same as ours. Among the adversaries to the Church of Rome, it is true, there might be men of different opinions. Arius and others may be supposed to have had their followers in those ages; but the body of the people called Waldenses are not to be reckoned as such : on the contrary, the principles which they professed were, for substance, the same with those embraced afterwards by the Reformed churches ; as is abundantly manifest by several of their catechisms and confessions of faith, which have been transmitted to our times. Mr. Lindsey, in his Apology, has given a kind of history of those who have opposed the doctrine of the Trinity; but they make a poor figure during the above long and dark period, in which, if ever, a testimony for God was needed. He speaks of “churches and sects, as well as individuals, of that description, in the twelfth century;” and there might be such... But can he produce any evi- dence of their having so much virtue as to make any con- siderable sacrifices for God? Whatever were their num- ber, according to Mr. Lindsey's own account, from that time till the Reformation, (a period of three or four hun- dred years, and during which the Waldenses and the Wickliffites were sacrificing everything for the preservation of a good conscience,) they “were driven into corners and silence” (c. 1. p. 34); that is, there is no testimony upon record which they bore, or any account of their having so much virtue in them as to oppose, at the expense either of life, liberty, or property, the prevailing religion of the times. Mr. Lindsey speaks of the piety of “the famous Abe- lard;” but surely he must have been wretchedly driven for want of that important article, or he would not have ascribed it to a man who, as a late writer observes, “ could with equal facility explain Ezekiel’s prophecies and com- pose amorous sonnets for Heloise; and was equally free to unfold the doctrine of the Trinity, and ruin the peace of a family by debauching his patron's niece.”* Mr. Lindsey also, in the Appendix to his Farewell Sermon to the Com- gregation in Essex Street, lately published, holds up the piety of Servetus, by giving us one of his prayers addressed to Jesus Christ; in which he expresses his full persuasion that he was under a Divine impulse to write against his proper Divinity. Surely if Socinian piety had not been very scarce, Mr. Lindsey would not have been under the necessity of exhibiting the effusions of idolatry and enthu- siasm as examples of it. Religion will be allowed to have some influence in the forming of a national character, especially that of the com- mon people, among whom, if any where, it generally pre- Vails. Now if we look at those nations where Calvinism has been most prevalent, it will be found, I believe, that they have not been distinguished by their immorality, but the reverse. Geneva, the Seven United Provinces, Scot- land, and North America (with the last two of which we nay be rather better acquainted than with the rest) might be alleged as instances of this assertion. With respect to Scotland, though other sentiments are said to have lately gained ground with many of the clergy, yet Calvinism is known to be generally prevalent among the serious part of the people. And as to their national character, you Seldom know an intelligent Englishman to have visited * Mr. Robinson’s “Plea for the ºivinity of Christ.” t Review from May to August, 1793, p. 502. # The same sort of people who held Calvinistic doctrines were at that country without being struck with the peculiar so- briety and religious behaviour of the inhabitants. As to America, though, strictly speaking, they may be said to have no national religion, (a happy circumstance in their favour,) yet, perhaps, there is no one nation in the world where Calvinism has more generally prevailed. The great body of the first settlers were Calvinists; and the far greater part of religious people among them, though of different denominations as to other matters, continue such to this day. And as to the moral effects which their re- ligious principles have produced, they are granted, on all hands, to be considerable. They are a people, as the Monthly Reviewers have acknowledged, “whose love of liberty is attempered with that of order and decency, and accompanied with the virtues of integrity, moderation, and sobriety. They know the necessity of regard to religion and virtue, both in principle and practice.”f In each of these countries, it is true, as in all others, there are great numbers of irreligious individuals, perhaps a majority; but they have a greater proportion of religious characters than most other nations can boast; and the in- fluence which these characters have upon the rest is as that of a portion of leaven, which leaveneth the whole lump. The members of the Church of England, it may be taken for granted, were generally Calvinists, as to their doctrinal sentiments, at, and for some time after, the Re- formation. Since that time, those sentiments have been growing out of repute ; and Socinianism is supposed, among other principles, to have prevailed considerably among the members of that community. Dr. Priestley, however, is often very sanguine in estimating the great numbers of Unitarians among them. Now let it be con- sidered whether this change of principle has, in any degree, been serviceable to the interests of piety or virtue. On the contrary, did not a serious walking with God, and a rigid attention to morals, begin to die away, from the time that the doctrines contained in the Thirty-nine Articles began to be disregarded ?: And now, when Socinianism is supposed to have made a greater progress than ever it did before, is there not a greater degree of perjury, and more dissipation of manners, than at almost any period since the Reformation. I am not insensible that it is the opinion of Dr. Priest- ley, and of some others, that men grow better—that the world advances considerably in moral improvement; nay, Mr. Belsham seems to favour an idea, that, “in process of time, the earth may revert to its original paradisaical state —and death itself be annihilated.” This, however, will hardly be thought to prove any thing, except that enthu- siasm is not confined to Calvinists. And as to men grow- ing better, whatever may be the moral improvement of the world in general, Dr. Priestley some where acknowledges that this is far from being the case with the Church of England, especially since the times of Bishop Burnet. With respect to the Dissenters, were there ever men of holier lives than the generality of the puritans and noncon- formists of the last two centuries 3 Can any thing equal to their piety and devotedness to God be found among the generality of the Socinians, of their time or of any time 3 In sufferings, in fastings, in prayers, in a firm adherence to their principles, in a close walk with God in their families, and in a series of unremitted labours for the good of man- kind, they spent their lives. But fastings and prayers, perhaps, may not be admitted as excellencies in their character; it is possible they may be treated with ridicule. Nothing less than this is attempt- ed by Dr. Priestley, in his Fifth Letter to Mr. Burn. “I could wish,” says he, “to quiet your fears, on your ac- count. For the many sleepless mights which your appre- hensions must necessarily have caused you, accompanied, of course, with much earnest prayer and fasting, must, in time, affect your health.” Candour out of the question, Is this piety 2 It is said to be no uncommon thing for per- sons who have been used to pray extempore, when they have turned Socinians, to leave off that practice, and be- take themselves to a written form of their own compo- the same time so severe in their morals, that Laud found it necessary, it seems, to publish “The Book of Sports,” in order to counteract their influence on the nation at large. 70 LOVE TO GOD. sition. This is formal enough, and will be thought by many to afford but slender evidence of their devotional spirit; but yet one would have supposed they would not have dared to ridicule it in others, however destitute of it they might be themselves. - Dr. Priestley allows that Unitarians are peculiarly want- ing in zeal for religion.* That this concession is just ap- pears mot only from the indifference of great numbers of them in private life, but from the conduct of many of their preachers. It has been observed that, when young minis- ters have become Socinians, they have frequently given up the ministry, and become schoolmasters, or any thing they could. Some, who have been possessed of fortunes, have become mere private gentlemen. Several such instances have occurred, both among Dissenters and Churchmen. If they had true zeal for God and religion, why is it that they are so indifferent about preaching what they account the truth Q Dr. Priestley further allows that Calvinists have “less apparent conformity to the world, and that they seem to have more of a real principle of religion than Socinians.” But then he thinks the other have the most candour and be- nevolence; “so as, upon the whole, to approach nearest to the proper temper of Christianity.” He “hopes, also, they have more of a real principle of religion than they seem to have,” pp. 100, 101. As to candour and benevolence, these will be considered in another Letter. At present it is sufficient to observe that Dr. Priestley, like Mr. Belsham, on a change of character in his converts, is obliged to have recourse to hope, and to judge of things contrary to what they appear in the lives of men, in order to support the religious character of his party. That a large proportion of serious people are to be found among Calvinists, Dr. Priestley will not deny; but Mrs. Barbauld goes further. She acknowledges, in effect, that the seriousness which is to be found among Socinians themselves is accompanied by a kind of secret attachment to our principles, an attachment which their preachers and writers, it seems, have hitherto laboured in vain to eradicate. “These doctrines,” she says, “it is true, among thinking people, are losing ground ; but there is still ap- parent, in that class called serious Christians, a tenderness in exposing them ; a sort of leaning towards them, as, in walking over a precipice, one should lean to the safest side : an idea that they are, if not true, at least good to be believed ; and that a salutary error is better than a dan- gerous truth.”t By the “class called serious Christians,” Mrs. Barbauld cannot mean professed Calvinists; for they have no notion of leaning towards any system as a system of salutary error, but consider that to which they are at- tached as being the truth. She must, therefore, intend to describe the serious part of the people of her own profes- sion. We are much obliged to Mrs. Barbauld for this im- portant piece of information. We might not so readily have known, without it, that the hearts and consciences of the serious part of Socinians revolt at their own principles; and that, though they have rejected what we esteem the great doctrines of the gospel in theory, yet they have an inward leaning towards them, as the only safe ground on which to rest their hopes. According to this account, it should seem that serious Christians are known by their predilection for Calvinistic doctrines; and that those “thinking people among whom these doctrines are losing ground.” are not of that class or description, being dis- tinguished from them. Well, it does not surprise us to hear that “those men who are the most indifferent to prac- tical religion are the first, and serious Christians the last, to embrace the rational system,” because it is no more than might be expected. If there be any thing surprising in the affair, it is that those who make these acknowledg- ments should yet boast of their principles on account of their moral tendency. * Disc. War. Sub. pp. 94, 95. # Remarks on Wakeficlá's Inquiry, LETTER WII. THE SYSTEMS COMPARED AS TO THEIR TENDENCY TO PRO- MOTE LOVE TO GOD, OUR opponents, as you have doubtless observed, are as bold in their assertions as they are liberal in their accusations. Dr. Priestley not only asserts that the Calvinistic system is “unfavourable to genuine piety, but to every branch of vital practical religion.”f We have considered, in the foregoing Letter, what relates to morality and piety in general; in the followng Letters, we shall descend to par- ticulars; and inquire, under the several specific virtues of Christianity, which of the systems in question is the most unfavourable to them. I begin with LovE. The love of God and our neighbour not only contains the sum of the moral law, but the spirit of true religion : a strong presumption therefore must exist for or against a system, as it is found to promote or di- minish these cardinal virtues of the Christian character. On both these topics we are principally engaged on the defensive, as our views of things stand charged with being unfavourable to the love of both God and man. “There is something in your system of Christianity,” says Dr. Priest- ley, in his Letters to Mr. Burn, “that debases the pure spirit of it, and does not consist with either the perfect veneration of the Divine character, (which is the founda- tion of true devotion to God,) or perfect candour and bene- volence to man.” A very serious charge ; and which, could it be substantiated, would, doubtless, afford a strong presumption, if not more than a presumption, against us. But let the subject be examined. This Letter will be de- voted to the first part of this heavy charge ; and the follow- ing one, to the last. - As to the question, Whether we feel a veneration for the Divine character, I should think we ourselves must be the best judges. All that Dr. Priestley can know of the matter is, that he could not feel a perfect veneration for a Being of such a character as we suppose the Almighty to sustain. That, however, may be true, and yet nothing result from it unfavourable to our principles. It is not impossible that Dr. Priestley should be of such a temper of mind as incapacitates him for admiring, venerating, or loving God, in his true character; and, hence, he may be led to think that all who entertain such and such ideas of God must be void of that perfect veneration for him which he supposes himself to feel. The true character of God, as revealed in the Scriptures, must be taken into the account, in determining whether our love to God be genuine or not. We may clothe the Divine Being with such attri- butes, and such only, as will suit our depraved taste; and then it will be no difficult thing to fall down and worship him : but this is not the love of God, but of an idol of our own creating. The principal objections to the Calvinistic system, under this head, are taken from the four following topics: the atonement; the vindictive character of God; the glory of God, rather than the happiness of creatures, being his last end in creation; and the worship paid to Jesus Christ. First, The doctrine of atonement, as held by the Calvin- ists, is often represented by Dr. Priestley as detracting from the goodness of God, and as inconsistent with his matural placability. He seems always to consider this doctrine as originating in the want of love, or, at least, of a sufficient degree of love ; as though God could not find in his heart to show mercy without a price being paid for it. “Even the elect,” says he, “according to their sys- tem, cannot be saved, till the utmost effects of the Divine wrath have been suffered for them by an innocent per- son.” Mr. Jardine also, by the title which he has given to his late publication, calling it “ The Unpurchased Love of God, in the Redemption of the World by Jesus Christ,” suggests the same idea. When our opponents wish to make good the charge of our ascribing a natural implaca- bility to the Divine Being, it is common for them either to describe our sentiments in their own language, or if they deign to quote authorities, it is not from the sober # Consid. Diff. Opin. III, & Diſſ. Opin. III. I,OVE TO GOT). 71 discussions of prosaic writers, but from the figurative lan- guage of poetry. Mr. Belsham describes “ the formidable chimera of our imagination, to which,” he says, “we have annexed the name of God the Father, as a merciless ty- rant.”* They conceive of “God the Father,” says Mr. Lindsey, “always with dread, as a being of severe, unre- lenting justice, revengeful, and inexorable, without full satisfaction made to him for the breach of his laws. God the Son, on the other hand, is looked upon as made up of all compassion and goodness, interposing to save men from the Father's wrath, and subjecting himself to the extremest sufferings on that account.” For proof of this we are re- ferred to the poetry of Dr. Watts 1–in which he speaks of the rich drops of Jesus' blood, that calmed his frowning face; that sprinkled o'er the burning throne, and turned the wrath to grace :—of the infant Deity, the bleeding God, and of Heaven appeased with flowing blood. f. On this subject, a Calvinist might, without presumption, adopt the language of our Lord to the Jews: “I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me.” Nothing can well be a greater misrepresentation of our sentiments than this which is constantly given. These writers cannot be ig- norant that Calvinists disavow considering the death of Christ as a cause of Divine love or goodness. On the contrary, they always maintain that Divine love is the cause, the first cause of our salvation, and of the death of Christ, to that end. They would not scruple to allow that God had love enough in his heart to save sinners without the death of his Son, had it been consistent with righteous- ness ; but that, as receiving them to favour without some public expression of displeasure against their sin would have been a dishonour to his government, and have afford- ed an encouragement for others to follow their example, the love of God wrought in a way of righteousness; first giving his only begotten Son to become a sacrifice, and then pouring forth all the fulness of his heart through that appointed medium. The incapacity of God to show mercy without an atonement, is no other than that of a righteous governor, who, whatever good-will he may bear to an offender, cannot admit the thought of passing by the offence, without some public expression of his displeasure against it ; that, while mercy triumphs, it may not be at the expense of law and equity, and of the general good. So far as I understand it, this is the light in which Cal- vinists consider the subject. Now judge, brethren, whether this view of things represent the Divine Being as naturally implacable, whether the gift of Christ to die for us be not the strongest expression of the contrary, and whether this, or the system which it opposes, “give wrong impres- sions concerning the character and moral government of God.” Nay, I appeal to your own hearts, whether that way of saving sinners through an atonement, in which mercy and truth meet together, righteousness and peace embrace each other, in which God is “just, and the jus- tifier of him that believeth in Jesus,”—do not endear his name to you more than any other representation of him that was ever presented to your minds. Were it possible for your souls to be saved in any other way—for the Di- vine law to be relaxed, or its penalty remitted, without respect to an atonement—would there not be a virtual re- flection cast upon the Divine character? Would it not appear as if God had enacted a law that was so rigorous as to require a repeal, and issued threatenings which he was obliged to retract 3 or, at least, that he had formed a system of government without considering the circum- stances in which his subjects would be involved—a system “ the strict execution of which would do more harm than good ;” nay, as if the Almighty, on this account, were ashamed to maintain it, and yet had not virtue enough to acknowledge the remission to be an act of justice, but must, all along, call it by the name of grace? Would not the thought of such a reflection destroy the bliss of heaven, and stamp such an impression of meanness upon that cha- racter whom you are taught to adore, as would almost in- capacitate you for revering or loving him 3 It is further objected, that, according to the Calvinistic system, God is a vindictive being, and that, as such, we * Serm. pp. 33–35. + Apology, 4th Ed. p. 97.-and Appendix to his Farewell Sermon, at Essex Street, p. 52. - cannot love him. It is said that we “represent God in such a light that no earthly parent could imitate him, without sustaining a character shocking to mankind.” That there is a mixture of the vindictive in the Calvinistic system is allowed; but let it be closely considered whether this be any disparagement to it. Nay, rather, whether it be not necessary to its perfection. The issue, in this case, entirely depends upon the question whether vindictive justice be in itself amiable. If it be, it cannot render any system unamiable. “We are neither amused nor edified,” says a writer in the Monthly Review, “by the coruscations of damnation. Nor can we by any means bring ourselves to think, with the late Mr. Edwards, that the vindictive justice of God is a glorious attribute.”: This, however, may be very true, and vindictive justice be a glorious attribute notwithstanding. I believe it is very common for people, when they speak of vindictive punishment, to mean that kind of punishment which is inflicted from a wrathful disposition, or a dispo- sition to punish for the pleasure of punishing. Now if this be the meaning of our opponents, we have no dispute with them. We do not suppose the Almighty to punish sinners for the sake of putting them to pain. Neither Scripture nor Calvinism conveys any such idea. Vindic- tive punishment, as it is here defended, stands opposed to that punishment which is merely corrective : the one is exercised for the good of the party; the other not so, but for the good of the community. Those who deny this last to be amiable in God, must found their denial either on Scripture testimony, or on the nature and fitness of things. As to the former, the Scriptures will hardly be supposed to represent God as an unamiable being ; if, therefore, they teach that vindictive justice is an unamiable attri- bute, it must be maintained that they never ascribe that attribute to God. But with what colour of evidence can this be alleged ? Surely not from such language as the following: “ The Lord thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God.” “Our God is a consuming fire.” “God is jealous, and the Lord revengeth ; the Lord revengeth, and is furious; the Lord will take vengeance on his ad- versaries ; and he reserveth wrath for his enemies.” “Who can stand before his indignation ? and who can abide in the fierceness of his anger ?–His fury is poured out like fire.” “O Lord God, to whom vengeance be- longeth: O God to whom vengeance belongeth, show thy- self!” “ He that showeth no mercy shall have judgment without mercy.” “He that made them will not have mercy on them, and he that formed them will show them no favour.” “ For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord.” “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” “I lift up my hand to heaven, and say, I live for ever. If I whet my glittering sword, and mine hand take hold on judgment, I will render vengeance to mine ene- mies, and will reward them that hate me.” “The angels which kept not their first estate—he hath reserved in ever- lasting chains, under darkness, unto the judgment of the great day.” “Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” “The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven, with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.” As to the nature and fitness of things, we cannot draw any conclusion thence against the loveliness of vindictive justice, as a Divine attribute, unless the thing itself can be proved to be unlovely. But this is contrary to the common sense and practice of mankind. There is no nation or people under heaven but what consider it, in various cases, as both necessary and lovely. It is true they would despise and abhor a magistrate who should punish beyond desert, or who should avail himself of the laws of his country to gratify his own caprice, or his private revenge. This, however, is not vindictive justice, but manifest injustice. No considerate citizen, who values the public weal, could blame a magistrate for putting the penal laws of his country so far in execution as should be f Review of Edward's Thirty-three Sermons, March, 1791. * Deut. iv.; Heb. xii.; Nahum i.; Psal. xciv.; James ii. ; Isa. ... xxvii.; Heb. x.; Deut. xxxii.; Jude; 2 Thess. i. 72 LOVE TO GOD. necessary for the true honour of good government, the support of good order, and the terror of wicked men. When the inhabitants of Gibeah requested that the Levite might be brought out to them, that they might know him, and, on their request not being granted, abused and mur- dered his companion, all Israel, as one man, not only condemned the action, but called upon the Benjamites to deliver up the criminals to justice. Had the Benjamites complied with their request, and had those sons of Belial been put to death, not for their own good, but for the good of the community, where had been the unloveliness of the procedure ? On the contrary, such a conduct must have recommended itself to the heart of every friend of righteousness in the universe, as well as have prevented the shocking effusion of blood which followed their refusal. Now if vindictive justice may be glorious in a human government, there is no reason to be drawn from the nature and fitness of things why it would not be the same in the Divine administration. But the idea on which our opponents love principally to dwell is that of a father. Hence the charge that we “represent God in such a light that no earthly parent could imitate him, without sustaining a character shocking to mankind.” This objection comes with an ill grace from Dr. Priestley, who teaches that “God is the author of sin, and may do evil, provided it be with a view that good may come.” + Is not this representing God in such a light that no one could imitate him, without sustaining a character shocking to mankind? Whether Dr. Priestley's motions on this subject be true, or not, it is true that God’s ways are so much above ours, that it is unjust, in many cases, to measure his conduct to a rebellious world by that of a father to his children. In this matter, however, God is imitable. We have seen already that a good magistrate, who may justly be called the father of his people, ought not to be under the influ- ence of blind affection, so as, in any case, to show mercy at the expense of the public good. Nor is this all. There are cases in which a parent has been obliged, in benevo- lence to his family, and from a concern for the general good, to give up a stubborn and rebellious son, to bring him forth with his own hands to the elders of his city, and there with his own lips bear witness against him ; such witness, too, as would subject him not to a mere salutary correction, but to be stoned to death by the men of his city. We know such a law was made in Israel; f and, as a late writer observed upon it, such a law “was wise and good :”f it was calculated to enforce in parents an early and careful education of their children; and if, in any instance, it was executed, it was that all Israel might hear, and fear ! And how do we know but that it may be consistent with the good of the whole system, yea, necessary to it, that some of the rebellious sons of men should, in company with apostate angels, be made eacamples of Divine vengeance; that they should stand, like Lot's wife, as pillars of salt, or as everlasting monuments of God’s displeasure against sin ; and that, while their smoke riseth up for ever and ever, all the intelligent universe should hear, and fear, and do no more so wickedly £ In- deed, we must not only know that this may be the case, but if we pay any regard to the authority of Scripture, that it is so. If words have any meaning, this is the idea given us of the “angels which kept not their first estate,” and of the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah ; who are said to be “set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” It belongs to the character of an all-perfect Being, who is the moral Governor of the universe, to promote the good of the whole ; but there may be cases, as in human go- vernments, wherein the general good may be inconsistent with the happiness of particular parts. The case of rob- bers, of murderers, or of traitors, whose lives are sacrificed for the good of society, that the example of terror afforded by their death may counteract the example of immorality exhibited by their life, is no detraction from the benevo- lence of a government; but rather essential to it. But how, after all, can we love such a tremendous Being? I answer, A capacity to resent an injury is not always * Phil. Nec. pp. 117–121. + Deut. xxi. 18–21. considered as a blemish, even in a private character; if it be governed by justice, and aimed at the correction of evil, it is generally allowed to be commendable. We do not esteem the favour of a man, if we consider him as incapable, on all occasions, of resentment. We should call him an easy soul, who is kind merely because he has not sense enough to feel an insult. But shall we allow it right and fit for a puny mortal thus far to know his own worth, and assert it ; and, at the same time, deny it to the great Supreme, and plead for his being insulted with impunity ? God, however, in the punishment of sin, is not to be considered as acting in a merely private capacity, but as the universal moral Governor ; not as separate from the great system of being, but as connected with it, or as the Head and Guardian of it. Now, in this relation, vindictive justice is not only consistent with the loveliness of his character, but essential to it. Capacity and inclination to punish disorder in a state are never thought to render an earthly prince less lovely in the eyes of his loyal and faithful subjects, but more so. That temper of mind, on the contrary, which should induce him to connive at re- bellion, however it might go by the name of benevolence and mercy, would be accounted, by all the friends of good government, injustice to the public; and those who, in such cases, side with the disaffected, and plead their cause, are generally supposed to be tainted with disaffection themselves. A third objection is taken from the consideration of the glory of God, rather than the happiness of creatures, being his last end in creation. “Those who assume to them- selves the distinguishing title of orthodox,” says Dr. Priestley, “ consider the Supreme Being as having created all things for his glory, and by no means for the general happiness of all his creatures.” $ If, by the general hap- piness of all his creatures, Dr. Priestley means the general good of the universe, nothing can be more unfair than this representation. Those who are called orthodox never consider the glory of God as being at variance with the happiness of creation in general, nor with that of any part of it, except those who have revolted from the Divine government; nor, if we regard the intervention of a Mediator, with theirs, unless they prove finally impenitent, or, as Dr. Priestley calls them, “wilful and obstinate transgressors.” The glory of God consists, with reference to the present case, in doing that which is best upon the whole. But if, by the general happiness of all his crea- tures, he means to include the happiness of those angels who kept not their first estate, and of those men who die impenitent, it is acknowledged that what is called the or- thodox system does by no means consider this as an end . in creation, either supreme or subordinate. To suppose that the happiness of all creatures, whatever might be their future conduct, was God’s ultimate end in creation, (unless we could imagine him to be disappointed with respect to the grand end he had in view,) is to suppose what is contrary to fact. All creatures, we are certain, are not happy in this world ; and if any regard is to be paid to revelation, all will not be happy in the next. If it be alleged that a portion of misery is necessary in order to relish happiness ; that, therefore, the miseries of the present life, upon the whole, are blessings ; and that the miseries threatened in the life to come may be of the same nature, designed as a purgation, by means of which sinners will at length escape the second death;-it is replied, All the miseries of this world are not represented as blessings to the parties, nor even all the good things of it. The drowning of Pharaoh, for instance, is never described as a blessing to him; and God declared that he had “cursed the blessings” of the wicked priests, in the days of the prophet Malachi. “All things,” we are assured, “work together for good;’” but this is confined “to those who love God, and are called according to his purpose.” As to the life to come, if the miseries belonging to that state be merely temporary and purgative, there must be all along a mixture of love and mercy in them ; whereas the language of Scripture is, “He that hath showed no mercy shall have judgment without mercy.”—“The wine of the wrath of # Mr. Robinson, in his Sermon to the Young People at Willingham. § Diff. Opin. & III. LOVE TO GOD. 73 God will be poured out without mixture.” Nay, such miseries must not only contain a mixture of love and mercy, but they themselves must be the effects and expressions of love ; and then it will follow that the foregoing language of limitation and distinction (which is found indeed throughout the Bible) is of no account, and that blessings and cursings are the same things. Dr. Priestley himself speaks of “the laws of God as being guarded with awful sanctions;” and says “ that God will inflexibly punish all wilful and obstinate transgressors.”* But how can that be called an awful sanction which only subjects a man to such misery as is necessary for his good'; How, at least, can that be accounted inflexible punishment in which the Divine Being all along aims at the sinner's happiness? We might as well call the operation of a surgeon in am- putating a mortified limb, in order to save the patient’s life, by the name of inflexible punishment, as those miseries which are intended for the good of the sinner. If that be their end, they are, strictly speaking, blessings, though blessings in disguise; and, in that case, as Dr. Edwards in his answer to Dr. Chauncy has fully proved, blessings and curses are in effect the same things. As to our considering the Supreme Being as having created all things for his own glory, I hope it will be allowed that the Scriptures seem, at least, to countenance such an idea. They teach us that “the Lord made all things for himself”—that “all things are created by him, and for him.” He is expressly said to have created Israel (and if Israel, why not others ?) for his glory. Not only “ of him, and through him,” but “to him are all things.” Glory, and honour, and power are ascribed to him by the elders and the living creatures; for, say they, “Thou hast created all *: and for thy pleasure they are and were cre- ated.”f But further, and what is more immediately to the point, I hope this sentiment will not be alleged as a proof of our Want of love to God; for it is only assigning him the su- preme place in the system of being; and Dr. Priestley himself elsewhere speaks of “the love of God, and a re. gard to his glory,” as the same thing. One should think those, on the other hand, who assign the happiness of creatures as God’s ultimate end, thereby giving him only a subordinate place in the system, could not allege this as an evidence of their love to him. That place which God holds in the great system of being he ought to hold in our affections ; for we are not required to love him in a greater proportion than the place which he occupies re- quires. If it were otherwise, our affections must move in a preposterous direction. We ought, therefore, on this supposition, to love ourselves, our own happiness, and the happiness of our fellow creatures, more than God; for God himself is supposed to do the same. But if so, the great rule of human actions should have been different. Instead of requiring love to God in the first place, with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and then love to our- Selves and our neighbours, it should have been reversed. The song of the angels, too, instead of beginning with “Glory to God in the highest,” and ending with “peace on earth, and good-will to men,” should have placed the last first, and the first last. How such a view of things can tend to promote the love of God, unless a subordinate place in our affections be higher than the supreme, it is difficult to conceive. The great God, who fills heaven and earth, must be al- lowed to form the far greatest proportion, if I may so speak, of the whole system of being ; for, compared with him, “all nations,” yea, all worlds, “are but as a drop of a bucket, or as the small dust of the balance.” He is the Source and continual support of existence, in all its varied forms. As the great Guardian of being in general, there- fore, it is fit and right that he should, in the first place, guard the glory of his own character and government. Nor can this be to the disadvantage of the universe, but the Contrary; as it will appear, if it be considered that it is the glory of God to do that which shall be best upon the whole. general good of the created system, and of all its parts, except those whose welfare clashes with the welfare of the whole. * Diff, Opin. III. + Prov. xvi. ; Col. i. ; Heb. ii. iº. xliii.; Rom, xi.; Rev. iv. F The glory of God, therefore, connects with it the If it were otherwise, if the happiness of all creatures were the great end that God from the beginning had in view, then, doubtless, in order that this end might be accom- plished, every thing else must, as occasion required, give way to it. The glory of his own character, occupying only a subordinate place in the system, if ever it should stand in the way of that which is supreme, must give place, among other things. And if God have consented to all this, it must be because the happiness, not only of creation in general, but of every individual, is an object of the greatest magnitude, and most fit to be chosen; that is, it is better, and more worthy of God, as the Governor of the universe, to give up his character for purity, equity, wisdom, and veracity, and to become vile and contemptible in the eyes of his creatures—it is better that the bands which bind all holy intelligences to him should be broken, and the cords which hold together the whole moral system be cast away— than that the happiness of a creature should, in any in- stance, be given up ! Judge, ye friends of God, does this consist with “the most perfect veneration for the Divine character ?” Once more, It seems to be generally supposed, by our opponents, that the worship we pay to Christ tends to di- vide our hearts; and that, in proportion as we adore him, we detract from the essential glory of the Father. In this view, therefore, they reckon themselves to exercise a greater veneration for God than we. But it is worthy of notice, and particularly the serious notice of our opponents, that it is no new thing for an opposition to Christ to be carried on under the plea of love to God. This was the very plea of the Jews, when they took up stones to stone him. “For a good work,” said they, “we stone thee not, but for that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” They very much prided themselves in their God; and, under the influence of that spirit, constantly rejected the Lord Jesus. “Thou art called a Jew, and makest thy boast of God.”—“We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.”— “Give God the praise : we know that this man is a sinner.” It was under the pretext of zeal and friendship for God that they at last put him to death as a blasphemer. But what kind of zeal was this, and in what manner did Jesus treat it? “If God were your Father,” said he, “ye would love me.”—“ He that is of God heareth God’s words.”— “It is my Father that honoureth me, of whom ye say that he is your God; yet ye have not known him.”—“I know you, that you have not the love of God in you.” Again, The primitive Christians will be allowed to have loved God aright; yet they worshipped Jesus Christ. Not only did the martyr Stephen close his life by committing his departing spirit into the hands of Jesus, but it was the common practice, in primitive times, to invoke his name. “He hath authority,” said Ananias concerning Saul, to bind “all that call on thy name.” One part of the Chris- tian mission was to declare that “whosoever should call on the name of the Lord should be saved,” even of that Lord of whom the Gentiles had not heard. Paul addressed him- self “to all that in every place called upon the name of Jesus Christ.” These modes of expression (which, if I be not greatly mistaken, always signify Divine worship) plainly inform us that it was not merely the practice of a few individuals, but of the great body of the primitive Christians, to invoke the name of Christ; nay, and that this was a mark by which they were distinguished as Christians." Further, It ought to be considered that, in worshipping the Son of God, we worship him not on account of that wherein he differs from the Father, but on account of those perfections which we believe him to possess in common with him. This, with the consideration that we worship him not to the exclusion of the Father, any more than the Father to the exclusion of him, but as one with him, removes all apprehensions from our minds that, in ascrib- ing glory to the one, we detract from that of the other. Nor can we think but that these ideas are confirmed, and the weight of the objection removed, by those declarations of Scripture where the Father and the Son are represented as being in such union that “he who hath seen the one hath seen the other ; ” and “he who honoureth the one + Diff. Opin. & I. *- ? Acts ix. 14, compared with ver, 17; Tom, x. 11–14; 1 Cor. i. 2. 74 ON CANDOUR AND BENEVOLENCE. honoureth the other;” yea, that “he who honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father who sent him.” + It might fairly be argued, in favour of the tendency of Calvinistic doctrines to promote the love of God, that, upon those principles, we have more to love him for than upon the other. On this system, we have much to be forgiven; and, therefore, love much. The expense at which our salvation has been obtained, as we believe, furnishes us with a motive of love to which nothing can be compared. But this I shall refer to another place ; f. and conclude with reminding you that, notwithstanding Dr. Priestley loads Calvinistic principles with such heavy charges as those mentioned at the beginning of this Letter, yet he elsewhere acknowledges them to be “generally favourable to that leading virtue, devotion ;” which, in effect, is ac- knowledging them to be favourable to the love of God. LETTER VIII. ON CAND OUR AND BENEVOLENCE TO MEN. YoU recollect that the Calvinistic system stands charged by Dr. Priestley with being inconsistent, not only with a perfect veneration of the Divine character, but with “ perfect candour and benevolence to man.” This, it must be owned, has often been objected to the Calvinists. Their views of things have been supposed to render them sour and ill-natured towards those who differ from them. Charity, candour, benevolence, liberality, and the like, are virtues to which the Socinians, on the other hand, lay almost an exclusive claim. And such a weight do they give these virtues, in the scale of morality, that they conceive themselves, “upon the whole, even allowing that they have more of an apparent conformity to the world than the Trinitarians, to approach nearer to the proper temper of Christianity than they.” + I shall not go about to vindicate Calvinists, any further than I conceive their spirit and conduct to admit of a fair vindication; but I am satisfied that, if things be closely examined, it will be found that a great deal of what our opponents attribute to themselves is not benevolence or candour, and that a great deal of what they attribute to us is not owing to the want of either. Respecting benevolence, or good-will to men, in order to be genuine, it must consist with love to God. There is such a thing as partiality to men, with respect to the points in which they and their Maker are at variance ; but this is not benevolence. Partiality to a criminal at the bar might induce us to pity him, so far as to plead in extenuation of his guilt, and to endeavour to bring him off from the just punishment of the laws; but this would not be benevolence. There must be a rectitude in our actions and affections to render them truly virtuous. Regard to the public good must keep pace with compas- sion to the miserable, else the latter will degenerate into vice, and lead us to be “partakers of other men’s sins.” Whatever pretences may be made to devotion, or love to God, we never admit them to be real, unless accompanied with love to men; neither should any pretence of love to men be admitted as genuine, unless it be accompanied with love to God. Each of these virtues is considered in the Scriptures as an evidence of the other. “If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar.”— “By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.” There is such a thing as partiality to men, as observed before, with respect to the points in which they and their Maker are at variance; leaning to those notions that repre- sent their sin as comparatively little, and their repentance and obedience as a balance against it ; speaking smooth things, and affording intimations that, without an atone- ment, nay, even without repentance in this life, all will be well at last. But if it should prove that God is wholly in the right, and man wholly in the wrong—that sin is exceedingly sinful—that we all deserve to be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord —and that, if we be not interested in the atonement of Christ, this punishment must actually take place; if these things, I say, should at last prove true, then all such notions as have flattered the pride of men, and cherished their presumption, instead of being honoured with the epithets of liberal and benevolent, will be called by very different names. The princes and people of Judah would, doubtless, be apt to think the sentiments taught by Hana- niah, who prophesied smooth things concerning them, much more benevolent and liberal than those of Jeremiah, who generally came with heavy tidings; yet true benevo- lence existed only in the latter. Whether the complexion of the whole system of our opponents do not resemble that of the false prophets, who prophesied smooth things and healed the hurt of the daughter of Israel slightly, crying, Peace, peace, when there was no peace ; and whether their objections to our views of things be not the same for substance as might have been made to the true prophets; let all who wish to know the truth, however ungrateful it may be to flesh and blood, decide. A great deal of what is called candour and benevolence among Socinians is nothing else but indifference to all re- ligious principle. “If we could be so happy,” says Dr. Priestley, “as to believe that there are no errors but what men may be so circumstanced as to be innocently betrayed into, that any mistake of the head is very consistent with rectitude of heart, and that all differences in modes of wor- ship may be only the different methods by which different men (who are equally the offspring of God) are endeavouring to honour and obey their common Parent, our differences of opinion would have no tendency to lessen our mutual love and esteem.” $ This is, manifestly, no other than indifference to all religious principle. Such an indiffer- ence, it is allowed, would produce a temper of mind which Dr. Priestley calls candour and benevolence ; but which, in fact, is neither the one nor the other. Benevolence is good-will to men ; but good-will to men is very distinct from a good opinion of their principles or their practices —so distinct that the former may exist in all its force, without the least degree of the latter. Our Lord thought very ill of the principles and practices of the people of Jerusalem, yet he “beheld the city and wept over it.” This was genuine benevolence. Benevolence is a very distinct thing from complacency or esteem. These are founded on an approbation of cha- racter; the other is not. I am bound by the law of love to bear good-will to men, as creatures of God, and as fellow creatures, so as, by every means in my power, to promote their welfare, both as to this life and that which is to come; and all this, let their character be what it may. I am bound to esteem every person for that in him which is truly amiable, be he a friend or an enemy, and to put the best construction upon his actions that truth will admit; but no law obliges me to esteem a person respecting those things which I have reason to consider as erroneous or vicious. I may pity him, and ought to do so; but to esteem him, in those respects, would be contrary to the love of both God and man. Indifference to religious prin- ciple, it is acknowledged, will promote such esteem. Under the influence of that indifference, we may form a good opinion of various characters, which, otherwise, we should not do ; but the question is, Would that esteem be right, or amiable? On the contrary, if religious principle of any kind should be found necessary to salvation, and if benevolence consist in that good-will to men which leads us to promote their real welfare, it must contradict it; for the welfare of men is promoted by speaking the truth con- cerning them. I might say, If we could be so happy as to think virtue and vice indifferent things, we should then possess a far greater degree of esteem for some men than we now do ; but would such a kind of esteem be right, or of any use either to ourselves or them 3 Candour, as it relates to the treatment of an adversary, * John xiv. 7–9; ver, 23. The reader may see this subject ably urged by Mr. Scott, in his “Essays on the most Important Subjects of Religion,” 1st Edit., No. VII. pp.96, 97. These Essays are of a piece with the other productions of that judicious writer; and though small, and, for the convenience of the poor, sold for one penny each, contain a fund of solid, rational, and Scriptural divinity. + Letter XIV. # Disc. War. Sub. p. 100. ? Diff. Opin. II. - ON CANDOUR AND BENEWOLENCE. 75 is that temper of mind which will induce us to treat him openly, fairly, and ingenuously; granting him every thing that can be granted consistently with truth, and entertain- ing the most favourable opinion of his character and con- duct that justice will admit. But what has all this to do with indifference to religious principle, as to matters of salvation ? Is there no such thing as treating a person with fairness, openness, and generosity, while we entertain a very ill opinion of his principles, and have the most painful apprehensions as to the danger of his state Let our opponents name a more candid writer of controversy than President Edwards; yet he considered many of the sentiments against which he wrote as destructive to the souls of men, and those who held them as being in a dan- gerous situation. As a great deal of what is called candour and benevo- lence among Socinians is merely the effect of indifference to religious principle, so a great deal of that in Calvinists, for which they are accused of the want of these virtues, is no other than a serious attachment to what they account Divine truth, and a serious disapprobation of sentiments which they deem subversive of it. Now, surely, neither of these things is inconsistent with either candour or benevo- lence ; if it be, however, Jesus Christ and his apostles are involved in the guilt, equally with the Calvinists. They cultivated such an attachment to religious principle as to be in real earnest in the promotion of it, and constantly represented the knowledge and belief of it as necessary to eternal life. “Ye shall know the truth,” said Christ, “ and the truth shall make you free.”—“This is life eternal, to know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”—“ He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.” They also constantly discovered a marked dis- approbation of those sentiments which tended to introduce “another gospel,” so far as to declare that man accursed who should propagate them. They considered false prin- ciples as permicious and destructive to the souls of men. “If ye believe not that I am he,” said Christ to the Jews, “ye shall die in your sins”—“ and whither I go ye can- not come.” To the Galatians, who did not fully reject Christianity, but in the matter of justification were for uniting the works of the law with the grace of the gospel, Paul testified, saying, “If ye be circumcised, Christ shall. profit you nothing.” Had the apostle Paul considered “all the different modes of worship as what might be only the different methods of different men, endeavouring to honour and obey their common Parent,” he would not have felt “ his spirit stirred in him” when he saw the city of Athens wholly given to idolatry; at least he would not have ad- dressed idolaters in such strong language as he did, “preaching to them that they should turn from these Vanities unto the living God.” Paul considered them as having been all their life employed, not in worshipping the living God only in a mode different from others, but mere vanities. Nor did he consider it as a “ mere mistake of the head, into which they might have been innocently be- trayed;” but as a sin, for which they were without excuse, (Rom. i. 20,) a sin for which he called upon them, in the name of the living God, to repent. Now if candour and benevolence be Christian virtues, which they doubtless are, one should think they must consist with the practice of Christ and his apostles. But if this be allowed, the main ground on which Calvinists are censured will be removed; and the candour for which their opponents plead must appear to be spurious, and foreign to the genuine spirit of Christianity. Candour and benevolence, as Christian virtues, must also consist with each other; but the candour of Socinians is destructive of benevolence, as exemplified in the Scrip- tures. Benevolence in Christ and his apostles extended not merely, nor mainly, to the bodies of men, but to their souls; nor did they think so favourably of mankind as to desist from warning and alarming them, but the reverse. They viewed the whole world as “lying in wickedness, in a perishing condition; and hazarded the loss of every earthly enjoyment to rescue them from it, as from the jaws of destruction. But it is easy to perceive that, in propor- tion to the influence of Socinian candour upon us, we shall consider mankind, even the heathens, as a race of virtuous beings, all worshipping the great Father of crea- tion, only in different modes. Our concern for their sal- vation will consequently abate, and we shall become so indifferent respecting it as never to take any considerable pains for their conversion. This, indeed, is the very truth with regard to Socinians. They discover, in general, no manner of concern for the salvation of either heathens abroad, or profligates at home. Their candour supplies the place of this species of benevolence, and not unfre- quently excites a scornful smile at the conduct of those who exercise it. The difference between our circumstances and those of Christ and his apostles, who were Divinely inspired, how- ever much it ought to deter us from passing judgment upon the hearts of individuals, ought not to make us think that every mode of worship is equally safe, or that religious principle is indifferent as to the affairs of salvation ; for this would be to consider as false what, by Divine inspira- tion, they taught as true. Let us come to matters of fact. Mr. Belsham does not deny that Calvinists may be “pious, candid, and benevo- lent;” but he thinks they would have been more so if they had been Socinians. “They, and there are many such,” says he, “who are sincerely pious, and diffusively benevo- lent with these principles, could not have failed to have been much better, and much happier, had they adopted a milder, a more rational, a more truly evangelical creed,” Ser. p. 30. Now if this be indeed the case, one might expect that the most perfect examples of these virtues are not to be looked for among us, but among our opponents: and yet it may be questioned whether they will pretend to more perfect examples of piety, candour, or benevolence, than are to be found in the characters of a HALE, a FRANCK, a BRAINERD, an EDWARDs, a WHITEFIELD, a THORNTon, and a HowARD, (to say nothing of the living,) whose lives were spent in doing good to the souls and bodies of men, and who lived and died depending on the atoning blood and justifying righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ. The last of these great men, in whom his country glories, and who is justly considered as the martyr of humanity, is said thus to have expressed himself, at the close of his last will and testament: “My immortal spirit I cast on the sovereign mercy of God, through Jesus Christ, who is the Lord of my strength, and, I trust, is be- come my salvation.” He is said also to have given orders for a plain neat stone to be placed upon his grave, with this inscription, “Spes mea Christus ; ” CHRIST IS MY HOPE We are often reminded of the persecuting spirit of Tri- nitarians, and particularly of Calvin toward Servetus. This example has been long held up by our opponents, not only as a proof of his cruel disposition and odious character, but as if it were sufficient to determine what must be the turn and spirit of Calvinists in general. But supposing the case to which they appeal were allowed to prove the cruelty of Calvin’s disposition—nay, that he was, on the whole, a wicked man, destitute both of religion and humanity—what would all this prove as to the tendency of the system that happened to be called after his name, but which is allowed to have existed long before he was born ? We regard what no man did or taught as oracular, unless he could prove himself Divinely inspired, to which Calvin never pretended. Far be it from us to vindicate him, or any other man, in the business of persecution. We abhor every thing of the kind as much as our oppo- ments. Though the principles for which he contended appear to us, in the main, to be just ; yet the weapons of his warfare, in this instance, were carnal. It ought, however, to be acknowledged, on the other side, (and if our opponents possessed all the candour to which they pretend, they would in this, as well as in other cases, acknowledge,) that persecution for religious prin- ciples was not at that time peculiar to any party of Chris- tians ; but common to all, whenever they were invested with civil power. It was an error, and a detestable one ; but it was the error of the age. They looked upon heresy in the same light as we look upon those crimes which are inimical to the peace of civil society ; and, accordingly, 76 ON CANDOUR AND BENEVOLENCE. proceeded to punish heretics by the sword of the civil magistrate. If Socinians did not persecute their adversaries so much as Trinitarians, it was because they were not equally invested with the power of doing so. Mr. Lindsey acknowledges that Faustus Socinus himself was not free from persecution, in the case of Francis Davides, super- intendent of the Unitarian churches in Transylvania. Davides had disputed with Socinus on the invocation of Christ, and “died in prison in consequence of his opinion, and some offence taken at his supposed indiscreet propa- gation of it from the pulpit. I wish I could say,” adds Mr. Lindsey, “that Socinus, or his friend Blandrata, had done all in their power to prevent his commitment, or pro- cure his release afterwards.” The difference between Socinus and Davides was very slight. They both held Christ to be a mere man. The former, however, was for praying to him ; which the latter, with much greater con- sistency, disapproved. Considering this, the persecution to which Socinus was accessory was as great as that of Calvin ; and there is no reason to think but that, if Davides had differed as much from Socinus as Servetus did from Calvin, and if the civil magistrates had been for burning him, Socinus would have concurred with them. To this might be added, that the conduct of Socinus was marked with disingenuity, in that he considered the opinion of Davides in no very heinous point of light, but was afraid of increasing the odium under which he and his party already lay among other Christian churches.* Mr. Robinson, in his Ecclesiastical Researches, has given an account of both these persecutions; but it is easy to per- ceive the prejudice under which he wrote. He evidently inclines to extenuate the conduct of Socinus, while he in- cludes every possible circumstance that can in any manner blacken the memory of Calvin. Whatever regard we may bear to the latter, I am persuaded we should not wish to extenuate his conduct in the persecution of Servetus, or to represent it in softer terms, nor yet so soft, as Mr. Robin- son has represented that of the former in the persecution of Davides. We do not accuse Socinianism of being a persecuting system, on account of this instance of misconduct in Socinus; nor is it any proof of the superior candour of our opponents that they are continually acting the very reverse towards us. As a Baptist, I might indulge resentment against Cranmer, who caused some of that denomination to be burned alive ; yet I am inclined to think, from all that I have read of Cranmer, that, notwithstanding his conduct in those instances, he was, upon the whole, of an amiable disposition. Though he held with Paedobaptism, and in this manner defended it, yet I should never think of imputing a spirit of persecution to Paedobaptists in general, or of charging their sentiment, in that particular, with being of a persecuting tendency. It was the opinion that erroneous religious principles are punishable by the civil 'magistrate that did the mischief, whether at Geneva, in Transylvania, or in Britain ; and to this, rather than to Trinitarianism, or to Unitarianism, it ought to be imputed. We need not hold, with Mr. Lindsey, “the innocence of error,” in order to shun a spirit of persecution. Though we conceive of error, in many cases, as criminal in the sight of God, and as requiring admonition, yea, exclusion from a religious society; yet while we reject all ideas of its exposing a person to civil punishment or inconvenience, we ought to be acquitted of the charge of persecution. Where the majority of a religious society consider the avowed principles of an individual of that society as being fundamentally erroneous, and inconsistent with the united worship and well-being of the whole, it cannot be persecu- tion to endeavour, by Scriptural arguments, to convince him ; and if that cannot be accomplished, to exclude him from their communion. It has been suggested, that to think the worse of a per- son on account of his sentiments is a species of persecution, and indicates a spirit of bitterness at the bottom, which is inconsistent with that benevolence which is due to all mankind. But if it be persecution to think the worse of a person on account of his sentiments, (unless no man be better or worse, whatever sentiments he imbibes, which * Mr. Lindsey's Apology, pp. 153–156. very few will care to assert,) then it must be persecution for us to think of one another according to truth. It is also a species of persecution of which our opponents are guilty, as well as we, whenever they maintain the superior moral tendency of their own system. That which is adapted and intended to do good to the party cannot be persecution, but general benevolence. Let us suppose a number of travellers, all proposing to journey to one place. A number of different ways present themselves to view, and each appears to be the right way. Some are inclined to one ; some to another; and some contend that, what- ever smaller difference there may be between them, they all lead to the same end. Others, however, are persuaded that they all do not terminate in the same end, and appeal to a correct map of the country, which points out a number of by-paths, resembling those in question, each leading to a fatal issue. Query, Would it be the part of benevolence, in this case, for the latter to keep silence, and hope the best; or to state the evidence on which their apprehen- sions were founded, and to warn their fellow travellers of their danger? There are, it is acknowledged, many instances of a want of candour and benevolence among us, over which it be- comes us to lament. This is the case, especially, with those whom Dr. Priestley is pleased to call “the only consistent absolute predestinarians.” I may add there has been, in my opinion, a great deal too much haughtiness and un- candidness discovered by some of the Trinitarians of the Established Church, in their controversies with Socinian Dissenters. These dispositions, however, do not belong to them as Trinitarians, but as Churchmen. A slight ob- servation of human nature will convince us that the ad- herents to a religion established by law, let their senti- ments be what they may, will always be under a powerful temptation to take it for granted that they are right, and that all who dissent from them are contemptible sectaries, unworthy of a candid and respectful treatment. This temptation, it is true, will not have equal effect upon all in the same community. Serious and humble characters will watch against it ; and being wise enough to know that real worth is not derived from any thing merely ex- ternal, they may be superior to it. But those of another description will be very differently affected. There is, indeed, a mixture of evil passions in all our religious affections, against which it becomes us to watch and pray. I see many things, in those of my own senti- ments, which I cannot approve ; and, possibly, others may see the same in me. And should the Socinians pretend. to the contrary, with respect to themselves, or aspire at a superiority to their neighbours, it may be more than they are able to maintain. It cannot escape the observation of thinking and impartial men, that the candour of which they so frequently boast is pretty much confined to their own party, or those that are near akin to them. So- cinians can be candid to Arians, and Arians to Socinians, and each of them to deists; but if Calvinists expect a share of their tenderness, let them not greatly wonder if they be disappointed. There need not be a greater, or a more standing proof of this, than the manner in which the writings of the latter are treated in the Monthly Review. It has been frequently observed, that though Socinian writers plead so much for candour and esteem among pro- fessing Christians, yet, generally speaking, there is such a mixture of scornful contempt discovered towards their opponents, as renders their professions far from consistent. Mr. Lindsey very charitably accounts for our errors, by asserting that “the doctrine of Christ being possessed of two natures is the fiction of ingenious men, determined, at all events, to believe Christ to be a different being from what he really was, and uniformly declared himself to be ; by which fiction of theirs they elude the plainest declarations of Scripture concerning him, and will prove him to be the most high God, in spite of his own most eacpress and con- stant language to the contrary. And as there is no reason- ing with such persons, they are to be pitied, and considered as being under a debility of mind in this respect, however sensible and rational in others.”f Would Mr. Lindsey + Catech. Inq. 6. ON CANDOUR AND BENEVOLENCE. 77 wish to have this considered as a specimen of Socinian candour # If Mrs. Barbauld had been possessed of can- dour equal to her ingenuity, instead of supposing that Calvinists derive their ideas of election, the atonement, future punishment, &c. from the tyranny and caprice of an Eastern despot, she might have admitted, whether they were right or not, that those principles appeared to them to be taught in the Bible.* If we may estimate the candour of Socinians from the spirit discovered by Mr. Robinson, in the latter part of his life, the conclusion will not be very favourable to their system. At the time when this writer professed himself a Calvinist, he could acknowledge those who differed from him, with respect to the Divinity of Christ, as “mistaken brethren ;” at which time his opponents could not well complain of his being uncandid. But when he comes to change his sentiments on that article, he treats those from whom he differs in a very different manner, loading them with every species of abuse. Witness his treatment of Augustine, whose conduct, previously to his conversion to Christianity, though lamented with all the tokens of peni- tential sorrow, and entirely forsaken in the remaining period of his life, he industriously represents to his disad- vantage; calling him “a pretended saint, but an illiterate hypocrite, of wicked dispositions;” loading his memory, and even the very country where he lived, with every op- probrious epithet that could be devised.T. Similar instances might be added from his Ecclesiastical Researches, in which the characters of Calvin and Beza are treated in an equally uncandid manner.; Dr. Priestley himself, who is said to be the most candid man of his party, is seldom overloaded with this virtue when he is dealing with Calvinists. It does not discover a very great degree of perfection in this, or even in common civility, to call those who consider his principles as per- micious by the name of “bigots,” “the bigots,” &c., which he very frequently does. Nor is it to the credit of his impartiality, any more than of his candour, when weighing the moral excellence of Trinitarians and Unitarians against each other, as in a balance, to suppose “the former to have less, and the latter something more, of a real prin- ciple of religion, than they seem to have.” This looks like taking a portion out of one scale, and casting it into the other, for the purpose of making weight where it was wanting. Dr. Priestley, in answer to Mr. Burn, On the Person of Christ, acquits him of “any thing base, disingenuous, im- moral, or wicked ; ” and seeing Mr. Burn had not acquit- ted him of all such things in return, the Doctor takes occasion to boast that his “principles, whatever they are, are more candid than those of Mr. Burn.”| But if this acknowledgment, candid as it may seem, be compared with another passage in the same performance, it will appear to less advantage. In Letter W. the Doctor goes about to account for the motives of his opponents; and if the following language do not insinuate any thing “base, immoral, or wicked,” to have influenced Mr. Burn, it may be difficult to decide what baseness, immorality, or wick- edness is. “As to Mr. Burn’s being willing to have a gird at me, as Falstaff says, it may easily be accounted for. He has a view to rise in his profession; and being a man of good natural understanding and good elocution, but having had no advantage of education, or family con- nexions, he may think it mecessary to do something, in order to make himself conspicuous; and he might suppose he could not do better than follow the sure steps of those who had succeeded in the same chase before him.” What can any person make of these two passages put together ? It must appear, either that Dr. Priestley accused Mr. Burn of motives of which in his conscience he did not believe * A friend of mine, on looking over Mrs. Barbauld's Pamphlet, in answer to Mr. Wakefield, remarks as follows: “Mrs. B. used to call Socinianism, The frigid zone of Christianity; but she is now got far porth herself. She is amazingly clever; her language enchanting; but her caricature of Calvinism is abominable.” + Hist. Bapt. p. 652. # Mr. Robinson, in his “ Notes on Claude,” observes from Mr. Burgh, that “whatever occurs in modern writers of history, of a nar- rative nature, we find to be an inference from a system previously assumed, without any view to the seeming truth of the facts recorded; but to the establishment of which the historian appears, through every Species of misrepresentation, to have zealously directed his force. him to be guilty, or that he acquitted him of every thing base and wicked, not because he thought him innocent, but merely with a view to glory over him, by affecting to be under the influence of superior candour and generosity. The manner in which Dr. Priestley treated Mr. Badcock, in his Familiar Letters to the Inhabitants of Birmingham, holding him up as an immoral character, at a time when, unless some valuable end could have been answered by it, his memory should have been at rest, is thought to be very far from either candour or benevolence. The Doctor and Mr. Badcock seem to have been, heretofore, upon friendly terms, and not very widely asunder as to sentiment. Private letters pass between them, and Mr. Badcock always acknowledges Dr. Priestley his superior. But about 1783 Mr. Badcock opposes his friend, in the Monthly Review, and is thought, by many, to have the advantage of him. After this, he is said to act scandal- ously and dishonestly. He dies; and soon after his death Dr. Priestley avails himself of his former correspondence, to expose his dishonesty; and, as if this were not enough, supplies, from his own conjectures, what was wanting of fact, to render him completely odious to mankind. Dr. Priestley may plead that he has held up “the ex- ample of this unhappy man as a warning to others.” So, indeed, he speaks; but thinking people will suppose that if this Zimri had not “slain his master, his bones might have rested in peace.” Dr. Priestley had just cause for exposing the author of a piece signed Theodosius, in the manner he has done in those Letters. Justice to himself required this ; but what necessity was there for exposing Mr. Badcock 3 Allowing that there was sufficient evi- dence to support the heavy charge, wherein does this affect the merits of the cause? Does proving a man a villain answer his arguments 3 Is it worthy of a generous an- tagonist to avail himself of such methods to prejudice the public mind 3 Does it belong to a controvertist to write his opponent's history after he is dead, and to hold up his character in a disadvantageous light, so as to depreciate his writings 3 Whatever good opinion Socinian writers may entertain of the ability and integrity of some few individuals who differ from them, it is pretty evident that they have the candour to consider the body of their opponents as either ignorant or insincere. By the Poem which Mr. Badcock wrote in praise of Dr. Priestley, when he was, as the Doctor informs us, his “humble admirer,” we may see in what light we are considered by our adversaries. Trinitarians, among the Clergy, are there represented as “sticking fast to the Church for the sake of a living ; ” and those whom the writer calls “orthodox, popular preachers” (which I suppose may principally refer to Dissenters and Methodists) are described as fools and enthusiasts ; as either “staring, stamping, and damning in nonsense,” or else “whining out the tidings of salvation, telling their auditors that grace is cheap, and works are all an empty bubble.” All this is published by Dr. Priestley in his Twenty-second Letter to the Inhabitants of Birmingham, and that without any marks of disapprobation. Dr. Priestley himself, though he does not descend to so low and scurrilous a manner of writing as the above, yet suggests the same thing, in the Dedication of his Doctrine of Philosophical Necessity. He there praises Dr. Jebb for his “attachment to the unadulterated principles of Christianity, how unpopular soever they may have become, through the prejudices of the weak or the interested part of mankind.” After all, it is allowed that Dr. Priestley is in general, and especially when he is not dealing with a Calvinist, a fair and candid opponent; much more so than the Monthly IReviewers, who, with the late Mr. Badcock, seem to rank among his “humble admirers.”'ſ Candid and open, how- The subversion of freedom was the evident purpose of Mr. Hume, in writing the History of England. I fear we may, with too much jus- tice, affirm the subversion of Christianity to be the object of Mr. Gib- bon, in writing his History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Bmpire,” Vol. II, pp. 147, 148. Perhaps it might, with equal pro- priety, be added, that the subversion of what is commonly called ortho- doxy, and the vindication, or palliation, of every thing which, in every age, has been called by the name of heresy, were the objects of Mr. Robinson in writing his History of Baptism, and what has since been published under the title of Ecclesiastical Researches. & Disc. War. Sub. p. 100. | Fam. Let, XVIII. T. About eight or nine years ago, the JMonthly Review was at open 78 ON HUMILITY. ever, as Dr. Priestley in general is, the above are certainly no very trifling exceptions ; and considering him as ex- celling most of his party in this virtue, they are sufficient to prove the point for which they are alleged ; namely, that when Socinians profess to be more candid than their opponents, their profession includes more than their con- duct will justify. LETTER IX. THE SYSTEMs comparED AS TO THEIR TENDENCY TO IPROMOTE HUMILITY, YoU recollect the prophecy of Isaiah, in which, speaking of gospel times, he predicts “that the loftiness of man shall be bowed down, and the haughtiness of men shall be made low, and the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day;” as if it were one peculiar characteristic of the true gospel to lay low the pride of man. The whole tenor of the New Testament enforces the same idea. “Ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to con- found the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are : that no flesh should glory in his presence.”— “Jesus said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.”— “Where is boasting? It is excluded. By what law 3 Of works 3 Nay, but by the law of faith.” It may be concluded, with certainty, from these passages, and various others of the same import, that the system which has the greatest tendency to promote this virtue approaches nearest to the true gospel of Christ. .* Pride, the opposife of humility, may be distinguished, by its objects, into natural and spiritual. Both consist in a too high esteem of ourselves : the one on account of those accomplishments which are merely natural, or which pertain to us as men ; the other on account of those which are spiritual, or which pertain to us as good men. With respect to the first, it is not very difficult to know who they are that ascribe most to their own understanding ; that profess to believe in nothing but what they can com- prehend ; that arrogate to themselves the name of rational Christians ; that affect to “pity all those who maintain the doctrine of two natures in Christ, as being under a debility of mind in this respect, however sensible and rational in others;” that pour compliments extravagantly upon one another;* that speak of their own party as the wise and learned, and of their opponents as the ignorant and illiterate, who are carried away by vulgar prejudices;f that tax the sacred writers with “reasoning inconclu- sively,” and writing “lame accounts;” and that represent themselves as men of far greater compass of mind than they, or than even Jesus Christ himself! The last of these particulars may excite surprise. Charity, that hopeth all things, will be ready to suggest, Surely no man that calls himself a Christian will dare to speak so arrogantly. I acknowledge, I should have thought so, if I had not read in Dr. Priestley's Doctrine of Philosophical Necessity, p. 133, as follows: “ Not that I think that the sacred writers were necessarians, for they were not philosophers ; not even our Saviour himself, as far as appears:-But their habitual devotion naturally led them to refer all things to God, without reflecting on the rigorous meaning of their language ; and very probably, had they been interrogated on the subject, they would have appeared not to be apprized of the necessarian scheme, and would have answered in a manner unfavour- war with Dr. Priestley; and the Doctor, like an incensed monarch, summoned all his mighty resources to expose its weakness, and to de- grade it in the eye of the public. The conductors of the Review, at length, finding, it seems, that their country was nourished by the king's country, desired peace. They have ever since very punctually able to it.” The sacred writers, it seems, were well-mean- ing persons; but, at the same time, so ignorant as not to know the meaning of their own language ; nay, so ignorant that, had it been explained to them, they would have been incapable of taking it in 1 Nor is this suggested of the sacred writers only; but, as it should seem, of Jesus Christ himself. A very fit person Jesus Christ must be, indeed, to be addressed as “knowing all things ;” as a “revealer” of the mind of God to men; as “the wisdom of God;” as he in whom “ it pleased the Father that all fulness should dwell ;” by whom the judges of the earth are exhorted to be “instructed ;” and who shall “judge the world” at the last day; when, in fact, he was so ignorant as not to con- sider the meaning of his own language; or if he had been interrogated upon it, would not have been apprized of the extent of the scheme to which his words naturally led, but would probably have answered in a manner unfavourable to it! Is this the language of one that is little in his own eyes 2 But there is such a thing as spiritual pride, or a too high esteem of ourselves on account of spiritual accom- plishments ; and this, together with a spirit of bigotry, Dr. Priestley imputes to Trinitarians. “ Upon the whole,” says he, “ considering the great mixture of spiritual pride and bigotry in some of the most zealous Trinitarians, I think the moral character of Unita- rians in general, allowing that there is in them a greater apparent conformity to the world than is observable in others, approaches more nearly to the proper temper of Christianity. It is more cheerful, more benevolent, and more candid. The former have probably less, and the latter, I hope, somewhat more, of a real principle of re- ligion than they seem to have.”f To this it is replied, First, If Trinitarians be proud at all, it seems it must be of their spirituality; for as to rationality, they have none, their opponents having, by a kind of exclusive char- ter, monopolized that article. It is their misfortune, it seems, when investigating the doctrine of the person of Christ, to be under a “ debility of mind,” or a kind of periodical insanity. Secondly, Admitting that a greater degree of spiritual pride exists among Trinitarians than among their oppo- nents, if we were, for once, to follow Dr. Priestley’s ex- ample, it might be accounted for without any reflection upon their principles. Pride is a sin that easily besets human nature, though nothing is more opposite to the spirit that becomes us ; and whatever it is in which a body of men excel, they are under a peculiar temptation to be proud of that, rather than of other things. The English people have been often charged, by their neigh- bours, with pride on account of their civil constitution ; and I suppose it has not been without reason. They have conceived themselves to excel other nations in that par- ticular ; have been apt to value themselves upon it, and to undervalue their neighbours more than they ought. This has been their fault ; but it does not prove that their civil constitution has not, after all, its excellences. Nay, perhaps, the reason why some of their neighbours have not been so proud in this particular as they, is, that they have not had that to be proud of. Christians, in general, are more likely to be the subjects of pride than avowed infi- dels; for the pride of the latter, though it may rise to the highest pitch imaginable, will not be in their spirituality. The same may be said of Socinians. For while “ a great number of them are only men of good sense, and without much practical religion,” as Dr. Priestley in the same page acknowledges they are, their pride will not be in their spirituality, but in their supposed rationality. Thirdly, Let it be considered whether our doctrinal sentiments do not bear a nearer affinity to those principles which, in Scripture, are constantly urged as motives to humility, than those of our opponents. The doctrines inculcated by Christ and his apostles, in order to lay men low in the dust before God, were those of human de- pravity, and salvation by free and sovereign grace through paid him tribute ; and the conqueror seems very well contented, on this condition, to grant them his favour and protection. - * Mr. Toulmin’s Sermon on the Death of Mr. Robinson, pp. 47.56. + Mr. Belsham's Sermon, pp. 4, 32. # J)isc. War. Sub. p. 100. ... - ON HUMILITY. 79 Jesus Christ. The language held out by our Lord was, that he “came to seek and to save that which was lost.” The general strain of his preaching tended to inform man- kind, not only that he came to save lost sinners, but that no man, under any other character, could partake of the blessings of salvation. “I came,” saith he, “not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” “The whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.” To the same purpose, the apostle of the Gentiles declared to the Ephesians, “You hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; wherein, in time past, ye walked ac- cording to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience.” Nor did he speak this of Gentiles or of profligates only; but, though himself a Jew, and educated a Pharisee, he added, “Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past, in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.” To the doctrine of the universal depravity of human nature he very properly and joyfully proceeds to oppose that of God’s rich mercy: “But God, who is rich in mercy, for the great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ.” The humbling doctrine of salvation by undeserved favour was so natural an inference, from these premises, that the apostle could not forbear throwing in such a reflection, though it were in a parenthesis: “By grace ye are saved.” Nor did he leave it there, but pre- sently after drew the same conclusion more fully: “For by grace ye are saved, through faith; and that not of yourselves : it is the gift of God : not of works, lest any man should boast,” Eph. ii. To the same purport he taught in his other Epistles: “Who hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.”—“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but ac- cording to his mercy he saved us.”—“Of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption : that, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord,” 2 Tim. i.; Tit. iii.; 1 Cor. i. These, we see, were the sentiments by which Christ and his apostles taught men humility, and cut off boasting. But, as though it were designed in perfect opposition to the apostolic doctrine, Socinian writers are constantly ex- claiming against the Calvinistic system, because it main- tains the insufficiency of a good moral life to recommend us to the favour of God. “Repentance, and a good life,” says Dr. Priestley, “are of themselves sufficient to recom- mend us to the Divine favour.” + “When,” says Mrs. Barbauld, “will Christians permit themselves to believe that the same conduct which gains them the approbation of good men here will secure the favour of Heaven here- after ? When a man like Dr. Price is about to resign his soul into the hands of his Maker, he ought to do it, not only with a reliance on his mercy, but his justice. It does not become him to pay the blasphemous homage of depre- cating the wrath of God, when he ought to throw himself into the arms of his love.” + “Other foundation than this can no man lay,” says Dr. Harwood: “All hopes founded upon any thing else than a good moral life are merely imaginary.” f So they wrap it wo. If a set of writers united together, and studied to form an hypothesis in perfect contradiction to the Holy Scriptures, and the de- clared humbling tendency of the gospel, they could not have hit upon a point more directly to their purpose. The whole tenor of the gospel says, “It is Not of works, lest any man should boast.” But Socinian writers maintain that it is of works, and of them only ; that in this, and in * History of the Corruption of Christianity, Vol. I. p. 155. + Answer to Mr. Wakefield. # Sermons, p. 193. & Phil. Nec. p. 153. | It is true Dr. Priestley himself sometimes allows that virtue is hot our own, and does not arise from within ourselves; calling that mere heathem Stoicism which maintains the contrary; and tells us that “those persons who, from a principle of religion, ascribe more to God, and less to man, are persons of the greatest elevation in piety,” Phil. Nec, pp. 107, 108. Yet, in the same performance, he represents it as a part of the necessarian scheme, by which it is opposed to Cal- Winism, “that it depends entirely upon a man’s self whether he be no other way, is the Divine favour to be obtained. We might ask, Where is boasting then 2 Is it excluded ? NAY ; is it not admitted and cherished ? Christ and his apostles inculcated humility, by teaching the primitive Christians that virtue itself was not of them- selves, but the gift of God. They not only expressly de- clared this with respect to faith, but the same, in effect, of every particular included in the general notion of true godliness. “As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself,” said Christ, “except it abide in the vine, no more can ye except ye abide in me :” for “without me ye can do nothing.” “We are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” “He worketh in us both to will and to do, of his good pleasure.” The manifest design of these important sayings was to humble the primitive Christians, and to make them feel their entire dependence upon God for virtue, even for every good thought. “Who maketh thee to differ?” said the apostle, “ and what hast thou that thou didst not receive 3' tº Now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it !” The Calvinistic system, it is well known, includes the same things; but where is the place for them, or where do they appear, in the system of our opponents 3 Dr. Priestley, in professed opposition to Cal- vinism, maintains “that it depends entirely upon a man’s self whether he be virtuous or vicious, happy or miser- able;” that is to say, it is a man’s self that maketh him to differ from another; and he has that (namely, virtue) which he did not receive, and in which, therefore he may glory.| • Dr. Priestley replies to this kind of reasoning, “When we consider ourselves as the workmanship of God, that all our powers of body and of mind are derived from him, that he is the giver of every good and of every perfect gift, and that without him we can do and enjoy nothing, how can we conceive ourselves to be in a state of greater dependence or obligation ? that is, what greater reason or foundation can there possibly be for the exercise of hu- mility? If I believe that I have a power to do the duty that God requires of me; yet, as I also believe that that power is his gift, I must still say, What have I that I have not received? and how then can I glory as if I had not 7"eceived ºf 2?’ ‘ſ It is true Dr. Priestley, and, for aught I know, all other writers, except atheists, acknowledge themselves indebted to God for the powers by which virtue is attained, and, perhaps, for the means of attaining it ; but this is not ac- knowledging that we are indebted to him for virtue itself. Powers and opportunities are mere natural blessings; they have no virtue in them, but are a kind of talent, capable of being improved or not improved. Virtue consists not in the possession of natural powers, any more than in health, or learning, or riches; but in the use that is made of them. God does not, therefore, upon this principle, give us virtue. Dr. Priestley contends, that as we are “God’s workmanship, and derive all our powers of body and mind from him, we cannot conceive of ourselves as being in a state of greater dependence upon him.” The apostle Paul, however, teaches the necessity of being “created in Christ Jesus unto good works.” According to Paul, we must become his workmanship by a new creation, in order to the performance of good works; but according to Dr. Priestley, the first creation is sufficient. Now if so, the difference between one man and another is not to be ascribed to God; for it is supposed that God has given all men the power of attaining virtue, and that the difference between the virtuous man and his neighbour is to be ascribed to himself, in making a good use of the powers and opportunities with which he was invested. Upon this system, therefore, we may justly answer the virtuous or vicious,” p. 153. If Dr. Priestley mean no more, by these expressions, than that our conduct in life, whether virtuous or vicious, depends upon our choice, the Calvinistic scheme, as well as his own, allows of it. . But if he mean that a virtuous choice originates in ourselves, and that we are the proper cause of it, this can agree to nothing but the Arminian notion of a self-determining power in the will ; and that, in fact, as he himself elsewhere observes, is mere heathen Stoicism which allows men to pray for external things, but admonishes them that, as for virtue, it is our own, and must arise jrom within ourselves, if we have it at all,” p. 69. T Diff. Opin. III. 80 ON CHARITY. question, What hast thow which thow hast not received 2– “I have virtue, and the promise of eternal life as its re- Ward ; and, consequently, have whereof to glory.” In short, the whole of Dr. Priestley's concessions amount to nothing more than the heathen Stoicism which he else- where condemns. Those ancient philosophers could not deny that all their powers were originally derived from above ; yet they maintained “that, as for virtue, it is owr º and must arise from within ourselves, if we have it at all.” I do not deny that all men have natural powers, to- gether with means and opportunities of doing good ; which, if they were but completely well-disposed, are equal to the performance of their whole duty. God requires no more of us than to love and serve him with ALL our strength. These powers and opportunities render them accountable beings, and will leave them without excuse at the last day. But if they are not rightly disposed, all their natural powers will be abused; and the question is, To whom are we indebted for a change of disposition? If to God, we have reason to lie in the dust, and acknowledge it was he that “quickened us, when we were dead in sins ;” if to our- selves, the doctrine of the Stoics will be established, and we shall have “whereof to glory.” LETTER X. ON CHARITY : IN WIHICH IS CONSIDERED THE CHARGE OF IBIGOTRY, THE main reason why we are accused of spiritual pride, bigotry, uncharitableness, and the like, is the importance which we ascribe to some of our sentiments. Viewing them as essential to Christianity, we cannot, properly speaking, acknowledge as Christians those who reject them. It is this which provokes the resentment of our opponents, and induces them to load us with opprobrious epithets. We have already touched upon this topic, in the Letter on Candour, but will now consider it more particularly. It is allowed that we ought not to judge of whole bodies of men by the denomination under which they pass, be- cause names do not always describe the real principles they embrace. It is possible that a person who attends upon a very unsound ministry may not understand or adopt so much of the system which he hears inculcated, as that his disposition shall be formed or his conduct regu- lated by it. I have heard, from persons who have been much conversant with Socinians, that though in general they are of a loose, dissipated turn of mind, assembling in the gay circles of pleasure, and following the customs and manners of the world; yet that there are some among them who are more serious; and that these, if not in their conversation, yet in their solemn addresses to the Almighty, incline to the doctrines of Calvinism. This perfectly accords with Mrs. Barbauld's representation of the matter, as noticed towards the close of the Sixth Letter. These people are not, properly speaking, Socinians; and therefore ought to be left quite out of the question. For the question is, Whether as believing in the Deity and atonement of Christ, with other correspondent doctrines, we be required, by the charity inculcated in the gospel, to acknowledge, as fellow Christians, those who thoroughly and avowedly reject them. It is no part of the business of this Letter to prove that these doctrines are true; this at present I have a right to take for granted. The fair state of the objection, if de- livered by a Socinian, would be to this effect: “Though your sentiments should be right, yet by refusing to ac- knowledge, as fellow Christians, others who differ from you, you overrate their importance, and so violate the charity recommended by the gospel.” To the objection, as thus stated, I shall endeavour to reply. Charity, it is allowed, will induce us to put the most favourable construction upon things, and to entertain the most favourable opinion of persons, that truth will admit. It is far from the spirit of Christianity to indulge a cen- sorious temper, or to take pleasure in drawing unfavour- able conclusions against any person whatever; but the tenderest disposition towards mankind cannot convert truth into falsehood, or falsehood into truth. Unless, therefore, we reject the Bible, and the belief of any thing as necessary to salvation, though we should stretch our good opinion of men to the greatest lengths, yet we must stop some where. Charity itself does not so believe all things as to disregard truth and evidence. We are some- times reminded of our Lord’s command, “Judge not, lest Aye be judged.” This language is, doubtless, designed to reprove a censorious disposition, which leads people to pass wnjust judgment, or to discern a mote in a brother's eye, while they are blind to a beam in their own : but it cannot be intended to forbid all judgment whatever, even upon characters; for this would be contrary to what our Lord teaches in the same discourse, warning his disciples to: beware of false prophets, who would come to them in sheep's clothing; adding, “Ye shall know them by their fruits.” Few pretend that we ought to think favourably of pro- fligate characters, or that it is any breach of charity to think unfavourably concerning them. But if the words of our Lord be understood as forbidding all judgment whatever upon characters, it must be wrong to pass any judgment upon them. Nay, it must be wrong for a minis- ter to declare to a drunkard, a thief, or an adulterer, that, if he die in his present condition, he must perish, be- cause this is judging the party not to be in a state of sal- vation. All the use that is commonly made of our Lord’s words is in favour of sentiments, not of actions ; but the Scrip- tures make no such distinction. Men are there represented as being under the wrath of God who have not believed on the name of the only-begotten Son of God ; nor is there any thing intimated in our Lord’s expressions, as if the judgment which he forbade his disciples to pass were to be confined to matters of sentiment. The judgment which is there reproved is partial or wrong judgment, whether it be on account of sentiment or of practice. Even those who plead against judging persons on account of sentiment (many of them at least) allow themselves to think un- favourably of avowed infidels, who have heard the gospel, but continue to reject it. They themselves, therefore, do judge unfavourably of men on account of their sentiments; and must do so, unless they will reject the Bible, which declares unbelievers to be under condemnation. Dr. Priestley, however, seems to extend his favourable opinion to idolaters and infidels, without distinction. “All differences in modes of worship,” he says, “may be only the different methods by which different men (who are equally the offspring of God) are endeavouring to honour and obey their common Parent.” He also inveighs against a supposition that the mere holding of any opinions (so it seems the great articles of our faith must be called) should exclude men from the favour of God. It is true what he says is guarded so much as to give the argument he engages to support a very plausible appearance; but withal so ill directed as not in the least to affect that of his opponents. His words are these : “Let those who maintain that the mere holding of any opinions (without regard to the mo- tives and state of mind through which men may have been led to form them) will necessarily exclude them from the favour of God, be particularly careful with respect to the premises from which they draw so alarming a conclusion.” The counsel contained in these words is undoubtedly very good. Those premises ought to be well-founded from which such a conclusion is drawn. I do not indeed sup- pose that any ground for such a conclusion exists, and who they are that draw it I cannot tell. The mere hold- ing of an opinion, considered abstractedly from the motive or state of mind of him that holds it, must be simply an exercise of intellect; and, I am inclined to think, has in it neither good nor evil. But the question is, whether there be not truths which from the nature of them cannot be rejected without an evil bias of heart; and, therefore, where we see those truths rejected, whether we have not authority to conclude that such rejection must have arisen from an evil bias. If a man say, There is no God, the Scripture teaches us to consider it rather as the language of his heart than sim- ply of his judgment, and makes no scruple of calling him ON CHARITY. 8] a fool; which, according to the Scriptural idea of the term, is equal to calling him a wicked man. And let it be seri- ously considered, upon what other principle our Lord could send forth his disciples to “preach the gospel to every creature,” and add, as he did, “ He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; and he that believeth not shall be damned.” Is it not here plainly supposed that the gospel was accompanied with such evidence, that no in- telligent creature could reject it but from an evil bias of heart, such as would justly expose him to damnation ? If it had been possible for an intelligent creature, after hear- ing the gospel, to think Jesus an impostor, and his doc- trine a lie, without any evil motive, or corrupt state of mind, I desire to know how the Lord of glory is to be acquitted of something worse than bigotry in making such a declaration. - Because the mere holding of an opinion, irrespective of the motive or state of mind in him that holds it, is neither good nor evil, it does not follow that “all differences in modes of worship may be only the different methods by which different men are endeavouring to honour and obey their common Parent.” The latter includes more than the former. The performance of worship contains more than the mere holding of an opinion ; for it includes an exercise of the heart. Our Lord and his apostles did not proceed on any such principle, when they went forth preaching the gospel, as I hope has been sufficiently proved in the Letter on Candour. The principles on which they proceeded were, An assurance that they were of God, and that the whole world were lying in wickedness—That he who was of God would hear their words; and he that was not of God would not hear them—That he who believed their tes- timony set to his seal that God was true ; and he that be- lieved it not made God a liar. - If we consider a belief of the gospel, in those who hear it, as essential to salvation, we shall be called bigots; but if this be bigotry, Jesus Christ and his apostles were bigots; and the same outcry might have been raised against them, by both Jews and Greeks, as is now raised against us. Jesus Christ himself said to the J ews, “ If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins;” and his apos- tles went forth with the same language. They wrote and preached that men “might believe that Jesus was the Christ; and that, believing, they might have life through his name.” Those who embraced their testimony they treated as in a state of salvation, and those who rejected it were told that they had “judged themselves unworthy of everlasting life.” In short, they acted as men fully convinced of the truth of what their Lord had declared in their commission; “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” To all this an unbelieving Jew might have objected in that day, with quite as good a grace as Socinians object in this, “These men think that our salvation depends upon receiving their opinions ! Have we not been the people of God, and in a state of salvation, time out of mind, with- out believing that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God? Our fathers believed only in general that there was a Mes- siah to come ; and were, no doubt, saved in that faith. We also believe the same, and worship the same God; and yet, according to these bigots, if we reject their opinion concerning Jesus being the Messiah, we must be judged wnworthy of everlasting life.” A heathem also, suppose one of Paul's hearers at Athens, who had just heard him deliver the discourse at Mars' hill, (recorded in Acts xvii.,) might have addressed his country- men in some such language as the following: “This Jew- ish stranger, Athenians, pretends to make known to us ‘the unknown God.” Had he been able to make good his pretensions, and had this been all, we might have been obliged to him. But this wºknown God, it seems, is to take place of all others that are known, and be set up at their expense. You have hitherto, Athenians, acted worthy of yourselves; you have liberally admitted all the gods to a participation of your worship; but now, it seems, the whole of your sacred services is to be engrossed by one. You have never been used to put any restraint upon thought or opinion ; but, with the utmost freedom, have ever been in search of new things. But this man tells us, we ‘ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto G silver or gold ;’ as though we were bound to adopt his manner of thinking, and no other. You have been famed for your adoration of the gods; and to this even your ac- cuser himself has borne witness; yet he has the temerity to call us to repentance for it. It seems, then, we are considered in the light of criminals—criminals on account of our devotions—criminals for being too religious, and for adhering to the religion of our ancestors! Will Athenians endure this? Had he possessed the liberality becoming one who should address an Athenian audience, he would have supposed that, however we might have been hitherto mistaken in our devotions, yet our intentions were good ; and that ‘ all the differences in modes of worship, as prac- tised by Jews and Athenians, (who are equally, by his own confession, the offspring of God,) may have been only dif- ferent methods by which we have been endeavouring to honour and obey our common Parent.' Nor is this all ; for we are called to repentance, because this unknown God hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world, &c. So, then, we are to renounce our principles and worship, and embrace his, on pain of being called to give an account of it before a Divine tribunal. Future happiness is to be confined to his sect; and our eternal welfare depends upon our embracing his opinions ! Could your ears have been insulted, Athenians, with an harangue more replete with “pride, arrogance, and bigotry f' “But, to say no more of this insulting language, the importance he gives to his opinions, if there were no other objection, must ever be a bar to their being received at Athens. You, Athenians, are friends to free inquiry. But should our philosophers turn Christians, instead of being famous, as heretofore, for the search of new truth, they must sink into a state of mental stagnation. “Those persons who think that their salvation depends upon hold- ing their present opinions must necessarily entertain the greatest dread of free inquiry. They must think it to be hazarding of their eternal welfare to listen to any argu- ments, or to read any books, that savour of idolatry. It must appear to them in the same light as listening to any other temptation, whereby they would be in danger of being seduced to their everlasting destruction. This tem- per of mind cannot but be a foundation for the most de- plorable bigotry, obstinacy, and ignorance.” “The Athenians, I doubt not, will generally abide by the religion of their forefathers ; but should any indi- viduals think of turning Christians, I trust they will never adopt that illiberal principle of making their opinion necessary to future happiness. While this man and his followers hold such a notion * of the importance of their present sentiments, they must needs live in the dread of all free inquiry; whereas we, who have not that idea of the importance of our present sentiments, preserve a state of mind proper for the discussion of them. If we be wrong, as our minds are under no strong bias, we are within the reach of conviction; and thus are in the way to grow wiser and better as long as we live.’” By the above it will appear that the apostle Paul was just as liable as we are to the charge of bigotry. Those parts which are marked with single reversed commas are, with only an alteration of the word heresy to that of idol- atry, the words of Dr. Priestley in the Second Section of his Considerations on Differences of Opinions. Judge, brethren, whether these words best fit the lips of a Chris- tian minister or of a heathen caviller. The consequences alleged by the supposed Athenian, against Paul, are far from just, and might be easily refuted ; but they are the same, for substance, as those alleged by Dr. Priestley against us; and the premises from which they are drawn are exactly the same. From the whole, I think, it may safely be concluded, if there be any sentiments taught us in the New Testament in a clear and decided manner, this is one : That the apos- tles and primitive preachers considered the belief of the gospel which they preached as necessary to the salvation of those who heard it. - But though it should be allowed that a belief of the gospel is necessary to salvation, it will still be objected that Socinians believe the gospel as well as others; their Christianity, therefore, ought not to be called in question on this account. To this it is replied, If what Socinians: 82 ON CHARITY. believe be indeed the gospel—in other words, if it be not deficient in what is essential to the gospel—they undoubt- edly ought to be acknowledged as Christians; but if otherwise, they ought not. It has been pleaded, by some who are not Socinians, that we ought to think favourably of all who profess to embrace Christianity, in general, unless their conduct be manifestly immoral. But we have no such criterion afforded us in the New Testament ; nor does it accord with what is there revealed. The New Testament informs us of various “wolves in sheep’s clothing,” who appeared among the primitive Christians; men who professed the Christian name, but yet were, in reality, enemies to Christianity; who “perverted the gospel of Christ,” and introduced “another gospel” in its place. But these men, it is said, not only taught false doctrine, but led immoral lives. If by immoral be meant grossly wicked, they certainly did not all of them answer to that character. The contrary is plainly supposed in the account of the false apostles among the Corinthians ; who are called “deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel ; for Satan him- self is transformed into an angel of light ; therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness,” 2 Cor. xi. I would not here be understood as drawing a comparison between the false apostles and the Socimians. My design, in this place, is not to insinuate any specific charge against them, but merely to prove that, if we judge favourably of the state of every person who bears the Christian name, and whose exterior moral character is fair, we must judge contrary to the Scriptures. To talk of forming a favourable judgment from a pro- fession of Christianity in general, is as contrary to reason and common sense as it is to the New Testament. Sup- pose a candidate for a seat in the House of Commons, on being asked his political principles, should profess himself a friend to liberty in general. A freeholder inquires, “Do you disapprove, sir, of taxation without representation ?” “No.” “Would you vote for a reform in parliament 2" “No.” “Do you approve of the liberty of the press 2" “ No.” Would this afford satisfaction ? Is it not common for men to admit that in the gross which they deny in detail 3 The only question that can fairly be urged is, Are the doctrines which Socinians disown (supposing them to be true) of such importance that a rejection of them would endanger their salvation ? It must be allowed that these doctrines may be what we consider them, not only true, but essential to Chris- tianity. Christianity, like every other system of truth, must have some principles which are essential to it; and if those in question be such, it cannot justly be imputed to pride or bigotry, it cannot be uncharitable, or uncandid, or indicate any want of benevolence to think so. Neither can it be wrong to draw a natural and necessary conclu- sion, that those persons who reject these principles are not Christians. To think justly of persons is, in no respect, inconsistent with a universal good-will towards them. It is not, in the least, contrary to charity to consider unbe- lievers in the light in which the Scriptures represent them, nor those who reject what is essential to the gospel as rejecting the gospel itself. Dr. Priestley will not deny that Christianity has its great truths, though he will not allow the doctrines in question to make any part of them. “The being of a God—his constant overruling providence, and righteous moral government—the Divine origin of the Jewish and Christian revelations—that Christ was a teacher sent from God—that he is our master, lawgiver, and judge—that God raised him from the dead—that he is now exalted at the right hand of God—that he will come again, to raise all the dead, and sit in judgment upon them—and that he will then give to every one of us according to our works; —these,” he says, “are, properly speaking, the only great truths of religion ; and to these not only the Church of England, and the Church of Scotland, but even the Church of Rome, gives its assent.”* We see here that Dr. Priestley not only allows that there are certain great truths of re- ligion, but determines what, and what “only,” they are. I do not recollect, however, that the false teachers in the churches of Galatia denied any one of these articles; and yet, without rejecting some of the great and essential truths of Christianity, they could not have perverted the gospel of Christ, or have introduced another gospel. But Dr. Priestley, it seems, though he allows the above to be great truths, yet considers mothing as essential to Christianity but a belief of the Divine mission of Christ. “While a man believes,” he says, “in the Divine mission of Christ, he might with as much propriety be called a Ma- hometan as be denied to be a Christian.” f To call So- cinians Mahometans might, in most cases, be improper; they would still, however, according to this criterion of Christianity, be within the pale of the church ; for Ma- homet himself, I suppose, never denied the Divine mission of Christ, and very few of those doctrines which Dr. Priestley calls “the only great truths of religion.” The Doctor informs us that some people consider him, already, as half a Mahometan.”f Whether this be just or unjust, according to his motions of Christianity a Mahometan is to be considered as more than half a Christian. He ought, if the above criterion be just, to be acknowledged as a fellow Christian ; and the whole party, instead of being ranked with heathenish and Jewish unbelievers, as they are by this same writer, ought to be considered as a sect or denomination of Christians. The Doctor, therefore, need not have stopped at the Church of Rome, but might have added the Church of Constantinople, as agreeing in his “only great truths of religion.” I scarcely need to draw the conclusion which follows from what has been observed : If not only those who perverted the gospel among the Galatians did, but even the Mahometans may, acknowledge those truths which Dr. Priestley mentions, they cannot be the only great, much less the distinguishing, truths of the Christian religion. The difference between Socinians and Calvinists is not about the mere circumstantials’ of religion. It respects nothing less than the rule of faith, the ground of hope, and the object of worship. If the Socinians be right, we are not only superstitious devotees, and deluded depend- ents upon an arm of flesh, (Jer. xvii. 5,) but habitual idolaters. On the other hand, if we be right, they are guilty of refusing to subject their faith to the decisions of Heaven, of rejecting the only way of salvation, and of sacrilegiously depriving the Son of God of his essential glory. It is true they do not deny our Christianity on account of our supposed idolatry; but for this no reason can be assigned, except their indifference to religious truth, and the deistical turn of their sentiments. If the proper Deity of Christ be a Divine truth, it is a great and a fundamental truth in Christianity. Socinians, who reject it, very consistently reject the worship of Christ with it. But worship enters into the essence of religion; and the worship of Christ, according to the New Testa- ment, into the essence of the Christian religion. The primitive Christians are characterized by their “calling upon the name of the Lord Jesus.” The apostle, when writing to the Corinthians, addressed himself “to the Church of God at Corinth, to them that were sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place called upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord.” || That this is designed as a description of true Christians will not be denied ; but this description does not include Socinians, seeing they call not upon the name of Christ. The conclusion is, Socinians would not have been acknow- ledged, by the apostle Paul, as true Christians. If the Deity of Christ be a Divine truth, it must be the Father's will that all men should honour the Son in the same sense, and to the same degree, as they honour the Father; and those who honour him not as God will not ; only be found opposing the Divine will, but are included * Fam. Let. XXII. # Letters to Mr. Burn (Pref.). § Fam. I.et. XVII. Conclusion. | Mr. Lindsey's observation, that “called upon the name of Christ,” should be rendered, called by the name of Christ, if applied to Rom. + Diff. Opin. V. x. 13, would make the Scriptures promise salvation to every one that is called a Christian. Salvation is romised to all who believe, lone, Jear, and call woon the name of the ord; but never are the possessors of it described by a mere accidental circumstance, in which they are not voluntary, and in which, if they were, there is no virtue. ON CHARITY. 83 in the number of those who, by refusing to honour the Son, honour not the Father who hath sent him ; which amounts to nothing less than that the worship which they pay to the Father is unacceptable in his sight. If the Deity of Christ be a Divine truth, he is the object of trust; and that not merely in the character of a witness, but as Jehovah, in whom is everlasting strength. This ap- pears to be another characteristic of true Christians in the New Testament. “In his name shall the Gentiles trust.” “I know whom I have trusted; and that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him.” “In whom ye also trusted, after ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation.” But, if it be a characteristic of true Christianity so to trust in Christ as to commit the salva- tion of our souls into his hands, how can we conceive of those as true Christians who consider him only as a fel- low creature, and, consequently, place no such confidence in him 3 If men by nature be in a lost and perishing condition, and if Christ came to seek and save them under those characters, as he himself constantly testified, then all those that were whole in their own eyes, and seemed to need no physician, as the scribes and Pharisees of old, must neces- sarily be excluded from an interest in his salvation. And in what other light can those persons be considered who deny the depravity of their nature, and approach the Deity without respect to an atoning Saviour 3–Further, If the death of Christ, as an atoning sacrifice, be the only way of a sinner's salvation—if there be “no other name given under heaven, or among men, by which we must be saved”—if this be the “foundation which God hath laid in Zion”—and if no other will stand in the day of trial— how can we conceive that those who deliberately disown it, and renounce all dependence upon it for acceptance with God, should be yet interested in it? Is it supposable that they will partake of that forgiveness of sins which believers are said to receive for his sake, and through his name, who refuse to make use of that name in any of their petitions ? - If the doctrine of atonement by the cross of Christ be a Divine truth, it constitutes the very substance of the gos- pel; and, consequently, is essential to it. The doctrine of the cross is represented in the New Testament as the grand peculiarity and the principal glory of Christianity. It occupies a large proportion among the doctrines of Scripture, and is expressed in a vast variety of language. Christ “was delivered for our offences, wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities.” “He died for our sins.” “By his death purged our sins”—is said to “take (or bear) away the sins of the world”—to have “made peace through the blood of his cross”—“reconciled us to God by his death”—“redeemed us by his blood”— “washed us from our sins in his own blood”—“by his own blood obtained eternal redemption for us”—“pur- chased his church by his own blood,” &c. &c. This kind of language is so interwoven with the doctrine of the New Testament, that, to explain away the one, is to subvert the other. The doctrine of the cross is described as being, not merely an important branch of the gospel, but the gospel itself. “We preach Christ crucified ; to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness; but to them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.” “I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ and him crucified.” “An enemy to the cross of Christ” is only another mode of describing an enemy to the gospel.” It was reckoned a sufficient refutation of any principle, if it could be proved to involve in it the consequence of Christ's having “died in vain.”f Christ's dying for our sins is not only declared to be a Divine truth, “according to the Scriptures,” but a truth of such importance that the then present standing and the final salvation of the Co- rinthians were suspended upon their adherence to it. In fine, the doctrine of the cross is the central point in which all the lines of evangelical truth meet and are united. What the sun is to the system of nature, that the doctrine of the cross is to the system of the gospel; it is the life of it. The revolving planets might as well exist and keep + Gal. ii. * 1 Cor. i., ii. + 1 Cor. xv. their course, without the attracting influence of the one, as a gospel be exhibited worthy of the name that should leave out the other. I am aware that Socinian writers do not allow the doctrine of the atonement to be significq by that of the cross. They would tell you that they believe in the doc- trine of the cross; and allow it to have a relative or sub- ordinate importance, rendering the truth of Christ's resur- rection more evident, by cutting off all pretence that he was not really dead. Whether this meagre sense of the phrase will agree with the design of the apostle, in this and various other passages in the New Testament— whether it contain a sufficient ground for that singular glorying of which he speaks, or any principle by which the world was crucifted to him, and he unto the world—let the impartial judge. But, be this as it may, the question here is not whether the doctrine of atonement be signified by that of the cross; but, supposing it to be so, whether it be of such importance as to render a denial of it a virtual denial of Christianity.—Once more, If we believe in the absolute necessity of regeneration, or that a sinner must be renewed in the spirit of his mind, or never enter the kingdom of God, in what light must we consider those who plead for a reformation only, and deny the doctrine of a supernatural Divine influence, by which a new heart is given us, and a new spirit is put within us? Ought we, or can we, consider them as the subject of a Divine change who are continually ridiculing the very idea Of it 3 It is common for our opponents to stigmatize us with the name of bigots. Bigotry, if I understand it, is a blind and inordinate attachment to one’s opinions. If we be attached to principles on account of their being ours, or because we have adopted them, rather than because they appear to us to be taught in the Holy Scriptures; if we be attached to some peculiar principles to the neglect of others, or so as to give them a greater proportion in the system than they require ; if we consider things as being of greater importance than the Scriptures represent them ; if we ob- stinately adhere to our opinions, so as to be averse to free inquiry, and not open to conviction ; if we make so much of principles as to be inattentive to holy practice ; or if a difference in religious sentiment destroy or damp our be- nevolence to the persons of those from whom we differ; in any of these cases we are subject to the charge of bigotry. But we may consider a belief of certain doctrines as neces- sary to salvation, without coming under any part of the above description. We may be attached to these doctrines not because we have already embraced them, but on ac- count of their appearing to us to be revealed in the Scrip- tures; we may give them only that degree of importance in our views of things which they occupy there ; we may be so far friends to free inquiry as impartially to search the Scriptures, to see whether these things be true, and so open to conviction as to relinquish our sentiments when they are proved to be unscriptural; we may be equally attached to practical godliness, and to the principles on which it is founded ; and notwithstanding our ill opinion of the re- ligious sentiments of men, and our apprehensions of the danger of their eondition, we may yet bear good-will to their persons, and wish for nothing more than an oppor- tunity of promoting their welfare, both for this life and that which is to come. I do not pretend that Calvinists are free from bigotry; neither are their opponents. What I here contend for is that their considering a belief of certain doctrines as ne- cessary to salvation, unless it can be proved that they make more of these doctrines than the Scriptures make of them, ought not to subject them to such a charge. - What is there of bigotry in our not reckoning the So- cinians to be Christians, more than in their reckoning us *dolaters? Mr. Madan complained of the Socinians “in- sulting those of his principles with the charge of idolatry.” Dr. Priestley justified them by observing, “All who be- lieve Christ to be a man, and not God, must necessarily think it idolatrous to pay him Divine honours; and to call it so is no other than the necessary consequence of avowing our belief.” Nay, he represents it as ridiculous & Dr, Priestley's Sermon on “Glorying in the Cross.” G 2 84 ON CHARITY. that they should “be allowed to think the Trinitarians idolaters without being permitted to call them so.”* If Socinians have a right to think Trinitarians idolaters, they have doubtless a right to call them so ; and, if they be able, to make it appear so : nor ought we to consider our- selves as insulted by it. I have no idea of being offended with any man, in affairs of this kind, for speaking what he believes to be the truth. Instead of courting compliments from each other in matters of such moment, we ought to encourage an unreservedness of expression, provided it be accompanied with sobriety and benevolence. But neither ought Socinians to complain of our refusing to acknow- ledge them as Christians, or to impute it to a spirit of bigotry; for it amounts to nothing more than avowing a necessary consequence of our belief. If we believe the Deity and atonement of Christ to be essential to Chris- tianity, we must necessarily think those who reject these doctrines to be no Christians; nor is it inconsistent with charity to speak accordingly. Again, What is there of bigotry in our not allowing the Socinians to be Christians, more than in their not allowing us to be Unitarians ? We profess to believe in the Divine unity as much as they do in Christianity. But they con- sider a oneness of person, as well as of essence, to be essential to the unity of God, and therefore cannot ac- knowledge us as Unitarians; and we consider the Deity and atonement of Christ as essential to Christianity, and therefore cannot acknowledge them as Christians. We do not choose to call Socinians Unitarians, because that would be a virtual acknowledgment that we ourselves do not believe in the Divine unity; but we are not offended at what they think of us; nor do we impute it to bigotry, or to any thing of the kind. We know that while they think as they do on the doctrine of the Trinity, our senti- ments must appear to them as Tritheism. We comfort ourselves in these matters with this, that the thoughts of creatures uninspired of God are liable to mistake. Such are theirs concerning us, and such are ours concerning them ; and if Socinians do indeed love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, it is happy for them. The judgment of their fellow creatures cannot affect their state ; and thousands who have scrupled to admit them among the true followers of Christ in this world would rejoice to find themselves mistaken in that matter at the last day. It has been pleaded, by some who are not Socinians, that a belief in the doctrine of the atonement is not neces- sary to salvation : they observe that the disciples of our Lord, previously to his death, do not appear to have em- braced the idea of a vicarious sacrifice ; and, therefore, conclude that a vicarious sacrifice is not of the essence of faith. They add, It was owing to prejudice, and conse- quently wrong, for the disciples to disbelieve this doctrine; and they admit the same thing with respect to Socinians: yet, as the error in the one case did not endanger their salvation, they suppose it may not do so in the other. To this objection the following observations are offered in reply:— First, Those who object in this manner do not suppose the disciples of Christ to have agreed with Socinians in any of their peculiar sentiments, except the rejection of a vicarious sacrifice. They allow them to have believed in the doctrines of human depravity, Divine influence, the miraculous conception, the pre-existence and proper Deity of Christ, the inspiration of the Scriptures, &c. The case of the disciples, therefore, is far from being parallel with that of the Socinians. Secondly, Whatever were the ignorance and error which occupied the minds of the disciples, relative to the death of their Lord, their case will not apply to that of Socinians, on account of the difference in the state of revelation, as it stood before and after that event. Were it even allowed that the disciples did reject the doctrine of Christ being a vicarious sacrifice, yet the circumstances which they were under render their case very different from ours. We can perceive a very considerable difference between rejecting a principle before and after a full discussion of it. It would be a far greater evil, in the present day, to persecute men for adhering to the dictates of their consciences, than * Fam. Let. VI. + Heb. ii. 1–4. it was before the rights of conscience were so fully under- stood. It may include a thousand degrees more guilt for this country, at the present time, to persist in the slave trade, than to have done the same thing previously to the late inquiry on that business. But the disparity between periods, with regard to the light thrown upon these sub- jects, is much less than between the periods before and after the death of Christ, with regard to the light thrown upon that subject. The difference between the periods before and after the death of Christ was as great as be- tween a period in which a prophecy is unaccomplished, and that in which it is accomplished. There are many things that seem plain in prophecy, when the event is passed, which cannot then be honestly denied ; and it may seem wonderful that they should ever have been overlooked or mistaken ; yet overlooked or mistaken they have been, and that by men of solid understanding and real piety. It was after the death of Christ, when the means of knowledge began to diffuse light around them, that the disciples were, for the first time, reproved for their slowness of heart to believe, in reference to this subject. It was after the death and resurrection of Christ, when the way of salvation was fully and clearly pointed out, that those who stumbled at the doctrine of the cross were reckoned disobedient in such a degree as to denominate them unbe- lievers, and that the most awful warnings and threatenings were pointed against them, as treading under foot the blood of the Son of God. It is true our Lord had repeatedly predicted his death, and it was faulty in the disciples not to understand and believe it; yet what he taught on that subject was but little, when compared with what followed. The “great salvation,” as the apostle to the Hebrews ex- presses it, “first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed” to the primitive Christians “by those who heard him;” but then it is added, “God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to his own will.” Now it is upon this accumulation of evi- dence that he asks, “How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation ?”f A belief in the resurrection of Christ is allowed, on all hands, to be essential to salvation, as it is an event upon which the truth of Christianity rests.j. But the disciples of Christ, previously to the event, were as much in the dark on this article as on that of the atonement. Even to the last, when he was actually risen from the dead, they visited his tomb, in hope of finding him, and could scarcely believe their senses, with respect to his having left it; “for as yet they knew not the Scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.” Now if the resurrection of Christ, though but little understood before the event, may, after it, be considered as essential to Christianity, there is no reason to conclude but that the same may be said of his atonement. Thirdly, It is not clear that the disciples did reject the idea of a vicarious sacrifice. They had all their lives been accustomed to vicarious sacrifices: it is therefore very im- probable that they should be prejudiced against the idea itself. Their objection to Christ's laying down his life seems to have been directed simply against his dying, rather than against his dying as a vicarious sacrifice. Could they have been reconciled to the former, for any thing that appears, they would have readily acquiesced in the latter. Their objection to the death of Christ seems | to have been more the effect of ignorance and misguided affection than of a rooted opposition of principle ; and therefore, when they came to see clearly into the design of his death, it is expressed not as if they had essentially altered their sentiments, but remembered the words which he had spoken to them 5 of which, while their minds were beclouded with the motions of a temporal kingdom, they could form no clear or consistent ideas, and therefore had forgotten them, Luke xxiv. 1–8. And notwithständing the ignorance and error which attended the disciples, there are things said of them which apply much more than the objection would seem to allow:— “Whither I go,” said Christ, “ye know ; and the way ye # 1 Cor. xv. 14, 15; Rom. x.9 ON CHARITY. 85 know.” As if he should say, I am not going to a strange place, but to the house of my Father and of your Father ; with the way to which you are acquainted, and therefore will soon be with me. “Thomas said unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest, and how can we know the way? Jesus said unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life : no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.—If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.” From this passage it appears that the disciples had a general idea of salvation through Christ, though they did not understand particularly how it was to be accomplished. Further, Christ taught his hearers, saying, “Except ye eat my flesh, and drink my blood, ye have no life in you :”— “ and the bread that I will give is my flesh, that I will give for the life of the world.” On this occasion, many of bis nominal disciples were offended, and “walked no more with him;” but the true disciples were not offended. On the contrary, being asked, “Will ye also go away ? Peter answered, Lord, to whom shall we go 3 Thou hast the words of eternal life.” From this passage it plainly ap- pears that the true disciples of Christ were, even at that time, considered as believing so much on the subject of Christ's giving himself for the life of the world, as to “eat his flesh, and drink his blood;” for our Lord certainly did not mean to condemn them, as having “no life in them.” So far were they from rejecting this doctrine, that the same words at which the false disciples were offended were to them “the words of eternal life.” Probably, this great truth was sometimes more and sometimes less apparent to their view. At those periods in which their minds were occupied with the motion of a temporal kingdom, or in which events turned up contrary to their expectations, they would be all in darkness concerning it; yet, with all their darkness, and with all their doubts, it does not appear to be a doctrine which they can be said to have rejected. No person, I think, who is open to conviction can be a bigot, whatever be his religious sentiments. Our oppo- nents, it is true, are very ready to suppose that this is our general character, and that we are averse from free inquiry; but this may be more than they are able to prove. We acknowledge that we do not choose to circulate books in- discriminately among our friends which are considered by us as containing false and pernicious doctrines; neither do other people. I never knew a zealous Dissenter eager to circulate a book containing high-church principles among his children and connexions, nor a Churchman those which contain the true principles of dissent. In like man- ner, an Anti-trinitarian will not propagate the best pro- ductions of Trinitarians. If they happen to meet with a weak performance, in which the subject is treated to dis- advantage, they may feel no great objection to make it public; but it is otherwise with respect to those in which it is treated to advantage. I have known some gentlemen affecting to possess what has been called a liberal mind, who have discovered no kind of concern at the indis- criminate circulation of Socinian productions; but I have also perceived that those gentlemen have not been far from their kingdom of heaven. If any person choose to read the writings of a Socinian, or of an atheist, he is at liberty to do so; but, as the Monthly Reviewers themselves observe, “Though we are always ready to engage in inquiries after truth, and wish to see them at all times promoted ; yet we choose to avoid disseminating notions which we cannot approve.” + - As to being open to conviction ourselves, it has been frequently observed that Socinians discover as great an aversion to the reading of our writings as we can discover to the reading of theirs. Some will read them, but not many. Out of a hundred persons, whose minds lean to- wards the Socinian system, should you put into their hands a well-written Calvinistic performance, and desire them carefully and seriously to read it over, I question whether five would comply with your request. So far, however, as my observation extends, I can perceive in such persons an eagerness for reading those writings which suit their taste, and a contempt of others, equal, if not • Monthly Review Enlarged, Vol. VI. p. 555. superior, to what is perceivable in people of other de- nominations. Dr. Priestley suggests that the importance which we give to our sentiments tends to prevent an earnest and im- partial search after truth. “While they imbibe such a notion of their present sentiments they must needs,” he says, “live in the dread of all free inquiry; whereas we, who have not that idea of the importance of our present sentiments, preserve a state of mind proper for the dis- cussion of them. If we be wrong, as our minds are under no strong bias, we are within the reach of conviction; and thus are in the way to grow wiser and better as long as we live.” + Mr. Belsham, however, appears to think the very re- verse. He pleads, and I think very justly, that an idea of the non-importance of sentiment tends to destroy a spirit of inquiry, by becalming the mind into a state of indiffer- ence and carelessness. He complains of those of his own party (the Socinians) who maintain that “sincerity is every thing, that nothing is of much value but an honest heart, and that speculative opinions—the cant name for those interesting doctrines which the wise and good in every age have thought worthy of the most serious dis- cussion,-that these speculative opinions, as they are op- probriously called, are of little use. What is this,” adds he, “but to pass a severe censure upon those illustrious names whose acute and learned labours have been success- fully employed in clearing up the difficulties in which these important subjects were involved ; to condemn their own conduct, in wasting so much of their time and pains upon such useless speculations ; and to check the progress of religious inquiry and Christian knowledge? Were I a friend to the popular maxim—that speculative opinions are of no importance, I would endeavour to act consist- ently with my principles: I would content myself with believing as my fathers believed ; I would take no pains to acquire or diffuse knowledge ; I would laugh at every attempt to instruct and to ameliorate the world ; I would treat as a visionary and a fool every one who should aim to extend the limits of science ; I would recommend to my fellow creatures that they should neither lie nor de- fraud, that they should neither swear falsely nor steal, should say their prayers as they have been taught : but as to any thing else, that they need not give themselves any concern ; for that honesty was every thing, and that every expectation of improving their circumstances, by cultivat- ing their understandings and extending their views, would prove delusive and chimerical.”: - None will imagine that I have quoted Mr. Belsham on account of my agreement with him in the great principles of the gospel. What he would reckon important truth I should consider as pernicious error ; and, probably, his views of the importance of what he accounts truth are not equal to what I have attempted to maintain. But in this general principle we are agreed—That our conceiving of truth as being of but little importance has a tendency to check free inquiry rather than to promote it; which is the reverse of what we are taught by Dr. Priestley. To illustrate the subject more fully, suppose the pos- session of a precious stone, of a certain description, to en- title to us the possession of some very desirable object; and suppose that none of any other description would answer the same end; would that consideration tend to prejudice our minds in favour of any stone we might happen to possess, or prevent an impartial and strict inquiry into its properties 3 Would it not rather induce us to be more inquisitive and careful, lest we should be mistaken, and so lose the prize? If, on the other hand, we could imagine that any stone would answer the same end, or that an error in that matter were of trifling importance as to the issue, would it not have a tendency to promote a spirit of carelessness in our examinations ; and as all men are apt, in such cases, to be prejudiced in favour of what they already have, to make us rest contented with what we had in possession, be it what it might 3 It is allowed, however, that as every good has its coun- terfeit, and as there is a mixture of human prejudices and passions in all we think or do, there is danger of this + Diff. Opin. & II. t Serm. pp. 5, 6. 86 LOVE TO CHRIST. principle degenerating into an unchristian severity; and of its being exercised at the expense of that benevolence which is due to all men. There is nothing, however, in this view of things, which, in its own nature, tends to promote these evils ; for the most unfavourable opinion of a man's principles and state may consist with the most perfect benevolence and compassion towards his person. Jesus Christ thought as ill of the principles and state of the Pharisees and Sadducees, and the generality of the Jewish nation, as any of us think of one another; yet he wept over Jerusalem, and to his last hour sought her welfare. The apostle Paul had the same conception of the principles and state of the generality of his country- men as Christ himself had, and much the same as we have of the Socinians. He considered them, though they “followed after the law of righteousness,” or were very devout in their way, yet as “not having attained to the law of righteousness ;” in other words, as not being righteous persons; which the Gentiles, who submitted to the gospel, were. And “wherefore ? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling-stone.” Yet Paul, in the same chapter, and in the most solemn manner, de- clared that he had “great heaviness and continual sorrow in his heart; ” nay, that he “could wish himself accursed from Christ, for his brethren’s sake, his kinsmen according to the flesh : * Rom. ix. But why need I say any more ? Dr. Priestley himself allows all I plead for: “The man,” says he, “whose sole spring of action is a concern for lost souls, and a care to preserve the purity of that gospel which alone teaches the most effectual method of their recovery from the power of sin and Satan unto God, will feel an ardour of mind that will prompt him strenuously to oppose all those whom he considers as obstructing his benevolent designs.” He adds, “I could overlook every thing in a man who I thought meant nothing but my everlasting welfare.” + This, and nothing else, is the temper of mind which I have been endeavouring to defend ; and as Dr. Priestley has here generously acknowledged its propriety, it becomes us to acknowledge, on the other hand, that every species of zeal for sentiments in which a concern for the everlast- ing welfare of men is wanting is an unhallowed kind of fire ; for which whoever indulges it will receive no thanks from him whose cause he may imagine himself to have espoused. LETTER XI. THE SYSTEMS COMPARED AS TO THEIR INFLUENCE IN PROMOTING THE LOVE OF CHIRIST. IF the Holy Scriptures be a proper medium by which to judge of the nature of virtue, it must be allowed to include the love of Christ ; nay, that love to Christ is one of the cardinal virtues of the Christian scheme, seeing it occupies a most important place in the doctrines and precepts of inspiration. “He that loveth me,” said Christ, “shall be loved of my Father.”—“If God were your Father, ye would love me.”—“Whom, having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet, believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory.”—“Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sin- cerity.”—“If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema maran-atha.” From these passages, with many others that might be produced, we may conclude that love to Christ is not only a Christian virtue, but essential to the very existence of Christianity ; may, to morality itself, if by that term be meant a conformity to the moral law. The following lines, though expressed by a poet, contain more than a poetic flight, even the words of truth and soberness: “Talk they of morals O thou bleeding Love, The grand morality is love of Thee l’” * Diff. Opin. & I. In judging which of the systems in question is most adapted to promote love to Christ, it should seem sufficient to determine which of them tends most to exalt his cha- racter, which places his mediation in the most important light, and which represents us as most indebted to his undertaking. With respect to the first : Every being commands our affection in proportion to the degree of intellect which he possesses, provided that his goodness be equal to his in- telligence. We feel a respect towards an animal, and a concern at its death, which we do not feel towards a vege table ; towards those animals which are very sagacious, more than to those which are otherwise ; towards man, more than to mere animals; and towards men of enlarged powers, if they be but good as well as great, more than to men in common. According to the degree of intellect which they possess, so much they have of being, and of estimation in the scale of being. A man is of “more value than many sparrows; ” and the life of David was reckoned to be worth ten thousand of those of the common people. It has been thought to be on this principle that God, possessing infinitely more existence than all the creatures taken together, and being as good as he is great, is to be loved and revered without bounds, except those which arise from the limitation of our powers; that is, “with all our heart, and soul, and mind, and strength.” Now if these observations be just, it cannot be doubted which of the systems in question tends most to promote the love of Christ; that which supposes him to be equal or one with God, or that which reduces him to the rank of a mere fellow creature. In the same proportion as God himself is to be loved above man, so is Christ to be loved, supposing him to be truly God, above what he is, or ought to be, supposing him to be merely a fellow IIla Ils The prophets, apostles, and primitive Christians seem to have felt this motive in all its force. Hence, in their various expressions of love to Christ, they frequently mingle acknowledgments of his Divine dignity and excel- lence. They, indeed, never seem afraid of going too far, or of honouring him too much ; but dwell upon the dig- nity and glory of his person as their darling theme. When David meditated upon this subject, he was raised above himself. “My heart,” saith he, “is inditing a good mat- ter: I speak of the things which I have made touching the King : my tongue is as the pen of a ready writer. Thou art fairer than the children of men.”—“Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever : the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.”—“Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O Most MIGHTY, with thy glory and thy majesty.” The ex- pected Messiah was frequently the subject of Isaiah’s prophecies. He loved him ; and his love appears to have been founded on his dignity and Divine excellency. “ Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder ; and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, THE MIGHTY GOD, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.” He thus describes the preaching of John the Baptist :—“The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of Jehovah, make straight in the desert a highway for OUR God.”—“Behold, the LoRD GoD will come with a strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him ; behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him. He shall feed his flock like a shepherd ; He shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young.” Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, so loved the Messiah as to rejoice in his own child chiefly because he was appointed to be his prophet and forerunner. “And thou, child,” said the enraptured parent, “shalt be called the prophet of the Highest; for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord, to prepare his ways,” Luke i. John the Baptist himself, when the Jews artfully endeavoured to excite his jealousy on account of the superior ministerial success of Christ, replied, “Ye yourselves bear me witness that I said I am not the Christ. He that hath the bride is the bridegroom : but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bride- groom's voice : this my joy therefore is fulfilled.”—“He that cometh from above is above all : he that is of the earth LOVE TO CHRIST. 87 is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: He that cometh from heaven is above all.” + The apostles, who saw the Lord, and who saw the ac- complishment of what the prophets foretold, were not dis- appointed in him. Their love to him was great, and their representations of his person and character ran in the same exalted strain. “ In the beginning was the Word,” said the beloved disciple, “ and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him ; and without him was hot any thing made that was made. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” Thomas insisted upon an unreasonable kind of evidence of the resurrection of his Lord from the dead; saying, “Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.” When reproved by our Lord's offering to gratify him in his incredulous proposal, he confessed, with a mixture of shame, grief, and affection, that, how- ever unbelieving he had been, he was now satisfied that it was indeed his Lord, and no other; saying, “ My Lord and my God 1’’ The ‘whole Epistle to the Hebrews breathes an ardent love to Christ, and is intermingled with the same kind of language. Jesus is there represented as “ upholding all things by the word of his power;” as the object of angelic adoration ; as he to whom it was said, “ Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever;” as he who “laid the foundation of the earth ;” and concerning whom it is added, “the heavens are the work of thine hands ;” as superior to Moses, the one being the builder and owner of the house, even God that built all things, and the other only a servant in it; as superior to Aaron and to all those of his order, “a great High Priest,-Jesus the Son of God;” and, finally, as infinitely superior to angels; for “to which of the angels said he, at any time, Thou art my Son ; or, Sit on my right hand 2’’ Hence the gospel is considered as exhibiting “a great salvation 1’’ and those who neglect it are exposed to a recompence of wrath which they shall zot escape. Paul could scarcely mention the name of Christ without adding some strong encomium in his praise. When he was enumerating those things which rendered his country- men dear to him, he mentions their being Israelites, to whom pertained the adoption, and the glory, and the cove- nants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises ; whose were the fathers, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came. Here, it seems, he might have stopped; but having mentioned the name of Christ, he could not content himself without adding, Who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen, Rom. ix. Having occasion also to speak of him in his Epistle to the Colos- sians (chap. i.) as “God's dear Son, in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins,” he could not forbear adding, “Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature. For by him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or do- minions, or principalities, or powers : all things were created by him, and for him. And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” And now, brethren, I might appeal to you on the just- ness of Dr. Priestley's assertion, that “ in no sense what- ever, not even in the lowest of all, is Christ so much as called God in all the New Testament.”f I might appeal to you whether such language as the above would ever have proceeded from the sacred writers, had they embraced the scheme of our opponents. But, waving these particu- lars, as irrelative to the immediate point in hand, I appeal to you whether such love as the prophets and apostles ex- pressed towards Christ could consist with his being merely a fellow creature, and their considering him as such ; whether the manner in which they expressed that love, upon the principles of our opponents, instead of being ac- * John iii. 28–31. Query, In what sense could Christ be said to come from above, even from heaven, if he was merely a man, and came into the world like other men It could not be on account of his office, or of his receiving his mission from God; for, in that sense, ceptable to God, could have been any other than the height of extravagance, and the essence of idolatry. Judge also for yourselves, brethren, which of the systems in question has the greatest tendency to promote such a spirit of love to Christ as is here exemplified: that which leads us to admire these representations, and, on various occa- sions, to adopt the same expressions; or that which em- ploys us in coldly criticising away their meaning : that which leads us, without fear, to give them their full scope; or that which, while we are honouring the Son, would excite apprehensions, lest we should, in so doing, dis- honour the Father. The next question to be discussed is, Which of the two systems places the mediation of Christ in the most important point of light? That system, doubtless, which finds the greatest use for Christ, or in which he occupies the most £mportant place, must have the greatest tendency to pro- mote love to him. Suppose a system of politics were drawn up, in which civil liberty occupied but a very small portion, and was generally kept out of view ; or if, when brought forward, it was either for the purpose of abating the high notions which some people entertain of it, or, at least, of treating it as a matter not absolutely necessary to good civil government; who would venture to assert that such a system was friendly, or its abettors friends to civil liberty ? This is manifestly a case in point. The Socinian system has but little use for Christ, and none at all as an atoning sacrifice. It scarcely ever mentions him, unless it be to depreciate those views of his dignity which others entertain, or in such a way as to set aside the absolute necessity of his mediation. It is not so in our views of things. We find so much use for Christ, if I may so speak, that he appears as the soul which animates the whole body of our divinity; as the centre of the system, diffusing light and life to every part of it. Take away Christ; nay, take away the Deity and atonement of Christ; and the whole ceremonial of the Old Testament appears to us little more than a dead mass of uninteresting matter: prophecy loses all that is interesting and endearing ; the gospel is annihilated, or ceases to be that good news to lost sinners which it pro- fesses to be ; practical religion is divested of its most powerful motives, the evangelical dispensation of its pecu- liar glory, and heaven itself of its most transporting joys. The sacred penmen appear to have written all along upon the same principles. They considered Christ as the All in all of their religion; and, as such, they loved him with their whole hearts. Do they speak of the “first tabernacle 3” They call it a “figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect as pertaining to the conscience.”—“But Christ being come a High Priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood, he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.” Do they speak of prophecy 3 They call the testimony of Jesus the “spirit” of it, Rev. xix. 10. Of the gospel? It is the doctrine of “Christ crucified.” Of the medium by which the world was crucified to them, and they to the world? It is the same. The very “reproach of Christ” had a value stamped upon it, so as, in their esteem, to surpass all the treasures of the present world. One of the most affecting ideas which they afford us of heaven consists in ascribing everlasting glory and dominion “to him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood. Ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thou- sands, were heard with a loud voice, saying, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wis- dom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.” Let us select a particular instance in the character of Paul. This apostle seemed to be swallowed up in love to Christ. His mercy to him, as one of the “chief of sinners,” had bound his heart to him with bonds of everlasting grati- tude. Nor was this all ; he saw that glory in his person, John was from heaven as well as he. , Was it not for the same reason which John elsewhere gives for his being “preferred before him,” viz. that “ He was before him f* + Letters to Mr. Burn, Letter I. 88 LOVE TO CHRIST. office, and work which eclipsed the excellence of all created objects, which crucified the world to him, and him unto the world. “What things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Yea, doubtless, and I count all things but loss, for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things.” Nor did he now repent ; for he immediately adds, “And do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, and be found in him ; not having mine own right- eousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.”—“That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death.” When his friends wept because he would not be dissuaded from going to Jerusalem, he answered, “What mean ye to weep, and to break mine heart 3 For I am ready, not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem, for the name of the Lord Jesus.” Feeling in himself an ardent love to Christ, he vehemently desired that others might love him too. For this cause he bowed his knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, in behalf of the Ephesians; praying that Christ might dwell in their hearts by faith. He repre- sented him to them as the medium of all spiritual bless- ings; of election, adoption, acceptance with God, redemp- tion, and the forgiveness of sins ; of a future inheritance, and of a present earnest of it; as Head over all things to the church, and as him that filleth all in all. He described him as the only way of access to God, and as the sole foundation of a sinner's hope ; whose riches were un- 9 searchable, and the dimensions of his love passing know- ledge. If any drew back, or deviated from the simplicity of the gospel, he felt a most ardent thirst for their recovery: witness his Epistles to the Corinthians, the Galatians, and (if, as is generally supposed, he was the writer of it) to the Hebrews. If any one drew back, and was not to be re- claimed, he denounced against him the Divine declaration, “My soul shall have no pleasure in him.” And whatever might be the mind of others, like Joshua, he was at a point himself: “Henceforth,” he exclaims, “let no man trouble me; for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.” If he wished to “live,” it was for Christ; or if to “die,” it was to be with him. He invoked the best of blessings on those who loved the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, and denounced an “amathema maran-atha” on those who loved him not. . The reason why I have quoted all these passages is to show that the primitive gospel was full of Christ; or that Christ was, as it were, the centre and the life of the evan- gelical system ; and that this, its leading and principal characteristic, tended wonderfully to promote the love of Christ. Now, brethren, let me appeal to you again : Which of the systems in question is it which resembles that of the apostles in this particular, and consequently has the greatest tendency to promote love to Christ 3 That of which Christ is the All in all; or that in which he is scarcely ever introduced, except for the purpose of repre- senting him as a “mere fellow creature, a fallible and peccable man 3” The third and last question to be discussed (if indeed it need any discussion) is, Which of the two systems re- presents us as most indebted to Christ's undertaking? Our Lord himself has laid it down as an incontrovertible rule, that those who have much forgiven will love him much, and that those who have little forgiven will love him but little. That system, therefore, which supposes us the greatest debtors to forgiving love, must needs have the greatest tendency to promote a return of love. Our views with respect to the depravity of human nature are such, that, upon our system, we have much more to be forgiven than our opponents have upon theirs. We Sup- pose ourselves to have been utterly depraved, our very nature totally corrupted; and, consequently, that all our supposed virtues, while our hearts were at enmity with God, were not virtue in reality, but destitute of its very essence. We do not, therefore, conceive of ourselves, during our unregeneracy, as having been merely stained by a few imperfections; but as altogether polluted, by a course of apostacy from God, and black rebellion against him. That which is called sin by our opponents must consist chiefly, if not entirely, in the irregularity of a man’s out- ward conduct ; else they could not suppose, as Dr. Priest- ley does, that “virtue bears the same proportion to vice that happiness does to misery, or health to sickness, in the world ; ” # that is, that there is much more of the former than of the latter. But the merely outward irregularities of men bear no more proportion to the whole of their de- pravity, according to our views of it, than the particles of water which are occasionally emitted from the surface of the ocean to the tide that rolls beneath. The religion of those who make sin to consist in little besides exterior ir- regularities, or who conceive of the virtues of men as greatly exceeding their vices, appears to us to resemble the religion of Paul, previously to his conversion to Christianity. While he thought of nothing but the irregularities of his exterior conduct, his virtues doubtless appeared to him to outweigh his vices, and therefore he concluded all was well; that he was in a fair way to everlasting happiness; or, as he himself expresses it, “alive without the law.” But when, through the glass of that Divine “command- ment” which prohibits the very inclination to evil, he saw the corruption that reigned within, transgression assumed a very different appearance; it was them a mighty ocean, that swelled and swept off all his legal hopes. “Sin re- vived,” and he died. In short, our views of human de- pravity induce us to consider ourselves, by nature, as un- worthy, as lost, and ready to perish ; so that if we are saved at all, it must be by rich grace, and by a great Sa- viour. I scarcely need to draw the conclusion, that, hav- ing according to our system most to be forgiven, we shall, if we truly enter into it, love most. Further, our system supposes a much greater malignity in sin than that of our opponents. When we speak of sin, we do not love to deal as Mr. Belsham does in extenuating names. We find no authority for calling it “human frailty,” or for affixing any idea to it that shall represent us rather as objects worthy of the compassion of God than as subjects of that which his soul abhorreth. We do not see how Mr. Belsham, or those of his sentiments, while they speak of moral evil in so diminutive a style, can pos- sibly conceive of it, after the manner of the inspired writers, as an “evil and bitter thing; ” or, as it is expressed in that remarkable phrase of the apostle Paul, “exceeding sinful.”f Our opponents deny sin to be, in any sense, an infinite evil; or, which is the same thing, deserving of endless punishment, or that such punishment will follow upon it. Nobody, indeed, supposes that sin is, in all respects, in- finite. As committed by a finite creature, and admitting of different degrees, it must be finite, and will doubtless be punished hereafter with different degrees of punish- ment; but as committed against a God of infinite excel- lence, and as tending to infinite anarchy and mischief, it must be infinite. All that is meant, I suppose, by calling sin an infinite evil, is that it is deserving of endless punish- ment; and this can never be fairly objected to as an ab- surdity. If there be no absurdity in the immortality of a sinner's existence, there is none in supposing him to de- serve a punishment, be it in what degree it may, that shall run commensurate with it. There is no absurdity in sup- posing a sinner to have been guilty of such crimes as to deserve misery for as long a duration as he is capable of sustaining it. But whatever may be said as to the truth or falsehood of tnis sentiment, thus much is clear, that, in proportion as our opponents conceive diminutively of the evil of sin, they diminish the grace of forgiveness; and if * I,et. Phil. Unb. Vol. I. I.et. W. + The expression, “exceeding sinful,” is very forcible. It resembles the phrase, “far more exceeding,” or rather, eaccessively exceeding, in 2 Cor. iv. 7. It seems that the Holy Spirit himself could not find a worse name for sin than its own. If we speak of a treacherous person, we call him a “Judas : ” if of Judas, we call him a “devil;” but if of Satan, we want a comparison, because we can find none that is worse than himself: we must therefore say, as Christ did, “When he speak- eth a lie, he speaketh of his own.” It was thus with the apostle, when speaking of the evil of his own heart, “That sin by the commandment might become "—what? He wanted a name worse than its own—he could not find one—he therefore unites a strong epithet to the thing itself, calling it “exceeding sinful.” WENERATION FOR THE SCRIPTURES. 89 that forgiveness come to us through Christ, as is plainly implied in their loving him most who have most forgiven, it must needs follow that, in the same proportion, the love of Christ is sapped at the foundation. Once more, The expense at which we suppose our for- giveness to have been obtained is a consideration which endears to us both the gift and the giver. We do not conceive of Christ, in his bestowment of this blessing upon us, as presenting us with that which cost him nothing. If the portion given by Jacob to his son Joseph was height- ened and endeared by its being obtained “by the sword and the bow,” much more is a title to eternal life, by its being obtained through the death of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is this that attracts the hearts of those who are described as singing a new song to their Redeemer, “Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.” It does not appear, from any thing I have seen, that the system of our opponents can, with any plausibility, be pretended to equal ours, respecting love to Christ. All that can be alleged, with any colour of reason ; all, at least, that I have noticed, is this, That, in proportion as we, in this way, furnish motives of love to Christ, we detract from those of love to the Father, by diminishing the freeness of his grace, and exhibiting him as one that was incapable of bestowing forgiveness, unless a price was paid for it. To this it is replied, If the incapacity of the Father to show mercy without an atonement con- sisted in a want of love, or any thing of natural implaca- bility, or even a reluctance to the bestowment of mercy, there would be force in the objection ; but if it be no other than the incapacity of a righteous governor, who, whatever good-will he may have to an offender, cannot bear the thought of passing by the offence without some public expression of displeasure against it—that, while mercy triumphs, it may not be at the expense of law, of equity, and of the general good—such an incapacity rather infers a perfection than an imperfection in his nature; and instead of diminishing our regard for his character, must have a powerful tendency to increase it. LETTER, XII. ON VENERATION FOR THIE SCRIPTURES, IF we may judge of the nature of true piety by the ex- amples of the prophets and holy men of old, we may con- clude with certainty that an affectionate attachment to the Holy Scriptures, as the rule of faith and practice, enters deeply into the spirit of it. The Holy Scriptures were described by David under the names of the word, statutes, laws, precepts, judgments, and testimonies of God ; and to these, all through the Psalms, especially in the 119th, he professes a most ardent attachment. Such language as the following was very common with him, as well as others of the Old Testament writers: “O how I love thy law , ”— “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.”—“Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold won- drous things out of thy law.”—“My soul breaketh for the longing that it hath unto thy judgments at all times.”— “Thy words were found, and I did eat them, and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of my heart.”—“Thy statutes have been my song in the house of my pilgrimage.” “The law of thy mouth is better to me than thousands of gold and silver.” Dr. Priestley often professes great regard for the sacred writings, and is very severe on Mr. Burn, for suggesting that he denied “the infallibility of the apostolic testimony concerning the person of Christ.” He also tells Dr. Price, “No man can pay a higher regard to proper Scripture authority than I do.” We may therefore take it for granted that a regard for the authority of Scripture is a virtue ; a virtue that our opponents, as well as we, would be thought to possess. - I wish, in this Letter, to inquire, supposing the sacred writers to have been honest and good men, What a regard to the proper authority of their writings includes, and to # G compare it with the avowed sentiments of our adversaries. By these means, brethren, you may be the better able to judge for yourselves whether the spirit which animates the whole body of the Socinian divinity does not breathe a language unfriendly to the sacred writings, and carry in it something hostile to every thought being swbdued to the obedience of Christ. In order to judge of a regard for proper Scriptural au- thority, it is necessary, in the first place, to have recourse to the professions of the sacred writers concerning what they wrote. If any man venerate the authority of Scrip- ture, he must receive it as being what it professes to be, and for all the purposes for which it professes to be written. If the Scriptures profess to be Divinely inspired, and assume to be the infallible standard of faith and practice, we must either receive them as such, or, if we would be consistent, disown the writers as impostors. The professions of the sacred writers are as follow : “The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his word was in my tongue: the God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me.”—“Thus saith the Lord.”—“And Jehosha- phat stood, and said, Hear me, O Judah, and ye inhabit- ants of Jerusalem, believe in the Lord your God, so shall ye be established; believe his prophets, so shall ye prosper.” New Testament writers bear ample testimony to the inspiration of those under the Old Testament. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God; and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”—“No pro- phecy of the Scripture is of private interpretation”—it is not to be considered as the private opinion of a fallible man, as the case is with other productions—“for the pro- phecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” Nor did the New Testament writers bear testimony to the inspiration of the prophets only ; but considered their own writings as equally inspired : “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.” Peter ranks the Epistles of Paul with “other Scriptures.” There seems to have been one in- stance in which Paul disowned his having received any “commandment from the Lord,” and in which he pro- ceeded to give his own private “judgment” (1 Cor. vii.); but this appears to have been a particular exception from a general rule, of which notice was expressly given ; an exception, therefore, which tends to strengthen, rather than to weaken, the argument for apostolic inspiration. As the sacred writers considered themselves as Divinely inspired, so they represented their writings as the infallible test of Divine truth, to which all appeals were to be made, and by which every controversy in religious matters was to be decided. “To the law and to the testimony : if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.”—“These are the true sayings of God.”—“That which is noted in the Scriptures of truth.” —“What saith the Scripture ?”—“Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me.”—The Bereans “searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” The sacred writers did not spare to denounce the most awful judgments against those who should either pervert their writings, add to them, or detract from them. Those who wrested the apostolic Epistles are said to have “wrested them, as they did the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.”—“Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you, than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”—“What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.”—“If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life.” Nothing short of the most perfect Divine inspir- ation could justify such language as this, or secure those who used it from the charge of bold presumption and base imposition. Dr. Priestley often professes great regard for the Scrip- 90 WENERATION FOR THE SCRIPTURES. tures, and, as has been observed before, is very severe on Mr. Burn for representing him as denying “ the infalli- bility of the apostolic testimony concerning the person of Christ.” Far be it from me to wish to represent the sentiments of Dr. Priestley in an unfair manner, or in such a light as he himself could justly disavow. All I mean to do is to quote a passage or two from his own Writings, and add a few remarks upon them. Speaking in favour of reverence for the sacred writings, he says, “Not that I consider the books of Scripture as inspired, and, on that account, entitled to this high degree of respect, but as authentic records of the dispensations of God to mankind, with every particular of which we can- not be too well acquainted.” Again, “If you wish to know what, in my opinion, a Christian is bound to believe with respect to the Scriptures, I answer, that the books which are universally received as authentic are to be considered as faithful records of past transactions, and, especially, the account of the inter- course which the Divine Being has kept up with mankind from the beginning of the world to the time of our Saviour and his apostles. No Christian is answerable for more than this. The writers of the books of Scripture were men, and therefore fallible; but all that we have to do with them is in the character of historians and witnesses of what they heard and saw. Of course, their credibility is to be estimated, like that of other historians, viz. from the cir- cumstances in which they wrote, as with respect to their opportunities of knowing the truth of what they relate, and the biasses to which they might be subject. Like all other historians, they were liable to mistakes with respect to things of small moment, because they might not give suffi- cient attention to them ; and, with respect to their reason- ºng, we are fully at liberty to judge of it, as well as that of any other man, by a due consideration of the propositions they advance, and the arguments they allege. For it by no means follows, because a man has had communications with the Deity for certain purposes, and he may be de- pended upon with respect to his account of those commu- nications, that he is in other respects more wise and know- ing than other men.” + “You say,” says he, in his Letters to Dr. Price, “that I do not allow of Scriptural authority; but indeed, my friend, you should have expressed yourself with more cau- tion. No man can pay a higher regard to proper Scriptural authority than I do ; but neither I, nor I presume your- self, believe implicitly every thing that is advanced by any writer in the Old or New Testament. ... I believe all the writers, without exception, to have been men of the great- est probity, and to have been well informed of every thing of consequence of which they treat; but, at the same time, I believe them to have been men, and consequently fallible, and liable to mistake with respect to things to which they had not given much attention, or concerning which they had not the Ineans of exact information; which I take to be the case with respect to the account that Moses has given of the creation and fall of man.” In a late perform- ance, entitled Letters to the Philosophers and Politicians of France, (p. 38,) Dr. Priestley speaks much in the same strain. “That the books of Scripture,” he says, “were Written by particular Divine inspiration is a thing to which the writers themselves make no pretensions. It is a no- tion destitute of all proof, and that has done great injury to the evidence of Christianity.” From this account, taken altogether, you will observe, brethren, that Dr. Priestley does not believe either the Old or the New Testament to be Divinely inspired; to be so inspired as that he is “bound implicitly to believe every thing” (and might he not have added any thing 2) “which the writers of those books advance.” He believes that the Scriptures, instead of being the rule of faith and practice, are only “faithful records of past transactions;” and that no authority attends them, except what attends the writ- ings of any other honest and well-informed historian ; nor even that in many cases: for he maintains that “no Chris- tian is bound to consider any of the books of Scripture as * Let. Phil. Unb. Part II. Pref. p. xiii.; also I,etter V. + When Dr. Priestley charged the Mosaic history of the creation and fall of man with being a lame account, it was imputed to his magnanimity. faithful records of past transactions, unless they have been wniversally received as authentic;” that is, if any person, at least any considerable number of persons, at any period, have thought proper to dispute the authenticity of any of these writings, that part immediately ceases to have any claim upon posterity, and may be rejected with impunity. And even those writers whose works, upon the whole, are allowed as authentic, are supposed to have written upon subjects, “to which they had not given much attention, and concerning which they were not possessed of sufficient means of information;” and, consequently, in those cases are not to be regarded. This is the whole of what he means by “proper Scriptural authority.” This is the ground on which, while he speaks of the sacred writers as fallible, he nevertheless maintains the infallibility of their testimony concerning the person of Christ. He does not pretend to say the apostles were inspired in that article, though not in others; but merely that this was a case in which, by the mere exercise of their senses, they were competent to decide, and even certain of deciding right. Whether these notions of proper Scriptural authority will accord with the foregoing professions, I leave you to judge : also, if Dr. Priestley's views be right, whether the sacred writers, professing what they did, could be men of the “greatest probity.” ‘You will observe, further, that the fallibility which Dr. Priestley imputes to the sacred writers, as being men, must rest upon this principle—That it is impossible for God himself so to inspire a man as to preserve him from error without destroying his nature; and as he considers Christ as a mere man, perhaps it is on this principle that he maintains him to be “fallible and peccable.” Yet he has never been able to produce one example in which he has actually failed. But it should seem very extraordi- nary for a fallible and peccable man to go through the world in such a manner that his worst enemies could not convict him of a single failure, nor accuse him of any sin. If this matter be capable of proof, let Dr. Priestley prove it. Though the Jews declined the challenge, yet it is possible that he may possess sufficient “magnanimity” to accept it.f. Further, You will observe that the infallibility which Dr. Priestley ascribes to the apostolic testimony, concern- ing the person of Christ, implies that every historian is infallible in similar circumstances. His reasoning sup- poses that if a sensible and upright historian have the proper means of information, and pay attention to his sub- ject, he is infallible : but is this a fact? It certainly has not been usual for us to consider historians in this light. We commonly suppose that, amidst the most ample means of information and the greatest attention that uninspired men (who all have their prejudices and imperfections) are ever known to pay to a subject, they are liable to mis- takes. Dr. Priestley has written a treatise in which he has declared for the doctrine of materialism ; and, I sup- pose, he would be thought to have paid attention to it, and to have possessed the means of information as far as the nature of the subject will admit; yet, I imagine, he does not pretend, in that article, to infallibility. If it be objected that the nature of the subjects is differ- ent, and that the apostles were capable of arriving to a greater degree of certainty concerning the person of Christ than Dr. Priestley could obtain on the subject of material- ism, I answer, This appears to me to be more easily asserted than proved. Dr. Priestley, indeed, tells us, “They were as capable of judging whether he was a man : as whether John the Baptist was one.” This is very true ; and if the question were whether he was a man, it might be to the purpose. of the humble followers of Dr. Priestley may amuse them- selves in circulating pamphlets proving that Jesus Christ was a man, and that with a view to convert the Trini- tarians; yet he himself cannot be insensible that a mate- But at this time of day, however some rialist might with just as much propriety gravely go about to prove that men have material bodies. If Supposing Christ to have been merely a man, this was a matter that # When Socinian writers have produced a list of texts which prove the proper humanity of Christ, they seem to think their work is done. Our writers reply, We never questioned his humanity. If you attempt to prove any thing, prove to us that he was merely human. Here our WENERATION FOR THE SCRIPTURES. 91 could not be visible to the eyes of the apostles. How could they judge by his exterior appearance whether he was merely a man, or both God and man The august per- sonages that appeared to Abraham, to Lot, and to Jacob are called men ; nor was there any thing that we know of in their exterior appearance different from other men: yet it does not hence follow that they were merely human. God, in the above instances, assumed the appearance of a man; and how could the disciples be certain that all this might not be preparatory to his becoming really incarnate? It is true our Lord might have told them that he was merely a man ; and, in that case, they might have been said to be certain of it : but if so, it was either in some private instructions, or else in the words which they have recorded in their writings. We cannot say it was impos- sible for the apostles to mistake respecting the person of Christ owing to their private instructions, because that would be building upon a foundation of which we are confessedly ignorant; neither can we affirm it on account of any of those words of Christ to his disciples which are 'recorded, for we have those words as well as they ; and it might as well be said of us as of them, that “it is impos- sible for us to be under any mistake upon the subject.” We might as well, therefore, allow what Dr. Priestley says to be infallible, on the question whether men have souls or not, as what the apostles say (if we give up their inspir- ation) on the question whether Christ was Divine or not; for the one is as much an object of the senses as the other. I cannot conceive of any foundation for the above asser- tion, unless it be upon the supposition of a union of the Divine and human natures being in itself impossible. Then, indeed, if we suppose the apostles knew it to be so, by knowing him to be a man, they must have known him to be a mere man. But if a union of the Divine and hu- man natures be in itself impossible, that impossibility might as well appear to Dr. Priestley as to the apostles, if they were uninspired ; and he might as well maintain the infallibility of his own notions relative to the person of Christ as of theirs. - In fine, Let Dr. Priestley view the subject in what light he may, if he deny the Divine inspiration of the apostles, he will never be able to maintain their infallibility on any ground but what would equally infer his own. When Mr. Burn charged Dr. Priestley with denying the infallibility of the apostolic testimony, he principally founds his charge on what the Doctor had written in a miscella- neous work, called “The Theological Repository;” in which he maintained that “ some texts of the Old Testa- ment had been improperly quoted by writers in the New;” who, it seems, were sometimes “misled by Jewish preju- dices.”* Mr. Burn inferred that, if they were misled in their application of one text, they were liable to the same thing in others; and that, if so, we could have no security whatever for their proper application of any passage, or for any thing like infallibility attending their testimony. One would think this is not the most inconclusive mode of reasoning that ever was adopted ; and how does Dr. Priest- ley refute it? He replies, “It does not follow, because I suppose the apostles to have been fallible in some things, that they were therefore fallible in all.” He contends that he always considered them as infallible in what re- spects the person of Christ ; as a proof of which he alleges his always having “appealed to their testimony, as being willing to be decided by it.” And yet we generally sup- pose a single failure proves a writer fallible as really as a thousand; and as to his appealing to their testimony, and being willing to be decided by it, we generally appeal to the best evidence we can obtain, and must be decided by it. But this does not prove that we consider that evi- dence as infallible. Dr. Priestley has appealed to the Fathers ; yet he will hardly pretend that their testimony is infallible, or that they were incapable of contradicting either themselves or one another, even in those matters concerning which the appeal is made. If he will, however, he must suppose them to have differed very widely from writers of a later date. Where is the historian who has written upon the opinions or characters of a body of men, even of those of his own times, but who is liable, and likely, in some particulars, to be contradicted by other historians of the same period, and equally respectable ºf To be sure, if Dr. Priestley thinks proper to declare that he believes the apostles, uninspired as they were, to have been infallible when they applied passages of the Old Testament to the person of Christ—and that notwith- standing their being fallible, and misled by Jewish preju- dices in their application of passages on other subjects— nobody has a right to say he does not. Thus much may be said, however, that he will find it no very easy task to prove himself, in this matter, a rational Christian. If the apostles are to be considered as uninspired, and were act- ually misled by Jewish prejudices in their application of some Old Testament passages, it will require no small de- gree of labour to convince people in general that we can have any security for their not being so in others. Mr. Burn, with a view to illustrate his argument, sup- posed an example ; viz. the application of Psalm xlv. 6 to Christ, in Heb. i. 8. He observes that, according to the foregoing hypothesis, “there is no dependence to be placed upon the argument, because the apostle, in his application of this scripture to the Messiah, was misled by a prejudice common among the Jews, respecting this and other passages £n the Old Testament. Mr. Burn does not mean to say that Dr. Priestley had, in this manner, actually rejected the argument from Heb. i. 8 ; but barely that, according to this hypothesis, he might do so : he preserves the prin- ciple of his opponent’s objection, as he himself expresses it; but does not mean to assert that he had applied that principle to this particular passage. And how does Dr. Priestley reply to this? Why, by alleging that he had not applied the above principle to the passage in question, but had given it a sense which allowed the propriety of its being applied to Christ; that is, he had not made that use of a principle which might be made of it, and which no one asserted he had made of it. Dr. Priestley is, doubt- less, possessed of great abilities, and has had large experi- ence in controversial writing : to what a situation, then, must he have been reduced, to have recourse to such an answer as the above . This question between Mr. Burn and Dr. Priestley, if I understand it, is not whether the latter appealed to the Scriptures for the truth of his opinions; but whether his supposing the sacred writers, in some cases, to apply Scrip- ture improperly, does not render that appeal inconsistent —not whether he had allowed the propriety of the apostle's quoting the sixth verse of the forty-fifth Psalm, and apply- ing it, in the first chapter of the Hebrews, to Christ ; but whether, upon the principle of the sacred writers being liable to make, and having actually made, some improper quotations, he might not have disallowed it—not whether the apostles did actually fail in this or that particular sub- ject; but whether, if they failed in some instances, they were not liable to fail in others, and whether any depend- ence could be placed on their decisions—not whether the apostles testified things which they had seen and heard from the beginning ; but whether their infallibility can be supported merely upon that ground, without supposing that the Holy Spirit assisted their memories, guided their judgments, and superintended their productions. If the reader of that controversy keep the above points in view, he will easily perceive the futility of a great many of Dr. Priestley's answers, notwithstanding all his positivity and triumph, and his proceeding to admonish Mr. Burn to re- pentance. Dr. Priestley, in his Sixth Letter to Mr. Burn, denies that he makes the reason of the individual the sole wºmpire £n matters of faith. But if the sacred writers, “in some things which they advanced, were fallible, and misled by prejudice,” what dependence can be placed on them 3 Whether the reason of the individual be a proper umpire in matters of faith, or not, the writings of the apostles, on the foregoing hypothesis, can make no such pretence. Dr. Priestley may allege that we must distinguish between opponents feeling themselves pinched, it should seem, for want of evi- dence, have been known to lose their temper. It is on this occasion that Mr. Lindsey is reduced to the necessity of abusing and insulting his opponents, instoad of answering their arguments. See quotation, p. 232. * Letters to Mr. Burn, I.etters I, II. * See this truth more fully illustrated in a Letter of Dr. Ed. Williams # Dr. Priestley, prefixed to his “Abridgement of Dr. Owen on the Hebrews.” 92 WENERATION FOR THE SCRIPTURES. those things to which the apostles had not given much attention, and other things to which they had ; those in which they were prejudiced, and others in which they were unprejudiced ; those concerning which they had not the means of exact information, and others of a different description : but can he himself, at this distance of time, or even if he had been contemporary with them, always tell what those cases are 3 How, in many instances at least, can he judge, with any certainty, of the degree of attention which they gave to things, of the prejudiced or unprejudiced state of their minds, or of the means of in- formation which they possessed ? Or if he could decide with satisfaction to himself on these matters, how are the bulk of mankind to judge, who are not possessed of his powers and opportunities, but who are equally interested in the affair with himself? Are they implicitly to rely on his opinion ; or to supplicate Heaven for a new revelation, to point out the defects and errors of the old one In short, let Dr. Priestley profess what regard he may for the Scriptures, if what he advances be true, they can be no proper test of truth ; and if the reason of the individual be not the sole umpire in these matters, there can be no umpire at all; but all must be left in gloomy doubt, and dreadful uncertainty.* The generality of Socinian writers, as well as Dr. Priest- ley, write degradingly of our only rule of faith. The Scriptures profess to be “profitable for doctrine,” and to be “able to make men wise unto salvation.” “The testimony of the Lord is ” said to be “sure, making wise the simple; ” and those who made it their study professed to have obtained “more understanding than all their teachers.” But Mr. Lindsey considers the Scriptures as unadapted to promote any high perfection in knowledge; and supposes that they are left in obscurity, with design to promote an occasion of charity, candour, and forbearance. Speaking of the doctrine of the person of Christ, “Surely it must be owned,” he says, “to have been left in some obscurity in the Scriptures themselves, which might mis- lead readers full of heathen prejudices (otherwise so many men, wise and good, would not have differed, and still continue to differ, concerning it); and so left, it should seem, on purpose to whet human industry, and the spirit of inquiry into the things of God, to give scope for the exercise of men's charity and mutual forbearance of one another, and to be one great means of cultivating the moral dispositions, which is plainly the design of the Holy Spirit of God in the Christian revelation, and not any high perfection in knowledge, which so few can at- tain.” + On this extraordinary passage one might inquire, first, If the Scriptures have left the subject in obscurity, why might not the mistake of those who hold the Divinity of Christ (supposing them to be mistaken) have been ac- counted for, without alleging, as Mr. Lindsey elsewhere does, that “they are determined, at all events, to believe Christ to be a different being from what he really was ; that there is no reasoning with them;” and that “they are to be pitied, and considered as being under a debility of mind, in this respect, however sensible and rational in others?” # If wise and good men have differed upon the subject in all ages, and that owing to the obscurity with which it is enveloped in the Scriptures themselves, why this abusive and insulting language? Is it any disgrace to a person not to see that clearly in the Scriptures which is not clearly there to be seen 3 Secondly, If the Scriptures have indeed left the subject in obscurity, how came Mr. Lindsey to be so decided upon it? The “high perfection of knowledge” which he pos- sesses must, undoubtedly, have been acquired from some other quarter, seeing it made no part of the design of the Holy Spirit in the Christian revelation. But if so, we have no further dispute with him ; as, in what respects religion, we do not aspire to be wise above what is written. Thirdly, Let it be considered whether the principle on which Mr. Lindsey encourages the exercise of charity, and mutual forbearance, do not cast a heavy reflection upon * The reader will observe that the foregoing remarks on the con- troversy between Mr. Burn and Dr. Priestley have nothing to do with that part of it, which relates to the riots at Birmingham, but merely with that on the person of Christ. the character of God. The Scriptures, in what relates to the person of Christ, (a subject on which Dr. Priestley allows the writers to have been infallible,) are left obscure, —so obscure as to mislead readers full of heathen pre- judices; nay, and with the very design of misleading them! God himself, it seems, designed that they should stumble on in ignorance, error, and disagreement, till, at last, wearied with their fate, and finding themselves united in one common calamity, they might become friends ! But what is this friendship ! Is it not at the expense of him who is supposed to have spread their way with snares, or (which is the same thing) with misleading obscurity ? Is it any other than the “friendship of the world,” which “is enmity with God 3’’ In perfect harmony with Mr. Lindsey is the language of a writer in the Monthly Review. “The nature and de- sign of the Scripture,” he says, “is not to settle disputed theories, nor to decide upon speculative controverted ques- tions, even in religion and morality. The Scriptures, if we understand any thing of them, are intended not so much to make us wiser as to make us better; not to solve the doubts, but, rather, to make us obey the dictates of our consciences.” The Holy Scriptures were never de- signed, then, to be a rule of faith or practice; but merely a stimulative 1. In matters of speculation (as all disputed subjects will be termed, whether doctrinal or practical) they have no authority, it seems, to decide any question. What saith the Scripture ? therefore, would now be an impertinent question. You are to find out what is truth, and what is righteousness, by your reason and your con- science; and when you have obtained a system of religion and morality to your mind, Scripture is to furnish you with motives to reduce it to practice. If this be true, to what purpose are all appeals to the Scriptures on contro- verted subjects? and why do Socinians pretend to appeal to them 3 Why do they not homestly acknowledge that they did not learn their religion thence, and therefore re- fuse to have it tried at that bar 3 This would save much labour. To what purpose do they object to particular passages as interpolations, or mistranslations, or the like, when the whole, be it ever so pure, has nothing at all to do in the decision of our controversies? We have been used to speak of conscience having but one master, even Christ ; but now, it seems, conscience is its own master, and Jesus Christ does not pretend to dictate to it, but merely to assist in the execution of its decisions ! Mr. Belsham carries the matter still further. This gen- tleman, not satisfied, it seems, with disclaiming an implicit confidence in Holy Scripture, pretends to find authority, &n the Scriptures themselves, for so doing. “The Bereans,” he says, “are commended for not taking the word even of an apostle, but examining the Scriptures for themselves, whether the doctrines which they heard were true, and whether St. Paul's reasoning was just.” | I do not recol- lect that the Bereams were “commended for not taking the word of an apostle;” but for not rejecting it without examination, as the Jews did at Thessalonica. But grant- ing it were otherwise, their situation was different from ours. They had not then had an opportunity of obtaining evidence that the apostles were Divinely inspired, or that the gospel which they preached was a message from God. This, surely, is a circumstance of importance. There is a great difference between their entertaining some doubt of the truth of the gospel, till they had fully examined its evidences, and our still continuing to doubt of its particular doctrines and reasonings, even though we allow it to be a message from God. To this may be added, that, in order to obtain evidence, the Bereans searched the Scriptures. By comparing the facts which Paul testified with the pro- phecies which went before, and the doctrines which he preached with those of the Old Testament, they would judge whether his message was from God or not. There is a great difference between the criterion of the Bereans and that of the Socinians. The Scriptures of the Old Testament were the allowed standard of the former, and they employed their reason to find out their meaning, and + Apology, Chap. ii. # Catechist, Inquiry VI. * Review of Horsley’s Sermon, March, 1793. | Sermon on the Importance of Truth, p. 39. WENERATION FOR THE SCRIPTURES. 93 their agreement with New Testament facts; but the au- thority and agreement of the Old and New Testaments will not satisfy the latter, unless what they contain agree also with their preconceived notions of what is fit and reasonable. The one tried what, for aught they at that time knew, were mere private reasonings by the Scrip- tures; but the other try the Scriptures by their own private reasonings. Finally, If proposing a doctrine for examin- ation prove the proposer liable to false or unjust reason- ing, it will follow that the reasoning of Christ might be false or unjust, seeing he appealed to the Scriptures, as well as his apostles, and commanded his hearers to search them. It will also follow that all the great facts of Chris- tianity, as well as the reasonings of Christ and his apostles, were liable to be detected of falsehood; for these were as constantly submitted to examination as the other. “These things,” said they, “were not done in a corner.” Nay, it must follow that God himself is liable to be in a wrong cause, seeing he frequently appeals to men’s judgments and consciences. “And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard.” The inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah were exhorted, and even entreated, it may be said, not to take matters upon trust; but to examine for them- selves whether the conduct of Jehovah was just, or whether any thing ought to have been done for his vineyard that was not done ! - But, far as our English Socinians have gone in these things, they do not seem to have exceeded, nor hardly to have equalled, those of the same denomination in other countries. These appear to have made great advances indeed towards infidelity. Mr. Blackwall makes mention of two, whose language conveys an idea of uncommon disrespect to the sacred writings. George Engedin, speak- ing of the writings of the apostle John, says, “If a con- cise, abrupt obscurity, inconsistent with itself, and made up of allegories, is to be called sublimity of speech, I own John to be sublime ; for there is scarcely one discourse of Christ which is not altogether allegorical and very hard to be understood.” Gagnetws, another writer of the same spirit, says, “I shall not a little glory, if I shall be found to give some light to Paul’s darkness, a darkness, as some think, industriously affected.”—“Let any of the followers of these worthy interpreters of the gospel, and champions of Christianity,” adds Mr. Blackwall, by way of reflection, “speak worse, if they can, of the ambiguous oracles of the father of lies. These fair-dealing gentlemen first disguise the sacred writings, and turn them into a harsh allegory; and then charge them with that obscurity and inconsistency which is plainly consequent upon that sense which their interpretations force upon them. They outrage the Divine writers in a double capacity; first they debase their sense as theologues and commentators, and then carp at and vilify their language as grammarians and critics.” + Steinbart, Semler, and other foreign Socinians, of later times, write in a similar strain. The former, speaking of the narrations of facts contained in the New Testament, says, “These narrations, true or false, are only suited for ignorant, uncultivated minds, who cannot enter into the evidence of natural religion.” The same writer adds, “Moses, according to the childish conceptions of the Jews in his days, paints God as agitated by violent affec- tions, partial to one people, and hating all other nations.” The latter in a Note on 2 Pet. i. 21—“The prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit”— says, “Peter speaks there according to the conception of the Jews;” and, “the prophets may have delivered the offspring of their own brains as Divine revelations.”f Socinian writers sometimes profess great respect to the Holy Scriptures ; and most, if not all of them, would have it thought that they consider their testimony as being in their favour. But if so, why all these pains to depre- ciate them 3 We know who they are that not only under- mine their general credit, but are obliged, on almost every occasion, to have recourse to interpolation, or mistrans- * Sacred Classics, Part II. Chap. V. gº." Erskine's Sketches and Hints of Church History, No. III. pp. t). { § º - . iii. 16. lation ; who are driven to disown the apostolic reasonings as a proper test of religious sentiment, and to hold them as the mere private opinions of men, no way decisive as to what is truth. But is it usual, in any cause, for persons to endeavour to set aside those witnesses, and to invalidate that testimony, which they consider, at the same time, as being in their favour? This is a question which it does not require much critical skill to decide. When Socinian writers have mangled and altered the translation to their own minds, informing us that such a term may be rendered so, and such a passage should be pointed so, and so on, they seem to expect that their op- ponents should quote the Scriptures accordingly ; and if they do not, are very liberal in insinuating that their design is to impose upon the vulgar. But though it be admitted that every translation must needs have its im- perfections, and that those imperfections ought to be cor- rected by fair and impartial criticism, yet, where alterations are made by those who have an end to answer by them, they ought always to be suspected, and will be so by thinking and impartial people. If we must quote particular passages of Scripture after the manner in which our adversaries translate them, we must also avoid quoting all those which they object to as interpolations. Nor shall we stop here : we must, on certain occasions, leave out whole chapters, if not whole books. We must never refer to the reasonings of the apostles, but consider that they were subject to be misled by Jewish prejudices; nor even to historical facts, unless we can satisfy ourselves that the historians, independently of their being Divinely inspired, were possessed of suf- ficient means of information. In short, if we must never quote Scripture except according to the rules imposed upon us by Socinian writers, we must not quote it at all ; not, at least, till they shall have indulged us with a Bible of their own, that shall leave out every thing on which we are to place no dependence. A publication of this sort would, doubtless, be an acceptable present to the Christian world, would be comprised in a very small compass, and be of infinite service in cutting short a great deal of unnecessary controversy, into which, for want of such a criterion, we shall always be in danger of wandering. Dr. Priestley, in his Animadversions on Mr. Gibbon's History, takes notice of what is implied in that gentleman’s endeavouring to lessen the number and validity of the early martyrdoms; namely, a consciousness that they af- forded an argument against him. “Mr. Gibbon,” says the Doctor, “appears to have been sufficiently sensible of the value of such a testimony to the truth of the gospel history as is furnished by the early martyrdoms, and there- fore he takes great pains to diminish their number; and when the facts cannot be denied, he endeavours to exhibit them in the most unfavourable light.”f Judge, brethren, whether this picture does not bear too near a resemblance to the conduct of Dr. Priestley, and other Socinian writers, respecting the Holy Scriptures. I have heard of persons who, when engaged in a law- suit, and fearing lest certain individuals should appear in evidence against them, have so contrived matters as to sue the witnesses; and so, by making them parties in the contest, have disqualified them for bearing testimony. And what else is the conduct of Dr. Priestley, with respect to those passages in the New Testament which speak of Christ as God? We read there that “the Word who was made flesh, and dwelt among us,” was God. Thomas exclaimed, “My Lord and my God!”—“Of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever.”—“ Unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.”—“Feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.”—“Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us.” & But Dr. Priestley asserts that “ in no sense whatever, not even in the lowest of all, is Christ so much as called God in all the New Testament.” || The method taken by this writer to enable him to hazard such an as- serticn, without being subject to the charge of downright falsehood, could be no other than that of laying a kind of # Letters to a Philosophical Unbeliever, Part II. p. 217. ë John i. 1. 14; xx. 28; Rom. ix. 5; Heb. i. 8; Acts xx. 28; 1 John | Letters to Mr. Burn, Letter 1. 94 ON HAPPINESS. arrest upon the foregoing passages, with others, as being either interpolations or mistranslations, or something that shall answer the same end, and by these means imposing silence upon them as to the subject in dispute. To be sure we may go on, killing one Scripture testimony, and stoning another, till, at length, it would become an easy thing to assert that there is not an instance, in all the New Testa- ment, in which our opinions are confronted. But to what does it all amount% When we are told that “ Christ is never so much as called God in all the New Testament,” the question is whether we are to understand it of the New Testament as it was left by the sacred writers, or as corrected, amended, curtailed, and interpreted by a set of controvertists, with a view to make it accord with a favourite system. LETTER XIII. ON THE TENDENCY OF THE DIFFERENT SYSTEMS TO PROMOTE HAPPINESS, OR CHEERFULNESS OF MIND. NoTHING is more common with our opponents than to represent the Calvinistic system as gloomy, as leading to melancholy and misery. Our ideas of God, of sºn, and of future punishment, they say, must necessarily depress our minds. Dr. Priestley, as we have seen already, reckons Unitarians “ more cheerful” than Trinitarians. Nor is this all. It has even been asserted that the tendency of our principles is to promote “moral turpitude, melancholy, and despair ; and that the suicide practised among the middling and lower ranks is frequently to be traced to this doctrine.”* This is certainly carrying matters to a great height. It might be worth while, however, for those who advance such things as these to make good what they affirm, if they be able. Till that be done, candour itself must consider these bold assertions as the mere effusions of malignity and slander. It is some consolation, however, that what is objected to us by Socinians, is objected to religion itself by unbe- lievers. Lord Shaftesbury observes—“There is a melan- choly which accompanies all enthusiasm,” which, from his pen, is only another name for Christianity. To the same purpose, Mr. Hume asserts—“There is a gloom and me- lancholy remarkable in all devout people.” If these writers had formed a comparison between deists and athe- ists on the one side, and devout Christians on the other, they would have said of the former, as Dr. Priestley says of Unitarians, “they are more cheerful, and more happy.” It is granted that the system we adopt has nothing in it adapted to promote the happiness of those who persist in enmity against God, and in a rejection of our Lord Jesus Christ as the only way of salvation. While men are at war with God, we do not know of any evangelical promise that is calculated to make them happy. This, perhaps, with some, may be a considerable ground of objection to our views of things; but then such objection must stand equally against the Scriptures themselves, since their lan- guage to ungodly men is, “Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep.” All the prophets and ministers of the word were, in effect, commanded to “say to the wicked, It shall be ill with him.” This, with us, is one considerable objection against the doctrine of the final salvation of all men, a doctrine much circulated of late, and generally embraced by Socinian writers. Supposing it were a truth, it must be of such a kind as is adapted to comfort mankind in sin. It is good news ; but it is to the impenitent and unbeliev- ing, even to those who live and die such ; which is a characteristic so singular, that I question whether any thing can be found in the Bible to resemble it. If our views of things be but adapted to encourage sinners to return to God by Jesus Christ,--if they afford strong con- solation to those who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before them,-and if sobriety, righteousness, and godliness here meet with the most powerful motives, —this is all that the Scriptures themselves propose. n See Critical Review for Sept. 1787, on Memoirs of Gabriel D’An- ville. Our system, it is granted, is not adapted to promote that kind of cheerfulness and happiness to which men in gene- ral are greatly addicted; namely, that which consists in self-deceit and levity of spirit. There is a kind of cheer- fulness which resembles that of a tradesman who avoids looking into his accounts, lest they should disturb his peace and render him unhappy. This, indeed, is the cheerfulness of a great part of mankind, who shun the light, lest it should disturb their repose, and interrupt their present pursuits. They try to persuade themselves that they shall have peace, though they add drunkenness to thirst ; and there are not wanting preachers who afford them assistance in the dangerous delusion. The doctrines of human depravity, of sinners being under the curse of the law, and of their exposedness to everlasting punish- ment, are those which are supposed to lead us to melan- choly; and we may fairly conclude that the opposites to these doctrines are at the bottom of the cheerfulness of which our opponents boast. Instead of considering man- kind as lost sinners, exposed to everlasting destruction, they love to represent them simply as creatures, as the children of God, and to suppose that, having, in general, more virtue than vice, they have nothing to fear; or if, in a few instances, it be otherwise, still they have no reason to be afraid of endless punishment. These things, to be sure, make people cheerful ; but it is with the cheerfulness of a wicked man. It is just as wicked men would have it. It is no wonder that persons of “no religion,” and who “lean to a life of dissipation,” should be “the first to embrace these principles.” They are such as must needs suit them; especially if we add what Dr. Priestley incul- cates in his Sermon on the death of Mr. Robinson, that it is not necessary to dwell in our thoughts *pon death and futurity, lest it should interrupt the business of life, and cause us to live in perpetual bondage.f. We hope it is no disparagement of the Calvinistic doctrine that it disclaims the promoting of all such cheerfulness as this. That cheerfulness which is damped by thoughts of death and futurity is, at best, merely natural joy. It has no virtue in it ; nay, in many cases, it is positively vicious, and founded in self-deception. It is nothing better than “the laughter of a fool.” It may blaze awhile in the bosoms of the dissipated and the secure ; but if the sinner be once awakened to just reflection, it will expire like “the crack- ling of thorns under a pot.” There is, also, a kind of happiness, which some persons. enjoy, in treating the most serious and important subjects with levity, making them the subjects of jests, and trying their skill in disputing upon them, which is frequently called pleasantry, good nature, and the like. A cheerful- ness of this kind, in Oliver Cromwell, is praised by Mr. Lindsey, and represented as an excellency “ of which the gloomy bigot is utterly incapable.”f Pleasantry, on some occasions, and to a certain degree, is natural and allow- able ; but if sporting with sacred things must go by that name, let me be called “a gloomy bigot” rather than in- dulge it. Once more, It is allowed that the system we embrace has a tendency, on various occasions, to promote sorrow of Jeart. Our motions of the evil of sin exceed those of our opponents. While they reject the doctrine of atonement by the cross of Christ, they have not that glass in which to discern its malignity which others have. There are times in which we remember Calvary, and weep on ac- count of that for which our Redeemer died. But so far are we from considering this as our infelicity, that, for weeping in this manner once, we could wish to do so a thousand times. There is a pleasure in the very pains of godly sorrow, of which the light-minded speculatist is utterly incapable. The tears of her that wept, and washed her Saviour's feet, afforded abundantly greater satisfaction than the unfeeling calm of the Pharisee, who stood by, making his ill-matured reflections upon her conduct. If our views of things have no tendency to promote solid, holy, heavenly joy—joy that fits true Christians for the proper business of this world, and the blessedness of that which is to come—we will acknowledge it a strong presumption against them. If, on the other hand, they + This is the substance of what he advances, pp. 7–12. # Apology, Chap. II. ON HAPPINESS. 95 can be proved to possess such a tendency, and that in a much greater degree than the opposite scheme, it will be a considerable argument in their favour. Let us examine this matter a little closer. . The utmost happiness which the peculiar principles of Socinians are adapted to promote consists in calmness of mind, like that of a philosopher contemplating the works of creation. The friends of that scheme conceive of man as a good kind of being, and suppose that there is a greater proportion of virtue in the world than vice, and that things, upon the whole, are getting better still, and so tending to happiness. They suppose that there is little or no breach between God and men,-nothing but what may be made up by repentance, a repentance without much pain of mind,” and without any atoning Saviour; that God, being the benevolent Father of his rational offspring, will not be strict to mark iniquity; and that, as his benevolence is infinite, all will be well at last,-‘‘ as with the good, so with the sinner; with him that sweareth, as with him that feareth an oath.” This makes them serene, and enables them to pursue the studies of philosophy, or the avoca- tions of life, with composure. This appears to be the summit of their happiness, and must be so of all others if they wish to escape their censure. For if any one pre- tends to happiness of a superior kind, they will instantly reproach him as an enthusiast. A writer in the Monthly Review observes, concerning the late President Edwards, “From the account given of him, he appears to have been a very reputable, good, and pious man, according to his views and feelings in religious matters, which those of different sentiments and cooler sensations will not fail to consider as all wild ecstasy, rapture, and enthusiasm.” f The tendency of any system to promote calmness is no- thing at all in its favour, any further than such calmness can be proved to be virtuous. But this must be deter- mined by the situation in which we stand. We ought to be affected according to our situation. If, indeed, there be no breach between God and men,--if all be right on our part as well as his, and just as it should be, then it becomes us to be calm and thankful; but if it be other- wise, it becomes us to feel accordingly. If we have offend- ed Gód, we ought to bewail our transgressions, and be sorry for our sin; and if the offence be great, we ought to be deeply affected with it. It would be thought very im- proper for a convict, a little before the time appointed for his execution, instead of cherishing proper reflections on the magnitude of his offence, and suing for the mercy of his offended sovereign, to be employed in speculating upon his benevolence, till he has really worked himself into a persuasion that no serious apprehensions were to be enter- tained, concerning either himself or any of his fellow con- victs. Such a person might enjoy a much greater degree of calmness than his companions; but considerate people would neither admire his mode of thinking, nor envy his imaginary felicity. * Calmness and sorenity of mind may arise from ignorance of ourselves, and from the want of a principle of true re- ligion. While Paul was ignorant of his true character, he was calm and easy, or, as he expresses it, “alive without the law ;” “but when the commandment came,” in its spirituality and authority, “sin revived, and he died.” The Pharisee, who was whole in his own esteem, and needed no physician, was abundantly more calm than the publican, who smote upon his breast, and cried, “God be merciful to me a sinner l’” a principle of true religion, the strong man armed keepeth the house, and the goods are in peace; and while things are thus, he will be a stranger to all those holy mournings which abound in the Psalms of David, and to those inward conflicts between flesh and spirit described in the writings of Paul. And knowing nothing of such things himself, he will be apt to think meanly of those who do; to deride them as enthusiasts, to reproach them with gloominess, and to boast of his own insensibility, under the names of calm- ness and cheerfulness. Supposing the calmness and cheerfulness of mind of which our opponents boast to be on the side of virtue, still it is a * Such a repentance is pleaded for by Mr. Jardine, in his Letters to Mr. Bogue. * Review of Edwards's History of Redemption, Vol. LXXX. Art. 68. they desert their principles.”|| While any man is destitute of: cold and insipid kind of happiness, compared with that which is produced by the doctrine of salvation through the atoning blood of Christ. One great source of happiness is contrast. Dr. Priestley has proved, what indeed is evi- dent from universal experience, “that the recollection of past troubles, after a certain interval, becomes highly pleasurable, and is a pleasure of a very durable kind.”f On this principle he undertakes to prove the infinite be- nevolence of the Deity, even in his so ordering things that a mixture of pain and sorrow shall fall to the lot of man. On the same principle may be proved, if I mistake not, the superiority of the Calvinistic system to that of the So- cinians, in point of promoting happiness. The doctrines of the former, supposing them to be true, are affecting. It is affecting to think that man, originally pure, should have fallen from the height of righteousness and honour to the depth of apostacy and infamy—that he is now an enemy to God, and actually lies under his awful and just dis- pleasure, exposed to everlasting misery—that, notwithstand- ing all this, a ransom is found to deliver him from going down to the pit—that God so loved the world as to give his only-begotten Son to become a sacrifice for sin, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life—that the issue of Christ’s death is not left at an uncertainty, nor the invitations of his gospel subject to universal rejection, but an effectual provision is made, in the great plan of redemption, that he shall see of the travail of his soul, and be satisfied—that the Holy Spirit is given to renew and sanctify a people for himself—that they who were under condemnation and wrath, being justified by faith in the righteousness of Jesus, have peace with God— that aliens and outcasts are become the sons and daughters of the Lord God Almighty—that everlasting arms are now beneath them, and everlasting glory is before them. These sentiments, I say, supposing them to be true, are undoubt- edly affecting. The Socinian system, supposing it were true, compared with this, is cold, uninteresting, and insipid. We read of “joy and peace in believing,” of “joy un- speakable and full of glory.” Those who adopt the Cal- vinistic doctrine of the exceeding sinfulness of sin, and of their own lost condition as sinners, are prepared to imbibe the joy of the gospel, supposing it to exhibit a great salva- tion, through the atonement of a great Saviour, to which others of opposite sentiments must of necessity be strangers. The Pharisees who thought well of their character and condition, like the elder son in the parable, instead of re- joicing at the good news of salvation to the chief of sin- ners, were disgusted at it ; and this will ever be the case with all who, like the Pharisees, are whole in their own eyes, so whole as to think they need no physician. The votaries of the Socinian scheme do not, in general, appear to feel their hearts much interested by it. Voltaire could say in his time—“At least, hitherto, only a very small number of those called Unitarians have held any religious meetings.” And though Dr. Priestley, by his great zeal, has endeavoured to invigorate and reform the party; yet he admits the justice of a common complaint among them, that “their societies do not flourish, their members have but a slight attachment to them, and easily desert them ; though it is never imagined,” he adds, “that All this the Doctor ac- counts for by allowing that their principles are not of that importance which we suppose ours to be, and that “many of those who judge so truly concerning the particular tenets of religion have attained to that cool, unbiassed temper of mind, in consequence of becoming more indiffer- ent to religion in general, and to all the modes and doctrines of it.” Through indifference, it seems, they come in ; through indifference they go out; and they are very indif- ferent while there. Yet, it is said, they still retain their principles ; and, I suppose, are very cheerful, and very happy. Happiness, theirs, consequently, which does not interest the heart, any more than reform the life. Although the aforementioned writer in the Monthly Re- view insinuates that President Edwards's religious feelings were “all wild ecstasy, rapture, and enthusiasm,” yet he adds—“We cannot question the sincerity of Mr. Edwards, # Lett. Phil. Unb. Part I. I.etter VI. ? Additions to General History, Art. England, under Charles II. || Dis. War. Sub. p. 94. 96 ON HAPPINESS. who, however he may possibly have imposed on himself by the warmth of his imagination, was, perhaps, rather to be envied than derided for his ardours and ecstasies, which, in themselves, were at least innocent; in which he, no doubt, found much delight, and from which no creature could receive the least hurt.” I thank you, sir, for this concession. It will, at least, serve to show that the sen- timents and feelings which you deem wild and enthusias- tical may, by your own acknowledgment, be the most adapted to promote human happiness; and that is all for which I at present contend. President Edwards, however, was far from being a person of that warm imagination which this writer would insinuate. No man could be a greater enemy to real enthusiasm. Under the most viru- lent oppositions, and the heaviest trials, he possessed a great share of coolness of judgment as well as of calmness and serenity of mind, as great as any one to whom this gentleman can refer us among those whom he calls men of cool sensations, and perhaps greater. But he felt deeply in religion; and in such feelings, our adversaries them- selves being judges, he was to be “envied, and not derided.” Why should religion be the only subject in which we must not be allowed to feel? Men are praised for the exercise of ardour, and even of ecstasy, in poetry, in politics, and in the endearing connexions of social life; but, in religion, we must either go on with cool indiffer- ence, or be branded as enthusiasts. Is it because religion is of less importance than other things 2 Is eternal sal- vation of less consequence than the political or domestic accommodations of time ! It is treated by multitudes as if it were ; and the spirit of Socinianism, so far as it operates, tends to keep them in countenance. Is it not a pity but those who call themselves rational Christians would act more rationally 3 Nothing can be more irrational, as well as injurious, than to encourage an ardour of mind after the trifles of a moment, and to discourage it when pursu- ing objects of infinite magnitude. “Passion is reason, transport temper here!” The Socinian system proposes to exclude mystery from religion, or “things in their own nature incomprehensi- ble.” “... But such a scheme not only renders religion the only thing in nature void of mystery, but divests it of a property essential to the continued communication of hap- piness to an immortal creature. Our passions are more affected by objects which surpass our comprehension than by those which we fully know. It is thus with respect to wnhappiness. An unknown misery is much more dreadful than one that is fully known. Suspense adds to distress. If, with regard to transient sufferings, we know the worst, the worst is commonly over; and hence our troubles are frequently greater when feared than when actually felt. It is the same with respect to happiness. That happiness which is felt in the pursuit of science abates in the full possession of the object. When once a matter is fully known, we cease to take that pleasure in it as at first, and long for something new. It is the same in all other kinds of happiness. The mind loves to swim in deep waters; if it touch the bottom it feels disgust. If the best were once fully known, the best would thence be over. Some of the noblest passions in Paul were excited by objects incomprehensible: “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God . How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!”—“Great is the mystery of godliness : God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, believed on in the world, received up into glory !” Now, if things be so, it is easy to see that to divest religion of every thing in- comprehensible is to divest it of what is essential to human happiness. And no wonder; for it is nothing less than to divest it of God . The Socinian scheme, by rejecting the Deity and atone- ment of Christ, rejects the very essence of that which both supports and transports a Christian's heart. It was ac- knowledged by Mr. Hume, that “the good, the great, the 8wblime, and the ravishing, were to be found evidently in the principles of theism.” . To this Dr. Priestley very justly replies—“If so, I need not say that there must be * Def. Unit. for 1786, p. 67. something mean, abject, and debasing in the principles of atheism.” f But let it be considered whether this ob- | servation be not equally applicable to the subject in hand. Our opponents, it is true, may hold sentiments which are great and transporting. Such are their views of the works of God in creation ; but so are those of deists. Neither are these the sentiments in which they differ from us. Is the Socinian system, as distinguished from ours, adapted to raise and transport the heart? This is the question. Let us select only one topic for an example. Has any thing, or can any thing, be written, on the scheme of our adversaries, upon the death of Christ, equal to the follow- ing lines — “Religion I thou the soul of happiness; And groaning Calvary of thee! there shine The noblest truths; there strongest motives sting ! There sacred violence assaults the soul. My theme! my inspiration 1 and my crown My strength in age I my rise in low estate 1 My soul's ambition, pleasure, wealth l—my world ! My light in darkness l and my life in death ! My boast through time ! bliss through etermity! Eternity too short to speak thy praise, Or fathom thy profound of love to man To man of men the meanest, ev’n to me; My sacrifice I my God l what things are these l’” Again, “Pardon for infinite offence 1 and pardon Through means that speak its value infinite A pardon bought with blood l with blood Divine ! With blood Divine of him I made my foe! Persisted to provoke, though wooed, and awed, Blessed, and chastised, a flagrant rebel still A rebel 'midst the thunders of his throne!— Nor I alone, a rebel universel My species up in arms not one exempt Yet for the foulest of the foul he dies 1 Bound, every heart! and every bosom, burn Oh what a scale of miracles is here ! Praise ! flow for ever (if astonishment Will give thee leave); my praise ! for ever flow ; Praise ardent, cordial, constant, to high Heaven More fragrant than Arabia sacrificed ; And all her spicy mountains in a flame !” JWight Thoughts, Night IV. There is a rich, great, and ravishing quality in the fore- going sentiments, which no other theme can inspire. Had the writer been a Socinian, and attempted to write upon the death of Christ, he might, by the strength of his mind and the fire of his genius, have contributed a little to raise his subject; but here his subject raises him above himself. The dignity of Christ, together with his glorious under- taking, was, as we have seen in Letter XI., a source of joy and love to the primitive Christians. It was their darling theme, and that which raised them above them- selves. Now, according to our system, Christians may still rejoice in the same manner, and give vent to their souls, and to all that is within them ; and that without fear of going beyond the words of truth and soberness, or of bordering, or seeming to border, upon idolatry. But, upon the principles of our opponents, the sacred writers must have dealt largely in hyperbole; and it must be our business, instead of entering into their spirit, to sit down with “cool sensations,” criticise their words, and explain away their apparent meaning. - Brethren, I appeal to your own hearts, as men who have been brought to consider yourselves as the Scriptures. represent you—Is there anything in that preaching which leaves out the doctrine of salvation by an atoning sacrifice that can afford you any relief? Is it not like the priest and Levite, who passed by on the other side 3 Is not the doctrine of atonement by the blood of Christ like the oil and wine of the good Samaritan 3 Under all the pressures of life, whether from inward conflicts or outward troubles, is not this your grand support? What but “an Advocate with the Father,” one who “is the propitiation for our sins,” could prevent you, when you have sinned against God, from sinking into despondency, and encourage you to sue afresh for mercy What else could so divest affliction of its bitterness, death of its sting, or the grave of its gloomy aspect? In fine, what else could enable you to contem- plate a future judgment with composure ? What hope + Lett. Phil. Unb. Part I. Pref. p. x. ON HAPPINESS. 97 could you entertain of being justified, at that day, upon any other footing than this, “It is Christ that died ?” I am aware I shall be told that this is appealing to the passions, and to the passions of enthusiasts. To which it may be replied, In a question which relates to happiness, the heart is the best criterion ; and if it be enthusiasm to think and feel concerning ourselves as the Scriptures re- present us, and concerning Christ as he is there exhibited, let me live and die an enthusiast. So far from being ashamed to appeal to such characters, in my opinion they are the only competent judges. Men of mere speculation play with doctrines; it is the plain and serious Christian that knows most of their real tendency. In a question, therefore, which concerns their happy or unhappy influ- ence, his judgment is of the greatest importance. Dr. Priestley allows that “the doctrine of a general and a most particular providence is so leading a feature in every scheme of predestination, it brings God so much into every thing, that an habitual and animated devotion is the result.” # This witness is true : nor is this all. The same principle, taken in its connexion with various others, equally provides for a serene and joyful satisfaction in all the events of time. All the vicissitudes of nations, all the furious oppositions to the church of Christ, all the efforts to overturn the doctrine of the cross, or blot out the spirit of Christianity from the earth, we consider as permitted for wise and holy ends; and being satisfied that they make a part of God’s eternal plan, we are not inordinately anxious about them. We can assure our opponents that, when we hear them boast of their increasing numbers, as also professed unbelievers of theirs, it gives us no other pain than that which arises from good-will to men. We have no doubt that these things are wisely permitted—that they are a fan in the hand of Christ, by which he will thoroughly purge his floor—and that the true gospel of Christ, like the sum in the heavens, will finally disperse all these interposing clouds. We are persuaded, as well as they, that things, upon the whole, whether we, in our contracted spheres of observation, perceive it or not, are tending to the general good—that the empire of truth and righteousness, notwithstanding all the infidelity and ini- quity that are in the world, is upon the increase—that it must increase more and more—that glorious things are yet to be accomplished in the church of God—and that all which we have hitherto seen, or heard, of the gospel dis- pensation, is but as the first-fruits of an abundant harvest. The tendency of a system to promote present happiness may be estimated by the degree of security which accom- panies it. The obedience and sufferings of Christ, accord- ing to the Calvinistic system, constitute the ground of our acceptance with God. A good moral life, on the other hand, is the only foundation on which our opponents pro- fess to build their hopes.f. Now, supposing our principles should prove erroneous, while they do not lead us to neg- lect good works, but to abound in them, from love to God, and with a regard to his glory, it may be presumed that the Divine Being will not cast us off to eternity for having ascribed too much to him, and too little to ourselves. But if the principles of our opponents should be found errone- ous, and the foundation on which they build their hopes should, at last, give way, the issue must be fatal. I never knew a person, in his dying moments, alarmed for the consequences of having assumed too little to himself, or for having ascribed too much to Christ; but many, at that hour of serious reflection, have been more than a little apprehensive of danger from the contrary. After all, it is allowed that there is a considerable num- ber of persons amongst us who are under too great a de- gree of mental dejection; but though the number of such persons, taken in the aggregate, be considerable, it is not sufficient to render it any thing like a general case. And as to those who are so, they are, almost all of them, such, either from constitution, from the want of a mature judg- ment to distinguish just causes of sorrow, or from a sinful neglect of their duties and their advantages. Those who enter most deeply into our views of things, provided their conduct be consistent, and there be no particular pro- * Phil. Nec. p. 162. * See the quotations from Dr. Priestley, Dr. Harwood, and Mrs. Barbauld, Letter IX, H pensity to gloominess in their constitution, are among the happiest people in the world. . LETTER, XIV. A comparison OF MOTIVES To GRATITUDE, OBEDIENCE, AND HEAVEN LY-MINDED NESS, THE subject of this Letter has been occasionally noticed already ; but there are a few things in reserve that require your attention. As men are allowed on both sides to be influenced by motives, whichever of the systems it is that excels in this particular, that of course must be the system which has the greatest tendency to promote a holy life. One very important motive, with which the Scriptures acquaint us, is THE LovE OF GOD MANIFESTED IN THE GIFT of HIs SoN. “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”—“Herein is love ; not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be a propitiation for our sins.”—“God commend- eth his love towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”—“He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all.”—“Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.” The bene- volence of God to men is represented in the New Testa- ment as consisting not in his overlooking their frailties, not so much even in his forgiving their sins, as in giving his only begotten Son to die for them. Here in was love ; and herein was found the grand motive to grateful obedi- ence. There is no necessity indeed for establishing this point, since Dr. Priestley has fully acknowledged it. He allows “that the love of God in giving his Son to die for us is the consideration on which the Scriptures always lay the greatest stress, as a motive to gratitude and obedi- ence.”: As this is a matter of fact, then, allowed on both sides, it may be worth while to make some inquiry into the reason of it; or why it is that so great a stress should be laid, in the Scriptures, upon this motive. To say no- thing of the strong presumption which this acknowledg- ment affords in favour of the doctrine of atonement, suffice it at present to observe, that, in all other cases, an obliga- tion to gratitude is supposed to bear some proportion to the magnitude or value of the gift. But if it be allowed in this instance, it will follow that the system which gives us the most exalted views of the dignity of Christ must in- clude the strongest motives to obedience and gratitude. If there be any meaning in the words, the phraseology of John iii. 16, “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,” conveys an idea of the highest worth in the object bestowed. So great was this gift, that the love of God in the bestowment of it is considered as in- expressible and inestimable. We are not told how much he loved the world, but that he so loved it that he gave his only begotten Son. If Jesus Christ be of more worth than the world for which he was given, then was the language of the sacred writer fit and proper; and then was the gift of him truly great, and worthy of being made “the con- sideration upon which the Scriptures should lay the great- est stress, as a motive to gratitude and obedience.” But if he be merely a man like ourselves, and was given only to instructus by his doctrine and example, there is nothing so great in the gift of him, nothing that will justify the language of the sacred writers from the charge of bom- bast, nothing that should render it a motive to gratitude and obedience, upon which the greatest stress should be laid. - Dr. Priestley, in his Letters to Dr. Price, observes that, “In passing from Trinitarianism to High Arianism, from this to your Low Arianism, and from this to Socinianism, even of the lowest kind, in which Christ is considered as a mere man, the son of Joseph and Mary, and naturally as fallible and peccable as Moses or any other prophet, there are sufficient sources of gratitude and devotion. I my- # Def. Unit. 1786, p. 102. 98 ON GRATITUDE AND OBEDIENCE. self,” continues Dr. Priestley, “ have gone through all those changes; and I think I may assure you that you have nothing to apprehend from any part of the progress. In every stage of it, you have that consideration on which the Scriptures always lay the greatest stress, as a motive to gratitude and obedience ; namely, the love of God, the Almighty Parent, in giving his Son to die for us. And whether this Son be man, angel, or of a super-angelic nature, every thing that he has dome is to be referred to the love of God, the original Author of all, and to him all our gratitude and obedience is ultimately due.”* Dr. Priestley, it seems, wishes to have it thought that, seeing Trinitarians, Arians, and Socinians agree in con- sidering the gift of Christ as an expression of the love of God, therefore their different systems are upon a level, as to the grand motive to gratitude and obedience : as if it made no difference at all whether that gift was small or great ; whether it was a man or an angel, or one whom men and angels are bound to adore ; whether it was to die, as other martyrs did, to set us an example of perse- verance, or, by laying down his life as an atoning sacrifice, to deliver us from the wrath to come. He might as well suppose the gift of one talent to be equal to that of ten thousand, and that it would induce an equal return of gratitude ; or that the gift of Moses, or any other prophet, afforded an equal motive to love and obedience as the gift of Christ. If, in every stage of religious principle, whether Trinita- rian, Arian, or Socinian, by admitting that one general principle, the love of God in giving his Son to die for us, we have the same motive to gratitude and obedience, and that in the same degree, it must be because the greatness or smallness of the gift is a matter of no consideration, and has no tendency to render a motive stronger or weaker. But this is not only repugnant to the plainest dictates of reason, as hath been already observed, but also to the doc- trine of Christ. According to this, he that hath much for- given loveth much, and he that hath little forgiven loveth little. Hence it appears that the system which affords the most extensive views of the evil of sin, the depth of human apostacy, and the magnitude of redemption, will induce us to love the most, or produce in us the greatest degree of gratitude and obedience. It is to no purpose to say, as Dr. Priestley does, “Every thing that Christ hath done is to be referred to the love of God.” For, be it so, the question is, if his system be true, what hath he done ; and what is there to be referred to the love of God? To say the most, it can be but little. If Dr. Priestley be right, the breach between God and man is not so great but that our repentance and obedience are of themselves, without any atonement whatever, sufficient to heal it. Christ, therefore, could have but little to do. But the less he had to do, the less we are indebted to him, and to God for the gift of him ; and, in proportion as this is believed, we must of course feel less gratitude and de- votedness of soul to God. Another important motive with which the Scriptures acquaint us is the LovE OF CHRIST IN COMING INTO THE world, AND LAYING Down HIS LIFE FOR Us. “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus; who, be- ing in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the like- ness of men.”—“ For ye know the grace of our Lord Je- sus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be made rich.”—“ Forasmuch as the children were partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself took part of the same ; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil.”—“Verily, he took not on him the nature of angels, but the seed of Abraham.”— “The love of Christ constraineth us : because we thus judge, that, if one died for all, then were all dead; and that he died for all, that they who live should not hence- forth live unto themselves, but unto him who died for them, and rose again.”—“Walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour.”—“To him that loved us, and washed.us from our sins in his own blood, be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.” Such is the uniform language of the New Testament, con- cerning the love of Christ; and such are the moral pur- poses to which it is applied. It is a presumption in favour of our system, that here the above motives have all their force; whereas, in the system of our opponents, they have scarcely any force at all. The following observations may render this sufficiently evident. We consider the coming of Christ into the world as a voluntary undertaking. His taking upon him, or taking hold, not of the nature of angels, but the seed of Abraham; his taking upon him the form of a servant, and being made in the likeness of men, and that from a state of mind which is held up for our example; and his becoming poor, though previously rich, for our sakes, and that as an act of grace; all concur to establish this idea. For this we feel our hearts bound, by every consideration that love unparalleled can inspire, to gratitude and obedience. But our opponents, by supposing Christ to have been a mere man, and to have had no existence till he was born of Mary, are necessarily driven to deny that his coming into the world was a voluntary act of his own ; and, conse- quently, that there was any love or grace in it. Dr. Priestley, in answer to Dr. Price, contends only that he “ came into the world in obedience to the command of the Father, and not in consequence of his own proposal.” But the idea of his coming in obedience to the command of the Father is as inconsistent with the Socinian scheme as his coming in consequence of his own proposal. For if he had no existence previously to his being born of Mary, he could do neither the one nor the other. It would be perfect absurdity to speak of our coming into the world as an act of obedience ; and, on the hypothesis of Dr. Priestley, to speak of the coming of Christ under such an idea must be equally absurd, f We consider Christ’s coming into the world as an act of condescending love ; such, indeed, as admits of no parallel. The riches of Deity, and the poverty of humanity, the form of God, and the form of a servant, afford a contrast that fills our souls with grateful astonishment. Dr. Priestley, in the last-mentioned performance, acknowledges that “ the Trinitarian doctrine of the incarnation is calculated forcibly to impress the mind with Divine condescension.” He allows the doctrine of the incarnation as held by the Arians to have such a tendency in a degree ; but he tells' Dr. Price, who pleaded this argument against Socinian- ism, that “the Trinitarian hypothesis of the Supreme God becoming man, and then suffering and dying for us, would, no doubt, impress the mind more forcibly still.” This is one allowed source of gratitude and obedience, them, to which the scheme of our adversaries makes no pretence, and for which it can supply nothing adequate. But Dr. Priestley thinks to cut up at one stroke, it seems, all the advantages which his opponents might hope to gain from these concessions, by adding—“With what unspeak- able reverence and devotion do the Catholics eat their Maker : " That a kind of superstitious devotion may be promoted by falsehood is admitted; such was the “volun- tary humility” of those who worshipped angels. But as those characters, with all their pretended humility, were “vainly puffed up by their fleshly mind;” so all that ap- pearance of reverence and devotion which is the offspring of superstition will be found to be something at a great remove from piety or devotedness to God. The supersti- tions of popery, instead of promoting reverence and devo- tion, have been thought, by blinding the mind, and en- cumbering it with other things, to destroy them. There are times in which Dr. Priestley himself “cannot conceive of any practical use being made of transubstantiation ;”|| but now it is put on a level with a doctrine which, it is allowed, “tends forcibly to impress the mind with Divine condescension.” Once more, We believe that Christ, in laying down his life for us, actually died as our substitute ; endured the curse of the Divine law, that we might escape it ; was * Def. Unit. 1786, pp. 10ſ, 102. --- + Def. Unit. 1786, p. 102. # Page 103. * See Mr. Robinson’s Sermon on 2 Cor. iv. 4, entitled, “The Chris- tian Doctrine of Ceremonies.” || Def. Unit. 1786, p. 33. ON GRATITUDE AND OBEDIENCE. 99 delivered for our offences, that we might be delivered from the wrath to come ; and all this while we were yet enemies. This is a consideration of the greatest weight; and if we have any justice or ingenuousness about us, love like this must constrain us to live, not to ourselves, but to him that died for us, and rose again. But accord- ing to our adversaries, Christ died for us in no higher sense than a common martyr, who might have sacrificed his life to maintain his doctrine; and, by so doing, have set an example for the good of others. If this be all, why should not we be as much indebted, in point of gratitude, to Stephen, or Paul, or Peter, who also in that manner died for us, as to Jesus Christ? And why is there not the same reason for their death being proposed as a motive for us to live to them, as for his, that we might live to him? But there is another motive, which Dr. Priestley repre- sents as being “ that in Christianity which is most favour- able to virtue ; mamely, a future state of retribution, grounded on the firm belief of the historical facts recorded in the Scriptures; especially in the miracles, the death, and the resurrection of Christ. The man,” he adds, “who believes these things only, and who, together with this, acknowledges a universal providence, ordering all events; who is persuaded that our very hearts are con- stantly open to the Divine inspection, so that no iniquity, or purpose of it, can escape his observation; will not be a bad man, or a dangerous member of society.” + Dr. Priestley, elsewhere, as we have seen, acknowledges that “the love of God, in giving his Son to die for us, is the consideration on which the Scriptures always lay the great- est stress, as a motive to gratitude and obedience ; ” and yet he speaks here of “a future state of retribution, as being that in Christianity which is most favourable to virtue.” One should think that what the Scriptures always lay the greatest stress upon should be that in Christianity which is most favourable to virtue, be it what it may. But, waving this, let it be considered whether the Calvin- 1stic system has not the advantage, even upon this ground. The doctrine of a future state of retribution is a ground possessed by Calvinists as well as by Socinians; and, perhaps, it may be found that their views of that subject and others connected with it, are more favourable to virtue and a holy life than those of their adversaries. A motive of no small importance by which we profess to be influenced is the thought of our own approaching dissolution. Brethren, if you embrace what is called the Calvinistic view of things, you consider it as your duty and interest to be frequently conversing with mortality. You find such thoughts have a tendency to moderate your attachments to the present world ; to preserve you from being inordinately elated by its smiles, or dejected by its frowns. The consideration of the time being short teaches you to hold all things with a loose hand; to weep as though you wept not, and to rejoice as though you re- joiced not. You reckon it a mark of true wisdom, to keep the end of your lives habitually in view ; and to follow the advice of the Holy Scriptures, where you are directed rather to “go to the house of mourning than to the house of feasting,” where the godly are described as praying, “So teach us to number our days that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom,” and God himself as say- ing, “O that they were wise, that they understood this, that they would consider their latter end l’” But these things, instead of being recommended and urged as motives of piety, are discouraged by Dr. Priestley, who teaches that it is not necessary to dwell in our thoughts upon death and futurity, lest it should interrupt the business of life, and cause us to live in perpetual bondage.f. The Scriptures greatly recommend the virtue of heavenly- mindedness. They teach Christians to consider themselves as strangers and pilgrims on the earth ; to be dead to the world, and to consider their life, or portion, as hid with Christ in God. The spiritual, holy, and happy state which, according to the Calvinistic system, commences at death, and is augmented at the resurrection, tends more than a little to promote this virtue. If, brethren, you adopt these views of things, you consider the body as a tabernacle, a temporary habitation; and when this taber- * Letter V. to Mr. Burn. nacle is dissolved by death, you expect a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. Hence it is that you desire to be absent from the body, and present with the Lord. There are seasons in which your views are ex- panded, and your hearts enlarged. At those seasons, espe- cially, the world loses its charms, and you see nothing worth living for, except to serve and glorify God. You have, in a degree, the same feelings which the apostle Paul appears to have possessed when he said, “I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ, which is far better.” “For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.” But Dr. Priestley teaches that the heavenly state shall not commence till the resur- rection. He does not suppose that there is any state of existence, strictly speaking, wherein we shall be absent from the body, and present with the Lord ; for he con- siders the soul as having no existence at all separate from the body. He must, therefore, of necessity be a stranger to any such “strait” as that mentioned by the apostle. If the question were put to him, or to any of his senti- ments, whether they would choose to abide longer in the flesh, (which might be profitable to their connexions,) or immediately depart this life, they would be at no loss what to answer. They could not, in any rational sense, con- sider death as “gain.” It would be impossible for them upon their principles to desire to depart. Conceiving that they come to the possession of heavenly felicity as soon if they die fifty years hence as if they were to die at the present time, they must rather desire to live as long as the course of nature will admit; so long, at least, as life can be considered preferable to non-existence. It would indicate even a mean and unworthy temper of mind, upon their principles, to be in such a strait as Paul de- scribes. It would imply that they were weary of their work, and at a loss whether they should choose a cessation of being, or to be employed in serving God, and in doing good to their fellow creatures. The nature and employments of the heavenly state de- serve also to be considered. If you adopt the Calvinistic view of things, you consider the enjoymentſ and employ- ments of that state in a very different light from that in which Socinian writers represent them. You read in your Bibles that “the Lord will be our everlasting light, and our God our glory ;” that “our life is hid with Christ in God ; ” that “when he shall appear, we shall appear with him in glory;” and that we shall then “be like him ; for we shall see him as he is.” Hence you conclude that a full enjoyment of God, and conformity to him, are the sum of heaven. You read, further, that the bliss in reserve for Christians is “a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory;” that “now we are the sons of God, but it doth not yet appear what we shall be ; ” and hence you naturally conclude that the heavenly state will abundantly surpass all our present conceptions of it. Again, you read that those who shall be found worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, “neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels of God.” Hence you conclude that the employments and enjoyments of that state are altogether spiritual and holy. You read of our knowledge here being “in part ;” but that there we shall “know even as we are known ;” and that the Lamb, “which is in the midst of the throne, shall feed us, and lead us to living fountains of water.” Hence you conclude that we shall not only enjoy greater means of knowledge, which, like a fountain, will flow for ever, and assuage our thirsty souls, but that our minds will be abundantly irradiated, and our hearts enlarged, by the pre- sence of Christ; whose delightful work it will be to open the book, and to loose the seals; to wrifold the mysteries of God; and to conduct own minds amidst their bowndless re- searches. Once more, you read concerning those who shall obtain that world, and the resurrection, that they shall experience “no more death ; ” that they shall “go no more out ;” that the “inheritance ’’ to which they are reserved is “incorruptible,_and fadeth not away ;” and that the weight of glory which we look for is “eternal.” Hence you conclude that the immortality promised to Christians is certain and absolute. + Sermon on the death of Mr. Robinson, pp. 7–22. H 2 100 TENDENCY TO INFIDELITY. These are very important matters, and must have a great influence in attracting your hearts toward heaven. These were the things which caused the patriarchs to live like strangers and pilgrims on the earth, They looked for a habitation, a better country, even a heavenly one. These were the things that made the apostles and primi- tive Christians consider their afflictions as light and mo- mentary. “For this cause,” say they, “we faint not ; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen ; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.” But if you adopt the Socinian view of things, your ideas of the heavenly state, compared with the above, will be miserably flat and cold; and consequently your affections will be more set on things below, and less on things above. Dr. Priestley, in his Sermon on the death of Mr. Robin- son, is not only employed in dissuading people from too much thought and fear about death, but from too much hope respecting the state beyond it. He seems to fear lest we should form too high expectations of heavenly fe- licity, and so meet with a disappointment. The heaven which he there describes does not necessarily include any one of the foregoing ideas, but might exist if they were all excluded ! - Take his own words: “The change of our condition by death may not be so great as we are apt to imagine. As our natures will not be changed, but only improved, we have no reason to think that the future world (which will be adapted to our merely improved nature) will be ma- terially different from this. And, indeed, why should we ask or expect any thing more ? If we should still be obliged to provide for our subsistence by exercise or labour, is that a thing to be complained of by those who are supposed to have acquired fixed habits of industry, becoming rational beings, and who have never been able to bear the languor of absolute rest or indolence 3 Our future happiness has with much reason been supposed to arise from an increase of knowledge. But if we should have nothing more than the means of knowledge furnished us, as we have here, but be left to our own labour to find it out, is that to be complained of by those who will have acquired a love of truth, and a habit of inquiring after it 3 To make discoveries ourselves, though the search may re- quire time and labour, is unspeakably more pleasing than to learn every thing by the information of others. * If the immortality that is promised to us in the gospel should not be necessary and absolute, and we should only have the certain means of making ourselves immortal, we should have much to be thankful for. What the Scrip- tures inform us concerning a future life is expressed in general terms, and often in figurative language. A more particular knowledge of it is wisely concealed from us,” —p. 18. You see, brethren, here is not one word of God, or of Christ, as being the sum and substance of our bliss ; and, except that mention is made of our being free from “im- perfections bodily and mental,” the whole consists of mere natural enjoyments; differing from the paradise of Ma- hometans chiefly in this, that their enjoyments are prin- cipally sensual, whereas these are mostly intellectual : those are adapted to gratify the voluptuary, and these the philosopher. Whether such a heaven will suit a holy mind, or be adapted to draw forth our best affections, judge ye. LETTER XV. on THE RESEMBLANCE BETWEEN SOCINIANISM AND IN- FIDELITY, AND THE TENDENCY OF THE one to the OTHER, I suppose we may take it for granted, at present, that Christianity is favourable to true virtue, and that infidelity is the reverse. If it can be proved, therefore, that So- cinianism resembles infidelity in several of its leading fea- tures, and has a direct tendency towards it, that will be the same as proving it unfavourable to true virtue. It has been observed, and I think justly, that “there is no consistent medium between genuine Christianity and infidelity.” The smallest departure from the one is a step towards the other. There are different degrees of ap- proach, but all move on in the same direction. Socinians, however, are not willing to own that their scheme has any such tendency. Dr. Priestley appears to be more than a little hurt at being represented by the bigots (as he po- litely calls those who think ill of his principles) as under- mining Christianity; and intimates that, by their rigid attachment to certain doctrines, some are forced into in- fidelity, while others are saved from it by his conciliating principles.f. Many things to the same purpose are ad- vanced by Mr. Lindsey, in his “Discourse addressed to the Congregation at the Chapel in Essex Street, Strand, on resigning the Pastoral Office among them.” We are to accommodate our religion, it seems, to the notions and inclinations of infidels ; and then they would condescend to receive it. The principle of accommodation has been already noticed in Letter III. And it has been shown, from the example of the popish missionaries in China, to have no good tendency. To remove every stumbling- block out of the way of infidels would be to annihilate the gospel. Such attempts, also, suppose what is not true—that their not believing in Christianity is owing to some fault in the system, as generally received, and not to the temper of their own minds. Faults there are, no doubt; but if their hearts were right, they would search the Scriptures for themselves, and form their own senti- ments according to the best of their capacity. The near relation of the system of Socinians to that of infidels may be proved from the agreement of their prin- ciples, their prejudices, their spirit, and their success. First, There is an agreement in their LEADING PRIN- CIPLEs. One of the most important principles in the scheme of infidelity, it is well known, is the sufficiency of human reason. This is the great bulwark of the cause, and the main ground on which its advocates proceed in rejecting revelation. If the one, say they, be sufficient, the other is unnecessary. Whether the Socinians do not adopt the same principle, and follow hard after the deists in its application too, we will now inquire. When Mr. Burn charged Dr. Priestley with “making the reason of the individual the sole umpire in matters of faith,” the Doctor denied the charge, and supposed that Mr. Burn must have been “reading the writings of Bolingbroke, Hume, or Voltaire, and have imagined them to be his ;” as if none but professed infidels maintained that principle. This, however, is allowing it to be a principle pertaining to infidelity; and of such importance, it should seem, as to distinguish it from Christianity. If it should prove, therefore, that the same principle occupies a place, yea, and an equally important place, in the Socinian scheme, it will follow that Socinianism and deism must be nearly allied. But Dr. Priestley, as was said, denies the charge; and tells us that he “has written a great deal to prove the insufficiency of human reason: ” he also accuses Mr. Burn of the “grossest and most unfounded calumny,” in charg- ing such a principle upon him.—Letter IV. If what Mr. Burn alleges be “a gross and unfounded * Is not this the rock on which Dr. Priestley and his brethren split 7 Have they not, on this very principle, coined a gospel of their own, instead of receiving the instructions of the sacred writers ? + Here the late Mr. Robinson, of Cambridge, is brought in as an ex- ample; who, as some think in an excess of complaisance, told the Doctor, in a private letter, that, “but for his friendly aid, he feared he should have gone from enthusiasm to deism.” Letters to Mr. Burn, Pref. To say nothing, whether the use Dr. Priestley made of this private letter was warrantable, and whether it would not have been full as modest to have forborne to publish to the world so high a com- pliment on himself; supposing not only the thing itself to have been strictly true, but that the conduct of Dr. Priestley was as strictly proper, what does it prove . Nothing, except that the region of So- cinianism is so near to that of deism, that, now and then, an indi- vidual, who was on the high road to the one, has stopped short, and taken up with the other. TENDENCY TO INFIDELITY. 101 calumny,” it is rather extraordinary that such a number of respectable writers should have suggested the same thing. I suppose there has been scarcely a writer of any note among us, but who, if this be calumny, has calumniated the Socinians. If there be any credit due to Trinitarian authors, they certainly have hitherto understood matters in a different light from that in which they are here repre- sented. They have supposed, whether rightly or not, that their opponents, in general, do hold the very principle which Dr. Priestley so strongly disavows. But this is not all. If what Mr. Burn alleges be a gross and unfounded calumny, it is still more extraordinary that Socinian writers should calumniate themselves. Mr. Robinson, whom Dr. Priestley glories in as his convert, affirms much the same thing; and that in his “ History of Baptism,” a work published after he had adopted the Socinian system. In answering an objection brought against the Baptists, as being enthusiasts, he asks, “Were Castelio, and Servetus, Socinus, and Crellius enthusiasts? On the contrary, they are taxed with attributing too much to reason, AND THE SUFFICIENCY of REAsoN Is THE soul OF THEIR SYSTEM,”—p. 47. If the last member of this sentence be true, and Dr. Priestley have maintained the same principle as much as any of his predecessors, then is what Mr. Burn alleges true also, and no calumny. Fur- ther, If Mr. Robinson’s words be true, the system of a Socinus, and of a Bolingbroke, however they may differ in some particulars, cannot be very wide asunder. They may be two bodies; but the difference cannot be very ma- terial, so long as those bodies are inhabited by one soul. But was not Mr. Robinson mistaken 3 Has he not in- advertently granted that which ought not in justice to have been granted ? Suppose this to be a fact, why might not the same construction have been put upon what is alleged by Mr. Burn and other Trinitarian writers, instead of calling it by the hard name of “gross and unfounded calumny ?” . If we say no worse of our opponents than they say of themselves, they can have no just grounds of complaint; at least they should complain with less severity. Further, If Mr. Robinson was mistaken, and if Dr. Priestley do really, maintain the insufficiency of human Yeason in matters of religion, it will follow, after all that he has pleaded in behalf of reason, that he is no better friend to it than other people. The Doctor often reminds his Calvinistic opponents of an old saying, that “No man is against reason, till reason is against him.” Old sayings, to be sure, prove much in argument. This old saying, however, is very just, provided the term reason be under- stood of the real fitness of things. Dr. Priestley's oppo- nents are not against reason in this sense of the word; but against setting up the reason of the individual as um- pire in matters of faith ; and this we see is no more than the Doctor himself disavows, in that he supposes a prin- ciple of this kind is no where to be found, except in such writings as those of Bolingbroke, of Hume, or of Voltaire. He tells us that he has “written much to prove the in- sufficiency of human reason, and the necessity of Divine revelation.” He is then professedly against reason in the same sense as his opponents are, and the deists might remind him of his “old saying” with as much propriety as he reminds other people of it. Once more, If Mr. Robinson was mistaken, and if his concession be beyond the bounds of justice and propriety, it will follow that, notwithstanding what Dr. Priestley has said of saving him from infidelity, he was not saved from it after all. Whether Mr. Robinson's words convey a just idea of Socinianism or not, they must be allowed to express what were his own ideas of it. Whatever, there- fore, Dr. Priestley believes, he appears to have believed in the sufficiency of reason. But if none besides infidels maintain that principle, it must follow that Dr. Priestley's glorying in Mr. Robinson is vain; and that the latter, so far from justifying the Doctor's boast of having saved him from infidelity, was not saved from it at all, but was the disciple of a Bolingbroke, of a Hume, or of a Voltaire, rather than of a Priestley. But, after all, was Mr. Robinson indeed mistaken 3 Is not “the sufficiency of reason the soul of the Socinian system " It is true, Socinians do not openly plead, as do the deists, that reason is so sufficient as that revelation is unnecessary; nor is it supposed that Mr. Robinson meant to acknowledge that they did. But do they not constantly advance what amounts to the same thing? I do not know what publications Dr. Priestley refers to when he speaks of having written a great deal to prove the “ insufficiency of human reason, and the necessity of Divine revelation;” but if it be upon the same principles as those which he avows in his other productions, I do not see how he can have proved his point. According to these principles, the sacred writers were as liable to err as other men, and in some instances actually did err, pro- ducing “lame accounts, improper quotations, and incon- clusive reasonings;” and it is the province of reason, not only to judge of their credentials, but of the particular doctrines which they advance.—Let. XII. Now this is not only “making the reason of the individual the sole umpire in matters of faith,” but virtually rendering reve- lation unnecessary. If the reason of the individual is to sit supreme judge, and insist that every doctrine which revelation proposes shall approve itself to its dictates or be rejected, the necessity of the latter might as well be totally denied. If it be necessary, however, it is no otherwise than as a French parliament used to be necessary to a French king; not in order to dictate to his Majesty, but to afford a sanction to his resolutions; or, at most, to tender him a little advice, in order to assist him in form- ing his judgment; which advice, notwithstanding, he might receive or reject, as best suited his inclination. Dr. Priestley often suggests that he makes no other use of human reason than all protestants make against the papists, when pleading against the doctrine of transub- stantiation ; that is, where the literal sense of a text in- volves an absurdity, he so far allows the dictates of reason as to understand it figuratively. But this is not the case; for the question here does not at all respect the meaning of Scripture, whether it should be understood literally or figuratively; but whether its allowed meaning ought to be accepted as truth, any further than it corresponds with our preconceived notions of what is reason. According to the principles and charges above cited, it ought not ; and this is not only summoning revelation to the bar of our own understandings, but actually passing sentence against it. The near affinity of Socinianism to deism is so manifest, that it is in vain to disown it. Nobody supposes them to be entirely the same. One acknowledges Christ to be a true prophet, the other considers him as an impostor; but the denial of the proper inspiration of the Scriptures, with the receiving of some part of them as true, and the reject- ing of other parts, even of the same books, “as lame ac- counts, improper quotations, and inconclusive reasonings,” naturally lead to deism. Deists themselves do not so re- ject the Bible as to disbelieve every historical event which is there recorded. They would not deny, I suppose, that there were such characters in the world as Abraham, Mo- ses, and Jesus; and that some things which are written concerning each are true. In short, they take what they like best, as they would from any other ancient history, and reject the rest : and what does Dr. Priestley even pretend to more ? He does not reject so much as a deist; he admits various articles which the other denies: but the difference is only in de- gree. The relation between the first and leading prin- ciples of their respective systems is so near, that one spirit may be said to pervade them both ; or, to use the imagery of Mr. Robinson, one soul inhabits these different bodies. The opposition between faith and unbelief is so great, in the Scriptures, that no less than salvation is promised to the one, and damnation threatened to the other ; but if they were no further asunder than Socinianism and de- ism, it is passing strange that their consequences should be so widely different. - Another leading principle, common to Socinians and deists, is the non-importance of principle itself, in order to the enjoyment of the Divine favour. Nothing is more common than for professed infidels to exclaim against Christianity, on account of its rendering the belief of the gospel necessary to salvation. Lord Shaftesbury insinuates that the heathen magistrates, in the first ages of Chris- tianity, might have been justly offended “with a notion which treated them, and all men, as profane, impious, and 102 TENI) ENCY TO INFIDELITY. damned, who entered not into particular modes of worship, of which there had been formerly so many thousand kinds instituted, all of them compatible and sociable till that time.” “ To the same purpose is what Mr. Paine ad- vances, who, I imagine, would make no pretence of friend- ship towards Christianity. “If we suppose a large family of children,” says he, “who on any particular day, or particular circumstance, made it a custom to present to their parents some token of their affection and gratitude, each of them would make a different offering, and, most probably, in a different manner. Some would pay their congratulations in themes, of verse or prose, by some little devices as their genius dictated, or according to what they thought would please; and perhaps the least of all, not able to do any of those things, would ramble into the gar- den or the field, and gather what it thought the prettiest flower it could find, though, perhaps, it might be but a simple weed. The parent would be more gratified by such a variety than if the whole of them had acted on a concerted plan, and each had made exactly the same offer- ing.”f And this he applies, not merely to the diversified modes of worshipping God which come within the limits of the Divine command, but to the various ways in which mankind have in all ages and nations worshipped, or pre- tended to worship, a Deity. The sentiment which this writer, and all others of his stamp, wish to propagate is, that, in all modes of religion, men may be very sincere; and that, in being so, all are alike acceptable to God. This is infidelity undisguised. Yet this is no more than Dr. Priestley has advanced in his Differences in Religious Opinions. “If we can be so happy,” he says, “as to be- lieve that all differences in modes of worship may be only the different methods by which different men (who are equally the offspring of God) are endeavouring to honour and obey their common Parent, our differences of opinion would have no tendency to lessen our mutual love and esteem.”—Sect. II. Nor is Dr. Priestley the only writer of the party who unites with the author of The Age of Reason, in main- taining that it matters not what religion we are of, if we be but sincere in it. Dr. Toulmin has laboured to defend this notion, and to prove from Acts x. 34, 35, and Rom. ii. 6, 10, 12, that it was maintained by Peter and Paul.; But before he had pretended to palm it upon them, he should have made it evident that Cornelius, when he “feared God and worked righteousness,” and those Gen- tiles, when they are supposed to have “worked good,” and to be heirs of “glory, honour, and peace,” were each of them actually living in idolatry; and being sincere, that God was well pleased with it. It is no part of the ques- tion whether heathens may be saved; but whether they may be saved in their heathemism ; and whether heathen- ism and Christianity be only different modes of worshipping our common Father, and alike acceptable to him. Several other principles might be mentioned, in which Socinians and deists are agreed, and in which the same objections that are made by the one against Calvinism are made by the other against the Holy Scriptures. Do So- cinians reject the Calvinistic system because it represents God as a vindictive being 3 For the same reason, the Scriptures themselves are rejected by the deists. Are the former offended with Calvinism on account of the doc- trines of atonement and Divine sovereignty ? The latter are equally offended with the Bible for the same reasons. They know very well that these doctrines are contained in the Scriptures; but they dislike them, and reject the Scriptures partly on account of them. The sufficiency of repentalice to secure the Divine favour, the evil of sin consisting merely in its tendency to injure the creature, all punishment being for the good of the offender as well as for the public good, with various other principles which are opposed in these Letters in defence of Calvinism, are the same things for substance which those who have writ- ten against the deists have had to encounter, when defend- ing revelation. It is a consolation to us to trace these likenesses; as it affords a presumption that our senti- ments accord with the Scriptures, being liable to the same objections. Socinian writers not only make the same objections to Calvinism which deists make to revelation, but, in some instances, have so far forgotten themselves, as to unite with the latter in pointing their objections against revela- tion itself. Steinbart and Semler (as quoted in Letter XII.) have fallen foul upon the writers of the Old and New Testament. “Moses,” says the former, “according to the childish conceptions of the Jews in his days, paints God as agitated by violent affections; partial to one people, and hating all other nations.” “Peter,” says the latter, 2 Epistle i. 21, “speaks according to the conception of the Jews ; and the prophets may have delivered the off- spring of their own brains as Divine revelations.”| The infidelity of Socinians is frequently covered with a very thin disguise; but here the veil is entirely thrown off. One thing, however, is sufficiently evident; while they vent their antipathy against the Holy Scriptures, in such inde- cent language, they betray a consciousness that the con- tents of that sacred volume are against them. The likeness of Socinianism to deism will further appear, if we consider, Secondly, The similarity of their PREJUDICEs. The peculiar prejudices of deists are drawn, I think, with great justness, by Dr. Priestley himself. “There is no class or description of men,” he observes, “but what are subject to peculiar prejudices; and every prejudice must operate as an obstacle to the reception of some truth. It is in vain for unbelievers to pretend to be free from pre- judices. They may, indeed, be free from those of the vulgar; but they have others, peculiar to themselves : and the very affectation of being free from vulgar prejudices, and of being wiser than the rest of mankind, must indis- pose them to the admission even of truth, if it should hap- pen to be with the common people. The suspicion that the faith of the vulgar is superstitious and false is, no doubt, often well-founded ; because they, of course, main- tain the oldest opinions, while the speculative part of man- kind are making new discoveries in science. Yet we often find that they who pride themselves on their being the furthest removed from superstition in some things are the greatest dupes to it in others ; and it is not universally true that all old opinions are false, and all new ones well- founded. An aversion to the creed of the vulgar may, therefore, mislead a man ; and, from a fondness for sin- gularity, he may be singularly in the wrong.”" Let those who are best acquainted with Socinians judge whether this address, with a very few alterations, be not equally adapted to them and to professed unbelievers. We know who they are, besides avowed infidels, who affect to be “emancipated from vulgar prejudices and popular super- stitions, and to embrace a rational system of faith.”** It is very common with Socinian writers, as much as it is with deists, to value themselves on being wiser than the rest of mankind, and to despise the judgment of plain Christians, as being the judgment of the vulgar and the populace. It is true Dr. Priestley has addressed Letters to the common people at Birmingham, and has complimented them with being “capable of judging in matters of religion and government.” However, it is no great compliment to Christians in general, of that description, to suppose, as he frequently does, not only that the Trinitarian system, but that every other, was the invention of learned men in dif- ferent ages, and that the vulgar have always been led by their influence. “The creed of the vulgar of the present day,” he observes, “is to be considered not so much as their creed, for they were not the inventors of it, as that of the thinking and inquisitive in some former period. For those whom we distinguish by the appellation of the vul- gar are not those who introduce any new opinions, but those who receive them from others, of whose judgment they have been led to think highly.”ff. On this principle, Dr. Priestley some where expresses his persuasion of the future prevalence of Unitarianism. He grants that, at present, the body of common Christians are against it; but as the learned and the speculative are verging towards * Characteristics, Vol. I. § 3. + Rights of Man, Part II., near the conclusion. # Practical Efficacy, pp. 164, 165, 2 Ed. . . See Leland's Def. Christ, against Tindall, Vol. I. Chap. IV. VI. VIII. | Dr. jºine's Sketches and Hints of Church History, No. III. pp. 65–71. T Let. Phil. Unb. P. II. Let. W. ** Mr. Belsham's Sermon, pp.4.32. # Let. Phil. Umb. P. II. Let, V. TENDENCY TO INFIDELITY. 103 it, he supposes the other will, in time, follow them. What is this but supposing them incapable of forming religious sentiments for themselves; as if the Bible were to them a sealed book, and they had only to believe the system that happened to be in fashion, or rather, to have been in fashion some years before they were born, and to dance after the pipe of learned men 3 It is acknowledged that, in matters of human science, common people, having no standard to judge by, are gener- ally led by the learned ; but surely it is somewhat differ- ent in religion, where we have a standard ; and one, too, that is adapted to the understanding of the simple. How- ever many people may be led implicitly by others, yet there will always be a number of plain, intelligent, serious "Christians who will read the Bible, and judge for them- selves ; and Christians of this description will always have a much greater influence, even upon those who do not judge for themselves, than mere speculative men, whom the most ignorant cannot but perceive to be want- ing in serious religion, and respect to mankind; and while this is the case, there is no great danger of the body of common Christians becoming Socinians. Thirdly, There is a BoID, PROFANE, AND DARING SPIRIT discovered in the writings of infidels; a spirit that fears not to speak of sacred things with the most indecent free- dom. They love to speak of Christ with a sneer, calling him the carpenter’s son, the Galilean, or some such name, which, in their manner of expressing it, conveys an idea of contempt. Though Socinians do not go such lengths as these, yet they follow hard after them in their profane and daring manner of speaking. Were it proper to refer to the speeches of private individuals, language might be produced very little inferior in contempt to any of the foregoing modes of expression; and even some of those who have appeared as authors have discovered a similar temper. Besides the examples of Engedin, Gagneius, Steinbart, and Semler, (as quoted in Letter XII.,) the magnanimity which has been ascribed to Dr. Priestley, for censuring the Mosaic narrative of the fall of man, calling it “a LAME account,” is an instance of the same irreverent spirit. Fourthly, The alliance of Socinianism to deism may be inferred from this, That the success of the one bears a proportion to that of the other, and resembles it in the most essential points. Socinians are continually boasting of their success, and of the great increase of their numbers; so also are the deists, and I suppose with equal reason. . The number of the latter has certainly increased in the present century, in as great a proportion as the former, if not greater. The truth is, a spirit of infidelity is the main temptation of the present age, as a persecuting su- perstition was of ages past. This spirit has long gone forth into the world. In different denominations of men it exists in different degrees, and appears to be permitted to try them that dwell upon the earth. Great multitudes are carried away with it; and no wonder, for it disguises itself under a variety of specious names; such as liberality, candour, and charity ; by which it imposes upon the un- wary. It flatters human pride, calls evil propensity nature, and gives loose to its dictates; and, in proportion as it prevails in the judgments as well as in the hearts of men, it serves to abate the fear of death and judgment, and so makes them more cheerful than they otherwise would be. It is also worthy of notice, that the success of Socinian- ism and deism has been among the same sort of people ; namely, men of a speculative turn of mind. Dr. Priestley some where observes, that “ learned men begin more and more to suspect the doctrine of the Trinity;” and possibly it may be so. But then it might, with equal truth, be affirmed that learned men begin more and more to suspect Christianity. Dr. Priestley himself acknowledges that, “among those who are called philosophers, the unbelievers are the crowd.” # It is true he flatters himself that their numbers will diminish, and that “the evidences of Chris- tianity will meet with a more impartial examination in the present day than they have done in the last fifty years.” But this is mere conjecture, such as has no foundation in * Let. Phil. Unb. Vol. II. p. 32. + Ibid. Pref, p. ix. fact. We may as well flatter ourselves that Socinians will diminish : there is equal reason for the one as for the other. It is not impossible that the number of both may be diminished in some future time, but when that time shall come it is not for us to say. It may be suggested, that it is a circumstance not much in favour, either of the doctrine of the Trinity, or of Christianity, that such a number of philosophers and learned men suspect them. But, unfavourable as this circumstance may appear to some, there are others who view it in a very different light. The late Mr. Robinson, of Cambridge, always contended that common Christians were in a more favourable state for the discovery of re- ligious truth than either the rich or the learned. And Dr. Priestley not only admits, but accounts for it. “Learned men,” he says, “ have prejudices peculiar to themselves; and the very affectation of being free from vulgar preju- dices, and of being wiser than the rest of mankind, must indispose them to the admission even of truth, if it should happen to be with the common people.” If “not many wise men after the flesh” are found among the friends of Christianity, or of what we account its peculiar doctrines, is it any other than what might have been alleged against the primitive church 3 The things of God, in their times, were “hid from the wise and prudent, and revealed unto babes,” and that “because it seemed good in his sight.” It is further worthy of notice, that the same disregard of religion in general, which is allowed by our opponents to be favourable to Socinianism, is equally favourable to deism. Dr. Priestley describes unbelievers of a certain age amongst us, as “having heard Christianity from their infancy, as having, in general, believed it for some time, and as not coming to disbelieve it till they had long disre- garded it.” f A disregard of Christianity, then, preceded their openly rejecting it, and embracing the scheme of infidelity. Now this is the very process of a great number of Socinian converts, as both the Doctor and Mr. Belsham elsewhere acknowledge. It is by a disregard of all religion that men become infidels; and it is by the same means that others become Socinians. The foregoing observations may suffice to show the re- semblance of Socinianism to deism. It remains for me to consider the tendency of the one to the other. Dr. Priestley seems to admit that his scheme approaches nearer to that of unbelievers than ours; but then he dis- owns its having any tendency, on that account, to lead men to infidelity. On the contrary, he retorts the charge upon his opponents, and asserts his own scheme to have an opposite effect. “An enemy as I am considered to Christianity, by some,” says he, “I have saved many from that infidelity into which the bigots are forcing them.” The case of the late Mr. Robinson is here introduced as an example to confirm this assertion. The reasoning of Dr. Priestley, on this subject, resembles that of Archbishop Laud on another. When accused of leaning to popery, he denied the charge, and gave in a list of twenty-one persons, whom he had not merely saved from going over to that religion, but actually converted from it to the protestant faith... Yet few thinking people imagine the principles of Laud to have been very unfriendly to popery, much less that they were adapted to save men from it. That Socinianism has a direct tendency to deism will appear from the following considerations:—First, By giving up the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, and allowing them to be the production of fallible men, (of men who, though too honest knowingly to impose upon others, were, notwithstanding, so far under the influence of inattention, of prejudice, and of misinformation, as to be capable of being imposed upon themselves,) Socimians furnish infidels with a handle for rejecting them. To give up the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures is to give them up as the word of God, and as binding woon the con- sciences of men ; to which our opponents apparently have no objection. They are seldom, if ever, known to warn mankind that the rejection of the Holy Scriptures will endanger their eternal welfare. Nor can they do so consistently with what they elsewhere plead for, that “all differences in modes of worship may be only different # Neale’s History of the Puritans, Vol. III. Index, Art. Laud. 104 TENDENCY TO INFIDELITY. modes of endeavouring to honour and obey our common Parent.” Under the pretext of appealing to the reason of unbelievers, they neglect to address themselves to their hearts and consciences. If the cause of infidelity lie in the want of evidence, or if those who leaned towards it were ingenuous and disinterested inquirers after truth, solemn warnings might be the less necessary. But if it lie in the temper of their hearts, which blinds their minds to the most convincing proofs, their hearts and consciences must be addressed as well as their understandings. The sacred writers and preachers always proceeded upon this principle. This only will account for such language as the following: “ The blindness of their heart.”—“Lest they should understand with their heart, and be convert- ed.”—“ Repent, and believe the gospel.”—“If God, per- adventure, will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.” This was the method of John the Baptist, of Christ and his apostles, in their addresses to unbeliev- ers; and whatever addresses are made to infidels, whether Jews or deists, in which the sin of unbelief, and the danger of persisting in it, are not insisted on, they will tend to harden them in infidelity rather than to recover them out of it. Dr. Priestley, in effect, acknowledges that the cause of infidelity lies in the temper of the heart; and yet, when he addresses himself to infidels, he seems to consider them as merely in want of evidence, and fosters in them an idea of their security, notwithstanding their rejection of the gospel. This is manifestly the tendency of his Letters to the Philosophers and Politicians of France. Dr. Priestley acknowledges that men seldom reject Christianity in theory till they have long disregarded it in practice ; * that is, they seldom believe it to be false without their hearts being fully inclined to have it so. Let us then consider a character of this description, in his examination of Christianity. He has long disregarded the practice of it, and begins now to hesitate about its truth. If he reads a defence of it upon our principles, he finds the authority of Heaven vindicated, his own sceptical spirit condemned, and is warned that he fall not upon a rock that will prove his eternal ruin. He throws it aside in resentment, calls the writer a bigot, and considers the warning given him as an insult to his dignity. Still, how- ever, there is a sting left behind, which he knows not how to extract; a something which says within him, How, if it should be true 2 He takes up a defence of Christianity upon Socinian principles; suppose Dr. Priestley's Letters to the Philosophers and Politicians of France. He is now brought to a better humour. Here is no threatening, no imminent danger. The sting is extracted. The reasoning in many parts is plausible ; but having long wished to disbelieve Christianity, it makes little or no impression upon him, especially as it seems to be of no great conse- quence if he do so. It is only rejecting that entirely which professed Christians reject in part. It is only throw- ing off the testimony and opinions of fallible men. What will be his next step is not very difficult to conjecture. By allowing part of the Gospels to be spurious, Socinian writers enable the Jews to ask, with an air of triumph, “How are we sure that the remainder is authentic?”f We are often told that the Jews can never embrace what is called orthodox Christianity, because of its inconsistency with one of the first principles of their religion, the wºn’ty of God. We do not ask them, however, to give up the unity of God. . On the contrary, we are fully persuaded that our principles are entirely consistent with it. But this is more than our opponents can say with regard to the inspiration of the Scriptures; a principle as sacred and as important with the Jews as the unity of God itself. Were they to embrace Dr. Priestley's notions of Christianity, they must give up this principle, and consider their own sacred writings in a much meaner light than they at pre- sent do. They have no conception of the Old Testament being a mere “authentic history of past transactions;” but profess to receive it as the very word of God, the in- fallible rule of faith and practice. Whenever they shall receive the New Testament, there is reason to conclude it will be under the same character, and for the same pur- poses, While they consider their own Scriptures as Di- * Let. Phil. Unb. Vol. II. Preface, p. ix. + Mr. D. Levi’s Letters to Dr. Priestley, p. 82. vinely inspired, and hear professed Christians acknowledge that “part of their Gospels is spurious,” they will be tempted to look down upon Christianity with scorn, and so be hardened in their infidelity. º Secondly, If the sacred writings be not received for the purposes for which they were professedly given, and for which they were actually appealed to by Christ and his apostles, they are in effect rejected; and those who pre- tend to embrace them for other purposes will themselves be found to have passed the boundaries of Christianity, and to be walking in the paths of infidelity. We have seen, in Letter XII., that the Scriptures profess to be the word of God, and the rule of faith and practice. Now if any man believe in revelation, he must receive it as being what it professes to be, and for all the purposes for which it professes to have been written. The Monthly Review suggests that “the Scriptures were never designed to set- tle disputed theories, and to decide speculative, contro- verted questions, even in religion and morality.”f But if so, what must we think of their assuming to be the rule of faith and practice 3 what must we think of Christ and his apostles, who appealed to them for the truth of their doctrines, and the goodness of their precepts On the principles of our opponents, they must have been either weak or wicked. If they considered them as the standard of faith and practice, they must have been weak; if they did not, and yet appealed to them as a decisive test, they were certainly wicked. In either case their testimony is unworthy of regard, to suppose which is downright infi- delity. Thirdly, By the degrading notions which Socinians en- tertain of the person of Christ, they do what in them lies to lessen the sin of rejecting him, and afford the adversaries of the gospel a ground for accusing him of presumption, which must necessarily harden them in unbelief. The Jews consider their nation, according to the sentiments of orthodox Christians, as lying under the charge “of crucify- ing the Lord and Saviour of the world ;” but, according to those of Dr. Priestley, as “only having crucified a pro- phet, that was sent to them in the first instance.” Such a consideration diminishes the degree of their guilt, tends to render them more indifferent, and consequently must harden them in infidelity. By considering our Lord as merely a prophet, Socinians also furnish the Jews with the charge of presumption ; a weighty objection indeed against his Messiahship ! “ He preached himself,” says Mr. Levi, “ as the light of the world, which is an instance not to be paralleled in Scripture; for the duty of a prophet consisted in his delivery of God’s word or message to the people, not in presumptuously preaching himself. Again, we meet with the same example in John xiv. 6, where Jesus preaches himself, as the way, the truth, and the life.” From all which he concludes, “ it is manifest that he was not sent by God to us as a prophet, seeing he was so deficient in the essential character of a prophet.”| How Dr. Priestley, upon his principles, will be able to answer this reasoning, I cannot tell. Though he has written a reply to Mr. Levi, I observe he has passed over this part of the subject very lightly, offering nothing that sufficiently ac- counts for our Lord’s preaching himself as “ the light of the world,—the way, the truth, and the life,” upon the supposition of his being merely a prophet. Fourthly, The progress which Socinianism has made has generally been towards infidelity. The ancient Socinians, though they went great lengths, are, nevertheless, far out- done by the moderns. If we look over the Racovian Cate- chism, printed at Amsterdam in 1652, we shall find such sentiments as the following:—“No suspicion can possibly creep into the mind concerning those authors, (the sacred writers,) as if they had not had exact cognizance of the things which they described, in that some of them were eye and ear witnesses of the things which they set down, and the others were fully and accurately informed by them concerning the same. It is altogether incredible that God, whose goodness and providence are immense, hath suffered those writings wherein he hath proposed his will, and the way to eternal life, and which, through the suc- cession of so many ages, have, by all the godly, been re- # Monthly Review Enlarged, Vol. X. p. 357. * Levi’s Letters to Priestley, p. 14. | Ibid. p. 24. TENIDENCY TO INFIDELITY. 105 ceived and approved as such, to be any ways corrupted,” —p. 3. I need not go about to prove that these senti- ments are betrayed into the hands of infidels by modern Socinians. Dr. Priestley (as we have seen in Letter XII.) supposes the sacred writers to have written upon subjects “to which they had not given much attention, and con- cerning which they had not the means of exac informa- tion,” and in such cases considers himself at liberty to disregard their productions. Instead of maintaining that the sacred writings cannot have been corrupted, modern Socinians are continually labouring to prove that they Q?"6 SO, Some, who are better acquainted with Socinians and déists than I profess to be, have observed that it is very common for those who go over to infidelity to pass through Socinianism in their way. If this be the case, it is no more than may be expected, according to the natural course of things. It is not common, I believe, for persons who go over to Socinianism to go directly from Calvinism, but through one or other of the different stages of Arminian- ism, or Arianism, or both. Dr. Priestley was once, as he himself informs us, “a Calvinist, and that of the straitest sect. Afterwards,” he adds, “he became a High Arian, next a Low Arian, and then a Socinian, and then, in a little time, a Socinian of the lowest kind, in which Christ is considered as a mere man, the son of Joseph and Mary, and naturally as fallible and peccable as Moses, or any other prophet; ” to which he might have added—and in which the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures is given up.” The Doctor also informs us that he “does not know when his creed will be fixed.”f And yet he tells us, in his volume of Sermons, (page 95,) that “Unitarians are not apt to entertain any doubt of the truth, of their princi- ples.” But this, I suppose, is to be understood of their principles only in one point of view ; namely, as they are opposed to what is commonly called orthodoxy; for as they are opposed to infidelity, they are apt to entertain doubts concerning them, as much and perhaps more than any other men; and, in that line of improvement, to hold themselves open to the reception of greater and greater illuminations. It is in this direction that Dr. Priestley has generally moved hitherto ; and should he, before he fixes his creed, go one degree further, is there any doubt where that degree will land him 3 Should it be upon the shores of downright infidelity, it can afford no greater matter of surprise to the Christian world than that of an Arian becoming a Socinian, or a deist an atheist. By the following extract from a letter which I received from a gentleman of candour and veracity, and extensive acquaintance in the literary world, it appears that several of the most eminent characters amongst professed unbe- lievers in the present age were but a few years ago in the scheme of Socinus: “I think I may say, without exagger- ation, that, of my acquaintance, the greater part of literary men who have become Unitarians are either sceptics, or strongly tending that way. I could instance in y 3. 3. 2 3. , and many others. About four months ago I had a pretty long conversation with one of the above gentlemen (as intelligent a man as any I know) on this subject. He reminded me of a conversation that had passed betwixt us about a year and a half before, in which I had observed there was a near affinity between Unitarianism and deism, and told me he was then rather surprised I should suppose so, but that now ne was com- pletely of that opinion; and that, from very extensive ob- servations, there was nothing he was more certain of than that the one led to the other. He remarked how much Dr. Priestley was mistaken in supposing he could, by cashiering orthodoxy, form what he called rational Christians ; for that, after following him thus far, they would be almost sure to carry their speculations to a still greater extent. All the professed unbelievers I have met with rejoice in the spread of Unitarianism as favourable to their views.” Christian brethren, permit me to request that the sub- ject may be seriously considered. Whether the foregoing positions be sufficiently proved, it becomes not me to de- cide. A reflection or two, however, may be offered, upon * Let. Phil. Unb. Part II. pp. 33–35. + Def, Unit. 1787, p. 111. H # the supposition that they are so; and with these I shall conclude. - First, If that system which embraces the Deity and atonement of Christ, with other correspondent doctrines, be friendly to a life of sobriety, righteousness, and god- liness, it must be of God, and it becomes us to abide by it, not because it is the doctrine of Calvin or of any other man that was uninspired, but as being “the gospel which we have received” from Christ and his apostles; “wherein we stand, and by which we are saved.” Secondly, If that system of religion which rejects the Deity and atonement of Christ, with other correspondent doctrines, be unfriendly to the conversion of sinners to a life of holiness, and of professed unbelievers to faith in Christ; if it be a system which irreligious men are the first and serious Christians the last to embrace ; if it be found to relax the obligations to virtuous affection and behaviour, by relaxing the great standard of virtue itself; if it pro- mote neither love to God under his true character, nor benevolence to men as it is exemplified in the spirit of Christ and his apostles ; if it lead those who embrace it to be wise in their own eyes, and instead of humbly depre- cating God’s righteous displeasure, even in their dying moments, arrogantly to challenge his justice; if the charity which it inculcates be founded in an indifference to Divine truth; if it be inconsistent with ardent love to Christ, and veneration for the Holy Scriptures; if the happiness which it promotes be at variance with the joys of the gospel; and, finally, if it diminish the motives to gratitude, obedience, and heavenly-mindedness, and have a natural tendency to infidelity; it must be an immoral system, and conse- quently not of God. It is not the gospel of Christ, but “ another gospel.” Those who preach it preach another Jesus, whom the apostles did not preach ; and those who receive it receive another spirit, which they never imbibed. It is not the light which cometh from above, but a cloud of darkness that hath arisen from beneath, tending to eclipse it. It is not the highway of truth, which is a way of holiness; but a by-path of error, which misleads the unwary traveller, and of which, as we value our immortal interests, it becomes us to beware. We need not be afraid of evidence, or of free inquiry; for if irreligious men be the first, and serious Christians be the last, who embrace the So- cinian system, it is easy to perceive that the avenues which lead to it are not, as its abettors would persuade you to think, an openness to conviction, or a free and impartial inquiry after truth, but a heart secretly disaffected to the true character and government of God, and dissatisfied with the gospel way of salvation. I am, Christian Brethren, Respectfully and affectionately yours, ANDREW FULLER. POSTSCRIPT. ON the first appearance of the foregoing Letters, in 1793, some of the most respectable characters amongst the So- cinians, and who have since affected to treat them with contempt, acknowledged that they were “well worthy of their attention.” No answer, however, appeared to them till 1796, when Dr. Toulmin published his Practical Eff- cacy of the Unitarian Doctrine, and Mr. Kentish his ser- mon on The Moral Tendency of the Genwine Christian, Doctrine. To these publications a reply was written in 1797, entitled Socinianism Indefensible on the Ground of its Moral Tendency. Mr. Kentish wrote again, and Dr. Toulmin has lately published a second edition of his piece, with large additions. I had no inclination to add any thing in reply to Mr. Kentish, being well satisfied that the public should judge from the evidence that was before them. And as to Dr. Toulmin, his second edition is, like his first, full of irrelative matter. Having been charged with shifting the ground of the argument, and begging the question, this writer labours to persuade his readers that he has done neither. “He did not intend,” he says, “nor profess, to give a full and 106 POSTSCRIPT. minute answer to Mr. Fuller's tract. He meant not 7much more than to take an occasion from that publication to bring the general question, namely, the practical efficacy of the Unitarian doctrine, to the test of Scriptural facts,” —p. 133. This is acknowledging that, if he had professed to give a proper answer to the work, he would have been obliged by the laws of just reasoning to keep to the ground of his opponent. But intending only to write a piece that should bear some allusion to it, he considered himself at liberty to choose his own ground. But if this were his intention, why did he profess, at his outset, to “enter the lists” with me, and to comprehend in his performance “the main point to which a reply to my Letters need be directed 3” If this be not professing to answer a work, nothing is. The design of Dr. Toulmin seems to have been very complex, and his account of it has much the appearance of evasion. He did not intend to give a full and minute answer: Did he mean to give any answer; or only to write a piece which might pass for an answer? He meant not much more than thus and thus : Did he mean any more ? If he did, he ought to have kept to the proper ground of reasoning ; or if he thought it unfair, to have proved it so. But he had a right, he says, to choose the ground of his argument as well as I. Doubtless, if he had chosen to write upon any subject without professing to answer another, or wishing his performance to pass for an answer, he had ; but if, at the outset, he propose to “enter the lists’’ with an opponent, and to comprehend “all that to which a reply to his performance need be directed,” it is other- wise. If a Christian divine wish to write in favour of Christianity, he is at liberty to choose his ground. He may fix, as Bishop Newton has, on the argument from prophecy. But if a deist come after him, professing to “enter the lists” with him, and to comprehend in his performance “all that to which a reply to the work of his opponent need be directed,” he is obliged, by the rules of just reasoning, either to examine the arguments of his adversary, or attempt to overturn the principle on which they rest. If, instead of trying the truth of the Christian religion by the fulfilment of prophecy, he were to fill up his pages by arguing on the improbability of miracles, or the sufficiency of the light of nature, what would Dr. Toulmin say to him 3 And if, in order to excuse himself, he should allege that he did not intend nor profess to give a full and minute answer to his antagonist—that he meant not much more than to take an occasion from his public- ation to bring forward the general question between Christians and deists on the necessity of a Divine revela- tion—might he not better have held his peace Must not judicious persons, even amongst his friends, clearly perceive that he has betrayed the cause ; and, whether they choose to acknowledge it or not, be fully convinced that, if he did not wish to answer the work, he should have let it alone ; or if the ground of argument were unfair, he should have proved it so, and not have set up another which had no relation to it? Thus it is that Dr. Toulmin has shifted the ground of the argument ; and what is that ground to which he gives the preference 3. He wished, it seems, to try “the practical efficacy of the Unitarian doctrine by the test of Scriptural facts.” . Are those facts, them, a proper medium for such a trial? I have been used to think that every tree was to be tried by its own fruits, and not by those of another. Scriptural facts, such as those which Dr. Toulmin alleges, afford a proper test of the practical efficacy of Scripture doctrines; and if brought against the cause of infidelity, would be in point. But there is no question in this case whether Scripture truth be of a practical nature, but wherein it consists 3 The facts to which Dr. Toulmin wishes to draw the reader's attention prove nothing in favour of Unitarianism or Trinitarianism; for before they can be brought to bear, the work of proof must be accom- plished by other means. An attempt to establish the practical efficacy of modern Unitarianism by Scriptural facts, is like producing the fruits of Palestine in order to ascertain the soil of Taunton. Dr. Toulmin complained of my animadverting on par- ticular passages in the writings of Unitarians, and sug- vinistic writers, but on these our leading principles. nor of a sameness of essence, &c. &c., pp. 5, 6, note. well: neither do I allow that his leading principles are expressed by the passages he has produced; for they say gested that I ought rather to have applied my arguments to the general, the fundamental, principles of their system: “That there is one God, the Father, and one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.” To this it was answered, “The unity of God, and the humanity of Christ, them, it seems, are the principles which I ought to have attacked; that is, I ought to have attacked prin- ciples which I profess to believe, and not those which I profess to disbelieve.”—“But,” says Dr. T. in reply, “does he receive these principles in the pure and simple form in which Unitarians embrace them 3’’—p. 81, note. The Doctor ought to have expressed his fundamental principles in his own words, and not in those of Scripture. Every controversial writer, who does not wish to beg the question, will do sº,. He ought to have said Mr. Fuller, instead of animadverting on particular passages in the writings of Unitarians, should have attacked their first principles : That God is one person, and that Christ is merely a man. This had been fair and open ; and had the objection been made in this form, I might have replied to this effect:—My object was not to attack particular principles so much as the general tendency of their re- ligion taken in the gross, and the passages on which I animadverted chiefly related to this view of the subject. Yet, in the course of the work, I have certainly attempted to prove the Divinity of Christ; and whatever goes to establish this doctrine goes to demolish those leading prin- ciples which, it is said, I ought to have attacked ; for if Christ be God, he cannot be merely a man, and there must be more than one person in the Godhead. But, not con- tented with expressing his leading principles in his own words, Dr. Toulmin chooses Scripture language for the purpose. This, I contended, was begging the question ; or taking it for granted that the terms one God, in Scrip- ture, mean one person, and that Christ’s being called a zman denotes that he was merely a man. To show the impropriety of this proceeding, I alleged that I believed both the unity of God and the humanity of Christ; and, therefore, ought not to be expected to oppose either of them. “But does he receive these principles,” says Dr. T., “in the pure and simple form in which Unitarians embrace them 4° What is this but saying that I do not admit the Socinian gloss upon the apostle's words Dr. Toulmin may contend that the Scriptures express his sentiments so plainly as to need no gloss; but a gloss it manifestly is. He may call it a pure and simple form, or what he pleases ; but nothing is meant by it beyond a gloss, nor proved, except the prevalence of his easy-beset- timg sin, that of begging the question. To show, in a still stronger light, the unfairness of a controversial writer’s attempting to shroud his opinions under the phraseology of Scripture, I supposed it to be done by a Calvinist, and asked what Dr. Toulmin would say to it in that case. I could say, for example, There is a Father, a Som, and a Holy Spirit, in whose name we are baptized–The Word was God–Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures ; and could require So- cinians not to animadvert on particular passages in Cal- Would they admit, or ought they to be expected to admit, of these as our leading principles'. No : Dr. Toulmin has given proof that he does not, and has thereby justified me in refusing to admit the same thing on his side of the question. He will not allow that our leading principles are expressed by these passages of Scripture, because they say nothing of the Father, Son, and Spirit being one God, Very nothing of God’s being one person, or of Christ's being merely a man. If the Scriptures which I alleged express my sentiments as fully as the passages he has produced express his, that is sufficient. My object was not to join issue in endeavouring to prove that my sentiments were expressly and fully contained in Scripture language ; but to show the futility of such pretences on either side. So far from “affecting to show that the first principles of the Calvinists are to be expressed in the words of Scripture,” it was manifestly my design to show that the practice of so expressing them, in controversy, was objectionable, POSTSCRIPT. 107 in that it takes for granted that which requires to be proved. It is true, as Dr. Toulmin says, that if he, or any other person, were to offer to subscribe the passages which I have produced, as exhibiting a creed tantamount to ours, we should demur to admit it in this view. But this, in- stead of overturning my reasoning, confirms it, and cuts the throat of his own argument; for it is no less true, that if I, or any other person, were to offer to subscribe the passages produced by him, as exhibiting a creed tantamount to his, he would demur to admit it in this view. Nay, more : in his case, it is beyond supposition. I have actually offered to subscribe the apostle’s words, and he has act- ually refused to admit my subscription; alleging that I do not receive them in that pure and simple form in which Unitarians embrace them. According to his own rea- soning, therefore, the words of the apostle, by which he would express his leading principles, do not contain the whole of them, and he must have failed in his attempt to express them in Scripture language; and, consequently, the “boasted superiority” of his scheme, even in this re- spect, is without foundations. If we can believe Dr. Toulmin, however, the Scriptures not only expressly declare God to be one, but one person. “This simple idea of God, that he is one single person,” says he, from Mr. Lindsey, “literally pervades every pas- sage of the sacred volumes.” To this I have answered, among other things, “It might have served a better pur- pose, if, instead of this general assertion, these gentlemen had pointed us to a single instance in which the unity of God is literally declared to be personal.” And what has Dr. Toulmin said in reply? “The appeal, one would think, might be made to Mr. Fuller's own good sense. What can be more decisive instances of this than the many passages in which the singular personal pronouns, and their correlates, are used concerning the Supreme Being ; as, I, me, my, mine, &c.”—p. 85, note. Whatever may be thought of my good sense, or that of my opponent, I appeal to good sense itself, whether he has made good his asser- tion. To say nothing of his reducing it from every passage to many passages, which probably strikes out ninety-nine passages out of a hundred in the sacred volumes, if the singular personal pronouns be a literal declaration that God is one person, the plural personal pronouns, Let Us make man in OUR image, &c., must equally be a literal de- claration that he is more than one. The singular personal pronouns, also, which are frequently applied to the Holy Spirit,” contain a decisive proof, yea, a literal declaration, of his personality; and which inevitably draws after it the doctrine of the Trinity. f Dr. Toulmin has said much about judging the heart (pp. 95–101, note); but his objection does not seem to lie against judging, so much as judging Unitarians. If I affirm, what the Scriptures uniformly teach,+ that a false and immoral system has its origin not in simple mistake, but in disaffection to God, this is highly presumptuous, this is judging the heart; but if Dr. Toulmin pronounce my mode of arguing to be “savouring of spleen and ill- nature, and evidently designed to fix an opprobrium and disgrace,” (p. 134,) the case is altered. It is right to judge of the disposition of the heart by “overt acts; ” that is, by words and deeds: but where this judgment is directed against Unitarians, it is not right, after all; for it is possible we may judge uncandidly and unjustly : It is right for Dr. T. to disregard the profes- sions of his opponent, when he declares his belief in the unity of God and the humanity of Christ, and expresses that belief in the words of Scripture, because he does not “receive these principles in the pure and simple form in which Unitarians embrace them.” But if we disregard their professions, and require any thing more than a de- claration of their faith in the words of Scripture, we set up “owr gospel, or the gospel according to our views of it,” and act contrary to our professed principles as protestants, as Dissenters, and as Baptists. When our creed and worship are such that they cannot conscientiously join them, they have a right to separate • John xiv. 26; xv. 26; xvi. 7–15; 1 Cor. xii. 11. + 2 Thess. ii. 10, 11 ; 2 Pet. ii. 1; 1 John iv. 6; Jude 4. # The reader will recollect that what is affirmed, in the concluding from us ; otherwise they could not “keep the command- ments of Jesus pure and undefiled :” but whatever be their creed, or the tenor of their conversation or prayers, we have no right to refuse communion with them. If we do not model our professions, preaching, and worship, so as to give no offence to an individual of their principles, we “assume a power which no Christian, or body of Christians, possesses:” yet they do not model their professions, preaching, or worship, so as to give no offence to us; neither do we desire they should. They do not confine themselves to the words of Scripture; nor is it necessary they should. They inquire whether our professions accord with the meaning of Scripture, and we claim to do the same. The reason why Dr. T. will not allow of this and other claims must, I should think, be this : Their views of the gospel are “pure and simple,” and ours are corrupt. Thus it is, reader, that he goes about to prove that he does not “take for granted the principles on which he argues,” and that “he assumes nothing!” If Dr. T. can persuade himself and his friends that he has not shifted the ground of the argument, has not assumed what he should have proved, and, in short, has not tacitly acknowledged Socinianism to be indefensi- ble on the ground of its moral tendency, they are wel- come to all the consolation such a persuasion will afford them. All I shall add will be a brief defence of the principle on which the foregoing Letters are written. To undermine this is a point at which all my opponents have aimed. The practical efficacy of a doctrine, in the present age, is a subject, it seems, which ought not to be discussed as the test of its being true. Théy are, at least, to a man against it : a pretty clear evidence this that it does not speak good concerning them. Mr. Belsham, in his Review of Mr. Wilberforce, glancing at The Systems Compared, says, “The amount of it is, We Calvinists being much better Christians than you So- cinians, our doctrines must, of course, be true.” “The Unitarians,” he adds, “will not trespass upon the holy ground. We have learned that “not he who commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth.’ And be it known to Mr. Wilberforce, and to all who, like him, are disposed to condemn their brethren unheard, that if the Unitarians were inclined to boast, they have whereof to glory. And if they took pleasure in exposing the faults of their orthodox brethren, they likewise have tales to unfold which would reflect little credit on the parties, or on their principles. But of such mutual re- proaches there would be no end,”—pp. 267, 268. 274. Dr. Toulmin alleges that “it is a mode of arguing very unfavourable to candour and fair discussion, savouring of spleen and ill-nature, principally calculated to misrepresent and irritate, and evidently designed to fix an opprobrium and disgrace;” that when our Saviour cautioned his follow- ers to “beware of false prophets,” who should be “known by their fruits,” he meant not persons who would teach false doctrine, and whose lives would accord with it, but persons of insincere character, whose doctrine might, never- theless, be true; and that his brethren have not reasoned against Calvinism from the immoral lives of Calvinists, but merely from the immoral tendency of their principles,—pp. 134. 148. 154. If the mode of arguing pursued in the foregoing Letters be liable to all these objections, it is rather singular that it should not have been objected to till it was pointed against. Socinianism. If it can be shown to be a mode of arguing consonant to the directions given by our Saviour, and act- ually used by the apostles, the fathers, the reformers, the puritans, and even by our opponents themselves, their ob- jecting to it in this instance will prove nothing, except it be the weakness of their cause. Our Saviour warned his followers to “ beware of false prophets,” and gave this direction concerning them, “Ye shall know them by their fruits.” This direction, founded in self-evident truth, and enforced by the Head of the Christian church, appeared to me to furnish a proper crite- rion by which to judge of the claims, if not of every par- sentence of the Letters, is merely hypothetical, and rests upon the supposition of Socimianism being what l had attempted to prove it, a false and immoral system. 108 POSTSCRIPT. ticular opinion, yet of every system of opinions pretending to Divine authority. Mr. Kentish admitted that “the effects produced by a doctrine were a proper criterion of its value, but not of its truth.” But the value of a doctrine implies its truth. Falsehood is of no value: whatever proves a doctrine valuable, therefore, must prove it to be true. Mr. Kentish further objects, “This celebrated saying of our Saviour is proposed as a test of character, and not as a criterion of opinion.” To the same purpose Dr. Toulmin alleges that “this is a rule given to judge, not concerning principles, but men; not concerning the senti- ments promulgated by them, but concerning their own characters and pretensions. The persons here pointed at are hypocrites and false prophets; such as would falsely pretend a commission from God. Their pretensions might be blended with a true doctrine, but their claims were founded in dissimulation. They would be discovered by their covetousness, love of gain, and lasciviousness,”— p. 148. These writers are, in general, exceedingly averse from judging men, considering it as uncandid and presump- tuous, and plead for confining all judgment to things : but, in this case, things themselves seem to be in danger ; and therefore men are left to shift for themselves. According to this exposition, it is the duty of Christians, when ministers discover an avaricious and ambitious dis- position, though sound in doctrine, and in time past appa- rently humble and pious, to set them down as hypocrites. And this is more candid, it seems, and savours less of spleen and ill-nature, than drawing an unfavourable con- clusion of their doctrinal principles. But waving this, The saying of our Saviour is given as a test of false prophets, or teachers; an epithet never be- stowed, I believe, on men whose doctrine was true. That false prophets and teachers were men of bad character I admit, though that character was not always apparent (2 Cor. xi. 14; Matt. vii. 15); but that they are ever so denominated on account of their character, as distinct from their doctrine, does not appear. When any thing is said of their doctrine, it is invariably described as false. “If any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or lo there, believe him not; for false Christs, and false prophets” bear- ing witness in their favour, “shall arise.”—“There were Jalse prophets among the people, even as there shall be Jalse teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damn- able heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.”—“Beloved, be- lieve not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they be of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.”—“Every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ. is come in the flesh is not of God.”—“Whosoever trans- gresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God.”—“If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed; for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” If the “false prophets” described by our Saviour were such as might teach “a true doctrine,” the descriptions given by the New Testament writers, uniformly represent- ing them as teaching falsehood, are at variance with those of their Master. That there were hypocrites who taught a true doctrine may be allowed; but they are never denominated false pro- phets, or false teachers. Balaam was a wicked character, and is called a prophet; but as the subject matter of his prophecies was true, he is not called a false prophet. Ju- das, also, was a hypocrite and a thief, at the same time that he was a preacher and an apostle ; but as what he taught was true, he is not described as a false teacher or a false apostle. These things considered, let the impartial reader deter- mine whether our Saviour did not mean to direct his fol- lowers to judge by their fruits who were the patrons of false doctrine. With respect to the use which has been made of this direction, I appeal, in the first place, to the apostles, and New Testament writers. I presume they will not be ac- cused of self-commendation, nor of spleen and ill-nature; yet they scrupled not to represent those who believed their doctrine as “washed” and “ sanctified” from their former immoralities, (1 Cor. vi. 11,) and those who believed it not as “having pleasure in unrighteousness,” 2. Thess. ii. 12. All those facts which Dr. Toulmin has endeavoured to press into the service of modern Unitarianism are evidences of the truth of the primitive doctrine, and were considered as such by the New Testament writers. They appealed to the effects produced in the lives of believers, as “ their epistles, known and read of all men,” in proof that they “had not corrupted the word of God,” but were the true ministers of Christ, 2 Cor. ii. 17, &c. With the fullest confidence they asked, “Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?” plainly intimating that truth was well known by its effects. Nor was error less so : those who introduced false doc- trines are invariably described as unholy characters, 2 Pet. ii. 13 ; Jude ; 1 Cor. xv. 33, 34. To quote the reasonings of the Fathers on this principle were to copy a large proportion of their apologies. I ques- tion whether there be one of them which does not contain arguments for the truth of Christianity on the ground of the holy lives of Christians; and which does not infer, or in some form intimate, the falsehood of heathenism from the known immorality of heathems. Their opponents, having no better answer at hand, might possibly charge this reasoning with vain-boasting, spleen, and ill-nature; but I do not recollect that it was ever imputed to these causes by Christians. As to the Reformers, the most successful attacks which they made upon the Church of Rome were founded on the dissolute lives of her clergy, and the holiness and constancy of those whom she persecuted unto death. The general strain of their writings may be seen in Fox's Martyrology, which is, in effect, an exhibition of the moral character of the persecutors and the persecuted, from which the world is left to judge which was the true religion; and, I may add, a considerable part of the world did judge, and acted accordingly. Dr. Toulmin suggests, from Mosheim, that the Reform- ers, and particularly Calvin and his associates, neglected the science of morals, p. 153. But Mosheim's prejudice against Calvin and his associates renders his testimony of but little weight, especially as the reader may satisfy him- self of the contrary by the writings of the parties which are yet extant. The eighth chapter of the second book of Calvin’s Institutes is sufficient to wipe away this slander. The morality there inculcated is such as neither Antino- mians, nor “great numbers” amongst modern Unitarians, can endure. That there were some among the gospellers, as they were called, who were loose characters, is admit- ted: such there are in every age : but take the reformed as a body, and they were not only better Christians than their persecutors, but than those their successors, who, while pretending to teach the “science” of morality, have deserted the great principles by which it requires to be animated, and debased it, by allowing the amusements of the theatre, and other species of dissipation, to be consist- ent with it. The historian of the puritans has recorded of that per- secuted people, that “while others were at plays and inter- ludes, at revels, or walking in the fields, or at the diversions of bowling, fencing, &c., on the evening of the sabbath, they, with their families, were employed in reading the Scriptures, singing psalms, catechising their children, re- peating sermons and prayer; that neither was this con- fined to the Lord's day, but they had their hours of family devotion on the week days, esteeming it their duty to take care of the souls as well as of the bodies of their servants; and that they were circumspect as to all the excesses of eating and drinking, apparel, and lawful diversions; being frugal in house-keeping, industrious in their particular callings, honest and exact in their dealings, and solicitous to give every one his own.”* These things might not be alleged in proof of the truth of every particular opinion which they held; (neither have I inferred from such premises the truth of every opinion maintained by Calvinists;) but they were alleged in proof that their religion, in the main, was that of Jesus Christ, * Neale's History of the Puritans, Vol. I. Chap. VIII. POSTSCRIPT. I09 and the religion of their adversaries a very near approach to that of antichrist. Nor do I recollect that the writer has been charged, unless it be by those who felt the con- demnation which his story implied, with vain-boasting, spleen, or ill-nature. Finally, Will our opponents accuse themselves of these evils, for having reasoned upon this principle as far as they are able % That they have done this is manifest, though Dr. Toulmin affects to disown it, alleging that they have not reasoned on the lives of men, but merely on the ten- dency of principles,—p. 154. That they have reasoned on the tendency of principles is true; and so have I: such is the reasoning of the far greater part of the foregoing Let- ters. But that they avoided all reference to the lives of Calvinists, is not true. Was it on the tendency of prin- ciples, or on the lives of men, that Dr. Priestley reasoned, when he compared the virtue of Trinitarians with that of Unitarians, allowing that though the latter had more of an apparent conformity to the world than the former, yet, upon the whole, they approached nearer to the proper temper of Christianity than they?” Has he confined himself to the tendency of principles in what he has re- lated of Mr. Badcock 3 + Does he not refer to the practices of Antinomians, in proof of the immoral tendency of Cal- vinism, representing them as the legitimate offspring of our principles 3 See quotation, p. 68. And though Mr. Belsham now affects to be disgusted with this mode of reasoning, yet there was a time when he seemed to think it would be of service to him, and when he figured away in the use of it. Did he not affirm that “they who are sincerely pious, and diffusively benevolent, with our principles, could not have failed to have been much better, and much happier, had they adopted a milder, a more rational, a more truly evangelical creed ?” And what is this but affirming that those of his sentiments are better and happier in general than others ? Yet this gentleman affects to despise the foregoing Let- ters; for that the sum of them is, “We Calvinists being much better Christians than you Socinians, our doctrines must of course be true.”: Strange that a writer should so far forget himself as to reproach the performance of another for that which is the characteristic of his own | Nor is this all : in the small compass of the same dis- course, he expresses a hope that Socinian converts would “at length feel the benign influence of their principles, and demonstrate the excellence of their faith by the superior dignity and worth of their character.” If the excellence of principles (and of course their truth, for nothing can be excellent which is not true) be not demonstrable by the character of those who embrace them, how is the superior dignity and worth of character to demonstrate it? Such was once the “self-commending” language of Mr. Belsham ; but whether his converts have disappointed his hope, or whether the ground be too “holy” for him, so it is, that he is now entirely of a different mind; and what is worse, would fain persuade his readers that it is ground on which he and his brethren have never “trespassed.” This is the man who, after throwing down the gauntlet, declines the contest; and after his partisans have laboured to the utmost to maintain their cause, talks of what they could say and do, were they not withheld by motives of generosity One would imagine, from Mr. Belsham's manner of writing, that I had dealt largely in tales of private cha- racters. The truth is, what tales have been told are of their own telling. I freely acknowledged $ that “I was not sufficiently acquainted with the bulk of Socinians to judge of their moral character.” Every thing was rested on their own concessions; and this it is which is the galling cir- cumstance to Mr. Belsham and his party. They may now insinuate what great things they could bring forward to our disadvantage, were they not restrained by motives of modesty and generosity; but they can do nothing. They might, indeed, collect tales of individuals, and point out many faults which attach to the general body; but they cannot prove it to be equally immoral with the general body of Socinians. Before this can be consistently at- tempted, they must retract their concessions; and this will not avail them; for it must be manifest to all men that it was only to answer an end. The reader is now left to judge for himself, whether the principle of reasoning adopted in the foregoing Letters be justly liable to the objections which have been raised against it, whether our opponents did not first apply it against us, and whether any other reason can be given for their present aversion to it than that they feel it to be unfavourable to their cause. A. F. * Disc. War. Sub. p. 100. + Fam. Let. XXII. t Review, p. 274. * See p. 68, SOCINIANISM INDEFENSIBLE ON THE GROUND OF IT'S MORAL TENDENCY : CONTAINING A REPLY TO TWO LATE PUBLICATIONS: THE ONE BY DR. TOULMIN, ENTITLED THE PRACTICAL EFFICACY OF THE UNITARIAN DOCTRINE CONSIDERED; THE OTHER BY MR. KENTISH, ENTITLED THE MORAL TENDENCY OF THE GENUINE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. INTRODUCTION. IT is now more than three years since the first publication of The Calvinistic and Socinian Systems eacamined and compared as to their Moral Tendency. Dr. Toulmin ex- presses some regret that, at the time he wrote, nothing had appeared in answer to it; and seems disposed to account for this circumstance in a way that may acquit his cause of seeming to be indefensible. Addressing himself to me, he says, “No one can doubt that the gentlemen, on pas- sages in whose writings many of your reflections are grounded, are every way equal to the contest, if they saw fit to enter the lists with you. As they have not done it, I presume they think it sufficient to leave the candid reader to judge between you and them,”—p. 2. That these gentlemen, so far as abilities are concerned, are equal to this contest, there can, indeed, be no doubt; but whether they be every way equal to it, is another question. It is beyond the power of any man to convert truth into falsehood, or falsehood into truth ; and their silence may, for any thing Dr. Toulmin can prove, be owing to the difficulty of the undertaking. One thing is rather remarkable : though Dr. Toulmin has undertaken a defence of Socinianism, yet he has cautiously avoided a vindication of the writings of those gentlemen on which l had animadverted. Such a conduct could not have been pursued by them : if they had written, they must have entered on a defence of their writings, or have given them up as indefensible. Dr. Toulmin informs us that, for his own part, “it was but lately that the piece fell in his way, so as to find him at leisure to read it,”—p. 1. This, undoubtedly, is a suf- ficient apology, so far as it respects himself; and if he or his colleague, Mr. Kentish, have but overturned the sub- stance of the piece against which they have written, time and other circumstances are of small account. If the opinion of Reviewers, on these performances, be of any weight, it must be concluded that they have done this, at least. The Analytical and Monthly Reviews, with The Protestant Dissenters’ Magazine, have each bestowed, on one or other of them, their strong and unqualified appro- bation. Whether their critiques have been of any advan- tage to the cause, I may hereafter inquire : at present, I shall proceed to examine what is advanced by each of my opponents, in their order. 1797. R. EPLY TO DR, TO U L MIN. SECTION I. ON THE GROUND OF ARGUMENT USED IN THIS CONTROVERSY, AND THE ATTEMPTS OF OUR OPPONENTS TO SHIFT IT. * WHEN I first formed a design of writing against Socinian- ism, I perceived that although the Holy Scriptures were treated by Socinian writers with great disrespect in various instances, yet they were generally the ultimate tribunal to which the appeal was made. The object of the contro- versy, on both sides, seemed to be to ascertain their true meaning. For this purpose, two general methods had been adopted : First, Arranging the various passages of Scripture which relate to the subject, and reasoning upon them. Secondly, Examining in what sense Christians in the early ages of Christianity understood them. The first is the common way of deciding controversies In divinity; and a very good way it is, if fairly conducted. I had several objections, however, against pursuing it in this instance. First, It was ground which was already fully occupied. Able writers, on both sides, had gone over all the passages of Scripture relating to the subject; and many of them had nearly exhausted their genius, in reasoning upon the scope of the sacred writers, and in criticising upon the original language. Secondly, I per- ceived that Socinian writers had got into such an unwar- rantable habit of criticising upon the sacred writings, that the plainest passages could not stand before them ; whole chapters and whole books were cashiered as spurious; and even the whole Bible was declared to be “obscure,” and “never designed to decide upon controverted questions in religion and morality.”* It appeared to me of but little account to reason upon texts of Scripture, when the Scrip- ture itself, whatever might be its meaning, was virtually disallowed. As to the last of these methods, it was not within my province. Besides, it appeared to me that whatever plea- sure we may feel in tracing the history of early opinions, and whatever good purposes may be answered by a work of this nature if impartially conducted. yet it can afford no proper criterion of what is the apostolic doctrine. Christians in early ages were as liable to err as we are, and in many instances they did err, so as to contradict the Scriptures and one another. Thinking on these things, it occurred to me that there was another method of reasoning distinct from those which have been already mentioned; namely, by inquiring— What is that doctrine in the present day which is productive of the best moral effects 2 Several considerations induced me to prefer this ground of reasoning, in the present case, to either of the other two. First, It would serve to as- certain what was the apostolic doctrine as well as the former of them, and much better than the latter. If, for example, in discoursing on the vines and fig trees which formerly grew in the land of Canaan, a dispute should arise whether they resembled this or that species now growing in other countries, one way of deciding it would be to compare the fruits. If the fruit of one species could be proved to possess a much nearer likeness than the fruit of another, that would tend to decide the controversy in its favour. Secondly, An inquiry into the moral tendency of the different doctrines would not only serve as a medium of ascertainng which of them was the apostolic • Monthly Review Enlarged, vol. X. p. 357. ness,” “bigotry,” and doctrine, but would also prove the truth of that doctrine, and its Divine original ; for it is a principle so deeply engraven on the human mind—that whatever doctrine is productive of good fruits must in itself be good, and have its origin in God, that very few writers, if any, would dare to maintain the contrary. I perceived, therefore, if I could not only prove that what is commonly called Cal- vinism is most productive of effects similar to those which sprang from the doctrine of the apostles, but also exhibit them in such a light, as I went along, as that they should approve themselves to every man’s conscience, I should thereby cut off the retreat of those Socinian writers who, when their doctrine is proved to be antiscriptural, for- sake Christian ground, and take shelter upon the territories of deism ; degrading the Bible as an “obscure book,” taxing its writers with “reasoning inconclusively,” and declaring that its “nature and design was not to settle disputed theories, or decide upon controverted questions, in religion and morality.” I knew well that though they dared to write degradingly of the Scriptures, and of the sacred writers, yet they dare not professedly set them- selves against morality. Thirdly, The judging of doctrines by their effects is a practice warranted by Scripture: “By their fruits ye shall know them.” A very able writer, in a discourse on this passage, has shown that “the rule here given by our Saviour is the best that could have been given; that it is sufficient to distinguish truth from error; and that it is in fact the rule by which all good men, and indeed mankind in general, do judge of religious prin- ciples and pretensions.” f Fourthly, I supposed that such a method of reasoning would be more interesting to the public mind, having never before, to my recollection, been adopted as the ground of any particular treatise on the subject. Fifthly, It was ground upon which there was room for common Christians to stand and be witnesses of the issue of the contest, which, while the controversy turned upon the opinion of the Fathers, or the construc- tion of a text of Scripture, was not the case. Sixthly, It was a ground of reasoning to which our opponents could not fairly object, seeing they had commenced an attack. upon it, charging the Calvinistic system with “gloomi- “licentiousness; ” with being “averse to the love of both God and man,” and “an axe at the root of all virtue.” - These were the principal reasons which induced me to: prefer the ground of argument on which I have proceeded. I would not be understood, however, as expressing the least disrespect towards the works of those who have pro- ceeded on other grounds. Let the subject be examined in every point of view. Every author has a right to choose his ground of reasoning, provided it be a fair one ; and that which may be unsuitable to the turn and talents of one person may be suitable to those of another. If the reader wish to see the present controversy pursued on the ground of Scripture testimony and the opinions of early ages, he may consult to great advantage a late very valu- able and elaborate work of Dr. Jamieson, entitled, A Pºn- dication of the Doctrine of Scripture, and of the Primitive + Dr. witherspoon's Trial of Religious Truth by its Moral Influence. I 12 ON THE GROUND OF THE ARGUMENT. Faith, concerning the Deity of Christ, in Reply to Dr. Priestley's History of Early Opinions, 2 vols. 8vo. Knowing somewhat of the abilities of the writers on the other side, and their readiness on all occasions to defend their cause, I did not expect to escape their cen- sure. I laid my accounts that what I advanced would either be treated as unworthy of notice, or if any answer was written, that the strength of the arguments would be tried to the uttermost. In both these particulars, how- ever, I have been mistaken. They have not treated it as unworthy of notice. They have acknowledged the con- trary. And as to trying the strength of the arguments, I must say that Dr. Toulmin has not so much as looked them in the face. On the contrary, though the Practical Efficacy of the Unitarian Doctrine is the title of his per- formance, yet he acknowledges (p. 5) his design is to “supersede the examination of that comparison into which I had fully entered ; ” that is, to relinquish the defence of the practical efficacy of his principles, and to reason en- tirely upon other ground ! Mr. Kentish is the only writer who has pretended to encounter the argument. Whether he has succeeded will be hereafter examined. At present I shall attend to Dr. Toulmin. This writer observes, at the outset, that “the title pre- fixed to his Letters will lead the reader to expect from them, chiefly, the discussion of one point ; but that a point of great importance in itself, and the main one to which a reply to Mr. Fuller's work need to be directed.” Now, reader, what would you have expected that one point to be. The title prefixed to his Letters, recollect, is this: The Practical Efficacy of the Unitarian Doctrine considered. Would you not have supposed that the Doctor was going to offer evidence in favour of the practical effi- cacy of modern Unitarianism 3 From the title of his book, could you have expected any other than an exhibition of the most forcible arguments in favour of the holy tendency of his principles, together with a number of undoubted facts, in which their efficacy has appeared sufficient, at least, to confront the evidence alleged on the other side 3 How great then must be your disappointment, to find him employed in “producing evidence in support of his opinion from passages of Scripture,” and in proving, what nobody calls in question, that the preaching of the apostles was productive of great moral effects : Dr. Toulmin, it should seem, can find no such fruits of Socinian doctrines as will support an appeal, and, there- fore, is under the necessity of going seventeen hundred years back, in search of examples. But are those examples in point % Were the principles of Christians, in the apos- tolic age, the same as those of Socinians? With what face can Dr. Toulmin take it for granted that they were, or even go about to prove it, as a medium of establishing the practical efficacy of modern Unitarianism 2 When the grand end of a controversy is to determine a principle, a writer who assumes that principle as a medium of proof is guilty of begging the question ; and if, in order to escape the public censure, he endeavour to give evidence of this principle from some other source of argument than that which he professes to answer, he is guilty of shifting the ground of the controversy; and, by so doing, virtually gives up his cause as indefensible. This is exactly the case with Dr. Toulmin. The doctrine of the apostles is allowed, on both sides, to have produced great moral effects. The object of the controversy was to ascertain what that doctrine was. The medium of proof which I had adopted, and to which Dr. Toulmin, if he pretended to write an answer to me, ought to have confined himself, was the effects which it produced. I attempted to prove that the apostolic and Calvinistic doctrines are nearly similar, from the similarity of their effects; and that the apostolic and Socinian doctrines are dissimilar, from the dissimilarity of their effects. To have answered this reasoning, Dr. Toulmin should have proved, either that the effects of the Calvinistic doctrine are not similar to those which attended the doctrine of the apostles, and that the effects of the Socinian doctrine are so ; or else that a similarity of effects is not a proper ground from which to infer a similarity in the nature of the doctrines. His attempting to prove the practical efficacy of the Uni- tarian doctrine by assuming that the apostles were Uni- tarians, in his sense of the term, is nothing better than begging the question ; and his endeavouring to screen him- self from this reproach, by labouring to prove the point in dispute from a review of the Acts of the Apostles, let his reasonings be ever so just, is foreign from the purpose: it is shifting the ground of the argument; it is declining to meet the inquiry on the ground of moral tendency, and substituting, in its place, observations on the meaning of Scripture testimony, which, to all intents and purposes, is relinquishing the practical efficacy of modern Unitarianism as indefensible. The plain language of his performance is this : There are no examples to be found of any consider- able moral influence which the Unitarian doctrine has had upon the hearts and lives of men of late ages; and there- fore I have had recourse to the preaching of the apostles, and have endeavoured to prove that they were Unitarians. If Dr. Toulmin thought the moral tendency of a doctrine an improper medium of proof, why did he not professedly decline it? Why did he not acknowledge that Dr. Priestley was wrong in challenging an inquiry on such a ground 3 And why did he entitle his performance, The Practical Efficacy of the Unitarian Doctrine 2 This piece does not answer to its title : it ought, rather, to have been called, An Inquiry into the Doctrines which the Primitive Preachers delivered, by a Review of the Acts of the Apostles. The practical efficacy of either doctrine makes no part of his argument, and occupies scarcely any place in his performance, except the title-page ; and there is reason to think it would not have been there, but for the sake of its wearing the appearance of an answer to the piece against which it is written. I am not obliged, by the laws of controversy, to follow Dr. Toulmin in his review of the history of the Acts of the Apostles; nor is it my intention to be diverted from the subject by the manoeuvres of any opponent. The only notice I shall take of this part of his performance will be in a few pages in the form of an Appendia, as being a sub- ject beside the question ; and that, merely to show, as a thing by the bye, that, even upon his own ground, his cause is indefensible. - An anonymous writer, in the Analytical Review,” dis- covers a similar inclination with that of Dr. Toulmin, to shift the ground of the controversy ; but with this differ- ence: the Reviewer openly avows his dislike of the me- dium of proof which I have adopted, calling it “a fallacious test,” and recommending to all parties, “instead of asking by whom any system is professed, to confine themselves to the single inquiry, by what evidence it is supported; where- as Dr. Toulmin, though he discovers the same dislike to the ground of argument on which I have proceeded, yet has not the ingenuousness to acknowledge it, but pretends to reason upon the practical efficacy of his principles, while, in fact, he has utterly relinquished it, and endeavoured to establish his system upon another ground. The writer above mentioned, having quoted the con- cluding paragraph of my Letters, calls it “an unfounded and presumptuous sentence, pronounced upon the hearts of those who adopt Socinian principles,” and insinuates that I must have written in a bad spirit. Before I have finished these pages, I shall have occasion to defend the passage referred to more particularly. At present, I only observe that, taken in its connexion, it amounts to no more than this, That if Socinianism be an immoral system, immoral dispositions are the avenues which lead to it : and it is possible that this writer, notwithstanding what he has said under cover, might be ashamed to come forward, and, in a publication to which he should prefix his name, avow his denial of this proposition. This Reviewer wishes to have it thought that the moral effects produced by a doctrine form no part of the evidence by which it is supported ; that is to say, he wishes to shift this ground of argument, as unsuitable to his purpose. If the effects of a doctrine upon the hearts and lives of men be no proper ground of argument, why are we directed by our Lord to judge of false teachers by their fruits? and why were not the same observations made while Socinians were throwing out their accusations of immorality against the Calvinists? Writers may rave like furies against them, * Vol. XVII. pp. 183, 184. ON DR. TOULMIN'S ANIMADWERSIONS. I 13 and be applauded by Socinian Reviewers.” But a single attempt to repel these shafts of calumny, and to prove, from facts which no one has yet undertaken to dispute, that immorality attaches to the other side, quite alters the nature of things: lo, then, the ground of argument is un- fair, and the writer must be a man of a bad spirit ! About forty years ago the Socinians, and those who veered towards their sentiments in the Church of Scotland, are said to have attacked the Calvinistic system with vari- ous kinds of weapons. Amongst others, they abounded in the use of ridicule; so much, indeed, that they seemed disposed to adopt Lord Shaftesbury’s maxim, that “Ridi- cule is the test of truth.” At this juncture, Dr. Wither- spoon, as it is supposed, published his Ecclesiastical Cha- racteristics, in which he successfully turned their weapon upon themselves. The effect of that performance was very considerable : a dead silence succeeded its publica- tion ; none moved the wing, or opened the mouth, or peeped; but they comforted one another, by suggesting that the author of the Characteristics must be a man of a bad heart ' SECTION II. FURTHER REMARKS ON DR. ToulMIN, witH REPLIES To VARIOUS OF HIS ANIMAD VERSIONS. DR. ToULMIN gives us, at the outset of his performance, a short account of the “fundamental principles” of his scheme. These, he tells us, are, “That there is but on E God, the sole Former, Supporter, and Governor of the uni- verse, the oNLY proper object of religious worship; and that there is but one Mediator between God and men, the MAN Christ Jesus, who was commissioned by God to in- struct men in their duty, and to reveal the doctrine of a future life,”—p. 4. He afterwards complains that, “in- stead of applying my arguments against these principles, I have broughtforward particular positions, scattered through the works or discourses of several eminent persons, known and able advocates of the Unitarian faith, which have no immediate and direct connexion with the first principles of it.” These positions, he observes, “might or might not be true; and the truth of the great doctrines of the unity of God and the humanity of Christ remain, in either case, unaffected by it,”—p. 41. The unity of God, and the humanity of Christ, then, it seems, are the principles which I ought to have attacked ; that is to say, I ought to have attacked principles which I profess to believe, and not those which I profess to disbelieve Dr. Toulmin seems disposed to be on the safe side. By avoiding a de- fence of those positions which are quoted from the prin- cipal writers of the party, and adopting the words of Scrip- ture as the medium by which to express his sentiments, (taking it for granted, as he goes along, that these Scrip- ture expressions are to be understood in his sense of them,) his work becomes very easy, and very pleasant. But thinking people will remark that, by so doing, he has retired from the field of controversy, and taken refuge upon neutral ground. Dr. Toulmin knows that I shall not dis- pute with him the apostolic position, that there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus ; and his taking it for granted that these and other scriptures convey his peculiar sentiments—namely, that the unity of God is personal, and that Christ is merely a man—is begging the question ; a practice to which he is more than a little addicted. What would Dr. Toulmin have said, if I had alleged that Socinians, instead of attacking the positions of the leading writers amongst the Calvinists, ought to have at- tacked our first principles; such as the following: there is a Father, a Son, and a Holy Spirit, in whose name we are baptized: The Word was God: Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures 2 And if to this I had added, “We think it a just ground of boast that we can express * See Monthly Review for July, 1792, on Llewellyn's Tracts, p. 226. .* See, his “ Dissertation on the Internal Evidences, &c. of Chris- tianity,” p. 246, Note. I our fundamental opinions in the words of Scripture,” (p. 5,) would he not have replied to this effect—We do not deny any one of your positions. These are not your dis- tinguishing principles, but are such as are allowed on both sides. It is the sense which you put upon these passages of Scripture which constitutes your first principles, and the points of difference between us. You ought not to expect that we should attack the words of Scripture; for it is not Scripture, but your glosses upon it, that we oppose; and it is mean in you to beg the question, by taking it for granted that your sense of these passages is the true one : it is no other than shrouding your obnoxious glosses under the sacred phraseology of Scripture, and it betrays an in- clination in you to impose upon us the one under the form of the other. “No man who striveth for the mastery is crowned, ex- cept he strive lawfully.” If a Grecian combatant had quitted the ground marked out for the contest, like Dr. Toulmin, he would not only have lost the prize, but would have been struck out of the list of honourable competitors. Dr. Toulmin labours to prove that there are certain principles that are productive of piety, which are not pecu- liar to Calvinists or Socinians, but are common to both ; and mentions several devotional treatises of Calvinistic writers in which these are the only principles insisted on, —p. 33, 34. And what if this be granted ? I never said that the distinguishing principles of Calvinism were the only sources of holy practice. On the contrary, the being of a God, which we hold in common with the deists, is the foundation-stone to the great fabric of piety and vir- tue. This, however, I must observe, that the most im- portant truths, when accompanied with great errors, are retained to but very little purpose, in comparison of what they are when accompánied with other truths. Divine truths, in this respect, resemble Divine precepts; they are so connected together, that he who offends in one point is, as it were, guilty of all. It is thus that one great truth, the being of a God, is of but very little use to deists who reject his word; and, I may add, it is thus that the doc- trine of a future life loses almost all its effect in the hands of both deists and Socinians. Dr. Toulmin will admit the propriety of this remark, as it respects the former;f and if Dr. Priestley’s “Sermon on the Death of Mr. Robin- son” may be considered as a specimen of the Socinian doctrine of a future life, there can be but little doubt of the latter.; In introducing the above remarks, Dr. Toulmin tells us his design is to prove “that the Calvinistic system is not essential to devotion,”—p. 35. Truly, our opponents are, of late, become moderate in their demands. Heretofore, Calvinism was “unfriendly to the love both of God and man, and an axe at the root of all virtue ;” but now, it seems, it is allowed to have a tendency in favour of devo- tion, and all that is argued for is that it is “ not essential” to it. After holding up the character of several Socinians, as eminent for piety and virtue, Dr. Toulmin observes, that “if the number of excellent characters should not be so great as amongst other denominations, a cause of this is easily to be assigned : the number of Socinians hath always, in the latter ages of the church, borne a small pro- portion to the number of Trinitarians and Calvinists; and the number of sincere, conscientious persons, attentive to the cultivation of pious affections, hath borne a small pro- portion to those who have been nominal Socinians or Cal- vinists,” p. 36. It was no part of my plan to examine the good or bad conduct of individuals, whether they were Socinians or Calvinists; it was the general body from which I proposed to form an estimate. As to Dr. Toulmin’s attempt to reduce the state of So- cinians and Calvinists to a level, it comes too late. His brethren have acknowledged that “rational Christians are often represented as indifferent to practical religion :” nor have they denied the charge, or alleged that they are no more so than is common with other denominations of Christians; but, on the contrary, have tacitly admitted it, by endeavouring to account for it. Nay, why need I go # See Remarks in “Systems Compared,” pp. 305, 306. I 14 ON DR. TOULMIN'S ANIMADVERSIONS. back to the acknowledgments of Mr. Belsham or Dr. Priestley 3 Dr. Toulmin himself has, in effect, acknow- ledged the same thing : he also goes about to account for the defect in devotion among Socinians compared with Calvinists in such a way as shall not be disparaging to the principles of the former, with respect to their influence on the piety of their feelings. “They,” he says, “deeply engaged in the investigation of truth, absorbed in gaining just ideas, may have been necessarily betrayed into a meg- lect of the culture of the heart and affections,”—p. 36. These methods of accounting for things, whether just or not, are plain indications of the easistence of the fact ac- counted for ; all attempts, therefore, to disown or palliate it are nugatory and vain. But let us examine Dr. Toulmin’s method of accounting for the defect of devotion amongst Socinians. They are so absorbed in the acquisition of truth, it seems, as to neg- lect the culture of the heart ; yea, necessarily to neglect it. This is somewhat strange. Truth and righteousness used to be reckoned friendly to each other; but of late, it seems, the case is altered. Dr. Priestley and Mr. Bel- sham have taught us that indifference to religion is friendly to the acquisition of truth ; and Dr. Toulmin completes the scheme, by teaching us that the acquisition of truth is friendly to indifference to religion ; or, which is the same thing, that it leads to the neglect of cultivating holy affec- tions. Say, reader, can that be truth, evangelical truth, which is thus acquired, and which thus operates ? The knowledge of Christ’s doctrine was formerly promoted by doing his will; and, being known, it invariably wrought in a way of righteousness. I know, indeed, that persons deeply engaged in polemics, whatever cause they espouse, are in danger of neglecting the culture of the heart; but whatever allowances require to be made on one side of the controversy ought equally to be made on the other. Unless Dr. Toulmin means to acknowledge that, on account of the peculiar difficulty of defending their cause, they have had greater labour and more “absorbing” application than their opponents, he cannot, therefore, account for their defects from their po- lemical engagements. The “investigation” to which he refers must be private, like that of the noble Bereans; but serious investigation of Divine truth has not been used to produce the effect which Dr. Toulmin ascribes to it, but the reverse. The deeper the primitive Christians drank into it, the more powerfully it operated, “changing them into the same image from glory to glory, by the Spirit of God.”—“Grace and peace were multiplied in them by the knowledge of God, and of Jesus their Lord.” What strange fatality is it that hangs about Socinianism . It seems doomed to die by its own hands ! That Dr. Toulmin’s sentiments have produced glorious effects in turning sinners to righteousness is manifest, if he may but take for granted, or be allowed to have proved, that these were the sentiments of the apostles; but if this be not allowed him, and he be asked for proof of any such effects arising from Socinianism, or, as he would call it, modern Unitarianism, here he scarcely pretends to any thing of the kind. He endeavours, however, to account for the contrary, from “circumstances not included in the nature of the doctrine, or its inefficiency.” “There are times,” he observes, “in which men hear not Moses and the prophets.--The flock of Christ, while he was upon earth, was a little flock.-He lamented the unsuccessful- ness of his own preaching ; and the preaching of the apostles was not always successful,”—pp. 8, 9.39. All this is true, and proves that the success of any doctrine depends upon something else than merely its being adapted to the end. But can it be said of the apostles' doctrine, that there never was a time in which it was remarkably blessed to the conversion of sinners ? Dr. Toulmin admits the contrary : but to what period will he refer us when Socinianism was productive of such effects 2 If the doc- trine of our opponents be the same for substance as that of the Scriptures, is it not surprising that, ever since the times of the apostles, “circumstances” should have ex- isted to counteract its efficacy 3 or if this were admissible, is it not still more surprising that those very effects should since that time have been transferred to a false doctrine, a mere corruption of Christianity? a denial. But “the unsuccessfulness,” it is pleaded, “may in some degree be imputed to the conduct of those who, in. stead of refuting their doctrine by plain, Scriptural, and sound argument, give representations of it that are in- vidious, raise prejudices against it, and prevent its having a fair hearing.” A part of this charge is exhibited against me for representing their “congregations as gradually dwindling away; their principles as having nothing in them, comparatively speaking, to alarm the conscience, or interest the heart; and their sincerity, zeal, and devotion as on a footing with those of Saul the persecutor,”—p. 40. As to the last of these representations, the whole of what I have suggested goes to prove that a species of devotion may exist which is anti-evangelical ; and, therefore, that the mere existence of devotion, irrespective of its nature and effects, is no evidence in favour of the principles from which it arises. And as to the whole of them, the only question is whether they be true. If I have given false and invidious representations, they are capable of being proved such ; and if the arguments which I have used be not plain, sound, and Scriptural, they are the more easily overturned. It is rather singular, however, that those facts which I alleged to have existed at the time I wrote should be attributed in any degree to me! And why have not the same effects been produced upon Calvinistic congregations 3 Dr. Toulmin well knows it has not been for want of the strongest representations, both from the pulpit and the press, of the immoral tendency of their principles. There is no system of religion that has suffered a larger portion of obloquy in the present century. Preach- ers, writers, and reviewers, of almost every description, have thought themselves at liberty to inveigh against “the gloomy, licentious, and blasphemous doctrines of Calvin.” And yet we have experienced very little, if any, injury from these representations. Common people do not pay much regard to what is alleged by writers; they judge of the tree by its fruits. It is thus, as we reckon, that the accusations of our opponents have had but very little effect upon us ; and if ours against them were not founded in truth, they would in like manner fall to the ground. Dr. Toulmin complains of my using the term Socinians, as being a term of reproach,-p. 41. For my own part I would much rather call them by another name, if they would but adopt a fair one. Let them take a name that does not assume the question in dispute, and I would no longer use the term Socinians. But Dr. Toulmin seems to think that there is no necessity for this: “The name,” he says, “by which we choose to be called is, you are sensible, that of Unitarians,”—p. 42. True, I am sen- sible that this is the name by which they choose to be called ; but it is rather surprising to me that Dr. Toulmin should be insensible that, in so doing, they choose also to beg the question in dispute. It seems, according to him, that we ought at the very outset of our controversies to acknowledge that we worship a plurality of gods; that is, that our conduct is irrational and unscriptural He thinks that for Trinitarians to profess also to be Unitarians, or to worship but one God, “is strange and contradictory;” that “it is saying that they who admit a threefold division, or distinction, in the Divine nature, hold the same tenet with those who contend for its simple unity,”—p. 43. I know not who they are that admit of a division in the Divine nature; and those who plead for a personal dis- tinction in it, nevertheless maintain its simple unity, though they do not consider that unity as personal ; and consequently do not hold the same tenet with their op- ponents. What is it that Dr. Toulmin desires, unless it be that we should grant him the question in dispute 3 Where a gentleman can be so very condescending, as in this manner to solicit for a name, it grates with my feelings to give him He must be reminded, however, that he has no right to expect it at our hands, much less to charge us with strange and contradictory assertions in case of our refusal, The tone of positivity which our opponents assume, when defending their motion of the Divine unity, is rather ex- traordinary; and if we could but be persuaded to admit of confidence, in the place of evidence, their exclusive right to the name of Unitarians would be fully established. “This simple idea of God,” says Dr. Toulmin, from Mr. ON DR. TOULMIN'S ANIMADVERSIONS. I 15 Lindsey, “that he is one single Person, literally pervades every passage of the sacred volumes,”—p. 45. A common reader of the Bible would not have thought of finding any thing relating to this subject in every passage; and in those passages where the subject is introduced, who, ex- cept Mr. Lindsey and Dr. Toulmin, would have asserted that the personal unity of the Deity literally pervaded them all ? It might have answered a better purpose, if, instead of this general assertion, either of these gentlemen would have pointed us to one single instance in which the unity of God is literally declared to be personal. Instead of this we are asked, in the words of Mr. Lindsey, “How we can form any motion of the unity of the Supreme Being, but from that unity of which we ourselves are conscious 3’’— p. 45, note. It is not impossible, or uncommon, for us to form ideas of three being one, and one three, in different re- spects : but what if, in this instance, we have no distinct idea 3 We do not profess to understand the mode of the Divine subsistence. What notion can either we or our opponents form of the spirituality of the Supreme Being, or of any being who is purely spiritual? I can form no idea of any being who is not, like myself, corporeal; but it does not follow, from thence, either that God must needs be a material being, or that there are no immaterial beings in the universe. Dr. Toulmin at length comes to the title of my last Let- ter, The resemblance of Socinianism to Deism, and the ten- dency of the one to the other. He calls this “a solecism,” and charges it with “inconsistency and absurdity.” “It implies,” he says, “that to receive the Divine mission of Jesus has a resemblance to considering him as a deceiver; that to take him as my master, the resurrection and the life, has a tendency to the rejection of him ; that to learn of him is to deny him ; that to profess to obey him resem- bles disobedience; and that to hope for the mercy of God in him will lead me to cast off this hope,”—p. 45. Surely Dr. Toulmin must feel himself touched on a tender point, or he would not have so far lost the possession of himself as to have suffered this paragraph to escape his pen. Can he seriously think that it is on account of their receiving the Divine mission of Jesus, their acknowledging him as their master, the resurrection and the life, their learning of him, professing to obey him, or hoping for the mercy of God in him, that we reckon their system to resemble deism, or to have a tendency towards it 3 No; he knows the contrary. But “it is a singular circumstance,” he adds, “ that a resemblance and affinity to deism should be ascribed to the creed of those amongst whom have arisen the most able critics on the Scriptures, and the most eminent advo- cates for Divine revelation,”—p. 45. Most eminent, no doubt, they are, in the opinion of Dr. Toulmin ; but let the eminency of their opinions be what it may, if, in cri- ticising and defending the sacred oracles, they give up their inspiration; plead that they are interpolated; cashier whole chapters, where they are found to clash with a favourite hypothesis; tax the writers with reasoning in- conclusively; declare the whole an obscure book, not adapted to settle disputed theories, or to decide upon speculative, controverted questions, even in religion and morality; those sacred oracles will not admit them to be friends, but consider them as adversaries in disguise. I have not attempted, as Dr. Toulmin suggests, to prove the relation of Socimianism to deism barely from an agree- ment in some instances ; but from instances in which So- cinians, by uniting with the deists, have given up some of the fundamental principles by which Christians have been used to maintain their ground against them. Neither is the success of our opponents in gaining numbers to their party, and its resemblance in this respect to infidelity, in itself considered, alleged as an argument against them ; but rather its being amongst the same description of people, mere speculatists in religion, and its being allowed to arise from a similar cause, namely, a disregard to religion in general. I have also attempted to prove, by several arguments, the direct tendency of Socinianism to deism ; but of these Dr. Toulmin has taken no notice. I have appealed to facts; but neither is any notice taken of them. If further proof were needed, I might now appeal to more recent facts. The new German reformers, if I am rightly informed, are making swift progress in this direction. Bahrdt, a little before his death, is said to have published a proposal that the worship and instruction in churches should be confined to natural religion, in which all agree. Last year, my informant adds, an anonymous writer carried the idea further; he is for banishing from churches all the theory of natural religion, as there are disputes about a future state, and the providence, perfections, and even existence of God; and that only the duties of self-govern- ment, justice, and beneficence should be taught. Of those who have lately joined the standard of infidelity, in our own country, is there not a large proportion of So- cinians ? Have not several of them who were candidates for the ministry, and even ministers themselves, given up their work, and avowed their rejection of Christianity ? It is not in the power of the leading characters amongst them to prevent these things. Socinianism is slippery ground : few will be able to stand upon it. Some few may, and doubtless will ; but the greater part, I am per- suaded, will either return to the principles which they have discarded, or go further. Mrs. Barbauld might well represent their situation by that of people “walking over a precipice ; ” and describe “that class called serious Christians,” amongst them, as “leaning to the safest side.” A precipice indeed it is, or rather the declivity of a rock, bulging into the sea, and covered with ice : a few wary individuals may frame to themselves a kind of artificial footing, and so retain their situation ; but the greater part must either climb the summit, or fall into the deep. “The general tenor of your book,” says Dr. Toulmin, “ and your mode of arguing, remind me, sir, of a piece published in the last century, entitled, ‘Puritºnisme the Mother, and Simme the Daughter; or a Treatise wherein is demonstrated, from twenty several Doctrines and Po- sitions of Puritanisme, that the Faith and Religion of the Puritans doth forcibly induce its Professors to the perpe- trating of Sinne, and doth warrant the committing of the same.’ I could wish the piece in your hands, and to see what remarks you would offer on the candour of the im- putation, or the conclusiveness of the argument. The same remarks, I am inclined to think, would supply an answer to the general tenor of your own treatise,”—p. 48. I have not seen the piece to which Dr. Toulmin refers, but I am inclined to think I should not be greatly at a loss to vindicate the puritans from the charge, and that without being necessitated to travel back seventeen hun- dred years for examples, and to beg the question in dispute, by taking it for granted, or even undertaking to prove, that the apostles and primitive Christians were puritans. I have no doubt but the conduct of the accused would bear a comparison with that of their accusers. I could allege from Mr. Neale's History of that persecuted people, (a work which Dr. Toulmin is now publishing,) that “while others were at plays and interludes, at revels, or walking in the fields, or at the diversions of bowling, fencing, &c., on the evening of the sabbath, the puritans, with their families, were employed in reading the Scrip- tures, singing psalms, catechising their children, repeating sermons, and prayer; mor was this only the work of the Lord's day ; but they had their hours of family devotion on the week days, esteeming it their duty to take care of the souls as well as the bodies of their servants. They were circumspect as to all the excesses of eating and drinking, apparel, and lawful diversions; being frugal in housekeeping, industrious in their particular callings, honest and exact in their dealings, and solicitous to give to every one his own.”—Vol. I. c. 8. If Dr. Toulmin could fairly allege the same things in behalf of the body of modern Unitarians, he need not “call upon the churches of Christ in Judea and Samaria” (p. 39) to bear witness to the holy efficacy of his doctrine. And why does Dr. Toulmin complain of “my mode of arguing 3’” He might have found examples of it without going back to the days of puritanism. It is the same mode which has been adopted by his brethren against the Calvinists. They commenced the attack. I have only met them upon their own ground. A large proportion of my Letters, it is well known, are written on the defensive; and if, in the course of the controversy, I have occasionally I 2 116 ON DR, TOULMIN'S ANIMADWERSIONS. acted on the offensive, I had a right to do so. Dr. Toul- min’s complaining of my “mode of arguing” is as if the Philistines had complained of the unfairness of the weapon by which Goliath lost his head. I had observed that “it was very common for those who go over to infidelity to pass through Socinianism in their way.” To this Dr. Toulmin answers, “A similar remark, if I mistake not, I have seen made on the side of popery against the Reformation, that protestantism was the pass to infidelity,”—p. 48. But what does this prove 3 The question is, Is such a charge capable of being sup- ported ? A few solitary individuals might doubtless be produced ; but in return I could prove that a great nation has been led into infidelity by popery, and that the former is the natural offspring of the latter. If Dr. Toul- min could retort the charge against Socinianism with equal success, what he writes might with propriety be called an answer. But his reasoning amounts to no more than that of a person who, being charged with a crime at the bar of his country, should argue that a similar charge had been brought against other people, and that innocent characters had in some instances been wrongfully accused. As a kind of answer to my XIth Letter, Dr. Toulmin has reprinted, in the form of an Appendix, a piece which he had published some years ago in the Theological Re- pository, on The Nature and Grounds of Love to Christ. But I conceive I might as well reprint my XIth Letter in reply to this, as he this in answer to mine. His piece is not written against the Trinitarian, but the Arian hy- pothesis ; and is pointed chiefly against the pre-existent glory of Christ being represented in Scripture as the ground of love to him. But this position has little if any con- nexion with our ideas of the subject; for though we con- tend that Christ did exist prior to his coming into the world, yet we have no idea of making his bare existence, but his glorious character and conduct, a ground of love. It is not how long Christ has existed, but what he is, and what he has dome, that endears him to us. If he be a mere creature, it is of very little account with us whether he be seventeen hundred or seventeen thousand years old.* It is true the pre-existence of Christ was necessary in order that his coming into the world should be a voluntary act, as I have attempted to prove in my XIVth Letter ; and his being possessed of a pre-existent glory was neces- sary that his coming into the world might be an act of humiliation and condescension, as I have also in the same place attempted to prove it was ; and this his voluntary humiliation, notwithstanding what Dr. Toulmin has written, affords a ground of love to him. No Christian, whose mind is not warped by system, can read such pas- sages as the following without feeling a glow of sacred gratitude :-‘‘Verily he took not on him the nature of angels ; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.”—“For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.”—“Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God : but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men ; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” How foreign is this from Dr. Toulmin's assertion, “ that the circumstance of Christ's degradation from a glo- rious pre-existent state is never hinted at when his death is spoken of, though so proper to cast a glory around it, as illustrating his grace and philanthropy,”—p. 61. - If Dr. Toulmin wished to answer my XIth Letter, why did he not prove that the original dignity of Christ’s cha- racter is never represented in Scripture as the ground of love to him, that his mediation is exhibited in an equally important point of light by the Socinian as by the Calvin- istic scheme, and that the former represents us as equally indebted to his undertaking with the latter? The “extravagant compliment” to which I referred, and concerning which Dr. Toulmin complains of my not having done him justice, (pp. 50, 51,) respected not Mr. Robinson, but his biographer, whom Dr. Toulmin characterized as “a learned and sensible writer;” and his performance on the * See Joseph Pike of Warminster's Impartial View of the Trinitarian and Arian Scheme, c. x. Nature of Subscription as a work “ full of learning, of all judicious remarks and liberal sentiment.” I may remark, however, from Dr. Toulmin’s account of his regard for Mr. Robinson, that he pays but little respect to the apostolic manner of regarding persons, namely, for the truth’s sake that dwelleth in them. Truth had no share in Dr. Toul- min’s regard ; but the love of liberty was substituted in its place as a companion for piety. “My regard for Mr. Robinson,” he says, “did not ebb and flow with his opi- mions,” (a name by which our opponents choose to call re- ligious principles,) “but was governed by the permanent qualities of the man, the friend of liberty and piety, and who had sacrificed much for conscience,”—p. 51. Dr. Toulmin’s performance concludes with a quotation from Dr. Lardner. There are several sentiments in it which I cordially approve. I cannot, however, acquiesce in the whole. “We should be cautious,” he says, “ of judging others—God alone knows the hearts of men, and all their circumstances, and is, therefore, the only judge what errors are criminal, and how far men fall short of improving the advantages afforded them, or act up to the light that has been given them,”—p. 52. We should, I grant, “be cautious of judging others; and I may add, should never attempt it, but from their words or actions. But if it be presumptuous in this way to judge others, then is the tree not to be known by its fruits. In this case, though it might be lawful for Peter to declare to Simon that, by his thinking that the gift of God might be purchased with money, he perceived that his heart was not right in the sight of God, and for Paul to address Elymas on account of his opposition to the gospel as a child of the devil, an enemy of all righteousness, seeing they were inspired of God, yet it was utterly wrong for the bishop of Llandaff to apply this language to Mr. Paine, and his Apology for the Bible (which is generally allowed to be written in a very gentle style) must, nevertheless, be censured as presumptuous. Upon this supposition, Dr. Toulmin has written pre- sumptuously, in affirming that “the number of sincere, conscientious persons, attentive to the cultivation of pious affections, hath borne a small proportion to those who have been nominal Socinians and Calvinists,”—p. 36. It is presumptuous also in him to complain of the want of candour and justice in his opponent, p. 39. Yea, upon this supposition, it was presumption in the Analytical Re- viewer to call what I had written “a presumptuous sen- tence, pronounced upon the hearts of those who adopt Socinian principles.” If it be presumption to judge the hearts of men by their words and actions, what right had he to judge of mine 3 A presumptuous sentence is a sen- tence which proceeds from a presumptuous spirit. His censure, therefore, includes the very fault, if it be a fault, against which it is pointed. It resembles the conduct of a man who should swear that he disapproves of oaths, or who should falsely accuse his neighbour of being a liar. If it be presumptuous to judge of the hearts of men by their words and actions, it must be presumptuous to judge of the good or evil of any action. For no action, con- sidered separately from its motive, is either good or evil. It is no otherwise good or evil than as it is the expression of the heart. To judge an action, therefore, to be either this or that, is to judge the heart to be so. I may be told that Dr. Lardner is not speaking of im, morality, but of errors in judgment. True ; but his reason- ing would apply to actions as well as errors. The former may be as innocent as the latter. The killing of a man, for instance, may have arisen from mere accident. It is the motive which governed the action that determines its guilt or innocence ; “but God alone knows the hearts of men, and all their circumstances, and is therefore the only judge what actions are criminal.” In this manner we might censure the proceedings of a jury which should sit in judgment upon a person, to determine whether the act by which he has taken away the life of a fellow creature arose from accident or design. Who can say, with infallible precision, concerning any action, how far the author of it “has fallen short of im- proving the advantages afforded him, or how far he has failed of acting up to the light that has been given him?” If this reasoning, therefore, prove any thing, it will prove ON DR. TOULMIN'S ANIMADVERSIONS. 117 that men are utterly incompetent for any kind of judgment in things which relate to good and evil. A man may err in his notions of morality as well as concerning evangelical truth : he may think, with some modern unbelievers, that the confining of a man to one woman is unnatural ; that fornication is allowable ; and that even adultery is but a small crime, and, where it is undetected, no crime at all. Now if God alone is to judge of these errors, God alone must also judge of the actions resulting from them ; for there can be no more of moral evil in the one than in the other. If the former may be innocent, so may the latter; and all being to us uncertainty, owing to our ignorance of the motive, or state of mind, from which such notions were formed, together with the advantages which the party may have possessed, we must, in all such cases, entirely cease from passing CenSUlre. If it be alleged that there are such light and evidence in favour of chastity that no man can err on that subject, unless his error arise from some evil bias, I answer, this is what, in other cases, is called judging men's hearts; and why may I not as well say there are such light and evi- dence in favour of the gospel, that no man can reject it but from an evil bias ? This appears to me to be the truth, and the ground on - which unbelief is threatened with damnation, and a denial of the Lord who bought us followed with swift destruction. Far be it from me to indulge a censorious spirit, or to take pleasure in thinking ill of any man. Nay, far be it from me to pass any kind of judgment on any man, fur- ther than I am called to do so; and when this is the case, I desire it may always be in meekness and fear; knowing, not only that I also am judged of others, but that all of us, and all our decisions, must be tried another day at a higher tribunal. It may be asked, What call have we to pass any kind of judgment upon those who disown the Deity and atonement of Christ'? I answer, We are called either to admit them as fellow Christians into communion with us, or to refuse to do so. We are necessitated, therefore, to pass some judgment; and this is all that we do pass. We do not pretend to say, concerning any individual, that we are cer- tain he is not in a state of salvation ; but we say we cannot perceive sufficient ground to warrant our acknowledging him as a fellow Christian. - We must either admit every pretender to Christianity into communion with us, and so acknowledge him as a fellow Christian, or we shall be accused of judging the hearts of men. The rule by which we admit to fellowship is a credible profession of Christianity. There are two things which render a profession credible. First, That the thing professed be Christianity. Secondly, That the profession be accompanied with a practice correspondent with it. If a man say he loves God, and lives in malevo- lence against his brother, all will admit that he ought to be rejected ; and though such rejection may include a kind of judgment upon his heart, none will object to our proceedings on this account. But if this be judging the heart, we suppose we have a right and are obliged to judge it from words as well as from actions. If the profession which a person makes of Christianity do not include what, in our judgment, is essential to it, we cannot consistently admit him to communion with us, nor acknowledge him as a fellow Christian. Our judgment must be the rule of our conduct. If we err, so it is ; but we ought not to act in opposition to our convictions. To acknowledge a per- son as a fellow Christian, while we consider him defective in the essentials of Christianity, would be to act hypo- critically, and tend to deceive the souls of men. Some persons have spoken and written as though we ânvaded the right of private judgment by refusing to com- mune with those who avow Socinian principles. But if a community have not a right to refuse, and even to exclude, an individual whose sentiments they consider as subver- sive of the gospel, neither has an individual any right to separate himself from a community whose sentiments he considers in a similar light. Provided they would forbear with him, he ought to do the same with them. This prin- ciple condemns not only the Reformation from popery, but all other reformations in which individuals have withdrawn from a corrupt community, and formed one of a purer na- ture. Under a plea for liberty, it would chain down the whole Christian world in slavery; obliging every com- munity to hold fellowship with persons between whom and them there is an entire want of Christian concord. It aims to establish the liberty of the individual at the ex- pense of that of society. Our opponents, however, will be silent in this case. They, with proper consistency, per- suade their people to come out from Trinitarian commu- nities.* Were I to imbibe their sentiments, I should fol. low their counsel, and separate myself from those whom I accounted idolaters ; or if the community should be be- forehand with me, and separate me from them, as one whom they accounted a subverter of the gospel, however painful such a separation might prove to my feelings, I should have no just reason to complain. In our view, our opponents have renounced the prin- cipal ideas included in those primitive forms of confession, Jesus is the Christ—Jesus Christ is the Son of God; and as charity itself does not require us to acknowledge and treat that as Christianity which, in our judgment, is not so, we think it our duty, in love, and with a view to their conviction, both by our words and actions, to declare our decided disapprobation of their principles. We lay no claim to infallibility any more than our opponents. We act according to our judgment, and leave them to act ac- cording to theirs; looking forward to that period when we shall all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ. APPENDIX : CONTAINING A FEW REMARKS ON DR. Tou LMIN'S REVIEW OF THE ACTS OF THE APOST LES. FIRST, Let it be observed, that Dr. Toulmin, by appealing to the history of the Acts of the Apostles, would seem to be an adherent to Scripture, and to disregard every thing else in comparison with it. But if the system which he espouses be so friendly to the Scriptures, how is it that they are treated with so little respect by almost all the writers who embrace it? and why did not Dr. Toulmin answer my Letter on “Veneration for the Scriptures,” (No. XII.,) in which this charge is substantiated 3 Secondly, Dr. Toulmin proceeds on the supposition that the history of the Acts of the Apostles is, in itself, independent of the other parts of the sacred writings, a complete account of the substance, at least, of what the apostles preached, and that it ascertains those principles the publication of which preceded the conversions in the primitive age. But why should he suppose this The book professes to be a history of the Acts of the Apostles. As to the principles which operated in producing the great effects of those times, they are occasionally touched; but that not being the professed object of the sacred writer, it is but occasionally. He does not always relate even the substance of what the apostles preached. For instance, he tells us that Paul preached at Troas until midnight, but makes no mention of any thing that he taught. He in- forms us of that apostle's conversion to Christianity, and makes no mention, it is true, of those principles which I have supposed necessary to repentance and faith, as having had any influence in producing that effect; such as a con- viction of the evil nature of sin, our own depravity, &c.; and this silence of the sacred writer Dr. Toulmin improves into an argument against me. Let. III. But if we hence infer that these principles had no influence in conversion, in that of Saul, for example, we must contradict the apos- tle's own particular account of this matter, which he has stated in the seventh chapter to the Romans; where he intimates that, by a view of the spirituality of the Divine law, he was convinced of his own depravity, and of the exceeding sinfulness of sin, and died, as to all hopes of acceptance with God by the deeds of the law. When any thing is said, in the Acts of the Apostles, con- * Sce Mr. Rentish, p. 44, note. | 18 APPENDIX. cerning principles, the account is very general.—“They ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.” In Samaria, Philip “preached Christ.” Unto the eunuch “he preached Jesus,” and declared that “Christ was the Son of God.” The discourses of the apostles are frequently called “the word of the Lord,” and “the word of God.” To suppose that the principles which are particularly specified in the history of the Acts were the only ones which were influential, in the conversions of those times, would be to exclude, not only those doctrines which are commonly called Calvinistic, but various others, which are allowed, on all hands, to be the first principles of religion ; such as the being cf a God, the excellency and purity of his moral government, the Divine origin of the Old Testa- ment, &c. The apostles, in preaching to the Jews, did not assert these principles, but they supposed them. It were unreasonable to expect they should have done other- wise, seeing these were principles which their hearers pro- fessedly admitted; yet it does not follow that they had no influence in their conversion. On the contrary, we are assured that “he that cometh to God must believe that he is,” and that “by the law is the knowledge of sin.” Nor is it less evident that to embrace the Messiah includes an approbation of those scriptures which foretold his cha- racter and conduct. Thirdly, Though the writer of the Acts of the Apostles does not profess to give us even the substance of the minis- try of the apostles, yet he says sufficient to convince an unprejudiced reader that their doctrine was very different from that of Socinus, or of modern Unitarians. It is true they spoke of Christ as “a man,” “a man approved of God by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by him ;” and taught that “ God raised him from the dead ; ” and if we had denied either of these truths, it would have been in point for Dr. Toulmin to have laboured, all through his Second and Third Letters, to establish them. But they taught the proper Deity as well as the humanity of Christ, and atonement by his death as well as the fact of his re- surrection. They exhibited him as the Lord, on whose name sinners were to call for salvation ; * and declared that by the shedding of his blood his church was purchased, and believing sinners “justified from all things, from which they could not be justifted by the law of Moses,” chap. xx. 28 ; xiii. 39. Peter, in his first sermon, addressed the Jews upon principles of the truth of which they, in their consciences, were convinced : “Ye men of Israel,” said he, “hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God —by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know—ye– by wicked hands have crucified and slain.”f. Upon these principles he grounded others, of which they were not con- vinced; namely, his resurrection from the dead, (24–32,) his exaltation at the right hand of God, (33,) his being made both Lord and Christ, (36,) and of remission of sins through his name, 38. In his next sermon, he asserted him to be the Son of God, (chap. iii. 13,) the Holy One, and the Just, the Prince (or author) of life, whom they had Killed, preferring a murderer before him, 14, 15. If Jesus was the author of life in the same sense in which Barabbas was the destroyer of it, then was the antithesis proper, and the charge adapted to excite the greatest alarm. It was nothing less than declaring to them that, in crucifying Jesus of Nazareth, they had crucifted the Lord of glory; or that the person whom they had slain was no other than the Creator of the world, in human nature . In the first instance the apostle appealed to what the Jews themselves &new of Christ; in the last, to what he knew concerning him, who, with his fellow apostles, had beheld his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father. Did Peter speak as would a “modern Unitarian,” f when he said to his countrymen, “Neither is there salva. tion in any other ; for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved 3” Such language, I fear, is seldom, if ever, used in their pulpits: it is such, at least, as I have never met with in their writings. On the contrary, one of their principal writers endeavours to explain it away, or to prove that it * Chap. ii. 21. 1 Cor. i. 22. Compare Chap. ix. 14; xxii. 16; Rom. x. 12, and is not meant of “ salvation to eternal life, but of deliver- ance from bodily diseases.” & Dr. Toulmin finds Stephen before the council, but makes no mention of his death, in which he is described as praying to Christ, saying, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” —“Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.” Having made a few remarks upon the eighth chapter, he observes, “I next meet with this apostle (Peter) receiving an extraordinary commission to preach unto Cornelius and his house,”—p. 17. But why does he skip over the ninth chapter, which gives an account of the conversion of Saul ? Was it be- cause we there find the primitive Christians described as “calling upon the name of the Lord Jesus?” 14. 21. And why does he make mention of “the fine speech of the apostle Paul to the elders of the church at Ephesus,” and yet overlook that solemn charge, “Feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood,” chap. xx. 28. Is it because he thinks, with Dr. Priestley, that “we ought to be exceedingly cautious how we admit such an expression ?” || That seems to be the reason. But then we ought to be as cautious how we admit the book which contains it. In preaching to the Jews, the apostles insisted that Jesus was the Christ, the promised Messiah, the Son of God; resting the proof of these assertions upon the fact that God had raised him from the dead; and Dr. Toulmin reckons this to be, “what, in modern style, is called Unitarian- ism,”—p. 28. But this is proceeding too fast. Before such a conclusion can be fairly drawn, it must be proved that these propositions have the same meaning in the So- cinian creed as in that of the apostles. Let us examine whether that be the case. When they asserted that Jesus was the Christ, the meaning of the terms must be supposed to have been sufficiently understood. When Paul preached at Athens, though he ultimately brought Christ into his discourse, yet he did not use this kind of language. It would have been improper to have dome so. The Atheni- ans would not have understood what he meant by Jesus being the Christ; but the Jews did ; and the ideas which they would attach to this name must be collected from the means of information which they possessed. If, as So- cinians affirm, the Christ preached by the apostle was only an instructor of mankind ; if he suffered martyrdom only in confirmation of his doctrine ; and if his being called the Son of God denoted him to be nothing more than human ; it must be supposed that these were the ideas which the prophets had given of the Messiah, which our Lord himself had professed, and which the Jews had understood him to profess. And if all this be true, it must be granted that the apostles used these terms in the sense of our opponents; and Dr. Toulmin’s conclusion, that “ their preaching was the same, for substance, as that of modern Unitarians,” is just. But if the Messiah pre- figured by Jewish sacrifices, and predicted by the prophets, was to take away the sins of the world, by being made an atoning sacrifice; if Christ, in professing to be the Son of God, professed to be equal with God; and if his country- men generally so understood him, and therefore accused him of blasphemy, and put him to death; then it is not true that the apostles could use these terms in the sense of our opponents, and Dr. Toulmin’s conclusion is totally unfounded. The reader may now judge of the propriety of the fol. lowing language used by Dr. Toulmin. “If you suppose, sir, that these sentiments were inculcated and blended with the great truth, the Messiahship of Jesus, it is suppo- sition only, which is not supported by the testimony of the historian, nor by the practice of the apostolic preachers on any other occasion. You may build on suppositions; but I must be allowed to adhere to what is written,”—p. 24. Now I appeal to the intelligent reader whether Dr. Toulmin has any thing more than supposition as the ground of his conclusion, that the apostles, in teaching that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, “taught nothing more than what, in modern style, is called the Unitarian doc- trine.” The only ground for such a conclusion is the sup- position that the Messiah, predicted by the Jewish prophets, was not to become an atoning sacrifice, but a mere in- + Chap. ii. 22. # Dr. Toulmin, p. 14. & Dr. Priestley’s Fam. Let. XIV. | Fam. Illus. p. 36. REPLY TO MR. KENTISH?S SERMON. 119 structor of mankind ; that he was to be merely a man ; that his being called the Son of God denoted him to be nothing more than human ; that this was the substance of what he himself professed, and of what the Jews un- derstood him to profess. All this is mere supposition, for which not the shadow of a proof is offered ; and yet, with- out it, Dr. Toulmin’s conclusion must fall to the ground. Contrary to all this supposition, I take leave to observe, First, That the Messiah prefigured by the Jewish sacrifices, and predicted by the prophets, was to become a sacrifice of atonement or propitiation for the sins of the world.— His soul was to be “made an offering for sin.” The Lord was to “lay on him the iniquity of us all.” He was the “Lamb of God,” who was to “take away the sin of the world.” But if the Old Testament representations were in favour of the Messiah’s being an atoning sacrifice, the apostles, in declaring Jesus to be the Messiah, virtually declared him to be an atoning sacrifice. Secondly, That the Messiah, predicted by the prophets, was to be God manifest in the flesh, or God in our nature. Unto the Son it was said, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.” The child born was to be called the mighty God. He who was to “feed his flock like a shepherd, to gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom,” was no other than “the Lord God, who would come with strong hand, and whose arm should rule for him.” “The goings forth’’ of him who was to be born in Bethlehem “were of old,” from everlasting.” But if the prophetic representations of the Messiah were in favour of his being God in our nature, the apostles, in declaring Jesus to be the Messiah, virtually declared him to be God in our nature. Thirdly, That our Lord, in saying, I am the Son of God, was understood by the Jews as claiming an equality with God; that he was, on this account, accused of blas- phemy, and finally put to death; and all this without having said any thing that should contradict the idea which they entertained. Jesus said, “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said, also, that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.”—“The Jews said, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.” But for the apostles under these circumstances, and without explaining away the supposed blasphemy, to assert that Jesus was the Son of God, was the same thing as asserting him to be equal with God ; and their calling on his murderers to “repent and be baptized in his name, for the remission of sins,” was calling them to retract their charge of blasphemy, to embrace him in that very character for claiming which they had put him to death, and to place all their hopes of forgiveness in his NAME, by which alone they could be saved,” chap. ii. 38; iv. 12. From these premises, and not from mere supposition, I conclude that the Deity and atonement of Christ were comprehended in the great doctrines of his Sonship and Messiahship. If Dr. Toulmin’s remarks on the Acts of the Apostles are foreign to the argument, much more so are those which respect the concessions of ancient Fathers, and modern churches and churchmen. To these I shall make no reply. And though I have so far followed him, as, in these few pages, to reply to some of his observations ; yet I desire it may be noticed that I shall not hold myself obliged to pursue this subject any further. If Dr. Toulmin chooses to resume the controversy, let him keep to the subject; namely, The moral tendency of our respective systems. Any thing besides this will be entitled to no reply. REPLY TO MR. KENTISH'S SERMON, &c. MR. KENTISH entitles his Discourse, “The Moral Ten- dency of the Genuine Christian Doctrine.” This title is either irrelative to the professed object of his undertaking, or it is a begging the question. If he only mean to affirm that the genuine Christian doctrine, be it what it may, is productive of moral effects in those who embrace it, this is what mone but a professed infidel would deny. It is a principle which every denomination of Christians admits. It is the datum on which I have proceeded, in endeavour- ing to ascertain what the genuine Christian doctrine is. If, therefore, Mr. Kentish intends only to prove what his title announces, his performance must be totally irrelative to its professed object, and contains no answer to the piece against which it is written. But it is possible that, by the genuine Christian doctrine, Mr. Kentish means what “he sincerely believes to be such,” or what he calls the Unitarian doctrine. But this is begging the question at the outset. Our opponents must surely be reduced to very necessitous circumstances, or they would not condescend to such humble methods of establishing their principles. Mr. Kentish, speaking of my Letters on Socinianism, observes that “it was by no means his intention, or his wish, to canvass every observation which is there advanced.” To canvass every observation might be unnecessary; but an answer to any work ought to enter upon a full and thorough discussion of the principal subjects included in it. A performance that does not require this requires no answer at all. I cannot think, therefore, that Dr. Toulmin and Mr. Kentish are justifiable in evading the body of the arguments contained in the publication which they attempt * Comp. Heb. i. 8; Isa, ix. 6; xl. 10, 11 ; Micah v. 2. to answer. The number of veterans, in literary war, which are to be found on the side of our opponents, ren- ders it difficult to account for their refusing to hazard a decisive engagement, without imputing it to a conviction that they stand upon disadvantageous ground. Dr. Toul- min has proved his dislike to it by a barefaced attempt to shift it. Mr. Kentish has not done so ; his performance has less evasion, and less assuming of the question in de- bate, and, consequently, is more respectable than that of his colleague. He keeps upon the proper ground; but, as though he thought it enchanted, he hurries over it, touching upon only a few of the topics of discussion, and taking but very little notice of the arguments of his opponent as he passes along. It is a retreat, instead of a regular engagement; a running fight, rather than a pitched battle. In favour of such a mode of conducting the con- troversy, it is possible he might choose to print in the form of a sermon. But Mr. Kentish has reasons for not being more par- ticular in his answer: “Of Mr. Fuller's remarks, many,” says he, “are personal; and many refer solely to a vindi- cation of the religious principles that he has seen proper to embrace,”—p. 3. Pref. If many of my remarks be personal, Mr. Kentish had a right to point them out; and ought to have done so, rather than content himself with a general accusation, unsubstantiated by a single proof. That I have vindicated those religious principles which I have thought proper to embrace is true: the misrepresent- ation and contempt with which they have been treated by the Reviewers, and other Socinian writers, rendered a vindication of them necessary ; and if our opponents have now retreated within the limits of their own terri- | 20 REPLY TO MR. KENTISH'S SERMON. tory, and are contented to act in future merely on the defensive, it may be presumed, without arrogance, that it has not been altogether without effect. Mr. Kentish seems not only contented to act on the de- fensive, with respect to the moral tendency of his prin- ciples, but also with respect to the actual moral effects produced by them. He thinks, “ in point of fact, it can scarcely be proved that, in love to God, they are surpassed by their fellow Christians; though God forbid,” he adds, “ that we should rashly arrogate to ourselves superiority of virtue !”—p. 3. Rash, arrogant, and shocking, how- ever, as this pretence appears to Mr. ICentish, it is no more than has been made by his brethren. All that Dr. Priestley has written upon the gloomy and immoral tend- ency of Calvinism implies a pretence to a superiority of wirtue. What else is meant by his charging our views with being “unfavourable to the love of both God and man, and an axe at the root of all virtue 3’” He accuses us of “living in the dread of all free inquiry;” whereas they “ are in the way of growing wiser and better as long as they live.” He also goes about to weigh the virtue of Unitarians and Trinitarians; and though he allows the former to have most of an apparent conformity to the world, yet, “upon the whole,” he supposes them to “ap- proach nearest to the proper temper of Christianity.” Mr. Belsham also does not scruple to assert, that “they who are sincerely pious and diffusively benevolent with these principles could not have failed to have been much better, and much happier, had they adopted a milder, a more rational, a more truly evangelical creed.” These are pas- sages which I have quoted and answered, in my Letters on Socinianism ; and what else can be made of them but a pretence to superiority of virtue 2 I do not accuse these Writers of rashness or arrogance, in making such pretences, unless it be on account of their asserting what they are unable to maintain. It would be consistent with Chris- tian humility to prove that true believers are men of supe- rior virtue to unbelievers; and if any denomination of professing Christians have an advantage over others, in this respect, they have a right, especially when accused by them of immorality, fairly and modestly to state it. But who can forbear to pity the situation of men who, after all these challenges, on the first close inquiry that is made into the justice of their claims, are reduced to the dire necessity of giving them up, of standing merely upon the defensive, and of exclaiming against the rashness of arrogating to themselves a superiority of virtue ! It will be time enough for Mr. Kentish to “admit a claim to infallibility” when such a claim is made, or to a “ knowledge of the motives or designs of men,” any fur- ther than as they are made manifest by their words and actions, when his opponent makes any pretence to it. In this way, I suppose, he himself will not scruple to judge the heart, since he proposes, in the same page, to “illus- trate the spirit in which my examination is written,”—p. 4, Pref. I assure Mr. Kentish, it was neither in an “un- guarded ‘’ nor a “guarded” moment that I presumed to charge Unitarians with having a heart secretly disaffected to the true character and government of God, and dissatis- fied with the gospel way of salvation. Rather was it not in an unguarded moment that he, as well as several of his brethren in the reviewing department, accused me of so doing? If any of these writers thought proper to quote iny words, why did they not quote the whole sentence as it stands 3 By their method of quotation, one might prove, from the Scriptures, that there is no God. The proposition as it stands in my Letters is conditional. It is true the thing affirmed is, that “ the avenues which lead to Socinianism are not an openness to conviction, or a free and impartial inquiry after truth, but a heart secretly disaffected to the true character and government of God, and dissatisfied with the gospel way of salvation;” but the condition on which the truth of this proposition is sus- pended is, that Socinianism is a system the character of which is that “irreligious men are the first, and serious Christians the last, to embrace it.” Now, do our oppo- nents mean to admit, without hesitation or explanation, that this is the character of Socimianism I know, in- deed, they have conceded thus much ; but I was ready to suppose that, upon its being represented to them in its own colours, they would have recalled, or at least have endeavoured to put a more favourable construction upon, their concessions. But it should seem, by their applying the latter branch of the proposition to themselves, they admit the former, as properly characteristic of their sys- tem; and if they admit the one, I see no cause to recede from the other. I have contended that it is not presumption to judge of men's motives by their words and actions ; and that it is what our opponents, as well as all other men, do in in- numerable instances. In this instance, however, I have not judged the motives of any individual. The thing af- firmed barely respects the general course of things. The avenues which lead to any place are the ordinary passages through which persons enter; but it does not follow that they are the only ones. Were I to assert that the avenues which lead to offensive war are not, as its abettors would persuade us to think, a desire to maintain the honour of their country, but a heart secretly disaffected to the true interests of mankind, and dissatisfied with the morality of the gospel; such an assertion, I fear, would contain too much truth : it would not denote, however, that there never was an individual who engaged in such wars but from such motives. Persons may be drawn into them unawares, and contrary to their inclinations; and, being once engaged, may find it difficult to recede. Thus, with respect to our religious sentiments, education, connexions, and various other things, may have great influence in de- termining them. How far such things may consist with sincere love to Christ, I have not undertaken to decide. But as, in the one case, a person would generally find his heart averse from actual engagements, and leaning towards a peace; so, I apprehend, it will be in the other: like the serious Christians mentioned by Mrs. Barbauld, though they may rank with Socinians, yet their hearts will lean towards the doctrine that exalts the Saviour, and exhibits him as the atoming sacrifice. Before Mr. Kentish enters on the defence of his prin- ciples, on the ground of their moral tendency, he offers six remarks. These are as follows:– 1. “An obvious effect of the impressions to which man- kind are exposed, from surrounding objects, is that no principles can so fully influence the conduct as might be expected in theory,”—p. 6. True; but the same remark equally requires to be made in favour of Calvinism as of Socinianism. There is nothing in it, therefore, appropri- ate, or which goes to account for that want of practical religion which is acknowledged peculiarly to attend the professors of the latter. 2. “While some men are, confessedly, much better than their principles, it will not, it cannot, be disputed that to the most valuable principles others fail of doing justice,”— p. 6. That some men's hearts are better than their sys- tems is true; and for this reason, notwithstanding all that is said by my opponents to the contrary, I have not pre- sumed to decide upon the state of individuals. It is also allowed that “to the most valuable principles others fail of doing justice.” This is the same thing, for substance, as that which I have acknowledged in my in- troductory observations; and I have therefore never rea- soned either from the bad or good conduct of individuals, but from that of the general body. It is true I have men- tioned the names of some eminent persons among the Cal- vinists; but it was merely to confront an assertion of Mr. Belsham, that those who were singularly pious and diffu- sively benevolent, with Calvinistic principles, could not have failed to have been much better, and much happier, if they had imbibed a different creed.” The piety and benevolence of Hale, Franck, Brainerd, Edwards, White- field, Thornton, and Howard, were introduced as a proof that such degrees of virtue have been found amongst Cal- vinists as have never been exceeded by men of what are called rational principles, or, indeed, of any principles whatever. 3. “It deserves to be considered, further, whether doc- trimes which have most efficacy upon the dispositions, the conduct, and the feelings of Christians, be not such as they profess in common,”—p. 7. I have no objection to this or any other subject being considered, though I am persuaded the result of an impartial consideration, in this REPLY TO MR. KENTISH'S SERMON. i2l case, would be different from that which is suggested by Mr. Kentish ; but granting his supposition to be true, the difficulty on his side is just where it was. If the principles which Calvinists and Socinians hold in common be the grand sources of virtue, why do they not influence both alike 3 Why is it that “rational Christians are spoken of as indifferent to practical religion;” and that those who acknowledge this charge, as Dr. Priestley and Mr. Belsham have done, are not able to vindicate them from it? If Calvinists and Socinians hold principles in common which are of a holy tendency, and yet the latter are the most indifferent to practical religion, there must be something unfavourable to virtue, one should think, in their peculiar semtiments. 4. “From a natural partiality moreover to opinions which themselves embrace, men will suppose those opinions to have a tendency peculiarly favourable to virtue and happiness. There is danger, therefore, lest the conclusion to which I have adverted be drawn rather by the feelings than by the understanding, rather by prejudice than by calm and unbiassed reason,”—p. 8. To this I answer, if the conclusions which I have drawn be unreasonable, they are capable of being proved so. 5. “In their ideas too of moral excellence different sects of Christians may not exactly agree.—Many of them severely censure certain instances of conformity to the world, which others of them may think not merely lawful, but deserving of praise,”—p. 8. True. Some for example may live in the disuse of prayer, and may plead in excuse that this practice does not accord with their ideas of de- votion. They may also frequent the gaming table, and the assembly room, and occasionally, if not constantly, re- sort to the theatre; and may contend that each is an in- nocent if not a praiseworthy amusement. But if people are not to be criminated beyond the line marked out by their own opinions of morality, our “moderation” must extend further than Mr. Kentish himself might be willing to allow. There are people in the world who think favour- ably of polygamy, and others who would plead for formi- cation, yea, for adultery itself, provided it were kept a secret ; yet, it is to be hoped, he would not think the better of such practices on this account. On the contrary, he must think himself warranted to conclude, in ordinary cases at least, that the opinions of such persons were formed under the influence of an immoral bias, and, therefore, that they themselves partake of the nature of immorality. 6. “The very nature of the argument proposed renders it extremely difficult to deduce from it a satisfactory in- ference. If to judge respecting the conduct of men, even in single cases, demand much care and knowledge, far more requisite are these qualifications when sentence is to be passed upon their general character. Who indeed is so intimately acquainted with the various denominations of Christians as to form a decision, upon this point, that shall not be liable to the imputation of partiality or rash- ness 3’’—pp. 8, 9. That care and knowledge are neces- sary in such a comparison I shall not dispute ; and if I have betrayed my want of either, I presume it is capable of being exposed ; but that the thing itself is impracticable I cannot admit. It is not impossible to discover who in general are serious, conscientious, and pious men, and who they are that indulge in dissipation and folly. The observation of Mr. Kentish, if it prove any thing, proves that the moral tendency of a doctrine is no proper criterion of its truth. Yet he acknowledges that “in religion the maxim, ‘Ye shall know them by their fruits,’ is a maxim unquestionably of high authority, evident reason, and familiar application,”—p. 5. How can these things con- sist together ? If it be of “familiar application,” it cannot be “extremely difficult,” nor require any extraordinary degree of understanding to apply it. Let there be what difficulty there may however in this case, my work, so far as related to facts, was done ready to my hand. Dr. Priestley, Mr. Belsham, and Mrs. Barbauld were my authorities for the want of regard to practical religion amongst rational Christians; writers whom Mr. Kentish will not accuse of the want of either “ care or know- ledge,” and to whom he will not in this cause impute either “partiality or rashness.” It has been suggested by some who are friendly to the cause of Socinianism, though not professed Socinians, that I have made an unfair use of a few concessions; and that a similar use might be made of the concessions of many of the puritans, who in their day lamented the imperfec- tions and degeneracy of their own people. If Dr. Priestley and his brethren had barely acknowledged that there were great defects amongst their people when compared with the primitive Christians, or with what they ought to be, this, I confess, had been no more than what puritan writers have done, and the writers of every other denomi- nation of Christians might have done; and such acknow- ledgments ought not to have been improved against them. But who beside themselves have ever professed to hold a set of principles, to the discernment of which an indiffer- ence to religion in general was favourable—a system which those who were most indifferent to the practice of religion were the first, and serious Christians the last, to embrace # Who beside themselves have been reduced, by facts which they could not deny, to such dire necessity ? I’rom the foregoing introductory observations, Mr. Rentish proceeds to the body of his discourse, which he divides into four heads of inquiry. “I. What is the tend- ency of the Unitarian doctrine with respect to the culti- vation and exercise of the divine, the social, and the personal virtues 3 II. What assistance, support, and con- solation does it afford, in the season of temptation, afflic- tion, and death 3 III. What is its efficacy in the conver- sion of profligates and unbelievers? And, IV. Finally, how far is it adapted to promote a veneration for the Scriptures, and to fortify our faith in Christianity ?” I. ON THE DIVINE, THE SOCIAL, AND THE PERSONAL VIRTUES. Under the first of these particulars, Mr. Kentish very properly considers “love to God;” and so far as he at- tempts an answer to what I have written, I suppose this is to be considered as an answer to my VIIth Letter. The substance of what he advances upon this subject is as follows:– “We believe, according to the sublime language of the favourite apostle, that ‘God is love ;' we consider all his moral excellences, as justice, truth, and holiness, as modifications of this principle. Happiness we regard as the grand object of his works and dispensations, and conceive of his glory as resulting from the diffusion of this happiness.” “These being our ideas of the Deity, love to him can- not fail to be shed abroad in our hearts. Did we think of him, indeed, as one altogether like unto ourselves—did we imagine that he is vindictive, inexorable, arbitrary, and partial—and did we suppose his glory to be something distinct from the exercise of his goodness, we might ex- perience difficulty in obedience to this first and greatest of the commandments. But in the contemplation of infinite power, employed to execute designs which proceed from infinite benevolence, and are planned by consummate wisdom, filial affection towards God is naturally enkindled and preserved in our breasts,”—pp. 11, 12. On this statement I would observe, in the first place, that it passes over one very important topic of discussion between us; namely, the doctrine of the atonement. Why is it that Mr. Kentish has passed over this doctrine He knows that Socimian writers have charged it with im- plying the natural implacability of God, a charge against which I have attempted to defend it. Have I not a right to conclude, from Mr. Kentish’s silence on this head, that he feels the ground to be untenable 3 Mr. Kentish has not only declined the discussion of one of the most important subjects, but those topics which have fallen under his notice are stated with great unfair- Qess. His account of my sentiments respecting the vin- dictive character of God is marked by the grossest misre- presentation. I had carefully explained the term vindictive, when applied to the Divine conduct in the punishment of sin, by observing that “it is very common for people when they speak of vindictive punishment, to mean that kind of punishment which is inflicted from a wrathful disposition, or a disposition to punish for the pleasure of punishing. Now if this be the meaning of our opponents, we have no dispute with them. We do not suppose the Almighty to | punish sinners for the sake of putting them to pain. Vin- 1 * 122 REPLY TO MR. KENTISH'S SERMON. dictive punishment, as it is here defended, stands opposed to that punishment which is merely corrective. The one is exercised for the good of the party; the other not so, but for the good of the community.”—Letter VII. Now, though Mr. Kentish must have observed this statement, yet he has suffered bimself to write as follows:– “Did we imagine that God is vindictive, inexorable, arbitrary, and partial—or did we suppose his glory to be something dis- tinct from the exercise of his goodness—we might experi- ence difficulty in obedience to this first and greatest of the commandments, -pp. 11, 12. As a proof, it should seem, that these were my sentiments, Mr. Kentish refers to page 71 of my Letters, where I have acknowledged that there is a mixture of the vindictive in the Calvinistic system. But have I not also in the same page so explained my meaning as to reject those offensive ideas which Mr. Rentish has introduced in connexion with it 4 Why did he hold up my acknowledgment concerning the vindictive character of God, without at the same time holding up that sense of it in which I professed to defend it? Or if he might think himself excused from this, why did he con- nect such terms with it as must exhibit it in a different and contrary sense, even in that very sense in which I had opposed it 3 I cannot but consider this as disingenuous ; and as greatly resembling the conduct of certain deists, who, in their attacks upon Christianity, choose first to dress it up in the habits of popery. As to the glory of God consisting in the exercise of his goodness, if it be meant of the manifestation of the Divine glory, and goodness be put for moral ea-cellence, it is the same thing as that which I have acknowledged ; namely, that “the glory of God consists in doing that which shall be best upon the whole :” but, by goodness, Mr. Kentish means merely beneficence, undistinguishing beneficence, or the pursuit of ultimate happiness in behalf of every in- telligent being in the creation, obedient or rebellious, penitent or impenitent, men or devils. In this sense I allow that the glory of God may be at variance with the happiness of creatures, and I contend that, where it is so, the latter, and not the former, ought to be given up. Mr. Kentish pleads from “the declaration of the favour- ite apostle, God is love,” and supposes that “all his moral excellences, as justice, truth, and holiness, are but modi- fications of this principle.” To all this I have no objec- tion, provided the object aimed at be the general good of the moral system. But Mr. Kentish supposes, if God be love, that in all he does he must have the good of every individual in his dominions in view. On this principle he must have destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, Cain and Ba- laam, and Saul and Judas, and all those who, in every age, have lived “foaming out their own shame,” and to whom, according to the Scriptures, “ is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever,” together with Satan and all his rebel- lious legions, not only as examples to the intelligent cre- ation, but for their own good! Surely this is not a ne- cessary inference from the apostolic declaration. There are other cases, as well as this, in which justice may be a modification of love ; but in no case does it require that an incorrigible offender should not be punished but for his own advantage. The execution of a murderer may be an exercise of pure benevolence to the community, though of just displeasure to the criminal. ambitious, intriguing, and bloody-minded prince or princess from the earth may be a mercy to mankind, and, as such, may be considered as an act worthy of the God of love ; but it may not follow that this is accomplished in love to the systematic murderer of the human race. If all the West India islands were to be overwhelmed in some dire de- struction, I am not sure that it would not be a mercy to the human species ; it would terminate the miseries of thousands, and prevent the annual sacrifice of thousands more : and yet such an event might proceed, not from love, but from just displeasure to guilty individuals. It does not follow, therefore, from any principles with which we are acquainted, that because God is love, he must have the happiness of his incorrigible enemies in view, in all the displeasure which he pours upon them. In order, it should seem, to obviate this reasoning, Mr. Kentish objects to our “thinking and speaking respecting the measures of the Divine administration, as though they The removal of a restless, were precisely similar to the measures which are pursued by earthly rulers,”—p. 20. It is curious to observe in what manner our opponents shift their positions, and veer about as occasion requires. Dr. Priestley accused the Calvin- istic system of representing God in such a light, “that no earthly parent could imitate him without sustaining a character shocking to mankind.” To this I answered, by proving that it is the practice of every good government to make examples of incorrigible offenders, and that benevo- lence itself requires it; yea, that there have been cases in which even a parent has been obliged, in benevolence to his family, and from a concern for the general good, to give up a stubborn and rebellious son to be stoned to death by the elders of his city, and that, not for his own good, but that all Israel might hear and fear. To this Mr. Kentish replies that God’s government is not to be measured by human governments. First, then, we are accused of ex- hibiting the Divine character in such a light that it cannot be imitated ; and when we prove that it can and ought in those respects to be imitated, then we are charged with thinking and speaking of God “as one altogether like ourselves | ?” But passing this, the point at issue is, which of the above representations of the Divine character tends most to excite our love to him. Mr. Rentish conceives that, as love to God arises from a contemplation of his goodness, his scheme must, in this instance, have the advantage. That depraved creatures, who care not for the honour of the Divine government, but whose supreme regard is di- rected towards themselves, should love that being best who, whatever be their character and conduct, is most de- voted to their happiness, is readily admitted. But this is not the love of God. That goodness is the immediate ob- ject of love I also admit; but goodness in the Divine Being is the same thing as moral excellence, and this renders him an object of love only to such created beings, as, in some degree, bear his image. The goodness for which Mr. Kentish pleads is mere undistinguishing beneficence, of which we can form no idea, without feeling, at the same time, a diminution of respect. If a supreme magistrate should possess such an attachment to his subjects as that, whatever were their crimes, he could in no case be induced to give any one of them up to condign punishment, or to any other punishment than what should be adapted to promote his good, he would presently become an object of general contempt. Or if a father should possess such a fondness for his children, that, let any one of them be guilty of what he might, suppose it were a murder, a hun- dred times repeated, yet he could never consent that any punishment should be inflicted upon him, excepting such as might be productive of his good, such a father would be detested by the community, and despised by his own family. But, perhaps, I may be told that the Divine government is not to be measured by human governments; no, not by those which are parental. Be it so ; indeed I am willing to grant Mr. Kentish that it is not. If he can prove from Scripture that the Divine government is possessed of this peculiarity, that, in every instance of justice, the good of the party, as well as the good of the community, is the ob- ject pursued, I will readily admit it, and will never mention its inconsistency with our ideas of government any more. But while no manner of appeal is made to the Scriptures— while the numerous passages which I have alleged in fa- vour of the doctrine of vindictive punishment remain un- noticed—while nothing of any account, except the nature and fitness of things, is alleged—I have a right to show that, from the nature and fitness of things, no conclusion like that of Mr. Kentish can be drawn, but the very re- verse. Love to a government, even a parental one, must be accompanied with respect. A being whose kindness degenerates into fondness, however his conduct may please our selfish humours, can never be the object of our esteem. On this principle, when Jehovah proclaimed his name or character to Moses, he not only declared himself to be “ the Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long- suffering, and abundant in goodness and in truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, and transgression, and sin;” but added, “ and that will by no means clear the guilty.” REPLY TO MR. KENTISH?S SERMON. 123 “Love to God,” Mr. Kentish observes, “ is no enthusi- astic rapture, no offspring of a licentious imagination. It consists in the highest esteem for the Divine character, and the liveliest gratitude for the Divine mercies,”—p. 10. Very true ; it is the character of God that is the prime object of genuine love ; and I may add, what I have ob- served before, that “the true character of God, as revealed in the Scriptures, must be taken into the account, in de- termining whether our love to God be genuine or not. We may clothe the Divine Being with such attributes, and such only, as will suit our depraved taste ; and then it will be no difficult thing to fall down and worship him : but this is not the iove of God, but of an idol of our own cre- ating.” It appears to me that the God in whom Mr. Kentish professes to believe is not the true God, or the God revealed in the Bible; and that the love he pleads for is no other than self-love, or an attachment to a being whose glory consists in his being invariably attached to us. The character of God is principally manifested to us through those two grand mediums, the law and the gos- pel; but neither of them conveys any such idea of him as that which Mr. Kentish endeavours to exhibit. By the precepts and penalties of the former, Jehovah declared his love to men, as creatures, by guarding them against every approach to evil; but he also, by the same means, so- lemnly declared his love of righteousness, and his deter- mination to maintain a righteous government in the uni- verse. By the propitiation exhibited in the latter, the same important ideas are repeated, , and others, of still greater importance to us, revealed. Here Jehovah de- clares his compassion to men, as guilty and miserable ; but it is without any relaxation of the rigid uprightness of his moral government, or the least implication that his re- bellious creatures had been hardly dealt with, that he pours forth a rich exuberance of mercy upon the unwor- thy. He is still the “just God, and the Saviour ; just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.” While salvation is promised to every believing sinner, damnation is threatened to every one that believeth not. There is a rectitude that runs through all the dispensa- tions of God, which determines his true character, and, by consequence, the nature of genuine love to him, seeing the one must necessarily correspond with the other. The Scripture character of God is such that wicked men are naturally averse from it. “The carnal mind is enmity against God.” Our Lord told the Jews, notwithstanding all their boasted attachment to God, that they “ had not the love of God in them.” Hence we are taught the ne- cessity of the “heart being circumcised to love the Lord our God,” Deut. xxx. 6. But the character of God, as drawn by Mr. Kentish, is such that the most depraved be- ing must approve it, and that without any change in the unholy bias of his heart. Sinners can love those that love them. A being, the perfections of whose nature require him to promote the good of creation in general, will be loved by those, and those only, who value the general good, and who no otherwise desire the happiness of any creature, not even their own, than as it is included in the well-being of his moral empire. But a being the proper- ties of whose nature prevent him, in any instance, from making a final example of any of his rebellious creatures, or pumishing them in any way except that in which their good shall be his ultimate end, may be beloved by those who have no regard for the general good, nor for any part of intelligent existence but themselves, or such as become subservient to themselves. And what, other than this, is Mr. Kentish’s representation of love to God? Considering God as all goodness, and goodness as consisting in a de- termination to do good, ultimately, to every creature, let his character and conduct be what it may, he supposes it to be matural to men to love him. “ The love of God,” he says, “cannot fail to be shed abroad in our hearts;” it is “naturally enkindled and kept alive in our breasts,”— pp. 11, 12. Genuine love to God requires to be “shed abroad in the heart by the Holy Spirit: ” but there needs no Holy Spirit in this case; it is altogether natural to man. Mr. Kentish therefore acted very properly in leaving that part of the passage out of his quotation. The scheme of our opponents not only misrepresents the nature of love to God, but it is miserably deficient with respect to motives whereby it may be excited. “God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”—“Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be a pro- pitiation for our sins.”—“God commendeth his love to- wards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”—“He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all.”—“Thanks be unto God for his un- speakable gift.” Such is the language of inspiration ; but this affecting epitome of gospel truth is despoiled of all its glory by the expositions of our opponents. Every thing rich, interesting, and endearing, which it contains, evapor- ates in their hands, as by a kind of chemical process; and nothing is left behind that can acquit the sacred writers of dealing in great swelling words of vanity. Mr. Kentish's remarks upon this subject, together with a quotation from Dr. Kippis in support of it, are feeble and nugatory; they prove nothing but the poverty of the cause. “By the goodness of the Almighty, exhibited in the works of nature, in the dispensations of providence, and in our temporal comfort, we are as much impressed, I presume,” says Mr. Kentish, “as any class of Christians. And if we neither think nor speak like some of them concerning the Divine love manifested in the gift of Jesus Christ, it must not hence be inferred that we are less attentive to its magnitude and extent. It is our persua- sion, on the contrary, that, from the views we cherish of this important subject, we can say with peculiar justice, ‘We love him, because he first loved us.’”—pp. 12, 13. To the “persuasion” of Mr. Kentish is added the opinion of Dr. Kippis, that when “writers express themselves as if the Christian revelation would be of little value, unless their particular systems are adopted, it is a kind of lan- guage which is extremely injudicious, and which ought to be avoided and discouraged ; and that no man can think meanly of the evangelical dispensation, or detract from its excellence and dignity, who believes that God is the author of it—that it was communicated by Jesus Christ—and that he conveys to us knowledge, pardon, holiness, and eternal life,”—pp. 12, 13, note. Our opponents, then, in all their numerous charges of idolatry, corrupting Christianity, &c., exhibited against us, wish to be understood it seems, after all, as including nothing under these offensive terms which implies “a mean opinion of the evangelical dispensation, or which detracts from its excellence and dignity : " I wish it were in my power honestly to return the compli- ment. In this case, however, I should think consistency would require me to retract my former charges. But were Calvinists and Socinians to coalesce upon Dr. Kip- pis’s principles, I should fear it would deserve the name of a confederacy against the Holy Scriptures. The apostle Paul must necessarily fall under their united censure; for if it be “extremely injudicious to represent the Christian revelation as of little value, unless a particular system be adopted,” he must have been verily guilty in suggesting that the Galatian teachers, who only erred on the doctrine of justification, had introduced “another gospel,” and aimed at “perverting the gospel of Christ.” But if the scheme of Mr. Kentish be defective in one point of view, he seems to think it has the advantage in another. The unity of God, he observes, stands connected with the command to love him ; and he hence labours to prove the superior efficacy of his sentiments in promoting this temper of mind, inasmuch as they who imbibe them are not subject to be distracted and bewildered in their wor- ship, as those are who worship a plurality of deities,—pp. 14, 15. But with this reasoning I, who do not worship a plurality of deities, have no concern. Under the article of Love to God, Mr. Kentish proceeds to discourse on love to Christ, pp. 15–19. With what “propriety” this is done, unless he be possessed of Deity, I shall not inquire. It is in this place, I suppose, that we are to consider him as answering my XIth Letter, which was written on this subject. The questions discussed in that Letter were, “Which of the two systems tends most to exalt the character of Christ? Which places his mediation in the most important view 3 and, Which represents us as most indebted to his undertaking 3* The substance of Mr. Kentish’s remarks, on the first of these questions, 124 REPLY TO MR. KENTISH?S SERMON. consists in this: that it is not greatness, but goodness, that is the object of love; that “ love to Christ has its just foundation, not in a persuasion of his superior dignity, but in a conviction that his character was distinguished by the ‘beauty of holiness,” or the charms of virtue,”— p. 16. I allow that goodness, and not greatness, is the immediate object of love ; but Mr. Kentish will also allow that the latter renders a being capable of the former. The more any person possesses of enlargedness of mind, the more capable he is of goodness; and if his moral qualities keep pace with his natural accomplishments, he is a more esti- mable character than if his mind were not enlarged. . The greater any character is, therefore, if his goodness be but equal to his greatness, the more he becomes the proper object of love. Will Mr. Kentish pretend that the “charms of virtue,” in a good man, (in Jesus Christ for example, supposing him to be only a good man,) ought to render him as much the object of our affection as the infinitely glorious moral excellence of the Divine Being ought to render him But by how much the character of the Divine Being is more estimable than that of the best of men, by so much is the character of Christ more estimable, upon the supposition of his proper Deity, than that of his being merely human. Mr. Kentish, as though he felt this difficulty, and wished to remove it, suggests that it is upon the principle of gratitude that we “give to God, the supreme author of our enjoyments, our highest, purest love,”—p. 17. But is it gratitude only that binds us to love God better than a creature ? Is it merely because we receive more from him 2 Is it not also on account of the infinite amiableness of his moral character, as displayed particularly in the gospel, or (as the Scriptures express it) of “the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ ” Yea, is it not, primarily, on this account that God is entitled to our “highest and purest love 3’’ Mr. Kentish has not thought it proper to enter on the inquiries, “Which of the two systems places the mediation of Christ in the most important light? and which repre- sents us as most indebted to his undertaking?” He has made some observations, however, upon gratitude. Having stated that God is to be loved, on this principle, with our highest, purest love, he adds, “Hence, too, we cannot avoid indulging and showing affection for those of our fellow creatures whom he disposes and enables to do us good ; and who, in truth, are but the instruments of his bounty. It is upon the same principle that we perceive the justice of manifesting no common love to Christ, the author, under God, of our most valuable privileges and our richest blessings,”—p. 17. Whether the love of our op- ponents towards Christ, in a way of gratitude, be common or uncommon, while they maintain that he existed not till he was born of Mary, they cannot consider themselves as under any obligation to him for coming into the world to save them ; seeing that was a matter in which he must have been totally involuntary, and while they reject the doctrine of the atonement, I do not see how they can feel obliged to him for the forgiveness of their sins, or to any thing which he has dome, or suffered, for their hopes of eternal life. They may feel indebted to him for having published these doctrines; but if this be all, it is a small affair for so much to be made of it. Many a prophet who was a bearer of heavy tidings would have been glad, in this respect, to exchange messages with him. Dr. Toul- min, in a former publication, has tried to magnify this subject a little, by alleging that “Christ came not only to preach the doctrine of a future state, but to prove it, and to furnish a pledge of the resurrection to eternal life by his own resurrection.” ” Dr. Toulmin has not informed us in what manner the mission of Christ proved the doc- trine of a future state, any otherwise than as his resurrec- tion afforded a pledge of it; and this can add nothing as a foundation of gratitude to him, inasmuch as, upon his principles, it was a matter in which he had no voluntary COY) (*6 r11. For our parts, we consider ourselves deeply indebted to Christ for his voluntary assumption of our nature; for the preference given to us before the fallen angels; for his condescending to become subject to temptations and * Dissertation on the Internal Evidences and Excellency of Chris- tianity, App. 1. p. 215. afflictions for our sake, “that in all things he might be made like unto his brethren ; ” and for his offering himself without spot to God as our atoning sacrifice, thereby ob- taining the remission of our sins, and becoming the found- ation of our hopes of eternal life; but none of these things have any place in the system of our opponents. And, though they would persuade us that they hold the senti- ments embraced by primitive Christians, yet they cannot follow them in these important particulars. Their views of things will not suffer them to speak of his “taking upon him flesh and blood;” of his “taking upon him not the nature of angels, but the seed of Abraham ; ” of his “being in the form of God, and yet taking upon him the form of a servant, and being made in the likeness of men;” of our being forgiven for his sake ; or of “the promise of an eternal inheritance” being received “by means of his death.”f According to their principles, his coming into the world was no act of his own ; he had no existence prior to his existing in flesh and blood; it was not a matter of choice with him whether he would be made an angel or a man; he never existed in any other form nor sus- tained any other character than that of a servant, his death had no influence on the forgiveness of our sins, or in pro- curing etermal life : none of these things, therefore, afford to them any foundation for gratitude. The substance of this argument was stated in my XIVth Letter; but neither of my opponents has thought proper to take any notice of it. It might be their wisdom to de- cline this part of the subject, which is so strongly supported by the express declarations of Scripture. Mr. Kentish seems to feel that love to Christ makes but a diminutive figure in the Socinian scheme ; and there- fore apologizes for it. To suppose Christ to have been possessed of “a super-human nature, and so to regard him,” he says, “would be infringing upon our pious gratitude to the adorable Being whom we are commanded to love with an entire affection.” To this I reply, Our belief of a doctrine which our opponents will not allow us to believe, namely, the Divine unity, enables us to repel this objection: we believe (and that, on the first of all authority) that Christ and the Father are so one, that “he who hath seen him hath seen the Father ;” and that “he who honoureth him,” in so doing, “honoureth the Father.” The idea thrown out by Mr. Kentish, and which enters into the essence of his system, is what the Scriptures are utterly unacquainted with. They require us to love crea- tures in different degrees. But inasmuch as this love, if carried to excess, would dishonour the Divine Being, these requirements are accompanied and limited by various cau- tions. Thus we are required to love all mankind as our fellow creatures, but we must take heed of improper at- tachment, lest we “worship the creature more than the Creator.” We are commanded to love and honour our parents; but if they stand in competition with Christ, we are required comparatively to hate them. Christians are enjoined to love their ministers who are over them in the Lord ; but if even the servants of Christ be idolized, it shall be demanded on their behalf, “Who then is Paul, or who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed 3 Was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul ?” We are doubtless obliged to love angels, because they are our “brethren,” and are employed as “minister- ing spirits to the heirs of salvation ; ” but if any attempt to worship them, they will profess themselves to be what they are, and direct to the worshipping of God, Rev. xxii. 9. Now if Christ be only a creature, it might have been expected that the numerous commands to love and hon- our him should also have been accompanied with some such cautions, lest, in complying with them, we should “infringe” upon the honour due to the Father. The great honour to which Christ was exalted, above all other creatures, rendered such cautions peculiarly necessary; since love to him would be in the greatest danger of being carried to excess; and it is a fact that the great body of those whom our opponents will allow to have been serious Christians, in almost all ages, have actually worshipped him as God. Yet there is not a single caution against this sort of excess in all the New Testament ; nor the + Heb. ii. 14. 16; Phil. ii. 6,7; Eph. iv. 32; Heb. ix. 15. RE, PLY TO MR. KENTISH'S SERMON. 125 least intimation that, in giving glory to the Son, we may possibly “infringe” upon the glory of the Father. On the contrary, when the topic of love to Christ occurs, every thing is said to inflame it, and nothing to damp it. There is a becoming jealousy in the Divine Being ex- pressed in other cases, but never in this : if any thing of this kind be expressed, it is on the other side. “If a man love me, my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.”—“If any man serve me, him will my Father honour.”—“The Father judgeth no man; but hath committed all judgment unto the Son : that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.” Mr. Kentish, as if he felt no pleasure in discoursing upon the character and work of Christ as the grounds of love to him, proceeds to remark, with some apparent satis- faction, upon certain expressions of it. “From the lips of our Divine instructor himself,” he says, “let us learn the lesson of love to him ; let us hence be informed in what this principle consists. “If a man love me,’ says Jesus, “he will keep my words.”—“He that loveth me not keep- eth not my sayings.”—“Ye are my friends, if ye do what- soever I command you.”—“These things I command you, that ye love one another.’ Who can here refrain from observing how truly rational is this language, how remote from mystery and enthusiasm But whilst Christ declares that such as obey his laws, as imbibe his spirit, manifest love to him, let none of his followers be so ignorant and presumptuous as to insist upon other testimonies of affec- tion to their Master. Of better they cannot possibly con- ceive; upon stronger they cannot possibly rely,”—pp. 18, 19. I have no dispute with Mr. Kentish concerning what are the proper expressions of love to Christ ; but his in- sinuating that to plead for his Deity and atonement, as grounds of love to him, is to “insist upon other testimonies of affection towards him,” testimonies which are “myste- rious and enthusiastic,” is calculated to perplex the sub- ject. To say nothing of the “decency” of his pronouncing upon our conduct, in this instance, as “ignorant and pre- sumptuous,” it is but too manifest that he wishes to con- found the reasons of love with the expressions of it, and, under a show of regard for the one, to draw off the reader's attention from the other. Mr. Kentish may recollect that the same language is used of love to God as of love to Christ: “This is the love of God, that we keep his com- mandments : and his commandments are not grievous,”— p. 12. Now, an enemy to the infinitely amiable moral character of the Deity, as the primary ground of love to him, might here exclaim with Mr. Kentish, “Let us hence be informed in what the principle of love to God consists; it is to “keep his commandments.’ Who can here refrain from observing how truly rational is this language, how remote from mystery and enthusiasm 3 But while God declares that such as keep his commandments manifest love to him, let none be so ignorant and presumptuous as to insist on other testimonies of affection to him.—Let them not talk of contemplating infinite power employed to execute designs which proceed from infinite benevolence, and of filial affection towards God as enkindled by such contemplations,”—p. 12. Mr. Kentish would probably reply to this effect: The grounds, or reasons, of love to God are one thing, and the appointed expressions of it another; and your depreciating the former, under a pre- tence of exalting the latter, is as if you were to kill the root in order to preserve the fruit. Such is my reply to Mr. Kentish. From the love of God and Christ, Mr. Kentish proceeds to discourse on the fear of God,—p. 19. I do not recol- lect having advanced any thing, in my Letters, on this subject. I may observe, however, that the definition given of this virtue does not appear to me to answer to the Scriptural account of it. It is said to be “the vener- ation of infinite grandeur.” But this approaches nearer to a definition of admiration than of fear. The moral ex- cellence of the Deity, as the object of fear, enters not into it ; neither is there any thing of a moral nature in- cluded in it. Without taking upon me to define this heavenly virtue, I may observe, that a holy dread of of fending God, or of incurring his displeasure, enters into its essence. The main objection that I feel to the scheme of my opponent, on this head, is, that the Divine goodness, according to his notion of it, necessarily pursues the ulti- mate happiness of all creatures, pure or impure, penitent or impenitent, men or devils. This, as I have already stated, undermines that respect to the Divine character which is the foundation of both love and fear. That God is the Father of all his creatures is true (p. 20); but it is also true that he is a Father to those that believe in his Son in such a sense as he is not to the rest of the world. The Jews boasted that God was their Father : but Jesus answered, “If God were your Father, ye would love me.”—“To as many as received Christ,” and no more, was power given “to become the sons of God, even to them who believed on his name.” This . adoption by Jesus Christ is not the common heritage of men : it is a subject of special promise, “Come ye out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you, and will be a father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.” And it ought to be observed, that it is this evangelical relation, and not that of creatures to their Creator, that converts our “afflictions into fatherly corrections.” There have been characters in the world, of whom it has been said, “He that made them will not have mercy on them : and he that formed them will show them no favour.” These things ought not to be confounded. After considering the fear of God, our author proceeds to discourse on confidence in him, p. 21. In this, as in most other of his discussions, Mr. Kentish appears to me to forget that he is a sinner; representing the Divine Being, and his creature, man, as upon terms of the most perfect amity. His persuasion of the power, wisdom, and goodness of the Deity begets confidence. But nothing is said of his going to God, under a sense of his helpless and perishing condition as a sinner, and under the warrant of the gospel invitations; or of his confiding in him for eternal salvation. The confidence which Mr. Kentish describes is more suitable to the condition of holy angels than of guilty creatures, who have incurred the just dis- pleasure of their Maker. There is one subject included in the Scripture exercises of devotion which Mr. Kentish has passed over; namely, trusting in Christ. Under the article of love to God he considered love to Christ; and trusting in Christ is no less an exercise of Christian devotion than love to him ; an exercise, too, with which our eternal salvation stands con- nected. “ In his name shall the Gentiles trust.”—“That ye should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.”—“In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation.”—“I know whom I have trusted, and I am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed to him against that day.” In my second Letter, I observed, that, upon the principles of our opponents, “all trust, or confidence, in Christ for salvation is utterly excluded.” And how has Mr. Kentish answered to this charge 3 By passing it over in silence. This is a serious matter. Oh that, for their own sakes, they could be convinced of the insufficiency of the ground on which they rest their hopes, and build upon the foundation that God hath laid in Zion! Un- charitable and uncandid as they consider me, I could water these pages with tears for them. My heart's desire and prayer to God is that they may be saved. But “other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” From reasoning, Mr. Kentish proceeds to facts. He calls upon us “to show that, as a body, they are less actu- ated than others by the spirit of genuine devotion,”— p. 22. Mr. Kentish must be sensible that private devotion is a matter that cannot come under public cognizance. In my VIIth Letter, therefore, which was written upon this part of the subject, I did not refer to facts, but contented myself with reasoning on the tendency of principles. It is a circumstance not the most favourable, however, to the devotion of Socinians, that persons, when they embrace their system, though they have previously been in the habit of praying to God, yet are frequently known, at that time, entirely to give it up ; or if they practise it, it is by 126 REPLY TO MR. KENTISH'S SERMON. drawing up a written composition, and reading it to the Almighty. Such, I suppose, was Mrs. Barbauld's Address to the Deity, to which Mr. Kentish referred,—p. 25, note. Though I have not seen it, I doubt not that it was an elegant composition ; but whether there was any devotion in it is another question. Sure I am that such things are at a great remove from those prayers and supplications which abounded amongst the primitive Christians, and which have abounded amongst serious Christians of every age. Mr. Kentish should consider, too, that the principal part of what I have alleged, to the disadvantage of Socinian piety, is taken from the acknowledgments of their own writers. He calls upon his “fellow Christians to show that, as a body, they are less actuated than others by the spirit of genuine devotion ;” and from his fellow Chris- tians, even in the strictest sense of the term, let him re- ceive an answer. Dr. Priestley confesses that so it seems to be ; and Mrs. Barbauld, by manifest consequence, in- forms us that so it is. “Calvinists,” says the former, “seem to have more of a real principle of religion than Unitarians.” “There is still apparent, in that class called serious Christians,” says the latter, “a tenderness in ex- posing these doctrines, a sort of leaning towards them, as in walking over a precipice one would lean to the safest side.” What is this but acknowledging that complete So- cinians are not distinguished by their seriousness 2 Mr. Kentish next refers to a number of characters of his own denomination who have been eminent for their piety, pp. 23. 25. Whether this account be liable to animadver- sion, I have no inclination to inquire. To animadvert on the characters of individuals, especially on those of the dead, is invidious ; and it forms no part of my plan : on the contrary, as I have said before, I have professedly de- clined it. Let our opponents make the most of their piety let them muster up all their force; let them claim those as Unitarians when dead whom they refused to ac- knowledge as such while they were living ; * I have no apprehensions as to the issue of the contest. Our opponents, however, must not always be indulged in their preten ions. We cannot allow them, for example, to substitute words in the place of actions. If one on their side the question make a speech, or print a sermon, or a set of sermons, in favour of morality, they seem to wish to consider it amongst the evidences of the moral tendency of their principles. It is not Dr. Priestley’s writing on the duty of not living to ourselves, nor Mr. Turner's publishing a volume of sermons on moral subjects, though applauded by Reviewers, principally, if not entirely, of his own per- suasion, that will afford a “practical answer to my Let- ters on Socinianism.”f From the Divine, Mr. Kentish proceeds to discourse on the social and personal virtues, p. 25. I perceive many things, in this part of his performance, which would admit of a reply ; but nothing that requires any, except what he alleges on the innocence of error. “Liberality,” Mr. Kentish observes, “inclines us to believe that involuntary religious error exposes not men to the displeasure of their Maker.”—And again, “We assert the innocence of in- voluntary error. It is the unhappiness of many professors of our religion to consider it as partaking of the mature of sin. Such is the language they use in their writings,”— pp. 29, 30. Surely Mr. Kentish has not read what he has Written against, or he must have noticed that I also have acknowledged the innocence of involuntary error. Have I not said, “ The mere holding of an opinion, considered abstractedly from the motive, or state of mind, of him that holds it, must be simply an exercise of intellect; and, I am inclined to think, has in it neither good nor evil?”— p. 245. Does not Mr. Kentish know that the ground on which I have supposed error relating to the gospel to be sinful is, that it is not involuntary 2 Not that I accuse those who err of knowing that they do so, or of avowing principles which in their conscience they do not believe: this would not be error, but gross dishonesty. Voluntary error is that which arises from an evil bias of heart, or a dislike to the truth. Such is the account given of certain charac- ters by a sacred writer : “Because they received not the * Dr. Priestley refused to acknowledge Dr. Price as a Unitarian when they were engaged in controversy, though both my opponents now place him in their list. - love of the truth—God sent them strong delusions, that they should believe a lie.” These men were not apprized of their being in an error; they believed their lie : but this belief arose from a dislike of truth ; and it was this that denominated it voluntary and sinful. What is it that Mr. Kentish would persuade his readers that I believe “ The mere conclusions of the under- standing,” he says, “where the will is unconcerned, can- not surely participate of guilt;” and who thinks they can “Guilt,” he adds, “ then only attaches itself to error when men wilfully and indolently refuse to employ the means of better information which are put into their hands,”—p. 31. Very well; and who imagines the con- trary 3 From these principles, which Mr. Kentish seems willing to have considered as the exclusive property of himself and his brethren, he proceeds to draw certain useful improve- ments: “By these considerations, my fellow Christians,” he says, “we are restrained from placing ourselves in the chair of infallibility, from rashly judging upon the present state, and the future doom, of our virtuous, though, it may be, mistaken brethren.” Part of this is, no doubt, very good; it is highly proper that fallible creatures should make no pretence to infallibility: but how can Mr. Kent- ish say that they do not judge upon the present state of others, when, in the same sentence, he pronounces some men “virtuous,” and calls them “brethren?” Will he give the name of “virtuous” to every man in the world? If not, he occupies the seat of judgment as really as I do : his censure, therefore, does not affect my judging upon “ the present state of men ;” (for he does the same, and that in the same breath ;) but my not acknowledging those as “virtuous Christian brethren” whom he ac- Counts SO. But, say our opponents, it is illiberal and presumptuous in you to attribute men's errors on Divine subjects to an evil bias of heart. If they were not attributed to this cause in the Scriptures, I grant it would be so ; but it is neither illiberal nor presumptuous to view things as they are there represented. I have no more inclination than Mr. Kentish to occupy the “chair of infallibility;” but I consider it is a part of my proper work, and that of every other Chris- tian, to judge of the meaning of his decisions who does oc- cupy it. Produce me an example from the New Testa- ment of a single character who imbibed and taught false doctrine, and who was treated by the apostles as innocent. How different from this is the conduct of Paul, and Peter, and John, and Jude. Nay, produce me a single example of error in matters of religion amongst good men that is treated as innocent in the Holy Scriptures. Are not the tenets of some amongst the Corinthians, who denied the resurrection, called “evil communications,” which would “ corrupt good manners?” Were not the errors of the Galatians called “ disobedience” to the truth ; and were they not reproached on this account as “foolish,” and in a sort “bewitched,” and as needing to have Christ “again formed in them 2" Did not our Lord accuse his own dis- ciples, whose minds were blinded by their motions of an earthly kingdom, with folly and slowness of heart? Luke xxiv. 25. e In things purely natural, men may think justly, or make mistakes, without any degree of goodness on the one side, or evil on the other; and even in things of a moral nature, if our errors arose either from natural incapacity, or the want of sufficient means of information, they would be excusable ; but never, that I recollect, do the Scriptures represent errors of the latter description, especially those which relate to the gospel way of salvation, as arising from these causes. They teach us that “way-faring men, though fools, shall not err therein,” intimating that the crrors which men make concerning the way of salvation do not arise from the want of natural capacity, but of a way-faring spirit, or a true desire to walk in it. I am not conscious of retaining any error, yet there is little doubt but that I do ; from having discovered many in my past life, I have reason to suspect that there are many more about me undiscovered. But whatever they + See “Wood's Sermon,” for Turner, of Wakefield, pp. 50, 51, Note. f Gal. i. 7, 8; 2 Thess. ii. 10, 11 ; 2 Pet. ii. 1; 1 John iv. 6; Jude 4. REPLY TO MR. KENTISH'S SERMON. 127 be, I suppose they are owing to some sinful prejudice of which I am not aware ; and I know not that I am obliged to think differently of the errors of other people. I perceive Mr. Kentish himself can admit the morality of opinion where himself or a fellow creature is the object of it. He pleads for liberality of sentiment (by which he seems to intend an equally good opinion of men, notwith- standing their errors) as a virtue, a virtue in which he thinks his brethren to excel. He must therefore consider its opposite as a vice, a vice which operates to our disad- vantage. Now, I would ask Mr. Kentish, as before I asked Mr. Lindsey, “supposing that I am in an error, in thinking amiss of my fellow creatures, why should it not be as innocent as thinking amiss of Christ : Why ought I to be reproached as an illiberal, uncharitable bigot, for the one, while no one ought to think the worse of me for the other ?” I wish some one of our opponents would answer this question. If “the language of liberality is,” what Mr. Kentish says it is, “that, in every nation, he that feareth God, and worketh righteousness, is accepted,” we can assure him that we are not such strangers to it as he may be apt to imagine. Such language not only approves itself to our judgments, but rejoices our hearts. And if bigotry is, as he defines it, “ such an inordinate attachment to our own modes of faith and worship as prompts us to have no dealings with those who prefer others, to think of them with unkindness, and to act towards them with violence,” provided he do not extend his dealings to Christian fellow- ship, which, according to his note in page 44, he does not, we can cordially unite with him in reprobating it. Liber- ality and candour of this description may exist, as Mr. Kentish observes, in harmony with zeal for religious principle. But if liberality must incline us to treat errors of a moral and religious nature, especially those which relate to the gospel way of salvation, as mere mistakes of the under- standing, “in which the will is unconcerned,” it is a kind of virtue to which we make no pretence ; and if bigotry consists in the reverse of this, we have no objection to be thought bigots, believing as we do that such bigotry is abundantly recommended in the Holy Scriptures. But “it is impossible, surely,” says my opponent, “that, maintaining this opinion, they should regard the man whose religious sentiments differ from theirs with per- fect complacency, satisfaction, and benevolence,”—p. 30. Where, then, did Mr. Kentish learn to confound “perfect complacency and satisfaction ” with “benevolence 3’ To exercise the former towards characters who renounce what we consider as the fundamental principles of the gospel, or even towards any man but “for the truth’s sake that dwelleth in him,” is, in our esteem, sinful; but the latter ought to be exercised towards all mankind, whatever be their principles or characters. I cannot be conscious of another's feelings; but, for my own part, I find no diffi- culty in this matter arising from my religious principles; and it is a satisfaction to my mind to see not only the apostle of the Gentiles ardently desiring the salvation of his countrymen, the Jews, but my Lord and Saviour himself weeping over them, while each abhorred both their prin- ciples and their practice. If this be a “persecuting” principle, Paul, and even our Saviour, must both have been persecutors. Mr. Kentish, having thus reviewed the social and per- sonal virtues, calls upon “fair and unbiassed observation to determine what is the character which they bear in their commerce with mankind.” “If,” says he, “it be not more exemplary than that of other Christians, it is not, perhaps, in any degree, inferior,”—p. 31. Mr. Kentish knows very well that the authorities from which I drew a contrary conclusion were no other than those of Dr. Priestley and Mr. Belsham. “It cannot be denied,” says the former, “that many of those who judge so truly con- cerning particular tenets in religion have attained to that cool, unbiassed temper of mind, in consequence of be- coming more indifferent to religion in general, and to all the modes and doctrines of it.” “Men who are the most indifferent to the practice of religion,” says the latter, “and whose minds, therefore, are least attached to any set of principles, will ever be the first to see the absurdities of a popular superstition, and to embrace a rational system of faith.” Such was the method in which these writers at- tempted to account for the alleged fact, “that rational Christians were indifferent to practical religion.” This fact they could not deny ; and by attempting to account for it, they tacitly admitted it; yea, Mr. Belsham expressly grants that “there has been some plausible ground for the accusation.” To the authority of Dr. Priestley and Mr. Belsham I may now add that of Dr. Toulmin and Mr. Kentish. The former, after the example of his predecessors, endeavours to account for their “neglecting the culture of the heart and affections” (p. 36); and the latter acknowledges, without scruple, that, “with less restraint than is practised by some of their brethren, they enter into the world, and in- dulge in its amusements,”—p. 32. But Mr. Kentish, though he grants the above, denies that there is any thing in it that can be fairly improved to their disadvantage. “Unless it can be shown,” he says, “ that we so use the world as to use it to excess, (referring to I Cor. vii. 31,) we shall take no shame to ourselves on this account.” It is worth while to remark the progress which our opponents make in matters of morality. Dr. Priestley acknowledged much the same as Mr. Rentish, that “there is a greater apparent conformity to the world in Unitarians than is observable in others ;” but he does not undertake to justify it : all he attempts is to ac- count for it in a way that might reflect no dishonour upon Unitarianism. He represents those amongst them who thus “lean to a life of dissipation” as being only “specu- lative Unitarians,” “men of the world,” and distinguishes them from “serious Christians.” And when he comes to weigh the virtue of Trinitarians and Unitarians in a balance, he allows that conformity to the world, which is to be found in the latter, to be a detraction from their excel- lence; and only pleads that they have other virtues which counterbalance it, or which, “upon the whole,” cause their character to “approach nearer to the proper temper of Christianity than the other.”* Mr. Belsham also, though he speaks of rational Christians as having “often been represented as indifferent to practical religion,” and admits that “there has been some plausible ground for the accusation ;” yet does not justify it, but expresses a hope that it will be “only for a time;” and that, at length, those who give occasion for such accusations will “have their eyes opened, and feel the benign influence of their principles, and demonstrate the excellency of their faith by the superior dignity and worth of their character.”f But how different from all this is the conduct of Mr. Kentish : Dr. Priestley apologizes; Mr. Belsham hopes ; but Mr. Kentish, despairing, it should seem, of things growing better, and refusing to “take shame on the ac- count,” boldly justifies it ; yea, more, suggests that such conformity to the world is “not only lawful, but deserving of praise,”—pp. 32. 38. This is carrying matters with a high hand. From Dr. Priestley’s account of things, one might have supposed that though there were “great numbers” of these conformists to the world amongst the Unitarians, yet they were a kind of excrescences of the body, and dis- timguishable from it, as “men of the world’’ are distin- guishable from “serious Christians;” but according to Mr. Kentish, it is their general character, and they are not ashamed of it; nay, they consider it as “not only lawful, but deserving of praise !” That we are allowed, in the passage to which Mr. Kentish refers, to use this world, is true : men are allowed to form conjugal connexioms, to buy and sell, and to re. joice in all their labour. It is necessary, however, that even these enjoyments should be chastised by an habitual sense of their brevity and uncertainty. That this, or any other passage of Scripture, should be pleaded in favour of an indulgence in the amusements of the world is beyond any thing that I have lately witnessed from the pen of a Christian minister. . My opponent proceeds to his second head of inquiry, V12. “II. WHAT AssistANCE, support, AND consolation * Disc. War, Sub. p. 100. + Sermon, &c. K28 REPLY TO MR. KENTISH's SERMON. Does THE UNITARIAN DOCTRINE AFFoRD IN THE SEAson of TEM PTATION, AFFLICTION, AND DEATH 3 '' Mr. Kentish here quotes a number of scriptures, which, allowing him his own exposition of them, can scarcely be said to express a single sentiment peculiar to what he calls Unitarianism. His whole aim, in this part of his subject, seems to be to prove that “Unitarians may, by the principles which they hold in common with others, be possessed of something superior to calmness of mind.” I must say, I never saw any thing, in any of their writings, that ap- peared to me to bear any tolerable resemblance to the joys of the gospel. I admit, however, that what I have advanced on this subject might have been better expressed. If, instead of affirming that “the utmost happiness to which the Socinian scheme pretends is calmness of mind,” I had said, The utmost happiness which the peculiar prin- ciples of Socinians are adapted to promote is calmness of mind, it would have been more accurate. My opponent’s being obliged to have recourse to common principles as the springs of joy and consolation, is a sufficient proof that those which are peculiar to his scheme, as a Socimian, were altogether unadapted to his purpose. He may wish to have it thought, indeed, that Christ's being “in all things made like unto his brethren,” and his resurrection being that of a man, are terms expressive of his peculiar sentiments. So he insinuates, pp. 34, 35. But let any person consult the first of these passages, Heb. ii. 16, 17, and he will find that he who was in all things made like unto his brethren “took not on him the nature of angels, but the seed of Abraham ; ” that is to say, he existed prior to his being a man, and was voluntary in choosing to assume the human rather than the angelic nature. By culling single sentences, without taking their connexion, we may prove any thing we please ; but, in so doing, we abuse the Scriptures, rather than interpret them. That the resurrection of Christ was the resurrection of a man no one questions;.. but to infer hence that he was a mere man is drawing conclusions which are not contained in the premises. The scheme of our opponents is so far from being adapted to promote evangelical joy, that it leads them, in general, to despise it as enthusiastic. As an example of this, I cited the critique of the Monthly Reviewers upon President Edwards's History of Redemption ; and such examples might be multiplied almost without end. But if men were not strangers to the sacred joys of religion themselves, how is it possible to conceive that they could despise them in others? The following head of inquiry is next introduced, viz. “III. WHAT IS THE DEGREE OF EFFICACY which THE UNITARIAN DOCTRINE poss Esses IN RESPECT TO THE CON- VERSION OF PROF LIGATES AND UNBELIEVERs 3'-p. 35. On another occasion, Mr. Kentish tells his auditors that “concerning the natural influence of religious opinions, the world will judge, not from abstract reasoning and fancied tendencies, but from our dispositions and our lives” (p. 46); that is to say, from facts. But on this subject he has produced neither the one nor the other. “We claim to embrace,” he says, “ and allow no other doctrine than what Jesus and his apostles taught,”—p. 36. True ; but the question is, If their claim be admissible, how comes it to pass that their doctrine has no better effect 3 Mr. Kentish answers, “The fact is to be explained by the prevalence of human corruptions.” Is it a fact, then, that men are more corrupt amongst Socinians than in those congregations where the doctrine of atonement through the blood of Christ is taught and believed ? But, perhaps, what we call conversion will not be at- mitted by our opponents as genuine. “We reject,” says Mr. Kentish, “and reason and the Scriptures, we think, authorize us to reject, every pretence to sudden conversion. True conversion from sin to holiness we regard as the work of time and labour.” If it were necessary to examine this subject, the conversion pleaded for by Mr. Kentish might appear as mean in our esteem as ours docs in his. But I desire no other criterion of true conversion in this case than that by which the end is accomplished. Where I see a man turned from sin to holiness, I call him a converted man. That such a change is sometimes gradual jL admitted ; but this is not always the case ; neither was it in the primitive ages. I know very well that Dr. Priestley, as well as Mr. Kentish, considers all sudden changes as nugatory, and supposes that conversion is a work of time and labour. Upon this principle he affirms that “all late repentance, especially after long and con- firmed habits of vice, is absolutely and necessarily ineffect- ual.” That our opponents should imbibe such an opinion has nothing surprising in it; but that they should pretend that the “Scriptures authorize it” is somewhat extraordi- nary. Was not the repentance of Zaccheus, and that of the thief upon the cross, a late repentance, and yet effect- ual 3 Was the repentance of either of them the effect of long time and labour? Were the Jews under Peter's sermon, the jailer and his household, or any others of whom there is an account in the Acts of the Apostles, converted in the manner Mr. Kentish describes 3 If, how- ever, the whole that was to be attributed to God, in this change, were no more than Mr. Kentish supposes; if it consisted merely in his furnishing us with “the powers of willing and acting ;” it might well be considered as a work of time and labour ; or rather, as a work that time, in its utmost extent, would never be able to accomplish. But what end has Mr. Kentish to answer by his object- ing to sudden conversion, and representing it as a work of time and labour ! Does he mean to suggest that their doctrine has not yet had time to operate 2 If not, what difference does it make to the argument 2 We call nothing conversion, amongst us, but that in which a change of disposition and life appears; and if this end were accom- plished amongst them in any considerable degree, whether it were suddenly or gradually, he need not be at a loss for facts to support the efficacy of his doctrine. Instead of these, Mr. Kentish is obliged to content himself with asserting that “repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ, rightly understood, have as intimate a connexion with their views of the Christian dispensation as with those of their brethren ; ”–and with hoping that “there are those in their number who have found the plaim, the simple, yet the despised gospel of Christ, the power of God unto salvation.” I shall not controvert the remarks of my opponent re- specting the Jews, and respecting unbelievers who reside in a Christian country. It is true, as he observes, “little can be said on either side, inasmuch as the experiment has never, perhaps, been fairly and entirely made by both the parties.” Meanwhile, I perfectly acquiesce in the observ- ation, that “eventually, without doubt, that representation of Christianity which has Scripture, and,” it may be, “antiquity for its basis; which is simple in its nature, and conformable to our best ideas of the Divine character and government; will every where prevail.” On the subject of Missiones to the Heathem, I have only to observe, that if other Socinian writers had said nothing worse than Mr. Kentish, my remarks, on that subject, would not have appeared. Lastly, Mr. Kentish proceeds to consider, “IV. How FAR THE ADMISSION OF UNITARIAN DOC- TRINE IS ADAPTED TO PROMOTE A VENERATION FOR THE ScFIPTUREs, AND To FoRTIFY our FAITH IN CHRISTIAN- ITY,”—p. 38. The principle which I assumed, at the outset of my inquiry on this subject, was this, “If any man venerate the authority of Scripture, he must receive it as being what it professes to be, and for all the purposes for which it professes to be written. If the Scriptures profess to be Di- vinely inspired, and assume to be the infallible standard of faith and practice, we must either receive them as such, or, if we would be consistent, disown the writers as impos- tors.” After stating this principle as the ground, or datum, of the argument, I proceeded to examine into the professions of the sacred writers. Now I would ask Mr. Rentish whether the above position be not unobjectionable as a ground of argument. Has it not the property, which every ground of argument ought to possess, that of being admitted, or admissible, by both parties 3 And if so, why has he not joined issue upon it? I have no inclination to “view my opponent with the eye of jealousy and sus- picion” (p. 45); but what motive can be assigned for his passing over this ground, and substituting in the place of it such a definition of veneration for the Scriptures as . REPLY TO MR. KENTISH'S SERMON. I29 leaves out the ideas of inspiration and infallibility ? It is true he has used the former of these terms, but it is mani- fest that he considers the apostles in no other light than honest, well-informed historians. “To venerate the Scrip- tures,” says he, “is to receive and value them as contain- ing a revelation of the will of God to man; it is to inves- tigate them with diligence and impartiality; to interpret them fairly and consistently ; to be guided by the natural, plain, and uniform sense of them, in articles of faith and on points of conduct.—Then, it should seem, do we enter- tain a just and correct view of their inspiration, when we regard them as the writings of men who derived from the very best sources of information their acquaintance with the history and doctrine of Christ; of men whose integrity is beyond all question; of men who credibly relate facts and discourses which either themselves witnessed, or which they deliver on the authority of the spectators and the hearers ; and who faithfully teach that word of God with a know- ledge of which they were furnished by their Master, and by miraculous communications subsequent to his ascen- sion,”—pp. 38, 39. Whether this representation sufficiently express a proper veneration for the Scriptures is itself a matter of dispute. It is, therefore, very improper for a ground of argument, and especially for being substituted in the place of a posi- tion that was liable to no objection from any quarter. Why did not Mr. Kentish admit my general position, that, “If any man venerate the authority of Scripture, he must receive it as being what it professes to be, and for all the purposes for which it professes to be written ?” and why did he not, on this ground, join issue in an examination of the professions of the sacred writers? Such a conduct would have been fair and manly; but that which Mr. Kentish has substituted in the place of it is evasive, and unworthy of a candid reasoner. Mr. Kentish having given us his opinion of the inspira- tion of the Scriptures, and the veneration that is due to them, thus concludes, “If this be to venerate the Scrip- tures, our principles, I must be allowed to think, are far indeed from being unfriendly to such veneration,”—p. 39. What does this conclusion amount to more than this, That if his notions of Divine inspiration may be admitted as a standard, why then their veneration for the Scriptures will be found, at least in his opinion, to come up to it? As- suredly, the question was not whether the veneration which our opponents exercise towards the Scriptures be such as corresponds with their own notions of their inspir- ation, but whether it agrees with the veneration which the Scriptures themselves require. Mr. Kentish must ex- cuse me, if I remind him of the resemblance of his con- duct to that of persons who, “measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves amongst themselves, are not wise.” But further, I am not sure that Mr. Kentish’s conclu- sion will follow, even from his own premises. There is so much disrespect discovered in the writings of our oppo- nents towards the Holy Scriptures, (of which I have at- tempted to give evidence in my XIIth Letter,) that, even upon Mr. Kentish’s own professed views, they come miser- ably short of veneration. Mr. Kentish acknowledges that veneration “consists in being guided by the natural, plain, and uniform sense of them, in articles of faith, and on points of conduct;” but the Monthly Reviewers assert that “the nature and design of the Scriptures is not to settle disputed theories, nor to decide on controverted questions, even in religion and morality—that they are intended, not so much to make us wiser, as to make us better; not to solve the doubts, but rather to make us obey the dictates of our consciences.”* And how are all the subtractions of Dr. Priestley to be reconciled with Mr. Kentish’s cri- terion of veneration? He supposes the sacred penmen to have written upon subjects “to which they had not given much attention, and concerning which they were not pos- sessed of sufficient means of information.” Mr. Kentish, it is true, may not be accountable for the assertions of the Monthly Reviewers, or of Dr. Priestley; but then his conclusions should have been more confined ; instead of affirming, that “if this be to venerate the Scriptures, their * Monthly Review Enlarged, Vol. X. p. 357. K principles are far from being unfriendly to such venera- tion,”—he should only have asserted it with respect to his own. My opponent proceeds : “But if reverence of these sa- cred records of our faith is to be manifested by a dread of examining them, lest their doctrines be found in contra- diction to our present opinions; or by a blind acquiescence in the unavoidable inaccuracies of transcribers, and in the no less unavoidable, but more injurious, errors of trans- lators; or by a bigoted opposition to every attempt toward an improved knowledge and version of them ; or by judg- ing of the truths which they teach rather from the sound of detached passages, than from the signification and tenor of the context; such reverence we disclaim. Sincerely attached to the sacred volume, against such reverence we stedfastly protest,”—pp. 39, 40. But how if reverence to these sacred records should not consist in a dread of examining them ; or in a blind ac- quiescence in the inaccuracies of transcribers, and the errors of translators ; or in a bigoted opposition to any attempt toward an improved knowledge or version of them ; or in judging of the truths which they teach rather from the sound of detached passages, than from the signifi- cation and tenor of the context 3 How if this should prove to be a kind of reverence for which Mr. Kentish’s opponent does not plead any more than himself? And how if our objections should not be against examination, but against the conclusions which some persons draw ; not against correcting, but corrupting the translation ; not against attending to the scope of the writers, but against torturing them to speak contrary to their real intentions : Will it not follow, in this case, that this “stedfast protest” is against a nonentity, and that this mighty triumph is over a man of straw? It is a usual way of writing, first to lay down a propo- sition, and then to establish it by evidence. In this man- ner I have generally proceeded. Mr. Kentish, in quoting my language, has more than once taken simply the pro- position, taking no notice of the evidence by which it was supported, and then accused me of dealing in peremptory assertions,—pp. 29. 35. Such is his conduct in reference to what I have written on the tendency of Socinianism to infidelity,+p. 40, note. Mr. Kentish is welcome to call the positions which I have advanced “calumny,” or by what other name he pleases; let but the evidence with which they are supported be considered in connexion with them, and if they will not stand the test of examina- tion, let them share the fate they deserve. As to what my opponent alleges concerning what it is that denominates any one a professing Christian, and his appeal to the Acts of the Apostles, (p. 41,) I have already said what I judge necessary on that subject in my reply to Dr. Toulmin, where also I have adduced some additional evidence of the tendency of Socinianism to deism. I have only one more remark to make on Mr. Kentish ; it respects the meaning of our Lord’s words in John xiv. 28, “My Father is greater than I.” The sense which has commonly been put upon this passage, both by Trinitarians and Anti-trinitarians, appears to me to be beside the scope of the writer; nor is that of Mr. Kentish in my judgment more plausible. I agree with him, “that it is not the mere abstract doctrine of his Father’s superiority which he designed to assert,” or rather I think that it expresses no comparison whatever between the person of the Father and that of the Son. The comparison appears evidently to me to respect the state of exaltation with the Father and the state of humiliation which he them sustained. “If ye loved me,” saith he, “ye would rejoice, because I said, I go to the Father; for my Father is greater than I.”—The glory and happiness which my Father possesses, and which I go to possess with him, is greater than any thing I can here enjoy : your love to me therefore, if it were properly regulated, instead of prompting you to wish to detain me here, would rather incline you to rejoice in my de- parture.f. But though I disagree with Mr. Kentish in his sense of this passage of Scripture, I perfectly agree with him in the general sentiment with which he concludes his per- * See Calvin and Henry upon the place. 130 REPLY TO MR. KENTISH'S SERMON. formance, that “the season may not be far distant when systems which assume the Christian name shall, like fabrics erected upon the sand, be overthrown by a mighty fall,” —but “that real Christianity has nothing to fear.” And I may add, that it is with sacred satisfaction I anticipate the time when all that exalteth itself against Christ, let it affect whose systems it may, shall utterly fall, and nothing shall be left standing but the simple unadulterated doc- trine of the cross. I shall conclude my reply to both Dr. Toulmin and Mr. Kentish with a brief Review of the Reviewers. has fallen under my observation is contained in the Monthly and Analytical Reviews, and the Protestant Dissenters’ Magazine. - In the Monthly Review Enlarged my opponents had reason to expect, not merely a friend and patron, but a respectable and powerful ally. The managers of that work were parties in the controversy, as much so as Dr. Priestley, or Mr. Belsham, or Mr. Lindsey, or Mrs. Bar- bauld. They were called upon to defend their allegations or to relinquish them. But, like the late empress of the North by the allies, they have been a long time in raising their quota, and at last have mustered up about half a dozen lines. In these lines, which are given in a Review of Mr. Kentish's Sermon, they have, with a design suf- ficiently apparent, preserved a sullen silence respecting the piece which gave occasion for it. “From an impartial perusal of this sensible and well-written discourse,” they tell us, “the candid reader may perhaps apprehend that the important objects of piety and virtue may be advanced on the Unitarian plan, although he should not himself embrace it,”—Jan. 1797, Art. 74. Brief, cautious, and sullen as this review may appear, it is the best that my opponents can either of them boast. It is true it contains merely opinion ; and that is expressed in very general terms: but herein, for aught I know, may consist its excellency. The other Reviewers, as the reader will presently perceive, by descending to particulars, and attempting to back their opinion with reasoning, have ruined the cause, and injured those whom it was their intention to serve. The Analytical Review (Oct. 1796, p. 394) of Dr. Toulmin’s performance is too long for insertion here. The substance of it amounts to no more than this, that the ground on which I have conducted the controversy is not a fair one. But this implies a reflection on the wisdom of Dr. Toulmin for pretending to meet me upon this ground; and a still greater reflection upon Mr. Kentish for engaging upon it, and acknowledging that “in religion the maxim, Ye shall know them by their fruits, is a maxim unquestion- ably of high authority, evident reason, and familiar ap- plication ;” yea, more, that it is a criterion “by which the world will judge concerning the natural influence of our religious opinions.” It also implies a conviction on the part of the Reviewer that his cause is lost. Like a second in a duel, he informs the world that it is no wonder his friend has fallen; for he fought upon unfair ground ! If this review has been of any use to Dr. Toulmin, it is What by an attempt to cover his retreat. By raising an outcry against the professed ground of the controversy, a kind of apology is formed for its being shifted ; and the reader's attention is insensibly turned off from the Doctor's false reasoning, and reconciled to what he has advanced foreign to the subject from the Acts of the Apostles. But what- . ever service might be afforded by this, it is all undone by what follows; for after having raised an outcry against reasoning on the ground of moral tendency, he discovers an inclination to make the utmost use of it that he is able. As Dr. Toulmin, notwithstanding his shifting the ground of the argument, has no objection to exhibit all the mo- rality on his side that he can muster up ; so neither has the Analytical Reviewer any objection to repeat it after him. The one can tell of their virtuous individuals, and the other can echo the account, though both ought to have known that it is not from the character of individu- als, but of the general body, that I proposed to reason. If the critique of the Analytical Review be weak, that in the Protestant Dissenters’ Magazine is still weaker. This Reviewer observes that “ the method Dr. Toulmin has taken to show the modern tendency of Unitarian principles is plain and solid; it is one recommended by his antagonist, an appeal to facts. He examines every specimen of apostolical preaching recorded in the Acts of the Apostles; each of which, he endeavours to show, is in unison with Unitarian sentiments. From this the infer- ence is very clear, that the world was converted, and the sinners of mankind were brought to faith and repentance, by the preaching of the simple Unitarian doctrine, directly contrary to what Mr. Fuller has advanced, that “Socinian writers cannot pretend that their doctrine has been used to convert profligate sinners to the love of God and holi- ness,’”—Oct. 1796, p. 394. Dr. Toulmin has appealed to facts ; and it seems the writer of this article does not know but that they were facts in point. That they are not so must be evident on the slightest reflection; for they can be of no use to Dr. Toulmin, unless he first prove that the apostles were of his sentiments; and if this be proved, they can be of no use | afterwards, because the point in question is supposed to be decided without them. Whether Dr. Toulmin was aware of this I shall not pretend to determine ; it is evi- dent, however, that his affecting to join issue in an appeal to facts (p. 6) has every property of a feint, or of an at- tempt to keep up the appearance of a regular pitched battle, while in reality he was effecting a retreat. But whatever may be thought of Dr. Toulmin’s acquaintedness or un- acquaintedness with what he was doing, this writer appears to know nothing of the matter. He does not know that the Doctor's repairing to the ' primitive Christians for ex- amples of the conversion of profligates to the love of God and holiness, instead of proving “the direct contrary” to what I had affirmed, affords the strongest confirmation of it. It did not occur to him, it seems, that if Dr. Toulmin could have found, or pretended to find, examples near home, he would not have gone to so great a distance in search of them. REFLECTIONS ON MIR. DELSHAM'S REVIEW OP MR. WILBERFORCE’S TREATISE ON CHRISTIANITY. (written IN 1798.) Soon after Mr. Belsham had removed to Hackney, he printed his sermon on “The Importance of Truth,” in which he strongly maintained the superior moral efficacy of his principles. Amongst other things he affirmed, that “ those who were singularly pious with [Calvinistic] prin- ciples, could not have failed to have been much better, if they had imbibed a different creed,”—p. 30. Several things of the same kind were thrown out by other writers of the party. These pretensions were soon after examined by the author of “The Calvinistic and So- cinian Systems Compared.” On the appearance of that publication, though Dr. Priestley could not be persuaded to read it, yet as Mr. Belsham, it is said, “assured him it was well worthy of his perusal,” it may be presumed that he himself has perused it. And as he is equally concerned to defend his assertion, and has been called upon to do so, it might have been expected that he would have come forward and answered that publication. But whatever be the reason, he has always shown himself averse to such an undertaking. Two of his brethren, however, have stood forward, namely, Dr. Toulmin and Mr. Kentish ; but neither of them has ventured to vindicate him or Dr. Priestley. A Reply also to these publications has appeared, by the author of “The Systems Compared;” and lately Mr. Kentish has published Strictures upon that Reply. There is a certain point in controversy at which it is proper to discontinue it. “When,” as Dr. Watts observes, “little words and occasional expressions are dwelt upon, which have no necessary connexion with the grand point in view,”* and when a serious investigation becomes likely to degenerate into vain wrangling, it is best to cease. When it comes to this, the public mind says—Desist; and with this decision it becomes a writer, instead of tena- ciously contending for the last word, respectfully to ac- quiesce. To this may be added, when the misstatements of an opponent are numerous, his sentiments sufficiently ex- plicit, and his expositions of Scripture, with all his critical accoutrements, too absurd to be regarded by serious and thinking minds, the continuation of a controversy is not more tedious to a reader than it must be irksome to a Writer. The subject is before the public; let them decide. A few remarks, however, may be offered on a passage or two in Mr. Belsham's Review of Mr. Wilberforce's Treatise. Having given a brief account of his own opinions, he adds, “This short abstract of Unitarian principles will enable us to judge of the value of an argument proposed in a work entitled, “Calvinism and Socinianism Compared,’ upon which Mr. Wilberforce passes a very high encomium;f the amount of which is, “We Calvinists being much better Christians than you Socinians, our doctrines must of course be true.’ To this masterly defence of the doctrines * Improvement, Part II. chap. 8. of Christianity, and acute refutation of the opposite errors, Mr. Wilberforce and his friends are welcome. The Uni- tarians will not trespass upon the holy ground. We have learned that “not he who commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth ;’ and, satisfied with this, we wait with cheerful confidence the decision of that day which shall try every man’s work. In the mean time, we rest our cause upon the Scriptures critically examined and judiciously explained. This way of reasoning is branded in the same masterly performance as “mangling and alter- ing the translation to our own minds,’ which brings to my recollection the Quaker's exclamation, O argument, O argument, the Lord rebuke thee!”—p. 274. Mr. Wilberforce having observed it “as an unquestion- able fact, a fact which Unitarians almost admit, that they are not distinguished by a superior purity of life, and still less by that frame of mind which, by the injunction to be spiritually, not carnally minded, the word of God pre- scribes to us as one of the surest tests of our experiencing the vital power of Christianity,”—“Such,” Mr. Belsham replies, “is the candid judgment which Mr. Wilberforce forms of the moral and religious character of the Unitarians. How nearly resembling the character of the Pharisee in the parable, “God, I thank thee that I am not as other men, nor even as this publican ' ' How closely bordering upon that supercilious spirit which our Lord reproves in the Jews, who concluded, because the Son of man came eating and drinking, and affecting no habits of austerity, or un- necessary singularity, that he must therefore be the friend and associate of publicans and sinners . But be it known to Mr. Wilberforce, and to all who like him are disposed to condemn their brethren unheard, that if the Unitarians were inclined to boast in the characters of those who have professed their principles, they have whereof to glory; and if they took pleasure in exposing the faults of their more orthodox brethren, they likewise have tales to unfold which would reflect little credit, either on the parties or on their principles. But of such reproaches there would be no end,”—pp. 267, 268. - On these passages I take the liberty of offering a few remarks :- 1. The amount of the work to which Mr. Belsham alludes is not what he makes it to be, that “we Calvin- ists being much better Christians than you Socinians, our doctrines must of course be true.” A large proportion of that work is designed to point out the native tendency of principles, or what, other things being equal, they may be expected to produce in those who imbibe them. 2. If that part of the work which relates to facts fall under a censure of self-commendation, the same may be said of the writings of some of the best of men who have ever written. Mr. Neale, in his History of the Puritans, thought it no breach of modesty to prove that they were far better men than their persecutors.-Vol. I. c. 8. The + Practical View, &c., p. 476, Third Edit. K 2 132 REFLECTIONS ON ME. BELSHAM'S REVIEW. Reformers, in establishing their cause, availed themselves of the immoralities of the papists, and the superior moral efficacy of the doctrine of the Reformed churches upon the hearts and lives of men. The ancient fathers, in their apologies for Christianity, constantly appealed to the holy lives of Christians as a proof of the purity of their doctrine. And the apostles, though they praised not themselves, yet made no scruple of affirming that those who believed their doctrines were “purified in obeying them ;” that they “were of God,” and that “ the whole world was then lying in wickedness.” These things were truths, and they had a right to insist upon them, not for the purpose of commending themselves, but for the sake of doing justice to the gospel. - 3. In reflecting upon the ground of argument used by the author of “The Systems Compared,” contemptuously calling it “holy ground,” does not Mr. Belsham cast a re- flection upon the great Founder of the Christian religion, who taught his disciples to judge of the tree by its fruits?” 4. By rejecting this ground of argument, and professing to rest his cause upon another, Mr. Belsham, after the example of Dr. Toulmin, has given up the controversy as it respects the moral efficacy of principles. 5. If reasoning from the moral efficacy of doctrines be improper, and imply the Pharisaical spirit of self-com- mendation, Mr. Belsham must have acted improperly and Pharisaically in commencing an attack on the Calvinists upon this principle. Did the author of “The Systems Compared” begin this war 3 No ; it was Mr. Belsham himself that began it. This “ holy ground,” from which he now pretends to retire in disgust, was of his own mark- ing out. It was Mr. Belsham who, in the plenitude of his confidence that his cause was the cause of truth, first pleaded for its comparative importance, by affirming that those who were pious and benevolent characters with our principles would have been much more so with his. And yet this same Mr. Belsham, after thus throwing down the gauntlet, can decline the contest; after two of his brethren have tried all their strength, and summoned all their re- sources, in defence of Socinian piety, he can talk of Uni- tarians “not trespassing upon this holy ground,” and of the characters which they could produce, were they inclined to boast. Yes: this is the writer who, after acknowledg- ing that “ Unitarians had often been represented as indif- ferent to practical religion;” allowing, too, “ that there had been some plausible ground for the accusation,” and not justifying such things, but merely expressing a hope that they would continue “but for a time;”—this, I say, is the writer who can now accuse Mr. Wilberforce of Pharisaism for repeating his own concessions; and, what is worse, can justify that life of dissipation which he had before condemned, by comparing it with the conduct of him who “ came eating and drinking, and affecting no habits of austerity or unnecessary singularity.” 6. It is not true that the author of “The Systems Com- pared” has objected either to the “critical examination * If Mr. Belsham should distinguish, as Mr. Kentish does, between the truth of doctrines and their value, and maintain that the effects which they produce are a proper criterion of the latter, but not of the former, it might be asked whether the value of a doctrine does not imply its truth Surely falsehood will not be reckoned valuable 1 and if so, whatever proves the value of a doctrine, proves it at the same time to be true. or judicious explanation of the Scriptures.” It is true he has not adopted this as his ground of argument; yet in- stead of denying it in others, as Mr. Belsham would have it thought, he has expressed his approbation of it. It is not of criticising, and much less of judiciously explaining the Scriptures, that he complains, but of perverting them. In the same page in which he complained of the Socinians “mangling and altering the translation to their own minds,” he also said, “Though it be admitted that every translation must needs have its imperfections, and that those imperfections ought to be corrected by fair and im- partial criticism ; yet where alterations are made by those who have an end to answer by them, they ought always to be suspected, and will be so by thinking and impartial people.” If Mr. Belsham had quoted this part of the pas- sage as well as the other, it might have prevented the pleasure which doubtless he felt in repeating the Quaker's exclamation. To say nothing of his pedantic supposition, that all argument is confined to criticising texts of Scrip- ture, let others judge who it is that is under the necessity of exclaiming, “O argument, O argument, the Lord re- buke thee l’” After all, the stress which our opponents lay upon criticism affords a strong presumption against them. It was a shrewd saying of Robinson's, “Sober criticism is a good thing; but woe be to the system that hangs upon it !” - *. '7. The threat which Mr. Belsham holds out of “ the tales which they could tell of their orthodox brethren” contains an unfounded implication. Any reader would suppose, from this passage, that Mr. Belsham's opponents had dealt largely in such tales; but this is not true. If the author on whom he reflects had been disposed to deal in articles of this kind, he might possibly have swelled his publication beyond its present size. But, contrary to this, he professedly disclaimed introducing individual characters or private tales on either side, as being equally invidious and unnecessary to the argument. The truth is, he rested his cause upon the concessions of his adversaries; and this is the galling circumstance to Mr. Belsham and his party. What tales have been told are of their telling. They may now insinuate what great things they could bring forward in their own favour, and to our disadvantage, were they not restrained by considerations of modesty and generosity. But they can do nothing, and this they well know, with- out first retracting what they have conceded ; nor even them, forasmuch as all such retractions would manifestly appear to the world to be only to answer an end. In fine, I appeal not merely to Mr. Belsham’s special jury of “men of enlightened minds and sound learning,” but to every man of common understanding, whether his apology for declining a defence of his own assertion be either ingenuous or just ; whether a larger portion of mis- representation and self-contradiction could well have been crowded into so small a compass; and whether what he has advanced can be considered in any other light than as the miserable groan of a dying cause. Should he further allege, with the above writer, that “this cele- brated saying is proposed as a test of character, and not as a criterion of opinion;” it might be answered, it is proposed as a test of false prophets or teachers; a character never ascribed to those whose doc- trines accord with truth. See Matt. vii. 15. LETTERS TO MR. VIDLER, ON THE DOCTRINE OF UNIVERSAL SALVATION. ADVERTISEMENT. A Review of the Controversy between Mr. Vidler and Mr. Fuller on the Doctrine of Universal Salvation, in Twelve Letters to a Universalist, being prepared for the press, it was judged a fit opportunity for gratifying the wishes of many of Mr. Fuller's friends to reprint his Letters to Mr. Vidler on that subject. He was accordingly applied to for his permission, and returned the following answer:-‘‘Mr. Vidler, in a letter to me, signified his intention to reprint the whole controversy. As he has now, I should think, had sufficient time to fulfil his proposal, and has not done it, you are at liberty to publish that part of it which belongs to me.” The reader is requested to notice that the first of these Letters appeared in the Evangelical Magazine for September, 1795, and the seven following ones in the Universalist's Miscellany, between July, 1779, and July, 1800; and that, owing to this circumstance, the first Letter in the present series was not numbered in that of the Universalist's Miscellamy: but what is there called the first is here the second; and so on throughout. August 2, 1802. LETTER I. EXPOSTULATIONS WITH MR. VIDLER, ON HIS HAVING EMIBRACED THE DOCTRINE OF UNIVERSAL SALVATION. in our ministrations. Error in a minister may affect the MY DEAR FRIEND, eternal welfare of many. I hope I may presume upon IT has afforded me some painful concern to hear of your having embraced the scheme of universal salvation. When you were at K , you appeared to me to be of a specu- lative disposition. I have long thought such a turn of mind to be very advantageous, or very dangerous; persons of this description either make great advances in truth, or fall into great errors. I cannot, in this letter, enter deeply into the controversy; nor is there any necessity for it, as I am told that Dr. Edwards's Answer to Dr. Chauncey is in your hands. I earnestly wish you may read that piece With care, impartiality, and openness to conviction. I think you ought to have read it before you advanced your change of sentiment; and I greatly wish you had; for though I do not question your openness to conviction, any more than that of any other person in your situation, yet I know something of what is in man : "I know it is a very rare thing, when we have once openly disavowed a sentiment, to return to it, and openly avow it again. There are many instances of people changing their principles, and there may have been instances of the other; but I do not recol- lect any. False shame, supported by mistaken pride, forms here a very powerful temptation. The dread of being accused of versatility and indecision insensibly obtains such a dominion over the mind as to blind it to one side of the argument, and to give efficacy to every thing that looks like an argument, or the shadow of an argument, on the other. It is certainly a very serious matter that we do not err the friendliness of your temper, while I expostulate with you upon the subject. I will not be tedious to you; but let me entreat you to consider the following things :— First, Whether your change of sentiment has not arisen from an idea of endless punishment being, in itself, wmjust. If it has, consider whether this does not arise from diminu- tive notions of the evil of sin; whether you be not too much infected by sin yourself to be a proper judge of its demerit—(a company of criminals would be very improper judges of the equity and goodness of a law which con- demns them); whether you do not hold a principle from which it will follow, that millions will be finally happy who will not be indebted to either the grace of God or the death of Christ for their happiness; and consequently, must have a heaven to themselves, not being able to join with those who ascribe theirs to God and the Lamb. For if endless misery be unjust, exemption from it must be the sinner’s right, and can never be attributed to mercy; neither could a mediator be needed to induce a righteous God to liberate the sinner, when he had suffered his full desert. • In fine, consider whether you do not contradict your own experience. I think you have told me of your great distress of soul, arising from a consciousness of your deserving to be cast out of God’s favour, and bamished for ever from his presence. Can you now say that you did not deserve this? Do you not deserve it still 2 If you do, why not others ? Secondly, Consider whether the genius of the sentiment I34 LETTERS TO MR. WIDLER. tº question be not opposite to that of every other sentiment in the Bible. The whole tenor of Scripture saith “to the righteous, it shall be well with him ; and to the wicked, it shall be ill with him :” but universal salvation saith, not only to the righteous, but to the wicked, it shall be well at last with him. Do consider whether you can find any one Sºripture truth that resembles it in this respect. What doctrine, besides this, can you find in the Bible that affords encouragement to a sinner going on still in his trespasses; and which furnishes ground for hope and joy, even supposing him to persevere in sin till death? Instead of siding with God against a wicked world, as a servant of God ought to do, is not this siding with a wicked world against God, and encouraging them to believe, what they are apt enough to believe without encouragement, that they “shall have peace, though they add drunkenness to thirst 3’ “Woe is me,” said an apostle, “if I preach not the gospel !” “If an angel from heaven preach any other gospel,” he is declared to be “accursed 1" Do seriously consider whether the doctrine of universal salvation will not render your preaching “another gospel.” The gospel of Christ is good tidings to the meek, healing to the broken- hearted, and comfort to them that mourm ; but must not yours be good tidings to the proud and impenitent, and comfort to those whom the Scripture declares under con- demnation and the curse? The gospel of Christ is a sys- tem of holiness; a system entirely opposite to every vicious bias of the human heart; a system, therefore, which no unrenewed heart embraces: “He that believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.” But the good news which you must publish requires no change of heart that it may be embraced, being just suited to the wishes of an aban- doned mind. º Thirdly, Consider whether your ministrations, on this principle, will not savour of his who taught our first parents, “Ye shall not surely die.” If you should raise the hopes of the ungodly part of your audience, that, though they should live and die in their filthiness, yet they shall not be filthy still ; though they go down to the pit, yet it shall not prove bottomless ; though the worm may prey upon them, yet, at some period or other, it shall die; and though they may have to encounter devouring fire, yet they shall not dwell in everlasting burnings; if, I say, you should raise such hopes, and if all at last should prove a deception, think how you will be able to look them in the face an- other day; and, what is still more, how you will be able to look Him in the face who hath charged you to be “free from the blood of all men;” and to “ say unto the wicked, it shall be ill with him ; for the reward of his hands shall be given him 1" My dear friend! do not take it unkindly. My soul is grieved for you, and for the souls of many around you. How are you as to peace of mind, and communion with God 3 Beware of the whirlpool of Socinianism. From what I understand of the nature and tendency of your principles, it appears to me you are already within the in- fluence of its destructive stream. All who hold this senti- ment, I know, are not Socinians; but there are few, if any, Socinians who do not hold this sentiment; which is certainly of a piece with their whole system. It would greatly rejoice my heart to be able to acknowledge you, as heretofore, my brother and fellow labourer in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Do let me hear from you, and believe me to be Yours, &c. A. F. LETTER II. REASONS FOR NOT continuING THE contRoversy, AND REPLIES TO MR. VID LER'S OBJECTIONS TO THE FORE- GOING, SIR, IN the year 1793, when I understood that you had im- bibed the doctrine of universal salvation, I wrote you a private expostulatory letter, to which you returned no You speak of this letter as being no secret in the circle of my acquaintance. I do not think it was shown to more than two or three individuals. Some time after, as a request was made, in the Evangelical Magazine, for some thoughts on that subject, and as there was no- thing private in the contents of that letter, I took the liberty to send it up for insertion. Accordingly it appear- ed in the Magazine for September, 1795, under the sig- nature of Gaius. To this letter you have since written an answer, in the two first numbers of your Miscellany: I received, from you, a copy of those numbers at the time; and, since then, another of the second edition; for both of which I thank you. To this I made no reply. In your second edition, you inform your readers of the case, and seem to wish much to know the reasons of my silence. Some of your friends in the country, possessing a little of the sanguine temper perhaps of your Birmingham corre- spondent, appear to have entertained a hope that it was owing to the impression which your letters had made upon my mind. If such be also your hope, I can only say it has no foundation. Whether the reasons of my silence be “cogent” or not, the reader will judge, when I have stated them. If I do not consider them as requiring a continued silence, it is because you have compelled me to pursue a different con- duct. To the best of my recollection, I had three reasons for not writing at that time :— First, I did not know that it would be agreeable to you to insert in your Miscellany what I might write upon the subject ; and though I considered the Evangelical Maga- zine as a suitable work for the introduction of a single piece, yet it did not appear to be a proper vehicle for a continued discussion, unless what was said on both sides were introduced. * Secondly, Though I was not very deeply impressed with the force of your arguments; yet, being fully persuaded, notwithstanding what you say of the holy nature of your doctrine, that it needed only to be read by a certain de- scription of people in order to be imbibed ; and not sup- posing your work to have a very extensive circulation at present; I thought it might be as well to let it alone. You may consider this, if you please, as an acknowledgment of 2.InSWeI". the weakness of my cause. Thirdly, Your two letters appeared to me to contain so many misapprehensions, and such a quantity of perversion of the plain meaning of Scripture, that I felt it a kind of hopeless undertaking to go about to correct them. I do not entertain a mean opinion of your talents, but I think they are perverted by a system. You write as though you did not understand the plain meaning of words. I should not have thought that, by saying, “I observed you to be of a speculative disposition,” I should either have puzzled or offended you. I certainly did not mean, by that form of speech, either that you discovered a disposi- tion “not to take the assertions of men as the rule of your faith,” on the one hand; or any particular “want of re- spect towards the sacred writings,” on the other. I should not have thought of using such modes of expression to convey either of these ideas. If you choose to pay your- self such a compliment, or load yourself with such a cen- sure, you are at liberty to do so; but do not attribute either of them to me. You might have supposed that I meant to exhibit no very heavy charge, nor indeed any charge at all, under this form of expression; seeing I added, that “such a turn of mind might be very advantageous, as well as very dangerous.” In suggesting that “it is a serious matter that we err not in our ministrations,” I do not mean either to take it for granted that you were in an error, or to prove that you were so ; but merely to bespeak your serious attention to the subject. Your stumbling at the threshold in this man- ner, sir, afforded but little hope that, if I wrote, it would produce any other effect than a wrangle of words, for which I had neither time nor inclimation. The three questions which I put to you, and “entreated you to consider,” were, it seems, totally irrelative to the subject, equally so as to “the doctrine of election ;” yet you thought proper to offer answers to some parts of them, as well as to pass over others. Waving, for the present, the consideration of those parts which you have noticed, I LETTERS TO MR. VIDLER. 135 shall remind the reader of a few things which you have not noticed, and leave him to judge whether even they were totally irrelative to the subject. * You have not told us, that I recollect, whether you claim an exemption from endless punishment as a right; but seem to wish us to think that this is not your ground, especially as you ascribe it to the death of Christ (p. 10): yet, in other parts of your Miscellany, I perceive the gift of Christ itself is considered as a reparation for an injury (p. 69); which affords but too plain a proof that, notwith- standing all you say of grace and love, it is not on the footing of grace, but debt, that you hold with universal salvation. Under the second question, you were asked, “What doctrine, besides that of universal salvation, you would find in the Bible which affords encouragement to a sinner going on still in his trespasses; and which furnishes ground for hope and joy, even supposing him to persevere in sin till death?” To this you have given no answer. Was this question equally irrelative to the subject as to the doctrine of election ? Under the third question, you were addressed as fol- lows:–“If you should raise the hopes of the ungodly part of your audience, that though they should live and die in their filthiness, yet they shall not be filthy still ; though they go down to the pit, yet it shall not prove bottomless ; though the worm prey upon them, yet at some period or other it shall die; and though they may have to encounter devouring fire, yet they shall not dwell with everlasting burnings : if, I say, you should raise such hopes, and if all at last should prove a deception, think how you will be able to look them in the face another day; and, what is still more, how you will be able to look Him in the face who hath charged you to be pure from the blood of all men (* Was this equally irrelative to the subject as to the doctrine of election ? Yet to no part of this have you given any answer, except your attempting to explaim away the term everlasting may be so called. You represent the whole of this third question as proceeding on the supposi- tion of your denying all future punishment. But is not this a gross misrepresentation ? Does not the whole fore- going passage allow that you admit of future punishment of a limited duration; and hold up, though not in the form of arguments, several Scriptural objections to that notion ? I consider this, sir, as a further proof of your talents for fair and plain reasoning being perverted by a system. You appeal to the Scriptures, and contend that they no where teach the doctrine of endless punishment; yet you are aware that they appear to do so, and are obliged to have recourse to a method of weakening the force of terms, in order to get rid of them. It has been long the practice of writers on your side of the question to ring changes on the words aſſon and atonios, pretty words, no doubt; and could they be proved to be less expressive of endless dur- ation than the English words everlasting and eternal, they might be something to the purpose; but if not, the con- tinual recurrence to them is a mere affectation of learning, serving to mislead the ignorant. Be this as it may, this is an exercise which hardly becomes you or me. I shall only observe upon it, that, by this method of proceeding, you may disprove almost anything you please. There are searcely any terms, in any language, but what, through the poverty of language itself, or the inequality of the number of Words to the number of ideas, are sometimes used in an improper or figurative sense. Thus if one at- tempt to prove the Divinity of the Son of God, or even of the Father, from his being called Jehovah, God, &c., you may reply that the name Jehovah is sometimes given to , things; as to an altar, a city, and once to the church ; therefore nothing can be concluded, from hence, in favour of the argument. Thus, also, if one go about to prove the omniscience of God, from its being declared that his under- standing is ºnfinite, you might answer, the term “infi- mite” is sometimes used to express only a very great de- gree as when the strength of Ethiopia and Egypt is said to have been infinite, Nah. iii. 9. Again, if one en- deavour to prove the endless existence of God from his being called the eternal God, the everlasting God, &c., or the endless duration of the heavenly inheritance, from its being called eternal life, an inheritance incorruptible and that fadeth not away; you might answer, these terms are sometimes used to signify only a limited duration ; and that a thing, in common language, is said to be incorrupt- āble, when it will continue a long time without any signs of decay. The question is, Could stronger terms have been used, concerning the duration of future punishment, than are wsed? To object against the words everlasting, eternal, &c., as being too weak or indeterminate in their applica- tion for the purpose, is idle, unless others could be named which are stronger, or more determinate. What expres- sions could have been used that would have placed the subject beyond dispute 7 . You ordinarily make use of the term endless to express our doctrine : it should seem, then, that if we read of endless punishment, or punishment with- out end, you would believe it. Yet the same objections might be made to this as to the words everlasting, eternal, &c. It is common to say of a loquacious person, He is an endless talker : it might, therefore, be pretended that the term endless is very indeterminate ; that it often means no more than a long time; and, in some instances, not more than three or four hours, at longest. Thus you see, or may see, that it is not in the power of language to stand before such methods of criticising and reasoning as those on which you build your system. Admitting all that you allege in favour of the limited sense of the above terms, still the nature of the subject, the connexion and scope of the passages, together with the use of various other forms of expression, which convey the same thing, are sufficient to prove that, when applied to the doctrine of future punishment, they are to be under- stood without any limitation. If we read of a disease cleaving to a man for ever, the plain meaning is, to the end of his life, if of an everlasting priesthood, the meaning is, one that should continue to the end of the dispensation of which it was an institute ; if of everlasting hills, or mountains, the meaning is, that they will continue till the end of the world : but if, after this world is ended, and successive duration consequently ter- minated, we read that the wicked shall go away into ever- lasting punishment, and that in the same passage in which it is added, but the righteous into everlasting life, (Matt. xxv. 46,) woe be to the man who dares to plunge into that abyss, on the presumption of finding a bottom The evidence which you offer of a successive duration after this period is a proof of the scarcity of that article in the paths which you are in the habit of tracing. A plain, unbiassed reader of Scripture would have supposed that the terms day and night, in Rev. xiv. 11, had been a figur- ative mode of expression, to denote perpetuity; and espe- cially as the same language is used by the inhabitants of heaven, chap. vii. 15. For my part, I confess, I should as soon have dreamed of proving, from what is said in chap. xxi. 24—“ The nations of them that are saved shall walk in the light of the new Jerusalem,”—that mankind will maintain their present political distinctions in a future state, as of founding, upon such language, the idea of suc- cessive duration. Your expositions on other parts of the Revelation are of the same description, as frigid as they are puerile. It is a wonder the new Jerusalem coming down from heaven had not been supposed to have fallen into the sea, and to have filled it up ; and an argument been drawn from its great dimensions of its being large enough to contain the whole human race. You must not be surprised, sir, if I do not perceive the force of these passages, in proving that all beyond the last judgment is not proper etermity. LETTER III. DIFFICULTIES ATTENDING MR. VIDLER'S SCHEME, AND ITS IN CONSISTENCY WITH SCRIPTURE. SIR, t You complain, more than once, of my not understanding the subject against which I write ; and here, for aught I see, I must fall under. I confess I do not, nor can I un- 136 LETTERS TO M.R. VIDLER. derstand what it is that you believe. Having heard and seen so much of your professing to hold the doctrine of wniversal salvation, wrviversal restitution, and that “all men will be finally benefited by the death of Christ,” I really thought you had meant so ; and could not have imagined that, with these pretensions, you would have avowed the motion of annihilation. Hence it was that in my third question, though I did not, as you allege, proceed upon the supposition of your denying all future punishment, yet, I acknowledge, I did proceed upon the supposition that you hold with no other future punishment than what should terminate in everlasting life. And who could have thought otherwise ? After all the information you have since given me, I am still so ignorant as not to understand how all men are to be finally saved, and yet a part of them annihilated . Neither can I comprehend how there can come a time with sinners when he that made them will not have mercy upon them, on the supposition that all punishment, of all degrees and duration, is itself an exercise of mercy, p. 10. Neither can I comprehend how you reconcile many things in your scheme with the Holy Scriptures. I have been used to understand the terms death and perish, being opposed to everlasting life, (John iii. 16; x. 28,) as ex- pressive, not of the loss of being, but of well-being. But with you they signify annihilation,-p. 42. The design of God, it seems, in giving his Son to suffer for us, was not to save us from suffering, but merely from becoming extinct, and to perpetuate our existence. And the death which those who keep his sayings shall never taste, John viii. 52, means the same thing : they shall exist for ever; a blessing which your scheme makes equally applicable to many who do not keep his sayings as to those who do. And where do you find the above terms used to convey the idea of annihilation on any other subject; and whence Was this notion learned 2 * When we are told “ that God will not contend for ever, neither will he be always wroth ; for the spirit should fail before him, and the souls which he hath made,” Isa. lvii. 16; I supposed it had been meant only of them who, in the context, are said to put their trust in the Lord ; and that in the present life, seeing it was promised them that they should possess the land, and inherit his holy mountain; of them who were of a contrite and humble spirit, and not of the wicked, who are likened to the troubled sea, for whom there is no peace; but you consider all these promises as belonging to the same people as the threatening in chap. xxvii. 11, “He that made them will not have mercy upon them, and he that formed them will show them no favour!” I observe, when such terms as for ever seem to favour your cause, they are to be taken in their utmost latitude of meaning. If it had been said of the Divine Being, he will contend for ever, you would have introduced your sing-song of aiomas and aiomon,f as sometimes meaning only a limited duration ; but seeing it is said he will not contend for ever, here the word must be understood of duration without end. You must excuse me, however, if I for once avail myself of your critical labours, and re- mind you that for ever, in this passage, refers merely to the present life, as the context plainly shows. I never imagined, till I saw it in the writings of uni- versalists, that finishing transgression and making an end of sin, Dan. ix. 24, had any reference to what was to be done after the resurrection and the last judgment; and especially since what is there predicted was to be accom- plished within seventy weeks, or four hundred and ninety years, from the time of the prophecy. I have been used to think that the mediation of Christ was not on behalf of fallen angels, whose nature he took not on him, of whose salvation the Scriptures are silent, and whose own ideas are, that they have nothing to do with him, Matt. viii. 29. But, according to your rea- sonings, they also must be either saved or annihilated ; yea, they must have at least the offer of salvation, other- wise their present and future sufferings would not be in mercy, which you consider as belonging to all punishment whatever. * The reader will perceive, hereafter, that Mr. Fuller was mistaken in supposing Mr. Widler to hold the doctrine of annihilation : this he acknowledges in Letter VII.-E.D.' It had been usual with me to think that the triumph of mercy in the day of retribution, as described in James ii. 13; Psal. lxii. 12, respected another description of people than those who were to receive judgment without mercy ; namely, those that should “so speak, and so do, as they that should be judged by the perfect law of liberty:” but you have found out a scheme, it seems, in which these opposites are united in the same persons; and in which the ungodly, while receiving judgment without mercy, have no judgment but what is in mercy, p. 10. Is it surpris- ing, sir, that a man of plain and ordinary capacity should be at a loss to understand such things as these ? It would not have occurred to me that an argument could have been drawn from the threatenings of God to Israel in the present life, Lev. xxv., to what shall be done to the ungodly world in the life to come ; yet so it is, p. 43; and the ground on which the analogy is justified is the immutability of the Divine character. But what the immutable character of God requires to be done must be done alike in all ages, and to all people ; whereas what was there threatened of Israel was not done at the same time to other nations, nor has it been done since to any nation beside them, Amos iii. 2; Acts xvii. 30. There is nothing in it analogous to his dealings with mankind, unless it be the general idea of his “making use of natu- ral evil to correct moral evil.” This being known to be the case on earth, you “cannot but think it must be the design of future punishment.” Such is the whole of your argument, which you recommend to my “serious consider- ation : " But how if, on the other hand, I should say, though natural evil be used on earth to correct moral evil in society at large, yet it is not always sent for the pur- poses of correcting the parties themselves 3 We have no proof that the men of Sodom were destroyed by fire, or Pharaoh drowned in the sea, for their good ; therefore I cannot but think there is a similar design in future pun- ishment. I always supposed that the sense in which God is said to be “the Saviour of all men, especially of them that believe,” (p. 44,) was that in which the apostle there puts his trust in him ; namely, as the God of providence, whose care is extended to all his creatures, but especially to believers. I have read of the “dispensation of the fulness of times;” but the idea never occurred to me that these times were to be understood of ages beyond the last judgment. I have no doubt but the “gathering together in one all things in Christ which are in heaven, and which are on earth,” will be accomplished, and that within the limits of time. If it be done, as you allow it will, (p. 10,) by the time “that he shall have put down all rule, and all au- thority, and power, and shall have subdued all things unto himself,” it will be done by the time he shall have raised the dead and judged the world; for THEN is this work described as being accomplished, 1 Cor. xv. 24. In reading the account of the “new heaven and new earth,” in the 21st chapter of the Revelation, I find, amongst other things, it is said, “there shall be no more death ;” and afterwards, “no more curse ; ” but I should not have thought of these things being applied to the uni- verse at large, but merely to the inhabitants of that blessed state ; and the rather, seeing it is said, in the same chap- ter, that “the fearful, and the unbelieving, and the abo- minable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” Neither could I have supposed it possible, from such a representation of the second death, to conclude that it consisted in annihilation. By the “times of the restitution of all things,” Acts iii. 21, I have been used to understand the times of the resur- rection and the last judgment ; for that till then, and no longer, will Christ be detained in the heavens. Whenever Christ descends from heaven, then, according to Peter, will be the times of the restitution of all things: but this will be previously and in order to his raising the dead, and judging the world, 1 Thess. iv. 16. Consequently, these + Alluding to Mr. Vidler's quotation in the Universalist’s Miscel- lany, No. 1. p. 8. LETTERS TO MR. VIDLER. 137 are the times of which the apostle speaks. The utter overthrow which will then be given to the kingdom of Satan by the general conflagration, 2 Pet. iii. 12; the de- struction of the last enemy, death, by the resurrection, 1 Cor. xv. 23, 26; and the final adjustment of human affairs by the last judgment, Matt. xxv. 31–46; will be a restitution of all things: the empire of sin will be crushed, and the government of God completely restored. But the times in which your scheme is to be accom- plished must be after the final judgment; for from that period there is an everlasting punishment for the wicked to endure, a lake of fire into which they are to be cast, Matt. xxv. 46; Rev. xx. 15, and from which your resti- tution of all things is to recover them. Your restitution, therefore, and that of the Scriptures, are not the same. You cannot conceive of a restitution of all things, and of sin being made an end of, unless all the individuals in the creation be either reconciled to God or annihilated ; but what authority have you for such a construction of these terms ? Did the restoring of all things on the Mes- siah’s first appearance, Matt. xvii. 11, include all indi- viduals, as far as it went? When God said to Zedekiah, “And thou, profane, wicked prince of Israel, whose day is come, when iniquity shall havº an end,” did it mean that he should be either converted or annihilated ? Ezek. xxi. 25. And when the same language is used of the sins of the people, chap. xxxv. 5, does it mean that they should be either converted or annihilated 3 Rather, is it not manifest that, by iniquity having an end, is meant that the perpetrators of it were brought to condign punishment, shut up in Babylon, as in a prison, and rendered incapable of doing further mischief? Such will be the case with all the ungodly at the second coming of Christ; and this will be the restoration of peace, order, and happiness to the rest of the universe. The doctrine of endless misery appears to you to “con- found all degrees of punishment, in giving infinite punish- ment to all,”—p. 42. You, it seems, can conceive of no diversity of suffering, unless it be in duration. Will the reflection of lost souls on their past life, then, be in all exactly the same 2—the same in the objects reflected on ; and, consequently, the same in the intenseness of their misery 3 How grossly absurd, sir, must be your notions of future punishment, to admit of such an idea . Besides, there is equal reason to believe that there will be differ- ent degrees of glory as of misery. If heavenly bliss bear any relation to the labours and sufferings of the present life on behalf of Christ, which the Scriptures assure us it does, (Matt. v. 12; 2 Cor. iv. 17,) these being diverse, that must also be the same. But according to your reasoning, there can be no diversity, unless it be in duration : either, therefore, all degrees of happiness must be confounded, in giving happiness to all ; or the inhabitants of heaven, as well as those of hell, must, after a certain period, be con- tinually diminishing by annihilation. Such, sir, are your expositions of Scripture. Except in the productions of a certain maniac in our own country, I never recollect to have seen so much violence done to the word of God in so small a compass. According to your scheme, all things work together for good to them that love not God, as well as to them that love him. Thus you confound what the Scriptures dis- Criminate. Our Lord told the Jews, that if they believed not that he was the Messiah, they should die in their sins, and - whither he went they could not come (John viii. 21); but, according to your scheme, they might die in their sins, and yet be able to go whither he went, and inherit eter. nal life. The Scriptures describe a sort of characters who shall be exposed to “a certain fearful looking for of judgment” (Heb. x. 27); but this, according to your scheme, can be nothing more than annihilation. For as the case of the characters described is suggested to be irrevocable and liopeless, they cannot be punished, during ages of ages, in a way of mercy, or with a view to their recovery; and as to their being punished during this long period, and in the end annihilated, this would be contrary to all your ideas of punishment, which must always have its found- ation in mercy. Hence it follows that all this fearful K # looking for of judgment amounts to no more than what atheists and infidels generally prefer ; death being to them an everlasting sleep. Nor is your hypothesis less at variance with itself than with the Holy Scriptures. Your notion of temporary punishment clashes with all your arguments drawn from the benevolent feelings of a good man. You ask, “Doth not every good man love his enemies, and forgive even the worst of them 4 Is there a man living, whose heart is filled with the love of God, that would not promote the best interest of his most inveterate foe, if it lay in his power ? And has not God more love than the best of men? And are not his wisdom and his power equal to his love?”— . 74. * p In return, I ask, Is there a man living, whose heart is filled with the love of God, who would be willing that his worst enemy should be cast into hell for ages of ages, or for a single age, or even a single day, when it was in his power to deliver him from it? But God hath more love than the best of men; and his wisdom and power are equal to his love; consequently, there will be no future punishment Your notion of annihilation will also contradict the greater part of your pretensions. You talk of universal salvation, but you do not believe it; for a part of the human race are to be given up, as incurable, to annihila- tion. You plead the fifth chapter to the Romans in favour of your doctrine; contending that justification of life will be as extensive as condemnation : but you believe no such thing; for a part of those who are condemned, in- stead of being justified and saved, will be given up, as in- curables, to annihilation. You think you see times beyond the last judgment in which all things, or rather, as you understand it, all persons, are to be gathered together in Christ, and reconciled by the blood of his cross : howbeit, you mean not so, neither doth your heart think so; for a part of them will be struck out of existence, who can, therefore, be neither gathered together nor reconciled. You pretend to unite the opinions of Calvinists and Arminians: the former, you say, render the death of Christ effectual, but limit its design to a part of mankind; the latter tender it to all, but consider it as ineffectual ; while you maintain that it is designed for all, and effectual to all,—pp. 70, 71. But this is mere pretence; you believe no such thing ; for a part of mankind are to be, at last, annihilated. By an anecdote which you have inserted in p. 65 of your Mis- cellany, you flatter yourself that you have fastened a diffi- culty on a Mr. R , from which he cannot extricate himself but by embracing your doctrine. But neither could he, if he did embrace it; for you no more believe that God will save all mankind than Mr. R You pretend to urge it as a difficulty on me that “either God cannot or will not make an end of sin , that there is not efficacy enough in the blood of Christ to destroy the works of the devil; or else that the full efficacy of the atonement is withheld by the Divine determination,”— p. 44. But it is all pretence. If it be a difficulty, it equally bears upon your own hypothesis as upon mine. If Christ died with an intention to save all, why are not all saved 3 Why must a number of them be annihilated ? Is it because God cannot bring them to repentance and sal- vation, or because he will not ? Is there not efficacy enough in the blood of the cross to destroy the works of the devil, without his having recourse to a mere act of power; an act which might have been exerted without that blood being shed ? Or is the full efficacy of the atone- ment withheld by the Divine determination? LETTER IV. REPLIES, AND DEFENCES OF FORMER REASONINGs. SIR, I Must be very weak, if, while writing in a publication of which my opponent is the Editor, I should expect to have the last word. When I have said what appears to me 138. LETTERS TO MR. VIDLER: necessary on any point, and on the whole matter of dis- pute, I shall leave it to the judgment of the candid reader. From any thing I had advanced, you had no ground to conclude that I formed an improper estimate of my own reputation. Amy man who has been in the habit of writ- ing, and whose writings have been at all regarded by the public, must be possessed of some reputation; and whe- ther it be small or great, it is his duty not to make use of it for the propagation of what he believes to be permicious error. “Truth,” you say, “courts the public observation of men; ” and so may error. If it be true that wisdom “crieth in the top of high places,” it is equally true that folly is lowd and stubborn. The advocates of infidelity, sir, are not less bold than yourself, nor less loud in their challenges of examination. Such challenges afford no criterion of truth; nor is it any proof of the goodness of a cause, that its abettors court the public attention. They may be well aware that public prejudice is in their favour; or may entertain a much greater dread of sinking into in- significance, by neglect, than of being overcome in the field of contest. You have repeatedly reminded me of the favour which you confer upon me, by permitting my papers to appear in your Miscellany. - Now, sir, I consider it as no favour at all, nor as affording any proof of your impartiality. If you think otherwise, you are at perfect liberty, after intro- ducing this series of Letters, to discontinue them. If I wish to write any thing further on the subject, I shall not be at a loss for a proper medium. “The prejudices of both professor and profane,” you tell me, “are in my favour.” Had you used the term consciences, instead of prejudices, you would have been nearer the truth. So far as my observations extend, the prejudices of the bulk of mankind are on the other side. Deists and libertines lead the way, by an open or affected rejection of all future punishment. Socinians, who gener- ally include universal salvation in their scheme, follow hard after them. Mrs. Barbauld, if I remember right, in her Remarks on Mr. Wakefield's Inquiry, goes so far as to represent the ideas of access to God through a Mediator, and of punishment in a bottomless pit, as originating in the ignorance and servility of Eastern customs. Unbe- lievers, it is well known, rejoice in the spread of Socinian- ism, as being favourable to their views; and Socinians rejoice no less in the spread of universalism, as favourable to theirs. This is sufficiently manifest by the applauses which writers on your side commonly meet with in the Monthly Review. There are great numbers of nominal Christians, of loose characters, who would be glad to be- lieve your doctrine of temporary punishment, and to pro- ceed, by an easy transition, to that of no punishment at all ; nor is there any bar which prevents their falling in with these views, but the remonstrance of their con- sciences. They fear it is too favourable to their vices to be true ; and therefore are deterred from embracing it. Such, sir, is the “description of people” after whom you inquire ; such is the company with whom you associate, and to whom you administer consolation ; and such is the justness of your remark, that “the prejudices of both pro- fessor and profane are in my favour.” If you yourself had not been persuaded of the contrary, I question whe- ther you would have given that title to my first two Letters which appears on the blue covers of your work.” The word torments, it is true, can give no just offence, as it is a Scriptural expression ; yet to persons who judge on these subjects merely by their feelings, the ideas conveyed by it are sufficient to prejudice them against every thing which a writer may advance. Your Magazines, sir, I presume, would be less accept- able to many of your readers than they are, if, instead of employing so large a portion of them in attempting to prove that all will be finally happy, you were frequently to insist that some men would be tormented in hell, with- out any mixture of mercy, for a number of ages; and if you insisted on this doctrine also in your pulpit exercises, you yourself might possibly be considered as a “brawler of damnation.” * “Letter I. from Mr. A. Fuller, in defence of eternal torments.” You carefully avoid claiming universal salvation as a ºright, and are pleased to represent my inquiry on that subject as “a quibble.” I am not surprised, sir, that you should feel reluctant on this head, that you should decline the defence of your friend, and that you should alternately compliment and reproach your opponent, as if to keep him at a distance from the subject.—No. I. p. 5; No. XXXIV. p. 309. If I mistake not, this is a fundamental principle in your system, and that which proves it to be fundamentally wrong. There is no need of having re- course to the pieces of other writers; your own produc- tions afford sufficient evidence that the salvation for which you plead is not that which arises from the free grace of God through Jesus Christ; and, consequently, that it is no part of the salvation revealed in the gospel. You reject the idea of invalidating the Divine threatenings to- wards sinners, (No. XXXIV. p. 310,) admitting “ them in their full latitude, and the execution of them too ; ” maintaining that “God will deal with his creatures ac- cording to their character,” and that “sinners will be punished according to their works.”—No. II. p. 42. Now, sir, if there be any meaning in all this language, it is, That justice will have its course on the ungodly; and that, whatever punishment they endure, whether it be vindictive or corrective, endless or temporary, it is all that their sins deserve. If the threatenings of God mean no more than a punishment which is temporary, and for the good of sin- ners, their conduct can deserve no more; for we cannot have a more certain rule of estimating the just demerit of sin than the wrath of God which is revealed from heaven against it. But if sinners endure the full desert of their sin, there is no room for grace, or undeserved favour; nor is any place left for the work of mediation. A criminal who has suffered the full penalty of the law has no right to be told that his liberation is an act of grace, or that it was owing to the mediation of another. Your universal salvation, therefore, is no part of that which arises from the grace of God, or the death of Christ; nor is it, pro- perly speaking, salvation at all, but a legal discharge, in consequence of a full satisfaction to Divine justice being made by the sufferings of the sinner. If you contend that the liberation of the sinner is owing to the grace of God, through the mediation of his Son, which mitigates and shortens his punishment, then you at once give up all you have before maintained: That sinners will be punished according to their works, and that the threatenings of God will be fully executed upon them. You may have read of “instances of both punishment and pardon to the same persons, and for the same sins” (No. XXXV. p. 337); but this must be where the punish- ment has not been according to the desert of the sin, otherwise there had been no need of pardon. You talk much of my dealing in “suppositions, instead of arguments,” and of my “resting my conclusions on unfounded assumptions.” I have carefully examined these charges, and am unable to perceive the justice of them in a single instance. Though the Letter which appeared in the Evangelical Magazine was chiefly in the form of supposition, yet that supposition was not destitute of argument to support it. It is possible, sir, though it does not appear to have oc- curred to your mind, that arguments themselves may be conveyed under the form of suppositions. To convince you that this was the case, in the above Letter, I will put the very passage to which you object into the form of argument. The Scriptures teach us that those who, at a certain . period, are found filthy, shall be filthy still ; that they shall be cast into that bottomless pit which was prepared for the devil and his angels ; and that they shall dwell with ever- lasting burnings. - But your doctrine teaches that though they be filthy at death, or judgment, or any other period, yet they shall not be always so ; that though they be cast into the pit of destruction, yet it shall not prove bottomless ; and that though they have to encounter devouring fire, yet they shall not dwell with everlasting burnings. Therefore your doctrine is antiscriptural. But if your doctrine be antiscriptural, it is of that nature which tends to deceive the souls of men; and you will not be able to LETTERS TO MR. WIDLER. 139 look them in the face another day, and still less HIM who hath charged you to be pure from the blood of all men. The first three positions contain the argument, and the last the inference. I should think “ the world,” or rather the reader, did not need to be informed what argument there was in this string of suppositions; if he did, however, I have attempt- ed, at your request, to give him that information. With respect to building on “unfounded assumptions,” for which I am accused of “betraying my ignorance of the subject I have written against,” (No. II. p. 45,) you have given us two instances, which I shall briefly examine. First, I had asked, “What doctrine, besides that of universal salvation, will you find in the Bible which affords encouragement to a sinner going on still in his trespasses; and which furnishes ground for hope and joy, even sup- posing him to persevere in sin till death ?” What prin- ciple is it that is here assumed ? Why, you answer, that the doctrine of universal salvation does afford encourage- ment to a sinner going on still in his trespasses, and does furnish ground for hope and joy, even supposing him to persevere in sin till death. And is this indeed a question? I took it for a self-evident truth, and supposed you must and would have acknowledged it. Whether you will, or not, however, I appeal to the common sense of the reader, whether any position can be more self-evident than the following: If the Scriptures teach that all men shall be finally saved, every sinner, whatever be his vicious courses, is encouraged to expect eternal life; and though he should persist in sin till death, is warranted to hope and rejoice in the prospect of all being well with him at last. —For any man to deny this position is to deny what is lººdent and there can be no further reasoning with 1IY). To allege, in answer, that it will be always ill with the wicked while he continues so is trifling; for if the sinner be taught to believe that, at some future period beyond this life, he shall be delivered both from sin and punish- ment, whether the former branch of this deliverance afford him joy or not, the latter must. The same question, you say, might be asked concerning the doctrine of election. It might; but I should readily answer, No sinner, while going on in his trespasses, is warranted to consider himself as elected to salvation ; therefore that doctrine affords no ground of hope and joy to persons of this description. Can you say the same of the doctrine of universal salvation? If there were the same ground for an ungodly sinner to conclude himself elected as your doctrine affords for his concluding that he shall be eternally saved, the cases would be parallel, and both these doctrines would be alike subject to the charge of comforting those whom God would not have comforted; but as this is not true of election, your notion is still soli: tary, and your difficulty remains where it was. All the encomiums which you pass upon the universal scheme (No. II. pp. 41–44) furnish not a single example of any other Divine truth which gives encouragement to a sinner, While in his sins, to believe that in the end it shall be well With him. The question, therefore, still returns upon you, What doctrine, Besides that of universal salvation, will vow find ºn the Bible which affords encouragement to a * 9% on still in his trespasses, and which furnishes % º£º, gººd.joy, even supposing him to persevere in , I do not say, “let the world judge” whether this ques- tion proceeded on any unfounded assumption, and whether it be equally ºpplicable to election as to universal salva- i.",.* I imagine it will be but a very small part of tº & at will examine our productions; but I am willing to make ºy appeal to the intelligent and impartial reader. And with respect to you, sir, the task which you have se: Yourself is before you; either to “confessit to be true that your doctrine gives encouragement, hope, and joy to wicked men ; or to “ expose the falsehood of this supposition more fully.” - In the second place, You charge me with “taking it for granted that your views invalidate the Divine threatenings towards sinners;” and intimate that there is not reason.” in What I say, but upon the supposition of your denying “all future punishment.”—No. II. p. 45. "That I never supposed you to deny all future punishment I have already proved; and that any thing which I advanced required such a supposition you have not hitherto made appear. As to your invalidating the Divine threatenings, so far as the doctrine of universal salvation appears to me to operate in that way, so far I must of necessity believe that you do ; but whatever may be my belief, the question is, Have I built any conclusion upon it as an acknowledged truth ? If so, how came I to entreat you to consider whether it was not so 2 Is it usual to entreat an opponent to consider whether that which we take for granted as an acknow- ledged truth be true 3 Undoubtedly, I suggested this idea to you, as being my judgment; which, however, I did not desire to impose upon you, any further than as it was sup- ported by evidence; and therefore, at the same time, inti- mated what was the ground of that judgment ; namely, the near resemblance between your labours and those of the deceiver of mankind. If you cannot perceive this resem- blance, I cannot help it. Other people can, and will. He persuaded his auditors, that though they should trans- gress, yet the evil they had dreaded would not come upon them : they believed, and were not afraid to transgress. You persuade your auditors, that though they should die in their sins, yet the evil will not be so great as they had been used to apprehend: God hath not said, Ye shall die eternally ; and he means that you shall all come where Jesus is. If they believe, must they not be less afraid of transgression than before? And now, sir, who is “ignorant 3’’ and who has been employed in “raising a dust to hide the truth ?” are ques- tions which I leave you to resolve. It is enough for me if I have proved your charges to be unfounded ; for if this be accomplished, your work still returns upon your hands; as it will follow that, notwithstanding all your challenges, and calling out for more to be written, you have not yet answered the first Letter. LETTER. W. EVIDENCES OF END LESS PUNISHMENT. SIR, YoU seem to wish to persuade your readers that the grounds on which I rest my belief of the doctrine of end- less punishment are very slender. The truth is, I have not, at present, attempted to state those grounds. Con- sidering myself as not engaged in a formal controversy, I only introduced a few passages; and to several of them you have hitherto made no reply. The principal grounds on which I rest my belief of the doctrine you oppose are as follow :- I. ALL THose PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE which De- SCRIBE THE FUTURE STATES OF MEN IN CONTRAST. “Men of the world, who have their portion in this life: I shall be satisfied when I awake in thy likeness.-The hope of the righteous shall be gladness; but the expect- ation of the wicked shall perish.--The wicked is driven away in his wickedness; but the righteous hath hope in his death.-And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake ; some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.—He will gather his wheat into the garner, and will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.—Wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be who go in thereat; because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, that leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.—Not every one that saith, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven ; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven.—Many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven ; but the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer dark- ness : there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.- Gather ye first the tares, and bind them in bundles, to burn them : but gather the wheat into my barn.—The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them that 140 LETTERS TO MR. WIDLER. do iniquity, and shall cast them into a furnace of fire : there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth : then shall the righteous shime forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.—The kingdom of heaven is like unto a net that gathered fish of every kind; which, when it was full, they drew to the shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, and cast the bad away. So shall it be at the end of the world; the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire : there shall be wailing and gmashing of teeth.-Blessed is that servant, whom, when his lord cometh, he shall find so doing : but and if that evil servant should say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming, and shall begin to smite his fellow servants, and to eat and drink with the drunken, the lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.-Well done, good and faithful servant ; enter thou into the joy of thy lord. But cast ye out the unprofitable servant into outer darkness : there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.--Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world : then shall he also say unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.-And these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into ever- lasting life.—He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned.— Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you for the Son of man’s sake. Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy; for, behold, your reward is great in heaven. But woe unto you that are rich for ye have received your conso- lation.—He that heareth my sayings, and doeth them, is like unto a man who built his house upon a rock; and when the flood arose, the storm beat vehemently against that house, and could not shake it ; for it was founded upon a rock. But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like unto a man who built his house upon the earth, against which the storm did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell, and the ruin of that house was great.—God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that who- soever believeth on him should not perish, but have ever- lasting life.—All that are in their graves shall come forth : they that have done good unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation.—Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and an- other unto dishonour 3 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruc- tion ; and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory?—The Lord knoweth them that are his. But in a great house there are vessels to honour, and vessels to dishonour.--Be not deceived ; God is not mocked : for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.—That which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned. But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things which accompany salvation.” I consider these passages as designed to express THE FINAL STATES OF MEN ; which, if they be, is the same thing, in effect, as their being designed to express the doctrine of endless punishment; for if the descriptions here given of the portion of the wicked denote their final state, there is no possibility of another state succeeding it. That the above passages do express the final states of men may appear from the following considerations :- 1. The state of the righteous (which is all along op- posed to that of the wicked) is allowed to be final; and if the other were not the same, it would not have been, in such a variety of forms, contrasted with it; for it would not be a contrast. 2. All these passages are totally silent as to any other state following that of destruction, damnation, &c. If the punishment threatened to ungodly men had been only a purgation, or temporary correction, we might have ex- pected that something like this would have been intimated. It is supposed that some, who are upon the right found- ation, may yet build upon it wood, and hay, and stubble ; and that the party shall suffer loss ; but he himself shall be saved, though it be as by fire. Now if the doctrine of universal salvation were true, we might expect some such account of all lapsed intelligences when their future state is described; but nothing like it occurs in any of the fore- going passages, nor in any other. 3. The phraseology of the greater part of them is in- consistent with any other state following that which they describe. On the supposition of salvation being appointed as the ultimate portion of those who die in their sins, they have not their portion in this life; but will, equally with those who die in the Lord, behold his righteousness, and be satisfied in his likeness. Their expectation shall not perish ; but shall issue, as well as that of the righteous, in gladness ; and though driven away in their wickedness, yet they have hope in their death, and that hope shall be realized. The broad way doth not lead to destruction, but merely to a temporary correction, the end of which is everlasting life. The chaff will not be burned, but turned into wheat, and gathered into the garner. The tares will be the same, and gathered into the barn; and the bad fish will be turned into good, and gathered into vessels. The eursed, as well as the blessed, shall inherit the kingdom of God; which also was prepared for them from the found- ation of the world. There may be a woe against the wicked, that they shall be kept from their consolation for a long time, but not that they have received it. Those who, in the present life, believe not in Christ, shall not perish, but have everlasting life. This life, also, is im- properly represented as the seed time, and the life to come as the harvest, inasmuch as the seeds of heavenly bliss may be sown in hell ; and though the sinner may reap corruption, as the fruit of all his present doings, yet that corruption will not be the opposite of everlasting life, seeing it will issue in it. Finally, Though they bear briers and thorns, yet their END is not to be burned, but to obtain salvation. To the foregoing Scripture testimonies may be added, II. ALL THose PASSAGEs which SPEAK OF THE DUR- ATION OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT BY THE TERMS ‘‘ L. VERLAST- ING, ETERNAL, FOR EVER, AND FOR EVER AND EVER :”— “Some shall awake to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.—It is better for thee to enter into life halt, or maimed, than having two hands, or two feet, to be cast into everlasting fire.—Depart, ye cursed, into everlasting fire.—And these shall go into everlasting punishment.—They shall be punished with everlasting destruction, from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.—He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit is in danger of (or subject to) eternal damn- ation.—The inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.—These are wells without water, clouds that are car- ried with a tempest, to whom the mist of darkness is re- served for ever.—Wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.—If any man worship the beast, or his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out, without mixture, into the cup of his indignation : and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone, in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb : and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever ; and they have no rest day nor night.—And they said, Alleluia. And her smoke rose up for ever and ever.—And the devil that de- ceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are ; and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.” I have not mentioned Isa. xxxiii. 14, because I wish to introduce no passage but what shall be allowed to refer to a future life. The Hebrew word cºy, in Dan. xii. 2, answers to the Greek aid,v ; and, whatever may be said of the ambiguity of the term, the antithesis, in this passage, as in Matt. xxv. 46, determines it to mean the same when applied to “shame and contempt” as when applied to life. As to the term aidºvuos, rendered everlasting, or eternal, LETTERS TO MR. WIDLER. I41 which you consider as proving nothing, on account of its ambiguity, there is a rule of interpretation, which I have long understood to be used on other subjects by all good critics, and which I consider as preferable to yours. In my next Letter I may examine their comparative merits. This rule is, That every term be taken in its PROPER sense, eaccept there be something in the subject or connea:ion which re- quires it to be taken otherwise. Now, so far as my acquaint- ance with this subject extends, it appears to be generally allowed by lexicographers that alòv is a compound of &ét and div, and that its literal meaning is always being ; * also, that the meaning of its derivative atóvuos is endless, ever- lasting, or eternal. This term, aid,vios, which is very spar- ingly applied in the New Testament to limited duration, I always take in its proper sense, except there be something in the connexion or subject which requires it to be taken otherwise; and as I do not find this to be the case in any of those places where it is applied to punishment, I see no reason, in these cases, to depart from its proper acceptation. Everlasting punishment is, in some of them, opposed to everlasting life; which, so far as an antithesis can go to fix the meaning of a term, determines it to be of the same force and extent. To allege that the subject requires a different meaning, in this case, to be given to the term, is to assume what will not be granted. The proof that has been offered on this point will be considered hereafter. With respect to the phrases, sis Töv aiāva, for ever, and els Tès aidovas róv aiwudºv, for ever and ever, I believe you will not find a single example in all the New Testament of their being used to convey any other than the idea of endless duration. You tell us that eis alſovas aiováv, for ever and ever, in Rev. xiv. 11, should be rendered, “to the age of ages.” Are you certain of this? Admitting the principle of your translation, some would have render- ed it to ages of ages : but, render it how you will, the 'meaning of the phrase is the same. You might render it thus in other instances, wherein it is applied to the hap- piness of the righteous, or the glory to be ascribed to God; but this would not prove that such happiness and such glory were of limited duration, or that the phrase in ques- tion is expressive of it. To the above may be added, III. ALL THose PASSAGES WHICH EXPRESS THE DURA- TION OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT BY IMPLICATION, OR BY FORMS OF SPEECH WHICH IMPLY THE DOCTRINE IN QUES- TION. “I pray for them : I pray not for the world.—The blas- phemy against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven unto men, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.— He hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.—There is a sin unto death : I do not say that ye shall pray for it.—It is impossible to renew them again unto repentance.—If we sin wilfully, after we have re- ceived the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a fearful looking for of judg- ment which shall devour the adversaries.—What is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away ?—Woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed it had been good for that man if he had not been born.—Their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched...f. Between us and you there is a great gulf fixed; so that they who would pass from hence to you cannot, neither can they pass to us who would come from thence.—He that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.—I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins ; whither I go ye cannot come.—Whose end is destruction.—He that showeth no mercy, shall have judgment without mercy.” If there be some for whom Jesus did not pray, there are some who will have no share in the benefits of his media- * Aristotle, the philosopher, who lived upwards of three hundred years before the New Testament was written, plainly tells us the meaning which the Greek writers of his time, and those who in his time were accounted ancients, affixed to this term, Speaking of the gods, whom he considered as immortal, and as having their residence above the heavens, he says, “The beings which exist there neither exist in place, nor does time make them grow old; nor undergo they any changes, being placed beyond the motion even of those who are the furthest removed (from the centre); but possessing an unchange- able life, free from all outward impressions, perfectly happy, and self- tion, without which they cannot be saved.—If there be some that never will be forgiven, there are some that never will be saved; for forgiveness is an essential branch of sal- vation. Let there be what uncertainty there may in the word eternal in this instance, still the meaning of it is fixed by the other branch of the sentence,—they shall never be forgiven. It is equal to John x. 28, I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish. If there were any uncertainty as to the meaning of the word eternal in this latter passage, yet the other branch of the sentence would settle it; for that must be endless life which is opposed to their ever perishing ; and, by the same rule, that must be endless damnation which is opposed to their ever being forgiven. If there be a sin for the pardon of which Chris- tians are forbidden to pray, it must be on account of its being the revealed will of God that it never should be pardoned. If repentance be absolutely necessary to for- giveness, and there be some who it is impossible should be renewed again unto repentance, there are some whose salvation is impossible. If there be no more sacrifice for sins, but a fearful looking for of judgment, this is the same thing as the sacrifice already offered being of no saving effect ; for if it were otherwise, the language would not contain any peculiar threatening against the wilful sinner, as it would be no more than might be said to any sinner ; nor would a fearful looking for of judgment be his certain doom. If the souls of some men will be lost or cast away, they cannot all be saved; seeing these things are opposites. A man may be lost in a desert, and yet saved in fact; or he may suffer loss, and yet himself be saved : but he can- not be lost so as to be cast away, and yet finally saved ; for these are perfect contraries. Whatever may be the precise idea of the fire and the worm, there can be no doubt of their expressing the punishment of the wicked ; and its being declared of the one that it dieth not, and of the other that it is not quenched, is the same thing as their being declared to be endless. It can be said of no man, on the principle of universal salvation, that it were good for him not to have been born ; since whatever he may endure for a season, an eternal weight of glory will infinitely outweigh it. An impassable gulf, between the blessed and the ac- cursed, equally militates against the recovery of the one and the relapse of the other. If some shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on them—if those who die in their sins shall not come where Jesus is—if their end be destruction, and their portion be judgment without mercy— there must be some who will not be finally saved. To these may be added, IV. ALL THose PAssagES WHICH INTIMATE THAT A CHANGE OF HEART, AND A PREPAREDNESS FOR HEAVEN, ARE CONFINED TO THE PRESENT LIFE. “Seek ye the Lord while he may be found; call ye upon him while he is near : let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; and let him re- turn unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him ; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardom.—Be- cause I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded—I also will laugh at your calamity, and mock when your fear cometh; when your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you ; then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer. They shall seek me early, but shall not find me. —Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that shall be saved 3 And he said unto them, Strive to enter in at the strait gate : for many, I say unto you, shall seek to enter in, and shall not be able. When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence you are—Depart from me, sufficient, they continue through all ałóva, eternity. And this the ancients admirably signified by the word itself; for they call the time of each person's life his ałów, inasmuch as according to the laws of nature nothing (respecting him) exists out of the limits of it; and for the same reason, that which comprehends the duration of the whole heaven, the whole of infinite time, and infinity itself, is called altova, .# taking its name from always being, (&é, étwas,) immortal and vine.” + Several times repeated in a few verses. I42 LETTERS TO MR. VIDLER. all ye workers of iniquity—there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.-While ye have the light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light.—While they (the foolish virgins) went to buy, the bridegroom came ; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage, and the door was shut.—We beseech you, that ye receive not the grace of God in vain.—Behold, now is the accepted time, now is the day of salvation.—To-day, if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.-Looking diligently, lest any man fail of the grace of God—lest there be any formicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected : for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.-He that is unjust, let him be unjust still ; and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still ; and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still ; and he that is holy, let him be holy still.” According to these scriptures, there will be no success- ful calling upon the Lord after a certain period, and, con- sequently, no salvation. Whether there be few that shall ultimately be saved, our Lord does not inform us; but he assures us that there are many who will not be saved; or, which is the same thing, who will not be able to enter in at the strait gate. None, it is plainly intimated, will be able to enter there who have not agonized here. There will be no believing unto salvation, but while we have the light, nor any admission into the kingdom, unless we be ready at the coming of the Lord. The present is the ac- cepted time, the day of salvation, or the season for sinners to be saved. If we continue to harden our hearts through life, he will swear in his wrath that we shall not enter into his rest. If we turn away from him who speaketh from heaven, it will be equally impossible for us to obtain the blessing, as it was for Esau after he had despised his birth- right. Finally, beyond a certain period, there shall be no more change of character, but every one will have re- ceived that impression which shall remain for ever, whether he be just or unjust, filthy or holy. In this Letter I have endeavoured to state the grounds of my own persuasion ; in the next I may examine the reasonings and objections which you have advanced against it. The greater part of this evidence being taken from our Lord’s discourses, who knew the truth, and was himself to be the Judge of the world, renders it peculiarly interesting. If a preacher in these times delivered half so much on the subject, you would denominate him “a brawler of damnation.” LETTER WI. REFLIES TO OBJECTIONS. SIR, IN a former Letter I suggested, that whether the Scrip- tures teach the doctrine of endless punishment or not, they certainly appear to do so. Whether this suggestion was unfounded, the evidence in my last Letter must determine. You attempt, however, to discredit it by alleging the few instances in which the terms ever, everlasting, &c., as con- nected with future punishment, are used in the Scriptures. “. Everlasting, as connected with the future punishment of men,” you say, “ is used only five times in the Old and New Testament; and yet this same word is used in the Scriptures at least ninety times (very generally indeed) in relation to things that either have ended or must end.” You proceed, “As to the word eternal, which is of the same meaning, it is used in the text and margin upward of forty times in the whole Bible; out of which there are only two which can be supposed to relate to future pun- ishment.”* You should have proceeded a little further, sir, and have told us how often the terms ever, for ever, and for ever and cwer, are applied to this subject; for the distinction between them and the words everlasting and eternal is chiefly English, and you have allowed that it is from the use of the one as well as the other that I suppose * Universalist's Miscellany, No. XXXV. p. 328. the Scriptures must “appear” to teach the doctrine of endless punishment. As a candid reasoner, you should also have forborne to mention Jude 6, with a view to di- minish the number of testimonies; as it is not to the end- less punishment of men only that you object. By these means your number would, at least, have extended to eleven instead of seven. But, passing this, I shall offer a few observations on your reasoning. First, If the term everlasting be applied to future punishment five or six times out of ninety in which it is used in the Scriptures, this may be as large a propor- tion as the subject requires. It is applied, in the Scrip- tures, to more than twenty different subjects ; so that to be applied five or six times to one is full as frequent a use of it as ought to be expected. ' * - Secondly, If the application of the term everlasting to future punishment only five or six times discredit the very appearance of its being endless, the same, or nearly the same, may be said of the existence of God, to which it is applied not much more frequently. You might go over a great part of the sacred writings on this subject, as you do on the other; telling us that not only many of the Old Testament writers make no use of it, but a large propor- tion of the New ; that Matthew never applies the word to this subject, nor Mark, nor Luke, nor John ; that it is not so applied in the Acts of the Apostles; and though Paul once uses it, in his Epistle to the Romans, yet he closes that, and all his other Epistles, without so using it again ; that James did not use it, nor Peter, nor John, either in his three Epistles or in the Apocalypse. And when you had thus established your point, you might ask, with an air of triumph, “Is this a proof that the Scriptures appear to teach” the etermal existence of God? Truly, sir, I am ashamed to refute such trifling; yet if I did not, your readers might be told that, doubtless, I had “cogent rea- sons” for my silence. Thirdly, If any conclusion can be drawn from the num- ber of times in which a term is used in the Scriptures, that number should be ascertained from the languages in which they were written, and not from a translation, which, on such a subject, proves nothing ; but if this had been done, as it certainly ought by a writer of your pretensions, we should have heard nothing of number two, nor of number Q962, Fourthly, You tell us not only that “the word everlast- ing is used very generally indeed in relation to things that either have ended or must end ;” but that the word which is so rendered was, by the Old Testament writers, most generally so applied,—pp. 328, 329. By “the word which we render everlasting” I suppose you mean Bºx, though there are other words as well as this which are rendered everlasting, and this word is not always so rendered. I have carefully examined it by a Hebrew concordance, and, according to the best of my judgment, noticed, as I went along, when it is applied to limited and when to unlimited duration; and I find that though it is frequently used to express the former, yet it is more frequently applied, even in the Old Testament, to the latter. I do not allege this fact as being of any consequence to the argument ; for if it had been on the other side, it would have proved nothing. It would not have been at all surprising if, in a book wherein so little is revealed concerning a future state, the word should have been used much more frequently in a figurative than in a proper sense; but as far as I am able to judge, the fact is otherwise. In looking over the various passages in which the word occurs, I perceive that, in many of those instances which I noted as the examples of the limited use of it, the limit- ation is such as arises necessarily from the kind of duration, or state of being, which is spoken of. When Hannah devoted her child Samuel to the Lord for ever, there was no limitation in her mind; she did not intend that he should ever return to a private life. Thus also, when it is said of a servant whose ear was bored in his master's house, he shall serve him for ever, the meaning is, that he should never go out free. And when Jonah lamented that the earth with her bars was about him for ever, the term is not expressive of what it actually proved, namely, a three days’ imprisonment, as you unaccountably construe it (p. 6); but of what it was in his apprehensions, which LETTERS TO MR. VIDLER. 143 were, that he was cut-off from the land of the living, and should never more see the light. So far as my observations extend, the word, whenever applied to a future state, is to be taken in the endless sense; and this you yourself will allow, eaccept in those passages which relate to future punishment. You, therefore, plead for a meaning to the term, in relation to this subject, which has nothing parallel in the Scriptures to support it. In the New Testament the future state is a frequent topic with the sacred writers; and there, as might be ex- pected, the terms rendered everlasting, eternal, for ever, &c., are generally applied in the endless sense. Of this you seem to be aware ; and, therefore, after asserting that, by Old Testament writers, the term rendered everlasting was “most generally” applied otherwise, you only add, concerning New Testament writers, that they “use it but a few times in relation to future punishment; a remark, as we have already seen, of but very little account. If a particular term should be applied to one subject only five or six times, it does not follow that the evidence is scanty. There may be other terms equally expressive of the same thing; and the foregoing Letter, it is presumed, has given proof that this is the case in the present instance. And if there were no other terms to convey the sentiment, five or six solemn asseverations on any one subject ought to be reckoned sufficient, and more than sufficient, to command our assent ; and if so, surely they may be allowed to justify the assertion, that the Scriptures appear, at least, to teach the doctrine of everlasting punishment. In answering what I considered as a misconstruction of a passage of Scripture, (Rev. xiv. 11,) I suggested that the phrase day and night was not expressive of a successive or terminable duration, but a figurative mode of speech, de- noting perpetuity. “It follows then,” say you, “that your best ground for believing that there is no successive dura- tion after the end of this world is only a figurative expres- sion or two,”—p. 329. Did ever a writer draw such an inference % What I alleged was, not for the purpose of proving endless punishment, but merely to correct what I considered as a misinterpretation of a passage of Scripture. If this be your method of drawing consequences, we need not be surprised at your inferring the doctrine of universal salvation from the Holy Scriptures. I thought that you, as well as myself, had better not have attempted to criticise on Hebrew and Greek terms. You think otherwise. Very well: we have a right, them, to expect the more at your hands. Yet, methinks, you should have been contented to meet an opponent who never professed to have a competent acquaintance with either of those languages on his own ground; or, if not, you should either have assumed a little less consequence, or have supported your pretensions with a little better evi- dence. To be sure, it was very kind in you to inform me that though aidu and aidºvuos agree, in some respects, with the English words eternity and eternal, yet they will not always bear to be rendered by these terms. I ought equally to thank you, no doubt, for teaching me, and that repeatedly, that “as for the word etermal, it is the same in the original which is translated everlasting,”—pp. 7. 238. Seriously, may not a person, without pretending to be qualified for Greek criticisms, understand so much of the meaning of words as to stand in no need of the foregoing information? Nay, more ; is it not possible for him to know that the Greek words aidu and aidovuos will not al- ways bear to be rendered by the English words etermity, everlasting, or eternal; and yet perceive no evidence of the one being less expressive of endless duration than the | the doctrine of future punishment, considered abstractedly other ? This, if it must be so called, was my “hypothesis.” To overturn it, you allege that the Greek terms will “admit of a plural,” and of the pronouns this and that before them ; which the English will not, pp. 332, 333. So far as this is the case, it may prove that there is some difference be- tween them ; but not that this difference consists in the one being less expressive of endless duration than the other. Words in English that are properly expressive of endless duration may not ordinarily admit of a plural ; and if this were universally the case, it would not follow that it is the same in Greek. Nor is it so ; for the idea of endless duration is frequently conveyed by these very plural forms. of expression. Thus, in Eph. iii. 11, kató arpá6eow rāv alſºvov, according to his eternal purpose. So also, in 1 Tim. i. 17, Tô 3& Baoru)\ei Tôv aidºvov &q,0&pºro, &opára, puéva, a opt; 68%, Tupºl Kai 66%a ais rās alſºvas Tāv aidºvov, Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Ren- der these passages how you will, you cannot do them justice, unless you express the idea of unlimited duration. And though the English terms may not admit of what is termed a plural form, yet they admit of what is equal to it ; for though we do not say everlastings nor eternities, yet we say for ever and ever ; and you might as well con- tend that for ever cannot properly mean unlimited duration, seeing another ever may be added to it, as that aidu must needs mean a limited duration, on account of its admitting a plural form of expression. You might also, with equal propriety, plead for a plurality of evers in futurity, from the English phraseology, as for a plurality of ages from the Greek. * With respect to the admission of the pronouns this and that, we use the expressions, this eternity of bliss, or that etermity of bliss ; nor does such language, being applied to a state of existence, express the idea of limitation. The very passage that you have quoted, (Luke xx. 35,) where aidu is rendered world, and admits of the pronoun that before it, refers to a state which you yourself, I should suppose, would allow to be endless. For any thing you have hitherto alleged, the Greek words aidu and aid,vios are no less expressive of endless duration than the English words everlasting and eternal: the latter, when applied to temporary concerns, are used in a figurative or improper sense, as frequently as the former. And if this be a truth, it must follow that the continual recurrence to them by your writers is no better than a sing-song; a mere affectation of learning, serving to mislead the ignorant. You make much of your rule of interpretation, that “where a word is used in relation to different things, the subject itself must determine the meaning of the word,”— p. 333. You are so confident that this rule is unobjec- tionable as to intimate your belief that I “shall not, a second time, have the temerity to reprove you for the use of it.” If you examine, you will perceive that I have not objected to it a first time yet, but rather to your manner of applying it. I shall take the liberty, however, to object to it now, whatever “temerity” it may imply. I know not who those “best critics” are from whom you profess to have taken it; but, to me, it appears disrespectful to the Scriptures, and inadmissible. It supposes that all those words which are used in relation to different things (which, by the way, almost all words are) have no proper meaning of their own, and that they are to stand for no- thing in the decision of any question ; but are to mean any thing that the subject to which they relate can be proved to mean without them. Had you said that the subject, including the scope of the writer, must commonly determine whether a word should be taken in a literal or a figurative sense, that had been allowing it to have a proper meaning of its own ; and to this I should have no ob- jection; but to allow no meaning to a term, except what shall be imparted to it by the subject, is to reduce it to a cipher. But exceptionable as your rule of interpretation is in itself, it is rendered much more so by your manner of ap- plying it. If, under the term “subject,” you had included the scope and design of the writer, it had been so far good; but, by this term, you appear all along to mean from what the Scriptures teach concerning it; at least, from what they teach by the terms which professedly de- note its duration. You require that “there be something in the nature of future punishment which necessarily leads us to receive the word aidovuos in an endless sense ; in which case (as you very properly add) it is not the word, but the subject, which gives the idea of endless duration,”—p. 329. What is this but saying, We are to make up our minds on the duration of future punishment from the nature and fitness of things; and having done this, we are to understand the Scripture terms which are designed to express that duration accordingly But it 144 LETTERS TO MR. WIDLER. we can settle this business without the aid of those Scrip- ture terms, why do we trouble them ; and what is the meaning of all your criticisms upon them : If they are so “weak, from their vague and indetermine application in Scripture,” that nothing certain can be gathered from them, why not let them alone 3 It should seem as though all your critical labour upon these terms was for the sake of imposing silence upon them. I do not know that endless punishment can be proved from the nature of things; but neither can it be disproved. Our ideas of moral government, and of the influence of sin upon it, are too contracted to form a judgment, a priori, upon the subject. It becomes us to listen, with humility and holy awe, to what is revealed in the oracles of truth, and to form our judgment by it. When I suggested that “the nature of the subject determined that the term ever- lasting, when applied to future punishment, was to be taken in the endless sense,” I intended no more than that such is the sense in which it is used when applied to a future state. - By your rule of interpretation, I have the “temerity” to say again, you might disprove almost any thing you please. I observed before, that if one should attempt to prove the Divinity of the Son of God, or even of the Father, from his being called Jehovah, your mode of rea- soning would render all such evidence of no account, because the same appellation is sometimes given to an altar, &c. You reply, by insisting that you interpret this term by the subject. But, if you interpret it as you do the term aidºvuos, it is not the name Jehovah that forms any part of the ground of your conclusion. You do not, on this principle, believe God to be self-existent from his being called Jehovah ; but that the name Jehovah means self-existent, because it is applied to God, whom, from other considerations, you know to be a self-existent being. If Christ were called Jehovah a thousand times, you could not, on this account, believe him to be the true God, ac- cording to your principle ; because the same word being applied to other things, its meaning can only be determined by the subject ; and in this case, as you say, it is not the word, but the subject, that gives the idea. The rule adopted in my last Letter allows a proper meaning to every Scripture term, and does not attempt to set it aside in favour of one that is improper, or figurative, unless the scope of the passage, or the nature of the subject, ºrequire it. This is a very different thing from not admit- ting it, whless the subject, from its own nature, render it absolutely necessary. The one is treating the proper meaning of a Scripture word with respect, not dispensing with it but upon urgent necessity ; the other is treating it with indignity, refusing it admission except where it cannot be denied. You refer me to Hab. iii. 6, as a parallel passage with Matt. xxv. 46, in which the same word is used, in the same text, in a different sense, p. 331. But these pas- sages are not parallel ; for there is no such antithesis in the one as in the other. It has been thought, and I ap- prehend is capable of being proved, that the everlasting ways, or paths, of God, denote those very goings forth by which he scattered the mountains, and caused the hills to bow ; and that the term everlasting, in both instances, is expressive of merely limited duration. But admitting that the everlasting hills are opposed to the everlasting ways of God, or that the one were only lasting, and the other properly everlasting ; still the antithesis, in this case, naturally directs us so to expound them ; whereas, in Matt. xxv. 46, it directs us to the contrary. If there be an opposition of meaning in the one case, it lies in the very term everlasting; or between the duration of the hills, and that of the Divine ways: but the opposition in the other is between life and punishment, and the adjective everlasting is applied in common to both ; which, instead of requiring a different sense to be given to it, requires the contrary. The words recorded by Matthew are parallel to those in John v. 29, “Some shall come forth to the resurrection of life, and some to the resurrection of damn- ation ;” and we might as rationally contend for a different meaning to the term “resurrection” in the one case, as to the term “everlasting ” in the other. But, besides all this, by your manner of quoting the passage, you would induce one to suppose that you had taken it merely from the English translation, which, in a man of your pretensions, would be hardly excusable; for though the same word be twice used in the passage, yet it is not in those places which you have marked as being so: the instances which you have pointed out, as being the same word, are not the same, except in the English trans- lation. -- It was asked, whether stronger terms could have been used concerning the duration of future punishment than those that are used ? You answer, “The question ought not to be, what language God could have used ? but what is the meaning of that which he has used ?”—p. 334. I should have thought it had been one way of ascertaining the strength of the terms that are used, to inquire whether they be equally strong with any which the language af. fords ! Should this be the case, it must follow, that if they do not convey the idea of endless duration, it is not in the power of language, or at least of that language, to convey it. . You suggest a few examples, however, which in your apprehension would have been stronger, and which, if it had been the design of the Holy Spirit to teach the doc- trime of endless punishment, might have been used for the purpose. “I refer you,” say you, “to Heb. vii. 16, &katáAvros, endless say our translators.” “The word,” you add, “is never connected in Scripture with punish- ment, and but this once only with life ; which, however, shows that the sacred writers speak of future life in a dif- ferent way than they do of punishment,”—p. 334. It is true the term ākaráAvros is here applied to life ; but not, as you insinuate, to that life of future happiness which is opposed to punishment. The life here spoken of is that which pertains to our Lord’s priesthood, which is opposed to that of Aaron, wherein men were not suffered to con- tinue, by reason of death. The word signifies indissoluble; and being applied to the nature of a priesthood which death could not dissolve, is very properly rendered endless. It possibly might be applied to the endless happiness of good men, as opposed to the dissoluble or transitory enjoy- ments of the present state ; but as to the punishment of the wicked, supposing it to be endless, I question whether it be at all applicable to it. I can form no idea how the term indissoluble, any more than incorruptible, can apply to punishment. The word kara)\{0, to loose or dissolve, it is true, is said to refer to travellers loosing their own burdens, or those of their beasts, when they are resting by the way; but there are no examples of its being used with reference to the termination of punishment, nor does it appear to be applicable to it. In its most common acceptation, in the New Testament, it signifies to destroy, or demolish ; and you will scarcely suppose the sacred writers to suggest the idea of a destruction which cannot be destroyed. You offer a second example ; referring me to Isa. xlv. 17, “Israel shall not be confounded, world without end.” (p. 364); but this is further off still. In the first place, The phrase is merely English ; and, therefore, affords no example of “Greek,” for which it is professedly introduced. Secondly, It is not a translation from the Greek, but from the Hebrew. To have done any thing to purpose, you should have found a Greek word, which might have been applied to punishment, stronger than aidºvuos ; or if you must needs go to another language, you should have proved that the Hebrew words in Isa. xlv. 17, which are applied to future happiness, are stronger than the Greek word aldºvuos, which is applied to future punishment: but if you had attempted this, your criticisms might not have perfectly accorded; as they are the same words which you elsewhere tell us would, if “literally rendered, be age and ages” (p. 364); and, therefore, are properly expressive of only a limited duration. And why did you refer us to the Old Testament 3 - It could not be for the want of an ex- ample to be found in the New. You know, I dare say, that the English phrase, world without end, occurs in Eph. iii. 21. And are the Greek words there used stronger than aldiv and its derivatives? On the contrary, they are the very words made use of; and in a plural form, too ; eis aráoras Tàs yeweds roi; alſovos Tāv aidºvov, throughout all ages, world without end. Had these very terms been ap- LETTERS TO MR. VIDLER. 145 plied to future punishment, you would have pleaded for a different translation, and denied that they were expressive of endless duration. . Without pretending to any thing like a critical know- ledge of either the Greek or Hebrew language, I can per- ceive, sir, that all your arguments have, hitherto, been merely founded upon English phraseology; and from your translating Ty and Eby age and ages, (p. 364,) as though one were the singular, and the other the plural; and els aiavas alwv&v, “to the age of ages,” as though one, here also, were the singular, and the other the plural ; as well as from your reference to &katáXutos, as a proper term to be applied to endless punishment ; I am furnished with but little inducement to retract my opinion, that you had better not have meddled with these subjects. LETTER VII. AN ExAMINATION OF MR. VIDLER's SYSTEM, AND OF HIS ARGUMIENT IN SUPPORT OF IT, SIR, I HAVE, certainly, to beg your pardon for having mis- understood you with respect to the doctrine of annihila- tion. I did not observe how you opposed the idea of end- less punishment on the one hand, and annihilation on the other. In this matter I submit to your correction, and readily acquit you of all those absurdities which would have followed the admission of that principle. Other parts of that Letter, however, you have but lightly touched; and some of them are entirely passed over. As to your conjectures about my motives, both you and your friends might have been as well employed in some- thing else. I can truly say that I never wrote a line in my life with a view to “raise a dust” that might obscure the truth ; and it is difficult to suppose that any person, unless he himself had been in the habit of doing so, would have thought of imputing it to another. It is my desire to understand you, and not to wrest any of your words to a meaning which they do not fairly in- clude. I have endeavoured to collect your sentiments as well as I am able. The amount of your first maxim, in p. 330, appears to me to be this :—“That if God created men, and placed them in circumstances which he certainly foreknew would issue in their fall and ruin, he willed this their fall and ruin ; and that it is of no importance that he forewarned them to avoid the evil: whatever be the event, he is chargeable with it.” “But God,” you say, “ hath sworn by himself that he willeth not the death of him who dieth ; that is, he willeth it not as death finally or simply, or destruction irrecoverable. If, therefore, it occur, it is a part of his economy of grace, and, finally, a ministration unto life; for he hath declared that it is his will that all should be saved; therefore the doctrine which i. any contrary will falsifies supreme, unchangeable ruth.” Thus, it seems, you reckon that you acquit your Creator of injustice, which must, otherwise, attach to his character and conduct. Let us examine this matter. It is true that Whatever exists must, in some sense, accord with the will of God. Let the blasphemer make what use he may of it, it may be asked, “Who hath resisted his wiłł?” God Willeth not evil, however, as evil, but permits its existence fºr Wise ends. The good that shall arise from it, and not the evil, is the proper object of Divine volition. But it is not true that God is on this account chargeable with man's sin; that all his cautions and Warnings are of no account; and that he is to be “accused” of the death of the sinner, if he die eternally. If it be, however, it is not the doc. trime of universal salvation that will free him from the charge. I am surprised, sir, that you could allow yourself in this manner to reproach your Maker. You cannot allege all these things as merely attaching to my system. It is a fact (is it not?) that God did place man in circumstances Which he certainly foreknew would issue in his fall; and that he did, notwithstanding, y L caution and warn him against apostacy, and still continues to caution and warn sinners against those very sins which he certainly fore- knows they will commit : who, then, is this that dares to arraign his conduct, and to accuse him of insincerity?— Who that, at one stroke, aims to sweep away the account- ableness of his creatures, and to charge him with the evil of their sin, on account of his having placed them in such circumstances ! If it be as you insinuate, it must follow that man is not blameworthy in all his rebellion against his Maker, nor justly accountable for any of its consequences. Whether those consequences be etermal makes nothing to the argu- ment. Sin, and all the evils which follow upon it, are, by you, transferred from the sinner to the account of his Cre- ator! State your supposition with reference to your own principles: “Suppose him about to create twenty men; he knows ten of them will become vicious, and, conse- quently, exposed to the tremendous penalty of damnation for ages of ages. Who doubts, in such a case, that he wills that penalty, who, being almighty and all-knowing, does that without which it could not come to pass; and who will not accuse him of their damnation—having sent them into such circumstances !” Thus, sir, you under- mine the justice of all punishment, present and future, and every principle of moral government. “Let no man say, when he is tempted, I am tempted of God.” Yes, says Mr. Vidler, it is he, who, knowing all events, and placing us in such circumstances as he does, that is accountable ! And it is of no importance, in the consideration of common sense, that he cautions or fore- warns us against the evil. If what you have suggested be true, it must also follow that there is no need of a mediater, or of forgiving mercy. Where there is no blame, it is an insult to talk of forgive- ness, or of the need of a mediator to effect a reconciliation. All that is necessary to recover man is justice. If the Creator only be accountable for the evil, it belongs to him to remedy it. Thus, instead of supporting the doctrine of universal salvation, you undermine all salvation at the very foundation. Think not that you shall be able to roll away this re- proach, which you have had the temerity to charge on your Creator, by suggesting that all the evil which follows will be ultimately a benefit; for still it follows that man has not been blameworthy in sinning against God, that God has never been sincere in his cautions and warnings, and that, being accountable for the whole, it is but justice to man that he turn all to his ultimate advantage as a re- compence for present injury. “He sent his children into the wood, it seems, where he knew the poisonous fruit abounded ; and though he warned them against it, yet he was not in earnest; and when they had eaten, to the en- dangering of their lives, he counteracted the poison, but was conscious, at the same time, that if there were any fault in the affair, it was his own ; and if the children were to perish, he would be justly accused of their death.” And can you, sir, with these sentiments, continue to disavow your invalidating the Divine threatenings towards sinners; and concurring with him who taught our first parents, “Ye shall not surely die 3’” What better exposition eould the deceiver of mankind have wished for than what your words afford 3 “Ye shall not surely die ;” namely, “finally, or simply, or with destruction irrecoverable.” “For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened.” “If death occur, it is a part of his economy of grace, and finally a ministration unto life ;” that is, it shall prove a benefit. “God hath sworn that he willeth not the death of him that dieth ; that is, he willeth it not as death finally, or simply, or destruction irrecoverable.” Death simply and finally, then, means irrecoverable destruction, does it But if it does so in this passage, it may in others; and then the threatenings of death, provided they were put in exe- cution, may mean eternal damnation. Yea, if death, in this passage, mean irrecoverable destruction, it will follow that some are irrecoverably destroyed; for the death in which God taketh no pleasure, whatever it be, the sinner is supposed to suffer—He hath no pleasure in the death of him that dieth. God taketh no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, in the same sense as he doth not afflict 146 LETTERS TO MR. WIDIER. willingly, nor grieve the children of men. It does not mean that he doth not afflict them, for this is contrary to fact; but he doth not afflict for affliction’s sake, or for any pleasure that he takes in putting his creatures to pain. In all his dealings with sinners he acts like a good magistrate, who never punishes from caprice, but for a good end; in many cases for the correction of the party, and in all for the good of the community. To your second maxim I have no objection—“That whatever God does, is intended by his goodness, conducted by his wisdom, and accomplished by his power.” But your application of it is inadmissible. Some parts of it are trifling, others rest on unfounded assumptions, and others are adapted to overthrow all future punishment. First, The greater part of it is mere trifting.—Who- ever supposed that eternal punishment, or any punish- ment, was a benefit to God, or even a pleasure to him, or any holy beings, for its own sake 3 Or who pretends that it is inflicted for the honour, pleasure, or benefit of the sinner Secondly, Some parts of it which object to endless punishment, because it cannot be for the honour of God or the benefit of creatures, proceed altogether upon wr- founded assumptions.—The only proof you have offered for the first branch of this position is naked assertion, “that every unsophisticated heart would so determine.” Suppose, I say, every unsophisticated heart would deter- mine the contrary, my assertion would prove as much as yours ; and, I may add, if own hearts be sophisticated, it must be by malignity, or the wish of having our fellow creatures miserable; which, I imagine, you will not gener- ally impute to us. But if your hearts be sophisticated, it is much more easily accounted for. The decision of sinful creatures, in such a case as this, is like that of a company of criminals, who should sit in judgment on the nature of the penalties to which they are exposed ; whose prejudices are much more likely to cause them to err on the favourable than on the unfavourable side.—The second branch of this position is as unsupported as the first. Only one reason is alleged, and that is far from being an acknowledged truth, viz. That no possible good can arise to society from the punishment of sinners, but that of safety. Common sense and universal experience teach us that this is not the only end of punishment. Israel might have been safe, if Pharaoh and his host had not been drowned; yet they were drowned. Was safety the only end answered to the world by the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah 4 or were they not rather set forth for an ex- ample? Is it only for the safety of society that a murderer is publicly executed ? That end would be equally answered by perpetual imprisonment, or banishment, or a private execution ; but there would be wanting an eacample to express the displeasure of a good government against crimes, and to impress the public mind with it. Thirdly, Most of what you say on this subject, if ad- mitted, would overturn all future punishment. You might ask, Would it be honourable to God to have any of his creatures miserable, for ages of ages, rather than happy 7 Would it be a greater pleasure ? Benefit he can have none; for there is no profit in their blood. As to the punished, future punishment can be neither honour nor pleasure to them ; and if their salvation could be accomplished with- out it, it cannot be any benefit to them. If they may not be saved without it, it must be either because there was not efficacy enough in the blood of Christ for the purpose, or else that “the full efficacy of the atonement was with- held by the Divine determination.” As to fellow creatures, can the future punishment of any of the human race be an honour to them 7 Who ever thought it an honour to him that any of his family were punished in any way? Is it not a dishonour to human nature at large to be sent to hell ? Can any creature have pleasure in the punishment of another ? Would not every benevolent mind possess a greater pleasure in seeing sinners converted and saved, without going to hell, than to see them condemned to weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth, for ages of affes 2 Benefit they can have none, except safety ; and that is better answered by their enmity being conquered in the present life. As, then, future torments can answer no possible good end to any one in the universe, I con- clude them to be neither the work nor will of God ; and, consequently, not the doctrine of Scripture : You “think there is a vast difference, indeed, in the nature of future blessedness and future punishment; such as fully to justify us in giving a very different sense to the word eternal, when applied to these subjects,”— p. 331. It may be so ; but your thoughts prove nothing. “Sin and misery,” you say, “have no root or foundation in God ; and, therefore, must come to an end.” A while ago they seemed to have their sole root in him, so much so as to exclude the accountableness of creatures ; but, al- lowing they have not, this inference is a mere creature of the imagination. Reduce your argument to form, and see what it will amount to :— Whatever has its root in the creature must come to an end : But sin and misery have their root in the creature ; Therefore, sin and misery must come to an end. - Now what proof, I ask, have you for your major pro- position ? None at all. It is an argument, therefore, without any medium of proof, founded upon mere imagin- ation. Another; with equal plausibility, might imagine that, as sin and misery had their origin in the present state, they will also terminate in the present state ; and, consequently, that there will be no future punishment. And another might imagine that, as the acts of human beings are performed within a few years, the effects of them upon society cannot extend much further; and, con- sequently, it is absurd to suppose that a whole nation still feels the consequence of what was transacted in a few hours at Jerusalem, nearly 1800 years ago; and a whole world, of what was wrought, perhaps, in less time in the garden of Eden. In short, there are no bounds to the imagination, and will be no end to its absurdities, if it go on in this direction. If, instead of taking our religion from the Bible, we labour to form a system from our own ideas of fitness and unfitness, and interpret the Bible ac, cordingly, there will be no end of our wanderings. Because all judgment is committed to the Son, you con- clude that future punishment has its origin in mercy, and will end in eternal salvation. To this I answer, First, If it be owing to the mediation of Christ that punishment should be a work of mercy, this is allowing, that if no mediator had been provided, it must have been the re- verse. But if so, all your arguments against eternal pun- ishment from the Divine perfections, and all your attempts to maintain that the original meaning of the Divine threatenings never included this idea, are given up. Secondly, If whatsoever is done by Christ in his medi- atorial capacity shall terminate on his delivering up the kingdom to the Father, the rewards of the righteous, as well as the punishments of the wicked, must, at that period, come to an end; for he will equally confer the one as inflict the other. The “execution of judgment” committed to the Son denotes, not merely the carrying into execution of the sentence at the last day, but the general administration of God’s moral government, both in this world and that which is to come.—See Jer. xxiii. 5; xxxiii. 15 ; Matt. xii. 18–20. You talk of our “ascribing a proper eternity to sin and misery,” as if we considered sin and misery to be neces- sarily eternal. The existence of intelligent creatures is no more eternal than their moral qualities or sensations; and therefore it would be improper to ascribe eternity either to the one or the other: but if God perpetuates the exist- ence of intelligent beings to an endless duration, he may also perpetuate their moral qualities to the same extent, whether they originated with their existence, or were ac- quired at any subsequent period. Holiness and happiness, in respect to creatures, are not necessarily eternal, any more than sin and misery; and, in this view, it would be as improper to ascribe etermity to the purity and blessed- ness of the saved as to the sin and misery of the lost, seeing that the endless duration of both depends upon the will of God. You speak of the “life and blessedness of holy beings, as having their root and foundation in God ; and that, being thus grounded in him, they will be, like him, eternal in duration.” But this position is contrary to fact; for was not “God the source and proper spring both of the life and blessedness” of the unsinning angels 3 Yet LETTERS TO MR. VIDLER. 147 they “kept not their first estate,” but lost their blessed- ness, and “are reserved in chains of darkness unto the judgment of the great day.” The life and blessedness of man, in a state of innocence, had their origin in God, as well as those of saints and angels; yet they were not, on this account, like their Author, “eternal in duration.” To make such an assertion is, “to say the least of it, an unguarded mode of expression;” but more than this, it is contrary to fact, and tends to lessen the dependence of creatures upon God as the constant author of all their hap- piness. The argument to prove that sin and misery can- not be eternal is the counterpart of the above position; and, of course, it is equally fallacious. “Sin and misery being contrary to the holiness and be- nevolence of God, they must,” it seems, “come to an end.” Such an assertion is soon made ; but where is the proof? A little more assurance might lead another to say that sin and misery, being contrary to the holiness and benevolence of God, cannot exist in a future state; and, were it not for the awful evidence of facts, another might assert that sin and misery do not now exist; for, in theory, it would be as easy to prove that the present existence of sin and misery is as contrary to the holiness and benevolence of God as their existence in future; and that their existence in future, for ages of ages, is as contrary to the holiness and benevolence of God as their existence to an endless duration. By such kind of reasoning, some men have be- come atheists, because they cannot reconcile the present state of things with their ideas of a superintending Power, possessed of infinite holiness and benevolence ; and I cannot but tremble for the man who begins to travel in this unwary path, by measuring the Divine administration by his own unhallowed notions of moral fitness. If your attempts to prove that all judgment is a work of mercy, and yet that there may be “judgment without mercy,” should prove fruitless, it is no more than may be expected ; for the thing itself is a contradiction. “The Scriptures afford instances of punishment and pardon to the same persons, and for the same sins” (p. 337); but was this punishment “without mercy?” “Judgment and mercy were united in God’s dealings with Jerusalem,”— p. 338. be “judgment without mercy.” You might as well allege the union of wisdom and righteousness in all the works of God as a proof that there are some works in which wisdom will be exercised without righteousness! LETTER VIII. A FURTFIER EXAMINATION OF MIR. VIDLER'S schEME, witH REPLIES TO HIS ANIMADVERSIONS, SIR, I Do not know whether I fully understand your remarks on proper etermity,+p. 364. It is certainly one of those ideas in which the human mind is easily lost, as it infinitely surpasses our comprehension; but whether “the Scriptures have revealed any thing past or to come, besides what is connected with successive duration,” and whether we be “left to infer a proper eternity only from the nature of Deity,” are other questions. You will allow that the Scriptures attribute a proper eternity to the Divine Being, and, to his all-comprehending purposes, which, I should think, is not leaving us to infer it from his nature. They speak also of a period when “God shall be all in all ;” when the end cometh; and of the “end of all things” being at hand. They likewise promise an inheritance that shai “be without end.” . I should think, therefore, that this inheritance, of which the New Testament speaks very fully, cannot be said to be connected with successive duration; not so connected, at least, as to be commensurate with it. By successive duration being ended, I meant no more than what I apprehended you must mean by the cessation of day and night, (p. 8,) and the state of things when Christ shall have delivered up the kingdom to the Father. * Granted ; but, for this very reason, it could not. Strictly speaking, it may be true that the idea of successive duration necessarily attaches, and ever will attach, to the existence of creatures; and that none but God can be said to exist without it: but there is a period, by your own acknowledgment, when the states of creatures will be for ever fixed ; and if, at this period, sinners be doomed to everlasting punishment, the term “everlasting” must be understood to mean endless duration. This period I con- ceive to be at the last judgment; you extend it to ages beyond it. Here, therefore, is our difference. I did not allege Rev. x. 6 in favour of there being an end of time. I did not apprehend it needed proof. Your formal answer to it, therefore, is only removing an objection of your own creating; and if designed to prove that time will have no end, it is as contrary to your own avowed principles as to ID, IIles You contend that “the day of judgment is not the finishing period of Christ's kingdom ; ” for which you offer a number of reasons. To the greater part of them I have already replied. The rest I shall briefly consider:— “This earth (which is to be the hell of wicked men, 2 Pet. iii. 7–13) is to be renewed, whereby hell itself will be no more,”—p. 365. If this gloss will bear the test, you have certainly, for once, hit upon a clear proof of your point; for none can imagine the conflagration to be eter- nal. But first, The Scriptures speak of a hell already ear- àsting, wherein the angels who kept not their first estate are “reserved in everlasting chains, under darkness, unto the judgment of the great day;” and in which the departed spirits of wicked men “lift up their eyes, being in tor- ment; ” and intimate that this, whatsoever and wherever it be, will be the hell of ungodly men; for they are doomed to depart into everlasting fire, “prepared for the devil and his angels.” But this cannot be upon earth, as its pre- sent condition does not admit of it. Secondly, If the earth, as being dissolved by fire, is to be the hell of ungodly men, their punishment must precede the day of judgment, instead of following it ; for the con- flagration is uniformly represented as prior to that event. It is described, not, as your scheme supposes, as taking place a thousand years after Christ’s second coming, but as attending it. The “day of the Lord's coming” is the same as “the day of God,” which Christians look for and hasten to ; “ wherein the heavens, being on fire, shall be dissolved.—Our God shall come, and shall not keep silence; a fire shall devour before him, and it shall be very tem- pestuous round about him ;” and all this previous to his giving orders for his saints to be “gathered unto him.” And thus we are taught, by the apostle Paul, that “the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven in flaming fire,” 2 Pet. ii. 7, 12, 13 ; Psal. 1. ; 2 Thess. i. 7, 8. Thirdly, I appeal to the judgment of the impartial reader, whether, by the perdition of ungodly men, be not meant the destruction of their lives, and not of their souls 2 It is spoken of in connexion with the deluge, and intimated that, as the ungodly were then destroyed from the face of the earth by water, in like manner they should now be de- stroyed by fire. You plead the promise that “every knee shall bow to Christ,” and consider this as inconsistent with “a stubborn knee, even in hell.” But the question is, Whether the bowing of the knee to Christ be necessarily expressive of a voluntary and holy submission to him : The same inspired writer applies the language to that universal conviction which shall be produced at the last judgment, when every mouth will be stopped, and all the world become guilty before God. “We shall all stand,” saith he, “before the judgment-seat of Christ: for it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God,” Rom. xiv. 10–12. But you will not pretend that every knee will, in that day, bow to Christ in a way of voluntary submission. “All things,” you allege, “are to be reconciled to the Father by the blood of the cross; but while any continue in enmity against God, this can never be performed,”—p. 364. You refer, I suppose, to Col. i. 20. But if the re- conciliation of things in earth, and things in heaven, de- note the salvation of all the inhabitants of heaven and earth, it would follow, (1.) That the holy angels are saved as well as the unholy; though, in fact, they never L 2 I48 LETTERS TO MR. VIDLER. sinned. (2.) That when the apostle adds, “And you that were sometime alienated, and enemies in your minds by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled,” he deals in unmeaning tautology. Things in heaven, and things in earth, were at variance through sin. Men becoming the enemies of God, all his faithful subjects and all the works of his hands were at war with them ; yea, they were at variance with each other. But through the blood of Christ all things are reconciled; and, under his headship, all made to subserve the present and everlasting good of them who believe in him. Such appears to me to be the meaning of the passage, and it involves neither of the foregoing absurdities. “Christ,” you add, “is to rule till his enemies are sub- dued ; till there be no authority, power, or dominion but what shall be subservient to him ; till death, the last enemy, shall be destroyed ; and as the wages of sin is death, the second death must be here included,”—p. 365. This language, which is taken from 1 Cor. xv., is mani- festly used in reference to the resurrection of the bodies of those that sleep in Jesus, which is an event that precedes the last judgment; for “when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption—then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory,” which is the same thing as the last enemy being destroyed. And “ then cometh the end,” the last judgment, and the winding up of all things, “when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule, and all authority, and power,”— ver, 24, 25. For you to interpret this language of things that are to follow the last judgment, and to say that it must include the second death, proves nothing but the dire necessity to which your system reduces you. “Finally, The character of God is LovE ; which is ex- pressly against the horrible idea of the endless misery of any of his rational creatures,”—p. 395. So, sir, you are pleased to assert. Another might from the same premises infer that the punishment of any of his rational creatures in hell, for ages of ages, where there shall be weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth, (and this notwithstanding the death of his Son, and the omnipotence of his grace, which surely was able to have saved them from it,) is hor- rible and incredible ! Is it inconsistent with the benevo- lence of a supreme magistrate that he dooms certain characters to death 4 Rather, is it not an exercise of his benevolence 3 Should a malefactor persuade himself and his companions in guilt that his Majesty cannot possibly consent to their execution, without ceasing to be that lovely and good character for which he has been famed, would not his reasoning be as false in itself as it was in- jurious to the king 3 Nay, would it not be inimical to his own interest and that of his fellow criminals; as, by raising a delusive hope, they are prevented from making a proper and timely application to the throne for mercy 3 Such are your reasons for successive duration and final salvation after the last judgment; but whether they ought to satisfy any other person, let the reader judge. I shall close with replies to a few of your animadversions. Your misrepresentation of what I had advanced concern- ing the Jews as a distinct nation, I should hope, needs no correction. If any of your readers can mistake what you have said for a just statement of the views, or an answer to the argument, of your opponent, they are beyond the reach of reasoning. You inferred, from what was God's end in punishing Israel in the present life, that (seeing he was an immutable Being) it must be the same in his punishing others in the life to come, pp. 43, 44. I answered, “That I might as well infer from what appears to be his end in punishing Pharaoh and Sodom in the present life, which was not their good, but the good of others, that such will be the end of future punishment,”—p. 261. You reply by sup- posing that these characters were destroyed for their good, —p. 367. What, in the present life? No; but in the life to come ! And do you call this reasoning? You say, “If any be finally incorrigible, it must be in consequence of the Divine purpose, or else the purpose of God has been frustrated.” I have in my last Letter replied to the substance of this dilemma. I may add, you need be under no apprehension that I shall be tempted to give up the infrustrableness of the Divine purpose ; and if I admit that God, in just judgment, has purposed to give some men up to stumble, and fall, and perish, it is no more than the Scriptures abundantly teach. You talk of “ the LAST state of a creature according with the Divine purpose;” but I know of no evidence for this which does not equally apply to every state. If you be tempted to ask, “Why doth he yet find fault; for who hath resisted his will ?” you may possibly recollect that these questions have been asked before, and answered too; and it may be of use to you to study the answer. Akin to this is your dilemma, “ That God cannot or will not make an end of sin; that there is not efficacy enough in the blood of Christ to destroy the works of the devil ; or else that the full efficacy of the atonement is withheld by the Divine determination.” It has been al- ready observed, and I hope proved, that the Scripture phrases, making an end of sin, &c., convey no such idea as you attach to them,-p. 264. And as to your dilemma, to which you ascribe great “weight,” I answer again, you need be under no apprehension of my limiting the power of God, or the efficacy of the Saviour's blood ; and if I say that both the one and the other are applied under the limitations of his own infinite wisdom, I say, not only what the Scriptures abundantly teach, but what you your- self must admit. Can you pretend that your scheme re- presents God as doing all be can do, and as bestowing all the mercy which the efficacy of the Saviour's blood has rendered consistent 3 If so, you must believe that God cannot convert more than he actually does in the present life, and that the efficacy of the blood of Christ is not equal to the saving of more than a part of mankind from the second death. You think that “the Scripture is not silent concerning the future emendation of the ancient Sodomites ;” and refer me to Ezek. xvi. 44–63, arguing that “Sodom and her daughters must be taken literally for the city of Sodom and the neighbouring cities of the plain ; that the prophecy must refer to the very persons who were destroy- ed, seeing they left no descendants; and that there is the same reason to expect the restoration of Sodom as the ful- filment of God’s gracious promises towards Jerusalem,”— p. 368. But if your interpretation prove any thing, it will prove—I will not say too much, but too little. It will prove, not that the ancient Sodomites will be saved from “the vengeance of eternal fire,” and introduced into the heavenly world, but barely that they are to return to their former estate, ver. 55. And do you seriously think that after the last judgment the cities of Sodom and Go- morrah, of Samaria and Jerusalem, will be rebuilt, and repossessed by their ancient inhabitants 3 If so, it is time for me to lay down my pen. - The former part of the above passage (ver. 46–59) I apprehend to be no promise, but the language of keen re- proof; and instead of intimating a return to either Sodom or Jerusalem, the latter is reasoned with on the footing of her own deserts, and told in effect not to expect it any more than the former.” The latter part (ver. 60–63) contains the language of free mercy; not, however, towards the same individuals against whom the threatenings are directed, but to their distant posterity, who, under the gospel dispensation, should be brought home to God; and, by a new and better covenant, have the Gentiles given to them. The conversion of the heathem is expressed by this kind of language more than once ; as by “bringing again the captivity of Moab, of Elam, and of the children of Ammon in the latter days,” Jer. xlviii. 47; xlix. 6, 39. You “ have not discernment enough,” it seems, “to perceive the gross absurdity” of maintaining that there can be no diversity in future punishment unless it be in duration ; that is, that the reflections of sinners on their past life must all be exactly the same. It may be so ; but I cannot help it. Your answer amounts to this: Diversity of degrees in future punishment may be accounted for by varying the duration of it; “for every one knows there needs not so much time to inflict a hundred stripes as to inflict ten times that number.” Therefore, that onvist be the way, and the only way ; and if you do not admit it, * See a similar kind of phraseology in Jer. xxxiii. 19—26. LETTERS TO MR. WIDLER. 149 you “confound all degrees of punishment, in giving in- finite punishment to all,”—pp. 42. 264. 369. You believe, you say, that “those who die in their sins cannot go where Christ is.” You must mean to say merely that they cannot follow him. Now, but shall follow him AFTERWARDS. Such things, indeed, are said of Christ's friends, but not of his enemies. You have represented me as maintaining that all pun- ishment clashes with the benevolence. “both of God and his people.” I have said no such thing concerning God; and if we were equally wise and righteous, and equally concerned to guard the interests of the universe, as he is, we should be, in all respects, of the same mind with him. The misery which I suppose true benevolence to clash with is misery inflicted for its own sake; and to this, whether it be temporâry or endless, it is alike abhorrent. God has also made it our duty, while sinners are not his confirmed enemies, to do all in our power to preserve their lives, and save their souls; but He is not obliged to do all that he can to these ends, nor does he. Temporary punishment, you contend, may consist with benevolence, “because it is directed to a good and glorious end ; ” and do I contend for endless punishment on any other prin- ciple 3 If you can form no idea of an end that is good and glorious, save that which respects “the amendment of the sufferer,” it does not follow that no such end exists. A murderer, contemplating his approaching exit, might be so much absorbed in the love of himself as to be of your opinion ; but the community would not. Whether I have entered into the “merits of the cause,” or conducted the controversy in a becoming “spirit,” I consider it as no part of my province to determine. The impartial reader will judge whether I have dealt in “soft words, or hard arguments;” and if, in this particular, I have been so happy as to follow your counsel, whether I have not been obliged to deviate from your example. On this account, I shall be excused from taking any notice of your animadversions on these subjects, together with those of your new ally, the “Hoxton Student,” unless it be to thank you for affording additional proof of the justness of my remark, That Socinians rejoice in the spread of uni- versalism. Whether the kingdom of heaven be prepared for all men or not, that you and I may so agonize, in the present life, as at last to enter in, is the desire and prayer of your sincere well-wisher, A. F. THE GOSPEL WORTHY OF ALL ACCEPTATION, OR THE DUTY OF SINNERS TO BELIEVE IN JESUS CHRIST, WITH CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS ; TO WHICH IS ADDED A N A P P E N D IX, ON THE NECESSITY OF A HOLY DISPOSITION IN ORI) ER TO BELIEVING IN CHRIST. “Go, . . . . preach the gospel to every creature: he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned l’”—JESUS CHRIST. ADVERTISEMENT TO THE SECOND EDITION. THE author had no thoughts of reprinting the present publication till he was repeatedly requested to do so from very respectable quarters. The corrections and additions, which form a considerable part of this edition, are such as, after a lapse of fifteen years, the writer thought it proper to make. It would be inexcusable for him to have lived all this time without gaining any additional light by what he has seen and heard upon the subject; and still more so to publish a Second Edition without doing all in his power towards improving it. The omissions, however, which also are considerable, are not always owing to a disapprobation of the sentiment, but to other things presenting themselves which appeared to be more immedi- ately in point. 1801. PREFACE. WHEN the following pages were written, (1781), the author had no intention of publishing them. He had formerly entertained different sentiments. For some few years, however, he had begun to doubt whether all his principles on these subjects were Scriptural. These doubts arose chiefly from thinking on some passages of Scripture, particularly the latter part of the second Psalm, where kings, who “set themselves against the Lord, and against his Amointed,” are positively commanded to “kiss the Son ;” also the preaching of John the Baptist, Christ, and his apostles, who, he found, did not hesitate to address unconverted sinners, and that in the most pointed manner—saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”—“Repent, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.” And it appeared to him there must be a most unwarrantable force put upon these passages to make them mean any other repentance and faith than such as are connected with salvation. Reading the lives and labours of such men as Elliot, Brainerd, and several others, who preached Christ with so much success to the American Indians, had an effect upon him. Their work, like that of the apostles, seemed to be plain before them. They appeared to him, in their addresses to those poor benighted heathens, to have none of those difficulties with which he felt himself encumbered. These things led him to the throne of grace, to implore instruction and reso- lution. He saw that he wanted both ; the one to know the mind of Christ, and the other to avow it. He was, for some time, however, deterred from disclosing his doubts. During nearly four years they occupied his mind, and not without increasing. Being once in company with a minister whom he greatly respected, it was thrown out, as a matter of inquiry, Whether we had generally entertained just notions concerning unbelief? It was common to speak of unbelief as a calling in question the truth of our own personal religion; whereas, he remarked, “it was the calling in question the truth of what God had said.” This remark appeared to carry in it its own evidence. From this time, his thoughts upon the subject began to enlarge. He preached upon it more than once. From hence, he was led to think on its opposite, faith, and to consider it as a persuasion of the truth of what God has said; and, of course, to suspect his former views concerning its not being the duty of unconverted sinners. He was aware that the generality of Christians with whom he was acquainted viewed the belief of the gospel as some- thing presupposed in faith, rather than as being of the essence of it; and considered the contrary as the opinion of Mr. Sandeman, which they were agreed in rejecting, as favourable to a dead or inoperative kind of faith. He thought, however, that what they meant by a belief of the gospel was nothing more than a general assent to the doctrines of revelation, unaccompanied with love to them, or a dependence on the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation. He had no PREFACE. 151 doubt but that such a notion of the subject ought to be rejected; and if this be the notion of Mr. Sandeman, (which, by the way, he does not know, having never read any of his works,) he has no scruple in saying it is far from any thing which he intends to advance.* It appeared to him that we had taken unconverted sinners too much upon their word, when they told us that they believed the gospel. He did not doubt but that they might believe many things concerning Jesus Christ and his salva- tion ; but being blind to the glory of God, as it is displayed in the face of Jesus Christ, their belief of the gospel must be very superficial, extending only to a few facts, without any sense of their real intrinsic excellency; which, strictly speak- ing, is not faith. Those who see no form nor comeliness in the Messiah, nor beauty, that they should desire him, are described as not believing the report concerning him, Isa. liii. 1, 2. He had also read and considered, as well as he was able, President Edwards's Inquiry into the Freedom of the Will, with some other performances on the difference between natural and moral inability. He found much satisfaction in this distinction; as it appeared to him to carry with it its own evidence—to be clearly and fully contained in the Scrip- tures—and calculated to disburden the Calvinistic system of a number of calumnies with which its enemies have loaded it, as well as to afford clear and honourable conceptions of the Divine government. If it were not the duty of uncon- verted sinners to believe in Christ, and that because of their inability, he supposed this inability must be natural, or something which did not arise from an evil disposition ; but the more he examined the Scriptures, the more he was convinced that all the inability ascribed to man, with respect to believing, arises from the aversion of his heart. They will not come to Christ that they may have life; will not hearken to the voice of the charmer, charm he never so wisely ; will not seek after God; and desire not the knowledge of his ways. He wishes to avoid the error into which we are apt to be betrayed, when engaged in controversy—that of magnifying the importance of the subject beyond its proper bounds; yet he seriously thinks the subject treated of in the following pages is of no small importance. To him, it appears to be the same controversy, for substance, as that which in all ages has subsisted between God and an apostate world. God has ever maintained these two principles: All that is evil is of the creature, and to him belongs the blame of it; and all that is good is of himself, and to him belongs the praise of it. To acquiesce in both these positions is too much for the carnal heart. The advocates for free-will would seem to yield the former, acknowledging themselves blameworthy for the evil; but they cannot admit the latter. Whatever honour they may allow to the general grace of God, they are for ascribing the preponderance in favour of virtue and eternal life to their own good improvement of it. Others, who profess to be advocates for free grace, appear to be willing that God should have all the honour of their salvation, in case they should be saved; but they discover the strongest aversion to take to themselves the blame of their destruction in case they should be lost. To yield both these points to God is to fall under in the grand controversy with him, and to acquiesce in his revealed will ; which acquiescence includes “re- pentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ.” Indeed, it were not very difficult to prove that each, in rejecting one of these truths, does not, in reality, embrace the other. The Arminian, though he professes to take the blame of the evil upon himself, yet feels no guilt for being a sinner, any further than he imagines he could, by the help of Divine grace, given to him and all mankind, have avoided it. If he admit the native depravity of his heart, it is his misfortune, not his fault ; his fault lies, not in being in a state of alienation and aversion from God, but in not making the best use of the grace of God to get out of it. And the Antinomian, though he ascribes salvation to free grace, yet feels no obligation for the pardon of his impenitence, his unbelief, or his constant aversion to God, during his supposed unregeneracy. Thus, as in many other cases, opposite extremes are known to meet. Where no grace is given, they are united in supposing that no duty can be required ; which, if true, “grace is no more grace.” The following particulars are premised, for the sake of a clear understanding of the subject:- First, There is no dispute about the doctrine of election, or any of the discriminating doctrines of grace. They are allowed on both sides ; and it is granted that none ever did or ever will believe in Christ but those who are chosen of God from eternity. The question does not turn upon what are the causes of salvation, but rather upon what are the causes of damnation. “No man,” as Mr. Charnock happily expresses it, “is an unbeliever, but because he will be so ; and every man is not an unbeliever, because the grace of God conquers some, changeth their wills, and bends them to Christ.”f Secondly, Neither is there any dispute concerning who ought to be encouraged to consider themselves as entitled to the blessings of the gospel. Though sinners be freely invited to the participation of spiritual blessings; yet they have no interest in them, according to God’s revealed will, while they continue in unbelief; nor is it any part of the design of these pages to persuade them to believe that they have. On the contrary, the writer is fully convinced that, what- ever be the secret purpose of God concerning them, they are at present under the curse. Thirdly, The question is not whether men are bound to do any thing more than the law requires, but whether the law, as the invariable standard of right and wrong, does not require every man cordially to embrace whatever God re- Veals; in other words, whether love to God, with all the heart, soul, mind, and strength, does not include a cordial reception of whatever plan he shall at any period of time disclose. Fourthly, The question is not whether men are required to believe any more than is reported in the gospel, or any thing that is not true ; but whether that which is reported ought not to be believed with all the heart, and whether this be not saving faith. Fifthly. It is no part of the controversy whether unconverted sinners be able to turn to God, and to embrace the gospel; but what kind of inability they lie under with respect to these exercises; whether it consists in the want of natural powers and advantages, or merely in the want of a heart to make a right use of them. If the former, obligation, it is granted, would be set aside; but if the latter, it remains in full force. They that are in the flesh cannot please God; but it does not follow that they are not obliged to do so; and this their obligation requires to be clearly insisted on, that they may be convinced of their sin, and so induced to embrace the gospel remedy. Sºy: The question is not whether faith be required of sinners as a virtue, which, if complied with, shall be the grºund of their acceptance with God, or that on account of which they may be justified in his sight; but whether it be not required as the appointed means of salvation. The righteousness of Jesus believed in is the only ground of justifica- tion, but faith in him is necessary to our being interested in it. We remember the fatal example of the Jews, which the apostle Paul holds up to our view. “The Gentiles,” saith he, “who followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith: but Israel, who followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but, as it were, by the works of the law : for they stumbled at that stumbling-stone.” Though we had not been elsewhere told (1 Pet. ii. 8) that in doing this they were **@*ent, yet our judgments must be strangely warped by system if we did not conclude it to be their sin, and that by which they fell and perished. And we dare not but charge our hearers, whether they will hear or On tºº. º º: this *. made its appearance, the author has seen Mr. Sandeman's writings, and those of Mr. A. M'Lean, who, which is . t followed §. with Mr. Sandeman. Justice requires him to say that these writers do not appear to plead for a kind of faith cordial from it." Thºugh h 9.9 by a dependence on Christ alone for salvation; but their idea of faith itself goes to exclude every thing In 1U, *śh he accords with them in considering the belief of the gospel as saving faith, yet there is an important difference in the ideas which they attach to believing. This differ e - - e e * e * * * * Discourses, Vol. II. p. 473. tº * . erence with some other things is examined, in an Appendix, at the end of this edition. 152 THE GOSPEL WORTHY OF ALL ACCEPTATION. whether they will forbear, to beware of stumbling upon the same stone, and of falling after the same example of unbelief. Finally, The question is not whether unconverted sinners be the subjects of exhortation, but whether they ought to be exhorted to perform spiritual duties. It is beyond all dispute that the Scriptures do exhort them to many things. If, therefore, there be any professors of Christianity who question the propriety of this, and who would have nothing said to them, except that, “if they be elected they will be called,” they are not to be reasoned with, but rebuked, as setting themselves in direct opposition to the word of God. The greater part of those who may differ from the author on these subjects, it is presumed, will admit the propriety of sinners being exhorted to duty; only this duty must, as they suppose, be confined to merely natural exercises, or such as may be complied with by a carnal heart, destitute of the love of God. It is one design of the following pages to show that God requires the heart, the whole heart, and nothing but the heart; that all the precepts of the Bible are only the different modes in which we are required to express our love to him ; that, instead of its being true that sinners are obliged to perform duties which have no spirituality in them, there are no such duties to be performed ; and that, so far from their being exhorted to every thing excepting what is spiritually good, they are exhorted to nothing else. The Scriptures undoubtedly require them to read, to hear, to repent, and to pray, that their sins may be forgiven them. It is not, however, in the exercise of a carnal, but of a spiritual state of mind, that these duties are performed. PART I. THE SUBJECT SHOWN TO BE IMPORTANT, STATED, AND EXPLAINED. GoD, having blessed mankind with the glorious gospel of his Son, hath spoken much in his word, as it might be supposed he would, of the treatment which it should re- ceive from those to whom it was addressed. A cordial reception of it is called, in Scripture, receiving Christ, al- lowing him, believing in him, &c., and the contrary, refus- &ng, disallowing, and rejecting him ; and those who thus reject him are, in so doing, said to judge themselves un- worthy of everlasting life.* These are things on which the New Testament largely insists: great stress is there laid on the reception which the truth shall meet with. The same lips which commissioned the apostles to go and “preach the gospel to every creature,” added, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believ- eth not shall be damned.” “To as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God ;” but to them “who received him not,” but refused him, and rejected his way of salvation, he became a stumbling-stone, and a rock of offence, that they might stumble, and fall, and perish. Thus the gospel, according to the different reception it meets with, becomes a “ savour of life unto life, or of death unto death.” . The controversies which have arisen concerning faith in Jesus Christ are not so much an object of surprise as the conduct of those who, professing to be Christians, affect to decry the subject as a matter of little or no importance. There is not any principle or exercise of the human mind of which the New Testament speaks so frequently, and on which so great a stress is laid. And with regard to the inquiry whether faith be required of all men who hear, or have opportunity to hear, the word, it cannot be uninteresting. If it be not, to inculcate it would be un- warrantable and cruel to our fellow sinners, as it subjects them to an additional charge of abundance of guilt ; but if it be, to explain it away is to undermine the Divine prerogative, and, as far as it goes, to subvert the very in- tent of the promulgation of the gospel, which is that men “should believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and, believing, have life through his name,” John xx. 31. This is doubtless a very serious thing, and ought to be seriously considered. Though some good men may be implicated in this matter, it becomes them to remember that “whosoever breaketh one of the least of Christ's commandments, and teacheth men so, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.” If believing be a com- mandment, it cannot be one of the least : the important relations which it sustains, as well as the dignity of its object, must prevent this ; the knowledge of sin, repent- ance for it, and gratitude for pardoning mercy, all depend upon our admitting it. And if it be a great command- ment, the breach of it must be a great sin ; and whoso- ever teaches men otherwise is a partaker of their guilt; • John i. 12; iii. 16; Psal. cxviii. 22; 1 Pet. ii. 7; Matt. xxi. 42; Acts xiii. 46. and, if they perish, will be found to have been accessory to their eternal ruin. Let it be considered whether the apostle to the Hebrews did not proceed upon such prin- ciples, when he exclaimed, “How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation ?” And the Lord Jesus himself when he declared, “He that believeth not shall be damned 1'.' In order to determine whether faith in Christ be the duty of all men who have opportunity to hear the gospel, it will be necessary to determine what it is, or wherein it consists. Some have maintained that it consists in a per- suasion of our interest in Christ and in all the benefits and blessings of his mediation. The author of The Further Inquiry, Mr. L. Wayman, of Kimbolton, who wrote about sixty years ago upon the subject, questions “whether there be any act of special faith which hath not the nature of appropriation in it” (p. 13); and by appro- priation he appears to mean a persuasion of our interest in spiritual blessings. This is the ground upon which he rests the main body of his argument: to overturn it, therefore, will be in effect to answer his book. Some, who would not be thought to maintain that a persuasion of interest in Christ is essential to faith, for the sake of many Christians whom they cannot but observe, upon this principle, to be, generally speaking, unbelievers, yet maintain what fully implies it. Though they will allow, for the comfort of such Christians, that assurance is not of the essence of faith, (understanding by assurance an assured persuasion of our salvation,) but that a reliance on Christ is sufficient; yet, in almost all other things, they speak as if they did not believe what at those times they say. It is common for such persons to call those fears which occupy the minds of Christians, lest they should miss of salvation at last, by the name of unbelief; and to reprove them for being guilty of this God-dishonouring sin, exhorting them to be strong in faith, like Abraham, giving glory to God ; when all that is meant is, that they should, without doubting, believe the goodness of their state. If this be saving faith, it must inevitably follow that it is not the duty of unconverted sinners; for they are not interested in Christ, and it cannot possibly be their duty to believe a lie. But if it can be proved that the proper object of saving faith is not our being inter- ested in Christ, but the glorious gospel of the ever-blessed God, (which is true, whether we believe it or not,) a con- trary inference must be drawn; for it is admitted, on all hands, that it is the duty of every man to believe what God reveals. I have no objection to allowing that true faith “ hath in it the nature of appropriation,” if by this term be meant an application of the truths believed to our own particular cases. “When the Scriptures teach,” says a pungent writer, “we are to receive instruction, for the enlightening of our own minds; when they admonish, we are to take warning; when they reprove, we are to be checked; when THE GOSPEL WORTHY OF ALL ACCEPTATION. 153 they comfort, we are to be cheered and encouraged ; and when they recommend any grace, we are to desire and embrace it; when they command any duty, we are to hold ourselves enjoined to do it; when they promise, we are to hope; when they threaten, we are to be terrified, as if the judgment were denounced against us ; and when they forbid any sin, we are to think they forbid it unto us. By which application we shall make all the rich treasures contained in the Scriptures wholly our own, and in such a powerful and peculiar manner enjoy the fruit and bene- fit of them, as if they had been wholly written for us, and none other else besides us.”* By saving faith, we undoubtedly embrace Christ for ourselves, in the same sense as Jacob embraced Jehovah as his God (Gen. xxviii. 21); that is, to a rejecting of every idol that stands in competition with him. Christ is all- sufficient, and suited to save us as well as others ; and it is for the forgiveness of our sins that we put our trust in him. But this is very different from a persuasion of our being in a state of salvation. • My objections to this notion of faith are as follow :— First, Nothing can be an object of faith, except what God has revealed in his word ; but the interest that any individual has in Christ and the blessings of the gospel, more than another, is not revealed. God has no where declared, concerning any one of us, as individuals, that we shall be saved ; all that he has revealed on this subject re- spects us as characters. He has abundantly promised that all who believe in him, love him, and obey him shall be saved ; and a persuasion that if we sustain these charac- ters we shall be saved, is doubtless an exercise of faith : but whether we do or not, is an object not of faith, but of consciousness. “Hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected : hereby know we that we are in him.”—“My little children, let us not love in word and in tongue, but in deed and in truth : hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.”f. If any one imagine that God has revealed to him his interest in his love, and this in a special, immediate, and extraordinary manner, and not by exciting in him the holy exercises of grace, and thereby begetting a consciousness of his being a subject of grace, let him beware lest he deceive his soul. The Jews were not wanting in what some would call the faith of assur- ance: “We have one Father,” said they, “even God :” but Jesus answered, “If God were your Father, ye would love me.” - Secondly, The Scriptures always represent faith as ter- minating on something without us; namely, on Christ, and the truths concerning him : but if it consist in a per- suasion of our being in a state of salvation, it must termi- nate principally on something within us; namely, the work of grace in our hearts; for to believe myself inter- ested in Christ is the same thing as to believe myself a subject of special grace. And hence, as was said, it is common for many who entertain this motion of faith to consider its opposite, unbelief, as a doubting whether we /ave been really converted. But as it is the truth and ex- cellence of the things to be interested in, and not his inter- est ºn them, that the sinner is apt to disbelieve; so it is these, and not that, on which the faith of the believer pri- marily terminates. Perhaps what relates to personal in- terest may, in general, more properly be called hope than faith ; and its opposite fear, than unbelief. Thirdly, To believe ourselves in a state of salvation (however desirable, when grounded on evidence) is far inferior in its object to saving faith. The grand object on which faith fixes is the glory of Christ, and not the happy condition we are in, as interested in him. The latter doubtless affords great consolation ; and the more we dis- cover of his excellence, the more ardently shall we desire an interest in him, and be the more disconsolate while it continues a matter of doubt. But if we be concerned only for our own security, our faith is vain, and we are yet in our sins. As that repentance which fixes merely on the consequences of sin as subjecting us to misery is selfish and spurious, so that faith which fixes merely on the con- * Downame's Guide to Godliness, p. C47. + 1 John ii. 3. 5; iii. 18, 19. L * sequences of Christ's mediation as raising us to happiness is equally selfish and spurious. It is the peculiar property of true faith to endear Christ: “Unto you that believe he is precious.” And where this is the case, if there be no impediments arising from constitutional dejection or other accidental causes, we shall not be in doubt about an in- terest in him. Consolation will accompany the faith of the gospel: “Being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” Fourthly, All those exercises of faith which our Lord so highly commends in the New Testament, as that of the centurion, the woman of Canaan, and others, are repre- sented as terminating on his all-sufficiency to heal them, and not as consisting in a persuasion that they were in- terested in the Divine favour, and therefore should succeed. “Speak the word only,” says the one, “and my servant shall be healed ; for I am a man in authority, having soldiers under me : and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth ; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.” Such was the persuasion which the other entertained of his all-sufficiency to help her, that she judged it enough if she might but partake of the crumbs of his table—the scatterings as it were of mercy. Similar to this is the following language:–“If I may but touch the hem of his garment, I shall be made whole.”— “Believe ye that I am able to do this 3 They said unto him, Yea, Lord.”—“ Lord, if thou wilt, thou camst make me clean.”—“If thou camst do any thing, have compassion on us, and help us : Jesus said, If thou camst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.” I allow that the case of these people, and that of a sinner applying for forgiveness, are not exactly the same. Christ had no where promised to heal all who came for healing; but he has graciously bound himself not to cast out any who come to him for mercy. On this account, there is a greater ground for faith in the willingness of Christ to save than there was in his willingness to heal ; and there was less unbelief in the saying of the leper, “If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean,” than there would be in similar language from one who, convinced of his own utter insufficiency, applied to him for salvation. But a persuasion of Christ being both able and willing to save all them that come unto God by him, and consequently to save us if we so apply, is very different from a persuasion that we are the children of God, and interested in the blessings of the gospel. Mr. Anderson, an American writer, has lately published a pamphlet on the Scripture Doctrine of the Appropriation which is in the Nature of saving Faith. The scheme which he attempts to defend is that of Hervey, Marshall, &c., or that which in Scotland is known by the name of the Marrow doctrine.f. These divines write much about the gospel containing a gift or grant of Christ and spiritual blessings to sinners of mankind ; and that it is the office of faith so to receive the gift as to claim it as our own ; and thus they seem to have supposed that it becomes our own. But the gospel contains no gift or grant to man- kind in general, beyond that of an offer or free invitation; and thus, indeed, Mr. Boston, in his notes on the Marrow of Modern Divinity, seems to explain it. It warrants every sinner to believe in Christ for salvation, but no one to conclude himself interested in salvation till he has be- lieved ; consequently, such a conclusion, even where it is well-founded, cannot be faith, but that which follows it. Mr. Anderson is careful to distinguish the appropriation for which he contends from “the knowledge of our being believers, or already in a state of grace,”—p. 61. He also acknowledges that the ground of saving faith “is some- thing that may be known before, and in order to the act of faith ;” that it is “among the things that are revealed, and which belong to us and to our children,”—p. 60. Yet he makes it of the essence of faith to believe “that Christ is ours,”—p. 56. It must be true, then, that Christ is ours, antecedently to our believing it, and whether we believe it or not. This, it seems, Mr. Anderson will admit; for he holds that “ God hath made a gift or grant of Christ and spiritual blessings to sinners of mankind,” and which denominates him ours “before we believe it.” Yet he does not admit the final salvation of all to whom Christ is # Alluding to a work published some years since, under the title of “The Marrow of Modern Divinity.” 154 THE GOSPEL WORTHY OF ALL ACCEPTATION. thus supposed to be given. To what, therefore, does the gift amount, more than to a free invitation, concerning which his opponents have no dispute with him # A free invitation, though it affords a warrant to apply for mercy, and that with an assurance of success; yet gives no interest in its blessings, but on the supposition of its being accepted. Neither does the gift for which Mr. A. contends; nothing is conveyed by it that insures any man’s salvation. All the author says, therefore, against what he calls conditions of salvation, is no less applicable to his own scheme than to that of his opponents. His scheme is as really con- ditional as theirs. The condition which it prescribes for our becoming interested in the blessings of eternal life, so interested, at least, as to possess them, is, to believe them to be our own ; and without this he supposes we shall never enjoy them. He contends, indeed, that the belief of the promises cannot be called a condition of our right to claim an in- terest in them, because if such belief be claiming an interest in them, it would be making a thing the condition of itself, —pp. 50, 51. But to this it is replied, First, Although Mr. A. considers saving faith as including appropriation, yet this is only one idea which he ascribes to it. He explains it as consisting of three things: a persuasion of Divine truth, wrought in the heart by the Holy Spirit; a sure persuasion ; and an appropriating persuasion of Christ's being ours, pp. 54–56. Now though it were allowed that the last branch of this definition is the same thing as claiming an interest in the promises, and therefore cannot be reckoned the condition of it; yet this is more than can be said of the former two, which are no less essential to saving faith than the other. Secondly, The sense in which the promise is taken, by what is called appropriating faith, is not the same as that in which it is given in the promise itself. As given in the word, the promise is general, ap- plying equally to one sinner as to another; but as taken, it is considered as particular, and as insuring salvation. Thirdly, If an interest in the righteousness of Christ were the immediate object of saving faith, how could it be said that “unto us it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus from the dead 3” If Christ's righteous- ness be ours, it must be so as imputed to us; but this would be making the apostle say, If we believe Christ's righteousness to be imputed to us, it shall be imputed to us. I have no partiality for calling faith, or any thing done by us, the condition of salvation; and if by the term were meant a deed to be performed of which the promised good is the reward, it would be inadmissible. If I had used the term, it would have been merely to express the necessary connexion of things, or that faith is that without which there is no salvation ; and, in this sense, it is no less a con- dition in Mr. A.'s scheme than in that which he opposes. He thinks, however, that the promises of God are, by his statement of things, disencumbered of conditions; yet how he can prove that God has absolutely given Christ and spiritual blessings to multitudes who will never possess them, I am at a loss to conceive. I should have supposed that whatever God has absolutely promised would take effect. He says, indeed, that “the Lord may give an ab- solute promise to those who, in the event, never come to the actual enjoyment of the promised blessing, as in the case of the Israelites being brought to the good land, (Exod. iii. 17,) though the bulk of them that left Egypt perished in the wilderness through unbelief,”—p. 43. It is true God absolutely promised to plant them, “as a na- tion,” in the good land, and this he performed ; but he did not absolutely promise that every individual who left Egypt, should be amongst them. So far as it respected individuals (unless it were in reference to Caleb and Joshua) the promise was not absolute. Upon the mere ground of Christ being exhibited in the gospel, “I am persuaded,” says Mr. A., “that he is my Saviour; nor can I, without casting reproach upon the wisdom, faithfulness, and mercy of God, in setting him forth, entertain any doubts about my justification and sal- vation through his name,”—p. 65. Has God promised justification and salvation, then, to every one to whom Christ is exhibited ? If he has, it doubtless belongs to faith to give him credit: but, in this case, we ought also to maintain that the promise will be performed, whatever be the state of our minds; for though we believe not, me abideth faithful. . On the other hand, if the blessing of justification, though freely offered to all, be only promised to believers, it is not faith, but presumption, to be per- suaded of my justification, any otherwise than as being conscious of my believing in Jesus for it. Mr. A. illustrates his doctrine by a similitude. “Sup- pose that a great and generous prince had made a grant to a certain class of persons, therein described, of large estates, including all things suitable to their condition; and had publicly declared, that whosoever of the persons so de- scribed would believe such an estate, in virtue of the grant now mentioned, to be his own, should not be disappointed, but should immediately enter upon the granted estate, ac- cording to the order specified in the grant. Suppose, too, that the royal donor had given the grant in writing, and had added his seal, and his oath, and his gracious invita- tion, and his most earnest entreaty, and his authoritative command, to induce the persons described in the grant to accept of it. It is evident that any one of these persons, having had access to read or hear the grant, must either be verily persuaded that the granted estate is his own, or be chargeable with an attempt to bring dishonour upon the goodness, the veracity, the power, and authority of the donor; on account of which attempt he is liable not only to be debarred for ever from the granted estate, but to suffer a most exemplary and tremendous punishment,”— p. 66. I suppose the object of this similitude is expressed in the sentence, “It is evident that any one of these persons, having had access to read or hear the grant, must either be verily persuaded that the granted estate is his own, or be chargeable with dishonouring the donor.” In what sense, then, is it his own He is freely invited to partake of it; that is all. It is not so his own but that he may ultimately be debarred from possessing it; but in whatever sense it is his own, that is the only sense in which he is warranted to believe it to be so. If the condition of his actually pos- sessing it be his believing that he shall actually possess it, he must believe what was not revealed at the time, ex- cept conditionally, and what would not have been true but for his believing it. * The above similitude may serve to illustrate Mr. A.'s scheme; but I know of nothing like it, either in the con- cerns of men or the oracles of God. I will venture to say there never was a gift or grant made upon any such terms, and the man that should make it would expose himself to ridicule. The Scriptures furnish us with an illustration of another kind. The gospel is a feast freely provided, and sinners of mankind are freely invited to partake of it. There is no mention of any gift, or grant, distinct from this, but this itself is a ground sufficient. It affords a complete warrant for any sinner, not indeed to believe the pro- visions to be his own, whether he accept the invitation or not, but that, relinquishing every thing that stands in competition with them, and receiving them as a free gift, they shall be his own. “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins.”—“To us it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead.” Those who were persuaded to embrace the invitation are not described as coming to make a claim of it as their property, but as gratefully ac- cepting it; and those who refused are not represented as doubting whether the feast was provided for them, but as making light of it, and preferring their farms and mer- chandise before it. In short, if this writer can prove it to be true that jus- tification and eternal life are absolutely given, granted, and promised, to all who hear the gospel, there can be no dispute whether saving faith includes the belief of it with respect to ourselves, nor whether it be a duty; but if the thing be false, it can be no part of the faith of the gospel, nor of the duty of a sinner, to give credit to it. But to return. That the belief of the truth which God hath revealed in the Scriptures concerning Christ is saving faith is evident from the following passages:—“Go preach the gospel to every creature : he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” Believing, here, manifestly refers to the gospel to be preached, and the rejection of which would subject the unbeliever to certain damn- - THE GOSPEL WORTHY OF ALL ACCEPTATION. 155 ation.—“These things are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God ; and that, be- lieving, ye might have life through his name.” Believing unto life is here described as a persuasion of Jesus being the Christ, the Son of God; and that on the ground of what was written in the Scriptures.—“Those by the way- side are they that hear : then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.” This language plainly denotes that a real belief of the word is connected with salvation. Peter confessed, “Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. Jesus answered, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona ; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven.” Here it is plainly intimated that a belief of Jesus being the Christ, the Son of the living God, is saving faith ; and that no man can be strictly said to do this, unless he be the subject of a spiritual illumination from above. To the same purpose are those express declarations of Paul and John : “If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”—“Whoso believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.”—“Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?” —“Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.”—“He that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true.”—“No man can say that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Spirit.”—Again, “While ye have the light, be- lieve in the light, that ye may be the children of light.” The light they then had was that of the gospel ; and had they believed it, they would have been the children of light, or true Christians. “Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth.”—“These things I say that ye might be saved.” Our Lord could not mean less by this language than that, if they believed those things which John testified, and which he himself confirmed, , they would be saved; which is the same thing as declaring it to be saving faith. Christ “shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.” The words in a parenthesis are evidently intended to give the reason of the phrase, “them that believe,” and intimate that it was the belief of the gospel testimony that denominated them believers. “God hath chosen us to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.” It cannot be doubted that, by the “belief of the truth,” is here meant faith in Christ; and its being connected with sanctification of the Spirit and eternal sal- vation proves it to be saving. If the foregoing passages be admitted to prove the point, (and if they do not, we may despair of learning anything from the Scriptures,) the duty of unconverted sinners to believe in Christ cannot fairly be called in question ; for, as before said, it is admitted on all hands that it is the duty of every man to believe what God reveals. But to this statement it is objected, that Christianity having at that time great opposition made to it, and its Professors being consequently exposed to great persecution and reproach, the belief and acknowledgment of the gospel was more a test of sincerity than it now is: men ºre nºw taught the principles of the Christian religion from their youth, and believe them, and are not ashamed to acknowledge them ; while yet they give no evidence of their being born of God, but of the contrary. There is some force in this objection, so far as it respects a confes- sion of Christ's name ; , but I do not perceive that it affects the belief of the gospel. It was no more difficult to be. lieve the truth at that time than at this, though it might be much more so to avow it. With respect to that tra. ditional adsent which is given to Christianity in some nations, it is of the same mature as that which is given to Mahometanism and paganism in others. It is o more than that, of the Jewish nation in the time of our Lord | towards the Mosaic Scriptures. They declared themselves to be Moses's disciples, and had no doubt but they believed him ; yet our Lord did not allow that they believed his Writings, “Had ye believed Moses,” says he, “ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.” The same is doubtless true of all others who assent to his gospel merely from having been educated in it. Did they believe it, they would be consistent, and embrace those things which are connected with it. It is worthy of remark, that those professors of Christianity who received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved, are represented as not believing the truth, and as having pleasure in un- righteousness, 2 Thess. ii. 10, 12. To admit the exist- ence of a few facts, without possessing any sense of their humiliating implication, their holy nature, their vast im- portance, or the practical consequences that attach to them, is to admit the body without the spirit. Paul, notwith- standing his knowledge of the law, and great zeal on its behalf, while blind to its spirituality, reckoned himself to be “without the law,” Rom. vii. 9. And such are those professing Christians, with respect to the gospel, “who receive not the love of the truth, that they may be saved.” It is further objected, that men are said to have believed the gospel, who, notwithstanding, were destitute of true religion. Thus some among the chief rulers are said to have “believed in Jesus, but did not confess him ; for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.” It is said of Simon that he “believed also ;” yet he was “in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.” Agrippa is acknowledged by Paul to have believed the prophets, and faith is attributed even to the devils. The term belief, like almost every other term, is sometimes used in an improper sense. Judas is said to have repented and hanged himself, though nothing more is meant by it than his being smitten with remorse, wishing he had not done as he did, on account of the consequences. Through the poverty of language there is not a name for every thing that differs, and therefore where two things have the same visible appearance, and differ only in some cir- cumstances which are invisible, it is common to call them by the same name. Thus men are termed homest who are punctual in their dealings, though such conduct in many instances may arise merely from a regard to their own credit, interest, or safety. Thus the remorse of Judas is called repentance ; and thus the convictions of the Jewish rulers, of Simon, and Agrippa, and the fearful apprehen- sion of apostate angels, from what they had already felt, is called faith. But as we do not infer, from the applica- tion of the term repentance to the feelings of Judas, that there is nothing spiritual in real repentance, so neither ought we to conclude, from the foregoing applications of the term believing, that there is nothing spiritual in a real belief of the gospel. “The objects of faith,” it has been said, “are not bare axioms or propositions: the act of the believer does not terminate at an axiom, but at the thing; for axioms are not formed but that by them knowledge may be had of things.” To believe a bare axiom or proposition, in dis- tinction from the thing, must be barely to believe that such and such letters make certain words, and that such words put together have a certain meaning ; but who would call this believing the proposition ? To believe the proposition is to believe the thing. Letters, syllables, words, and pro- positions are only means of conveyance ; and these, as such, are not the objects of faith, but the thing conveyed. Nevertheless, those things must have a conveyance, ere they can be believed in. The person, blood, and right- eousness of Christ, for instance, are often said to be ob- jects of faith; and this they doubtless are, as they are ob- jects held forth to us by the language of Scripture: but they could not meet our faith, unless something were affirmed concerning them in letters and syllables, or vocal sounds, or by some means or other of conveyance. To say therefore that these are objects of faith is to say the truth, but not the whole truth; the person, blood, and righteousness of Christ revealed in the Scriptures as the way of a sinner's acceptance with God are, properly speak- ing, the objects of our faith; for without such a revelation it were impossible to believe in them. Mr. Booth, and various other writers, have considered faith in Christ as a dependence on him, a receiving him, a coming to him and trusting in him for salvation. There is no doubt but these terms are frequently used, in the New Testament, to express believing. “As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.”—“He that 156 HE GOSPEL WORTHY OF ALL ACCEPTATION. cometh to me shall never hunger, and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.”—“That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.”—“I know whom I have trusted, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed to him against that day.” Whether these terms, however, strictly speaking, convey the same idea as believing, may admit of a question. They seem rather to be the immediate effects of faith than faith itself. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews de- scribes the order of these things, in what he says of the faith of Enoch : “He that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” Here are three different exercises of mind: I’irst, believing that God is; Secondly, believing that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him ; Thirdly, coming to him : and the last is represented as the effect of the former two. The same may be applied to Christ. He that cometh to Christ must believe the gospel testimony, that he is the Son of God, and the Saviour of sinners ; the only name given under heaven, and among men, by which we must be saved : he must also believe the gospel pro- mise, that he will bestow eternal salvation on all them that obey him ; and under the influence of this persuasion, he comes to him, commits himself to him, or trusts the sal- vation of his soul in his hands. This process may be so quick as not to admit of the mind being conscious of it; and especially as, at such a time, it is otherwise employed than in speculating upon its own operations. So far as it is able to recollect, the whole may appear to be one com- plex exercise of the soul. In this large sense also, as com- prehending not only the credit of the gospel testimony, but the soul’s dependence on Christ alone for acceptance with God, it is allowed that believing is necessary, not only to salvation, but to justification. We must come to Jesus that we may have life. Those who attain the bless- ing of justification must seek it by faith, and not by the works of the law ; submitting themselves to the righteous- ness of God. This blessing is constantly represented as following our union with Christ; and “he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit.”* Let it but be granted that a real belief of the gospel is not merely a matter presupposed in saving faith, but that it enters into the essence of it, and the writer of these pages will be far from contending for the exclusion of trust or dependence. He certainly has no such objection to it as is alleged by Mr. M'Lean, that “to include, in the nature of faith, any holy exercise of the heart, affects the doctrine of justification by grace alone, without the works of the law.” f If he supposed, with that author, however, that, in order to justification being wholly of grace, no holiness must precede it; or that the party must, at the time, be in a state of enmity to God; he must, to be consistent, unite with him also in excluding trust (which, undoubtedly, is a holy exercise) from having any place in justifying faith ; but persuaded as he is that the freeness of justification rests upon no such ground, he is not under this necessity. The term trust appears to be most appropriate, or best adapted of any, to express the confidence which the soul reposes in Christ for the fulfilment of his promises. We may credit a report of evil tidings as well as one of good, but we cannot be said to trust it. We may also credit a report, the truth or falsehood of which does not at all con- cern us; but that in which we place trust must be some- thing in which our well-being is involved. The relinquish- ment of false confidences which the gospel requires, and the risk which is made in embracing it, are likewise better expressed by this term than by any other. A true belief of the record which God has given of his Son is accom- panied with all this ; but the term belief does not, of it- self, necessarily convey it. When Jacob's sons brought the coat of many colours to him, he credited their story; he believed Joseph to be torn to pieces; but he could not be said to trust that he was. When the same persons, on their return from Egypt, declared that Joseph was yet alive, Jacob, at first, believed them not, but, on seeing the waggons, he was satisfied of the truth of their declaration, and trusted in it too, leaving all behind him on the ground of it. - But whatever difference there may be between credit and trust, they agree in those particulars which affect the point at issue ; the one, no less than the other, has relation to revealed truth as its foundation. In some cases it di- rectly refers to the Divine veracity; as in Psal. cxix. 42, I trust in thy word. And where the immediate reference is to the power, the wisdom, or the mercy of God, or to the righteousness of Christ, there is a remote relation to veracity; for neither the one nor the other would be ob- jects of trust, were they not revealed in a way of promise. And from hence it will follow, that trusting in Christ, no less than crediting his testimony, is the duty of every sinner to whom the revelation is made. If it be asked, What ground could a sinner, who shall at last prove to have no interest in the salvation of Christ, ever possess for trusting in him 3 let it be considered what it was for which he was warranted or obliged to trust. Was it that Christ would save him, whether he believed in No : there is no such promise, but an ex- plicit declaration of the contrary. To trust in this, there- fore, would be to trust in a falsehood. That for which he ought to have trusted in him was the obtaining of mercy, &n case he applied for it. For this there was a complete warrant in the gospel declarations, as Mrs Booth, in his Glad Tidings to Perishing Sinners, has fully evinced. There are principles, in that performance, which the writer of these pages, highly as he respects the author, cannot approve. The principal subjects of his disappro- bation have been pointed out, and he thinks Scripturally refuted, by Mr. Scott; ; but with respect to the warrant which every sinner has to trust in Christ for salvation, Mr. B. has clearly and fully established it. I may add, if any man distrust either the power or willingness of Christ to save those that come to him, and so continue to stand at a distance, relying upon his own righteousness, or some false ground of confidence, to the rejection of him, it is criminal and inexcusable unbelief. Mr. Booth has (to all appearance, designedly) avoided the question, Whether faith in Christ be the duty of the ungodly 3 The leading principle of the former part of his work, however, cannot stand upon any other ground. He contends that the gospel affords a complete warrant for the ungodly to believe in Jesus; and surely he will not affirm that sinners are at liberty either to embrace the warrant afforded them or to reject it? He defines believ- ing in Jesus Christ “ receiving him as he is exhibited in the doctrine of grace, or depending upon him only.” But if the ungodly be not obliged, as well as warranted, to do this, they are at liberty to do as the Jewish nation did, to *eceive him not, and to go on depending upor, the works of the law for acceptance with God. In the course of his work, he describes the gospel message as full of kind in- vitations, winning persuasions, and importunate entreaties; and the messengers as commissioned to persuade and en- treat sinners to be reconciled to God, and to regard the vicarious work of Jesus as the only ground of their justifi- cation,”—pp. 36, 37, 2d ed. But how if they should re- main unreconciled, and continue to disregard the work of Christ? . How if they should, after all, make light of this “royal banquet,” and prefer their farms and their mer- chandises to these “plentiful provisions of Divine grace?” Are they guiltless in so doing, and free from all breach of duty ? I am persuaded, whatever was Mr. Booth’s reason for being silent on this subject, be will not say they are. * John v. 40; Rom. ix. 31, 32; x. 3; 1 Cor. vi. 17. + On the Commission, p. 83. him or not ? 4 See his Warrant and Nature of Faith. , THE GOSPEL WORTHY OF ALL ACCEPTATION. 157 PART II. ARGUMENTS TO PROVE THAT FAITH IN CHRIST IS THE DUTY OF ALL MEN WHO HEAR, OR, HAVE OPPORTUNITY WHAT has been already advanced, on the nature of faith in Christ, may contribute to the deciding of the question whether faith be the duty of the ungodly; but, in addition to this, the Scriptures furnish abundance of positive evi- dence. The principal part of that which has occurred to me may be comprehended under the following propo- sitions :— I. UNCONVERTED SINNERS ARE commANDED, EXHORTED, AND INVITED TO BELIEVE IN CHRIST FOR SALVATION. It is here taken for granted that whatever God com- mands, exhorts, or invites us to comply with, is the duty of those to whom such language is addressed. If, there- fore, saving faith be not the duty of the unconverted, we may expect never to find any addresses of this nature di- rected to them in the Holy Scriptures. We may expect that God will as soon require them to become angels as Christians, if the one be no more their duty than the other. There is a phraseology suited to different periods of time. Previously to the coming of Christ, and the preach- ing of the gospel, we read but little of believing ; but other terms, fully expressive of the thing, are found in abund- ance. I shall select a few examples, and accompany them with such remarks as may show them to be applicable to the subject. Psalm ii. 11, 12, “Serve the Lord with fear, and re- joice with trembling : kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little : blessed are all they that put their trust in him.” The Psalm is evidently a prophecy of the resurrection and exaltation of the Messiah. Whatever reference may be had to Solomon, there are several things which are not true of either him or his government; and the whole is applicable to Christ, and is plentifully applied to him in the New Testament. The “kings and judges of the earth,” who are here ad- monished to “serve the Lord (Messiah) with fear,” and to “kiss the Son lest he be angry,” are the same persons mentioned in verse 2, which words we find, in the New Testament, applied to “Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel” (Acts iv. 27); that is, they were the enemies of Christ, unregenerate sinners; and such, for any thing that appears, they lived and died. The command of God addressed to these rulers is of a Spiritual nature, including unfeigned faith in the Messiah, and sincere obedience to his authority. To “kiss the Son” is to be reconciled to him, to embrace his word and ordinances, and bow to his sceptre. To “serve him with fear, and rejoice with trembling,” denote that they should not think meanly of him, on the one hand, nor hypocritic- ally cringe to him, from a mere apprehension of his Wrath, on the other; but sincerely embrace his govern- ment, and even rejoice that they had it to embrace. That which is here required of unbelievers is the very spirit Which distinguishes believers, a holy fear of Christ's ma- jesty, and a humble confidence in his mercy; taking his yoke upon them, and wearing it as their highest delight. That.the object of the command was spiritual is also *ifest from the threatening and the promise annexed to it, “lest ye perish from the way”—“blessed are all they that put their trust in him.” It is here plainly supposed that if they did not embrace the Son, they should perish from the Way; and if they did put their trust in him, they should be blessed. ... The result is, unconverted sinners are Commanded tº believe in Christ for salvation; therefore believing in Christ for salvation is their duty. Isaiah IV, 1–7, “Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and withºut price. Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth not ? Hearken diligently unto me, and TO HEAR, THE GOSPEL. eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself. in fatness. Incline your ear, and come unto me : hear, and your soul shall live ; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David. Be- hold, I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people. Behold, thou shalt call a nation that thou knewest not ; and nations that knew not thee shall run unto thee, because of the Lord thy God, and for the Holy One of Israel; for he hath glorified thee. Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near. Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him ; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.” This is the language of invitation : but Divine invitation implies an obligation to accept it; otherwise the conduct of those who “made light” of the gospel supper, and preferred their farms and merchandise before it, had been guiltless. The concluding verses of this passage express those things literally, which the foregoing ones described metaphorical- ly : the person invited and the invitation are the same in both. The thirst which they are supposed to possess does not mean a holy desire after spiritual blessings, but the natural desire of happiness which God has implanted in every bosom, and which, in wicked men, is directed not to “the sure mercies of David,” but to that which “is not bread,” or which has no solid satisfaction in it. The duty, to a compliance with which they are so pathetically urged, is a relinquishment of every false way, and a returning to God in His name who was given for “a witness, a leader, and a commander to the people;” which is the same thing as “repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ.” The encouragements held up to induce a compliance with this duty are the freeness, the substan- tialness, the durableness, the certainty, and the rich abund- ance of those blessings which as many as repent and be- lieve the gospel shall receive. The whole passage is exceedingly explicit, as to the duty of the unconverted ; neither is it possible to evade the force of it by any just or fair method of interpretation. Jeremiah vi. 16, “Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.” The persons here addressed are, beyond all doubt, ungodly men. God himself bears witness of them that “their ears were uncircumcised, and they could not hearken ; for the word of the Lord was to them a reproach, and they had no delight in it,” ver. 10. Yea, so hardened were they, that “they were not ashamed when they had com- mitted abomination,” and so impudent that “they could not blush,” ver. 15. And such, for any thing that ap- pears, they continued ; for when they were exhorted to “walk in the good way,” their answer was, “We will not walk therein.” Hence the awful threatening which follows: “Hear, O earth : behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto my words, nor to my law, but rejected it,” ver. 19. The “good way,” in which they were directed to walk, must have been the same as that in which the patriarchs and prophets had walked in former ages; who, we all know, lived and died in the faith of the promised Messiah. Hence our Lord, with great propriety, applied the passage to himself, Matt. xi. 28. Jeremiah directed to “the old paths,” and “the good way,” as the only medium of find- ing rest to the soul: Jesus said, “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me, and ye shall find rest unto your souls.” We see in this passage also, as in many others, in what 158 THE GOSPEL WORTHY OF ALL ACCEPTATION. manner God requires sinners to use the means of grace : not by a mere attendance upon them, (which, while the end is disregarded, and the means rested in instead of it, is not using, but perverting them,) but with a sincere desire to find out the good way, and to walk in it. God requires no natural impossibilities. No man is required to believe in Christ before he has opportunity of examin- ing the evidence attending his gospel: but he ought to search into it like the noble Bereans, immediately, and with a pure intention of finding and following the good way ; which, if he do, like them he will soon be found walking in it. If we teach sinners that a mere attendance on the means of grace is that use of them which God re- quires at their hands, and in which consists the whole of their duty, as to repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ, we shall be found false witnesses for God, and deceivers of the souls of men. The New Testament is still more explicit than the Old. Faith in Jesus Christ, even that which is accompanied with salvation, is there constantly held up as the duty of all to whom the gospel is preached. John xii. 36, “While ye have the light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light.” The persons to whom this passage was addressed were unbelievers, such as “though Jesus had done so many miracles among them, yet believed not on him” (ver. 37); and it appears that they continued unbelievers, for they are represented as given over to judicial blindness and hardness of heart, ver. 40. The light which they were exhorted to believe in appears to be himself as revealed in the gospel ; for thus he speaks in the context, “I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth in me should not abide in darkness.” And that the believing which Christ required of them was such as, had it been complied with, would have issued in their salvation, is manifest from its being added, “that ye may be the children of light;" an appellation never bestowed on any but true believers. John vi. 29, “This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.” These words contain an answer to a question. The persons who asked it were men who “ followed Christ for loaves,” who “believed not,” and who after this “walked no more with him,” ver. 26.36. 66. Christ had been rebuking them for their mercenary principles in thus following him about, and charging them, saying, “Labour not for the meat that perisheth, but for that which endureth unto everlasting life,” ver. 27. They replied by asking, “What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?” which was saying in effect, We have been very zealous for thee in following thee hither and thither; yet thou dost not allow that we please God : thou directest us “to labour for that which endureth unto everlasting life.” What wouldest thou have us to do º what can we do º what must we do, in order to please God 7 To this question our Lord an- swers, “This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent;” which, if it be a proper answer, is the same as saying, This is the first and greatest of all duties, and without 10 no other duty can be acceptable. It has been said, in answer to the argument from this passage, “The words contain a declaration that believing in Christ for salvation is necessary to the enjoyment of eternal life, and that faith in him is an act acceptable and pleasing to God; but afford no proof that it is required of men in a state of unregeneracy. To declare to unre- generate persons the necessity of faith in order to salvation, which is what our blessed Lord here does, falls very far short of asserting it to be their present duty.” + We see by this answer that Mr. Brine, who will be al- lowed to have been one of the most judicious writers on that side the question, was fully convinced of three things. First, That the persons here addressed were unregenerate sinners. Secondly, That the faith recommended is saving. Thirdly, That when faith is here called the work of God, it does not mean the work which God performs, but an act of theirs, which would be acceptable and pleasing to him. Yet we are told that our Lord merely expresses the necessity of it, without asserting it to be their present duty. Was it not the object of their inquiry then, What * Mr. Brine's Motives to Love and Unity, &c., p. 42. was their present duty, or what they ought to do in order to please God 3 What else can be made of it ! Further, How can our Lord be supposed in answer to their question to tell them of an act which was necessary, acceptable, and pleasing to God, but which was not their present duty ? Is such an answer worthy of him 3 Nay, how could their believing be an act acceptable and pleasing to God, if it were not their present duty 4 God is pleased with that only in us which he requires at our hands. John v. 23, “The Father hath committed all judgment unto the Son, that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.” That men are obliged to honour the Father, by a holy hearty love to him, and adoration of him under every cha- racter by which he has manifested himself, will be allowed by all except the grossest Antinomians ; and if it be the will of the Father that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Pather, nothing less can be re- quired of them than a holy, hearty love to him, and ador- | ation of him under every character by which he has mani- fested himself. But such a regard to Christ necessarily supposes faith in him ; for it is impossible to honour him, while we reject him in all or any of his offices, and neglect his great salvation. To honour an infallible teacher is to place an implicit and unbounded confidence in all he says ; to honour an advocate is to commit our cause to him ; to honour a physician is to trust our lives in his hands ; and to honour a king is to bow to his sceptre, and cheerfully obey his laws. These are characters under which Christ has manifested himself. To treat him in this manner is to honour him, and to treat him otherwise is to dishonour him. * The Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament abound with exhortations to hear the word of God, to hearken to his counsel, to wait on him, to seek his favour, &c., all which imply saving faith. “IHearken unto me, O ye children; for blessed are they that keep my ways. Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not. Blessed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors. For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the Lord. Put he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul. All they that hate me love death !”—“How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity ? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge 3 Turn you at my re- proof: behold, I will pour out my Spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.”—“ Hear, ye deaf, and look, ye blind, that ye may see. Hearken diligently unto me. Incline your ear, and come unto me : hear, and your soul shall live.”—“Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near.”—“This is my beloved Son : hear him.”—“And it shall come to pass that every soul which will not hear that Prophet shall be destroyed from among the people.”—“ Labour not for the meat that perisheth, but for that which endureth unto everlasting life.” It is a grievous misapplication of such language to con- sider it as expressive of a mere attendance upon the means of grace, without any spiritual desire after God; and to allow that unregenerate sinners comply with it. Nothing can be further from the truth. The Scriptures abound in promises of spiritual and eternal blessings to those who thus hearken, hear, and seek after God : such exercises, therefore, must of necessity be spiritual, and require to be understood as including faith in Christ. The Scriptures exhort to no such exercises as may be complied with by a mind at enmity with God: the duties which they incul- cate are all spiritual, and no sinner while unregenerate is supposed to comply with them. So far from allowing that ungodly men seek after God, or do any good thing, they expressly declare the contrary. “God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did wºnderstand, that did seek God. Every one of them is gone back ; they are altogether become filthy : there is none that doeth good, no, not one.” To reduce the exhortations of Scripture to the level of a carnal mind is to betray the authority of God over the human heart; and to allow that unconverted sinners comply with them is to be aiding and abetting in their self-deception. The THE GOSPEL WORTHY OF ALL ACCEPTATION. 159 unconverted who attend the means of grace generally per- suade themselves, and wish to persuade others, that they would gladly be converted and be real Christians, if it were but in their power. They imagine themselves to be waiting at the pool for the moving of the water, and there- fore feel no guilt on account of their present state of mind. Doubtless, they are willing and desirous to escape the wrath to come ; and, under certain convictions, would submit to relinquish many things, and to comply with other things, as the condition of it; but they have no di- rect desire after spiritual blessings. If they had, they would seek them in the name of Jesus, and, thus seeking, would find them. That preaching, therefore, which ex- horts them to mere outward duties, and tells them that their only concern is, in this manner, to wait at the pool, helps forward their delusion, and, should they perish, will prove accessory to their destruction. - Simon the sorcerer was admonished to “repent, and pray to the Lord, if perhaps the thought of his heart might be forgiven him.” From this express example many, who are averse from the doctrine here defended, have been so far convinced as to acknowledge that it is the duty of the unconverted to pray, at least for temporal blessings; but Simon was not admonished to pray for temporal blessings, but for the forgiveness of sin. Neither was he to pray in a carnal and heartless manner; but to repent, and pray. And being directed to repent, and pray for the forgiveness of sin, he was, in effect, directed to believe in Jesus; for in what other name could forgiveness be expected ? Peter, after having declared to the Jewish rulers that there was none other name under heaven given among men whereby we mºst be saved, cannot be supposed to have directed Simon to hope for forgiveness in any other way. To admonish any person to pray, or to seek the Divine favour, in any other way than by faith in Jesus Christ, is the same thing as to admonish him to follow the example of Cain, and of the self-righteous Jews. Cain was not averse from worship. He brought his offering; but hav- ing no sense of the evil of sin, and of the need of a Sa- viour, he had taken no notice of what had been revealed concerning the promised Seed, and paid no regard to the presenting of an expiatory sacrifice. He thanked God for temporal blessings, and might pray for their continuance ; but this was not doing well. It was practically saying to his Maker, I have done nothing to deserve being made a sacrifice to thy displeasure; and I see no necessity for any sacrifice being offered up, either now or at the end of the world. In short, it was claiming to approach God merely as a creature, and as though nothing had taken place which required an atomement. The self-righteous Jews did not live without religion : they followed after the law of righteousness; yet they did not attain it: and where- fore 4 “Because they sought it not by faith, but, as it were, by the works of the law ; for they stumbled at that stum- bling-stone.” And shall we direct our hearers to follow this example, by exhorting them to pray, and seek the Di- Vine favour, in any other way than by faith in Jesus Christ " If so, how can we deserve the name of Christian ministers ? The Scriptures exhort sinners to put their trust in the Lord, and censure them for placing it in an arm of flesh. Whether trusting in Christ for the salvation of our souls be distinguishable from believing in him or not, it cer- tainly includes it. To trust in Christ is to believe in him; if, therefore, the one be required, the other must be. Those who “ loved vanity, and sought after lying,” are admonished “ to offer the sacrifices of righteousness, and to put their trust in the Lord ; and a trust connected with the sacrifices of righteousness must be spiritual. To rely on any other object is to “trust in vanity,” against which sinners are repeatedly warned : “Trust not in oppression; become not vain in robbery.” “He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool.” “Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart depart- eth from the Lord.” It is allowed, that if God had never sent his Son into the world to save sinners, or if the invitations of the gospel were not addressed to sinners indefinitely, there would be no warrant for trust in the Divine mercy; and, as it is, there is no warrant for trust beyond what God has pro- mised in his word. He has not promised to save sinners indiscriminately, and therefore it would be presumption in sinners indiscriminately to trust that they shall be saved. But he has promised, and that in great variety of language, that whosoever, relinquishing every false ground of hope, shall come to Jesus as a perishing sinner, and rely on him alone for salvation, shall not be disappointed. For such a reliance, therefore, there is a complete warrant. These promises are true, and will be fulfilled, whether we trust in them or not ; and whosoever still continues to trust in his own righteousness, or in the general mercy of his Cre- ator, without respect to the atonement, refusing to build upon the foundation which God has laid in Zion, is guilty of the greatest of all sins; and if God give him not repent- ance to the acknowledgment of the truth, the stone which he has refused will fall upon him, and grind him to powder. But “ until a man through the law is dead to the law,” says Mr. Brine, “he hath no warrant to receive Christ as a Saviour, or to hope for salvation through him.”* If, by receiving Christ, were meant the claiming an interest in the blessings of his salvation, this objection would be well- founded. No man, while adhering to his own righteous- ness as the ground of acceptance with God, has any war- rant to conclude himself interested in the righteousness of Jesus. The Scriptures every where assure him of the contrary. But the question is, Does he need any warrant to be dead to the law ; or, which is the same thing, to re- linquish his vain hopes of acceptance by the works of it, and to choose that Rock for his foundation which is chosen of God, and precious? To “receive” Christ, in the sense of Scripture, stands opposed to rejecting him, or to such a non-reception of him as was practised by the body of the Jewish nation, John i. 11, 12. An interest in spiritual bles ings, and, of course, a persuasion of it, is represented as following the reception of Christ, and, consequently, is to be distinguished from it: “To as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.” The idea that is generally attached to the term, in various cases to which the reception of Christ bears an allusion, corresponds with the above statement. To receive a gift is not to believe it to be my own, though, after I have received it, it is so ; but to have my pride so far abased as not to be above it, and my heart so much attracted as to be willing to relin- quish every thing that stands in competition with it. To receive a guest is not to believe him to be my particular friend, though such he may be ; but to open my doors to him, and make him heartily welcome. To receive an instructor is not to believe him to be my instructor any more than another's ; but to embrace his instruction, and follow his counsel. For a town, or city, after a long siege, to receive a king, is not to believe him to be their special friend, though such he may be, and in the end they may see it; but to lay down their arms, throw open their gates, and come under his government. These remarks are easily applied ; and it is no less easy to perceive that every sinner has not only a warrant thus to receive Christ, but that it is his great sin if he receive him not. II. EveRY MAN Is Boun D CORDIALLY TO RECEIVE AND APPROVE whATEveR GoD REVEALs. It may be presumed that, if God reveal any thing to men, it will be accompanied with such evidence of its being what it is, that no upright mind can continue to doubt of it. “He that is of God heareth God’s words.” It will be allowed, by those with whom I am now rea- soning, that no man is justifiable in disbelieving the truth of the gospel, or in positively rejecting it: but then it is supposed that a belief of the gospel is not saving faith ; and that, though a positive rejection of Divine truth is sinful, yet a spiritual reception of it is not a duty. I hope it has been made to appear, in the former part of this piece, that a real belief of the doctrine of Christ is saving faith, and includes such a cordial acquiescence in the way of salvation as has the promise of eternal life. But be this as it may, whether the belief of the gospel be allowed to include a cordial acquiescence in God's way of salvation or mot, such an acquiescence will be allowed to include saving faith. “Acting faith,” says Mr. Brine, is no other * Motives to Love and Unity, pp. 38, 39. 160 THE GOSPEL WORTHY OF ALL ACCEPTATION. than suitable thoughts of Christ, and a hearty choice of him as God’s appointed way of salvation.”* If, therefore, it can be proved that a cordial approbation of God’s way of saving sinners is the duty of every one, it will amount to proving the same thing of saving faith. I allow there is a difficulty in this part of the work, but it is that which attends the proof of a truth which is nearly self-evident. Who could suppose that Mr. Brine, after such an acknowledgment concerning faith, could doubt of its being the duty of all mankind 7 Ought we not, if we think of Christ at all, to think switably of him 3 and are we justifiable in entertaining low and unsuitable thoughts of him 2 Is it not a matter of complaint, that the ungodly Jews saw “no form nor comeliness in him, nor beauty, that they should desire him " " And with re- spect to a hearty choice of him, as God’s appointed way of salvation, if it be not the duty of sinners to choose him, it is their duty to refuse him, or to desire to be accepted of God by the works of their hands, in preference to him 3 Mr. Brine would censure men for this. So does Mr. Wayman. Speaking of self-righteous unbelievers, he says, “They plainly declare that Christ is not all and in all to them, but that he comes in but at second-hand ; and their regard is more unto themselves, and their dependence more upon their own doings, than upon the Mighty One upon whom God hath laid our help.”f But why thus complain of sinners for their not choosing Christ, if they be under no obligation to do so? Is there no sin in the invention of the various false schemes of religion, with which the Chris- tian world abounds, to the exclusion of Christ 3 Why, them, are heresies reckoned among the works of the flesh 2 Gal. v. 20. If we are not obliged to think suitably of Christ, and to choose him whom the Lord and all good men have chosen, there can be no evil in these things ; for where no law is, there is no transgression. “A hearty choice of God's appointed way of salvation” is the same thing as falling in with its grand designs. Now the grand designs of the salvation of Christ are the glory of God, the abasement of the sinner, and the destruc- tion of his sins. It is God’s manifest purpose, in saving sinners, to save them in this way; and can any sinner be excused from cordially acquiescing in it 3 If any man properly regard the character of God, he must be willing that he should be glorified : if he knew his own unworthi- ness, as he ought to know it, he must also be willing to occupy that place which the gospel way of salvation as- signs him ; and if he be not wickedly wedded to his lusts, he must be willing to sacrifice them at the foot of the cross. He may be averse from each of these, and, while an unbeliever, is so ; but he will not be able to acquit himself of guilt ; and it is to be lamented that any who sustain the character of Christian ministers should be employed in labouring to acquit him. If a way of salvation were provided which did no’ pro- vide for the glory God, which did not abase, but flatter the sinner, and which did not require him to sacrifice his lusts, he would feel no want of power to embrace it. Nominal Christians, and mere professors, in all ages, have shown themselves able to believe any thing but the truth. Thus it was with the carnal Jews; and thus our Lord plainly told them,-" I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not. If another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.”—“Because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. Which of you convinceth me of sin 3 And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me ! He that is of God heareth God’s words; ye, therefore, hear them not, because ye are not of God.” This is the true source of the innumerable false schemes of religion in the world, and the true reason why the gospel is not uni- versally embraced. Unbelievers are described as “disallowing ” of him who is “chosen of God, and precious.” Now either to allow or disallow supposes a claim. Christ claims to be the whole foundation of a sinner's hope; and God claims, on his behalf, that he be treated as “the head of the corner.” IBut the heart of unbelievers cannot allow of the claim. The Jewish builders set him at nought, and every self- righteous heart follows their example. God, to express his * Johnson's Mistakes Noted and Itectified, p. 34. displeasure at this conduct, assures them that their unbe- lief shall affect none but themselves; it shall not deprive the Saviour of his honours; “for the stone which they refuse,” notwithstanding their opposition, “shall become the head of the corner.” What can be made of all this, but that they ought to have allowed him the place which he so justly claimed, and to have chosen him whom the Lord had chosen 3 On no other ground could the Scrip- ture censure them as it does, and on no other principle could they be characterized as disobedient ; for all disobe- dience consists in a breach of duty. Believers, on the other hand, are described as thinking highly of Christ; reckoning themselves unworthy to “un- loose the latchet of his shoes,” or that he should “come under their roof; ” treating his gospel as “worthy of all acceptation,” and “counting all things but loss, for the excellency of the knowledge of him.” They are of the same mind with the blessed above, who sing his praise, “saying with a loud voice, WoRTHY is the Lamb that was slaim to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.” In fine, they are of the same mind with God himself: him whom God has chosen they choose ; and he that is precious in his sight is precious in theirs, 1 Pet. ii. 4–7. And do they over-estimate his character? Is he not worthy of all the honour they ascribe to him, of all the affection they exer- cise towards him ; and that whether he actually receive it or not? If all the angels had been of the mind of Satan, and all the saints of the spirit of the unbelieving Israelites, who were not gathered ; yet would he have been “glo- rious in the eyes of the Lord.” The belief or unbelief of creatures makes no difference as to his worthiness, or their obligation to ascribe it to him. It is allowed by all, except the grossest Antinomians, that every man is obliged to love God with all his heart, soul, mind, and strength; and this notwithstanding the depravity of his nature. But to love God with all the heart is to love him in every character in which he has made himself known; and more especially in those wherein his moral eaccellences appear with the brightest lust. e. The same law that obliged Adam in innocence to love God in all his perfections, as displayed in the works of creation, obliged Moses and Israel to love him in all the glorious displays of himself in his wonderful works of providence, of which they were witnesses. And the same law that obliged them to love him in those discoveries of himself obliges us to love him in other discoveries, by which he has since more gloriously appeared, as saving sinners through the death of his Son. To suppose that we are obliged to love God as manifesting himself in the works of creation and providence, but not in the work of redemption, is to suppose that in the highest and most glorious display of himself he deserves no regard. The same perfections which appear in all his other works, and render him lovely, appear in this with a tenfold lustre; to be obliged to love him on account of the one, and not of the other, is not a little extraordinary. As these things cannot be separated in point of obliga- tion, so neither can they in fact. He that loves God for any excellency, as manifested in one form, must of neces- sity love him for that excellency, let it be manifested in what form it may ; and the brighter the display, the stronger will be his love. This remark is verified in the holy angels. At first they loved their Maker for what they saw in his works of creation. They saw him lay the foundation of the earth, and they “SHOUTED FOR joy.” In process of time they witnessed the glorious displays of his moral character in the government of the world which he had made ; and now their love increases. On every new occasion, they cry, “Holy, HOLY, HOLY IS THE LORD OF HOSTs : THE WHOLE EARTH IS FULL OF HIS GLORY.” At length, they beheld an event to the accomplishment of which all former events were subservient ; they saw the Messiah born in Bethlehem. And now their love rises still higher. As though heaven could not contain them on such an occasion, they resort to the place, and contem- plate the good that should arise to the moral system, bursting forth into a song: “GLORY To GoD IN THE HIGH- + Further Inquiry, p. 160. THE GOSPEL WORTHY OF ALL ACCEPTATION. 161 EST, AND ON EARTH PEACE, GooD-WILL TowARDs MEN.” All this was but the natural operation of love to God ; and, from the same principle, they took delight in attend- ing the Redeemer through his life, strengthening him in his sufferings, watching at his tomb, conducting him to glory, and looking into the mysteries of redemption. With a heart like theirs, is it possible to conceive that we should continue impenitent or unbelieving ? If, in our circumstances, we possessed that love to God by which they were influenced, it would melt us into holy lament- ation for having sinned against him. If the gospel in- vitation to partake of the water of life once sounded in our ears, we should instantly imbibe it. Instead of making “light of it,” and preferring our “farms ” and our “mer- chandise” before it, we should embrace it with our whole heart. Let any creature be affected towards God as the holy angels are, and if he had a thousand souls to be saved, and the invitation extended to every one that is willing, he would not hesitate a moment whether he should rely on his salvation. It is owing to a want of love to God that any man continues impenitent or unbelieving. This was plainly intimated by our Lord to the Jews: “I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you. I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not.” It is impossible to love God, and not to embrace the great- est friend of God that ever existed ; or to love his law, and not approve of a system which above all things tends to magnify and make it honourable. “The affections included in Divine love,” says an able Writer, “are founded on those truths for which there is the greatest evidence in the world. Every thing in the world that proves the being of God proves that his crea- tures should love him with all their hearts. The evidence for these things is in itself very strong, and level to every capacity. Where it does not beget conviction, it is not owing to the weakness of men's capacities; but the strength of their prejudices and prepossessions. What- ever proves that reasonable creatures are obliged to love God and his law, proves that sinners are obliged to exercise a suitable hatred of sin, and abasement for it. A sinner cannot have due prevalent love to God and hatred of sin, without prevalent desire of obtaining deliverance from sin, and the enjoyment of God. A suitable desire of ends so important cannot be without proportionable desire of the 726Cessary means. If a sinner, therefore, who hears the gospel have these suitable affections of love to God and hatred of sin, to which he is obliged by the laws of natu- ral religion, these things cannot be separated from a real complacency in that redemption and grace which are pro- posed ºn revealed religion. This does not suppose that natural religion can discover or prove the peculiar things of the gospel to be true ; but when they are discovered, it proves them to be infinitely desirable. A book of laws that are enforced with awful sanctions cannot prove that the sovereign has passed an act of grace or indemnity in favour of transgressors; but it proves that such favour is to them the most desirable and the most necessary thing in the world. It proves that the way of saving us from in which the gospel reveals is infinitely suitable to the honour of God, to the dignity of his law, and to the exi- gences of the consciences of sinners.” + “If any man has a taste for moral excellency,” says Another, “a heart to account God glorious for being what he is, he Cannot but see the moral excellency of the law, and love it and conform to it, because it is the image of God; and so he cannot but see the moral excellency of the gospel, and believe it, and love it, and comply with it ; for it is also the image of God: he that can see the morai beauty in the original cannot but see the moral beauty of the image drawn to life. He, therefore, that despises the - gospel, and is an enemy to the law, even he is at enmity against.ºod himself, Rom. viii. i. Ignorance of the a' glory of God, and enmity against him, make men ignorant of the glory of the law and of the gospel, and enemies to both. Did men know and ‘love him that begat, they would love that which is begotten of him,” 1 john V. l. “He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God, John viii. 47.” + * M:Laurin's Essay on Grace, 332. * Bellamy's True Religion Delineated, p. 332, M III. THOUGH THE GOSPEL, STRICTLY SPEAKING, Is NoT A LAW, BUT A MESSAGE OF PURE GRACE ; YET IT v1RTUALLY REQUIRES OBEDIENCE, AND SUCH AN OBEDIENCE AS IN- CLUIDES SAVING FAITH . - It is no uncommon thing to distinguish between a formal requisition and that which affords the ground or reason. of that requisition. The goodness of God, for instance, though it is not a law or formal precept, yet virtually re- quires a return of gratitude. It deserves it ; and the law of God formally requires it on his behalf.” Thus it is with respect to the gospel, which is the greatest overflow of I)ivine goodness that was ever witnessed. A return suit- able to its nature is required virtually by the gospel it- self, and formally by the Divine precept on its behalf. I suppose it might be taken for granted that the gospel possesses some degree of virtual authority; as it is gener- ally acknowledged that, by reason of the dignity of its author, and the importance of its subject-matter, it deserves the audience and attention of all mankind; yea, more, that all mankind who have opportunity of hearing it are obliged to believe it. The only question therefore is whether the faith which it requires be spiritual, or such as has the promise of salvation. We may form some idea of the manner in which the gospel ought to be received, from its being represented as an embassy. “We are ambassadors for Christ,” saith the apostle, “as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you, in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.” The object of an embassy, in all cases, is peace. Ambassadors are sometimes employed between friendly powers for the adjustment of their affairs; but the allusion, in this case, is manifestly to a righteous prince, who should condescend to speak peaceably to his rebellious subjects, and, as it were, to entreat them for their own sakes to be reconciled. The language of the apostle supposes that the world is engaged in an unnatural and unprovoked rebellion against its Maker; that it is in his power utterly to destroy sin- ners; that if he were to deal with them according to their deserts, this must be their portion : but that, through the mediation of his Son, he had, as it were, suspended hostilities, had sent his servants with words of peace, and commissioned them to persuade, to entreat, and even to beseech them to be reconciled. But reconciliation to God includes every thing that belongs to true conversion. It is the opposite of a state of alienation and enmity to him, Col. i. 21. It includes a justification of his government, a condemnation of their own unprovoked rebellion against him, and a thankful reception of the message of peace ; which is the same for substance as to repent and believe the gospel. To speak of an embassy from the God of heaven and earth to his rebellious creatures being entitled to no- thing more than an audience, or a decent attention, must itself be highly offensive to the honour of his majesty; and that such language should proceed from his professed friends must render it still more so. “When the apostle beseecheth us to be ‘reconciled' to God, I would know,” says Dr. Owen, “whether it be not a part of our duty to yield obedience 3 If not, the exhortation is frivolous and vain.”* If sinners are not obliged to be reconciled to God, both as a Lawgiver and a Saviour, and that with all their hearts, it is no sin to be unreconciled. All the enmity of their hearts to God, his law, his gospel, or his Son, must be guiltless. For there can be no neutrality in this case : not to be reconciled is to be unreconciled ; not to fall in with the message of peace is to fall out with it; and not to lay down arms and submit to mercy is to maintain the war. It is in perfect harmony with the foregoing ideas, that those who acquiesce in the way of salvation, in this spirit- ual manner, are represented, in so doing, as exercising oREDIENCE ; as “obeying the gospel,” “obeying the truth,” and “obeying Christ,” Rom. x. 16; vi. 17. The very end of the gospel being preached is said to be for “obe- dience to the faith among all nations,” Rom. i. 5. But obedience supposes previous obligation. If repentance to- wards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ, were not duties required of us, even prior to all consideration of their being blessings bestowed upon us, it were incongru- # Display of Arminianism, chap. x. 162 THE GOSPEL WORTHY OF ALL ACCEPTATION. ous to speak of them as exercises of obedience. Nor would it be less so to speak of that impenitence and unbelief which expose men to “etermal destruction from the pre- sence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power,” as consisting in their not obeying the gospel, 2 Thess. i. 8, 9. The passage on which the former part of this argument is founded (viz. 2 Cor. v. 19, 20) has been thought inappli- cable to the subject, because it is supposed to be an ad- dress to the members of the church at Corinth, who were considered by the apostle as believers. On this principle Dr. Gill expounds the reconciliation exhorted to, submis- sion to providence, and obedience to the discipline and ordinances of God. But let it be considered whether the apostle be here immediately addressing the members of the church at Corinth, beseeching them, at that time, to be reconciled to God ; or whether he be not rather re- hearsing to them what had besn his conduct, and that of his brethren in the ministry, in vindication of himself and them from the base insinuations of false teachers; to whom the great evils that had crept into that church had been prin- cipally owing. The methods they appear to have taken to supplant the apostles were those of underhand insinuation. By Paul's answers, they appear to have suggested that he and his friends were either subtle men, who, by their soft and beseeching style, ingratiated themselves into the esteem of the simple, catching them, as it were, with guile (2 Cor. i. 12; xii. 16); or weak-headed enthusiasts, “beside themselves,” (chap. v. 13,) going up and down “beseech- ing ” people to this and that (chap. xi. 21); and that, as to Paul himself, however great he might appear in his “letters,” he was nothing in company: “His bodily pre- sence, say they, is weak, and his speech contemptible.” In the First Epistle to this church, Paul generously waved a defence of himself and his brethren ; being more concerned for the recovery of those to Christ who were in danger of being drawn off from the truth as it is in Jesus, than respecting their opinion of him ; yet when the one was accomplished, he undertook the other; not only as a justification of himself and his brethren, but as knowing that just sentiments of faithful ministers bore an intimate connexion with the spiritual welfare of their hearers. It is thus that the apostle alludes to their various insinu- ations, acknowledging that they did indeed beseech, entreat, and persuade men; but affirming that such conduct arose not from the motives of which they were accused, but from the “love of Christ.”—“If we are beside ourselves, it is for your sakes.” * If the words in chap. v. 19, 20 be an immediate address to the members of the church at Corinth, those which fol- low, in chap. vi. 1, must be an address to its ministers; and thus Dr. Gill expounds it. But if so, the apostle in the continuation of that address would not have said, as he does, “In all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God:” his language would have been, “In all things approving yourselves,” &c. Hence it is manifest that the whole is a vindication of their preaching and manner of life against the insinuations of the Corinthian teachers. There are two things which may have contributed to the misunderstanding of this passage of Scripture; one is the sup- plement you, which is unnecessarily introduced three times over in chap. v. 20, and vi. 1. If any supplement had been necessary, the word men, as it is in the text of chap. v. 11, might have better conveyed the apostle's meaning. The other is the division of the fifth and sixth chapters in the midst of the argument.* IV. The WANT OF FAITH IN CHRIST Is AscRIBED IN THE SCRIPTUREs To MEN's DEPRAvity, AND Is Its ELF REPRE- SENTED AS A HEINOUS SIN. It is taken for granted that whatever is not a sinner's duty, the omission of it cannot be charged on him as a sin, nor imputed to any depravity in him. If faith were no more...a duty than election or redemption, which are acts peculiar to God, the want of the one would be no more ascribed to the evil dispositions of the heart than that of the other. Or if the inability of sinners to believe in Christ were of the same nature as that of a dead body in a grave to rise up and walk, it were absurd to suppose that they would on this account fall under the Divine censure. * See Dr. Guyse on the place. No man is reproved for not doing that which is naturally impossible; but sinners are reproved for not believing, and given to understand that it is solely owing to their criminal ignorance, pride, dishonesty of heart, and aversion from God. Voluntary ignorance is represented as a reason why sin- ners believe not. “Being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, they have not submitted themselves wmto the righteousness of God.”—“If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost : in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them that believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.” To the same purpose we are taught by our Lord in the parable of the sower, “when any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and wnderstandeth it not, then com- eth the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart;” and this, as Luke expresses it, “lest they should believe and be saved.” If men, even though they were possessed of the same principles as our first father in Paradise, would neverthe- less be blind to the glory of the gospel, with what pro- priety is their blindness attributed to the god of this world? Is he ever represented as employing himself in hindering that which is naturally impossible, or in pro- moting that which is innocent 3 Pride is another cause to which the want of saving faith is ascribed, “The wicked, through the pride of his counte- nance, will not seek.” “God is not in all his thoughts.” We have seen already that seeking God is a spiritual exer- cise, which implies faith in the Mediator; and the reason why ungodly men are strangers to it is the haughtiness of their spirits, which makes them scorn to take the place of supplicants before their offended Creator, and labour to put far from their minds every thought of him. “How can ye believe,” said our Lord to the Jews, “who receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only 3” - If believing were here to be taken for any other faith than that which is spiritual or saving, the suggestion would not hold good; for we are told of some who could and did believe in Christ, in some sense, but who did not confess him ; for they “loved the praise of men more than the praise of God,” John xii. 43. It was pride that blinded the minds of the “wise and prudent of this world” to the doctrines of Christ; and what is it but this same proud spirit, working in a way of self-conceit and self- righteousness, that still forms, the grand objection to the doctrine of salvation by mere grace? Dishonesty of heart is that on account of which men re- ceive not the word of God, so as to bring forth fruit. This is fully implied in the parable of the sower, recorded in the eighth chapter of Luke. The reason why those hear- ers represented by the good ground received the word, and brought forth fruit, rather than the others, was that they had “good and honest hearts; ” plainly intimating that the reason why the others did not so receive it was that their hearts were not upright before God. Indeed, such is the nature of Divine truth, that every heart which is honest towards God must receive it. An honest heart must needs approve of God’s holy law, which requires us to love him with all our powers ; and this because it is no more than giving him the glory due to his name. An honest heart will approve of being justified wholly for Christ's sake, and not on account of any of its own works, whether legal or evangelical ; for it is no more than relinquishing a claim which is justly forfeited, and accepting as a free gift that which God was under no obligation to bestow. Further, An honest heart must rejoice in the way of salvation as soon as he understands it, because it provides a way in which mercy can be exercised consistently with righteous- ness. A right spirit would revolt at the idea of receiving mercy itself in a way that should leave a blot upon the Divine character. It is the glory of Christ that he has not an honest man for an enemy. The upright love him. We are not ignorant who it is that must now give men honest hearts, and what is the source of every thing in a fallen creature that is truly good; but this does not affect the argument. However far sinners are from it, and Whatever Divine agency it may require to produce it, no THE GOSPEL WORTHY OF ALL ACCEPTATION. 163 man who is not disposed to deny the accountableness of creatures to the God that made them will deny that it is their duty; for if we are not obliged to be upright towards God, we are obliged to nothing; and if obliged to nothing, we must be guiltless, and so stand in no need of salvation. Finally, Aversion of heart is assigned as a reason why sinners do not believe. This truth is strongly expressed in that complaint of our Lord in John v. 40, “Ye will not, or ye are not willing, to come unto me, that ye might have life.” Proudly attached to their own righteousness, when Jesus exhibited himself as “the way, the truth, and the life,” they were stumbled at it ; and thousands in the religious world are the same to this day. They are willing to escape God's wrath, and to gain his favour; yea, and to relinquish many an outward vice in order to it: but to come to Jesus among the chief of sinners, and be indebted wholly to his sacrifice for life, they are not willing. Yet, can any man plead that this their unwillingness is innocent 7 Mr. Hussey understands the foregoing passage of barely owning Christ to be the Messiah, which, he says, would have saved them as a nation from temporal ruin and death; or, as he in another place expresses it, “from having their brains dashed out by the battering rams of Titus,” the Roman general.” But it ought to be observed that the life for which they were “not willing” to come to him was the same as that which they thought they had in the Scriptures; and this was “etermal” life.—“Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me:” and, “Ye will not come unto me, that ye might have life.” This was the same as saying, These very Scriptures, in which ye think ye have eternal life, testify of me, as the only way to it ; but such is the pride and aversion of your hearts, that ye will not come to me for it. Dr. Gill, in general, opposed these principles; yet fre- quently, when his system was out of sight, he established them. His exposition of this passage is a proof of this re- mark. He tells us that the “perverseness of their wills was blameworthy, being owing to the corruption and viti- osity of their nature ; which being blameworthy in them, that which follows upon it must be so too.” There is no inconsistency between this account of things and that which is given elsewhere, that “no man can come to (Christ) except the Father draw him.” No man can choose that from which his heart is averse. It is com- mon, both in Scripture and in conversation, to speak of a person who is under the influence of an evil bias of heart, as unable to do that which is inconsistent with it. “They have eyes full of adultery, and cannot cease from sin.”— “The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.” On account of this different phraseology, some writers have affirmed that men are under both a moral and a natural inability of coming to Christ, or that they neither will nor can come to him ; but if there be no other ina- bility than what arises from aversion, this language is not accurate ; for it conveys the idea, that if all aversion of heart were removed, there would still be a natural and in- Surmountable bar in the way. But no such idea as this is conveyed by our Lord's words: the only bar to which he refers lies in that reluctance or aversion which the drawing of the Father implies and removes. Nor will such an idea ComPort with what he elsewhere teaches. “And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. Which of you convinceth me of sini And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? He that is of God heareth God's words: ye. therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. Why do ye not understand my speech 3 Because ye cannot hear my word.” the suppºsition that they could have received the doctrine of Christ, if it had been agreeable to their corrupt hearts ; and Žts being otherwise was the ONLY reason why they could not wºnderstand and believe it. absolutely unable tº believe in Christ, they would be equally unable to disbelieve ; for it requires the same PºWºs, to reject as to embrace. And, in this case, there Would be no room for an inability of another kind; a dead * Glory of Christ Reve s I tº !". Indwelling i. º: §ºis. MI 2, These cutting interrogations proceed on If sinners were naturally and body is equally unable to do evil as to do good; and a man naturally and absolutely blind could not be guilty of shutting his eyes against the light. “It is indwelling sin,” as Dr. Owen says, “that both disenableth men unto, and hinders them from believing, and that alone. Blind- mess of mind, stubbornness of the will, sensuality of the affections, all concur to keep poor perishing souls at a dis- tance from Christ. Men are made blind by sin, and can- not see his excellency; obstinate, and will not lay hold of his righteousness; senseless, and take no notice of their eternal concernments.”f A voluntary and judicial blindness, obstinacy, and hard- mess of heart, are represented as the bar to conversion, Acts xxviii. 27. But if that spirit which is exercised in conversion were essentially different from any thing which the subjects of it in any state possessed, or ought to have possessed, it were absurd to ascribe the want of it to such Call SeS. Those who embraced the gospel and submitted to the government of the Messiah were baptized with the baptism of John, and are said, in so doing, to have “justified” God; their conduct was an acknowledgment of the justice of the law, and of the wisdom and love of the gospel. On the other hand, those who did not thus submit are said to have “rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized,” Luke vii. 29, 30. But no Christian, I suppose, (certainly no Baptist,) thinks it was their sin not to be baptized while they continued enemies to Christ; and probably very few, if any, serious Paedobaptists would contend for its being the duty of adults to be baptized in Christ's name, without first embracing his word. How then can this passage be understood, but by supposing that they ought to have repented of their sins, embraced the Messiah, and submitted to his ordinances 3 Nor can the force of the argument be evaded by distinguishing between different kinds of repentance and faith; for a profession of true repentance, and of faith unfeigned, was required in order to baptism. Finally, Unbelief is expressly declared to be a sin of which the Spirit of truth has to convince the world, John xvi. 8, 9. But unbelief cannot be a sin if faith were not a duty. I know of no answer to this argument but what must be drawn from a distinction between believing the report of the gospel and saving faith ; allowing the want of the one to be sinful, but not of the other. But it is not of gross unbelief only, or of an open rejection of Jesus as the Messiah, that the Holy Spirit has to convince the world ; nor is it to a bare conviction of this truth, like what prevails in all Christian countries, that men are brought by his teaching. When he, the Spirit of truth, cometh, his operations are deeper than this amounts to : it is of an opposition of heart to the way of salvation that he convinces the sinner, and to a cordial acquiescence with it that he brings him. Those who are born in a Christian land, and who never were the subjects of gross infidelity, stand in no less need of being thus convinced than others. Nay, in some respects they need it more. Their unbe- lieving opposition to Christ is more subtile, refined, and out of sight, than that of open infidels; they are less apt, therefore, to suspect themselves of it; and consequently stand in greater need of the Holy Spirit to search them out, and show them to themselves. Amongst those who constantly sit under the gospel, and who remain in an unconverted state, there are few who think themselves the enemies of Christ. On the contrary, they flatter them- selves that they are willing at any time to be converted, if God would but convert them ; considering themselves as lying at the pool for the moving of the waters. But “when he, the Spirit of truth, cometh,” these coverings will be stripped from off the face, and these refuges of lies will fail.t V. GoD HAS THREATENED AND INFLICTED THE MOST AWFUL PUNISHMENTS ON SINNERS FOR THEIR NOT BELIEV- ING ON THE LORD Jesus CHRIST. It is here taken for granted that nothing but sin can be the cause of God's inflicting punishment, and nothing can be sin which is not a breach of duty. “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to # See Charnock's excellent discourse, on Unbelief the Greatest Sin, from the above passage, Vol. 11. of his Works. - 164 THE GOSPEL WORTHY OF ALL ACCEPTATION. every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” This awful passage appears to be a kind of ultimatum, or last resolve. It is as if our Lord had said, This is your message . . . . go and proclaim it to all nations: whosoever receives it, and submits to my authority, assure him from me that eternal salvation awaits him ; but whosoever re- jects it, let him see to it . . . . damnation shall be his por- tion Believing and not believing, in this passage, serve to explain each other. It is saving faith to which salvation is promised, and to the want of this it is that damnation is threatened. It has been alleged, that “as it is not inferrible from that declaration that the faith of believers is the procuring cause of their salvation, so it is not to be inferred from thence that the want of that special faith in unbelievers is the procuring cause of their damnation. That declaration contains in it the descriptive characters of those who are saved, and of those who are damned ; but it assigns not special faith to be the procuring cause of the salvation of the former, nor the want of it to be the procuring cause of the damnation of the latter.”* But if this mode of reasoning were admitted, we should find it very difficult, if not impossible, to prove any thing to be evil from the threatenings of God against it. A multitude of plain texts of Scripture, wherein sin, as any common reader would suppose, is threatened with punish- ment, might, in this manner, be made to teach nothing with regard to its being the procuring cause of it. For example, Psal. xxxvii. 18, 20, “The Lord knoweth the days of the upright; and their inheritance shall be for ever. But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the Lord shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall con- sume ; into smoke shall they consume away.” But it might be said, as the uprightness of the upright is not the procuring cause of his enjoying an everlasting inheritance, so neither will this prove that the wickedness of the wicked, or the enmity of the Lord’s enemies, is the pro- curing cause of their being consumed. Again, Psal. cxlvii. 6, “The Lord lifteth up the meek; he casteth the wicked down to the ground.” But it might be alleged, that as the meekness of the former is not the procuring cause of his being lifted up, so it cannot be from hence inferred that the wickedness of the latter is the procuring cause of his being cast down. Again, Psal. cxlv. 20, “The Lord preserveth all them that love him : but all the wicked will he destroy.” But it might be said, as the love of the one is not the procuring cause of his preservation, so it cannot be proved from hence that the wickedness of the other is the procuring cause of his destruction ; and that these declarations contain only the “ descriptive characters” of those who are saved, and of those who perish. In this manner almost all the threatenings in the book of God might be made to say nothing as threatenings ; for the mode in which they are delivered is the same as that in the passage in question. For example, “What shall be given unto thee! or what shall be done unto thee, thou false tongue 2 Sharp arrows of the mighty, with coals of juniper.”—“He that showeth no mercy shall have judg- ment without mercy.”—“Whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.”—“Be not deceived : neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”—“Behold, the day cometh that shall burn like an oven, and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble.”—“Bring hither those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, and slay them before me.”—“The fearful, and un- believing, and abominable, and murderers, and whore- mongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their portion in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone ; which is the second death.” But none of these awful threatenings declare that the respective crimes which are mentioned are the procuring cause of the evils denounced. Though it is said concerning the “false tongue,” that “sharp arrows of the mighty, with coals of juniper,” shall be given him ; yet it does not say that these * Mr. Brine's Motives to Love and Unity, pp. 31, 32. shall be given him because of his falsehood; and so on of the rest. And thus they may be only “descriptive characters” of those who shall be damned ; and all these things may, for aught these denunciations prove, be blameless. If this reasoning be just, it cannot be inferred, from the laws of England declaring that a murderer shall be put to death, that it is on account of his being a murderer. Neither could our first parents justly infer, from its being told them, “The day ye eat thereof ye shall surely die,” that it should be on that account. The truth is, though etermal life be the gift of God, yet eternal death is the proper wages of sin; and though faith is not represented in the above passage as the procuring cause of salvation, yet unbelief is of damnation. It is common for the Scriptures to describe those that shall be saved by something which is pleasing to God, and by which they are made meet for glory; and those that shall be lost by something which is displeasing to God, and by which they are fitted for destruction. John iii. 18, “ He that believeth on him is not con- demned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only be- gotten Son of God.” Two things are here observable. First, Believing is expressive of saving faith, seeing it exempts from condemnation. Secondly, The want of this faith is a sin on account of which the unbeliever stands condemned. It is true that unbelief is an evidence of our being under the condemnation of God’s righteous law for all our other sins ; but this is not all : unbelief is itself a sin which greatly aggravates our guilt, and which, if per- sisted in, gives the finishing stroke to our destruction. That this idea is taught by the evangelist appears, partly from his dwelling upon the dignity of the character of fended, the “only begotten Son of God;” and partly from his expressly adding, “this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.” Luke xix. 27, “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.” If Christ, as wearing his mediatorial crown, has not a right to unreserved submission and hearty obedience, he has no right to be angry; and still less to punish men as his enemies for not being willing that he should reign over them. He has no right to reign over them, at least not over their hearts, if it be not their duty to obey him from their hearts. The whole controversy, indeed, might be reduced to an issue on this argument. Every sinner ought to be Christ's friend, or his enemy, or to stand by as neutral. To say he ought to be his enemy is too gross to be defended. To plead for his being neutral is pleading for what our Lord declares to be impossible : “He that is not with me is against me.” There is, there- fore, no room for any other position than that he ought to be his cordial friend ; and this is the plain implication of the passage. 2 Thess. ii. 10–12, “Whose coming is—with all de- ceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish ; be- cause they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie : that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” From hence we may re- mark two things: First, That faith is here called a receiv- ing the love of the truth ; and that it means saving faith is manifest, seeing it is added, “that they might be saved.” Secondly, That their not receiving the love of the truth, or, which is the same thing, not believing with such a faith as that to which salvation is promised, was the “cause” of their being given up of God, and carried away with all deceivableness of unrighteousness. The loose and cold- hearted manner in which merely nominal Christians held the truth would occasion the introduction of the grand papal apostacy, by which great numbers of them would be swept away. And this, assuredly, ought to afford a lesson to nominal Christians of the present day, who, owing to the saine cause, are fast approaching to infidelity. But unless we suppose that these professors of religion ought to have “received the love of the truth,” there is no ac- counting for the awful judgments of God upon them for the contrary. THE GOSPEL WORTHY OF ALL ACCEPTATION. 165 WI. OTHER SPIRITUAL ExeRCISEs, which sustAIN AN INSEPARABLE con NEXION WITH FAITH IN CHRIST, ARE REPRESENTED AS THE DUTY OF MEN IN GENERAL, Though this controversy has been mostly carried on with respect to the duty of faith, yet it, in reality, extends to the whole of spiritual religion. Those who deny that sinners are obliged to believe in Christ for salvation will not allow that it is their duty to do any thing truly and spiritually good. It is a kind of maxim, with such per- sons, that “none can be obliged to act spiritually, but spiritual men.” Spiritual exercises appear to me to mean the same as holy exercises; for the “new man,” which is created after God, is said to be “created in righteousness and true holiness;” and as to two kinds of true holiness, the Scriptures, I believe, are silent. But as my oppo- nents affix different ideas to the term spiritual, to prevent all disputes about it, I shall proceed on a ground which they will not refuse. Whatever has the promise of spirit- wal blessings is considered as a spiritual exercise. With this criterion of spirituality in view, let the following pas- sages of Scripture be carefully considered. “How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity ? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge? Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my Spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.” “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.” “Wisdom cri- eth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors. Unto you, O men, I call; and my voice is to the sons of men. O ye simple, understand wisdom ; and ye fools, be ye of an understanding heart. Hear, for I will speak of excellent things; and the open- ing of my lips shall be right things.” “Receive my in- struction, and not silver, and knowledge rather than choice gold.” “Hearken unto me, O ye children; for blessed are they that keep my ways. Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not. Blessed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors. For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the Lord. But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.” “And now, Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul ?” “Circumcise, there- fore, the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiff- necked.” “. Rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the Lord your God.” “Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” “Repent ye, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when * º of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Ord.” We may remark on these passages, First, The persons addressed were unconverted sinners, as appears by their characters; fools—scorners—haters of knowledge—uncir- cumcised in heart—impenitent. Secondly, The things to Which they were exhorted were things spiritually good. This appears, in part, from the names by which the exer- cises themselves are distinguished; namely, such under- standing as originates in the fear of the Lord—fearing— loving—serving God with all the heart, and with all the soul-circumcision of the heart—repentance–conversion: and, partly, from the blessings of salvation being promised {9, them ; these are expressed by the terms, blessedness— life—favour of the Lord—the blotting out of sin. . More particularly, The love of God is a spiritual exer- cise; for it has the promise of spiritual blessings. “All things work together for good to them that love God.” “He that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him”, “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.” But the love of God is required of men without distinction. The people of Israel, like all other people, were composed of good and bad men ; but they were all required to “love ,, . ehovah and to “cleave” to him, and that “with all their heart. and soul, and mind, and strength,” Deut. vi. 5 ; XXX. 20. The moral part of those precepts which God gave to them on tables of stone was binding on all mankind. Even those who had no other means of knowing God than were afforded by the works of nature, with, perhaps, a portion of tradition, were required to glorify him as God, and to be thankful, Rom. i. 21. The love of God, as is here intimated, is either a holy thankfulness for the innumerable instances of his goodness, or a cordial approbation of his glorious character. It is true there are favours for which the regenerate are obliged to love him, which are not common to the unregenerate ; but every one has shared a sufficient portion of his bounty to have incurred a debt of gratitude. It is generally al- lowed, indeed, by our opponents, that God ought to be loved as our Creator and Benefactor; but this, they sup- pose, is not a spiritual exercise. There is a kind of grati- tude, it is granted, which is not spiritual, but merely the effect of natural self-love, and in which God is no other- wise regarded than as subservient to our happiness. But this does not always respect the bestowing of temporal mercies; the same feelings which possessed the carnal Israelites, when they felt themselves delivered from Pha- raoh’s yoke, and saw their oppressors sinking in the sea, are still the feelings of many professors of religion, under a groundless persuasion of their being elected of God, and having their sins forgiven them. Gratitude of this sort has nothing spiritual in it; but then neither is it any part of duty. God no where requiresit, either of saints or sin- ners. That which God requires is a spiritual exercise ; whether it be on account of temporal or spiritual mercies is immaterial; the object makes no difference as to the nature of the act; that thanksgiving with which the com- mon mercies of life are received by the godly, and by which they are sanctified to them, (1 Tim. iv. 3–5,) is no less of a spiritual nature, and is no less connected with eternal life, than gratitude for the forgiveness of sin. This thank- ful spirit, instead of being an operation of self-love, or re- garding God merely in subserviency to our own happiness, greatly consists in self-abasement, or in a sense of our own unworthiness. Its language is, “Who am I, O Lord God? and what is my house, that thou hast brought me hitherto 3’” “What shall I render unto the Lord for all his benefits 3" This is holy gratitude; and to be des- titute of it is to be “unthankful, unholy.” With respect to a cordial approbation of the Divine cha- racter, or glorifying God as God, and which enters into the essence of holy love, there can be no reasonable doubt whether it be obligatory on sinners. Such is the glory of God’s name, that nothing but the most inexcusable and deep-rooted depravity could render any intelligent crea- ture insensible to it. Those parts of Scripture which de- scribe the devout feelings of godly men, particularly the Psalms of David, abound in expressions of affection to the name of the Lord. “How excellent is thy name in all the earth !” “ Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto thy name give glory.” “O magnify the Lord with me; and let us exalt his name together.” “Sing unto God, sing praises to his name; let them that love thy name say continually, The Lord be magnified.” “Blessed be his glorious name for ever, and let the whole earth be filled with his glory. Amen, and Amen.” This affection to the name of the Lord, as it is revealed in his word and works, and particularly in the work of redemption, lies at the foundation of all true desire after an interest in his mercy. If we seek mercy of any one whose character we disesteem, it is merely for our own sakes ; and if he be acquainted with our motives, we can- not hope to succeed. This it is that leads us to mourn for sin as sin, and not merely for the inconvenience to which it exposes us. This it is which renders salvation through the atonement of Christ so acceptable. He that loves only himself, provided he might be saved, would care little or nothing for the honour of the Divine character; but he that loves God will be concerned for his glory. Heaven itself would be no enjoyment to him if his admission must be at the expense of righteousness. “God is to be loved,” says Dr. Gill, “for himself, be- cause of his own mature and the perfections of it, which render him amiable and lovely, and worthy of our strongest love and affection ; as these are displayed in the works of creation and providence, and especially of grace, redemp- tion, and salvation, to all which the psalmist has respect, when he says, “O Lord, our Lord, how excellent is thy 166 THE GOSPEL WORTHY OF ALL ACCEPTATION. 7ame,” nature, and perfections, ‘in all the earth !” Psal. viii. 1. As God is great in himself, and greatly to be praised, great and greatly to be feared, so great and greatly to be loved, for what he is in himself. And this is the purest and most perfect love of a creature towards God; for if we love him only for his goodness towards us, it is loving ourselves rather than him, at least a loving him for ourselves, and so a loving ourselves more than him.” “ But this “most pure and perfect love” is manifestly the duty of all mankind, however far they are from a com- pliance with it. “Give unto the Lord, ye kindreds of the people, give unto the Lord glory and strength. Give unto the Lord the glory due unto his name: bring an offering, and come before him : worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness.”—“Make a joyful noise unto the Lord, all ye lands.”—“IXings of the earth, and all people; princes and all judges of the earth; both young men and maidens, old men and children; let them praise the name of the Lord, for his name alone is excellent : his glory is above the earth and heaven.”—“Let the people praise thee, O God, let all the people praise thee!” That love to Christ is a spiritual exercise may, I suppose, be taken for granted. The grace or favour of God is with all who possess it in sincerity, Eph. vi. 24. But love to Christ is the duty of every one to whom the gospel is preached. On no other principles could the apostle have written as he did ; “If any one love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema, Maran-atha!” It is worthy of notice, that this awful sentence is not denounced against sinners as positively hating Christ, but as not loving him ; plainly implying his worthiness of a place in our best affections, and that, were it possible for us to be indifferent towards him, even that indifference would deserve the heavy curse of the Almighty at the last judgment. Paul appears to have felt as a soldier would feel towards the best of princes or commanders. If, after David’s return from his engagement with Goliath, when the women of Israel were praising him in their songs, any of the sons of Belial had spoken of him in the language of detraction, it would have been natural for one of a patriotic spirit, deeply impressed with an idea of the hero’s worth, and of the service he had rendered to his country, thus to have expressed himself: If any man love not the son of Jesse, let him be banished from among the tribes of Israel. Of this kind were the feelings of the apostle. He had served under his Lord and Saviour for many years; and now, sensible in a high degree of the glory of his character, he scruples not to pronounce that man who loves him not “accursed ''' . The fear of God is a spiritual exercise; for it has the promise of spiritual blessings, Psal. xxxiv. 7, 9; ciii. 11, 13, 17. But it is also a duty required of men, and that without the distinction of regenerate or unregenerate. “O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always : * —“Fear before him all the earth.”—“Let all that be round about him bring presents unto him that ought to be feared.”—“Who would not fear thee, O King of nations?” “Fear thou God.”—“Fear God, and keep his command- ments; for this is the whole duty of man.”—“Gather the people together, men, and women, and children, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the Lord your God :”—“and that their children, which have not known any thing, may hear, and learn to fear the Lord your God.”—“Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling.”—“And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, saying,-Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come; and worship him that made heaven and earth !”—“Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy.” To say of men, “They have no fear of God before their eyes,” is to represent them as under the dominion of depravity. It may be objected that the Scriptures distinguish be- tween that holy fear of offending God which is peculiar to his children, and a mere dread of the misery threatened * Body of Divinity, Vol. III. Chap. Ix. against sin which is found in the wicked. True ; there is a fear of God which is not spiritual ; such was that of the slothful servant; and the same is found in hypocrites and devils (Luke xix. 21; James ii. 19): this, however, is no part of duty, but rather of punishment. God does not require this, either of saints or sinners. That which he requires is of a holy nature, such as is expressed in the passages before quoted, which is spiritual, and has the promise of spiritual blessings. It resembles that of a dutiful child to his father, and is therefore properly called Jilial ; and though none are possessed of it but the chil- dren of God, yet that is because none else are possessed of a right spirit. - Repentance, or a godly sorrow for sén, is a spiritual exer- cise; for it abounds with promises of spiritual blessings. But repentance is a duty required of every sinner. “Re- pent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”—“Re- pent ye, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.”—“Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double-minded. Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep ; let your laughter be turned to mourn- ing, and your joy to heaviness. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.” The “hard- ness of heart” which our Lord found in the Jews, and which is the opposite of repentance, “grieved” him; which it would not, had it not been their sin, Mark iii. 5. Finally, A hard and impenitent heart treasures up wrath against the day of wrath; but impenitence could be no sin if penitence were not a duty, Rom. ii. 5. Repentance, it is allowed, like all other spiritual exer- cises, has its counterfeit, and which is not spiritual ; but neither is it that which God requires at the hands of either saints or sinners. What is called natural, and sometimes legal, repentance, is merely a sorrow on account of conse- quences. Such was the repentance of Saul and Judas. In order to evade the argument arising from the addresses of John the Baptist, of Christ and his apostles, who called upon the Jewish people “to repent and believe the gospel,” it has been alleged that it was only an outward repentance and acknowledgment of the truth to which they were exhorted, and not that which is spiritual, or which has the promise of spiritual blessings. But it would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove that such repentance and faith are any where required of sinners, or that it is consistent with the Divine perfections to require them. An outward repentance and reformation of manners, as distinguished from that which consists in godly sorrow, is only repent- ance in appearance. Whatever sorrow there is in it, it is not on account of sin, but its consequences; and to sup- pose that Christ or his servants required this would be doing them infinite dishonour. It is no other than sup- posing them to have betrayed the authority of God over the human heart, to have sanctioned hypocrisy, and to have given counsels to sinners which, if taken, would leave them still exposed to everlasting destruction. The case of the Ninevites has been alleged as furnishing an example of that repentance which is the duty of men in general, and which Christ and his apostles required of the Jews. I do not know that the repentance of the Ninevites was genuine, or connected with spiritual bless- ings; neither do my opponents know that it was not. Probably the repentance of some of them was genuine, while that of the greater part might be only put on in conformity to the orders of government; or, at most, merely as the effect of terror. But whatever it was, even though none of it were genuine, the object professed was godly sorrow for sin ; and if God treated them upon the supposition of their being sincere, and it repented him of the evil which he had threatened, it is no more than he did to Pharaoh, Abijah, Ahab, and others.f. It is a very unjust conclusion to draw from his conduct, that their re- pentance was such as he approved, and the whole which he required at their hands. So far from it, there might be nothing in any of them which could approve itself to him as the searcher of hearts: and though for wise reasons he might think it proper, in those instances, to overlook their hypocrisy, and to treat them on the supposition of their repentance being what they professed it to be ; yet tºod. viii. 8, 9; 2 Chron, xiii., with 1 Kings xv.; 1 Kings. xxi. y THE GOSPEL WORTHY OF ALL ACCEPTATION. I67 ne might still reserve to himself the power of judging them at the last day according to their works. The object of John the Baptist was not to effect a mere outward reformation of manners; but to “turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” Such was the effect actually produced by his ministry, and by that of Christ and the apostles. The re- pentance which they called upon sinners to exercise was such as entitled those who possessed it to Christian “bap- tism,” and which had the promise of “the remission of sins,” Mark i. 4; Acts ii. 38. It is plainly intimated by the apostle Paul, that all re- pentance except that which worketh in a way of godly sorrow, and which he calls repentance to salvation, NEEDs To BE REPENTED of. It is the mere sorrow of the world, which worketh death, 2 Cor. vii. 10. But that which re- quires to be repented of cannot be commanded of God, or constitute any part of a sinner's duty. The duty of every transgressor is to be sorry at heart for having sinned. Humility, or lowliness of mind, is a spiritual disposition, and has the promise of spiritual blessings. “Though the Lord is high, yet hath he respect unto the lowly.”—“ He giveth grace unto the humble.”—“Blessed are the poor in spirit; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven:” yet this dis- position is required as the duty of all. “Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double-mind- ed. Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep : let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness. Hum- ble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.” Humility does not consist in thinking less or more meanly of ourselves than is true. The difference between one that is lowly and one that is proud lies in this ; the one thinks justly of himself, and the other un- justly. The most humble Christian only thinks of himself “Soberly, as he ought to think.” All the instances of humility recorded of the godly in the Scriptures are but so many examples of a right spirit, a spirit brought down to their situation. “Carry back the ark of God into the city,” says David : “If I shall find favour in the eyes of the Lord, he will bring me again, and show me both it and his habitation: but if he thus say, I have no delight in thee, behold, here am I; let him do to me as seemeth good unto him.” This was very different from the spirit of his predecessor, when he was given to expect the loss of the kingdom; yet it was no more than was the duty of Saul, as well as of David ; and all his proud and rebellious opposition served only to increase his guilt and misery. The spirit of the publican was no more than was becoming a sinner, and would have been becoming the Pharisee himself. Finally, If whatever has the promise of spiritual bless- ings be a spiritual exercise, every thing that is right, or which accords with the Divine precept, must be sc; for the Scriptures uniformly promise eternal life to every such exercise. They that “ do good” shall come forth to the resurrection of life. He that “ doeth righteousness is righteous.” The giving of “a cup of cold water” to a disciple of Christ because he belongs to him will be fol- lowed with a disciple’s reward. Nay, a “blessing” is pronounced upon those who are “not offended” in him. But though these things are spiritual and are character- istic of the godly, yet who will say they are not binding on the ungodly 4 Are they excused from “good,” from “doing right,” from bestowing “a cup of water” on a disciple of Jesus, because he belongs to him 3 At least, are they allowed to be “offended” in him 3 If God’s law be spiritual, and remain in full force as a standard of obligation—if men, while unconverted, have no real conformity to it—if regeneration be the writing of it upon the heart, or the renewal of the mind to a right spirit—all these things are clear and consistent. This is for the same thing, in different respects, to be “man’s duty and God’s gift;” a position which Dr. Owen has fully established ; * and some where remarks that he who is ignorant of it has yet to learn one of the first principles of religion. In short, this is rendering the work of the Spirit what the Scriptures denominate it—“ leading w8 by the way that we should go,” Isa. xlviii. 17. But if that which is bestowed by the Holy Spirit be something differ- ent in its nature from that which is required in the Divine precepts, I see not what is to be made of the Scriptures, nor how it is that righteousness, goodness, or any thing else which is required of men, should be accompanied, as it is, with the promise of eternal life. PART III. ANSWERS TO THE principal objections that are made to the foregoing statement of things are taken from—the nature of original holiness, as it existed in our first parents—the Divine de- grees—particular redemption—the covenant of works—the inability of man—the operations of the Spirit—and the necessity of a Divine principle in order to believing. It may be worthy of some notice, at least from those Who are perpetually reproaching the statement here de- fended as leading to Arminianism, that the greater part of these objections are of Arminian original. They are the same, for substance, as have been alleged by the leading Writers of that scheme, in their controversies with the Cali Vinists.; and from the writings of the latter it were easy to select answers to them. This, in effect, is acknowledged by Mr. Brine, Who, however, considers these answers as insufficient, and therefore prefers others before them.f. It also deserves to be considered whether objections drawn from such subjects as the above, in which we may presently get beyond our depth, ought to weigh against that body of evidence which has been adduced from the plain declarations and precepts of the Holy Scriptures. What if by reason of darkness, we could not ascertain the precise nature of the principle of our first parents? It is certain, we know but little of original purity. our dis- ordered souls are incapable of forming just ideas of so glo- * Display of Arminianism, Chap. X. + Arminian Principles of a Late Writer Refuted, p. 6. OBJECTIONS. rious a state. To attempt, therefore, to settle the bound aries of even their duty, by an abstract inquiry into the nature of their powers and principles, would be improper; and still more so to make it the medium by which to judge of our own. There are but two ways by which we can judge on such a subject; the one is from the character of the Creator, and the other from Scripture testimony. From the former, we may infer the perfect purity of the creature, as coming out of the hands of God ; but nothing can be concluded of his inability to believe in Christ, had he been in circumstances which required it. As to the latter, the only passage that I recollect to have seen produced for the purpose is 1 Cor. xv. 47, “The first man was of the earth, earthy,” which Mr. Johnson of Liverpool alleged to prove the earthiness of Adam’s mind, or principles: but Mr. Brine sufficiently refutes this, proving that this Divine proposition respects the body, and not the principles, of our first father; and thus Dr. Gill expounds it. With regard to the doctrine of Divine decrees, &c., it is a fact that the great body of the divines who have believed those doctrines have also believed the other. Neither Augustine nor Calvin, who each in his day defended pre- destimation, and the other doctrines connected with it, ever appear to have thought of denying it to be the duty of every sinner who has heard the gospel to repent and 4 Johnson's Mistakes Noted and Rectified, pp. 18–23. 168 THE GOSPEL WORTHY OF ALL ACCEPTATION. believe in Jesus Christ. Neither did the other Reformers, nor the puritans of the sixteenth century, nor the divines at the synod of Dort, (who opposed Arminius,) nor any of the nonconformists of the seventeenth century, so far as I have any acquaintance with their writings, ever so much as hesitate upon this subject. The writings of Calvin himself would now be deemed Arminian by a great num- ber of our opponents. I allow that the principles here de- fended may be inconsistent with the doctrines of grace, notwithstanding the leading advocates of those doctrines have admitted them ; and am far from wishing any per- son to build his faith on the authority of great men : but their admission of them ought to suffice for the silencing of that kind of opposition against them which consists in calling names. Were a difficulty allowed to exist as to the reconciling of these subjects, it would not warrant a rejection of either of them. If I find two doctrines affirmed or implied in the Scriptures, which, to my feeble understanding, may seem to clash, I ought not to embrace the one and to re- ject the other because of their supposed inconsistency; for, on the same ground, another person might embrace that which I reject, and reject that which I embrace, and have equal Scriptural awthority for his faith as I have for mine. Yet in this manner many have acted on both sides: some, taking the general precepts and invitations of Scrip- ture for their standard, have rejected the doctrine of dis- criminating grace; others, taking the declarations of sal- vation as being a fruit of electing love for their standard, deny that sinners without distinction are called upon to believe for the salvation of their souls. Hence it is that we hear of Calvinistic and Arminian texts; as though these leaders had agreed to divide the Scriptures between them. The truth is, there are but two ways for us to take : one is to reject them both, and the Bible with them, on account of its inconsistencies; the other is to embrace them both, concluding that, as they are both revealed in the Scriptures, they are both true, and both consistent, and that it is owing to the darkness of our understandings that they do not appear so to us. Those excellent lines of Dr. Watts, in his Hymn on Election, one should think, must approve themselves to every pious heart:— But, O my soul, if truth so bright Should dazzle and confound thy sight, Yet still his written will obey, And wait the great decisive day. Had we more of that about which we contend, it would teach us more to suspect our own understandings, and to submit to the wisdom of God. Abraham, that pattern of faith, might have made objections to the command to offer up his son, on the ground of its inconsistency with the promise, and might have set himself to find some other meaning for the terms; but he “believed God,” and left it to him to reconcile his promise and his precepts. It was not for him to dispute, but to obey. These general remarks, however, are not introduced for the purpose of avoiding a particular attention to the several objections, but rather as preparatory to it. ON THE PRINCIPLE OF HOLINESS POSSESSED BY MAN IN IN NOCEN CE. The objection drawn from this subject has been stated in the following words: “The holy principle connatural to Adam, and concreated with him, was not suited to live unto God through a mediator; that kind of life was above the extent of his powers, though perfect; and therefore as he in a state of integrity had not a capacity of living unto God, agreeably to the nature of the new covenant, it is ap- prehended that his posterity, while under the first cove- nant, are not commanded to live unto God in that sort, or, in other words, to live by faith on God through a Me- diator.” + The whole weight of these important conclusions rests upon the first two sentences, which are mere unfounded assertions. For the truth of them no proof whatever is offered. What evidence is there that “the principle of holiness concreated with Adam was not suited to live unto God through a mediator?” That his circumstances were such as not to need a mediator is true; but this involves * Mr. Brine’s Motives to Love and Unity, pp. 50, 51. also allowed to be binding on all who hear it. no such consequence. A subject, while he preserves his loyalty, needs no mediator in approaching the throne : if he have offended, it is otherwise; but a change of circum- stances would not require a change of principles. On the contrary, the same principle of loyal affection that would induce him while innocent to approach the throne with modest confidence, would induce him after having offended to approach it with penitence, or, which is the same thing, to be sorry at heart for what he had done ; and if a me- diator were at hand, with whose interposition the sovereign had declared himself well pleased, it would at the same time lead him to implore forgiveness in his name. Had Cain lived before the fall, God would not have been offended at his bringing an offering without a sacri- fice; but after that event, and the promise of the woman’s Seed, together with the institution of sacrifices, such a conduct was highly offensive. It was equally disregarding the threatening and the promise ; treating the former as if nothing were meant by it, and the latter as a matter of no account. It was practically saying, God is not in earnest. There is no great evil in sin, nor any necessity for an atonement. If I come with my offering, I shall doubtless be accepted, and my Creator will think himself honoured. Such is still the language of a self-righteous heart. But is it thus that Adam’s posterity while “under the first covenant” (or, rather, while vainly hoping for the promise of the first covenant, after having broken its conditions) are required to approach an offended God? If the principle of Adam in innocence was not suited to live to God through a mediator, and this be the standard of duty to his carnal descendants, it must of course be their duty either not to worship God at all, or to worship him as Cain did, without any respect to an atoning sacri- fice. On the contrary, is there not reason to conclude that the case of Cain and Abel was designed to teach mankind, from the very outset of the world, God’s determination to have no fellowship with sinners but through a mediator, and that all attempts to approach him in any other way would be vain and presumptuous 3 It is true that man in innocence was unable to repent of sin, or to believe in the Saviour ; for he had no sin to repent of, nor was any Saviour revealed or needed. But he was equally unable to repent with such a natural sor- row for sin as is allowed to be the duty of his posterity, or to believe the history of the gospel in the way which is To this it might be added he was unable to perform the duty of a father, for he had no children to educate; nor could he pity or relieve the miserable, for there were no miserable objects to be pitied or relieved. Yet we do not conclude from hence that his descendants are excused from these duties. “That Adam in a state of innocence,” says Dr. Gill, “ had the power of believing in Christ, and did believe in him as the second person of the Trinity, as the Son of God, cammot well be denied, since with the other two persons he was his Creator and Preserver. And his not believing in him as the Mediator, Saviour, and Redeemer did not arise from any defect of power in him, but from the state, condition, and situation in which he was, and from the nature of the revelation made unto him ; for no doubt Adam had a power to believe every word of God, or any revelation that was or might be made unto him.”f The reader will perceive the origin of this objection, if he look into Dr. Owen's Display of Arminianism, Chap. VIII. He there complains of the “attempt of Arminians to draw down our first parents, even from the instant of their forming, into the same condition wherein we are en- gaged by reason of corrupt nature.” He mentions several of their maxims and sentiments, and, among others, two of their sayings; the one of the Remonstrants in their Apology, and the other of the six Arminian Collocutors at the Hague. “The will of man,” say the former, “had never any spiritual endowments.” “In the spiritual death of sin,” say the latter, “there are no spiritual gifts properly wanting in will, because they were never there.” “The sum is,” adds the Doctor, ironically, “man was created with a nature not only weak and imperfect, un- + Cause of God and Truth, Part III. Chap. III. THE GOSPEL WORTHY OF ALL ACCEPTATION. 169 able by its native strength and endowments to attain that supernatural end for which he was made, and which he was commanded to seek; but depraved also with a love and desire of things repugnant to the will of God, by reason of an inbred inclination to sinning ! It doth not properly belong to this place to show how they extenuate those gifts also with which they cannot deny but that he was endued, and also deny those which he had ; as a power to believe in Christ, or to assent unto any truth that God should reveal unto him : and yet they grant this privilege unto every one of his posterity, in that depraved condition of mature whereinto by sin he cast himself and us. We have all now, they tell us, a power of believing in Christ; that is, Adam by his fall obtained a supernatural endow- ment far more excellent than any he had before l’” That there are differences between the principle of holi- ness in innocent Adam and that which is wrought in be- lievers may be admitted. The production of the former was merely an expression of the Creator's purity, the latter of his grace ; that was capable of being lost, this is secured by promise : the one was exercised in contemplat- ing and adoring God as the Creator and Preserver; the other, not only in these characters, but as the God of sal- vation. The same may be allowed concerning the life promised to Adam in case of obedience, and that which is enjoyed through a Mediator. The one will be greater than the other; for Christ came not only that we might have life, but that we might have it “more abundantly:” but these differences are merely circumstantial, and there- fore do not affect the argument. The joy of angels is greatly increased by man's redemption ; but it does not follow that their principles are different from what they were prior to that event. A life of joy in heaven is far more glorious than a life of communion with God on earth; yet the principles of saints on earth and saints in heaven are not therefore of a different nature. That the principle of holiness in Adam, and that which is wrought in believers, are essentially the same, I conclude from the following reasons:— First, They are both formed after the same likeness, THE IMAGE OF GOD. “God created man in his own image; in the image of God created he him.” “Put ye on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.” If God be immutable in his nature, that which is created after him must be the same for substance at all times and in all circumstances. There cannot be two specifically different images of the same original. Secondly, They are both a conformity to the same stand- ard, THE MORAL LAW. That the spirit and conduct of man in innocence was neither more nor less than a perfect con- formity to this law, I suppose, will be allowed; and the same may be said of the spirit and conduct of Jesus Christ so far as he was our exemplar, or the model after which we are formed. God’s law was within his heart. It was “his meat and drink to do his will.” He went to “the end of the law for righteousness;” but it does not appear that he went beyond it. The superiority of his obedience to that of all others lay, not in his doing more than the law required, but in the dignity of his person, which stamped infinite value on every thing he did. But if such was the spirit and conduct of Christ, to whose image we are predestinated to be conformed, it must of necessity be ours. This also perfectly agrees with those Scriptural re- presentations which describe the work of the Spirit as “Writing God’s law in the heart” (Psal. xl. 8; Jer. xxxi, 33); and with those which represent the ultimate state of holiness to which we shall arrive in heaven as no more than a conformity to this law and this model : “The spirits of just men made perfect.”—“We shall be like him.” Thirdly, The terms used to describe the one imply that it is of the same nature as the other. Conversion is ex- pressed by a return to God, (Isa. lv. 7,) which denotes a recovery to a right state of mind after a departure from him. Regeneration is called a “washing,” which ex- presses the restoring of the soul to purity, from which it had degenerated ; and hence the same Divine operation s in the same passage called the “renewing” of the Holy pirit. * Motives to Love and Unity, p. 22. M & But “this renovation,” it has been said, “is spoken of the mind, and not of a principle in the mind.” “ The renewal of the mind must either be natural or moral. If the former, it would seem as if we had divested ourselves of the use of our natural faculties, and that regeneration consists in restoring them. If the latter, by the mind must be meant the disposition of the mind, or, as the Scripture speaks, “the spirit of our minds,” Eph. iv. 23. But this amounts to the same thing as a principle in our minds. There is no difference between a mind being re- stored to a right state and condition, and a right state and condition being restored to the mind. Fourthly, Supreme love to God, which is acknowledged to be the principle of man in innocence, would necessarily lead a fallen creature to embrace the gospel way of salvation. This is clearly intimated in our Lord’s reasoning with the Jews : “I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you. I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not.” This reasoning on the contrary hypothesis was invalid; for if receiving the Messiah was that to which a principle of supreme love to God was unequal, a non-re- ception of him would afford no proof of its absence. They might have had the love of God in them, and yet not have received him. * The love to God which was possessed by Adam in inno- cence was equal to that of the holy angels. His being of the “earth, earthy,” as to his body, no more proves his inferiority to them, as to the principles of his mind, than it proves the inferiority of Christ in this respect, who be- fore his resurrection was possessed of a natural and nºt a spiritual body. But it cannot be denied that the angels are capable of understanding, believing, and approving of the gospel way of salvation. It is above all others their chosen theme ; “which things the angels desire to look into.” It is true they do not embrace the Messiah as their Saviour, because they do not stand in need of salva- tion ; but give a free invitation and their principles to a being that wants a Saviour, and he would not scruple a moment about accepting it. It is not possible for a crea- ture to love God without loving the greatest friend of God, and embracing a gospel that more than any thing tends to exalt his character ; neither is it possible to love mankind with a holy and affectionate regard towards their best interests without loving the Friend of sinners, and approv- ing of a doctrine that breathes “good-will to men.” CoNCERNING THE DECREES OF GOD. A general invitation to sinners to return to God, and be saved through Christ, it has been thought, must be inconsistent with an election of some and a consequent rejection of others. Such has been the mode of objecting used by the adversaries to the doctrines of discriminating grace ; f. and such is the mode of late adopted by our opponents. In general, I would observe, if this mode of reasoning prove any thing, it will prove too much : it will prove that it is not the duty of some men to attend the means of grace, or in any way to seek after the salvation of their souls, or to be in the least degree concerned about it ; for it may be pleaded that God cannot have made it their duty, or have invited them to attend the means of salva- tion, seeing he is determined not to bestow salvation upon them. And thus we must not only be driven to explain the general invitation to many who never came to the gospel supper of a mere invitation to attend the means of grace, but must absolutely give it up, and the Bible with it, on account of its inconsistency. Further, This mode of reasoning would prove that the use of means in order to obtain a temporal subsistence, and to preserve life, is altogether vain and inconsistent. If we believe that the future states of men are determined by God, we must also believe the same of their present states. The Scriptures teach the one no less than the other. “God hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of our habitation.” Our “cup” is mea- sured, and our “lot” assigned us, Psal. xvi. 5. There is also “an appointed time for man upon earth ;” his days are as “the days of an hireling.” “His days are deter- mined, the number of his months is with God;’ he has + Sec Owen's Death of Death, Book IV. Chap. I. 170 THE GOSPEL WORTHY OF ALL ACCEPTATION. “appointed his bounds that he cannot pass.” Yet those who reason as above, with regard to things of another life, are as attentive to the affairs of this life as other people. They are no less concerned than their neighbours for their present accommodation ; nor less employed in de- vising means for the lengthening out of their lives, and of their tranquillity. But if the purpose of God may con- sist with the agency of man in present concerns, it may in those which are future, whether we can perceive the link that unites them or not; and if our duty, in the one case, be the same as if no such purpose existed, it is so in the other. “Secret things belong unto the Lord our God; but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever.” It was the duty of Pharaoh to have followed the coun- sel of Moses, and to have let the people go ; and his sin to pursue them into the sea ; yet it was the purpose of God by this means to destroy him, Exod. vii. 1–4. Moses “sent messengers to Sihon king of Heshbon with words of peace, saying, Let me pass through thy land;” and it was, doubtless, the duty of Sihon to have complied with the request; yet it appears by the issue that the Lord had determined to give his country to Israel for a possession, and therefore gave him up to hardness of heart, by which it was accomplished, Deut. ii. 26–30. If the days of man are determined, and his bounds ap- pointed that he cannot pass them, it must have been de- termined that the generation of the Israelites which went out of Egypt should die in the wilderness; yet it was their duty to have believed God, and to have gone up to possess the land ; and their sin to disbelieve him, and turn back in their hearts to Egypt. And it deserves particular notice, that this their sin is held up, both by David and Paul, as an example for others to shun, and that in spiritual concerns, 1 Cor. x. 6—12. It was the determination of God that Ahab should fall in his expedition against Ramoth-gilead, as was plainly intimated to him by Mi- caiah; yet it was his duty to have hearkened to the counsel that was given him, and to have desisted from his purpose, 1 Kings xxii. 15–22. The destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans was determined of God, and frequently foretold by the prophets; yet the inhabitants were as fre- quently counselled to return from their evil ways, that they might avoid it. Jeremiah particularly entreated Zedekiah to follow his counsel, that he might save the city and himself from ruin, chap. xxxviii. 20. However such things may grate upon the minds of Some, yet there are cases in which we ourselves are in the habit of using similar language, and that without any idea of attributing to God any thing inconsistent with the greatest perfection of moral character. If a wicked man be set on mischievous pursuits, and all the advices and warnings of his friends be lost upon him, we do not scruple to say, It seems as if God had determined to destroy him, and, therefore, has given him up to infatu- ation. In the use of such language, we have no idea of the determination of God being unjust or capricious. On the contrary, we suppose he may have wise and just reasons for doing as he does; and, as such, notwithstand- ing our compassion towards the party, we acquiesce in it. —Whenever we speak of God as having determined to destroy a person, or a people, we feel the subject too pro- found for our comprehension; and well indeed we may. Even an inspired apostle, when discoursing of God’s re- jection of the Jewish nation, though he glances at the merciful aspect which this awful event wore towards the Gentiles, and traces some great and wise designs that should be answered by it; yet feels himself lost in his subject. Standing as on the brink of an unfathomable abyss, he exclaims, “Oh the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God . How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out !” He believed the doctrine of Divine decrees, or that God “worketh all things after the counsel of his own will;” but he had no idea of making these things any part of the Tule of duty; either so as to excuse his countrymen from the sin of unbelief, or himself from using every possible means that might accomplish their salvation. On the one * Certain Eſficacy, &c., p. 151. hand, he quoted the words of David as applicable to them; “Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stum- , bling-block, and a recompence unto them.” other he declares, “I speak to you Gentiles”—“if by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my On the flesh, and might save some of them l’” There were those in that day, as well as in this, who objected, If things be as God hath purposed, “Why doth he yet find fault; for who hath resisted his will ?” This was no other than suggesting that the doctrine of decrees must needs operate to the setting aside of the fault of sinners ; and this is the substance of what has been al- leged from that day to this. Some, because they cannot conceive of the doctrine but as drawing after it the con- sequence assigned to it by this replier against God, reject it ; others appear to have no objection to the consequence itself, stamped as it is with infamy by the manner in which the apostle repelled it, and therefore admit the doctrine as connected with it ! But so did not Paul. He held fast the doctrine of decrees, and held it as comporting with the fawlt of sinners. After all that he had written upon God’s electing some, and rejecting others, he, in the same chapter, assigns the failure of those that failed to their “not seeking justification by faith in Christ; but as it were by the works of the law, stumbling at that stum- bling-stone.” “God’s word,” says Mr. Brine, “ and not his secret purpose, is the rule of our conduct.” + “We must ex- actly distinguish,” says Dr. Owen, “between man's duty and God’s purpose; there being no connexion between them. The purpose and decree of God is not the rule of our duty; neither is the performance of our duty, in doing what we are commanded, any declaration of what is God’s purpose to do, or his decree that it should be done. Espe- cially is this to be seen and considered in the duty of the ministers of the gospel; in the dispensing of the word, in exhortations, invitations, precepts, and threaten- ings committed unto them ; all which are perpetual de- claratives of our duty, and do manifest the approbation of the thing exhorted and invited to, with the truth of the connexion between one thing and another ; but not of the counsel or purpose of God in respect of individual persons, in the ministry of the word. A minister is not to make inquiry after, nor to trouble himself about, those secrets of the eternal mind of God, viz. whom he pur- poseth to save, and whom he hath sent Christ to die for in particular; it is enough for them to search his revealed will, and thence take their directions, from whence they have their commissions. Wherefore there is no conclusion from the universal precepts of the word, concerning the things, unto God’s purpose in himself concerning persons: they command and invite all to repent and believe ; but they know not in particular on whom God will bestow repentance unto salvation, nor in whom he will effect the work of faith with power.” f ON PARTICULAR REDEMPTION. Objections to the foregoing principles, from the doctrine of election, are generally united with those from particular redemption; and, indeed, they are so connected that the validity of the one stands or falls with that of the other. To ascertain the force of the objection, it is proper to inquire wherein the peculiarity of redemption consists. If the atonement of Christ were considered as the literal payment of a debt—if the measure of his sufferings were according to the number of those for whom he died, and to the degree of their guilt, in such a manner as that if more had been saved, or if those who are saved had been more guilty, his sorrows must have been proportionably increased—it might, for aught I know, be inconsistent with indefinite invitations. But it would be equally in- consistent with the free forgiveness of sin, and with sin- ners being directed to apply for mercy as supplicants, rather than as claimants. I conclude, therefore, that an hypo- thesis which in so many important points is manifestly inconsistent with the Scriptures cannot be true. On the other hand, if the atonement of Christ proceed not on the principle of commercial, but of moral justice, or justice as it relates to crime—if its grand object were to + Death of Death, Book IV. Chap. I. THE GOSPEL WORTHY OF ALL ACCEPTATION. 171 express the Divine displeasure against sin, (Rom. viii. 3,) and so to render the exercise of mercy, in àll the ways wherein sovereign wisdom should determine to apply it, consistent with righteousness (Rom. iii. 25)—if it be in itself equal to the salvation of the whole world, were the whole world to embrace it—and if the peculiarity which attends it consist not in its insufficiency to save more than are saved, but in the sovereignty of its application—no such inconsistency can justly be ascribed to it. If the atonement of Christ excludes a part of mankind &n the same sense as it excludes fallen angels, why is the gospel addressed to the one any more than to the other ? The message of wisdom is addressed to men, and not to devils. The former are invited to the gospel supper, but the latter are not. These facts afford proof that Christ, by his death, opened a door of hope to sinners of the hu- man race as sinners ; affording a ground for their being invited, without distinction, to believe and be saved. But as God might send his Son into the world to save men, rather than angels, so he may apply his sacrifice to the salvation of some men, and not of others. It is certain that a great part of the world have never heard the gospel; that the greater part of those who have heard it disregard it ; and that those who believe are taught to ascribe not only their salvation, but faith itself, through which it is obtained, to the free gift of God. And as the application of redemption is solely directed by sovereign wisdom, so, like every other event, it is the result of previous design. That which is actually done was intended to be done. Hence the salvation of those that are saved is described as the end which the Saviour had in view : “ He gave him- self for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good Works.” Herein, it is apprehended, consists the peculiarity of redemption. There is no contradiction between this peculiarity of design in the death of Christ, and a universal obligation on those who hear the gospel to believe in him, or a uni- Versal invitation being addressed to them. If God, through the death of his Son, have promised salvation to all who comply with the gospel; and if there be no natural im- possibility as to a compliance, nor any obstruction but that which arises from aversion of heart; exhortations and in- vitations to believe and be saved are consistent; and our duty, as preachers of the gospel, is to administer them, without any more regard to particular redemption than to election ; both being secret things, which belong to the Lord our God, and which, however they be a rule to him, are none to us. If that which sinners are called upon to believe respected the particular design of Christ to save them, it would then be inconsistent; but they are neither exhorted nor invited to believe any thing but what is re- vealed, and what will prove true, whether they believe it or not. He that believeth in Jesus Christ must believe in him as he is revealed in the gospel, and that is as the Saviour of sinners. It is only as a sinner, exposed to the righteous displeasure of God, that he must approach him. If he think of coming to him as a favourite of Heaven, or as possessed of any good qualities which may recommend him before other sinners, he deceives his soul : such no- tions are the bar to believing. “He that will know his OWn particular redemption before he will believe,” says a well-known Writer, “begins at the wrong end of his work, and is very unlikely to come that way to the knowledge of it.-Any man that owns himself a sinner hath as fair a ground for his faith as any one in the world that hath not yet believed; nor may any person, on any account, exclude himself from redemption, unless, by his obstinate and re- ºntinuance in unbelief, he hath marked out him- Self.” “The preachers of the gospel, in their particular con- gregation,” says another, “being utterly unacquainted with the purpose and secret counsel of God, being also forbid- den to pry or search into it, (Deut. xxix. 29,) may justifi- ably call upon every man to believe, with assurance of Salvation to every one in particular, upon his so doing ; knowing and being fully persuaded of this, that there is * Elisha Coles on God's Sovereignty, on Redemption. * Dr. Owen's Death, &c., B. IV. Chap. 1. # Mir. Brine's Motives, &c., pp. 37–42. enough in the death of Christ to save every one that shall do so; leaving the purpose and counsel of God, on whom he will bestow faith, and for whom in particular Christ died, (even as they are commanded,) to himself.”—“When God calleth upon men to believe, he doth not, in the first place, call upon them to believe that Christ died for them ; but that ‘ there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved,” but only of Jesus Christ, through whom salvation is preached.” f OF SINNERS BEING UNDER THE COVENANT OF WORKs. Much has been said on this subject, in relation to the present controversy. Yet I feel at a loss in forming a judgment wherein the force of the objection lies, as it is no where, that I recollect, formed into a regular argument. If I understand Mr. Brine, he supposes, First, That all duty is required by the law either as a rule of life or as a covenant. Secondly, That all unconverted sinners being under the law as a covenant, whatever the revealed will of God now requires of them is to be considered as the requirement of that covenant. Thirdly, That the terms of the covenant of works being “ Do, and live,” they cannot, for this reason, be “ Believe, and be saved.” But, allowing the distinction between the law as a rule of life and as a covenant to be just, before any conclusion can be drawn from it, it requires to be ascertained in what sense unbelievers are under a covenant of Works, and whether, in some respects, it be not their sin to continue so. That they are under the curse for having broken it is true; and that they are still labouring to substitute some- thing in the place of perfect obedience, by which they may regain the Divine favour, is true also ; but this latter ought not to be. A self-righteous attachment to a covenant of works, or, as the Scripture expresses it, a being “ of the works of the law,” is no other than the working of unbe- lief, and rebellion against the truth. Strictly speaking, men are not now under the covenant of works, but under the curse for having broken it. God is not in covenant with them, nor they with him. The law, as a covenant, was recorded, and a new and enlarged edition of it given to Israel at Mount Sinai; not, however, for the purpose of “giving life” to those who had broken it; but rather as a preparative to a better covenant. Its precepts still stand . as the immutable will of God towards his creatures ; its promises as memorials of what might have been expected from his goodness, in case of obedience; and its curses as a flaming sword that guards the tree of life. It is stationed in the oracles of God as a faithful watchman, to repel the vain hopes of the self-righteous, and convince them of the necessity of a Saviour, Rom. vii. 10; Matt. xix. 17. Hence it was given to Israel by the hand of Moses, as a mediator, Gal. iii. 19–21. But if unbelievers be no otherwise under the covenant of works than as they are exposed to its curse, it is im- proper to say that whatever is required of them in the Scriptures is required by that covenant, and as a term of life. God requires nothing of fallen creatures as a term of life. He requires them to love him with all their hearts, the same as if they had never apostatized, but not with a view to regain his lost favour ; for were they hence- forward perfectly to comply with the Divine precepts, un- less they could atone for past offences, (which is impossi- ble,) they could have no ground to expect the bestowment of everlasting life. It is enough for us that the revealed will of God to sinners says, Believe ; while the gospel gra- ciously adds the promise of salvation. ON THE INABILITY of sINNERs To BELIEVE IN CHRIST, AND DO THINGS SPIRITUALLY GOOD. This objection is seldom made in form, unless it be by persons who deny it to be the duty of a sinner to love God with all his heart, and his neighbour as himself. Intima- tions are often given, however, that it is absurd and cruel to require of any man what it is beyond his power to per- form ; and as the Scriptures declare that “no man can come to Christ, except the Father draw him,” and that “the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, neither can he know them, because they are spi- ritually discerned,” it is concluded that these are things * The sinner's hope, that he can be justified by the law he has broken, is an illegal hope; and a just view of the extent, strictiness, spirituality, and equity of the law would cut it up by the roots. lt. 172 THE GOSPEL WORTHY OF ALL ACCEPTATION. to which the sinner, while unregenerate, is under no ob- ligation. The answer that has frequently been made to this reason- ing is, in effect, as follows: Men are no more unable to do things spiritually good than they are to be subject to the law of God, which “the carnal mind is not, nor can be.” And the reason why we have no power to comply with these things is, we have lost it by the fall; but though we have lost our ability to obey, God has not lost his authority to command.—There is some truth in this answer, but it is apprehended to be insufficient. It is true that sinners are no more and no otherwise unable to do any thing spiritually good than they are to yield a perfect submission to God’s holy law ; and that the inability of both arises from the same source—the original apostacy of human na- ture. Yet if the nature of this inability were direct, or such as consisted in the want of rational faculties, bodily powers, or external advantages, its being the consequence of the fall would not set aside the objection. Some men pass through life totally insane. This may be one of the effects of sin; yet the Scriptures never convey any idea of such persons being dealt with, at the last judgment, on the same ground as if they had been sane. On the con- trary, they teach that “to whom much is given, of him much shall be required.” Another is deprived of the sight of his eyes, and so rendered unable to read the Scriptures. This also may be the effect of sin ; and, in some cases, of his own personal misconduct ; but whatever punishment may be inflicted on him for such misconduct, he is not blameworthy for not reading the Scriptures after he has lost his ability to do so. A third possesses the use of reason, and of all his senses and members ; but has no other opportunity of knowing the will of God than what is afforded him by the light of nature. It would be equally repugnant to Scripture and reason to suppose that this man will be judged by the same rule as others who have lived under the light of revelation. “As many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law ; and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law.” The inability, in each of these cases, is natural; and to whatever degree it exists, let it arise from what cause it may, it excuses its subject of blame, in the account of both God and man. The law of God itself requires no creature to love him, or obey him, beyond his “strength,” or with more than all the powers which he possesses. If the in- ability of sinners to believe in Christ, or to do things spiritually good, were of this mature, it would undoubt- edly form an excuse in their favour; and it must be as ab- surd to exhort them to such duties as to exhort the blind to look, the deaf to hear, or the dead to walk. But the inability of sinners is not such as to induce the Judge of all the earth (who cannot do other than right) to abate in his demands. It is a fact that he does require them, and that without paying any regard to their inability, to love him, and to fear him, and to do all his commandments always. The blind are admonished to look, the deaf to hear, and the dead to arise, Isa. xlii. 18; Eph. v. 14. If there were no other proof than what is afforded by this single fact, it ought to satisfy us that the blindness, deafness, and death of sinners, to that which is spiritually good, is of a different nature from that which furnishes an excuse. This, however, is not the only ground of proof. The thing speaks for itself. There is an essential difference between an ability which is independent of the inclina- tion, and one that is owing to nothing else. It is just as impossible, no doubt, for any person to do that which he has no mind to do, as to perform that which surpasses his natural powers; and hence it is that the same terms are used in the one case as in the other. Those who were under the dominion of envy and malignity “could not speak peaceably;” and those who have “eyes full of adultery cannot cease from sin.” Hence, also, the follow- ing language, “How can ye, being evil, speak good things?” —“The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, neither can he know them.”—“The carnal mind is enmity against God ; and is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.”—“They that are in the flesh cannot please God.”—“No man can come to me, except the Father, which hath sent me, draw him.” It is also true that many have affected to treat the distinction be- tween natural and moral inability as more curious than solid. “If we be unable,” say they, “we are unable. As to the nature of the inability, it is a matter of no account. Such distinctions are perplexing to plain Christians, and beyond their capacity.” But surely the plainest and weakest Christian, in reading his Bible, if he pay any re- gard to what he reads, must perceive a manifest difference between the blindness of Bartimeus, who was ardently desirous that “he might receive his sight,” and that of the unbelieving Jews, who “closed their eyes, lest they should see, and be converted, and be healed ;” and between the want of the natural sense of hearing, and the state of those who “ have ears, but hear not.” So far as my observation extends, those persons who affect to treat this distinction as a matter of mere curious speculation, are as ready to make use of it as other people where their own interest is concerned. If they be accused of injuring their fellow creatures, and can allege that what they did was not knowingly, or of design, I believe they never fail to do so; or, when charged with neglecting their duty to a parent or a master, if they can say in truth that they were wºmable to do it at the time, let their will have been ever so good, they are never known to omit the plea ; and should such a master or parent reply, by suggest- ing that their want of ability arose from want of inclination, they would very easily understand it to be the language of reproach, and be very earnest to maintain the contrary. You never hear a person in such circumstances reason as he does in religion. He does not say, “If I be unable I am unable ; it is of no account whether my inability be of this kind or that:” but he labours with all his might to establish the difference. Now if the subject be so clearly understood and acted upon where interest is concerned, and never appears difficult but in religion, it is but too manifest where the difficulty lies. If, by fixing the guilt of our conduct upon our father Adam, we can sit comfort- ably in our nest, we shall be very averse from a sentiment that tends to disturb our repose by planting a thorn in it. It is sometimes objected that the inability of sinners to believe in Christ is not the effect of their depravity ; for that Adam himself, in his purest state, was only a natural man, and had no power to perform spiritual duties. But this objection belongs to another topic, and has, I hope, been already answered. To this, however, it may be added, “ the natural man, who receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God,” (1 Cor. ii. 14,) is not a man possessed of the holy image of God, as was Adam, but of mere natural accomplishments, as were the “wise men of the world,” the philosophers of Greece and Rome, to whom the things of God were “foolishness.” Moreover, if the inability of sinners to perform spiritual duties were of the kind alleged in the objection, they must be equally unable to commit the opposite sins. He that, from the constitution of his nature, is absolutely unable to understand, or believe, or love a certain kind of truth, must, of necessity, be alike unable to shut his eyes against it, to disbelieve, to reject, or to hate it. But it is manifest that all men are capable of the latter; it must therefore follow that nothing but the depravity of their heart renders them incapable of the former. - Some writers, as has been already observed, have allowed that sinners are the subjects of an inability which arises from their depravity; but they still contend that this is not all, but that they are both maturally and morally un- able to believe in Christ; and this they think agreeable to the Scriptures, which represent them as both unable and unwilling to come to him for life. But these two kinds of inability cannot consist with each other, so as both to exist in the same subject and towards the same thing. A moral inability supposes a natural ability. He who never, in any state, was possessed of the power of see- ing, cannot be said to shut his eyes against the light. If the Jews had not been possessed of natural powers equal to the knowledge of Christ's doctrine, there had been no justice in that cutting question and answer, “Why do ye not understand my speech 3 Because ye cannot hear my word.” A total physical inability must, of necessity, su- persede a moral one. To suppose, therefore, that the phrase, “No man can come to me,” is meant to describe THE GOSPEL WORTHY OF ALL ACCEPTATION. 173 the former; and, “Ye will not come to me that ye may have life,” the latter; is to suppose that our Saviour taught what is self-contradictory. Some have supposed that, in attributing physical or na- tural power to men, we deny their natural depravity. Through the poverty of language, words are obliged to be used in different senses. When we speak of men as by nature depraved, we do not mean to convey the idea of sin being an essential part of human nature, or of the con- stitution of man as man : our meaning is that it is not a mere effect of education and example; but is, from his very birth, so interwoven through all his powers, so in- grained, as it were, in his very soul, as to grow up with him, and become natural to him. On the other hand, when the term natural is used as opposed to moral, and applied to the powers of the soul, it is designed to express those faculties which are strictly a part of our nature as men, and which are necessary to our being accountable creatures. By confounding these ideas we may be always disputing, and bring nothing to an issue. Finally, It is sometimes suggested that to attribute to sinners a natural ability of performing things spiritually good is to nourish their self-sufficiency; and that to re- present it as only moral is to suppose that it is not insuper- able, but may after all be overcome by efforts of their own. But surely it is not necessary, in order to destroy a spirit of self-sufficiency, to deny that we are men and account- able creatures, which is all that natural ability supposes. If any person imagine it possible, of his own accord, to choose that from which he is utterly averse, let him make the trial. Some have alleged that “natural power is only suffi- cient to perform natural things, and that spiritual power is required to the performance of spiritual things.” But this statement is far from accurate. Natural power is as necessary to the performance of spiritual as of natural things; we must possess the powers of men in order to perform the duties of good men. And as to spiritual power, or, which is the same thing, a right state of mind, it is not properly a faculty of the soul, but a quality which it possesses; and which, though it be essential to the act- wal performance of spiritual obedience, yet is not neces- sary to our being under obligation to perform it. If a traveller, from a disinclination to the western con- tinent, should direct his course perpetually towards the east, he would in time arrive at the place which he de- signed to shun. In like manner, it has been remarked by some who have observed the progress of this controversy, that there are certain important points in which false Cal- yinism, in its ardent desire to steer clear of Arminianism, is brought to agree with it. We have seen already that they agree in their notions of the original holiness in Adam, and in the inconsistency of the duty of believing With the doctrines of election and particular redemption. To this may be added, they are agreed in making the grace of God necessary to the accountableness of sinners with regard to spiritual obedience. The one pleads for graceless Sinners being free from obligation, the other admits of obliga- tion, but founds it on the notion of universal grace. Both ºre, agreed that where there is no grace there is no duty. But if grace be the ground of obligation, it is no more grace, but debt. It is that which, if any thing good be equired of the sinner, cannot justly be withheld. This * * *feet, acknowledged by both parties. The one con- tends, that Where no grace is given, there can be no obli- 5* to spiritual obedience; and therefore acquits the unbeliever of guilt in not coming to Christ that he might have life, and in the neglect of aii spiritual religion. The other argues, that if man be totally depraved, and no grace be given him to counteract his depravity, he is blame- less; that is, his depravity is no longer depravity; he is innocent in the account of his judge; consequently, he can need no saviour; and if justice be done him, will be exempt from punishment, (if not entitled to heaven,) in * of his personal innºcence. Thus the whole system of grace is rendered Vºid ; and fallen angels, who have º partakers of it, must be in a far preferable state lat of fallen men, who, by Jesus taking hold of their * Rom; v. 15–21; Heb. ix. 27, 28; 1 i 1 (), + Ezek. xi. 19; 2 Tim. ii. 25; Eph. º º nature, are liable to become blameworthy and eternally lost. But if the essential powers of the mind be the same whether we be pure or depraved, and be sufficient to ren- der any creature an accountable being whatever be his disposition, grace is what its proper meaning imports— free favour, or favour towards the unworthy, and the re- demption of Christ, with all its holy and happy effects, is what the Scriptures represent it—necessary to deliver us from the state into which we were fallen antecedently to its being bestowed.* OF THE work OF THE Holy SPIRIT. . The Scriptures clearly ascribe both repentance and faith wherever they exist to Divine influence.f. Whence many have concluded that they cannot be duties required of sin- ners. If sinners have been required from the pulpit to repent or believe, they have thought it sufficient to show the absurdity of such exhortations by saying, A heart of flesh is of God's giving : faith is “not of ourselves; it is the gift of God:” as though these things were inconsist- ent, and it were improper to exhort to any thing but what can be done of ourselves, and without the influence of the Holy Spirit. The whole weight of this objection rests upon the sup- position that we do not stand in need of the Holy Spirit to enable us to comply with our duty. If this principle were admitted, we must conclude either, with the Arminians and Socinians, that “faith and conversion, seeing they are acts of obedience, cannot be wrought of God;” ; or, with the objector, that, seeing they are wrought of God, they cannot be acts of obedience. But if we need the in- fluence of the Holy Spirit to enable zºs to do our duty, both these methods of reasoning fall to the ground. And is it not manifest that the godly in all ages have considered themselves insufficient to perform those things to which nevertheless they acknowledge themselves to be obliged ? The rule of duty is what God requires of us; but he requires those things which good men have always confessed themselves, on account of the sinfulness of their nature, insufficient to perform. He “desireth truth in the inward part:” yet an apostle acknowledges, “We are not sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves: but our sufficiency is of God.”—“The Spirit,” saith he, “helpeth our infirmities ; for we know not what we should pray for as we ought : but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be ut- tered.” The same things are required in one place which are promised in another: “Only fear the Lord, and serve him in truth with all your heart.”—“I will put my fear in their hearts that they shall not depart from me.” When the sacred writers speak of the Divine precepts, they neither disown them nor infer from them a self-suf- ficiency to conform to them, but turn them into prayer: “Thou hast commanded us to keep thy precepts diligently. Oh that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes!” In fine, the Scriptures uniformly teach us that all our suffi- ciency to do good or to abstain from evil is from above; repentance and faith, therefore, may be duties, notwith- standing their being the gifts of God. If our insufficiency for this and every other good thing arose from a natural impotency, it would indeed excuse us from obligation ; but if it arise from the sinful dispositions of our hearts, it is otherwise. Those whose eyes are “full of adultery, and (therefore) cannot cease from sin,” are under the same obligations to live a chaste and sober life as other men are: yet, if ever their dispositions be changed, it must be by an influence from without them ; for it is not in them to relinquish their courses of their own accord. I do not mean to suggest that this species of evil prevails in all sinners; but sin in some form prevails and has its dominion over them, and to such a degree that nothing but the grace of God can effectually cure it. It is de- pravity only that renders the regenerating influence of the Holy Spirit necessary. “The bare and outward declara- tion of the word of God,” says a great writer, Ś “ought to have largely sufficed to make it to be believed, if our own blindness and stubbornness did not withstand it. But our mind hath such an inclination to vanity that it can never cleave fast to the truth of God, and such a dulness that it # See Owen’s Display of Arminianism, Chap. X. § Calvin : See Institutes, Book III. Chap. 11. l 74 THE GOSPEL WORTHY OF ALL ACCEPTATION. is always blind and cannot see the light thereof. There- fore there is nothing available done by the word without the enlightening of the Holy Spirit.” ON THE NECESSITY OF A DIVINE PRINCIPLE IN ORDER. To BELIEVING. About fifty years ago much was written in favour of this position by Mr. Brine. Of late years much has been ad- vanced against it by Mr. Booth, Mr. M'Lean, and others. I cannot pretend to determine what ideas Mr. Brine at- tached to the term principle. He probably meant some- thing different from what God requires of every intelligent creature; and if this were admitted to be necessary to be- lieving, such believing could not be the duty of any ex- cept those who were possessed of it. I have no interest in this question further than to maintain, that the moral state or disposition of the soul has a necessary influence on believ- ing in Christ. This I feel no difficulty in admitting on the one side, nor in defending on the other. If faith were an involuntary reception of the truth, and were produced merely by the power of evidence ; if the prejudiced or un- prejudiced state of the mind had no influence in retarding or promoting it ; in fine, if it were wholly an intellectual and not a moral exercise ; nothing more than rationality, or a capacity of understanding the nature of evidence, would be necessary to it. In this case it would not be a duty; nor would unbelief be a sin, but a mere mistake of the judgment. Nor could there be any need of Divine influence ; for the special influences of the Holy Spirit are not required for the production of that which has no holi- ness in it. But if on the other hand faith in Christ be that on which the will has an influence ; if it be the same thing as receiving the love of the truth that we may be saved; if aversion of heart be the only obstruction to it, and the removal of that aversion be the kind of influence necessary to produce it; (and whether these things be so or not, let the evidence adduced in the Second Part of this Treatise determine ; *) a contrary conclusion must be drawn. The mere force of evidence, however clear, will not change the disposition of the heart. In this case therefore, and this only, it requires the eacceeding greatness of Divine power to enable a sinner to believe. But as I design to notice this subject more fully in an Appendix, I shall here pass it over, and attend to the ob- jection to faith being a duty which is derived from it. If a sinner cannot believe in Christ without being renewed in the spirit of his mind, believing, it is suggested, cannot be his immediate duty. It is remarkable in how many points the system here opposed agrees with Arminianism. The latter admits believing to be the duty of the unre- generate, but on this account denies the necessity of a Divine change in order to it. The former admits the ne- cessity of a Divine change in order to believing, but on this account denies that believing can be the duty of the un- regenerate. In this they are agreed, that the necessity of a Divine change and the obligation of the sinner cannot comport with each other. But if this argument have any force, it will prove more than its abettors wish it to prove. It will prove that Divine influence is not necessary to believing; or, if it be, that faith is not the IMMEDIATE duty of the sinner. Whether Divine influence change the bias of the heart in order to believing, or cause us to believe without such change, or only assist us in it, makes no difference as to this argu- ment: if it be antecedent and necessary to believing, be- lieving cannot be a duty, according to the reasoning in the objection, till it is communicated. On this principle, So- cinians, who allow faith to be the sinner's immediate duty, deny it to be the gift of God...f. To me it appears that the necessity of Divine influence, and even of a change of heart, prior to believing, is per- fectly consistent with its being the immediate duty of the unregenerate. If that disposition of heart which is pro- duced by the Holy Spirit be no more than every intelligent creature ought at all times to possess, the want of it can afford no excuse for the omission of any duty to which it is necessary. ... Let the contrary supposition be applied to the common affairs of life, and we shall see what a result will be produced :— * Particularly Propositions IV. V. I am not possessed of a principle of common honesty : But no man is obliged to exercise a principle which he does not possess : Therefore I am not obliged to live in the exercise of common honesty. While reasoning upon the absence of moral principles, we are exceedingly apt to forget ourselves, and to consider them as a kind of natural accomplishment, which we are not obliged to possess, but merely to improve in case of being possessed of them ; and that till then the whole of our duty consists either in praying to God to bestow them upon us, or in waiting till he shall graciously be pleased to do so. But what should we say, if a man were to reason thus with respect to the common duties of life? Does the whole duty of a dishonest man consist in either praying to God to make him honest, or waiting till he does so Every one, in this case, feels that an honest heart is itself that which he ought to possess. Nor would any man, in matters that concerned his own interest, think of excusing such deficiency by alleging that the poor man could not give it to himself, nor act otherwise than he did, till he possessed it. If an upright heart towards God and man be not itself required of us, nothing is or can be required; for all duty is comprehended in the acting-out of the heart. Even those who would compromise the matter by allowing that sinners are not obliged to possess an upright heart, but merely to pray and wait for it, if they would oblige them- selves to understand words before they used them, must perceive that there is no meaning in this language. For if it be the duty of a sinner to pray to God for an upright heart, and to wait for its bestowment, I would inquire whether these exercises ought to be attended to sincerely or insincerely, with a true desire after the object sought or without it. It will not be pretended that he ought to use these means insincerely ; but to say he ought to use them sincerely, or with a desire after that for which he prays and waits, is equivalent to saying he ought to be sincere; which is the same thing as possessing an upright heart. If a sinner be destitute of all desire after God and spiritual things, and set on evil, all the forms into which his duty may be thrown will make no difference. The carnal heart will meet it in every approach and repel it. Exhort him to repentance : he tells you he cannot repent ; his heart is too hard to melt, or be anywise affected with his situation. Say, with a certain writer, he ought to endeavour to re- pent: he answers he has no heart to go about it. Tell him he must pray to God to give him a heart: he replies, Prayer is the expression of desire, and I have none to ex- press. What shall we say then 3 Seeing he cannot re- pent, cannot find in his heart to endeavour to repent, can- not pray sincerely for a heart to make such an endeavour, shall we deny his assertions, and tell him he is not so wicked as he makes himself? This might be more than we should be able to maintain. Or shall we allow them, and acquit him of obligation ? Tather ought we not to return to the place whence we set out, admonishing him, as the Scriptures direct, to “repent and believe the gospel;” declaring to him that what he calls his inability is his sin and shame; and warning him against the idea of its avail- ing him another day; not in expectation that of his own accord he may change his mind, but in hope “that God, peradventure, may give him repentance to the acknow- ledging of the truth.” This doctrine, it will be said, must drive sinners to despair. Be it so : it is such despair as I. wish to see prevail. Until a sinner despair of any help from himself, he will never fall into the arms of sovereign mercy; but if once we are convinced that there is no help &n us, and that this, so far from excusing us, is a proof of the greatest wickedness, we shall then begin to pray as lost sinners ; and such prayer, offered in the name of Jesus, will be heard. Other objections may have been advanced; but I hope it will be allowed that the most important ones have been fairly stated; whether they have been answered the reader will judge. + Narrative of the York Baptists, Letter III. CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS. 175 CONCLUDING FIRST, Though faith be a duty, the requirement of it is not to be considered as a mere exercise of AUTHORITY, but of INFINITE GOODNESS, binding w8 to pursue our best interest. If a message of peace were sent to a company of rebels who had been conquered, and lay at the mercy of their injured sovereign, they must of course be required to re- pent and embrace it, ere they could be interested in it; yet such a requirement would not be considered, by im- partial men, as a mere exercise of authority. It is true the authority of the sovereign would accompany it, and the proceeding would be so conducted as that the honour of his government should be preserved; but the grand character of the message would be mercy. Neither would the goodness of it be diminished by the authority which attended it, nor by the malignant disposition of the par- ties. Should some of them even prove incorrigible, and be executed as hardened traitors, the mercy of the sove- reign in sending the message would be just the same. They might possibly object that the government which they had resisted was hard and rigid; that their parents before them had always disliked it, and had taught them from their childhood to despise it; that to require them to embrace with all their hearts a message the very import of which was that they had transgressed without cause, and deserved to die, was too humiliating for flesh and blood to bear; and that if he would not pardon them without their cordially subscribing such an instrument, he had better have left them to die as they were; for instead of its being good news to them, it would prove the means of aggra- Vating their misery. Every loyal subject, however, would easily perceive that it was good news, and a great instance of mercy, however they might treat it, and of whatever evil, through their perverseness, it might be the occasion. If faith in Christ be the duty of the ungodly, it must of course follow that every sinner, whatever be his character, is completely warranted to trust in the Lord Jesus Christ for the salvation of his soul. In other words, he has every possible encouragement to relinquish his former attachment and confidences, and to commit his soul into the hands of Jesus to be saved. If believing in Christ be a privilege belonging only to the regenerate, and no sinner while unregenerate be warranted to exercise it, as Mr. Brine maintains,” it will follow either that a sinner may know himself to be regenerate before he believes, or that the first exercise of faith is an act of presumption. That the bias of the heart requires to be turned to God antecedently to believing has been admitted, because the nature of be- lieving is such that it cannot be exercised while the soul is under the dominion of wilful blindness, hardness, and aversion. These dispositions are represented in the Scrip- tures, as a bar in the way of faith, as being inconsistent With it;t and which consequently require to be taken out of the way. But whatever necessity there may be for a change of heart in order to believing, it is neither neces- Say, nor possible that the party should be conscious of it till he has believed. It is necessary that the eyes of a blind man should be opened before he ean see; but it is neither necessary nor possible for him to know that his *Yºs are open till he does see. It is only by surrounding objects appearing to his view that he knows the obstruct. ing film to be removed. But if regeneration be necessary to *rant believing, and yet it be impossible to obtain a 99nsciousness of it till we have believed, it follows that the first exercise of faith is without foundation ; that is, it is not faith, but presumption. If believing be the duty of every sinner to whom the gospel is preached, there can be no doubt as to a warrant for it, whatever be his character; and to maintain the latter, without admitting the former, would be reducing it to a mere matter of discretion. It might be inexpedient to *get the way of salvation, but it could not be unlawful. Secondly, Though believing in Christ is a compliance * Motives, &c., pp. 38, 39. * See Prop. IV. REFLECTIONS. with a duty, yet it is not as a duty, or by way of reward for a virtuous act, that we are said to be justifted by it. It is true God does reward the services of his people, as the Scriptures abundantly teach ; but this follows upon justifi- cation. We must stand accepted in the Beloved, before our services can be acceptable or rewardable. Moreover, if we were justified by faith as a duty, justification by faith could not be, as it is, opposed to justification by works : “To him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but be- lieveth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” The Scripture doctrine of justification by faith, in opposition to the works of the law, appears to me as follows: By believing in Jesus Christ, the sinner becomes vitally united to him, or, as the Scriptures express it, “joined to the Lord,” and is of “one spirit with him ;” and this union, according to the Divine constitution, as revealed in the gospel, is the ground of an interest in his righteousness. Agreeable to this is the fol- lowing language: “There is now, therefore, no condemna- tion to them that are in Christ Jesus.”—“Of him are ye &n Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us righteous- mess,” &c.—“That I may be found in him, not having mine own righteousness which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ.” As the union which, in the order of nature, precedes a revealed interest in Christ’s righteousness, is spoken of in allusion to that of marriage, the one may serve to illustrate the other. A rich and generous character, walking in the fields, espies a forlorn female infant, deserted by some unfeeling parent in the day that it was born, and left to perish. He sees its help- less condition, and resolves to save it. Under his kind patronage the child grows up to maturity. He now re- solves to make her his wife; casts his skirt over her, and she becomes his. She is now, according to the public sta- tutes of the realm, interested in all his possessions. Great is the transition . Ask her, in the height of her glory, how she became possessed of all this wealth ; and, if she retain a proper spirit, she will answer in some such man- ner as this: It was not mine, but my deliverer's ; his who rescued me from death. It is no reward of any good deeds on my part; it is by marriage; . . . it is “ of grace.” It is easy to perceive, in this case, that it was necessary she should be voluntarily married to her husband, before she could, according to the public statutes of the realm, be interested in his possessions; and that she now enjoys those possessions by marriage : yet who would think of asserting that her consenting to be his wife was a merito- rious act, and that all his possessions were given her as the reward of it 3 Thirdly, From the foregoing view of things, we may perceive the alarming situation of wºmbelievers. By unbe- lievers, I mean not only avowed infidels, but all persons who hear, or have opportunity to hear, the gospel, or to come at the knowledge of what is taught in the Holy Scriptures, and do not cordially embrace it. It is an alarming thought to be a sinner against the greatest and best of beings; but to be an unbelieving simmer is much more so. There is deliverance from “ the curse of the law,” through him who was “made a curse for us.” But if, like the barren fig tree, we stand from year to year, under gospel culture, and bear no fruit, we may expect to fall under the curse of the Saviour; and who is to deliver us from this 3 “If the word spoken by angels was sted- fast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward; how shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation ?” We are in the habit of pitying heathens, who are en- thralled by abominable superstition, and immersed in the immoralities which accompany it; but to live in the midst of gospel light, and reject it, or even disregard it, is abundantly more criminal, and will be followed with a heavier punishment. We feel for the condition of profli- gate characters ; for swearers, and drunkards, and formi- I76 CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS. cators, and liars, and thieves, and murderers; but these crimes become tenfold more heinous in being committed under the light of revelation, and in contempt of all the warnings and gracious invitations of the gospel. The most profligate character, who never possessed these ad- vantages, may be far less criminal, in the sight of God, than the most sober and decent who possesses and disre- gards them. It was on this principle that such a heavy woe was denounced against Chorazin and Bethsaida, and that their sin was represented as exceeding that of Sodom. The gospel wears an aspect of mercy towards sinners ; but towards wnbelieving sinners the Scriptures deal wholly in the language of threatening. “I am come,” saith our Saviour, “a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness. If any man hear 'my words, and believe not, I judge him not—(that is, not at present); for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him : the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.” It will be of but small account, in that day, that we have escaped a few of “the lusts of the flesh,” if we have been led captive by those of the “mind.” If the greatest gift of Heaven be set at nought by us, through the pride of science, or a vain conceit of our own righteousness, how shall we stand when he appeareth ? It will them be found that a price was in our hands to get wisdom, but that we had “no heart to it ;” and that herein consists our sin, and hence proceeds our ruin. God called, and we would not hearken ; he stretched out his hand, and no man regarded ; therefore he will laugh, at our calamity, and mock when our fear cometh. It is inti- mated, both in the Old and New Testament, that the recollection of the means of salvation having been within our reach will be a bitter aggravation to our punishment. “They come unto thee,” saith the Lord to Ezekiel, “as the people come, and they sit before thee as my people, and they hear thy words, but they will not do them.”— “And when this cometh to pass, (lo, it will come !) then shall they know that a prophet hath been among them.” To the same purpose our Saviour speaks of them who should reject the doctrine of his apostles: “Into whatso- ever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out of the streets of the same, and say, Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you : notwithstanding, be ye sure of this, that the Åingdom of God is come migh unto you.” Great as is the sin of unbelief, however, it is not un- pardonable ; it becomes such only by persisting in it till death. Saul of Tarsus was an unbeliever, yet he “obtained Żmercy;” and his being an unbeliever, rather than a pre- sumptuous opposer of Christ against conviction, placed him within the pale of forgiveness, and is, therefore, as- signed as a reason of it, 1 Tim. i. 13. This consideration affords a hope even to unbelievers. O ye self-righteous despisers of a free salvation through a Mediator, be it known to you that there is no other name given under heaven, or among men, by which you can be saved. To him whom you have disregarded and despised you must either voluntarily or involuntarily submit. “To him every knee shall bow.” You cannot go back into a state of non-existence, however desirable it might be to many of you ; for God hath stamped immortality upon your natures. You cannot turn to the right hand, or to the left, with any advantage : whether you give a loose to your inclination, or put a force upon it by an assumed devotion, each will lead to the same issue. Neither can you stand still. Like a vessel in a tempestuous ocean, you must go this way or that ; and go which way you will, if it be not to Jesus, as utterly unworthy, you are only heaping up wrath against the day of wrath. Whether you sing, or pray, or hear, or preach, or feed the poor, or till the soil, if self be your object, and Christ be disre- garded, all is sin,” and all will issue in disappointment: “the root is rottenness, and the blossom shall go up as the dust.” Whither will you go 4 Jesus invites you to come to him. His servants beseech you, in his name, to be reconciled to God. The Spirit saith, Come ; and the bride * Prov. xv. 8, 9; xxviii. 9; xxi. 4. saith, Come ; and “whosoever will, let him come, and take of the water of life freely.” An eternal heaven is before you in one direction, and an eternal hell in the other. Your answer is required. Be one thing or an- other. Choose you, this day, whom ye will serve. For our parts, we will abide by our Lord and Saviour. If you continue to reject him, so it must be : “nevertheless, be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God has come migh unto you!” - Finally, From what has been advanced, we may form a judgment of our duty, as ministers of the word, in dealing with the unconverted. The work of the Christian ministry, it has been said, is to preach the gospel, or to hold up the free grace of God through Jesus Christ, as the only way of a sinner’s salvation. This is, doubtless, true ; and if this be not the leading theme of our ministrations, we had better be any thing than preachers. “Woe unto us, if we preach not the gospel !” The minister who, under a pre- tence of pressing the practice of religion, neglects its all- important principles, labours in the fire. He may enforce duty till duty freezes upon his lips; neither his auditors nor himself will greatly regard it. But, on the contrary, if by preaching the gospel be meant the insisting solely upon the blessings and privileges of religion, to the neglect of exhortations, calls, and warnings, it is sufficient to say that such was not the practice of Christ and his apostles. It will not be denied that they preached the gospel ; yet they warned, admonished, and entreated sinners to “repent and believe ; ” to “believe while they had the light;" to “labour not for the meat that perisheth, but for that which endureth unto everlasting life ;” to “repent, and be con- verted, that their sins might be blotted out ;” to “come to the marriage supper, for that all things were ready ;” in fine, to “be reconciled unto God.” If the inability of sinners to perform things spiritually good were natural, or such as existed independently of their present choice, it would be absurd and cruel to ad- dress them in such language. No one in his senses would think of calling the blind to look, the deaf to hear, or the dead to rise up and walk ; and of threatening them with punishment in case of their refusal. But if the blind- ness arise from the love of darkness rather than light; if the deafness resemble that of the adder, which stoppeth her ear, and will not hear the voice of the charmer, charm he never so wisely; and if the death consist in alienation of heart from God, and the absence of all desire after him, there is no absurdity or cruelty in such addresses. But enforcing the duties of religion, either on sinners or saints, is by some called preaching the law. If it were so, it is enough for us that such was the preaching of Christ and his apostles. It is folly and presumption to affect to be more evangelical than they were. All practical preaching, however, is not preaching the law. That only, I apprehend, ought to be censured as preaching the law, in which our acceptance with God is, in some way or other, placed to the account of our obedience to its pre- cepts. When eternal life is represented as the reward of repentance, faith, and sincere obedience, (as it too fre- quently is, and that under the complaisant form of being “ through the merits of Christ,”) this is preaching the law, and not the gospel. But the precepts of the law may be illustrated and enforced for evangelical purposes; as tending to vindicate the Divine character and govern- ment; to convince of sin; to show the necessity of a Saviour, with the freeness of salvation ; to ascertain the nature of true religion; and to point out the rule of Christian conduct. Such a way of introducing the Divine law, in subservience to the gospel, is, properly speaking, preaching the gospel; for the end denominates the action. If the foregoing principles be just, it is the duty of ministers not only to exhort their carnal auditors to believe in Jesus Christ for the salvation of their souls; but IT IS AT OUR PERIL TO EXHORT THEM TO ANY THING SHORT OF IT, or wFIICH Does NoT INvolve OR IMPLY IT. I am aware that such an idea may startle many of my readers, and some who are engaged in the Christian ministry. We have sunk into such a compromising way of dealing with the unconverted as to have well nigh lost the spirit of the primitive preachers; and hence it is that sinners of every description can sit so quietly as they do, year after year, in CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS. g I77 our places of worship. It was not so with the hearers of Peter and Paul. They were either “pricked in the heart” in one way, or “cut to the heart” in another. Their preaching commended itself to “every man’s con- science in the sight of God.” How shall we account for this difference 4 Is there not some important error or de- fect in our ministrations 3 I have no reference to the preaching of those who disown the Divinity or atonement of Christ, on the one hand, whose sermons are little more than harangues on morality, nor to that of gross Antino- mians on the other, whose chief business it is to feed the vanity and malignity of one part of their audience, and the sin-extenuating principles of the other. These are errors the folly of which is “manifest to all men” who pay any serious regard to the religion of the New Testament. I refer to those who are commonly reputed evangelical, and who approve of addresses to the unconverted. I hope no apology is necessary for an attempt to exhibit the Scriptural manner of preaching. If it affects the labours of some of my brethren, I cannot deny but that it may also affect my own. I conceive there is scarcely a minis- ter amongst us whose preaching has not been more or less influenced by the lethargic systems of the age. Christ and his apostles, without any hesitation, called on sinners to “repent, and believe the gospel;” but we, considering them as poor, impotent, and depraved crea- tures, have been disposed to drop this part of the Christian ministry. Some may have felt afraid of being accounted legal; others have really thought it inconsistent. Con- sidering such things as beyond the power of their hearers, they seem to have contented themselves with pressing on them things which they could perform, still continuing the enemies of Christ; such as behaving decently in society, reading the Scriptures, and attending the means of grace. Thus it is that hearers of this description sit at ease in our congregations. Having done their duty, the minister has nothing more to say to them ; unless, indeed, it be to tell them occasionally that something more is necessary to sal- Vation. But as this implies no guilt on their part, they sit unconcerned, conceiving that all that is required of them is “to lie in the way, and to wait the Lord’s time.” But is this the religion of the Scriptures Where does it appear that the prophets or apostles ever treated that kind of inability which is merely the effect of reigning aversion as affording any excuse ? And where have they descend- ed, in their exhortations, to things which might be done, and the parties still continue the enemies of God? In: stead of leaving out every thing of a spiritual nature, be- cause their hearers could not find in their hearts to comply with it, it may safely be affirmed they exhorted to nothing else; treating such inability not only as of no accouni, With regard to the lessening of obligation, but as render- ing the subjects of it worthy of the severest rebuke. “To Whom shall I speak, and give warning, that they may hear? Behold, their ear is uncircumcised, and they can- *ot hearken : behold, the word of the Lord is unto them & reproach, and they have no delight in it.” What then 3 Did the prophet desist from his work, and exhort them to Something to which, in their present state of mind, they could hearken? Far from it. He delivers his message, Whether they would hear, or whether they would forbear. “Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.” And did this induce him to desist? No: he proceeds to read their doom, and calls the world to witness its justice : “Hear, O earth ! behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto ºy Words, nor to my law, but rejected it,” Jer. vi. 10—19. Many of those who attended the ministry of Christ were ºf the same spirit. Their eyes were blinded, and their hearts hardened, so that they coup Nor BELIEVE ; yet, P*Ying no manner of regard to this kind of inability, he $xhorted them “to believe in the light while they had the light.” And when they had heard and believed not, he Proceeded, without hesitation, to declare, “He that reject- $th me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth §m the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.” b N Such also were many of Paul’s hearers at Rome. They believed not ; but did Paul, seeing they could not receive the gospel, recommend to them something which they could receive? No; he gave them “one word” at part- ing: “Well spake the Holy Spirit by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers, saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive. For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed ; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and under- stand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. Be it known therefore unto you that the salvation of God is sent to the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.” When did Jesus or his apostles go about merely to form the manners of men'. Where do they exhort to duties which a man may comply with and yet miss of the king- dom of heaven? If a man “kept their sayings,” he was assured that he “should never see death.” In addressing the unconverted, they began by admonishing them to “repent and believe the gospel ;” and in the course of their labours exhorted to all manner of duties ; but all were to be done spiritually, or they would not have ac- knowledged them to have been done at all. Carnal du- ties, or duties to be performed otherwise than “to the glory of God,” had no place in their system. The answer of our Lord to those carnal Jews who in- quired of him what they “must do to work the works of God” is worthy of special notice. Did Jesus give them to understand that as to believing in him, however willing they might be, it was a matter entirely beyond their power? that all the directions he had to give were that they should attend the means and wait for the moving of the waters ? No: Jesus answered, “This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.” This was the gate at the head of the way, as the author of The Pilgrim's Progress has admirably represented it, to which sinners must be directed. A worldly-wise instructor may inculcate other duties, but the true evangelist, after the ex- ample of his Lord, will point to this as the first concern, and as that upon which every thing else depends. There is another species of preaching which proceeds upon much the same principle. Repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ, are allowed to be duties, but not immediate duties. The sinner is con- sidered as wnable to comply with them, and therefore they are not urged upon him ; but instead of them he is directed to “pray for the Holy Spirit, to enable him to repent and believe ;” and this it seems he can do, notwith- standing the aversion of his heart from every thing of the kind. But if any man be required to pray for the Holy Spirit, it must be either sincerely, and in the name of Jesus; or insincerely, and in some other way. The lat- ter, I suppose, will be allowed to be an abomination in the sight of God; he cannot therefore be required to do this ; and as to the former, it is just as difficult and as opposite to the carnal heart as repentance and faith themselves. Indeed it amounts to the same thing; for a sincere desire after a spiritual blessing presented in the name of Jesus is no other than “the prayer of faith.” Peter exhorted Simon to pray, not with an impenitent heart that he might obtain repentance, but with a penitent one that he might obtain forgiveness; and this no doubt in the only way in which it was to be obtained, “through Jesus Christ.” “Repent,” saith he, “ and pray to God, if perhaps the thought of thime heart may be forgiven thee.” Our Saviour directed his disciples to pray for the “Holy Spirit;” but surely the prayer which they were en- couraged to offer was to be sincere, and with an eye to the Saviour; that is, it was “the prayer of faith,” and therefore could not be a duty directed to be performed an- tecedently and in order to the obtaining of it. The mischief arising from this way of preaching is con- siderable. First, It gives up a very important question to the sinner, even that question which is at issue between God and conscience on the one hand, and a self-righteous heart on the other; namely, whether he be obliged im- mediately to repent and believe the gospel. “I could find nothing in the Scriptures,” says he, “that would give me 178 CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS. any comfort in my present condition; nothing short of “repent and believe,” which are things I cannot comply with : but I have gained it from my good minister. Now my heart is at ease. I am not obliged immediately to re- pent and sue for mercy in the name of Jesus. It is not therefore my sin that I do not. All I am obliged to is to pray God to help me to do so; and that I do.” Thus, after a bitter conflict with Scripture and conscience, which have pursued him through all his windings, and pressed upon him the call of the gospel, he finds a shelter in the house of God | Such counsel, instead of aiding the sin- ner's convictions, (which, as “labourers with God,” is our proper business,) has many a time been equal to a victory over them, or at least to the purchase of an armistice. Secondly, It deceives the soul. He understands it as a compromise, and so acts upon it. For though he be in fact as far from sincerely praying for repentance as from repenting, and just as unable to desire faith in Christ as to exercise it, yet he does not think so. He reckons him- self very desirous of these things. The reason is, he takes that indirect desire after them, which consists in wishing to be converted (or any thing, however disagreeable in itself) that he may escape the wrath to come, to be the desire of grace; and being conscious of possessing this, he considers himself in a fair way at least of being converted. Thus he deceives his soul; and thus he is helped forward in his delusion | Nor is this all : he feels himself set at liberty from the hard requirement of returning immediately to God by Jesus Christ, as utterly unworthy; and, being told to pray that he may be enabled to do so, he supposes that such prayer will avail him, or that God will give him the power of repenting and believing in answer to his prayers; prayers, be it observed, which must necessarily be offered up with an impenitent, unbelieving heart. This just suits his self-righteous spirit; but, alas, all is delusion 1 “You have no relief then,” say some, “for the sinner.” I answer, If the gospel or any of its blessings will relieve him, there is no want of relief. But if there be nothing in Christ, or grace, or heaven that will suit his inclina- tion, it is not for me to furnish him with any thing else, or to encourage him to hope that things will come to a good issue. The only possible way of relieving a sinner, while his heart is averse from God, is by lowering the require- ments of heaven to meet his inclination, or in some way to model the gospel to his mind. But to relieve him in this manner is at my peril. If I were commissioned to address a company of men who had engaged in an unpro- voked rebellion against their king and country, what ought I to say to them 4 I might make use of authority or en- treaty, as occasion might require; I might caution, warn, threaten, or persuade them ; but there would be a point from which I must not depart : Be ye reconciled to your ºrightful sovereign ; lay down arms, and submit to mercy To this I must inviolably adhere. They might allege that they could not comply with such hard terms. Should I admit their plea, and direct them only to such conduct as might consist with a rebellious spirit, instead of recovering them from rebellion, I should go far towards denominating myself a rebel. And as Christ and his apostles never appear to have ex- horted the unconverted to any thing which did not include or imply repentance and faith, so in all their eacplications of the Divine law, and preaching against particular sins, their object was to bring the sinner to this issue. Though they directed them to no means, in order to get a penitent and believing heart, but to repentance and faith them- selves; yet they used means with them for that purpose. Thus our Lord expounded the law in his sermon on the mount, and concluded by enforcing such a “hearing of his sayings and doing them ’’ as should be equal to “dig- ging deep, and building one's house upon a rock.” And thus the apostle Peter, having charged his countrymen with the murder of the Lord of glory, presently brings it to this issue : “Repent ye, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.” Some years ago I met with a passage in Dr. Owen on this subject, which, at that time, sunk deep into my heart; and the more observation I have since made, the more just his remarks appear. “It is the duty of ministers,” says he, “to plead with men about their sins; but always re- member that it be done with that which is the proper end of law and gospel ; that is, that they make use of the sin they speak against to the discovery of the state and condi- tion wherein the sinner is, otherwise, haply, they may work men to formality and hypocrisy, but little of the true end of preaching the gospel will be brought about. It will not avail to beat a man off from his drunkenness into a sober formality. A skilful master of the assemblies lays his axe at the root, drives still at the heart. To inveigh against particular sins of ignorant, unregenerate persons, such as the land is full of, is a good work; but yet, though it may be done with great efficacy, vigour, and success, if this be all the effect of it, that they are set upon the most sedulous endeavours of mortifying their sins preached down, all that is done is but like the beating of an enemy in an open field, and driving him into an impregnable castle not to be prevailed against. Get you, at any time, a sinner at the advantage on the account of any one sin whatever; have you any thing to take hold of him by, bring it to his sate and condition, drive it up to the head, and there deal with him. To break men off from particular sins, and not to break their hearts, is to deprive ourselves of advantages of deal- ing with them.”* When a sinner is first seized with conviction, it is natural to suppose that he will abstain from many of his outward vices, though it be only for the quiet of his own mind: but it is not for us to administer comfort to him on this ground; as though, because he had “broken off” a few of “his sins,” he must needs have broken them off “by righteousness,” and either be in the road to life, or at least in a fair way of getting into it. It is one of the devices of Satan to alarm the sinner, and fill him with anxiety for the healing of outward eruptions of sin; while the inward part is overlooked, though it be nothing but sin. But we must not be aiding and abetting in these deceptions, nor ad- minister any other relief than that which is held out in the gospel to sinners as sinners. And when we see such cha- racters violating their promises, and falling anew into their old sins, (which is frequently the case,) instead of joining with them in lamenting the event, and assisting them in healing the wound by renewed efforts of watchfulness, it becomes us rather to probe the wound; to make use of that which has appeared for the detecting of that which has not appeared; and so to point them to the blood that cleanses from all sin. “Poor soul!” says the eminent writer just quoted, “it is not thy sore finger, but thy hectic fever, from which thy life is in danger . " If the cause be removed, the effects will cease. If the spring be puri- fied, the waters will be healed, and the barren ground be- come productive. I conclude with a few remarks on the order of address- ing exhortations to the unconverted. There being an established order in the workings of the human mind, it has been made a question whether the same ought not to be preserved in addressing it. As, for instance, we cannot be convinced of sin without previous ideas of God and moral government, nor of the need of a Saviour without being convinced of sin, nor of the importance of salvation without suitable conceptions of its evil nature. Hence, it may be supposed, we ought not to teach any one of these truths till the preceding one is well understood ; or, at least, that we ought not to preach the gospel without pre- facing it by representing the just requirements of the law, our state as sinners, and the impossibility of being justified by the works of our hands. Doubtless, such representa- tions are proper and necessary, but not so necessary as to render it improper, on any occasion, to introduce the doc- trine of the gospel without them, and much less to refrain from teaching it till they are understood and felt. In this case a minister must be reduced to the greatest perplexity; never knowing when it was safe to introduce the salvation of Christ, lest some of his hearers should not be sufficiently prepared to receive it. The truth is, it is never unsafe to introduce this doctrine. There is such a connexion in Divine truth, that if any one part of it reach the mind and find a place in the heart, all others, which may pre- cede it in the order of things, will come in along with it. In receiving a doctrine, we receive not only what is ex- * On the Mortification of Sin, Chap. VII. CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS. 179 pressed, but what is implied by it; and thus the doctrine of the cross may itself be the means of convincing us of the evil of sin. An example of this lately occurred in the experience of a child of eleven years of age. Her minis- ter, visiting her under a threatening affliction, and perceiv- ing her to be unaffected with her sinful condition, suggested that “It was no small matter that brought down the Ilori of glory into this world to suffer and die, there must be something very offensive in the nature of sin against a holy God.” This remark appears to have sunk into her heart, and to have issued in a saving change.* Divine truths are like chain-shot; they go together, and we need not perplex ourselves which should enter first ; if any one enter, it will draw the rest after it. Remarks nearly similar may be made concerning duties. Though the Scriptures know nothing of duties to be per- formed without faith, or which do not include or imply it; yet they do not wait for the sinner's being possessed of faith before they exhort him to other spiritual exercises; such as “seeking” the Lord, “loving” him, “serving him,” &c., nor need we lay any such restraints upon our- selves. Such is the conneacion of the duties as well as the truths of religion, that if one be truly complied with, we need not fear that the others will be wanting. If God be sought, loved, or served, we may be sure that Jesus is em- braced ; and if Jesus be embraced, that sin is abhorred. Or should things first occur to the mind in another order, should sin be the immediate object of our thoughts, if this be abhorred, the God against whom it is committed must, at the same instant, be loved, and the Saviour who has made a sacrifice to deliver us from it embraced. Let any part of truth or holiness but find place in the heart, and the rest will be with it. Those parts which, in the order of things, are required to precede it, will come in by way of £mplication, and those which follow it will be produced by it. Thus the primitive preachers seem to have had none of that scrupulosity which appears in the discourses and Writings of some modern preachers. Sometimes they ex- horted sinners to “believe” in Jesus; but it was such belief as implied repentance for sin: sometimes to “re- pent and be converted ;” but it was such repentance and conversion as included believing : and sometimes to “la- bour for the meat that endureth unto everlasting life;” but it was such labouring as comprehended both repent- ance and faith. - Some have inferred from the doctrine of justification by faith in opposition to the works of the law, that sinners ought not to be exhorted to any thing which comprises obedience to the law, either in heart or life, except we should preach the law to them for the purpose of convic- tion; and this lest we should be found directing them to the works of their own hands as the ground of acceptance with God. From the same principle, it has been concluded that faith itself cannot include any holy disposition of the heart, because all holy disposition contains obedience to the law. If this reasoning be just, all exhorting of sin- ners to things expressive of a holy exercise of heart is either improper, or requires to be understood as merely preaching the law for the purpose of conviction; as our Saviour directed the young ruler to “keep the command- ments, if he would enter into life.” Yet the Scriptures abound with such exhortations. Sinners are exhorted to “seek” God, to “serve” him with fear and joy, to “for- sake” their wicked way, and “return” to him, to “re- pent” and “be converted.” These are manifestly exer- cises of the heart, and addressed to the unconverted. Neither are they to be understood as the requirements of a covenant of works. That covenant neither requires re- pentance nor promises forgiveness. But sinners are directed to these things under a promise of “mercy” and “abund- ant pardon.” There is a wide difference between these addresses and the address of our Lord to the young ruler; that to which he was directed was the producing of a righteousness adequate to the demands of the law, which was naturally impossible; and our Lord’s design was to show its impossibility, and thereby to convince him of the need of gospel mercy; but that to which the above direc- tions point is not to any natural impossibility, but to the very way of mercy. The manner in which the primitive preachers guarded against self-righteousness was very dif- ferent from this. They were not afraid of exhorting either Saints or sinners to holy exercises of heart, nor of connect- ing with them the promises of mercy. But though they exhibited the promises of eternal life to any and every spiritual exercise, yet they never taught that it was on ac- count of it, but of mere grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ. The ground on which they took their stand was, “Cursed is every one who continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them.” Hence they inferred the impossibility of a sinner being justified in any other way than for the sake of him who was “made a curse for us;” and hence it clearly follows, that whatever holiness any sinner may possess be- fore, im, or after believing, it is of no account whatever as a ground of acceptance with God. If we inculcate this doctrine, we need not fear exhorting sinners to holy ex- ercises of heart, nor holding up the promises of mercy to all who thus return to God by Jesus Christ. APPENDIX : ON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE EXISTENCE OF A HOLY DISPOSITION OF HEART BE NECESSARY TO BELIEVING, |T is not from a fondness for controversy that I am induced to, offer my sentiments on this subject. I feel myself called upon to do so on two accounts. First, The leading Principle in the foregoing treatise is implicated in the de- °ision of it: , If no holy disposition of heart be presupposed 9, included in believing, it has nothing holy in it; and if it have nothing holy in it, it is absurd to plead for its being a duty. God requires nothing as a duty which is merely natural or intellectual, or in which the will has no concern. Secondly, Mr. M'Lean, of Edinburgh, in a second edition of his treatise on The Commission of Christ, has published several pages of animadversions on what I have advanced on this subject, and has charged me with Yºry serious consequences; consequences which, if sub- stantiated, will go to prove that I have subverted the great doctrine of justification by grace alone, without the works of the law,-pp. 74–86. It is true he has made no men- * Dying Exercises of Susannah Wright, of Weekly, near Kettering. tion of my name, owing, as I suppose, to what I had written being contained in two private letters, one of which was addressed to him. I certainly had no expect- ation, when I wrote those letters, that what I advanced would have been publicly answered. I do not pretend to understand so much of the etiquette of writing as to decide whether this conduct was proper; but if it were, some people may be tempted to think that it is rather danger- ous to correspond with authors. I have no desire, how- ever, to complain on this account, nor indeed on any other, except that my sentiments are very partially stated, and things introduced so much out of their connexion, that it is impossible for the reader to form any judgment concern- ing them. I have the pleasure to agree with Mr. M'L. in con- sidering the belief of the gospel as saving faith. Our dis- agreement on this subject is confined to the question, What the belief of the gospel includes. Mr. M'L. so explains it as carefully to exclude every exercise of the heart or will N 2 180 APPENDIX. as either included in it, or having any influence upon it. Whatever of this exists in a believer he considers as be- longing to the effects of faith, rather than to faith itself. If I understand him, he pleads for such a belief of the gospel as has nothing in it of a holy nature, nothing of conformity to the moral law “in heart or life;” a passive reception of the truth, in which the will has no concern; and this because it is opposed to the works of the law in the article of justification,-pp. 83–86. On this ground he accounts for the apostle’s language in Rom. iv. 5, “To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly;” understanding, by the terms “he that worketh not,” one that has done no- thing yet which is pleasing to God ; and, by the term “ungodly,” one that is actually an enemy to God. He does not suppose that God justifies unbelievers; if, there- fore, he justifies sinners while in a state of enmity against him, there can be nothing in the nature of faith but what may consist with it. And true it is, if faith have nothing in it of a holy nature, nothing of conformity to the Divine law “in heart or life,” nothing of the exercise of any holy disposition of heart, it cannot denominate the subjects of it godly. Godliness must, in this case, consist merely in the fruits of faith; and these fruits being sub- sequent to justification, the sinner must of course be jus- tified antecedently to his being the subject of godliness, or while he is actually the enemy of God. If Mr. M'L. had only affirmed that faith is opposed to works, even to every good disposition of the heart, as the ground of acceptance with God; that we are not justified by it as a work ; or that, whatever moral goodness it may possess, it is not as such that it is imputed unto us for righteousness; there had been no dispute between us. But this distinction he rejects, and endeavours to improve the caution of those who use it into a tacit acknowledg- ment that their views of faith were very liable to miscon- struction ; in other words, that they border upon the doctrine of justification by works in so great a degree as to be in danger of being mistaken for its advocates,—p. 76. He is not contented with faith being opposed to works in point of justification ; it must also be opposed to them in its own nature. “Paul,” he affirms, “ did not look upon faith as a work.” In short, if there be any possibility of drawing a certain conclusion from what a writer, in almost every form of speech, has advanced, it must be concluded that he means to deny that there is any thing holy in the nature of faith, and that could it be separated from its effects, (as he supposes it is in justifica- tion,) it would leave the person who possessed it among the enemies of God. Notwithstanding the above, however, Mr. M'L, allows faith to be a duty. He has largely (and, I believe, suc- cessfully) endeavoured to prove that “faith is the command of God;” that it is “part of obedience to God; ” that “to believe all that God says is right;” and that unbelief, which is its opposite, is “a great and heinous sin.” & But how can these things agree? If there be nothing of the exercise of a holy disposition in what is commanded of God, in what is right, and in what is an exercise of obedi- ence, by what rule are we to judge of what is holy and what is not " I scarcely can conceive of a truth more self- evident than this; that God’s commands extend only to that which comes under the influence of the will. Know- ledge can be no further a duty, nor ignorance a sin, than as each is influenced by the moral state of the heart; and the same is true of faith and unbelief. We might as well make the passive admission of light into the eye, or of sound into the ear, duties, as a passive admission of truth into the mind. To receive it into the heart, in- deed, is duty ; for this is a voluntary acquiescence in it : but that in which the will has no concern cannot possibly be so. Mr. M'L, sometimes writes as if he would acknowledge faith to be not only a duty, but to “contain virtue,” or true holiness; seeing, as he observes, “it is the root of all Christian virtues, and that which gives glory to God, and without which it is impossible to please him.” Nay, the reader would imagine, by his manner of writing, that he * Belief of the Gospel Saving Faith, pp. 34–14. was pleading for the holy nature of faith, and that I had denied it ; seeing I am represented as having made the “too bold” and “unfounded assertion” that mere belief contains no virtue. The truth is I affirmed no such thing, but was pleading for the contrary; as is manifest from what Mr. M'L. says in the same note: “But why so solicitous to find virtue or moral excellence in faith ?” It is true I contended that if the belief of the gospel were a mere exercise of the understanding, uninfluenced by the moral state of the heart, it could contain no virtue, nor be the object of a Divine command ; but I supposed it to be a persuasion of Divine truth arising from the state of the heart, in the same sense as unbelief, which Mr. M“L. justly calls “its opposite,” is not a mere mistake of the judgment, but a persuasion arising from aversion to the truth. From the above, however, it would seem that we are agreed in making faith in Christ something which comprehends “true virtue,” or, which is the same thing, true holiness. Yet Mr. M'L. will not abide by all or any of this ; if he would, indeed, there would be an end of the dispute. But he proceeds to reason in favour of that very “unfounded assertion” for making which I am un- warrantably accused of having been “too bold.” Thus he reasons in support of it:-‘‘If mere belief contain no virtue, it would not follow that unbelief could contain no sin; for such an argument proceeds upon this principle, that if there be no virtue in a thing, there can be no sin in its opposite ; but this does not hold true in innumer- able instances. There is no positive virtue in abstaining from many crimes that might be mentioned; yet the com- mission of them, or even the neglect of the opposite duties, would be very sinful. There is no moral virtue in taking food when hungry; but wilfully to starve one- self to death would be suicide : and, to come nearer the point, there is no moral virtue in believing the testimony of a friend, when I have every reason to do so; yet, in these circumstances, were I to discredit his word, he would º feel the injury very sensibly. Now, supposing there was - no more virtue contained in believing the witness of God than in believing the witness of men, to which it is com- pared, it does not follow that there would be no sin in unbelief, which is to make God a liar. To deny that faith is the exercise of a virtuous temper of heart is to refuse some praise to the creature; but to deny that un- belief is a sin is to impeach the moral character of God.— And why so solicitous to find virtue or moral excellence in faith ‘l’” - Now whether this reasoning be just or not, it must be allowed to prove that Mr. M'L., notwithstanding what he has said to the contrary, does not consider faith as contain- ing any virtue. It is true what he says is under a hypo- thetical form, and it may appear as if he were only allowing me my argument, for the sake of overturning it ; but it is manifestly his own principle which he labours to establish, and not mine ; the very principle on which, as he con- ceives, depends the freeness of justification. I cannot but express my surprise that so acute a writer should deal so largely in inconsistency. Mr. M'L. cannot conceive of any end to be answered in finding moral excellence in faith, unless it be to give some “praise to the creature.” He doubtless means, by this insinuation, to furnish an argument against it. As far as any thing which is spiritually good in us, and which is wrought by Him who “worketh all our works in us,” is praiseworthy, so far the same may be granted of faith ; and as we should not think of denying the one to contain moral excellence for the sake of humbling the creature, neither is there any ground for doing so with respect to the other. But there are other ends to be answered by maintaining the holy nature of faith, and such as Mr. M'L. himself will not deny to be of importance. First, It is of import- ance that faith be considered as a duty; for if this be denied, Christ is denied the honour due to his name. But it is impossible to maintain that faith is a duty, if it con- tain no holy exercise of the heart. This, I presume, has already been made to appear. God requires nothing of intelligent creatures but what is holy. Secondly, It is of importance that the faith which we inculcate be genuine, or such as will carry ws to heaven. But if it have no APPENDIX. 18] holiness in its nature, it is dead, and must be unproductive. Mr. M*L. considers true faith as the root of holiness; but if it be so, it must be holy itself; for the nature of the fruit corresponds with that of the root. If the difference between a living and dead faith do not consist in this, that the one is of a holy nature, and the other not so, I should be glad to be informed wherein it does consist ; and whe- ther the nature of the one be the same as that of the other, the difference between them arising merely from circumstances. Thirdly, It is of importance that unbelief be allowed to be a sin; as it is that which, by Mr. M'L.'s acknowledgment, “impeaches the moral character of God.” But if there be no holiness in faith, there can be no sin in its opposite. It is true Mr. M*L. denies the principle of this argument, and speaks of “ innumerable instances” of things which have no virtue, and yet the opposite of them is sin. This, I am persuaded, is not true. What- ever is the proper opposite of sin is holiness. The in- stances which are given do not prove the contrary ; as ab- stinence from various crimes, eating when we are hungry, and believing a human testimony. There may, indeed, be no holiness in these things as they are performed by apostate creatures; but if they were performed as God re- quires them to be, (which they should be, in order to their being the proper opposites to the sins referred to,) they would be holy exercises. God requires us to abstain from all sin, from a regard to his name ; to “eat and drink, and do whatever we do,” even the giving credit to the testimony of a friend, “when we have reason to do so,” “to his glory.” These things, thus performed, would be exercises of holiness. I am aware that those who have opposed the doctrine of total depravity have argued that, as being “without natural affection” is sin, so the being possessed of it must be virtue. To this it has been justly answered, that though a being without natural affection argues the highest degree of depravity, (as nothing else could overcome the common principles of human nature,) yet it does not follow that mere natural affection is virtuous; for if so, virtue would be found in mere animals. This answer is just, and sufficient to repel the objection on the subject of hu- man depravity; but it will not apply to the case in hand. The question there relates to a matter of fact, or what men actually are ; but here to a matter of right, or what they ought to be. . Whatever is capable of being dome by a moral agent, with an eye to the glory of God, ought to be so done ; and if it be, it is holy; if not, whatever may be thought of it by men, it is sinful. Natural affection itself, if subordinated to him, would be sanctified, or ren- dered holy; and the same may be said of every natural inclination or action of life. It is thus that God should be served, even in our civil concerns; and “holiness to the Lord” written, as it were, upon the “bells of the horses.” I have known several persons in England who have agreed with Mr. M'L. as to faith belonging merely to the intellectual faculty, and the moral state of the heart having no influence upon it; but then they either denied, or have been very reluctant to admit, that it is duty. “The mind,” say they, “is passive in the belief of a proposition : we cannot believe as we will, but according to evidence. It may be our duty to examine that evidence; but as to faith, # being altogether involuntary, cannot be a duty.” And if it be a mere passive reception of the truth, on which the state of the will has no influence, I do not perceive how this Consequence can be denied. But then the same might be said of unbelief: If evidence do not appear to us, how can We believe 3 It may be our sin not to examine; but as to our not believing, it, being altogether involuntary, *not be a sin.-By this mode of reasoning the sin of unbelief is explained away, and unbelievers commonly avail themselves of it for that purpose. As both these 99 sequences (I mean the denying of faith being a duty, and unbelief a sin) are allowed by Mr. M'L. to be utterly *Pugnant to the Scriptures, it becomes him, if he will de- fend the premises, to show that they have no necessary Connexion with them. & The above reasoning might hold good, for aught I know, ºn things which do not interest the heart; but to maintain it in things which do, especially in things of a moral and practical nature, is either to deny the existence of prejudice, or that it has any influence in hindering belief. The author of Glad Tidings to Perishing Sinners, though he pleads for faith as including our receiving Christ, and coming to him, yet is decidedly averse from all holy dispo- sition of the heart preceding it, not only as affording a warrant, but as any way necessary to the thing itself. And as he unites with Mr. M'L. in considering the sinner as an enemy to God at the time of his being justified, he must, to be consistent, consider faith as having no holiness in its nature. His method of reasoning on the priority of repentance to believing would seem to denote the same thing. He allows speculative repentance, or a change of mind which has “no holiness” in it, to be necessary to believing; giving this as the reason : “While a sinner is either stupidly inattentive to his immortal interests, or ex- pecting justification by his own obedience, he will not come to Christ. It should seem, then, that aversion of heart from the gospel plan, or a desire to be justified by one’s own obedience, is no objection to coming to Christ; and that a sinner will come to him, notwithstanding this, provided he be right in speculation, and his conscience sufficiently alarmed. If so, there certainly can be nothing spiritual or holy in the act of coming. The respect which I feel both towards Mr. Booth and Mr. M'Lean is not a little ; but there needs no apology for opposing these sen- timents. Truth ought to be dearer to us than the greatest or best of men. Mr. M'L. writes as if he were at a loss to know my meaning. “By a corresponding temper of heart,” he says, “cannot be meant some good disposition previous to faith; for as the question relates to faith itself, that would be foreign to the point.” I have no scruple in saying, how- ever, that I consider it as previous to faith ; and as to what is suggested of its irrelevancy, the same might be said of unbelief. Were I to say that unbelief includes the ex- ercise of an evil temper of heart, and that herein consists the sin of it, I should say no more than is plainly inti- mated by the sacred writers, who describe unbelievers as “stumbling at the word, being disobedient,” 1 Pet. ii. 8. Yet Mr. M'L. might answer, By an evil temper of heart you cannot mean any thing previous to unbelief; for as the question relates to unbelief itself, that would be foreign to the point. Neither can you mean that it is the imme- diate and inseparable effect of unbelief; for that is fully granted ; and it is not the effect, but the nature, or essence, of unbelief, that is the point in question. Your meaning, therefore, must be this : that unbelief, in its very nature, is a temper or disposition of heart disagreeing with the truth.—To this I should answer, I do not consider unbe- lief as an evil temper of heart, but as a persuasion arising out of it and partaking of it; and the same answer is ap- plicable to the subject in hand. I shall first offer evidence that faith in Christ is a per- suasion influenced by the moral state of the heart, and partaking of it; and then consider the principal objections advanced against it. If what has been said already, on duty being confined to things in which the will has an influence, be just, the whole of the second part of the foregoing treatise may be considered as evidence in favour of the point now at issue; as whatever proves faith to be a duty proves it to be a holy exercise of the soul towards Christ, arising from the heart being turned towards him. In addition to this, the following particulars are submit- ted to the reader:- First, Faith is a grace of the Holy Spirit. It is ranked with hope and charity, which are spiritual or holy exer- cises. Indeed, whatever the Holy Spirit as a Sanctifter produces, must resemble his own nature. “That which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” As “the wisdom which is from above is pure,” and of a practical nature, so faith which is from above resembles its Divine origin. Secondly, It is that in the exercise of which we “give glory to God,” Rom. iv. 20. If faith be, what Mr. M'I. acknowledges it to be, a duty, and an exercise of obedience, its possessing such a tendency is easily conceived; but if it be a passive reception of the truth, on which the moral state of the heart has no influence, how can such a pro- perty be ascribed to it * There is a way in which inani- 182 APPENDIX, mate nature glorifies God, and he may get himself glory by the works of the most ungodly; but no ungodly man truly gives glory to him ; neither does a godly man, but in the exercise of holiness. - Thirdly, Faith is represented as depending upon choice, or the state of the heart towards God: “Said I not unto thee, If thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?”—“How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only 2”—“If thou canst believe, all things are possi- ble to him that believeth.” If faith be a mere passive re- ception of the truth into the understanding, on which the state of the will has no influence, what fair interpretation can be given to these passages 3 If a disposition to seek the Divine honour be not necessary to believing, how is it that the want of it should render it impossible 3 And if believing had no dependence upon choice, or the state of the heart, how is it that our Saviour should suspend his healing of the child upon the parent’s being able to exer- cise it? Did he suspend his mercy on the performance of a natural impossibility, or upon something on which the state of the heart had no influence 3 Fourthly, Faith is frequently represented as implying repentance for sin, which is acknowledged on all hands to be a holy exercise. It does not come up to the Scripture representation to say repentance is a fruit of faith. There is no doubt but that faith, where it exists, will operate to promote repentance, and every other holy exercise. It is true, also, that a conviction of the being and attributes of God must, in the order of nature, precede repentance, because we cannot repent for offending a being of whose existence we doubt, or of whose character we have no just conception; but the faith of the gospel, or a believing in Jesus for the salvation of our souls, is represented in the New Testament as implying repentance for sin. “Repent ye, and believe the gospel.”—“And ye, when ye had seen it, repented not that ye might believe.”—“If, peradventure, God will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.” Whenever the Scriptures speak of repentance as followed by the remission of sins, it will be allowed that faith is supposed ; for repentance without faith could not please God, nor have any connexion with the promise of forgiveness : and it is equally evident, that when they speak of faith as followed by justification, repentance is supposed ; for faith without repentance would not be genuine. It is impossible to discern the glory of Christ's mediation, or to believe in the necessity, the importance, the loveliness, or the suitableness of his undertaking, while we feel not for the dishonour done to God by the sin of creatures, and particularly by our own sin. Ignorance, therefore, is ascribed to obduracy or insensibility of heart.* Indeed it is easy to perceive that where there is no sense of the evil and demerit of sin, there can be no “form nor comeliness” discerned in the Saviour, “nor beauty, that we should desire him ; ” and while this is the case, the servants of Christ will have to lament, “Who hath.believed our report?” Fifthly, Faith is often expressed by terms which indicate the exercise of affection. It is called receiving Christ, which stands opposed to rejecting him, or receiving him not ; and which is descriptive of the treatment he met with from the body of the Jewish nation. It is called “receiving the love of the truth, that we may be saved;” and by salvation being thus connected with it, it is im- plied that no other reception of the truth is saving. Christ’s word is said to have “no place” in unbelievers; which implies that in true believers it has place, and which is expressive of more than a mere assent of the under- standing. The good ground in the parable is said to re- present those “who in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with pa- tience.” It is here intimated that no one receives the word to purpose but in the exercise of an honest and good heart.f. Sixthly, Belief is expressly said to be with the heart. “If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Tor with the heart man believ- * Eph. iv. 18. eth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.”—“If thou believest with all thine. heart, thou mayest.” It is allowed that the heart, in these passages, does not denote the affections to the exclusion of the understanding ; nor does the argument require that it should; but neither does it denote the understanding to the exclusion of the affections, (which is required by the argument on the other side,) but the in most soul, in op- position to the mouth, with which confession is made unto salvation. Doing any thing with the heart, or with all the heart, are modes of speaking never used in Scripture, I believe, for the mere purpose of expressing what is internal, or mental, and which may pertain only to the understand- ing ; they rather denote the quality of wºnfeignedness, a quality repeatedly ascribed to faith, and which marks an homesty of heart which is essential to it, 1 Tim. i. 5; 2 Tim. i. 5. Seventhly, The want of faith is ascribed to moral causes, or to the want of a right disposition of heart. “Ye have not his word abiding in you; for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me that ye might have life. I receive not honour from men. But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you. I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not; if another shall come in his own name, him will ye receive. How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only 3”—“Because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.” “If I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? He that is of God heareth God’s words; ye, therefore, hear them not, because ye are not of God.” If a holy disposition were unnecessary to believing in Christ, neither the want of it, nor the exist- ence of the contrary, could form any obstruction to it. Lastly, Unbelief is not a mere error of the understand- &ng, but a positive and practical rejection of the gospel. It is actually treating God as a liar, and all the blessings of the gospel with contempt. But faith is the opposite of un- belief; therefore it is not a mere assent of the understand- ing, but a practical reception of the gospel, actually treat- ing God as the God of truth, and the blessings of the gospel as worthy of all acceptation. This statement of things is clearly taught us by the pointed address of our Lord to the Jews, quoted under the foregoing argument. “Because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.”—“If I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?” If faith were a mere exercise of the understanding, why do not men as readily believe the truth as they believe a lie 3 Surely truth is not less evident to the mind, nor less con- sistent, than falsehood. It is evident that their not be- lieving the truth was owing to the aversion of their hearts, and nothing else ; and, by what follows, it is equally evi- dent that the belief of the truth is owing to the removal of this aversion, or to the heart’s being brought to be on the side of God: “He that is of God heareth God’s words; ye, therefore, hear them not, because ye are not of God.” I proceed to the consideration of objections. The first and principal objection that Mr. M'L. alleges against this statement of things is, that it affects the doctrine of justift- cation by grace alone, without the works of the law. “The Scriptures pointedly declare,” he says, “that God justifies sinners “freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ,’ and that this justification is received ‘through faith in (Christ's) blood.' Faith in this case is always distinguished from and opposed to the works of the law ; not merely of the ceremonial law, which was peculiar to the Jews, but of that law by which is the know- ledge of sin, which says, “Thou shalt not covet,” and which requires not only outward good actions, but love, and every good disposition of the heart, both towards God and our neighbour; so that the works of this law respect the h2art as well as life. The distinction, therefore, between Jaith and works on this subject is not that which is between &nward and outward conformity to the law ; for if faith be not in this case distinguished from and opposed to our conformity to the law, both outwardly and inwardly, it cannot be said that we are ‘justified by faith, without the + John i. 12; 2 Thess, ii. 10; John viii. 37; Luke viii. 15. APPENDIX. 183 deeds of the law,” or that God ‘justifieth the ungodly.” Faith, indeed, as a principle of action, ‘worketh by love;’ but it is not as thus working that it is imputed for right- eousness; for it is expressly declared that righteousness is imputed to him that ‘ worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly.” “It is of faith, that it might be by grace;’ and grace and works are represented as in- compatible with each other ; for to him that ‘ worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.' Now when men include in the very nature of justifying faith such good dispositions, holy affections, and pious exercises of heart, as the moral law requires, and so make them necessary (no matter under what consideration) to a sin- ner's acceptance with God, it perverts the apostle's doc- trine upon this important subject, and makes justification to be at least as it were by the works of the law.’” + There is no dispute whether justification be of grace through the redemption which is in Jesus Christ ; nor whether justification by faith be opposed to justification by the works of the law, even those works which are internal, as well as those which are external. But it is apprehended that, in order to maintain these doctrines, there is no ne- cessity to explain away the holy nature of faith, or to maintain that it consists in mere speculation, which it must if it have nothing of the disposition of the heart in it. If considering faith as arising from the disposition of the heart be unfriendly to justification by grace without the works of the law, it must be on one or other of these sup- positions: First, either that, should there be any holiness in us antecedently to justification, it must be imputed unto us for righteousness. Or, secondly, If it be not so in fact, yet it will be so in the view of awakened sinners. The first of these suppositions, so far from being friendly to the doctrine of justification by grace, utterly subverts the grand principle on which the necessity of it is founded. The grand principle on which the apostle rests the doc- trime is this: “It is written, Cursed is every one that con- tinueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them.” This declaration goes to an utter denial of the possibility of a sinner's being justified by the works of his hands. But if the foregoing supposition be true, the de- claration must be false ; for, according to this, the holi- ness of one that has not continued in all things written in the book of the law to do them, provided he have any, is admissible to his justification. On the other hand, if the declaration be true, the supposition is false; for according to the apostle's doctrine, it must follow that whatever holi- ness any creature may possess before, in, or after his be- lieving, unless he could produce a righteousness conform- ing ºn all things to God’s righteous law, it will avail him nothing in respect of justification. I have no idea of any holiness antecedently to justification, any further than what is necessarily implied in the nature of justifying faith; but if it were otherwise, and a sinner could produce a series of holy actions performed in a course of years, all must be reckoned as loss and dung in respect of his being accepted of God. He that would win Christ must be “found in him.” If antecedent holiness destroy the freeness of grace, I know of no solid reason why consequent holiness should not operate in the same way; and then, in order to be justified by grace, it will be necessary to continue the enemies of God through life. It is not the priority of &mé that makes any difference, but that of causation. Holiness may precede justification as to time, and it may be necessary on some account that it should precede it, and yet have no causal influence on it. The self-abase. ment of the publican preceded his going down to his house “justified;”, yet it was not on this ground that his justifi- cation rested. Holiness, on the other hand, may follow justification as to time, and yet, for any thing that this Will prove, may be that which is accounted for righteous- hess. The righteousness of Christ was imputed to Old Testament believers, long before it was actually wrought ; and good was promised to Abraham, on the ground that God “knew him, that he would command his children and his household after him.” It was the denial of personal holiness being necessary * On the Commission, pp. 83, S4, to justification as a procuring cause, and not any thing which regarded the time of it, that excited those objections against the doctrine as leading to licentiousness which are repelled in the Epistle to the Romans, and which have been pleaded in this controversy. The doctrine here de- fended is liable to the same ; not justly, indeed; neither was that of the apostle : but so long as we maintain that acceptance with God is wholly out of regard to the right- eousness of another, and not for any thing done by us, be- fore, in, or after believing, a self-righteous spirit will be offended, and reproach the doctrine as immoral. The argument for the necessity of a sinner's being an enemy to God, at the time of his justification, in order to its being wholly of grace, resembles that of some divines, who for the same purpose have pleaded for our being jus- tified from eternity. They seem to have supposed that if God justified us before we had any existence, or could have performed any good works, it must be on the footing of grace. Yet these divines maintained that some men were ordained to condemnation from eternity; and that as a punishment for their sin, which God foresaw. But if an eternal decree of condemnation might rest upon fore- seem evil, who does not perceive that an eternal decree of justification might equally rest upon foreseen good 2 The truth is, the freeness of justification does not depend upon the date of it. Mr. M'Lean charges the sentiment he opposes as a per- version of the apostle's doctrine, and with making justifi- cation to be, at least, “ as it were, by the works of the law.” Yet he is fully aware that whatever is pleaded in behalf of the holy nature of faith, it is not supposed to justify us as a work or holy exercise, or as being any part of that which is accounted unto us for righteousness; but merely as that which unites to Christ, for the sake of whose righteousness alone we are accepted. I have no idea of merit, either of condignity or congruity, or of jus- tification being bestowed as a reward to believing, any more than he has. But I shall be told this is “a caution which intimates an apprehension that my idea of faith is very liable to such a misconstruction.” f And was the apostle’s doctrine liable to no misconstruction ? and did he use no caution to guard against it 3 Is Mr. M'L.'s doctrine liable to none 3 and does he never use caution for the same purpose ? ... What else does he mean when, dis- coursing on God’s justifying the ungodly, he adds, “Faith, indeed, as a principle of action, worketh by love; but it is not as thus working that it is imputed for righteousness?”; I confess I am not able to discern the difference between this distinction and that which he discards; for if there be any meaning in words, either in the apostle's or his, faith does work by love, and that from its first existence; and its thus working belongs to it as genuine justifying faith : but though it always possessed this property, and without it could not have been genuine ; yet it is not on this account, or in a way of reward, that we are said to be justified by it. If he allege that the property of working by love does not belong to the nature of faith, as justifying ; and that, in the order of time, we are justified by it previously to its thus working, he must contradict the apostle, who speaks of “receiving the love of the truth, that we may be saved,” and pronounces those persons wºnbelievers who do not thus receive it, 2 Thess. ii. 10–12. His own words also will, in this case, be ill adapted to express his ideas. Instead of saying, “Faith indeed worketh by love; but it is not as thus working that it justifies ;” he ought to have said to this effect: Faith indeed worketh by love ; but it is not till it has first performed its office in respect of justification, which it does previously to its working at all. The Scriptures constantly represent wrion with Christ as the foundation of our interest in the blessing of justifi- cation : “Of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us—righteousness.”—“That I may be found &n him, not having my own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ.”— “We are accepted in the Beloved.”—“There is—no con- demnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.” Now, faith in him being that by which this union is effected, hence + On the Commission, p. 76. # Ibid. p. 84. 184 APPENDIX. arises the necessity of it in order to justification. It is that by which, as in a marriage, we are joined to the Lord, and so by his gracious constitution of things are interested in all he is, and all he possesses. And thus it is supposed that living faith, or faith that “worketh by love,” is neces- sary to justification ; not as being the ground of our ac- ceptance with God—not as a virtue of which justification is the reward ; but as that without which we could not be united to a living Redeemer. But we are told, “If any thing holy in us be rendered necessary to our being accepted of God, (no matter under what consideration,) we pervert the apostle's doctrine, and make justification to be at least, as it were, by the works of the law.” Is Mr. M'L. sure that he does not pervert, or at least sadly misapply, the apostle's words 3 Whatever be the meaning of the phrase “as it were,” it does not describe the principles of those who renounce all depend- ence upon their own holiness, and plead for the holy nature of faith only as being necessary to render it genu- ine, and consequently to unite us to a holy Saviour. The characters there referred to were ungodly men, who relied upon their own works for justification, “stumbling at that stumbling-stone.” That we may judge whether this assertion be well founded, it is necessary to examine the evidence on which it rests; and this, if I mistake not, is confined to the phraseology of a single passage of Scripture. If this pas- sage (Rom. iv. 4, 5) do not prove the point for which it is alleged, I know of no other that does : and, what is more, the whole tenor of Scripture teaches a doctrine directly opposite; that is to say, that REPENTANCE PRECEDEs Forgiven ess. But, waving this, we will attend to the passage itself. If by “ him that worketh not,” and the “ungodly ” whom God justifieth, be meant persons who, at the time, had never done any good thing in the sight of God, and who were actually under the dominion of enmity against him, Mr. M'L.'s assertion will be granted him ; but if these terms be meant to describe persons who work not with respect to justification, and who, in their dealings with God for acceptance, come not as righteous, but as wngodly, no such consequence will follow. On the con- trary, it will follow, that if the apostle's doctrine be per- verted, it is Mr. M'L. that has perverted it. That the apostle is speaking of believers we are expressly told in the passage itself. He that “worketh not ” is said, at the same time, to “believe ; ” but whenever this can be said of a man, it cannot with truth be affirmed of him that he has done nothing good in the sight of God, or that he is under the dominion of enmity against him. By Mr. M'L.'s own account he has, by the influence of Divine grace, done “what is right, in giving credit to what God says;” he has “obeyed the gospel ;” he has complied with “the command of God,” that we should believe in him whom he hath sent. It may, however, be truly affirmed of him, that he worketh not with respect to Justification ; for it is of the nature of faith to overlook and relinquish every thing of the kind. Whatever neces- sity there may be for a writer in vindication of the truth to enumerate these things, they are such as the subject of them thinks nothing of at the time, especially as the ground of his acceptance with God. All his hopes of mercy are those of a sinner, an ungodly sinner. “Him that worketh not ” stands opposed, by the apos- tle, to “him that worketh ; to whom,” he says, “ the reward is not reckoned of grace, but of debt,” Rom. iv. 4. And is this a description of actually working for God 3 The character referred to is either real or supposed: either that of a self-righteous sinner, who would at last be dealt with on the footing of that covenant to which he adhered ; or of a perfect conformist to the Divine law. If it be the former, “he that worketh” undoubtedly means not one that actually labours for God, but one that worketſ, with a view to justification; and, consequently, “he that worketh not ” must mean, not one that has actually wrought nothing for God, but one that worketh not with a view of being justifted by it. Or if, on the other hand, the character be allowed to be only a supposed one ; namely, a perfect conformist to the Divine law ; yet, as what is done by him that so worketh is done with a view to justification, it is on this account properly op- posed to the life of a believer, who, whatever he may do, does nothing with such an end, but derives all his hopes of acceptance with God from the righteousness of another. To this may be added the easamples which the apostle refers to for the illustration of his doctrine. These are Abraham and David ; and let the reader judge whether they be not decisive of the question. It is of Abraham’s justification that he is speaking. He it is that is held up as a pattern of justification by faith, in opposition to the works of the law. Of him it was supposed “that he worked not, but believed on him that justifieth the un- godly.” If Abraham, therefore, at the time when he is said to have “believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness,” had never done any good thing, and was actually the enemy of God, Mr. M'L.'s position is estab- lished. But if the contrary be true, it is overturned. To determine this, the reader has only to consult Gen. xv. 6; xii. 1, and Heb. xi. 8. He will there perceive that it was several years after his departure from Haran (at which time the apostle bears witness to his being a be- liever) that he is said to have “believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness.” Hence it is manifest that the character described by the apostle is not that of an enemy, but a friend of God ; and that it is not merely applicable to a Christian at the first moment of his be- lieving, but through the whole of life. We have to deal with Christ for pardon and justification more than once ; and must always go to him as “working not, but believing on him that justifieth the ungodly.” Nor is the example of David less decisive than that of Abraham. When the “blessedness” of which the apostle speaks “came upon him,” he was not in a state of enmity to God; but had been his friend and servant for a series of years. The thirty-second appears, evidently, to be one of his penitential Psalms, composed after his fall in the case of Uriah. Yet he also is supposed to have “worked not, but believed on him that justifieth the ungodly.” And it is worthy of notice, that the very principle incul- cated through this whole Psalm is, the necessity of repent- ance in order to forgiveness, a principle which requires to be disowned, before the position maintained by Mr. M'L. can be admitted. It has been said that the term ungodly is never used but to describe the party as being under actual enmity to God at the time. I apprehend this is a mistake. Christ is said to have died for the “ungodly.” Did he then lay down his life only for those who, at the time, were actually his enemies 3 If so, he did not die for any of the Old Testa- ment saints, nor for any of the godly who were then alive, not even for his own apostles. All that can in truth be said is, that, whatever were their characters at the time, he died for them as ungodly; and thus it is that he “jus- tifieth the ungodly.” Gospel justification stands opposed to that which is in ordinary use : the one acquits the righteous, the worthy, the deserving ; the other, the un- righteous, the unworthy, the whgodly. But let us examine the other branch of Mr. M“L.'s objection ; namely, the effect which such a doctrine must have on the mind of an awakened sinner. “This,” he says, “is obvious. He who conceives that, in order to his pardon and acceptance with God, he must be first pos- sessed of such good dispositions and holy affections as are commonly included in the nature of faith, will find no immediate relief from the gospel, nor any thing in it which fully reaches his case, while he views himself merely as a guilty sinner. Instead of believing on him that jus- tifieth the ungodly, he believes, on the contrary, that he cannot be justified till he sustains an opposite character. Though Christ died for sinners—for the ungodly, yet he does not believe that Christ's death will be of any benefit to him as a mere simmer, but as possessed of holy dispo- sitions; nor does he expect relief to his conscience purely and directly from the atonement, but through the medium of a better opinion of his own heart or character. This sentiment, if he is really concerned about his soul, must set him upon attempts to reform his heart and to do some- thing under the notion of acting faith that he may be justified ; and all his endeavours, prayers, and religious exercises will be directed to that end.” By the manner in which Mr. M'L. speaks of “pardon APPENDIX. 185 and acceptance with God,” uniting them together, and denying all holy affection to be necessary to either, it is manifest that he denies the necessity of repentance in order to forgiveness; a doctrine taught not only in the thirty-second Psalm, from which the apostle argued the doctrine of free justification, but also in the whole tenor of Scripture.* - Secondly, By rejecting this doctrine he finds in the gos. pel “relief for the mere sinner.” This “mere sinner” is described as “awakened,” and as “viewing himself merely as a guilty sinner.” At the same time, however, he is supposed to be destitute of all “holy affection.” It may be questioned whether this account of things be consistent with itself, or whether any “mere sinner” ever “views himself merely as a guilty sinner; ” for such views include a just sense of the evil of sin, and of his own utter un- worthiness of the Divine favour, which no “ mere sinner’’ ever possessed. But passing this, whatever be his “awak- enings,” and whatever the load of “guilt” that lies upon his conscience, seeing he is allowed to be destitute of all “holy affection,” he must be, in fact, no other than a hard-hearted enemy to true religion. He has not a grain of regard to God's name, nor concern for having offended him ; nor the least degree of attachment to the atonement of Christ on account of its securing his honour; in a word, his whole affection centres in himself. This cha- racter wants “relief.” And what is it that will relieve him " Pardon and acceptance with God, through the atonement of Jesus 2 If so, he needs neither to climb to heaven, nor to descend into the deep ; the word is nigh him. But this is not what he wants; for he sees “no form nor comeliness in him, nor beauty, that he should de- sire him.” Is it to be saved from his sins 2 No : it is to be saved in them. It is to obtain ease to his troubled con- science, and exemption from the dread of Divine wrath, without relinquishing his self-righteous lusts, and submit- ting to the righteousness of God. And is it true that such a character stands in need of “relief?” He may think he does, and may labour hard to obtain it; but surely he needs to be wounded instead of healed, and killed rather than made alive. Nay, in such a state of mind, is it pos- sible that he should be “relieved ” by the gospel “as it is in Jesus 3" Rather, is it not self-evident that, to relieve him, we must assimilate our doctrine to his inclinations? It were as absurd to suppose that a hard-hearted sinner should be relieved by the true gospel, as that the whole should find relief in a physician. Thirdly, The hard-hearted sinner is not only to be “re- lieved ’’ by the assurance of “pardon and acceptance with God ; ” but this is supposed to be derived “directly from the atonement.” If by this were meant merely for the sake of the atonement, it were unobjectionable; but the meaning is that the mere sinner is pardoned without re- pentance or any “ holy affection to Christ.” There must be no consciousness of any thing of the kind previously to forgiveness; for then it would not be “direct, but through the medium of a good opinion of his own heart or cha- racter.” And does Mr. M'L. really believe in all this? What then will he make of the concurrent language of the Old and New Testament 2 “Let the wicked forsake his *009, and the unrighteous man his thoughts : and let him ^etºn wrºto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him ; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.”—“Preach. ing the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.”— “Bepent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.”—“To turn them from the power of Satan *to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins.” What can be made of this language? Shall we say, it is the Voice of the law directing a sinner what he must do in order to be accepted by his own obedience ºf An ingenious Thind will seldom be at a loss for something to say ; but let us take heed lest we be found perverting the Scriptures ºn support of an hypothesis. If there be any meaning in language, it is manifest that these exhortations are ad- dressed to sinners as the means, not of legal, but of evan- gelical justification,-justification of which the forgiveness of sins is an essential branch. From the foregoing, and many such passages, it is evi- * ! Kings viii. 29–50; Prov, xxviii. 13; Isa. lv. 6–8; Matt. iii. 2; Mark i. 4; Luke iii. 3; xxiv. 47; Acts ii. 38; iii. 19; v. 31; xxvi. 18. - N §§ dent that when we are said to be justified by faith, it is such a faith as involves repentance ; equally so as, when we are said to be forgiven on repentance, it is such re- pentance as involves believing. Nay, more, if Mr. M'L. believe as above, what can be made of his own writings? How are we to understand nº.3 note in page 92, containing a brief but judicious answer to Mr. John Barclay ? He there proves that no man is pardoned or accepted of God till he sustain a different character from that which belongs to him merely as a sin- ner; that is, till he is a believer ; and that “the assurance of a man’s own justification is not founded merely upon the direct testimony of God, but also upon the testimony of his own conscience bearing him witness in the Holy Spirit that he believes the gospel testimony.” Mr. Bar- clay might reply to him as he does to others. He might say, concerning the awakened sinner, that, on Mr. L.'s principles, “Though Christ died for sinners, for the un- godly, yet he does not believe that Christ's death will be of any benefit to him as a mere sinner, but as possessed of faith ; nor does he expect any satisfaction as to the salva- tion of his soul purely and directly from the atonement; but through the medium of a better opinion of himself, a consciousness that he is a believer. This sentiment, if he is really concerned about the salvation of his soul, must set him upon attempts that he may obtain this faith in order to be justified; and all his endeavours, prayers, and religious exercises will be directed to that end.”—If Mr. M“L. can answer this objection, he will answer his own. After all, there is a way of deriving relief, as “mere sin- ners, directly from the atonement;” but this is what a omere sinner, in Mr. M'L.'s sense of the terms, never does. They are believing sinners only, sinners possessed of “holy affection ” to Christ, who are thus rendered dead to every thing in themselves, and alive to him. By Mr. M'L.'s reasoning, it should seem as though impenitent and un- humbled sinners not only derived their comfort in this way, but as if they were the only persons that did so I To derive relief, as mere sinners, directly from the atonement, it is not necessary that we should possess no holy affection towards Christ; but that, whatever we possess, we make nothing of it as a ground of acceptance, “counting all things but loss and dung that we may win and be found in him.” And this manner of deriving relief is not peculiar to the time of our first believing, but belongs to a “life of faith on the Son of God.” Again, It is supposed that the including of holy affection in the nature of faith, and rendering it necessary to ac- ceptance with God, (no matter under what consideration,) must, of necessity, lead the sinner from Christ, to rely on something good in himself. It is true, that if any holiness in us were required as a ground of acceptance with God, it would be so ; and the same would be true of the re- quirement of a faith without holiness, provided it were required to this end. That faith, whatever be its nature, is required, and is necessary to precede justification, Mr. M“L. will not deny. He denies its being necessary as that on account of which we are justified; and so do I ; but whatever be the place which it occupies, it is allowed to be necessary. Now if the necessity of a holy faith be more favourable to self-righteousness than of one which has nothing holy in it, it must be either because it is of the na- ture of holiness, rather than of unholiness, so to operate; or because the depravity of the heart can find an occasion for glorying in the one case, which it cannot in the other. To suppose the former is the same as supposing that it is of the nature of holy affection to Christ to reject his sal- vation, of godly sorrow for sin to render us more attached to it, and of humility of heart to lift us up with pride. With respect to the latter, I cannot answer for it that the proud spirit of a merely “awakened sinner” shall not make a righteousness of a supposed holy faith; nor can Mr. M*L. answer for it that he shall not do the same of his “simple belief.” Whether faith have any holiness in it, or not, seeing he is taught to consider it as necessary to justification, and told that God makes so great account of it, that without it the atonement itself will avail him no- thing, there is no wonder if his unhumbled heart should + See Mr. M*L.'s Simple Truth, pp. 21—26 186 APPENDIX. take up its rest in his supposed believing, instead of look- ing to the doctrine of the cross. An unrenewed sinner will make a righteousness of any thing rather than submit to the righteousness of God. But this I can answer for, if he really have repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ, his mind will not be employed in self-admiration. And this, I am persuaded, is more than Mr. M'L. can say respecting a faith in the nature of which there is nothing holy; for if faith have no holiness in its nature, the sinner must and will, in the very exercise of it, admire himself. It is only in the exercise of a holy disposition of heart that the attention is turned another way; if this, therefore, be absent, there is nothing to counteract a self-righteous spirit; and if, at the same time, the sinner be flattered with having gained more clear and evangelical views of faith than the generality of profess- ing Christians, there is every thing to feed it. To make the requirement of a speculative assent of the judgment, in which there is no holiness, necessary to the destruction of self-righteousness, is supposing that this spirit cannot exist unless it have true holiness to feed upon ; but every one knows that, in “mere sinners,” it reigns uncontrolled ; and that, according to the degree in which true holiness exists, it is so far counteracted. It is natural that it should be so; for it is essential to this principle to simk us into our native nothingness, and to embrace the Saviour as all in all. From these considerations I conclude, that instead of its being necessary for a sinner to be in an ungodly state of mind, in order to his believing in Christ, and being justifted as ungodly, the direct contrary is true. To believe in Christ, as “justifying the ungodly,” is to forego all claim and expectation of favour on the ground of our own deservings; to feel that unto us belongs nothing but shame and confusion of face ; and that the only hope which re- mains for us is in the free mercy of God through Jesus Christ : but this no man ever did whose heart was still under the dominion of enmity; for the thing itself is a contradiction. Enmity necessarily blinds the mind, both to its own deformity, and to the glory of the Saviour. An enemy of God, therefore, and a self-righteous unbeliever, are one and the same character. I cannot but express my surprise that it should ever have entered into the heart of wise and good men, to imagine that a faith which implies contrition and self-an- nihilation in its very nature (the spirit of the publican) should be supposed to be favourable to self-righteousness; while that which may consist with a hard heart, a proud spirit, and perfect enmity to God, (the very temper of the Pharisee,) is pleaded for as necessary to root it up ! Why, then, did not the Pharisee go down to his house “justi- fied,” rather than the publican The one had humbled himself; for God to justify him, therefore, would, it seems, be inconsistent with the freeness of his grace. As to the other, assuredly he was not wanting in whgodliness, nor had he ever wrought a single work for God, notwithstand- ing all his boasting. He was “a mere sinner,” and if Christ's death will prove a benefit to such, why was it not so to him 3 At least, he came very near to the character which, according to Mr. M'L.'s doctrine, God should jus- tify. “No,” it will be said, “he did not believe.” It seems, then, that something more is necessary, after all, than being “a mere sinner.” Yet why should it? Did not Christ “die for sinners, for the ungodly?” Why should he not, as “a mere sinner,” become a partaker of his benefits 4 Or if not, why does Mr. M'L. write as if he should “He did not believe.” . . . . True ; nor, while he was under the dominion of such a spirit, could he believe. Ere he could come to Jesus, or believe in him, he must have heard and learned another lesson.* It is further objected, that to suppose faith to include in it any holy disposition of heart, is confounding it with its effects, and making those to be one which the Scrip- tures declare to be three : namely, faith, hope, and charity. I do not know that the Scriptures any where teach us that all holy disposition is the effect of faith. It is not more so, I apprehend, than all unholy disposition is the effect of unbelief; but unbelief itself is the effect of unholy dis- * John v. 44; xii. 39, 40; vi. 45. position, as I suppose will be allowed : all unholy dispo- sition, therefore, cannot be the effect of unbelief. Mr. M*L. has proved that faith also is not only a principle of evangelical obedience, but is itself an exercise of obedience: all obedience, therefore, by his own account, is not the effect of faith; for nothing can be an effect of itself. And, unless it be impossible to obey God without any holy disposition of heart to do so, it will equally follow that all holy disposition camnot be the effect of faith. With re- spect to the confounding of what the Scriptures distin- guish, whatever distinction there is between faith, hope, and charity, it makes nothing to Mr. M'L.’s argument, unless they can be proved to be so distinct as that nothing of the one is to be found in the other. Faith must not only have no love in it, but no hope; hope must include neither faith nor love; and love must possess neither faith nor hope. But are they thus distinct 4 On the contrary, it may be found, upon strict inquiry, that there is not a grace of the Holy Spirit which does not possess a portion of every other grace. Yet faith is not love, nor hope, nor joy, nor long-suffering, nor gentleness, nor goodness, nor meekness, nor patience ; each has a distinctive character; and yet each is so blended with the other, that, in dissect- ing one, you must cut through the veins of all. “Some affirm,” says Mr. M'L., “that faith, hope, and love are three, considered only in respect of their objects.”f I had, indeed, suggested that they are three considered with respect to their objects, but never thought of affirm- ing that they are three in that view only. They may be three in many other respects, for aught I know. My ar- gument only required me to point out a sense in which they were distinct, provided they were not so in respect of their holy nature. I see no solidity in Mr. M'L.’s ob- jection to an objective distinction ; and it is rather ex- traordinary that what he substitutes in its place, from Mr. Sandeman, is a distinction merely objective. Mr. M'L. thinks that faith, hope, and love are distinct as to their nature ; and that the eaccellence ascribed to love consists in its being holy ; whereas faith is not so. But what becomes of hope 2 Love is not said to excel faith only : hope, therefore, is required to have no holiness in it, any more than faith. And has it none 3 Mr. M'L., when asked whether hope did not imply desire, and desire love, answered, “Yes; hope is a modification of love.” It was replied, “Then you have given up your argument?” It has been further objected, that the reception of God's testimony is compared to the reception of human testi- mony; and that as a disposition of heart, whether holy or unholy, is not necessary to the one, so neither is it to the other. It is allowed that the testimony of man may, in many cases, be believed merely by the understanding, and without being at all influenced by the state of the heart; but it is only in cases with which the heart has no concern. If the admission of a human testimony respected things of which there was no sensible evidence—things the belief of which would require a total relinquishment of a favour- ite system, and the pursuit of an opposite course of action —things which the greater part of those about us disre- garded, and which, if true, might be at a considerable distance—objections would arise against the admission of it, which, if it were otherwise, would have no existence. Nor could they be removed while the heart remained averse. The fact, it is true, might become so notorious as to silence opposition, and, in the end, extort conviction ; but conviction, thus extorted, would not be faith. Faith implies that we think well of the testifier, or possess a con- fidence in his veracity; but conviction may consist with both ill opinion and ill will. It is the persuasion of sense, rather than of faith. Such was that of some of the chief rulers, that Christ was the Messiah, John xii. 42, 43. The miracles which he wrought silenced their opposition, and planted in their consciences a conviction that it must be so. It is true this conviction is called believing, but it is only in an improper sense ; it was not that faith which is connected with justification or salvation. Whatever conviction any man may have of the truth, while it is against the grain of his heart, he is not a believer in the proper sense of the term ; nor do the Scriptures acknow- + On the Commission, p. 82, Note. APPENDIX. 187 ledge him as such. It is only the receiving the love of the truth that will prove saving ; and he that does not thus receive it is described as an unbeliever, 2 Thess. ii. 10–12. If Micaiah’s testimony of what God had revealed to him had been in favour of the expedition against Ramoth- gilead, Ahab could have believed it ; for, a little before this, he had believed a prophet who spake good concern- ing him, 1 Kings xx. 13, 14. Or if it had been delivered by a person against whom he had no prejudice, and on a subject that neither favoured northwarted his inclinations, he might have believed it merely with his understanding, uninfluenced by any disposition of his heart; but as it was, while four hundred prophets were for him to one against him, and while sensible that appearances were in his favour, he believed it not, and even bade defiance to it. It is possible he might have some misgivings, even while he was ordering Micaiah to prison ; and when the arrow pierced him, his fears would rise high. As death ap- proached, he would feel the truth of what he had been told, and be possessed, it is likely, of tremendous fore- bodings of an hereafter : but all this was not faith, but in- voluntary conviction ; a species of conviction this, which neither possesses nor produces any good, and which has not a promise made to it in the oracles of truth. It is acknowledged, by the author of A Dialogue between David and Jonathan, that “after all we can say of the speculative knowledge of practical truth, we must still re- member that it implies some very essential imperfection and error.” But if practical truth require something more than speculative knowledge to enter into it, why is not the same acknowledged of believing it? Can spiritual things require to be spiritually discerned, and yet be be- lieved while the heart is wholly carnal? Lastly, It is objected that the word of God is represented as the means of regeneration: “Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth.”—“ Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.” And as it is supposed that the word must be understood and believed, before it can have any saving influence upon us; so it is concluded that regeneration must rather be preceded by faith, than faith by regeneration; or, at least, that they are coeval. This objection has been advanced from several quarters and for several purposes. In answer to it, I would, in the first place, offer two or three general remarks. First, Whether regeneration influence faith, or faith re- generation, if either of them influence the other, they cannot be coeval. One must be prior to the other, at least in the order of nature ; as the effect is ever preceded by the cause. Secondly, Whatever weight this objection may possess, it ought not to be made by any one who denies the belief of the gospel to be saving faith. For, allowing the word, *derstºod and believed, to be that by which we are regener. ated, still, if this belief be not faith, but something merely Presupposed by it, faith may, notwithstanding, be preceded by regeneration. If faith be the same thing as coming to 9hrist, receiving him, and relying upon him for acceptance with God, all this, in the order of things, follows upon be- lieving the truth concerning him ; no less so than coming * Gºod follows a believing that he is, and that he is a re. $ºrder of them that diligently seek him. We may, there- fore, be regenerated by a perception and belief of the truth, and, as the immediate effect of it, come to Jesus, and rely upon him for salvation. Thirdly. It may be questioned whether this objection ought to be made by those who admit the necessity of a Spiritual discernment of the glory of Divine things in order to believing. That this is a principle clearly established in the Scriptures cannot be denied. Seeing the Son is *Sessary to believing in him. Unbelief is attributed to *Piritual blindness (2 Cor. iv. 4); and those who believed *9t, the “report” of the gospel are described as “ seeing no form nor comeliness” in the Saviour, nor “ beauty, that they should desire him.” Mr. M'L., speaking of the saving truth of the gospel, *ys, “It is no sooner perceived and believed than it takes Possession of the will and affections,” p. 82. This, I should think, is allowing that perception is distinct from believing, and necessarily precedes it. But if a spiritual perception of the glory of Divine truth precede believing, this may be the same, in effect, as regeneration preceding it. Allowing that the word requires to be perceived, ere the will and affections can be changed, it does not follow that it must also be believed for this purpose; for the per- ception itself may change us into the same image ; and, in virtue of it, we may instantly, with our whole heart, set to our seal that God is true. Now I apprehend that all my opponents are included under one or other of these "descriptions; and if so, I might very well be excused from any further answer. The word of God may be allowed to be the means of regenera- tion, and yet regeneration may precede believing. I do not wish, however, to dismiss the subject without stating my views of it, and the grounds on which they rest. To me it appears that the Scriptures trace a change of heart to an origin beyond either belief or perception, even to that Divine influence which is the cause of both ; an influence which is with great propriety compared to the power that at first “commanded the light to shine out of darkness.” That there is a Divine influence upon the soul, which is necessary to spiritual perception and belief, as being the cause of them, those with whom I am now reasoning will admit. The only question is in what order these things are caused. Whether the Holy Spirit causes the mind, while carnal, to discern and believe spiritual things, and thereby renders it spiritual; or whether he imparts a holy susceptibility and relish for the truth, in consequence of which we discern its glory, and embrace it. The latter appears to me to be the truth. The following are the principal grounds on which I embrace it :— First, The Scriptures represent the dominion of sin in the heart as wtterly inconsistent with a spiritual perception and belief of the gospel ; and so long as it continues, as rendering both the one and the other impossible. Spiritual blindness is ascribed to aversion of heart. “ Their eyes have they closed.”—“They say unto God, Depart from us ; for we desire not the knowledge of thy ways.”— “The ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness,” obduracy, or callousness of the heart, Eph. iv. 18. The obstinacy and aversion of heart is the film to the mental eye, preventing all spiritual glory entering into it. The natural man, therefore, “receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, neither can he know them.” Hence it will follow, that unless the Holy Spirit effect that which he has declared to be impos- sible, his influence must consist, not in causing the mind to see notwithstanding the obstruction, but in removing the obstruction itself out of the way. If it be said, though it be impossible with men, yet it may be possible with God, I answer, those things which are impossible with men, but possible with God, are not such as are impossible in their own nature. Where this is the case, the power of God is never introduced as accomplishing them, any more than the power of man. . We should not, for instance, think of affirming that the heart while carnal, and in a state of “enmity against God,” can by his almighty power be made to love him, and be “subject to his law;” for this is in itself impossible. But the impossibility of the natural man receiving the things of the Spirit of God, while they appear “foolishness” to him, is manifestly of the same nature as this, and is described in the same language.* God does not cause the mind while carnal to be subject to his law, but imparts that which removes the obstruction, “taking away the stony heart out of our flesh, and giving us a heart of flesh.” And thus it is supposed to be in re- spect of spiritual discernment: God does not cause the natural man to receive spiritual things, and thereby render him spiritual; but removes the obstructing film by impart- ing a spiritual relish for those things. Thus it is that “spiritual things are spiritually discerned.” Secondly, Though holiness is frequently ascribed in the Scriptures to a spiritual perception of the truth, yet that spiritual perception itself, in the first instance, is ascribed to the influence of the Holy Spirit upon the heart. “The Lord opened the heart of Lydia, and she attended to the things which were spoken of Paul.”—“God, who com- * Compare 1 Cor. ii. 14, with Rom. viii. 7. 188 APPENDIX. manded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.”—“The anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you; and ye need not that any man teach you : but as the same anoint- ing teacheth you of all things.”—“Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.” Finally, Every thing which proves that spiritual blind- nes3 and unbelief have their origin in the depravity of the heart, proves that whatever may be said of particular vo- litions being caused by ideas received into the mind, original biasses are not so; * and every thing which proves spiritual perception and faith to be holy exercises proves that a change of heart must of necessity precede them ; as no holy exercise can have place while the heart is under the dominion of carnality. And whether these principles have not been sufficiently proved in the foregoing pages the reader must determine. - It is thus, I apprehend, that God reveals the truth to us by his Spirit, in order to our discerning and believing it. “Blessed art thou, Simon-Barjoma : flesh and blood hath not revealed these things unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven.”—“Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and revealed them unto babes.”—“Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, (that is, into the heart of the worldly man,) the things which God hath prepared for them that love him ; but God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit; for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God, that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we (as ministers) speak, not in the words that man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Spirit teacheth, com- paring spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him ; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” This revelation from above communicates no new truths, but imparts a holy susceptibility of spirit, a spirit which is of God, (and which stands opposed to the spirit of the world,) by which those truths that were already revealed in the Scriptures, but which were hid from us by our pride and hardness of heart, become manifest. Thus faith is the gift of God. Believing itself, I should think, cannot with any propriety be termed a gift; but he gives us that from which it im- mediately follows; namely, “a heart to know him, a heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear,” Jer. xxiv. 7 ; Deut. xxix. 4. I see nothing inconsistent between this statement of things and that of James and Peter. We are as properly said to be “born again by the word of God,” as we are said to be born into the world by means of our parents; yet as, in this case, the instrumentality of man was con- sistent with the inspiration of him “who quickeneth all things,” and who, by an immediate though mysterious operation of his hand, gave us life; so I conceive it is in the other. The term “regeneration,” in the sacred writ- ings, is not always used in that strict sense in which we use it in theological discussion. Like almost every other term, it is sometimes used in a more strict and sometimes in a more general sense. Thus repentance is sometimes distinguished from faith; at other times, it comprehends the whole of that which is necessary to forgiveness, and must therefore comprehend believing. And thus regener- ation is sometimes expressive of that operation in which the soul is passive ; and in this sense stands distinguished from conversion, or actual turning to God by Jesus Christ. At other times, it includes not only the first impartation of spiritual life, but the whole of that change which de- nominates us Christians, or by which we are brought as into a new moral world. When the term is introduced as a cause of faith, or as that of which believing in Jesus is a proof, (as it is in John i. 12, 13, and 1 John v. 1,) we may be certain it stands distinguished from it; but when the same things are ascribed to it which peculiarly pertain to faith, we may be equally certain that it includes it. Thus we read of “the washing of regeneration, and the renew- ing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour ; that, being justifted by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.” If regeneration did not here include faith in Jesus Christ, it would not I conceive stand connected as it does with justification, which is peculiarly ascribed to faith. Regeneration, taken in this large sense of the term, is undoubtedly “by the word of God.” It is by means of this that a sinner is first convinced of sin, and by this, as exhibiting mercy through Jesus Christ, he is kept from despair. It is by this only that he can become acquainted with the character of the Being he has offended, the na- ture and demerit of sin, and the way in which he must be saved from it. These important truths, viewed with the eye of an enlightened conscience, frequently produce great effects upon the soul even previously to its yielding itself up to Christ. And the impartation of spiritual life, or a susceptibility of heart to receive the truth, may generally, if not always, accompany the representation of truth to the mind. It was while Paul was speaking that the Lord opened the heart of Lydia. It is also allowed that when the word is received into the soul, and finds place there, it “worketh effectually,” and becomes a principle of holy action, “a well of water springing up to everlasting life.” All I contend for is that it is not by means of a spiritual perception, or belief of the gospel, that the heart is for the first time effectually influenced towards God; for spiritual perception and belief are represented as the effects, and not the causes, of such influence. A spiritual perception of the glory of Divine things ap- pears to be the first sensation of which the mind is con- scious; but it is not the first operation of God upon it. Spiritual perception is that which the Scriptures call aio.6%iots, judgment, or sense, or the judgment arising from holy sensibility, Phil. i. 9. It is that in spiritual things which a delicate sense of propriety is in natural things, in which the mind judges as it were instinctively from a feeling of what is proper. It is by this “unction from the Holy One” that we perceive the glory of the Divine character, the evil of sin, and the lovely fitness of the Saviour; neither of which can be properly known by mere intellect, any more than the sweetness of honey or the bitterness of wormwood can be ascertained by the sight of the eye. Nor can one be perceived but in connexion with the other. Without a sense of the glory of the object offended, it is impossible to have any just perception of the evil nature of the offence ; and without a sense of the evil nature of the offence, it is equally impossible to discern either the necessity or the fitness of a Saviour: but with such a sense of things, each naturally, and perhaps instantaneously, * President Edwards (than whom no man will be allowed to have possessed a clearer insight into these difficult subjects) speaks with great caution on the will being determined by the understanding. He denies that it is so, if by the understanding be meant what is called Teason or judgment; and only allows it “in a large sense, as includ- ing the whole faculties of perception or apprehension.” And even when taken in this large sense, he rather chooses to say, that “the will always is as the greatest apparent good, or as what appears most agreeable, is, than to say that the will is determined by the greatest apparent good, or by what seems most agreeable; because an appear- ing most agreeable or pleasing to the mind, and the mind’s preferring and choosing, seem hardly to be properly and perfectly distinct.”—On the H/ill, pp. 11. 17. London Ed. Thus also he writes in his Treatise on the Affections:– “Spiritual understanding consists, primarily, in a sense of heart of spiritual beauty. I say in a sense of heart; for it is not speculation merely that is concerned in this kind of understand- ing ; nor can there be a clear distinction made between the two faculties of understanding and will, as acting distinctly and separately in this matter. When the mind is sensible of the sweet beauty and amiableness of a thing, that implies a sensibleness of sweetness and delight in the presence of the idea of it; and this sensibleness of the amiableness or delightfulness of beauty carries in the nature of it the sense of the heart; or an effect and impression the soul is the subject of, as a substance possessed of taste, inclination, and will.” “There is a distinction to be made between a mere motional under- standing, wherein the mind only beholds things in the exercise of a speculative faculty; and the sense of the heart, wherein the mind does not only speculate and behold, but relishes and feels. That sort of knowledge, by which a man has a sensible perception of amiableness and loathsomeness, or of sweetness and nauseousness, is not just the same sort of knowledge with that by which he knows what a triangle is and what a square is. The one is mere speculative knowledge, the other sensible knowledge, in which more than the mere intellect is concerned, the heart is the proper subject of it, or the soul, as a being that not only beholds, but has inclination, and is pleased or displeased. And yet there is the nature of instruction in it; as he that hath perceived the sweet taste of honey knows much more about it than he who has only looked upon and felt it,” pp. 227, 228, 4th Ed. APPENDIX. 189 follows the other. Hence arise the exercises of “repent- ance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ;” and in the order in which the Scriptures repre- sent them. Much has been said of this statement of things, as in- volving the absurdity of a godly wrºbeliever. Scripture declarations and promises, expressive of the safety of the regenerate, have been urged, and a conclusion drawn, that if regeneration precede believing, men may be in a safe state without coming to Christ.* It will be al- lowed I suppose that spiritual perception necessarily pre- cedes believing, or that seeing the Son goes before believ- £ng in him ; also that a belief of the doctrine of Christ precedes our coming to him for life, as much so as be- lieving that God is, and is a rewarder of them that dili- gently seek him, precedes coming to him. But it were as easy to produce a number of declarations and promises which express the safety of those who know Christ and believe his doctrine, as of those who are regenerate : and it might with equal propriety be said, There is but little, if any, occasion for those who know Christ to believe in him ; or for those who believe his doctrine to come to him for eternal life, seeing they are already in a state of sal- vation.—The truth appears to be, these things are in- separable ; and when promises are made to one, it is as connected with the other. The priority contended for is rather in order of nature than of time; or if it be the latter, it may be owing to the disadvantages under which the party may be placed as to the means of understanding the gospel. No sooner is the heart turned towards Christ than Christ is embraced. It is necessary that the evil humours of a jaundiced eye should be removed, before We can see things as they are ; but no sooner are they re- moved than we see. And if there be a priority in order of time owing to the want of opportunity of knowing the truth ; yet where a person embraces Christ so far as he has the means of knowing him, he is in effect a believer. The Bereans “received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily whether these things were so : therefore,” it is said, “many of them be- lieved.” And had they died while engaged in this noble pursuit, they would not have been treated as unbelievers. This principle, therefore, does not involve the absurdity of a godly wºnbeliever. But if its opposite be true, the ab- surdity of an ungodly believer must undoubtedly be ad- mitted. Indeed, those who plead for it avow this conse- quence ; for though they allow that none but believers are justified, yet they contend that at the time of justification the party is absolutely and in every sense ungodly; that is, he is at the same instant both a believer and an enemy of God 1 I shall conclude with a reflection or two on the conse- Quences of the principle I oppose, with respect to address- ing the unconverted. First, If the necessity of repentance in order to forgive- ness be given up, we shall not be in the practice of urging it on the unconverted. We shall imagine it will be lead- ing souls astray to press it before and in order to believ- ing ; and afterwards it will be thought unnecessary; as all that is wanted will come of itself. Thus it will in effect be left out of our ministry; but whether in this *se. We can acquit ourselves of having deserted the ex- *mples, and of course the doctrine, of John the Baptist, Christ, and his apostles, deserves our serious consideration. Secondly, For the same reason that we give up the *cessity of repentance in order to forgiveness, we may §ye up all exhortations to things spiritually good as means %f salvation. Instead of uniting with the sacred writers * Qalling upon the wicked to forsake his way, and the }*ighteous man his thoughts, and to return to the Lord, that he may have mercy upon him, we shall consider it * tending to make them Pharisees. Indeed, Mr. M.L. seems prepared for this consequence. If I understand *; he does not approve of unconverted sinners being **horted to any thing spiritually good, any otherwise than * holding up to them the language of the law for con- Yºging them of sin. It is thus he answers the question, Are unbelievers to be exhorted to obedience to God's * Mr. Booth’s Glad Tidings, &c., pp. 176. 180. commandments 3 referring us to the answer of our Lord to the young ruler, which directed him to keep the com- mandments if he would enter into life.”f It is easy to perceive that his scheme requires this construction of the exhortations of the Bible; for if he allow that sinners are called to the exercise of any thing spiritually good, in order to their partaking of spiritual blessings, he must give up his favourite notion of God's justifying men while in a state of enmity against him. True it is that all duty in some sort belongs to the law ; considering it as the eternal standard of right and wrong, it requires the heart in every modification. Repentance, faith, and all holy exercises of the mind are in this sense required by it. But as a cove- nant of life it does not admit of repentance, and much less hold up the promise of forgiveness. When God says, “Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions, so iniquity shall not be your ruin,” this is not the lan- guage of the law as a covenant of life. Mr. M'L. tells us, in the same page, that “there is no promise of life to the doing of any good thing, except all the commandments be kept.” How then can the law as a covenant of life so much as admit of repentance, and much less hold up a hope that in case of it iniquity shall not be our ruin 3 The Scriptures exhort on this wise : “Incline your ear, and come unto me : hear, and your soul shall live ; and I will make an everlasting covemant with you, even the sure mercies of David.”—“Seek ye the Lord while he may be found : call ye upon him while he is near : let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts : and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him ; and to our God, for he will abundantly par- don.”—“Labour not for the meat that perisheth; but for that which endureth unto everlasting life.”—“Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me, and ye shall find rest unto your souls.” Is this the mere language of the law, and designed to suggest what they must do if they would be justified by the works of it? It should seem that, if Mr. M'L. was called to visit a dying sinner, he would be careful not to use any such language as this ; or if he did, it must be ironically, teaching him what he must do, on his own self-justifying principles, to gain eternal life. If he be serious, he has only to state to him what Christ has done upon the cross, and assure him that if he believes it, he is happy. Far be it from me that I should disapprove of an exhibition of the Saviour as the only foundation of hope to a dying sinner, or plead for such directions as fall short of believ- ing in him. In both these particulars I am persuaded Mr. M'L. is in the right, and that all those counsels to sinners which are adapted only to turn their attention to the workings of their own hearts, to their prayers, or their tears, and not to the blood of the cross, are delusive and dangerous. But does it follow that they are to be exhorted to nothing spiritually good unless it be for their convic- tion ? Mr. M'L., to be consistent, must not seriously ex- hort a sinner to come off from those refuges of lies, to renounce all dependence on his prayers and tears, and to rely upon Christ alone as necessary to justification, lest he make him a Pharisee ; for this would be the same thing as exhorting him to humble himself, and submit himself to the righteousness of God; exercises in which the mind is active, and which are spiritually good. Why should we be wise above what is written ? why scruple to address such a character in the language of in- spiration ?—“Let the wicked forsake his way, and the un- righteous man his thoughts : and let him return to the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him ; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardom.” The sacred writers warn and exhort as well as teach. While they exhibit the Saviour, they expostulate, entreat, and persuade men to embrace him with all their hearts; and this without any apparent apprehensions of undermining the doctrine of free justification. If it be said, The exercises included in the foregoing exhortations imply faith, I grant it. Without faith in Christ, neither repentance, nor any other spiritual exercise, would be followed with forgiveness. Those who seek the + Simple Truth, p. 21. Second Edition. 190 APPENDIX. Lord must be exhorted to seek him in the way in which he is to be found; those that call woon him must do so in the name of Jesus ; the way and thoughts to be forsaken respect not merely a course of outward crimes, but the self-righteous schemes of the heart; and returning to the Lord is nothing less than returning home to God by Jesus Christ. But this does not prove that the exhortation, unless it be to teach them what they must do to be justi- fied by a covenant of works, is improperly addressed to the unconverted. It is manifestly intended for no such purpose, but as a direction to obtain salvation. The Scriptures sometimes give directions as to the way of our obtaining the remission of sins, and acceptance with God; and sometimes of being saved in general, or of ob- taining everlasting life; and we ought to give the same. If they direct us to seek for pardon, it is by repentance; * if for justification, it is by believing; † and if for eternal salvation, it is by a life of evangelical obedience. When they speak of pardon, justification is supposed; $ and when they exhort to repentance in order to it, believing in the name of Jesus is supposed.|| On the other hand, when they speak of justification, they include forgiveness;" and when they exhort to believing in order to it, it is to such a believing as comprehends repentance.** Many of these directions, on the principle I oppose, must be omitted ; but if they be, some of the most essential branches of the Christian ministry will be neg- lected. * Isa. lv. 6, 7; Acts viii. 22. g + Acts xiii. 39; Rom. iv. 4, 5; ix. 32. # Rom. ii. 7; Heb. xi. 14. ? Psal. xxxii. 1, 2, compared with Rom. iv. 6, 7. | Luke xv. 4, 7; Acts xiii. 38; Eph. i. 7; Col. i. 14. T Rom. iv. 6, 7. * ** Mark i. 15; Matt. xxi. 32; Acts xvi. 31, compared with xx, 21; Luke xiii. 3. A DEFENCE OF A TREATISE ENTITLED THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST WORTHY OF ALL ACCEPTATION: CONTAINING A REPLY TO MR. BUTTON'S REMARKS AND THE OBSERVATIONS OF PHILANTHROPOS. While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light.—JESUS CHRIST. By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.-PAUL. PREFACE. THE prevalence of truth and righteousness is, doubtless, an object of great importance; nor is the former any less ne- cessary to the latter than both are to the interests of mankind. If controversy is of any use, it is because it tends to bring truth to light. It too often unhappily falls out, however, that the parties themselves are not the first who are convinced by each other's reasonings; but, on the contrary, are as far, and perhaps farther, asunder when they leave off than when they began : this is not very difficult to be accounted for, though it is much to be lamented. Perhaps there are very few controversies wherein there is not room for mutual concessions. The backwardness so generally discovered to this by writers, and the determination that too commonly appears on both sides to maintain, at all events, their own principles, have given much disgust to many readers, and made them almost ready to despair of edification by reading controversy. But though it must be granted that such conduct affords a just ground of disgust towards a writer, yet there is not the same reason for being disgusted with controversial writing. Whatever be the prejudices of the parties, and their rigid adherence to their own opinions, if a controversy is carried on with any good degree of judgment, truth is likely to come out between them ; and what avails it on whose side it is found, if it is but found 3 The obstinacy of the Writers is a sin, but it is a sin that belongs to themselves; the reader may get good, notwithstanding this, sufficient to repay him for all his trouble. - For my own part, I never imagined myself infallible. I all along thought that though at the time I could see no mistakes in the piece I had written, (if I had I should certainly have corrected them,) yet no doubt other people, who Would look at it with different eyes from mine, would discern some ; and I trust it has been my desire to lie open to º from every quarter. It would be the shame and folly of any man, especially of one of my years, to act Other Wise. I will not pretend to be free from that spirit which easily besets a person engaged in controversy: but thus much I San Say, I have endeavoured to read each of my opponents with a view to conviction ; and it becomes me to acknow- ledge that I have not been altogether disappointed. There are some passages which, if I had the piece to write over *gain, I should expunge, and others which I should alter; I should endeavour, in some places, to be more explicit, and * 9thers more upon my guard against every appearance of unkind reflection.* There are also some lesser matters, Which I shall acknowledge in their place. Justice requires me to say thus much ; but as to the main sentiment en- deavoured to be established, notwithstanding what has been written, I must say, it appears to me unshaken. If, in my judgment, that had been overthrown, the attention of the reader should not have been called upon by the present reply. In the publications of both my opponents f I see different degrees of merit; and for each of their persons and , * In a second edition of the publication to which Mr. F. refers these alterations were made; and the piece, as it appears in the present volume, * Pºinted from the corrected edition. - º * Both your opponents—but why not reply to Dr. WITHERs 2 " . Because his Letter appears to me to contain nothing like an answer to £ 6 º *śainst Which it is written. The utmost I can gather, that looks any thing like evidence, may be summed up in a very small compass. tl º: ºn be no duty,” it is said, “without a voluntary compact. If a compact with God cannot be found on holy record—if it be evident .*.* is destitute of the powers essential to the existence of such a compact, it cannot be his duty to believe,”—pp. 21. 26. It might have . with equal propriety—nor to do any thing else which is enjoined him. But I would ask to whom are we unprofitable servants, as d .# * more than our DUTY 1 To men, with whom we make compacts, or to God? If Dr. W.'s reasoning be just, it is not the duty of chil- * tº be subject to their parents. nº.”. * not all bºund to have an equal “number of ideas, to believe without evidence, examination, or beyond their natural ca- I . -Pp: 40, 59.73–76. . This is very true; neither is there anything in the treatise which Dr. W. has opposed that asserts the contrary. ridicul º if men are not ºbliged to approve of what God reveals, they may be right in disapproving it. Much is said to expose this ſo 86 ** t is said to be “either an identical proposition, or such an arbitrary combination of words as it seems will prove anything, ºpp. 85, agains . nº; the former, unless a negative and a positive idea are necessarily the same. Christ declared, saying, “He that is not with ºne is in th *"...This is as much an identical proposition as that in question, and might be treated in the same manner. If there is any mistake **šument, it must lie in my taking it for granted, upon Christ's testimony just quoted, that though there is an evident difference be- 192 DREFACE. characters I feel a most sincere regard. I doubtless think them both beside the truth; and, I suppose, they may think the same of me. I desire to feel every degree of candour, towards all that differ from me, which a person ought to feel towards those whom he believes to be mistaken ; and this, I think, should go to such a length as to entertain the most sincere good-will towards their persons, and to put the most favourable construction that can in justice be put upon their supposed mistakes. But after all, I believe truth to be important; and so long as I consider the belief of it to be every person’s duty, according to his natural capacities and opportunities to understand it, I cannot subscribe to the innocence of error. God is the Governor of the mind as well as of the actions. He governs the former by rule as well as the latter ; and all deviations from that rule must arise either from its not being sufficiently level to our capacities, or from inattention, prejudice, or some other criminal cause. I am far from wishing, in any case, to impute blame to another, further than I am willing, on a similar supposition, to take it to myself. I am liable to err as well as others; but then I apprehend, so far as I do err, that it is owing to a want of diligence or impartiality, or to some such cause, which God forbid that I should ever vindicate by pronouncing it innocent . If I am in error, in the sentiments here defended, it will be the part of candour in my opponents to allow that I sin- cerely believe what I write; but it would be a spurious kind of candour to acquit me of all blame in the affair. If I have erred, either God has not sufficiently revealed the thing in question, so as to make it level with my capacity, or else I have not searched after truth with that earnestness and impartiality which I ought. 1787 tween a negative and a positive idea, yet, in this case, the difference is not such as to admit a possibility of a medium. Every one knows there are cases in which a medium between ideas of that description may have place; as between my “not watching my neighbour's house, and breaking it open.” In that case, it is not my duty to do either; but unless such a medium could be affirmed between not approving and disap- proving of what God reveals, the argument still retains its force, and the syllogistical parade must appear to be only a play of words. Dr. W. had given us reason to expect something very considerable against the distinction of natural and moral inability; but what does it all amount to ? Why ability or inability is not, strictly speaking, predicable of the will, but of the man,—pp. 89,90. I have looked over what I have written on that subject, and cannot find that I have any where predicated inability of the will, but of the man, through the perversion of his will. Be that, however, as it may, Dr. W.’s reasoning is of no force. An idle servant is enjoined a piece of labour; he replies, I cannot do it : he is told his inability lies in his will; he turns metaphysician, and gravely assures his master that inability is not predicable of the will, but of the man ; and, therefore, insists upon it that he is blameless ; If Dr. W., means no more than this, that when the terms ability and inability are applied to the volitions of the mind, they are not used in a literal, but in a figurative sense, I do not know any person that will dispute what he says. At the same time it ought to be observed that these terms are applied to what depends upon the volitions of the mind, though it be in a figurative sense, and that both in Scripture and in common life. It is as common to say, of a person of a very covetous temper, that he is incapable of a generous action, as it is to say, of a person who has lost the use of his faculties, he is incapable of acting at all. And thus the Scriptures apply the terms. It is as expressly said of Joseph's bre- thren that they could not speak peaceably to him, as it is said of Zacharias that he was dumb, and could not speak to the people, when he came out of the temple. The ideas ºthese cases are really and essentially distinct; and so long as they continue to be expressed both in Scripture and in common conversation by the same word, if we would understand what we speak or write, a distinction concerning the nature of inability, amounting to what is usually meant by natural and moral, becomes absolutely necessary. Dr. W.; instead of overthrowing this sentiment, has undesignedly confirmed it; for though he can excuse a want of love to God, yet if any thing is directed against himself, the case is altered. Our Lord speaking of the Pharisees, and their blasphemous reproaches against him, says, “How can ye, being evil, speak good things!” Now, according to the theory of this writer, such an inability must sufficiently excuse them. But if a Pharisee speak evil of him, he is grievously provoked. Who these Pharisees are, and what they have said of Dr. W., I know not. I only ask, Is it not a pity but his philanthropy could excuse those who reproach him, as well as those who dishonour God? Philanthropy” is, doubtless, an amiable temper of mind, when regulated by rules of righteousness; but there is a sort of love which the lan- guage of inspiration deems hatred. If I were, merely as a member of civil society, to visit a number of convicts under a righteous sentence of death; and if, instead of persuading them of the goodness of the laws which they had violated, of the great evil of their conduct, and of the equity of their punishment, and conjuring them to justify their country, and sue for mercy;-if, I say, instead of this, I should go about to pal- liate their crimes, and assure them that the governor by whose laws they were condemned was the author of all their misfortunes—that though I believed some of them at least must certainly suffer, yet, I must acknowledge, I could see no justice in the affair, there being no proportion be- tween the punishment and the crime-I might call myself the friend of mankind, and give what flattering titles I pleased to what I had been doing; but impartial spectators would deem me an enemy to truth and righteousness, an enemy to my country, yea, an enemy to the very per- sons whose cause I espoused. But with the principles of Dr. W. I have no concern. There is reason to hope they are too undisguised to gain credit with serious minds. I am under no obligation to refute them ; none, at least, at present. Before the sentiments of any writer are entitled to a refutation, it is requi- site that he pay some regard, at least, to sobriety and truth. Whether Dr. W. can acquit himself of wilful and known falsehood, I cannot tell; but this I know, he has, in very many instances, imputed sentiments to me of which I never thought, and sentences which never proceeded from my pen. The former might be imputed to mistake; and if there had been only an instance or two of the latter, charity might have overlooked them; but the number of gross misrepresentations is such as admits of no such construction. Not to mention his exclamations of “punishment without guilt”—of “unmerited damnation,” pp. 6, 7 (which seem to be his own sentiments rather than mine; as he believes, if I understand him, that men and devils will be eternally punished for that of which God is the author, pp. 176, with 50. 55); not to mention these, I say, what could he think of himself, in taking such freedoms as the following 7 “You draw I know not what conclusions concerning faith. As though a generation of vipers had been perfectly holy, if the fulness of time had not given Jesus to his people,”—pp. 177, 178. “What combinations of deformity and weakness occur in many pious attempts to spiritualize, As You PHRASE IT, the works of nature,”—p. 63..." To assert it to be the DUTY of all to believe that they are of the fold of the heavenly Shepherd is an impious absurdity,”—p. 95, note. When, you inform us that it is the duty of every man to believe that He is of the remnant of salvation, you cer- tainly are mistaken,”—p. 151. “Tremendous deformity of thought! To Pertis H. If we do Believe A LIE, To BE DAMNED IF we Do NoT BE- LIEVE IT | | | *—p. 153. “God cannot, you say, love any but his chosen, nor can Omnipotence itself make any but his chosen love him,”—p. 97. “You say that Omnipotence itself cannot make a man choose and delight in God,” p. 181. I should be glad to be informed in what pages, and in what lines, the above passages are to be found, and what authority Dr. W. had for these imputations. }. the last instance, it is true, he has referred us to the page; and there are some of the words, but nothing of the meaning, to be found in page 181 of my treatise." What is there said is, that “Omnipotence itself cannot make THE FLEs H choose and delight in God;” and what is there meant by the term flesh is sufficiently plain from page 182. It is possible this gentleman may exclaim, and multiply words, and pretend to infer the above passages from what I have advanced. I do not believe that any one of them can be fairly inferred from any thing I have written. But suppose he thinks they can ; in order to acquit himself of falsehood, it is not enough that in his opinion they may be inferred from what I have said; they must be proved, the chief of them, to be My words, and all of them MY SENTIMENTS ; and the places where they are to be found particularly specified. Anything short of this will amount to an acknowledgment of the charge, and will require no further notice in a way of reply. * Alluding to the title of his book. + The references to Mr. Fuller's Gospel Forthy of all Acceptation, &c. are made to the First Edition. In the Second Edition (from which this is printed) several pas- sages were altered, and some omitted ; it is therefore now impossible, generally, to refer the reader to the proper pages.—Ed. R. EPLY TO MR. Buſ TTON. SECTION I. INTRODUCTION, GENERAL REMARKS, &c. WHEN the former treatise was published, I did not flatter myself with the thought of its meeting with no opposition. The sentiments there maintained I knew to be different from those of many whose characters I sincerely respected. I also knew that they had the same right to examine as I had to advance. Any person, therefore, who might think me mistaken, and should be so disposed, was there invited to point out my mistakes; with the addition of only this single caution—that he would not only call them mistakes, but prove them such. r Mr. Button has accepted the invitation. He had a right to do so. He has “attempted,” he says, “not barely to call the sentiments he opposes by the name of mistakes, but to prove them such by solid, Scriptural evidence.” I have no objection to his attempt; but I do not think he has succeeded in it. The leading sentiments in the former treatise, which are charged as “mistakes,” still appear to me in the light of Scriptural and important truths. In defending them against Mr. B.'s exceptions, I hope I shall give him no just cause of offence. I am sure it is my desire to avoid every thing of a personal nature, and to attend simply to the inquiry, “What is truth 3’” Before we enter upon the subject, however, it will be proper to notice some other things. Although, in writing the pamphlet on which Mr. B. has animadverted, it was my study to avoid wounding the character, or misrepresenting the sentiments, of any one, whether dead or living; yet if any thing therein be capable of such a construction, it becomes me to explain or retract it. Accordingly, I freely acknowledge that the passage alluded to in my preface, (p. vii., *) if applied to the body of those from whom I differ, is too severe. I am happy to say, I consider neither Mr. B. on the one hand, nor Philanthropos on the other, f (whatever be the tendency of their principles, if pursued in their consequences,) as deserving that cen- sure. I did not mean it indiscriminately of all whose sentiments I opposed; and I suppose the world, by this time, does not want evidence that it is true of some of them. While truth and justice require the above acknowledg- ment, there are several other charges to which they equally oblige me to plead Not guilty. I am accused (p. 4) of having made a personal attack upon Mr. Brine ; but, I $onceive, without any reason. I do not think I remem- bered, at the time of writing, that Mr. Brine had used such a mode of expression; nor are they the express words ºf any author, though it is a manner of speaking which has been too frequently used. However, suppose I had * in recollection, and purposely omitted the mentioning of *y name, surely a censure passed upon a certain mode of *Peaking, though exemplified nearly in the words of some 90° author, is yet far enough off from a personal attack; *nd, I should suppose the omission of the name would render it still farther. Qught I to be accountable for it, if any persons have *id that “this book will cure some of their Gillism and Tineism 3”—Preface, p. v. I have a high opinion of the *Spectable characters alluded to. At the same time, the *essors of these worthy men ought not to set them up * the standards of orthodoxy. In some things they dif- *red from one another; and, on this subject, from almost all who had gone before them, from hundreds of men whom - * See p. 151. * Philanthropos also complained of this passage, p. 9. O . they loved, and whom they knew to be their equals in piety and respectability. Yea, in some parts of this con- troversy, they took different grounds. Though Mr. Brine maintained the argument from Adam’s incapacity to be- lieve, yet Dr. Gill, when contending with the Arminians, gave it up.j. But they were great and upright men, and thought for themselves; and it is to be hoped that others may do the same. Mr. B. blames me for desiring people to read my book, —p. 6. I only desired they would read it before they condemned it. And what law is that which will condemn a man before it hears him 7 I am accused (p. 103) of seeming to avail myself of the numbers I have on my side ; but whoever reads p. 178 of my treatise will perceive that I there found my argument, not upon the number of those who have been on my side, but upon the great works which God has wrought by them. These all went forth in the use of “precepts, prohibitions, and promises;” which the author of the Further Inquiry, whom I was there opposing, represents as irreconcilable with the covenant of grace. Truth obliges me to repeat what I asserted in p. 109, that the main objections against us originated with Ar- minius, or his followers. But I do not thereby insinuate, as Mr. B. (p. 75) says I do, “that all who oppose my ideas of faith are Arminians.” I speak with the greatest sincerity when I say I have a high esteem for Mr. B. and many others of his sentiments. I do not account them as adversaries, but as brethren in Christ, as fellow labourers in the gospel; and “could re- joice (as was said before) to spend my days in cordial friendship with them.” The most cordial friendship, however, does not require us to suppress what we believe to be a part of our sacred commission, but rather to en- deavour to speak the truth in love. - Having said thus much in my own defence, I shall now proceed to make a few general remarks upon Mr. B.'s publication. In the first place, I think it cannot fairly be called an answer to my treatise, were there no other reason than that, although something is said concerning most of the leading topics in dispute, yet the main arguments under those topics are frequently left unnoticed. This will ap- pear to any person who will inspect the contents of both performances, and compare what each has advanced under every topic. Further, Mr. B. has taken great pains to prove a num- ber of things which I never thought of denying. Thus he labours to convince us that faith is the gift of God, the effect of spiritual illumination ; that the apostle, in 2 Thess. ii. 13, meant such a faith as is connected with sanctifica- tion of the Spirit (p. 12); that God has decreed only to punish for sin, for the breach of his commands (p. 88); that Christ's obedience was gloriously superior to that of Adam (p. 78); that human depravity shall not prove an absolute bar to an elect soul’s believing (p. 60); that supreme love to God would not lead a heathem to embrace Christ in any sense, because Christ is not revealed even in an external mammer, p. 85. Since my sentiments are the same as Mr. B.'s, respecting these things, his labour in proving them seems to me to be lost. - The far greater part of Mr. B.'s quotations I heartily # Cause of God and Truth, Part III. Chap. III. § 6. 194 REPLY TO MR. BUTTON. approve. They are in no wise contradictory to what I have advanced. Many others, particularly from Dr. Owen, which seem to be contrary, would be found otherwise if the connexion and scope were consulted. But it is easy to foresee that a particular discussion of this kind would lead off from the point in hand, and spin out the controversy to an unnecessary length. I shall, therefore, treat all that is said as if it were Mr. B.'s own, and no further attend to any quotations than as they contain argument which re- quires to be considered.* It seems to me that Mr. B. very frequently confounds the thing with the cause which produces it, and hereby loses himself and the argument in a maze of obscurity. This seems especially to be the case when he enters upon the subject of that spiritual life which we derive from Christ, pp. 12. 28. 70. 91. If Mr. B. means that spiritual dis- positions are not duties, considered as wnder the idea of blessings, that is what I have all along asserted. But if he mean that nothing can be our duty which is derived from Christ, and is a new-covenant blessing, then he not only asserts that which is irreconcilable with the prayers of the godly in all ages, (who have ever prayed for grace to perform what they acknowledged to be their duty,) but also contradicts his own sentiments. He allows that the principle of grace in believers is a conformity to the law, though not to the laco only,–p. 68. Be it so : so far, then, as it is a conformity to the law, so far it was always incumbent upon us; and yet I hope Mr. B. will not deny that our conformity to the law is derived from Christ, is a new-covenant blessing, and is wrought in the believer’s heart by the agency of the Holy Spirit. Whether I have been so unhappy as, at times, to ex- press myself in a manner not sufficiently explicit, or whether Mr. B. has been wanting in calm and close atten- tion ; so it is, that he sometimes proceeds upon a total misunderstanding of the argument. This will appear to an attentive reader, if he please to compare pages 10, 11, of mine, with 12, 13, of his remarks; and 59, 60, with 54; also 131, with 89, concerning Adam. The places are too numerous to recite wherein princi- ples appear to me to be assumed instead of being proved, and conclusions to be drawn from premises which are themselves the very subject in debate. Thus we are told, “Pharaoh had an express command to let the people go;” therefore it was his duty to have complied,t-p. 88. Very well; what then 3 Mr. B.’s meaning must be to add, “But there is no express command to believe in Christ; therefore,” &c. I answer that this is begging the question. I suppose there is such a command; but whether there is or not, the contrary ought not to be taken for granted. Mr. B. does not fail to make his own reasonings and ob- servations in one place the data of his conclusions in an- other. Thus we are told, “There is no command for special faith, As we HAVE ENDEAvourtED TO PROVE ; there- jore no one shall be condemned for the want of it,”—p. 89. Again, in the same page, “Adam had not faith or any other spiritual disposition, As I HAVE ALREADY ORSERVED, therefore,” &c.—But passing general remarks, let us follow Mr. B. in what he has advanced under each of the par- ticular topics in debate. SECTION II. ON THE NATURE AND DEFINITION OF FAITH. I HAVE the happiness to find Mr. B. agreeing with me that faith in Christ is not a persuasion of our interest in him. But though he agrees with me in this point, yet he is far from being satisfied with the definition I have given. He objects that it makes no mention of “supernatural il- lumination and assistance,” (p. 12,) and proposes one that shall include those ideas. If, by this, he only means to maintain that the Holy Spirit is the sole author, or cause, of faith, no one, I should think, who has read my former treatise, can entertain a doubt of my maintaining the same doctrine. s But though this is a truth which I verily believe, yet I must still be excused from thinking it necessary to a de- finition. Definitions are designed, I apprehend, to express the nature, and not the causes, of things. Thus, if man were to be defined a rational creature, created of God, the last part of the definition would be superfluous. What Mr. B.’s ideas of faith are it is difficult to learn. Mr. Brine says, “Acting faith is no other than suitable thoughts of Christ and a hearty choice of him as God’s ap- pointed way of salvation ;” + and Mr. Button says, “I do think that every man is bound cordially to receive and heartily to approve of the gospel,”—p. 49. But it seems special faith is something distinct from all this; so distinct that this has “nothing to do ’’ with it (p. 54); yea, so distinct that a person may do all this, and yet perish ever- lastingly. And yet it is not a believing of our interest in Christ; what then is it? . Mr. B. tells us what is its cause and what are its effects; but what the thing itself is we have yet to learn. - Sometimes I think I can understand him, but I am soon again at a loss. “It is such a reception of the truth,” says he, “as transforms the soul into the image of Christ,” —p. 49. Very well; then it seems it is a reception of the truth, after all ; such a reception as is productive of real and transforming effects. This is the very thing for which I plead. Yes; but “a person may cordially receive the truth, and yet not be transformed into the image of Christ,” —p. 18. Indeed . Then how are we to distinguish true faith from that which is counterfeit or partial According to this, there is no difference as to the thing itself, only a difference in its cause and effects. But did not “Christ's hearers at Nazareth, and the stony-ground hearers, cordially receive the truth?”—p. 18. I answer, No ; the latter did not understand it, (Matt. xiii. 23; 1 Cor. ii. 14,) and therefore could not cordially re- ceive it; and as to the former, they gazed upon the Lord Jesus, and bare him witness “that he was right,” as Dr. Gill says, “in applying Isaiah’s prophecy to the Messiah, but not that he himself was the Messiah ; ” much less did they cordially receive his gospel. The Scripture declares, concerning the gospel, that if we confess it with the mouth, and believe it in the heart, we shall be saved ; but it seems to me the tendency of Mr. B.'s reasoning is to prove the contrary. * I ought to observe, that although Calvin, Perkins, Goodwin, Owen, Charnock, Bunyan, M'Laurin, and others, are amongst the number of Mr. B's authorities, they are all decidedly against him in the main point in debate. Indeed, I believe, no writer of eminence can be named, before the present century, who denied it to be the duty of men in general to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ for the salvation of their souls. I think Mr. Hussey was the first person who, by the general tenor of his writings, laid the foundation for this sentiment. And yet even Mr. Hussey did not, that I recollect, expressly avow it. On the con- trary, he allowed it to be “the duty :"...nose who were not effectually called to hear spiritually, and oper ateir hearts to Christ; though, as he justly asserted, the preaching of this as their duty would not effect a cure.” Operations of Grwce, p. 442. Mr. Hussey was, doubtless, a man of considerable eminence, in some respects. Mr. Beart, in his Eternal Law, and Everlasting Gospel, I think has given as fair and as candid an account of his writings as could well be given. But Mr. Hussey, though in some respects a great man, was nevertheless possessed of that warm turn of mind which frequently Inisleads even the greatest of men, especially in defending a favourite Sentiment. Mr. Brine is the only writer of eminence who has expressly defend- ed the sentiment. Dr. Gill took no active part in the controversy. It is allowed that the negative side of the question was his avowed sen- timent, and this appears to be implied in the general tenor of his writings. At the same time, it cannot be denied that, when engaged in other controversies, he frequently argued in a manner favourable to our side; and his writings contain various concessions on this sub- ject, which, if any one else had made them, would not be much to the satisfaction of our opposing brethren. However they may be inclined to represent us as verging towards Arminianism, it is certain that Dr. Gill, in his answer to Dr. Whitby, the noted Arminian, frequently makes use of our arguments: nor could he easily have gone through that work without them. (See his Cause of God and Truth, Part I. pp. 63. 69. 118. 159, 160. 165. Part II, pp. 88. 21.1.215.222.226. First Edition.) And the very title of Mr. Brine's chief pamphlet against our sentiment, which he called Motives to Love and Unity among Calvinists differing in Opinion, as well as the most explicit acknow- ledgments therein contained, might teach those who pay any deference to his judgment not to claim to themselves the title of Calvinists ex- clusively. - + In no one case do the Scriptures speak so strongly of God's aban- doning a man to the hardness of his own heart as in that of Pharaoh: yet the Lord God of the Hebrews said, “How long wilt thou refuse to humble thyself before me !” (Exod. x. 3,) plainly showing that the want of a better mind was no excuse for his refusal to obey.—R. # The reader may see a larger definition of faith in a letter from Mr. Brine to Mr. Ryland, of Warwick, in the Second Part of Serious Re- marks on the Different Representations of Evangelical Doctrine, &c., by J. Ryland of Bristol, pp. 13, 14.—R. REPLY TO MR. BUTTON. 195 But true faith “is such a belief as brings Christ into the soul: that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith,” —p. 19. Answer: If by bringing Christ into the soul is meant his having the supreme place in our best affections, (which, I apprehend, is what the apostle intended in the passage referred to,) then what Mr. B. affirms is freely granted; nor is it in any way inconsistent with what he opposes. - “Ought sinners to realize truth,” Mr. B. asks, “ so as to affect their own hearts 2"–p. 21. This, I suppose, he thinks is self-evident absurdity. He himself, however, allows it to be every man’s duty to love God with all his heart; and when he shall inform me how this is to be done without the heart’s being affected, I will answer the fore- going question. But is it “our duty to do that which God claims as his prerogative $’” I answer, It is God’s prerogative to write his law in the human heart; and yet every one ought to have that law within his heart, or, in other words, to love it with his whole soul. .How strange it is that the same thing, in different respects, should be denied to be God's gift and our obedience 1 I sincerely wish Mr. B. had attentively considered the arguments which I quoted (pp. 86–88) from Dr. Owen. Those ar- guments, doubtless, ought to have been solidly answered before any exclamations were made of the absurdity of making that the duty of men which it is God's own work effectually to produce. “Devils and wicked men, it is said, believe the good- ness of gospel blessings for others, though not for them- selves,”—p. 17. By their believing them to be good for others, Mr. B. appears evidently to mean advantageous or profitable; and, in that sense, there is no doubt but what he says is true: that is no proof, however, that they believe in their real intrinsic excellence and glory. Cain believed the advantage which his brother Abel had in bringing a lamb for an offering, and hated him accordingly; but he did not believe his own condition as a sinner to be such as that his offering, being presented without respect to the Mediator, deserved to be rejected. Properly speaking, he did not believe in the necessity of a mediator, much less in the fitness and glory of such a way of approaching the Deity. The Scriptures speak of those who believe not as blind to the glory of the gospel, 2 Cor. iv. 4. Whatever goodness wicked men believe to be in the blessings of the gospel, they do not believe the life and portion of the godly to be so good as, all things considered, to be pre- ferred before their own. Mr. B., it seems, thinks that “a man may pursue evil as evil,”—p. 23. In this I do not differ from him. Nay, I believe that unregenerate persons, without any excep- tion, pursue evil as evil. If any ask me to explain my assertion, quoted by Mr. B., that “human nature cannot pursue evil as evil,” I refer them to the note in the very same page whence the quotation is taken. Unregenerate men pursue evil as that which is agreeable to their own sinful inclinations. In so doing they pursue it as a moral evil and as a natural good. He who pursues evil, con- sidered as moral, acts against his conscience. This was the case with Felix in dismissing Paul. But no one pur- sues moral evil itself under the notion of its being wnlovely. The instances Mr. B. has produced do not prove this. People do not take poison, or pursue death itself, under any other notion than that of its being a good. The Sentoo women, who voluntarily cast themselves into the fire at their husbands' death, are no more in love with death, for its own sake, than we are, but are struck either With the honour of so dying, or with the hope of being the happier hereafter. People are not guilty of suicide, but under the notion of its containing a sort of good. They consider it as adapted to release them from a burden which they conceive themselves unable to sustain, not consider- ling what follows death in the world to come. But does not every man “believe that he shall die? and Yet does he act accordingly 3”—p. 22. To this I reply, Death is more an object of intuition than of faith.” if People did not see the death of their fellow creatures, and had no other evidence that they must die but the testi- hony of God, they would be as apt to disbelieve that as * l John v. l; Mark xvi. 16; Rom. x. 9; Acts viii. 37. See the they are other things. And even as it is, if they realized death, and what follows, it would have an effect upon their spirit and life very different from what it has. Mr. B. produces a number of quotations for the purpose of giving us a better definition of faith than that which he opposes,—p. 26. But some of these were never de- signed by their authors as definitions, but rather as descrip- tions of faith. Those of them which represent it as “such a believing of the testimony of God in the sacred Scrip- tures as, in a way of trust and dependence, to resign our- selves up to Jesus Christ,” do not in any wise contradict what I have advanced. On the contrary, I should be very willing to let the above stand as a definition of faith. Nor have I any objection to have it prefaced with its being “a grace of the Holy Spirit,” &c., excepting this, that it does not appear to me at all necessary to introduce the author, or cause, of any thing in a definition of that thing. At the same time, I would not wish to contend about words. I therefore acknowledge that it may be of use, when discoursing about faith in certain connexions, to speak of it in a more large or extensive meaning. That might be the case, for aught I know, with respect to some of Mr. B.'s authorities. But what if they had a mind to bring into their definitions the cause and the effects of faith ? And if another, with a view to simplify the sub- ject, define it merely by what it is in itself considered, without any design, however, of denying either cause or effect, does it follow that his definition must be defective 3 Wherein does the definition of Coverdale, Ferrar, Hoop- er, Taylor, Philpot, Bradford, Crome, Sanders, Rogers, and Lawrence differ from mine, except in this, that they mean to define not only the thing itself, but its cause and effects 3 “It is,” say they, “not only an opinion, but a certain persuasion, wrought by the Holy Ghost, which doth illuminate the mind and supple the heart to submit itself unfeignedly to God,”—p. 27. The thing itself they make to be neither more nor less than PERSUASION. It never was my design to exclude the idea of trust or confidence in Christ. Whether that be of the essence of faith itself, or an effect which instantaneously follows, I always supposed them inseparable. It was before allowed (p. 23) that “it is in this large sense, including not only the belief of the truth, but the actual outgoing of the soul towards Jesus Christ in a way of dependence upon him, that faith in him is generally to be taken in the New Testament;” and it was in this sense that I undertook to prove it incumbent on men in general. Those with whom I contend will allow it to be the duty of every one, where the gospel comes, to believe it. I knew this would be allowed, when I penned the former publication. My whole design, in the first part, was to reason upon their own principles with those who differ from me. They allow it to be every one's duty to be- lieve the gospel. I therein endeavoured to prove that, in allowing this, they allow that to be the duty of men which is of the essence of special faith. The arguments used in proof of this have not, I think, been overthrown. I there- fore earnestly entreat Mr. B., and those of his sentiments, to consider attentively the following questions: Can any person truly believe the gospel, and yet perish everlast- ingly 7 and can those scriptures which were produced before, in proof of the contrary,” be fairly explained upon such a supposition ? Mr. B. thinks I have mistaken the meaning of John iii. 36, and 1 John v. 20, where I suppose a believing on Christ, and a not believing Christ, are spoken of as opposites, in such a way as implies that there is no medium between them. Mr. B. thinks, it seems, that they are not oppo- sites, p. 24. According to what he has said, the criterion of true faith lies in the terms in or on ; for he observes that “it is not said, He that believeth not on the Son, &c. No : it is not for the want of special faith he is condemned, but because he believes not what he says,”—p. 25. To this I answer—First, The term on is used to express such a faith as is not connected with salvation, John xii. 42. Secondly, Suppose it were otherwise, and the phrase be- lieving on Christ were to be the criterion of special faith, this would make against Mr. B. rather than for him. For scriptures urged in my former treatise, pp. 29, 30. O 2 196 REPLY TO MR. BUTTON. it is said of the unbelieving Jews, that “though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him " (John xii. 37); plainly intimating that they had such evidence as ought to have induced them to believe on him. On the other hand, Christ says, the Spirit shall reprove the world of sin, because they believe not on me. And, contrary to what Mr. B. asserts, men are expressly said to be “condemned, because they believe not on the name of the only-begotten Son of God,” John iii. 18. Mr. B., before he concludes his Fourth Letter, throws in one argument against faith being a duty: “If,” says he, “this faith be the duty of man, and is required by the law, it is then undoubtedly a work ; and when the apostle says, “By grace ye are saved through faith,’ we must con- sider him as joining grace and works together,”—p. 29. To this it is replied, Every thing required by the law, I should think, is not a work. That sacred standard of right and wrong requires a holy state of mind as well as the ex- crcises of it. But supposing it is a work, does not Mr. B. maintain the same 3 Only a few pages back, he quoted several definitions of faith from certain eminent divines; most of whom speak of it as a coming to Christ, a trusting in him for salvation. Now is not this a work, or eacercise, of the mind 3 And yet we are saved by grace notwith- standing; for God does not save us out of regard to faith as our act, but on account of him in whom it terminates. A poor invalid, who derives his subsistence wholly from the public, may be said, with the greatest propriety, to live, not by his own works, but upon the generosity of others. This, however, does not imply that he is not active in his applications for relief; or that every such ap- plication may not, in some sense, be called a work. Yet it plainly appears he does not live upon his applications, considered as acts, or eacercises, but upon what, through those means, he freely receives; and it would be contrary to the common use of language to say that he lived partly by grace and partly by works. Before I conclude this section, it may not be amiss to drop a few additional thoughts concerning the defining of faith ; these, however, have no immediate reference to Mr. B., but are merely added with a view, if it might be, to throw some further light upon the subject. I. Faith, in its most general sense, signifies a credit of some testimony, whether that testimony be true or false. II. When we speak of the faith of the gospel as a belief of the truth, it is not to be understood of all kinds of truth, nor even of all kinds of Scripture truth. A true believer, so far as he understands it, does believe all Scrip- ture truth ; and to discredit any one truth of the Bible, knowing it to be such, is a damning sim; but yet it is not the credit of a chronological or historical fact, for instance, that denominates any one a true believer. The peculiar truth, by embracing of which we become believers in Christ, is the gospel, or the good news of salvation through his name. The belief of this implies the belief of other truths; such as the goodness of God’s government, as the Lawgiver of the world; the evil of sin; our lost and ruined condition by it; our utter insufficiency to help ourselves, &c.; but it is the soul's embracing, or falling in with, the way of salvation by Jesus Christ, that peculiarly deno- minates us true believers. III. True faith includes a spiritual understanding of the glory of the gospel, but it includes something more. It does not appear to me to have its seat barely in the under- standing, but in the whole soul. It is the whole soul’s yielding up its own false notions and dependences, and falling in with God’s way of salvation by Jesus Christ. By a spiritual discernment of the glory of the gospel we see the Son ; and by the whole soul’s concurring with it we believe in Jaim. It is with the Jheart man believeth unto righteousness. If it is said, The heart here is not opposed to the understanding, but to the mouth, with which con- fession is made unto salvation, I answer, This is true ; but them neither is it used, I apprehend, for the understand- ing, to the exclusion of the affections, but for the whole soul, in distinction from the mouth, by which our faith is openly professed. IV. Though, as I attempted to prove in my former treatise, true faith does not include an assurance of our interest in Christ, yet it is ever attended with an applica- tion of the truths of the gospel to our own particular cases. “When the Scriptures teach,” says the excellent Mr. Downame, “we are to receive instruction, for the enlight- ening of our own mind; when they admonish, we are to take warning; when they reprove, we are to be checked ; when they comfort, we are to be cheered and encouraged ; when they command any grace, we are to desire and em- brace it; when they command any duty, we are to hold ourselves enjoined to do it; when they promise, we are to hope; when they threaten, we are to be terrified, as if the judgment were denounced against us ; and when they forbid any sin, we are to think that they forbid it unto us, By which application we shall make all the rich treasures contained in the Scriptures wholly our own, and in such a powerful and peculiar manner enjoy the fruit and benefit of them, as if they had been wholly written for us, and for none other else besides us.”—Guide to Godliness, p. 647. These observations may be considered as an addition to what was written before ; and I believe they will be found to be perfectly consistent with it. SECTION III. REPLY TO MR. B.’s FIFTH AND SIXTH LETTERs, wherEIN HE REMARKS ON THIOSE PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE WHERE FAITH IS SUPPOSED TO EE COMMANDED OF GOD. To prove that faith in Christ is the duty of unconverted sinners, divers passages of Scripture were produced, which represent it as the command of God. In answer to these, Mr. B. observes, in general, that commands are sometimes used which do not imply duty, but demote some extraor- dinary exertion of Divine power, as when God said to the Israelitish nation, “Live,” &c., -p. 31. But are the com- mands in question to be so understood 3 Mr. B. does not pretend to say any such thing. He adds, “Commands sometimes denote encouragement ; as in Isa. li. 17, ‘Awake, awake, stand up, O Jerusalem,’ &c.; Acts xvi., “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved ;’ and John xiv. 1, “Ye believe in God, believe also in me,’”—p. 32. Very true; but do they denote merely encouragement? Can the idea of duty be ex- cluded ? Was it not the duty of the Jews, for instance, when Babylon fell into the hands of Cyrus, and a pro- clamation was issued in their favour, to bestir themselves 3 Would it not have been their sin to have neglected the op- portunity, and continued careless in Babylon ? Was it not the duty of the jailer to follow the apostle's counsel ? and would it not have been sinful to have done otherwise ? Was it not the duty of the disciples to place an equal con- fidence in the testimony of Christ as in that of the Father? and would it not have been sinful to have distrusted him 3 “These passages,” says Mr. B., “do not appear so much to carry in them the nature of injunctions as of directions and encouragements.” But do they carry in them the nature of injunctions at all? or can that idea be excluded from them ? It seems, he himself thinks it cannot, or he would not have so expressed himself. Mr. B. now proceeds to consider the particular passages produced. He remarks, on the Second Psalm, that “kiss- ing sometimes denotes mo more than civil homage and subjection; as in 1 Sam. x. 1, where we are told that Samuel anointed Saul, and kissed him ; which was not, I presume,” says he, “a spiritual act, but nothing more than a token of allegiance, loyalty, &c,”—p. 34. I think with him the case of Samuel's kissing Saul serves for a fine illustration of the passage; * and if Christ had been a civil governor, and nothing else, then it is allowed that civil homage, subjection, and loyalty would have been the whole of his due ; but not otherwise. According to the mature of his government must be the kind of subjection required. If Christ's kingdom had been of this world, or somewhat like what the Jews expected it to be, such an exposition as the above might be admitted; but if his * See Dr. Jenning's Antiquities, Vol. I. p. 184, REPLY TO MR. BUTTON. 197 * Brime. not connected with salvation. government be spiritual, then subjection and loyalty to him must be the same. The comment on Jer. vi. 16 (p. 35) I think needs but little reply. It may deserve to be considered whether, if the people there addressed had been of Mr. B.'s senti- ments, they might not have found some more plausible and less mortifying answer than that which they were obliged to give. Surely they might have replied, “Stand in the ways, and see tº we have not a capacity for spiritual dis- cernment. “Ask for the good old way, and walk therein P’ it was never discovered to us. All that we are obliged to is diligently to attend public ordinances, and this we have done from our youth up ; what more would the prophet have 3—But these were sentiments, it seems, of which they had never heard. They were obliged, therefore, to speak out the honest, though awful, truth, “WE WILL NOT WALK THERE IN.” John xii. 36, “While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light.” “These,” it is said, “are evidently words of direction to inquiring peo- ple,”—p. 37. That they were inquiring people is true ; but not such as inquired from any thing of a right spirit, which is what Mr. B. must mean to suggest. They are called the people (ver. 34) in distinction from the Greeks who wanted to see Jesus; * and it immediately follows what sort of people they were: “But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him : that the saying of Isaiah the prophet might be ful- filled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our re- port? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because that Isaiah said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart,” &c. Lest the foregoing remark should not suffice, it is sup- posed that the passage may speak only of such a believing as falls short of special faith, p. 38. But unless it can be proved that the phrase children of light is ever used of any but true believers, this supposition is inadmissible. Mr. B. speaks frequently of Christ's addresses being by way of “ministerial direction.” Be it so : I do not see how this alters the case, unless we could suppose that Christ, as a preacher, directed people to a way in which it was not their duty to walk. In short, if there were not another passage in the Bible besides the above, that were, in my opinion, sufficient to prove the point contested. John vi. 29, “This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.” From the connexion of this passage it was observed that the phrase work of God could not be understood of a work which God should work in them, but of a work which he required of them.f. Mr. B., however, takes it in the first sense, and thinks it “very clear and plain, from the whole context, that this special faith is no duty,” p. 41. To which I only say, that which appears so plain to Mr. Button did not appear so to Mr. Mr. Brine, it seems, felt difficulties where Mr. Button feels mone. Though he agrees with Mr. Button that special faith is not a duty, yet he undoubtedly felt a difficulty in the passage in question. He felt the force of that remark, that the meaning of the answer must be de- termined by that of the question; and he did not suppose, when they asked, What shall we do that we may work the works of God? that they were inquiring what they must do that they might work such works as were peculiar to an arm of Omnipotence. Mr. Brime, therefore, never pretended to understand it of a work which should be wrought in them, but of “an ACT ACCEPTABLE AND PLEASING TO GOD.”—Motives, &c., p. 42. Dr. Gill, in his Cause of God and Truth, (Part I. p. 154,) understands the passage as speaking of such a faith as is Mr. Brine never pretended to this, but allows it to speak of special faith. The Doctor, however, does not suppose that the work of God means a work that was to be wrought ir, them, but a work that was required of them. He there explains it, not of an operation of God, but of what was enjoined by his “will and commandment.” * See Dr. Gill on verse 34. * The reader is desired to observe, I never denied, but constantly maintained, that faith, wherever it exists, is the effect of Divine influ- But Mr. Button thinks it “strange, if faith in Christ were the first great duty incumbent upon them, that they should first be directed to labour for that which should endure to everlasting life, as they were in verse 27,”—p. 40. It is replied, Labouring for that which should endure to everlasting life includes faith in Christ, that being the only way in which eternal life can be obtained ; and it is no unusual thing first to lay down a general direction, and then proceed to that which is more particular. John v. 23, It is the Father’s will “ that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father.” As Mr. B. has not thought proper to answer what was ad- vanced from this passage, it need only be replied, that, according to his sense of it, Christ ought to be honoured in one character, but not in another, p. 42. As to what is said of Isa. lv. 6, (the seventh verse, I ob- serve, is passed over,) that “Arminians have quoted it,” (p. 42,) what is that to the purpose ? It has some meaning; and one should suppose that their quoting it has not de- stroyed that meaning. Mr. B. must excuse me in not being satisfied with a part of an exposition upon it from Dr. Gill. The whole of the Doctor’s words, I observe, are not quoted. Abwndant pardon was never promised to such an attendance as this quotation makes to be their duty. Simon Magus was exhorted to pray for the pardon of sin. Mr. B. asks, “Who denies it?”—p. 43. I answer, Many, who deny that faith is the duty of the unregenerate, deny that it is their duty to pray at all ; and especially to pray for spiritual blessings, such as the forgiveness of sin. I rejoice, however, that Mr. B. is not of that sentiment. But it was asked, In whose name ought Simon to have prayed for that blessing 3 To this we have received no answer. It was likewise asked whether spiritual blessings ought to be sought in the only way in which they can be found, or in any other. In answer to this, we are told “they may be sought after in the use of means without special faith; and that is all which is here exhorted to.” Is Mr. B. sure of that ? If so, Simon was barely exhorted to do as Cain did,—to bring an offering without respect had to the great atonement for acceptance,—to do that by which it was impossible to please God. After all, are we to understand Mr. B. that sinners ought not to seek spiritual blessings in the name of Christ, but in some other Surely he will not affirm this ; and yet I do not see how he can avoid it. But we are told that Simon was not exhorted to “find or get pardon of sin, but to pray for it.” This is true, but not to the purpose. Faith in Christ is not the finding or getting of pardon, but the means of obtaining it. We come to Christ that we may have life. The one is the way in which we find or enjoy the other. This is further con- firmed by the passage which we shall next consider. Rom. ix. 31, 32, “Because they sought it not by faith,” &c. “By faith is here meant,” says Mr. B., “not the grace, but the doctrine of faith, the gospel, as appears clearly by its being opposed to the law,”—p. 43. Sup- pose it were so, seeking righteousness by the gospel, in opposition to the law, would amount to the same thing as the other. But this is not the case : faith is not here op- posed to the law, but to the works of the law; and is, therefore, here to be understood of the right way of seek- ing righteousness, which is in the name of Christ. Concerning those passages which exhort men to put their trust in the Lord, Mr. B. remarks that “trust is a matural duty; but what,” he asks, “ has this to do with evan- gelical trust?”—p. 44. Why did he not answer what was said on that subject in p. 46% Why did he pass over that dilemma º As to what he says on the fourth Psalm, that the persons there addressed were “good men,” (p. 45,) it is replied, They certainly were wicked who are addressed in the second verse ; and there is no notice given, in any part of the Psalm, of a change of person. To understand sacrifices of righteousness of sacrifices ºrighteously obtained appears to me to be putting a low sense upon the phrase, and what I think is not at all coun- tenanced by similar phraseology in Scripture. The same mode of speaking occurs in Deut. xxxiii. 19, and in Psal. way? ence; as is every thing else in us which is truly good; but I as well maintain that it is man's duty, and that this psssage means the latter and not the former. 198 REPLY TO MR. BUTTON. li. 19, neither of which passages can well be thought to mean barely that the sacrifices should not be obtained by robbery. Mr. B. thinks, it seems, that the declaration, “Who- soever will let him come,” is not indefinite, but limited, and so is not a warrant for any sinner to come to Jesus Christ. “All,” says he, “have not a will; therefore it is not a warrant for every man,”—p. 46. That multitudes of men are unwilling to forego self-will, self-conceit, and self-righteousness, and to venture their souls wholly upon the Lord Jesus, is a melancholy fact; but to conclude thence that they have no warrant so to do is a very extra- ordinary species of reasoning. If “whosoever will let him come” be not an indefinite mode of expression, Mr. B. should have pointed out what sort of language should have been used for such a purpose. A generous benefactor, in the hard season of the year, procures a quantity of provision to be distributed amongst the poor of a country village. He orders public notice to be given that EveRY Poor MAN WHO Is WILLING TO RE- CEIVE IT SHALL IN NO WISE MEET WITH A REFUSAL. A number of the inhabitants, however, are not only poor, but proud, and cannot find in their hearts to unite with the miserable throng in receiving an alms. Query, Would it be just for such inhabitants to allege that they had no warrant to apply, or that the declaration was limited, seeing it extended only to such as were willing ; and, for their parts, they were whvilling 2. If it were expedient to give such objectors a serious answer, they might be asked, In what language could the donor have expressed himself to have rendered his declaration more indefinite 3 If it is insisted that, to make an invitation indefinite, it should be addressed to men simply as sinners, it is re- plied, If that would put the matter out of doubt, the Scripture is not wanting in that mode of speaking any more than in the other: “Hearken unto me, ye stout- hearted and far from righteousness. I bring near my righteousness; it shall not be far off; and my salvation shall not tarry.” “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.” For other passages to the same purpose, I ask leave to refer to pages 84 and 85 of the former treatise. SECTION IV. REPLY TO MR. B.’S SEVENTH LETTER, ON THE OBLIGA- TIONS OF MEN TO EMB RACE WHAT EVER GOD REVE ALS. —HIS CHARGE OF ILLIBERALITY, &c. &c. It was observed, in my former publication, that every man was bound cordially to receive and heartily to approve whatever God reveals. A definition of faith was also quoted from Mr. Brine, wherein he says, “Acting faith is no other than suitable thoughts of Christ, and a hearty choice of him as God’s appointed way of salvation.” And thence it was argued, that if faith was not incumbent on men in general, then they were right in not thinking suitably of Christ, &c. Mr. B. here expresses his “astonishment,” and without hesitation charges me with “illiberality,”—p. 48. To this I answer, I apprehended this to be a consequence ma- turally arising from the sentiments I opposed; but never imagined that they who imbibed these sentiments held or asserted this consequence : yet as Paul urged the conse- quences of denying the resurrection, in order to show the erroneousness of the premises from which those conse- quences followed, I apprehended I might do the same. Such a mode of reasoning is universally practised by both inspired and uninspired writers. The Corinthians might have charged the apostle with illiberality, and have had, for aught I see, as good reason for so doing as Mr. B. had for charging it upon me. He had said, “If the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised ; and if Christ be not raised, * See Jer, l. 5; Isa. xliv. 5, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.” They might have exclaimed against these consequences, and said of him who urged them, He knows these are sentiments which we never asserted, or even imagined. Mr. B., instead of exclaiming in this sort, should have &nvalidated those consequences, but this he has not at- tempted ; and unless he will maintain it to be men's duty to stand newter, (which our Lord declared to be impos- sible,) and neither think nor choose at all in the affair, I do not see how they can be fairly removed. The difficulty stands thus: “If true faith is no other than suitable thoughts of Christ, and a hearty choice of him as God’s appointed way of salvation,” as Mr. Brine affirms, then it is either men's duty to think suitably of Christ, or it is not; to choose him as God’s appointed way of salvation or not. If it is, the point is given up ; if it is not, then it must be right in them either not to think suitably of Christ, or not to think at all ; either to choose some other way of salvation, or not to choose at all. It is not sufficient for Mr. B. to allege that he disclaims these sentiments; that he allows an opposition to God's way of salvation to be sinful: I know he does, and it is with pleasure I acknowledge it: but the question is, Is he herein consistent with himself? The Corinthians could have said the same in respect of Christ not being raised; none of them thought of asserting that, though they as- serted what must necessarily infer it. If it is men's sin to oppose and reject the Lord Jesus Christ, it must be their duty to choose and accept him, or else to stand neuter, and so be neither for him nor against him. Much the same might be said in reply to what Mr. B. frequently speaks of as due to the gospel, viz. “a venera- tion for it.” This veneration either amounts to a hearty choice of Christ as God’s appointed way of salvation—to a being on his side—or it does not. If it does, this im- plies special faith; for to choose that way is the same thing as to be willing to be saved in that way (which Mr. B. allows is the case with no unregenerate man); and to be on Christ's side is the same thing as to be a real Christian. If it does not, then I should be glad to know what sort of a veneration for the gospel that must be which can consist with an unwillingness to fall in with its grand designs, and a reigning aversion from its great Author and Object? What Mr. B. says (p. 49) of “peace being made,” and “ the work being done,” is a great and glorious truth, on which depends all my salvation and all my desire. I re- joice with him in the doctrines of everlasting love and the eternal settlements of grace. But as the covenant between the Father and the Son before time does not supersede a believer's actually covenanting with God in time,” so neither, as I apprehend, does peace being made by the blood of Christ's cross supersede a peace taking place be- tween God and us on our believing. God, as the Pawgiver of the world, is represented as “angry with the wicked every day.” Every unbeliever is said to be under “ con- demnation ;” he is “under the law,” as a covenant of works; and being of the works of the law, he is under the curse. On the contrary, those who believe in Christ are “not under the law, but under grace;” their sins are “forgiven” for Jesus' sake; there is no “condemnation.” to them ; God is represented as being pacifted towards them for all that they have done against him.f. This pa- cification, however, is not founded upon their faith, or re- turning to God; but upon the atonement of Christ, in which their faith terminates: hence, though they are said, being justified by faith, to have peace with God; yet it is “ through our Lord Jesus Christ.” When I spake of the gospel’s “publishing a way wherein • God can and will make peace with sinners on terms in- finitely honourable to himself,” &c., I had no respect to terms and conditions, to be performed by us, that should entitle us to blessings annexed to such performance. My meaning was rather this, that Christ having obeyed the law and endured the curse, and so fulfilled the terms of his eternal engagement, God can in a way honourable to all his perfections pardon and receive the most guilty sinner that shall return to him in Christ's name. In respect of terms and conditions, as applied to faith in + Psal. vii. 11; John iii. 18; Gal. iii. 10; Rom. vi. 14; 1 John ii. 12; Rom. viii. 1; Ezek, xvi. 65; Rom. v. l. REPLY TO MR. BUTTON. 199 Christ, though I believe such faith to be incumbent on men in general, yet, properly speaking, I do not suppose either that or any thing else in us to be the condition of salvation ; unless by condition is barely meant that to which the promise of salvation is made, and without which we cannot be saved. In this sense I should have no objec- tion to its being so called ; and I should think Mr. B. could have none, any more than myself. But as it is a term liable to abuse, and apt to convey very different sen- timents, I had rather express my ideas in other language than go about to qualify it by an explanation. Dr. Owen does not reject the word condition, but puts an explanation upon it suited to his sentiments. “It is the appointment of the Lord,” says he, “that there should be such a connexion and coherence between the things purchased for us by Jesus Christ, that the one should be a means and way of attaining the other; the one the condi- tion, and the other the thing promised upon that con- dition ; but both equally and alike procured for us by Jesus Christ; for if either be omitted in his purchase, the other would be vain and fruitless.”—Death of Death, Book II. Chap. I. * Whatever words may be used, I know of no difference in this matter between Dr. Owen’s sentiments and my own. - That the gospel is an embassy of peace, addressed to sinners indefinitely, and that any sinner whatever has a warrant to apply to the Saviour, and a promise of accept- ance on his application, is evident from the whole current of Scripture. To oppose Arminianism by the denial of this well-known truth must be an unsuccessful attempt. Instead of destroying, it is the most effectual method to establish it. No Arminian, so long as he has a Bible in his hand, can ever be persuaded that the language of Scripture exhortations to repentance and faith in Christ is not indefinite. If, them, his system is acknowledged to stand or fall with the universality of such exhortations, he will not desire a greater concession. He is well satisfied of this, that if general invitations speak the language of Arminianism, the Bible must be written upon Arminian principles. Such a concession, therefore, tends to confirm him in his sentiments; and, I believe, such a way of speaking and writing amongst the Calvinists has been more than a little advantageous to the Arminian cause. God gathers his elect out of mankind by a gospel equally addressed to one man as to another. No one, on his first application to Christ, comes to him considering himself as an elect person, or as having any peculiar privilege belong- ing to him above the rest of mankind; but every such person applies to Christ merely as a poor, guilty, self- ruined sinner; and if the gospel did not speak an indefi- nite language to sinners, considered as such, he could have no hope. If it is said, Yes; he feels himself a sensible sinner, and so considers himself as hereby warranted to apply for merey: I answer, This is supposing that a person may have solid evidence to conclude himself elected before he has believed in Christ; that is, while he is an unbe- liever; than which nothing surely can be more unscrip- tural and dangerous. The heart of every man who has heard the gospel either does, or does not, fall in with God's way of salvation by Jesus Christ. If it does, he is a believer; if it does not, he is an unbeliever, and has no revealed warrant to conclude himself an object of Divine’ favour. A being sensible of our guilty and lost condition is absolutely necessary to an application to the Saviour; pot, however, as affording us a warrant to come to Christ, but as being necessary to the act itself of coming. A right spirit does not give us a warrant to do a right action; but it is essential to our compliance with the warrant which We already have. Mr. B. thinks I have given a wrong sense to 2 Cor. v. (p. 30). Suppose it should be so, I apprehend the weight of the proposition does not rest upon that passage. I am not convinced, however, by what has been said concerning it but enough has been said upon that part. If the * See also Dr. Owen on Heb. viii. 10. Vol. III. p. 269. “ Unto a full and complete interest in all the promises of the covenant, faith on Quº part, from which evangelical repentance is inseparable, is required. But whereas these also are wrought in us by virtue of that promise and grace which are absolute, it is a mere strife about words to con- tend whether they may be called conditions or no. Let it be granted, on the one hand, that we cannot have an actual participation of the | reader choose carefully to look over the 4th, 5th, and 6th chapters of that Epistle, and to compare what each of us has said upon it, he may be better enabled thereby to judge of the meaning than by any thing that can be further ad- vanced upon the subject. Mr. B. thinks that “faith itself is not called obedience, but that obedience is the fruit of faith,”—p. 53. That faith is productive of obedience is readily allowed; but I also apprehend that faith itself is so called. Unbelief, in our first parent, was the root of all the evil which followed after it; yet unbelief was itself an evil: so it is supposed that faith is not only the root of evangelical obedience, but is an instance of obedience itself. These thoughts are founded upon such phrases as “obeying the truth,” “obeying the gospel,” &c., f which, I suppose, mean a real believing it, and falling in with its grand designs. These passages were quoted before, to which Mr. B. makes no other reply than by barely asserting that “they none of them prove faith to be an act of obedience, but only show that obedience is the fruit of faith,”—p. 53. Obeying the gospel, in Rom. x. 16, is supposed by the inspired penman to be of similar import with believing its report; but it will hardly be said that believing the gospel report is not faith itself, but a fruit of it. “The passage,” Mr. B. adds, “in Rom. i. 5, “By whom we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith,” must I think, to every common understanding, clearly appear to point out the grand design of the gospel ministry, which is, through the blessing of the Holy Spirit, to bring men to obedience to Christ the object of faith, and to the doc- trine of faith.” Very true; and we apprehend that faith in the doctrine is that obedience which is required to the doctrine of faith; and that a rejecting of every rival and false confidence, and a being willing to receive Christ, that he may teach, save, and rule us in his own way, is that obedience which is due to him. Obedience to the gospel, and disobedience to it, are doubtless to be considered as opposites. The former is true special faith, having the promise of eternal salvation, Heb. v. 9; the latter, therefore, cannot mean, as Mr. B. explains it, (p. 54,) the want of merely such a reverential regard to the gospel as a man may have, and yet perish everlastingly. SECTION W. REPLY TO MR. B.’s EIGHTH LETTER, ON THE CAUSES To WHICH THE WANT OF FAITH IS ASCRIBED. MR. B. here commences a new mode of opposition. In- stead of an answer to those scriptures which were produced to prove that ignorance, pride, dishonesty of heart, and aversion from God, are assigned as the causes of men's not believing, he has presented us with some other parts of Scripture, which he thinks ascribe it to other causes. Such a method of reasoning, I should think, can have but little tendency to convince a serious inquirer after truth. It will be natural for such an inquirer to say, supposing Mr. B. to have proved what he has undertaken, namely, that the want of faith is to be ascribed to the sovereign will of God, and that alone, what are we to do with those scriptures which ascribe it to other causes 3 One passage of Scripture under this head is entirely passed over, (Luke vii. 29, 30,) a passage too that was particularly recommended to the attention of the Baptists; and a number of others are but very slightly touched. All the answer that I can find to what was advanced between pages 66–74 of my treatise is included in the following passage : “That human depravity, that ignorance, pride, dishonesty of heart, aversion to God, and the like, often prevent a sinner's attending to the gospel, (which the Holy relative grace of this covenant, in adoption and justification, without faith or believing; and, on the other, that this faith is wrought in us, given unto us, bestowed upon us, by that grace of the covenant which depends on no condition in ws, as unto its discriminating administra- tion; and I shall not concern myself what men will call it.”—R. + Rom. x. 16; vi. 17 200 REPLY TO MR. BUTTON. Spirit useth as a means to convey faith into the hearts of his people, for faith cometh by hearing, Rom. x. 17,) and that these things are of a criminal nature is certain ; but what then 3 Does this prove faith a duty 2 and the want of it a sin for which man shall be damned'. By no means: so far as human depravity prevails man is criminal ; and the things aforementioned prevailing are certain evidences of the person's being destitute of special faith : but to say that these things are an absolute bar to faith, as Mr. F. does, (p. 67,) is a great mistake; neither these things, nor a thousand worse things, if worse can be named, shall be an absolute bar to any elect soul’s believing,”—pp. 59, 60. To this it is replied, If the reader please to review page 67 of my treatise, he will instantly perceive that I was speaking of what was a bar to men's believing, not to God’s causing them to believe. Christ did not say, how can God cause you to believe, who receive honour one of an- other? but “how 'can ye believe 3’” It is granted that with God all things are possible : but if the pride and aversion of men's hearts be that which renders believing impossible to them, that is sufficient to decide the question in hand ; and this was certainly the whole of my design. In page 66, the very page before that in which is the passage to which Mr. B. objects, I had said, “We know that blind- ness of mind is not such an obstruction but what is over- come by the grace of God in the elect; but that being re- moved in the elect does not disprove, but imply, that it is a remaining obstruction to the rest.” I suppose Mr. B. must have read this passage just before that on which his remark is made; how, therefore, he could so strangely mistake my meaning I am at a loss to conceive. Surely Mr. B. could not think the above a sufficient answer to that against which it is written. “ Human de- pravity,” he admits, “prevents a sinner's attending to the gospel ; ” but he will not allow that it hinders him from believing. By “attending to the gospel,” I suppose, he may mean something more than merely attending upon it; but yet he cannot mean any thing spiritually good: if he did, and allowed that human depravity prevented it, that would be giving up a main point in the debate. I suppose, therefore, he means no more than such an attention to the gospel as may be exercised without any real love to it, or desire after an interest in its blessings. But will Mr. B. pretend to say that this is all that is meant in the passages to which I had referred 2 Did Christ barely tell the Jews (John v. 44) that they could not attend to the gospel who received honour one of another, and sought not the honour which cometh from God only 3 Would this have been true upon Mr. B.’s principles 3 Attending to the gospel, in his sense of it, is what men in an unregenerate state can do, and that in the exercise of a proud spirit. Did the want of “an honest and good heart” keep the three sorts of hearers, in the parable of the sower, from attending to the gospel ? So far from this, Mr. B. else- where informs us that the stony-ground hearers “cordially received the truth,”—p. 19. Though I think, in this matter, he goes too far; yet thus much is certain—that a mere attention to the gospel was not the thing wherein they were wanting. When Christ blamed the Jews, say- ing, “Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life,” did he barely mean, Ye will not give attention to the gos- pel ? Surely not : Mr. B. admits that “pride, aversion to God, and the like, where they prevail, are certain evidences of a person’s being destitute of special faith,” but denies, it seems, that they have any causal influence to prevent his believ- ing. And yet if there be any meaning in words, surely the forecited passages must convey the latter idea as well as the former. When Christ told the Jews, “Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life,” did he mean that their unwillingness was merely an evidence of their not coming to him, and not that which had any causal influence upon them to prevent their coming? Surely not : As the above passage, which I have transcribed from Mr. B., is the only answer he has made to my Fourth Proposition, I cannot but consider it as unanswered. He has advanced something, however, of an opposite tendency, which I shall now consider. It was affirmed that the want of faith in Christ is ascribed, in the Scriptures, to men's depravity. Mr. B. thinks this position contrary to John x. 26, “Ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep ;” which passage, he thinks, ascribes the want of faith to “non-election,”—p. 55. To this I reply, On some occasions Mr. B. would make nothing of such a term as because (p. 63); and were I to follow his example, I might say, It means no more than this : Your unbelief, if you persist in it, will be a certain evidence that you are not of my sheep.—No com- plaint could justly be made if the matter were left here, especially as the above are the very words of Mr. Henry, which Mr. B. has quoted for a different purpose. But, waving this, be it observed the truth which they did not believe was, that Jesus was the Christ. “If thou be the Christ,” said they, “tell us plainly. Jesus answered, I have told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do, in my Father's name, they bear witness of me; but ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep.” This text, therefore, if it prove any thing for Mr. B., will prove too much ; it will prove that non-election is the cause of that which he acknowledges to be sinful; namely, a discrediting of Jesus being the Christ. - Further, Though Christ's people are sometimes called sheep simply on account of their being given to him in eternal election, as in verse 16 of this chapter; yet this is not always the case. They sometimes bear that name as being not only elected, but called ; as the followers of Christ; and thus they are represented in the context: “I know my sheep, and am known of mine; ” they “follow ’’ the Shepherd, for they “know his voice;” they “go in and out, and find pasture.” And in the next verse to that in question, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.” All those who looked for redemption in Israel readily embraced Christ as the Messiah as soon as they heard of him ; they knew his voice as soon as they heard it, and followed him : but others, though they were of the house of Israel, yet, not being the real people of God, rejected him as the Messiah, the great Shepherd of the sheep. “He that is of God heareth God’s words; ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God,” John viii. 47. There appears to me a great probability of this being the meaning of the passage. But suppose a being not of Christ’s sheep, here, to mean the same as not being of the number of the elect, this can be no otherwise assigned as the cause of their not believ- ing than as we assign the absence of the sun as the cause of darkness. BECAUSE of God’s forbearing to execute vengeance, the hearts of the sons of men are fully set in them to do evil; but no one, it is hoped, will think evil excusable on that account. See Dr. Gill's Cause of God and Truth, Part II. pp. 100, 222; Part III. p. 77, First Edition. Mr. B. assigns man's natural incapacity as another reason of his not believing, and says, “Sacred Scripture every where abounds with passages to this purpose,”—p. 55. Well, if this assertion can be made good, something will be effected to purpose. In proof of it, however, no more than two passages are produced ; viz. John vi. 44, “No man can come unto me,” &c.; and 1 Cor. ii. 14, “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, neither can he know them,” &c. It is true, if these two will prove the point, they are equal to two hundred ; but it were as well not to speak of such great numbers, unless more were produced. To what Mr. B. says, on both these passages, it is replied, If the term cannot will prove this their inability to be natural and innocent, it will prove the same of the inability of those who are in the flesh, and cannot please God, and of those whose eyes are full of adultery, and who cannot cease from sin. Mr. B. takes no notice of what was said before on these modes of speaking; but instead of that, puts us off with barely informing us that “this is sufficient for him ;” and with asking his reader, “Does not this seem to strike you at once that our Lord is here representing man's natural in- ability ?”—pp. 56, 57. Mr. B. thinks I am strangely inconsistent, in maintain- ing that man’s inability consists wholly in the evil state of his heart, or will, and yet allowing it to be total (p. 56); and elsewhere seems to wonder greatly at the same thing, —p. 93. I also might wonder that one who professes to believe in the total depravity of human nature should ob- REPLY TO MR. BUTTON. 201 ject in such a manner. Must not that inability be total which proceeds from, or rather consists in, total depravity ? If by total Mr. B. means wnable in every respect, I grant I do not think man is, in that sense, totally unable to be- lieve in Christ. But an inability in one respect may be so great in degree as to become total.” It is thus in things which relate merely to a natural inability. A man may have books, and learning, and leisure, and so may not, in every respect, be unable to read ; and yet, being utterly blind, he is totally unable notwithstanding. In respect of the inability in question, those that are in the flesh are totally unable to please God; and yet their inability lies wholly in the evil state of their hearts towards God, and not in his being so difficult to be pleased, that if his crea- tures were to do all they ought to do, it would be to no purpose. Men, by nature, are totally unable to love God with their heart, soul, mind, and strength; and yet, as Mr. B. allows this to be their duty, he cannot say their in- capacity for so doing is natural and innocent. We con- sider men as spiritually dead; and we consider spiritual death as a total privation of all real good; and this we may do without considering them as destitute of such faculties as, if the state of their hearts were but what it ought to be, would infallibly discern and embrace things of a spirit- ual nature. SECTION WI. REPLY TO MR. B.’s NINTH LETTER, ON PUNISHMENTS BEING THREATENED AND INFLICTEp FOR THE WANT OF FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST, IN proof of this point, reference was had to Mark xvi. 16, “He that believeth not shall be damned.” This passage had been explained by Mr. Brime as only giving the de- scriptive characters of the saved and the lost. To prove the contrary, I produced a number of threatenings in the word of God, delivered against sin, in the same mode of speaking as the above passage is directed against unbelief. Mr. Button thinks that these also are mere descriptive characters; and that if the Scriptures used no other modes of speaking, we could not justly infer that the punishments therein threatened were on account of the crimes therein specified,—p. 62. This is very extraordinary indeed. As though, from such a threatening as “God shall destroy thee, O thou false tongue,” we were not warranted to conclude that falsehood is a crime, and the procuring cause of the punishment threatened . If this reasoning be just, it cannot be inferred, from the laws of England declaring that a murderer shall be put to death, that it is on account of his being a murderer. Neither could our first parents justly infer from its being told them, The day ye eat of the fruit ye shall surely die, that it should be on account of their so eating ! John iii. 18, “He that believeth not is condemned al- ready, because he hath not believed on the name of the only-begotten Son of God . " In urging this passage I had grounded pretty much on the term because. But Mr. B. produces another text of Scripture where that term is used, and cannot, he thinks, denote a procuring cause,_pp. 63, 64. The passage to which he refers is John xvi. 17, “The F ather himself loveth you, because ye have loved me.” To this it is replied, Suppose a word, in one instance, be understood in a peculiar sense, is this sense to be urged as a rule of interpreting that word in other places ! If it is, Mr. B. would be puzzled, notwithstanding what he said in P: 62, to prove that sin is the procuring cause of damma- tion. This is the method taken by the adversaries to the proper Deity and satisfaction of Christ. * When we say the depravity of man is total, we do not mean that it is incapable of augmentation, but that it amounts to a total priva- tion of all real good. The depravity of the fallen angels is total’; and yet they are capable of adding iniquity to iniquity. y . I would wish Mr. B. to remember that a moral inability, whether Virtuous or vicious, may be as total as a matural inability. And I would also beg him to examine whether he can form a clear idea of a person being under a moral inability to perform any action which he is, and always was, naturally unable to perform 2 For instance, can he con- O # But, further, I apprehend the term because, even in this passage, is to be taken in its proper sense, as denoting the ground or reason of a thing. The love of God has (with great propriety, I think) been distinguished into natural and sovereign : the former is God’s necessary approbation of every intelligent creature in proportion as it bears his holy likeness; the latter is his free favour, fixed upon his elect without the consideration of any thing in them or done by them. The one is exercised towards an object while that object continues pure, and ceases when it be- comes impure : thus God loved those angels, when holy, who are now fallen under his most awful displeasure. The other, not being founded on any thing in the creature, removes not from its object, but abideth for ever. The propriety of the above distinction may be argued from the doctrine of reconciliation by the death of Christ. To be reconciled is to be restored to favour. Now the sovereign favour of God was not forfeitable ; we could not, therefore, be restored to that : but his necessary approbation, as the Lawgiver of the world, was forfeitable; and to that we are restored by the death of Christ.f The godly are the objects of God’s natural love as bear- ing his holy likeness. “If any man love me,” says Christ, “ he will keep my words, and my Father will love him, and we will come and make our abode with him. If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love ; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.” And thus, in the passage referred to, “The Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me.” All this may be affirmed without making inherent qualities any part of our justifying righteousness, or in the least injuring the doctrine of God’s sovereign, eternal, and immutable love to his elect.j: Mr. B.'s expositions of divers passages of Scripture are founded upon the supposition that nothing more than an external acknowledgment of the Messiah was required of the Jews. Thus he interprets Luke xix. 27, “Those mine enemies, who would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me” (p. 65); and John v. 43, “I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not,”—p. 85. In reply to these interpretations, I might refer the reader to what was said before on the second Psalm ; namely, that if Christ had been a mere civil governor, or such a Messiah as the Jews expected, then an external submission might have been sufficient ; but not otherwise. I seriously wish Mr. B. to consider the import of his own words in page 85. “Supreme love to God,” he says, “would have led the Jews to have embraced Christ as the Son of God and the Messiah ; but not to embrace him in a way of special faith.” What is special faith, unless it is to embrace Christ in his true character, AS REVEALED IN THE ScripTUREs 3 Surely it is not a receiving of him under some representation in which he is not THERE ex- hibited. To receive him as the Messiah is to fall in with the ends and designs of his mission ; and these were the glory of God and the salvation of sinners in a way that should abase their pride and destroy their idols. Nothing short of this can, with any propriety, be called a receiving him as the Messiah. I believe the Scripture knows no- thing, and makes nothing, of any thing else. “He came to his own, and his own received him not ; but as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God.” No intimation is here given that there is a third class of people who neither receive Christ spiritually nor reject him. According to the New Testament, they who received him were true Christians; and they who heard the gospel, and were not true believers, received him not. Mr. B.’s remarks upon 2 Thess. ii. 10–12 conclude his Ninth Letter,-p. 65. Notwithstanding what he has there said, I continue to think that sinners are culpable for not ceive of a man born blind, as having a violent and invincible aversion from light? I own it appears to me inconceivable; and it seems equally absurd to suppose that sinners should be capable of aversion from a plan of salvation which was utterly unsuited to their natural powers. - + The reader will remember I am reasoning with those who allow of the love of God to elect sinners being sovereign and unforfeitable. # See Mr. R. Hall's Help to Zion's Travellers, pp. 25—41. 202 REPLY TO MR. BUTTON. receiving the love of the truth. Mr. B. supposes that their not receiving the love of the truth is only mentioned as an evidence of their being the non-elect; though he, at the same time, explains God’s sending them strong delusions, as a giving them up to judicial blindness. But it ought to be remembered that God does not give men up to ju- dicial blindness because they are not elected, nor merely from the “ sovereignty of his will;” but as a punishment of former sins. I would therefore ask, What is the sin for which the persons in the text are thus punished 3 The apostle himself answers, “Because they received not the love of the truth.” Further, I cannot grant that a not receiving the love of the truth is an evidence of non-election, since it is true of the elect while umbelievers as well as of the non-elect. In the punishing of sinners in this life, God frequently adapts the nature of the punishment to that of the crime. Of this the text in question is an awful illustration. Be- cause men believe not the truth, God sends them a strong delusion, that they may believe a lie ; and because they have pleasure in unrighteousness, he suffers them to be de- ceived with all deceivableness of wºmrighteousness. SECTION VII. REPLY TO MTR. B.’s TENTH Letter, ON SPIRITUAL D ISPOSITION S. BEING about, in my former essay, to prove spiritual dispo- sitions incumbent on men in general, I thought it best, at entering upon that subject, to express my own ideas of the term spiritual. It appeared to me that, when applied to the dispositions of the mind, it always signified TRULY Holy, in opposition to carnal. At the same time, I sup- posed my views on this subject might not be universally granted. I never meant, therefore, to lay them down as the data of the argument; but proposed rather to proceed upon undisputed principles. On that account I passed over this part of the subject without dwelling upon it; which Mr. B. calls “giving it up,”—p. 70. The criterion, as he acknowledges, by which it was proposed to judge of spiritual dispositions, was their having the promise of spi- ritual blessings. This was the ground on which I all along proceeded; trying the matter wholly by Scripture evidence, endeavouring to prove that those things are required of men in general to which spiritual and eternal blessings are abundantly promised. But Mr. B. has passed all this over, and has only carried on what I should think an unneces- sary dispute about what he calls “natural and spiritual holiness.” Surely he could have but very little concern with that on which I grounded no argument; his business was to attend to that upon which the whole was rested. But instead of fairly discussing the subject upon that ground, he has taken up the whole of his letter in finding fault with my definition of spiritual dispositions; though no other end is answered by it, that I can perceive, than to show that he is of one opinion, and I of another. In one part of his letter, Mr. B. gave us some reason to hope that he would have left this manner of writing, and have come to the argument: “I shall add no more,” says he, “on this head; especially as Mr. F. soon gives it up, by saying, “If this, (that is, the defining of spiritual dispo- sitions to be such as are truly holy, *) however plain it may appear to me, should not be universally allowed, I may go upon a more undisputed ground.’” Mr. B. asks, “And what ground is this?”—He them answers himself, “Why, says Mr. F., ‘the criterion by which I shall all along judge of what are spiritual dispositions will be their having the promise of spiritual blessings.’ Whether these disposi- tions be incumbent on carnal men, let us now inquire,” —p. 70. Thus far Mr. B. in his quotation from mine. Would not the reader now expect that he was about to enter upon a fair discussion of the subject, upon the fore- * I suppose it must be entirely by mistake that Mr. B. has repre- sented me (in p. 70) as maintaining the distinction of “ natural and spiritual holiness,” and as informing my readers that this distinction * appears plain to me.” I have ventured, therefore, to alter what he mentioned criterion, to which he could have no reasonable objection ? And yet, strange as it is, he never touches the subject upon that ground; but though he had said he “should add no more” upon the other, yet immediately returns, saying nothing but the same things over and over again. - When we come to Mr. B.’s remarks on the capacity of man in innocence for spiritual obedience, we shall take notice of what is here offered in support of a distinction of holiness into natural and spiritual. At present, I may reply to some other things included in this letter. Spiritual dispositions were said to be such as were TRULY Holly. Mr. B. finds great fault with this, as it might be supposed he would. And yet I see not wherein it differs from the apostle's account of the new man, that it is created after God in right- eousness and TRUE Holin Ess, (Eph. iv. 24,) to which the same objections might be made as to the above. That God is immutable in his nature Mr. B. will allow ; and that his image must be the same is equally evident. That which is created after him must ever be the same in one period as in another. If the image of God is not now what it was formerly, it must be owing to an alteration in the nature of his moral perfections. There cannot be two essentially different images of the same Divine original. Further, It was said, “Whenever applied to the dispo- sitions of the mind, spiritual stands opposed to carnal; and that in the criminal sense of the word.” Mr. B. re- marks this is a mistake ; “for,” says he, “Spiritual, in I Cor. ii. 14, is opposed to natural. ‘The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God,” &c.,-p. 67. But I apprehend that the word “natural” (livXucos) in the text is of the same import with carnal. To say that the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God is equal to saying that the carnal man receiveth them not; or he who, whatever be his acquisitions in science, is under the influence of that corrupt nature which we all derive from Adam. Having nothing in him which is truly good, nothing correspondent with Divine truths, all his vain labour and toil about those truths is to as little purpose as that of the men of Sodom about Lot's door. This, I take it, is the purport of Mr. B.'s quotation from Calvin, -p. 58. Depravity, though it is, strictly speaking, no part of our nature, yet is become natural, as it were, to us ; and hence it is common for us to call a carmal, unconverted state a state of nature; and the Scripture speaks of our being by nature the children of wrath. A state of nature, in this use of the term, is evidently put not for the state of man as created, but as fallen. And, respecting the text in question, it does not appear probable that the Holy Spirit would have here used a term to have expressed the nature of man in its purest state which he every where else, when applying it to the dispositions of the mind, uses to express a state of abominable iniquity.t Dr. Gill says of the law that “it requireth spiritual service and obedience.” This I quoted before, supposing it expressive of my own sentiments; but Mr. B. assures me I am mistaken, and that Dr. Gill meant no such thing. By “spiritual service and obedience,” it is said, he meant “a serving it with our minds; a worshipping God in spirit and in truth; a loving it with all our hearts and souls, as well as a performance of all the outward acts of religion and duty,”—p. 71. What was Dr. Gill’s meaning I cannot tell, nor is it worth while to dispute about it, as the opinion of the greatest uninspired writer is not de- cisive ; otherwise I should think he had no such distinc- tions in his mind as Mr. B. imputes to him. But be his meaning what it might, there certainly is no difference between worshipping God in spirit and in truth, and the exercise of “spiritual principles and dispositions, such as flow from Christ Jesus.” Suppose we follow Mr. B. in his distinction of holiness into natural and spiritual, and of spirituality into legal and evangelical ; a worshipping of God in spirit and in truth must belong to the latter and not to the former. It must be not only spiritual, but “evan- gelically spiritual; ” for Christ is speaking of true worship- ". enclosed in a parenthesis to what I suppose he intended to Wºry Ue. + See James iii. 15, “Earthly, sensual, devilish ;” and Jude 19, “SENSUAL, having not the Spirit.” - Ş REPLY TO MR. BUTTON. 203 pers under the gospel dispensation; and they are said to be such as the Father seeketh to worship him. See John iv. 23, 24. The above distinctions appear to me to be more curious than just ; but be they ever so just, they will not furnish us with an answer to the argument upon the forecited passage. If I understand what Mr. B. means by a spirituality which is different in nature from that which is evangelical, it is what is so called, not on account of its nature, but of the subject over which it extends, viz. the spirit or mind of man. But he should have considered, that when the law is called spiritual,” (which it is only in one passage,) it is not in opposition to corporeal, but to carnal; just as the principle of holiness in the hearts of believers, or the spirit, is opposed to the flesh. This was noticed before, to which Mr. B. has made no reply. “According to Mr. F.,” it is said, “there is no alter- ation made in religion by the interposition of Christ to be incarnate, and his mediation ; no change in the abolishing of the old covenant and the establishing of the new ; no alteration in the nature of our obedience,”—p. 73. I hope the enclosing of this passage in reversed commas and ascribing it to me was without design. The passage was taken by Mr. B. from Dr. Owen on the Spirit,-p. 461. He has given us it at large in p. 68 of his remarks. Dr. Owen delivered it as containing the sentiments of those against whom he was writing, who held the gospel to be only a sort of new edition of the law of nature. I must do my- self the justice, however, to deny their being my sentiments any more than my words. I have acknowledged the con- trary in p. 119. Nor are they so much as consequences deducible from anything I have advanced. Mr. B. might, with equal propriety, go about to prove a difference be- tween the principles of the Old and New Testament saints; since the religion under the law is different from that under the gospel, though they agree (as Dr. Owen, in the same passage, observes) in their “author, object, and end.” “No,” Mr. B. will reply, “these are doubt- less the same.” Then we might retort, in his own mode of reasoning, If so, “there is no change made by abolish- ing the Mosaic dispensation ; no difference between that and the gospel dispensation, and no alteration thereby made in religion.” But Mr. B.'s arguments and objections upon this sub- ject will be considered more particularly in the two follow- ing sections. SECTION VIII. REPLY TO MR. B.'s ELEVENTH LETTER, ON THE STATE OF MAN IN INNOCENCE ; WHETHER HE WAS INCAPABLE OF DOING THINGS SPIRITUALLY GOOD. UPON this single point, of Adam's incapacity to do things Spiritually good, Mr. B. rests almost all his arguments. He seems very desirous of taking this matter for granted, and actually does take it for granted in various places ; arguing and exclaiming upon the supposition of this senti. ºnent being true, though he knows that will not be granted him. Hence his answer to my reply to the objection on the necessity of a Divine principle in order to believing,- p. 94. If I held Mr. B.'s sentiment in this matter, then I should not be able upon that ground to establish my own This is the amount of what he has there advanced. Hence, also, his exclamation of my imputing cruelty to the Holy One (pp. 56. 88. 95); that is, that it would be cruel and shocking for God to require that which is be- yond the powers of man in his present or primitive state.” I grant it ; but that is what I never affirmed. If our Principles are charged with absurdity, they should be proved to be inconsistent with themselves, or with some allowed principle, and not barely with those of our op- ponents. I can see no force in the quotation from Mr. Brine, (p. 57,) wherein a cannot and a will not, in respect of coming * IIvevuarukor, Rom. vii. 14. to Christ, are said to be distinct things, unless this senti- ment is first taken for granted. “We cannot come to Christ,” he says, “as we are destitute of a principle of life; and we will not, as we are the subjects of vicious habits.” Now, I would ask, what is the want of a principle of life, but the want of a holy bias of mind to glorify God 3 And this is no otherwise a different thing from aversion of heart from him than as a negative evil differs from one that is positive. The want of a principle of honesty in an intelligent being is no excusable thing, any more than positive villany. I know of no answer that can be made to this way of reasoning, but by maintaining that a prin- ciple of life is something different from a principle of up- rightness towards God; something different, in its nature, from what man, in his most upright condition, could pos- sess. If this were asserted, I should no otherwise reply than by asking for proof. In the above argument, this sentiment is assumed as if it were a truth allowed on both sides, whereas that is not the case. Supposing the notion of Adam’s incapacity to do things spiritually good were a truth, to take it for granted in such a manner as this is contrary to all fair reasoning. It is no other than begging the question. But I am not yet convinced that the thing itself is true; and if the foundation is bad, the super- structure must fall. Two questions here require a discussion; viz. What evidence has Mr. B. produced in support of this his favour- ite hypothesis 3 and what has he done towards overturn- ing the arguments for the contrary 3 I. WHAT Ev1DENCE HAs MR. B. PRODUCED IN support OF THIS HIS FAvour ITE HYPOTHESIS 2 The subject we are now discussing is of a fundamental nature, in respect of the main question between us. It is the corner-stone upon which the whole fabric of Mr. B.’s scheme is founded ; we have reason to expect, thenefore, that this should be well laid in solid Scriptural evidence. However some truths may be more fully revealed than others, I should think I ought to suspect that system whose first and funda- mental principles are not well supported. - Let us examine what Mr. B. has offered. He appre- hends the phrases new man—new heart—new spirit—new creature, &c. imply this sentiment, and are inconsistent with that which he opposes, p. 83. To this it is replied, The whole force of this argument rests upon the suppo- sition that the term new, in these passages, stands opposed to a state of primitive purity ; whereas every one knows that the new heart stands opposed to the stony heart; and the new man to the old man, which is “corrupt according to the deceitful lusts.” + Further, Mr. B. thinks this sentiment supported by a passage in Rom. vii. 6, “But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter,”—p. 73. But his sense of the passage, if it prove any thing for him, will prove too much. He main- tains that spiritual dispositions are a conformity to the law, though not to the law only (p. 68); but the apostle says, they were delivered from the law of which he speaks. Yet Mr. B. will not say that we are, by grace, delivered from all obligation to the requirements of the moral law. To suit his sentiments, therefore, it should rather have been said, we serve partly in newness of the spirit, and partly in the oldness of the letter. Whether “the oldness of the letter” be here to be understood of the manner in which the converted Jews used formerly to worship God, tenaciously adhering to the letter of their ceremonial law, instead of entering into its spirit, or design, and of worshipping God in spirit and in truth ; or whether it mean the moral law, in its par- ticular form of a covenant.of works, (which seems to agree with the scope of the place,) it certainly does not mean that for which Mr. B. produces it. The “oldness of the letter,” in which they once served, is not here put for that way of serving God which was exercised in a state of annocence, but in a state of unregeneracy. It was when they were in the flesh (v. 5) that this sort of service was carried on, to which the other is opposed. It must be such a sort of service, therefore, as could have in it no + Ezek. xxxvi. 26; Eph. iv. 22–24; 2 Cor. v. 17. 204 REPLY TO MR. BUTTON. real conformity to the law, seeing they that are in the flesh cannot please God; the carnal mind is enmity against God, is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. It is very common for Mr. B. to apply that which is spoken of man as now born into the world to man in a state of innocence. Thus he has applied a passage in Dr. Owen, p. 81. The Pelagian figment, that “what we have by mature we have by grace, because God is the author of nature,” means what we have “by natural propagation ;” as the Doctor himself explains it, as we are now born into the world. – On the Spirit, p. 452. I do not recollect any other passages of Scripture on which Mr. B. has pretended to ground his fundamental principle ; fundamental I call it, because, as was said be- fore, it lies at the foundation of all his other principles wherein we differ. I wish Mr. B. and the reader seriously to consider whether the above passages convey such a sentiment; whether they can fairly be applied to the sup- port of it; and if not, whether that which lies at the foundation of his hypothesis has any foundation in the word of God. m But Mr. B., though he has not, that I recollect, pro- duced any other Scriptural evidence for the sentiment in question than what has been noticed, yet has attempted to argue the matter out by reason. I had said, “It appears to me that the Scripture knows nothing of natural holi- mess, as distinguished from spiritual holiness; that it knows but of one kind of real holiness, and that is a con- formity to the holy law of God.” In answer to this, Mr. B. does not pretend to inform us where the Scripture does make this distinction, or from what parts, of it such a dis- tinction may be inferred ; but only asserts that “there is a difference,” and goes about to inform us wherein that difference consists, pp. 67, 68. Let us now attend to what is there advanced. The sum of the supposed differ- ence is made to consist in three things. 1. “The one was possessed by Adam in innocence, and would have been conveyed, by natural generation, to his posterity; the other we derive from Christ by the influ- ence of the Holy Spirit.” Answer: This does not prove them to be of a different nature, but merely to spring from different causes, and to flow through different channels. Man, in innocence, enjoyed the approbation of his Maker; so do believers, as justified in Christ's righteousness, and sanctified by his Spirit. Divine approbation, in itself considered, is the same thing in the one case as in the other; but the means by which it is enjoyed are very dif- ferent. 2. “Natural holiness consists in conformity to the holy law of God; spiritual holiness to the law and gospel too.” Answer: That all holiness is a conformity to some law, or rule of action, given by God to his creatures, is certain; and if spiritual holiness is a conformity to the gospel in something wherein it is not a conformity to the moral law, then the gospel must, after all, be a new law, or a new rule of action. But what necessity for this? “If the pure and holy law of God requires every man cordially to re- ceive and heartily to approve of the gospel,” (as Mr. B., in p. 49, says it does,) then what room is there for the above distinction ? A cordial reception and hearty ap- probation of the gospel are the very essence of conform- ity to it. f 3. “Natural holiness was liable to be lost; but spiritual holiness never was liable to, never was, never can be, lost.” Answer: This proves nothing to the point, unless the reason why spiritual holiness cannot be lost is owing to its nature or kind, and not to the promise and perpetual preservation of the Holy Spirit. A principle the same in nature may be produced in one subject, and left to the conduct of that subject to preserve it in being ; while, in another subject in different circumstances, its existence may be infallibly secured by the promise and power of God. It is generally supposed that the elect angels were confirmed in their state of original purity. Supposing this to have been the case, that confirmation, though it ren- dered their holiness like that in believers, imamissible, yet it did not, in the least, alter its nature. It had not been a confirmation if it had. Nor is there any reason, that I know of, to conclude that the holiness in the elect | angels was of a different nature from that which originally existed in those who fell. I have no notion of any prin- ciple in my soul that is, in its own nature, necessarily immortal. My experience teaches me that I should as soon cease to love Christ and the gospel, and every thing of a spiritual nature, as Adam ceased to love God, were it not for the perpetual influence of his Holy Spirit. That none of the above differences make any thing in proving the point is equally evident from Mr. B.'s own principles, as from what has been now alleged. He sup- poses spiritual holiness, or the holiness which is in be- lievers, to be a conformity to the law, though not to the law only. Very well; so far, then, as spiritual holiness is a conformity to the law, it is and must be the same in nature as what he calls natural holiness ; and yet they differ in all the circumstances above mentioned. That conformity to the law of which believers are now the sub- jects, and which must have been incumbent upon them while unbelievers, is “ derived from Christ as their Head, and comes by the influence of the Holy Spirit, and not by natural generation ;” neither “can it ever be lost,” so as to become totally extinct. These are things, therefore, which do not affect the nature of holiness ; and so are insufficient to support a distinction of it into two kinds, the one essentially different from the other. Upon the whole, I think Mr. B., in treating upon this subject, has proceeded in much the same manner as when discussing the definition of faith. In order to prove that holiness in the hearts of believers is something essentially different, or different in its mature, from what was pos- sessed by man in innocence, he proves, or rather asserts, from Dr. Owen, that it “is an EFFECT OF ANOTHER CAUSE, and differs in the objecTs of its vital acts; there being new revelations now, which were not before,”—pp. 76, 77. All this is allowed; and it proves what Dr. Owen meant it to prove, viz. that we are not, after the manner of the Socinians, to make Christianity a mere revival of the law of nature. It proves that there are “some differences,” as he expresses it, between the life of Adam and that of a believer; but it does not prove an essential difference in their principles; nor did the Doctor mean it, I should sup- pose, to prove any such thing.—On the Spirit, p. 241. º S SECTION IX. THE CAPACITY OF MAN IN INNOCENCE TO BELIEVE, AND To DO THINGS SPIRITUALLY GOOD, FURTHER CONSIDERED. WE now proceed to the second question, viz. WHAT HAs MR. B. Don E To overturn THE ARGUMENTs on THIS SUBJECT WHICH HE HAs UNDERTAIKEN TO ANswer ? Some things he has passed over : he has said nothing, for in- stance, to what was advanced on the case of Cain and Abel ; or on the difference between an essential and a cir- cumstantial incapacity in our first parents to believe in Christ. I had attempted to prove that the spirit and con- duct of Adam in innocence were nothing more nor less than a perfect conformity to the holy law of God ; that the same might be said of Jesus Christ, so far as he was our eacample ; and, consequently, the same of Christians, so far as they are formed after that eacample. In proof of the last two positions, several passages of Scripture were produced. On these Mr. B. has made some remarks. Psal. xl. 8, “I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law is within my heart.” What Mr. B. says (p. 79) of the will of the Father extending to Christ's laying down his life as a sacrifice for sinners, I think is true, but nothing to the purpose. I was speaking of Jesus Christ, so far as he was our example; but what have his suffer- ings, “as a sacrifice for sinners,” to do in this matter ? Was he designed here to be our example 2 Surely not. If the moral law be allowed to be “herein included,” that is sufficient. And if this were not allowed, since Mr. B. acknowledges “that the Lord Jesus Christ throughout his life yielded obedience to the moral law,” and has pointed out no other obedience, wherein he was our eacample, than REPLY TO MR. BUTTON. 205 this,* the point is given up, and all the questions in pages 78 and 81 are to no purpose. Jer. xxxi. 33, “I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts,” &c. Mr. B. thinks the term law here includes the law of faith, or the gospel, and also what the apostle in Rom. vii. 23 calls “the law of the mind,” and especially as the apostle, when he quotes the passage in Heb. viii. 10, uses the plural word laws,”— pp. 80, 81. The plural word laws, in Scripture, and in common speech, signifies no more than the different parts or branches of the same law, and is of the same import with the word commandments. I think with Mr. B. that each of the above ideas is included ; not, however, as so many distinct laws put into the heart. For God to write his law in the heart is only another mode of speaking for giving us a heart to love that law; and if the law “re- quires a cordial reception and hearty approbation of the gospel,” (as Mr. B. in page 49 owns it does,) then, in a fallen creature to whom the gospel is preached, a heart to love that law must include a heart to embrace the gospel; and a heart to love the law and embrace the gospel is the principle of holiness, called the law of the mind...f. An argument was drawn from the term renewed, as ap- plied to our regeneration. On this Mr. B. remarks as follows: “I think at the resurrection the same body that dies will be raised, but I think the state in which it will rise will be more than circumstantially, it will be essenti- ally different from that in which it was laid in the grave; except corruption and incorruption, dishonour and glory, weakness and power, natural and spiritual, are essentially the same,”—p. 83. So far from this making for Mr. B., one need not desire a better argument against him. He thinks, he says, that the same body that dies will be raised ; I think so too, or it would not have been called a resur- 'rection : let him only acknowledge that the same principle that was lost is restored, or it would not have been repre- sented as a renovation, and we are satisfied. Let him but allow this, and he is welcome to dwell upon as many differences, as to causes and objects, as he can find. If this be but granted, all that he can say besides cannot prove an essential difference. It is very extraordinary for Mr. B. to suppose that it can. That which is essential to any thing is that without which it would not be that thing. If corruption, dishonour, or weakness belonged to the essence of the body, then it could not be the same body without them. These cause a difference as to the circum- stances and condition of the body; they do not, however, so alter its essence but that it is the same body through all its changes. What is here advanced does not suppose that “corrup- tion and incorruption, natural and spiritual, are essentially the same.” Doubtless they are different and opposite qualities; but the question is, do these qualities cause an essential difference in the bodies to which they pertain 3 If any one were disposed to prove an essential difference between the principles of saints on earth and saints in heaven, he might easily accomplish his purpose, according to Mr. B.’s mode of reasoning. He might say, They are mere than circumstantially, they are essentially different; the one are weak, the other strong; these are exercised in believing, those in seeing ; these are attended with oppos- ing carnality, those are freed from all opposition. Now here is an essential difference; unless weakness and strength, faith and sight, remaining impurity and perfect holiness, are essentially the same ! ... "...It is true Christ was our example in his conforming to positive ºnstitutions; but this is included in obedience to the moral law, which requires a compliance with whatever God shall at any time think Prºper to enjoin ; and will hardly be supposed to require a distinct Principle for the performance of it. * After Mr. B. has acknowledged that “the law of God requires a cºrdial reception of the gospel,” it is somewhat surprising that he should reason as follows:– “If the law commanded faith, in relation to Christ crucified, it must them acquaint us with Christ crucified. It would be an unreasonable law to enjoin an act about such an object, and never discover one syllable of that object to us,”—p. 92. It cer. tainly would be unreasonable to require faith without a revelation of the object; and where that is not revealed, we do not suppose it in- Cumbent. . But if the gospel reveal the object of faith, the moral law \may require it to be embraced, Mr. B. himself being judge. If the law cannot reasonably require faith towards an object which itself doth not reveal, then what will become of his natural and common faith in a crucified Christ, which he allows is required by the law 7 If Mr. B. should reply that he did not plead for an essential difference between the body when it dies and when it is raised, but between the state of the body at those different periods; I answer, then what he has said is mere trifling, nothing at all to the purpose. His design was to illustrate an essential difference between the prin- ciples of man in innocence and those in believers, and not barely in the state and circumstances of those principles; otherwise there had been no dispute between us. The only question, it was before observed, to which the whole ought to be reduced was this, whethER supreme: LOVE TO GOD WOULD NOT NECESSARILY LEAD A FAL LEN CREATURE, WHO HAS THE GOSPEL PREACHED TO HIM, To EMBRACE THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, AND HIS WAY OF SAL- v.ATION. The arguments which were thought sufficient to establish this question in the affirmative were urged in pages 53–56, and 120–123, of the former treatise. To this Mr. B. has made no other reply than the following: “Supreme love to God will lead a man to embrace any revelation God makes of himself; but it will not, it can- not, lead a man to embrace what God does not reveal. Supreme love to God would lead no fallen creature to em- brace Christ in a way of special faith, without Christ being revealed, and revealed in an internal manner, by the Holy Ghost. There is no true believing without revelation, without evidence,”—pp. 85, 86. Special faith, then, it seems, consists in believing something which is not revealed &n the Scriptures, and of which there is there no evidence. Well, if this be special faith, we need have no further dispute about it; for I shall agree with him that it is what no man is in the least obliged to. Mr. B. in the outset, the reader will remember, allowed that a believing of our interest in the blessings of the gospel was not essential to true faith, (p. 10,) and yet what is here advanced cannot, one should think, proceed upon any other supposition. His view of the subject, so far as I understand it, supposes that common faith, such as a man may have and perish, consists in believing no more than what is already revealed in the Bible ; and that spe- cial faith consists in believing our personal interest in it. But this being no where revealed in the Scriptures, any otherwise than by giving descriptive characters, an im- mediate revelation from heaven becomes necessary to acquaint the party with his peculiar privilege, before he can believe himself entitled to it. That there is an internal as well as an external revela- tion is readily allowed; but I apprehend this revelation to consist in the eyes of the understanding being enlight- ened ; and that not to discover any new truth which was never before revealed, but that which was already suffi- ciently made known in the Holy Scriptures, and which nothing but our criminal blindness could conceal from our minds. See Eph. i. 17, 18. I think, with Mr. Brine, that “to imagine that God now affords such light as will enable us to make discoveries of truths not already re- vealed to us in his word is real enthusiasm, and has nothing to support it in the Holy Scriptures.”: Perhaps I shall be told that Mr. Brine made an internal revelation the ground of an obligation to believe in Christ. I suppose he did, when engaged in this controversy ; but when engaged with a deist, in the piece referred to, he probably forgot what in other instanées had escaped from his pen, and nobly defended the Christian religion from £rrationality or enthusiasm. § A great deal of Mr. B.'s reasoning tends, in my opinion, Does the law reveal Christ as the object of this kind of faith any more than the other ? Mr. B. cannot say it does. The above quotation, I suppose, is taken from Mr. Charnock. I have not the first edition of his works, and so cannot follow Mr. B. in his references; but if Mr. Charnock’s meaning were what the connexion of his words, as introduced by Mr. B., seems to represent, it is certainly contrary to the whole tenor of his writings; and I believe no such thought ever entered his heart as to question whether faith in Christ were the duty of sinners. # Christian Religion not destitute of Arguments, p. 44. * It is somewhat singular that Mr. B. should charge me with mak- ing it the duty of any man to believe without evidence. This nearly amounts to what others have asserted, that I make it incumbent on them to believe a lie. The definition of faith which I have heretofore given is the belief of the TRUTH. If truth and falsehood, then, are the same thing, the charge may be well founded, but not otherwise. If a persuasion of a personal interest in the blessings of the gospel were what denominated us believers, there might be something plaus- 206 REPLY TO MR. BUTTON. rather to degrade a state of primitive purity than to exalt ‘that in which we are placed through Christ. I cannot perceive that he represents the latter to any better ad- vantage than we do. All the difference is, that he seems to think meanly of supreme love to God, as if it were something vastly inferior to that of which Christians are now the subjects. Thus he tells us, from Mr. Charnock, “that a new creature doth exceed a rational creature, considered only as rational, more than a rational doth a brute,”—p. 85. True ; but is man in his primitive state to be considered only as rational 2 Does he not con- tinue to be a rational being, notwithstanding he has lost his primitive purity? Did Mr. Charnock, in the place referred to, mean to represent man in a state of primitive purity as being merely rational £ “Adam in a state of innocence,” as Dr. Owen observes, “besides his natural life, whereby he was a living soul, had a supernatural life with respect to its end, whereby he lived unto God.— On the Spirit, p. 240.* SECTION X. REPLY TO MR. B.’s Twelfth LETTER, on DIVINE DECREEs, THE USE OF MEANS, PARTICULAR REDEMPTION, &c. THE objection from Divine decrees is, to all intents and purposes, GIVEN UP. I had said, “The destruction of Pharaoh was determined of God to be at the time, place, and manner in which it actually came to pass; and yet who will say that he ought not to have taken the counsel of Moses, and let the people go?” To this Mr. B. re- plies, “But Pharaoh had an express command to let the people go ; therefore he was undoubtedly criminal for not doing it: so it may be said of the rest of the instances produced; and therefore these are nothing to the purpose,” —p. 88. I might ask, then, What would have been to the purpose ? The very circumstance of an express com- mand, so far from destroying the propriety of the above instances, is one thing that renders them in point. The question here was not, Is faith a commanded duty 2–that was discussed elsewhere f-but CAN it be such, consistently with the Divine decrees 2 I undertook to prove that it could ; inasmuch as the compliance of Pharaoh and Sihon with the messages which were sent them was a commanded duty, notwithstanding the Divine decrees concerning them. Mr. B., on the contrary, undertakes to prove that it can- not, -that to suppose faith in Christ a commanded duty must clash with the decrees of God. prove his point? Why, by acknowledging that if the command be express, it may be consistent with those de- crees; that is, in other words, by giving up the very point in question. If I understand Mr. B.'s mode of reasoning, it amounts to what is usually called reasoning in a circle. In the contents, it is intimated that faith cannot be a command- ed duty, because it is inconsistent with the Divine decrees; in the page to which those contents refer it is suggested to be inconsistent with the Divine decrees, because it is not commanded ! After all, if the thing itself were incon- sistent, no command, however express, could make it otherwise. . Mr. B. here, and in several other places, allows that men ought to use the means, and be diligently concerned about their eternal salvation ; to strive to enter in at the strait gate, &c., pp. 36–43. He has said nothing, how- ible in Mr. B.'s mode of reasoning; but this he does not pretend to maintain. , Dr. Withers appears, in some places, to maintain this idea;, and considers faith, as generally used in Scripture, to sig- nify “either an assent to the Bible,” as containing the history of our Lord, and other important matters; or else denoting “the know- Ledge, the assurance, of an interest in its present and promised bless- ings” (p. 73); and, from pages 153 to 156, he presents us with a long list of scriptures, as if to confirm this second idea of faith : but which evidently only prove (what I never, thought of doubting) that believers may have a consciousness of their having passed from death unto life, and not that it is this consciousness which denominates them believers. Indeed, he himself tells us in a note (p. 155) that a man may be a believer without this consciousness. What is it, then, which constitutes him a believer in that sense which is connected with a title to eternal life 7 . He will hardly assert that every one who assents to the Divine inspiration of the Bible is in a state of salvation. And as Now, how does he ever, to inform us how this is more consistent with the doctrine of decrees than an obligation to believe is. But, passing this, it is observable, that what one evangelist calls striving to enter another calls entering (Luke xiii. 24; Matt. vii. 13); and, indeed, it must appear very extra- ordinary, if men ought to strive to do that which they are not obliged to do. Further, using the means of salva- tion, waiting and praying for a blessing upon them, ought to be attended to either with the heart or without it. If without it, it will be but poor striving to enter in at the strait gate—far enough from the sense of the passage just cited, which denotes such a striving as that of a person in an agony; if with it, this amounts to something spiritually good, and shall certainly terminate in salvation. What our brethren can mean, in consistency with their own sentiments, by making it the duty of men to use the means of salvation, is difficult to say. Mr. B. will not al- low it to be a bare attendance, but “a diligent waiting, and seeking of spiritual blessings,”—pp. 36–43. And in the exposition upon Isa. xlii. 18, “Look, ye blind,” &c., the purport of the exhortation is said to be, “that they (unconverted sinners) would make use of their external hearing and sight which they had, that they might attain to a spiritual hearing and understanding of Divine things,” —p. 102. But a real, diligent use of means always im- plies a true desire after the end. It is an abuse of lan- guage to call any thing short of this by that name. Men, continuing wicked, may attend what are properly called the means of grace ; but they never attend them as the means of grace. It is impossible a man should use means to obtain that after which he has no real desire ; but a wicked man has no real desire to be saved from that from which the gospel saves us. Using the means of grace, therefore, and waiting upon God, are spiritual exercises, and have salvation plentifully connected with them in the Bible. “I’very one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth ; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.” # Many of our brethren, who scruple to exhort sinners to things of a spiritual nature, will yet counsel them to watch at wisdom's gates, and wait at the posts of her doors; but these are as much spiritual exercises as believing in Christ. Those who watch daily at wisdom's gates, waiting at the posts of her doors, are blessed. shall find him whom they seek; and, finding him, they “find life, and shall obtain favour of the Lord.” $ The language of wisdom is, “I love them that love me, and those that seek me early shall find me.” || It is true, in some instances, persons are spoken of, not according to what they do, but according to what they profess to do ; and, after this manner of speaking, hypo- crites are said to seek the Lord, and to “delight to know his ways, as a nation that did righteousness.”" That is, they did those things which are the usual expressions of a delight in God and a desire to seek his face, as if they had been a righteous people ; but as to the things themselves, they are, strictly speaking, spiritual exercises, and are con- stantly so to be understood throughout the Bible. That manner of seeking God which is practised by hypocrites will hardly be pretended to be the duty of men in general; and, except in those cases, neither seeking God’s face nor waiting upon him, I believe, are ever used in the Scripture for such an attendance on God’s worship as a man may practise and perish notwithstanding: it is certain, how- ever, this cannot be said of a “ diligently waiting, and seeking of spiritual blessings.” To use our external hear- ing and sight, that we may attain to a spiritual hearing and understanding of Divine things, is not “witHIN THE to an assurance of being interested in the blessings of the gospel, (sup- posing this were a just idea of faith,) he could not be ignorant that I never made it incumbent upon all who hear the gospel: but one should think a man must be a believer before he can be conscious of it, or of any thing in him that is truly good, or possess any well- grounded persuasion of an interest in Christ; and if so, such a con- sciousness, or persuasion, cannot be that which denominates him a believer. * In a Testimony in favour of the principles maintained by the Nor- folk and Suffolk Association, we are told “ he was, while he stood, an lºt gardener.” Can this be the image of God mentioned Gen. i. 27 ?–B. + In proof that faith in Christ is expressly commanded, the reader is referred to Prop. 1. Part l I. of the former Treatise, and to Section II. of this. f Luke xi. 10. § Prov. viii. 34, 35. || Prov. viii. 17. I Isa. lviii. 2. They - Y. REPLY TO MR. BUTTON. 207 compass of A NATURAL MAN.” The end of every action determines its nature: to read and hear, therefore, with a true desire that we may attain to a spiritual hearing and understanding, are themselves spiritual exercises. In this matter I entirely coincide with Mr. Brine, that “no un- sanctified heart will ever pray to God for grace and holi- ness; but that this is men's dreadful sin, and justly ex- poses them to direful vengeance.”—Motives to Love and Unity, pp. 36, 37. . . If to this should be objected the words of our Lord, that “ many will seek to enter in, and shall not be able,” I an- swer, What is there spoken respects not the present state, but the period “when the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door,”—Luke xiii. 24, 25. - The case of the man waiting at the pool of Bethesda has often been applied to that of an unconverted sinner attending the preaching of the gospel; but let it be closely considered whether such an application of the passage be warrantable from the tenor of Scripture, and whether the characters to whom it is thus applied are not hereby che- rished in a thought with which they are too apt to flatter themselves ; viz. that, for their parts, their hearts are so good that they would fain repent and be converted, but cannot, because God is not pleased to bestow these bless- ings upon them. No one can imagine that I wish to dis- courage people from reading or hearing the word of God. God’s ordinances are the means by which he ordinarily works; and whatever be their motives, I rejoice to see people give them attendance. At the same time, I think, we should be careful lest we cherish in them an opinion, that when they have done this, they are under no further obligations. By so doing we shall furnish them with an unwarrantable consolation, and contribute to shield them against the arrows of conviction. PARTICULAR REDEMPTION. I had said, “If it were essential to true saving faith to claim a personal interest in Christ's death, the objection would be unanswerable.” Mr. B. replies, “But he who has faith has a personal in- terest, whether he can claim it or not ; therefore the ob- jection is equally unanswerable on this ground; for it is making it the duty of all to have that which is an un- doubted evidence of a personal interest, whether they have that interest or not, which appears to me very absurd and ridiculous,”—p. 90. Perhaps so ; but if the same spiritual dispositions which are bestowed by the gospel are required by the law, (which Mr. B. has scarcely attempted to dis- prove, though he has said so much about it,) there can be nothing absurd or ridiculous in it. The matter entirely rests upon the solution of this ques- tion, Does THE SCRIPTURE REPRESENT ANY THING AS THE DUTY OF MANKIND IN GENERAL WITH WHICH ETERNAL HAPPINEss Is connecTED # I only wish Mr. B. had fairly tried the matter by this criterion, and had been willing to be decided by the issue. There is scarcely a truth in the sacred Scriptures capable of a clearer demonstration. This was the ground which Mr. B. declined in his Tenth Letter, —p. 70. In addition to what was said from pp. 84 to 96 of my former treatise, I shall now only add as follows:— I hope Mr. B. will allow that every man ought to love God’s law; do his commandments ; do righteousness ; be of a meek, lowly, pure, and merciful spirit; and bear so much good will, surely, to Christ, as to give a disciple a cup of cold water for his sake ; at least, he must allow, he does allow, that men ought not to be offended in him ; for he himself confesses, “ they ought not to despise, if they can- not embrace him,”—p. 96. And yet these are all evi- dences of an interest in Christ and eternal blessedness.” Mr. B. further objects that I “make faith warrantable and incumbent where there is an impossibility,”—p. 90. Well, whenever Mr. B. can find a man, or a body of men, whose salvation he can be assured is impossible, he is wel- come from me to assure them they have no warrant, and are under no obligation, to believe in Christ. In some Sense, the salvation of every sinner is possible; as no one knows what will be his end, every man while in the land of the living is in the field of hope. And that was all I meant by possibility in pp. 133, 134. Mr. B. allows that, “inasmuch as we know not who are and who are not the * Psal. exix. 165; Rev. xxii. 14; 1 John ii. 29; Matt. v. 3–9; xi. 6; Mark ix. 41. *s elect, it is the duty of every one, where the gospel of sal- vation comes, to be concerned, seek, inquire,” &c., p. 88. But what solid reason can be given for the consistency of this, which will not equally apply to the other? If it be said, These are things eacpressly commanded ; I answer, This is allowing that, IF faith in Christ is expressly com- manded, it may be consistent with the subject in question ; which is giving up the point. But further, Though I admit that the salvation of some men is impossible, that it is certain they will perish ; yet I conceive it is not such a kind of impossibility as to render exhortations to believe in Christ inconsistent. It is no otherwise impossible for them to be saved than it was for Sihon, king of the Amorites, to have enjoyed the blessings of a peace with Israel. If there is an infinite worth and fulness in the sufferings of Christ, in themselves considered —if the particularity of redemption does not consist in any want of sufficiency in the death of Christ, but in God’s sovereign purpose to render it effectual to the salvation of some men, and not of others; and in Christ's being the covenant Head and Representative of some men, and not of others—then the matter must be supposed to rest upon the same footing with all the rest of the Divine purposes. And as it was the duty of Sihon to have accepted the mes- sage of peace, and to have trusted in the goodness of him by whose order it was sent him, notwithstanding the pur- pose of God concerning him ; so it may be the duty of every sinner to accept of the message of peace which is sent him by the preaching of the gospel, and trust in Christ for the salvation of his soul. Objections equally plausible might be made to that case as to this. One might say, What end could be answered by a message of peace being sent 3 Peace was not ordain- ed for him, but destruction ; and his country was pre- viously assigned to Israel for a possession ; for him, there- fore, to have received the message of peace, and trusted in the goodness of the God of Israel, would have been trust- ing in an impossibility. If told, the purposes of God are a great deep which we cannot fathom ; that if we knew the whole system, we should see it otherwise ; that there was no natural impossibility in the affair, no such impos- sibility as to cause any inconsistency in it; and that, in the present state, we must take the revealed and not the secret will of God for the rule of our duty; he might have replied, like Mr. B., True ; but God’s secret will is the rule of his conduct to us; and surely he has not decreed by giving Sihon up to hardness of heart, to leave him des- titute of a right spirit, and then punish him for the want of it: this would...be cruel and shocking !—p. 88. After all that Mr. B. has said, it is evident from the above manner of speaking that he does, in fact, make the decrees of God rules of human action ; and herein lies a considerable part of the difference between us. We be- lieve the doctrine of Divine predestination as fully as he does, but dare not apply it to such purposes. g SECTION XI. REPLY TO MR. B.’S THIRTEENTH LETTER, ON THE TEN- DENCY OF THESE PRINCIPLES TO ESTABLISH THE DOC- TRINES OF HUMAN DEPRAVITY, DIVINE GRACE, THE WORK of THE SPIRIT, &c. I HAD observed that the sentiment I opposed, as well as that which I attempted to establish, “represented man as utterly wrable to do things SPIRITUALLY GooD ; but then it made THAT inability to be no part of his depravity, but altogether innocent in its nature.” Mr. B. quotes this passage, not, however, as I wrote it, but very differ- ently in sense as well as in words, and then finds fault with that which he himself had inserted,—p. 96. I never imagined that he would maintain men's aversion from all “moral good” to be innocent, nor even their aversion from spiritual things; though I did not suppose he would have allowed that aversion to make any part of their in- ability. Mr. B. complains of being injured, in that he is represented as maintaining the inability of man to things 208 REPLY TO MR. BUTTON. spiritually good to be altogether innocent. What I affirm- ed was, that “the sentiment, when it spake consistently with itself, did so.” I think so still ; for it appears to me an inconsistency for a man to be “both naturally and morally unable" to come to Christ. Something has been said upon this subject already in the note, p. 320 ; but as this is a subject on which Mr. B. frequently insists, let us examine it more particularly. In the first place, Supposing men’s inability to do things spiritually good to be partly natural, and partly moral, then, after all, it must follow that they are in part to blame for their non-compliance with those things; and so con- sequently the contrary must in part have been their duty. That this sentiment follows from the position of Mr. B. is certain ; but whose cause it will subserve I cannot tell ; it seems to suit neither. Mr. B., beyond doubt, means all along to deny every thing spiritually good being either in whole or in part the duty of carnal men. I have attempted on the other hand to maintain that such obedience is not merely in part, but fully, incumbent upon them. And one should think it either is incumbent upon them, or it is not; but the above position implies that it is neither. Further, I question if both these kinds of inability can possibly obtain in the same instance. Where there is, and always was, an entire matural inability, there appears to be no room for an inability of a moral nature. It would sound uncouth to affirm of any of the brute creation, that they are morally as well as naturally unable to credit the gospel. It would be equally uncouth to affirm of a man in his grave, that he is unwilling as well as unable to rise up and walk. That men are capable of hating spiritual things nobody will dispute. But it is impossible that there should sub- sist any aversion from what there is an entire natural in- ability to understand. We cannot hate that of which we have no idea, any more than love it. A brute, be his savage disposition ever so great, is incapable of aversion from every thing superior to his nature to understand. The same may be said of any being, intelligent or unin- telligent. I may be told, perhaps, that a poor man may be of such a temper of mind, that if he had a natural ability to re- lieve the distressed, he would still be under a moral in- ability. Be it so ; it is not proper to say he is morally as well as naturally unable to relieve the indigent. It might with truth be said that he is morally unable to do such kind actions as are within his reach ; and we may con- clude he would be equally so to relieve the indigent, if his wealth were to increase. But this does not prove that moral inability can exist without matural ability. Be- sides, the inability of the poor man to relieve the distressed is not in every respect total, and so is not of equal extent with that pleaded for in carmal men, as to the discernment of spiritual things. No man, however poor, is destitute of those faculties and powers of mind by which generous actions are performed. It is impossible, perhaps, to find a man naturally unable in every respect to do good in some way or other to his fellow creatures; or if a man of that description could be found, he must be utterly void of reason ; and in that case he cannot be said to be morally as well as naturally unable to do good. Those who possess great natural ability are capable of being the subjects of greater moral inability and guilt than others whose capacities are less. It is not in some men’s power to be so wicked as others. And where there is and always was an entire natural incapacity, there is no place for an incapacity of a moral nature in any degree. Mr. B. denies that men either have or ever had any natural ability for the embracing of spiritual things. We reply, If so, they would be equally incapable of rejecting as of em- bracing them. The aversion of the human mind from things of that nature I conceive to be a strong additional argument in our favour; for which argument my thanks are due to Mr. Button. The above observations may be considered as a further reply to the quotation from Mr. Brine,—p. 57. Can Mr. B. seriously pretend to maintain that his senti- ments represent human depravity in an equal light with ours ? It seems he wishes to have it thought so ; but with what colour of evidence it is difficult to conceive. We suppose men's aversion is so great as to amount to a total moral inability, and so to render Divine influence abso- lutely necessary. But Mr. B. expresses his surprise that we should call this inability total,—pp. 56.93. It seems, then, he does not think that the chain of men’s native aversion from God and spiritual things is strong enough to keep them from coming to Christ, without having some- thing else in conjunction with it. But if this cannot be maintained, he seems certain of the advantage in one respect at least. “We certainly,” says Mr. B., “lay man much lower than he does; ” and this he thinks has a tendency to abase his pride, while our sentiments tend to gratify and promote it, p. 96. It is true Mr. B. does lay man lower than we do ; but it is ob- servable that, so far as that is the case, it is not in the character of a sinner, but of a creature of God; not on ac- count of what he has made himself, but on account of what God has made him ; and if this is the way in which we are to be humbled, it might be done still more effectually if we were reduced to the condition of a stock or a stone. In reply to what is said on the doctrine of grace, and the work of the Spirit, (pp. 1. 93.97,) little need be said in ad- dition to the above. Though Mr. B. sometimes speaks of men's inability as being partly innocent and partly crimi- mal; yet, as was said before, it was manifestly his design all along to prove men wholly excusable in their omission of every thing spiritually good. But suppose it were other- wise; suppose they were only in part excusable ; if it be a more glorious instance of grace, and a greater exertion of Divine influence, to save one who is partly innocent than one who is entirely to blame, it must be upon this prin- ciple, that, in proportion as criminality is lessened, the glory of Divine grace in salvation is increased ; and if so, then the most glorious display of grace that could be mani- fested in our salvation, must be upon the supposition of our being altogether innocent : - “When ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you,” says Christ to his disciples, “ say, We are unprofitable servants : we have dome that which was our duty to do,” Luke xvii. 10. From this passage two things are observable : First, That obedience to God cannot merit any thing at his hands. Secondly, The reason why there is no such thing as merit in our obedience is, that all the good we have done, or may do, is commanded, is our duty. Hence it follows, 1. That the very idea of duty excludes merit, and cuts off boasting. 2. That the more attached we are to our duty, as such, the more distant we are from all pretence of merit or boasting. The very way to extirpate the motion of human merit is to consider all which we do as being our duty. 3. That if it were possible to perform any thing which does not come under the idea of duty, then would there be some ground for merit. If the foregoing observations be just, it scarcely needs asking, Which sentiment is it that cuts off boasting, that of faith being considered as a duty, or the opposite? Perhaps it may be said, in answer to this, that when a man is enlightened by the Spirit of God, it is then his duty to believe. But I think, if it be not incumbent before, it will be difficult to prove it so at all. In this case the work of the Spirit upon the heart must constitute the ground of duty, and then it is necessary that the person should know that he is the subject of this work, before he can see it is his duty to believe. But by what evidences can he obtain this knowledge 3 Surely not by his impeni- tency and unbelief; and yet, till he has repented and be- lieved, he can have nothing better. - If it be as Mr. B. represents, the work of the Spirit must consist in giving us new natural powers. If we have no natural power to embrace spiritual things till we are regenerated, then regeneration must be the creation of natural power. And what this is different from creating a new soul is difficult to determine. Be that as it may, the creating of natural power cannot be a spiritual exer- tion any more than the creation of a leg or an arm, and so cannot be reckoned amongst the special spiritual oper- ations of the Holy Spirit. Whatever grace there may be in it, it is no part of the grace of the gospel ; it is no part of salvation. It is not any thing that became necessary through sºn 5 for it is supposed that man was as destitute of it in his created as in his fallen state. One should REPLY TO MR. BUTTON. 209 think, therefore, it can be nothing which is given us in behalf of Christ as Mediator, or for which we shall have to praise him in that character to eternity. Among a catalogue of other bad consequences imputed to my sentiments, they are said to be “distressing to saints,”—p. 105. This, for aught I know, may be just. They certainly have a tendency to convince both saint and sinner of abundance of sin, which the sentiments here opposed make to be no sin. It is no wonder, therefore, that true saints, by discerning their great obligations, both before and after conversion, to love the Lord Jesus Christ, should now be greatly distressed in a way of godly sorrow. Looking upon him whom they pierced, they mourn, as one that is in bitterness for his first-born. But this, so far from being brought as an objection, ought to be considered as a corroboration. That which tends to soothe and quiet the minds of men, by giving diminutive representations of the causes of reflection and grief, is not the gospel. The gospel gives peace which passeth all understanding, and this is consistent with the exercise of the most pungent grief; but that quietness of mind which arises from a diminution of blame-worthiness rather de- serves the name of ease than of peace, and is much more to be dreaded than desired. It was acknowledged, in the former treatise, “that many who have dealt in addresses to unconverted sinners have dabbled in Arminianism.” Mr. B. hence repeatedly represents me as acknowledging that they tend that way, p. i. Pref. and p. 100. This I must beg leave absolutely to deny. There is no such acknowledgment, nor any thing like it; but the very reverse. Mr. B. cannot be ignorant that many who have maintained the doctrines of grace have more than dabbled in Antinomianism, and yet that is no proof that the doctrines of grace are really of that tendency. As to the use that is made of my concession concerning the manner of addressing sinners, such as “Come to Christ now, this moment,” &c., (p. 99,) I might refer the reader for answer to the passage itself; yea, to that part of it which Mr. B. has quoted. Surely he had no reason to conclude that I thought a believing in Christ was a matter that might safely be deferred. He professes to maintain that men ought to be perfectly holy, in some sense or other ; but does he ever say to his auditory, Be perfectly holy now, this moment 3 & One remark mere on this subject requires a reply. I had attempted to remove the supposed absurdity of ad- dresses to dead sinners, by observing that we supposed spiritual death to be altogether a criminal affair. Mr. B. answers, from Mr. Wayman, “It was man’s sin to destroy a moral life, but it is not man's sin that he hath not a Spiritual one. It is God’s eternal grace that gives life,” -–p. 102. To this it is replied, This position requires a higher authority to support it than Mr. Wayman.* If we admitted this sentiment as true, then, it is granted, our manner of address to unconverted sinners would be in- consistent ; but we deny it. In order to prove our con- duct absurd, it should be proved to be inconsistent with some allowed principle, and not barely with the principles of our opponents. SECTION XII. SOME SERIOUS CONSIDERATIONS RECOMMENDED TO MR. B. AND THE READER. THERE is great danger, in all disputes, of running into extremes. Mr. B. thinks my sentiments “the high road to Arminianism,” (p. 100,) and perhaps to “something $oorse,”—p. 2. I am not convinced, at present, of their having any such tendency. However, it becomes me to Watch against every thing that might lead me aside from the simplicity of the gospel, be that what it may ; and I * “It is not man's sin that he hath not a spiritual one:”—If spiritual life be what we never had, then we cannot be said to be $piritually dead; for death is not a mere negative, but a privative idea. “It is God's eternal grace that gives life.”—True; and is it not P hope I shall so far take Mr. B.'s advice. I hope also, in my turn, I may be allowed, without offence, to suggest a few serious hints to the same end. Mr. B. seems to think all the danger of erring to lie on one side (pp. i. ii. Pref.); it is allowed there is danger on that side, but not on that side only. In general, then, I wish Mr. B. to consider whether his principles do not tend to lead him farther than he seriously intends to go. Particularly, If, in the course of his ministry, he avoids giving the carnal part of his auditory to understand that God requires any thing of them which is spiritually good, whether it will not be natural for them so to understand it as to reckon themselves not at all obliged to love GoD, to be truly Joly, to be the subjects of any internal religion whatever; and whe.her they do not, in fact, so understand it. Whatever difference there is between these things in the opinion of the preacher, I incline to think not one hearer in a hun- dred makes any account of it. They understand it of every thing which concerns the heart. The generality of those who would be offended with us for enjoining spiritual obedience upon our carnal auditors would, I apprehend, be equally offended with Mr. B., were he to signify that they ought to worship God in spirit and in truth, or to love him with their whole heart. Were any thing of this sort delivered, and nothing added to explain it away, it is likely the preacher would be interrogated in some such manner as this : How can unregenerate sinners love God, or worship him in spirit and in truth 2 You might as well call to the dead to come forth, or bid people take wings and fly to heaven. Their business is to attend the means, and if God please to give them a heart to love him, well and good ; but if not, to what purpose are all your harangues about what people ought to do? Cease this legal business, preach the doctrines of the gospel, and leave the Holy Spirit to do his own work. In the above, no respect whatever is had in a personal way to Mr. B. or any of his friends. What is written is founded upon such facts as have fallen under my observ- ation; and I suppose that the same causes are usually productive of the same effects in one place as in another. Further, It may be well for Mr. B. to consider, while he professes to allow that men ought to do whatever was in the power of man in a state of innocence, whether his sentiments do not insensibly lead him to excuse men from every thing but what may be done by a wicked mind, without any true love to God, or regard for his glory. Mr. B., when asked in controversy “whether any internal religion is now re- quired of men towards God or not,” answers in the affirmative, p. 72. But is it a matter which his views of things would ever, of their own accord, lead him to dwell upon ? I am glad to see the frankness with which he ex- presses himself concerning the law of God being exceed- ingly broad. “If the principles I have advanced,” says he, “contradict this truth, let them for ever be discarded,” —p. 95. Mr. B.’s meaning, in this ingenuous sentence, cannot be supposed to amount to less than this—that if he perceived his present sentiments to clash with the spirituality of the law, he would disown them ; and if he found them to have such a tendency, he would at least suspect them. Now I desire, in this matter, to be deter- mined by facts; and by facts that cannot fairly be dis- puted. I ask, then, in what manner do Mr. B.’s senti- ments lead him to Expoun D ScripTURE 7. How has he expounded the second Psalm and the sixth of Jeremiah 3 What has he made these passages to require more than external obedience 3 Is it not the tendency of all he says concerning the addresses of Christ and his apostles to their carnal auditors to reduce them to the capacity, not of a right spirit, such as man possessed in a state of innocence, but of an apostate mind? Are they not all along made to mean no more than what may be done without any real love to God, or regard for his glory? Is not such a sense put upon Isa. xlii. 18, “Look, ye blind,” &c., as that its requirements shall be “witHIN THE COMPASS OF NATURAL MEN, who ARE INTERNALLY DEAF AND BLIND $’’—p. 103. This is certainly a serious matter; and I hope Mr. B. God’s eternal grace that gives to a fallen creature a conformity to his holy law f and yet it does not follow from thence that it is not man's duty to have it. 210 REPLY TO PHILANTHROPOS. will seriously consider it. If he does indeed believe the law to be spiritual, and to require internal religion, it is hoped he will, on all proper occasions, acknowledge it, and not attempt to bring down the precepts of the Bible to the dispositions of an apostate creature; otherwise people may be ready to say he holds the spirituality of the law as some others do the doctrines of grace, who never think proper to mention them, except when an occasion offers to explain them away. If any thing in the preceding pages should be thought unkind, or exceeding the liberty we are allowed to use with a Christian brother, I hope for Mr. B.’s forgiveness. I can truly say, If there is, it is unknown to me. It has been my endeavour, all along, to make him feel nothing, except it be the force of truth. Before I conclude, I would beg leave to recommend a few serious hints to the reader. Whoever he is, and what- ever his opinion may be in reference to this controversy, let me entreat him to put one serious question to his own soul, “ Dost thow believe on the Son of God +” Let him remember that nothing less than his eternal salvation or destruction hangs upon the answer; that the question must be answered, sooner or later; that there is no medium between being Christ's friend and his enemy; and that it is not taking this or the other side of a dispute that will denominate any man a Christian. Neither let him evade the question by answering that he has already been ac- knowledged as a believer in Christ, is a member of a Christian church, perhaps a preacher of the gospel, and has long been in the habit of taking this matter for granted, and of sitting in judgment upon other men and other things. All this may be true; and yet things may issue in a dreadful disappointment But supposing the reader a real Christian, still there is great reason for prayer and watchfulness. Reading con- troversies may be advantageous, or it may be hurtful; and that according to the spirit with which it is attended to. Every man had need to read with some degree of judgment of his own ; and yet if he set out with a determination to receive nothing but what shall accord with his own present view of things, he is likely to derive no real good, and per- haps much harm. He may meet with what confirms him in his sentiments, and those sentiments may be on the side of truth ; but if he have such a determination, though his creed is right, his faith is wrong ; especially if it lead him to despise others who think differently, and to glory over them as being confuted. On the other hand, he may meet with that which contradicts his sentiments; he may reject it with abhorrence; and, in so doing, think his heart very much established with grace, so as not to be carried away with every wind of doctrine ; and yet all may amount to nothing but a being wise in his own eyes. We are never so safe as when we go about these matters with prayer, fear, and trembling. The subject here dis- cussed is not a mere matter of speculation; it enters deeply into our spiritual concerns, relating both to this life and that to come. It is a matter, therefore, that is well worthy of earnest prayer, and of serious and im- partial attention. If truth is but sought in this manner, it will be found. “The meek will he guide in judgment, and the meek will he teach his way.” REPLY TO THE OBSERVATIONS OF PHILANTHROPOS. 1T may appear somewhat extraordinary that the same sentiments should be liable to opposition from two gentle- men of such contrary principles as Mr. BUTTON and PHI- LANTHROPOS. It may be less surprising, however, when it is considered that there are certain points in which the most opposite extremes are known to meet. An attentive reader will perceive a great affinity in the tendency of their reasonings on various subjects. If I am not greatly mistaken, they both particularly agree in denying faith in Christ to be a duty required by the moral law ; and in ex- cusing the sinner, unless grace is bestowed upon him, in his non-compliance with every thing spiritually good. As to the spirit of Philanthropos, he has treated me with candour and respect. many of his sentiments, and though I think he has written in some places (pp. 88.92, 93) in a manner bordering on irreverence, yet, so far as it concerns myself, what he has advanced has never, that I remember, “given me a mo- ment’s pain.” He has examined with freedom what I ad- vanced. I respect him for so doing. I can, with the less fear of offence, use a like freedom in return. Complaint is made of the use of the terms Arminian, Calvinist, &c., pp. 52–56. When I have used the former of these terms, I am not conscious of ever having used it as “a term of reproach.” As to calling P., or any other person, an Arminian, I never desire to affix to an honest man a name by which he would not call himself. For my own part, though I never mean to set up any man as a standard of faith, and though in some things I think differently from Calvin, yet as I agree with him in the main, particularly in the leading sentiments advanced in the former treatise, and as it served to avoid unnecessary cir- cumlocution, I have used the term Calvinist, and have no * If I am not misinformed, the Remonstrants, in their Apology, maintained that “that ought not to be commanded which is wrought in us; and cannot be wrought in us which is commanded; that he foolishly commandeth that to be done of others who will work in them what he commandeth.”—Cap. 9. p. 105. And to the same purpose Episcopius: “That it is a most absurd thing to affirm that Though I quite disapprove of objection to being so called by others. Whether P. is an Arminian or not is of very little account with me ; it is not very difficult, however, to discern the leading features of his scheme in the ºvorks of those who have chosen to be called by that name. But complaint is further made of the Arminian divines being misrepresented,—p. 52. Though I have no better an opinion of Arminius's doc- trine of the Spirit's work, as given us by P., (p. 53,) than I had before, and though I believe it would be no difficult matter to prove that the generality of Arminian divines have carried matters further than Arminius himself did, (as P. seems in part to admit,”) yet I acknowledge what I said on that subject, in the passage referred to, was too strong, though, at the time I wrote, I was not aware of it. To what is said in p. 10 I have no material objection. What I meant was merely to disown that any sinner was encouraged by the gospel to hope for eternal life, without returning home to God by Jesus Christ. The omission of part of Isa. lv. 7, as also the mistake respecting the prayer of the publican, were altogether without design. There are some remarks which, I think, are made merely for want of considering that those with whom I was in debate were professed Calvinists. Thus, in p. 30, I am corrected for taking for granted that which should have been proved. Had the controversy been with P., or those of his sentiments, the observation had been just ; or had I called any sentiment, which was professedly a subject in debate, a “gospel doctrine,” as P. has done, (p. 38,) per- haps the complaint had been made with greater propriety. I need not have any dispute with P. concerning the de- finition of faith; for though he tells his correspondent that I “do not suppose faith to include in it confidence,” yet he knows I, all along, maintain confidence, or trust, God either effects by his power, or procureth by his wisdom, that the elect should do those things that he requireth of them.”—Disp. pri. 8. Thes. 7. These sentiments, if I understand them, amount to the same thing as “denying the necessity of the Spirit of God to enable us to do our duty.” The above passages are taken from Dr. Owen's Display of Arminianism, c. X. • REPLY TO PHILANTHROPOS. 2II to be incumbent on men in general. God ought, no doubt, to be trusted, or confided in, for the fulfilment of whatever he has promised, be that what it may. I ac- knowledged before that “faith in Christ, as generally used in the New Testament, was to be taken in a large sense ; as including not only the belief of the truth, but the actual outgoing of the soul towards Christ in a way of dependence upon him,”—p. 23. My views of trust, or confidence, will be seen more fully in the Third Section of this Reply. By what I said of believing the gospel report, and of this report extending not only to general truths, but to the particular description of their intrinsic nature, I certainly did not mean, as P. has understood me, “that all poor sinners, who are brought to the enjoyment of salvation, must have the very same ideas of whatever God hath re- ported concerning Christ and his salvation ; and this to the very same extent,”—p. 17. My intention was to prove that a real belief of the gospel report carried in it a belief of its glory and importance, and so included more than it was frequently supposed to do. Many persons, observing that people would avow the general doctrines of Christian- ity, and yet live in a course of sin, have hence concluded that a belief of the gospel was no more than a man might have, and perish everlastingly. It was this opinion that I meant to oppose; and by proving that a real belief of the gospel is a belief of its intrinsic nature, as well as of its general truths, I suppose I proved what was there intend- ed, viz. that it extends further than the faith of any wicked man, let him have assorted his notions with ever so much accuracy. There is a great difference between a want of ideas, through a natural weakness of intellect or lack of oppor- tunity to obtain them, and a positive rejection of what God has revealed. There is an equal difference between a Christian of weak capacity believing the intrinsic excel- lency of the gospel, and “being able to describe it, or even to ascertain all the general truths of Christianity.” The weakest Christian believes and lives upon THAT in the gospel of which a wicked man, whatever be his intellects and advantages, has no idea. “We ALL, with open face, beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image, from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.” But “the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not.” P. allows the necessity of believing the gospel, (p. 16,) and yet seems, afterwards, rather to wish to set this idea aside, and to place the essence of faith in trusting or con- Jöding in Christ for salvation,-pp. 17, 18. But shall we not talk without meaning, if we talk of confiding in Christ without respect had to something testified, or some rule by which our confidence is to be directed # If we dispense with the truth of God, as the warrant and rule of our con- fidence, however it may become very extensive, and fit professors of opposite ways of thinking, it will be found, at the great day, no better than a building erected upon the sand. As to the question, “To what degree, or extent, must a poor sinner believe the truth of the gospel?” (p. 16,) it is not for me to answer it. If I were asked, “To what de- gree of holiness must a man arrive in order to see the Lord?” I should be equally unable to reply. That men have different natural capacities and opportunities is cer- tainly true, and according to the different degrees of these are their obligations both to receive God’s truth and to exert themselves for his glory. That there is also great contrariety of sentiment is equally true : and how far the mercy of God may extend, through the death of his Son, in passing over the errors of men's minds, or those of their conduct, is not for me to say ; but I think it is our busi- ness to maintain a rule for faith as well as for practice. But, waving lesser remarks, the substance of what is advanced may, I think, be reduced to the following heads: —Whether regeneration is prior to coming to Christ, as a cause is prior to its effect;-whether moral inability is or is not excusable;—whether faith in Christ is required by the moral law;-and whether an obligation upon all those to whom the gospel is preached to believe in Christ, and the encouragements held out to them to do so, is incon- sistent with a limitation of design in his death. On each of these subjects I shall make a few remarks. SECTION I. WHETHER REGENERATION IS PRIOR TO OUR COMING TO CHRIST. THose writers whose sentiments I made free to examine generally maintain a distinction between the principle and the act of faith. I did not dispute this matter, but admit- ted it; and, upon those principles, endeavoured to prove the point then in question. P. greatly disapproves of this distinction, and asks “wherein the distinction lies;” and where the Scripture teaches us to make it, p. 14. The difference between a principle and an actual exertion was supposed to be illustrable by a principle of honesty being previous to an upright conduct; but P. thinks this will not answer the end, because faith is purely mental; it be- ing with the heart that man believeth. Although this is true, yet I see not how it affects the matter. A principle of honesty is as necessary to a purpose to act uprightly (which is a mental exertion) as it is to the action itself. It is not supposed, however, that there is a distinct principle wrought in the heart, which may be called a principle of faith, in distinction from other graces; but rather a new turn or bias of mind, previously to all acts or exercises whatsoever, internal or external, which are spirit- ually good. And if faith is an act of the mind at all, if especially it be taken for the soul's coming to Christ, as P. contends, then, unless an evil tree can bring forth good Jruit, there must be a new bias of mind previously to such an act. Again, coming to Christ, if it be a duty, (and P. will allow it is,) must be something pleasing to God; and, if this may be done prior to the Spirit of God dwelling in us, then it should seem, notwithstanding what the Scrip- ture affirms to the contrary, that they who are in the flesh MAY please God; for every man is in the flesh till the Spi- rit of God dwelleth in him, Rom. viii. 8, 9. One should think that not only Scripture, but a common observation of the workings of our own minds, might teach us the need of a bias of mind different from that which prevails over men in general, in order to their coming to Christ. Whoever be the cause of such a bias, let that at present be out of the question : suppose it is man him- self, still a turn of some sort there must be ; for it will hardly be said that the same thoughts and temper of mind which lead a man to despise and reject the Saviour will lead him to esteem and embrace him That a turn of mind is necessary to our coming to Christ seems evident, then, from the nature of things; and if so, our mistake must lie, if any where, in ascribing it to the Spirit of God. Whether the first beginning of God’s work upon the mind consist in giving us a spiritual discernment, whereby spiritual things, or the importance and glory of Divine truth, are discerned, or whether it consist in a Divine energy attending the word itself, causing it to break in as it were upon the mind, and bear down every opposition before it, are questions each of which has its difficulties. But whatever difficulties might attend a discussion of these questions, and whatever might be the issue, it would very little, if at all, affect the present controversy. If it is said, It does affect it—for if the first beginning of God’s work upon the mind is by the word, it must be by the word be- lieved; I answer, first, that this may be questioned. The word, it is true, must be understood, in a measure, in order to have any effect; but it is a question with me whether a person must believe the gospel before it can have any effect upon him. We know that truth frequently maintains a long struggle with darkness and error before they are overcome ; during which time it may be said that God has been at work upon the mind by means of his word; and yet that word cannot be said to be believed till the opposition drops, and the soul becomes a captive ; in other words, till the heart is brought to set seal that God is true. If it is insisted that that degree of conviction which exists in the mind, while the heart remains unsubdued, is pro- perly called believing the word so far as it goes, I shall not dispute about terms, but shall at the same time insist that it is not such believing as to denominate any person a be- liever. But, secondly, P. insists that true faith in Christ is something more than believing the Divine testimony; P 2 212 REPLY TO PHILANTHROPOS. that it is the soul’s actual coming to Christ: now if so, though the word should be allowed to be instrumental in the renewal of the mind, yet that renewal must precede believing, or the soul's application to the Saviour. So that, granting him all he can desire, it will not prove that regeneration follows upon believing, in his sense of the word. - The great question between us is this, WHETHER THE Holy SPIRIT of GoD IS THE PROPER AND EFFICIENT CAUSE OF A siRNER's BELIEVING IN JESUS CHRIST ; OR WHETHER IT BE OWING TO HIS HOLY INFLUENCE, AND THAT ALONE, THAT ONE SINNER BELIEVES IN CHRIST RATHER THAN ANOTHER. If this were but allowed, we should be contented. If the first beginning of God’s work upon the mind is by the word, let it but be granted that it is by the agency of the Holy Spirit causing that word to be embraced by one person, as it is not by another, and so as to become effectual, and we are satisfied. If this is but granted, it will amount to the same thing as that which we mean by regeneration preceding our coming to Christ, since the cause always precedes the effect. But if I rightly understand P., he leaves out the agency of the Holy Spirit in the act itself of believing ; main- taining that the Spirit is not given till after we have be- lieved,—p. 22. If there is any Divine agency in the mat- ter, it can be only a sort of grace which is given to men in common ; and this can be no reason why one man believes rather than another ; it is the man himself, after all, who is the proper cause of his own believing. It is owing to himself, it seems, that the good work is begun ; and then God promises to carry it on to the day of Jesus Christ. I cannot but think this sentiment highly derogatory to the honour of the Holy Spirit, and contrary to the tenor of the sacred Scriptures. In proof of this let the follow- ing observations be duly considered :— I. The Scriptures not only represent salvation as being “through faith,” but they ascribe faith itself to the opera- tion of the Spirit of God. Those who come to Christ are described as having first “heard and learned ” of the Father, and as being drawn by him ; nor can any man come to him, except it be given him of the Father. Nor can this learning be applied to the mere outward ministry of the word ; for all who are thus taught of God do not come to Christ. Faith, as well as love, joy, peace, long- suffering, gentleness, and goodness, is a fruit of the Spirit. “We believe according to the working of his mighty power;” a power equal to that which raised our Lord from the dead. Faith is expressly said to be “ of the operation of God.” We are not only saved “by grace through faith,” but even “that is not of ourselves; it is the gift of God.” If regeneration be brought about by any exertion of ours, it is not only contrary to all ideas of generation, (to which undoubtedly it alludes,) but also to the express testimony of Scripture, which declares that “we are born, not of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” & Those parts of Scripture which speak of the instrument- ality of the word in our sanctification take care to ascribe all to the agency of the Holy Spirit. They who under- stand the gospel, and who are changed into the same image, are represented as so doing “by the Spirit of God.” Christ did not pray that the truth might sanctify men, but that God would sanctify them by his truth. If the word become effectual, it is when it comes “not in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit, and in much assurance.” If it bring about the salvation of those wº believe, it is because it is the power of God to that end...f. II. The Scriptures represent all the great instances of conversion as effects of some peculiar outpourings of the Spirit of God. We may instance two periods; the time of the great conversions in the apostles' days, and the time of latter-day glory yet to come. Of the former of these periods it was promised, “The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion; rule thou in the midst of thine enemies. Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power.” And again, “In that day will I pour out upon * John vi. 44, 45.65; Gal. v. 22; Eph. i. 19; Col. ii. 12; Eph. ii. 8; John i. 13. - - + 2 Cor. iii. 18; John xvii. 17; 1 Thess. i. 5; Rom. i. 16. the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusa- lem, the Spirit of grace and of supplications, and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn.”—s-“In that day there shall be a fountain opened,” &c. These promises were gloriously accomplished soon after Christ's ascension, when thousands of those who had voted for the crucifixion of the Messiah became captives to all-conquering grace The Lord Jesus himself preached to these very people; yet, though he was the greatest of all preachers, he laboured in vain. They believed not his report. He was a root out of a dry ground in their eyes. How came they to be- lieve the apostles rather than him 3 To what cause can it be imputed but to the arm of the Lord being revealed? To what cause can we ascribe their superior success, not only in Judea, but throughout the Gentile world, except to the Spirit being poured down from on high, in conse- quence of Christ's ascension ? Christ told his disciples that they should do the works that he did, and greater works than those, “because,” says he, “I go unto my Father.” Yes: hence it was that the Spirit of truth was sent, not only to comfort believers, but to convince the world of sin. The prayers of the apostles and primitive ministers show that their hope of success did not arise from the pliable- mess of men's tempers, or the suitableness of the gospel to their dispositions, but from the power of Almighty God attending their ministrations. “The weapons of their warfare,” however fitted for the purpose, “were mighty THROUGH GoD to the pulling down of strong holds.” To GoD they sent up their earnest and united petitions before they opened their commission. Meeting in an upper room, “they continued with one accord in prayer and supplication.” And, afterwards, we find the apostle Paul requesting his Thessalonian brethren to pray for him and his associates in the work of the ministry, “that the word of the Lord might have free course and be glorified.” The great accessions to the church of God in the latter days are ascribed to the same cause. In the 60th chapter of Isaiah, after abundance of rich promises of a large and glorious increase, after the multitudes of conversions to Christ had been rapturously compared to a cloud, and the flockings of doves to their windows, the whole is thus concluded: “Thy people shall be all righteous : they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorifted. A little one shall become a thousand, and a small one a strong nation : I the Lord will hasten it in his time.” When the seventh angel sounded, and voices were heard, saying, “ The king- doms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ, the four-and-twenty elders immediately fell upon their faces, and blessed him who was, who is, and is to come, because he had taken to him his great power, and reigned.” But if the Spirit of God is not the cause why one sin- ner believes in Christ rather than another, then he is not the cause why there are more believers at one period of time than at another. And, if so, to what purpose are the before-cited prayers or promises As to the former, however strongly they speak of latter-day glory, and of God’s taking to him his great power, and reigning, they are, after all, mere predictions of what will be, rather than promises of what shall be. The same may be said of the promises concerning the success of the gospel after Christ's ascension. As to the latter, to what purpose was it to pray for what they already had 3 They had a gospel adapted to the condition of lost sinners; and as to Divine grace, if any thing of that be necessary to a reception of it, their hearers are supposed to have had a sufficiency of that already bestowed upon them, otherwise it would have been a mockery to address them. Now, if things are so, might not the apostles have expected some such an answer to their prayers as was given to Dives? “They have Moses and the prophets,” yea, Christ and the apostles, “let them hear them; ” I have given them grace sufficient already : I shall do nothing more in order to their conversion, no- thing at all, until they have believed. # Isa. liii. 1; xxxii. 15; John xiv. 12; xvi. 8. § 2 Cor. x. 4; Acts i. 14; 2 Thess, iii. 1. *::: REPLY TO PHILANTHROPOS. 213 III. The Scriptures represent God as having a deter- minate design in his goings forth in a way of grace, a design which shall never be frustrated. “My counsel,” saith the Lord, “shall stand, and I will do all my plea- sure.”—“I will work, and who shall let it?” In the send- ing forth of his gospel, particularly, he speaks on this wise : “For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater; so shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth : it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.” But the scheme of P., if I understand it, supposes no such design. On the contrary, it supposes that God, in sending his Son into the world, and the gospel of salvation by him, never absolutely determined the salvation of one soul; that, notwithstanding any provision which he had made to the contrary, the whole world, after all, might have etermally perished ; the Son of God might never have seen of the travail of his soul; the gospel might have been a universal savour of death unto death ; and the whole harvest of the Divine proceedings “an heap in the day of grief, and of desperate sorrow !” To say that God designed to save believers, and there- fore his design is not frustrated, is to say true, but not sufficient. For how if there had been no believers to save 3 And there might have been none at all according to this scheme ; and so, instead of the serpent’s head being bruised by the Seed of the woman, Satan might at last have come off triumphant; and the Creator, the Re- deemer, and the Sanctifier of men might have been baffled in all the works of their hands ! IV. The character of the converted, during their carnal state, is frequently such as proves that their conversion is to be ascribed to sovereign, discriminating, and efficacious grace. It is not owing to any excellency in the objects, either natural or moral, that they are converted rather than others. The apostle appeals to the Corinthians in respect of the former kind of excellences: “For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God hath chosen the foolish—the weak—and the base things of this world, to confound the wise, the mighty,” &c. And all this is said to be, “that no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him,” continues the apostle, “ are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemp- tion ; that he that glorieth may glory in the Lord.” God bestows converting grace without any respect to 'moral qualities. The chief of sinners are frequently brought to believe in Christ before others, who are far behind them in imiquity. Numberless examples might be produced of this. I shall only instance the case of those two famous, or rather infamous, cities, Jerusalem and Corinth. The one had been guilty of shedding the Re- deemer's blood, and the other was a sink of abominations. And yet there were more believers in these cities than in almost any other. How this can be accounted for, but upon the supposition of sovereign and invincible grace, is difficult to say. For whether the depravity of man is sufficient to overcome any grace that is not invincible or not, it will be allowed, surely, to have a tendency that Way. And if so, one should think, the greater the de- pravity of any man is, the more improbable must be his eonversion. The worst of sinners, therefore, believing before others, appears to be altogether inexplicable on the scheme here opposed ; but to sovereign and omnipotent grace every mountain becomes a plain ; and to this the conversions in both these cities are attributed in Scripture. Of the one it was promised, “Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power.” . As to the other, they were reminded that, though they had been of the worst of cha- racters, yet now they were “washed—they were sanctified by the Spirit of God.” And, before their conversion, the apostle was encouraged in preaching, by this testimony, “I have much people in this city.” V. The Scriptures represent the grace given by the - Holy Spirit as being effectual, or as producing certain and abiding effects. One great difference between the covenant made with the whole nation of Israel at Sinai, and that which God promised to make with his elect under the gospel, appears to consist in this : that the former only propounded things by way of moral suasion, but the latter not only admits of this, but provides for its becoming ef- fectual : “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah : not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers—which covenant they brake.—But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and will be their God, and they shall be my people.” This seems to constitute one essential difference between the law and the gospel ; on account of which the one is called the letter, and the other the spirit. The one is a mere inefficient rule of right and wrong, the other makes provision for the bestowment of the Holy Spirit. It is observable, also, that these promises, which rsspect the first beginning of real good in the soul, are in every respect absolute. When promises are made of things which follow after our believing, they are generally, if not always, connected with something good in the subject : thus it is promised that the righteous shall hold on his way, and that they that endure to the end shall be saved. But nothing of that kind is mentioned here. If it is objected that, after mention made of some such things in the prophecy of Ezekiel, it is added, “Thus saith the Lord God, I will yet for this be inquired of by the house of Israel, to do it for them ; ” I reply, It is granted that nothing is more reasonable than that every man should pray to God to create in him a clean heart, and renew in him a right spirit; and yet nothing is more certain than that no man ever did so pray, in sincerity and truth, while under the dominion of sin. And if God, in the bestowment of a new heart, were to wait for this, not an individual would be found amongst the fallen race of man to be a recipient of his favour. * But how, then, are we to understand the passage before cited 3 I answer, Does not the Lord there speak of what he would do for his church, in a way of increasing it with men like a flock 2 If giving a new heart, in the former part of the chapter, is to be understood of regeneration, God might make pro- mises to them to renew souls for their enlargement, and these promises might be fulfilled in answer to their prayers, though not in answer to the prayers of the unregenerate. VI. The apostle Peter styles those to whom he wrote, “Elect, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, wrºto obedience.” Obe- dience, it should seem, in all its parts, according to this passage, is that of which election and the sanctification of the Spirit are the proper causes. By the former they are chosen to it, through the latter they are fitted for it. Now P. must admit that faith in Christ is not only the root of evangelical obedience, but that itself, being a duty, is a part of obedience. Hence it is that believing in Christ is called obeying him, (Rom. x. 16; vi. 17 ; i. 5; Heb. v. 9,) and the contrary is represented as disobeying him, 2 Thess. i. 8, 9; 1 Pet. iv. 17. It follows, then, that if election and the sanctification of the Spirit are the causes of our obedience, they must be the causes of our believing, and consequently must precede it, since the cause always precedes the effect. “GoD BE THANKED,” says the grateful apostle, “that ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you!” VII. Whatever difference there is between us and others, we are taught in the Scriptures to ascribe it all to God, and not to boast as if it were of ourselves: “Are we better than they 3 mo, in no wise.”—“By the grace of God I am what I am.”—“ Who maketh thee to differ 3 and what hast thou that thou didst not receive 3 Now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not re- ceived it 7” That there is a difference between believers and unbe- lievers all will allow ; but if the question be asked, “Who maketh thee to differ 2 ” what must be the answer? If ſº Grace Comes unprevented, unimplor’d, unsought. Happy for man so coming ! He her aid Can never seek, once dead in sins, and lost.—MILTON. 214 REPLY TO PHILANTHROPOS. the scheme of P. be true, I should think it must be a per- son’s own self, and not God. If he reply, “No, I do not maintain that man of himself can do any thing spiritually good, it is all by the grace of God.” Be it so : this grace is supposed to be given indiscriminately to mankind in general. This, therefore, does not in the least alter the case. However the grace of God may be a remote cause of the good that is in me, yet it is easy to see that, upon this supposition, it is no cause whatever of the difference between me and another. My unbelieving neighbour had, or might have had, as much grace given him as I, but either he did not askit, or did not improve the stock imparted to him, which I did. He resisted the Holy Spirit, but I was of a pliable temper, and yielded to his persuasions. I have, therefore, by a good improvement of the grace given or offered to me in common with my neighbour, to all intents and purposes, made myself to differ. But who am I personating 3–Philanthropos ?—No, surely . It is the language of his creed, not of him: no, no, whatever may escape from the lip or the pen, his heart must unite with ours, “NOT UNTo Us, O Lord, Not UNTo Us, BUT TO THY NAME GIVE GLORY | ?” If it is objected that the apostle is writing to the Co- rinthians concerning spiritual gifts and advantages, and cutting off their vain boastings on that score, and not con- cerning spiritual dispositions, I answer, There is in my opinion considerable evidence of the contrary.* But be that as it may, the reasoning with which this is effected is equally applicable to the latter as the former. If there is any force in the apostle's reasoning, it certainly implies thus much, that if in any thing whatever we do make our- selves to differ, then we have so far a ground for boasting; and if as believers we make ourselves to differ from unbe- lievers, then boasting in the affairs of our salvation, after all, is not excluded; no, not by the law of faith. I remember a noted writer admits as much as this, and maintains that though the primitive Christians had no reason to boast or glory in their enjoyment of spiritual gifts, seeing they were immediately infused without hu- man industry, and were dispensed by God and by his Spirit according to his good pleasure; yet that is not the case in respect of virtue and pious dispositions : in these he avers we may boast; yes, in these we may glory in ourselves.f. But I have too good an opinion of the hu- mility of P. to imagine that such sentiments can occupy his bosom. I cannot persuade myself that he has so learned Christ. I will venture to repeat it, whatever his hostile creed may affirm, his heart, especially in his near addresses to God, must accord with the apostle: “Of him,” yes, of him, “are ye in Christ Jesus.”—“He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.”f But it is time for me to attend to the REAsonINGs and OBJECTIONs of P. upon this subject. Are there not pas- sages of Scripture, it may be asked, which represent the Spirit as being given to us after we believe? Yes, there are ; and to some of them P. refers us, – p. 22. To which it is replied, The Holy Spirit is said to be given in other respects as well as for the purpose of regeneration. The Spirit was given for the endowing of the primitive Christians with extraordinary gifts and grace, (see Acts xix. 2,) and this is evidently the meaning of John vii. 39. The Spirit which they that believed on him were to receive was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glori- fied. But surely the eleven apostles were not till then, in every sense, destitute of the Spirit of God. Further, the Holy Spirit was given as the Enlightener, Comforter, and Sanctifier of true Christians. Thus Christ promised to send them the Comforter to guide them into all truth; * See Gill’s “Cause,” &c., P. II. C. IV. No. XV., and Guyse's para- phrase and note on the text. + Whitby, on 1 Cor. iv. 17. 'Tis true the Doctor observes, “that we having our faculties from God, the action may well be ascribed, and the whole glory must be due to him.” Indeed If the whole be due to him, how is it that we are entitled to a part Besides, how does this ascribe to God the glory of our being made to differ, seeing one is possessed of these faculties as well as another ? # The hinge of a great part of the controversy between us turns on the solution of the above subject. That there is a difference between one man and another cannot be called in question. This difference is either to be ascribed to the grace of God, or to the goodness of the creature. If to the former, the supposition of God’s making no differ- ence between one man and another must be given up; if to the latter, and this, it is apprehended, is the meaning of Eph. i. 13, 14, “After ye believed, ye were sealed,” &c. The apostle prayed for these Ephesians (ver. 17) that God would give them the Spirit of wisdom, &c. We might as well infer from this that they were at that time destitute of the Spirit of God, as from the other that they were so in every sense till after they believed. Much the same might be said of the other passages produced. * That men are the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus is true; but I apprehend the godly sustain that character on two accounts. One is from their bearing the image of their heavenly Father, which is communicated in regeneration ; the other is from their sharing the rights, privileges, and inheritance of the sons of God, which fol- low upon believing. The one is a work of grace upon us, the other an act of grace towards us. Both are men- tioned by the evangelist John (chap. i. 12, 13); and the former, I apprehend, is there represented as being prior to the latter. As to the consequence which P. observes must follow— as that a man must be “regenerated and condemned at the same time,” (p. 22,) I answer, This proceeds upon the supposition of a period of time taking place between regeneration and coming to Christ. When we speak of one being prior to the other, we mean no more than as a cause is prior to an effect which immediately follows. A blind man must have his eyes open before he can see; and yet there is no period of time between the one and the other. As soon as his eyes are opened he sees. And thus it is supposed a man must be “born again,” in order to “see the kingdom of God.” A man of a wicked temper of mind must be turned to be of another spirit, before he can love or choose that which is lovely: but yet there is no supposable period of time between them ; for no sooner is he turned than he is of another spirit, and does love and choose different objects from what he did before. If, however, P. should not be satisfied with this answer, let him reflect, that if an absurdity remains, it is such a one as attends his own principles equally with ours. He sup- poses we receive the Spirit after believing, and refers us for proof to Eph. i. 13, “After that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise,”—p. 22. Now the Scripture is express, “He that hath not the Spirit of Christ is none of his.” We might therefore retort, and ask, In what condition is a man when he has believed, and before he has received the Spirit of Christ? He is supposed to be a believer, and therefore shall not come into condemnation ; but yet, not having the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. To what master then does he belong 3 and to what world must he go, if he should happen to die in this condition ? “But this is mere trifling !” Be it so : it is such as, when used against us, occupies the place of reasoning. But “if men are regenerated before they come to Christ, then believing in Christ is not the means of a sin- ner's recovery, but only a consequence of that recovery,” —p. 23. Coming to Christ is the means of a sinner's en- joying the forgiveness of sins, with various other blessings, all included in the term life (John v. 40); but that is no proof that it is the means of his regeneration ; which it cannot be, unless, contrary to every law of nature to which 'regeneration alludes, spiritual motion can precede and be the means of spiritual life. Perseverance is the means of our enjoyment of eternal glory ; but it does not thence follow but that perseverance is a consequence of the grace of the Holy Spirit. But if regeneration precede our coming to Christ, then “men are excusable, it is supposed, in not coming ; and it then boasting is not excluded, but cherished, even by the law of faith. It may seem as if we were wanting in our Love To MANKIND ; and, by the name my opponent has assumed, he seems to wish to remind us of it, and to suggest the superiority of his system in point of phi- lanthropy. But it is not for human passions to govern the Divine conduct. We should rejoice in the salvation of the whole human race, if it pleased God; but the whole human race will not be finally saved. That is a fact admitted on both sides, and a fact which the utmost flow of philanthropy cannot alter; the question then with us is, Who deserves the praise of the difference between one man and another 7 If God has made no difference, we must have made it our- selves; and to us must belong the glory of that difference to eternal ages. ? These are John vii. 38,39; Eph. i. 13, 14; Gal. iii. 2, 14. REPLY TO PHILANTHROPOS. 215 must be absurd to exhort them to it while they are unre- generate,”—p, 22. If I understand this reasoning, the amount of it is this: If men are so bad that none but God can turn their hearts, then their badness becomes ex- cusable ; and if, in our exhorting them, no hope is to be placed in them, then neither is there any to be placed in God I Were I to enter the company of a malicious rebel, with a view to persuade him to go and cast himself at the feet of his abused sovereign, I should have no hope of succeeding, or of bringing him to a compliance, while he remained under the dominion of such a spirit. “Why, then,” it may be asked, “do you exhort him to it, till you see his spirit changed?” Why? What if I go in hope of being instrumental in the changing of his spirit Suppose I urge upon him the goodness of the law he has broken, his wicked and unreasonable revolt, his great and imminent danger, and, above all, the clemency of the prince towards returning rebels; suppose I conjure him, therefore, to go and submit to mercy; may not all this be done without imagining that going and submitting to mercy is a matter so easy that it may be dome by a person possessing a mind still under the dominion of wickedness? May it not rather be done in the hope that such means may be succeeded to the reducing him to a right spirit 3 + This also may serve for a reply to what P. observes on “exhorting those who are in doubt of their conversion to apply to Christ,”—p. 25. I think, with him, it is much better to direct such persons immediately to apply to Christ, than to set them about examining the evidences of their regeneration to the neglect of that. And though he is pleased to call this “absurd and ridiculous” upon my principles, yet he has not condescended to back that asser- tion with any thing like evidence. If regeneration were that which constituted our warrant to apply to Christ, his reasoning would be just; but if it is only a begetting in us a right spirit, a spirit to comply with the warrant which we already have, then there is no weight in it. All right action, whether corporeal or mental, must proceed from a right spirit; yet if a man were in doubt whether he was of a right spirit, which would be reckoned the most ridicu- lous, to exhort him to right action, or to set him to examine his spirit by rules of theory, and bid him wait till he found he was of a good spirit, and then perform a good action ? The latter would be pernicious, or, to say the least, per- plexing; but a compliance with the former would be at- tended with both safety and satisfaction. P. frequently makes mention of a passage from Mr. Caleb Evans, which I also had quoted, and which is as follows: “The calls and invitations, the promises and threatenings, of the word of God, are means which every one knows are in their own nature adapted to remove a moral indisposition of the mind, just as much as the pre- scriptions of a physician, or the operations of a surgeon, are suited to remove any matural disorder of the body.” He also frequently speaks as if the reason why the gospel, rather than the law, succeeded to the conversion of a sin- ner was because of this fitness, adaptedness, or innate tendency of which it is possessed,—p. 67. But, it should be observed, Mr. Evans's words are not spoken simply of the gospel; they are spoken of the threatenings as well as the promises in the word of God, which, I should think, are no part of the gospel; though, as P. some where ex- * But might we not, upon these principles, as well let them alone! Some, I am aware, of very different sentiments from P., would say we might; and that such a mode of exhorting is only setting them to work, which tends to fill them with an idea of their own righteousness. It is granted, if the works to which they are directed are mere external things, such as are “within the compass of a carnal heart,” and such as they may go on in with ease, then it may tend to lift them up with mide and self-sufficiency. But if things which are spiritually good are pressed upon them, and they go about a compliance, it is so far from having a tendency to promote self-righteousness, that it is the lmost likely means to destroy it. People who never try to repent, pray, c., generally think they can do these things at any time. Putting a person to the experiment is the most likely way to convince him of his insufficiency, or, in other words, of his dreadful depravity; and, if this is but effected, he will then cry in earnest to the strong for strength. I believe it is God’s usual way thus to convince people of their insuf- ficiency. While Saul went on in eacternal services, he was at ease, alive, and in high spirits, not doubting but that all was right, and that he was doing God service; but a view of his great obligations to things Spiritually good discovered to him a world of iniquity of which he had never thought. It was from this period that his self-righteous- ness received its fatal wound; yes, then it was that sin revived, and law is a schoolmaster, to bring us to Christ.” presses it, they are necessarily attendant on it, and so make a part of the ministerial message. Further, Our dispute is not whether the gospel be a suitable means in the hand of the Holy Spirit to convert a sinner, but whether it is sufficient, in virtue of this its suitableness, to effect the change without an almighty and invincible agency attending it. A sword is a suitable in- strument to cause a wound ; but it does not thence follow that it is of itself sufficient to effect this without a hand to wield it. Three things I would here beg leave to offer: 1. The Holy Spirit can and does make use of the law as well as the gospel, in a sinner's conversion. “I had not known sin,” says the apostle, “but by the law.”—“The 2. If the success of the gospel is to be attributed to its suitableness, then, I suppose, it must be on account of its containing good tidings ; and so tending to slay men's native enmity, and to conciliate their hearts to God. But the Scripture represents the human heart as equally prone to abuse God’s mercy as to despise his severity. “Let favour be showed to the wicked,” says the prophet, “yet will he not learn righteousness: in the land of uprightness will he deal unjustly, and will not behold the majesty of the Lord.” The reason why men hate God is not because they consider him, in every sense, as their enemy; if so, could you but persuade them that God loved them, and Christ died for them, their enmity would subside. But is that indeed the case? Do not the generality of men consider God as their friend ? Nor can you persuade them that they are under his displeasure. Yet this has no tendency to remove their enmity. What they hate in God is that from which their hearts are wholly averse, and that is, his true cha- 'racter. 3. The success which has attended the gospel is not ascribed to its supposed fitness to conciliate a sinner's heart, but to the power of Almighty God attending it. I hope this last has been sufficiently proved already. God ordered Moses to take a rod, and smite the rock. The rod, to be sure, was the means of breaking the rock; not, how- ever, on account of its being equal to such an effect; the rock rather had a tendency to break the rod than the rod the rock. But an almighty energy attended it from Him with whom all things are possible. That the gospel is suited to the state of men, as fallen, is granted (p. 23); it is suited to their forlorn circum- stances, but not to their evil propensities. It could not be of God if it were. But to make believing in Christ some- thing that may be done by a wicked mind is to reduce the gospel to the latter, rather than the former ; and this con- trary to the apostle's declaration, “They that are in the flesh cannot please God.” P. observes, that if believing is the effect of regeneration, then men certainly “ought to be taught this truth;” and seems greatly to tremble for the consequences of such teaching, p. 22. It is granted there is a way of conveying this sentiment which is very pernicious; nevertheless, I see no reason why we should scruple the publishing of the sentiment itself in the course of our ministry. To tell a sinner he cannot love God, repent of sin, and come to Christ, is only another mode of telling him that he has the very heart of a devil. “But this is killing work.” It is granted ; and all my hope is that God will please to suc- ceed my labours, first to kill, and then to make alive. A he died, Rom, vii. 9. Now if this is God’s usual method of working, surely we ought not, as ministers, to set ourselves against it, but rather to concur with it. It is worthy of remark, how well our opponents here agree amongst themselves, 'Tis true they differ in some respects: some think coming to Christ a matter so easy that an unrenewed heart may somehow or other accomplish it; the others cannot think so, and therefore confine their exhortations to things of an external nature. But both agree in this, that men should not be exhorted to any thing but what may be done by an unregenerate heart; that is, by a heart at enmity with God. “Surely,” says P., “it cannot be sin for men, as depraved, not to attempt that which the word tells them they cannot perform,”—p. 23. And the reasonings of Mr. Button are frequently of the same tendency. But whether such a position be agreeable or contrary to the word of God, let the following passages, amongst many others, determine: Jer. vi. 8–11, 15, 16; Matt. xii. 34; John v. 44, 45; viii. 43–46; Rom. viii. 8; 2 Pet. ii. 14. If Mr. Button should here complain, and say he has acknowledged that “internal religion is required of men in general,” I answer, If Mr. B., or any other minister, does, indeed, exhort the carnal part of their auditory to any thing more than what is “within the compass of a carnal heart,” then it is acknowledged they are not affected by what is above advanced. 216 REPLY TO PHILANTHROPOS. conviction of our being utterly lost must precede an ap- plication to the Saviour. So long as a sinner can find any hope or any help in himself, he will never fall at the feet of Christ, as utterly undone. The whole need not a phy- sician, but those that are sick. If it tends to drive sinners to despair, it is such a despair as lies at the foundation of gospel hope. The sinner may be alive without the law ; but if he live to God, the commandment must first come, sin revive, and he die, Rom. vii. 9. So far from shunning to declare this sentiment, humiliating as it is, I should on that account rejoice to see it propagated throughout the earth. That which renders it peculiarly offensive is one thing on account of which it appears to me to be a truth ; and that is, its laying the sinner absolutely at the Divine discretion, and cutting off all hope whatever but what shall arise from the sovereignty of God. SECTION II. ON NATURAL AND MORAL INABILITY. ON this subject I find it difficult to collect the real senti- ments of P. Sometimes he seems to admit of the dis- tinction, and allows that I have written upon it with “perspicuity,”—p. 63. At other times he appears utterly to reject it, and to reason upon the supposition of there being no difference between the one and the other, and that to command a person to perform any thing with which it is not in the power of his heart to comply (for this, he must know, is the only idea we have of moral inability) is as unreasonable, unless grace is bestowed, as to “com- mand a stone to walk or a horse to sing,”—p. 44. If this is indeed the case, the distinction ought to be given up. Be that, however, as it may, whether there be any real difference between natural and moral inability in point of blame-worthiness or not, P. knows that I suppose there is ; by what rule of fair reasoning, therefore, he could take the contrary for granted, it is difficult to determine. But, passing this, from the whole of what P. has written on this subject, I observe, there are three things which, somehow or other, either severally or jointly, are supposed to constitute even a moral inability blameless. One is, men could not avoid it; they were depraved and ruined by Adam's transgression ; another is, its being so great in degree as to be insuperable ; and the last is, if grace is not given sufficient to deliver us from it. “If,” says he, “men could never avoid it, and cannot deliver themselves from it, and the blessed God will not deliver them, surely they ought not to be punished for it, or for any of its ne- cessary effects,”—p. 67. The first two of these suppositions, be it observed, are admitted by P. as facts. . Men are, he acknowledges, born in sin, and “their inability to do things spiritually good is real and total,”—pp. 44. 57. They cannot love God, nor keep his holy law. Now these facts either do excuse man- kind in their want of conformity to the law, or they do not. If they do not, why are they produced ? If they do, there is no need for what respects the last supposition. There is no need, surely, for grace to deliver men from a state wherein they are already blameless. The justice of God, one should think, would see to that, and prevent the innocent from being condemned. But let us give each of these subjects a separate consideration. I. Men being Born IN SLN, or inheriting their evil pro- pensities from Adam's fall. It has been observed already that P. admits the fact: now to admit this fact is, I should think, to admit a constituted union having taken place be- tween Adam and his posterity, and yet the whole of what he says upon this subject proceeds upon the supposition of no such wavion existing ; for he, all along, speaks of Adam and his descendants in a separate capacity. Thus he in- sists upon it that “we could not be to blame for what we could not avoid ;” with many passages of the like kind. Very true ; but if the notion of a union between Adam and his posterity be admitted, then it cannot properly be said we could not avoid it ; for, in that case, he was the lead, and we the members; the whole constituting one body, or, as it were, one person. A union of this nature must either be admitted or denied ; if admitted, why con , sider the descendants of Adam in a separate capacity ?—if denied, why speak of inheriting any thing from him, un- less it were by ill example 3 - Infants are not to blame in a personal capacity; but if there be a union between the parent of mankind and his posterity, through which their depravity is derived, as it is supposed there is, they must be to blame relatively. No one, I suppose, can be to blame in a personal capacity, till he is capable of the knowledge of right and wrong; but it does not follow thence that, till then, he is in every sense blameless, for that would be the same thing as to be sin- less; and if so, I see not how they can be said to be born in sin. If there is not blame some where, it will be very difficult to account for the misery and death to which in- fants are exposed, and for the apostle's mode of reasoning, who first asserts that before the Mosaic law sin was in the world, and then proves this assertion by the reign of death, “even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression.” That this is a difficult and awful subject is allowed; and so is the introduction of moral evil into the world, be it upon what hypothesis it may. It is a subject, however, which, in my apprehension, I must either admit, or reject the authority of the Bible ; and when I had done that, my difficulties, instead of being diminished, would be abundantly increased. I therefore admit it upon the credit of Divine revelation; and herein, it seems, I have the hap- piness to agree with P. He admits that men become sin- mers in consequence of Adam's fall. The question, then, between us seems to be this : Whether to be a sinner is the same thing as to be a subject of blame ; or whether there be a sort of sin which has nothing blameworthy in it, and a sort of sinners who, nevertheless, are blameless beings. P. admits of our being born with impure propensities, and yet supposes these propensities in themselves to be blameless. He reckons the whole blame to lie, not in be- ing the subject of these propensities, but in the eacercise and indulgence of them,-pp. 65, 66. I confess I cannot understand how this can consist either with his own senti- ments, or with the nature of things. Not with his own sentiments ; for he allows that “men are ruined and de- praved by Adam’s fall.” But how can we be ruined and depraved by that which does not in any sense constitute us blameworthy 3 What though we derive impure pro- pensities from him, yet if these propensities are innocent, how can they ruin us? how can they deprave us? Our depravity must consist in, and our ruin arise from, that which constitutes blame, and that alone ; and if blame lies merely in the indulgence of impure propensity, and not in being the subject of the thing itself, why then it is there we have to look for the beginning of depravity and ruin, and no where else. How far these sentiments will agree likewise with the doctrine of human depravity, which P. assures us he by no means intended to oppose, may de- serve his attention. Further, I see not how the above sentiments can consist with the nature of things. If blame does not lie in being the subject of an evil disposition, because as individuals we could not avoid it ; then, for the same reason, it can- not lie in the exercise of that disposition, unless that also can be avoided. And this is what P. seems to allow ; for he extends blamelessness not only to evil dispositions, but to all their “necessary effects,”—p. 67. Now there is either a possibility of that eacercise being totally avoided, or there is not ; there is either a possibility, for instance, of a person living all his life without a foolish thought, or there is not. If there is, then there is a possibility of going through life in a sinless state ; and if so, how are we de- praved by Adam's fall ? If there is not, then it must fol- low that the exercise of evil dispositions may be blameless as well as the dispositions themselves; and, contrary to the decision of Holy Scripture, that “the thought of fool- ishness” is not sin. We may go on to distinguish an evil propensity from its eacercise, till we use words without ideas ; for what is an evil propensity but an evil bias, or a bias of the soul to- wards evil 3 and whether it is possible to conceive of an inactive propensity in a rational being is doubtful with REPLY TO PHILANTHROPOS. 217. me. But suppose we may, the common sense of mankind never teaches them so to distinguish them as to excuse the one, and place all blameworthiness in the other. An im- pure propensity is an impure temper of mind, and a pro- pensity to revenge is the same thing as a revengeful tem- per; but tempers of this description are so far from being excusable, that there is nothing mankind are more apt to censure. 'Tis true they cannot censure them but as they see them discovered, because they have no other method of knowing the evil stock but by its evil branches; but when they do discover them, they seldom fail to curse both root and branch.* Neither do people think of excusing a churlish, haughty, or covetous temper in any man, because of his father's being so before him. On the contrary, they often turn that very circumstance to his reproach. You are a villain, say they, by nature, and all your family were so before you.-If men offend one against another, strict inquiry is made whether the offence proceeded from an evil disposi- tion, or from mere inadvertency; and, according as this is found, allowances are made. But I know not that it is ever asked how the party came by his evil disposition : that is a matter introduced into divinity, where God is the ob- ject offended; but it cannot be admitted into the common affairs of life between man and man. Now if the common sense of mankind never leads them to take this circum- stance into consideration in matters between themselves, it is at least a presumptive argument that it will not bear advancing in matters of offence against God. “Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant.” That evil dispositions are in themselves blameworthy, notwithstanding their derivation from our first parents, not only accords with the common sense of mankind, but also with the word of God. The word of God requires us to love him with all the heart, soul, mind, and strength; but to love God in this manner supposes the absence of all evil propensity to rebel against him, and of every approach towards a spirit of contrariety to him. It must follow then, so long as this holy law of God is allowed to be an “infallible test of right and wrong,” (p. 67,) that such a propensity is in itself sinful, being directly contrary to its righteous requirements. It is not merely a something which “ leads to evil tempers,” (as P. speaks, p. 66, , but it is itself an evil temper of the mind; a temper that can take no delight in God, or in any thing that bears his holy likeness. Further, His idea of blameworthiness, if I understand it, agrees to nothing but positive acts of sin; the exercise or indulgence of an evil propensity can agree to nothing else. Now, according to this, there is no such thing as sin or blame in that universal want of love to God which has place in all unregenerate men, and to an awful degree in good men ; for that, strictly speaking, is not so much a positively evil disposition as it is the absence of a good one. But if the law of God is the “test of right and Wrong,” this must nevertheless be found sinful; for it is the very reverse of what that law requires. If there is nothing blameworthy in the want of a heart to love God, nor even in a propensity to hate him, then surely the moral law must be abrogated by man’s apostacy, and can be no longer to us “the standard of right and wrong.” The law is said to have entered “ that the offence might abound;” and “by the law is the knowledge of sin.” The only certain rule, therefore, of determining what is sin, is to inquire into the extent of that unerring rule. Now the law, as given in the decalogue, requires love to God with all the heart, without making any allowance for our being born destitute of a disposition so to do. It should seem, therefore, that God considered the want of a disposition to love him as offensive ; and gave the law, which requires such a disposition, that that offence might abound or be made manifest. But if there be nothing blameworthy in it, there can be nothing offensive; and if mo offence exists, none can be made to abound. P. allows my “reasonings on the extent of the moral law to be very conclusive.” This I should think is rather extraordinary, but this is not all ; he thinks “it would most certainly contribute much, under the blessing of God, to the conversion of sinners, if a due regard were always paid to it,”—p. 67. But, according to the reason- ing above, I see no such tendency it could have. For the carnal mind of man is “ enmity against God, and is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be ;” and they were born in this condition. How then could it pro- mote rational conviction ? Whatever tendency it might have to bring them to love the Saviour, it must be at the expense of their regard for the Lawgiver. Yea, it must fill them with greater enmity against him to hear of his requiring that of them which is not reasonable in their present circumstances should be required. If they are taught to consider the Lawgiver of the world as resembling a cruel Egyptian task-master, and the Saviour as one who came into the world to deliver them by repealing his rigor- ous edicts, then they may love the one and hate the other. But if the Saviour is viewed in his true character, as not coming to abrogate the law, but to magnify and make it homourable, to condemn the sinner’s conduct while he saves his soul, then they cannot hate the one without equally hating the other. “I do not know,” says P., “that the Scripture ever blames man, much less condemns him, because he is born impure, or because he is the subject of impure propen- sities,”—p. 65. As to the actual execution of condemna- tion, it is not for me to say how far the mercy of God will be extended. If those who die before their evil propen- sities are reduced to action are all saved, I suppose they are saved through the mediation of Christ, and not taken to heaven on the footing of personal innocency. But in respect to blame-worthiness, I remember a man who once took blame and shame to himself for his original impurity, bringing it in amongst his penitential confessions that he was shapen in iniquity, and conceived in sin, and that surely with an intention not to excuse, but to aggravate his crimes. In the same Psalm, and in the next sentence, after acknowledging the depravity of his nature, the peni- tent psalmist adds, “Thou desirest truth in the inward parts;” which, I should think, must intend the opposite of that in which he had just confessed himself to have been conceived and shapen. Further, we are said to have been, “by nature, the children of wrath ;” but one should sup- pose there could be no wrath due to us, if no blame were found in us. P. asserts, that, in respect of the impurity of our nature, we are under a natural inability of avoiding it; which, therefore, must be innocent, p. 65. But to call such an inability as this natural, is, I apprehend, to apply the term in such a manner as tends to produce a confusion of ideas. Whatever defect attends any man, which is simply natural, it must belong to some constituent part of his nature, or of that which constitutes him a man. If the definition which I have heretofore given of natural ability be just, (and this P. has fully acknowledged, p. 64,) it must be either a defect in “rational faculties, or bodily powers, or opportunity to put those faculties or powers in exercise.” But neither purity nor impurity, come by them how we may, are any constituent parts of human nature ; a de- fect, therefore, in that matter, cannot, with propriety, be called a natural defect. The depravity of our hearts is not owing to natural weakness, either of body or mind, nor yet to the want of opportunity to know and glorify God. When we speak of it as being the sin of our mature, we use the term in a very different sense from what we do when speaking of natural inability. By the sin of owr nature, we mean not any thing which belongs to our nature as human, but what is, by the fall, so interwoven with it as if it were, though in fact it is not, a part of it ; and so deeply rooted in our souls as to become natural, as it were, to us. * "Tis true there are certain propensities which constitute a part of our nature as men, and which, therefore, are simply natural; the ex- cessive indulgence whereof, is nevertheless sinful. Thus emulation in itself is natural, but carried to excess it becomes pride. Thus also the love of pleasure is in itself natural, but carried to excess it becomes toluptuousness, &c. &c. But P. cannot justly pretend that when he P # makes blame to consist not in the propensity itself, but in the exercise or indulgence of it, he means these natural propensities, because he speaks of them as derived from Adam’s fall, which these are not, and calls them impure, whereas these, in themselves considered, are a part of human nature in its purest state. 218 REPLY TO PHILANTHROPOS. But it will be said, It must be a natural inability; for it is not at our option whether we will be born pure or impure ; it is, therefore, what we cannot avoid, in any sense whatever.—To this it is replied, as before, There is no justice, or fairness, in considering mankind as united to Adam, or not united, just as it may serve a purpose. If they are not to be considered as one, why speak of in- heriting impure propensities? If they are, why speak of them in a separate capacity ? To admit of a union between Adam and his posterity, and, at the same time, keep ex- claiming, We could not avoid being sinners—we are not to blame, and ought not to suffer—is as unreasonable as if a criminal should complain, at the hour of execution, that he was to be hanged by the neck for what he had stolen with his hands. Whatever difficulty may attend us in this part, it is a difficulty that belongs not to the doctrine of natural and moral inability, but to that of original sin; a difficulty, therefore, which affects us no more than it does those who differ from us. II. The next thing which P. considers as contributing to render even a moral inability blameless is its being so great in degree as to become insuperable. According to my principles, he says, our moral inability is invincible ; and insists upon it, that if so, it is excusable. “No man,” says he, “blames a lion because he has not the disposition of a lamb ; and if a lion had the understanding of a man, yet if he could not alter his native ferocity, he would cer- tainly be as unblamable as he is without understanding.” The same reasoning holds good in all other instances, p. 68. To all which it is replied, If he mean that they can- not but sin, though they would do otherwise never so fain, it is granted all this reasoning is fair and just ; it would then be a natural inability, and therefore excusable. But if this were all he meant, it would amount to nothing. If he mean any thing to the purpose, any thing different from that which he opposes, it must be this: that if their hearts are so set in them to do evil, that though they could do other- wise if they would, yet they will not, but will be sure, in every instance, to choose the wrong path ; THEN they must, of course, be excusable. And if this be what he maintains, his reasoning appears to me not only inconsistent, but extravagant. P. must know, surely, that when the terms cannot, in- ability, &c. are used in these connexioms, they are used not in a proper, but in a figurative sense ; that they do not express the state of a person hindered by something ex- traneous to his own will, but denote what we usually mean by the phrase cannot find in his heart; that de- pravity is not matural to us, in the same sense as fe- rocity is to a lion ; that it is rather the ruin and dis- grace of our nature than any part of it; and that therefore such comparisons are but ill adapted to illustrate the subject. We suppose that the propensities of mankind to evil are so strong as to become invincible by every thing but omnipotent grace ; but whether that is allowed or not, I think it must be allowed that they are such as to render spiritual exercises very difficult ; at least, they have some tendency that way. Now if the above reasoning be just, it will follow that, in proportion to the degree of that diffi- culty, the subjects thereof ought to. be excused in the omission of spiritual exercises. P. supposes that, in this case, there is no difference between natural and moral in- ability; and his argument proceeds, all along, upon this supposition. Now we know that, in all cases where im- pediments are simply natural, it is not at all more evident that an entire inability amounts to a full excuse, than that a great difficulty excuses in a great degree. If, therefore, such reasoning be just, it must follow that men are excusable in exact proportion to the strength of their evil propensities; that is, they are excusable in just the same proportion as, according to the common sense of mankind, they are internally wicked, or culpable ! If we suppose a man, for example, in his younger years to have had but very little aversion to Christ, and his way of salvation ; he is then exceedingly wicked for not coming to him. As he advances in years, his evil propensities increase, and his aversion becomes stronger and stronger; by this time, his guilt is greatly diminished. And if it were possible for him to become so much of a devil as for his prejudices to be utterly invincible, he would then, accord- ing to P., be altogether innocent 1 * P. thinks this matter so plain, it seems, that he even tells his correspondent, “neither he nor his friend (mean- ing me) could imagine that a command given, and not obeyed, renders the subjects of such command criminal, un- less these subjects have power, or might have power, to obey such command,”—p. 43. If by “power” he had meant natural ability, I should certainly have accorded with the sentiment; but it is very plain he means to apply it to moral as well as natural ability, and then he is cer- tainly mistaken. For I not only can imagine that to be the case, but do verily believe it. Yea, I can scarcely think that P. himself can believe the contrary; at least, he will not, he cannot, abide by its just and necessary con- sequences. If what he says be true, it is either possible that no offences should come, or else no woe is due to those by whom they come, Luke xvii. 1. It must likewise follow that every man has, or might have, power to live entirely blameless through life, both towards God and towards man; for be it so that some degree of imperfection will continue to attend him, yet that imperfection, being sup- posed to be “a necessary effect” of the fall, cannot be blame-worthy (p. 67); and so it is possible for a fallen son of Adam to live and die blameless, and consequently, to appear in his own righteousness without fault before the throne of God. These consequences, however antiscrip- tural and absurd, are no more than must inevitably follow from the position of Philanthropos. “According to my principles,” I am told, “men’s moral inability is invincible,”—p. 68. If I have used that term in the former treatise or the present, it is for want of a better. It is easy to see that my principles do not so much maintain that the moral inability of men is such as to render all their attempts to overcome it vain, as that sin hath such a dominion in their heart as to prevent any real attempts of that nature being made. If a whole country were possessed by a foreign enemy, and all its posts and avenues occupied by his forces, and all the inhabitants dead that so much as wished to oppose him ; in that case, to say his power was become invincible by any opposition from that country would hardly be proper; seeing all opposition there is subdued, and all the country are of one side. Invincible is a relative term, and supposes an oppo- sition made, though made in vain. But moral inability is of such a nature, where it totally prevails, as to prevent all real and direct opposition being made. It is the same thing as for the “hearts of the sons of men” to be “fully set in them to do evil”—to be “full of evil while they live ;” for “every imagination of the heart” to be “only evil, and that continually.” Now if we say this moral indisposition is invincible, it is for the want of a better term. What we affirm is this, rather: that, suppose it were conquerable, there is nothing of real good in the sin- mer's heart to conquer it. If sin is conquered by any efforts of ours, it must be by such as are voluntary. It is not enough that we be “rational beings,” and that con- science suggests to us what ought to be (p. 66); we must choose to go about it, and that in good earnest, or we shall never effect it. But where the thoughts of the heart are only evil, and that continually, it is supposing a plain con- tradiction to suppose ourselves the subjects of any such volition or desire. III. But it will be said, Though moral inability is total, yet it is conquerable by THE GRACE OF GOD ; and this grace is given to every one in the world, or would be given, were he to ask it; and this it is which renders men inexcusable, p. 66. Without this, P. avows that “any man, be his practices as vile as they may, may excuse him- self from blame; and all real good whatever may be de- nied to be the duty of an unprincipled mind,”—p. 59. This seems to be his last and grand resort, and what he often dwells upon. The discussion of this subject will finish the present section. I bless God that moral inability is indeed conquerable by the grace of God, though I question whether it is, or ever was, conquered by what P. calls by that name. But suppose, for argument's sake, we grant him his hypothesis, * See President Edwards on the Will, Part III. Sect. III. REPLY TO PHILANTHROPOS. 219 I question if it will answer his end. This grace is either actually given to all mankind, or would be given upon their application. If actually given, I should be glad to know what it is. Is it light in the understanding, or love in the heart? Is it any thing, or productive of any thing, that is truly good? If so, how does this accord with the descrip- tion given of men, that their minds are darkness, their hearts enmity, and that there is none of them that doeth good, no, not one * Or is it something for which there is no name, a sort of seed sown in the heart, which, if neg- lected, will perish, but, if watered by human industry, will be productive 4 If so, the difficulty is not at all re- moved ; for then the question is, whether a mind so de- praved as to be totally unable to do any thing spiritually good will ever be inclined to improve that grace, to water the seed, so as that it may bring forth fruit. If the latter member of the position be adopted, viz. that all mankind might have grace sufficient to overcome their moral inability, if they would apply for it; still the ques- tion returns, will a mind totally destitute of any thing spiritually good, and fully set upon doing evil, apply to God for grace to such an end ? Is it not inconsistent for a tree that is wholly evil to bring forth good fruit? Or are we to imagine, after all, that Satan will rise up against himself? To apply to God in any right manner for grace, for the cure of an evil propensity, must suppose a desire to have that propensity cured ; but to suppose a person totally under the dominion of a propensity, and at the same time properly and directly desiring to have such pro- pensity removed, is what some people would call by the hard name of self-contradiction. F Further, I query if the hypothesis of P., instead of an- swering his end, will not be found subversive of itself, and destructive of his main design. Making this supposed grace the only thing which constitutes men accountable beings is making it deb', surely, rather than grace. too good an opinion of the humility and integrity of P. to imagine he intends merely to compliment the Almighty in calling it grace; but I think it becomes him to examine his scheme, and see whether it amounts to any thing less. Grace is free favour towards the unworthy. It supposes the subject destitute of all claim whatever, and the author to be free to give or to withhold. But all that this sup- posed grace amounts to is, not to prove that God has done any thing more than he was bound to do, but barely that he has done what we had a right to expect, or else be at liberty to throw off his yoke with impunity. It does not, therefore, at all prove Jehovah to be gracious ; if it serve for any thing, it can be only to justify his character from the imputation of injustice and cruelty, or from being what P. calls “a merciless tyrant,”—p. 88. But further, I question if even this end will be answered by it. I question if it will not be found, upon the prin- ciples and reasonings of P., that this supposed grace, in- stead of being any real favour towards mankind, is the greatest curse that could ever befall them. If Christ had never come, and no grace had been given in him, then ac- cording to the reasoning of P. men had never been re- sponsible for any part of their conduct. They would, it is true, have been born depraved, and lived depraved ; but having no power to avoid it, or to free themselves from it, “where,” he asks, “ would have been their criminality?” —pp. 44. 57. He does not scruple to acknowledge, that if no grace were provided, “any man, be his practices as vile as they might, might excuse himself from blame ; and all real good whatever might be denied to be the duty of an unprincipled mind,”—p. 59. Now if things are so, that men without the bestowment of grace would have been free from criminality, surely the righteousness of God could never have suffered them to be sent to hell, and the good- ness of God, we may suppose, weuld have raised them to eternal life ; and so they might have been innocent and happy, if Jesus had never died: but now, alas ! in conse- * Eph. v. 8; Rom. viii. 7; iii. 12. + See President Edwards on the Will, Part III., Sect. W., on sincere endeavours. # When I consider the above positions, I am entirely at a loss to understand the following passage:—“It is granted, sir, that God Amight justly have left man in the state he was born in, and brought into by Adam's sin, whatever state that be,”—p. 57. What such a State would have been P. does not determine : he seems here to con- I have quence of his coming, and of grace being given them, to deliver them from something wherein they were never blame-worthy—now they lie all exposed to inexcusable blame and everlasting ruin £ P. speaks of the “almighty and all-gracious God being represented as contriving to make poor sinners miserable under the colour of invitations,” &c.,-p. 45. I delight not in the use of such expressions ; they appear to me, to say the least, as bordering on irreverence. But if such language must be used, and such consequences urged, let the reader judge to whose sentiments they belong, to those of P. or mine. “That Christ died for our sins, according to the Scrip- tures,” is allowed by P., and, I should think, by every Christian, to be a fundamental doctrine of Christianity,+ p. 34, note. The apostle, doubtless, considered this, and his resurrection from the dead, in such a light, when he concluded, that if the opposite were true, the faith of the Corinthians was vain, and they were yet in their sins, 1 Cor. xv. 3—17. But fundamental as these sentiments are, if the scheme of P. be true, the first of them must, of necessity, be false. If his sentiments are true, Christ did not come into the world to save men from sin, but rather to put them into a capacity of sinning ; as it is in conse- quence of his death, and that alone, that guilt becomes chargeable upon them. So far from being yet in their sins, if Christ had neither died for them, nor risen from the dead, they had then been incapable of sinning at all, and ought not to have been accountable to God, let their practices have been what they might ! It is possible the reader may be startled at the imputa- tion of such consequences as the above ; and, truly, they are of such a nature as ought to startle not the reader only. “But are not things carried to an extreme 3’” If they are, it is unknown to me; but let us go over the ground again and see. P. supposes, 1. That man was so reduced by the fall as to be “really and totally unable to do good,”— p. 57. 2. That if he had been left in this condition, he would not have been to blame for not doing it, but that his in- ability would have been his excuse (pp. 44. 57. 59); yea, “let his practices have been as vile as they might, he would have been excusable,”—p. 59. But, 3. That God has not left him in this condition. He has sent his Son to die for all men universally ; and by giving, or at least offering, his Spirit to all men, he removes the inability which they derived from the fall; and hence they become accountable beings, and are inexcusable if they do not comply with things spiritually good,”—p. 66. If words have any meaning, I should think these are the real senti- ments of P. Now if these be true, it must follow that Christ did not die for the sINs of any man except it were Adam, since none of the fallen race could have sinned if he had never died. The reasonings of P. suppose that men are not chargeable with sin or blameworthiness, inde- pendently of the death of Christ and the grace of the gos- pel ; and if so, it could not be to atone for sin that he laid down his life ; for prior to the consideration of this, there was no sin for which he could have to atone. If I have unhappily adopted an indefensible mode of reasoning, let it be fairly confuted. Till I see that done I shall continue to think the sentiments of P. on this sub- ject eversive of one of the fundamental principles of Chris- tianity. There is a thought on which P. repeatedly insists. It is this, that, “supposing it to be just to punish men eternally for that depravity which they derive from their first parents, (this, however, is more than he in fact will allow,) yet it is very hard that any addition should be made to the obligations they lie under, and that punishments should be annexed to these obligations which they have no power either to regard or avoid,”—p. 45. He often speaks of the injustice of punishing those who enjoy gospel oppor- tunities, and neglect them, “more severely than if they had sider it, however, as deserving some sort of punishment; otherwise there is no meaning in that comparative mode of speaking, which he so frequently, uses, of being punished MoRe severely. But does P. really mean what he writes ? Compare this passage with what he has asserted in pages 44.57. 59, and it amounts to nothing less than this— that it would have been just in God to have punished the human race by acquitting them of all blame, and bringing them in guiltless / 220 REPLY TO PHILANTHROPOS. never enjoyed them, if they had not power sufficient to have embraced them,”—p. 57. To all which I reply, It seems, if men had but power to comply, all this in- justice would subside. Well, we affirm they have power. They have the same natural ability to embrace Christ as to reject him. They could comply with the gospel if they toowld. Is any thing more necessary to denominate them accountable beings $ We believe not; and perhaps, in fact, P. believes the same. In some places, however, he appears to think there is. Well, what is it? If any thing, it must be an inclination as well as an ability. Now would P. be willing to have his objection thus stated :—It is hard that new obligations should be laid upon persons who have no inclination to what they already lie under ? If so, it will afford final unbelievers a powerful plea at the last day. “No,” it will be said, “they might have had an ºnclination if they would; ” but let it be considered whether any thing like this is revealed in Scripture, and whether it is not repugnant even to common sense. If they had been *cºlling, they might, or would, have been willing ; that is the amount of it, which is saying just nothing at all. But, passing this, Whoever be right, he or I, neither of us ought to take his own hypothesis for granted, and proceed to charge the consequences upon the other. And yet this is what P. has done. The whole force of his reasoning in p. 45, and divers other places, rests upon the supposition of that being true which is a matter of dispute, viz. that natural power is not power, and is not sufficient to denominate men ac- countable beings. His statement of the above objection takes this for granted; whereas this is what we positively demy, maintaining that natural power is power, properly so called, and is, to all intents and purposes, sufficient to render men accountable beings; that the want of inclina- tion in a sinner is of no account with the Governor of the world; that he proceeds in his requirements, and that it is right he should proceed, in the same way as if no such dis- inclination existed. If this can be solidly disproved, let it; it will be time enough then to exclaim of injustice and cruelty, and to compare the Divine Being to an Egyptian task-master, or to “a wicked Rehoboam,”—p. 92.* The question appears to me to be this, Is it wnrighteous £n God to do right because he knows men will be sure to take occasion thence to do wrong and aggravate their own de- struction ? God knew assuredly that all the messages sent to Pharaoh would only harden his heart and aggravate his ruin ; I am sure, said Jehovah to his servant, that the king of Egypt will not let you go ; mo, not by a mighty hand: and yet he did not in the least hold himself obliged either to give him grace that should soften his heart, or to dis- continue his messages, which, without such grace, were certain to issue in the aggravation of his ruin. “But Pharaoh could have complied if he would.” We grant it; and so could they who reject Christ. They are under no other necessity in the one case than Pharaoh was in the other. Whatever dissimilarity there may be between the con- dition of fallen angels and that of sinners in the present life who will finally perish, the case of the former suffi- ciently serves to refute the supposition of P. The re- demption of man has certainly been an occasion of a world of guilt to those revolted spirits. Had not Christ come, Satan could never have had an opportunity to have sinned in the manner he has in tempting him, instigating his murderers, and all along opposing the spread of his king- dom. But would it be right, therefore, for Satan, in be- half of himself and his associates, to plead in this manner at the great assize—Why were we not confined to the deep 3 Seeing no mercy was designed for us, where was the jus- tice of suffering us to range in the world, where it was certain we should only increase our guilt, and so be punish- ed the more severely 2 Surely our first revolt was enough for us, without being suffered to go any further. If the reasoning of P. on this subject, particularly in p. 57, prove any thing, it will prove not merely that sin- * I wish P. had spoken of the Divine Being, here and in some other places, in language more becoming a worm of the dust. I have no objection to the consequences of a sentiment being fairly pointed out and thoroughly urged; but suppose such a consequence as this had ners ought not to be punished more severely, but that, if it were not for grace provided for them, they ought not to be punished at all. In that case, one should think, the greatest grace would have been to have let them alone, and left them under the ruins of the fall; then had they been blameless and harmless, without rebuke, and con- sequently unexposed to misery, either here or hereafter. . After all, I question if P. really means any thing more by his notion of grace than we do by natural ability. We allow that men can come to Christ, and do things spirit- ually good, if they will. He is not satisfied, it seems, with this ; they must have something of grace given, or offered, or otherwise they cannot be accountable beings. Well, what does it all amount to ? Does he mean that they must have something of real good and holy inclina- tion in them I question if he will affirm this. Does he mean that this supposed grace does any thing effectually towards making them willing 3 No such thing. What, then, does he mean 3 Nothing that I can comprehend more than this—that men may come to Christ if they will. liis whole scheme of grace, therefore, amounts to no more than our natural ability. We admit that men in general are possessed of this ability; but then we have no notion of calling it grace. If we must be accountable beings, we apprehend this to be no more than an exercise of justice. And in fact our opponents, whatever terms they use, think the same ; for though they call it grace, and so would seem to mean that it is something for which we had no claim, yet the constant drift of their writing proves that they mean no such thing; for they all along plead that it would be unjust and cruel in God to withhold it, and yet to treat them as accountable beings. P. does not scruple to compare it to the conduct of an Egyptian task-master, who required brick without straw. What end, therefore, they can have in calling this power by the name of grace it is difficult to say, unless it be to avoid the odium of seeming to ascribe to Divine grace nothing at all. For my part, I apprehend that whatever grace is pro- vided for or bestowed upon men, they are altogether inex- cusable, without any consideration of that nature whatever. Some of the principal reasons for which are as follow :-1. The term grace implies that the subject is totally unworthy, altogether inexcusable, and destitute of any claim ; and all this previously to, and independent of, its bestowment; otherwise grace is no more grace. 2. The heathem, in their ignorance of God, are said to be without eaccuse; and that not from the consideration of grace bestowed upon them, unless by “grace” is meant simply the means of knowledge by the works of creation, answering to the testimony of conscience within them. “That which may be known of God,” says the apostle, “is manifest in them ; for God hath showed it unto them. For the in- visible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” 3. The manner in which the godly have prayed for grace to fulfil their duty, and to preserve them from sin, shows that they considered themselves as obliged to duty, and as liable to sin, antecedently to its bestowment. “Thou hast commanded us that we should keep thy precepts diligently : Oh that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes ("—“We know not what we should pray for as we ought ; but the Spirit itself help- eth our infirmities.”—“Hold up my goings in thy paths, that my footsteps slip not.”—“Oh that thou wouldest keep me from evil, that it may not grieve me!”—“Keep back thy servant from presumptuous sins : then shall I be in- nocent from the great transgression.” 4. Pallen angels are under a moral inability to love God, or to do any thing that is really good, and no grace is provided for them ; yet they are without excuse. P. informs us of some unsuccessful conferences which he has frequently had with unconverted sinners, in en- deavouring, upon Calvinistic principles, to fix blame upon their consciences, p. 60. If I had had the pleasure of been just, it might have been urged in more sober language. Surely it is too much for a creature to talk of his Creator being wicked | But I have no conviction, at present, of such a consequence being just. If it be, it must be upon this supposition, that not capacity and oppor- tunity, but inclination to do good, is analogous to the straw with which the Israelites ought to have been furnished for the making of brick. REPLY TO PHILANTHROPOS. 221 being a by-stander in one or more of those conferences, I imagine I should have seen a very easy conquest: and no wonder ; people seldom manage to the best advantage those principles which they do not believe. We too often see this exemplified, when a controversy is written in the form of a dialogue. I do not apprehend that P. intended to plead the cause of the infernal legions in their continued enmity to, and rebel- lion against, the Most High ; but if I am not greatly mis- taken, the purport of his reasoning is fully of that ten- dency. There is only one particular wanting, viz. deriving their depravity from a predecessor, to render all their iniquities, according to his reasoning, entirely excusable. They cannot now find in their hearts to do aught but evil; and no grace being bestowed upon them to deliver them, wherein can consist their blame 3 It is true each of them brought his depravity upon himself, without deriving it from another; and this may prove them to have been to blame in their first revolt, but not in any thing that fol- lows. They sinned, to be sure, at the beginning; but if the reasoning of P. be just, I do not see how they can have sinned from it. He insists upon it that in these cases there is no difference between a natural and moral inability; “for what we cannot do, we cannot do,”—p. 60. Now, in all cases of natural inability, the party is ex- eusable, even though he may, by his own fault, have brought that inability upon himself. If a man, by de- bauchery or excess, bring upon himself an utter disability for all future employment, it is not then his duty to do the same business which it was before. It is true it does not excuse his former intemperance, for in that he was to blame; but it excuses his present cessation from business; for that he is not to blame, nor can any person blame him. This will hold good in all cases of natural inability whatever; • and if there is no difference between that and what is of a moral nature, the same reasoning will apply to the fallen angels. They were certainly to blame for their first re- volt, by which they contracted their inability; but how can they be to blame for continuing what they are 3 Their propensity to evil is now become invincible, and no grace is bestowed upon them to deliver them from it; how, then, can they be to blame? And if truth is of a like force in all places, and at all times, why should not the ploughboy's argument, as it is called, “What we cannot do, we cannot do,” be as irrefragable in the language of an apostate angel as in that of an apostate man 3 SECTION III. ON FAITH IN CHRIST BEING A REQUIREMENT OF THE MOIRAL LAW. I FIND it difficult to come at the real sentiments of P. touching the moral law. Sometimes he speaks of it as “an invariable rule of human conduct, and infallible test of right and wrong ” (p. 67); at other times he speaks of it as wholly abrogated, as if “final misery was not brought upon sinners by their transgression of the law, but by their rejection of the overtures of mercy,”—p. 86. In his Ninth Letter he admits that men “are bound, as subjects of God’s moral government, to embrace whatever he reveals,” —p. 89. One should think that if so, a rejection of the overtures of mercy must itself be a transgression of the law. And yet he all along speaks of our obligations to obey the gospel as arising, if not wholly, yet chiefly, from the gospel itself. He does not seem willing to deny the thing in full ; for he cautiously uses the terms “wholly and chiefly;” and yet if his arguments, especially from the contrary nature of the two dispensations, (p. 90,) from the silence of Scripture, &c. &c., prove any thing, they will prove that our obligations to obey the gospel must arise wholly and entirely from the gospel itself, and not from the moral law.” - The purport of all the reasoning of P. on this subject * That there is a sense in which our obligation to comply with the gospel does arise from the gospel itself is allowed. On this subject I have given my thoughts in the former treatise, p. 57. supposes me to maintain THAT MEN ARE EXIICRTED AND INVITED TO SUCH AND SUCH THINGS MERELY AS MATTER OF DUTY, witHouT ANY PROMISE OF SALVATION ON THEIR compliance. Hence he speaks of “binding men down in chains of darkness;” of their “seeking the salvation of their souls in vain.” (p. 46); with various things of the kind: whereas I have given sufficient proof of the contrary throughout the former treatise, particularly in pp. 157– 159. It is, all along, supposed that eternal salvation is promised by a faithful God to any and every exercise of what is spiritually good; and that if every sinner who hears the gospel were truly to come to Christ for salvation, every such sinner would undoubtedly be saved. It must be upon this mistaken supposition that P. de- nies the gospel upon our principles to be in itself “good news,” (p. 92,) or in its own nature a “real privilege,” —p. 87. But unless the aversion of men's hearts from embracing the gospel (if grace is not provided, to enable them to do so) makes that to be no privilege which would otherwise be so, such a consequence cannot justly be im- puted to our sentiments. This, however, will not be ad- mitted; yet P. seems to take it for granted, and proceeds to draw consequences from it, as an undoubted truth. There is some force in what P. has advanced on the subject of trust (p. 32); and, for anything I yet perceive, he is in the right in supposing that the venture of the four lepers into the Syrian camp could not properly be called by that name. It should be considered, however, that the above case, which I produced for illustration, was not de- signed as a perfect representation of a sinner's application to Christ. I never supposed it possible for a soul to apply to Christ, and be disappointed. Whether the resolution of the lepers can be called trust or not, it never was my de- sign to prove that a sinner has no greater encouragement to apply to Christ than they had in their proposed appli- cation to the Syrians. On the contrary, the purport of the argument in that place was thus expressed : “If it would be right to venture, even in such a case as that, surely Christ's having promised, saying, “ Him that cometh wnto me I will in no wise cast out,’ cannot make it other- wise,”—p. 133. I admit there is no doubt of a sinner's acceptance who, from his heart, applies at the feet of Christ, as one who is utterly lost, and righteously condemned ; yet I do not feel the force of my opponent's censure, when, speaking of coming to Christ with a “peradventure he acill save my life,” he calls it the mere language of heathenism. A heathen’s having used such language does not prove it to be the mere language of heathemism ; nor is it so. Peter exhorted the sorcerer, saying, “Repent therefore of this wickedness, if perhaps the thought of thy heart may be forgiven thee.” Though there be no doubt of one who truly comes to Christ being accepted, yet there may be some doubt concerning a person's coming in the spirit of the gospel; and I believe it is not usual for a person, on his first application to Christ, to be able to decide upon that matter. On these accounts, I should think it is usual for a sinner, on his first application to the Saviour, to pray to the Lord, if so be that the evils of his heart and life may be forgiven him. It is not the way of a contrite sinner to come as a claimant, but as a suppliant : “He putteth his mouth in the dust, if so be there may be hope.” Trust, according to my present apprehensions, when used to express faith in Christ, refers, like that, to a Di- vine testimony, or promise. That for which every sinner who hears the gospel ought to trust to Christ is this: that if he truly come to him, he shall surely be accepted of him ; for this is testifted, or promised. He ought not so to trust in Christ as to depend upon being saved by him whether he come to him in the spirit of the gospel or not, (for that would be trusting in a falsehood,) but so as to give up every false object of confidence, and make trial of the Divine veracity. If there is any difference between the manner in which a sinner ought to trust in Christ, and in which a saint does trust in him, it appears to be this: the former ought to trust in God’s promise, that IF he come, he shall be accepted, and so make the trial: the latter may be conscious that he HAs come to Christ, and does fall in with his gospel and government ; and if so, he trusts in his promise for the 222 REPLY TO PHILANTHROPOS. happy issue. There are seasons, however, in which true saints are in great darkness about their evidences for glory. At those times, they find it necessary to exercise renewed acts of trust on Christ in the manner first de- scribed. Not possessing a certain consciousness that they do fall in with his gospel and government, all they can do is to consider that the promise is still in force, “Him that cometh wnto me I will in no wise cast out ; ” and so make trial afresh of the Redeemer's veracity. P. seems to think that his sentiments lay a proper foundation for trust to every poor sinner, and that ours do not. But what has any sinner to trust in upon his principles more than upon ours? According to our prin- ciples, any sinner may trust that he shall be saved if he come to Christ; and what do his do more ? They do not warrant a sinner to trust that he shall be saved whether he come to Christ or not; for though P. supposes Christ died for all, yet he maintains that many of those for whom he died will finally perish. I see no advantage whatever, therefore, attending his scheme, in laying a more solid and extensive foundation for a sinner's trust than ours. If I am not very much mistaken, P. has greatly con- founded two very different things, viz. an obligation and an encouragement to believe. The one, I suppose, arises from the moral law ; the other from the gospel. That the encouragements held out to sinners to return to God by Jesus Christ belong to the law is what I never affirmed. P. has quoted various scriptures, in his Ninth Letter, of an encouraging nature; and these, doubtless, are the lan- guage of the gospel. But the question is, does our obli- gation to believe arise from these encouragements, or from the injunctions with which they are connected ? The en- couragement of the prodigal to return, and make a frank acknowledgment to his father, arose from his father's well- known clemency, and there being bread enough in his house, and to spare ; but that was not the ground of his obligation. It had been right and fit for him to have re- turned, whether such a ground of encouragement had existed or not. As to those encouragements being improper without a provision of mercy, if it were possible for any returning sinner to be refused admittance for want of a sufficiency in the death of Christ, this might be admitted, but not else. And if by a provision of mercy is meant no more than a provision of pardon to all who believe, and sup- posing, for argument's sake, every man in the world should return to God in Christ's name, that they would all be accepted, I have no objection to it. At the same time, it is insisted that no man ever did come to Christ, or ever can find in his heart to do so, but whom the Father draws. But more of this hereafter : at present I shall offer a few arguments for the following position :-Though the en- couragements of a sinner to come to Christ arise wholly from the gospel, yet his obligation so to do arises from the moral law. I. All obligation must arise from some law. If, there- fore, our obligations to believe in Christ do not arise from the moral law, they must arise from the gospel as a new law; but the gospel, as P. admits, is simply good news, (p. 5,) and news, whether good or bad, relates not to precepts or injunctions, but to tidings proclaimed. II. Sin is defined, by an inspired apostle, to be “the transgression of the law,” 1 John iii. 4. If this be a perfect definition, it must extend to all sin ; and conse- quently to unbelief, or a rejection of God’s way of salva- tion. But if unbelief be a transgression of the law, faith, which is the opposite, must be one of its requirements. º his refers to the first ed. The substance will be found in App. p. & + By Moses's accusing them, I apprehend, is meant the law of Moses, which condemns the Jews to this present time for not believing in that Prophet whom Moses foretold, Deut. xviii. 18, 19. # If I understand, P., he considers the moral law as a system of government now no longer in force; and the gospel as a new system of government, more suited to the state of fallen creatures, which has taken place of it; for he supposes that “final misery is not now brought upon men by their transgression of the moral law, but by their reception of the overtures of mercy,”—p. 86. Final misery, we are sure, must be brought upon men by sin, be it against what law it may; and whatever law it is the breach of which subjects us to final misery, that must be the law that we are under. If this is not the moral law, then men are not under that law, nor can it be to us “the standard of right and wrong.” If the gospel be a new system of government, III. If love to God include faith in Christ wherever he is revealed by the gospel, then the moral law, which ex- pressly requires the former, must also require the latter. In proof that love to God includes faith in Christ, I ask leave to refer the reader to pages 160, I61, and 172 of the former treatise. P. allows my “reasonings on the extent of the moral law, in pages 188, 189,” are very conclusive;” but what he calls “analogical reasonings, in this and other places, from the law to the gospel, he cannot think to be equally conclusive, unless the dispensation of the law and that of the gospel were the same,”—p. 67. If I understand what he refers to by analogical reasons, it is the argument con- tained in those pages to which I have just now referred the reader. I might here ask, Is what was advanced in those pages answered ? I do not recollect that any thing like an answer to it is attempted by any one of my opponents. If the reasoning is inconclusive, I should suppose its de- ficiency is capable of being detected. Let P. or any other person prove, if he is able, that supreme love to God would not necessarily lead a fallen creature, who has heard the gospel of Christ, to embrace him as God’s way of salva- tion; or let him invalidate those arguments, in the pages referred to, in which the contrary is maintained. Let him consider, also, whether, if he succeed, he will not, in so doing, invalidate the reasoning of our Lord to the Jews, “I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you. I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not.” That the law and the gospel are two very different dis- pensations is allowed. The one is a mere inefficient rule, requiring what is right, but giving no disposition to a com- pliance ; the other provides for the bestowment of the Holy Spirit, by which we are renewed in the spirit of our mind. The gospel makes effectual provision for the pro- ducing of those dispositions which the law simply requires. The law condemns the sinner, the gospel justifies him. On these accounts, the former is fitly called the LETTER which KILLETH, and the latter the SPIRIT which GIVETH LIFE, 2 Cor. iii. 6. For these reasons also, with others, the gospel is a better covenant. All this may be allowed without making it a new law, requiring a kind of obedi- ence that shall be within the compass of a carnal mind, and different in its nature from that required by the moral law. - IV. Unbelievers will be accused and convicted by Moses ; their unbelief must, therefore, be a breach of the law of Moses. After our Lord had complained of the Jews, that “they would not come unto him that they might have life ;” that though he was come in his “Father's name, yet they received him not;” he adds, “Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father ; there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me.” It is very plain, I think, from this passage, that the thing for which Moses would accuse them was a rejection of Christ and the way of salvation by him : which, according to our Lord's reasoning, implied a rejection of the writings of Moses.T. From hence, therefore, it is inferred that a compliance with the gospel is what the law of Moses re- quires, and a noncompliance with it is a matter for which that law will accuse and condemn.j: P. has brought many proofs of the invitations of Scrip- ture being enforced on gospel principles. This is a matter I should never have thought of denying. But if an in- vitation to believe in Christ, enforced by gospel motives, will prove that faith is not a requirement of the moral law, then invitations to love God, to fear him, and to lie taking place of the moral law, then all the precepts, prohibitions, pro- mises, and threatenings, the neglect of which subjects men to final misery, must belong to the former, and not to the latter. How far these sentiments accord with the Scripture account of either law or gospel, let the reader judge. , Let it be considered, also, whether it is not much more consistent with both to conceive of the former as the guardian of the latter, enjoining whatever regards are due to it, and punishing every instance of neglect and contempt of it. Such a view of things accords with the passage in John v., just cited, and is in no wise contradicted by those Scriptures to which we are re- ferred in page 86. On the contrary, one of those passages, viz. 2 Thess. i. 8, in my opinion, tends to establish it, and is in direct con- tradiction to the hypothesis of P. Vengeance is said to be taken on men, not merely for their disobedience to the gospel, but as well for their ignorance of God, which is distinguished from the other, and is manifestly a breach of the moral law. REPLY TO PHILANTHROPOS. 223 low before him, enforced in the same manner, will prove the same of them. Love, fear, and humility are enforced upon gospel principles as well as faith in Christ. Things which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, and of which it hath not entered into the heart of man to conceive, are prepared for them who love God. The exhortations to fear God are not more numerous than the promises of mercy to those who are of such a spirit. Men are ex- horted to humble themselves under the mighty hand of God, with the encouragement that he will lift them up. These are all gospel motives ; yet P. will not deny that the dispositions enforced are requirements of the moral law. Even relative duties, such as those of husbands and wives, parents and children, masters and servants, &c., which certainly are of a moral nature, are nevertheless enforced by gospel motives. But “how can the gospel answer the end of recovering miserable men,” it is asked, “if it contain new injunctions, equally impossible, if not more so, than the moral law itself; and these injunctions enforced by more awful pun- ishments 3"—p. 93. I might ask, in return, How can the gospel have a tendency to recover sinful men from their evil propensities, if it is a kind of law which requires only such exercises as may consist with those propensities? It can have no such tendency, unless tolerating an evil has a tendency to destroy it. “But is not the gospel adapted, as a means, to recover lost sinners ?” Yes, it is. By the cross of Christ, it ex- hibits the evil of sin in stronger colours than all the curses of the law could paint it ; and so has a tendency, in the hand of the Holy Spirit, to convince the world of sin. Nor is this all; it exhibits a Saviour to the guilty soul, to keep him from despair, which, at the same time, tends to conquer his heart with a view of God’s free and self-moved goodness. A person thus conquered would admire the free and sovereign grace of the gospel, but he would abhor the thought of a gospel that should make Jehovah stoop to the vile inclinations of his apostate creatures. His prayer would be, “Incline” not thy testimonies to my heart—but “my heart to thy testimonies.” But “could the gospel have a tendency to recover lost sinners, if it contained new injunctions equally impossible, if not more so than the moral law itself?” I own, I think it could not. And who supposes it could? surely P. must have here forgotten himself. Does he not know that those are his own sentiments rather than mine ; so far, at least, as relates to the gospel containing new injunctions. I suppose the gospel, strictly speaking, to contain no in- junctions at all, but merely the good tidings of salvation by Jesus Christ; and that, whatever precepts or injunc- tions are to be found respecting its being embraced, they are the diversified language of the moral law, which obliges men, as P. himself allows, to “embrace whatever God reveals,”—p. 89. Sometimes the word gospel is used, in a large sense, for the whole of the Christian dispensation, as contained in the New Testament, or the whole of that religion taught by Christ and his apostles, whether doctrinal or practical. In this use of the word we sometimes speak of the precepts of the gospel. But when the term gospel is used in a strict sense, it denotes merely the good news proclaimed to lost sinners through the mediation of Christ. In this view it stands opposed to the moral law, and, in itself, contains no injunctions at all. If the gospel were a new System of government, taking place of the moral law, one should think there would be no further need of the latter; whereas Christ, in his sermon on the mount, maintained its perpetuity, and largely explained and enforced its pre- cepts., “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid : yea, we establish the law.” .* “The obedience and sufferings of Christ,” says Witsius, “ con- sidered in themselves, are, on account of the infinite dignity of the person, of such value as to have been sufficient for redeeming not only all and every man in particular, but many myriads besides, had it so pleased God and Christ that he should have undertaken and satisfied for them.” And again, “The obedience and sufferings of Christ are of such worth that all without exception who come to him may find perfect salvation in him ; and it was the will of God that this truth should without distinction be proposed both to them that are to be saved, and to them that are to perish; with a charge not to neglect so SECTION IV. ON THE DEATH OF CHRIST, THE extent of Christ’s death is well known to have been a matter of great controversy. For my part, I cannot pretend to so much reading upon the subject as to be fully acquainted with the arguments used on either side. If I write any thing about it, it will be a few plain thoughts, chiefly the result of reading the sacred Scriptures. I think no one can imagine that I am under any obli- gation from the laws of controversy to follow P. into a long and laboured defence of the limited extent of Christ's death. All that can be reasonably thought incumbent upon me is to treat of it so far as respects its consistency or inconsistency with indefinite invitations. On this score I might very well be excused from entering upon any de- fence of the subject itself, or answering the arguments advanced for the contrary. Whatever notice is taken of either will be rather in compliance with what has been done by my opponent than in conformity to the laws of disputation. I suppose P. is not ignorant that Calvinists in general have considered the particularity of redemption as con- sisting not in the degree of Christ’s sufferings, (as though he must have suffered more if more had been finally saved,) or in any insufficiency that attended them, but in the sovereign purpose and design of the Father and the Son, whereby they were constituted or appointed the price of redemption, the objects of that redemption ascertained, and the ends to be answered by the whole transaction determined. They suppose the sufferings of Christ, in themselves considered, are of infinite value, sufficient to have saved all the world, and a thousand worlds, if it had pleased God to have constituted them the price of their redemption, and to have made them effectual to that end. Further, whatever difficulties there may appear in these subjects, they in general suppose that there is in the death of Christ a sufficient ground for indefinite calls and uni- versal invitations, and that there is no mockery or insin- cerity in the Holy One in any one of these things. * These views of the subject accord with my own. I know not but that there is the same objective fulness and sufficiency in the obedience and sufferings of Christ for the salvation of sinners as there is in the power of the Holy Spirit for their renovation: both are infinite; yet both are applied under the direction of infinite wisdom and uncontrollable sovereignty. It is allowed that the death of Christ has opened a way whereby God can con- sistently with his justice forgive any sinner whatever who returns to him by Jesus Christ. If we were to suppose, for argument's sake, that all the inhabitants of the globe should thus return, it is supposed not one soul need be sent away for want of a sufficiency in Christ's death to render his pardon and acceptance consistent with the rights of justice. But great and necessary as this mercy is, if nothing more than this had been done, not one of the human race had ever been saved. It is necessary to our salvation that a wº y and a highway to God should be opened : Christ is such a way, and is as free for any sinner to walk in as any highway whatever from one place to another: but, considering the depravity of human nature, it is equally necessary that some effectual provision should be made for our walking in that way.f. We conceive that the Lord Jesus Christ made such a provision by his death, thereby procuring the certain bestowment of faith, as well as all other spiritual blessings which follow upon it; that, in regard of all the sons who are finally brought to glory, he was the Surety or Captain of their salvation ; that their salvation was, properly speaking, the end or design of his great salvation, but to repair to Christ with true contrition of soul; and with a most sincere declaration that all who come to him shall find salvation in him, John vi. 40,” CEconomy, Vol. I. Chap. IX. To the same purpose speaks Peter Du Moulin, in his Amatomy of Ar- minianism, Chap. XXVII. § 9. And Dr. Owen, in his Death of Death, Book IV. Chap. I.; also in his Display of Arminianism, Chap. IX. +. I use the metaphor of a way the rather because it conveys an idea sufficiently clear, and is frequently applied to Christ in the Scriptures, John xiv. 4–6; Isa. xxxv. 8; Jer. vi. 16. 224 REPLY TO PHILANTHROPOS. death. And herein we suppose consists the particularity of redemption. I think I might reduce all that is necessary to be said upon this subject to two questions:—First, Had our Lord Jesus Christ any absolute determination in his death to save any of the human race? Secondly, Supposing such a determination to exist concerning some which does not exist concerning others, is this consistent with indefinite calls and universal invitations ? The discussion of these two questions will contain the substance of what I shall advance upon the subject; but as pretty much is required to be said, I shall subdivide the whole into four lesser sections. SECT. I. Containing a discussion of the first question, Whether our Lord Jesus Christ had any absolute determin- ation in his death to save any of the human race. If the affirmative of this question be proved ; if it be shown that Christ had such an absolute purpose in his death; the limited extent of that purpose must follow of course. The reason is plain: an absolute purpose must be effectual. If it extended to all mankind, all mankind would certainly be saved. Unless, therefore, we will maintain the final salvation of all mankind, we must either suppose a limitation to the absolute determination of Christ to save, or demy any such determination to exist. The scheme of P. concurs with the latter, supposing that by the death of Christ a merely conditional provision of redemption is made for all mankind. I own I think otherwise ; some of the reasons for which are as follows:– I. The promises made to Christ of the certain efficacy of his death. One of our grand objections to the scheme of P. is, that, in proportion as he extends the objects for whom Christ died beyond those who are actually saved, he diminishes the efficacy of his death, and renders all the promises concerning it of no account. His scheme, in- stead of making redemption universal, supposes that Christ’s death did not properly redeem any man, nor render the salvation of any man a matter of certainty. It only procured an offer of redemption and reconciliation to mankind in general. We apprehend this is diminishing the efficacy of Christ's death, without answering any valu- able end. Nor is this all : such an hypothesis appears to us utterly inconsistent with all those scriptures where God the Father is represented as promising his Son a reward for his sufferings in the salvation of poor sinners. God the Father engaged, saying, “Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning; thou hast (or shalt have) the dew of thy youth.” Yes: he engaged that he should “see his seed ;” that “the pleasure of Jehovah should prosper in his hand;” that he should “ see of the travail of his soul, and be satisfied; and by his knowledge,” it was added, “shall my righteous servant justify many, for he shall bear their imiquities.” It was promised to Christ, as the reward of his sufferings, that “kings should see, and arise : princes also,” it was added, “shall worship, be- cause of the Lord that is faithful; and the Holy One of Israel shall choose thee: thus saith Jehovah, In an accept- able time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee; and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people : to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages; that thou mayest say to the prisoners, Go forth, and to them that sit in darkness, Show yourselves.”—“Behold, these shall come from far; and lo, these from the north and from the west, and these from the land of Sinim I’” But what security, I ask, was there for the fulfilment of these promises, but upon the supposition of the certain salvation of some of the human race? How could it be certain that Christ should justify nanºſ, if there was no effectual provision made that any should know and believe in him 3 and what propriety was there in assigning his bearing their iniquities as his REAsoN and EVIDENCE of it, if there is no necessary connexion be- tween our iniquities being borne away and our persons being justified ? 2. The characters under which Christ died. He laid down his life as a shepherd; and for whom should we ex- pect him to die in that character 2 For the sheep, no doubt. So the Scriptures inform us: “The good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.”—“I lay down my life for the sheep.” Those for whom Christ laid down his life are represented as being his sheep prior to their coming to the fold: “ These,” saith the blessed Redeemer, “I must bring; and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.” As sheep are committed into the hands of a shepherd, and as he becomes respon- sible for their preservation or restoration, so Christ is re- presented as the great Shepherd of the sheep, whose blood was shed by covenant ; and who, by fulfilling that cove- nant, was entitled to a discharge, which, as the represent- ative of those for whom he died, he enjoyed in his resur- rection from the dead, John x. 11. 15, 16; Heb. xiii. 20. Again, Christ laid down his life as a husband; and for whom should we expect him to die in that character? For his bride, surely. So the Scriptures inform us: “ Hus- bands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it.” The love of a husband, of which his death is here supposed to be the RESULT, is certainly discriminating. If it is said, True ; but the church here means actual believers—I reply, If they were actual believers, I should suppose they were not unsanc- tifted; for faith purifies the heart: but Christ “gave him- self that he might sanctify them with the washing of water by the word.” Besides, he did not die for believers, as such ; for “while we were yet enemies Christ died for us :” but he died for the church, as such considered. This is evident, because his death is represented as resulting from his love, which he exercises as a husband. I con- clude, therefore, the church cannot, in this place, be under- stood of those only who actually believed. Again, Christ laid down his life as a surety. He is ex- pressly called “ the surety of a better testament.” He needed not to be a surety in behalf of the Father, to see to the fulfilment of his promises, seeing there was no pos- sibility of his failing in what he had engaged to bestow ; but there was danger on our part. Ought we not, there- fore, to suppose that, after the example of the high priest under the law, Christ was a surety for the people to God? and if so, we cannot extend the objects for whom he was a surety beyond those who are finally saved, without sup- posing him to fail in what he has undertaken. In perfect conformity with these sentiments, the following scriptures represent our Lord Jesus, I apprehend, as having under- taken the certain salvation of all those for whom he lived and died. “It became him for whom are all things—in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the Captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.” He died, not for the Jewish nation only, “but that he might gather to- gether in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.”—“The children being partakers of flesh and blood, he also took part of the same.”—“Here am I, and the children whom the Lord hath given me.” Though we receive not the “power (or privilege) to become the sons of God.” till after we believe in Christ; yet, from “before the foundation of the world,” were we “predes- timated to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will ; and So, in the esteem of God, were considered as children, even while as yet we lay scattered abroad under the ruins of the fall. Once more, Christ laid down his life as a sacrifice of atonement; and for whom did the priests under the law offer up the sacrifice 3 For those, surely, on whose be- half it was sanctifted, or set apart for that purpose. Some of the Jewish sacrifices were to make atonement for the sins of an individual ; others for the sins of the whole na- tion ; but every sacrifice had its special appointment, and was supposed to atone for the sins of those, and those only, on whose behalf it was offered. Now Christ, being about to offer himself a sacrifice for sin, spake on this wise : “For their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified through the truth.” For their sakes, as though he had said, who were given me of the Father, I set my- self apart as a victim to vengeance, that I may consecrate and present them faultless before the presence of my Father, John xvii. 9, 19. 3. Such effects are ascribed to the death of Christ as do not terminate upon all mankind. Those for whom Christ died are represented as being redeemed by the shedding of his blood : “He hath redeemed us from the curse of the REPLY TO PHILANTHROPOS. 225 law, being made a curse for us.” But redemption includes the forgiveness of sin, (Eph. i. 7 ; Col. i. 14,) and we know that to be a blessing which does not terminate upon all mankind.* Further, it is not only ascribed to the death of Christ that pardon and acceptance are procured for all who return in his name ; but that any return at all is at- tributed to the same cause: “He gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.” He gave himself for the church, “that he might sanctify and cleanse it.” Our “old man” is said to be “crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed.” But we see not these effects produced upon all mankind; nor are all mankind his peculiar people. * 4. Christ is said to have borne the sins of many; and the blood of the new covenant was “shed for many, for the remission of sins.” The term many, it is allowed, when opposed to one or to few, is sometimes used for an unlimited number; in one such instance it is put for all mankind. But it is self-evident that, when no such op- position exists, it is always used for a limited number, and generally stands opposed to all. Who the many are in Isa. liii. 12, whose sins he bare, may be known by com- paring it with the verse foregoing: “By his knowledge (that is, by the knowledge of him) shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he hath poured out his soul unto death ; he was numbered with the transgressors, he bore the sins of many, and made in- tercession for the transgressors.” There is no reason, that I know of, to be given why the many whose sins he bore, should be understood of any other persons than the many who by his knowledge are justified, and who, it must be allowed, are not all mankind. - 5. The intercession of Christ, which is founded upon his death, and expressive of its grand design, extends not to all mankind: “I pray for them,” says Christ; “I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, for they are thine.” The intercession of the priests under the law, so far as I know, was always in behalf of the same persons for whom the oblation was offered. The persons prayed for by our Lord must either mean those who were them believers, to the exclusion of the unbelieving world; or all who should at any period of time believe, to the ex- clusion of those who should finally perish. That Christ prayed for those who then believed in him is granted ; but that his intercession was confined to them, and excluded all that did not believe in him, cannot be admitted for the following reasons:—(1.) Christ prays for all that were given him of the Father; but the term given is not applied to believers as such ; for men are represented as given of the Father prior to their coming to Christ, John vi. 37. (2.) The Scripture account of Christ's intercession does not confine it to those who are actually believers, which it must have done if the sense I oppose be admitted. When he hung upon the cross, he prayed for his enemies ; and herein most evidently fulfilled that prophecy, “He poured out his soul unto death, he was numbered with the trans- gressors, he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.” (3.) It is expressly said, John xvii. 20, “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also who shall believe in me through their word.” 6. If the doctrine of eternal, personal, and unconditional election be a truth, that of a special design in the death of Christ must necessarily follow. I do not suppose P. will admit the former ; but I apprehend he will admit, that if the former could be proved a Scripture truth, the latter * P. I suppose has felt the force of this reasoning heretofore, and therefore, if I am rightly informed, he disowns a wniversal redemp- tºor, supposing that, properly speaking, Christ did not, by laying down his life, redeem any man; that no person can be said to have been redeemed till he has believed in Christ. It is true we receive this blessing when we believe, as we then receive the atonement. It is then that we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins; but as it does not follow, from our receiving the atonement when we believe, that atonement was not properly made when Christ hung upon the cross, so neither does, it follow from our having re- demption when we believe, that Christ did not properly redeem us when he laid down his life. Certain it is that the passage before-cited (Gal. iii. 13) refers not to what takes place on our believing, but to what Q would follow of course. I might then urge all those scriptures and arguments which appear to me to prove the doctrine of election. But this would carry me beyond my present design. I only say the following scriptures, among many others, appear to me to be conclusive upon that subject, and such as cannot be answered without a manifest force being put upon them. “God the Father hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in Christ Jesus, according as he hath chosen us in him before the found- ation of the world, that we should be holy.”—“God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation though sancti- fication of the Spirit and the belief of the truth.”—“All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me.”—“Whom he did foreknow he did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son. Moreover, whom he did predes- tinate, them he also called; whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified.”— “I have much people in this city.”—“As many as were ordained to eternal life believed.”—“Elect, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctifica- tion of the Spirit, unto obedience.”—“Who hath saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.”— “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that you should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain.”—“I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight.”—“Except the Lord of hosts had left us a seed we had been as Sodom, and been made like unto Go- morrah.”—“At this present time also there is a remnant, according to the election of grace. The election hath ob- tained it, and the rest were blinded.”—“I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy; and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.”f The above passages must be allowed to speak only of a part of mankind. This part of mankind must be styled the chosen of God, given of the Father, &c., either because of their actually being believers, or because it was foreseen that they would believe, or, as we suppose, because God eternally purposed in himself that they should believe and be saved. It cannot be on account of the first, seeing they were chosen before the foundation of the world, and given to Christ prior to their believing in him. It cannot be on account of the second, because then what he had done for us must have been according to something good in us, and not according to his own purpose and grace, given us in Christ Jesus before the world began. It would also be contrary to all those scriptures recited above, which represent our being chosen and given of the Father as the cause of faith and holiness. If our conformity to the image of the Son of God, our faith, holiness, and obedience, are the effects of election, they cannot be the ground or reason of it. If men are given to Christ prior to the con- sideration of their coming to him, then they cannot be said to be given on account of their so coming. If, then, it cannot be on account of either the first or the second, I conclude it must be on account of the last. The death of Christ is assigned as a reason why none, at the last day, shall be able to lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect, Rom. viii. 33, 34. But if it extends equally to those who are condemned as to those who are justified, how does it become a security against such a charge 3 Whatever difference there may be, in point of security, was done at the time when Christ was made a curse for us by hanging upon the tree. Though I apprehend, for the reasons above, that being redeemed from the curse of the law does not necessarily suppose the subject to be in the actual possession of that blessing; yet to understand it of any thing less than such a virtual redemption as effectually secured our enjoyment of deliverance in the fulness of time, is to reduce it to no meaning at all. We must either allow it to mean thus much, or say with P., that Christ, in laying down his life for us, did not redeem any man; but this, at present, appears to me to be contradicting, rather than explaining, Scripture. tº gº º + Eph. i. 3; 2 Thess. ii. 13; John vi. 37; Rom. viii. 29; Acts xviii, 10; xiii.48; 1 Pet. i. 2; 2 Tim. i. 9; John xv. 16; Matt, xi. 25; Rouls ix. 15. 29; xi. 5. 7. - 226 REPLY TO PHILANTHROPOS. between those who at that day are justified, and those who are condemned, the death of Christ is not supposed to have had any influence towards it. The security of the elect should rather have been ascribed to what they them- selves have done in embracing the Saviour than to any thing done by him, seeing what he did was no security whatever. It was no more than a cipher in itself con- sidered. The efficacy of the whole, it seems, rested, not upon what Christ had done, but upon what they them- selves had done in believing in him. 7. The character of the redeemed in the world above implies the sentiment for which we plead. Not only did the four living creatures and the four-and-twenty elders (which seem to represent the church militant) adore the Lamb, saying, “Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation ; ” but it is witnessed of those who are without fault before the throne of God, that they were re- deemed (or bought) from among men, being the first-fruits wnto God and the Lamb. But if all of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation were bought by the blood of Christ, there could be no possibility of any being bought from among them. The above are some of the reasons which induce me to think there was a certain, absolute, and consequently limited, design in the death of Christ, securing the salva- tion of all those, and only those, who are finally saved. The reader will now judge of the confident manner in which P. asks, “What end can it answer to take all these pains to vindicate a doctrine which God has never re- yealed ?”—p. 36. SECT. II.--Wherein some notice is taken of the argu- ments of P. for the contrary hypothesis. The limited extent of Christ’s death is said to be “in- consistent with Divine goodness, and with the tender mer- cies of God over all his works,”*—p. 73. To this it is replied, Fallen angels are a part of God’s works as well as fallen men ; but Christ did not die for them ; if, there- fore, his death is to be considered as the criterion of Divine goodness, and if the exercise of punitive justice is incon- sistent with that attribute, then, suppose we were to ad- mit that Christ died for all mankind, still the psalmist's assertion cannot be true, and the difficulty is never the nearer being removed. That God loves all mankind I make no doubt, and all the works of his hands, as such considered, fallen angels themselves not excepted; but the question is whether he loves them all alike ; and whether the exercise of punitive justice be inconsistent with universal goodness. It is go- ing great lengths for a weak worm to take upon him to insist that Divine goodness must be exercised in such a particular instance, or it can have no existence at all. I dare not say there is no love, no goodness, in all the pro- vidences of God towards mankind, nor yet in his giving them the means of grace and the invitations of the gospel, though he does not do all for them which he could do to incline them to embrace them, and has neither purposed nor provided for such an end. On the contrary, I believe these things, in themselves considered, to be instances of Divine goodness, whatever the issue of them may be through men's depravity. But if Christ did not die for all mankind, it is said, “his tender mercies cannot be exercised towards them; no, not in the good things of this life; for these only increase their misery: nor in life itself; for every moment of it must be a dreadful curse,”—p. 73. But, horrid as these consequences may appear, a denier of God’s foreknowledge would tell P. that the same consequences followed upon his own scheme, and in their full extent. He would say, You pretend to maintain the tender mercies of God over all his works ; and yet you suppose him perfectly to know, before any of these works were brought into being, the part that every individual would act, and the consequent misery that would follow. He was sure that millions of the human race would so act, place them under what advan- * Surely it is of vast importance to remember that the death of Christ was intended, not to prevent the Divine character from being reproached on account of the strictness of his law in condemning all transgressors, but to prevent it from being censured on account of the exemption of any transgressors from deserved punishment, What- tages he would, as that they would certainly involve them- selves in such a condition that it were better for them never to have been born. He knew precisely who would come to such an end, as much as he will at the day of judgment. Why then did he bring them into existence 3 Surely they had better never have been born ; or if they must be born, why were they not cut off from the womb, seeing he was sure that every moment of time they existed would only increase their misery 4 Is this goodness? Are these his tender mercies 4 . . . . I tremble while I write . For my part, I feel difficulties attend every thing I think about. I feel myself a poor worm of the dust, whose understand- ing is infinitely too contracted to fathom the ways and works of God. I wish to tremble and adore ; and take comfort in this—that what I know not now, I shall know hereafter. But “it is no where expressly said that Christ died only for a part of mankind,”—p. 71. It is expressly said that he gave himself that he might purify unto himself a pecu- liar people ; that he laid down his life for the sheep ; that he loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he died that he might gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad ; and that those who are with- out fault before the throne of God were bought from among men. But be it so that we no where expressly read that Christ did not die to redeem all mankind; the Scrip- tures do not so much deal in negatives as in positives; their concern is not so much to inform mankind what is not done, as what is done. I know not that it is any where ea pressly said that all mankind are not to be baptized ; yet I suppose P. well understands that part of our Lord’s commission to be restrictive. There was no necessity for the apostles to publish the Divine purposes to mankind in their addresses to them. These were not designed as a rule of action, either for the preachers or the hearers. It was sufficient for them both that Christ was ready to pardon and accept of any sinner whatever that should come unto him. It was equally sufficient, on the other hand, if, after people believed, they were taught those truths which relate to the purposes of grace on their behalf, with a view to cut off all glorying in themselves, and that they might learn to ascribe the whole difference between themselves and others to the mere sovereign grace of God. Hence it is that the chief of those scriptures which we conceive to hold forth a limita- tion of design in the death of Christ, or any other doctrine of discriminating grace, are such as were addressed to be- lievers. But the main stress of the argument seems to lie in the meaning of such general expressions as all men—world— whole world, &c. If these are discussed, I suppose I shall be allowed to have replied to the substance of what P. has advanced ; and that is all I can think of attending to. It is admitted, as was before observed, that there is in the death of Christ a sufficient ground for indefinite calls and universal invitations; that God does invite mankind without distinction to return to him through the media- tion of his Son, and promises pardon and acceptance to whomsoever shall so return. There have been and now are many considerable writers, who are far from disowning the doctrine of particular redemption, (or that the salva- tion of those who are saved is owing to an absolute and consequently limited design in the death of Christ,) who yet apprehend that a way is opened for sinners, without distinction, being invited to return to God with the pro- mise of free pardon on their return. And they suppose the above general expressions are intended to convey to us this idea. For my part, though I think with them in re- spect to the thing itself, yet I question if these general expressions are so to be understood. The terms ransom, propitiation, &c. appear to me to express more than this, and what is true only of those who are finally saved. To die for ws appears to me to express the design or intention of the Redeemer. Christ's death effected a real redemp- tion, through which we are justifted. He redeemed us ever considerations prove the necessity, or infinite expediency, of the atonement, must prove it was altogether optional, and an instance of infinite and sovereign goodness in God to provide a Lamb for a sin- offering.—R, REPLY TO PHILANTHROPOS. 227 from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us, and thereby secured the blessing to come upon us in due time, Rom. iii. 24; Gal. iii. 13, 14. Such a meaning, therefore, of the general expressions above mentioned does not ap- pear to me agreeable; much less can I accede to the sense put upon them by Philanthropos. The rule of interpretation mentioned by P. (p. 76) I approve. His sense of the passages referred to I appre- hend to be “contradicted by other scriptures—contrary to the scope of the inspired writers—and what involves in it various absurdities.” The following observations are submitted to the judg- ment of the impartial reader:- 1. It is the usual language of Scripture, when speaking of the blessings of salvation extending to the Gentiles, to describe them in indefinite terms : “O thou that hearest prayer, unto thee shall all flesh come.”—“The glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it to- gether.”—“And it shall come to pass that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord.”— “And I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,” &c.—“Thy Maker is thy Husband (the Lord of hosts is his name); the God of the whole earth shall he be called.”—“All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the Lord ; and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee.”—“And I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto me.”—“Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low; and all flesh shall see the salvation of God.”—“All nations whom thou hast made shall come and worship before thee, O Lord, and shall glorify thy name.”—“All kings shall fall down before him ; all nations shall serve him. Men shall be blessed in him ; all nations shall call him blessed.” - These passages, with many others, express blessings which cannot be understood universally, as P. himself must acknowledge. Now, I ask, would not these furnish a contender for the universal and final salvation of all mankind with as good an argument as that which P. uses against us? Might he not say, “The subject in question can require no figures. Surely the great God could not intend to impose upon his poor, ignorant creatures. He could receive no honour from such an imposition. It would be no glory to you, sir, to insnare a fly or a gnat. We are infinitely more below Deity than a fly or a gnat is inferior to us. He cannot, then, be honoured by deceiv- ing us. And we may say, with reverence, that his justice, and all his moral perfections, require that he should be ex- plicit in teaching ignorant men on subjects of such im- portance as this?”—p. 40.* 2. The time in which the New Testament was written renders such a sense of the indefinite terms there used very possible and very probable. The Jews, it is well known, were at that time very tenacious of exclusive pri- vileges. Their prejudices taught them to expect a Messiah whose blessings should be confined to their own peculiar nation. The generality of even those who believed were exceedingly jealous, and found it hard work to relinquish their pecular motions, and be reduced to a level with the Gentiles. It seems highly proper, therefore, that the Holy Spirit should, in some sort, cut off their vain pretensions; and this he did, not only by directing the apostles to the use of indefinite language, but by putting words into the mouth of Caiaphas, their own high priest. He bore wit- ness for God, though he meant no such thing, how that Jesus “should die for that nation; and not for that nation * P. speaks of reverence; and I have no doubt but that in general he feels it; but surely, in this place, he must have forgotten himself. Surely a greater degree of sobriety would have become a creature so ignorant and insignificant as he describes himself, than to determine what kind of language God shall use in conveying his mind to men. There is no doubt but God's word, in all its parts, is sufficiently ex- plicit. Every thing that relates to the warrant and rule of a sinner's application for salvation, especially, is plain and easy. The wayfaring man, though a fool, shall not err. And, if some truths, which do not affect either his right to apply to the Saviour, or his hope of success on application, should be expressed in figurative language, I hope such a mode of expression will not be found to reflect upon the moral cha- racter of God. I wish, especially, that P. had written with more sobriety in what he says of God’s “deceiving and insmaring us.” What deception is there only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.” 3. The scope and connecion of several of the passages produced countenance such an interpretation. 1 Tim. ii. 6, “He gave himself a ransom for all,” &c. This is a passage on which considerable stress is laid. The whole passage reads as follows: “I exhort, therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and ac- ceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one Mediator be- tween God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. Where- unto I am ordained a preacher and an apostle, a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.” I allow it to be the revealed will of God that every man who hears, or has opportunity to hear, the gospel, should return to him by Jesus Christ; and whosoever so returns shall surely be saved. But I apprehend, let us understand by the will of God in this place what we may, we can never make it applicable to all men universally. By the truth which God will have all men to come to the knowledge of, is plainly intended that of the one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus ; which is here opposed to the notion of many gods and many mediators among the heathens. But in no sense can it be said to be God’s will that all men universally should come to the knowledge of the latter branch of this truth, unless it be his will that millions of the human race should believe in him of whom they have never heard. I should think the latter part of verses 6, 7 determines the meaning. The phrase, “to be testified in due time” doubtless refers to the gospel being preached among “all nations,” though not to all the individuals of any one na- tion, “ before the end of the world.” Hence it follows, “Whereunto I am ordained a preacher—a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.” God does not now, as if the apostle had said, confine his church, as heretofore, amongst the Jews. Your prayers, hopes, and endeavours must now extend over all the world. God will set up his kingdom in all the kingdoms of the earth. Seek the wel- fare and eternal salvation of men, therefore, without dis- tinction of rank or nation. There is not a country under heaven which is not given to the Messiah for his inherit- ance; and he shall possess it in due time. In due time the gospel shall be testified throughout all the world; for the ushering in of which glorious tidings I am appointed a herald, an apostle, a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.t - I have seen nothing at present sufficient to convince me but that this is the meaning of 1 John ii. 2, “ He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” John, the writer of the Epistle, was a Jew, an apostle of the circumcision, in connexion with Peter and James, Gal. ii. 9. The Epistles of Peter and James were each directed to the Jews (1 Pet. i. 1; 2 Pet. iii. 1; James i. 1); and Dr. Whitby acknowledges concerning this Epistle, that, “it being written by an apostle of the circumcision, it is not doubted but it was written to the Jews.” The same is intimated by several passages in the Epistle itself. The fathers, to whom he writes, (chap. ii. 13, 14,) knew Christ from the beginning. In verse 18 of the same chapter he appears plainly to refer to our Lord’s prophecies concerning the in the case ? Do we suppose it possible for a poor sinner, encouraged by the invitations of the gospel, to apply to Christ, and there meet with a repulse? No such thing. To what purpose then is it asked, “How can any man believe the promises of God, if he be not assured that God is in earnest, and means to fulfil them?”—p. 49. + “He gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.”— Whether the ransom of Christ extends further than the testimony of the gospel or not is a question which I do not pretend to determine; be that, however, as it may, neither supposition will suit the scheme of P. If it does not, his point is given up. If it does, if it includes the whole heathen world, it is to be hoped they are somewhat the better for it, not only in this world, but in that to come. But if so, either they must go to heaven without regeneration, or regeneration in those cases is not by faith. + Preface to his Annotations on the First Epistle of John. Q 2 228 REPLY TO PHILANTHROPOS, awful end of the Jewish nation, and to the false prophets that should come into the world previously to that event. He insists much upon Christ's being come in the flesh ; which was a truth more liable to be denied by the Jews than by the Gentiles. Finally, the term itself, which is rendered propitiation, plainly alludes to the Jewish mercy- seat. It is true that many things in it will equally apply to Jews and Gentiles. Christ is the Advocate of the one as well as of the other: but that is no proof that the Epis- tle is not directed to believing Jews; as the same may be said of many things in the Epistle of James, which also is called a catholic or general Epistle, though expressly ad- dressed to the twelve tribes which were scattered abroad.* After all, I wish it to be considered whether the text refers to any other than believers of either Jews or Gentiles. In my opinion it does not ; and if so, the argument from it in favour of the universal extent of Christ’s death is totally invalidated. My reasons for this opinion are as follow : the term propitiation is not put for what Christ is unto us considered only as laying down his life and offer- ing himself a sacrifice, but for what he is unto us through faith. He is “set forth to be a propitiation, through faith &n his blood,” Rom. iii. 25. He cannot, therefore, one should think, be a propitiation to any but believers. There would be no propriety in saying of Christ that he is set forth to be an expiatory sacrifice through faith in his blood, because he was a sacrifice for sin prior to the con- sideration of our believing in him. The text does not ex- press what Christ was as laying down his life, but what he is in consequence of it. Christ being our propitiation, certainly supposes his being a sacrifice for sin; but it also supposes something more ; it includes the idea of that sacrifice becoming the medium of the forgiveness of sin, and of communion with God. It relates, not to what has been called the impetration, but to the application of re- demption. Christ is our propitiation in the same sense as he is the Lord our righteousness, which also is said to be through faith; but how he should be a propitiation through faith to those who have no faith it is difficult to conceive. The truth seems to be this : Christ is that of which the Jewish mercy-seat (or propitiatory) was a type. The Jewish mercy-seat was the medium of mercy and commu- mion with God for all the worshippers of God of old, Exod. xxv. 22. Christ is that in reality which this was in figure, and is not, like that, confined to a single nation. He is the medium through which all believers of all ages and nations have access to God and receive the forgiveness of their sins. All this perfectly agrees with the scope of the apostle, which was to encourage backslidden believers against despair. Though it is here supposed the apostle personates be- lieving Jews, and that the whole world means the Gentiles; yet, if the contrary were allowed, the argument would not be thereby affected. Suppose him by our sins to mean the sins of us who now believe, whether Jews or Gentiles, still it amounts to the same thing; for then what follows is as if he had added, And not for ours only, but for the sins of all that ever came, or shall come, unto God by him from the beginning to the end of time. P. objects the want of other passages of Scripture, in which the term “whole world signifies the elect, or those that believe, or those that are saved, or any thing contra- dictory to the sense he has given,”—p. 81. The term whole world is certainly used in a limited sense by the apostle Paul, when he says of the Christians at Rome that their faith was spoken of throughout the whole world. Though Rome was at that time, in a sort, the metropolis of the known world, and those who professed Christianity in that famous city were more conspicuous than those who professed it in other places; yet there were many countries not then discovered, in which the news of their faith could not possibly have arrived. Besides, it is evident from the drift of the apostle that the faith of the Romans was spoken of in a way of commendation ; but it is not supposable that the whole world universally would so speak of it. By the whole world, therefore, can be meant no more than the be- lieving part of it in those countries where Christianity had begun to make its way. Further, Christ is called “ the God of the whole earth,” Isa. liv. 5. The whole earth must here mean believers ; as it expresses, not his universal government of the world, but his tender relation of a hus- band, which it was here foretold he should sustain towards the Gentile as well as the Jewish church. Again, the gospel of Christ preached in the world is compared to leaven hid in three measures of meal till the whole was leavened, Matt. xiii. 33. This, doubtless, implies that the gospel, before it has finished its operations, shall spread through- out the whole world, and leaven it. But this will never be true of all the individuals in the world, for none but true believers are leavened by it. But P. thinks the phrase whole world, in 1 John ii. 2, ought to be interpreted by a like phrase in chap. v. 19, and yet he himself cannot pretend that they are of a like meaning, nor does he understand them so. By the whole world in the one place he understands all the inhabitants that ever were, or should be, in the world, excepting those from whom they are distinguished; but, in the other, can only be meant the wicked of the world, who, at that time, existed upon the earth. The most plausible argument advanced by P. is, in my opinion, from 2 Cor. v. 15, on which he observes that the phrase they who live is distributive, and must, therefore, include only a part of the all for whom Christ died,—p. 78. Whether the following remarks are sufficient to in- validate the argument of P. from this passage the reader is left to judge. (1.) The context speaks of the GENTILES being inter- ested in Christ as well as the Jews. “ Henceforth know we no man after the flesh ; yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.”—“If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature,” ver, 16, 17, compared with Gal. vi. 15. (2.) It does not appear to be the design of the apostle to affirm that Christ died for all that were dead, but that all were dead for whom Christ died. P. wonders, and it seems has much ado to keep up his good opinion of my integrity, for what I said in a note on this subject before, —p. 26. That it is the main design of the apostle to speak. of the condition of those for whom Christ died I conclude, partly from his having been describing the condition of sinners as subject to the terrors of Divine vengeance, (ver. 11,) and partly from the phraseology of ver. 14. The apostle's words are, “If one died for all, then were (they) all dead;” which proves both that the condition of those for whom Christ died was the subject of the apostle's main discourse, and that the extent of the term all, in the latter part of this verse, is to be determined by the former, and not the former by the latter. But “ has the little word all lost its meaning?” No, certainly ; nor does what is here advanced suppose that it has. The main design of a writer is not expressed in every word in a sentence; and yet every word may have its meaning. Though I suppose that the term here may refer to Jews and Gentiles, yet that does not neces- sarily imply that it was the apostle's main design here to speak of the extent of Christ's death. (3.) Though our hypothesis supposes that all for whom Christ died shall finally live, yet it does not suppose that they all live at present. It is but a part of those for whom he died, viz. such as are called by his grace, who live not unto themselves, but to him who died for them and rose again. There are some other passages produced by P., particu- larly Heb. ii. 9, and 2 Pet. ii. 1; but I am ready to think he himself does not place much dependence upon them. He is not unacquainted with the scope of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, nor of the word man not being in the text. Nor need he be told that the apostle Peter, in the context of the other passage, appears to be speaking nothing about the purchase of the Saviour's blood ; that the name there given to the purchaser is never applied to Christ; and that if it is applied to him in this instance, it is common to speak of things, not as they actually are, but as they are professed to be : thus apostates are said to be twice dead, as if they had been spiritually alive; though, in fact, that was never the case, but barely the matter of * Had not an argument been drawn from the title of this Epistle in favour of its being written to both Jews and Gentiles, l should have taken no notice of it; as these titles, I suppose, were given to the Epis- ties by uninspired writers. REPLY TO PHILANTHROPOS. 229 their profession. See also Matt. xiii. 12, and Luke viii. 18. SEOT. III–On the consistency of the limited extent of Christ's death, as stated above, with universal calls, invita- tions, &c. lº Here we come to the second question, and to what is the only part of the subject to which I am properly called upon to reply. If a limitation of design in the death of Christ be inconsistent with exhortations and invitations to mankind in general, it must be because it is inconsist- ent for God to exhort and invite men to any thing with which he has not made gracious provision, by the death of his Son, to enable them to comply. When I deny a gracious provision being necessary to render exhortations consistent, I would be understood to mean, 1. Something more than a provision of pardon in behalf of all those who shall believe in Christ. 2. More than the furnishing of men with motives and reasons for compliance; or ordering it so that these motives and rea- sons shall be urged upon them. If no more than this were meant by the term, I should allow that such a provision is necessary. But, by a gracious provision, I mean that, be it what it may, which removes a moral inability to com- ply with the gospel, and which renders such a compli- ance possible without the invincible agency of the Holy Spirit. What has been said before may be here repeated, that the doctrine of a limitation of design in the death of Christ stands or falls with that of the Divine purposes. If the latter can be maintained, and maintained to be consistent with the free agency of man and the entire use of means, then it will not be very difficult to defend the former. I confess that the subject is profound, and I enter upon it with fear and trembling. It is a subject on which I dare not indulge a spirit of speculation. Perhaps the best way of studying it is upon our knees. I hope it will be my endeavour to keep close to what God has revealed con- cerning it. There are, doubtless, many questions that might be started by a curious mind which it would be difficult, and perhaps impossible, to solve. Nor is this to be wondered at. The same difficulty attends us, in our present state, respecting almost all the works of God. No man could solve one half of the difficulties that might be started concerning God’s goodness in creating the world, when he knew all that would follow. The same might be said of a thousand things in the scheme of Divine Provi- dence. Suffice it for us, at present, that we know our littleness; that when we come to see things as they are, We shall be fully convinced of all that has been told us, and shall unite in the universal acclamation, HE HATH DON E ALL THINGS WIELL || That there is a consistency between the Divine decrees and the free agency of men I believe ; but whether I can account for it is another thing. Whether it can be ac- counted for at all, so as to enable us clearly to comprehend it, I cannot tell. Be that as it may, it does not distress me : I believe in both, because both appear to me to be plainly revealed. Of this I shall attempt to give evidence in what follows. 1. The time of man's life is appointed of God. “Is there not an appointed time to man upon earth 3 are not his days also like the days of a hireling? His days are determined, the number of his months is with thee, thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot, pass.” “All the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come.” And yet men are exhorted to use means to prolong their lives, and actually do use those means, as if there was no appointment in the case. God determines to send afflictions to individuals and families; and he may have determined that those afflictions shall terminate in death; nevertheless, it is God’s revealed will that they should use means for their recovery, as much as if there Were no determination in the affair. Children were ex- horted to honour their parents, “that their days might be long in the land which the Lord their God had given them.” He that desired life, and loved many days, was exhorted to keep his tongue from evil, and his lips from speaking guile. If, by neglect or excess, any one come to what is called an untimely end, we are not to suppose either that God is disappointed or the sinner exculpated. 2. Our portion in this life is represented as coming under the Divine appointment.* It is a cup, a lot, a heritage. David spoke of his portion as laid out for him by line. “The lines,” says he, “are fallen to me in pleasant places: yea, I have a goodly heritage.” The times before ap- pointed are determined, and the bounds of our habitation are faced, Acts xvii. 26. It is a satisfaction to a humble mind that his times and concerns are in God’s hand, and that he has the choosing of his inheritance, Psal. xxxi. 15; xlvii. 4. And yet, in all the concerns of life, we are ex- horted to act with discretion, as much as if there were no Divine Providence. The purposes of God extend to the bitter part of our portion as well as to the sweet. Tribulations are things to which we are said to be appointed. Nor is it a mere general determination: of all the ills that befell an afflicted Job, not one came unordained. Cutting and complicated as they were, he calmly acknowledged this, and it was a matter of relief under his trouble : “He performeth the thing that is appointed for me; and many such things are with him.” Nevertheless, there are things which have a tendency to fill up this cup with either happiness or misery; and it is well known that men are exhorted to pursue the one, and to avoid the other, the same as if there were no Divine purpose whatever in the affair. God appointed to give Pharaoh and Sihon up to their own hearts' lusts, which would certainly terminate in their destruction; and yet they ought to have accepted of the messages of peace which God sent to them by the hand of Moses. But here, I am told, I have obviated my own reasoning, by observing, elsewhere, that the “predetermin- ations of God concerning those persons were founded on the foresight of their wicked conduct, of which their non- compliance with these messages of peace was no incon- siderable part,”—p. 47. By this it should seem, then, that P. admits the reality of Divine decrees, and that the final state of every one is thereby determined of God; only that it is upon the foresight of faith or unbelief. In that case, he seems to admit of a consistency between the purposes of God to punish some of the human race, and their being universally invited to believe and be saved. And yet, if so, I see not the propriety of some of his ob- jections against the doctrine of decrees. The thing against which he, in some places, reasons, is not so much their unconditionality as the certainty of their issue. “All must be sensible,” says he, “that the Divine decrees must stand,”—p. 50. Be it so : must they not stand as much upon his own hypothesis as upon ours? As to the conditionality of the Divine decrees, it is al- lowed that, in whatever instances God has determined to punish any of the sons of men, either in this world or in that to come, it is entirely upon the foresight of evil. It was so in all the punishments that befell Pharaoh and Sihon. But there was not only the exercise of punitive justice discovered in these instances, but, as well, a mixture of sovereignty. If the question be asked, Why did God punish these men ; the answer is, On account of their sin. But if it be asked, Why did he punish them rather than others in themselves equally wicked 2 the answer must be resolved into mere sovereignty. He that stopped a perse- cuting Saul in his vile career could have turned the heart of a Pharaoh ; but he is a debtor to none ; he hath said he “will have mercy on whom he will have mercy.” The apostle Paul considered the destruction of Pharaoh as not merely an instance of justice, but likewise of sovereignty (Rom. ix. 17); and concludes, from his example, “there- fore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth ;” which, I should suppose, can intend nothing less than leaving them to the hardness of their hearts. The 19th verse, which immediately foll- lows, and contains the objections of that day, is so nearly akin to the objections of P., (p. 50,) that I wonder he should not perceive it, and learn instruction by it. 3. Events which imply the evil actions of men come under the Divine appointment. The visitations with which Job was afflicted were of God’s sending. He him- * P. calls this in question (p. 47); and seems to admit that if this could be proved, it would prove the consistency of the Divine purposes concerning men's eternal state with their obligations to use the means of salvation. 230 REPLY TO PHILANTHROPOS. self knew this, and acknowledged it. And yet this did not hinder but that the Sabeans and Chaldeans acted as free agents in what they did, and that it was their duty to have done otherwise. Assyria was God's rod to Judah, and the staff in their hands was his indigmation. And yet Assyria ought not so to have oppressed Judah. Pride, covetousness, and cruelty were their motives; for all which they were called to account and punished. Our Lord was “delivered according to the determinate counsel and fore- Ánowledge of God.” His worst enemies did nothing to him but what “ his hand and his counsel determined be- fore to be dome.” And yet this did not hinder but that with “wicked hands” they crucified and slew him, that the contrary of all this was their duty, and that the invit- ations and expostulations of our Lord with them were founded in propriety and sincerity. God did not deter- mine to give Judas a heart to forbear betraying his master, when tempted by the lure of gain : on the contrary, he determined to give him up to his own heart’s lust. The Son of man, in being betrayed, went “as it was deter- mined; ” and yet there was a woe due to, and denounced against, the horrid perpetrator, notwithstanding. Exclamations may abound, but facts are stubborn things. It is likely we may be told, If this be the case, we need not be uneasy about it; for it is as God would have it.— “If God has ordained it, why should we oppose it 3’”—p. 50. But such a mode of objecting, as observed before, though of ancient, is not of very honourable extraction. If it be not identically the same which was made to the apostolic doctrine, it is certainly very nearly akin to it. I can discern no difference except in words: “Thou wilt say, then, Why doth he yet find fault 2 for who hath resisted his will?” To which it was thought sufficient to reply, “Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God '' After all, surely there is a wide difference between an efficient and a permissive determination in respect to the existence of moral evil. To assign the former to the Divine Being is to make him the author of sin; but not so the latter. ' That God does permit evil is a fact that cannot be disputed ; and if we admit the perfection of his moral character, it must be allowed to be consistent with his righteousness, whether we can fully conceive of it or not. But if it be consistent with the righteousness of God to permit evil, it cannot be otherwise to determine so to do, unless it be wrong to determine to do what is right.* 4. Our Lord declared, concerning those who should * Were it not for the candour which P. has discovered in other in- stances, and his solemn appeal to “the searcher of hearts that mis- representation was not his aim,” I should almost think he must take pleasure in representing my sentiments on the Divine decrees in as shocking a light as he is able. What I should express in some such manner as this —God commands men in general to believe in Christ, though he knows they are so obstinately wicked that they cannot find in their heart so to do ; and he has determined not to do all that he is able to remove their obstimacy—he will express for me thus: “God commands all to believe in Christ; and yet knows that they are not, nor ever were, and determines they mener shall be able to do it,”—p. 49. P. will allow, I suppose, that God has not determined to enable men, in the present state, perfectly to love him, with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength ; and yet if this were put into a positive form—if it were said that God has determined that men, in the present state, shall not love him with all their hearts, but that they shall con- tinue to break his law—it would wear a very different appearance. That there is a conformity between God’s revealed will and his de- crees I admit, p. 49. There is no contradiction in these things, in themselves considered, however they may appear to short-sighted mortals. That there is, however, a real distinction between the secret and revealed will of God is not very difficult to prove. The will of God is represented in Scripture, 1. As that which CAN NEveR BE FRUSTRATED.—“Who hath resisted his will?”—“He is in one mind, and who can turn him 7 and what his soul desireth even that he doeth.”—“Being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.”—“My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.”—“He doeth according to his will in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth.”—“Of a truth, Lord, against thy holy child Jesus—both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and people of Israel, were ga- thered together, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel deter- mined before to be done.” 2. As that which MAY BE FRUSTRATED or disobeyed.—“That servant which knew his Lord's will, and pre- pared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.”—“He that doeth the will of God, the same is m brother, and sister, and mother.” The former belongeth unto God, being the rule of his own conduct, and to us is secret; the latter be- longeth to us and to our children for ever; being the rule of our con- duct, “that we may do all the words of his law ;” and this is fully revealed. blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, that their sin should not be forgiven, neither in this world nor in that to come. And there is no doubt, I think, but that some of the Jews were guilty of this sin, if not before, yet after the potiring out of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost. Their destruction then was inevitable. And yet the apostles were commissioned to preach the gospel to “every crea- ture,” without distinction ; and Christ's promise, “Him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out,” continued of universal force. The primitive ministers made mo scruple to call men to repent and believe, wherever they came. It is true they seem to have been forbidden to pray for the forgiveness of the sin itself, (1 John v. 16,) for that would have been praying in direct contradiction to God’s revealed will ; but as they knew not the hearts of men, nor who had, and who had not, committed that sin, they were never forbidden, that I know of, to pray for men's souls without distinction. They certainly did so pray, and addressed their auditors as if no such sin had existed in the world, Acts xxvi. 29; Col. i. 28. P. will allow that the exhortations and invitations of the gospel were addressed to men indefinitely; and if so, I should think they must have been addressed to some men whom at the same time it was not the intention of Christ to save. 5. God has not determined to give men sufficient grace in the present state to love him with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength, and their neighbour as themselves; or, in other words, to keep his law perfectly. He has not made provision for it by the death of his Son. I suppose this may be taken for granted. If, then, a gracious pro- vision is to be made the ground and rule of obligation, it must follow that all commands and exhortations to perfect holiness in the present state are utterly unreasonable." What meaning can there be, upon this supposition, in such scriptures as the following ? “Oh that there were such an heart in them, that they would love me, and fear me, and- keep all my commandments always : *-* And now, Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul!”—“Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” If God’s law continues to be an “invariable rule of human con- duct, and infallible test of right and wrong,” as P. says it does, then either there is a gracious provision made for perfection in the present state, or God requires and exhorts men to that for which no such provision is made. It was God’s will, in some sense or other, to permit Job, at the devil's request, to be deprived of his property by the Sabeans and Chaldeans; otherwise he would not have said to Satan as he did—“All that he hath is in thy power, only upon himself put not forth thine hand.” And yet the conduct of these plunderers was certainly contrary to his revealed will, and to every rule of reason and equity. Nevertheless, God was not under obligation to do all he could have done to restrain them. It was not, therefore, at all inconsistent with his righteous disapprobation that he willed to permit their abominations. It was the will of God that Joseph should go down into Egypt. God is said to have sent him. The very thing which his brethren meant for evil God meant for good. They fulfilled his secret will in what they did, though without design; but they certainly violated his revealed will in the most flagrant manner. If the commission of evil were the direct end, or ultimate object, of the secret will of God, that would certainly be in opposition to his revealed will ; but this we do not suppose. If God wills not to hinder sin in any given instance, it is not from any love he has to sin, but for some other end. A master sees his servant idling away his time. He secretes himself, and suffers the idler to go on without disturbance. At length he appears, and accosts him in the language of rebuke. The servant, at a loss for a better answer, replies, How is this? I find you have been looking on for hours. It was your secret will, therefore, to let me alone, and suffer me to idle away your time; and yet I am reproved for disobeying your will ! It seems you have two wills, and these opposite to each other. How can I obey your commands, unless I knew you would have me to obey them : Idleness, it seems, was agreeable to you, or you would not have stood by so long, and suffered me to go on in it undisturbed. Why do you yet find fault 2 who hath resisted your will? Would any one admit of such a reply And yet, for aught I see, it is as good as that for which my opponent pleads. In this case it is easy to see that the master does not will to permit the servant’s idle- ness for idleness’ sake, but for another end. Nor does the servant do wrong, as influenced by his master's will, but by his own ; and there- fore his objections are altogether unreasonable and wicked. “These things hast thou done,” said God to such objectors, “and I kept silence; and thou thoughtest I was altogether such a one as thyself; but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes I’” REPLY TO PHILANTHROPOS. 231 6. If I am not misinformed, P. allows of the certain perseverance of all true believers. He allows, I suppose, that God has determined their perseverance, and has made gracious and effectual provision for it. He will not say so of hypocrites. God has not determined that they shall continue in his word, hold out to the end, and finish their course with joy. Nevertheless, the Scriptures address all professors alike, with cautions and warnings, promises and threatenings, as if there were no decree, nor any certainty in the matter, about one or the other. “Holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling,” on the one hand, are exhorted to “fear, lest, a promise being left them of enter- ing into rest, any of them should seem to come short of it,” and are warned, from the example of the unbelieving Israelites, to “labour to enter into rest, lest any man fall, after the same example of unbelief.” The disciples of Christ were charged, upon pain of eternal damnation, “if their right hand or right eye caused them to offend, to cut it off, or pluck it out.” Whatever some may think of it, there would be no contradiction in saying to the best Christian in the world, “If you deny Christ, he will deny you!” 2 Tim. ii. 12. Such as proved to be mere pro- fessors, on the other hand, were addressed by Christ in this manner, “If ye continue in my word, then shall ye be my disciples indeed ;” and when any such turned back, and walked no more with him, though no such provision was made for their perseverance as is made for true be- lievers, yet their falling away was always considered as their sin. Judas, and Demas, and many others, fell under the Divine displeasure for their apostacy. I confess these things may look like contradictions. They are, doubtless, profound subjects; and, perhaps, as some have expressed it, we shall never be fully able, in the present state, to explain the link that unites the appoint- ments of God with the free actions of men; but such a link there is: the fact is revealed abundantly in Scripture; and it does not distress me, if in this matter I have, all my life, to walk by faith, and not by sight. From the above cases I conclude, that, however difficult it may appear to us, it is proper for God to exhort and in- vite men to duties with which he has not determined to give them a moral ability, or a heart, to comply ; and for which compliance he has made no effectual provision by the death of his Son; and if it is so in these cases, I further conclude it may be so in the case in hand. Two remarks shall conclude this part of the subject:— (1.) Whether P. will allow of some of the foregoing grounds, as proper data, may be doubted. I could have been glad to have reasoned with him wholly upon his own principles; but where that cannot be, it is right and just to make the word of God our ground. If he can overthrow the doctrine supposed to be maintained in these scrip- tures, it is allowed that, in so doing, he will overthrow that which is built upon them ; but not otherwise. In the last two arguments, however, I have the happiness to reason from principles which, I suppose, P. will allow. (2.) Whether the foregoing reasoning will convince P., and those of his principles, or not, it may have some weight with considerate Calvinists. They must either give up the doctrine of predetermination, or, on this account, deny that men are obliged to act differently from what they do ; that Pharaoh and Sihon, for instance, were obliged to comply with the messages of peace which were sent them ; or else, if they will maintain both these, they must allow them to be consistent with each other; and if Divine decrees and free agency are consistent in some instances, it becomes them to give some solid reason why they should not be so in others. SECT. IV. General Reflections. I am not insensible that the cause l have been pleading is such as may grate with the feelings of some of my read- ers. It may seem as if I were disputing with PHILAN- THROPY itself. To such readers I would recommend a few additional considerations : 1. The same objection would lie against me if I had * P. observes, on Heb. ii. 9, that “it is undoubtedly a greater in- stance of the grace of God that Jesus Christ should die for all than only for a part of mankind;” and this he thinks “an argument of no little force in favour of his sense of the passage,”—p. 80. It is true, if Christ had made effectual provision for the salvation of all, it would have been a greater display of grace than making such a provision for been opposing the notion of universal salvation ; and yet it would not follow thence that I must be in the wrong. The feelings of guilty creatures, in matters wherein they themselves are so deeply interested, are but poor criterions of truth and error. 2. There is no difference between us respecting the number or character of those that shall be finally saved. We agree that whoever returns to God by Jesus Christ shall certainly be saved ; that in every nation they that fear God, and work righteousness, are accepted. What difference there is respects the efficacy of Christ's death, and the causes of salvation. - 3. Even in point of provision, I see not wherein the scheme of P. has the advantage of that which he opposes. The provision made by the death of Christ is of two kinds: (1.) A provision of pardon and acceptance for all believers. (2.) A provision of grace to enable a sinner to believe. The former affords a motive for returning to God in Christ’s name; the latter excites to a compliance with that motive. Now in which of these has the scheme of P. any advantage of that which he opposes? Not in the former : we suppose the provisions of Christ's death altogether suf- ficient for the fulfilment of his promises, be they as exten- sive as they may ; that full and free pardon is provided for all that believe in him ; and that if all the inhabitants of the globe could be persuaded to return to God in Christ's name, they would undoubtedly be accepted of him. Does the scheme of P. propose any more? No: it pretends to no such thing as a provision for unbelievers being forgiven and accepted. Thus far, at least, therefore, we stand upon equal ground. But has not P. the advantage in the latter particular 3 does not his scheme boast of a universal provision of grace, sufficient to enable every man to comply with the gospel ? Yes, it does; but what it amounts to it is difficult to say. Does it effectually produce, in mankind in general, any thing of a right spirit—any thing of a true desire to come to Christ for the salvation of their souls 3 No such thing, that I know of, is pretended. At most, it only amounts to this, that God is ready to help them out of their con- dition, if they will but ask him ; and to give them every assistance in the good work, if they will but be in earnest, and set about it. Well ; if this is the whole of which P. can boast, I see nothing superior, in this either, to the sentiment he opposes. We consider the least degree of a right spirit as plentifully encouraged in the word of God. If a person do but truly desire to come to Christ, or desire the influence of the Holy Spirit to that end, we doubt not but grace is provided for his assistance. God will surely “give his Holy Spirit to them that ask him.” Where, then, is the superiority of his system 3 It makes no effect- ual provision for begetting a right disposition in those who are so utterly destitute of it that they will not seek after it. It only encourages the well-disposed; and as to these, if their well-disposedness is real, there is no want of encouragement for them in the system he opposes. 4. Whether the scheme of P. has any advantage of that which he opposes, in one respect, or not, it certainly has a disadvantage in another. By it the redemption and sal- vation of the whole human race is left to uncertainty; to such uncertainty as to depend upon the fickle, capricious, and perverse will of man. It supposes no effectual provision made for Christ to see of the travail of his soul, in the sal- vation of sinners. P. has a very great objection to a sinner's coming to Christ with a perodventure (p. 33); but it seems he has no objection to his Lord and Saviour coming into the world, and laying down his life, with no better security. Notwithstanding any provision made by his scheme, the Head of the church might have been without a single mem- ber, the King of Zion without a subject, and the Shepherd of Israel without any to constitute a flock. Satan might have triumphed for ever, and the many mansions in glory have remained eternally unoccupied by the children of men | * 5. Do we maintain that Christ, in his death, designed only a part; but God has other perfections to display, as well as his + Yet, would grace have appeared so evident, if no one of our race had suffered the penalty of the law would every surmise have been precluded that its infliº- tion would have been too great a stretch of severity Would it have been equally clear that either the removal of guit, or the conquest of depravity, was solely of grace 232 REPLY TO PHILANTHROPOS. } the salvation of those, and only those, who are finally saved" The same follows from our opponents' own principles. They will admit that Christ had a certain foreknowledge of all those who would, and who would not, believe in him ; but did ever an intelligent being design that which he knew would never come to pass? 6. The scheme of P., though it professedly maintains that Christ died to atone for the sins of all mankind, yet, in reality, amounts to no such thing. The sin of man- kind may be distinguished into two kinds : that which is committed simply against God as a Lawgiver, antecedently to all considerations of the gift of Christ, and the grace of the gospel; and that which is committed more immedi- ately against the gospel, despising the riches of God’s goodness, and rejecting his way of salvation. Now does P. maintain that Christ made atonement for both these ? I believe not; on the contrary, his scheme supposes that he atoned for neither: not for the former; for he abundantly insists that there could be nothing of the nature of blame- worthiness in this, and consequently nothing to require an atonement: not for the latter; for if so, atonement must be made for impenitency and wºnbelief; and, in that case, surely these evils would not prove the ruin of the subject. 7. If the doctrine of the total depravity of human nature be admitted, (and it is so, professedly,) the scheme of P. would be utterly inadequate for the salvation of one soul. Supposing Christ to have died for all the world, in his sense of the phrase, yet if all the world are so averse from Christ that they will not come unto him that they may have life, still they are never the nearer. It is to no purpose to say, There is grace provided for them, if they will but ask it; for the question returns, Will a mind, utterly averse from coming to Christ for life, sincerely desire grace to come to him? Nor is it of any use to suggest that the gospel has a tendency to beget such a desire ; for be it so, it is supposed there is no certainty of its producing such an effect. Its success depends entirely upon the will of man in being pliable enough to be persuaded by it; but if man is totally depraved, there can be no such pliability in him. Unless the gospel could exhibit a condition that should fall in with men’s evil propensities, the aversion of their hearts would for ever forbid their compliance. Such a scheme, there- fore, instead of being more extensive than ours, is of no real extent at all. Those good men who profess it are not saved according to it; and this, in their near addresses to God, they as good as acknowledge. Whatever they say at other times, they dare not then ascribe to themselves the glory of their being among the number of believers rather than others. If the supposed universal extent of Christ's death had a universal efficacy, it would be worth the while of A LovER OF ALL MANKIND to contend for it; but if it proposes finally to save not one soul more than the scheme which it opposes —if it has no real advantage in point of provision in one grace; and the reader will perceive, by what has been said, that to make provision for all, in the sense in which P. contends for it, is so far from magnifying the grace of God, that it enervates, if not annihi- lates, it. Where is the grace of taking mankind from a condition in which they would have been for ever blameless, and putting them into a situation in which, at best, their happiness was uncertain, their guilt certain, and their everlasting ruin very probable 2 .” It seems to me a poor and inconsistent answer which is commonly given by our opponents upon this subject. They affirm that Christ died with a view to the salvation of the whole human race, how wicked soever they have been ; and yet they suppose that God, for the sin of some nations, withholds the gospel from them. The giving of Christ to die for us is surely a greater thing than sending the gospel to us. One should think, therefore, if, notwithstanding men's wickedness, God could find it in his heart to do the greater, he would not, by the self- same wickedness, be provoked to withhold the less. Besides, on some occasions, our opponents speak of the gospel as a system adapted to the condition of sinners, yea, to the chief of sinners; and if so, why not to those nations who are the chief of sinners? P. observes very justly, however inconsistent with some other things which he else. where advances, that the gospel takes men's fallen, polluted, and de- praved state for granted, and is properly adapted to remove it (p. 23): how is it, then, that that which renders them proper objects of gospel invitations should be the very reason assigned for those invitations being withheld 7 Whether there may not be a mixture of punitive justice in God’s withholding the gospel from some nations I shall not dispute. At the same time, supposing that to be the case, it may be safely affirmed that the same punishment might, with equal justice, have been inflicted upon other nations who have all along enjoyed it; and that it is not owing to their having been better than others that they have been so favoured. One might ask of Jerusalem and Corinth, Chorazin and Bethsaida, Were they less infamous than other cities! rather, were they not the respect, and a manifest disadvantage in another—if it ener- vates the doctrine of the atonement, confessedly leaves the salvation of those who are saved to an uncertainty, and, by implication, renders it impossible—then to what does it all amount? If P. holds that Christ died for all, it is neither so as to redeem all, nor so much as to procure them the offer of redemption; since millions and millions for whom Christ suffered upon his principles have died, notwithstanding, in heathen darkness.” P. thinks success to be a proof of the goodness of a doc- trine,—pp. 4, 5. I think it is a matter deserving con- siderable attention ; but cannot consider it as decisive ; especially as certain questions might be asked concerning it which it would be difficult to answer ; as, What is real success 3 and what was it, in the ministry of a preacher, which was blessed to that end ? If, however, that is to be a criterion of principles, then we might expect, if the scheme of P. be true, that in proportion as the doctrines maintained by Calvin and the first Reformers began to be laid aside, and those of Arminius introduced in their stead, a proportionable blessing should have attended them. Surely he cannot complain that the universal extent of Christ’s death, with various other kindred sentiments, is not generally embraced. The number of advocates for these sentiments has certainly been long increasing. If, therefore, these are gospel truths, the Christian world in general may be congratulated for having imbibed them ; and one should think a glorious harvest might be ex- pected as the effect. But, I suppose, were we to be de- termined by fact, as it has occurred in our own country, both in and out of the establishment, it would be far from confirming this representation. I question if P. himself will affirm that a greater blessing has attended the ministry in the Church of England, since little else but these sentiments have sounded from its pulpits, than used to attend, and still attends, the labours of those whom he is pleased to style “IncoNSISTENT CALVINISTs.” As to Protestant Dissenters, if such of them as maintain the universal extent of Christ’s death have been, more than others, blessed to the conversion of sinners, and if their congregations, upon the whole, have more of the life and power of godliness among them than others, it is happy for them ; but if so it is, I acknowledge it is news to me. I never knew nor heard of any thing sufficient to warrant a supposition of that nature. P. thinks my “views of things, after all, open a wide door to licentiousness” (p. 60); but that if we were to admit what he accounts opposite sentiments, it would “be the most likely way to put a stop to real and practical Antinomianism,”—p. 51. I reply, as before, Surely he cannot complaim that the universal extent of Christ’s death, with other kindred sentiments, is not generally embraced; and will he pretend to say that real and prac- tical Antinomianism has been thereby rooted up? Since reverse ? And may we not all who enjoy the gospel, when we compare ourselves with even heathen nations, adopt the language of the apostle, “Are we better than they No, in no wise !” If it be said, The providence of God is a great deep, and we cannot thence draw any conclusions respecting his designs; I answer, by grant- ing that the providence of God is indeed a great deep; and if our opponents will never acknowledge a secret and revealed will in God in any thing else, one should think they must here; seeing Christ's re- vealed will is, “Go, preach the gospel to every creature,” without dis- tinction; and yet, by their own confession, it is his secret purpose to withhold it from some, even whole nations. As to drawing conclusions hence concerning God’s designs, I should think it no arrogance so to do, provided we do not pretend to judge thence concerning events which are future. We are warranted to consider God’s providences as so many expressions of what have been his designs. “He worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.” It is true we cannot thence learn his revealed will, nor what is the path of duty; nor are we to go by that in our preaching, but by Christ’s commission. It were well if Christian ministers could be excited and encouraged to enter into the most dark and heathenish corners of the earth to execute their commission. They ought not to stand to inquire what are God’s de- signs concerning them; their work is to go and do as they are com- manded. But though the providence of God is not that from which we are to learn his revealed will, yet when we see events turn up, we may conclude that, for some ends known to himself, these were among the all things which he worketh after the counsel of his own will. Far be it from me to pretend to fathom the great deep of Divine Pro- vidence 1 But when I read in my Bible that “as many as were or- dained to eternal life believed,” and that the apostle Paul was en- couraged to continue his ministry in one of the most infamous cities in the world by this testimony, “I have much people in this city,” 1 cannot but think such passages throw a light upon those darker dis- pensations. & REPLY TO PHILANTHROPOS. 233 the body of the Church of England have embraced those principles, have they been better friends to the law of God than before ? and has a holy life and conversation been gradually increasing among them as the old Calvin- istic doctrines have fallen into disrepute 3 Further, do the body of those Protestant Dissenters who reject what are commonly called the Calvinistic doctrines discover more regard to holiness of life than the body of those who em- brace them 2 God forbid that we should any of us boast; by the grace of God we are what we are ; and we have all defects enow to cover our faces with shame and con- fusion But, without invidious reflections, without im- peaching the character of any man or body of men, I am inclined to think, that if such a comparison were made, it would fail of proving the point which P. proposes. It is a well-known fact, that many, who deny the law of God to be a rule of life, do, at the same time, maintain the universal extent of Christ’s death. P. seems to have written with the benevolent design of bringing me and others over to his sentiments; and I thank him for his friendly intention. Could I see evidence on his side, I hope I should embrace his invitation. But it is a presumptive argument, with me, that his views of things must be, somehow or other, very distant from the truth, or they could not abound with such manifest in- consistencies. A scheme that requires us to maintain that we are saved wholly by grace, and yet, so far as we differ from others, it is not the Spirit of God, but we ourselves, that cause the difference ; that to be born in sin is the same thing as to be born blameless, or, in other words, jree from it; that if vice is so predominant that there is no virtue to oppose it, or not virtue sufficient to overcome it, then it ceases to be vice any longer ; that God is obliged to give us grace; (or, in other words, we may demand that of him to which we can lay no claim, or else insist upon it that we are not accountable beings;) that God so loved mankind as to give his Son to die—not, however, to save them from sin—but to deliver them from a blame- less condition, put them into a capacity of being blame- worthy, and thus expose them to the danger of everlasting destruction ;-a scheme, I say, that requires us to main- tain such inconsistencies as these, must be, somehow or other, fundamentally wrong. What others may think I cannot tell; but, for my part, I must withhold my assent, till more substantial and consistent evidence is produced. If I have not taken notice of every particular argument and text of Scripture advanced by P., I hope I shall be allowed to have selected such as were of the greatest force, and by which the main pillars of his system are supported. If I have, in any instance, mistaken his meaning, I hope he will excuse it. I can say, I have taken pains to understand him. But whether I have always ascertained his meaning or mot, and whether the consequences which I have pointed out as arising from his sentiments be just or not, I can unite with him in appealing to “the searcher of hearts, that misrepresentation has not, in any one in- stance, been my aim.” - As I did not engage in controversy from any love I had to the thing itself, so I have no mind to continue in it any further than some good end may be answered by it. Whether what I have already written tends to that end, it becomes not me to decide ; but, supposing it does, there is a point in all controversies beyond which they are un- profitable and tedious. When we have stated the body of an argument, and attempted an answer to the main objec- tions, the most profitable part of the work is done. What- ever is attempted afterwards must either consist of little personalities, with which the reader has no concern; or, at best, it will respect the minutiae of things, in which case it seldom has a tendency to edification. To this I may add, though I see no reason, at present, to repent of having engaged in this controversy, and, in similar cir- cumstances, should probably do the same again, yet it never was my intention to engage in a controversy for life. Every person employed in the ministry of the gospel has other things, of equal importance, upon his hands. If, therefore, any or all of my opponents should think proper to write again, the press is open ; but unless something very extraordinary should appear, they must not conclude that I esteem their performances unanswerable, though I should read them without making any further reply. The last word is no object with me; the main arguments, on all sides of the controversy, I suppose are before the pub- lic; let them judge of their weight and importance. A reflection or two shall conclude the whole. However firmly any of the parties engaged in this controversy may be persuaded of the goodness of his cause, let us all be- ware of idolizing a sentiment. This is a temptation to which controversialists are particularly liable. There is a lovely proportion in Divine truth : if one part of it be in- sisted on to the neglect of another, the beauty of the whole is defaced ; and the ill effects of such a partial dis- tribution will be visible in the spirit, if not in the conduct, of those who admire it. Further, Whatever difficulties there may be in finding out truth, and whatever mistakes may attend any of us in this controversy, (as it is very probable we are each mis- taken in some things,) yet, let us ever remember, truth *tself is of the greatest importance. It is very common for persons, when they find a subject much disputed, especially if it is by those whom they account good men, immediately to conclude that it must be a subject of but little conse- quence, a mere matter of speculation. Upon such persons religious controversies have a very ill effect; for finding a difficulty attending the coming at the truth, and at the same time a disposition to neglect it and to pursue other things, they readily avail themselves of what appears to them a plausible excuse, lay aside the inquiry, and sit down and indulge a spirit of scepticism. True it is that such variety of opinions ought to make us very diffident of ourselves, and teach us to exercise a Christian forbear- ance towards those who differ from us. It should teach us to know and feel what an inspired apostle acknow- ledged, that here we see but in part, and are, at best, but in a state of childhood. But if all disputed subjects are to be reckoned matters of mere speculation, we shall have nothing of any real use left in religion. Nor shall we stop here : if the same method of judging of the import- ance of things were adopted respecting the various opinions in useful science, the world would presently be in a state of stagnation. What a variety of opinions are there, for instance, concerning the best modes of agriculture 1 but if any person were to imagine from this that agriculture itself must be a matter of no importance, and that all those articles therein which have come under dispute must be matters of mere idle speculation, what a great mistake would he be under . And if a great number were to imbibe the same spirit, and, seeing there were so many opinions, resolve to pay no attention to any of them, and to live in the total neglect of all business, how absurd must such a conduct appear, and how pernicious must be the consequences ! But a neglect of all Divine truth, on account of the variety of opinions concerning it, is fully as absurd, and infinitely more pernicious. As much as the concerns of our bodies are exceeded by those of our souls, or time by eternity, so much is the most useful human science exceeded in importance by those truths which are sacred and Divine. - Finally, Let us all take heed that our attachments to Divine truth itself be on account of its being Divine. We are ever in extremes; and whilst one, in a time of controversy, throws off all regard to religious sentiment in the gross, reckoning the whole a matter of speculation, another becomes excessively affected to his own opinions, whether right or wrong, without bringing them to the great criterion, the word of God. Happy will it be for us all if truth be the sole object of our inquiries, and if our attachment to Divine truth itself be, not on account of its being what we have once engaged to defend, but what God hath revealed. This only will endure reflection in a dying hour, and be approved when the time of dis- puting shall have an end with men. THE REALITY AND EFFICACY OF DIVINE GRACE, WITH THE CERTAIN SUCCESS OF CHRIST'S KINGDOM, CONSIDERED IN A SERIES OF LETTERS: CONTAINING REMARKS UPON THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE REW. DAN, TAYLOR ON MIR, TULLER'S REPLY TO PHILANTHEOPOS. BY AGNOSTOS, ADVERTISEMENT. THE readers of the controversy between Mr. Fuller and Mr. Daniel Taylor will recollect that, at the close of this con- troversy, a pamphlet appeared, consisting of Letters addressed to Mr. Fuller, and bearing the signature of AGNoSTOs. As these Letters now make their appearance among Mr. Fuller's writings, it will be proper to state, for the information of readers in general, that, with the exception of one or two pages, they were written by Mr. Fuller himself. His reason for concealing his name in this publication may be stated in a few words. The controversy had already been extended to a considerable length. Mr. Fuller, while unwilling that it should terminate without his making some additional remarks, conceived that these remarks, if appearing to proceed from the pen of a third person, would be less ſilkely to prolong the discussion, and would be read with greater interest by the public, who, he conceived, already began to be wearied by its prolixity. As this reason for concealment no longer exists, the Editor has inserted these observations in the body of Mr. Fuller's Works, and has cast them into the shape of Letters written by Mr. Fuller in- stead of Letters addressed to him, by changing the second person, wherever it was necessary, into the first. This, with a few other trifling changes and omissions unavoidably arising from the form which the Letters now assume, constitutes the whole of the alterations which have been made in them. The Letters were deemed too important to be left out of a complete edition of Mr. Fuller's Works, but could not, with propriety, appear in their original form. LETTER I. MY DEAR FRIEND, J tiAve lately been engaged in a religious controversy, in which my original design was directed against what I considered as an abuse of the doctrines of discriminating grace; but in executing this design, I have sustained an attack from an opposite quarter. At this I am not much surprised, as the principles which I maintain are equally repugnant to Arminianism as to Pseudo-Calvinism. . Having carefully attended to this controversy in all its parts, I must confess myself still of opinion that in the main I have engaged on the side of truth, and that the arguments which I have advanced have not yet been solidly answered. Mr. Dan. Taylor, who, under the signature of Philan- thropos, animadverted on my first publication, and to whose animadversions I have written a reply, has taken up his pen again. In addition to his first Nine Letters, he has written Thirteen more upon the subject; yet it appears to me that he has not answered my main arguments, but, in fact, has in various cases sufficiently refuted himself. Mr. T. appears to have been hurt by what I said con- cerning his want of reverence, and the resemblance of his objection to that made against the apostle in Rom. ix. He submits it “to the judgment of those who are accustomed to think deliberately how far any part of this was just ; whether I did not arrogate a great deal more to myself than I ought to have done; whether I ought not, prior to these charges, to have proved myself possessed of apostolic- al authority, powers, and infallibility, and to have proved, by apostolical methods, that the particular sentiments against which he there objected came from heaven,”— XIII. 135.4 Now I hope not to be deemed arrogant, if I profess to have thought at least with some degree of “deliberation” upon the subject; and I declare I cannot see the propriety of any thing Mr. T. here alleges. I did not compare him to those who blasphemously opposed the apostle's doctrine; the comparison respected barely his mode of reasoning, and not his person or character. Nor does what I have alleged require that I should prove my- self possessed of apostolical infallibility. The whole of what is said amounts to no more than this, that the re- semblance of his objection (IX. 50) to that made by the adversaries of the apostle, in Rom. ix, 19, ought to make * The references to Mr. Taylor's two publications are distinguished by the numerals IX. and XIII. Thus by (XIII., 135) is meant the 135th page of Mr. Taylor's Thirteen Letters; and by (IX.50) is meant the 50th page of his Nine Letters. The references to the latter pub- lication are to the second edition. Those to Mr. Fuller's work are corrected to the present volume. THE REALITY AND EFFICACY OF DIVINE GRACE. 235 him suspect whether the sentiments he maintains are not too near akin to theirs; and whether the sentiments he opposes are not of the same stamp with those of the apos- tle; otherwise, how is it that they should be liable to have the same objections made against them 3 * As to what I said concerning reverence, I observe that in one place (XIII. 6) he thanks me for it, and hopes he “shall profit by it;” but, presently after, talks of pardon- ing me, and before he has done, charges it to a want of candour or justice (XIII. 135); and all through his piece frequently glances at it in a manner that shows him to have been quite displeased. Now what can any one make of all this put together? There was either occasion for what I wrote, or there was not. If there was, why talk of pardoning me? and why charge me with a want of candour or justice? If there was not, and Mr. T. thinks so, why does he thank me for it? How are we to recon- cile these things 3 Does the one express the state of mind Mr. T. would be thought to possess, and the other what he actually feels 3 or did he set out in a mild and amiable spirit, but, before he had done, lose his temper, and not know how to conceal it? I would not wish, however, to spend much time in pointing out the defects of my opponent's temper. We all, particularly when engaged in controversy, need to take good heed to our spirits. And, perhaps, few can be long employed in so difficult an affair, without affording their antagonist an opportunity to say, “Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.” If this does not provoke re- taliation, it may be of use to the person reproved, but is of very little consequence to the public, especially after the first dispute is over. Let us wave this subject in future, and pass on to such things as are of more general im- portance. I do not intend minutely to particularize every article of debate between myself and Mr. T., though if I were, I am persuaded the far greater part of his observations might be proved to be destitute of propriety. I would only notice in this Letter one or two which seem to fall under the head of general remarks, and then proceed to the consideration of the main subjects wherein we differ. It is matter of “wonder” to Mr. T. that I should be “ unable to pronounce to what degree or eactent a poor sinner must believe the truth of the gospel in order to be happy; or to what degree of holiness a man must arrive in order to see the Lord,”—XIII. 7. It should seem then to be no difficulty with him. Well, how does he solve it ! why by acknowledging that it is not any degree of faith in the gospel which is necessary to salvation, nor any degree of holiness any more than faith, but the reality of it, without which no man shall see the Lord! ! ! Mr. T. has a mind surely to make other people wonder as well as himself! Again, I was thronged with opponents. I did not therefore think it necessary to make a formal reply to every single argument; such a plan must have swelled the publication to an enormous size: I therefore only se- lected the main subjects in debate, and attempted a fair discussion of them, with the arguments adduced in support of them. Mr. T. seems to complain of this my systematic- a! way of treating the subject, as he calls it (XIII. 8); and sometimes singles out a particular argument of his, of which I have taken no notice, and insinuates as if it was because I felt it unanswerable, XIII. 14. But is it not Wonderful that he should complain of me, and, at the same time, be guilty of the same thing himself? He has omit- ted making any reply to nearly as much in mine as I have in his, and to things also of considerable force. My rea- sonings in pp. 216, 217, he has entirely passed over; as also my argument on the non-publication of the gospel, p. 232, Note. If Mr. T. looked upon me as obliged to answer every particular argument, notwithstanding the * It is a good mode of reasoning to argue from the similarity of the Opposition made to any doctrine in the days of the apostles with that Which is made to a doctrine in the present day. Mr. Caleb Evans has thus I think solidly and excellently defended the doctrine of the atonement in four sermons on 1 Cor. ii. 23, 24. * Whatever Mr. T. thinks, some have thought that considerable dif- ficulties would attend our supposing all Divine illumination to be by the word; nor are these objections drawn from “metaphysical specu. lations,” but from the word itself. Thus they reason': i. It is a fact that evil propensity in the heart has a strange tendency to blind the number of my opponents, what can be said for his own omissions, who had only one to oppose ? In my next I will begin to attend to the main subjects on which we differ; viz. The work of the Spirit—the eac- cusableness of sinners on the non-provision of grace—the extent of the moral law—and the design of Christ's death. wº LETTER II. I would now proceed to the first of the four main sub- jects in debate between myself and Mr. Taylor–THE work of THE SPIRIT. There has been pretty much said between us on the order of regeneration and faith, and the instrumentality of the word in regeneration. I did not wish to contest that manner, be it which way it might, provided the agency of the Holy Spirit was but acknow- ledged. Mr. T., however, chooses to dwell upon this subject; yet it seems rather extraordinary that in all his replies he has taken no notice of what I advanced in p. 211. Mr. T. seems to think that regeneration includes the whole change that is brought about upon a person in order to his being denominated a true Christian ; and not merely the first beginning of it, XIII. 11. I think in this I may agree with him, so far at least as to allow that the term is to be understood in such a large sense in some places in the New Testament; and if that is the case, I feel no difficulty in concurring with him that regenera- tion is by the word of truth. But this, perhaps, may not satisfy my opponent, after all. He denies that men are enlightened previously to their believing the gospel (XIII. 12); and yet one would think that a person must under- stand any thing before he believes it; and if so, his mind cannot be said to be illuminated by faith. But still it is by the word : here Mr. T. will allow of no difficulties ; or, if I will talk of difficulties, he will impute it to my for . saking my Bible, XIII. 12. Well, have but patience with him, in twelve pages further, when he begins to feel difficulties himself, we shall find him atoning for this severity by commending me for the same thing upon which he here puts so heavy a construction,f-XIII. 24. I attempted to prove that Mr. T.’s sentiments leave out the agency of the Holy Spirit in the act itself of believing; or that “if there is any Divine agency in the matter, it is only a sort of grace given to men in common ; which, therefore, can be no reason why one man, rather than another, believes in Christ.” Thus I stated it in p. 212. Mr. T., in reply, complains that I have wronged him in representing him as leaving out the agency of the Holy Spirit in the act itself of believing; and informs us that he distinguishes between “the operations and indwelling of the Holy Spirit,”—XIII. 27. But wherein have I wronged him " I have allowed him to maintain a sort of Divine agency, or grace, which is given to men in com- mon ; but this certainly can be no cause why one man, rather than another, believes in Christ. And with this Mr. T.’s own account, (XIII. 13,) so far as I can under- stand him, perfectly agrees. I maintain that it is owing to Divine agency, and to that alone, that one sinner, rather than another, believes in Christ. I must confess that Mr. T. writes, on this subject, in a confused and contradictory manner (XIII. 23); and well he may ; his system will not admit it, and yet his heart knows not how to deny it. First, he goes about to qualify my question : “If by the term alone,” says he, “be meant that no sinner would believe in Christ without Divine operations, I freely grant it.” True, he might; but that is not all I plead for, nor what my words evidently intend ; and this he knows very well, mind,-Eph. iv. 18. 2. It is promised by the Holy Spirit, “I will give them an heart to know me,” Jer. xxiv. 7. But a heart to know God must be prior to that knowledge, and cannot, therefore, be produced by means of it. 3. “The natural man” is said not to receive “the things of the Spirit of God, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But if a spiritual discernment is necessary, in order to knowing spiritual things, that discernment cannot be pro- duced by those spiritual things, unless the consequent can produce its antecedent. I wished not, however, to dispute about the order of things, but rather to attend to what is of far greater importance. 236 THE REALITY AND EFFICACY OF DIVINE GRACE. and ought not, therefore, to have made such an evasion. What he allows may be held without admitting that it is owing to the Holy Spirit that one sinner, rather than another, believes in Christ. He adds, “ But if he mean that men are passive in this matter, when the Spirit, by the word, operates on the mind, that I do not believe.” This is another evasion. My words do not imply that men are passive in believing in Christ. I conceive that men become active, when the Spirit operates upon their minds, though they were passive in that operation. The very idea of operation upon a subject implies that subject to be pas- sive in such operation. The immediate effect may be activity. But, to suppose that the subject on whom the operation is performed is not passive in being the subject of the operation, is to suppose that he himself, and not the Spirit, puts forth that operation by which grace is pro- duced. That the mind, in receiving Christ, is active, I allow ; but this is no way inconsistent with the Holy Spirit being the proper, sole, efficient cause of such ac- tivity. There was no dispute whether “ man was the subject of faith and unbelief,” as his answer seems to re- present (XIII. 24); but whether the blessed Spirit was the sole, efficient, and proper cause of our believing. After all that Mr. T. says, in order to get over this dif- ficulty, (XIII. 24, 25,) what does it amount to ? “If the Spirit, by the word, bring me to believe, and not another, whatever is the cause or the obstruction, that is, in a general sense, done for me which is not done for another, and demands everlasting grateful acknowledgments.” Of this general sense, or meaning, I can make no meaning at all. It certainly does not ascribe the difference between One sinner and another to God, but to the creature ; and this is the very spirit and tendency of his whole system, which ought to sink it in the esteem of every humble, considerate mind. But the Holy Spirit “does that for those who do not believe which is sufficient for the pur- pose, and which would bring them to faith and happiness, if they were not to abuse it,”—XIII. 25. So far as re- lates to objective evidence being presented, (and which is sufficient to render men who are in possession of their natural faculties inexcusable,) we are, in this matter, agreed. But in reference to the work of the Spirit itself, if its success does indeed depend upon the pliability of the subject, then, so far, salvation is not of grace; for the very turning point of the whole affair is owing to the creature, and to his own good improvement of what was given to him in common with others. To speak of that being done which is sufficient, if not abused, is saying nothing at all. For how if the human heart should be so depraved as that it will be sure to abuse every word and work of God short of that which is omnipotent 3 That men resist the Holy Spirit, and abuse the grace of the gospel, is true; but the question is, not whether this their abuse is their wickedness, but how came Mr. T., or any other man, to be so pliable and well-disposed as not to resist it? # “I cannot prove,” says Mr. T., “ that the Holy Spirit does not do as much, or more, in this (general) sense, for some who do not repent and believe, as for some who do. Truth itself informs us that what was dome, without effect, for Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, would have been effectual for Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom,”—XIII. 25. Truth, indeed, does inform us of something being done for those cities; but it makes no mention of the work of the Spirit in or upon them, but merely of the mighty works, or miracles, which were wrought among them. These ought to have led them to repentance, though they did not. “But did not Christ speak as if Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom would have repented had they enjoyed the same means?” Yes, he did ; and so did God speak concerning his people Israel : “Surely they are my people, children that will not lie : so he became their Saviour.” Again, “I looked that my vineyard should have brought forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes.” Again, “Thou art not sent unto a people of a strange speech, and of a hard language, * In page 23 of his Thirteen Letters, Mr. T., speaking of believing in Christ, says he does “not apprehend that any man has any will or power, or any concern about the matter, till the Holy Spirit work, awaken, and produce these in the mind.” But the Holy Spirit, he thinks, operates sufficiently in all men; he does that for those who do not believe which is sufficient for the purpose; }. he supposes he does as much, or more, in this sense, for some who do not repent and but to the house of Israel: surely, had I sent thee to them, they would have hearkened unto thee.”—“Last of all he sent his son, saying, They will reverence my son.” But do these speeches prove that God really thought things would be so? Rather, are they not evidently to be understood of God’s speaking, after the manner of men, of what might have been expected, according to human ap- pearance 3 “I do not remember,” says Mr. T., “that the Scripture ever ascribes the final misery of sinners to the want of Di- vine influences,” &c.,-XIII. 27. True ; nor do my sentiments suppose that to be the cause of final misery. His reasoning on this subject (XIII. 32) is extravagant. It is sin, and sin alone, which is the cause of any man’s ruin. He might as well say that a man is brought into misery because he is not brought out of it. The destruc- tion of fallen angels is no more ascribed to the want of Divine mercy than that of fallen men. Mr. T. thinks the cases of wicked men being restrained from wickedness, godly men growing in grace, &c., may illustrate the subject in question,-XIII. 30. I think so too. I also think with him concerning men's obligations to these things; that much more might be dome than what is done : but that if they are done, it is to be ascribed to God, because it is he who works all our works in us; I think the same of faith in Christ. These are not things wherein we differ; but the question is, though in words Mr. T. ascribes these things, as well as faith, to God, whether his system does not ascribe them to the creature. This it certainly does ; and he as good as acknowledges it, (XIII. 52,) where (in contradiction to what he here as- serts) he pleads for men's being able, independently of the grace of the gospel, to abstain from gross abominations. Mr. T. has not thought proper to controvert my argu- ments in pp. 212—214, for a special and effectual influence of the Holy Spirit; but thinks that these may be admitted, without destroying his sentiments; only observing, that if he were to follow me through those reasonings, he “should question the propriety of the turn I give to a few passages of Scripture,”—XIII. 26. It will be time enough to reply, when we know what he has to object against my sense of those passages. But how is it that Mr. T. would have it thought that his sentiments are unaffected by those argu- ments : Had he but admitted the sentiment established by those arguments, it would have saved him much trouble which he has taken, in trying to account for God’s doing the same for one man as for another, and yet making men to differ. If God works effectually on some, that is more than he will pretend that he does upon all ; and this will perfectly account for a difference between one sinner and another. And if this way of God’s making men to differ be admitted in some instances, it must in all, seeing one believer, as much as another, is taught to ascribe the dif- ference between him and others to God alone.f. But Mr. T. does not believe an effectual influence ; such an influ- ence admitted would be destructive of his whole system. He supposes an effectual influence would be destructive of free agency and moral government, XIII. 129. That it would be destructive of either, according to the Scrip- tural account of them, has not yet been proved ; but that it would destroy his notions concerning them is admitted; and this proves that an effectual influence is inconsistent with his sentiments. If Mr. T.’s reasonings (XIII. 33) prove any thing, they prove that God will furnish every man in the world with the means of salvation; but so far is this from correspond- ing with fact, that the gospel was never preached to the far greater part of mankind who have hitherto lived ; and some of whom, Mr. T. supposes, would have really be- lieved and been saved, had they but heard it, XIII. 25. I shall close my remarks on this part of the debate with a few observations on the resistibleness or irresistibleness of the Holy Spirit. I apprehend he is both resistible and irresistible, in different respects. The following observ- believe, as for some who do,-p. 25. Mr. T. must allow that no man can ever do what he has neither will nor power to perform. The mind must be either active or passive in the production of the will and power of which he speaks. If passive, his whole system is overthrown ; if active, the supposed prior activity is while they have neither will nor power to act, which is absurd. tº + Rom. iii. 9; 1 Cor. xv. 10; John xiv. 22; 1 Cor. iv. 7. THE REALITY AND EFFICACY OF DIVINE GRACE. 237 ations are submitted to the reader's attention :-1. God has so constituted the human mind, that words, whether spoken or written, shall have an effect upon it. 2. The Holy Spirit speaks to men in his word ; he has written to them the great things of his law. 3. It would be strange if God's word should not have some effect upon people’s minds, as well as the words and writings of men. It would be very strange if neither the warnings nor expos- tulations, the threatenings nor the promises of God, should have any effect upon the mind; whereas the same things among men are constantly known to inspire them with various feelings. 4. The influence of the word upon the mind, seeing that word is indited by the Holy Spirit, may be called, in an indirect and figurative sense, the in- fluence of the Holy Spirit. It was with this kind of in- fluence that he strove with the antediluvians in the minis- try of Noah, &c., (Gen. vi. 3,) and was resisted by the Israelites; that is, they resisted the messages which the Holy Spirit sent unto them by Moses and the prophets; and their successors did the same by the messages sent them by Christ and his apostles, Acts vii. 51. And thus the admonitions of parents, the events of providence, and the alarms of conscience, as well as the word preached and written, may each, in an indirect sense, be said to be the strivings of the Holy Spirit. This influence ought to suffice to bring us to repent of sin, and believe in Christ, and were it not for the resistance that is made to it, would have such an effect; but through the perverseness of the human heart it never has. It is a great sin to resist and overcome it ; but it is such a sin as every man, while un- regenerate, is guilty of 5. Besides this, it has been al- lowed, by many of the most steady and able defenders of the doctrine of efficacious grace, that the Holy Spirit may, by his immediate but more common influence, impress the minds of unregenerate men, and assist reason and natural conscience to perform their office more fully; so that, not- withstanding the bias of the will is still in favour of sin, yet they are made sensible of many truths contained in the word of God, and feel somewhat of that alarming ap- prehension of their danger, and of the power of the Divine anger, &c., which all impenitent sinners will experience in a much superior degree at the day of judgment. But sinners, under these common awakenings only, continue destitute of that realizing sense of the excellence of Divine things which is peculiar to those who are effectually re- newed in the spirit of their minds; and to which the power of sin has entirely blinded the minds of the unre- generate. 6. From the depravity or perverseness of the human heart arises the necessity of a special and effectual influence of the Holy Spirit. The influence before men- tioned may move the soul, but it will not bring it home to God. When souls are effectually turned to God, it is spoken of as the result of a special exertion of almighty power. “God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.”—“Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power.”—“I will put my law in their inward part, and Write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.”—“Who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?” These observations may account for several things which Mr. T. has remarked (particularly in XIII. 28, 29) with- out supposing that the special operations of the Holy Spirit are ever finally overcome. LETTER. III. THE second general subject in debate respects the nature of that inability of which mankind are the subjects, in respect of compliance with the will of God; or, more Particularly, original sin, human depravity, and the grace Qf God. On these subjects Mr. T. has written his Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Letters. He sets out with an observ'. ation on free agency, which discovers, in my opinion, the ground of a great many other of his mistakes. He sup- poses that a moral, as well as natural, ability to comply with the commands of God is necessary to render us free agents. Hence he does not seem to consider man as a free agent in respect to keeping, or not keeping, the law, but barely “with regard to those objects which God in his gospel presents to him, as a fallen creature, to recover him from his fallen state” (XIII. 36); and yet he speaks, in the same page, of his thus being a “subject of God's moral government.” Strange, indeed, that he should not be a free agent in respect of the moral law, and yet that he should be a subject of God’s moral government; yea, and that the moral law should, notwithstanding, be to him “a rule of life,”—XIII. 61. If we are not free agents in respect of the moral law, we cannot be the sub- jects of God’s moral government, but, rather, of some sup- posed evangelical government. A free agent is an intelligent being, who is at liberty to act according to his choice, without compulsion or restraint. And has not man this liberty in respect of the law as well as of the gospel? Does he, in any instance, break the law by compulsion, or against his will ? Surely not. It is impossible the law should be broken in such a way ; for where any thing is done without or against volition, no equitable law, human or Divine, will ever blame or con- demn. Mr. T.'s great mistake in these matters lies in considering a bias of mind as destructive of free agency. If a bias of mind to evil, be it ever so deep-rooted and confirmed, tends to destroy free agency, then the devil can be no free agent, and so is not accountable for all his en- mity against God. The same may be said of those who are, as Mr. T. expresses it, become “unimpressible,” (XIII. 28,) and cannot cease from sin. It is not sufficient to say that “they had power to receive the word till they wilfully resisted and rejected the truth ;” if Mr. T.’s notion of free agency be just, they ought to have had power at the time, or else not to have been accountable. Mr. T. constantly reasons from matural to moral impo- tency, and, in these cases, admits of no difference between them ; but he knows that, in respect of the former, if a man is unable to perform any thing that is required of him at the time, he is, to all intents and purposes, excus- able ; yea, though he may have brought his impotency upon himself by his own crimes. If, for example, a man destroys both health and reason by mere debauchery and wickedness, so as to become a poor ghastly idiot, can any one suppose that, in that state of mind, it is just to require him to perform the business of a man, or to punish him for his omission, under the pretence that he once had reason and strength, but, by his wickedness, had lost them. No : far be it from either God or man to proceed in this manner . If, then, there is no difference between natural and moral impotency, those who are become “unimpres- sible,” and are given up of God to sin, (as were Judas, and the murderers of our Lord,) are not free agents, and so are not accountable beings. Further, If a bias of mind to evil, be it ever so con- firmed, tends to destroy the free agency of the subject, the same would hold true of a bias to good ; which Mr. T. indeed seems to allow ; for he asks, (XIII. 51,) “Are not free agents capable of sinning?” as if it were essential to free agency to be capable of doing wrong. But has Mr. T. forgot that neither God, nor Christ, (even when upon earth,) nor saints in glory, are capable of doing wrong? The bias of their minds is so invariably fixed to holiness, that it is impossible they should, in any instance, deviate from it; and yet will he deny them to be the sub- jects of free agency 3 Mr. T.’s ideas of free agency have probably led him into some others, respecting the mature of that sin which men commit as the effect of Adam's transgression, XIII. 52. His language on that subject, all along, implies that all the sin which men commit as the effect of Adam’s transgres- sion must be involuntary; as though it were something that operated within them, entirely against, or at least without, their consent. If this supposition were true, I should not wonder at his pleading for its innocence. If men were under such a necessity as this of sinning, I should coincide with Mr. T. in denying that they were accountable for that part of their conduct. But the truth is there is no such sin in existence. Sins of ignorance, under the law, were not opposed to voluntary, but to pre- 238 THE REALITY AND EFFICACY OF DIVINE GRACE. sumptuous sins, Numb. xv. 27–31. There are many sins that men commit which are not presumptuous, but none which are, in every sense, involuntary. Mr. T. per- haps will allege the apostle's assertions, in Rom. vii., that what he would not, that he did. He makes much ado (XIII. 42) about this, and my supposed inconsistency, but all he there says was, I think, sufficiently obviated in my first treatise. After all, Mr. T. does not really think there are any sins besides what are voluntary. Though he talks of believers being guilty of such sins, and of Christ’s dying to atone for them, (XIII. 52,) yet he would not allow it to be just for any man, in his own person, either to be blamed or punished for them : no ; he contends that it is the concurrence of our wills that denominates us blame- worthy (XIII. 41); which is undoubtedly true in respect of all personal blame. When Mr. T. reviewed my first publication, he spoke much in praise of the distinction between natural and zmoral inability, and of the perspicuity of the manner of stating it, IX. 9. 63, 64. Surely he must not, at that time, have understood what he applauded ; and having since discovered this sword to have two edges, the one equally adapted to cut up Arminianism as the other is to destroy Antinomianism, he has now changed his mind, and is striving to prevent its efficacy by giving another meaning to the terms, and thus involving the subject in darkness and confusion.* By natural power, Mr. T. now understands a power that is barely adapted to the performance of natural things; and by moral power, a power for moral things,'—Letter VI. But natural power, as I, and all others who have heretofore written upon the subject, have used it, is as much con- versant with spiritual as with natural things; yea, and as much with wicked things as with either of them. It re- quires the same members, faculties, and opportunities to do good as to do evil 5 to perform spiritual as to perform natural actions. To pretend, therefore, to distinguish the use of these terms by the objects with which they are con- versant, can answer no end but to perplex the subject. But is natural power sufficient for the performance of moral and spiritual actions 2 Mr. T. says no ; and so say I in one respect. But he concludes, therefore, that if God require any thing of a moral or spiritual nature of any man, it is but right that he should furnish him with moral power for the performance of it. Thus he all along repre- sents moral ability as if it were some distinct faculty, formed by the Creator for the performance of moral ac- tions, while natural power is given for the performance of natural actions; and thus the reader is led to imagine that God is as much obliged to furnish sinful men with the one as with the other, in order to render them accountable be- ings. Whereas moral power is not power, strictly speak- ing, but a heart to use the power God has given us in a right manner. It is natural power, and that only, that is properly so called, and which is necessary to render men accountable beings. To constitute me an accountable be- ing, it is not necessary that I should be actually disposed to holy actions, (which is the same thing as possessing a moral ability,) but barely that I could do such actions if I were disposed. Indeed, notwithstanding all that Mr. T. has written to the contrary, and by whatever names he calls this power, natural or moral, he himself means nothing more. He does not mean to plead for its being necessary that men should be actually possessed of holiness, in order to their being free agents, but merely that they might possess it if they would. He only pleads, in fact, for what I allow ; and yet he thinks he pleads for some- thing else, and so goes on, and loses himself and his reader in a maze of confusion. It is not enough for Mr. T. that I allow men may return to God if they will ; they must have the power of being willing if they will (XIII. 57); * Had these terms, or the distinction they are used to specify, been a new invention of my own, there would have been less room to have complained of this treatment; but it appears to me a strange, unwar- rantable freedom, when we reflect that both had been used, in exactly the same sense, by a great number of respectable theological writers. Whereas Mr. T.’s new sense of them is entirely unprecedented; though, no doubt, the most rash and ignorant of the Pseudo-Calvinists would find it suited to subserve their denial of all obligation upon natural men to perform any thing spiritually good. But let men, as they value their souls, be first well assured such an evasive distinction but this, as we shall soon see, is no more than having the power of being what they are 1 I represented this matter in as forcible a manner as I could in my Reply (p. 220); and it is a poor answer that Mr. T. makes to it, (XIII. 58,) as though I were out of my province in writing about the meaning of my opponent. Surely it is a lamentable thing if the meaning of an author cannot be come at by all he writes upon a subject. If what I imputed to him was not his meaning, why did he not give it in his next per- formance % “Is it uncandid to conclude he had no other meaning to give 3’” LETTER IV. WHEN I affirm natural power to be sufficient to render men accountable beings, Mr. T. puts me upon proof (XIII. 56); and, what is more, supposes that I have ac- knowledged the contrary in my former treatise. Whether I have not proved this matter already—whether Mr. T. has not allowed me to have proved it—and whether what I say elsewhere is not in perfect consistency with it—shall be examined. Meanwhile, let us follow Mr. T. in his three-fold argument for the supposed innocence of moral &mpotence : “If men could never avoid it, cannot deliver themselves from it, and the blessed God will not deliver them, surely they ought not to be punished for it, or for any of its necessary effects.”f Mr. T. complains heavily of my treating these subjects separately, which he wished to have considered conjointly. Well, there was an an- swer, though short, in p. 216 of my Reply, to the whole conjointly considered; and if he would solidly have an- swered that only, he might have been excused from all the rest. But further, I can see no justice whatever in his com- plaint. If three things all together constitute a moral in- ability blameless, it must be on account of some tendency that each of those three things has to such an end, separ- ately considered. What Mr. T. has said of man’s being composed of body, soul, and spirit, (XIII. 38,) does not prove the contrary to this ; because, though body does not constitute a man, nor soul, nor spirit, separately considered, yet each of them forms a component part of human nature. If it could be proved that body, soul, and spirit had neither of them any part of human nature, separately considered, that would prove that, all together, they could not consti- tute a man. Suppose A. owes B. thirty pounds, and pro- poses to pay him in three different articles. Accordingly, A. lays down ten pounds in cash, ten pounds in bills, and ten pounds in grain. B. refuses each of these articles in payment; “ for,” says he, “ your cash is all counterfeit, your bills are forged, and your grain is damaged to such a degree as to be worth nothing.” A. replies, not by admit- ting that, unless each article can be proved to be of value, separately considered, he cannot in justice desire the whole to be accepted, but by complaining of B.'s unwarrantable manner of separating the articles, and examining them apart, as if he should say, Though the cash may be coun- terfeit, the bills forged, and the grain worthless, separately considered, yet all together they make up the value of thirty pounds ! Further, Though all these three things are in one place mentioned together, yet Mr. T. did not all along consider them conjointly, nor has he done so now. There need not be a greater proof of his understanding these subjects distinctly than his attempting to defend them so, which he has done in what follows:— First, He undertakes to 9rove that the circumstance of men being born impure, or inheriting their propensities will be admitted at the day of judgment, before they dare to apply it to this sin-extenuating purpose. I do not charge Mr. T. with intend- ing to put weapons into the hands of deluded Antinomians; but I be- seech him to consider how readily they would make their advantage of such a distinction, if once admitted. + This, the reader will observe, is Mr. T.'s own way of stating it, (XIII. 37,) who always chooses to represent moral inability in terms which are properly applicable to natural inability only; and hereby it is that his positions wear the face of plausibility. THE REALITY AND EFFICACY OF DIVINE GRACE. 239 from their first parent, does excuse them in being the sub- jects of those propensities, LXIII., 39. , Original sin, to be sure, is a mysterious subject. There is a difficulty at- tending the existence of evil in the souls of all mankind upon every hypothesis; but it becomes us, as Mr. T. ob- serves, to hearken to “Scripture evidence,” and to admit it as decisive ; and, after all, I believe the Scriptural account of the matter will be found to have the fewest difficulties of any. Some, with Pelagius, deny the thing itself, and maintain that human depravity comes entirely by imitation. Others admit the fact, that we “are depraved by Adam’s transgression,” but deny the guilt of such depravity on that account; this appears to be the case with Mr. T. Others admit the fact of such depravity, yet, notwithstanding, ac- knowledge its guilt ; this is my sentiment. Though Mr. T. admits that men are born “impure,” and that this im- purity is their “depravity,” a depravity which David, in Psal. li. 5, “confessed and lamented ;” yet he maintains all this to be blameless ;* and all along seems to claim it as a matter of justice, either to stand upon his own ground, or to receive the grace of the gospel as an equivalent for it. The depravity of our nature, then, is not the fault, but the misfortune of it. It is, however, allowed to be that which is “our ruin, in that it deprives us of happiness and ex- poses us to misery,” (XIII.4.1,) that is, to undeserved misery; for such it must be, “be the misery what it may,” if it be inflicted without blameworthiness in the subject. Sure- ly such a constitution must have been very unrighteous, and men must have been very much injured, after all, to be ruined by that in the guilt of which they have no concern either personal or relative. Mr. T. may well represent it as an inducement for God to give his Son to die for them, (XIII. 81,) if it were only to make them amends for such an injury; and especially as he considers God himself as the author of our native depravity, in constituting the union between Adam and his offspring,-XIII. 62. To be sure his scheme is so far consistent. There is only this difficulty remaining, how shall we reconcile all this with the Scriptures ; and with either the justice of the Law- giver, or the grace of the Saviour'; for it seems to me that both law and gospel must surely be overthrown by such an hypothesis. * The Scriptures represent God as a just Being, who will by no means inflict punishment where there is no guilt. “He doth not afflict willingly, nor grieve the children of men. To crush under feet all the prisoners of the earth’’ —“to subvert a man in his cause, Jehovah approveth not.” —“Surely God will not do wickedly, neither will the Al- mighty pervert judgment.” Surely then we might con- clude, even though an apostle had never told us so, that death would not have passed upon all men by one man’s sºn, if, in that sin, somehow or other, all had not sinned. Surely death would not have reigned in the world over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, if sin had not thus been in the world as its procuring cause. This argument (from Rom. v. 13, 14) was urged before ; why did not Mr. T. reply to it? “Is it uncandid to conclude, it was because no reply could be made 3’’ Further, The Scriptures represent the whole world as “guilty before God”—as void of every claim, except it be that of “shame and confusion of face.” Jehovah speaks of .* By the way, is it not rather extraordinary that Mr. T., after dis- tinguishing between impurity and sin, impure propensities and evil dispositions, depravity and blameworthiness, confessing iniquity and taking shame and blame to ourselves on account of it, should exclaim against dealing in metaphysics Verily, a man had need be endued With something more than metaphysical skill to make distinctions Where there is no difference. “I do not understand relative blame,” Şays Mr. T. Then, obviating an objection of mine, he asks, “But how then can they be said to be born in sin f' and answers, “if I use the expression, I mean they are born impure,”—XIII.40. Beit so ; What does David mean? He did not say, “I was born impure,” but, “I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.” * But “the words by nature,” says Mr. T., “relate not to our birth, but to the state in which we lived in sin before our conversion,”— XIII. 42. Let the reader look at the passage, (Eph. ii. 3) and judge if it is not a gradation from what we are by practice to what we are by nature. But suppose it to relate in a general way to our un- converted state, the question is, How came that state to be called a State of nature, but because it is not accidentally acquired by mere imitation, but is the state in which we are born into the world # Perhaps as near a resemblance as any to that of the Divine con- duct, in relation to Adam and his posterity, will be found in God’s himself as being at perfect liberty to save or not to save men; and as being determined to exercise it too : “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” Once more, The Scriptures represent the gift of Christ as being of mere grace, and the greatest instance of love that ever was displayed; and that because it was altogether contrary to our deserts. Christ is no where represented as dying for us out of pity for the injury that we had received from the first covenant, but, on the contrary, as being actuated by mere self-moved goodness: “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that God loved us, and gave his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.”—“Christ died for the ungodly.”—“For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet, peradventure, for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love to us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” So also the whole of our salvation is always represented, not as making us amends for an injury, but as of mere grace, which God might without any blemish on his character have for ever withheld. The whole Epistle to the Romans is written with the very design to cut off all claim, to prove that all are under sin ; and therefore that justification and salvation are altogether of sovereign grace. The Epistle to the Ephesians is written in much the same strain, espe- cially the second chapter, wherein the apostle rises in gra- dation from what they were by practice to what they were “by nature,” namely, “children of wrath even as others;”f and all this to prove, what he immediately asserts, that “by grace we are saved.” Yes, the whole tenor of Scrip- ture breathes this language: “I wrought for my name’s sake.”—“Not for your sakes do I this, saith the Lord Je- hovah, be it known unto you !” But do not “the children of traitors” frequently suffer for their fathers’ crimes, even though they were no way concerned in their guilt?—XIII. 40. Answer, It is not just for the children of a traitor to suffer the loss of any natural right, or to be exposed to death, or any punishment, for that in the guilt of which they have no concern; neither do they where they are under just laws, Deut. xxiv. 16. There is no such union subsisting between a parent and a child as between Adam and his posterity. They are not one in law ; the one therefore cannot justly suffer punish- ment for the other's crimes. No one pretends that it is right to punish them with death, or any corporeal punish- ment. God, to be sure, has a right to inflict death where he pleases; as upon the children of Achan ; and that be- cause all men have forfeited their lives to him ; and such an instance of displeasure upon a man’s family might tend to deter others from the like wickedness: but the children of a traitor have not forfeited their lives to a civil govern- ment, and therefore they cannot justly be taken away. The only thing that befalls them is loss ; and as to that, they may miss of what would have been their social privi- leges, such as honours and property, had their father died in possession of them ; but as they were never theirs, properly speaking, they could not be deprived of them. They had no natural right to them, nor any right at all but by their relation to their parent; and the parent, having deprived himself of them, could not convey them to his posterity.j: But it is suggested that we might as well be “commended treatment of a nation, or body politic. God, in his providence, deals with a nation as if it were one person. Thus God covenanted with Israel, not merely wish those who existed at the time, but with their unborn posterity, Deut. xxix. 14, 15. And thus the crimes of a nation often accumulate from generation to generation, like those of an in- dividual from youth to age. Moab, or the nation of the Moabites, is said to have been “at ease from his youth, and to be settled upon his lees,” &c.; that is, from his first beginning to be a nation. At last, Divine vengeance falls upon some one generation, like a judgment befalling a man in his old age for the crimes of his whole life. In- dividuals, in such seasons, may be comparatively innocent; but yet, being members of a society which, as such, is deeply involved in sin, they partake of a kind of relative guilt. Considered as individuals, they are answerable only for their own personal faults, but, as mem- bers of society, it is otherwise. Thus the returning captives confessed their national guilt, saying, “We have dome wickedly, and all this is come upon us because of our sins,” Neh. xi, 33, 37. Both Ezra and Nehemiah, no doubt, joined in this confession, though we have no reason to think that their conduct, as individuals, had been such as to draw down the vengeance of God upon their country. God speaks of the whole human race, in relation to their first head, as he would speak of a nation. Speaking to Israel, he says, “I had planted thee a noble 240 THE REALITY AND EFFICACY OF DIVINE GRACE. for what Christ did,” and for the effects of our constituted union with him, as blamed for what Adam did, and the effects of our constituted union with him,--XIII. 39. This objection has been thought as plausible as any thing Mr. T. has advanced; and yet, if I am not greatly mis- taken, there is one part of it at least that will entirely overthrow his own hypothesis. Admitting that we in no sense are praiseworthy on account of what Christ has dome, I question if it will follow that we are in no sense blameworthy for what Adam did. It does not appear to me a just conclusion, that because favours may be conferred without merit, therefore punishment may be inflicted without demerit. But suppose this did follow, and that we are in no sense blameworthy for the sin of Adam, yet it does not follow that we are not blameworthy for any of its effects. The case from which Mr. T. argues will prove the very reverse of this. He supposes that we are not praiseworthy for the effects of our union with Christ, (XIII. 39,) than which there can hardly be a greater mis- take. Is not all heart holiness, and indeed every thing in us that is truly commendable and praiseworthy, the effect of our union with Christ? I hope Mr. T. will not deny this, though he so strangely overlooked it. Now if holi- ness of heart may be and is commendable, notwithstanding its being the effect of our union with Christ, then, accord- ing to his own reasoning, unholiness of heart may be blameworthy, notwithstanding its being the effect of our union with Adam. It ought to be observed, too, that this is the very ques- tion in debate between us in this place. The point that I endeavoured to prove was, not that we are to blame for Adam’s transgression, (this was only a question that oc- curred incidentally,) but that a moral inability or evil pro- pensity of heart in an intelligent creature is blameworthy, NotwitHSTANDING his having been born the subject of it. So I had stated it in my Reply, p. 217, and this I hope has been fully proved ; and that from Mr. T.'s own premises. It may be further remarked, upon this subject, that though the holiness of believers is the necessary or certain effect of their union with Christ, yet they are not the subjects of it by compulsion, or any kind of natural me- cessity; but what they are they freely choose to be ;-and will it not hold equally true concerning the unholiness of sinners, that though it may be the effect of Adam's fall, yet, as they freely choose to be what they are, it is im- proper to represent it as that which they possess by a natu- *al necessity ? But whether the words natural necessity, or inability, be retained or given up in this matter, Mr. T. insists upon it that our depravity comes upon us according to the nature of things ; that is, if I understand him, according to the established law, or settled order of things; and this he thinks equivalent to a natural necessity, and must there- fore denominate it blameless,-XIII. 62. But if Mr. T. can thus prove our native depravity blameless, I think I can, by the same mode of reasoning, prove all the fruits of it to be blameless too. Is there not a settled order, or an established law, of some sort, for the operations of the human mind, and indeed for all human actions? Is it not according to the laws of nature, according to the nature of things, that a man always chooses that which, all things considered, appears in the view of his own mind the most agreeable ; and pursues, if he have opportunity, that which, all things considered, is the object of his choice 3 It is impossible that a man should choose, in any instance, that which at the same time and in the same respects, all things considered, appears in the view of his mind dis- agreeable, and refuse that which is agreeable. And it is equally impossible that he should act in contradiction to his prevailing choice. An evil tree, according to the nature of things, will bring forth evil fruit; and a good tree will bring forth good fruit; and no less certainly will “wicked- mess proceed from the wicked,” according to the proverb of the ancients and the manifest implication of our Lord’s vine, wholly a right seed; how then art thou turned into the degene- rate plant of a strange vine unto me?” And thus of the whole human race, “God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions,” Eccles. vii. 29. This is undoubtedly spoken of the whole species; but it cannot be said of the whole species that they were made upright, any otherwise than as having a kind of existence in words, Matt. xii. 33, 34. But does it thence follow that the evil fruit produced by a bad heart comes by a natural necessity, and is blameless % Which way will Mr. T. take 3 Will he deny an established order in the human mind, and maintain that we choose totally at random, without any respect to what is agreeable or disagreeable in the view of the mind; that we act without any necessary connexion with our prevailing choice; and that we must do so, in order to be free agents 3 Or will he admit of such a con- nexion in the operations of the mind, and instead of placing all blame in actions, and none in the state of the mind, as he seems to have done all along hitherto, will he now exculpate from blame all those acts which necessarily arise from choice, and all those volitions which necessarily arise from the view of the mind, and throw all the blame upon the state of the mind itself? He must either do this, or else allow that what comes to pass according to estab- lished laws may, nevertheless, be blameworthy. Mr. T. imputes our pollution by the sin of Adam to the “ direction of the all-wise Creator, who constituted the union between Adam and his offspring,”—XIII. 62. This, to be sure, is the way to prove it innocent; for God cannot be the author of confusion in the universe any more than in the churches. But let us beware lest we charge God foolishly. That God was the author of the union referred to is admitted ; but that he is the author of whatever that union may be the occasion of is not true. May not God be the author of an established connexion between the understanding, will, affections, and actions, without being the author of the depravity of any action that takes place through the medium of that connexion ? I affirmed that love to God with all the heart must, of necessity, imply the absence of all evil propensity to rebel against him. This Mr. T. denies; telling us that I have not proved it, and that he apprehends I am not capable of proving it (XIII. 42); that is, of proving that a perfect degree of love implies the absence of all aversion . This reminds me of what is said elsewhere, that I have “taken it for granted that regeneration ALLUDEs to that law of nature wherein life precedes motion; ” but Mr. T. does “not think it will be easy to prove it,”—XIII. 15. It is very true, nothing is more difficult of proof than that which is self-evident. The apostle Paul declared that “to be carnally-minded is death—because the carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they who are in the flesh,” adds he, “cannot please God.” But to be carnally-minded, according to Mr. T., does not deserve death ; and the very reason which the apostle gives for its being death serves, accord- ing to his opinion, to prove it innocent; and if so, (unless God be a hard master,) why should not they be able to please him 3 Paul meant to deny that the carmal mind is subject to the law of God in fact; but Mr. T.’s reasoning tends to a denial of its being subject to it in right. Paul considered unconverted sinners as incapable of pleasing God on account of their carnality; Mr. T.’s argumentation implies that God is, on that account, incapable of being displeased with them. When I reasoned thus, “If blame does not lie in being the subject of an evil disposition, (or impure propensity, if Mr. T. can tell the difference,) because, as individuals, we could not avoid it ; then, for the same reason, it cannot lie in the exercise of that disposition, unless that also can be avoided.” Mr. T. replies that to indulge denotes the concurrence of our wills; but our wills had nothing to do with the state in which we were born,-XIII. 41. But this is no answer to the argument. I was not combating any argument of his arising from the concurrence or non- concurrence of our wills, but from what he calls the want of power. Men, by his own confession, have not power to go through life free from every degree of the indulgence of their propensities; for that, according to his ideas, would be to keep the law perfectly : but he does not pre- their first parent. Mr. T. himself, when he can get out of a difficulty no other way, will acknowledge such a union between Adam and his posterity, as that what was possessed by him was possessed by them. He talks of God originally giving man power to keep the law, and of this making man’s condemnation for the breach of it a matter of justice,—XIII. 130. -- : - . . THE REALITY AND EFFICACY OF DIVINE GRACE. 241 tend that men can do this; no, not even by the grace of God, XIII. 61. But if the want of power excuses in the one case, it does in the other ; for he maintains that “ no man is to blame for what he could never avoid,” —XIII. 48. And so the exercise of an evil propensity may be as blameless as the propensity itself. But, passing this, Mr. T. thinks, it seems, that if the will concur with an evil propensity, then it becomes blameworthy. I wish that he would abide by this doctrine. If I could depend upon that, I would ask him whether he can conceive of an evil propensity in his own mind any otherwise than as the very state and bias of his will towards evil? To talk of an in- voluntary propensity in the mind of a rational being is to talk without meaning, and in direct contradiction to the plainest dictates of common sense. If, then, the concur- rence of the will denominates a thing blameworthy, we need have no more dispute whether an evil disposition in a rational being be in itself blameworthy, seeing the con- currence of the will is included in the very nature of a propensity. Whatever may be said about our propensities at the time we were born, of which we can form but little idea, the question between us is, whether an impure pro- pensity in a rational being may not be blameworthy, not- withstanding its being received by derivation? and Mr. T. seems to think that whatever impurity obtains the con- currence of the will is criminal. But this is no more than may be said of all propensity in a rational being ; the thing itself being expressive of the bias of the will. Here I expect Mr. T. will not be satisfied. Yet why should he not? Because he has a notion in his mind that it is necessary not only that we should be voluntary in a propensity, but that we should choose to be of such a pro- pensity before we are so, in order to denominate us blame- worthy. It is a leading principle with Mr. T., that men might have a moral ability to do good if they would; and that if this were not the case, they would not be blame- worthy : that is, they might have a good disposition, if they were but well-disposed 1 “I confess,” says Mr. T., “it appears to me as equitable to condemn a porter because he does not calculate eclipses by the strength of his body, or a feeble philosopher because he does not perform the business of a porter by his refined understanding, as to condemn a man who has only natural ability, and never had, and never could HAVE any other, because he does not perform moral and spiritual duties,”—XIII. 56. To this also the Monthly Reviewers bear their testimony of applause.* And elsewhere Mr. T. says, “It is to very little purpose to allege that Pharaoh and others could have complied, if they would; if they could never will to comply, they could not justly be punished,”—XIII. 57. So then the blame does not lie in the choice of any evil, but in the choice of that choice. Pharaoh’s evil, it seems, did not * The Monthly Reviewers, having pronounced Mr. T.’s cause to be good, and particularly applauded the above passage, add, “Here is a distinction between what is called a moral and a natural power, with which these writers perplex themselves. Perhaps if they introduced the term rational, which separates man from the brute, it might assist them a little in the contest.”—Review for Sept. 1788. I cannot tell what use the Reviewers wish to have made of the term rational, nor whether they are serious, or not, in their advice; but if these gentle- men mean to suggest that the term rational would do, to supersede the terms natural and moral, by answering all their purposes, I cannot, for my part, acquiesce in their opinion. , I am not inclined to think the Monthly Reviewers destitute of ra- tional powers; and yet it is pretty ... they are, somehow or other, unable to do justice to Calvinistic writings; or so much as to read them with impartial attention. Let any unprejudiced person look over their Review, and he will see that if any thing controversial is written in favour of Arminianism, or Antitrinitarianism, it is gener- ally much applauded; but if any thing comes out in favour of Trinita- Flanism or Calvinism, either its weaknesses are exposed, or cold water is thrown upon the subject. See the review of Bampton's Lectures, and Burder's Pamphlet, Sept. 1788. Were I to look over other numbers of the Review, I might soon add many instances of similar conduct; though perhaps few more illiberal than their treatment of Mr. New. ton's Cardiphonia, Sept, 1781, Vol. LXV. p. 202. , Indeed, one need go no further in proof of this than to their re- yiew of this controversy. In the review of Mr. Taylor's Nine Letters, (July, 1787, p. 85), they say, “This pamphlet may be of some use in enlarging the conceptions of those narrow-minded Christians who think the kingdom of heaven no larger than the synagogue of their own little flock.” Astonishing ! when the matter of debate between myself and Mr. T. was not, in the least, about the extent of the king- dom of heaven. It did not, in the least, respect either the character or number of those that are good men here, or that shall be saved hereafter; but the cAUse of their salvation. Is it possible for gentle- R lie in refusing the Divine message, but in that, though he could have had a pliable disposition, yet he would not ; he was not disposed to be of a good disposition . But still an objection returns: That indisposition, by which he re- fused to be of a good disposition, could not be blame- worthy, unless he could have chosen to be of a better. But whither will this way of reasoning lead us? If a choice, or propensity, cannot be blameworthy, unless it be governed by a previous act of choice, neither can that act of choice be blameworthy, unless it is governed by another, and that by another, and so on, in an infinite series. This is metaphysical indeed, or rather hyper-metaphysical. A little, while ago, it was thought sufficient if an exercise had but the concurrence of the will, that is, if we had but the power of doing what we please ; but now, it seems, that is a matter that “is very little to the purpose,” unless we have also the power of choosing what we please. “...Pharaoh,” Mr. T. maintains, “could have willed to comply with the messages that were sent him, or he was not blameworthy.” If no more were meant by this than that he was possessed of the faculty or power of choice, which faculty, were it not for the evil bias with which it is polluted, is equal to the choice of any object that might be presented, I should have no objection to it. But this is not Mr. T.’s meaning: natural power to choose is nothing with him; he is here pleading the necessity of a moral power, in order to our being accountable beings. Here, then, I must infer that Mr. T. does not understand the meaning of his own expressions, no, nor the Monthly Reviewers either; or, rather, that the expressions have no meaning at all. What does Mr. T. maintain } that Pha- raoh could find in his heart, at the time, to will a compli- ance 2 No, he will not say so ; for that were the same as being willing : but that would contradict fact; for we know he was not willing. What, then, does Mr. T. mean? He must mean this, if any thing, that he could have been will- ing if he would ; that is, he could have willed if he had willed: but this is no meaning at all, being a mere identi- cal proposition. It is possible Mr. T. may here exclaim against such a method of reasoning, and appeal to common sense and common equity, “that no person is blameworthy for the omission of what he could not perform.” It is granted to be a dictate of common sense and common equity that no person should be blamed for the omission of that which he could not do if he would ; but not that he should be excused for the neglect of that which he could not will if he would ; for there is no such thing in being. So far is this from being a dictate of common sense, there is no sense in it, nor do they that talk of it understand what they mean.t. - 4. “When people puzzle themselves upon this subject,” says a judicious writer, “and insist we are not account- men, of only common sense and erudition, to write in this manner upon any subject, except religion ? No; mere rational powers would there have taught them better. But here prejudice and supercilious contempt get the better of their understandings, and impel them to write in such a manner as must, in the end, cause their censures to rebound to their own dishonour. Though the above critique (if it may be so called) displays the grossest ignorance of the subject; yet I really do not think it was for want of rational powers. The reviewers are, generally speaking, men of very good abilities; but religion is not their province, nor are they able to treat the subject with impartiality. Now as they unite with Mr. T. in thinking that if a man has no moral power, that is, no dis- position to do right, and cannot find in his heart so much as to use means that he may have such a disposition, then he cannot justly be blamed, they might, one should think, consider the above as a kind apology on their behalf... Should they reply by maintaining either that they have a moral ability or disposition to do justice to Calvinistic writings, or at least might have, if they would use the means, I should answer, As to the former, facts contradict it; and as to the latter, if they know of any means that persons, utterly void of an inclination, may use, in order to give themselves such inclination, I should be glad if they would begin, and make the experiment. If, in future, we should see in the Monthly Review such manifest partiality against Calvinistic writings as we have seen heretofore, we shall then conclude that the Monthly Reviewers cannot find in their heart to do justice, nor so much as to use the means that they may have a disposition to do justice; and if so, then, according to the º which they so highly applaud, we must bring them in guiltless. * † The reader may consult, on this subject, President Edwards On the Will; particularly Part IV. Sect. III. IV. XIII. In that piece he will find this notion, with many others upon which Mr. T.'s system rests, thoroughly refuted. 242 THE REALITY AND EFFICACY OF DIVINE GRACE. able, and cannot be blamed, any further than we have a moral as well as a natural power to do otherwise than we do, what their minds run upon is only natural power after all. They may say they know what we mean by moral power, viz. that disposition to do a thing which is necessary in order to our doing it; and they mean the same. But, however, when they get into the dispute, they get bewildered, and lose sight of the distinction. They do not suppose an impenitent sinner, going on still in his trespasses, has a present actual disposition, and a sufficient- ly strong one, to hearken to and obey the gospel. But something like this seems to be in the bottom of their minds, viz. that he must be able to be disposed; or he must have such a disposition as would be sufficient, if he was disposed to make a good use of it. Now this is only to use the word disposition improperly, and to conceive of it as a mere natural power; a price in our hands, which may be used well or ill, and which will turn to our benefit or condemnation, accordingly as we are disposed to im- prove it. The disposition they think of is not in the least degree virtuous, nor any ways necessarily connected with virtuous conduct. But it may lie still, or go wrong, and will do so, unless a man is disposed, and exerts himself to make it act, and keep it right. The sinner is not helped out of his difficulty in the least by having such a disposition as this. Yea, should we go further, and say the impeni- tent sinner might have a heart to embrace the gospel, if he would take proper pains in order to it; and he might do this, if he was so disposed ; and he might be so dis- posed, if he would try; and he could try, if he had a mind for it; yet IF, after all, he has not a mind to try, to be disposed, to take any proper pains, to get a heart to em- brace the gospel, or do any thing that is good, he is still in as bad a situation as any body supposes him to be in. There is no more hope of his coming to good, so long as this is the case with him, no more possibility of it, nor do we say any thing more in his favour, than if we had only said, as the Scripture does of the fool, There is a price in his hand to get wisdom ; but he has No HEART To IT. Pushing the sinner's moral depravity and impotence back in this manner may get it out of sight of those who cannot See above two or three steps; but this is all the good it can do. There is still a defect in him some where; and such a one as will prove his everlasting ruin, unless re- moved by such grace as he never yet has experienced.”* LETTER. W. THE second thing which Mr. T. defends is what he had Written on men's inability to deliver themselves from an inability; he conceives it must furnish them with an ex- cuse, “if they cannot deliver themselves from it.” This takes up the former part of his Fifth Letter. To be sure we are now got into the regions of metaphysics, if not be- yond them.; but it ought to be remembered that these modes of speaking are of Mr. T.’s own invention. I had before urged the consequences of Mr. T.'s opinion on this subject, as a sufficient refutation of it; but he replies by resuming his old complaint, that I consider those subjects separately which ought to have been considered conjointly. This is all that he has advanced in answer to what I have written from p. 113—215. It should seem that, in certain circumstances, Mr. T. Will admit a moral inability, though real and total, to be blameworthy. That is, 1. Where a person brings it upon himself by his own personal wickedness, XIII. 28. 2. Where grace is offered to deliver him from it, and he refuses it. In these cases, it seems, Mr. T. will not become the sinner's advocate, but admits him to be guilty, XIII. 47. But let it be closely considered, if the thing itself is not blameworthy, let us come by it in what manner we may, and though grace should or should not be provided to de- liver us from it, whether either of the above circumstances Will make it so. We may blame a man for his conduct in bringing his mind into such an “unimpressible” state; * Smalley on Inability to comply with the Gospel, &c., pp. 20, 21. but the state of the mind itself is not thereby made cul- pable. Mr. T. often appeals to common equity among men, whether it is right to punish a man for the omission of what was never within the compass of his power; but it is as plain a dictate of common equity, that a man is not to blame for the omission of what he has not the power to perform at the time, as that he is not to blame for what never was in his power. If once he had power, he was then to blame, but not since he lost it; for, as Mr. T. says, “what a man cannot do he cannot do.” Samson was to blame for losing his hair, and thereby his strength ; but not for being unable, when he had lost it, to repel the enemy and preserve his eyes. Neither does the possibility of having our moral impotency removed make any altera- tion as to the thing itself. If our opposition of heart to God, in itself considered, is not blameworthy, the circum- stance of our having grace offered to deliver us from it cannot make it so. Suppose a man to be fallen into some deep pit, and that he is weak and incapable of getting out, but some kind friend offers him his hand; now, says Mr. T., the man is to blame if he does not get out. I answer, He is to blame for rejecting help ; but that does not prove him to blame for his own personal inability. Thus, by shifting the argument from one to the other of these three subjects, and dwelling upon none, Mr. T. shuts out blame- worthiness from all moral impotence, in itself considered, and so no man is to blame for the enmity of his heart to God, be it ever so great. Though the carnal mind is en- nity against God, and is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be ; though their ear is uncircumcised, and they cannot hearken ; though they, being evil, cannot speak good things; though they have eyes full of adultery, and cannot cease from sin ; and though upon this account it be impossible but that offences will come : yet there is no harm in all this, nothing for which God should speak in such a tone of displeasure ; the whole of their blame- worthiness consists either in their getting into such a state of mind, or in neglecting to use the means of getting out ! And thus my argument, after all, stands its ground, that, according to Mr. T.’s principles, men are excusable in proportion to the strength of their evil propensities. Let us next follow Mr. T. in his defence of the third branch of his position concerning the non-provision of grace. The reader will remember that the question here is not whether grace Is or Is NoT provided, but whether, supposing it is not, men are excusable in their non-com- pliance with the gospel. Mr. T.’s views upon this subject are as a millstone about the neck of his system, that must needs sink it in the esteem of all who understand the argument, and expect to be saved by grace alone. He talks much of grace, of free grace, and of salvation by grace; and yet it is not more evident that the sun shines at noon- day than that he makes the whole of our salvation a debt, a debt which God, of his “ universal benevolence,” is ex- cited to pay, from the consideration that “we did not bring everlasting misery upon ourselves, nor was it ever in our power to avoid it,”—XIII. 81. e It is pity that we should cover our ideas by improper words. It is evident Mr. T. means to appeal to the Divine Justice ; only he has not courage sufficient to say so, and therefore uses the term benevolence. Yet if this be the truth, that men are pitiable creatures, much injured by the fall, but no way concerned in the guilt of it, nor in any of its certain effects—and if this be a consideration with the great Jehovah to save them—what a gospel have we sent us at last, and what a representation of the Divine charac- ter! The Father sends his Son to atone for men's guilt, and deliver them from everlasting misery, from the con- sideration that there was nothing in that guilt, antecedent- ly to his sending his Son and offering them grace, that properly deserved such misery, or indeed any misery at all ! The covenant which God originally made with man is so severe, that if he abide by it, he must deal cruelly with his rational offspring; so severe that he cannot stand to it throughout, but is induced, with a view to make the sons of Adam amends for the injury done them by their father's fall, to send them a Saviour, and to offer them assistance that they may make their escape Surely all this is but the just picture of the Divine character and conduct, according to Mr. T.’s scheme. But is this the TIIE REALITY AND EFFICACY OF DIVINE GRACE. 243 real character and conduct of God Is mercy indeed built up upon the ruins of equity, or does the grace of the second covenant imply a reflection upon the justice of the first 3 Is this the character of that God who declares that men who never heard the gospel of grace are without eac- cuse—that all the world are become guilty before him— that salvation is altogether of grace—that he is not only at liberty to “ have mercy on whom he will have mercy,” but will exercise that liberty, and “will have compassion on whom he will have compassion ?” I urged these consequences in my Reply, that, according to Mr. T.’s scheme, “making this supposed grace the only thing which constitutes men accountable beings was making it debt rather than grace.” And what has Mr. T. said in answer to this objection ?–XIII. 49. “ 1. When I speak of grace,” says he, “I wish to speak of real, not supposed grace.” That may be, and I hope it is so ; but the question is, will his hypothesis coincide with the wishes of his heart on this subject? “2. Suppose,” says Mr. T. to his friend, “we excuse Mr. F.'s play on the word grace, which is not in the sentence to which he is making this laboured reply, and his change of punished for accountable; yet still the position to which he refers does not speak of grace as the only thing which renders men accountable. You remember, sir, the position is, “if men could not avoid it,’ &c.” Mr. T. seems all along to represent me as having bestowed great pains to unravel one poor little period ; whereas what I have written about grace is not merely in reply to that single perod, (as was declared in my Reply, p. 216,) but to the whole of what Mr. T. had written upon the subject, which in that period happens to be nearly expressed. But he denies that he has represented grace as the only thing which renders men accountable; how he can make this denial good is more than I can conceive. He advances three things which, together, would make men not accountable. The first two of these he admits actually to exist (IX. 44. 57. 59); the last, therefore, must be the only thing left which can render men accountable, or, if he likes it better, punish- able. But where is the answer, after all, to my objection ? Has he proved his notion of grace to be any more than debt? Not at all, nor so much as attempted it. “Is it uncandid to conclude that it was because he felt the at- tempt would have been in vain?” It was further ob- jected, that, according to Mr. T.’s scheme, there was no need for Christ to have died at all; and that if the Divine Being had but let men alone, and had not provided any grace for them, they had been all very innocent; and if justice had but been done them, very happy. To this Mr. T. replies, by asking, 1. Whether I can prove that, without the bestowment of grace, there would ever have been any men to be free from criminality ? “Can he prove,” says he, “that Adam would not have died immediately, accord- ing to the threatening, if grace had not been given in the promise 4”—XIII. 50,—“According to the threatening,” that is begging the question. The question is whether that threatening implied in it the immediate and actual execution of corporal death. If what Mr. T. says else- Where is true, namely, that Adam's posterity were by his fall “exposed to misery, whatever that misery be,” (XIII. 41,) it could not; for non-existences could never be ex- posed to misery of any kind. If in Adam all died ; if by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned ; this must imply the existence of all men; for death can- not pass upon non-entities. But it is asked, 2. “Suppose Adam had not died, can Mr. F. prove that Adam’s posterity Would have been sent to hell for their father's sin, or for any of its necessary consequences?” Suppose they had not, and ought not, then it only tends to confirm my reasoning, rather than to refute it; which was to prove that if things are as Mr. T. represents, men might have been innocent and happy if Jesus had never died; and So that the gift of Christ and the gospel was no real bene- fit, but rather a curse upon the world, as it is this only that has rendered men capable of sinning, so as to become everlastingly miserable. * ~. . The remaining questions (XIII. 52) have, for the sub- Stance of them, been already discussed,—Reply, 219, 220. Neither are they in point to the present subject in de- bate. They contain a question of fact ; but that which is now in discussion is a question of right. Were I to ad- mit the universal extent of Christ’s death as a fact, and the utmost advantages as resulting from it, still I should reprobate, with all the powers of my soul, the principles upon which Mr. T. pleads for it, as destructive of the grace of the gospel, and hostile to the throne of God. Mr. T. had maintained, (IX. 57. 59,) “1. That man was so reduced by the fall as to be totally unable to do any thing really good. 2. That if he had been left in this con- dition, he would not have been to blame for not doing it, but that his inability would have been his excuse; yea, let his practices have been as vile as they might, upon the supposition of grace not being provided, he declares that Jºe would have been excusable, and that all real good what- ever might be denied to be the duty of the unprincipled mind.” Hence I concluded that if it were so, then Christ did not die for the sins of any man, because antecedently to the consideration of his death, and of grace being given in him, there was no sin or blameworthiness to atone for. What a bustle does Mr. T. make concerning this conclu- sion 1 calling it “a wonderful passage,” and the reason- ings “ mere parade ;” imputing it to the “imbecility of the human mind, and to the disadvantageous situation to which the most upright disputant may be reduced,” &c. —XIII. 52. I smile at this friendly apology; but must own it appears to me more adapted to himself than his opponent. I before wrote in the language of diffidence: the consequences of Mr. T.’s sentiments appeared so eversive of the whole gospel, that I could hardly help sus- pecting I must have mistaken him, somehow or other. Accordingly, I gave him a fair opportunity to clear him- self if he could. But it is now time for that language to be laid aside. He has tried to defend his hypothesis, but it is absolutely indefensible. What has Mr. T. said in answer to my reasoning? Why he has, as usual, asked a number of questions. * “Sup- pose Christ had never come, and no grace had been pro- vided, does not Mr. F.,” he asks, “ allow that man is a free agent, and therefore might have sinned voluntarily,” —XIII. 51. Yes, I do : I suppose the devil to be a free agent, though his heart is, and ever will be, invariably set in him to do evil; but the question here is, not what I allow, but what Mr. T. allows. Though I allow man to be a free agent, independently of the grace of the gospel, he does not : he considers moral as well as matural neces- sity as inconsistent with free agency; that if no grace were provided, “let a man's practices be as vile as they might, he would be excusable.” And it was from his sup- position, and not from mine, that I was reasoning. But he asks, further, “Is nothing done wrong in this world but what is the necessary and unavoidable effect of Adam’s transgression ? Are not all our voluntary sins justly chargeable upon us?”—XIII. 52. I answer, I know of no such necessity as impels men to sin involun- tarily; and as to the evils that are now done in the world, or not done, they are nothing at all to the point; nor whether they are done in consequence of Adam's trans- gression or not. Suppose they are done simply in con- sequence of men's own free agency, will Mr. T. allow that they would have had that free agency, and have been ac- countable beings, without the death of Christ and the grace of the gospel? If he will not, the consequence still remains unmoved, that, according to him, “Christ did not come into the world to save men from sin, but rather to put them into a capacity of sinning, as it is in consequence of his death, and that alone, that guilt becomes charge- able upon them.” But if, on the other hand, he will allow this, he must in so doing disallow of the substance of all his former reasonings. Particularly, he must dis- own that extravagant language, that “if my principles are true, let a man's practices be as vile as they may, he may excuse himself from blame.” “Mr. F. justly observes,” says Mr. T., “that I suppose fallen man really and totally unable to do good, and I ex- plaimed my meaning by saying spiritually good; but is there no medium between doing what is spiritually good * Mr. T., it seems, expected to be answered in a way of direct reply. But it would fill a volume of no small size only to give a direct answer to all his and Mr. Martin's questions. R 2 244 THE REALITY AND EFFICACY OF DIVINE GRACE. and going to the utmost lengths of wickedness % Are men under the necessity of working all abominations because they cannot without Divine grace serve God spiritually 3 Do not men work these abominations 2 Did not Christ die to atone for them Did he not then die for OUR SINS 3’’–XIII. 52. Now Mr. T. thinks he has escaped the charge. But let it be observed, though in one place he had used the term spiritual, yet in another he extended blamelessness to “PRACTICEs be they AS VILE as they MAY,” if my sentiments were true, that is, if grace were not provided. Now, whatever medium there may be be- tween not doing things spiritually good and working all abominations, there is none I should think between vile practices and abominations. Mr. T. therefore is as far off as ever from removing the shocking consequences of his sentiments. LETTER WI. PERHAT's Mr. T. will again complain that too much is made of the Ratio eac concessis and the Reductio ad absur- dum,_XIII. 53. Well, it is not my wish to bear too hard upon him ; though, after all, it would have discovered a commendable frankness, consonant to his own profession, (XIII. 15,) to have confessed that he had said rather too much, instead of complaining of me for having improved it against him. But let us take it as he has now stated it, that without the grace of God men cannot do any thing really or spiritually good ; but they may do some things otherwise good, or, at least, refrain from gross immorali- ties; and this is all they are obliged to do antecedently to the bestowment of grace; and, consequently, the whole of their sin consists in the contrary of this; and these are all the sins for which there was any need for Christ to atone. Now will Mr. T. stand to this hypothesis? It is the only ground left him to stand upon, in supporting the body of his system. And, in order to possess this, he must retract his extravagant sentence in p. 59 of his Nine Letters ; and perhaps much more. Let him soberly consider whether he can stand his ground even here without giving up at least the three following sentiments, each of which he has hitherto avowed, and for one of them most strenuously contended. 1. That the moral law is spiritual, and requires love to God with all the heart; and that this law is the rule of life to fallen men antecedently to and independently of the consideration of the bestowment of grace. If nothing but an abstinence from gross abominations is incumbent on men, antecedently to the bestowment of grace, then either the moral law does not require the heart, or men are not under it as the rule of life. 2. That if unconverted sinners are preserved from the greatest lengths of wickedness, it is to be ascribed to the preventing and restraining grace of God. This Mr. T. has hitherto avowed,—XIII. 30. But if he will maintain the above hypothesis, this also must be given up. The whole of Mr. T.’s argument (XIII. 52) goes upon the supposition, that if grace had never been bestowed or pro- vided, yet men might have refrained from gross abomina- tions; for it is brought to prove that men would not have been utterly blameless without the provision of grace; and so that there were some sins for Christ to die for, antece- dently to the consideration of his death and the grace of the gospel. But if so, their being preserved from gross wickedness is not, and ought not, to be ascribed to the grace of God. 3. That Christ died for the sins of the whole world. I need not prove to the reader that Mr. T. maintains this sentiment; but if he will abide by the above hypothesis, this (all-important as he accounts it) must be given up. It is well known that the far greater part of the world die in infancy ; but dying infants, according to the above hy- pothesis, (and indeed according to all that he has written,) can have no sin in any sense whatever, for which Christ could have to atone. He could not, therefore, die for * It is true Mr. T. talks of Christ having to atone for sins of other descriptions; but, surely, it is quite absurd to speak of his dying to them; and as they make the greatest part of the human race, it must follow that Christ did not die for the sins of one half of the world after all. Thus Mr. T. by his notion of men being excusable on account of their moral inability is driven to a most painful dilemma; he is driven to main- tain, EITHER that men, antecedently to the death of Christ and the grace of the gospel, are not free agents at all—are not accountable beings, no, not for even “the vilest of practices” (as he did in his Nine Letters)—and then it follows that Christ did not die to atone for the sins of any man, but only for Adam's first transgression, there being no sins for which he could have to atone; and that his death, and the grace of the gospel, must be a curse to the world rather than a blessing ; as it is in consequence of this, and this alone, that guilt becomes chargeable on men : or ELSE, according to what he has advanced in his last performance, that men without the grace of the gospel would have been free agents in part; that they would have been capable of performing the externals of religion, and refraining from gross abominations; that they as fallen creatures are accountable for the contrary of these, and for that only ; and that it is for sins of this description only that Christ could have to atone; * and then it fol- lows that the law as a rule of life to fallen men is not spiritual; that if men are preserved from gross abomina- tions, it is not to be ascribed to preventing grace; and that Christ did not die for the sins of all mankind. Mr. T., it has been observed, has hitherto allowed that the moral law is spiritual, and as such is the rule of life to fallen men (XIII. 60); but his other sentiments will not suffer him consistently to abide by this. To be consistent with them, he must either deny the spirituality of the law, or else its justice and goodness ; that is, he must deny that it is fit to be a rule of life to fallen men. Mr. T. admits the law at present to be spiritual; it must not, however, take cognizance of the state of the heart or mind; the mind may be the subject of an evil propensity, and yet be innocent, (XIII. 42); so, then, the carnal mind, which is enmity against God, is nevertheless in that respect blame- less . All that is forbidden is “the indulgence of evil pro- pensity, and the neglect of grace by which he might be delivered from it.” Nor are these all the subtractions that Mr. T.’s scheme requires. Even here it is not just that it should require any more than men can, some way or other, find in their hearts to give ; for he lays this down as a maxim, that no man ought to be punished for what he cannot avoid, XIII. 53. But if it is not right that the law should require any more than men can in every sense perform, or punish them for their defects, then it must follow that either men can now perform all the law re- quires of them, or else that the law is unreasonable, and so can be neither just nor good, nor fit to be a rule of life to fallen men. Which way will Mr. T. turn himself in this case ? Will he affirm that men now can in every sense perform all that the law requires 3 Sometimes he seems as if he would ; for he speaks of the law as forbidding only the indulgence of sin, and of grace as being provided to deliver us from that, LXIII. 41. Here, if his words have any meaning, they must mean that men may through the grace of God comply with all the law requires. And yet, in other places, he allows that no man since the fall possesses an ability, either naturally or by the grace of God, perfectly to keep the law,-XIII. 60, 61. But what in and out work is here ! One of these positions must be retracted; and Mr. T. is welcome to re- tract which of them he pleases. He may choose his ground. Neither will support him without giving up the spirituality, justice, and goodness of the law as a rule of life to fallen men. If he retract the former, and allow that men cannot, even with the grace of the gospel, keep the law perfectly; then he must either maintain the law to be unreasonable, or give up all his former reasonings, and allow that it is right that God should require men to do that which they are, and always were, and always will be, in this life, morally unable to do. If he choose to retract his other position, (XIII. 61,) and maintain that, by the grace of God, men are now able to comply with all that the law requires, and atone for sins for which we were never blameworthy or account- able. - THE REALITY AND EFFICACY OF DIVINE GRACE. 245 to avoid all that it forbids, still he is never the nearer. This sentiment is as hostile to the native justice and good- ness of the law as any position Mr. T. has advanced. For as to what men are able to do by the grace of God, that is nothing to the purpose. In order to justify the law, it is necessary that we should, in some sense, be able to obey it, prior to, and independently of, the provisions of the gospel. To introduce the bestowment of grace, in order to vindi- cate the equity of the law, is injustice to both law and gospel; to the former as supposing it, in itself, unjust ; to the latter as rendering it not grace, but debt. Suppose the king and parliament of Great Britain should enact a law, requiring the inhabitants of any particular town to pay one thousand pownds annually, by way of tax. At the time of the law being enacted those inhabitants were well able to pay it, and afterwards became poor, and entirely unable. The government, however, still continue the law in force, notwithstanding their pecuniary inability. But the Prince of Wales, with the concurrence of the king and parliament, graciously remits, or offers to remit, to these poor inhabitants, what shall be sufficient for the payment of the tax. Quere, 1. Does this remittance ren- der the law which continued to require a thousand pounds, when the inhabitants were unable to pay it, in itself, just or good? 2. Is it to the honour of the prince, any more than of the king and parliament, to call such a remittance by the name of grace, when its only purpose is to screen the government from the charge of injustice? I am per- suaded that such a piece of conduct as Mr. T.’s system ascribes to the great God, is what the honourable characters before mentioned would scorn to be engaged in. Such a law, undoubtedly, ought to be repealed. Should it be urged, for its continuance, that it should stand as it was, for the purpose of convincing the inhabitants of their sin in not complying with it, (XIII. 130,) they would reply, Convince us of sin . No : that it can never do, but rather convince us of its own cruelty and its maker's tyranny.— But perhaps you have not done so much towards comply- ing with it as you might have done.—Be it so : this can be no proper means of convincing us of sin : let us have a law equal to our capacity, and then, so far as we fall short of it, that will be a proper means of conviction, but no other. The reader will not suppose that I am pleading for the repeal of God’s law ; I suppose men's natural abilities are still equal to its demands: but my design is barely to show that, according to the tendency of Mr. T.'s principles, the law cannot be either just or good, and the gospel is not grace, but debt. Mr. T. often talks of his opponent taking his threefold argument, and answering it conjointly. When an author advances contrary positions, it is very difficult to know what are his real sentiments; otherwise Mr. T. has suffi- ciently answered himself. l. He allows that men are un- able to keep God's law perfectly,–XIII. 60. 2. He will not pretend to say that they ever could so keep it, since they were intelligent beings, XIII. 60. And, 3. What is more, he does not profess to hold that grace is provided sufficient to enable them to keep it, XIII. 61. Here, then, all the three members of Mr. T.’s position concur, re- specting men's inability to keep the law perfectly. “They could never avoid it, cannot deliver themselves from it, and the blessed God has not made such provision as is necessary to deliver them :” and yet Mr. T, allows that they ought to keep it, notwithstanding (XIII. 60); and, it should seem, their not keeping it is their sin, of which the law is a proper means to convince them,-XIII. 130. The reader is here left to make his own reflections. But “is it right for a man to be eternally punished for * My good opinion of Mr.T.’s integrity and piety makes me utterly at a loss how to account for the insinuation that it has been generally acknowledged, by the “unhappy men’’ who deny the eternity of future punishment, and hold with “universal salvation, that, before a man can be of their sentiments, he must be a Calvinist.” To be sure we gannot be certain that no one person who embraced the general resti- tution scheme was weak or wicked enough to drop such an expression, though I never heard of such an instance. But to justify the manner in which this inuendo is brought in, it ought, at least, to have been a common repeated acknowledgment, made by some of the most eminent patrons of that system. Surely the late bishop of Bristol was never led into it by his Calvinism; nor have I ever heard of Dr. Priestley, or Dr. Chauncey, as suggesting that this was the effect of their former Calvinism. It is very evident that they were first far from Calvinism before they espoused that notion. I wish Mr. T. (if this paragraph what he could never possibly avoid 3 This is the question,” says Mr. T., “to which I think Mr. F., with all his in- genious labour, has not attempted to give a direct answer. Yet nothing is done till a direct answer be given,”—XIII. 51. I reply, 1. If there be any weight in Mr. T.'s reason- ing, it must affect all punishment, as well as eternal pun- ishment;* and if so, the sentence of corporal death, which, in consequence of Adam’s transgression, has passed upon all men, and is executed upon millions who have never actually sinned, must be an unrighteous sentence. 2. If man, as a fallen, polluted creature, is blameless, he must, if justice be done him, as such, be unexposed to punish- ment, either here or hereafter, and consequently must, as such, need no Saviour at all. To speak, therefore, of the fall as rendering a saviour necessary, as Mr. T. himself seems to do, (XIII. 140. 142,) or to say, with the apostle, that “as by one man’s disobedience many were made sin- ners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made right- eous,” must be altogether improper. But perhaps Mr. T. will still complain of the want of a direct answer. Well, if another form will please him better, let it stand thus: The fall and its necessary effects are what Mr. T. calls unavoidable by us: Christ, by laying down his life, de- livered us from the fall and its necessary effects;f Christ died, therefore, to deliver us from what Mr. T. calls un- avoidable. But Christ would not have died to deliver us from a punishment which we never deserved. I do con- clude, therefore, that we deserve everlasting misery for that which, in Mr. T.’s sense of the word, is unavoidable. LETTER WII. THERE is one question more which Mr. T. holds up in his Sixth Letter, the solution of which goes a great way towards the deciding of the controversy between us: this is, whether natural power is, to all intents and purposes, sufficient to render us accountable beings in respect of moral or spiritual exercises. This question I promised to discuss before we had done. Previously, however, to entering upon it, let it be ob- served, that if natural power is sufficient for the above purpose, and that antecedently to, and independently of, the bestowment of grace; then five parts out of six, at least, of Mr. T.’s Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Letters are to no purpose. All his exclamations against men being re- quired to perform what they have no power to accomplish, blamed for their omission of it, &c. &c., entirely rest upon the supposition that natural power is not power; or, at least, not such power as to render men accountable for omitting moral and spiritual exercises. All Mr. T.'s ex- clamations likewise, in his Nine Letters, upon the cruelty of punishing men more severely, rest upon this supposition, that natural power is of no account ; for the cruelty against which he there exclaims consists in punishing men “for not doing what it never was in their power to do,”—XIII. 58. Now if the contrary of this can be proved, the body of Mr. T.’s system will be overturned. When I affirm that “natural power is, to all intents and purposes, sufficient to render men accountable beings,” Mr. T. calls for proof (XIII. 56); yea, and suggests that I have acknowledged the contrary in my first treatise. Whether I have not proved this matter already, and whether Mr. T. has not allowed me to have proved it, we will now inquire. could indeed be his writing, and was not added to his manuscript by some unknown person, devoid of conscience, to blacken Calvinism at any rate) would favour us with the names of “these unhappy men who have so frequently said " it. Were it needful, I could name a member of Mr. T.’s own church who has pleaded for universal salvation with- out being led into it by previous Calvinism. But the Monthly Review for July, 1789, has afforded an opportunity of appealing to Mr. T.’s conscience still more forcibly on this, article. Does Mr. T. believe that the gentlemen by whom he himself is there abused, for his “sulphurous discourse” on the eternity of future pun- ishment, could never have treated a Scriptural doctrine with so much contempt, if the reviewer had not once been a Calvinist? JMonthly Review, p. 95. + Rom, v. 15–21; 1 Cor. xv. 22; 1 Thess. i. 10. 246 THE REALITY AND EFFICACY OF DIVINE GRACE. * 1. I have proved that matural strength is the measure of | men's obligation to love God; being that rule according to which we are required to love him : “Thou shalt love Jehovah thy God with all thy strength.” To this Mr. T. has made no reply; but, on the contrary, has allowed my reasoning to be “very conclusive,”—IX. 67. - 2. I have proved that men are obliged to the perform- ance of all duty, and are inexcusable for their omission of it, antecedently to, and independently of, the bestowment of grace,—Reply, p. 220. To this also Mr. T. has made no reply; but, on the contrary, has told us that he “wishes to oppose nothing contained in it, so far as the present subject is concerned,”—XIII. 59. Mr. T., therefore, has fully allowed me to have proved my point, and consequently to have proved that the body of his own reasonings is fal- lacious. Surely Mr. T. must have engaged in a contro- versy which he does not sufficiently understand; how else could he allow of these sentiments, and at the same time maintain their opposites ? To the above arguments might be added the universal silence of Scripture in respect of the internal operations of grace being necessary to render men accountable beings, as to moral and spiritual exercises. The Scripture is not silent upon what it is that renders us moral agents; but never, that I remember, gives us the least hint of grace, or the Spirit's operations, being necessary to that end. Whenever God speaks of men in a way of complaint or censure, he urges their enjoyment of matural powers, out- ward advantages, means, and opportunities, as what ren- dered it fit and reasonable for better things to have been expected at their hands. Rehearsing what he had done for Israel, and complaining of their ungrateful returns, he says, “What was there more to be done to my vineyard,” that I have not done in it? Wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?” Isa. v. 1–7. It is plain here that God reckoned himself to have done enough for them to warrant an expectation, | speaking after the manner of men, of better returns; and yet here is no mention of any thing but external privileges, means, and opportunities, which were bestowed upon them. It is true God is said to have given his good Spirit to instruct them ; but the meaning of that is, he inspired his servants the prophets, and sent them with repeated messages of instruction ; or, as it is explained in the same place, “He testified against them by his Spirit in the pro- phets,” Neh. ix. 20. 30. These messages and messengers were what Stephen accused them with having always re- sisted. “Which of the prophets,” said he, “ have not your fathers persecuted ?” and this he justly calls a resist- ance of the Holy Spirit, Acts vii. 51, 52. complained of Chorazin and Bethsaida, he made no men- tion of the internal operations of his grace, as the ground of his just expectations, but barely of the “mighty works” which he had wrought among them, Matt. xi. 20–24. So when the apostle pronounces the heathen to be “with- out excuse,” and informs us wherefore they were so, he makes no mention of grace which they either had, or might have had, but of the evidence afforded to them by the visible creation, by which he intimates that the in- visible power and Godhead of its Creator might have been known, had they been but of a right temper of mind, Tom. i. 19. 26.f - But Mr. T. thinks I have contradicted all this by as- serting that “natural ability is not, of itself, sufficient for the performance of good.” Cannot Mr. T., them, discern the difference between what is sufficient to render us ac- countable beings, and what is sufficient for the actual per- Jormance of good 3 If a man is possessed of reason and conscience, he has that which, to all intents and purposes, renders him an accountable being, and any court upon earth would treat him as responsible for any trust which might be reposed in his hands; but if he is not possessed of integrity, he has not that in him which is sufficient for the security of his master's property, or any service which is truly virtuous. * phoh my nwyº-no See Trueman's Discourse of Natural and Moral Impotence, p. 179. When Christ || LETTER VIII. ANOTHER question in debate between myself and Mr. T. is whether faith in Christ be a requirement of the moral law. On this subject Mr. T. has written his Seventh and Eighth Letters. If I understand the force of this question in the present controversy, it is this : that it involves the doctrine of a provision of grace in order to make it equit- able. Mr. T. considers faith as an additional obligation to those required by the moral law, and therefore thinks it a hard and inequitable requirement, if grace is not pro- vided to enable us to comply,–IX. 46. On this subject Mr. T. admits that “the moral law— demands that whatever is revealed in the gospel, or any other dispensation, be received by all rational creatures to whom that revelation is made,”—XIII. 69. This is all that I have pleaded for. I do not suppose the moral law expressly, but radically, or remotely, to require faith in Christ. I only contend that that love which the moral law expressly requires would lead a person possessed of it to embrace the gospel. And herein, it seems, we are agreed. But Mr. T. seems to think it very improper on this ac- count to say that faith in Christ is a requirement of the moral law; as improper as to say that circumcision, bap- tism, and the Lord’s supper are requirements of that law, on account of their being remotely required by it, XIII. 70. In short, he seems to consider faith in Christ as a part of positive law, and therefore not, strictly speaking, moral. To which it is replied, Supposing faith in Christ to be a part of positive law, yet if compliance with it is justly “demanded by the moral law,” which Mr. T. says it is, then it would not follow that it is such an additional obligation on men as to require additional grace, in order to render it equitable. But further, If I understand the nature of positive law, as distin- guished from moral, it is that which arises, not from the nature of things, but from the mere will of the lawgiver. I am not acquainted with any one positive law, the oppo- site of which might not have been enjoined in equal con- sistency with the moral character of God. But it is not so with respect to moral obligations; they are such as it would be contrary to the moral character of God not to require, or to require their opposites. Now surely the requirement of faith in Christ, where the gospel is pro- claimed, has this property attending it. It would be in- consistent with the perfections of God to allow men to reject the gospel of his Son, or to feel indifferent towards it. Surely Mr. T. is much mistaken in supposing that whatever is strictly moral is universally and alike binding in all times, places, and circumstances,—XIII. 71. Obe- dience to parents and love to children, with many other duties of the moral law, are binding on persons who have parents to obey and children to love, but not on those who have none. Mr. T., in the beginning of his Seventh Letter, takes pains to reconcile his admitting the law to be “an infallible test of right and wrong,” and, at the same time, affirming that “final misery is not brought upon sinners by their transgression of the law, but by their rejection of the over- tures of mercy,”—XIII, 65–68. In the former of these sentiments we are both agreed. As to the latter, I admit that the rejection of mercy aggravates men's destruction, and therefore is a cause of it, which the scriptures he has cited undoubtedly prove ; but that sinners perish merely for rejecting the gospel, and not for transgressing the law, wants proof. Perhaps it might be much easier proved that men will not be punished for rejecting the gospel any further than as such rejection involves in it a transgression of the law. , Mr. T. complains (XIII. 77) of my supposing that he makes the gospel a new system of government, taking place of the moral law, and is persuaded I had no authority for such a supposition. And yet, without this supposition, I do not see the force of what he labours to illustrate and establish as above. If Mr. T. here means anything different from what I admit, it must be to main- tain that the death of Christ has, in such sort, atoned for t See Bellamy’s True Religion Delineated, pp. 121–127. THE REALITY AND EFFICACY OF DIVINE GRACE. 247 the sins of the whole world, as that no man shall be finally condemned for his breaking the moral law, but merely for the sin of unbelief. If this is not his meaning, I ask his pardon for misunderstanding him. If it is, this is, to all intents and purposes, making the gospel a new system of government, taking place of the moral law. It may, in a sense, be said of a rebel who refuses to lay down his arms and submit to mercy, (which is a case more in point than that of a condemned criminal in the hands of justice,) that when he comes to be punished, he will die because he refused the king's pardon ; but it is easy to see that the word because is, in this connexion, used improperly. It does not mean that the refusal of mercy is the crime, and the only crime, for which he suffers ; no, this is not the direct or procuring, so much as the occa- sional cause of his punishment. REBELLION is that for which he suffers; and his refusal of mercy is no further a procuring cause of it than as it is a perseverance in rebel- lion, and, as it were, the completion of it. LETTER IX. TIIE last article in debate between myself and Mr. Taylor concerns the eatent of Christ's death. On this subject I stated my own views by way of explanation; offered evi- dence that Christ, in his vicarious sufferings and death, had an absolute determination to save some of the human race; noticed Mr. T.'s arguments; endeavoured to show the consistency of a limitation of design in the death of Christ with the indefinite call of the gospel, &c.; and concluded with some general reflections upon the whole. On these subjects Mr. T. has followed me, and I shall at- tempt to follow him with a few additional remarks. In stating my sense of the limited extent of Christ's death, I. admitted that the sufferings of Christ were suf- ficient for the salvation of the whole world, had the race of mankind or the multitude of their offences been a thousand times more numerous than they are, if it had pleased God to render them effectual to that end. I do not consider the necessity of an atonement as arising from the number of sins, but from the nature of them. As the same sun which is necessary to enlighten the present in- habitants of the earth is sufficient to enlighten many mil- lions more ; and as the same perfect obedience of Christ, which was necessary for the justification of one sinner, is sufficient to justify the millions that are saved; so, I ap- prehend, the same infinite atonement would have been ne- cessary for the salvation of one soul, consistently with justice, as for the salvation of a world. I admit that “the death of Christ has opened a way whereby God can forgive any sinner whatever who returns to him by Jesus Christ;” and that in perfect consistency with the honour of the supreme Lawgiver, and the general good of his extensive empire. “If we were to suppose, for argument’s sake, that all the inhabitants of the globe should thus return,” I do not conceive that “one soul need be sent away for want of a sufficiency in the death of Christ to render their pardon and acceptance consistent with the rights of justice.”—Reply, p. 223. All the limit- ation I maintain in the death of Christ arises from pure sovereignty; it is a limitation of design. Now, seeing the above is conceded, whence arises the propriety of all those arguments in Mr. T.’s piece which * An objection much like the above was once urged by Mr. Wesley against Mr. Hervey.—“Will God,” said Mr. W., “deny what is neces- sary for the present comfort and final acceptance of any one soul that he has made 3 Would you deny it to any if it were in your power?” —To which the ingenious Mr. Hervey replied, “To show the error of such a sentiment, and the fallacy of such reasoning, I shall just men- tion a recent melancholy fact. News is brought that the Prince George man of war, Admiral Broderick's own ship, is burnt and sunk, and above four hundred souls that were on board are perished. Six hours the flames prevailed, while every means were used to preserve the ship and crew; but all to no purpose. . In the mean time, shrieks and groans, bitter moanings and piercing cries, were heard from every quarter. Raving, despair, and even madness, presented themselves in a variety of forms. Some ran to and fro, distracted with terror, not knowing what they did, or what they should do. Others jumped over- board from all parts; and, to avoid the pursuit of one death, leaped into the jaws of another. Those unhappy wretches who could not proceed upon the supposition of the contrary? The latter part of his Ninth Letter, which is taken up in exposing the consequences of maintaining an indefinite invitation without a wniversal provision, overlooks the above con- cessions. I have admitted the necessity of a universal provision as a ground of invitation ; and that in two respects:–1. A provision of pardon in behalf of all those who shall believe in Christ. 2. A provision of means and motives to induce them to believe. And if no more than this were meant by the term provision, I should not object to it. And if by Christ dying for the whole world were meant no more than this, I should not wish to have any dispute about it. Now if Mr. T. had been disposed to attend to things, and not merely to words, and to keep to the point in hand, he should have proved that this provision, which I admitted, was insufficient to render the invitations of the gospel consistent, and should have pointed out wherein the provision for which he pleads has the advantage of it. Mr. T. was reminded of this in my IReply, p. 231 ; but I do not recollect that he has taken any notice of it. I do not see, I confess, but that the parable of the mar- riage-feast, Matt. xxii. 4, 5, is as consistent with my hypothesis as with that of Mr. T., XIII. 134. I never supposed but that all things were ready; or that even those who made light of it, if they had come in God’s way, would have been disappointed. All I suppose is that provision was not made effectually to persuade every one to embrace it; and that, without such effectual per- suasion, no one ever did, or will, embrace God's way of salvation. Mr. T. proceeds to draw some conclusions, which he thinks very unfavourable to my sentiments. “We have no authority,” says he, “on this scheme, to ascribe the limitation to any cause but want of love.” This, he ap- prehends, is highly derogatory to the honour of God, especially as love is his darling attribute, LXIII. 80. But all this reasoning proceeds upon the supposition that God must be accused of want of love to his rebellious creatures, unless he does, for their salvation, all that he could do consistently with justice. Now, let it be observed, Mr. T. sometimes tells us that he does not oppose the doctrine of an absolute determination for the salvation of some of the human race,—XIII. 92. But if he admit this as con- sistent with what he has advanced, then he must admit that God could have actually saved the whole world in the same absolute way, and not have suffered any of the hu- man race to perish ; and all this, too, in consistency with justice. And yet he does not. What then & According to Mr. T., all must be ascribed to want of love. Further, Mr. T., I should think, will not deny that God could have spread the gospel, and that consistently both with his own justice and with man's free agency, all over the earth, and at every period of time since the fall of man; and yet he has not. Yea, before the coming of his Son, he suffered all nations but one, for many ages, to walk in their own ways; this, according to Mr. T.'s reasonings, must all be ascribed to want of love, and so lie as a reproach upon God’s character. * Mr. T.'s own scheme, as well as mine, supposes that God does not do all that for some men which he could, and which is necessary to their salvation. He supposes that if what was done for Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, without effect, had been done for Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom, it would have been effectual,—KIII. 25. And yet this was not done. To what is this to be imputed 3 Surely swim were obliged to remain upon the wreck, though flakes of fire fell on their bodies. Soon the masts went away, and killed numbers. Those who were not killed thought themselves happy to get upon the floating timber. Nor yet were they safe; for the fire having com- municated itself to the guns, which were loaded and shotted, they swept multitudes from this their last refuge. —What say you, sir, to this dismal narrative 2 Does not your heart bleed? Would you have stood by, and denied your succour, if it had been in your power to help? Yet the Lord saw this extreme distress. He heard their piteous moans. He was able to save them, yet withdrew his assistance. Now, because you would gladly have succoured them if you could, and God Almighty could, but would not send them aid; will you, therefore, conclude that you are above your Lord 3 and that your loving-kindness is greater than his? I will not offer to charge any such consequence upon you. I am persuaded you abhor the thought.” —Letters to JMr. Wesley, pp. 288, 289. 248 THE REALITY AND EFFICACY OF DIVINE GRACE: God could have sent the gospel to the one as well as to the other. I see not what cause Mr. T. will find to im- pute this to but what he calls a want of love. But Mr. T. suggests that the conduct of our blessed Sa- viour, according to my scheme, would resemble that of a person who should invite another to an entertainment without a design that he should partake of it, XIII. 84. But if a comparison must be made, ought it not rather to be with a person who sincerely invites his neighbours to a plentiful banquet, and never designed any other but that whoever comes shall be entertained with a hearty wel- come ; but did not design, after all fair means were used, and repeated insults received, to do all that perhaps he could to overcome their pride and prejudice, and so bring them to the entertainment. If this would destroy the sin- cerity of the invitation, so would foreknowledge; and it might as plausibly be objected, How can any being act sin- cerely in inviting men to partake of that which he knows, at the same time, they never will enjoy 3 Mr. T.'s scheme appears to him to have many advantages; particularly, he thinks it is consistent with the general tenor of Scripture, clears the conduct of the Father of mercies from the ap- pearance of cruelty, and leaves the obdurate sinner justly condemned. But admitting, for argument's sake, that the Divine conduct is thereby cleared of the appearance of cruelty, the worst is that this is all. His scheme barely goes to vindicate the Almighty from cruelty. It is justice only ; there is no grace in it : nothing that God had a right to withhold. That which we have hitherto called the grace of the gospel amounts, then, to no more than this : it bestows a benefit upon intelligent creatures, with- out which they could not possibly avoid being everlastingly miserable ; and that upon this consideration, that “they did not bring this misery upon themselves, nor was it ever in their power to avoid it,”—XIII. 82. If the Divine Being will do this, he shall be complimented with the character of benevolent, XIII. 80; but if not, he must be reproached “as not loving, but hating, a great part of his rational offspring.” O Mr. Taylor does any one main- tain that men, considered as the offspring of God, are the objects of his hatred 3 Do not men sustain a more disa- greeable character than this 2 That deists and Socinians should write in this strain is no wonder ; but how came the language of infidelity to escape your pen? Excuse this apostrophe, Utterly as I disapprove of his Arminian tenets, (which, under the plausible pretext of eactending the grace of the gospel, appear to me to enervate if not annihilate it, and to leave little or nothing of GRACE but the name,) I still entertain a high degree of personal respect and esteem for my opponent. LETTER. X. MR. T., in his Ninth Letter, remarks on the evidence I offered for an absolute determination in the death of Christ to save some of the human race. “ This sentiment,” Mr. T. says, “whether true or false, I do not wish to oppose,” —XIII. 92. He would not dispute, it seems, about Christ's dying with a view to the certain salvation of some, provided I would admit that, in another respect, he died Jor all mankind. Here, then, we seem to come nearer together than we sometimes are. The sense in which he pleads for the universal extent of Christ's death is only to lay a foundation for this doctrine, that men, in general, may be saved if they will; and this is what I admit: I allow that the death of Christ has opened a way whereby God can, consistently with his justice, forgive any sinner whatever who returns to him by Jesus Christ; and if this may be called dying for men, which I shall not dispute, then it is admitted that Christ died for all mankind. But I say, they will not come to Christ for life; and that if Christ had died for no other end than to give them this offer, not one of them would have accepted it. I hold as much as Mr. T. holds to any good purpose. I admit of a way being opened for the salvation of sinners without distinction ; and, what is more, that an effectual . provision is made in the death of Christ that that way shall not be wrvoccupied ; that he shall see of the travail of his soul, and be satisfied. Without this provision, I suppose, no one would ever have been saved; and the tendency of my reasoning is to prove that all who are saved are saved in consequence of it. Mr. T., I observe, is not disposed to controvert the doc- trine of eternal, personal, and unconditional election,-- XIII. 100. I am allowed, therefore, to take that doctrine, together with a special design in the death of Christ for the salvation of the elect, for granted. “This sentiment,” Mr. T. says, “whether true or false, he does not wish to oppose.” If any thing is necessary to be proved, in this place, it is that NoNE but those whose salvation Christ ab- solutely designed in his death are eventually saved; or, in other words, that whoever are saved are indebted to sove- reign and efficacious grace for their salvation. Now, let the reader turn to my Reply to Philanthropos, p. 225, and he will perceive that several of those scriptures which prove the doctrine of election prove also that none else are finally saved. The apostles addressed all the believing Ephesians, Thessalonians, &c. as having been “ chosen in Christ” before the foundation of the world, that they should be holy; as “chosen to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth ;” as “elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience;” as being “saved and called with a holy calling, not according to their works, but according to God’s own purpose and grace, given them in Christ before the world began.” But if some were saved in consequence of such a purpose in their favour, and oth ERS without it, the apostles had no just ground to write as they did, concerning them all, without distinction. When we are told that “as many as were ordained to eternal life believed,” this implies, as strongly as any thing can imply, that no more believed, and were saved, than such as were ordained to eternal life. Christ returned thanks to his Father that he had “hid these things from the wise and prudent, and revealed them unto babes. Even so Father,” said he, “for so it seemed good in thy sight.” And again, we are assured by the apostle Paul, “The election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.” To the above passages I shall add only one more : 1 Cor. i. 26–29, “Ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called; but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things that are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: that no flesh should glory in his presence.” The reasoning of the apos- tle, in this passage, plainly supposes the following things: —1. That there is a special and effectual vocation, which is peculiar to all Christians. The common call of the gos- pel extends alike to rich and poor, wise and foolish, noble and ignoble ; but the effectual operations of the Holy Spi- rit do not : it is the latter, therefore, and not the former, which is here meant. 2. That this vocation, common to all true Christians, corresponds, as to the objects of it, with election. The same persons, and all of them, said to be called, are, in the same passage, said to be chosen , which agrees with the same apostle's account of the matter, in Rom. viii. 30, “Whom he did predestinate, them he also called.” 3. Vocation not only corresponds with election as to the objects of it, but is itself an effect of it. The reason given why the foolish, weak, and despised ones of the world were called, rather than others, is God’s sove- reign choice of them before others. Some might have sup- posed, if the apostle had not been so particular in his ex- pressions, that the minds of the weak and illiterate, though under a disadvantage in one respect, yet possessed an ad- vantage in another, in that they were more free from prejudice; and that Paul had meant to ascribe their em- bracing Christ before others to the unprejudiced state of their minds; but such a supposition is entirely precluded by the apostle's language. He does not say the weak and foolish have chosen God, but God hath chosen them ; nor would the other mode of expression have corresponded THE REALITY AND EFFICACY OF DIVINE GRACE. 249 with the end assigned, to prove that “no flesh shall glory in his presence.” * Many worthy men, who have maintained the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination, have at the same time admitted that Christ might be said, in some sense, to have died for the whole world. They distinguished between the suff- ciency and efficiency of his death; and considered the in- definite language of the New Testament, relative to that subject, as expressing the former of these ideas. Thus the English Reformers, who composed the Thirty-nine Articles, appear to have viewed the subject. They fully avowed the doctrine of predestimation, and at the same time spoke of Christ's dying for all mankind. Mr. T. on this ground affirms that “the doctrine of the universality of our Sa- viour's death both is, and ever since the Reformation has been, the doctrine of the Established Church,”—XIII. 141. I believe, in the sense above mentioned, it has been so ; and if this was all that Mr. T. pleaded for, he might de- bate the point with whomsoever he pleased, I should not interest myself in the dispute. But the views of Cranmer, Latimer, Hooper, Usher, and Davenant, were very differ- ent from those of Mr. Taylor. They, as well as Fraser of Scotland and Bellamy of New England, and many other anti-episcopalian divines who have agreed with them in this point, never imagined that any besides the elect would finally be saved. And they considered the salvation of all that are saved as the effect of predestinating grace, as their works abundantly testify. Mr. T. may say, The question is, not whether more than those whose salvation is absolutely determined will be eventually saved, but whether they might be. “If,” says he, “any such election be maintained as supposes that all the rest of mankind never enjoyed the possibility of hap- piness, nor had any provision of happiness made for them, but were necessarily, either from eternity or from their birth, exposed to eternal misery, such election as this I de- liberately consider as opposite to the spirit and design of the gospel, and to the tenor of Scripture,”—XIII. 100. To this it is replied, All such terms as necessary, cannot, im- possible, &c., when applied to these subjects, are used im- properly. They always denote, in strict propriety of speech, an obstruction arising from something distinct from the state of the will. Such terms, in their common acceptation, swppose a wellingness in us to perform an action, or obtain an end, but that we are hindered by some insurmountable bar from without. Such an idea is always annexed to the use of such terms; and Mr. T. certainly has this idea in his use of the terms necessary and impos- sible, in this place. His meaning is to oppose that doc- trine which represents a part of mankind as placed in such circumstances, as that, though they should be willing to embrace Christ, or at least willing to use means that they may be willing to embrace him, yet it would be all in vain. But such a doctrine nobody maintains; at least, I had no such ideas of the subject. I have no such notion of election, or of the limited extent of Christ's death, as that it shall be in vain for any of the sons of men truly to seek after God. If they are willing to be saved in God's way, nothing shall hinder their salvation; and (if there were any meaning in the expression) if they were but truly willing to use means that they might be willing, all would be clear before them. Now, where this is the case, it cannot be said, in strict propriety of speech, that no pro- vision is made for their happiness, or that any man's sal- vation is impossible, or his destruction necessary; seeing the way of salvation is open to him, if he will but walk in it. All that can be said in truth is that there is a cer- TAINTY in these things. It is certain that mone will be saved but those who choose to be saved in God's way. It is certain that no one will choose that which is opposite to the prevailing bias of his heart. Yea, it is certain that, whatever means there may be adapted to the turning of his heart, a man who is wholly averse from God will never make use of them with such a design. To make use of a means, with a view to accomplish an end, must imply the * Though Mr. T. talks of men as having “no will nor power to be- lieve in Christ, nor any concern in the matter,” prior to the Spirit's work, (XIII. 23,) yet that is what I have never affirmed. On the con- trary, I maintain that men have the same power, strictly speaking, before they are wrought upon by the Holy Spirit, as after; and before R # existence of a desire after such end ; but a desire after this end exists not till the end is accomplished. A desire after a change of heart is, in some degree, the very thing de- sired. Besides, if, as Mr. T. says, “men have no will nor power, nor any concern about the matter” of believing in Christ, “till the Holy Spirit work, awaken, and produce these in his mind,” (XIII. 23,) then it is certain, even from his own premises, that no sinner ever sincerely ap- plied to God for grace before he had it, unless he could be supposed so to apply without will, or power, or any con- cern about it. These things, I say, are certain, according to the nature and constitution of all intelligent beings; and there are other things equally certain, as consequences of them, which are confirmed by Scripture testimony. It is certain that none are willing to be saved in God’s way but those who are made willing in the day of his power; it is certain that whenever God makes a sinner willing in the day of his power, he is only working things after the counsel of his own will, executing his own eternal purpose; and hence it is certain that such, and only such, will eventually be saved. If Mr. T. objects against the certainty of any man's de- struction, and will have it that this amounts to the same thing as necessity and impossibility; let him consider, that as he admits the doctrine of Divine foreknowledge, he must allow, therefore, that God certainly foreknew the final state of every man. But certain foreknowledge must im- ply a certainty of the event foreknown. If an event is certainly foreknown, the future existence of that event must be certain. If there was an uncertainty respecting the future existence of an event, there must, in the nature of things, be an equal degree of uncertainty in the fore- knowledge of that event. Certain foreknowledge, there- fore, implies a certainty of the event foreknown. But foreknowledge, it is alleged, has no causal influence upon the thing foreknown, XIII. 108. Be it so ; neither has any purpose in God, that I embrace, any influence to- wards a sinner's destruction, except in a way of punish- ment for his sin. The scheme which Mr. T. opposes, so far from representing man as “for ever unable to improve one single mercy of God to any good purpose,” represents him as not only possessing great advantages, but as able to comply with every thing that God requires at his hand; and that all his misery arises from his “voluntary’’ abuse of mercy, and his wilful rebellion against God. It is not a want of ability, but of inclination, that proves his ruin.* If Mr. T. had kept these things in view, (which, surely, he ought to have done,) he could not have represented my sentiments in such a light as he has done,—XIII. 106, 108. LETTER XI. MR. TAYLOR often speaks of the language of Scripture, as if its whole current was in his favour, as if his opponent was engaged in a controversy in which he had forsaken the word of God. Now suppose it were allowed that the language of several passages of Scripture, taken in their most literal and plain meaning, proves Christ, in some sense, to have died for all mankind ; still, if we will give fair scope to other parts of Scripture, it appears evi- dent that, in some sense, he died for only a part of man- kind. Several of these passages I had produced ; to which Mr. T. has said scarcely any thing that deserves being called an answer. When I argued from Christ's being said to “lay down his life for his sheep”—“to give himself for his church, that he might sanctify it,” &c. &c., could Mr. T. think it sufficient to say, “We are no where informed that he died for those only ; this is no proof that he did not die for all mankind ; it is certain that, if Christ died for all, he died for these, because the greater number includes the less, conversion as after; that the work of the Spirit endows us with no new rational powers, nor any powers that are necessary to moral agency; and that, so far from our having “no concern in the matter,” we . all deeply concerned in rejecting Christ, and the way of salvation y him. 250 THE REALITY AND EFFICACY ()F DIVINE GRACE. and the whole includes its parts?” + Did not I argue, particularly from Eph. v. 25, 26, that the death of Christ is there represented as the result of his love to the church, in the character of a husband, and which must, therefore, be discriminating ;-that the church could not here mean actual believers, because they are considered as unsancti. fied; he died that he might sanctify them ;—that Christ did not die for believers as such ;-he laid down his life for his enemies;–that, therefore, it must mean all the elect of God—all those that are finally saved ? And has Mr. T. answered this reasoning 3 No, nor attempted it. If, as he often suggests, my cause has so very slender a share of Scriptural evidence to support it, is it not a pity but he had given a fair answer to those scriptures which were adduced ? I argued, further, from Christ’s dying in the character of a surety, that he might “bring many sons unto glory;” might “gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad,” &c. Mr. T.’s answer to this ar- gument is exceedingly trifling and unfair. I did not “take for granted” that Christ absolutely intended the salvation of all for whom he died, but brought the argu- ment which he quotes in order to prove it. Nor did I rest my argument from the passages of Scripture there cited upon my “apprehensions,” but upon the Scriptures themselves, which surely prove none the less for being in- troduced in that form. Mr. T.’s remark upon the Jewish sacrifices (XIII. 94) shows an uncommon inattention to the argument. I observed, by way of introduction, that “sacrifices were offered on account of those, and those only, on whose behalf they were sanctifted, or set apart; that every sacrifice had its special appointment, and was suppose to atone for the sins of those, and those only, on whose behalf it was offered.” All this, I supposed, would be granted by Mr. T. These observations were my data. I then proceeded to apply this reasoning, and to prove who those were for whom Christ was sanctified, or set apart, as a sacrifice. For this purpose I quoted John xvii. 19, “For their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified through the truth:”—they who were given him of the Father. But Mr. T., instead of answering this argument, never looks at it ; but takes up a part of my premises, without touching upon the conclusion, and then charges me with “reasoning in a circle !” Consider- ing Mr.T.’s abilities and experience in polemical divinity, is it not astonishing that things so indigested should pro- ceed from his pen? I further argued from the certain effects of Christ's death extending not to all mankind, particularly the effect of redemption. Mr.T.’s answer to this argument is abund- antly more worthy of notice than his answers to those that went before, XIII. 95. Nor shall I urge it upon him, that his denial of general redemption, while he pleads for the wºn?versal extent of Christ's death, indicates an idea of redemption as novel and unprecedented as my interpret- ation of the term propitiation, which he endeavours to explode on account of its peculiarity,+XIII. 115, 116. Yet, after all, there is great reason from the context to conclude that what is spoken in Gal. iii. 13, of Christ's having “redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us,” respects what was effected by the blood of Christ alone, when upon the cross, antecedently to our believing in him. When the apostle speaks of re- demption, he says, he “hath redeemed us, being made a curse for us.” When he speaks of blessings resulting from his death, but which do not take place before be. lieving, he immediately changes his manner of speaking, as in verse 14, “That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might re- ceive the promise of the Spirit through faith.” We are also said to be “justified through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,” Rom. iii. 24. But would it not be mak- ing the apostle speak very awkwardly to understand re- demption, not of what was obtained by the death of Christ * XIII. 93. “Go, preach the gospel,” said Christ, “to every crea- ture; he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” Bélievers only, say the Baptists, you see, are to be baptized.—No, say others, this is no proof that believers only are to be baptized. It might be the design of Christ that they should baptize all the world, for aught this passage proves. It is certain, if all are to be baptized, belierers are, because the greater number always includes the less, and the alone, but of what has its existence through faith. Can Mr. T. suppose that the apostle meant to say, We are justified through the forgiveness of sins 2 I argued, further, from Christ's bearing the sins of many; particularly from Isa. liii. 12; and I supposed the meaning of the term many, in verse 12, might be decided by its meaning in verse 11. “There is no reason,” I observed, “that I know of, to be given, why the many whose sins he bore should be understood of any other persons than the many who by his knowledge are justifted, and who are not all mankind.” To this Mr. T., among other things, replies, “I do not know, is no argument at all. This may be said on any subject. If the truth lie on the side of Mr. F. he must show us that he does know, and how he knows it, by fair and allowed rules of interpretation,”— XIII. 97. This, to be sure, is talking in a high strain; but to what purpose ? I should have thought explaining a term according to its allowed meaning in the context, eaccept some good reason could be given for the contrary, was a fair and allowed rule of interpretation. Again, I argued from the intercession of Christ, in John xvii. 9, “I pray for them, I pray not for the world,” &c., which, like that of the priests under the law, was in be- half of the same persons for whom the oblation was of. fered. Mr. T. here, as usual, calls out for more proof, without attending to what is given,_XIII. 99. He ques- tions two things : first, whether this prayer is to be con- sidered as a specimen of Christ's intercession, which he seems to consider as confined to heaven ; he means, I suppose, to his state of exaltation. But is not his prayer upon the cross expressly called, in prophecy, making “in- tercession for the transgressors ?” Isa, liii. 12. But, fur- ther, he calls for proof that the death and intercession of Christ are of equal extent, XIII. 99. The intercession of the priests under the law, being on the behalf of the same persons on whose account they offered the oblation, was mentioned. Whether this be a sufficient ground to rest the argument upon, or not, one should think it has some weight in it; but of this Mr. T. takes no notice. Finally, I argued from Rev. v. 9; xiv. 3, 4, where Christians are said to be redeemed, or bought, from among men, which should seem to imply that all men are not redeemed, or bought. Mr. T. here goes about to refute some things upon which I built nothing,-XIII. 101, 102. Whether the four living creatures, and the four-and-twenty elders, represent the church militant or the church tri- umphant, or whether the persons in question represent the whole church triumphant, or only a part of it, are matters that signify but little, if any thing, to the point in hand. If the whole or a part of the church triumphant were bought, or “redeemed by blood, from amongst men,” that is sufficient. Mr. T. deals plentifully, I observe, in such language as, if I had used it, he would have held up in italics to great advantage; such as “I do not remember— I think—and I think.” I do not mention this as improper language : I only mean to remind him that he should not have been so severe upon me for using the same. As to what he has said upon this passage, I think, upon the whole, it is as forcible as any thing that can be said on his side the question ; though it is certain that the natural meaning of the word hºopáo.6morav, they were Bought, and its only meaning, that I recollect, in the New Testa- ment, must be utterly cashiered, and I apprehend the natural meaning of the whole passage greatly forced, to admit of his interpretation. P. S. I do not recollect that the whole world, or all, or all men, are ever said to be purchased, or bought, or re- deemed by the blood of Christ; or that we ever read of Christ's redeeming, buying, or purchasing any but his church. Mr. T. does not pretend that all mankind are oredeemed ; but I think, if we take our notions from the New Testament, it is evident that buying or purchasing, when applied to what Christ has done for us, is as much whole includes its parts. What would Mr. T., as a Baptist, say to this reasoning? It is exactly the same as his own. This very answer I made to Mr. T. before, when he called out for eacpress testimony for what I supposed to be a negative truth; which answer, I presume, he totally misunderstood; otherwise, he could not have given a reply so foreign to the argument, THE REALITY AND EFFICACY OF DIVINE GRACE. 25] confined to the church as redemption. 'Ayopéga, and trepitrotéw, which are used to express the ideas of buying, purchasing, or acquiring by price, are applied to the church of God only; as well as Avtpéopat, to redeem, Luke xxiv. 21; Tit. ii. 14; and Aūtpov, a ransom, Matt. xx. 28; Mark x. 45. In 1 Tim. ii. 6, Christ is said to give himself a ransom for all, &vríAvrrpov Útrép arávrov ; but that will be considered in the next Letter. It is said of the church of God that he purchased it with his own blood; Treotetrotº- oraro Ště, roi, iëtov aluatos, Acts xx. 28. The final deliver- ance of the whole collective body of the saved, from all remains of natural and moral evil, is called &ToMárpalats ºrms treptºroliforews, the redemption of the purchased posses- ston, or of the people acquired, or purchased, Eph. i. 14. On which Calvin remarks, IIeptºroimats, quam latine verti- mus acquisitam hareditatem, non est regnum coelorum, aut beata immortalitas, sed ipsa ecclesia. * Thus, in 1 Pet. ii. 9, they are styled, Aads sis treputroimatv, a people acquired, or purchased to himself in a peculiar manner; or a people for a peculiar possession. Paul says, 1 Thess. v. 9, “God hath not appointed us to wrath ; but to the Treptºroimaruv gotmpias, obtaining, or acquiring, of salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, that we should live with him.” And 2 Thess. ii. 13, 14, he says, “Beloved of the Lord, God hath from the beginning chosen you to salva- tion, through sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth : , whereunto he called you by our gospel, unto Treptºroimoruv 66%ms, the obtaining, or acquisition, of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Let the impartial judge if these passages do not strongly favour the peculiarity of design in Christ's death. And thus it is said of Christians, Tulafis hyopáo.6mte, ye are bought with a price, 1 Cor. vi. 20; vii. 23. If 2 Pet. ii. 1 should be alleged as an objection, I hope I have given a sufficient reason why that passage is not to be understood of the Saviour's blood, but of God’s deliver- ance in a way of providence, p. 228. It is such a reason, at least, as Mr. T. has not attempted to answer. LETTER XII. MR. T., in his Nine Letters, offered arguments for the universal extent of Christ's death. He argued from the goodness of God over all his works, and from various pas- 'sages of Scripture which speak of the death of Christ in indefinite language. The principal of these passages and arguments I have considered in my Reply. Mr. T., in the Eleventh Letter of his last publication, defends his former arguments. Before I enter on a discussion of particulars, I would observe, that although Mr. T. pleads for the universal ex- tent of Christ's death, yet he pleads for it in no other sense than as laying a foundation for sinners, without distinc- tion, being invited to return home to God by Jesus Christ, with the promise of forgiveness and acceptance on their return. He does not pretend that there is provision made by the death of Christ for the certain salvation of all men. Now the thing itself for which he pleads is no more than I have admitted. It is true I have supposed that this be- ing done for men in general cannot with propriety be called dying for them. At the same time, I have allowed that “many considerable writers, who are far from denying that the salvation of all the saved is owing to an absolute, and consequently limited, design in the death of Christ, have supposed that it might; and that the indefinite lan- guage of Scripture, concerning the death of Christ, is in- tended to convey to us this idea.” The thing itself I do not controvert; only it appeared to me that the terms *ansom, propitiation, dying for us, &c. were intended to convey something more than this, and what is true only of the finally saved. Now, admitting that I am mistaken in my supposition—admitting that the terms propitiation, *ansom, &c. are applicable to mankind in general, and are designed to express that there is a way opened for sinners, without distinction, to return home to God, and be saved .* [Ispºrotnots, which we render the purchased possession, is not the kingdom of heaven, or a blessed immortality, but the church itself, —nothing follows from it but that I have misunderstood certain passages of Scripture, by considering them as con- veying an indefinite, but not a universal idea. In regard to the sentiment itself, I do not see that Mr. T. pleads for more than I have admitted, except in one instance : we agree that a way is opened, by the death of Christ, for the salvation of sinners, without distinction ; and that any man may be saved, if he is willing to come to Christ, that he may have life. Here I stop ; but Mr. T. goes a step farther, and maintains that such a provision of grace is made by the death of Christ that all men have power to be willing if they will; but of this, I am satisfied, no meaning can be made. g I now proceed to particulars, by observing, that whether my sense of the passages of Scripture adduced by Mr. T. be just or not, it does not appear to me that he has invali- dated it. He argues in general from Psal. cxlv. 9, “His tender mercies are over all his works.” I answered that the death of Christ was not the criterion of God’s good- ness; that fallen angels were a part of God’s works as well as fallen men. Mr. T. replies by observing that fallen angels were not here intended,—XIII. 106. Then it seems Mr. T. can sometimes discern a restriction in the word all, though a universal term. Perhaps it may be sufficient to observe, that whether the phrase all his works intends all fallen angels or not, it intends more than that part of God's works for which Christ died. Is it not evident from the context that it denotes God’s providential goodness to- wards the whole animate creation ? Is it not said of them, in verse 16, that “ their eyes wait on him ; he openeth his hand, and satisfieth the desire of every living thing?” But Mr. T. contends that “ there is no goodness, no mercy, no tender mercy, exercised towards a person who is placed in such a situation that he could not avoid sinning and being damned, and whose damnation is necessarily increased by calls and commands to repent, and believe in Christ; when the great God, whose commands these are, has provided no mercy for him, nor intends to give him the least assistance, though he knows the poor sinner can- not, nor ever possibly could, obey these calls and com- mands, any more than he can fly to the moon,”—XIII. 106. To this shocking representation I have only to say, This is not my hypothesis, nor any thing like it; and if Mr. T. thinks it is, it is time to give over controverting the matter with him. The whole passage is mere declam- ation, founded on the abuse of the terms cannot, could not, &c. If, instead of “cannot, and never could,” he had said will not, and never would, his account of the poor sin- ner's case would not have appeared so plausible; and yet this he knows is the whole of our meaning. “Yes, but if they could never will to comply,” says Mr. T., “that amounts to the same thing,” (XIII. 57;) that is, unless they have the power of being willing, if they will 1 Of this I shall only say, that when Mr. T. can make sense of it, it will be time enough to answer it. What follows has much more of argument in it. “If the tender mercies of God are over all his works, and if no man can enjoy any mercy but through Jesus Christ, is it not a natural and reasonable conclusion that God has given his Son to die for all mankind?”—XIII. 105. I must observe however, by the way, that “if no man can enjoy any mercy but through Jesus Christ,” I cannot but con- sider this as a full proof that the whole race were unwor- thy of all mercy, and that God might consistently with his justice and essential goodness have withheld it from them, and treated them as worthy of death ; for I have no idea that God needed the death of his Son to induce him to do that the omission of which would have exposed him to the charge of cruelty. If Mr. T. had always remembered this consideration, (which I think he cannot controvert,) it would have induced him to expunge a great deal of de- clamation in his letters. Having noted this, I confess I think that much mercy is exercised towards men in general through Jesus Christ; and, consequently, that his death was productive of effects which terminate on all. Nor do I question whether the opening of a way for the salvation of all who shall come unto God by him, and for men with- out distinction to be invited thus to come, is owing to the death of Christ ; and if this can be called dying for all | mankind, I should admit without hesitation that he died 252 THE REALITY AND EFFICACY OF DIVINE GRACE. for all. All I contend for is that Christ, in his death, ab- solutely designed the salvation of all those who are finally saved; and that, besides the objects of such absolute de- sign, such is the universal depravity of human nature, not one soul will ever believe and be saved. I am surprised at Mr. T.’s manner of treating the argu- ment drawn from the objections that might be urged by a denier of God’s foreknowledge, asking whether I would seriously avow them,-XIII. 107. One would think he need not be told that I seriously disapprove of that mode of reasoning as well as of his, and only meant through that to show the tendency of his own. Such a way of arguing is fair and upright, and is used by writers of every descrip- tion ; it therefore ought not to have been called a finesse. Mr. T. in what he has said on this subject, as in many other places, gives sufficient proof of two things. 1. That he is combating a scheme which his opponent does not hold. 2. That to reason with him upon such terms as cannot, wrable, or unavoidable, and the like, is to no pur- pose ; for that he either cannot, or will not, understand our ideas concerning them. Mr. T. now enters on a defence of his arguments from the terms all men, world, whole world, &c.,-XIII. 110. I apprehend that to understand these terms as denoting men wniversally was contrary to other scriptures—to the scope of the inspired writers in the places where those expressions are found—and involved in it various absurdities. Mr. T. wishes I had given some instances of these contradictions and absurdities. This I certainly attempted in a great deal of what followed; but Mr. T. has never yet fairly refuted my remarks. I pass over some less important matters, and observe what is advanced from 1 Tim. ii. 6, “He gave himself a ransom for all.” Mr. T. here complains that I have not answered his reason for understanding the term all uni- versally ; and I might as well complain of him for his not considering my reasons for understanding it otherwise. I remember that he had argued (IX. 79) from the use of the term all in the context, and the cogency of the apos- tle's argument, “Pray for all, because Christ died for all.” I cannot but think, with Mr. Robinson, that “this passage ought not to be urged in the Arminian controversy; for a part of this period fixes the sense to ranks or degrees of men. Pray for kings and for all that are in authority. The meaning then is, pray for all ranks and degrees of men ; for God will save some of all orders. Christ gave himself a ransom for persons of all degrees.”* The argu- ments I had advanced in my Reply, p. 227, to prove that this passage could not be understood of men universally, he has not answered, but runs off into a declamation concern- ing the secret and revealed will of God, the substance of which I had endeavoured to obviate in my Reply, p. 230, note. Little more I think need be said on 1 John ii. 1. What each of us has advanced upon it is before the public. My sense of the passage, which Mr. T. calls “a strange no- tion,” (XIII. 15,) surely is not more strange or singular than his notion of redemption. He must produce some better proof for another sense of the passage than “appeal- ing to the understanding and conscience of his friend.”f It is wonderful that Mr. T. should plead for the uni- versal spread of the gospel in the times of the apostles, and for the faith of the Romans being celebrated in all parts, XIII. 116. In all parts of the Roman empire it might, and in some other nations; but can any man persuade himself that it was spoken of at Mexico or Otaheite 3 Mr. T. thinks that the whole earth (Isa. liv. 5) is to be understood universally, and that God is there called the God of the whole earth as a creator, supporter, and judge, in distinction from the tender character of a husband. But as he is called both the Maker and the Husband of the church there addressed, so it seems very evident he is de- scribed towards the whole earth. He who had heretofore been called “the Holy One of Israel” shall now be called “the God of the whole earth.” See Henry's Exposition. * Notes upon Claude, Vol. II. pp. 269,270. + It may not be inexpedient to inform some readers that Mr. T.’s Jeffers were written to an old and intimate friend of his own, who en- tirely agrees with him in sentiment, and at whose request Mr. T. first commenced this controversy; though, as that gentleman had The term whole, in Matt. xiii. 33, undoubtedly is to be understood restrictively; for though the gospel will spread over all nations before the end of the world, yet not so as to renew every individual in them, much less every indi- vidual that has existed at every period, XIII. 117. Mr. T. is astonished to find me asserting that he him- self does not understand the terms whole world, in 1 John ii. 2, and the same terms in chap. v. 19, in the same sense, seeing he has declared the contrary, XIII. 118. Perhaps I had better have said, Mr. T. cannot, woon due consider- ation, understand those terms as parallel, seeing he con- siders them in the former as meaning all the individuals in the world that ever did or shall eacist, except the persons from whom they are there distinguished; whereas he can- not pretend that the latter mean any more than the world of ungodly men who at that time eacisted. Another passage that has been considered by both of us is 2 Cor. v. 15, “If one died for all, then were all dead,” &c., XIII. 118. Mr. T. here complains, as he does in other places, of my not drawing my conclusions in form. I thought the conclusions I meant to draw were obvious to every attentive reader, and omitted drawing them out at length for the sake of brevity. I observed, 1. That the context speaks of the Gentiles, as well as the Jews, being interested in Christ. I supposed, therefore, it might be understood of men of all nations, in distinction from its being confined to the Jews. 2. That the apostle meant to affirm, not that Christ died for all that were dead, but that all were dead for whom Christ died. In proof of this, I argued from the apostle's describing the terrors of Divine vengeance to which they were sub- ject; and from the phraseology of verse 14, “If one died for all, then were they all dead.” For this Mr. T. has corrected me, charging me with misquoting the Scripture. The words of the apostle are, 3rt si sis Üarêp Trávºrov &Tré- 6avev, &pa oi Trávºres &Tré0avoy. Not having had those ad- vantages for literary improvement which I should have been glad to enjoy, I was not forward, by a formal crii'- cism, to tell my readers that I had acquired some small acquaintance with the original language, so as to be able to judge of the propriety of a translation ; but I knew that the article oi, here used, has been thought by very com- petent judges; to be anaphorical or relative, and that the passage should be read, “if one for all died, then they all, or those all, were dead.” Nothing can be more exact than this translation, unless Mr. T. would insist on having oi arávres &mé0avov rendered THE all were dead; and then he must equally complain of our common translators, for rendering oi Kºvres in the next verse, they who live, instead of THE living. But would not Mr. T. be ashamed to in- sinuate on this account, to “the inattentive reader,” that they have “interlined and abused ” the original language of Scripture ? I am so well assured of Mr. T.’s learning, that I am hardly able to consider his “hope” that I quoted the passage wrong “through mistake ’’ as any other than “a finesse.” 3. I observed, on the distributive they who, that my hypothesis, though it supposes that all for whom Christ died shall finally live, yet does not suppose that they all live at present. Here, I think, Mr. T. certainly misunderstands me. His original argument is this : by the language of the text it appears that Christ died for more than actually live. My answer is, that, upon my hypo- thesis, Christ died for more than actually live at any period of time; part of them being, at every period, in a state of unregeneracy. I have gone over the passages in debate between us merely to prove that, whether my sense of those passages be just or not, Mr. T. has not invalidated it. At the same time, I cannot forbear repeating that, even allowing Mr. T. to have proved the universal extent of Christ's death in the most forcible manner, he has not proved that any thing more is done, towards the salvation of men in gene- ral, than what I admit, or that renders the salvation of one individual more probable. I have all along supposed that there is that done for them by Christ which renders their some slight acquaintance with Mr. Fuller, Mr. T. all along speaks to him of Mr. F. as the friend of his correspondent.—R. + Beza, Piscator, and Gill. See Gill's Cause of God and Truth, Part I. No. XXXIX. THE REALITY AND EFFICACY OF DIVINE GRACE. 253 salvation no otherwise impossible, nor their destruction wnavoidable, than as it is rendered so by their own temper of mind : no other obstacle could prevent their believing to the saving of their soul but an evil heart, obstinately persisting in its departure from the living God. Mr. T. sums up his evidence on this subject in five topics of argument.—The silence of Scripture on the limited extent of Christ's death ; the willingness of the blessed God that all should turn, and live; those who are not saved being more miserable than if Christ had not died ; the unlimited expressions used concerning the death of Christ; and such passages as distinguish between those for whom he died and those who are finally saved,—XIII. 120. With regard to the first, the Bible is not silent concern- ing a special design in the death of Christ, as in all the other works of God, in behalf of all who are finally saved. I hope this has been proved in Letters X, and XI., and in my Reply, pp. 22.4—226. It is true there are no such express words that I know of in the Bible; but if the idea is there conveyed, that is sufficient. Mr. T. says, indeed, that “if a doctrine is not mentioned in Scripture, there is good reason to believe that doctrine is not true ; that we admit this on all other subjects, and ought to ad- mit it on this.” But so far is this from being fact, that we never find express mention of a Divine providence, and yet we all allow the Scripture to be full of it. Reasoning from positive institutions to doctrines, as Mr. T. has done, (XIII. 109,) is very unfair. Mr. T.'s second topic of argument is taken from the universality of Divine love to man, and the willingness of the blessed God that all should turn and live. It is admitted that God’s love to man is in one sense universal. He bears good-will towards them, as the work of his hands; but it does not follow thence that he must do all that he could do for their salvation. If God loves all mankind, he must have loved the inhabitants of Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom, as well as those of Chorazin and Beth- saida ; but though, as Mr. T. thinks, (XIII. 25,) if the same things which were done for the latter without effect had been done for the former, they would have been ef- fectual, yet they were not done. As to God's willingness that all should turn and live, God’s will, as has been ob- served, sometimes expresses what he approves, and some- times what he purposes, p. 230, note. God wills, ap- proves, and desires a sinner's turning unto him. It is that which, through the whole Bible, is required of him ; and whosoever thus returns shall live. I may add, God is willing to receive and forgive every sinner that returns to him through Jesus Christ. He desireth not the death of a sinner, but rather that he would repent and live. But he has not purposed the salvation of every sinner, or to incline his heart to embrace the salvation exhibited in the gospel. In this sense, the salvation of some is neither desired nor designed : if it were, it would be effected; for “his counsel shall stand, and he will do all his pleasure.” —“Whatsoever his soul desireth, even that he doeth,” Isa. xlvi. 10; Job xxiii. 13. “But can God,” says Mr. T., “will that which he knows to be impossible 2 which never was possible 2 which mone could make possible, be- sides himself? which he was never willing to make pos- sible 3—XIII. 120. If, by impossible, Mr. T. means that which is naturally impossible, it is granted he cannot. But that he wills what is morally impossible, Mr. T. him- self must allow. God wills that Christians should be holy, as he himself is holy ; and that in the present life, or he would not have enjoined it upon them, 1 Pet, iv. 16; Matt. v. 48. But Mr. T. does not pretend that this is possible, even by the assistance of Divine grace,—XIII. 61. Mr. T.'s third topic of argument is thus expressed :— “All who are not saved will be more miserable than if Christ had never died for sinners. If Christ did not die for them, they cannot, nor ever could, possibly avoid this. This cannot be reconciled to the Scripture account of Di- vine justice and goodness,”—XIII. 120. Answer, 1. This can only be said of those who have heard the gospel and Tejected it, and not of “all who are not saved,” that they will be more miserable than if Christ had never died. Supposing this argument, therefore, to be valid, it will not prove that Christ, in laying down his life, designed the salvation of all men universally, but merely of those to whom the gospel is exhibited. 2. It is no way inconsist- ent with the justice or goodness of God to suffer good to be the occasion of evil. The gospel was preached to the unbelieving Jews, even after it was said of them, “Hear- ing they shall hear, and not understand; and seeing they shall see, and not perceive ;” and became the occasion of much sin and misery, Matt. xiii. 14. “But they might have embraced the gospel when it was first preached to them if they would.” True: and at last too ; or it had been absurd to have preached it to them. There was no- thing that hindered their believing, first or last, but their own wicked hearts. On that account they could not be- lieve, John xii. 39. Yet Christ, at the very time this was declared, exhorted them, while they had light, to “believe in the light, that they might be the children of light” (ver. 36); and their contempt of his counsel aggravated their misery. Mr. T.'s fourth topic of argument is taken from the “expressions of Scripture, where the extent of Christ's death is directly mentioned, being all universal and un- limited.” Something has been said, in the Reply to Phi- lanthropos, p. 227, which accounts for these indefinite modes of speech ; something, too, which Mr. T. I think has not sufficiently answered. But suppose it were al- lowed, as has been said “before, that the language of Scripture, taken in its most literal and plain meaning, proves Christ, in some sense, to have died for all mankind; still, if we will give fair scope to other parts of Scripture, it is evident that, in some sense, he died only for a part.” These scriptures have been considered in Letter X., and in the Reply to Philanthropos, p. 22.4—226. Lastly, Mr. T. observes that “several passages evidently distinguish between those for whom Christ died and those who will be finally saved,”—XIII. 121. The passages to which he refers are John iii. 16, “God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believ- eth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life;” and Matt. xxii. 1–11, concerning the marriage-feast, and provision being made for those who did not come ; with John vi. 32, “My Father giveth you the true bread from heaven ; ” which, as he observes, was spoken to the Jews in general without restriction,-IX. 83. These passages prove that there is that in the death of Christ which lays a foundation for any sinner to apply to God in his name ; and that with an assurance of success. But this is no more than I have admitted. In the invi- tations of the gospel being general we are both agreed; and also in a provision of pardon and acceptance on be- half of all who believe ; and that, therefore, there is no impossibility in the way of men's salvation but what con- sists in the temper of their own minds. But this does not disprove either the reality or necessity of an effectual pro- vision of grace in behalf of all who are finally saved. I conclude this letter by recommending Mr. T. to con- sider whether his scheme is not inconsistent with fact. If I understand him, he supposes that “final misery’” comes not upon any of the sons of men “by their original depravity, nor by their transgression of the law, but by their rejection of the overtures of mercy.” Hence he sup- poses that “all who are not saved will be more miserable than if Christ had not died for sinners,”—IX. 86; XIII. 120. Though the above expression might be considered as meant only of those sinners who hear the gospel, yet his subsequent reasonings indicate that he viewed it as ap- plicable to all mankind. He speaks all along as if our Saviour had not only died for the whole world, but as if the whole world had heard the gospel, and as if none could perish, consistently with the justice and goodness of God, but for their rejection of it. Thus he goes on, bearing all down before him: “If Christ died for all, these reasons for their final condemnation and misery are all perfectly clear and easy, because the provision being made for them, (that is, for all,) AND ExhibiTED TO THEM, (that is, to all,) they could not perish, unless by rejection of that provision. Difficulty and inconsistency is all removed,”—IX. 87. This is talking at a high rate. Thus many a writer, as well as Mr. T., has sat in his study and formed a theory, and delighted himself with its excellence. But bring it to eagerience and fact. Is it FACT that the provision of the 254 THE REALITY AND EFFICACY OF DIWINF GRACE. gospel has been, or is, “exhibited to all ?” Mr. T.’s sys- tem requires that it should ; and he seems to wish to take it for granted that it actually has ; but facts contradict it. LETTER XIII. THERE is, doubtless, an analogy between the works of God. Whatever variety there is in the works of creation, providence, or redemption, there are some general prin- ciples wherein they all agree. On this supposition, I argued for the consistency of sinners being exhorted and invited to return home to God by Jesus Christ, though no such provision be made for their return as shall remove their moral inability to comply. Thus, or to this effect, I have expressed it in my Reply.” Mr. T. here complains of the darkness of my reasoning,-XIII. 124. How far this is just I shall not decide; but this is pretty evident, that there must have been darkness some where, or there could not have been such answers given as there are. I argued, in the first place, from the appointment of God respecting the time of human life. Men are exhorted to use means for prolonging their lives; and yet the time of their life is appointed of God; and some of them, as king Saul and Judas for instance, have been under the do- minion of a moral impotency, in regard to preserving life. They were given up of God to their own wickedness, like those who cannot cease from sin; and it was the purpose of a just God, for reasons satisfactory to himself, thus to give them up. But Mr. T. asks, “Supposing God has fixed the dura- tion of every man’s life, has he appointed (he should have said eachorted) men to use means to prolong their lives beyond that duration ?”—XIII. 126. If self-preservation is a duty, and if God, at all times, exhorts us to exercise it, then it undoubtedly was the duty of Saul, Ahithophel, and Judas to have used means to prolong their lives beyond the period to which they actually lived. The former, and his armour-bearer, ought to have avoided the sword, and the latter the rope. But “has God told us that we shall certainly die at the time he has appointed if we do not use the means of prolonging life 3’” If I understand this question, it is intended to deny that the time of man’s life is appointed of God, any otherwise than on condition of their using means. Doubtless, he that has appointed the end has appointed the means; and Mr. T. should re- member that he had just admitted the appointment to be absolute, and professed now to be reasoning upon that sup- position. But “has he assured us that all the means we use shall certainly succeed 3” No ; he has not : but I do not see wherein this difference between the case in hand and the call of the gospel affects the argument. But “if we die at the time God has appointed, does he charge that to our account, and say it was because we did not use means to prolong our lives?” Certainly he does not lay his own appointments to our charge; but he may the time and manner of our death, and punish us for them, so far as they were owing to our sin, even though he has ap- pointed to give us up to that sin. This was true of Saul and Judas, who ought to have used means to live longer than they did, and exposed themselves to future punish- ment for using the contrary. But “does the great God declare and swear that he would not have us die naturally at the time when he has absolutely appointed that we should die? Does he say, we might live longer if we would # that he has called us to live longer; and, if we do not, it is because we will not?” Mr. T. should remember I was not reasoning from the case of those who “ die naturally,” but from the case of those who, through their own sin, “come to what is called an untimely end,” as did Saul and Judas ; and, in these instances, each of his questions may be answered in the affirmative. And a .* I did not undertake to prove, as Mr. T. expresses it, “the con- sistency of gospel invitations where no provision is made.” I admit- §:provision, and explained in what sense I admitted it.—Reply, + Admitting that, in some sense, Christ is given to the world in general, yet I suppose that it is in the same senes in which the earth is similar instance we have in the case of those Jews who died “by the sword, by the famine, and by the pestilence,” in consequence of their refusal to submit to the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar, in Jer. xxvii. 13, which case I would recommend to the close attention of the Pseudo-Calvinists, as well as to that of Mr. Taylor. I argued, in the second place, from the appointments of God respecting our portion in this life. Men are exhorted and invited to seek after those good things, and to avoid those evil things, which yet many of them are morally unable to pursue or to avoid ; and God has ap- pointed to leave them, in this case, to their own negligence and depravity.t. Mr. T.’s questions under this head, (XIII. 127,) as under the former, are not in point. The question is, not whether all troubles arise from indiscre- tion, or any particular sin, of the party; if any do, that is sufficient for my argument. If there are troubles which might be avoided if we would, and if it is the revealed will of God that we should avoid them, that is sufficient. Pha- raoh and Sihon were exhorted and invited to comply with the messages of peace that were sent them ; and yet they were under the dominion of a moral impotency to comply ; and God had appointed to leave them to the hardness of their hearts, in which they perished, and involved them- selves in ruin. Nor is it in point for Mr. T. to allege “that no directions are given in Scripture, with encouragements and promises annexed, which the great God does not give power to prac- tise, and with regard to which he has not provided such a sufficiency as that the practice invariably answers the ends designed by it, according to the tenor of the directions and promises or encouragements connected with them,”—XIII. 128. All this is granted, both in respect to the things of this life, and also of that to come, and is no more than what perfectly accords with my views of the gospel. I never supposed but that Pharaoh and Sihon had power, strictly speaking, to comply with the messages that were sent to them, or that there would have been any want of suff- ciency, on God’s part, to have made good his promises, in case they had complied. I argued, in the third place, from events which imply the evil actions of men coming under Divine appointment. The Jews, in the time of Christ, were exhorted and invited to embrace the gospel; and yet they were under the do- minion of a moral impotency to comply ; and it appears, from many passages of Scripture, that God had determined not to turn their hearts, but to give them over to their own ways, which would certainly issue in the crucifixion of Christ, and in their own destruction. As Jehovah had said, long before, to their forefathers, in the days of Jere- miah, “Be thou instructed, O Jerusalem, lest my soul depart from thee;” while yet the prophet says, imme- diately after, respecting those very persons, “To whom shall I speak and give warning, that they may hear? Be- hold, their ear is uncircumcised, and they cannot hearken:” so our Lord remarked to his disciples, “Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom God: but unto them that are without all things are done in parables; that seeing they may see, and not perceive, and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.” Thus, of the same persons to whom the blessed Jesus had said, “While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of the light,” it is added im- mediately, “But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him : that the say- ing of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed 4 Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.” Perhaps Mr. T. will say, “But they might have had said to be given to the children of men (Psal. cxv. 16); in which general gift God still reserves to himself the power of disposing, in a way of special providence, of all its particular parts to particular persons, even to such a degree that every individual has a cup assigned him to drink—a lot which Providence marks out for him. THE REALITY AND EFFICACY OF DIWINE GRACE. 255 grace before that time.” Be that as it may, it makes nothing to the argument; seeing they were exhorted and invited at the time in which it was declared they could not believe. I suppose God has willed, appointed, or ordained to permit sin. Mr. T. is not fond of saying that God permits sin. I suppose he would not object to the term suffer, which is applied to the existence of moral evil, Acts xiv. 16. He suffered all nations to walk in their own ways; and the term permit, as any English dictionary will inform us, conveys the same idea, “to suffer without authorizing or approving,” which is the only sense in which we use it on this subject; though the word is sometimes used in a different signification, as “to allow by not forbidding,” or even “to authorize.” Mr. T.’s notions of what is necessary to free agency I have already considered in the beginning of Letter III. * The next topic of argument is taken from those who had sinned the sin against the Holy Spirit, being, notwith- standing, exhorted to embrace the Lord Jesus; whence I conclude that such exhortations and invitations were ad- dressed to some men whom, at the same time, strictly speaking, “it was not the intention of Christ to save.” Mr. T.’s answer to this is foreign from the point. He “hopes Mr. F. will not assert that those who sin against the Holy Spirit do it necessarily, and never were or could be able to avoid it, either by their own power, or by the power of Divine grace.”* How they came to sin that sin is not the question. I did not argue from what they were before, or at the time, but from their state after having committed that sin. His accounting for the consistency of gospel invitations being addressed to them after they had sinned the unpardonable sin, by alleging that provision had been made for them, though now “they had sinned themselves beyond the reach of it,” (XIII. 130,) is equally foreign. To argue that it is consistent to give an exhorta- tion or invitation to-day, because grace might have been obtained yesterday, is absurd. If the gospel and its in- vitations were addressed to them when their destruction was certain, then it is not inconsistent to address those invitations even to men who, as it may afterwards prove, were at the very time, as the just reward of their iniquity, appointed to utter destruction. The indefinite call of the gospel including them as well as others, and the declara- tion of our Lord, “Him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out,” holding good in regard to them as well as any others, it might be said with truth that there was no matural impossibility in the way of their salvation; that if they had repented, they would have found mercy. But the impossibility respected their being brought to repentance, Heb. vi. 4. 6. They were under the power of a moral impotence ; or, which is the same thing, of a rooted enmity to Christ; and God had determined to leave them in that state to perish for their sin. I argued, in the next place, from the moral impotence of all men to “love God with all their hearts, and their neighbour as themselves,” which yet we are exhorted to, Deut. v. 29; Matt. v. 48. “Perhaps,” says Mr. T., “these premises might be fairly disputed,”—XIII. 130. That they might be disputed is true; but surely not by Mr. T. He does not profess that grace is provided sufficient to enable men to keep the law, but barely to comply with the gospel,—XIII. 61. And surely he cannot dispute our being exhorted to it: what meaning else is there in the above-cited passages? “But admitting the premises,” says Mr. T., “surely Mr. Fuller will allow that God originally gave man power sufficient to keep the moral law; otherwise how could man be justly condemned for breaking it? True ; but what has the original power given to man to do with the argument which concerns men in their present state 3 They are now exhorted to love God with all their hearts: and yet they are under a moral inability to comply; and grace is not provided to enable them to comply. Compare Deut. v. 29, with xxix. 4. These are facts, and facts that are in point too. The dif- ference between the law and the gospel, on which Mr. T. dwells, makes nothing to his purpose. The above facts will prove that a moral ability, which men either possess or might possess, is not necessary to render exhortations consistent. Mr. T.’s argument, from the power that was given man originally to keep the law, for a power in men to comply with the gospel, is very just, provided it be understood of power, properly so called ; namely, a capacity to embrace it if they would... But if by power he means inclination, (as he must, if it is of any use to him,) that is quite another thing. God is under no obligation to turn men's hearts in order to free his messages to them from the charge of inconsistency. - Lastly, I argued from the certain perseverance of be- lievers. This subject, if Mr. T. admits it, must contradict his notion of a certain and effectual influence upon the mind being inconsistent with free agency, (XIII. 129,) and will prove that an absolute purpose in God to accom- plish an end is inconsistent with the use of means, mo- tives, warnings, counsels, &c. What remains of Mr. T.’s performance has either been occasionally noticed already, or is of such a nature as not to require an answer. He drops several remarks towards the close of his piece which are very good, and in which I heartily unite with him. Whatever I may think of his sentiments, my good opinion of Mr. T.’s integrity and piety is not lessened by this controversy. Heartily de- siring that every blessing may attend us all, and that we may each be led into the truth as it is in Jesus, I remain, &c. &c., AGNOSTOs. * XIII. 129. It is to very little purpose to controvert with Mr. T. so long as he is determined to affix to terms ideas which we utterly dis- avow. It is plain that by necessarily he means by compulsion, or in such sort as they were not able to avoid, let them strive ever so sin- cerely against it. He need not question my denying that the sin against the Holy Spirit, or any other sin, could be committed in this way. Our idea of moral necessity is no other than that of certainty, or a certain connexion between evil principles and evil practices, un- less prevented by some exterior cause. STRICTURES ON SANDEMANIANISM, IN TWELVE LETTERS TO A FRIEND. LETTER. I. I N T R O DUCTION. MY DEAR FRIEND, I HAVE been told more than once that my not answering the piece written some years since by Mr. A. M'Lean has been considered as a proof that I felt it unanswerable. But if so, I must have felt the productions of many other opponents unanswerable as well as his ; for I have seldom had the last word in a controversy. The truth is, I was not greatly inclined to answer Mr. M. I felt disgusted with the illiberality of his repeatedly arraigning my mo- tives, his accusing me of intentional misrepresentation, and his insinuating as though I could “take either side of a question as I found occasion.” I contented myself, therefore, with writing a small tract, called The Great Question Answered ; in which, while complying with the desire of a friend, I endeavoured to state my views without controversy, and as Mr. M. had given a caricature descrip- tion of what my principles would amount to, if applied in the form of an address to the unconverted, I deter- mined to reduce them to that form ; hoping also that, with the blessing of God, they might prove of some use to the parties addressed. Whether it was owing to this tract or not, I have reason to believe that the friends of religion, who attended to the subject, did me justice at the time, and that even those who favoured Mr. M.'s side of the question thought he must have mistaken the drift of my reasoning, as well as have imputed motives to me of which I was innocent. Whatever Mr. M. may think of me, I do not consider him as capable of either intentional misrepresentation, or taking either side of the question as he may find occasion. That my principles are misrepresented by him, and that in a great number of instances, I could easily prove ; but the opinion that I have of his character leads me to impute it to misunderstanding, and not to design. I am not conscious of any unbrotherly feeling towards Mr. M. In resuming the subject, however, after such a lapse of time, I have no mind to write a particular answer to his performance, though I may frequently notice his arguments. It is in consequence of observing the nature and tendency of the system that I undertake to examine it. Such an examination will not only be more agreeable to my own feelings, but more edifying to the reader, than either an attack on an individual opponent, or a defence of myself against him. In calling the sentiments I oppose Sandemanianism, I mean nothing invidious. The principles taught by Messrs. Glass and Sandeman, about half a century ago, did cer- tainly give a new turn and character to almost every thing pertaining to the religion of Christ, as must appear to any one who reads and understands their publications. In the north it is the former of these authors who gives name to the denomination ; with us it is the latter, as being moc. known by his writings. - I have denominated Sandemanianism a system, because it not only, as I have said, affects the whole of Christianity, but induces all who embrace it to separate from other Christians. Mr. Sandeman manifestly desired that the societies which were connected with him should be un- connected with all others, and that they should be con- sidered as the only true churches of Christ. Such a view of things amounts to more than a difference on a few points of doctrine; it is a distinct species of religion, and requires, for distinction’s sake, to have a name, and till some other is found by which it can be designated, it must be called after that of its author. It is not my design to censure Sandemanianism in the gross. There are many things in the system which, in my judgment, are worthy of serious attention. If Mr. San- deman and his followers had only taught that faith has revealed truth for its object, or that which is true ante- cedently to its being believed, and whether it be believed or not ; that the finished work of Christ, exclusive of every act, exercise, or thought of the human mind, is that for the sake of which a sinner is justified before God ; that no qualifications of any kind are necessary to warrant our believing in him ; and that the first Scriptural conso- lation received by the believer arises from the gospel, and not from reflecting on the feelings of his own mind to- wards it ; they would have deserved well of the church of Christ. . Whether those against whom Mr. S. inveighs, under the name of popular preachers, were so averse to these principles as he has represented them is another question. I have no doubt, however, but they and many other preachers and writers of the present times stand corrected by him and by other writers who have adopted his principles. Mr. Ecking (in his Essays, p. 33) remarks on some pas- sages in Mr. Boston's Fourfold State with much propriety, particularly on such language as the following:—“Do what you can ; and it may be, while you are doing what you can for yourselves, God will do for you what you can- not.” Again, “Let us believe as we can, in obedience to God’s command, and while we are doing so, although the act be at the beginning but natural, yet, in the very act, promised and purchased, grace strikes in and turns it into a supernatural act of believing.” From other parts of Mr. Boston’s work, it appears that he did not consider grace as promised to any of the works of the unregenerate; but allowing him, by “ promised grace” in this passage, to mean that which was promised to Christ on behalf of those who were given him by the Father, yet the language is unscriptural and dangerous, as giving the sinner to under- stand that his inability is something that excuses him, and INTRODUCTION. 257 that in doing what he can while in enmity to God he obeys the Divine command, and is at least in a more hopeful way of obtaining supernatural grace. The apostles ex- horted sinners to repent and believe the gospel, and to nothing short of it, making no account of their inability. If we follow their example, God may honour his own ordi- nances by accompanying them with his Holy Spirit; but as to any thing being done in concurrence with the en- deavours of the unregenerate, we have no such idea held out to us in the oracles of God. It is God’s ordinary method, indeed, prior to his bestow- ing that supernatural grace which enables a sinner to re- pent and believe the gospel, by various means to awaken him to reflection, and to the serious consideration of his condition as a transgressor of the Divine law. Such con- victions may last for a considerable time, and may issue in true conversion ; but they may not : and so long as the gospel way of salvation is rejected or neglected, in favour of some self-righteous scheme, there is nothing truly good in them. They are as the noise and the shaking of the dry bones, but not the breath of life. They are the means by which God prepares the mind for a welcome reception of the gospel, but they contain no advance towards Christ on the part of the sinner. He is not nearer the kingdom of heaven, nor less in danger of the wrath to come, than when he was at ease in his sins. Nay, notwithstanding the outward reformation which such convictions ordinarily produce, he is not, upon the whole, a less sinner in the sight of God than he was before. On the contrary, “He who continues under all this light, and contrary to the plain dictates and pressing painful convictions of his own conscience, obstinately to oppose and reject Jesus Christ, is, on the account of this his impenitence and obstinacy under this clear light and conviction of conscience, (what- ever alteration or reformation has taken place in him in other respects,) more guilty, vile, and odious in God's sight than he was before.”* For a minister to withhold the invitations of the gospel till he perceives the sinner sufficiently, as he thinks, con- Vinced of sin, and then to bring them forward as something to which he is entitled, holding up his convictions and dis- tress of mind as signs of grace, and persuading him, on this ground, to think himself one of God’s elect, and war- ranted to believe in Christ, is doing worse than nothing. The comfort which the apostles presented to awakened sinners consisted purely in the exhibition of Christ and the invitations to believe in him. Neither the company ad- dressed by Peternor the Philippian jailer were encouraged from anything in the state of their own minds, though bºth were deeply impressed, but from the gospel only. The preachers might and would take encouragement on perceiving them to be pricked in their hearts, and might hope for a good issue; but it had been at their peril to Sºngourage them to hope for mercy any otherwise than as believing in the Son of God. The Hyper-Calvinists, who set aside the invitations of the gospel to the unregenerate, abound in these things. They are aware that the Scriptures do invite sinners of sºme sort to believe in Christ; but then they conceive them to be sensible sinners only.—It is thus that the terms hunger, thirst, labour, heavy laden, &c., as used in the Scripture invitations, are considered as denoting spiritual desire, and as marking out the persons who are entitled to come to Christ. That gospel invitations should be ad- dressed tº sinners as the subjects of those wants and desires which it is adapted to Satisfy, such as the thirst for happi- * Peace, rest, &c., is no more than might be expected. It had been Strange if living waters had been presented to them who * *0 Sérèse were thirsty, or rest to them who Yºº ºn,” ºse weary and heavy laden; but it does not follow that this thirst and this weariness are spiritual. On the contrary, they who are invited to buy and eat, without money and without price, are supposed to be spending their money for that which is not bread ;” are admonished as “wicked” men to forsake their Way ; and invited to return to the Lord under a promise of abundant pardon on their so returning. The “heavy laden,” also, are sup- Posed as yet not to have come to Christ, nor taken his $yoke, * Hopkins's True State of the Unregenerate, p. 6. S nor learned his spirit; and surely it could not have been the design of Christ to persuade them to think well of their state, seeing he constantly teaches that till a sinner come to him, or believe in him, he is under the curse. It is also observable that the promise of rest is not made to them as heavy laden, but as coming to Christ with their burdens. There is no proof that all who were “pricked in their hearts” under Peter's sermon, and who inquired, “What shall we do?” believed and were saved. On the contrary, it seems to be intimated that only a part of them “gladly received the word, and were baptized.” Had they all done so, it would probably have been said, “Then they gladly received his word, and were baptized.” In- stead of this it is said, “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized,” &c., implying that there were some who, though pricked in their hearts, yet “received not.” the word of the gospel, and were not baptized; and who might leave the place under an impression that the for- giveness of sins in the name of Jesus Christ was a hard saying. There are many, it is to be feared, who at this day feel guilt to be a heavy burden, and yet never bring it to Christ; but lay it down on some self-righteous resting- place, and so perish for ever. It does not follow, however, that all convictions of sin are to be resolved into the operations of an awakened con- science. There is such a thing as a conviction of the evil nature of sin, and that by a view of the spirituality and equity of the Divine law. It was by the “ command- ment” that Paul perceived sin to be “exceeding sinful.” Such a conviction of sin cannot consist with a rejection of the gospel way of salvation, but, as soon as it is under- stood, instantly leads the sinner to embrace it. It is thus that “through the law we become dead to the law, that we may live unto God.” I may add, the attention of Christians appears to have been too much drawn towards what may be called subject- ive religion, to the neglect of that which is objective. Many speak and write as though the truth of the gospel was a subject out of doubt, and as though the only question of importance was, whether they be interested in its bless- ings; and there are not a few who have no doubt of their believing the former, but many doubts respecting the lat- ter. Hence, it is probable, the essence of faith came to be placed, not in a belief of the gospel, but in a persuasion of our being interested in its benefits. If, however, we really believe the one, there is no Scriptural ground to doubt of the other; since it is constantly declared that he who believeth the gospel shall be saved. If the attention of the awakened sinner, instead of being directed to Christ, be turned inward, and his mind be em. ployed in searching for evidences of his conversion, the effect must, to say the least, be uncomfortable, and may be fatal; as it may lead him to make a righteousness of his religious feelings, instead of looking out of himself to the Saviour. Nor is this all: If the attention of Christians be turned to their own feelings, instead of the things which should make them feel, it will reduce their religion to something vastly different from that of the primitive Christians. Such truths as the following were the life of their spirits: “Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners.”—“Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and was buried, and rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures.”—“Remember that Jesus Christ, of the seed of David, was raised from the dead according to my gos- pel.”—“We have a great High Priest that is passed into the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God,” &c. But by the turn of thought and strain of conversation in many religious con- nexions of the present day, it would seem as if these things had lost their influence. They are become “dry doc- trines,” and the parties must have something else. The elevation and depression of their hopes and fears, joys and sorrows, is with them the favourite theme. The conse. quence is, as might be expected, a living to themselves rather than to him that died and rose again ; and a mind either elated by unscriptural enjoyment, or depressed by miserable despondency. It is not by thinking and talking of the sensations of hunger, but by feeding on the living aliment, that we are filled and strengthened. Whether the above remarks will satisfy Mr. M'Lean 258 STRICTURES ON SANDEMANIANISM. that these are “really my fixed sentiments,” and that he has greatly misunderstood the ends for which I wrote the piece on which he animadverted, and of course misrepre- sented my principles as to their effect on awakened sinners, I cannot tell.* Be this as it may, I trust other readers will be under no temptation to do me injustice. But whatever danger may arise from those principles which are too prevalent among us, they are not the only errors, nor does all the danger arise from that quarter. Subjective religion is as necessary in its place as objective. It is as true that “without holiness no man shall see the Lord,” as that “without the shedding of blood there is no remission.” It is necessary to look into ourselves for the purpose of conviction, though not for the cause of salva- tion ; and though the evidence of the truth of the gospel is without us, and independent of our state of mind to- wards it, yet this is not the case with respect to evidence of an interest in its blessings. We have no warrant to expect eternal life but as being the subjects of those things to which it is promised. I do not perceive, therefore, how it can be justly affirmed, as it lately has been, that “self-examination is not cal- culated to quiet the conscience, to banish slavish fear, or to remove doubts and apprehensions of our being unbe- lievers;” and still less how it can be maintained that “peace of mind founded on any thing in ourselves will always puff us up with pride.” If the state of our souls be bad, indeed, self-examination must disquiet the con- science rather than quiet it; but are there no cases in which, through the accusations of others, or a propensity in ourselves to view the dark side of things rather than the bright one, or the afflicting hand of God, our souls may be disquieted within us, and in which self-examination may yield us peace 4 Did the review which Job took of his past life (chap. xxxi.) yield no peace to him 3 And though he was not clear when examined by the impartial eye of God, yet were all his solemn appeals respecting his in- tegrity the workings of self-righteous pride 3 Was David puffed up when he said, “Lord, I have hoped in thy sal- vation, and have done thy commandments 3 * Did John encourage a confidence in the flesh, when he said, “If our hearts condemn us not, then have we confidence towards God?” or Peter, when he appealed to Christ, “Lord, thou knowest all things, thou knowest that I love thee ?” Had it been only affirmed that no peace of mind can arise from the recollection of what we have felt or done in times past, while at present we are unconscious of any thing of the kind, this had been true. Past experiences can no otherwise be an evidence of grace to us than as the re- membrance of them rekindles the same sentiments and feelings anew. But to object to all peace of mind arising from a consciousness of having done the will of God, and to denominate it “confidence in the flesh,” is repugnant to the whole tenor of Scripture. A system may contain much important truth, and yet be blended with so much error as to destroy its salutary effi- cacy. Mr. Sandeman has expunged a great deal of false religion ; but whether he has exhibited that of Christ and his apostles is another question. It is much easier to point out the defects and errors of other systems than to substitute one that is even less exceptionable ; and to talk of “simple truth,” and “simple belief,” than to exhibit the religion of Jesus in its genuine simplicity. In discussing the points at issue, we shall meet with some things which may be thought of too metaphysical a cast to be of any great importance; and had not the effects produced convinced me of the contrary, I might have thought so too. But though the principles on which the system rests are many of them so minute as almost to elude detection, yet they are not the less efficacious. The seed is small, but the branch is not so. It has been regretted that any person who drinks tho- roughly into these views is at once separated from all his former religious connexions, whatever they might be ; and where the heart has been united, it must needs be a matter of regret; yet, upon the whole, it may be best. Whatever fruits are produced by this species of religion, whether good or bad, they are hereby much more easily ascer- * See his IReply, pp. 46, 47. 153. tained. Its societies bear some resemblance to so many farms, taken in different parts of the kingdom, for the pur- pose of scientific experiment; and it must needs be ap- parent, in the course of fifty or sixty years’ experience, whether, upon the whole, they have turned to a better ac- count than those of their neighbours. I will only add, in this place, that though I do not con- ceive of every one as embracing this doctrine who in some particulars may agree with Mr. Sandeman, (for in that case I should be reckoned to embrace it myself,) yet many more must be considered as friendly to it in the main than those who choose to be called either Sandemanians or Glassites. It has been held by people of various deno- minations; by Presbyterians, Independents, and Baptists; and has been observed to give a distinctive character to the whole of their religion. In this view of the subject I wish to examine it ; paying attention not so much to per- sons or names as to things, let them be embraced by whom they may. LETTER II. A GENERAL VIEW OF THE SYSTEM, WITH ITS LEADING POINTS OF DIFFERENCE FROM THE SYSTEMS WHICH IT OPPOSES. ALTHOUGH the writings of such men as Flavel, Boston, Guthrie, the Erskines, &c. are represented by Mr. Sande- man as furnishing “a devout path to hell,” and the writers themselves as Pharisees, “ than whom no sinners were more hardened, and none greater destroyers of mankind,” yet he allows them to have set before us “many articles of the apostolic doctrine;” yea, and to have “asserted almost all the articles belonging to the sacred truth.” Considering this, and that so far as these writers held with “good duties, good endeavours, and good motions” in unbelievers, preparing them for faith, we give them up, it may seem as if there could be no great difference between Mr. Sandeman and us. Yet a difference there is, and of such importance, too, as deeply to affect the doctrine, the worship, the spirit, and the practice of Christianity. The foundation of whatever is distinguishing in the system seems to relate to the nature of justifying faith. This Mr. S. constantly represents as the bare belief of the bare truth; by which definition he intends, as it would seem, to exclude from it every thing pertaining to the will and the affections, except as effects produced by it. When Mr. Pike became his disciple, and wished to think that by a “bare belief” he meant a hearty persua- sion, and not a mere notional belief, Mr. S. rejected his construction, and insisted that the latter was his true meaning. “Every one,” says he, “who obtains a just notion of the person and work of Christ, or whose notion corresponds to what is testified of him, is justified, and finds peace with God simply by that notion.”f This notion he considers as the effect of truth being im- pressed upon the mind, and denies that the mind is active in it. The inactivity of the mind in believing is of so much importance, in his account, that the doctrine of jus- tification by grace depends upon it. “He who maintains,” says he, “that we are justified only by faith, and at the same time affirms, with Aspasio, that faith is a work ex- erted by the human mind, undoubtedly maintains, if he have any meaning to his words, that we are justified by a work exerted by the human mind.”f Mr. Sandeman not only opposes all active endeavours previously to faith, and as tending to produce it, (in which I have no controversy with him,) but sets himself against all exhortations, calls, warnings, and expostulations with the sinner to believe in Christ. “If,” says he, “it be inquired what I would say for the relief of one distressed with a sense of guilt, I would tell him, to the best of my ability, what the gospel says about Christ. If he still doubted, I would set before him all the evidence furnished me by the same gospel. Thus, and thus only, would I press, call, invite, exhort, or urge him to believe. I would + Epistolary Correspondence, Letter II. # Letters on Theron and Aspasio, Vol. I. p. 483. GENERAL VIEW OF THE SYSTEM. 259 urge him with evidence for the truth.”* And when asked how he would exhort, advise, or address stupid, wr.concern- ed souls, he answers, “I am of the mind that a preacher of the gospel, as such, ought to have no influence on men but by means of the gospel which he preaches.—When Paul discoursed concerning the faith in Christ, and as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled.—It is the duty of every man, in every condition, to obey every Divine command. The gospel always supposes this while addressing all men as sinners; it demonstrates their danger, and discovers the remedy. Yet it is absurd to suppose that any man can love the gospel, or obey it, till he believe it. Therefore, to urge unbelievers to any shadow of that obedience as preparative to justification by faith, can have no other effect than to lead them to establish their own righteous- ness, and to stand in awe of the preacher,”—p. 29. If there be any meaning in this answer, it would seem to be that faith itself is not a duty, and that unbelievers ought not to be exhorted to it, lest it should lead them to self-righteousness; but barely to have the evidence of truth stated to them. Mr. S. represents the sinner as justified, and as having obtained peace to his soul, while utterly destitute of the love of God. “I can never begin to love God,” says he, “till I first see him just in justifying me ungodly as I stand,”—p. 12. But being justified in this his ungodly state of mind, he loves God on account of it ; and here begins his godliness: “It all consists in love to that which first relieved him,”—p. 8. If he had represented the doctrine of Christ as giving relief to the guilty creature, irrespective of any conscious- ness of a change in himself, or as furnishing him with a ground to conclude that God can be just and the justifier of him if he believes in Jesus, this had accorded with Paul’s gospel (Rom. iv. 24); but for a sinner to perceive himself justified implies a consciousness that he is a believer, and such a consciousness can never be separate from a conscious love to the Divine character. If, indeed, the gospel were an expedient merely to give relief to sinners, and no regard was had in it to the glory of God, a sinner full of enmity to God might receive it, and derive peace from it; but if it be an essential property of it to secure the glory of the Divine character, the belief of it must include a sense of that glory, which cannot consist with enmity against it. Let it also be seriously considered whether it be true that a sinner is justified “ungodly as he stands 2" If it be, he must have been so either antecedently to his “see- ing” it to be so, and then it must be equally true of all ungodly sinners; or it becomes so when he sees it, and by his seeing it, which is the very absurdity which Mr. S. fastens on the popular preachers. Mr. S. and many others have caught at the phrase of the apostle Paul, of “God’s justifying the ungodly;” but unless they can prove that by wagodly the apostle meant one who was at the time an enemy of God, it makes nothing in their favour. The amount is, Mr. S.'s relief arises from his “seeing ” what is not to be seen, viz. God to be just in justifying him ungodly as he stands; and, his relief being founded in falsehood, all his godliness, which confessedly arises from it, must be delusive. The root is *ottenness, and the blossom will go up as the dust. . From the leading principles of doctrine above stated it is easy to account for almost all the other peculiarities of the system. Where the root and substance of religion is placed in knowledge, exclusive of approbation, it may be expected that the utmost stress will be laid on the former, and that almost every thing pertaining to the latter will be decried under the name of Pharisaism, or some other odious appellation. Thus it is that those who have drunk into this system generally value themselves on their clear views; thus they scarcely ever use any other phrase by which to designate the state of a converted man than his knowing the truth; and thus all those Scripture passages which speak of knowing the truth are constantly quoted as being in their favour, though they seldom, if ever, mean knowledge as distinguished from approbation, but as in- cluding it. ' . * Epistolary Correspondence, p. 8. Further, I do not perceive how a system whose first principle is “notion,” and whose love is confined to “that which first relieves us,” can have the love of God in it. It cannot justify God as a Lawgiver, by taking blame and shame to ourselves; for it necessarily supposes, and even professes, an abhorrence to both law and justice in every other view than as satisfied by the cross of Christ. The reconciliation to them in this view, therefore, must be merely on the ground of their becoming friendly to our interests. But if God be not justified as a Lawgiver, Christ can never be received as a Saviour. There is no more grace in justification than there is justice in con- demnation: nor is it possible we should see more of the one than the other ; for we cannot see things otherwise than as they are to be seen. But surely a system which neither justifies the Lawgiver nor receives the Saviour as honouring him cannot be of God. The love of God as God is not in it. Conversion, on this principle, is not turning to the Lord. It professes, indeed, to love God; but it is only for our own sake. The whole process re- quires no renovation of the spirit of the mind; for the most depraved creature is capable of loving himself and that which relieves him. Is it any wonder that a religion founded on such a principle should be litigious, conceited, and censorious to- wards all who do not embrace it? It is of the nature of a selfish spirit to be so. If God himself be loved only for the relief he affords us, it cannot be surprising that men should ; nor that, under the cover of loving them only for the truth’s sake, all manner of bitterness and contempt | should be cherished against every one who dares to dispute our dogmas. Further, The love of God being in a manner excluded from the system, it may be expected that the defect will be supplied by a punctilious attention to certain forms ; of which some will be found to arise from a misunderstand- ing of the Scriptures, and others which may not, yet, being regarded to the neglect of weightier matters, resemble the tithing of mint, anise, and cummin. *. Such, from the repeated views that I have been able to take of the system, appear to me to be its grand outlines; and I am not surprised to find that, in the course of half a century, it has landed so large a part of its votaries on the shores of infidelity, or sunk them in the abyss of worldly conformity. Those who live near them say there is scarcely any appearance of serious religion in their fami- lies, unless we might call by that name the scrupulosity that would refuse to pray with an unbeliever, but would have no objection to accompany him to the theatre. Mr. S. and his admirers have reproached many for their devo- tion ; but I cannot learn that they were ever reproached -with this evil in return. The grand argument of Mr. S. against faith being an act of the mind, and against admitting of any active ad- vance of the soul towards Christ as necessary to justifica- tion, is that it is rendering faith a work; and that to be justified by faith would, after all, be to be justified by a work of our own. This is the principal idea pertaining to what he calls “ the very rankest poison of the popular doctrine.”f If this argument can be overturned, the greater part of his system falls with it. That it may ap- pear in all its force, I will quote his strongest representa- tions of it. “Perhaps it will be thought needful that I should de- fine with greater precision than I have hitherto done what I mean by the popular doctrine, especially as I have con- sidered many as preachers thereof who differ remarkably from each other ; and particularly as I have ranked among them Mr. Wesley, who may justly be reckoned one of the most virulent reproachers of that God whose character is drawn by the apostles that this island has produced. To remove all doubt concerning my meaning, I shall thus explain myself. Throughout these letters I consider all those as teachers of the popular doctrine who seek to have credit and influence among the people by resting our ac- ceptance with God, not simply on what Christ has done, but more or less on the wse we make of him, the advance we make towards him, or some secret desire, wish, or sigh + Letters on Theron and Aspasio, p. 448. S 2 260 STRICTURES ON SANDEMANIANISM. to do so; or on something we feel or do concerning him, by the assistance of some kind of grace or spirit; or, lastly, on something we employ him to do, and suppose he is yet to do for us. In sum, all who would have us to be con- scious of something else than the bare truth of the gospel; all who would have us to be conscious of some beginning of a change to the better, or some desire, however faint, toward such change, in order to our acceptance with God; these I call the popular preachers, however much they may differ from each other about faith, grace, special or common, or about any thing else.—My resentment is all along chiefly pointed against the capital branch of the popular doctrine, which, while it asserts almost all the articles belonging to the sacred truth, at the same time de- ceitfully clogs them with the opposite falsehoods.” Again, “That the saving truth is effectually undermined by this confusion may readily be seen in the following easy view”—(this is what I call his grand argument)— “HE who MAINTAINS THAT we ARE JUSTIFIED ONLY BY FAITH, AND AT THE SAME TIME AFFIRMs, witH ASPASIo, THAT FAITH IS A WORK EXERTED BY THE HUMAN MIND, UNDOUBTEDLY MAINTAINS, IF HE HAS ANY MEANING IN HIS WORDS, THAT WE ARE JUSTIFIED BY A WORK IXERTED BY THE HUMAN MIND.” “I have all along studied to make use of every form of expression I could think of, for evincing in the most clear, palpable, and striking manner, a difference of the last importance, which thousands of preachers have laboured to cover with a mist. If I have made that difference manifest to those who have any attention for the subject, my great end in writing is gained, on whatever side of it men shall choose to rank themselves. It has frequently appeared to me a thing no less amazing than provoking, when the great difference between the ancient gospel here contended for and the popular doctrine has been pointed out as clear as words could make it, to find many, after all, so obstinately stupid as to declare they saw no real difference. This I cannot account for by assigning any other cause than the special agency of the prince of darkness.” + After this, it may be thought an act of temerity to com- plain of not understanding Mr. Sandeman: and indeed I shall make no such complaint, for I think I do clearly un- derstand his meaning; but whether he has fairly repre- sented that of his opponents I shall take the liberty to Inquire. The popular preachers “rest our acceptance with God,” it seems, “not simply on what Christ hath done, but on the active advance of the soul towards him.” Do they then consider faith, whether we be active or passive in it, as forming a part of our justifying righteousness? In other words, do they consider it as any part of that for the sake. of which a sinner is accepted ? They every where declare the contrary. I question if there be one of those whom Mr. S. ordinarily denominates popular preachers who would not cordially subscribe to the passage in Aspasio which he so highly applauds, and considers as inconsistent with the popular doctrine ; viz. “Both grace and faith stand in direct opposition to works; all works whatever, whether they be works of the law or works of the gospel, exercises of the heart or actions of the life, done while we remain unregenerate or when we become regenerate, they are all and every of them equally set aside in this great affair.” f If the popular preachers maintain an active ad- vance of the soul to be necessary to our acceptance with God, it is in no other sense than that in which he himself maintains “the bare belief of the truth '' to be so; that is, not as a procuring cause, but as that without which, according to the established order of things, there is no ac- ceptance. To accuse them therefore of corrupting the doctrine of justification, on this account, must be owing either to gross ignorance or disingenuousness. Yet in this strain the eulogists of Mr. Sandeman go on to declaim to this day. “His main doctrine,” says one, “appears to be this : the bare work of Jesus Christ, which he finished on the cross, is sufficient, without a deed or a thought on the part of man, to present the chief of sinners spotless before God.”f If by sufficient be meant that it * Letters on Theron and Aspasio, Vol. II. pp. 480. 483. + Ibid. Vol. I. p. 276. is that only on account of which, or for the sake of which, a sinner is justified, it is very true; and Mr. Sandeman's opponents believed it no less than he himself: but if it be meant to deny that any deed or thought on the part of man is necessary in the established order of things, or that sinners are presented spotless before God without a deed or a thought on the subject, it is very false, and goes to deny the necessity of faith to salvation ; for surely no man can be said to believe in Christ without thinking of him. Mr. Pike, who had embraced Mr. Sandeman’s views of faith, yet says to him, “I cannot but conceive that you are sometimes mistaken in your representations of what you call the popular doctrine; for instance, Upon the popular plan, say you, we can never have peace in our con- sciences until we be sensible of some beginning of a good disposition in us towards Christ. Now, setting aside some few unguarded expressions and addresses, you will find that the genaral drift and purport of their doctrine is just the contrary to this; and they labour this point, both Marshall and Hervey, to convince persons that nothing of this nature does or can recommend them to God, or be any part of their justifying righteousness; and their principal view is to beget or to draw forth such thoughts in the mind as lead the soul entirely out of itself to Christ alone for righteousness.” $ It is observable, too, that though Mr. S. answered this letter of Mr. Pike, yet he takes no notice of this passage. I am not vindicating either Marshall or Hervey in all their views; but justice requires that this misrepresent- ation should be corrected, especially as it runs through the whole of Mr. Sandeman's writings, and forms the basis of an enormous mass of invective. - By works opposed to grace and faith the New Testament means works done with a view of obtaining life, or of pro- curing acceptance with God as the reward of them. If ac- ceptance, faith, or sincere obedience be recommended as being such a condition of salvation as that God may be expected to bestow it in reward of them, this is turning the gospel into a covenant of works, and is as much op- posed to grace, and to the true idea of justification by faith, as any works of the law can be. But to deny the activity of the soul in believing, lest faith itself should become a work of the law, and so after all we should be justified by a work, is both antiscriptural and nugatory : antiscriptural, because the whole tenor of the Bible ex- horts sinners to forsake their ways and return to the Lord, “ that he may have mercy upon them ;” to believe in the light, “that they may be children of light;” and to come to him “that they may have life :”—nwgatory, because we need not go far for proof that men know how to value themselves and despise others on account of their motions as well as of their actions ; and so are capable of making a righteousness of the one as well as of the other. Further, If there be any weight in Mr. Sandeman’s argument, it falls equally on his own hypothesis as on that of his opponents. Thus we might argue, He who main- tains that we are justified only by faith, and at the same time affirms, with Mr. Sandeman, that faith is a notion formed by the human mind, undoubtedly maintains, if he has any meaning to his words, that we are justified by a notion formed by the human mind. Mr. S., as if aware of his exposedness to this retort, la- bours, in the foregoing quotation, to make nothing of the belief of the truth, or to keep every idea but that of the truth believed out of sight. So fearful is he of making faith to be any thing which has a real subsistence in the mind, that he plunges into gross absurdity to avoid it. Speaking of that of which the believer is “conscious,” he makes it to be truth instead of the belief of it; as if any thing could be an object of consciousness but what passes or exists in the mind It may be thought that the phrase, “All who would have us to be conscious of something else than the bare truth of the gospel,” is a mere slip of the pen—but it is not; for had Mr. S. spoken of belief, instead of the truth believed, as an object of consciousness, his statement would have been manifestly liable to the consequence which he charges on his opponents. Tº might then have # Cooper's Letters, p. 33. * Epistolary Correspondence, p. 24. GENERAL VIEW OF THE SYSTEM. 261 been said to him, He who maintains that we are justified only by faith, and at the same time affirms that, faith, is something inherent in the human mind, undoubtedly main- tains, if he has any meaning to his words, that We al‘e justified by something inherent in the human mind. You must by this time perceive that Mr. Sandeman's grand argument, or, as he denominates it, his “easy view,” turns out to be a mere sophism. To detect it you have only to consider the same thing in different views; which is what Mr. Sandeman himself does on some occasions, as do all other men. “I agree with you,” says he to Mr. Pike, “in maintaining that faith is the principle and spring of every good disposition, or of every good work; but, at the same time, I maintain that faith does not justify the ungodly as a principle of good dispositions,”—p. 10. Why then may we not maintain that we are justified only by faith, and at the same time affirm that faith is a grace inherent, an act of the human mind, a duty commanded of God; and all this without affirming that we are justi- fied by any thing inherent, any act of ours, or any duty that we perform 3 Arid why must we be supposed to use words without meaning, or to contradict ourselves, when we only maintain that we are justified by that which is inherent, is an act of the human mind, and is a duty; while yet it is not as such, but as uniting us to Christ and deriving righteousness from him, that it justifies?” Assuredly, there is no necessity for reducing faith to a nullity, in order to maintain the doctrine of justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ. While we hold that faith justifies, not in respect of the act of believing, but of the righteousness on which it terminates, or that God’s pardoming and receiving us to favour is in reward, not of our believing, but of his Son’s obedience unto death, every purpose is answered, and all inherent righteousness is ex- cluded. I have been the more particular on this “easy view” of Mr. Sandeman, because it is manifestly the grand pillar of his doctrine. If this be overturned, there is nothing left standing but what will fall with a few slight touches; and whether it be so I now leave you and the reader to judge. To establish the doctrine of free justification Mr. S. conceives it necessary to reduce justifying faith to a bare “belief,” exclusive of every “advance” of the mind towards Christ, or of coming to him, trusting in him, &c., and to maintain that these terms denote the effects of faith in those who are already in a justified state, p. 34. In opposing Mr. S. many have denied that the belief of the gospel is justifying faith. Observing, on the one hand, that numbers appear to believe the truth, on whom, never- theless, it has no salutary influence; and, on the other, that believing in Christ in the New Testament is synony- mous with “receiving him,” “trusting in him,” and “coming to him;” they have concluded that the belief of the gospel is rather to be considered as something pre- supposed in faith than faith itself. But there can be no doubt that the belief of the gospel has, in a great number of instances, the promise of salvation; and as to those nominal Christians on whom it has no salutary influence, they believe Christ no more than the Jews believed Moses, Which our Lord would not allow that they did. “If ye believed Moses,” says he, “ye would believe me; for he wrote of me.” But though the belief of the gospel is allowed to have the promise of salvation, and so to be justifying, yet it does not follow that it is so exclusive of receiving Christ, trust- ing in him, or coming to him. It were easy to prove that repentance has the promise of forgiveness, and that by as great a Variety of passages as are brought to prove that the belief of the gospel is saving faith; but were this attempted, We should be told, and justly too, that we are not to con- sider repentance in these passages as excluding, but in- cluding, faith in the Saviour. Such, then, is the answer to the argument drawn from the promises of salvation made to the belief of the gospel : belief, in these con- nexions, is not to be understood exclusive of receiving the Saviour, coming to him, or trusting in him, but as Sup- posing and including them. . * See President Edwards's Sermons on Justification, pp. 14, 26. It is not denied that the ideas conveyed by these terms are metaphysically distinct from that of believing the gospel, nor that they are its immediate effects; but it is not in this metaphysical sense that faith is used in re- ference to justification. That belief of the gospel which justifies includes receiving Christ, coming to him, and trusting in him. Whatever shades of difference there be between belief and these “advances of the mind towards Christ,” the Scriptures represent them, with respect to an interest in justification and other collateral blessings, as one and the same thing. This is manifest from the following passages: “As many as received him, to them gave he power (or privilege) to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.”—“I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed to him against that day.”—“That we should be to the praise and glory of his grace who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also trusted after ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also after ye believed ye were sealed,” &c.—“He that cometh to me shall never hunger, and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.”—“Ye will not come unto me that ye may have life.”—“Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” In these and many other passages it is manifest that believing, coming, trusting, &c. are used as convertible terms, and that the thing signified by them is necessary to justification. If “receiving” Christ were an effect of faith in persons already justified, why is it used as synony- mous with it, and held up as necessary to our being the sons of God? If “ coming” to Christ were an exercise of mind in one who was already in a state of justification, why is he said to come to him “that he may have life?” And why, if salvation be promised to a mere “notion ” of the truth without any love to it, is it said of apostates, that “they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved 2* Let those who have their senses exercised to discern between good and evil judge, from these things, whether a mere notion of the truth, exclusive, or, if you please, antecedent to the consideration of receiving Christ, coming to him, and trusting in him, be the faith that jus- tifies; and whether, if the former were separate from the latter, it would not leave the sinner under condemnation. It has been said, “In defining saving faith, some have included in its essence almost every holy temper; and by insisting so much on this faith, and giving such laboured descriptions of it, have almost inevitably led their followers to look more to their faith than to the great object of faith; to be more occupied in attending to the working of their own minds, than with that truth which reconciles the sin- ner to God. It is in consequence to be feared that not a few who are reckoned orthodox are in fact trusting to their faith, and not to Christ, making him merely a minister of their own self-righteousness; for we may go about to establish our own righteousness under the name of faith as well as under any other name.” I doubt not but preachers may abound in describing one part of Divine truth to the neglect of another, and may go even beyond the truth; people may also make a righteous- ness of their faith, as well as of other things. If no more were meant than that a sinner whose inquiry is, What must I do to be saved 3 ought to be directed immediately to Christ, and not to an examination into the nature of faith, I should most cordially acquiesce in it; but it does not follow that mothing should on any occasion be said of the true nature of faith. There may be a time when the same person shall come with another and very different question; namely, Am I a true believer ? Such questions there must have been in the apostle's time, or there would not have been answers to them. See 1 John ii. 3; iii. 14. 18–21. Now in answer to such an inquiry, the true na- ture and genuine effects of faith require to be stated and distinguished from that which leaves thousands short of salvation. And as to men making a righteousness of their faith, men may make a righteousness of simple belief as well as of trust, or any other idea supposed to be included in justifying faith ; and whether there be not actually as much laboured description, self-admiration, and contempt of others, (things nearly akin to self-righteousness,) among the advocates of this system, as among their opponents, let 262 STRICTURES ON SANT)|EMANIANISM. the candid observer judge. If we are to say nothing about the holy nature of faith, lest men should make a righteousness of it, we must say nothing of any thing else that is holy, for the same reason, and so cease to distin- guish all true religion in the mind from that which is counterfeit ; but so did not the sacred writers. To the same purpose Mr. M'Lean writes in his treatise on the Commission : “Now when men include in the very nature of justifying faith such good dispositions, holy affec- tions, and pious exercises of heart as the moral law re- quires, and so make them necessary (no matter under what consideration) to acceptation with God, it perverts the apostle's doctrine upon this important subject, and makes Mºtion to be at least as it were by the works of the aW.” I know not of any writer who has given such a defini- tion of faith as these statements would represent. No more holy affection is pleaded for in faith than unholy disaffection is allowed to be in unbelief. But the design is manifestly to exclude all holy affection from faith, as being favourable to self-righteousness. If, therefore, repentance be considered as necessary to forgiveness, seeing this must be allowed to include holy affection, it will be considered as favourable to self-right- eousness. And as to distinguishing between what is ne- cessary in the established order of things, from what is ne- cessary as a procuring cause, this will not be admitted; for it is “no matter under what consideration;” if any thing required by the moral law be rendered necessary, “it makes justification to be at least as it were by the works of the law.” Yet Mr. M. allows faith, whatever it is, to be a duty. Is it then a requirement of a new and remedial law? Would not the love of God, which is required by the old law, lead any sinner to believe in Christ? If not, why is unbelief alleged against the Jews as a proof that they had not the love of God in them 2 See John v. 42, 43. As Mr. M., however, in his piece on the Calls and Invita- tions of the Gospel, has gone far towards answering him- self, I shall transcribe a passage from that performance : “It is an unscriptural refinement upon Divine grace,” he there says, “and contrary to the doctrine of the apostles, to class faith and repentance with the works of the law, and to state them as equally opposite to free justification. In- deed, neither faith nor repentance is the meritorious or procuring cause of a sinner's justification any more than the works of the law are (and who that really believes and repents will imagine that they are 2) But still the one is opposed to free justification, the other not. To him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt; and faith and repentance corresponding exactly with the manifestation of Divine grace, as freely justifying the guilty through the atonement, are in their very nature opposite to all self-dependence, and lead men to glory in the Lord,”—p. 26. We see here that there is nothing in the nature of re- pentance that clashes with a free justification, which yet must be allowed to include a portion of holy affection. Why then object to the same thing in faith ? Is it because holy affection is “required by the moral law * Be it so ; it is the same in repentance as in faith; and if the one may in its very nature agree with a free justification, so may the other. The truth is, the moral law, materially con- sidered, is not opposed to free justification. The love of God and man in its own nature is as opposite to self- righteous pride as faith and repentance are. It is not the law that is against the promises, but those works of the law done by a sinful creature with a view of obtaining life, or of procuring acceptance with God as the reward of them. If holy affection were urged with such a view, then were it opposed to the free grace of the gospel; but while this is not the case, all such reasonings are unscriptural refine- ments. If men make a righteousness of their faith, it is not owing to these representations of it, but to their own cor- ruptions; for, let faith include what good disposition it may, it is no part of the meritorious cause of justification; and let it be simplified as it may, even till it shall contain no more of the holy nature of God than a glance of the eye, yet is it not on this account more friendly to the doctrine of grace, nor less liable to become the food of a self-righteous spirit. The way in which this spirit is cut up in the New Testament is, not by reducing faith to an unfeeling speculation, but by denouncing the curse against every one who cometh short of perfect obedience, Gal. iii. 10. It has been further said, “Taith purifies the heart, worketh by love, and discovereth itself sincere by the per- formance of good works. Faith, therefore, is not holiness, love, or new obedience, unless the effect is the same with the cause, or the evidence with the thing proved.” Faith certainly is not the same thing as holiness, or love, or new obedience. Neither is unbelief the same thing as unholi- ness, enmity, or disobedience; but it is not so distinct from either as not to partake of the same general nature. It is not only the root of all other sin, but is itself a sin. In like manner, faith is not only the root of all other obe- dience, but is itself an exercise of obedience. It is called “obeying the truth,” and “obeying the gospel.” To say that faith includes no holiness, (which this objection cer- tainly does,) and yet produces it, as the seed produces the plant, is to contradict the established laws of nature, ac- cording to which every seed produces its own body. God can produce something out of nothing, but in the ordinary course of traduction every seed produces after its kind. If holiness, therefore, were not included in faith, it would not grow out of it. Mr. M'Lean does not agree with Mr. Sandeman in con- sidering faith as a passive admission of the truth, but al- lows it to be an act or eacercise of the mind,—Reply, pp. 74, 75. A large part of his work, however, is taken up in attempting to prove that it is a mere exercise of the under- standing, exclusive of every thing pertaining to the will and affections. It is no part of the question between him and me, whether, properly speaking, it has its seat in the understanding; for this it may have, and yet be influenced by the disposition. Unbelief has its seat in the under- standing as much as belief, yet it is not denied that this is influenced by the disposition. “It arises,” says Mr. M“Lean, “not merely from ignorance, but also from the aversion of the will, whereby the judgment is blinded, and most unreasonably prejudiced against the truth,”—p. 76. Nor had Mr. M'Lean any just ground for construing what I had said in proof of faith in Christ being such a belief as arises from a renewal of the spirit of the mind, as an at- tempt to “prove that faith is more than belief.”—p. 80. He allows unbelief to arise, in part, from disposition; yet I suppose he would not be thought, by this concession, to make it something more than unbelief. If unbelief may consist in such a discredit of the gospel as arises from aversion to it, and yet be nothing more than unbelief, faith may consist in such a credit of the gospel as arises from a renewal of the spirit of the mind, and yet be nothing more than belief. To this may be added, if faith in Christ be a duty com- manded of God, an act of the human mind, an exercise of obedience to God, (all which Mr. M. acknowledges,) it must be the effect of regeneration, or it will follow that they that are in the flesh may please God. Mr. M'Lean speaks much of simple belief, as Mr. Sandeman did of bare belief. Mr. S. manifestly intended hereby to exclude every “advance” of the sinner to Christ, as signified by such terms as coming to Christ, trusting in him, &c. from justifying faith. Such may be the intention of Mr. M'Lean; if it be not, I do not understand the use of the epithet. He cannot, however, consistently reject every “advance” of the mind to Christ as belonging to justifying faith, since he acknowledges the soul to be active in believing. But while dwelling so much on simple be- lief, why does he not dwell also on simple unbelief? If belief be simple, so must unbelief, for they are opposites. And I readily acknowledge there are such things as simple belief and simple unbelief; but neither of them applies to the credit or discredit of the gospel. If a stranger, who has no claim on my confidence, relate a story of something that he has seen in a distant country, but which in no way concerns me, I may believe him or disbelieve him : my faith in the one case, or my unbelief in the other, would be perfectly simple. But if it be a story of deep interest, if the undoubted veracity of the party has a claim on my confidence, and if my future course of life turns upon the CONSEQUENCES OF MR. S.’S NOTION OF FAITH. 263 credit or discredit that I give him, neither the one nor the other will be simple, but compounded of a number of moral principles which influence my decision: if to dis- credit his testimony, they are prejudices which blind me to the force of evidence ; if to credit it, candour, or open- ness to conviction. It is thus in believing the gospel, which is a subject of the deepest interest, testified by a Being whose veracity it is a crime to question, and of such consequence to a sinner, even in this life, that, if he admit it, he must relinquish all his former courses, and live a new life. Intrenched in prejudice, self-righteousness, and the love of sin, he continues an unbeliever till these strong holds are beaten down ; nor will he believe so long as a wreck of them remains sufficient to shelter him against the arrows of conviction; nor, in short, till by the renovating influence of the Holy Spirit they fall to the ground. It is then, and not till then, that the doctrine of salvation by mere grace, through a Mediator, is cordially believed. Mr. M'Lean, in his arguing for what he calls simple be- lief, seems to be aware that it is not the proper opposite of unbelief as described in the Scriptures. Hence he some where alleges that we cannot reason from the nature of unbelief to that of belief, any more than from that of de- merit to merit. But the disparity between demerit and merit, to which he refers, does not respect their nature, but the condition of the party who is the subject of them. Merit is the desert of good, and demerit the desert of evil: they are, therefore, properly opposites, whatever may be the condition of the party as to being equally capable of exercising them; and it is fair in ascertaining their nature to argue from the one to the other. Upon the whole, I see no reason to retract what I have in substance said before, that if faith and unbelief be opposites, (which to deny were disowning that which is self-evident,) the one can be no more simple, or exclusive of the influence of the will, than the other. LETTER III. A MORE PARTICULAR INQUIRY INTO THE CONSEQUENCES OF MR. SANDEMAN’s NOTION OF JUSTIFYING FAITH. You will not conclude, from any thing I have said, or may yet say, that I accuse every one who favours this doctrine of holding all the consequences which may be proved to arise from it: it is however a fair method of trying a prin- ciple to point out other principles to which it leads, which, if contrary to the Scriptures, furnish reasons for reject- ing it. If the faith by which we are justified be a mere passive reception of light, or contain no exercise of affection, it follows, - First, That repentance is not necessary to forgiveness. It is allowed, on all hands, that justification includes the forgiveness of sin. Whatever differences there be between them, they are not so different but that he who is justified is forgiven. If therefore we be justified by a mere notion of the truth antecedently to all exercise of affection, we are forgiven in the same way; that is, our sins are forgiven before we repent of them. Mr. Sandeman, I conceive, would have avowed this consequence. Indeed he does avow it, in effect, in de- claring that “ he can never begin to love God till he first see him just in justifying him, ungodly as he stands.” If he cannot begin to love God, he cannot begin to be sorry for having sinned against him, unless it be for the conse. quences which it has brought upon himself. By being justified “ungodly as he stands,” he means to Say, there: fore, that he is justified and forgiven while his mind is in a state of impenitence, and that it is the consideration of this that renders him penitent. Whether this notion be not in direct opposition to the whole current of both the Old and New Testament, let the following passages, out of many more which might be selected, determine. “I said, I will confess my transgres- sions unto the Lord ; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin.”—“If thy people Israel sin against thee, and re- pent, and make supplication unto thee towards this house, then hear thou from heaven thy dwelling-place, and forgive thy people.”—“He that covereth his sins shall not pros- per : but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall find mercy.”—“Let the wicked forsake his way, and the un- righteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him ; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.”—“Thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.”—“ Re- pent therefore, and be baptized, every one of you, for the remission of sins.”—“ Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.”—“ Him hath God ex- alted a Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and the forgiveness of sins.”—“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” I shall not stop here to inquire into the order in which the Scriptures represent repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. This I shall attend to in a letter by itself. It is sufficient at present to observe, that whatever be the order of repentance in respect of faith, it is uniformly represented in the Scriptures as necessary to forgiveness. Every notion, therefore, of standing forgiven in a state of impenitence, and of this being the only mo- tive that can lead a sinner to repentance, is false and delusive. Secondly, On this principle, faith in Christ is not a duty, and unbelief is not a sin. I am not sure whether Mr. Sandeman would have avowed both or either of these consequences. He, however, utterly disavows urging un- believers to the least shadow of obedience to the gospel in order to justification, as leading them to establish their own righteousness.” The faith, therefore, which he allows to be necessary to justification includes no obedience, which is the same thing as its being no duty. And if it be not a duty, unbelief is not a sin; for where there is no obligation, there can be no transgression. But a system which goes to nullify the command of God to believe in his Son Jesus Christ, and to excuse the sin which is threatened with eternal damnation, must be fundamentally erroneous, and, as far as it operates, sub- versive of true religion. Mr. M'Lean is very far from admitting this consequence, though he retains in part the principle from which it pro- ceeds. He allows, as we have seen already, that faith is, a duty, an act of obedience to God, and a holy eacercise of mind; yet he pleads for its containing nothing pertaining to the will. Is it possible then for any thing to be either an act, or a duty, or to contain obedience, which is purely intellectual § In whatever belongs to the understanding only, exclusive of the will and affections, the soul, I con- ceive, is passive. There are acts, no doubt, which pertain to the intellectual, as well as to the visive faculty ; but they are only such as fall under the influence of the will. It is an act to look, but not to see ; and to collect in- formation, but not to be informed. If, therefore, believing be an act of the mind, it must fall under the influence of the will. Mr. Sandeman is consistent with himself, however in- consistent he may be with the Scriptures. In confining faith to the understanding, he was aware that he disowned its being an act, and therefore, in his usual strain of banter, selected some of the grossest representations of his oppo- nents, and endeavoured to hold up acts of faith to ridicule. But Mr. M'Lean allows of faith being an act, and an act of obedience, and yet will have it that it contains nothing pertaining to the will, except in its effects. I can no otherwise account for such reasoning, in a writer of his talents, than by ascribing it to the influence of early pre- judices, contracted by having drank too deeply into the system of Mr. S., and retained by a partiality for what he has once imbibed, though utterly inconsistent with other sentiments which he has since learned from the Scriptures. That nothing can contain obedience but that which in- cludes the state or exercises of the will, or has some de- pendence upon it, is manifest from universal experience. * Epistolary Correspondence, p. 29, 264 STRICTURES ON SANDEMANIANISM. Tell a man that God has commanded him to be or to do that in which he is absolutely involuntary, and that the contrary is a sin, and see whether you can fasten convic- tion on his conscience. Nay, make the experiment on yourself. Did you ever perceive yourself obliged to any thing in which your will had no concern, or for a moment repent of living in the neglect of it? Knowledge may be a duty, and ignorance a sin, so far as each is dependent on the will, and comprehensive of approbation, but no fur- ther. LovE IS THE FULFILLING of THE LAw, or that which comprehends the whole of duty. So much, therefore, as there is of love, in any exercise of mind, so much there is of duty or obedience, and no more. Duty supposes knowledge, indeed, as Christianity supposes humanity; but the essence of it consists in disposition. It may be our duty to examine, and that with care, diligence, and impartiality; but if disposition have no place in faith, it cannot be our duty to believe. If faith be merely light in the understanding, unbelief must be merely the absence of it; and if the former in- clude nothing pertaining to the will, neither does the latter. To say that though unbelief contain a voluntary rejection of the truth, yet faith contains no voluntary re- ception of it, is saying that belief and unbelief are not opposites, which is equal to denying a self-evident propo- sition. If the one be purely intellectual, so is the other; and if there be no obedience in the former, there is no disobedience in the latter. Mr. M'Lean has said every thing on this subject that I could desire, except drawing the conclusion. Thus he reasons, when proving faith to be a duty: “Unbelief, which is the opposite of faith, is always represented as a very great and heinous sin against God. The unbelieving heart is termed an evil heart (Heb. iii. 12); and there are many evils in the heart of man which both occasion and attend unbelief. It is frequently ascribed to ignorance (Matt. xiii. 19 ; Rom. x. 3; xi. 7. 25); yet not to simple ignorance, from want of information or natural capacity, in which case it would be excusable (John ix. 41 ; xv. 22, 24); but such as arises from the agency of the god of this world, blinding the minds of them that believe not, 2 Cor. iv. 4. It is wilful ignorance, occasioned by their loving darkness and hating the light (John iii. 19, 20); and so they are represented as having closed their eyes lest they should see, Matt. xiii. 15. From this it appears that unbelief is founded, not merely on simple ignorance, but aversion from the things of God. “Now if unbelief be a sin, and seated in the depravity of the heart, as has been shown, it necessarily follows that faith, its opposite, must be a duty” [and have its seat also in the heart].—Sermons, pp. 40, 41. The words added in crotchets merely go to draw the conclusion ; and whether it be fairly drawn let the reader judge. Mr. M. cannot consistently object that, by allowing un- belief to be seated in the heart, he did not mean to grant that it was seated in the will, since his whole argument asserts the contrary; and he elsewhere says, “The Scrip- tures always represent the regenerating and sanctifying influences of the Spirit as exerted upon the heart; which includes not only the understanding, but the will and af- fections, or the prevalent inclinations and dispositions of the soul.”—Works, Vol. II. p. 91. I had said, (in my Appendix,) “I can scarcely conceive of a truth more self-evident than this, that God’s com- mands extend only to that which comes under the influence of the will.” Mr. M. allows this to be “a principle on which my main arguments seem to be grounded.” It became him, therefore, if he were able, to give it a solid answer. And what is his answer? It is so far, he says, from being self-evident, that to him it does not appear evident at all. He should instance, then, in something which is allowed not to come under the influence of the will, but which, nevertheless, is a duty. Instead of this, he says, the commands of God “extend not only to what comes under the influence of the will, but also to the belief of the revealed truths and motives by which the will itself #8 influenced.”—Reply, p. 70. But who does not perceive that this is proving a thing by itself; or alleging as evi- dence that which is the very point in dispute 3 The argument was this : All duty comes under the in- fluence of the will–But faith is a duty—Therefore faith comes under the influence of the will. To have over- turned the first of these propositions, which is that which he calls in question, he should have shown by something else than belief, something that is allowed not to come under the influence of the will, that it may, nevertheless, be commanded of God. But this he has not shown, nor attempted to show. All that Mr. M'Lean has done towards answering this argument is by labouring to fasten certain absurdities upon it. “If believing God with the understanding,” he says, “be not a duty, it must be either because he has not given a clear revelation of the truth, and supported it with suf- ficient evidence, or if he has, that there is no moral turpi- tude in mental error,”—p. 76. By this way of writing, it would seem as if I pleaded for men’s believing without their understanding, of which I certainly have no idea, any more than of their disbe- lieving without it. I hold no more in respect of faith than Mr. M. does in respect of unbelief; namely, that it does not pertain to the understanding only. The greatest evidence or authority cannot oblige us to that in which we are absolutely involuntary. God commands us to love him with all our powers, but not beyond our powers. To love him with all our hearts includes every thing that depends upon disposition, even the bowing of our understandings to revealed truth, instead of proudly rejecting it; but that is all. So far as knowledge or belief is absolutely involuntary, we might as well ascribe duty to the convulsive motions of the body as to them. And as to “mental error,” if it could be proved to be merely mental, that is, not to arise from indolence, prejudice, aversion, or any other evil dis- position, it would be innocent. Christ did not criminate the Jews for simply misunderstanding him, but refers to the cause of that misunderstanding as the ground of cen- sure. “Why do ye not understand my speech 3 because we cannot hear my word;” that is, because they were ut- terly averse from it. Mr. M'Lean acknowledges as much as this, when he speaks of the neglect of the great salva- tion being the effect of perverseness and aversion, and therefore inexcusable.” What is this but admitting that if it arose from simple ignorance, it would be excusable % Another consequence which Mr. M. endeavours to fasten upon this principle is, “If faith be not a duty unless it be influenced by the moral state of the heart, then it can be no man’s duty to believe the testimony of God con- cerning his Son till he is previously possessed of that moral state,”—p. 73. But if this consequence were just, it would follow from his own principles as well as mine. He con- siders the illumination of the Holy Spirit as necessary to believing ; but does he infer that till such illumination take place it is not a sinner's duty to believe? He also considers repentance as the fruit of faith; but does he in- fer that till a sinner is in possession of faith it is not his duty to repent? The truth is that God, in requiring any one duty, (be it repentance or faith, or what it may,) re- quires that, as to the state of the mind, which is necessary to it. It was not the duty of Absalom to ask pardon of David without feeling sorry for his offence; but it does not follow that while his heart was hardened he was under no obligation to ask pardon. He was under obli- gation to both ; and so are men with regard to believing the gospel. They are obliged to be of an open, upright, unprejudiced mind, and so to believe the truth. If faith be a duty, believing is a holy exercise of the mind; for what else is holiness but a conformity of mind to the revealed will of God? Mr. M. allows of a belief which is “merely natural,” and that it has “no holiness in it.” He also allows that that which has the promise of salvation is holy. So far then we seem to be agreed. Yet when he comes to state wherein its holiness consists, he seems to resolve every thing into the cause, and the nature of the truth believed,—p. 67. Each of these, in- deed, affords proof of the holy nature of faith; but to say that it consists in either is to place the nature of a thing in its cause, and in the object on which it terminates. The objects of belief are exactly the same as those of un- belief; but it will not be alleged, I presume, that unbelief is a holy exercise ! The sum is, Mr. M. thinks he ascribes duty and holi- CONSEQUENCES OF MR. S.’S NOTION OF FAITH. 265 ness to faith; but his hypothesis is inconsistent with both. And this is all that I ever meant to charge him with. It never was in my heart to “impeach his honesty,” (p. 64,) though he has more than once impeached mine. Thirdly, On this principle, calls, invitations, and eachort- ations to believe have no place in the Christian ministry. To call, invite, or exhort a man to that in which his will has no concern is self-evident absurdity. Every man must feel it, if he only make the experiment. Mr. Sande- man is aware of this, and therefore utterly gives up the practice, declaring that the whole of what he has to offer is evidence. He says, “I would set before him (the sinner) all the evidence furnished me by the gospel. Thus, and thus only, would I press, call, invite, exhort, or urge him to believe.”* That is, he would not press, call, invite, exhort, or urge him to believe at all. So far he is con- sistent with himself, though at the utmost variance with the Scriptures. God, however, by the prophets and apostles, did not barely offer evidence, but addressed every power and passion of the human mind. Mr. Sandeman may call this “human clamour, pressing men on to the blind business of per- forming some task called believing;” but this will prove nothing but his dexterity, when pressed with an argument which he cannot answer, at turning it off by raillery. The clamour of the prophets and apostles was such as follows: “Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way.”—“Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy and eat; yea come, buy wine and milk without money, and without price. Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread, and your labour for that which satisfieth not? Hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fat- mess. Incline your ear, and come unto me; hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting cove- nant with you, even the sure mercies of David.” If this figurative language should be thought to leave the subject in doubt, the following verses express the same sentiments without a figure : “Seek ye the Lord while he may be found; call ye upon him while he is near : let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him ; and to our God, for he will abund- antly pardon.”—“Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth ; for I am God, and there is none else.” —“Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls.”—“Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me ; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.”—“Repent ye, and believe the gospel.”—“Ho, every one that thirsteth, let him come unto me and drink!”—“While ye have the light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light.”—“La- bour not for the meat that perisheth, but for that which endureth to everlasting life.”—“Compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.”—“Repent, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.”—“Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye Sinners ; and purify your hearts, ye double-minded. Ée afflicted, and mourn, and weep.”—“ Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.”—“All things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of recon- ciliation.”—“Now them we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech (men) by us; we pray (them) in Christ's stead, (saying,) be ye reconciled to God.” Mr. Sandeman may tell us that the character of ambas- sadors does not belong to ordinary ministers, and may at- * Epistolary Correspondence, p. 8. * It becomes me here to acknowledge that, in the Appendix to the last edition of The Gospel Worthy of all Acceptation, I was guilty of an oversight, in attributing many of the foregoing sentiments to M. M“Lean which did not belong to him. This misstatement was owing tº my having, at the time, entirely forgot his piece On the Caſſis of iñº Gospel, and my considering an anonymous performance, entitled Simple Truth, written by a Mr. Bernard, as his. It is true I had the *eans of knowing better, and should have been more attentive to them; in this, however, lay the whole of my fault. It never was my S # tribute the invitations used in the present day to “priestly pride, and strutting self-importance ;” but this will only prove that he has reasoned himself into a situation from which he has no other way of extricating himself than by having recourse to abuse instead of argument. What does it avail him, whether ordinary ministers be ambassadors for Christ, or not? If faith be a mere passive reception of the truth, it were as improper for the apostles to beseech sinners to be reconciled to God as for ordinary ministers to do so. Extraordinary powers could not render that consistent which is in itself absurd. But I need say the less on this head, as Mr. M'Lean, in the First Part of his Thoughts on the Calls and Invitations of the Gospel, has not only alleged the foregoing passages, with others, but shown their connexion and pertinency to the point at issue. Suffice it for me to say, that a system which requires the disuse of the most distinguished means pertaining to the ministry of the word must be fundamentally erroneous, and of a tendency to render the good news of salvation of none effect.f. “To urge unbelievers,” says Mr. Sandeman, “to any shadow of obedience to the gospel, as preparative to justi- fication by faith, can have no other effect than to lead them to establish their own righteousness, and to stand in awe of the preacher.”f Obedience to the gospel, in Mr. Sandeman’s view, is the effect of faith; the Scriptures, however, as we have seen, make faith itself to be obedi- ence, and unbelief to be disobedience. If by “prepara- tive,” he means any thing which contributes to the ground or reason of justification, what he says of its self-righteous tendency is true; and the same would be true of his “no- tion,” or “bare belief ;” but to represent obedience to the gospel as necessary in the established order of things to justification, is to represent it according to the whole current of Scripture, as is manifest from the forego- ing passages; and this can have no self-righteous tend- €IlCW, - #. that believeth worketh not in respect of justiftcation. He does not deserve what he obtains, but receives it as a free gift ; and it is of the nature of faith so to receive it. We can distinguish between a man who lives by his labours and one that lives by alms ; and, without denying that the latter is active in receiving them, can clearly discern that his mode of living is directly opposed to that of the other. He that should contend that living by alms actively re- ceived was the same thing as living by works, would not be reckoned a reasoner, but a driveller. To set ourselves against the practice of the prophets and apostles, in order to support the freeness of justification, is supporting the ark with unhallowed hands; or, as Mr. M“Lean expresses it, replying against God. “Cannot the wicked,” continues he, “be exhorted to believe, repent, and seek the Lord, and be encouraged to this by a promise of success, (Isa. lv. 6, 7,) without—making the success to depend on human merit 3 Are such exhortations and pro- mises always to be suspected of having a dangerous and self-righteous tendency 3 Instead of taking them in their plain and simple sense, must our main care always be to guard against some supposed self-righteous use of them, till we have explained away their whole force and spirit, and so distinguished and refined upon them as to make men more afraid to comply with them than to reject them, lest they should be guilty of some exertion of mind or body, some good disposition or motion towards Christ, which is supposed to be the highest wickedness, and a despising of the work of Christ?” I can assure you that, while I feel sorry to have mis- taken Mr. M'Lean on this subject, I am not a little happy in being able to make such important extracts as the above from his writings. Yet when I think of some of the principles which he still avows, I feel concerned at what design, for a moment, to misrepresent Mr. M. or any other man; nor did I ever feel the least reluctance to make the most explicit ac- knowledgment. I may add, though I am sorry that I mistook him, yet I am glad I was mistaken. The difference between us is so much the less, which, to any one who wishes to unite with all who love the Lord Jesus . in sincerity, as far as possible, must afford a degree of satis- action. # Epistolary Correspondence, p. 29. % Thoughts on Calls, &c., p. 36. 266 STRICTURES ON SANDEMANIANISM. appears to me his inconsistency; and not merely his, but that of many others whom I sincerely esteem. - If, after what has passed, I could hope for a candid at- tention, I would entreat Mr. M'Lean, and others like- minded with him, to consider whether that practical neglect | of calls and invitations to the unconverted which is said to prevail wherever these sentiments are imbibed, and which he almost acknowledges to have attended his own ministry, has not arisen from this cause.* So long as he considers faith as something in which the will has no concern, in- stead of my being surprised at his feeling a difficulty in carrying the principles pleaded for in his Thoughts on the Calls of the Gospel into execution, I should be much more surprised at the contrary. If he be able to exhort sinners to repent and believe the gospel, it is more than I should be with his professed principles. So far as I know myself, I could not possibly call or invite any man to that in which his will had no concern, without feeling at the same time that I insulted him. It may seem a little remarkable that this system, and that of the high or Hyper-Calvinists in England, which in almost all other things are opposite, should on this point be agreed. The one confines believing to the understand- ing, the other represents sinners, awakened sinners at least, as being willing to believe, but unable to do so, any more than to take wings and fly to heaven. Hence neither of them holds it consistent to call on sinners to believe in Christ, nor is it consistent with their principles ; but how it is that they do not perceive, by the uniform practice of Christ and his apostles, that these principles are anti- scriptural, I cannot otherwise account for than by ascrib- ing it to the perverting influence of hypothesis. LETTER IV. ON THE FAITH OF DEVILS AND NOMINAL CHRISTIANS, YoU are aware that the apostle James speaks of some whose faith was dead, being alone; and that, in answer to their boastings, he reminded them that the devils also be- lieved and trembled. Hence, it has been generally thought, there must be an essential difference between the mature of the faith of nominal Christians and devils on the one hand, and that of true Christians on the other. But this would overturn a leading principle of the Sandemanian system. Its advocates, therefore, have generally contended that “whosoever among men believes what devils do, about the Son of God, is born of God, and shall be saved;”f and that the design of the apostle was not to compare, but rather to contrast it with that of the nominal Christian ; the latter as having no effect on the mind, the former as causing its subjects to tremble. It has also been com- monly maintained, on that side of the question, that the faith of which the apostle James speaks, instead of being of a different nature from that of true Christians, was in reality nothing but profession, or “saying, I have faith.” “The design of the apostle,” it has been said, “is to re- present that faith, whether it be on earth or in hell, if it really existed, and was not merely pretended or professed, was always productive of corresponding works.” As the whole argument seems to rest upon the question whether the faith of nominal Christians be here compared to that of devils or contrasted with it, and as the solution of this question involves a fundamental principle of the system, it is worthy of a particular examination. The words of the apostle are as follow :—“What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works 3 Can faith save him # If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit 3 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.”—“Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works; show me thy • His words are, “However negligent I may be in urging sinners to repentance, it has always been my firm belief that not only the unconverted, but even the converted themselves, need often to be faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well ; the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead.” If the design be to contrast the faith of devils with that of nominal Christians, the apostle must undoubtedly mean to render the latter a nonentity, or a mere pretence, and to hold up the former as a reality; and, what is more, to re- present the “trembling ” of the fallen spirits as a species of good fruit, good at least in its nature, and wanting no- thing to render it saving but the circumstantial interference of a more favourable situation. To this view of the passage I have several objections.— First, The apostle does not treat the faith of nominal Christians as a nonentity, but as something which existed, though void of life, as “a dead body without the spirit.” On the principle here opposed there is no such a thing as a dead faith ; that which is so called being mere pretence. The party is, indeed, represented as saying he has faith, but the same may be alleged of the true Christian with respect to works, James ii. 18. If, hence, the faith of the one be considered as a nonentity, the works of the other must be the same. Secondly, The place in which the faith of devils is intro- duced proves that it is for the purpose of comparison, and not of contrast. If it had been for the latter, it should have been introduced in verse 18, and classed with the operative belief of true Christians, rather than in verse 19, where it is classed with that of nominal Christians. The argument then would have been this : “Show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works: the devils believe, and tremble ; but thou believest, and tremblest not ; therefore thy faith is a mere pretence.” Thirdly, The copulative particle “ also,” instead of the disjunctive, determines it to be a comparison, and not a contrast. If it were the latter, the argument requires it to have been thus expressed:—“Thou believest there is one God; thou doest well: but the devils believe, and trem- ble.” If kai be rendered and, or even, instead of also, as it often is, yet the meaning is the same. “Thou believest there is one God: thou doest well; and the devils believe, and tremble; or, even the devils believe, and tremble.” None of these forms of expression conveys the idea of con- trast, but of likeness. Judge, my friend, and let the reader judge, whether the meaning of the apostle be not expressed in the following paraphrase:—Show me, if thou canst, a faith which is of any value without works, and I will show thee a faith which is of value by its fruits. Thou believest that there is one God; a great matter truly 1 and may not the same be said of the worst of beings? yea, and more : for they, having felt the power of God’s anger, not only believe, but tremble; whereas thy faith suffers thee to live at ease. but as theirs, with all their trembling, is of no account, neither is thine; for faith without holy fruits is dead. If the language of the apostle may be understood as a contrast, it may be used to express that which subsists be- tween other things that differ as well as these. For ex- ample, between the faith of Christians and that of Jews. But the absurdity of this would strike any reader of com- mon discernment. “Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well:” Christians also believe, and obey! To make sense of it, it should be, But Christians believe, and obey. On the other hand, make an experiment in an instance of likeness, and the language is plain and easy. One boasts that he is not a heathen, nor a Jew, nor a de- ist, but a Christian ; while yet he is under the dominion of avarice. A man might say to him, “Thou believest there is one God; thou doest well:” Felix the heathen was so far convinced of this, and, what is more, trembled : yet Felix’s convictions were of no value, and brought forth no good fruit; neither are thine, for faith without works is dead. sº, There is no reason to conclude that the faith and trem- bling of devils differ in any thing, except in degree, from the convictions and trembling of Felix : if, therefore, the former would in our circumstances have terminated in sal- called to repentance, and that in order to forgiveness.”—Reply, 36 p. 30. + Ecking’s Essays, p. 107. ON THE FAITH OF DEVILs. 267 vation, why did not the latter, whose situation was suf- ficiently favourable, so terminate º The convictions of James's nominal Christian might not be so strong as those of Felix, and his might not be so strong as those of the fallen angels ; but in their nature they were one and the same. The first was convinced that there was one God; but it was mere light without love. If, like what is said of the stony-ground hearers, a portion of joy at first attend- ed it, yet, the gospel having no root in his mind, and being in circumstances wherein he saw no remarkable displays of the Divine majesty, it made no durable impression upon him. The second might also be convinced that there was a God, and neither were his convictions accompanied by love, but “righteousness, temperance, and a judgment to come,” being set before him, he “trembled.” The last are convinced of the same truth, and neither are their convictions accompanied by love ; but being placed in circumstances wherein the awful majesty of God is con- tinually before their eyes, they already know in part, by sad experience, the truth of his threatenings, and tremble in expectation of greater torments. There is just as much holiness in each of these cases as in the trembling of an impenitent malefactor under the gallows. To reckon it in any of them, therefore, among “ the corresponding fruits which always attend faith if it really exists,” is to reckon as fruit that which the Scrip- tures reject as unworthy of the name. Of the four sorts of hearers, only one brought forth fruit. It is remarkable that Mr. M'Lean, after what he has written, when discoursing on the parable of the sower, particularly on those who are said to have “believed for a while,” should introduce the following sentiment in the form of an objection :-‘‘Such as fall away have never been enlightened in the knowledge of the truth, nor really be- lieved the gospel; but had only professed to believe.” His answer to this objection is still more remarkable. “The Scripture,” he says, “ supposes them to have been once enlightened—to have received the knowledge of the truth, and of the way of righteousness—to have believed for a while—and to have escaped the pollutions of the World through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. See Heb. vi. 4; x. 26; Luke viii. 13; 2 Pet. ii. 20. And their falling away after such attain. ments is that which constitutes the very sin of apostacy, and by which the guilt of it is aggravated. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of right- eousness, than after they have known it to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.”—Sermons, p. 66. All this I account very good, though I should not have expected it from Mr. M. But his refusing after this to admit an essential difference between the faith of these apostates and that of true believers is most remarkable of all. If the difference lie not in the nature of their faith, nor in the nature of the things believed, against which he also reasons, where does it lie 3 They must, one would think, have been true believers so far as they went, and so long as they continue to believe; and their falling *Way must afford an example of the apostacy of true bel. lievers. But if a person may be a true believer at one time, and an apostate at another, he can have no Scriptural ground at any period of his life, from any consciousness of believing the gospel, to conclude on his own particular salvation. Yet this is what Mr. M. has pleaded for in his treatise on the Commission. Moreover, if there be not an essential difference between the nature of the faith of apos- tates, and that of true believers, why does he himself when describing them write as follows: “Whatever appear- ances of faith there may be in false professors, they have not the same perception of the truth, nor that persuasion of it upon its proper evidence, which real believers have.” —Works, Vol. II. p. 96. I do not say of Mr. M., as he does of me, that “he can take either side of the question as he finds occasion:” but this I say, he appears to me to feel the force of some truths which do not well comport with some of his former reasonings; and not being able, jºuld seem, to reconcile them, he leaves them unrecon! Clle Cl. Surely it were more agreeable to the truth, and to the Passages on which he discourses, to admit of an essential difference between the faith of nominal and real Chris. tians. In discoursing on the “good ground” in the para- ble, he very properly represents true believers, and them only, as being “taught by the special illuminating influ- ences of the Holy Spirit;” but surely that which is the fruit of this special influence-possesses a special nature. Why else do we read that “that which is born of the Spi- rit is spirit?” and why does it denominate a man spirit- ual? 1 Cor. ii. 15. We may not, as he says, be “able to distinguish, in the first impressions of the gospel, the faith of a stony-ground hearer from that of a true be- liever;” but it does not follow that there is not an essen- tial difference notwithstanding. The unrenewed character, with all his knowledge, know- eth nothing as he ought to know. He perceives not the intrinsic evil of sin, and consequently, discerns not the in- trinsic excellence of the knowledge of Christ. That in the gospel which pleases him is its giving relief to his troubled conscience. Hence “all his godliness,” as Mr. Sandeman says, “ consists in love to that which first re- lieved him.” We have been told more than once that “ there need be no question about how we believe, but what we believe.” Mr. M'Lean will answer this, that “the matter or object of belief, even in apostates, is said to be the word of the kingdom—the truth—the way of righteousness—the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; and what other object of faith have true believers ?”—Sermons, pp. 66, 67. I have no objection to allowing, however, that if we believe the very truth as it is in Jesus, there can be nothing wanting in the manner of believing it. But though this be true, and though an inquirer after the way of salvation ought to be directed to the saving doctrine of the cross, rather than to the workings of his own mind concerning it, yet there is in the workings of a believer’s mind towards it something essentially different from those of the merely nominal Christian ; and which, when the inquiry comes to be, “Am I a believer?” ought to be pointed out. He not only believes truths which the other does not, but be- lieves the same truths in a different manner. In other words, he believes them on different grounds, and with different affections. That which he knoweth is, in mea- sure, “as he ought to know it.” He discerns spiritual things in a spiritual manner; which is the only manner in which they can be discerned as they are. It might be said there need be no question about how we repent, or hope, or love, or pray; but what we repent of, what we hope for, what we love, and what we pray for. And true it is, that if we repent of sin as sin, hope for the things which the gospel promises, love the true character of God and all that bears his image, and pray for those things which are according to his will, there will be nothing wanting as to the manner; but it does not follow that there is no difference as to the manner of these exercises in true Christians and in merely nominal ones. Our being right as to the objects may be a proof of our being right as to the manner, as the needle's pointing to the magnet proves the correspondence of the nature of the One with that of the other ; but as in this case we should not say it is of no account whether the needle be made of steel or of some other substance, so that it points to the magnet, neither in the other should we consider the nature of spiritual exercises as a matter of no account, but merely the objects on which they terminate. When we read, concerning the duty of prayer, that “the Lord is nigh unto all that call upon him in truth,” and that “we know not what to pray for as we ought,” we infer that there is something in the nature of a good man's prayers which distinguishes them from others. But there is just the same reason for inferring that there is something in the nature of a good man’s knowledge which distinguishes it from that of others; for as he only that is assisted by the Holy Spirit prays as he ought, so he only . is taught of God knoweth any thing as he ought to (72070, - The holy nature of living faith may be difficult, and even impossible, to be ascertained but by its effects; as it is difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish some seeds from others till they have brought forth their respective fruits; but a difference there is, notwithstanding. If there need be no inquiry as to the nature of faith, but 26S STRICTURES ON SANDEMANIANISM. merely concerning its objects, how was it that the Corinth- ians, who, by their unworthy spirit and conduct, had rendered their being Christ's disciples indeed a matter of doubt, should be told to eacamine themselves whether they were in the faith, and should be furnished with this cri- terion, that if they were true believers, and not repro- bates, or such as would be disapproved as dross, Jesus Christ was in them ż On the principle here opposed, they should have examined, not themselves, but merely their creed, or what they believed, in order to know whether they were in the faith. If the faith of devils would have issued in their salva- tion, provided, like us, they had been placed in circum- stances of hope, it will follow that faith is not produced by the grace of the Holy Spirit, but merely by Divine Providence. No one, I presume, will ascribe the belief of devils to the Holy Spirit: whatever they believe must be owing to the situation in which they are placed, and the circumstances attending them. But if faith may be the mere effect of situation and circumstances in one case, why not in another? Sandemanians have often been charged with setting aside the work of the Spirit, and have often denied the charge : but whatever may be said of their other principles, their notion of the faith of devils must sap the foundation of that important doctrine. If this notion be true, all that is necessary is that the party be placed under the influence of truth clearly stated and sufficiently impressive, and within the limits of the promise of salvation. All the change, therefore, which is necessary to eternal life may be wrought by only a proper adjust- ment of moral causes. Only place mankind in circum- stances in which their minds shall be impressed with terror equal to that of the fallen angels, and let the promise of salvation to believers be continued as it is, and all would be saved. And with respect to the fallen angels them- selves, only extend to them the promise to believers, and they are at once in a state of salvation. Such, on this hypothesis, would have been the happy condition of both men and devils; but the hope of mercy and the sense of wrath are both rendered abortive for want of being united. Providence places sinners on earth under the hope of sal- vation ; but then they are not in circumstances sufficiently impressive, and so it comes to nothing. In hell the cir- cumstances are sufficiently impressive, and they actually believe ; but then there is no hope, and so again it comes to nothing ! Surely the parable of the rich man and Lazarus might suffice to teach us the insufficiency of all means to bring sinners to God, when we are assured that if they believed not Moses and the prophets, neither would they be per- suaded though one should rise from the dead. I am far from accusing all who have pleaded for the faith of devils being such as would be saving in our circumstances as designing to undermine the work of the Spirit; but that such is its tendency is, I presume, sufficiently manifest. Nor is this all : not only is the influence of the Spirit set aside, in favour of the mere influence of moral suasion, but the fruits of the Spirit are made to consist of that which is the ordinary effect of such influence. “When any person on earth,” it has been said, “believes Jesus (who is now invisible) with equal assurance as the devils, he rejoices in hope, is animated by love to him, and feels disposed to obey his will, and to resist his own evil inclin- ations.” There are, I grant, sensations in the human mind which arise merely from the influences of hope and fear, and which bear a near resemblance to the fruits of the Spirit; but they are not the same. The judgments of God inflicted upon the carnal Israelites in the wilderness caused the survivors to tremble, and wrought in them a great care to be more religious, and to resist their evil inclinations. “When he slew them, then they sought him : and they returned early after God; they remembered that God was their Rock, and the high God their Redeemer.” Such was the effect of moral influence, or of the word and works of God : but what follows 3 “Nevertheless they did flatter him with their mouth, and they lied unto him with their tongues; for their heart was not right with him, neither were they stedfast in his covenant.” Thus, on the approach of death, we still see men greatly affected. Light as they may have made of religion before, they now be- lieve enough to make them tremble. At such times it is common for them to think how good they would be, and what a different life they would lead, if it would please God to restore them. And should a favourable turn be given to their affliction, they are affected in another way; they weep, and thank God for their hopes of recovery, not doubting but they shall become other men. But I need not tell you, or the reader, that all this may consist with a heart at enmity with the true character of God, and that it frequently proves so, by their returning, as soon as the impression subsides, to their old courses. The whole of this process may be no more than an operation of self-love, or, as Mr. Sandeman calls it, “a love to that which relieves them,” which is something at a great remove from the love of God, and therefore is not “godliness.” Godliness has respect to God, and not merely to our own relief. The distress of an ungodly mind, consisting only in a fearful apprehension of consequences, may be relieved by any thing that furnishes him with a persuasion of the removal of those consequences. It may be from an idea that he has performed the conditions of salvation; or from an impulse that his sins are forgiven ; or from his imagining that he “sees God just in justifying him, un- godly as he stands.” Any of these considerations will give relief; and no man will be so wanting to himself as not to “love that which relieves him.” There may be some difference in these causes of relief: the former may be derived from something in ourselves; and the latter may seem to arise from what Christ has done and suffered: but if the undertaking of Christ be merely viewed as a relief to a sinner, we overlook its chief glory ; and the re- ligion that arises from such views is as false as the views themselves are partial. The first idea in the doctrine of the cross is, “ Glory to God in the highest.” Its proclaiming “peace on earth, and good-will to men,” is consequent on this. But that which occupies the first place in the doctrine itself must occupy the first place in the belief of it. The faith of the gos- pel corresponds with the gospel: “So we preached, and so ye believed.” God will assert his own glory, and we must subscribe to it, before we are allowed to ask or hope for the forgiveness of our sins; as is clearly taught us in what is called the Lord’s prayer. He, therefore, that views the cross of Christ merely as an expedient to relieve the guilty, or only subscribes to the justice of God in his condemnation, when conceiving himself delivered from it, has yet to learn the first principles of Christianity. His rejoicing in the justice of God, as satisfied by the death of Christ, while he hates it in itself considered, is no more than rejoicing in a dreaded tyrant being appeased, or some- how diverted from coming to hurt him. And shall we call this the love of God? To make our deliverance from Divine condemnation the condition of our subscribing to the justice of it proves, beyond all contradiction, that we care only for ourselves, and that the love of God is not in us. And herein, if I may adopt Mr. Sandeman’s term, consists the very “poison” of his system. It is one of the many devices for obtaining relief to the mind, without justifying God, and falling at the feet of the Saviour; or, which is the same thing, without “repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” The doctrine of the cross presupposes the equity and goodness of the Divine law, the exceeding sinfulness of sin, the exposedness of the sinner to God’s righteous curse, and his utter insufficiency to deliver his soul. To believe this doctrine, therefore, must needs be to subscribe with our very heart to these principles, as they respect our- selves; and so to receive salvation as being what it is, a message of pure grace, through a mediator. Such a con- viction as this never possessed the mind of a fallen angel, nor of a fallen man untaught by the special grace of God. CONNEXION OF REPENTANCE AND FAITH. 269 LETTER. W. ON THE CONNEXION BETWEEN REPENTANCE TOWARD GOD AND FAITH TOWARD OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. THE advocates of this system do not consider the order in which these graces are ordinarily introduced in the New Testament as being the true order of nature, and therefore generally reverse it, putting faith before repentance, and invariably placing repentance among the effects of faith. A sinner, therefore, has no spiritual sense of the evil of sin, till he has believed in the Saviour, and stands in a justi- fied state. Then, being forgiven all trespasses, and recon- ciled to God through the death of his Son, he is melted into repentance. The question is not whether the gospel, when received by faith, operates in this way; for of this there can be no doubt. Nothing produces godly sorrow for sin like a be- lieving view of the suffering Saviour. Nor is it denied that to be grieved for having dishonoured God we must first believe that he is ; and, before we can come to him in acceptable worship, that through a mediator he is “the rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” Without a mediator, repentance, even if it could have existed, must have been hopeless. I have not such an idea of the sinner being brought to repentance, antecedently to his believing in Christ for salvation, as Mr. Sandeman had of his believ- ing antecedently to repentance. According to him, he be- lieves and is justified, not merely considered as ungodly, or without any consideration of godliness in him, but actually “ungodly as he stands,” and then, and not till then, be- gins to love God, and to be sorry for his sin. This is mani- festly holding up the idea of an impenitent believer, though not of one that continues such. But the antecedency which I ascribe to repentance does not amount to this. I have no conception of a sinner being so brought to repentance as to sustain the character of a penitent, and still less to obtain the forgiveness of sin, previously to his falling in with the way of salvation. I believe it is not possible for a sinner to repent, and at the same time to reject the Sa- viour. The very instant that he perceives the evil of sin so as to repent of it, he cannot think of the Saviour with- out believing in him. I have, therefore, no notion of a penitent wrºbeliever. All that I contend for is, that, in the order of cause and effect, whatever may be said as to the order of time, repentance precedes as well as follows the faith of Christ; and that faith in Christ cannot exist with- out repentance for sin. A sense of sin appears to me essential to believing in the Saviour; so much so, that without it the latter would not only be a mere “notion,” but an essentially defective one. It is admitted, on both sides, that there is a priority of one or other of these graces in the order of nature, so as that one is influenced by the other; and if no other priority were pleaded, neither the idea of a penitent unbeliever on the one hand, nor an impenitent believer on the other, would follow ; for it might still be true, as Mr. M'Lean acknowledges, that “none believe who do not repent,” and, as I also acknowledge, that none repent who, accord- ing to the light they have, do not believe. But if we maintain, not only that faith is prior in the order of nature, but that, antecedently to any true sorrow for sin, we must “see God to be just in justifying us ungodly as we stand,” this is clearly maintaining the motion of an impenitent believer. From these introductory remarks, it will appear that I have no objection to faith being considered as contem- porary with repentance in the order of time, provided the latter were made to consist in an acquiescence with the gospel way of salvation, so far as it is understood; but if it be made to include such a clear view of the gospel as neces- sarily brings peace and rest to the soul, I believe that repent- ance for sin often precedes it, even in the order of time. Such is the connexion between repentance and faith in the Scriptures that the one commonly Supposes the other. Repentance, when followed by the remission of sins, Sup- poses faith in the Saviour (Luke xxiv. 47); and faith, when followed with justification, equally supposes repent. ance for sin. Attempts have been made, by criticising on the word perávota, to explain away, as it should seem, the proper object of repentance, as if it were a change of mind with regard to the gospel. “Repentance,” says Mr. S., “is the change of a man’s mind to love the truth, which always carries in it a sense of shame and regret at his former op- position to it.” + But this is confounding repentance and faith objectively considered. The objects of both are so marked in the apostolic ministry, that one would think they could not be honestly mistaken. Repentance is to- ward God, and faith is toward our Lord Jesus Christ; the one has immediate respect to the Lawgiver, the other to the Saviour. It cannot be denied that the order in which the New Testament commonly places repentance and faith is in di- rect opposition to what our opponents plead for; and, what is more, that the former is represented as influencing the latter. This is manifest in the following passages: “Re- pent ye, and believe the gospel.”—“Testifying repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.”— “They repented not, that they might believe him.”—“If God peradventure might give them repentance to the ac- knowledging of the truth.” Mr. Sandeman, Mr. M'Lean, and all the writers on that side of the question, very rarely make use of this language ; and when they have occasion to write upon the subject, ordinarily reverse it. To accord with their ideas it should have been said, Believe the gos- pel and repent.—Testifying faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ, and repentance toward God.—They believed not, that they might repent.—If God peradventure may give them faith to repent. To this I add, it is impossible, in the nature of things, to believe the gospel but as being made sensible of that which renders it necessary. The guilty and lost state of sinners goes before the revelation of the grace of the gos- pel; the latter, therefore, cannot be understood or believed, but as we are convinced of the former. There is no grace in the gospel, but upon the supposition of the holiness, justice, and goodness of the law. If God be not in the right, and we in the wrong; if we have not transgressed without cause, and be not fairly condemned ; grace is no more grace, but a just exemption from undeserved punish- ment. And as faith must needs correspond with truth, it is impossible that we should believe the doctrine of salva- tion by grace in an impenitent state of mind, or with out feeling that we have forfeited all claim to the Divine favour. We cannot see things but as they are to be seen; to sup- pose that we first believe in the doctrine of free grace, and then, as the effect of it, perceive the evil of sin, and our just exposedness to Divine wrath, is like supposing a man first to appreciate the value of a physician, and by this means to learn that he is sick. It is true the physician may visit the neighbourhood, or the apartments, of one who is in imminent danger of death, while he thinks him- self mending every day; and this circumstance may be held up by his friends as a motive to him to consider of his condition, and to put himself under his care. It is thus that the coming of Christ, and the setting up of his spiritual kingdom in the world, were alleged as mo- tives to repentance, both to Jews and Gentiles. “Re- pent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”—“Repent ye therefore.”—“The times past of this ignorance God winked at ; but now commandeth all men every where to repent.” But as it would not follow in the one case that the sick man could appreciate the value of the physician till he felt his sickness, neither does it follow in the other that faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ precedes such a sense of the evil of sin as involves the first workings of re- pentance toward God. To argue, as some have done, from the motives of repent- ance being fetched from the gospel, that it supposes their believing the gospel ere they could repent, proves too much ; for it is not to repentance only, but to faith, that the coming of Christ's kingdom is held up as a motive : but to say that this supposes their belief of the gospel, is saying they must believe in order to believing. That a conviction of sin (whether it include the first workings of repentance or not) is necessary to faith in * Letters on Theron and Aspasio, p. 408. 270 STRICTURES ON SANDEMANIANISM. Christ is a matter so evident that those who have declaimed most against it have not been able to avoid such a repre- sentation of things. It is remarkable, that when Mr. Sandeman comes to describe his “ungodly man,” he always contrives to make him not only full of distress, but divested of all self-righteous pride: he represents him as conceiving that there are “none more ripe for hell than he, and as having no hope but in the great propitiation.”* Thus also Mr. Ecking, when describing a “mere sinner,” represents him as one who “feels himself in a perishing condition, and is conscious that he deserves no favour.”f We must not say that repentance, or any degree of a right spirit, so precedes faith in Christ as to enter into the nature of it; but if we will but call the sinner by a few hard names, we may describe him in coming to the Sa- viour as sensible of his utter unworthiness, as divested of self-righteousness, and as ripe for hell in his own eyes! In short, we may depict him as the publican who sought mercy under a humiliating sense of his utter unworthiness to receive it, so that we still call him ungodly. And to this we have no objection, so that it be understood of the character under which he is justified in the eye of the Lawgiver; but if it be made to mean that at the time of his justification he is in heart an enemy of God, we do not believe it. If he be, however, why do not these writers describe him as an enemy ought to be described 3 They teach us elsewhere that “an attachment to self-righteous- ness is natural to man as depraved;” how then came these ungodly men to be so divested of it? ... Why are they not represented as thinking themselves in a fair way for hea- ven, and that if God does not pardon them, he will do them wrong? Such is the ordinary state of mind of un- godly men or mere sinners, which is just as opposite to that which they are constrained to represent as the spirit of the Pharisee was to that of the publican. Mr. M'Lean will tell us that “this is that part of the scheme whereby persons, previously to their believing in Christ, are taught to extract comfort from their convic- tions,”—Reply, p. 148. or say, I hope others will give me credit when I declare that we have no idea of any well-grounded comfort being taken antecedently to believing in Christ. The publican is described as humbling himself before God exalted him ; but he did not derive comfort from this. If, instead of looking to the mercy of God, he had done this, it would have been a species of Pharisaical self-exaltation. But it does not follow hence that there was nothing spiritually good in his self-abasement. But Mr. M. “believes a person may be so convicted in his conscience as to view himself merely as a guilty sinner; that is, as having no righteousness to recommend him to the favour of God; and that under such conviction his sense of the evil of sin will not be confined to its punish- ºnent; but his conscience or moral sense will tell him that he deserves punishment at the hands of a righteous God,” —p. 149. Mr. M'Lean admits, then, the necessity of conviction of sin previously, in the order of things, to faith in Christ; only there is no holiness, and consequently no true re- pentance, in it. I have allowed in Letter I. that many convictions are to be resolved into the mere operations of an enlightened conscience, and do not issue in true con- version. I may add, I consider all conviction of sin which does not in its own nature lead to the Saviour as of this description. It matters not how deep the distress of a sinner may be, so long as it is accompanied by an unwill- ingness to be saved by mere grace through a mediator, there is no holiness in it, nor any thing that deserves the name of repentance. An enlightened conscience, I allow, will force us to justify God and condemn ourselves on many occasions. It was thus in Pharaoh when he said, “The Lord is righteous, and I and my people are wicked.” And this his sense of the evil of sin might not be “con- fined to its punishment; ” his “conscience or moral sense might tell him that he deserved punishment at the hand of a righteous God.” So far then are we agreed. But if Pharaoh had had a just sense of the evil of sin, it would not have left him where it did. There was an essential * Letters or Theron and Aspasio, pp. 46. 48. + Essays, p. 41. But whatever Mr. M. may think difference between what he saw by the terrors of God’s judgment, and what Paul saw when “sin by the command- ment became exceeding sinful.” Nor can I believe that any sinner was ever so divested of self-righteous hope as to consider himself a mere sinner, who yet continued to re- ject the Saviour; for this were the same thing as for him to have no ground to stand upon, either false or true ; but he who submits not to the righteousness of God is, in some form or other, going about to establish his own right- €OUISIOleSS, There is, I apprehend, an important difference between the case of a person who, whatever be his convictions, is still averse from giving up every claim and falling at the feet of the Saviour, and that of one whose convictions lead him to take refuge in the gospel, as far as he wºnder- stands it, even though at present he may have but a very imperfect view of it. I can clearly conceive of the con- victions of the former as having no repentance or holiness in them, but not so of the latter. I believe repentance has begun to operate in many persons of this description, who as yet have not found that peace or rest for their souls which the gospel is adapted to afford. In short, the question is, whether there be not such a thing as spiritual conviction, or conviction which proceeds from the special influence of the Spirit of God, and which in its own na- ture invariably leads the soul to Christ. It is not neces- sary that it should be known by the party, or by others, to be so at the time, nor can it be known but by its effects, or till it has led the sinner to believe in Christ alone for salvation. But this does not prove but that it may exist. And when I read of sin by the commandment becoming exceedingly sinful,-of our being through the law dead to the law, “that we might live unto God,”—of the law being appointed as a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, “that we might be justified by faith,”—I am persuaded that it does exist, and that to say all spiritual conviction of sin is by means of the gospel is antiscriptural and absurd. In places where the gospel is preached, and where per- sons have long heard it, it is not supposed that they are necessarily first led to think of the law, and of themselves as transgressors of it; and then, being convinced of the exceeding sinfulness of sin by it, are for the first time led to think of Christ. No, it is not the order of time, but that of cause and effect, for which I plead. It may be by thinking of the death of Christ itself that we are first led to see the evil of sin; but if it be so, this does not disprove the apostolic doctrine, that “by the law is the knowledge of sin.” If the death of Christ furnish us with this know- ledge, it is as honouring the precept and penalty of the law. It is still, therefore, by the law, as exemplified in him, that we are convinced. “A spirit of grace and supplication” was to be poured “upon the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusa- lem,” in consequence of which they were to “look upon him whom they had pierced, and mourn as for an only son, and to be in bitterness as one that is in bitterness for his first-born.” Is this mourning described as following or as preceding their forgiveness % As preceding it. It is true they are said first to “look upon him whom they had pierced;” but this view of the death of the Saviour is re- presented as working only in a way of conviction and lamentation: the view which gave peace and rest to their souls follows upon their mourning, and is thus expressed :- “In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness.” Judge, my friend, and let the reader judge, whether this account accords with our first viewing God as just, and justifying us ungodly as we stand, and then beginning to love him, and to repent of our having sinned against him. Judge whether it does not rather represent things in this order : first “a spirit of grace and supplication ” is poured upon the sinner; next he is led to think of what he has done against the Lord and his Christ, and mourns over it in the bitterness of his soul; and then gets relief by wash- ing, as it were, in the fountain of his blood. Such was doubtless the process under Peter's sermon, Acts ii. 37, 38. On the connexion of repentance and faith I am at a loss to ascertain Mr. M'Lean’s sentiments. He says, indeed, that I know them; and suggests that I must have inten- CONNEXION OF REPENTANCE AND FAITH. 271 tionally misrepresented them.—Reply, p. 36. But if they be so plain, I can only say my understanding is more dull than he supposes; for I do not yet comprehend how he can make repentance, in all cases, a fruit of faith in Christ, and yet consider it as necessary to forgiveness. He ac- knowledges that “none believe who do not repent,” (p. 39,) and that repentance is “necessary to forgiveness,”— p. 36. But forgiveness, though not the same thing as justification, is yet an essential part of it; if, therefore, he allow repentance to be antecedent to forgiveness, that is the same thing in effect as allowing it to be antecedent to jus- tification, or that the faith by which we are justified in- cludes repentance. Yet he makes faith to be such a belief as excludes all exercise of the will or affections, and con- sequently repentance for sin. He also considers repentance as an immediate effect of faith, (p. 38,) and opposes the idea of any effect of faith being included in it as necessary, not merely as a procuring cause, but in the established order of things, to justification. But this, so far as I am able to understand things, is making repentance to follow upon forgiveness rather than necessary to it. Mr. M'Lean adds, “Though repentance ought to be urged upon all who hear the gospel, and though none be- lieve it who do not repent, yet I strongly suspect that it would be leading us astray to press repentance upon them before and in order to their believing the gospel,”—p. 39. And why does he not suspect the same thing of pressing the belief of the gospel before and in order to their re- pentance? If indeed the gospel were withheld from sin- ners till they actually repent, or if it were suggested that they should first become penitents, and then think of being believers, this would be leading them astray; and the same might be said on the other side. If exhortations to re- pentance were withheld till the sinner had actually be- lieved, or it were suggested that he should first become a believer, and then think of repenting, this would be as antiscriptural as the other. But why should we not con- tent ourselves with following the examples of the New Testament, “Repent, and believe the gospel?” As Mr. M“Lean’s placing faith before repentance does not require him to avoid telling sinners of the evil nature of sin till they have believed, nor to consider them as believers while they are impenitent, why does he impute such conse- quences to me, for placing repentance before faith? Mr. M'Lean refers to a passage in the preface to the first edition of The Gospel worthy of all Acceptation, as favouring these extravagant constructions. I had said, “No sort of encouragement or hope is held out in all the book of God to any sinner as such considered.” That which I meant, at the time, was merely to disown that any sinner was encouraged to hope for eternal life without re- turning to God by Jesus Christ. Thus I explained it in my answer to Philanthropos ; but, as I perceived the idea Was not clearly expressed in the preface, and that the words were capable of an ill construction, I altered them in the second edition, and expressed my meaning as fol- lows: “There is no dispute concerning who ought to be sncouraged to consider themselves as entitled to the bless- ings of the gospel. Though sinners be freely invited to the participation of spiritual blessings, yet they have no interest in them, according to God’s revealed will, while they continue in unbelief.” I cannot consider Mr. M“Lean's other references to the first edition, after a second was in his hand, as fair or candid; and this appears to me unfair and uncandid in the extreme. It has been common to distinguish repentance into legal and evangelical ; and I allow there is a foundation in the nature of things for this distinction. The former arises from the consideration of our sin being a transgression of the holy, just, and good law of our Creator ; the latter from the belief of the mercy of God as revealed in the gos. pel, and the consideration of our sin being committed not- Withstanding, and even against it. But it appears to me to have been too lightly taken for granted that all true repentance is confined to the latter. The law and the gospel are not in opposition to each other; why then should repentance arising from the consideration of them * . opposite as that the one should be false and the other I’lle If we wish to distinguish the false from the true, or that which needs to be repented of from that which does not, we may perhaps, with more propriety, denominate them natural and spiritual; by the former understanding that which the mere principles of unrenewed nature are capa- ble of producing, and by the latter that which proceeds from the supernatural and renovating influence of the Spirit of God. Natural repentance, thus defined, is sorrow for sin chiefly with respect to its consequences, accompanied, however, with the reproaches of conscience on account of the thing itself. It is composed of remorse, fear, and regret, and is often followed by a change of conduct. It may arise from a view of the law and its threatenings, in which case it hath no hope, but worketh death, on account of there being nothing but death held out by the law for trans- gressors. Or it may arise from a partial and false view of the gospel, by which the heart is often melted under an idea of sin being forgiven when it is not so ; in this case it hath hope, but this being unfounded, it notwithstand- ing worketh death in a way of self-deception. Spiritual repentance is sorrow for sin as sin, and as sin committed against God. It may arise from a view of the death of Christ, through which we perceive how evil and bitter a thing it is, and, looking on him whom we have pierced, mourn as one mourneth for an only son. But it may also arise from the consideration of our sin being a transgression of the holy, just, and good law of God, and of our having dishonoured him without cause. Such a sense of the evil nature of sin as renders it eacceedingly sin- ful includes the essence of true repentance ; yet this, in the apostle, did not arise from the consideration of the gospel, but of the commandment. It was therefore legal repentance; yet as its tendency was to render him “dead to the law” as a medium of justification, and to bring him to Christ for life, it was spiritual. It was repentance unto life. *. chief ground on which repentance toward God has been denied to precede faith in Christ in the order of na-. ture, is, that no man can repent of sin till he entertain the hope of forgiveness. Nay, it has been said, “No man can repent unless he knows himself to be of God ; and as this cannot be known till he hath received Christ, faith must precede repentance.” If the principle that supports this argument be true, we neither have, nor ought to have, any regard to God or man but for our own sake. But if so, the command ought not to have been, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and soul, and mind, and strength, and thy neighbour as thyself:” but thou shalt love thyself with all thy heart, and soul, and mind, and strength, and thy God and thy neighbour so far as they are subservient to thee.—Moreover, if so, the world, in- stead of being greatly depraved, is very nearly what it ought to be ; for it is certainly not wanting in self-love, though it misses the mark in accomplishing its object. Some have allowed “that it is our duty to love God supremely, whether he save us or not ; but that, neverthe- less, the thing is impossible.” If it be physically impos- sible, it cannot be duty ; for God requires nothing in re- spect of obedience but that we love him with all our strength. If it be only mcrally impossible, that is the same as its being so owing to the corrupt state of our minds. But we are not to suppose that God, in saving sinners, any more than in judging them, consults their depraved spirit, and adapts the gospel to it. On the con- trary, it is the design of all that God does for us to restore us to a right spirit. His truth must not bend to our cor- ruptions; but our hearts must be “inclined to his testi- monies.” So far, therefore, as any man is renewed by the Spirit of God, so far is he brought to be of God's mind, and does what he ought to do. God’s law is written in his heart. Further, If the principle that supposes this argument be true, it will hold good in reference to men as well as to God. And is it true that a man who is under just con- demnation for breaking the laws, and who has no hope cf obtaining a pardon, ought not to be expected to repent for his crime, and, before he die, to pray God to bless his king and country On this principle, all confessions of this kind are of necessity mere hypocrisy. Even those of the dying thief in the gospel, so far as they respect the 272 STRICTURES ON SANDEMANIANISM. justice of his doom from his countrymen, must have been insincere; for he had no hope of his sentence being re- mitted. What would an offended father say, if the offender should require, as the condition of his repentance, a pre- vious declaration of forgiveness, or even of a willingness to forgive 3 A willingness to forgive might be declared, and it would heighten the criminality of the offender if after this he continued hardened; but for him to require it, and to avow that he could not repent of his sin upon any other condition, would be the height of insolence. Yet all this is pleaded for in respect of God. “If I be a father, where is mine honour?” Besides, how is a sinner to “know that he is of God,” otherwise than as being conscious of repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ'. Till he is sorry at heart for having dishonoured God, he is not of God, and therefore cannot know that he is so. If some have gone into extremes in writing of “disin- terested love,” as Mr. M'Lean suggests, it does not follow that true religion has its origin in self-love. Most men, who make any pretence to serious Christianity, will allow, that if sin be not hated as sin, it is not hated at all ; and why we should scruple to allow, that if God be not loved as God, he is not loved at all, I cannot conceive. I am not surprised, however, that those who have been so long and so deeply imbued in a system, a leading principle of which is “ that godliness consists in love to that which first relieves us,” should write in the manner they do. On some occasions, however, Mr. M'Lean himself can say as much in favour of “disinterested love” as his op- poment, and can represent that which arises from “a mere principle of self-love” as being of no value. “There may be some resemblances of repentance,” he says, “ in fear, remorse, and sorrow of mind, occasioned by sin ; as in Cain, Judas, Felix, &c. But a mere principle of self- love will make a man dread the consequences of sin, while he has prevalent inclinations to sin itself. There is a dif- ference between mere fear and sorrow on account of sin, and a prevalent hatred of it; between hatred of sin itself, and mere hatred of its consequences; between that sorrow for sin which flows from the love of God and of holiness, and that which flows from an inferior principle. Men may have even an aversion to some kinds of sin, because they interfere with others, or because they do not suit their natural constitutions, propensities, tempers, habits, age, worldly interests, &c., while they do not hate all sin universally, and consequently hate no sin as such, or from a proper principle.”—Works, Vol. II. p. 95. LETTER WI. ON THE CONNEXION BETWEEN KNOWLEDGE AND DIS- POSITION. You need not be told that this is a subject of prime im- portance in the Sandemanian system. It every where considers knowledge as the one thing needful, and dispo- sition as its natural and proper effect. Mr. M'Lean represents me as maintaining that the un- derstanding or perceptive faculty in man is directed and governed by his will and inclinations; and this he supposes to be the principle on which my arguments are principally founded ; a principle which can be true, he thinks, only in cases where the original order of things is perverted by sin.-Reply, p. 8, 9. Whether these senti- ments be just, or contain a fair statement of my views, we shall inquire as we proceed : at present I only observe that the state of the will or disposition is, in Mr. M'Lean’s account, governed invariably by the understanding; or if in any instance it be otherwise, it is owing to the disorder introduced by sin. I should not have supposed, however, that sin could have perverted the established laws of nature. It certainly perverts the moral order of things; that is, (as Dr. Owen represents it, to whom Mr. M. re- fers,) instead of the will being governed by judgment and * Essays, p. 54. + On the Will, Part I. Section II. p. 11. | conscience, judgment and conscience are often governeſſ by prejudice. But there is nothing in all this subversive of the established laws of nature; for it is a law recog- nised both by nature and Scripture that the disposition of the soul should influence its decisions. A humble and candid spirit is favourable, and a proud and uncandid spirit is unfavourable, to a right judgment." “It is a maxim,” says Mr. Ecking, “ that has not yet been refuted, that the determination of the will must evermore follow the illumination, conviction, and notice of the understanding.”.” By the illumination, conviction, and notice of the understanding, must be meant, either what the mind judges to be right, or what it accounts agreeable. If the will were always determined by the former, there could be no such thing as knowing the will of God, and not doing it. But I suppose this will not be pretended. It must therefore be of the latter that Mr. Ecking writes. His meaning must be, that the will ever- more follows the mind’s view of the object as agreeable. But is it certain that the viewing of an object agreeable is properly and perfectly distinct from choosing it 4 Presi- dent Edwards conceived it was not, and therefore did not affirm that the will was determined by the greatest appa- rent good, but merely that “the will always is as the greatest apparent good, or as what appears most agreeable Čs.”f This is not saying that the will is determined by the understanding ; for, as the same author goes on to prove, the cause of an object appearing agreeable to the mind may be “the state, frame, or temper of the mind itself.” But so far as this is the case, the judgment is de- termined by the state of the mind rather than the state of the mind by the judgment. A great deal of confusion on this subject has arisen from confounding simple knowledge, pertaining merely to the intellectual faculty, with that which is compound or comprehensive of approbation. The former is with pro- priety distinguished from whatever pertains to the state of the will ; but the latter is not, seeing it includes it. Mr. M'Lean, speaking of certain characters who had heard the gospel, says, “It is supposed that such men have now received some information which they had not before, both with respect to their danger and the remedy of it, and”—what? that their wills or dispositions are in that proportion changed? No: but “that they are hereby ren- dered quite ineaccusable if they should neglect so great salvation ; which neglect must now be the effect of per- verseness and aversion, and not of simple ignorance, John iii. 19 ; xv. 2. 25.”: I do not say of Mr. M., as he did of me when I was only reasoning upon the principles of my opponent, that “he can take either side of the question as he finds occasion; ” but this I say, that when writing in favour of the calls of the gospel, he felt himself impelled to admit principles of which, in his controversy on the other side, he has quite lost sight. The above statement appears to me to be very just, and as he here so properly distinguishes simple ignorance from ignorance which arises from aversion or neglect—the one as tending to excuse, the other to criminate—he cannot consistently object to my distinguishing between simple knowledge, which barely renders men inexcusable, and knowledge inclusive of ap- probation, which has the promise of eternal life. Simple knowledge, or knowledge as distinguished from approbation, is merely a natural accomplishment, necessary to the performance of both good and evil, but in itself neither the one nor the other. Instead of producing love, it often occasions an increasing enmity, and in all cases renders sinners the less excusable. In this sense the term knowledge, and others related to it, are used in the follow- ing passages:—“The servant who knew his lord’s will, and did it not, shall be beaten with many stripes.”—“When they knew God, they glorified him not as God.”—“If ye Know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.”—“If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin, but now they have no cloak for their sin.”—“If I had not done among them the works which none-other man did, they had not had sin; but now they have both seen and hated both me and my Father.” But knowledge is much more frequently used in the # Thoughts on Calls, &c., p. 17. CONNEXION OF KNOWLEDGE AND DISPOSITION. 273 Scriptures as including approbation. The Lord is said to Know the righteous, and never to have known the workers of iniquity. To understand this of simple knowledge would deprive God of his omniscience. As ascribed to men, it is what is denominated a spiritual understanding. It is not necessary to an obligation to spiritual duties, but it is necessary in the nature of things to the actual dis- charge of them. It may be said of the want of this, “The Lord hath not given you eyes to see, and ears to hear, to this day;” and that without furnishing any excuse for the blindness of the parties. It is the wisdom from above imparted by the illuminating influence of the Holy Spirit. That knowledge, in this sense of the term, produces holy affections is not denied. It is in itself holy, and con- tains the principle of universal holiness. It is that by which we discern the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, which glory being beheld assimilates us into the same image from glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord. But the question at issue respects knowledge in its simple and literal sense, or that which is purely intel- lectual, exclusive of all disposition ; otherwise it would amount to no more than this, whether that which includes the seminal principles of holy affection (namely, a sense of heart) tends to produce it ; which never was disputed. The ground on which I am supposed to have proceeded is, “that the understanding or perceptive faculty in man is directed and governed by his will;” but this is a mistake: I ground no doctrine upon any theory of the human mind which I may have entertained ; but on what I consider as the Scriptural account of things; in which I find spiritual perception impeded by evil disposition, and promoted by the contrary, 1 Cor. ii. 14. Neither is the above a fair statement of my views. If what I have written implies any theory of the human mind, it is not that the under- standing is in all cases governed by the will ; but rather that they have a mutual influence on each other. I have allowed, in my Appendic, that volitions are influenced by motives or considerations which exist in the view of the mind; and I should think it is equally evident, on the other hand, that our judgments are, in a great number of instances, determined by a previous state or disposition of the soul. In objects which do not interest the affections, the judgment may be purely intellectual, and the choice may naturally follow according to its dictates; but it is not so in other cases, as universal experience evinces. “But must it not be owned,” says Mr. M. in his Reply, “that, so far as this is the case in man, it is an irregular exercise of his faculties, arising from the moral disorder of his lapsed nature, whereby judgment, reason, and con- Science are weakened, perverted, and blinded, so as to be subjected to his will and corrupt inclinations?”—p. 8. It must undoubtedly be owned that the influence of an evil disposition in producing an erroneous and false judgment is owing to this cause ; and if that for which I plead were What Mr. M. elsewhere represents it, viz. a prejudice in Javour of a report which renders the mind regardless of evidence, (p. 67,) the same might be said of all such judg- ment. But how if the state of the will contended for shºuld be that of a deliverance from prejudice, by which evidence comes to be properly regarded ? It is not to the disorder introduced by sin that we are to ascribe the gener- al Principle of the moral state or disposition of the soul having an influence on the judgment; for it is no less true that a humble, candid, and impartial spirit influences the belief of moral truth, or truth that involves in its conse- quences the devoting of the whole life to God, than that a selfish and °oºrupt spirit influences the rejection of it. Surely it is not owing to the human faculties being thrown into disorder that a holy frame of mind in believe; enables them to understand the Scriptures better than the best expositor . The experience of every Christian bears wit- ness that the more spiritually-minded he is, the better he is prepared for the discernment of spiritual things. Mr. M'Lean thinks I have mistaken the meaning of the term heart, in applying it to the dispositions and affections of the soul, as distinguished from the understanding. When such phrases as a heart of stone, a heart of flesh, a * Eph. iv. 18, 19: Acts xxvi. 18; Eph. vi. 12; Col. i. 13. * Taipºats, Parkhurst observes, is from Topów, and signifies hard- ness, callousness, or blindness. “It is not mere ignorance,” says Dr. T hard and impenitent heart, a tender heart, a heart to know the Lord, &c. occur, though they suppose the intellectual faculty, yet there can be no doubt, I should think, of their expressing the state of the will and affections, rather than of the understanding. I have no objection, however, to the account given of the term by Dr. Owen, that “it gener- ally denotes the whole soul of man, and all the faculties of it, not absolutely, but as they are all one principle of moral operations, as they all concur in our doing good or evil.” The term may sometimes apply to what is simply natural; but it generally, as he says, denotes the principle of moral action, which, being comprehended in love, must in all cases, whether it relate to good or evil, include affec- tion. And thus, in his Treatise on Justice, Dr. Owen ob- serves that “assent is an act of the understanding only ; but believing is an act of the heart, which in Scripture compriseth all the faculties of the soul as one entire prin- ciple of moral and spiritual duties: “With the heart man believeth unto righteousness,” Rom. x. 10. And it is fre- quently described by an act of the will, though it be not so alone. But without an act of the will no man can be- lieve as he ought. See John v. 40; i. 12; vi. 35. We come to Christ as an act of the will; “And let whosoever will, come: ' and to be willing is taken for believing, Psal. cx. 3. And unbelief is disobedience, Heb. iii. 18, 19.” —Chap. I. p. 108. Nay, Mr. M. himself acknowledges nearly as much as this. He says, “The Scriptures always represent the re- generating and sanctifying influences of the Spirit as ex- erted upon the heart, which includes not only the under- standing, but the will and affections, or the prevalent inclinations and dispositions of the soul.”—PWorks, Vol. II. p. 91. That disposition, in rational beings, presupposes percep- tion, I never doubted ; but that it is produced by it is much easier asserted than proved. Knowledge is a con- comitant in many cases where it is not a cause. If all holy disposition be produced by just perceptions, all evil disposition is produced by unjust or erroneous ones. In- deed, this is no more than Mr. M'Lean, on some occasions at least, is prepared to admit. He tells us that “the word of God represents the darkness, blindness, and ignorance of the mind, with regard to spiritual things, as the source of men’s alienation from the life of God, and of their re- belling against him,”—p. 77. Does he really think, then, that the passages of Scripture to which he refers mean simple ignorance? # If not, they make nothing for his argument. Does he seriously consider the blindness or hardness of heart, in Eph. iv. 18, as referring to ignorance, in distinction from aversion, or as including it? f Can he imagine that the darkness in which Satan holds mankind is any other than a chosen and beloved darkness, described in the following passages 3 “ They loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.”—“The heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed.” - That voluntary blindness renders sinners estranged from God I can easily understand, nor am I at any loss to con- ceive of its being “ that by which Satan reigns, and main- tains his power over the minds of men;” but I do not perceive, in any of these facts, the proof of disposition having its origin in ignorance. Two friends, whom I will call Matthew and Mark, were one evening conversing on this subject, when the following sentiments were ex- changed. All sin (said Matthew) arises from ignorance. —Do you think then (said Mark) that God will condemn men for what is owing to a want of natural capacity ? —O no (said Matthew); it is a voluntary ignorance to which I refer; a not liking to retain God in their know- ledge.—Then (said Mark) you reason in a circle ; your argument amounts to this: All sin arises from ignorance, and this ignorance arises from sin ; or, which is the same thing, from aversion to the light! If Mr. M'Lean, or others, will maintain that sin is the effect of simple ignorance, (and this they must maintain, or what they hold is nothing different from that which they oppose,) let them seriously consider a few of its con- Owen, “but a stubborn resistance of light and conviction ; an abdu- rate hardness, whence it rejects the impressions of Divine truth.”- Discourses on the Holy Spirit, Book III. Chap. III. 274 STRICTURES ON SANDEMANIANISM. sequences, as drawn by some of our modern infidels. It is on this principle that Mr. Godwin, in his treatise on Political Justice, denies the original depravity of human nature ; explains away all ideas of guilt, crime, desert, and accountableness; and represents the devil himself as a being of considerable virtue. Thus he reasons:— “The moral characters of men originate in their per- ceptions. As there are no innate perceptions or ideas, there are no innate principles.—The moral qualities of men are the produce of the impressions made upon them, and THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN ORIGINAL PROPENSITY To Evil.”—Book I. Chap. III. Again, “Vice is nothing more than error and mistake reduced to practice.—Acting from an ill motive is acting from a mistaken motive.—Under the system of necessity, (that is, as held by him,) the ideas of GUILT, CRIME, DESERT, and Account ABLENEss HAVE NO PLACE.”—Book IV. Chap. IV.-VI. pp. 254, 314. Again, “Wirtue is the offspring of the understanding. —It is only another name for a clear and distinct percep- tion of the value of the object.—Virtue, therefore, is or- dinarily connected with great talents.—Caesar and Alex- ander had their virtues.—They imagined their conduct conducive to the general good.—The devil, as described by Milton, also was A BEING OF CONSIDERABLE VIRTUE 11: Why did he rebel against his Maker? Because he saw no suf- ficient reason for that extreme inequality of rank and power which the Creator assumed.—After his fall, why did he still cherish the spirit of opposition? From a per- suasion that he was hardly and injuriously treated.— He was not discouraged by the inequality of the contest ” -Book IV. Chap. IV. App. No. I. p. 261. Allowing this writer his premises, I confess myself un- able to refute his consequences. If all sin be the effect of ignorance, so far from its being eacceedingly sinful, I am un- able to perceive any sinfulness in it. clearest dictates in nature, and that which is suggested by every man's conscience, that whatever he does wrong, if he know no better, and his ignorance be purely intel- lectual, or, as Mr. M'Lean calls it, simple—that is, if it be not owing to any neglect of means, but to the want of means, or of powers to use them—it is not his fault. The intellectual powers of the soul, such as perception, judgment, and conscience, are not that to moral action which the first wheel of a machine is to those that follow; but that which light and plain directions are to a traveller, leaving him inexcusable if he walk not in the right way. But I shall be told that it is not natural but spiritual knowledge for which Mr. M'Lean pleads, as the cause of holy disposition. True; but he pleads for it upon the general principle of its being the established order of the human mind that disposition should be produced by know- ledge. Moreover, if spiritual knowledge should be found to include approbation, it cannot, with propriety, be so dis- tinguished from it as to be a cause of which the other is the effect; for to say that all disposition arises from know- ledge, and that that knowledge includes approbation, is to reason in a circle, exactly as, in the case just supposed, Matthew reasoned on all sin arising from ignorance, which ignorance included aversion. That spiritual knowledge includes approbation in its very nature, and not merely in its effect, appears evident to me from two considerations. First, It is the opposite of spiritual blindness, 2 Cor. iv. 4–6; Eph. v. 8. But spiritual blindness includes in its very nature, and not merely in its effect, an aversion to the truth. Mr. Ecking (whose Essays on Grace, Faith, and Eagerience have been reprinted by the friends of this system, as containing what they account, no doubt, an able defence of their principles) allows the inability of the sinner to consist in his loving darkness rather than light, and his disinclination to de- pend upon a holy sovereign God, and not in the want of rational faculties. Describing this inability in other words, he considers it as composed of “ error, ignorance, and un- belief,” in which he places the “disease” of the sinner, “THE VERY EssENCE OF THE NATURAL MAN's DARKNEss;” and the opposites of them he makes to be “truth, know- ledge, and faith, which being implanted,” he says, “the * I have only the first edition of Mr. E.'s Essays, and therefore am obliged to quote from it. It is one of the are, all over the Bible, which show the same. * Chambers's Dictionary, Art. Sense. . soul must be renewed,”—pp. 66, 67.* If Mr. E. under- stood what he wrote, he must mean to represent spiritual light as the proper opposite of spiritual darkness; and as he allows the latter, “in the very EssENCE of it, to include aversion,” he must allow the former in the very essence of it to include approbation. Secondly, The objects per- ceived are of such a nature as to be known only by a sense of their Divine excellency, which contains in it more than a simple knowledge, even an approbation of the heart. Those who have written upon the powers of the soul, have represented “that whereby we receive ideas of beauty and harmony as having all the characters of a sense, an internal sense.”f And Mr. Ecking, after all that he says against a principle of grace in the heart antecedently to believing, allows that “we must have a spiritual principle before we can discern Divine beauties.”f But the very essence of Scriptural knowledge consists in the discernment of Divine beauties, or the GLORY of God in the face of Jesus Christ. To speak of faith in Christ antecedent to this is only to speak at random. The reason given why the gospel report was not believed is, that, in the esteem of men, the Mes- siah had no form nor comeliness in him, nor beauty, that they should desire him. To say we must have a spiritual principle before we can discern Divine beauties, is, there- fore, the same thing in effect as to say we must have a spiritual principle before we can believe the gospel. I will close this letter by an extract from President Edwards's Treatise on the Affections, not merely as show- ing his judgment, but as containing what I consider a clear, Scriptural, and satisfactory statement of the nature of spiritual knowledge. “If the Scriptures are of any use to teach us any thing, there is such a thing as a spiritual supernatural under- standing of Divine things that is peculiar to the saints, and which those who are not saints have nothing of. It is certainly a kind of understanding, apprehending, or dis- cerning of Divine things, that natural men have nothing of, which the apostle speaks of in 1 Cor. ii. 14, “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him ; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.’ It is cer- tainly a kind of seeing or discerning spiritual things pecu- liar to the saints which is spoken of in 1 John iii. 6, “Whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him ;” 3 John 2, He that doeth evil hath not seen God;’ and John vi. 40, “This is the will of him that sent me, that every one that seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life.” Chap. xiv. 19, ‘The world seeth me no more, but ye see me.” Chap. xvii. 3, “This is eternal life, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” Matt. xi. 27, ‘No man knoweth the Son but the Father, neithe knoweth any man the Father but the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.’ John xii. 45, ‘He that seeth me seeth him that sent me.” Psal. ix. 10, “They that know thy name will put their trust in thee.’ Phil. iii. 8, “I count all things loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord.’ Verse 10, ‘That I may know him.’ And innumerable other places there And that there is such a thing as an understanding of Divine things, which in its nature and kind is wholly different from all knowledge that natural men have, is evident from this, that there is an understanding of Divine things which the Scripture calls spiritual understanding : Col. i. 9, “We do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding.” It has already been shown that that which is spiritual, in the ordinary use of the word in the New Testament, is entirely different, in nature and kind, from all which natural men are or can be the subjects of. “Hence it may be surely inferred wherein spiritual understanding consists. For if there be in the saints a kind of apprehension or perception which is, in its nature, perfectly diverse from all that natural men have, or that it is possible they should have, till they have a new nature, it must consist in their having a certain kind of ideas or sensations of mind which are simply diverse from all that # Essays, p. 67. CONNEXION OF KNOWLEDGE AND DISPOSITION. 275 is or can be in the minds of natural men. And that is the same thing as to say that it consists in the sensations of a new spiritual sense, which the souls of natural men have not, as is evident by what has been before once and again observed. But I have already shown what that new spirit- ual sense is which the saints have given them in regener- ation, and what is the object of it. I have shown that the immediate object of it is the supreme beauty and excel- lency of the nature of Divine things as they are in them- selves. And this is agreeable to the Scripture: the apos- tle very plainly teaches that the great thing discovered by spiritual light and understood by spiritual knowledge is the glory of Divine things. 2 Cor. iv. 3, 4, “But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost; in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them, which be- lieve not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them; ' to- gether with verse 6, ‘For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ;’ and chap. iii. 18, “But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.’ And it must needs be so, for, as has been before observed, the Scripture often teaches that all true religion summarily consists in the love of Di- vine things. And therefore that kind of understanding or knowledge which is the proper foundation of true religion must be the knowledge of the loveliness of Divine things. For, doubtless, that knowledge which is the proper found- ation of love is the knowledge of loveliness. What that beauty or loveliness of Divine things is, which is the proper and immediate object of a spiritual sense of mind, was shown under the last head insisted on, viz. that it is the beauty of their moral perfection. Therefore it is in the view or sense of this that spiritual understanding does more immediately and primarily consist. is plain it can be nothing else; for (as has been shown) there is nothing pertaining to Divine things besides the beauty of their moral excellency, and those properties and qualities of Divine things which this beauty is the found- ation of, but what natural men and devils can see and know, and will know fully and clearly to all eternity. “From what has been said, therefore, we come neces- sarily to this conclusion, concerning that wherein spiritual understanding consists; viz. That it consists in a sense of the heart of the supreme beauty and sweetness of the holiness or moral perfection of Divine things, together with all that discerning and knowledge of things of religion that depends *pon and flows from such a sense. “Spiritual understanding consists primarily in a sense ºf heart of that spiritual beauty, I say a sense of heart; for it is not speculation merely that is concerned in this kind of understanding; nor can there be a clear distinc- tion made between the two faculties of understanding and will, as acting distinctly and separately in this matter. When the mind is sensible of the sweet beauty and ami- ableness of a thing, that implies a sensible of sweetness *d delight in the presence of the idea of it; and this sen- sibleness of the amiableness or delightfulness of beauty “arriº, in the very nature of it, the sense of the heart; or an effect and impression the soul is the subject of, as a substance P9ssessed of taste, inclination, and will. + “There is a distinction to be made between a mere ºo::onal understanding, wherein the mind only beholds things in, the exercise of a speculative faculty; and the sense of the heart, wherein the mind does not only specu- late and behold, but relishes and feels. That sort of know- ledge by which a man has a sensible perception of ami- ableness and loathsomeness, or of sweetness and nauseous- ness, is not just the same sort of knowledge with that by which he knows what a triangle is, and what a square is. The one is mere speculative knowledge; the other sensi- ble knowledge, in which more than the mere intellect is concerned; the heart is the proper subject of it, or the soul as a being that not only beholds, but has inclination, and is pleased or displeased. . And yet there is the nature of instruction in it; as he that has perceived the sweet taste of honey knows much more about it than he who has only looked upon and felt of it. And indeed it | “The apostle seems to make a distinction between mere speculative knowledge of the things of religion, and spirit- ual knowledge, in calling that ‘the form of knowledge, and of the truth ;’ Rom. ii. 20, ‘Which hast the form of know- ledge, and of the truth in the law.” The latter is often represented by relishing, smelling, or tasting : 2 Cor. ii. 14, ‘Now thanks be to God, who always causeth us to tri- umph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge in every place.’ Matt. xvi. 23, ‘Thou savour- ‘est not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.” I Pet. ii. 2, 3, “As new-born babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow there- by ; if so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.” Cant. i. 3, “Because of the savour of thy good oint- ments, thy name is as ointment poured forth ; therefore do the virgins love thee;’ compared with 1 John ii. 20, “But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.’ “Spiritual understanding primarily consists in this sense, or taste, of the moral beauty of Divine things ; so that no knowledge can be called spiritual any further than it arises from this, and has this in it. But, secondarily, it includes all that discerning and knowledge of things of religion which depends ºupon and flows from such a sense. When the true beauty and amiableness of the holiness, or true moral good, that is in Divine things, is discovered to the soul, it as it were opens a new world to its view. This shows the glory of all the perfections of God, and of every thing apper- taining to the Divine Being ; for, as was observed before, the beauty of all arises from God’s moral perfections. This shows the glory of all God’s works, both of creation and providence; for it is the special glory of them that God’s holiness, righteousness, faithfulness, and goodness are so manifested in them ; and without these moral perfections there would be no glory in that power and skill with which they are wrought. The glorifying of God’s moral perfections is the special end of all the works of God’s hands. By this sense of the moral beauty of Divine things is understood the sufficiency of Christ as a Mediator; for it is only by the discovery of the beauty of the moral perfections of Christ that the believer is let into the knowledge of the excellence of his person, so as to know | any thing more of it than the devils do : and it is only by the knowledge of the excellence of Christ’s person that any know his sufficiency as a Mediator; for the lat- ter depends upon and arises from the former. It is by seeing the excellence of Christ’s person that the saints are made sensible of the preciousness of his blood, and its sufficiency to atone for sin; for therein consists the preciousness of Christ's blood, that it is the blood of so excellent and amiable a person. And on this depends the meritoriousness of his obedience, and sufficiency and prevalence of his intercession. By this sight of the moral beauty of Divine things is seen the beauty of the way of salvation by Christ; for that consists in the beauty of the moral perfections of God, which wonderfully shines forth in every step of this method of salvation from beginning to end. By this is seen the fitness and suitableness of this way ; for this wholly consists in its tendency to deliver us from sin and hell, and to bring us to the happiness which consists in the possession and enjoyment of moral good, in a way sweetly agreeing with God’s moral perfections. And, in the way's being contrived so as to attain these ends, consists the excellent wisdom of that way. By this is seen the excellence of the word of God: take away all the moral beauty and sweetness in the word, and the Bible is left wholly a dead letter, a dry, lifeless, tasteless thing. By this is seen the true foundation of our duty, the wor- thiness of God to be so esteemed, honoured, loved, sub- mitted to, and served, as he requires of us, and the amiableness of the duties themselves that are required of us. And by this is seen the true evil of sin ; for he who sees the beauty of holiness must necessarily see the hate- fulness of sin, its contrary. By this men understand the true glory of heaven, which consists in the beauty and happiness that is in holiness. By this is seen the amiable- ness and happiness of both saints and angels. He that sees the beauty of holiness, or true moral good, sees the greatest and most important thing in the world, which is the fulness of all things, without which all the world is T 2 276 STRICTURES ON SANDEMANIANISM. empty, no better than nothing, yea, worse than nothing. Unless this is seen, nothing is seen that is worth the see- ing ; for there is no other true excellency or beauty. Unless this be understood, nothing is understood that is worthy of the exercise of the noble faculty of understand- ing. This is the beauty of the Godhead, and the divinity of Divinity, (if I may so speak,) the good of the infinite fountain of good; without which God himself (if that were possible to be) would be an infinite evil, without which we ourselves had better never have been, and with- out which there had better have been no being. He therefore, in effect, knows nothing that knows not this. His knowledge is but the shadow of knowledge, or, as the apostle calls it, the form of knowledge. Well, therefore, may the Scripture represent those who are destitute of that spiritual sense, by which is perceived the beauty of holiness, as totally blind, deaf, and senseless ; yea, dead. And well may regeneration, in which this Divine sense is given to the soul by its Creator, be represented as opening the blind eyes, and raising the dead, and bringing a person into a new world. For if what has been said be con- sidered, it will be manifest that when a person has this sense and knowledge given him, he will view nothing as he did before : though before he knew all things after the flesh, yet henceforth he will “know them so no more;’ and he is become “a new creature; old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new ;’ agreeably to 2 Cor. v. 16, 17. “And besides the things that have been already men- tioned, there arises from this sense of spiritual beauty all true experimental knowledge of religion; which is of it- self, as it were, a new world of knowledge. He that does not see the beauty of holiness knows not what one of the graces of God's Spirit is ; he is destitute of any idea or conception of all gracious exercises of soul, and all holy comforts and delights, and all effects of the saving influ- ences of the Spirit of God on the heart; and so is ignor- ant of the greatest works of God, the most important and glorious effects of his power upon the creature; and also is wholly ignorant of the saints as saints; he knows not what they are ; and in effect is ignorant of the whole spiritual world. “Things being thus, it plainly appears that God’s im- planting that spiritual supernatural sense which has been spoken of makes a great change in a man. And were it not for the very imperfect degree in which this sense is commonly given at first, or the small degree of this glorious light that first dawns upon the soul, the change made by this spiritual opening of the eyes in conversion would be much greater, and more remarkable, every way, than if a man who had been born blind, and with only the other four senses, should continue so a long time, and then at once should have the sense of seeing imparted to him, in the midst of the clear light of the sun, discovering a world of visible objects. For though sight be more noble than any of the other external senses, yet this spi- ritual sense which has been spoken of is infinitely more noble than that, or any other principle of discerning that a man naturally has, and the object of this sense infinitely greater and more important. “This sort of understanding, or knowledge, is that knowledge of Divine things whence all truly gracious af- fections do proceed; by which, therefore, all affections are to be tried. Those affections that arise wholly from any other kind of knowledge, or do result from any other kind of apprehensions of mind, are vain : *-pp. 225–232. LETTER VII. AN INQUIRY WHETHER, IF BELIEVING BE A SPIRITUAL ACT OF THE MIND, IT DOES NOT PRESUPPOSE THE SUBJECT OF IT TO BE SPIRITUAL. MR. SANDEMAN, and many of his admirers, if I under- stand them, consider the mind as passive in believing, and charge those who consider faith as an act of the mind with making it a work, and so of introducing the doctrine of justification by a work of our own. Mr. Ecking sometimes writes as if he adopted this prin- ciple ; for he speaks of a person being “passive in re- ceiving the truth,”—p. 73. In another place, however, he is very explicit to the contrary. “Their notion is ab- surd,” he says, “who, in order to appear more than ordi- narily accurate, censure and solemnly condemn the idea of believing being an act of the mind. It is acknowledged, indeed, that very unscriptural sentiments have prevailed about acts of faith, when they are supposed to arise from some previous principle well disposing the minds of unbe- lievers toward the gospel. Yet if it be admitted possible for the soul of man to act, (and who will deny that it does?) there is nothing more properly an act of the mind than believing a truth ; in which first the mind perceives it, then considers the evidence offered to support it, and, finally, gives assent to it. And can this comport with in- activity ? We must either say, then, that the soul acts in believing the gospel, or that the soul is an inactive spirit, which is absurd,”—p. 98. As Mr. E., in this passage, not only states his opinion, but gives his reasons for it, we must consider this as his fixed principle ; and that which he says of the truth being “passively received ” as expressive, not of faith, but of spiritual illumination pre- viously to it. But if so, what does he mean by opposing a previous principle as necessary to believing? His acts of faith arise from spiritual illumination, which he also must consider as “well disposing the minds of unbelievers to- ward the gospel.” If there be any difference between him and those whom he opposes, it would seem to consist, not in the necessity, but in the nature of a previous change of mind; as whe- ther it be proper to call it a principle, and to suppose it to include life as well as light. He no more considers the mind as discerning and believing the gospel without a previous change wrought in it by the Spirit of God than his opponents. Nay, as we have seen, he expressly, and, as he says, “readily acknowledges that we must have a spiritual principle before we can discern Divine beauties,” —p. 67. But if a spiritual principle be necessary to dis- cern Divine beauties, it is necessary to discern and believe the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ; for they are one and the same thing. But the previous change which Mr. E. acknowledges, it will be said, is by means of the word. Be it so ; yet it cannot be by the word as spiritually discerned and believed, for spiritual discernment and belief are supposed to be the effect of it. Mr. E. says, indeed, that “the hinge upon which the inquiry turns is, what is that principle, and how is it im- planted ?” But this is mere evasion; for let the principle . be what it may, and let it be implanted how it may, since it is allowed to be necessary “before we can discern Di- vine beauties,” and of course before we can actively be- lieve in Christ, the argument is given up. The principle itself he makes to be “the word passively received ;” but as this is supposed to be previously to “ the discernment of Divine beauties,” and to the soul's actively believing in Christ, it cannot of course have been produced by either ; and to speak of the word becoming a spiritual principle in us before it is either understood or believed is going a step beyond his opponents. I have no doubt that the word of God, when it is once understood and believed, becomes a living principle of evangelical obedience. This I conceive to be the meaning of our Lord, when he told the woman of Samaria that “whoso- ever should drink of the water that he should give him, (that is, of the gospel,) it should be in him a well of water springing up to everlasting life.” But for the word to become a principle before it is actively received, or, to use the language of Peter, before we have “purified our souls by obeying it,” is that of which I can form no idea, and I suppose neither did Mr. Ecking. As to the second part of what he calls the hinge of the inquiry, viz. how this principle is implanted 3 he endea- vours to illustrate it by a number of examples taken from the miracles of Christ, in which the word of Christ cer- tainly did not operate on the mind in a way of motive presented to its consideration, but in a way similar to that REGENERATION NECESSARY TO BELIEWING. 277 of the Creator, when he said, “Let there be light, and there was light.” Such is manifestly the idea conveyed by the words in John v. 25, “The dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live.” To such an application of the word I have no objection. That for which I contend is, that there is a change effected in the soul of a sinner, called in Scripture “giving him eyes to see, ears to hear, and a heart to understand”—“a new heart, and a right spirit”—“a new creation,” &c. &c.; that this change is antecedent to his actively believ- ing in Christ for salvation; and that it is not effected by motives addressed to the mind in a way of moral suasion, but by the mighty power of God. Mr. M'Lean allows faith to be a duty, or an act of obe- dience. But if so, this obedience must be yielded either in a spiritual or in a carnal state. If the former, it is all that on this subject is pleaded for. If the latter, that is the same thing as supposing that the carnal mind, while such, is enabled to act spiritually, and that it thereby be- comes spiritual. To this purpose I wrote in my Appendia, pp. 204, 205; and what has Mr. M'Lean said in reply 3 Let him answer for himself. “This is a very unfair state of the question so far as it relates to the opinion of his opponents; for he represents them as maintaining that the Holy Spirit causes the mind while carnal, or before it is spiritually illumi- nated, to discern and believe spiritual things; and then he sets himself to argue against this contradiction of his own framing, as a thing impossible in its own nature, and as declared by the Holy Spirit to be so, 1 Cor. ii. 14. Were I to state Mr. F.'s sentiment thus, The Holy Spirit imparts to the mind while carnal a holy susceptibility and relish for the truth, would he not justly complain that I had misrepresented his view, and that he did not mean that the mind could possess any holy susceptibility while it was in a carnal state; but only that the Holy Spirit, by the very act of imparting this holy susceptibility and relish for the truth, removed the carnality of the mind? But then this explanation applies equally to the other side of the question; and surely it appears at least as consistent with the nature of things, and as easy to conceive, that the Holy Spirit should in the first instance communicate the light of truth to a dark carnal mind, and thereby render it spirit- ual, as that he should prior to that impart to it a holy sus- ceptibility and relish for the truth.”—Reply, p. 7. Now, my friend, I entreat your close attention, and that of the reader, to this part of the subject; for here is the hinge of the present question. I am accused of framing a contradiction which my op- ponents do not hold. They do not hold, then, it seems, that the Holy Spirit causes the mind while carnal to dis- cern and believe spiritual things. Spiritual illumination precedes believing ; such an illumination, too, as removes carnality from the mind, renders the soul spiritual, and so enables it to discern and believe spiritual things. Where then is the difference between us? Surely it does not consist in my holding with a previous principle as neces- sary to believing ; for they profess to hold what amounts to the same thing. If there be any difference, however, it must lie in the nature of that which is communicated, or in the order in which it operates. And as to the first, seeing it is allowed to remove carnality, and to render the soul spiritual, there can be no material difference on this head. With respect to the second, namely, the order of its operations, Mr. M. thinks that the communication of the light of truth to a dark, carnal mind, whereby it is rendered spiritual, furnishes an easy and consistent view of things. To which I answer, If the carnality of the mind were owing to its darkness, it would be so. But Mr. M. has himself told us a different tale, and that from unquestionable authority. “Our Lord,” he says, “asks the Jews, ‘Why do ye not understand my speech tº and gives this reason for it, “even because ye cannot hear my word; ' that is, cannot endure my doctrine.”—Works, Wol. II., p. 110. Now if this be just, (and who can controvert it?) it is not easy to conceive how light introduced into the mind should be capable of removing carnality. It is easy to con- ceive of the removal of an effect by the removal of the cause, but not of the removal of a cause by the removal of the effect. But whatever difference may remain as to the order of operation, the idea of a previous principle is held by Mr. M. as much as by his opponent. Only call it “ Divine illumination, by which the dark and carnal mind is ren- dered spiritual,” and he believes it. In endeavouring to show the unfairness of the contra- diction which I alleged against him, Mr. M. loses himself and his reader, by representing it as made to the act of the Holy Spirit in imparting spiritual light to the soul while carnal ; whereas that which I alleged against him respected the act of the creature in discerning and believing spiritual things, while such. If God’s communicating either light or holiness to a dark and carnal mind be a contradiction, it is of Mr. M.'s framing, and not mine; but I see no con- tradiction in it, so that it be in the natural order of things, any more than in his “quickening us when we were dead in trespasses and sins,” which phraseology certainly does not denote that we are dead and alive at the same time ! The contradiction alleged consisted in the carnal mind's being supposed to act spiritually, and not to its being acted wpon by Divine influence, let that influence be what it might. It would be no contradiction to say of Tabitha, that life was imparted to her while dead; but it would be contradiction to affirm that while she was dead God caused her to open her eyes, and to look upon Peter Mr. M'Lean has, I allow, cleared himself of this contra- diction, by admitting the sinner to be made spiritual through Divine illumination, previously to his believing in Christ; but then it is at the expense of the grand article in dispute, which he has thereby given up ; maintaining, as much as his opponent, the idea of a previous principle, or of the soul’s being rendered spiritual antecedently to its believing in Christ. - The principal ground on which Mr. M'Lean, Mr. Eck- ing, and all the writers on that side the question, rest their cause, is the use of such language as the following: “Be- ing born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorrupt- ible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.”—“ Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth.”—“I have begotten you through the gospel.” On this phraseology I shall submit to you and the reader two or three observations:— First, A being begotten, or born again, by the word, does not necessarily signify a being regenerated by faith in the word. Faith itself is ascribed to the word as well as re- generation; for “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God:” but if we say faith cometh by the word believed, that is the same as saying that it cometh by itself. Mr. M. has no idea of the word having any influence but as it is believed (Reply, pp. 16–34); yet he tells us (p. 113) that faith is “the effect of the regenerating influence of the Spirit and word of God.” But if faith be the effect of the word believed, it must be the effect of itself. The truth is, the word may operate as an inducement to be- lieve, as well as a stimulus to a new life when it is be- lieved. Secondly, The terms regeneration, begotten, born again, &c., are not always used in the same extent of meaning. They sometimes denote the whole of that change which denominates us Christians, and which of course includes repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ; and in this sense the foregoing passages are easily understood. But the question is whether regeneration, or those terms by which it is expressed in the Scriptures, such as being begotten, born again, quickened, &c., be not sometimes used in a stricter sense. Mr. M., confining what I had said on the subject of regeneration, as expressed by being begotten, born again, &c., to the term itself, is “confident it bears no such meaning in the sacred writ- ings,”—p. 17. But if a being born again, which is ex- pressive of regeneration, be sometimes used to account for faith, as a cause accounts for its effect, that is all which the argument requires to be established. If it be neces- sary to be born again in order to believing, we cannot in this sense, unless the effect could be the means of pro- ducing the cause, be born again by believing. Whether this be the case, let the following passages determine. John i. 11—13, “ He came unto his own, and his own received him not; but as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them 278 STRICTURES ON SANDEMANIANISM. that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, no - of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” I can conceive of no reason why the new birth is here introduced, but to account for some receiving Christ, or believing on his name, while others received him not. Calvin appears to have ordinarily considered regeneration in the large sense as stated above, and therefore speaks of it as an effect of faith. Yet, when commenting on this passage, perceiving that it is here introduced to account for faith, he writes thus: “Hereupon it followeth, first, That faith proceedeth not from us, but that it is a fruit of spiritual regeneration, for the evangelist saith (in effect) that no man can believe unless he be begotten of God; therefore faith is a heavenly gift. Secondly, That faith is not a cold and bare knowledge, seeing none can believe but he that is fashioned again by the Spirit of God. Not- withstanding it seemeth that the evangelist dealeth dis- orderly in putting regeneration before faith, seeing that it is rather an effect of faith, and therefore to be set after it.” To this objection he answers that “both may very well agree,” and goes on to expound the subject of regeneration as sometimes denoting the producing of faith itself, and sometimes of a new life-by faith. John iii. 3, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” On this passage Dr. Camp- bell, in his notes, is very particular, proving that by the kingdom or reign of God is meant that of Messiah in this world ; and that ov Óvvatau (cannot) denotes the incapa- city of the unregenerate to discern and believe the gospel. The import of this passage is, in his apprehension, this :— “The man who is not regenerated, or born again of water and Spirit, is not in a capacity of perceiving the reign of God, though it were commenced. Though the kingdom of the saints on the earth were already established, the un- regenerate would not discern it, because it is a spiritual, not a worldly kingdom, and capable of being no otherwise than spiritually discerned. And as the kingdom itself would remain unknown to him, he could not share in the blessings enjoyed by the subjects of it.—The same senti- ment occurs in 1 Cor. ii. 14.” 1 Cor. ii. 14, “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God : for they are foolishmess unto him : neither can he know them, because they are spirit- ually discerned.” Mr. M., in his Discourses on the Para- ble of the Sower, says, “It is a doctrine clearly taught in. the Scriptures, that none have a true understanding of the gospel but such as are taught of God by the special illu- minating influences of the Holy Spirit. We are expressly told that “the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God : for they are foolishness unto him : neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.’” And in answering an objector—who asks, “What particular truth or sentiment is communicated to the mind by the enlightening influence of the Holy Spirit, and which unenlightened men can have no idea of 3”— Mr. M. says, “It is not pleaded that any truth or senti- ment is communicated to the mind by the Spirit besides what is already clearly revealed in the word; and the illu- mination of the Spirit Is To MAKE MEN PERCEIVE AND UN- DERSTAND THAT REVELATION WIHICH IS ALREADY GIVEN IN IT.s TRUE LIGHT.”—Sermons, pp. 78. 80, 81. Mr. M.'s object, through this whole paragraph, seems to be to prove that the illuminating influence of the Holy Spirit is necessary in order to our understanding the Scrip- tures ; but if so, it cannot be by the Scriptures as under- stood that we are thus illuminated, for this were a con- tradiction. It cannot be by any particular truth or sentiment revealed, any more than unrevealed, that we possess “eyes to see, ears to hear, or a heart to under- stand” it. If the illuminating influence of the Holy Spirit consisted in imparting any particular truth or senti- ment to the mind, even that which is revealed in the Scrip- tures, where would be the mystery of the operation ? Instead of being compared to the operations of the wind, of which we know nothing but by its effects, * it might have been ranked among the operations of motives as suggested by man to man, or, at least, as put into the mind by the providence of God so ordering it that such thoughts * Such is the meaning of John iii. 8, according to Campbell, and all other expositors that I have seen. \ should strike and influence the mind at the time, Ezra vii. 27. But this would not answer to the Scriptural accounts of our being quickened, who were dead in sins, by the power of God; even by the “exceeding greatness of his power, according to that which he wrought in Christ when he raised him from the dead.” Mr. M. has taken great pains to show the absurdity of my reasoning on this subject; yet the sum of it is this, That which is necessary in order to understanding and believing the word cannot be by means of understanding and believing it. All true knowledge of Divine things is no doubt to be ascribed to the word as the objective cause, in the same way as corporeal perception is ascribed to light. We can- not see without light; neither can we understand or be- lieve spiritual things but by the word of God. But the question does not relate to what is objective, but subject- ive; or, if I might speak in reference to what is corporeal, not to light, but discernment. Mr. Ecking speaks of light shining into a dark room, and of the absurdity of sup- posing there must be some principles of light in this room which disposed it to receive that which shone into it, p. 68. But if by the light he mean the gospel, he should rather have compared it to light shining upon a blind man, and have shown the absurdity, if he could, of supposing it necessary for his eyes to be opened ere he could discern or enjoy it. There is nothing in a dark room to resist the light, but that is not the case with the dark soul of a sin- ner. “The light shineth in darkness, but the darkness comprehendeth (or, as Campbell renders it, admitteth) it not.” Though I cannot think, with Mr. E., that the word of God becomes a spiritual principle in us till it is actively received, yet I allow that it is productive of great effects. The understanding and conscience being enlightened by it, many open sins are forsaken, and many things done in a way of what is called religious duty. And though I have no notion of directing sinners to a course of previous hu- miliation, nor opinion of the efforts of man toward pre- paring himself for the reception of Divine grace; yet I be- lieve God ordinarily so deals with men as gradually to beat down their false confidences, and reduce them to ex- tremity, ere they are brought to embrace the gospel. Such things are not necessarily connected with faith or salva- tion. In many instances they have their issue in mere self-righteous hope; and where it is otherwise, they are to faith and salvation, as I have said before, but as the noise and the shaking of the dry bones to the breath of life. Moreover, the word of God produces still greater and better effects when it is believed. In them that believe “it worketh effectually.” When the commandment comes to a soul in its spirituality, it gives him to perceive the exceeding sinfulness of sin; and when the gospel comes not in word only, but in power, it produces mighty effects. It is “the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth.” It operated before to the “pulling down of strong holds,” and the casting down of many a vain “imagination ;” but now it “bringeth every thought into subjection to the obedience of Christ.” It is thus that we “know the truth, and the truth (as known) makes us free.” If once we are enabled to behold the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, it changes us into the same image, begets and excites holy affections, and produces every kind of gracious exercise. The gospel is the mould into which the mind of the believer is cast, and by which it is formed. The statement of Dr. Owen, as quoted by Mr. Ecking, is very just and Scriptural. “As the word is in the gospel, so is grace in the heart; yea, they are the same things variously express- ed, Rom. vi. 17. As our translation doth not, so I know not how in so few words to express that which is so em- phatically here insinuated by the Holy Spirit. The mean- ing is, that the doctrine of the gospel begets the form, figure, image, or likeness of itself in the hearts of them that believe: so they are cast into the mould of it. . As is the one, so is the other. The principle of grace in the heart, and that in the word, are as children of the same parent, completely resembling and representing one an- other. Grace is a living word, and the word is figured, limned grace. As we have heard, so have we seen and REGENERATION NECESSARY TO BELIEVING. 279 found it: such a soul can produce the duplicate of the word, and so adjust all things thereby,” &c. * All this describes the effect of the word on those who believe it; but the question is, how we come to believe it? Dr. Owen has elsewhere attempted to solve this difficulty, by proving that a principle of spiritual life is communi- cated to the sinner in regeneration, antecedently to be- lieving.f. He doubtless considered these things as con- | Mr. Ecking. He may elsewhere have written in a very different strain, but, in the last edition of his Dissertation. sistent with each other; and though Mr. Ecking in making the quotation appears to consider them as contra- dictory, yet while he admits that “we must have a spiritual principle before we can discern Divine beauties,” the same contradiction, if such it be, attaches to himself. I allow, with Dr. Owen, that the Spirit of God makes use of “the reasons, motives, and persuasive arguments which the word affords, to affect the mind; and that con- verted persons are able to give some account of the con- siderations whereby they were prevailed upon.” also think, with him, that “the whole work of the Spirit in our conversion does not consist herein; but that there is a real physical work whereby he imparts spiritual life to the souls of all who are truly regenerated.” f Mr. M'Lean rejects the idea of physical influence, and seems to confound it with something corporeal or mechan- ical.-Works, p. 84. If I understand the term physical, with respect to influence, it is opposed to moral. That influence is denominated moral that works upon the mind. by motives or considerations which induce it to this or that, and all beyond this is physical and supernatural. When God created the soul of man originally in right- eousness and true holiness, I suppose it must be allowed to have been a physical work. Man certainly was not induced by motives to be righteous any more than to be rational; yet there was nothing corporeal or mechanical in it. It is thus that I understand Dr. Owen in the pas- sage just quoted, in which, while he admits of the use of moral suasion, he denies that the whole work of conversion consists in it; and I should think Mr. M. could not even upon his own principles maintain the contrary. For whatever motives or considerations the word of God may furnish in a way of moral suasion, yet he holds with the necessity of a Divine supernatural influence being super- added to it, by which the mind is illuminated and ren- dered spiritual. But if Divine influence consist in any thing distinct from the influence of the word, it must be supernatural and physical. The party is also equally un- conscious of it on his principles as on mine: he is con- scious of nothing but its effects. He finds himself the subject of new views and sensations; but as to knowing whence they came, it is likely he thinks nothing of it at the time, and is ready to imagine that any person, if he would but look into the Bible, must see what he sees so plainly taught in it. He may be conscious of ideas sug- gested to him by the word, and of their effect upon his mind; but as to any Divine influence accompanying them, he knows nothing of it. - Mr. Ecking represents “the inability or spiritual death of sinners as consisting in disinclination, or loving dark- ness rather than light.” And this disinclination he ascribes to ignorance and unbelief; whence he argues, “If the removal of the effect is by removing the cause, it is rea- sonable to suppose that this is the way in which God works upon the human mind,”—p. 66. That the removal of the effect is by the removal of the cause I allow ; but what authority had Mr. E. for making ignorance and un- belief the cause of spiritual death? Spiritual death con- sists in ignorance and unbelief, no less than in disinclin- ation. It consists in sin (Eph. ii. 1); and if ignorance and unbelief are sins, they are of the essence of spiritual death. It is true they are productive of other sins, and may be considered as growing near to the root of moral evil: but unless a thing can be the cause of itself, they are not the cause of all evil. Before we ascribe spiritual death to ignorance, it is necessary to inquire whether this ignorance be voluntary or involuntary 3 If involuntary, it is in itself sinless ; and to represent this as the cause of depravity is to join with Godwin in explaining away all innate principles of evil, and indeed all moral evil and * On Psalm 130, pp. 168–170: in Ecking's Essays, pp. 77—79. + Discourses on the IIoly Spirit, Book III. C. l. But I. accountableness, from among men. If voluntary, the so- lution does not reach the bottom of the subject ; for the question still returns, what is the cause of the voluntariness of ignorance, or of the sinner's loving darkness rather than light? Is this also to be ascribed to ignorance 2 If so, the same consequence follows as before, that there is no such thing as moral evil or accountableness among men. Mr. M'Lean has stated this subject much clearer than on the Influences of the Holy Spirit, he attributes ignor- ance and unbelief to hatred, and not hatred to ignorance and unbelief. “Our Lord,” he says, “asks the Jews, Why do ye not understand my speech f And gives this rea- son for it, even because ye cannot hear my word—that is, cannot endure my doctrine. Their love of worldly honour and the applause of men is given as a reason why they could not believe in him, John v. 44. He traces their unbelief into their HATRED both of him and his Father, John xv. 22, 24.”—Works, Vol. II. p. 110. Nothing is more evident than that the cause of spiritual blindness is, in the Scriptures, ascribed to disposition. “Light is come into the world; but men love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil.”—“They say unto God, Depart from us, for we desire not the know- ledge of thy ways.”—“Being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness (hardness, or callousness) of their heart.”— “Why do ye not understand my speech even because ye cannot hear my word.” But if, as the Scriptures teach, the cause of both ignorance and unbelief is to be traced to hatred (as Mr. M'Lean acknowledges); and if, as Mr. Bcking says, “effects are removed by the removal of the cause ;” I scarcely need to draw the consequence—that though in a general sense it be true that we are regener- ated by believing the gospel, yet in a more particular sense it is equally true that we are regenerated in order to it. It is somewhat extraordinary that Mr. M'Lean, after allowing pride and aversion to be the great obstructions to faith, should yet deny the removal of them to be neces- sary to it. He will allow some sort of conviction of sin to be necessary to believing in Christ; but nothing that includes the removal of enmity or pride, for this were equal to allowing repentance to be necessary to it; but if enmity and pride be not removed, how can the sinner, according to our Lord’s reasoning in John viii. 43 ; v. 44, understand or believe the gospel? If there be any mean- ing in words, it is supposed by this language that, in order to understand and believe the gospel, it is necessary to “endure” the doctrine and to feel a regard to “the hon- our that cometh from God.” To account for the removal of pride and enmity as bars to believing, by means of be- lieving, is, I say, very extraordinary, and as inconsistent with Mr. M.'s own concessions as it is with Scripture and reason ; for when writing on spiritual illumination, he allows the dark and carnal mind to be thereby rendered spiritual, and so enabled to discern and believe spiritual things, Reply, p. 7. LETTER VIII. AN INQUIRY WHETHER THE PRINCIPLES HERE DEFENDED AFFECT THE DOCTRINE OF FIREE JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH IN THE RIGHTEOUSN ESS OF CHRIST. You are aware that this subject has frequently occurred in the foregoing letters; but being of the first importance, I wish to appropriate one letter wholly to it. If any thing I have advanced be inconsistent with justification by faith alone, in opposition to justification by the works of the law, I am not aware of it; and on conviction that it is so, should feel it my duty to retract it. I know Mr. M'Lean has laboured hard to substantiate this charge against me ; but I know also that it belongs to the adherents of the sys- tem to claim the exclusive possession of this doctrine, and # Discourses on the Holy Spirit, Book III. C. 5. Sec. 18. 280 STRICTURES ON SANDEMANIANISM. to charge others with error concerning it, on very insuffi- cient grounds.” You may remember, perhaps, that Dr. Gill was accused of self-righteousness by Mr. Sandeman, on the ground of his being an anti-paedo-baptist A large part of that which Mr. M'Lean has written on this subject is what I never meant to oppose ; much of what he imputes to me is without foundation; and even where my sentiments are introduced they are generally in caricature. I have no doubt of the character which a sinner sustains antecedently to his justification, both in the account of the Lawgiver of the world and in his own account, being that of ungodly. I have no objection to Mr. M.'s own state- ment, that God may as properly be said to justify the un- godly as to pardon the guilty. If the sinner at the instant of justification be allowed not to be at enmity with God, that is all I contend for, and that is in effect allowed by Mr. M. He acknowledges that the apostle “does not use the word ungodly to describe the eacisting character of an actual believer,”—p. 123. But if so, as no man is justified till he is an actual believer, no man is justified in enmity to God. He also considers faith, justification, and sancti- fication as coeval, and allows that no believer is in a state of enmity to God, p. 43. It follows, that as no man is justified till he believes in Jesus, no man is justified till he ceases to be God’s enemy. If this be granted, all is granted for which I contend. If there be any meaning in words, Mr. Sandeman con- sidered the term ungodly as denoting the existing state of the mind in a believer at the time of his justification; for he professes to have been at enmity with God, or, which is the same thing, not to have “begun to love him,” till he was justified, and even perceived that he was so.f. It was this notion that I wished to oppose, and not any thing relative to the character under which the sinner is justified. Mr. M.'s third question, namely, “whether justifying faith respects God as the justifier of the ungodly,” was never any question with me. Yet he will have it that I “make the apostle by the term ungodly to mean godly.” He might as well say that when I allow pardon to respect men as guilty, and yet plead for repentance as necessary to it, I make repentance and guilt to be the same thing. I am not aware of any difference with Mr. M. as to what constitutes a godly character. Though faith is ne- cessary to justification, and therefore in the order of nature previous to it, yet I have no objection to what he says, that it does not constitute a godly character or state, pre- viously to justification, –p. 145. And whatever I have written of repentance as preceding faith in Christ, or of a holy faith as necessary to justification, I do not consider any person as a penitent or holy character till he believes in Christ and is justified. The holiness for which I plead antecedent to this is merely incipient; the rising beam of the sanctification of the Spirit. It is no more than the spirit- uality which Mr. M. considers as produced by Divine illu- mination previously or in order to believing (p. 7); and all the consequences that he has charged on the one might with equal justice be charged on the other. Nor am I aware of any difference in our views respect- ing the duties of wribelievers; if there be any, however, it is not on the side that Mr. M. imagines, but the contrary. Having described the awakened sinner as “convinced of guilt, distressed in his mind on account of it, really con- cerned about the salvation of his soul, and not only earnest- ly desiring relief, but diligently labouring to obtain it, ac- cording to the directions given him by the exercise of holy affections and dispositions,” he adds, “All this I admit may be previous to faith in Christ and forgiveness through him. And will Mr. Fuller deny this is the repentance he pleads for in order to forgiveness 2"—p. 148. Most cer- TAINLY HE will. Had this been what he pleaded for, he had been justly chargeable with the consequences which Mr. M'Lean has attempted to load him with. But it is not. I cannot but consider this question as a proof that Mr. M. utterly mistook my sentiments on this part of the subject, as much as I did his in another, in consequence of having considered him as the author of a piece called Simple Truth. I have no more idea of there being any holiness in the exercises which he has described than he himself has. I might add, nor quite so much ; for notwith- standing what he has here advanced, in his Thoughts on the Calls of the Gospel, he does not keep clear of unrege- nerate works being somewhat good, or at least that they are not all and altogether sinful. If this be compared with what I have written on total depravity, in my Dialogues and Letters, it will be seen who holds and who holds not with the holiness of the doings of the unregenerate. But whether or not I deny this to be the repentance for which I plead as necessary to forgiveness, Mr. M. plainly intimates that it is all the repentance which HE allows to be so. In all that he has written therefore, acknowledging repentance to be necessary to forgiveness, he only means to allow that a few graceless convictions are so; and in contradiction to the whole current of Scripture, even to those scriptures which he has produced and reasoned from in his Thoughts on the Calls of the Gospel, still believes that sinners are forgiven prior to any repentance but that which needs to be repented of.-Reply, pp. 36–42. The difference between us, as to the subject of this Letter, seems chiefly to respect the nature of faith, whether it include any exercise of the will ; and, if it do, whether it affect the doctrine of free justification. Mr. M. acknowledges faith, as a principle of sanctifica- tion, to be holy; it is only as justifying that he is for ex- cluding all holy affection from it, p. 97. But if it be holy in relation to sanctification, it must be holy in itself; and that which is holy in itself must be so in every relation which it sustains. It is not one kind of faith that sancti- fies, and another that justifies; but the same thing in different respects. To represent faith sanctifying as being holy, and faith justifying as having no holiness in it, is not viewing the same, but a different thing in different respects. For a specimen of Mr. M.'s manner of writing on this subject, you will excuse my copying as follows: “An awakened sinner asks, “What must I do to be saved ?” An apostle answers, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” But a preacher of the doctrine I am opposing would have taught him another lesson. He might, indeed, in compliance with Scripture language, use the word believe ; but he would tell him that, in this case, it did not bear its usual sense, that it was not the assent of his understanding, in giving credit to the tes- timony of the gospel, but a grace arising from a previous spiritual principle, and including in it a number of holy affections and dispositions of heart, all which he must exercise and set a working, in order to his being justified; and many directions will be given him how he is to perform this. But this is to destroy the free- dom of the gospel, and to make the hope of a sinner turn upon his finding some virtuous exercises and dispositions in his own heart, instead of placing it directly in the work finished by the Son of God upon the cross. In opposition to this, I maintain that whatever virtue or holiness may be supposed in the nature of faith itself, as it is not the ground of a sinner's justification in the sight of God, so neither does it enter into the consideration of the person who is really believing unto righteousness. He views himself, not as exercising virtue, but only as a mere sinner, while he believes on him that justifieth the ungodly, through the atonement,”—pp. 98, 99. You will not expect me to answer this. It is a proof how far a writer may misunderstand and so misrepresent his opponent; and, even in those things wherein he un- derstands him, describe him in caricature. I will only apply a few of the leading traits in this picture to Mr. M.'s own principles.—“A preacher of this doctrine, instead of directing a sinner to believe in Christ, and there leaving * I do not mean to suggest that Mr. M'Lean's system is precisely that of Mr. Sandeman. The former, in his §. on the Calls of the Gospel, has certainly departed from it in many things, particularly in respect of the sinner's being justified antecedently to any “act, ex- ercise, or advance " of his mind towards Christ; and on which ac- count Mr. S. would have set him down among the popular preach- ers.” But he has so much of the system of Mr. S. still in his mind as often to reason upon the ground of it, and to involve himself in nu- merous inconsistencies. + Epistolary Correspondence, p. 12. # See Vol. II. of his Works, pp. 63, 64. * See Letters on Theron and Aspasio, Vol. II. p. 482, Note. ON JUSTIFICATION. 281 it, would tell him that faith was an assent of his under- standing, a grace arising from a previous Divine illumina- tion, by which he becomes spiritual, and which he must therefore first be possessed of, and thus set him a working in order to get it, that he may be justified. But this is to deny the freeness of the gospel, and to make the hope of a sinner turn upon his finding some light within him, instead of placing it upon the finished work of the Son of God upon the cross. In opposition to this, I maintain that whatever illumination may be supposed necessary to be- lieving, and whatever spiritual perception is contained in the nature of it, as it is not the ground of a sinner's jus- tification in the sight of God, so neither does it enter into the consideration of the person who is really believing unto righteousness. He views himself not as Divinely illumi- mated, but merely as a sinner, believing in him who justifi- eth the ungodly through the righteousness of his Son.” Mr. M., when writing in this strain, knew that I had said nearly the same things; and therefore that if he were opposing me, I had first opposed myself. He even quotes almost a page of my acknowledgments on the subject, p. 100. But these are things, it seems, which I only “some- times seem to hold.” Well, if Mr. M. can prove that I have any where, either in the piece he was answering, or in any other, directed the sinner's attention to the work- ings of his own mind, instead of Christ, or have set him a working, (unless he please to give that name to an exhort- ation to forsake his way, and return to God, through Jesus Christ,) or have given him any directions how to work himself into a believing frame; then let all that he has said stand against me. But if not, let me be believed when I declare my utter disapprobation of every thing of the kind. but Mr. M. has another charge, or rather suspicion, against me. “Mr. Fuller admits,” he says, “ that faith does not justify, either as an internal or external work, or holy exercise, or as being any part of that which is imputed unto us for righteousness; and did not other parts of his writings appear to clash with this I should rest satisfied. But I own that I am not without a suspicion that Mr. F. here only means that faith does not justify as the procurºng cause or meritorious ground of a sinner's justification ; and that, while we hold this point, we may include as much virtue and holy exercise of the will and affections as we please, without affecting the point of justification, as that stands entirely upon another ground, viz. the righteous- ness of Christ.—But it must be carefully observed that the difference between us does not respect the meritorious pro- curing cause of justification, but the way in which we re- ceive it,”—p. 100. Be it according to this statement, (and I have no objec- tion to say that such is the whole of my meaning,) yet what is there in this that clashes with the above acknow- ledgments, or with free justification ? There may be a “difference between us” which yet may not affect this doctrine. But let us hear him through. “The Scriptures abundantly testify that we are justifted by faith, which shows that faith has some concern in this matter.” True. “And Mr. Fuller admits that justifica- tion is ascribed to faith, merely as that which wnites to Christ, for the sake of whose righteousness alone we are accepted.” Very good. “Therefore, the only question between us is this: Does faith unite us to Christ, and so receive justification through his righteousness, merely in crediting the Divine testimony respecting the sufficiency of that righteousness alone to justify us; or does it unite us to Christ, and obtain justification through his righteous- ness, by virtue of its being a moral eaccellency, and as in- cluding the holy eacercises of the will and affections 3 The former is my view of this matter; the latter, if I am not greatly mistaken, is Mr. Fuller's,”—p. 101. It is some satisfaction to find our differences on the im- portant doctrine of justification reduced to a single point. Allowing my sentiments to be fairly stated, (and though I should not express them just in these words, yet I certainly do consider a holy faith as necessary to unite us to a holy Saviour,) the question is, whether this sentiment clashes with the foregoing acknowledgments, or with the doctrine of free justification ? It lies on Mr. M. to prove that it does so. Let us hear him. “I hold that sinners are jus- T # tified through Christ's righteousness, by faith alone, or purely in believing that the righteousness of Christ which he finished on the cross, and which was declared to be ac- cepted by his resurrection from the dead, is alone sufficient for their pardon and acceptance with God, however guilty and unworthy they are. But, in opposition to this, the whole strain of Mr. Fuller's reasoning tends to show that sinners are not justified by faith alone, but by faith work- ing by love, or including in it the holy exercise of the will and affections; and this addition to faith he makes to be that qualification in it on which the fitness or congruity of an interest in Christ's righteousness depends.-App. pp. 105, 106. Without this addition he considers faith itself, whatever be its grounds or objects, to be an empty, unholy speculation, which requires no influence of the Spirit to produce it, p. 128. So that if what is properly termed faith has in his opinion any place at all in justification, it must be merely on account of the holy exercises and affec- tions which attend it,”—pp. 101, 102. Such is Mr. M.'s proof of my inconsistency with my own acknowledgments, and with the freeness of justification. Let it be remembered, in the first place, that the differ- ence between us, by Mr. M.'s own acknowledgment, does not respect the meritorious or procuring cause of justifica- tion. All he says, therefore, of “the righteousness of Christ as finished, and declared to be accepted by his re- surrection from the dead, being alone sufficient for our pardon and acceptance with God, however guilty and un- worthy we are,” belongs equally to my views as to his own : yet, immediately after these words, he says, “but in opposition to this Mr. F.,” &c., as if these sentiments were exclusively his own. The difference between us be- longs to the nature of justifying faith. He considers the sinner as united to Christ, and so as justified, by the mere assent of his understanding to the doctrine of the cross, exclusive of all approbation of it; whereas I consider every thing pertaining to the understanding, when the term is used exclusive of approbation, to be either merely natural, or a “seeing and hating of Christ and the Father.” Nor is approbation a mere effect of faith, but enters into its essence. It is believing, but it is believing with the heart; which all the labours of Mr. Sandeman and his disciples have not been able to prove means only the understanding. We may believe many things without approving them ; but the nature of the objects believed in this case renders cordiality essential to it. It is impossible, in the nature of things, to believe the gospel without a sense of the ex- ceeding sinfulness of sin, and of the suitableness and glory of the Saviour, which does not merely produce, but includes approbation of him. To “see no form nor comeliness in him” is the same thing as to be an unbeliever ; and the contrary is to be a believer. But I shall notice these remarks of Mr. M. a little more particularly. First, By the manner in which he has introduced them, it must appear to the reader that I had not fully declared my mind on this subject, and that Mr. M., in detecting my errors, was obliged to proceed on the uncertain ground of “suspicion ; ” yet he could not have read the very pages on which he was animadverting, without having repeat- edly met with the most express avowals of the sentiment, such as the following:—“Whatever is pleaded in behalf of the holy nature of faith, it is not supposed to justify us as a work, or holy exercise, or as being any part of that which is accounted unto us for righteousness ; but merely as that which UNITEs To CHRIST, for the sake of whose righteous- mess alone we are accepted.”—Again, “Living faith, or faith that worketh by love, is necessary to justification, not as being the ground of our acceptance with God, not as a virtue of which justification is the reward, but as that without which we could not be UNITED To A LIVING RE- DEEMER.” Yet, with these passages before his eyes, Mr. M. affects to be at a loss to know my sentiments; he “suspects.” I maintain holy affection in faith as necessary to union with Christ : Secondly, If the difference between us has no respect to the meritorious or procuring cause of justification, as Mr. M. allows it has not, then why does he elsewhere tell his reader that “he thinks Mr. F. means to plead for such a moral fitness for justification as that wherein the virtue of 232 STRICTURES ON SANDEMANIANISM. the party commends him to it; or in which he is put into a good state as a fit or suitable testimony of regard to the moral excellency of his qualifications or acts,”—p. 104. I know not what Mr. M. may think, but I should consider this as making faith the procuring cause, or meritorious grownd, of justification; for what is the meritorious ground of a blessing but that in consideration of which it is be- stowed 3 Thirdly, If it is not sufficient that we ascribe the me- ritorious or procuring cause of justification to the work of Christ, unless we also exclude all holy affection from the nature of faith as uniting us to him, how is it that Mr. M. has written as he has on the Calls of the Gospel? He seems to have thought it quite enough for him to disavow repent- ance or faith as making any part of our justifying right- eousness, though the same disavowal on my part gives him no satisfaction. “Did Peter,” he asks, “overturn the doctrine of free justification by faith when he exhorted the unbelieving Jews to repent and be converted, that their sins might be blotted out? Does he there direct them to any part of that work which Christ had finished for the jus- tification of the ungodly, or lead them to think that their faith, repentance, and conversion were to make an atone- ment for their sins 2 ” Again, “Cannot the wicked be exhorted to believe, repent, and seek the Lord, and be encouraged to this by a promise of success, without making the success to depend on human merit? Are such exhort- ations and promises always to be suspected of having a dangerous and self-righteous tendency 3 Instead of taking them in their plain and simple sense, must our main care always be to guard against some supposed self-righteous use of them, till we have explained away their whole force and spirit, and so distinguished and refined upon them as to unake men more afraid to comply with than to reject them, lest they should be guilty of some exertion of mind or body, some good disposition or motion toward Christ, which is supposed to be the highest wickedness, and a despising of the work of Christ?” + If there be any meaning in words, Mr. M. here most decidedly contends for repentance, faith, and conversion (which must be allowed to include holy affection) being necessary, in the established order of things, to mercy, par- don, &c., which must also be allowed to include justification. Fourthly, With respect to fitness, I think, with Mr. M., that there is a “peculiar suitableness in faith to receive justification, and every other spiritual blessing, purely of grace,”—p. 106. It is “ of faith that it might be of grace.” And this peculiar suitableness consists in its being of the nature of faith to receive the blessings of grace as God’s free gifts through the atonement, instead of performing any thing in the way of being rewarded for it. Thus it is properly opposed to the works of the law. But it does not follow that in order to this there must be no “good dis- position or motion toward Christ” in our believing in him. On the contrary, if faith were mere knowledge, exclusive of approbation, it would not be adapted to receive the doctrine of the gospel; it would be either unholy, or at best merely natural. If the former, instead of receiving, it would be certain to reject the heavenly doctrine; and if the latter, there would be no more suitableness to receive it than there is in the wisdom of this world to receive the true knowledge of God. A holy faith is necessary to receive a holy doctrine, and so to unite us to a holy Saviour. The fitness for which I plead, in God’s justifying those who cordially acquiesce in the gospel way of salvation, rather than others, and which Mr. M. considers as incon- sistent with free justification, (Reply, p. 103,) is no other than that fitness of wisdom which, while it preserves the honours of grace, is not inattentive to those of righteous- ness. Had it been said, Though the wicked forsake not his way, nor the unrighteous man his thoughts, and though he return not to the Lord, yet will he have mercy upon him, nor to our God, yet will he abundantly pardon, we should feel a want of fitness, and instantly perceive that grace was here exalted at the expense of righteousness. He that can discern no fitness in such connexions but that of works and rewards must have yet to learn some of the first prin- ciples of the oracles of God. - * See Works, Vol. II. pp. 38.55, 56. Fifthly, With respect to justification by faith alone, Mr. M. appears to have affixed a new sense to the phrase. I have always understood it to mean justification by a right- eousness received, in opposition to justification by a right- eousness performed, according to Gal. iii. 11, 12, “That no man is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident ; for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith; but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.” In this sense, justification by faith alone applies to my views of the subject as well as to his ; but the sense in which he uses the phrase is very nearly akin to that in which James uses it when speaking of faith as dead, being alone. We are, indeed, justified by faith alone; but not by a faith which is alone. Mr. M. is in the habit of speaking of that holiness which I conceive essential to the nature of faith as something “added ” to it, or as being something “more ” than faith ; but he might as well say that a cordial rejection of the gospel is something “more ” than unbelief. In like man- ner, he seems to consider the phrase “faith which worketh by love ’’ as expressive of what faith produces posterior to its uniting us to Christ ; whereas it is of the nature of faith in its very first existence in the mind to work, and that in a way of love to the object. It is also remarkable that Paul speaks of faith which “worketh by love” as availing to justification ; while circumcision or uncircumcision availeth nothing, Gal. v. 6. Faith, hope, and charity have, no doubt, their distinctive characters; but not one of them, nor any other grace, consists in its being devoid of holy affection. This is a common property belonging to all the graces, is coeval with them, and essential to them. What- ever we may possess, call it knowledge, or faith, or what we may, if it be devoid of this, it is not the effect of special Divine influence, and therefore not a fruit of the Spirit. “That which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” Lastly, If union with Christ were antecedent to all holy affection, it would not be what the Scriptures represent it ; namely, a union of spirit; “He that is joined to the Lord is one spirit.” Union of spirit must include congeniality of disposition. Our heart must be as Christ's heart, or we are not one with him. Believing in him with all the heart, we hence, according to the wise and gracious com- stitution of the gospel, and not in reward of any holiness in us, possess a revealed interest in him, and in all the benefits arising from his obedience unto death. “He that hath the Son hath life.” Such appears to be the order of things as taught us in the Scriptures, and such the con- nexion between faith and justification. If union with Christ were acquired by faith, and an interest in him were bestowed in reward of it, it would indeed be inconsistent with free justification; but if the necessity of a holy faith arise merely from the nature of things, that is, its fitness to unite us to a holy Saviour, and if faith itself be the gift of God, no such consequence follows; for the union, though we be active in it, is in reality formed by him who ac- tuates us, and to him belongs the praise. “Of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption ; that, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.” * - Mr. M. has written much about God’s justifying the wngodly; but while he allows that the term is not descrip- tive of the eacisting character of a believer, I have no dis- pute with him. He admits that when Christ is said to die for the wºngodly, the term includes many who at the time were saints, only he died not for them as saints (p. 115); and this I readily allow. The examples of Abra- ham and David were not introduced by me to prove them to have been godly characters for many years prior to their justification ; but to show, from the examples of their faith not being taken from their first believing while yet it re- spected God as the justifier of the ungodly, that the doc- trine of free justification could not require that the party should at the time be at enmity with God.* Mr. M. has also written much about the state of an awakened sinner. As he had disowned his being the sub- ject of any holy affection, I concluded he must be “a hard-hearted enemy of God.” This was stated, not from + On this subject I beg leave to refer to Discourse XXII, of my work on Genesis. ON JUSTIFICATION. 283 a want of feeling toward any poor sinner, but to show whither the principle led. Mr. M. answers—“I have not the least idea that a hard-hearted enemy of God, while such, can either receive or enjoy forgiveness; but I distin- guish between such a state of mind and that of an awak- ened, self-condemned sinner, and also between the latter and a real convert, who believes the gospel, has tasted that the Lord is gracious, and is possessed of holy affections,” —p. 151. Is there a medium, them, between holy affection and hard-hearted enmity? If so, it must be something like neutrality. But Christ has left no room for this, having declared, “He that is not with me is against me.” Let a sinner be alarmed as much as he may, if he have no holy affection toward God, he must be a hard-hearted enemy to him. Such I believe are many awakened sinners, notwithstanding all their terrors, and such they will view themselves to have been, if ever they come to see things as they are. There are others, however, who are not so, but whose convictions are spiritual, like those of Paul, who saw sin, “through the commandment, to be exceeding sinful,” and who “through the law became dead to the law, that he might live unto God.” Convictions of this kind lead the sinner to Christ. They may not be distin- guishable at the time, either by himself or others, and no- thing but the effects may prove the difference ; yet an essential difference there is. Mr. M. refers to the case of the jailer. I know not what was his conviction of the evil of sin, nor when he became the subject of holy affection. But be it when it might, he was till then a hard-hearted enemy of God. The case to which writers on Mr. M.'s side the question more frequently refer is that of the self-condemned pub- lican ; but, antecedently to his going down to his house justified, he “humbled himself,” and that in a way of holy thºugh not of joyful affection. According to Mr. M. there is a state of mind which is not the effect of renewing grace, and therefore contains nothing truly good, but which is, nevertheless, necessary and sufficient to prepare the sinner for receiving the for- $giveness of his sin. “A hard-hearted enemy of God can- hot receive or enjoy gospel forgiveness; but a sinner under terrors of conscience, though equally destitute of all regard for God as the other, can.” Far be it from me to impeach Mr. M.'s integrity. I doubt not but he thinks that in writing his Reply he was engaged in refuting error. Yet if his own words are to be believed, he does not know after all but that he has been opposing the truth. In page 151 he says, “Whether such convictions as issue in conversion differ in kind from others I will, NoT TAKE UPON ME To DETERMINE.” That is, he does not know but that it may be so, and that there is such a thing as spiritual conviction, a conviction of the evil of sin, antecedently to believing in the Saviour, and subservient to it. But this is the same, in effect, as saying he does not know whether that which he has been op- posing throughout his performance may not, after all, be true ! “But I am certain of this,” he adds, “that it would be very unsafe to build up any in an opinion of their pos- sessing holiness merely upon the ground of their convic- tion, while they come short of a real change, and do not believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. That conviction of sin and its desert which is subservient to faith in Christ will never lead a person to think that it is any part of his holi- ness; for such a thought would be as opposite to the nature of his conviction as his feeling a disease would be to his thinking himself whole.” Very good ; but against what is it directed 3 not any thing advanced by his opponent. It is, however, manifestly against the scope of his own performance. The tendency, though not the design, of these remarks is to show that there is a “ difference in kind” between some convictions and others, and a marked one too. “That conviction of sin and its desert which is subservient to faith in Christ will never lead a person to think that it is any part of his holiness ;” but (he might have added) that conviction of sin which is not subservient to faith in Christ will. Graceless convictions generally, if not always, become objects of self-admiration. Here, then, Mr. M. not only determines that there is a difference between some convictions and others, but specifies wherein that difference consists. It never occurred to the self- condemned publican that there was any thing good or holy in his “humbling himself” before God. Our Lord, however, held it up as being so, and recommended it as an example to others. I shall conclude this letter with a few remarks on quali- fications. This is a term on which Mr. Sandeman and his followers have plentifully declaimed. It conveys to me the idea of something which entitles the party to a good, or fits him to enjoy it. With respect to entitling us, I suppose, there is no dispute. The gospel and its invita- tions are our title to come to Christ for salvation. And, with respect to fitting us, there is nothing of this kind that is pleadable, or which furnishes any ground of encourage- ment to the sinner that he shall be accepted. It is not any thing prior to coming to Christ, but coming itself, that has the promise of acceptance. All that is pleaded for is the necessity of a state of mind suited in the nature of things to believing, and without which no sinner ever did or can believe, and which state of mind is not self-wrought, but the effect of regenerating grace. Mr. Sandeman represents sinners as saying to preachers, “If you would preach the gospel to us, you must tell us. something fit to give us joy as we presently stand, uncon- scious of any distinguishing qualification.” That the mind, at the time when it first receives gospel comfort, may be unconscious, not only of every distinguishing qualification, but of being the subject of any thing truly good, I allow ; for I believe that is the first true comfort which arises from the consideration of what Christ is rather than of what we are toward him. But to be “unconscious ” of any thing truly good and actually destitute of it are two things; and so are its being necessary in the nature of things to our enjoying the consolations of the gospel, and its being so as a qualification entitling, or in some way recommending, us to the Divine favour. To conceive of a sinner who is actually hardened in his sins, bloated with self-righteous pride, and full of opposition to the gospel, receiving joy “presently as he stands,” is not only conceiving of rest for the soul without coming to the Sa- viour for it, but is in itself a contradiction. Mr. M'Lean acknowledges as much as this. “I have not the least idea,” he says, “that a hard-hearted enemy of God, while such, can either receive or enjoy forgiveness.” Conviction of sin then, whether it have any thing holy in it or not, is necessary, not, I presume, as a qualification recommending the sinner to the Divine favour, but as that without which believing in Jesus were in its own nature impossible. Such are my views as to the necessity of a new heart ere the sinner can come to Christ. The joy that an unregene- rate sinner can receive “presently as he stands,” is any thing but that which is afforded by the good news of sal- vation to the chief of sinners. LETTER IX. ON CERTAIN NEW TESTAMENT PRACTICES. THAT there are serious Christians who have leaned to the Sandemanian system I have no doubt, and in people of this description I have seen things worthy of imitation. It has appeared to me that there is a greater diligence in endeavouring to understand the Scriptures, and a stricter regard to what they are supposed to contain, than among many other professors of Christianity. They do not seem to trifle with either principle or practice in the manner that many do. Even in those things wherein they appear to me to misunderstand the Scriptures, there is a regard toward them which is worthy of imitation. There is something, even in their rigidness, which I prefer before that trifling with truth which among other professing Christians often passes under the name of liberality. These concessions, however, do not respect those who have gone entirely into the system, so as to have thoroughly imbibed its spirit, but persons who have manifested a con- siderable partiality in favour of the doctrine. Take the denomination as a whole, and it is not among them you can expect to see the Christian practice of the New Testa- 284 STRICTURES ON SANDEMANIANISM. ment exemplified. You will find them very punctilious in some things, but very defective in others. Religion, as exhibited by them, resembles a rickety child, whose growth is confined to certain parts: it wants that lovely uniform- ity or proportion which constitutes the beauty of holiness. Some of the followers of Mr. Sandeman, who in his lifetime formed a society in St. Martin's-le-grand, Lon- don, and published an account of what they call their Christian practices, acknowledge that the command of washing one another's feet is binding “only when it can be an act of kindness to do so;” and that though there be neither precept nor precedent for family prayer, yet “it seems necessary for maintaining the fear of God in a family.” They proceed, however, to judge those who in- sist on family prayer and the first-day sabbath, while they disregard the feasts of charity, the holy kiss, &c., as per- sons “influenced to their religious practices, not by the fear of God, the authority of Christ, or the Spirit of truth.” It is easy to see hence what kind of Christian practice that is by which these people are distinguished.* A punctilious adherence to the letter of Scripture is in some cases commendable, even though it may extend to the tithing of mint and cwmmin ; but in others it would lead you aside from the mind of Christ; and to pursue any thing to the neglect of judgment, mercy, and the love of God, is dangerous in the extreme. It has long appeared to me that a great many errors have arisen from applying to moral obligations the prim- ciple which is proper in obedience to positive institutions. By confounding these, and giving to both the name of ordinances, the New Testament becomes little more than ritual, and religion is nearly reduced to a round of me- chanical performances. The distinction of obedience into moral and positive has been made by the ablest writers of almost every denomin- ation, and must be made if we would understand the Scriptures. Without it we should confound the eternal standard of right and wrong given to Israel at Sinai (the sum of which is the love of God and our neighbour) with the body of “carnal ordinances imposed on them until the time of reformation.” We should also confound those precepts of the New Testament which arise from the rela- tions we sustain to God and one another with those that arise merely from the sovereign will of the Legislator, and could never have been known but for his having expressly enjoined them. Concerning the former, an inspired writer does not scruple to refer the primitive Christians to that sense of right and wrong which is implanted in the minds of men in general; saying, “Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are homest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.” But concerning the latter, he directs their whole attention to the revealed will of Christ. “Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them unto you.”—“I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you,” &c. The one is commanded because it is right, the other is right because it is commanded. The great principles of the former are of perpetual obligation, and know no other change than that which arises from the varying of relations and conditions; but those of the lat- ter may be binding at one period of time, and utterly abolished at another. We can clearly perceive that it were inconsistent with the perfections of God not to have required us to love him and one another, or to have allowed of the contrary. Children also must needs be required to obey their pa- rents ; for this is RIGHT. But it is not thus in positive institutions. Whatever wisdom there may be in them, and whatever discernment in us, we could not have known them had they not been expressly revealed ; nor are they ever enforced as being in themselves right, but merely from the authority of the Lawgiver. Of them we may say, Had it pleased God, he might in various instances have enjoined the opposites. But of the other we are not al- lowed to suppose it possible, or consistent with righteous- * I have not seen this pamphlet, but have taken a few quotations from it, contained in Backus's Discourse on Faith and its Influence. ness, for God to have required any thing different from that which he has required. The obligation of man to love and obey his Creator must have been coeval with his existence ; but it was not till he had planted a garden in Eden, and there put the man whom he had formed, and expressly prohibited the fruit of one of the trees on pain of death, that he came under a positive law. The use to be made of this distinction, in the present controversy, is to judge in what cases we are to look for eacpress precept or eacample, and in what cases we are not to look for them. Mr. Braidwood very properly observes, “That which is morally good in its own nature is a bound- en duty, although it should not be particularly commanded nor exemplified in all the word of God.”—Letters, &c., p. 42. In obedience of this description there is not that need of minute rules and examples as in the other; but merely of general principles which naturally lead to all the particulars comprehended under them. To require express precept or example, or to adhere in all cases to the literal sense of those precepts which are given us, in things of a moral nature, would greatly mis- lead us. We may by a disregard of that for which there is no express precept or precedent omit what is manifestly right, and by an adherence to the letter of Scriptural pre- cepts overlook the spirit of them, and do that which is manifestly wrong. If we will do nothing without express precept or pre- cedent, we must build no places for Christian worship, form no societies for visiting and relieving the afflicted poor, establish no schools, endow no hospitals, nor con- tribute anything toward them, nor any thing toward print- ing or circulating the Holy Scriptures. Whether any person who fears God would on this ground consider him- self excused from these duties, I cannot tell : it is on no better ground, however, that duties of equal importance have been disregarded; especially those of family prayer and the sanctification of the Lord’s day. In Mr. Sandeman’s time it was allowed that “though there was neither precept nor precedent for family prayer, yet it seemed necessary for maintaining the fear of God in a family.” But this concession, being at variance with more favourite principles, seems to have meant nothing. It is said that family prayer has long been disregarded by many who drink the deepest into the doctrine. With them, therefore, the maintaining of “the fear of God in a family” seems to be given up. This fact has operated much against the denomination in the esteem of serious Christians, by whom they are considered as little other than a body of worldly men. Of late the system has been improved. Instead of owning, as formerly, that “the fear of God seemed to require this duty,” it is now held to be wnlawful, provided any part of the family be unbelievers, seeing it is holding communion with them. On the same principle, unbelievers, it is said, are not allowed to join in public prayer and praise, unless it be in an adjoining room, or with some kind of partition between them and the be- lievers. In short, it is maintained by Mr. Braidwood that “we ought only to join in prayer and praise with those with whom we partake of the Lord’s supper.”-–Letters, pp. 31–46. Such are the consequences of confounding things moral with things positive or ceremonial. We have no account of any particular injunctions given to Abraham respecting the ordering of his family. God had said to him in general, “Walk before me, and be thou perfect;” and which, as to things of this nature, was sufficient. “I know Abraham,” saith the Lord, “ that HE WILL command his children, and his household after him, that they shall keep the way of the Lord, and do justice and judgment.” Can a child be brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord when it never hears its parents pray for it? Paul would not have eaten the Lord's supper with the ship's company; but he made no scruple of “giving thanks to God in presence of them all” at a common meal; and this, I presume, without any par- tition between his company and theirs, or so much as a mental reservation in respect of the latter. To join with unbelievers in what is not their duty is to become par- takers of other men's sins; but to allow them to join with us in what is their duty is not so. The believer is not at liberty to join in the prayer of unbelief; but the unbeliever ON CHRISTIAN PRACTICES. 285 is at liberty, if he can, to join in the prayer of faith. To deny him this were to deny him the right of becoming a believer, and of doing what every one ought to do. We ought to pray for such things as both believers and unbe- lievers stand in need of: if the latter unite with us in de- sire, it is well for them ; if not, the guilt remains with themselves, and not with us. The sanctification of the Lord's day is said to be very generally disregarded among the admirers of this system. Having met and kept the ordinances, they seem to have done with religion for that day, and feel at liberty to fol- low any amusement or worldly occupation during the re- mainder of it. This is Christian liberty; and the opposite is Pharisaism : So far as relates to its being the day appointed for Christian worship, rather than the seventh ; that is to say, so far as it is positive, the keeping of it is amply supported by Scripture precedent: but as to keeping the day holy to the Lord, this, being moral, is left to be inferred from general principles. This is the case as to the manner of attending to all positive institutions. No injunctions were laid on the churches with respect to their keeping the Lord’s supper in a holy manner; yet in the neglect of this lay the sin of the church at Corinth. And the reasoning which the apostle used to convince them of their sin ap- plies to the case in hand. He argues from the ordinance of breaking bread being THE LORD's supper, that turning it into their own supper was rendering it null and void :* and by parity of reasoning it follows from the first day of the week being THE LoRD’s DAY, that to do our own work, find our own pleasure, or speak our own words on that day, is to make it void. Of the former he declared, “This is not to eat the Lord's supper;” and of the latter he would, on the same principle, have declared, This is not to keep the Lord’s day. If, on the other hand, we do every thing that is com- manded in the New Testament, according to the letter of the precept, we shall in many cases overlook the true in- tent of it, and do that which is manifestly wrong. The design of our Lord’s precepts on prayer and alms- giving, in the sermon on the mount, is to censure a spirit of ostentation in these duties; but a strict conformity to the letter of them would excuse us from all social prayer and public contributions. - The design of the precept, “Resist not evil,” but “if a man Smite thee on the one cheek, turn to him the other also,” is to prohibit all private or selfish resentment, and to teach us that we ought rather to suffer wrong than go about to revenge an injury. Who does not admire the conduct of the noble Athenian, who, in a council of war held for the common safety of the country, when the Spar- tan chief menaced him with his cane, cried, “ STRIKE ; BUT HEAR ME!” Such, in effect, has been the language of the martyrs of Jesus in all ages; and such is the spirit of the precept. But to contend for a literal compliance with it were to reflect on the conduct of Christ himself, Who, when smitten before the high priest, did not so ex- emplify it, but remonstrated against the injury. - If the design of our Lord, in forbidding us to lay up treasures on earth, were absolutely and in all cases to pro- hibit the increase of property, it was his design to over- throw what the Scriptures acknowledge as a dictate of nature, namely, the duty of parents to provide for their children, 2 Cor. xii. 14. True it is that men may hoard Wealth in order to enrich and aggrandize their families to the neglect of present duty toward the poor and toward the cause of God; but this is the abuse of the principle, and ought to be corrected, and not the principle itself de- stroyed. Only let our own interest, and that of our chil- dren, be pursued in subordination to God, and in consist- ency with other duties, and all will be right. The contrary practice would load the industrious poor, and prevent their ever rising above their present condition, while it screened the indolent rich, who might expend the whole of their income in self-gratification provided they did not increase their capital. - Nor can any good reason be given, that I know of, why we should understand this precept as prohibiting in ail * I am aware that THEIR own SUPPER has been understood as re- ferring to the LovE FEASTs; but the reasoning of the apostle seems to cases the increase of property, any more than that of “selling what we have, and giving alms,” as absolutely forbidding us to retain it. To be consistent, the advocates of this interpretation should dispose of all their property, and distribute it among the poor. In other words, they should abolish all distinctions of rich and poor so far as concerns themselves; not only of the very rich and very poor, but all distinction whatever, and be perfectly on an equality. When they shall do this, they will at least prove themselves to be sincere, and impart a weight to their censures against others which at present they do not possess. It was not our Lord's design in this partial manner to lop off the branches of a worldly spirit; but to strike at the root of it. To lay up treasures on earth denotes the desire of amassing wealth that we may be great, and shine, or in some way consume it upon our lusts; and herein consists the evil. There is as great a difference between a character who acts on this principle, and one whom God prospers in the path of duty, and in the full exercise of benevolence toward all about him, as between one who engages in the chace of worldly applause, and another who, seeking the good of those around him, must needs be respected and loved. The evil which arises from such interpretations, what- ever may be their tendency, does not consist in throwing civil society into a state of disorder; for though men may admit them in theory, yet they will contrive some method of practically evading them, and reconcile their consciences to it. The mischief lies in the hypocrisy, self-deception, and unchristian censures upon others, to which they give OCC3SIOIl, Much has been spoken and written on “observing all things which Christ hath commanded us,” and on the au- thority of apostolic example. Both are literally binding on Christians in matters of positive institution, and in things moral the spirit or design of them is indispensable ; but fo enforce a literal conformity in many cases would be to de- feat the end, and reduce obedience to unmeaning ceremony. In Eastern countries the washing of the feet, after the toils of a journey, was a common and necessary refresh- ment; and our Lord, to teach his disciples in love to serve one another, took upon himself the humble office of a serv- ant, and washed their feet; enjoining upon them to do that to one another which he had done to them. But to conform to this custom where it is not practised, nor con- sidered as necessary to be done by any one, is to defeat the end of the precept by substituting a form in the place of a humble and affectionate service. We may wash the saints’ feet, and neglect to dry their clothes, or to ad- minister necessary comfort to them when cold and weary. If, in commands of this nature, no regard is to be had to times, places, and circumstances, why do Sandemanians allow it to be binding “only when it can be an act of kindness to do so 3’’ It was customary in the East, and is still so in many countries, for men to express affection to each other by a kiss; and the apostles directed that this common mode of salutation should be used religiously. But in a country where the practice is principally confined to the expression of love between the sexes, or at most among relations, it is much more liable to misconstruction and abuse ; and be- ing originally a human custom, where that custom ceases, though the spirit of the precept is binding, yet the form of it, I conceive, is not so. - For a man to have his head uncovered was once the com- monly received sign of his authority, and as such was en- joined; but with us it is a sign of subjection. If, there- fore, we are obliged to wear any sign of the one or of the other in our religious assemblies, it requires to be reversed. The apostle taught that it was a shame for a man to wear long hair like a woman ; not that he would have concerned himself about the length of the hair, but this being a distinctive mark of the sexes, he appealed to nature itself against their being confounded ; that is, against a man’s appearing in the garb of a woman. In the primitive times Christians had their love feasts ; they do not appear, however, to have been a Divine ap- me to admit of no such meaning. How could he accuse them of making | void the Lord's supper, if it was not the Lord's supper they were eating ! 286 STRICTURES ON SANDEMANIANISM. pointment, but the mere spontaneous expressions of mu- tual affection; as when “breaking bread from house to house they did eat their meat with gladness and single- ness of heart.” While these feasts were conducted with propriety all was well; but in time they were abused, and then they were mentioned in language not very respect- ful, “These are spots in your feasts of charity.” Had they been of Divine institution, it was not their being abused that would have drawn forth such language. The Lord's supper was abused as well as they ; but the abuse in that case was corrected, and the ordinance itself reim- culcated. These brief remarks are intended to prove that, in the above particulars, Mr. Sandeman and his followers have mistaken the true intent of Christ and his apostles. But whether it be so or not, the proportion of zeal which is expended upon them is far beyond what their importance requires. an overweening conceit of myself, and of my denomina- tion, confining the kingdom of heaven to it, and shutting my eyes against the excellences of others, am I not carnal? The Jews, in the time of Jeremiah, thought themselves . very secure on account of their forms and privileges. Pointing to the sacred edifice, and its Divinely instituted worship, they exclaimed, “The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord are these :” but were they not carnal? poor blind mortals addicted to err When the reflecting Christian considers what conten- tions have been maintained about things of this nature, what divisions have been produced, and what accusations have been preferred against those who stand aloof from such strifes, as though they did not so much as profess to observe all things which Christ has commanded, he will But when he drop a tear of pity over human weakness. sees men so scrupulous in such matters that they cannot conscientiously be present at any worship but their own, yet making no scruple of joining in theatrical and other vain amusements, he will be shocked, and must needs sus- pect something worse than weakness; something which strains at a gnat, but can swallow a camel; something, in short, which, however good men may have been carried away by it, can hardly be conceived to have had its origin in a good man’s mind. LETTER. X. AN INQUIRY INTO THE PRINCIPLES ON WHICH THE APOS– TLES PROCEEDED IN FORMING AND ORGANIZING CHRIS- TIAN CHURCHIES, YoU need not be told of the fierce disputes which were first agitated by the leaders of this denomination, and which have since extended to others besides those who choose to be called after their names, concerning the order, government, and discipline of gospel churches. To write upon every minute practice found in the New Testament would be to bewilder ourselves and perplex the subject. If we can ascertain the principles on which the apostles proceeded in all they did, it will answer a much better purpose. - Far be it from me to contend for an Erastian latitude in matters of church government and discipline, or to imagine that no Divine directions are left us on the sub- ject, but that the church must be modelled and governed according to circumstances. This were to open a door to every corruption that human ingenuity and depravity might devise. But, on the other hand, it is no less wide of the truth to consider the whole which is left us as a system of ordinances, or positive institutions, requiring in all cases the most literal and punctilious observance. Such a view of the subject, among other evil consequences, must intro- duce perpetual diseord, seeing it aims to establish things from the New Testament which are not in it. It may be thought that in reasoning thus I adopt the principles of the Episcopalians against the puritans, who denied the necessity of express precept or precedent from If, as a friend to believers’ baptism, I cherish In how many ways, alas, are the Scriptures, which the others pleaded for. Had Epis- copalians only denied this in respect of moral duties, I should have thought them in the right. It certainly is not necessary that we should have express precept or pre- cedent for every duty we owe to our neighbours, but merely that we keep within the general principle of doing unto others as we would that they should do unto us. And the same may be said of various duties toward God. If in our thoughts, affections, prayers, or praises we be in- fluenced by love to his name, though his precepts will be our guide as to the general modes in which love shall be expressed, yet we shall not need them for every thing pertaining to particular duties. When Josiah, on hearing the book of the law read to him, “rent his clothes and wept,” it was not in conformity with any particular pre- cept or precedent, but the spontaneous effusion of love. The question between the Episcopalians and the puritans did not relate to moral obligations, but to “rites and ceremonies” in Divine worship, which the church claimed a “power to decree.” Hence it was common for them to urge it upon the puritans, that if their principles were fully acted upon, they must become Antipaedobaptists; or, as they called them, Anabaptists:* a proof this, not only that in their judgment there was neither precept nor pre- cedent in the Scriptures in favour of paedobaptism, but that it was in matters of positive institution that they claimed to act without either. - The question is, On what principles did the apostles proceed in forming and organizing Christian churches, positive or moral 2 If the former, they must have been furnished with an exact model or pattern, like that which was given to Moses in the mount, and have done all things according to it; but if the latter, they would only be furnished with general principles, comprehending, but not specifying, a great variety of particulars. That the framing of the tabernacle was positive there can be no doubt ; and that a part of the religion of the New Testament is so is equally evident. Concerning this the injunctions of the apostle are minute and very express. “Be ye followers (imitators) of me as I also am of Christ.” —“Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you.”—“For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you.” But were we to attempt to draw up a formula of church government, worship, and discipline which should include any thing more than general outlines, and to establish it upon express New Testament authori- | ties, we should attempt what is impracticable. Doubtless the apostles acted under Divine direction ; but, in things of a moral nature, that direction consisted not in providing them with a model or pattern, in the manner of that given to Moses, but in furnishing them | with general principles, and enduing them with holy wis- | dom to apply them as occasions required. We learn, from the Acts and the Epistles, that the first churches were congregations of faithful men, voluntarily united together for the stated ministration of the word, the administration of Christian ordinances, and the mutu- ally assisting of each other in promoting the cause of Christ ; that they were governed by bishops and deacons of their own choosing ; that a bishop was an overseer, not of other ministers, but of the flock of God; that the go- vernment and discipline of each church was within itself; that the gifts of the different members were so employed as to conduce to the welfare of the body; and that in cases of disorder every proper means was used to vindicate the honour of Christ and reclaim the party. These, and others which might be named, are what I mean by general principles. They are sometimes illustrated by the inci- dental occurrence of examples (which examples in all similar cases are binding); but it is not always so. That a variety of cases occur in our time respecting which we have nothing more than general principles to direct us is manifest to every person of experience and reflection. We know that churches were formed, officers chosen and ordained, and prayer and praise conducted with “the un- derstanding,” or so as to be understood by others; but in what particular manner they proceeded in each we are not * Preface to Bishop Sanderson's Sermons, Sect. 23. CHURCH GOVERNMENT AND DISCIPLINE. 287 told. We have no account of the formation of a single church, no ordination service, nor any such thing as a formula of worship. We are taught to sing praises to God in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, but have no inspired tunes. We have accounts of the election of church of. ficers; but no mention of the mode of proceeding, or how they ascertained the mind of the church. If we look for express precept or example for the removal of a pastor from one situation to another, we shall find none. We are taught, however, that for the church to grow unto an holy temple in the Lord, it requires to be “fitly framed together.” The want of fitness in a connexion, therefore, especially if it impede the growth of the spiritual temple, may justify a removal. Or if there be no want of fitness, yet if the material be adapted to occupy a more important station, a removal of it may be very proper. Such a prin- ciple may be misapplied to ambitious and interested pur- poses; but if the increase of the temple be kept in view, it is lawful, and in some cases attended with great and -good effects. This instance may suffice instead of a hundred, and serves to show that the forms and orders of the New Tes- tament church, much more than those of the Old, are founded on the reason of things. They appear to be no more than what men, possessed of the wisdom from above, would, as it were instinctively, or of their own accord, fall into, even though no specific directions should be given them. That such were the principles on which the apostles proceeded is manifest from their own professions, or from the general precepts which they addressed to the churches. These were as follows:—“Let all things be done to edify- &ng.”—“Let all things be done decently, and in order.”— “Follow after the things that make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.” Whatever measures had a tendency to build up the church of God and indi- viduals in their most holy faith, these they pursued. Whatever measures approved themselves to minds endued with holy wisdom as fit and lovely, and as tending, like good discipline in an army, to the enlargement of Christ's kingdom, these they followed, and inculcated on the churches. And however worldly minds may have abused the principle, by introducing vain customs under the pre- tence of decency, it is that which, understood in its simple and original sense, must still be the test of good order and Christian discipline. The discipline of the primitive churches occupies no prominent place in their character. It is not that osten- tatious thing which, under the name of an “ordinance,” has become of late a mere bone of contention. It was simply the carrying into effect the great principle of bro- therly love, and the spirit with which it was exercised was that of long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faithfulness, and meekness. The way in which the apostles actually proceeded, in the forming and organizing of churches, corresponds with these statements. When a number of Christians were assembled together in the days of Pentecost, they were the first Christian church. But at first they had no dea- cons, and probably no pastors, except the apostles; and if the reason of things had not required it, they might have continued to have none. But in the course of things new service rose upon their hands, therefore they must have new servants to perform it; * for, said the apostles, “It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables: wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost, and of wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.” In this proceeding we perceive nothing of the air of a ceremony, nothing like that of punctilious attention to forms, which marks obedience to a positive institute ; but merely the conduct of men endued with the wisdom from above, servants appointed when service required it, and the number of the one proportioned to the quantity of * A deacon, as well as a minister, means a servant. t I say whose ability admits of it; for there is equal proof from the New Testament that they who preach the gospel should live of the gospel, as there is of a plurality of elders. But the zeal for the latter has not always been accompanied by a zeal for the former. If the term elder must be understood to be not only a term of office, but of the pastoral office exclusively, and a plurality of them be required, the other. All things are done “decently and in order;” all things are done “to edifying.” In the course of things, the apostles, who had supplied the place of bishops, or pastors, would be called to travel into other parts of the world, and then it is likely the church at Jerusalem would have a bishop, or bishops, of their own. As the number of deacons was regulated by the work to be done, so would it be by bishops, both in this and in other churches. A large church, where much service was to be done, required seven deacons ; and where they abounded in numbers and spiritual gifts there might be a plurality of pastors. With respect to us, where the reason of the thing exists, that is, where there are churches whose numbers require it, and whose ability admits of it, it is still proper; f but for a small church to have more pastors than one is as unnecessary as to have seven deacons. Such a rule must favour idleness, and confine useful minis- ters from extending their labours. To place two or three in a post which might be filled by one must leave many other places unoccupied. Such a system is more adapted for show than for promoting the kingdom of Christ. It may serve to illustrate and simplify the subject if we compare the conduct of the apostles with that of a com- pany of missionaries in our own times. What, indeed, was an apostle but an inspired missionary 3 Allowing only for ordinary Christian missionaries being uninspired, we shall see in their history all the leading characteristics of apostolic practice. Conceive of a church, or of a society of Christians out of a number of churches, or of “any two agreeing to- gether,” as undertaking a mission among the heathen. One of the first things they would attend to would be the selection of suitable missionaries; next they would in- struct them in the things necessary to their undertaking; and after this send them forth to preach the gospel. Such exactly was the process of our Lord toward his apostles. He first selected them ; then, during his personal ministry, instructed them ; and after his resurrection, gave them their commission, with a rich effusion of the Holy Spirit to fit them for their undertaking. The missionaries on arriving at the place of action would first unite in social prayer and fellowship ; and this would be the first Christian church. Thus the apostles, and those who adhered to them, first met in an upper room for prayer, preparatory to their attack on the kingdom of Satan ; and this little “band of about a hundred and twenty’’ formed the first Christian church ; and when others were con- verted to Christ and joined them, they are said to be “added to the church.” Again, The first missionaries to a heathen country could not be chosen by those to whom they were sent, but by him or them who sent them ; nor would their influence be confined to a single congregation, but, by a kind of pa- rental authority, would extend to all the societies that might be raised by means of their labours. It would be different with succeeding pastors, who might be raised up from among the converts; they would of course be chosen by their brethren, and their authority be confined to those who elected them. Thus the apostles were not constituted such by the churches, but received their appointment im- mediately from Christ; nor was their authority limited to any particular church, but extended to all. In this they stand distinguished from ordinary pastors, who are elected by the churches, and whose authority is confined to the churches that elected them. . Again, The first missionaries to a heathen country would be employed in the planting of churches wherever proper materials were found for the purpose ; and if the work so increased upon their hands as to be too much for them, they would depute others whom God should gift and quali- fy, like-minded with themselves, to assist them in it. Some one person at least of this description would be present at the formation and organization of every church, to see to it that all things were done “decently and in order.” why is not a plurality of them supported ?. The office of elder in those churches which are partial to this system is little more than nominal; for while an elder is employed like other men in the necessary cares of life, he cannot ordinarily fulfil the duties of his office. No man that warreth in this warfare (unless it be in aid of a poor church) ought to entangle himself with the affairs of this life, that he may please him who 7ath chosen him to be a soldier. 288 STRICTURES ON SANDEMANIANISM. And if there were any other churches in the neighbour- hood, their elders and messengers would doubtless be pre- sent, and, to express their brotherly concurrence, would join in it. Thus the apostles planted churches; and when elders were ordained, the people chose them, and they, by the solemn laying on of hands, invested them with the office (Acts xiv. 23); and when the work increased upon their hands, they appointed such men as Timothy and Titus as evangelists, to “set things in order” in their stead, 2 Tim. ii. 2; Tit. i. 5. In these ordinations, a Paul or a Titus would preside, but the other elders who were present would unite in brotherly concurrence, and in im- portuning a blessing on the parties; and hence there would be the “laying on of the hands of the presbytery,” or elders. - I may add, though it does not immediately respect any question here at issue, if the first missionaries, and those appointed by them, planted churches, set them in order, and presided at the ordination of elders, it was not because the same things would not have been VALID if done by others, but because they would not have been Don E. Let but churches be planted, set in order, and Scripturally organized, and whether it be by the missionaries or succeeding native pastors, all is good and acceptable to Christ. And such, I conceive, is the state of things with respect to the apostles and succeeding ministers. The same things which were done by the apostles were done by others appointed by them ; and had they been done by elders whom they had not appointed, provided the will of Christ had been pro- perly regarded, they would not have objected to their validity. This is certainly true in some particulars, and I see not why it should not in all. Paul left Timothy at Ephesus, that he might charge some that they taught no other doctrine ; but if the Ephesian teachers had been themselves attached to the truth, neither Paul nor Timothy would have been offended with them for having superseded their interference. He also left Titus in Crete to set in order the things that were wanting, and to ordain elders in every city ; but if the Cretians themselves had had sufficient wisdom and virtue to have regulated their own affairs by the word of God, I believe their order would not have been reckoned disorder. Had there been elders already or- dained among them competent to assist in the ordination of others, if we may judge from the general tenor of apos- tolic practice, instead of objecting to the validity of their proceedings, both Paul and Titus would, though absent in the flesh, have been with them in the spirit, “joying and beholding their order, and the stedfastness of their faith in Christ.” The sum is, that church government and discipline are not a body of ceremonies, but a few general principles and examples, sufficient for all practical purposes, but not sufficient to satisfy those who, in New Testament direc- tions, expect to find an Old Testament ritual. It is not difficult to perceive the wisdom of God in thus varying the two dispensations. The Jewish church was an army of soldiers, who had to go through a variety of forms in learn- ing their discipline; the Christian church is an army going forth to battle. The members of the former were taught punctilious obedience, and led with great formality through a variety of religious evolutions; but those of the latter (though they also must keep their ranks, and act in obe- dience to command whenever it is given) are required to attend, not so much to the mechanical as to the mental, not so much to the minute observation of forms as to the spirit and design of them. The order of the one would almost seem to be appointed for order's sake; but in that of the other the utility of every thing is apparent. The obedience of the former was that of children; the latter of sons arrived at maturer age. As our Saviour abolished the Jewish law of divorce, and reduced marriage to its original simplicity; so, having abolished the form and order of the church as appointed by Moses, he reduced it to what, as to its first principles, it was from the beginning, and to what must have cor- responded with the desires of believers in every age. It was natural for “the sons of God,” in the days of Seth, to assemble together, and “call upon the name of the Lord ; ” and their unnatural fellowship with unbelievers brought on the deluge. And even under the Jewish dispensation, wicked men, though descended from Abraham, were not considered as Israelites indeed, or true citizens of Zion. The friends of God were then the “ companions of those that feared him.” They “spake often one to another,” and assembled for mutual edification. What then is gos- pel church fellowship but godliness ramified, or the prin- ciple of holy love reduced to action ? There is scarcely a precept on the subject of church discipline but what may, in substance, be found in the Proverbs of Solomon. It does not follow hence that all forms of worship and of church government are indifferent, and left to be accom- modated to times, places, and circumstances. The prin- ciples or general outlines of things are marked out, and we are not at liberty to deviate from them; nor are they to be filled up by worldly policy, but by a pure desire of carrying them into effect according to their true intent ; to which may be added, that, so far as they are exempli- fied in the New Testament, it is our duty in similar cases to follow the example. It does follow, however, that Scripture precedent, im- portant as it is, is not binding on Christians in things of a moral nature, unless the REASON of the thing be the same in both cases. Of this proof has been offered in Letter IX., relative to the washing of the feet, the kiss of charity, &c. It also follows that, in attending to positive institut- tions, neither express precept nor precedent is necessary in what respects the holy manner of performing them, nor binding in regard of merely accidental circumstances, which do not properly belong to them. It required neither ex- press precept nor precedent to make it the duty of the Corinthians, when meeting to celebrate the Lord's supper, to do it soberly and in the fear of God, nor to render the contrary a sin. There are also circumstances which may, on some occasions, accompany a positive institution, and not on others, which being, therefore, no part of it, are not binding. It is a fact that the Lord’s supper was first cele- brated with wnleavened bread; for no leaven was to be found at the time in all the Jewish habitations; but no mention being made of this, either in the institution or in the repetition of it by the apostle, we conclude it was a mere accidental circumstance, no more belonging to the ordi- nance than its having been in “a large upper room.” It is a fact, too, that our Lord and his disciples sat in a reclining posture at the supper, after the manner of sitting at their ordinary meals; yet none imagine this to be binding upon us. It is also a fact, with regard to the time, that our Saviour first sat down with disciples on the evening of the fifth day of the week, the night in which he was betrayed; but though that was a memorable night, and is mentioned by the apostle in connexion with the supper, yet no one supposes it to be binding upon us; especially as we know it was afterwards celebrated on the first day of the week by the church at Troas. Much has been advanced, however, in favour of the first day of the week as exclusively the time for the celebration of the Lord's supper, and of its being still binding on Christians. A weekly communion might, for any thing we know, be the general practice of the first churches; and certainly there can be no objection to the thing itself; but to render it a term of communion is laying bonds in things wherein Christ has laid none. That the supper was celebrated on the first day of the week by the church at Troas is certain; that it was so every first day of the week is possible, perhaps probable; but the passage does not prove that it was so ; and still less, as Mr. Braidwood affirms, that “it can only be dispensed on that day.”— Letters, p. 44. The words of the institution are, “As often as ye eat,” &c., without determining how often. Those who would make these terms so indeterminate as not to denote frequency, and consequently to be no rule at all as to time, do not sufficiently consider their force. The term “often,” we all know, denotes frequency; and “as often” denotes the degree of that frequency; but every comparative supposes the positive. There can be no de- gree of frequency where frequency itself is not. It might as well be said that the words, How MUCH she hath glor:- fied herself, so Much torment give her, convey no idea of Babylon having glorified herself more than others, but merely of her punishment being proportioned to her pride, be it much or little. • CHURCH GOVERNMENT AND DISCIPLINE. 289 The truth appears to be that the Lord's supper ought to be frequently celebrated; but the exact time of it is a circumstance which does not belong to the ordinance itself. Similar remarks might be made on female communion, a subject on which a great deal has been written of late years in the baptismal controversy. whether there be express precept or precedent for it, or not, is of Il O COIlSe- quence; for the distinction of sex is a mere circumstance in nowise affecting the qualifications required, and there- fore not belonging to the institution. It is of just as much account as whether a believer be a Jew or a Greek, a slave or a free-man ; that is, it is of no account all ; “for there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female ; but all are one in Christ Jesus.” Express precept or pre- cedent might as well be demanded for the parties being tall or low, black or white, sickly or healthy, as for their being male or female. To accommodate the spirit of New Testament practice to the fluctuating manners and inclinations of men is cer- tainly what ought not to be; but neither can it be denied that many of the apostolic practices were suited to the state of things at the time, and would not have been what they were if circumstances had been different. To in- stance in their proceedings on the seventh and first days of the week :-It is well known that, in preaching to the Jews, and others who attended with them, they generally took the seventh day of the week; * the reason of which doubtless was its being the day in which they were to be met with at their synagogues. Hence it is that on the first day of the week so little is said of their preaching to unbelievers, and so much of the celebration of Christian ordinances, which is represented as the specific object of their coming together.f. But the same motive that induced the apostles to preach to unbelievers chiefly on the seventh day of the week would, in our circumstances, have induced them to preach to them on the first, that being now the day on which they ordinarily assemble together. In coun- tries where Christianity has so far obtained as for the legislature to respect the first day of the week as a day of rest, instead of having now and then an individual come into our assemblies, as the primitive churches had, and as churches raised in heathen countries must still have, we have multitudes who on that day are willing to hear the word. In such circumstances the apostles would have preached both to believers and unbelievers, and adminis- tered Christian ordinances, all on the same day. To frame our worship in things of this nature after apostolic ex- ample, without considering the reasons of their conduct, is to stumble in darkness, instead of walking as children of the light. . Yet this is the kind of apostolic practice by which the churches have been teased and divided, the great work of preaching the gospel to the ungodly neg- lected, and Christianity reduced to litigious trifling. If the practice of Christ and his apostles be in all cases binding upon Christians, whether the reason of the thing be the same or not, why do they not eat the Lord's Sup- per with unleavened bread, and in a reclining posture? And why do they not assemble together merely to cele- brate this ordinance, and that on a Lord's day evening 2 From the accounts in 1 Cor. xi. 20, and Acts xx. 7, two things appear to be evident:-First, That the celebration of the Lord's supper was the Specific object of the coming tºgether both of the church at Corinth, and of that at Troas: the former came together (professedly) to eat the Lord's supper; the latter are said to have coſme together to break bread. . Secondly, That it was on the evening of the day. ... This is manifest not only from its being called the Lord’s supper, but from the Corinthians making it their own supper, and from its being followed at Troas by a sermon from Paul which required “ lights,” and con- tinued till “midnight.” I do not mean to say that the church at either Corinth or Troas had no other worship during the first day of the Week than this; but that this was attended to as a dis. tinct object of assembling, and, if there were any other, after the other was over. . It may be thought that these were merely accidental *rcumstances, and therefore not binding on us. It does * Acts xiii. 42; xviii. 4; xvi. 13. TJ + 1 Cor. xi.20; Acts xx. 7. not appear to me, however, that we are at liberty to turn the Lord’s supper into a breakfast. But if we be, and choose to do so, let us not pretend to a punctilious imita- tion of the first churches. - It is well known to be a peculiarity in Sandemanian societies not to determine any question by a majority. They, like the first churches, must be of one mind; and if there be any dissentients who cannot be convinced, they are excluded. Perfect unanimity is certainly desirable, not only in the great principles of the gospel, but in ques- tions of discipline, and even in the choice of officers; but how if this be unattainable? The question is, whether it be more consistent with the spirit and practice of the New Testament for the greater part of the church to forbear with the less, or, Diotrephes-like, to cast them out of the church ; and this for having according to the best of their judgments acted up to the Scriptural directions? One of these modes of proceeding must of necessity be pursued, for there is no middle course; and if we loved one another with genuine Christian affection, we could not be at a loss which to prefer. The New Testament speaks of an elec- tion of seven deacons, but says nothing on the mode of its being conducted. Now, considering the number of mem- bers in the church at Jerusalem, unless they were directed in their choice by inspiration, which there is no reason to think they were, it is more than a thousand to one that those seven persons who were chosen were not the persons whom every individual member first proposed. What then can we suppose them to have done 3 They might discuss the subject till they became of one mind; or, which is much more likely, the less number, perceiving the general wish, and considering that their brethren had understanding as well as they, might peaceably give up their own opinions to the greater, “submitting one to another in the fear of God.” But supposing a hundred of the members had said as follows:– “Without reflecting on any who have been named, we think two or three other brethren more answerable to the qualifications required by the apostles than some of them ; but having said this, we are willing to acquiesce in the general voice”—should they or would they have been excluded for this Assuredly the exclusions of the New Testament were for very dif- ferent causes : The statements of the society in St. Martin's-le-grand on this subject are sophistical, self-contradictory, and blasphemous. “Nothing,” say they, “is decided by the vote of the majority. In some cases indeed there are dissenting voices. The reasons of the dissent are there- upon proposed and considered. If they are Scriptural, the whole church has cause to change its opinion ; if not, and the person persists in his opposition to the word of God, the church is bound to reject him.” But who is to judge whether the reasons of the dissentients be Scriptural or not ? The majority, no doubt, and an opposition to their opinion is an opposition to the word of God! Humility and love will do great things toward unani- mity ; but this forced unanimity is the highest refinement of spiritual tyranny. It is a being compelled to believe as the church believes, and that not only on subjects clearly revealed, and of great importance, but in matters of mere opinion, in which the most upright minds may differ, and to which no standard can apply. What can he who exalt- eth himself above all that is called God do more than set up his decisions as the word of God, and require men on pain of excommunication to receive them 3 LETTER XI. ON THE KINGDOM OF CHRIST. YoU are aware that the admirers of Messrs. Glass and Sandeman generally value themselves on their “clear views of the gospel, and of the nature of Christ's kingdom ;” and I doubt not but they have written things concerning both which deserve attention. It appears to me, however, that they have done much more in detecting error than in advancing truth ; and that their writings on the kingdom 290 STRICTURES ON SANDEMANIANISM. of Christ relate more to what it is not than to what it is. Taking up the sentence of our Lord, “My kingdom is not of this world,” they have said much, and much to purpose, against worldly establishments of religion, with their un- scriptural appendages; but, after all, have they shown what the kingdom of Christ is ; and does their religion, taken as a whole, exemplify it in its genuine simplicity ? If writing and talking about “simple truth" would do it, they could not be wanting; but it will not. Is there not as much of a worldly spirit in their religion as in that which they explode, only that it is of a different species 3 Nay, is there not a greater defect among them in what re- lates to “righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit,” than will often be found in what they denominate Baby- lon itself? A clear view of the nature of Christ's kingdom would hardly be supposed to overlook the apostle's account of it. “The kingdom of God,” he says, “is not meat and drink, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.” From this statement we should expect to find the essence of it placed in things moral, rather than in things cere- monial ; in things clearly revealed, rather than in matters of doubtful disputation; and in things of prime importance, rather than in those of but comparatively small account. We certainly should not expect to see the old error of the Pharisees revived, that of tithing mint and rue to the neg- lect of judgment, mercy, and the love of God. We should also expect the most eminent subjects of this kingdom would be men who, while they conscientiously attend to the positive institutions of Christ, abhor the thought of making them a substitute for sobriety, right- eousness, and godliness; men who need not a special pre- cept for every duty; but, drinking deeply into the law of love, are ready, like the father of the faithful, to obey all its dictates. And as the kingdom of God consists in peace, we should expect its most eminent subjects to be distinguished by that dove-like spirit which seeks the things which make for peace. They may indeed be called upon to contend for the faith, and that earnestly ; but contention will not be their element, nor will their time be chiefly occupied in conversing on the errors, absurdities, and faults of others. Considering bitter zeal and strife in the heart as belonging to the wisdom that descendeth not from above, but which is earthly, sensual, and devilish, they are con- cerned to lay aside every thing of the kind, and to cherish the spirit of a new-born babe. Finally, The joys which they possess, in having heard and believed the good news of salvation, may be expected to render them dead to those of the world; so much so, at least, that they will have no need to repair to the di- versions of the theatre, or other carnal pastimes, in order to be happy; nor will they dream of such methods of as- serting their Christian liberty, and opposing Pharisaism. Whether these marks of Christ's subjects be eminently conspicuous, among the people alluded to, those who are best acquainted with them are able to determine ; but so far as appears from their writings, whatever excellences distinguish them, they do not consist in things of this Inafu re. It is remarkable that the apostle, after representing the kingdom of God as being “not meat and drink, but right- eousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit,” adds, “for he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God and approved of men. Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.” This not only shows what the pro- minent features of Christ’s kingdom are, but affords a striking contrast to the kingdom contended for by Sande- manians, which, instead of recommending itself to both God and man, would seem rather to have been copied from the religion of that people who “pleased not God, and were contrary to all men.” The substitution of forms and ceremonies for the love of God and man is one of the many ways in which depravity has been wont to operate. What else is paganism, apos- tate Judaism, popery, and many other things which pass for religion ? And whether the same principle does not pervade the system in question, and even constitute one of its leading features, let the impartial observer judge. If it does not place the kingdom of God in meat and drink, it places it in things analogous to them, rather than in right- eousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. It is true the forms contended for in this case are not the same as in many others, being such only as are thought to be enjoined in the Scriptures. That many of them arise from a misunderstanding of the Scriptures I have endea- voured to show in a former letter ; but whether it be so or not, if an improper stress be laid upon them, they may be as injurious as though they were not Scriptural. When the brazen serpent became an idol it was as pernicious as other idols. The tithing of herbs, though in itself right, yet, being done to the neglect of “weightier matters,” became the very characteristic of hypocrisy. Is has been said that obedience to the least of God’s commands cannot be unfriendly to obedience to the great- est; and if it be genuine, it cannot ; but to deny the pos- sibility of the great things of God’s law being set aside by a fondness for little things is to deny the fact just referred to, and discovers but a slender acquaintance with the hu- man heart, which certainly can burn in zeal for a cere- mony, when, as to the love of God and man, it is as cold as death. If the nature of Christ's kingdom were placed in those things in which the apostle places it, the government and discipline of the church would be considered as means, and not as ends. The design of order and discipline in an army is to enable it to encounter the enemy to advantage; and such was the order and discipline of the primitive churches. It was still peaceable and affectionate, without parade and without disputes. It consisted in all things being done to edifying, and in such an arrangement of energies as that every gift should be employed to the best advantage in building up the church and attacking the kingdom of Satan. But is this the order and discipline of which so much has of late been written ? Surely not From the days of Glass and Sandeman until now, it does not appear to have been their object to convert men to Christ from among the ungodly, but to make proselytes of other Christians. And is this to understand the true na- ture of Christ's kingdom ? If there were not another fact, this alone is sufficient to prove that their religion, though it may contain a portion of truth, and though godly men may have been misled by it, yet, taken as a whole, is not of God. There is not a surer mark of false religion than its tendency and aim being to make proselytes to our- selves rather than converts to Christ, Acts xx. 30. That there is neither tendency in the system, nor aim in those who enter fully into it, to promote the kingdom of Christ, is manifest, and easily accounted for. They neither expect, nor, as it would seem, desire its progress, but even look with a jealous eye on all opinions and efforts in favour of its enlargement; as though, should it be greatly extended, it must needs be a kingdom of this world ! This, I am aware, is a serious charge, but it does not ori- ginate with me. Mr. Braidwood, of Edinburgh, who must be allowed to have the best opportunities of knowing the system and its adherents, and who cannot be supposed to write under the influence of prejudice, seeing he acknow- ledges he has “learned many things from the ancient writings of this class of professing Christians in relation to the simple doctrine of the gospel and the nature of Christ's kingdom,”—Mr. Braidwood, I say, writes as fol- lows:—“I feel it incumbent on me to warn the disciples of Jesus against that state of mind which makes them slow to believe the prophecies relating to the extent of the Redeemer's kingdom.”—“It is remarkable that some Gentile Christians now show a disposition, toward the Jews, similar to that which, in the apostolic age, the Jews manifested toward the Gentiles, namely, a dislike to their salvation 1 It is truly mortifying to reflect that the greater number of those who indulge this state of mind are per- sons much instructed in the knowledge of the gospel, and of the things concerning the kingdom of God. They call it a Jewish motion to expect an-extensive influence of the word of God among all nations. The very opposite is the fact; for the apostle Paul, describing his countrymen, says, “They please not God, and are contrary to all men, forbidding us to speak unto the Gentiles that they might be saved.’ And even believing Jews were not very willing SPIRIT OF THE SYSTEM. 291 to acknowledge the first Gentile converts, and were sur- prised when they heard that God had also granted to the Gentiles repentance unto life. But the apostle thus de- scribes the spirit by which he regulated his own conduct: —“I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved ' “The freeness of Divine grace, its sovereignty, its oppo- sition to the most darling inclinations of the human heart, the spiritual and heavenly nature of Christ's kingdom—all | these have been used as arguments against the conversion of the Jews, or any signal prosperity of the gospel among the Gentiles | And they whose hearts' desire and prayer to God for Israel, and for the nations, is that they may be saved, are accused of ignorance of the gospel, and of wish- ing to see a corrupt faith prevail, especially if they dare to express a hope that their prayers will be answered l’” It would seem, hence, to be the interest of this class of professing Christians that the world and the church should continue what they are. They glory in the latter being few in number : if, therefore, any considerable part of mankind were to embrace even what they account the truth, they would have nothing left in comparison whereof to glory ! Mr. Braidwood addresses the party on whom he animad- verts as follows:—“Will the purest and simplest views that can be entertained of the truth concerning Jesus have any tendency to make us less concerned about the salvation of men, and more anxious to darken the things revealed in the Scriptures concerning the success of the gospel among all nations ? No, my friend, let us beware of imputing to the gospel a state of mind which so ill accords with its genuine influence, and which can arise only from prejudice, and from mistaken views of the Mes- *čah's kingdom. That glorious kingdom, instead of dying away, as some have supposed, like an expiring lamp, before the advent of its etermal King, shall break in pieces and consume all opposing kingdoms, and shall stand for ever, although its own subjects, acting consistently, use no carnal weapons.”—Detters, &c., pp. 28. 30. The writer to whom these excellent remarks are ad- dressed signs himself Palaemon. I know not who he is ; but as the signature is the same as that affixed to Mr. Sandeman’s Letters on Theron and Aspasio, I conclude he is and wishes to be thought a Sandemanian. Mr. Braid- wood calls him his “friend,” and speaks of his being “mortified” by these his erroneous sentiments, as though he had a feeling for Palaemon's general creed, or that “in- struction in the knowledge of the gospel and of the things concerning the kingdom of God” which he and others had received. For my part, without deciding upon the state of individuals, I am persuaded that these people, with all their professions of “clear views,” “simple truth,” and “simple belief,” have imbibed a corrupt and danger- ous system of doctrine. Palaemon, whoever he is, would do well to examine himself whether he be in the faith; and were I in Mr. Braidwood's place, I should feel it to be my duty to re- examine what I had “learned from the ancient writings of this class of professing Christians relative to the simple doctrine of the gospel and the nature of Christ's king- dom;’ and to ask myself what I had asked my friend, Whether that CAN be pure and simple truth which is pro- ductive of such effects? LETTER XII. THE SPIRIT OF THE SYSTEM compared witH THAT OF PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY. You are aware that doctrines, whether true or false, if really believed, become principles of action. They are a mould into which the mind is cast, and from which it re- ceives its impression. An observant eye will easily per- ceive a spirit which attends different religions, and different systems of the same religion ; which, over and above the diversities arising from natural temper, will manifest itself in their respective adherents. Paganism, Mahomedism, deism, apostate Judaism, and various systems which have appeared under the name of Christianity, have each dis- covered a spirit of its own ; and so has Christianity itself. Thus it was from the beginning : those who received “another doctrine” received with it “another spirit; ” and hence we are told of “the Spirit of truth, and the spirit of error:” he that had the one was said to be “ of God,” and he that had the other “ not of God.” I hope it will be understood that in what I write on this subject there is no reference to individuals, nor any wish to judge men indiscriminately by the names under which they pass, nor any desire to charge the evils which may belong to the system on all who have discovered a par- tiality in its favour, or who have defended particular parts of it. I shall only take a brief review of the spirit which is of God, and compare that of Mr. Sandeman and the generality of his admirers with it. First, The spirit of primitive Christianity was full of the devout and the affectionate. Of this there needs little to be said in a way of proof, as the thing is evident to any one who is acquainted with the Bible. The Psalms of David are full of it ; and so. is the New Testament. Primi- tive Christianity was the religion of love. It breathed grace, mercy, and peace on all that loved the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. Among such it would not break a bruised reed, nor quench the smoking flax. Its faithfulness was tempered with brotherly kindness. It had compassion for the ignorant, and them that were out of the way; and while siding with God against the wicked, it wept over them, and was willing to do or suffer any thing, if by any means it might save some of them. But is this Sande- manianism 3 You will scarcely meet with terms expressive of devotion or affection in any of its productions, unless it be to hold them up to ridicule. It appears to be at war with all devotion and devout men. Its most indignant opposition and bitterest invectives are reserved for them. Its advocates would have you think, indeed, that it is blind devotion, like that of the Pharisees, at which they sneer; but where are we to look for that which is not so, and with which they are not at war? Is it to be found out of their own connexions ? Every thing there which has the appearance of religion is Pharisaism. It must therefore be among themselves if any where. But if the spirit of “love, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, meek- ness,” &c. prevail in their assemblies, it is singular that the same spirit should not appear in their writings. Who that has read them will say that their general tendency is to promote the love of either God or man º Toward worldly men indeed, who make no pretence to religion, the system seems to bear a friendly aspect ; but it discovers no concern for their salvation. It would seem to have no tears to shed over a perishing world; and even looks with a jealous eye on those that have, glorying in the paucity of its numbers : Whether the advocates of this system perceive the dis- cordance between their own spirit and that of David, or whatever is the reason, it is common for them to apply to Christ a great deal of what he manifestly wrote of his own devout feeling. Christ, it seems, might be the sub- ject of devotion without any danger of self-righteous pride; but we cannot, and therefore must have little or nothing to do with it. It is among people of this description that religious jeelings and affections are ordinarily traduced. There are, no doubt, many enthusiastic feelings which have no true religion in them. There is such a thing too as to make a saviour of them as well as of our duties. But we must not on this account exclude the one any more than the other. President Edwards, in his Treatise on Religious Affections, has proved beyond all reasonable contradiction that the essence of true religion lies in them. In reading that work, and Mr. Sandeman's Letters, we may see many of the same things exposed as enthusiastic ; but the one is an oil that breaketh not the head, the other an effusion of pride and bitterness. The former, while rejecting what is naught, retains the savour of pure, humble, and holy re- ligion; but the latter is as one who should propose to re- move the disorders of the head by means of a guillotine. It has been observed that every religion which, instead of arising from love to the truth, has its origin in dislike or U 2 292 STRICTURES ON SAN DEMANIANISM. opposition, even though it be to error, will come to nothing. You may sometimes see the principal inhabitants of a village fall out with the clergyman, perhaps on account of some difference on the subject of tithes, and proceed to build a place for dissenting worship ; also dissenting con- gregations themselves will sometimes divide from mere antipathy to the preacher, or from offence taken at some of the people: but did you ever know such undertakings productive of much good 3 When we adhere to a system of religion from opposition to something else, we do not so much regard it for what it is as for what it is not. Whatever good, therefore, there may be in it, it will do us no good, and we shall go on waxing worse and worse. It is remarkable that the Sadducees, according to Prideaux, professed, at their outset, the strictest adherence to the written word, wiferly renouncing the traditions of the elders, which the Pharisees had agreed to hold. In a little time, however, they rejected a great part of the word itself, and its most important doctrines, such as the resurrection and a future life. This was no more than might have been expected; for the origin of the system was not attachment to the word, but dislike to the Pharisees. How far these remarks apply to the religion in question, let those who are best acquainted with it judge. It doubtless contains some important truth, as did Sadduceeism at its outset; but the spirit which pervades it must render it doubtful whether this be held for its own sake so much as from opposition to other principles. If truth be loved for its own sake, it will occupy our minds irrespective of the errors which are opposed to it, and whether they exist or not. But, by the strain of writing and conversation which prevails in this connexion, it would seem that the supposed absurdities of others are the life of their religion, and that if these were once to cease, their zeal would expire with them. It is the vulture, and not the dove, that is apparent in all their writings. Who will say that Mr. Sandeman sought the good of his opponents, when all through his publications he took every opportunity to hold them up to contempt, and with evident marks of pleasure to describe them and their friends as walking in a devout path to hell? The same is manifestly the spirit of his followers, though they may not possess his sarcastic talents. But are these the weapons of the Christian warfare ? Supposing Flavel, Boston, the Erskines, &c. to have been bad men, was this the way to deal with them 3 Is there no medium between flattery and malignity ? Mr. Sandeman would persuade us that Paul was of his “temper.”* Paul was certainly in earnest, and resisted error wherever he found it. He does not, however, treat those who build on a right foundation, though they raise a portion of what will be ultimately consumed, as enemies to the truth.f. And in his conduct, even to the enemies of Christ, I recollect no sarcastic sneers, tending to draw upon them the contempt of mankind, but every thing cal- culated to do them good. If, however, it were not so, he must have practised differently from what he wrote. “The servant of the Lord,” he says in his Epistle to Timothy, “must not strive (as for mastery); but be gentle unto all men, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repent- ance to the acknowledging of the truth.” Paul would have instructed and entreated those whom Mr. Sandeman scorned. There is a calmness, I acknowledge, in the advocates of this doctrine, which distinguishes their writings from the low and fulsome productions of the English Antinomians. But calmness is not always opposed to bitterness; on the contrary, it may be studied for the very purpose of con- cealing it. “ The words of his mouth were smoother than butter, but war was in his heart; his sayings were softer than oil, yet were they drawn swords.” The only thing that I know of which has the appear- ance of love is that attachment which they have to one another, and which they consider as love for the truth’s sake. But even here there are things which I am not able to reconcile. Love for the truth’s sake unites the heart to every one in proportion as he appears to embrace it; but the nearer you approach to these people, provided you • Epistolary Correspondence, p. 9. + 1 Cor. iii. 11—15. follow not with them, so much the more bitter are their invectives. Again, Love for the truth’s sake takes into consideration its practical effects. It was truth embodied in the spirit and life that excited the attachment of the apostle John : “I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy children walking in truth.” But that which excites their love seems to be the “clear views” which they conceive their friends to entertain above other professing Chris- tians. Once more, Love, be it for the sake of what it may, will so unite us to one another as to render separa- tion painful, and lead to the use of all possible means of preventing it. But such is the discipline of those who drink into these principles, that, for differences which others would consider as objects of forbearance, they can separate men from their communion in considerable num- bers, with little or no apparent concern. I can reconcile such things with self-love; but not with love for the truth’s sake. Secondly, The spirit of primitive Christianity was a spirit of meekness and humility. Of this Christ himself was the great pattern ; and they that would be his dis- ciples must “ learn of him, who was meek and lowly of heart.” They were unbelievers, and not Christians, who “trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and de- spised others.” He that would be wise was required to become a fool that he might be wise. The apostle Paul, notwithstanding his high attainments in the knowledge of Christ, reckoned himself as knowing nothing compara- tively, desiring above all things “ that he might know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, and be made conformable unto his death.” If any man “thought that he knew any thing,” he declared that he knew “nothing yet as he ought to know.” But is this the spirit of the system in question ? One of the first things that presents itself is a pretence to something very nearly akin to infallibility; an imposing air in all its decisions, tending to bear down timid spirits, especially as the sincerity, and consequently the Christianity, of the party is suspended upon his entirely yielding himself up to it. If it be necessary to become fools that we may be wise, how are we to account for those “clear views of the gospel” of which these people boast 2 They have given abundant proof that they account others fools who do not see with them ; and they may account themselves to have been such till they imbibed their present principles: but if any symptoms have appeared of their being fools in their own eyes from that time forward, they have escaped my observation. Instead of a self-diffident spirit, which treats with respect the understanding of others, and implores Divine direction, no sooner have these principles taken possession of a man, than they not only render him certain that he is in the right, but instantly qualify him to pro- nounce on those who follow not with him as destitute of the truth. We may be told, however, that there is one species of pride, at least, of which the system cannot be suspected, namely, that of self-righteousness, seeing it is that against which its abettors are constantly declaiming. But he that would know the truth must not take up with mere profes- sions. If a self-righteous spirit consist in “trusting in themselves that they are righteous, and despising others,” I see not how they are to be acquitted of it. A self-right- eous spirit and its opposite will be allowed to be drawn with sufficient prominency in the parable of the Pharisee and the publican. The question is, which of these cha- racters is exemplified by those who enter fully into the Sandemanian system 3 Is it the publican 3 Look at it. I am aware that he is the favourite of the party, and so he is of other parties; for you never heard of any who were the professed advocates of the Pharisee; but are they of the spirit of the publican Rather, are they not manifestly of the spirit of the Pharisee, who looked down with scorn upon his fellow worshipper ? Mr. Braidwood, referring to a late publication by one of this class of professing Christians, who calls himself Simplea, writes as follows:– “The work referred to seems intended chiefly to show how much Simplea, and they who agree with him, despise others, and how far they alone are from trusting to themselves that they are righteous. This SPIRIT OF THE SYSTEM. 293 their apparent inconsistency, their confident assertions when no proof is given, their unfeeling and indiscriminate censures, (which therefore cannot be always just,) and their fearless anathemas against all who follow not with them, prevent them from obtaining a hearing, not only from those whom they might be warranted to consider as false pro- fessors, but from disciples of Christ, who need to be taught the way of God more perfectly. And in this also they lorv. *f; they would suffer an exhortation from a fellow sin- ner, I would entreat them to recollect that the Pharisee, praying in the temple, disdained the publican, while the publican disdained no man, and had nothing to say except what regarded himself and THE Most HIGH-4 God be merciful to me a sinner.” They will never successfully combat self-righteousness till they themselves become poor and of a contrite spirit. The most effectual way to con- demn pride is to give an eacample of humility. “Self-abasement corresponds with the humbling doc- trine of Christ crucified; while the indulgence of an oppo- site spirit, in connexion with clear views of the freedom and sovereignty of Divine grace, presents a most unnatural and unedifying object—the publican turning the chace upon the Pharisee, and combating him with his own weapons ! Nay, he who professes to account himself the chief of sinners, having once begun to imitate an example so repugnant to the genuine influence of the doctrine for which he contends, now proceeds to attack all who come in his way—self-condemned publicans, not entirely of his own mind, as well as proud Pharisees, avowing their im- pious claims upon the Divine Being. May we not ask, Who art thow that judgest ?”—Letters, &c. Intr. As to Mr. Braidwood’s allowing them to possess “clear views of the freedom and sovereignty of Divine grace,” I do not understand how such views can accompany, and still less produce, such a spirit as he has described; but, with regard to the spirit itself, it is manifestly drawn from life, and is of greater effect than if he had written a volume on the subject. Whether his observations do not equally apply to that marked separation of church members from others in public worship, said to be practised of late in Ireland, and to which he refers in page 32, let those who have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil judge. Lastly, The spirit of primitive Christianity was catholic and pacific. Its language is, “Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity.”—“As many as walk by this rule, (that is, the cross of Christ,) peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.”— “All that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ, our Lord, both theirs and ours, grace be unto them, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.” - There were cases in which the apostles and first Chris- tians were obliged to withdraw even from brethren who Walked disorderly; but this would give them pain. And if the disordered state of the Christian world at present render it necessary for some of the friends of Christ to Withdraw from others, it must needs, to a truly good man, be a matter of deep regret. It will be his concern, too, to diminish the breach rather than to widen it ; to consider the things wherein he agrees with others, and, as far as he conscientiously can, to act with them. If we see indi- viduals, or a community, who, instead of such regret, are generally employed in censuring all who follow not with them, as enemies to the truth; and instead of acting with them in things wherein they are agreed, are studious to render the separation as wide as possible, and glory in it —can we hesitate to say this is not Christianity? There is a zeal which may properly be denominated catholic, and one which may as properly be denominated sectarian. . It is not supposed that any man, or body of men, can be equally concerned in promoting Christ's in- terest in all places. As our powers are limited, we must each build the wall, as it were, over against our own houses. Nor are we obliged to be equally concerned for the prosperity of all religious undertakings in which the parties may be in the main on the side of Christ. It is right that we should be most interested in that which ap- proaches the nearest to truth and true religion. But true catholic zeal will nevertheless have the good of the univer- sal church of Christ for its grand object, and will rejoice in the prosperity of every denomination of Christians, in so far as they appear to have the mind of Christ. Those who builded the wall against their own houses would not con- sider themselves as the only builders, but would bear good- will to their brethren, and keep in view the rearing of the whole wall, which should encompass the city. As it is not our being of the religion of Rome, nor of any other which happens to be favoured by the state, that determines our zeal to be catholic ; so it is not our being of a sect or party of Christians, or endeavouring with Christian meekness and frankness to convince others of what we account the mind of Christ, that gives it the character of sectarian. It is a being more concerned to propagate those things wherein we differ from other Christians than to impart the common salvation. Where this is the case, we shall so limit the kingdom of heaven to ourselves as nearly to confine our good wishes, prayers, and efforts to our own denomination, and treat all others as if we had nothing to do with them in religious matters but in a way of censure and dispute. Wherein this kind of zeal differs from that of the Phari- sees, that compassed sea and land to make proselytes, but who, when made, were turned to them rather than to God, I cannot understand. It is remarkable that, notwithstanding all that has been written by the advocates of this system about a free gospel to the ungodly, they do not seem to have much to do in labouring for the conversion of men of this description. Their principal attention, like that of the Socinians, seems directed toward religious people of other denominations, and from them their forces have been mostly recruited. This may not have been universally the case, but from every thing that I have seen and heard it is very generally so ; and if this do not betray a zeal more directed to the making of proselytes to themselves than of converts to Christ, it will be difficult to determine what does. The zeal of the apostles was directed to the correction of evils, the healing of differences, and the uniting of the friends of Jesus Christ; but the zeal produced by this system appears to be of a contrary tendency. Wherever it most prevails, we hear most of bitterness, contention, and division. It may be said this is no more than was true of the gospel itself, which set a man at variance with his father, his mother, and his nearest friends; and relates not to what it causes, but to what, through the corruptions of men, it occasions. The words of our Lord, however, do not describe the bitterness of believers against unbelievers, but of unbelievers against believers, who, as Cain hated his brother, hate them for the gospel’s sake. It has been said that “the poignancy of Mr. Sande- man’s words arises from their being true.” The same might be said, and with equal justice, of any other “bitter words,” for which men of contemptuous spirits know how to “whet their tongues.” If the doctrine which Mr. Sandeman taught were true, it would do good to them that believed it. It certainly produces its own likeness in them ; but what is it? Is it not “trusting in them- selves that they are righteous, and despising others?” Is it not descrying the mote in a brother's eye, while blinded to the beam in their own 3 There is a very interesting description given in the Epistle of James of two opposite kinds of wisdom. The former is represented as coming “from above;” the latter as “coming not from above,” but as being “earthly, sen- sual, devilish.” That is “first pure, then peaceable, gem- tle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy;” this works “ bitter zeal and strife in the heart.” “The fruit of righteousness is sown in peace,” and in making peace, by the one ; but by the other is produced “confusion, and every evil work.” Yet these latter are supposed to “glory;” but in glorying they “lie against the truth.” Without wishing to ascribe either to bodies of people indiscriminately, there is enough said to enable us to form a judgment of things by the effects which they produce. To conclude.—It is no part of my design to vindicate or apologize for the errors of other denominations. The 294 DIALOGUES AND LETTERS. Christian church is not what it was at the beginning; and though every body of Christians is not equally corrupt, yet none is so pure but that, if its character were reported by the great Head of the church, he would have “some- what against” it. But whatever errors or evils may be found in any of us, it is not this species of reform, even if it were universally to prevail, that would correct them. On the contrary, if we may judge from its effects during the last fifty years, it would lead the Christian world, if not to downright infidelity, yet to something that comes but very little short of it. I am your affectionate Friend and Brother, ANDREW FULLER. D I A L O GUES A N D L E TT E. R. S 3.ETWEEN CRISPUS AND GAIUS. IDIALOGUE I. -ON THE PECULIAR TURN OF THE PRESENT AGE. Crispus. GooD morning, my dear Gaius; I am glad to see you. The world is busy in grasping, wealth, in discussing politics, and in struggling for dominion; all trifles of a moment : let us retire from the tumultuous scene, and discourse on subjects of greater importance. Gaius. I am glad, my dear Crispus, to find your mind exercised on such subjects. The present agitated state of the world is doubtless a great temptation to many to let go their hold of heavenly things, and to bend their chief attention to subjects which originate and terminate in the present life. C. My mind has of late been much engaged on Divine subjects. I find in them a source of solid satisfaction. Yet I must confess I feel as well a variety of difficulties which I should be happy to have removed. I have often found your conversation profitable, and should wish to avail myself of this and every other opportunity for im- proving by it. - w G. Suitable conversation, on Divine subjects is com- monly of mutual advantage; and, I must say there is some- thing, I know not what, in the countenance of an inquisi- tive, serious friend, which, as iron sharpeneth iron, whets our powers, and draws forth observations where otherwise they never existed. I think I have been as much indebted to you for asking pertinent questions as you have been to me for answering them. - C. I have been lately employed in reading the works of some of our first Reformers; and, on comparing their times with the present, I have observed that a considerable dif- ference has taken place in the state of the public mind. At the dawn of the Reformation the bulk of mankind were the devotees of superstition, and stood ready to extirpate all those who dared to avow any religious principles differ. ent from theirs. Even the Reformers themselves, though they inveighed against the persecuting spirit of the papists, yet seem to have been very severe upon one another, and to have exercised too little Christian forbearance, and too much of a spirit that savoured of unchristian bitterness, toward those whose ideas of reformation did not exactly coincide with their own. A great deal of their language, and some parts of their conduct, would, in the present day, be thought very censurable. How do you account for this change 3 G. Were I to answer that the rights of conscience have & Christian. i. and pompous; but religion itself was gradually of late years been more clearly understood, and that the sacred duty of benevolence, irrespective of the principles which men imbibe, has been more frequently enforced, I should so far speak the truth ; and so far we have reason to congratulate the present age upon its improvement. C. Do you suppose there are other causes to which such a change, may be attributed ? G. I do. Scepticism, and a general indifference to re- ligion, appear to me to have succeeded the blind zeal and superstition of former ages. It has been observed, I think by Dr. Goodwin, on that remarkable phrase of the apos- tle Paul, “Ye walked according to the course of this world,” First, That there is a course which is general and common to all ages and places, and which includes the gratifying of the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life, the laying up treasures on earth instead of heaven, &c. Secondly, That there is a course which is more particular, and which is incessantly varying according to times, places, and circumstances. Like the tide, it is ever rolling, but in different directions. In one age or country it is this, in another that, and in a third different from them both. The course of this world in the early ages was a course of idolatry. In this direction it ran until the days of Constantine, at which period the prince of darkness found it impracticable, in the civilized parts of the earth, any longer to support the pagan throne. The leaders in the Roman empire resolved to become Chris- tians; and great numbers from various motives followed their example. The tide had then changed its direction ; the profession of Christianity was fashionable, was honour- able, was the high road to preferment. Satan himself, if I may so speak, could now have no objection to turn The external profession of religion became ost, and a system of ignorance, superstition, and persecu- tion was introduced in its place. For many centuries the course of this world (I speak of the European part of it) was a course of popery; and so powerful was it, that those who ventured to resist it did so at the expense of every thing that was dear to them on earth. In this di- rection it ran till the Reformation. Since that period there has been another turning of the tide. Several na- tions have become Protestant ; and yet the course of this World goes on, and Satan has great influence among us. -3. IMPORTANCE OF TRUTH. 295 He has no objection to our laughing at superstition, pro- vided that in any form we remain the slaves of sin. The world of late years has not directed its course so imme- diately towards superstition as towards a criminal careless- ness and infidelity. Formerly the minds of men were so bent on uniformity in religion as to require it in civil so- ciety. Now they tend to the other extreme, and are for admitting any kind of sentiments even into religious so- ciety. In short, the propensity of the world in this day is to consider all religious principles whatever, and all forms of worship, even those which are of Divine institution, as of little or no importance. It is from this cause I am afraid, Crispus, and not merely from a better understand- ing of the rights of conscience, that a great part of the lenity of the present age arises. C. Be it so; yet the effect is friendly to mankind. If mutual forbearance among men arose from a good motive, it would indeed be better for those who exercise it; but let it arise from what motive it may, it is certainly ad- vantageous to society. G. Very true : but we should endeavour to have laud- able conduct, if possible, arise from the purest motives, that it may be approved of God, as well as advantageous to men. C. But do you think we are to expect as much as this from the apostate race of Adam 3 In the apostle John’s time the whole world was represented as lying in wicked- ness; and, in fact, it has been so ever since. Formerly its wickedness operated in a way of intemperance, now it works in a way of indifference. Of the two, does not the latter seem to be the less injurious ! G. It is indeed the less injurious to our property, our liberty, and our lives; but with regard to our spiritual in- terests it may be the reverse. Fashion, be it what it may, will always, in some degree at least, diffuse its influence through the minds of men, even of those who are truly religious. The intemperance of past ages gave to the temper of pious people as well as others a tinge of unchris- tian severity; and the indifference of the present time has I fear operated with equal power, though in a different manner. We ought to be thankful for our mercies, but at the same time we should take heed lest we be carried away by the course of this world. C. What evidence have we that religious people are in- fluenced by a spirit of indifference 3 G. The crying up of one part of religion at the expense of another. You may often hear of practical religion as being every thing, and of speculative opinions (which is the fashionable name for doctrinal sentiments) as matters of very little consequence. Because they are not cogniz- able by the civil magistrate, they treat them as if they were of no account; and by opposing them to practical religion, the unwary are led to conclude that the one has no de- pendence on the other. The effect of this has been, that others, from an attachment to doctrinal principles, have run to a contrary extreme. They write and preach in favour of doctrines, and what are called the privileges of the gos- pel, to the neglect of subjects which immediately relate to practice. In other circles you may hear ea:perience or ex- perimental religion extolled above all things, even at the expense of Christian practice and of sound doctrine. But really the religion of Jesus ought not thus to be mangled and torn to pieces. Take away the doctrines of the gos- pel, and you take away the food of Christians. Insist on them alone, and you transform us into religious epicures. And you may as well talk of the pleasure you ea perience in eating when you are actually deprived of sustenance, or of the exquisite enjoyment of a state of total inactivity, as boast of experimental religion unconnected with doctrinal and practical godliness. The conduct of a man who walks with God appears to me to resemble that of the indus- trious husbandman, who eats that he may be strength- ened to labour; and who by labour is prepared to enjoy his food. C. Well, you have opened a field for discussion. The next time we meet we may inquire further into these sub- jects. Farewell. & DIALOGUE II. ON THE IMPORTANCE OF TRUTH, C. IN our last conversation, Gaius, you made some re- marks on the indifference of the present age, with regard to religious principles, which struck me forcibly ; I should be glad to know what degree of importance you ascribe to the leading doctrines or principles of Christianity. G. If you mean to ask whether I consider the belief of them as essentially necessary to the enjoyment of good neighbourhood, or any of the just or kind offices of civil society, I should certainly answer in the negative. Be- nevolence is good-will to men; and as far as good-will to them can consist with the general good, we ought to exer- cise it towards them as men, whatever be their principles, or even their practices. But if your question relate purely to religion, I acknowledge that I consider a reception of the great doctrines of Christianity (in those who have op- portunity of knowing them) as necessary to holiness, to happiness, and to eternal life. C. If your ideas be just, they afford room for very seri- ous reflection. But will you not be subject to great diffi- culties in deciding what those truths are, and to what de- gree they must be believed 3 You cannot deny that even good men entertain different opinions of what truth is, nor that those who receive the truth receive it in very different degrees. G. The same objection might be made to the express decision of Scripture, that “without holiness no man shall see the Lord.” It might be said, You will find great dif- ficulties in deciding what true holiness is, and what degree of it is necessary to eternal life; for you cannot deny that even good men entertain different opinions of what true holiness is, nor that those who are subjects of it possess it in very different degrees. - C. And what would you answer to this objection ? G. I should say that no upright heart can be so in the dark respecting the nature of true holiness as to make any essential mistake about it. Whether I can determine with metaphysical accuracy the different component parts of it or not, yet, if I be a true Christian, I shall feel it, I shall possess it, I shall practise it. As to determining what degree of it will carry a man to heaven, that is not our business. We do not know to what extent Divine mercy will reach in the forgiveness of sin; but this may be said, that a person may be assured he has no true holiness in him at all who rests contented with any degree of it short of perfection. C. Will this answer apply to truth as well as to holi- ness 3 G. Why not? If the way of salvation be so plain that “a wayfaring man, though a fool, shall not err therein,” what can it be but prejudice that renders the truth difficult to be understood “ He who does the will of God shall know of his doctrine.” Surely then I may say that no one who is in a right temper of mind can be so in the dark, respecting what truth is, as to make any essential mistake about it. Whether I can determine the question with ac- curacy or not, yet, if I be a Christian, the truth dwelleth in ne. As to the precise degree in which we must receive the truth, in order to be saved, it is not our business to decide. But this is incontestable, that he who does not seek after the whole of revealed truth, and sit as a little child at the feet of his Divine Instructor, gives evidence that the truth is not in him. C. But is it not easier to discover what holiness is than what truth is ? G. I grant that conscience assists in determining be- tween right and wrong, which it does not in many things respecting truth and error. But if we were entirely on God’s side, we should find the revealed dictates of truth as congenial to our hearts as those of righteousness are to our consciences; and in that case the one would be as easily determined as the other. C. But is there not a difference between the importance of believing the truth of God, and that of complying with his commands ! G. You would not think more favourably of a child 296 DIALOGUES AND LETTERS. who should discredit your testimony than of one who should disobey your authority; and the same Being who declares that “without holiness no man shall see the Lord,” has declared that “he who believeth not the record that God hath given of his Son hath made him a liar” —that “he who believeth not shall be damned . " C. But should every error or mistake to which fallible mortals are liable be considered as unbelief, and as sub- jecting us to damnation ? G. By no means. There is a specific difference between error and unbelief. The one is a misapprehension of what the Divine testimony contains ; the other supposes that we understand it, but yet discredit it. It is the latter, and not the former, that is threatened with damnation. C. Do you then suppose error to be innocent ? G. The answer to this question must depend upon the cause from which it springs. If it arise from the want of natural power, or opportunity of obtaining evidence, it is mere mistake, and contains in it nothing of moral evil. But if it arise from prejudice, neglect, or an evil bias of heart, it is otherwise, and may endanger our etermal sal- vation. C. Will you be so good as to illustrate this distinction ? G. Had David been engaged in the most wicked con- spiracy when he fled to Ahimelech, and had Ahimelech in this circumstance given him bread and a sword; yet if he Ánew nothing of the conspiracy, less or more, nor possessed any means of knowing it, his error would have been inno- cent, and he ought to have been acquitted. But had he possessed the means of knowledge, and from a secret dis- loyal bias neglected to use them, giving easy credit to those things which his heart approved, he would have deserved to die. C. Among human errors, can we distinguish between those which arise from the want of powers or opportuni- ties, and such as spring from the evil bias of the heart 3 G. In many cases we certainly cannot, any more than we can fix the boundaries between light and shade; yet there are some things, and things of the greatest import- ance, that are so plainly revealed, and of so holy a tend- ency, that we are taught by the Scriptures themselves to impute an error concerning them not to the understanding only, but to the heart. “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.”—“Why do ye not understand my speech 3 Because ye cannot hear my words.”—“They stumbled at the stumbling-stone, being disobedient.” C. Have not all men their prejudices, the good as well as the wicked † G. As all men are the subjects of sin, undoubtedly they have. But as it does not follow that because a good man is the subject of sin, he may live in the practice of all manner of abominations, neither does it follow that because he is the subject of criminal error, he may err in the great concerns of eternal salvation. Good men have not only their gold, silver, and precious stones ; but also their wood, hay, and stubble, which will be consumed, while they themselves are saved ; nevertheless they are all represented as building upon a right foundation. He that errs with respect to the foundation laid in Zion will, if God give him not repentance to the acknowledging of the truth, err to his eternal overthrow. C. Does not this last species of error seem nearly re- lated to unbelief? - G. I conceive it to be so nearly related as to be its im- mediate effect. The heart leans to a system of falsehood, wishing it to be true ; and what it wishes to be true it is easily persuaded to think so. The first step in this pro- gress describes the spirit of unbelief; the last that of error: the one grows out of the other. Such a progress was exemplified in those persons described in the Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians: “They received not the love of the truth ‘’—“believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness”—“therefore God gave them up to a reprobate mind, that they might believe a lie, and |be damned ’’ C. Surely it is a serious thing in what manner we hear and receive the word of God . G. True ; and I may add, in what manner we preach it too. Woe unto us if we teach mankind any other way of escape than that which the gospel reveals | Woe unto us if we preach not the gospel ! If an angel from heaven preach any other gospel, let him be accursed DIALOGUE III. GN THE CONNEXION BETWEEN DOCTRINAL, EXPERIMENTAL, AND PRACTICAL RELIGION. C. IN our last interview, Gaius, we discoursed on the influence of truth as it respected our eternal salvation; we will now inquire, if you please, into its influence on the holiness and happiness of Christians in the present state ; or, in other words, into the connexion between doctrinal, experimental, and practical religion. G. Such an inquiry may convince us of the importance of each, and prevent our extolling one branch of religion at the expense of another. C. What do you mean by experimental religion ? G. Experimental religion may be considered generally and particularly : in general we mean by it the exercise of spiritual or holy affections, such as hope, fear, joy, sorrow, and the like. C. And what relation do these things bear to Divine truth G. Under the agency of the Holy Spirit, they are its immediate effect. To render this matter evident, we need only inquire what have been the best seasons of our life, and our own remembrance will convince us that Divine truth has been at the bottom of all those enjoyments which were truly solid and valuable. C. Some of the best times in my life have been those in which I have mourned over my sin with godly sorrow. G. Very well; this holy mourning arose from a sense of your own depravity, a truth plentifully taught in the Bible. C. I can remember, also, many joyful seasons when I have been in the lively exercise of faith and hope. - G. Very good ; but faith has truth for its object, and hope lays hold of a blessed immortality. Take away the doctrine of the cross and the promise of eternal life, and your faith, and hope, and joy would be annihilated. C.. I have heard some persons exclaim against doctrinal preaching, as being dry and uninteresting: “Give me,” say they, “something spiritual and experimental.” G. Doctrines, it is allowed, may be so represented as to become dry and uninteresting; but Scripture truth is not so in its own nature. The doctrines of the gospel are expressly called “spiritual things,” which are spiritu- ally discerned. C. Does not the term experience convey the idea of proof or trial? G. It does ; and this is what I had in mind when I said the subject might be considered particularly. Though we use the term to express the exercise of spiritual affec- tions in general, yet it is more accurate to apply it to that proof or trial which we make of Divine things, while passing through the vicissitudes of life. C. Experimental knowledge, we commonly say in other things, is knowledge obtained by trial. G. Very well; it is the same in religion. There are many truths taught us in the Divine word, and which we may be said to know by reading ; but we do not know them experimentally till we have proved them true by having made the trial. C. Mention a few examples. G. We read in the Scriptures of the doctrine of human &mpotency, and we think we understand it; but we never know this truth properly till we have had proof of it in our own experience. Further, We read of the corruption of the human heart, and think in our early years that we believe it ; but it is not till we have passed through a variety of changes, and had experience of its deceitful operations, that we perceive this truth as we ought. Again, We read much of the goodness and faithfulness of God, and we subscribe to each ; but we never realize these truths till, having passed through those circumstances in which we have occasion for them, they become imprinted upon our hearts. It is then that we feel their force and MORAL CHARACTER OF GOD. 297 taste their sweetness: hence it is that “tribulation work- eth patience, and patience experience.” It was, no doubt, a cheering truth at all times that God was the portion of his people; but never did they realize that truth so fully as when they were stripped of their earthly all, and carried into captivity. It was then that they sang, as taught by the prophet, “The Lord is my portion, saith my soul, therefore will I hope in him.” C. All experimental religion seems then to bear some relation to truth. If taken generally, for the exercise of spiritual affection, truth is here the cause, and these exer- cises are its immediate effects. If taken more particularly, for that proof or trial which we have of Divine things as we pass through the vicissitudes of life, truth seems here to be the object of which we have experience. G. True ; and the more we have of experimental re- ligion, the more we shall feel ourselves attached to the great doctrines of the gospel, as the bread and water of life, whence arises all our salvation, and all our desire. C. Will not the connexion between doctrinal and ex- perimental religion account for the ignorance which is attributed to carnal men with respect to Divine things, as that they do not receive them, and cannot know them ż G. It will; nor is there any thing more surprising in it than that a mercenary character should be a stranger to the joys of benevolence, or a dishonest man to the pleasures of a good conscience : they never experienced them, and therefore are utterly in the dark concerning them. C. Will you give me your thoughts on the influence of truth on holy practice 3 G. Perhaps there is no proposition but what has some consequence hanging upon it, and such consequence must be expected to correspond with the nature of the proposi- tion. A truth in natural philosophy will be productive of a natural effect. Divine truth, when cordially imbibed, proves the seed of a godly life. For example: If there be a God that judgeth in the earth, he is to be loved, feared, and adored. If man be a sinner before God, it becomes him to lie low in self-abasement. If salvation be of grace, boasting is excluded. If we be bought with a price, we are not our own, and must not live unto ourselves, but to him who died for us, and rose again. Religious sentiments are called principles, because, when received in the love of them, they become the springs of holy action. C. Do the Scriptures confirm this view of things? G. You must have read such passages as the following: “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.”— “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”—“Grace and peace be multiplied unto you, through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord.”—“Speak thou the things which become sound doctrine.” I suppose our Lord meant something like this when he told the woman of Samaria, “The water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life;” that is, The gospel or doctrine that I preach, when cordially imbibed, shall become a well-spring of heavenly joy and holy activity, rising higher and higher till it terminate in everlasting blessedness. C. What inference may be drawn from all this? G.. If God has joined these things together, let no man, Whether preacher or hearer, attempt to put them asunder. Q. Is it proper to distinguish between doctrinal and ex- perimental religion ? G. If by those terms it were only meant to distinguish between the truth to be known and a spiritual knowledge of it, they are very proper; but if the latter be considered as existing without the former, it is a great mistake. DIALOGUE IV. ON THE MORAL CHARACTER OF GOD. C. YoUR late observations on the importance of truth, and the connexion between doctrinal, experimental, and prac- tical religion, have excited in my mind an increasing de- sire after a more particular knowledge of the great doc- trines of Christianity. U + G. I am glad to hear it; and if it be in my power to afford you any additional light on those interesting sub- jects, it will give me great pleasure. C. What do you consider as the first and most funda-. mental principle of true religion ? G. Unless I except the existence of God, perhaps none is more deserving of those epithets than his moral character. C. What do you mean by the moral character of God? G. The Divine perfections have been distinguished into natural and moral. By the former we understand those perfections which express his greatness; such are his wis- dom, power, majesty, omniscience, omnipotence, immuta- bility, eternity, immensity, &c. By the latter, those which express his essential goodness; such are his justice, his mercy, his veracity, or, in one word, his Holiness. These last are the peculiar glory of the Divine nature, and con- stitute what is meant by his moral character. 2. ' C. Are not all the attributes of Deity essential to the character of an all-perfect Being 3 G. They are ; but yet the glory of his natural perſec- tions depends upon their being united with those which are moral. The ideas of wisdom, power, or immutability convey nothing lovely to the mind, but the reverse, unless they be connected with righteousness, goodness, and ve- racity. Wisdom without holiness would be serpentine subtlety; power would be tyranny ; and immutability annexed to a character of such qualities would be the curse and terror of the universe. C. But as God is possessed of the one as well as the other, they all contribute to his glory. G. True; and it affords matter of inexpressible joy to all holy intelligences that a Being of such rectitude and goodness is possessed of power equal to the desire of his heart, of wisdom equal to his power, and that he remains through eternal ages immutably the same. Power and wisdom in such hands are the blessing of the universe. C. Is the above distinction of the Divine perfections into natural and moral applicable to any useful purposes 2 G. It will assist us in determining the nature of that most fundamental of all moral principles—the love of God. If holiness constitute the loveliness of the Divine nature, this must be the most direct and immediate object of holy affection. True love to God will always bear a primary regard to that which above all other things renders him a lovely Being. C.. I knew a lecturer on philosophy, who, by discours- ing on the wisdom and power of God as displayed in the immensity of creation, was wrought up into a rapture of apparent devotion, and his audience with him ; and yet, in less than an hour's time after leaving the room, he was heard to curse and swear, as was his usual manner of conversation. G. You might find great numbers of this description. They consider the Divine Being as a great genius, as a fine architect, and survey his works with admiration; but his moral excellence, which constitutes the chief glory of his nature, has no charms in their eyes. But if that which constitutes the chief glory of his nature have no charms in their eyes, all the admiration which they may bestow upcn the productions of his wisdom and power will amount to nothing : the love of God is not in them. C. You consider the moral character of God as a fun- damental principle in religion; what then are those prin- ciples which are founded upon it? G. The equity of the Divine law, the exceeding sinful- ness of sin, the ruined state of man as a sinner, with the necessity of an almighty Saviour and a free salvation. C. Will you oblige me by pointing out the connexion of these principles 3 G. If there be infinite loveliness in the moral character of God, then it is right and equitable that we should love him with all our hearts; which, with a subordinate love to our neighbour as ourselves, is the sum of what the Di- vine law requires. And in proportion to the loveliness of the Divine character must be the hatefulness of aversion to him and rebellion against him ; hence follows the exceed- ing sinfulness of sin. And if sin be odious in its nature, it must be dangerous in its consequences, exposing us to the curse of the Divine law, the just and everlasting displea- sure of a holy God. Finally, If, as rebels against the 298 DIALOGUES AND LETTERS. moral government of God, we be all in a ruined and perishing condition, we meed a Deliverer who shall be able to save to the utmost, whose name shall be called the Mighty God ; and a salvation without money and without price that shall be suited to our indigent condition. C. Is not the moral excellence of the Divine character admitted by great numbers who reject these principles, which you say arise from it? G. I suppose no person who admits the being of a God would expressly deny the excellence of his moral charac- ter; but it is easy to observe that those who deny the fore- going principles either discover no manner of delight in it, but are taken up like your philosophical lecturer in ad- miring the productions of God’s natural perfections, or else are employed in modelling his character according to their own depraved ideas of excellence. Being under the influence of self-love, they see no loveliness but in propor- tion as he may subserve their happiness; hence the justice of God in the punishment of sin is kept out of view, and what they call his goodness and mercy (but which, in fact, are no other than connivance at sin and indifference to the glory of his government) are exalted in its place. A being thus qualified may be easily adored : it is not God, how- ever, that is worshipped, but an imaginary being, created after the image of depraved men. C. “To know the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent”—in other words, to know the true glory of the Lawgiver and the Saviour, seems to be of the highest importance. G. True ; the former is absolutely necessary to the lat- ter, and both to grace and peace being multiplied here, and to our enjoyment of eternal life hereafter. DIALOGUE W. ON THE FREE AGENCY OF MAN. C. OUR last conversation on the moral character of God has led me, Gaius, to desire your thoughts on the nature of man as a subject of moral government. G. This is, no doubt, a very interesting subject. As we all feel ourselves accountable beings, and must all give account of ourselves another day, it becomes us to know ourselves, and the nature of those powers with which the great Creator has invested us. C. Do you consider man as a free agent 3 G. Certainly ; to deny this would be to deny that we are accountable to the God that made us. Necessarians and anti-necessarians have disputed wherein free agency consists; but the thing itself is allowed on both sides. C. Suppose then I were to change the question, and ask wherein does free agency consist G.. I should answer, In the power of following the in- climation. C. And is it in our power in all cases to follow our in- clinations 3 G. No : there is such a thing as involuntary motion. By the exercise of an absolute force upon our bodies we may be compelled to move against our inclination, and to forbear to move according to our desire ; but in these cases we are not accountable beings. C. Some have thought man to be a free agent in natural things, but not as to things moral and spiritual. G. This is the same as supposing him accountable only for those things in which there is neither good nor evil', and this, if true, would prove that we are not subjects of moral government, and shall never be called to give ac- count of either good or evil. Besides, it is a fact that we as freely pursue our inclinations in spiritual as in natural things; we as freely yield ourselves to be the servants of sin, or of God, as ever we choose to eat, drink, or walk. C. Then you think we are free agents in all those mat- ters which are inseparably connected with eternal sal- vation ? G. Certainly : if otherwise, we should be equally in- capable of rejecting, as of accepting, the gospel way of salvation. C. And do you suppose we are free agents with respect to keeping or breaking the Divine law 3. G. I do : we are only required to love God with all our strength ; or to consecrate all our powers to his service, be they great or small. C. Why then do we not keep the law perfectly 3 G. Because of the depravity of our hearts. If our hearts or inclinations were wholly on the side of God, we should feel no difficulty in keeping it; on the contrary, it would be our meat and drink. C. But if our hearts be depraved, and we be enslaved to sin, how can we be said to be free ? G. We cannot be morally free; but moral slavery, any more than moral liberty, has nothing to do with free agency. The reason is, that, in this case, there is no force opposed to the agent’s own will. C. I have often heard it asserted that it does not signify whether the incapacity lies in the will, or in something distinct from the will. “If we cannot do good,” say they, “we cannot, and in that case we are not free agents.” G. Those who speak thus of free agency must mean to include in it a freedom from the influence of motives ; a power of acting with or contrary to the prevailing inclina- tion ; or, at least, a power to change the inclination. C. Yes; I have heard it observed that it amounts to nothing to say we have the power of following the pre- vailing inclination, unless we have also the power of coun- teracting or changing it. G. If, by amounting to nothing, they mean that we are not hereby any more qualified to be our own deliverers from the thraldom of sin than if we had no free agency, but must be indebted wholly to sovereign and efficacious grace for it, I admit the consequences. Little, however, as they make of this idea of free agency, I might reply, it is all that they themselves can conceive of, and all that can be ascribed to any being in heaven, earth, or hell. C. How does this appear? G. No one can conceive of a power of voluntarily act- ing against the prevailing inclination, for the thing itself is a contradiction; and a power of changing it is no less absurd. If a person go about to change his prevailing in- clination, he must, in so doing, be either involuntary or voluntary. If the former, this can be no exercise of free agency; if the latter, he must have two opposite prevail- ing inclinations at the same time, which is a contradiction. And if it were not a contradiction, he still does no more than follow his inclination ; namely, his virtuous inclin- ation, which he is supposed to possess, to have his vicious inclination changed. If freedom from the influence of motives, or power to change one’s inclination, be essential to free agency, the Divine Being himself is not free. God, as all must allow, possesses an immutable determin- ation to do what is right, and cannot in the least degree, or for a single moment, incline to the contrary. His conduct is necessarily and invariably expressive of the in- finite rectitude of his will. The same, in a degree, might be said of holy angels and the spirits of just men made perfect. So far from being free from the influence of motives, or having a power to change the prevailing in- clination of their hearts, those motives which, by reason of the depravity of our natures, have but little effect upon us, have full influence upon them, and constantly deter. mine them to the most ardent pursuit of righteousness. C. And yet you say they are free agents G. If God, angels, and saints in heaven be not free agents, who are ? C. But this is moral liberty. G. True ; but the same reasoning will apply to moral slavery. If an unalterable bias of mind to good does not destroy free agency, neither does an unalterable bias of mind to evil. Satan is as much a free agent as Gabriel, and as much accountable to God for all he does. C. Some suppose man to have lost his free agency by the fall. G. Say, rather, man has lost his moral rectitude by the fall. All that was intrusted in his hand was lost. But we might as well say he had lost his reason, his conscience, or his memory, as to say he had lost his free agency; and this would be supposing him to have lost his intellectual mature, and to have become literally a brute. GOODNESS OF THE MORAL LAW. 299 C. Wherein does your motion of free agency differ from the Arminian motion of free-will ? G. The Arminian notion of free-will is what I have all along been opposing: the one consists merely in the power of following our prevailing inclination; the other in a supposed power of acting contrary to it, or at least of changing it. The one predicates freedom of the man, the other of a faculty in man; which Mr. Locke, though an anti-necessarian, explodes as an absurdity. The one goes merely to render us accountable beings; the other arro- gantly claims a part, yea, the very turning point, of sal- vation. According to the latter, we need only certain helps or assistances, granted to men in common, to enable us to choose the path of life ; but according to the former, our hearts being by nature wholly depraved, we need an almighty and invincible power to renew them, otherwise our free agency would only accelerate our everlasting ruin. C. You suppose, I imagine, that the invincible oper- ations of the Holy Spirit do not interfere with our free agency? G. Certainly: if the temper of the heart does not affect it, neither can any change upon that temper. It affects free agency no more than it affects reason, conscience, or memory: man all along feels himself at liberty to follow what inclination dictates; and, therefore, is a free agent. C. Does your notion of free agency agree with the lan- guage of the apostle Paul : “The good that I would, I do not ; and the evil that I would not, that I do.”—“To will is present ; but how to perform that which is good I find not ?” G. I think we ought to distinguish between a willing- mess that is habitual and general, and one that is universal and entire. Paul, and every real Christian, generally and habitually wills to be holy, as God is holy; but this vo- lition is not universal and entire. It is not so perfect nor intense as that there is no remainder of indolence, obsti- nacy, or carnality. Perfection is the object approved, or rather desired; but that approbation or desire is not perfect in degree : a perfect degree of willingness would be perfect holiness. C. Then you do not suppose the apostle to mean that sin operated absolutely, and in every sense, against his will ? G. I do not: it was certainly against the ruling prin- ciple of his soul; but to suppose that any sin can be strictly and absolutely involuntary in its operations is contrary to every dictate of common sense. DIALOGUE WI. ON THE GOODNESS OF THE MORAL LAW, C. OUR last two conversations, on the moral character of God and the free agency of man, have, I hope, been of use to me. I have been thinking since of the great rule of God's government—the moral law, as being the image of his moral character. G: Your idea is just: God is Love. All his moral attributes are but the different modifications of love, or love operating in different ways. Vindictive justice itself 1S the love of order, and is exercised for the welfare of beings in general ; and the moral law, the sum of which is love, expresses the very heart of him that framed it. C. I have been thinking of love as the band which unites all holy intelligences to God and one another: as that in the moral system which the law of attraction is in the system of nature. G. Very good; while the planets revolve round the sun as their central point, and are supremely attracted by it they each have a subordinate influence upon the other. all attract and are attracted by others in their respective orbits ; yet no one of these subordinate attractions inter- feres with the grand attractive influence of the sun, but acts rather in perfect concurrence with it. Under some such idea we may conceive of supreme love to God and subordinate love to creatures. C. Among the planets, if I mistake not, the attractive power of each body corresponds with the quantity of mat- ter it possesses, and its proximity to the others. G. True : and though in general we are required to love our neighbour as ourselves, yet there are some per- sons, on account of their superior value in the scale of being, and others on account of their more immediate connexion with us, whom we are allowed and even obliged to love more than the rest. C. If we could suppose the planets endued with intel- ligence, and any one of them, weary of revolving round the sun, should desert its orbit, assume a distinct centre- ship of its own, and draw others off with it, what would be the consequence % G. Anarchy and confusion, no doubt, with regard to the system; and cold, and darkness, and misery, with regard to those which had deserted it. C. And is not this a near resemblance to the condition of apostate angels and men 3 G. Doubtless it is ; and your similitude serves to illus- trate the evil of sin, as it affects the harmony of the Divine government in general, and the happiness of each individual in particular. C. Is there not a general notion in the minds of men that the moral law is too strict and rigid for man in his fallen state 3 G. There is ; and some, who ought to know better, have compared its requirements to those of an Egyptian task-master, who demanded bricks without straw ; and have recommended the gospel as being at variance with it. Many, who would be thought the greatest if not the only friends of Christ, have made no scruple of professing their hatred to Moses, as they term the moral law. C. But does not the precept of the moral law require what is beyond our strength 3 G. If, by strength, you mean to include inclination, I grant it does; but if, by strength, you mean what is liter- ally and properly so called, it requires us even now but to love God with all our strength. It is not in the want of strength, literally and strictly speaking, that our insuf- ficiency to keep the Divine law consists, but in the want of a holy temper of mind ; and this, instead of being any excuse, or requiring an abatement of the law, is the very essence of that wherein blame consists. C.. I have thought it might serve to show the goodness of the Divine law if we were to suppose it reversed. Sup- pose, instead of loving, God should require us to hate him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and our neighbour likewise ? G. This would require us to be both wicked and miser- able ; and the idea is sufficient to shock any person of COIn In OIl SerlSe, C. But suppose God were to require us to love him and one another, only in a less degree? G. That would be the same as requiring a part of our affection, and allowing us to be of a divided heart. Our powers cannot be indifferent. If they are not applied to the love of God and man, they will be applied to some- thing opposite, even the love of the world. But as the love of the world is emmity to God, if this were allowed, it were the same as allowing men, in a degree, to be at enmity with him and each other; that is, to be wicked and miserable. C. I have several more questions to ask you on this im- portant subject, but shall defer them to another oppor- tunity. º Farewell then, Crispus ; God grant that this Divine law may be found written upon each of our hearts : C'. Amen : DIALOGUE WII. ON ANTINOMIANISM, C. OUR conversation on the moral law has led me to think of some other subjects nearly related to it. I have ob- served that many people have been called Antinomians : yet very few call themselves so. What is Antinomianism * 300 DIALOGUES AND LETTERS. G. Enmity or opposition to the law of God. C. Are not all men then by nature Antinomians? G. I believe they are ; for the “carnal mind is enmity against God : it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” C. By this passage, it should seem that God and his law are so united, that a non-subjection to the one is enmity to the other ? " G. How should it be otherwise ? The sum of the law is love ; and, in this case, not to love is to be enmity. C. All men, however, do not profess to be at enmity either with God or his law. G. True ; but many men are very different, you know, from what they profess to be, and even from what they conceive of themselves. C.. I can easily conceive of various wicked characters being enemies to the Divine law, whatever they may say in its favour. G. And have you not observed that all the different species of false religion agree in this particular 3 C. I do not know whether I have sufficiently.—To what do you refer ? G. I refer to the different forms in which mankind quiet their consciences and cherish their hopes, while the love of God and man are neglected. What is superstition but the substitution of something ceremonial—something that may be done consistently with a heart at enmity with God —in the place of that which is moral? The tithing of mint and cummim, and various things of the kind, were much more agreeable, to the ancient Pharisees, than judg- ment, mercy, and the love of God. The modern Jews are greatly attached to ceremony; but the shocking indevotion which distinguishes their worship, and the mercenary spirit which too generally pervades their dealings, suffi- ciently discover their aversion from that law of which they make their boast. Impiety and cruelty are prominent features in the faces of our modern heathens, with all their refinement; and the same is observable in others who are less refined : gods and weapons of war are to be found in the most barbarous heathen nations. Ignorant as they are, they have all learned to violate the two great branches of the moral law.” Beads, and pilgrimages, and relics, and all the retinue of popish ceremonies, are but substitutes for the love of God and our neighbour. The formal round of ceremonies attended to by Pharisaical professors of all communities is the same. Let an attentive reader examine the system of Socinus, and even of Arminius, and he will find them agreed in opposing the native equity and good- ness of the moral law. The former claims it as a matter of justice that allowances be made for human error and im- perfection ; and the latter, though it speaks of grace, and the mediation of Christ, and considers the gospel as a new, mild, and remedial law, yet would accuse you of making the Almighty a tyrant, if this grace were withheld, and the terms of the moral law strictly adhered to. All these, as well as that species of false religion which has more ge- nerally gone by the name of Antinomianism, you see, are agreed in this particular. This last, which expressly dis- owns the moral law as a rule of life, sets up the gospel in opposition to it, and substitutes visionary enjoyments as the evidence of an interest in gospel blessings, in place of a conformity to its precepts.-This last, I say, though it professes to be greatly at variance with several of the fore- going schemes, is nearer akin to them than its advocates are willing to admit. If the love of God and man be left out of our religion, it matters but little what we substitute in its place. Whether it go by the name of reason or superstition, religious ceremony or evangelical liberty, all is delusion ; all arises from the same source, and tends to the same issue. Good men may in a degree have been beguiled, and for a time carried away, with these winds of false doctrine ; but I speak of things and their natural tendencies, not of persons. In short, we may safely con- sider it as a criterion by which any doctrine may be tried; if it be unfriendly to the moral law, it is not of God, but proceedeth from the father of lies. C. What you have observed seems very clear and very • This reflection was made by a friend of mine on visiting The British Museum, and seeing various curiosities from heathen coun- tries; among which were a number of idols and instruments of war. affecting; but I have heard it remarked, that some of these systems naturally attach their adherents to the works of the law. G. This is very true; but there is a wide difference be- tween an attachment to the law, and an attachment to the works of the law as the ground of eternal life; as much as between the spirit of a faithful servant who loves his master, loves his family, loves his service, and never wishes to go out free, and that of a slothful servant, who, though he hates his master, hates his family, hates his employment, and never did him any real service, yet has the presump- tion to expect his reward. C. This distinction seems of great importance, as it serves to reconcile those scriptures which speak in favour of the law, and those which speak against an attachment to the works of it. - G. It is the same distinction, only in other words, which has commonly been made respecting the law as a rule of life and as a covenant. C. Will you be so obliging as to point out a few of the consequences of denying the law to be the rule of life, and representing it as at variance with the gospel. G. First, This doctrine directly militates against all those scriptures which speak in favour of the moral law, and afford us an honourable idea of it ; such as the following:— “O how I love thy law "-‘‘The law is holy, and the commandment is holy, just, and good.”—“I come not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it.”—“Do we make void the law through faith? God forbid : yea, we establish the law.”—“I delight in the law of God after the inner man.”—“I with my mind serve the law of God.” Se- condly, This doctrine reflects upon God himself for having given a law under one dispensation which is at variance with a gospel given under another. Thirdly, It justifies the sinner in the breach of the law. There can be no evil in sin, but in proportion to the goodness of that law of which it is a transgression. Fourthly, It is in direct op- position to the life and death of the Saviour. By the former he obeyed its precepts, by the latter endured its penalty, and by both declared it to be holy, just, and good. Every reflection, therefore, upon the moral law is a reflec- tion upon Christ. Fifthly, It strikes at the root of all per- sonal religion, and opens the flood-gates to iniquity. Those who imbibe this doctrine talk of being sanctified in Christ, in such a manner as to supersede all personal and pro- gressive sanctification in the believer. DIALOGUE VIII. ON HIUMAN DEPRAVITY. C. I THANK you, Gaius, for your observations on various important subjects; and now, if agreeable, I should be glad of your thoughts on the painful but interesting sub- ject of human depravity. G. An interesting subject indeed Perhaps there is no one truth in the Scriptures of a more fundamental nature with respect to the gospel way of salvation. I never knew a person verge toward the Arminian, the Arian, the So- cinian, or the Antinomian schemes, without first enter- taining diminutive notions of human depravity, or blame- worthiness. C. Wherein do you conceive depravity to consist? G. In the opposite to what is required by the Divine law. - C. The sum of the Divine law is love ; the essence of depravity then must consist in the want of love to God and our neighbour; or in setting up some other object, or objects, to the exclusion of them. G. True ; and perhaps it will be found that all the ob- jects set up in competition with God and our neighbour may be reduced to one, and that is self. Private self-love seems to be the root of depravity; the grand succedaneum in human affections to the love of God and man. Self- admiration, self-will, and self-righteousness are but differ- ent modifications of it. Where this prevails, the creature assumes the place of the Creator, and seeks his own grati- HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 301 fication, honour, and interest, as the ultimate end of all his actions. Hence, when the apostle describes men under a variety of wicked characters, the first link in the chain is—lovers of their own selves. Hence also the first and grand lesson in the Christian school is—to deny ourselves. C. Almost all evangelical writers, I believe, have con- sidered men as utterly depraved; and that not by educa- tion, or any accidental cause or causes, but by nature, as they are born into the world. G. They have. This was manifestly the doctrine gener- ally embraced at the Reformation, and which has been maintained by the advocates for salvation by sovereign grace in every age. C. Yet, one should think, if men were totally depraved, they would be all and always alike wicked. G. If by total depravity you mean that men are so cor- rupt as to be incapable of adding sin to sin, I know of no person who maintains any such sentiment. All I mean by the term is this :—That the human heart is by nature totally destitute of love to God, or love to man as the creature of God, and consequently is destitute of all true virtue. A being may be utterly destitute of good, and therefore totally depraved, (such, it will be allowed, is Sa- tan,) and yet be capable of adding iniquity to imiquity without end. - C.. I should be glad if you would point out a few of the principal evidences on which the doctrine of human de- pravity is founded. - G. The principal evidences that strike me at this time may be drawn from the four following sources; Scripture testimony, history, observation, and experience. C. What do you reckon the principal Scripture testimo- nies on this subject 3 - G. Those passages which expressly teach it; such as the following:—“And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”—“God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God. Every one of them is gone back, they are altogether be- come filthy : there is none that doeth good, no, not one.” —“Both Jews and Gentiles are all under sin; as it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one. Destruction and misery are in their ways, and the way of peace have they not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes.”—“The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” —“The whole world lieth in wickedness.”—“Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past, in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.”—Those passages also which teach the necessity of regeneration. If men were not essentially depraved, a reformation might suffice; but if all be cor- rupt, the whole fabric must be taken down : “Old things must pass away, and all things must become new.” C., What evidence do you derive from history in favour of this doctrine 3 G: If our limits would allow us to survey the history of mankind from their first apostacy to this day, the amount would go to prove what the Scriptures affirm—that “ the whole earth lieth in wickedness.” The circumstances and changes among mankind have been various. They have greatly differed in their manners, customs, and religions: one age has established what another has demolished ; in Some ages they have been enveloped in ignorance, in others irradiated by science; but in all ages and in all circum- stances they have been alienated from the love of God. C. The history of the world, though it appear to favour the doctrine in question, yet seems to be too large and complicate an object to be viewed distinctly. Suppose you were to single out one nation as a specimen of the whole. - G. Very well ; and suppose this one nation to have been attended above all others with mercies and judgments, Divine laws, special interpositions, and every thing that could have any tendency to meliorate the hearts of men. C. You seem to have in view the nation of Israel. G. I have ; and the rather because I consider this na- tion as designed of God to afford a specimen of human nature. The Divine Being singled them out, crowned them with goodness, strengthened them with the tenderest encouragements, awed them with the most tremendous threatenings, wrought his wonderful works before their eyes, and inspired his servants to give us a faithful history of their character. I need not repeat what this character is. Excepting the conduct of a few godly people among them, which, being the effect of Divine grace, argues nothing against the doctrine in question, it is a series of rebellion and continued departures from the living God. C. What additional evidence in favour of this doctrine do you derive from observation ? G. In looking into the composition of the human mind we observe various passions and propensities; and if we inspect their operations, we shall see in each a marked aversion from the true God, and from all true religion. For example: Man loves to think, and cannot live without thinking; but he does not love to think of God; “God is not in all his thoughts.” Man delights in activity, is perpetually in motion, but has no heart to act for God. Men take pleasure in conversation, and are never more cheerful than when engaged in it; but if God and religion be introduced, they are usually struck dumb, and discover an inclination to drop the subject. Men greatly delight in hearing and telling news ; but if the glorious news of the gospel be sounded in their ears, it frequently proves as unwelcome as Paul’s preaching at Athens. In fine, man feels the necessity of a God, but has no relish for the true God. There is a remarkable instance of this in the con- duct of those nations planted by the king of Assyria in the cities of Samaria. They were consumed by wild beasts, and considered it as an expression of displeasure from the god of the land. They wished to become acquainted with him that they might please him. An Israelitish priest is sent to teach them the manner of the god of the land. But when he taught them the fear of Jehovah, his charac- ter and worship do not seem to have suited their taste; for each nation preferred the worship of its own gods, 2 Kings xvii. C. What evidence do you draw in favour of this doc- trine from experience? G. The best of men, whose lives are recorded in Holy Scripture, have always confessed and lamented the de- pravity of their nature; and I never knew a character truly penitent, but he was convinced of it. It is a strong presumption against the contrary doctrine, that the light- minded and dissipated part of mankind are generally its advocates; while the humble, the serious, and the godly as generally acknowledge, with the apostle, that, “fulfil- ling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, they were by nature children of wrath, even as others.” C.. I have several more inquiries to make on this in- teresting subject, which I must defer till another oppor- tunity. DIALOGUE IX. ON THE TOTAL DE PRAVITY OF HUMAN NATURE. G. I. THINK you said, Crispus, at the close of our last con- versation, on the depravity of human nature, that you had several questions to ask upon the subject. C. I did so. No subject has appeared to me more in- teresting or more pregnant with important consequences. The doctrine of total depravity, according to your own ex- plication of it, seems to imply that all that which is called virtue in unregenerate men is not virtue in reality, and contains nothing in it pleasing to God, is no part of their duty towards him ; but, on the contrary, is of the very nature of sin. G. And what if these consequences were admitted 3 C.. I have not been used to consider things in so strong a light. I have generally thought that men are whiversally depraved; that is, that all their powers, thoughts, volitions, and actions are tainted with sin ; but it never struck me before that this depravity was total, so total as that all their actions are of the very nature of sin 302 DIALOGUES AND LETTERS. by the English Reformers. They tell us that “works done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of his Spirit are not pleasing to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ, neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the school authors say) de- serve grace of congruity; yea, rather, for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be dome, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.”* C. True ; but I should have suspected that they had carried things rather to an extreme. There is something so awful in the thought of a human life being one unmixed course of evil; so contrary to what appears in numberless characters, whom we cannot but respect for many amiable qualities, though they do not appear to be the subjects of true religion; in a word, so discouraging to every effort for the attainment of any virtue short of real godliness ; that my heart revolts at the idea. G. I am willing to examine every difficulty you can ad- vance. Before you raise your objections, however, your first inquiry, I think, ought to be, Is it true? C. Very well; proceed then to state your evidences. G. The following are the principal evidences which oc- cur to me at present: 1. All those passages of Scripture cited in the last Dialogue which expressly teach it, de- claring that “every imagination,” purpose, or desire “ of man's heart is only evil continually”—that “there is none that seeketh after God”—“every one of them is gone back”—“they are altogether become filthy”—“there is none that doeth good, no, not one.” 2. Those scriptures which declare the utter impossibility of carnal men doing any thing to please God; such as, “Without faith it is impossible to please God.”—“To be carnally-minded is death.”—“Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither in- deed can be. So, then, they that are in the flesh cannot please God.”f If they that are in the flesh did any part of their duty towards God, or if what they did were good and virtuous in his sight, so far as it goes, their minds would so far be subject to the law of God, and, being such, they might and would please him ; for God is not a capricious or hard master, but is pleased with righteous- ness wherever he sees it. 3. Those scriptures which speak of the whole of goodness or virtue as comprehended in love; namely, the love of God and our neighbour:- “Love is the fulfilling of the law.”—“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength, and thy neighbour as thyself.” If the love of God su- premely, and the love of creatures subordinately, comprise the whole of virtue, where these are wanting virtue can have no existence. And that these are wanting in all un- godly men is evident, for “they have not the love of God in them ;" and where God is not loved supremely, crea- tures cannot be loved in subordination to him; but are either disregarded, or regarded on some other account : such love, therefore, has no virtue in it, but is of the na- ture of sin. 4. Those scriptures which teach the neces- sity of regeneration to eternal life –“ Ye must be born again.”—“Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” “If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature; old things are passed away, and all things are become new.” If ºthere were any degree of virtue in the carnal heart, or any thing that was pleasing to God, it might be cultivated and in: creased ; and in this case old things need not pass away, and all things become new. Regeneration would be unº necessary ; a mere reformation, or an improvement of principles already inherent in man, would suffice. 5. Those scriptures which promise the blessings of salvation and eternal life to every degree of righteousness or true virtue —“All things work together for good to them that love God.”—“Christ is the author of etermal salvation to all them that obey him.”—“He that doth righteousness is righteous.”—“They that have done good shall rise to the resurrection of life.”—“He that giveth a cup of cold water to a disciple, in the name of a disciple,” or because he be- longs to Christ, “shall have a disciple’s reward.” In * Article XIII. of the Church of England. # See this passage clearly illustrated, and the truth contained in it G. You must admit that this was the doctrine embraced these passages we must observe that God’s gracious de- clarations and promises are not made to this or that degree of goodness, but to every or any degree of it; or, rather, it is not the degree, but the nature of it, that is considered in the Divine promise. Hence we may certainly conclude that unregenerate men have not the least degree of real goodness in them, or of any thing that is, pleasing to God. C. I must acknowledge there is much apparent force in these arguments, and I am not at present sufficiently pre- pared to encounter them ; but I have some strong objec- tions in my mind, which I wish to have thoroughly dis- cussed. G. With all my heart. Consider, Crispus, the force of what has been already alleged, and let me have your ob- jections in the strongest light in which you are capable of arranging them. - C.. I will endeavour to comply with your advice, and the result of it shall be the subject of a future discussion. LETTER. I. ON THE TOTAL DEPRAVITY OF HUMAN NATURE. [Crispus to Gaius.] MY DEAR FRIEND, C—n, July 3, 1794. As Providence has lately, by removing my situation, deprived me of the pleasure of your company, I hope that defect may be in some measure supplied by writing. The subject of our last two interviews, on the total depravity of human nature, has much occupied my attention. I feel it to be a fundamental principle in religion; it is that, take it how we will, on which almost all other principles are founded. I have objections to your ideas of this doc- trine, I confess; and you desired me, when we were last together, to place them in the strongest light I was able. The principal things which have hitherto occurred to me may be reduced to the following heads:— First, The Scriptures appear to speak with approbation of some actions performed by unregenerate men, and even God himself is represented as rewarding them. It appears to have been thus in the case of Ahab, when he humbled himself; and the Ninevites, when they repented at the preaching of Jonah ; as also in the case of the young ruler in the Gospel, whom our Lord is represented to have loved ; and the discreet scribe, whom he assured that he was “not far from the kingdom of heaven.” Now if all the actions of unregenerate men are of the nature of sin, these must have been so ; but if these were so, how are we to account for the favourable manner in which they were treated ? Secondly, The common sense of mankind unites to at- tribute many excellences and amiable qualities to persons whom, nevertheless, we are obliged, from other parts of their conduct, to consider as destitute of true religion. Is it not right and amiable, even in the sight of God, so far as it goes, that children are dutiful to their parents, and parents affectionate to their children; that men are obe- dient to the laws, benevolent to the poor, faithful in their connexions, and just in their dealings 3 And is it not evi- dent to universal observation that these are things which may be found in characters who, nevertheless, by other parts of their conduct, evince themselves to be strangers to true religion? Thirdly, Every man is possessed of conscience, which bears witness to him, in unnumbered instances, of what is right and wrong; and this witness is known to have considerable influence even on wicked men, so as to impel them to the performance of many good actions, and to deter them from others which are evil. Fourthly, If all the actions of unregenerate men be not only mixed with sin, but are in their own nature sin- ful, then, whether they eat or drink, or whatever they do, fully enforced, in two pieces in the Evangelical Magazine for August and December, 1793, pp. 72,239. HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 303 they sin against God; but eating and drinking, in moder- ation, appear to be mere natural actions, and to have in them neither moral good nor moral evil. Lastly, If all the actions of unregenerate men be in their own nature sinful, surely there can be no ground for a ministerial address, no motive by which to exhort them to cease from evil and do good; nor any encourage- ment afforded them to comply with any thing short of what is spiritually good. It has been very common for even the advocates of salvation by free grace to distinguish between moral virtue and true religion ; the former they have allowed to exist in a degree in unregenerate men, and have thought it their duty to encourage it, though at the same time they have insisted on the necessity of what is superior to it. But your ideas of total depravity would go to destroy this distinction, and render what has been usually called moral virtue no virtue. “This,” I remem- ber an ingenious writer once observed, “is not orthodoxy, but extravagance.” For my part, I would not speak so strongly ; yet I cannot but say you seem to carry things to an extreme. I am free to own, however, that I feel the difficulty of answering what you advanced in the last Dialogue. Every truth is doubtless consistent with other truths. Happy should I be to obtain satisfactory and consistent views on this important subject. Some religious people to whom I have repeated the sub- stance of our conversations do not at all appear to be inter- ested by them. They seem to me to be contented with a confused and superficial view of things. I wish I could transfer my feelings to them. Did they but know the worth of just sentiments in religion, they would think no labour too great to obtain them. They seem to be averse from the pain which accompanies a state of hesitation and suspense, and therefore decline to examine all those dif- ficult subjects which would produce it. But then they are of course equally unacquainted with the pleasure which arises from the solution of these difficulties, and from obtaining clear and satisfactory views of Divine subjects. Surely it were criminal indolence in us, as well as meanness, if, rather than be at the trouble of drawing from a deep well, we are contented to sip muddy waters from any puddle that presents itself. Your answer to the above will much oblige Your affectionate friend, CRISPUS, LETTER II. ON THE TOTAL DEPRAVITY OF HUMAN NATURE. [In reply to the objections of Crispus.] MY DEAR FRIEND, R. , Dec. 5, 1794. I RECEIVED yours with pleasure. It is quite agreeable to me to supply, as well as may be, the defect of personal intercourse by a free and friendly correspondence. Your thirst after truth is pleasing. Would to God we were aii mºre of that temper which seeks for wisdom with the ardour of those who dig for hidden treasures I intend it net as a mere compliment, when I say that you have stated your objections to the doctrine of total depravity in as plausible * manner as I ever recollect to have seen them. I will endeavour to give them all the Weight they possess. The point in dispute between us, you will observe, is Whether an *regenerate sinner can be said to perform any part of his duty, or to obtain in any measure the ap- probation of his Maker. And I hope you will consider that this is, for substance, the same thing as whether the carnal mind be wholly enmity against God, or whether it be in any measure subject to the law of God, or indeed can be. You allow, I think, that whatever excellences such characters possess, “the love of God is not in them.” po, not in any degree. Their amiable qualities therefje be they what they may, must be something quite distinct from love, or any of its operations. But as “love is the fulfilling of the law,” it must comprehend the whole ºf moral excellence; and consequently there can be no moral excellence in the sight of God without it. You first reason from the cases of Ahab, the Ninevites, the young man whom our Lord is said to have loved, and the scribe who was declared to be “not far from the king- dom of heaven.” In answer to which I would observe, Though the great God knoweth the secrets of all hearts, yet in the government of the world he does not always proceed upon this principle. He has sometimes thought fit to reward men for their actions, not because he ap- proved of them as actions of theirs, but merely because they tended to subserve his own great and wise designs. God rewarded Nebuchadnezzar for his long siege against Tyre, by giving him the land of Egypt; yet Nebuchad- mezzar did nothing in this undertaking which in its own nature could approve itself to God. The only reason why he was thus rewarded was, that what he had done subserved the Divine purposes in punishing Tyre for her insulting treatment towards the people of God.* God also rewarded Cyrus with the treasures of Babylon, “the hidden riches of secret places,” as they are called ; f not because Cyrus did any thing that was pleasing in his sight; his motive was the lust of dominion ; but because what he did ef- fected the deliverance of Judah, and fulfilled the Divine predictions upon Babylon. And as, in the great system of the Divine government, actions may be rewarded which have no appearance of innate goodness, so others may be rewarded which have such an appearance, even though it be nothing but ap- pearance. God does not always avail himself of his om- niscience, if I may so speak; but proceeds upon the sup- position that men are what they profess and appear to be. The end of Jehovah in punishing the person and the house of Ahab was to make manifest his displeasure against their idolatries. But if, when Ahab humbled himself and rent his garments, God had proceeded towards him on the ground of his omniscience, and, knowing him to be desti- tute of sincerity, had made no difference in his treatment of him, that end would not have been answered. For whatever might be Ahab's motives, they were unknown to men; and if no difference had appeared in the Divine treatment, they would have concluded that it was vain to serve God. It seemed good therefore to him, in the present life, to treat Ahab upon the supposition of his being sincere ; and as to his insincerity, he will call him to account for that another day. There is a case, much resembling this of Ahab, in the history of Abijah, the son of Rehoboam. In 2 Chron. xiii. we read of his wars with Jeroboam the son of Nebat, king of Israel, and how he addressed the apostate Israelites pre- viously to the battle. Having reproached them with for- saking the God of their fathers, and turning to idolatry, he adds, “But as for us, Jehovah is our God, and we have not forsaken him : and the priests which minister unto Jehovah are the sons of Aaron, and the Levites wait upon their business: and they bring unto Jehovah, every morn- ing and every evening, burnt sacrifices and sweet incense : the shew-bread also set they in order upon the pure table, and the candlestick of gold, with the lamps thereof, to burn every evening : for we keep the charge of Jehovah our God ; but ye have forsaken him. And, behold, God him- self is with us for our captain, and his priests with sound- ing trumpets to cry alarm against you. O ye children of Israel, fight ye not against Jehovah, God of your fathers; for ye shall not prosper l’’ To all appearance this prince was zealous for Jehovah, God of Israel; and one might suppose that the signal victory given him over Jeroboam was an expression of Divine approbation; but if we turn to the account given of the same reign in 1 Kings xv., we shall find that this Abijah (or Abijam, as he is there call- ed) was a wicked prince ; that notwithstanding his boasted language when addressing Israel, he walked in all the sins of his father; and that although God gave him a signal victory over the idolatrous Israelites, yet it was not for his sake, or out of regard to any thing he did, but for David's sake, and for the establishment of Jerusalem. His attach- ment to Jehovah was nothing better than Pharisaical form- ality; and his boastings of the state of things in Judah * Ezek. xxvi. 1–7; xxix. 17–20. + Isa. xlv. 3. 304 DIALOGUES AND LETTERS. were no better than the swellings of spiritual pride; but God proceeded with him, not according to his principles, but according to his professions. His hypocrisy was known to God ; and he will appear to take cognizance of it in the day when he shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ. Much the same things might be observed concerning the Ninevites. There might be many true penitents among them, for aught we know ; but whether holy love or slav- ish fear was their motive, they professed and appeared to be humbled, and discovered all the apparent fruits of re- pentance; and as such it was manifestly an instance of Divine wisdom, as tending to do honour to his own go- vernment in the eyes of surrounding nations, to proceed with them upon the supposition of their repentance being sincere. The confessions and humiliations of Pharaoh likewise were repeatedly followed by the removal of those judgments which appalled his proud spirit, and so occa- sioned them ; yet few will attribute goodness to Pharaoh. Not only the Divine Being, but Moses himself, saw his insincerity, and bid him glory over him. God however would remove the judgment when he made confession, let his motives be what they might, and even though he might laugh to himself for having imposed upon Moses so far as to gain his point. The young man who came to Christ appears to have been a conceited Pharisee, who loved the present world, and not God; and is represented by our Lord as being as far from entering into the kingdom of heaven as a camel was from passing through the eye of a needle. The only difficulty arises from its being said that the Lord beheld him, and loved him ; which may seem to imply at least a partial approbation of his character. But to this it may be answered, Our Lord was at this time acting in the cha- zacter of a preacher or instructor of men. His feelings to- wards the young man in question were much the same as ours would have been, had we been possessed of true be- nevolence, and in the same circumstances. Let the best man that ever existed be addressed in this manner; let him behold a poor self-deceived youth, flattered by all around him for his seeming virtue, and flattering himself with the hopes of heaven, while in reality he is a slave to the present world ; and let him, if he can, forbear to feel towards him like our Lord. He would tell him the truth, though it should send him away sad and grieved; but his heart would at the same time melt in compassion to his poor deluded soul. But this would imply no more of an approbation of his spirit or conduct than was included in our Lord’s looking upon Jerusalem and weeping over it. As to the scribe who answered our Lord discreetly, and was assured that he was “not far from the kingdom of God,” read the passage, (Mark xii. 28–34,) and you will perceive that it was not in relation to his spirit or conduct that our Lord spake, for not a word is recorded of either; but merely of his confession of faith; that the love of God and man was of more account than whole burnt-offerings or sacrifices. This doctrine was so true, and contained so much of the spirit of the gospel dispensation, that our Lord very properly assured this discreet inquirer that he was “not far from the kingdom of God;” that is, that the principles which he had avowed, if truly imbibed and properly pursued, would lead him into the very heart of Christianity. The remainder of your objections I must take another opportunity to answer ; and at present subscribe myself - Your affectionate friend, GAIUS. I,ETTER III. ON THE TOTAL DE PRAVITY OF HUMAN NATURE. [A further reply to the objections of Crispus.] , I'eb. 9, 1795. I Take up my pen to answer some other of your objec- tions, as stated in yours of July 3, 1794. You not only MY DEAR FRIEND, R. reason from the cases of Ahab, the Ninevites, &c.; but, secondly, from the common sense of mankind, which attri- butes amiable qualities to persons whom nevertheless, on other accounts, we are obliged to consider as destitute of true religion. But let me entreat you to consider whether the common sense of one man can take cognizance of the motives which govern the actions of another; and whether, therefore, it can be any competent judge of the acceptable- ness of his actions in the sight of God, who sees things as they are. All the morality in the world consists in the love of God and our neighbour. There is not a virtue, nor a virtuous action, in being, but what is an expression of love ; yet as there are numberless actions which bear a likeness to those which arise from love, and as it is be- yond the province of man to take cognizance of the heart, it is common for us to call those actions amiable which appear to be so, and which are beneficial to human so- ciety. It is fit we should do so; otherwise we invade the province of the Supreme Being, who alone is able so to judge of actions as perfectly to ascertain their motives. “He is the God of knowledge, by whom actions are weighed.” It is right, no doubt, that children should be dutiful to their parents, parents affectionate to their children, and that every relation of life should be filled up with fidelity and honour. But these duties require to be discharged in the love of God, not without it; nor is there any duty per- formed, strictly speaking, where the love of God is want- ing. Read those parts of Paul’s Epistles where he exhorts to relative duties, and you will find that he admonishes children to obey their parents in the Lord ; parents to bring up their children “in the nurture and admonition of the Lord ; ” servants to obey their masters “in singleness of heart, as unto Christ; ” and masters to be just and kind unto their servants, as having an eye to “their Master in heaven’’ adding, “And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men.” Now all those per- sons whose behaviour may appear to be amiable in such relations, but who have not the love of God in them, do what they do merely as wnto men ; and, consequently, fly in the face of apostolic exhortation, instead of complying with it, even in the least degree. It may be asked, If a merely external compliance with relative duties be a sin, would the omission of them be any better ? I answer, No ; but worse. There are, as has been allowed before, different degrees of sin. To perform an action which tends to the good of society from a wrong motive is sin ; but to neglect to perform it, or to perform one of an opposite tendency, is a greater sin. In the one case we sin against God, in the pther against both God and our neighbour. Thirdly, You allege that “every man is possessed of conscience, which bears witness to him in numberless in- stances of what is right and wrong; and this witness is known to have considerable influence even on wicked men, so as to impel them to the performance of many good actions, and to deter them from others which are evil.” To this I answer, 1. Conscience, though necessary to the perform- ance of both good and evil, does not partake of either the one or the other. Conscience is that branch of the intel- lectual faculty which takes cognizance of the good and evil of our own actions; but is itself distinct from both. It is simple knowledge, essential indeed to moral agency, being one of the principal things by which we are distin- guished from the brute creation; but as all duty is con- tained in love, good and evil must consist entirely in the temper and disposition of the heart ; and the mere dic- tates of conscience including no such dispositions, neither good nor evil can, strictly speaking, be predicated of them. Neither men nor devils will ever cease to possess con- sciences, witnessing to them what is good and evil, even in a world of misery, when, as all must allow, they will be utterly destitute of virtue or goodness. We read, it is true, of a good conscience, and an evil conscience, of a conscience “seared as with a hot iron,” &c.; and so we read of an evil eye, of “eyes full of adultery that cannot cease from sin :” but as there is neither good nor evil in the sight of the eye, only as it is under the influence of the temper or disposition of the soul, so neither is there in the dictate of conscience. If there be any virtue or goodness in wicked men, it consists not in their knowledge HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 305 of the difference between good and evil, but in complying with the one and avoiding the other. 2. That compliance with the dictates of conscience of which wicked men are the subjects has nothing of the love of God in it; and consequently no real virtue. While conscience suggests what is duty, a variety of motives may induce men to comply with it, or rather with those actions which are usually the expressions of it; such as self-interest, a sense of honour, the fear of reproach in this world, and of Di- vine wrath in another: and while they act in this manner, they are considered as acting conscientiously; but if love be the fulfilling of the law, where love is wanting, the law is not fulfilled ; no, not in the least degree. generate men be not only mixed with sin, but in their own nature sinful, then, whether they eat or drink, or whatever they do, they sin against God; but that eating and drinking in moderation appear to be natural actions, and contain neither moral good nor moral evil.” affirm that all the actions of unregenerate men are sinful, I would be understood by actions to mean all voluntary exercises, and which are capable of being performed to a good end. Whatever is capable of being so performed is not merely a natural, but a moral action. That eating and drinking, and every other voluntary exercise, are moral | actions, is evident ; for we are exhorted “whether we eat or drink, or whatsoever we do, to do all to the glory of God.” In an irrational being, it is true, these would be merely natural actions; but in a moral agent they are not so ; and the manner in which they are attended to renders them either good or evil. Every rational creature per- forms these actions either to the glory of God, (that is, that he may be strengthened to serve the Lord, and do good in his generation,) or he does not. If he do, they are virtuous ; if not, there is a criminal defect in the end of them ; and as the end or intent of an action is that which determines its nature, that which otherwise would have been lawful and laudable becomes sinful. To plough the soil is as much a natural action as eating and drinking; yet as all such actions are performed by wicked men for merely selfish purposes, without any regard to God and the general good, they become sinful in the sight of God; and hence we read that “the ploughing of the wicked is sin.” Lastly, You allege that, “if these principles be true, there can be no ground for a ministerial address; no motive by which to exhort unregenerate men to cease from evil, and do good; nor any encouragement for them to comply with any thing short of what is spiritually good.” If you mean to say that ministers, on this account, can entertain no well-founded hope of success from the pliability of men's hearts, I fully grant it. Our expect- ations must rest upon the power and promise of God, and these alone, or we shall be disappointed. But if you mean to suggest that therefore all addresses to unregenerate sin- ners, exhorting them to do good, are unreasonable, this is more than can be admitted. If a total depravity would take away all ground for a rational address, a partial one Would take it away in part ; and then, in proportion as We see men disinclined to goodness, we are to cease warn- ing and expostulating with them : But this is self-evident absurdity. The truth is, while men are rational beings they are accountable for all they do, whatever be theiß. clination of their hearts ; and "so long as they are not consigned to hopeless perdition, they are the subjects of a gospel address. Nor can it be affirmed with truth that there are no motives for them on which they can be ex- horted to cease to do evil, or learn to do well ; the motives to these things exist in all their native force, independently of the inclination or disinclination of their hearts to com- ply with them. Nor is the use of them in the Christian ministry thereby rendered improper; on the contrary, it is highly necessary; as much so as it is for the Sun to keep his course, and go on to shine, notwithstanding it may prove the occasion of a filthy dunghill emitting a greater stench. If any means be adapted to do good to wicked men, they are such as tend to fasten conviction upon them ; but there is no means more adapted to this end than putting them upon trial. A sinner is exhorted to repent and believe in Christ—he feels hardened in in- - X When I EXIHORTED THEM TO ANY THING ELSE. been unworthy of God, and of his servants, to require becomes very unhappy. They inquire the reason. sensibility—he cannot repent—he has no desire after Christ. A consciousness of this kind. if it operate ac- cording to its native tendency, will lead him to reflect, What a state must I be in Invited to repent and believe in Christ for the salvation of my soul, and cannot comply Mine, surely, is the very heart of an infernal ſ—Let a sin- ner be brought to such a state of mind, and there is some hope concerning him. You seem to feel sorry that there should be no encou- ragement held out to sinners to comply with any thing but what is spiritually good : and many who have sustained the character of Christian ministers have felt the same ; and considering that poor sinners cannot comply with Fourthly, You allege that “if all the actions of unre- duties of this kind, have contented themselves with ex- horting them to things with which they can comply, and still retain their enmity against God. But what authority have they for such a conduct 3 When did Christ or his apostles deal in such compromising doctrine 3 Repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ, were the grand articles on which they insisted. So far from hesitating to exhort their carnal auditors to what was spi- ritually good, it may be safely affirmed that THEY NEveR It would have any thing short of the heart, or its genuine expressions. To conclude: The following supposition may serve to illustrate the foregoing subject. A ship's company rise against their officers, put them in chains, and take the command of the ship upon themselves. They agree to set the officers ashore on some uninhabited island, to sail to some distant port, dispose of the cargo, and divide the amount. After parting with their officers, they find it necessary, for the sake of self-preservation, to establish some kind of laws and order. To these they adhere with punctuality, aet upon honour with respect to each other, and propose to be very im- partial in the distribution of their plunder. But while they are on their voyage, one of the company relents and He answers, “We are engaged in a wicked cause!” They plead their justice, honour, and generosity to each other. He denies that there is any virtue in it: “Nay, all our equity, while it is exercised in pursuit of a scheme which violates the great law of justice, is itself a species of iniquity."— “You talk extravagantly; surely we might be worse than we are if we were to destroy each other as well as our officers.”—“Yes, wickedness admits of degrees; but there is no virtue or goodness in all our doings; all has arisen from selfish motives. The same principles which led us to discard our officers would lead us, if it were not for our own sake, to destroy each other.”—“But you speak so very discouragingly; you destroy all motives to good order in the ship; what would you have us do 3’”—“ REPENT, RETURN TO OUR INJURED OFFICERs AND own ERs, AND sub- MIT TO MERCY : ”—“O, but this we cannot do : advise us to any thing which concerns the good order of the ship, and we will hearken to you !”—“I cannot bear to advise in these matters : RETURN, RETURN, AND subMIT To MERCY : ” Such would be the language of a true penitent in this case ; and such should be the language of a Chris- tian minister to sinners who have cast off the government of God. I am affectionately yours, GAIUS. LETTER IV. CONSEQUENCES RESULTING FROM THE DOCTRINE OF HUMAN D EPIRAVITY, [From Crispus to Gaius.] MY DEAR FRIEND, C——m, March 9, 1795. YoUR last two letters have occupied much of my atten- tion. I confess I feel the force of the argument; and though there are difficulties in my mind which I scarcely know how to state in form, yet I must ingenuously confess 306 DIALOGUES AND LETTER.S. that the grand objections which I advanced are answered. The subject is more interesting to me than ever; it affects all the great doctrines of the gospel. My thoughts have already been at work upon its consequences. I could wish, after having discussed the subject, we could examine its bearings on the different systems which are embraced in the religious world. With your leave, I will mention a few of those consequences which have struck my mind as resulting from it; and shall be obliged to you for your opinion of their propriety, and the addition of any thing wherein you may perceive me defective. First, If your views be just, I perceive that all mankind, without any distinction of sober and profligate, are UTTER- LY Lost, AND ABsoluteLY IN A PERISHING CONDITION. All men will acknowledge that they are sinners ; that they have broken God's commandments, most or all of them, in thought or in deed, at one time or other; and that the best of their works have their imperfections. But such acknowledgments are seldom expressive of any deep con- cern. On the contrary, it is common for men, while they speak thus, to discover a spirit of indifference, supported by a kind of hope that God will pardon a few sins, and make up for a few imperfections; otherwise, they say, he must keep heaven to himself. But if your views be just, their whole life has been one uninterrupted course of foul revolt and abominable apostacy ; and the irregularities of their lives bear no more proportion to the whole of their depravity, than the particles of water which are occasionally emitted from the surface of the ocean to the tide that rolls beneath. . Nor is there any propriety in men of this de- scription acknowledging their imperfections : imperfections relate to a standard, and imply an habitual aim to conform to it. Such language is properly applied to the righteous, the best of whom fall short of the mark; but the life of wicked men is in one shape or other an uninterrupted course of evil. Secondly, If your views be just, they seem to afford a presumptive, if not more than presumptive, proof of our NEED OF A SAVIOUR ; and not of a Saviour only, but of A GREAT ONE I do not know whether I can exactly trace the operation of these principles, or their opposites, in the human mind ; but this I know, it is a fact sufficiently no- torious, that those professors of Christianity who reject the proper Deity and atonement of Christ at the same time entertain very diminutive motions of their own depravity. I have known many persons who, as soon as they have be- gun to lean towards the Socimian, Arian, or Arminian systems, have discovered an inclination to treat this doc- trine with contempt. Those people, on the other hand, who have sat under such preaching as has led them to entertain low thoughts of Christ and the grace of the gos- pel, if at some period of their life they have been convinced of their guilty and perishing state as sinners against God, they have soon given up their other motions, and embraced the Deity and atonement of Christ with all their hearts, and that with but little if any persuasion on the part of their friends. Nor does this appear very difficult to be accounted for : as the whole need no physician, but those that are sick; so it is natural to suppose that, in proportion as a person feels the depth and danger of his malady, he will estimate the necessity, the value, and the efficacy of the remedy. Thirdly, If your views be just, I perceive that the work of turning a sinner's heart must be altogether of God and of free grace. If a simmer could return to God of his own accord, or even by Divine influence helping or assisting him, it must be upon the supposition of his having some will, wish, or desire to set about it. But if men are totally alienated from God, all desire after him must be extinct; and all the warnings, invitations, or expostula- tions of the word will be ineffectual; yea, Divine influence itself will be insufficient, if it falls short of renewing the heart. We have heard much of late concerning political regeneration. It has been warmly contended by many, in behalf of the change which has taken place in a neigh- bouring nation, that things were too bad for a mere re- formation ; and that therefore regeneration was necessary. However that be, is it not on these principles that we are told, “Ye must be born again.” Old things must pass away, and all things must become new 3 If men be so depraved as you suppose, the necessity of a Divine and en- tire change must be indubitably evident. Fourthly, If your views be just, the doctrine of free or wnconditional election may be clearly demonstrated and proved to be a dictate of right reason. If men be utterly depraved, they lie entirely at the discretion of God either to save or not to save them. If any are saved, it must be by an act of free grace. If some are brought to believe in Christ, while others continue in unbelief, (which accords with continued fact,) the difference between them must be altogether of grace. But if God make a difference in time, he must have determined to do so for eternity; for to sup- pose God to act without a purpose is depriving him of wisdom ; and to suppose any new purpose to arise in his mind would be to accuse him of mutability. Here, there- fore, we are landed upon election—sovereign, unconditional election. And does not this accord with the Holy Scrip- tures?—“You hath he quickened who were dead in tres- passes and sins: wherein, in time past, ye walked accord- ing to the course of this world, according to the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience. Among whom, also, we all had our conversation in times past, ful- filling the desires of the flesh and of the mind ; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love where with he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quick- ened us together with Christ. By grace are ye saved l’’— “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy; and will have compassion on whom I will have compassion : *- “He hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling ; not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.” Fifthly, If your views be just, the justification of sinners by the work of their hands utterly falls to the ground. The foundation on which sinners in general build their hopes is something like this: They have more virtue than vice, more good works than evil ones; that as none are without fault, (and which they conceive affords a good ex- cuse for them,) God will not be strict to mark iniquity; but will weigh the good against the evil, and so balance the account! But if all the works of unregenerate sinners be of the nature of sin, there is an end to all hope of being accepted of God on their own account. When ministers have endeavoured to dissuade sinners from a reliance on their own righteousness, I have heard them reason to this effect: “Your good deeds are all mixed with evil, and therefore cannot be acceptable to God.” I acknowledge that this is just, and that the least mixture of sin is an eternal bar to our being justified by our own righteous- ness; but, methinks, if they could have alleged that all their works were essentially and entirely evil, their argu- ments must have been more effectual, as to the cutting up of self-righteous hopes. And such a doctrine would leave no room for the supposition of Christ dying to render our imperfect but sincere obedience acceptable to God, instead of that which is perfect; for, in this case, the idea of im- perfect sincere endeavours in unregenerate men is inad- missible—there are no such endeavours in existence. These things I have been used to believe in time past; but if the principle in question be admitted, I find such solid grounds on which to rest them as I never felt before. I shall leave you to conclude the subject, and remain Affectionately yours, CRISPU.S. LETTER. W. CONSEQUENCES RESULTING FROM THE DOCTRINE OF HUMAN DE PRAVITY. [From Gaius to Crispus.] FK , April 9, 1795. IF any thing I have advanced in the course of our cor- respondence has been of use to you, I am satisfied. The inferences which you have drawn from the doctrine of total MY DEAR FRIEND, HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 307 depravity, as far as they go, appear to me to be just. I shall suggest a few others in addition to them ; and as I have some other necessary employments which require my attention, you will excuse me if I propose, with these, for the present, to close our correspondence. Your inferences relate to the bearings of the doctrine of total depravity on the Socinian and Arminian schemes; mine shall concern what I should call the Pseudo-Calvin- istic scheme, or that view of the doctrines commonly called Calvinistical which induces many in the present day to disapprove of all exhortations to sinners, except to merely external obedience, or things which contain in them no- thing truly or spiritually good. If the foregoing principles be just, three things at least will follow ; namely—that the distinction between moral virtue and true religion has less foundation in truth than is commonly supposed—that men in general are either obliged to perform spiritual ac- tions, or allowed to live in sin and perform sinful actions —and that we ought not, as ministers, so to compromise matters with God’s, enemies as to exhort them to merely external services. Let us particularly examine these coll- sequences. They will be found to be more than a little interesting. First, Let us inquire whether the distinction between moral virtue and true religion be founded in truth. It is true the term religion includes more than that of morality, as it is applied to doctrine as well as practice, and to the performance of things positive as well as moral ; but if genuine morality be supposed to exist without true re- ligion, such a supposition I conceive to be unfounded. It is allowed that what is commonly called morality is very different from true religion, because much that goes by this name is not morality, nor any thing truly virtuous. Nothing is morality, strictly speaking, but that which is in some degree a conformity to the moral law; and nothing contains the least degree of conformity to the moral law, unless it include the love of God and our neighbour. There is, therefore, no such thing as morality in wicked men. On the contrary, “the carnal mind is enmity against God, and is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” That which constitutes the essence of genuine morality, namely, the love of God and man, contains the sum of practical religion. Repentance, faith, and every species of obedience, are but different modifications of love. If we love God, we cannot but repent of having offended and dishonoured him. If we love God in his true character, and bear genuine benevolence to man, we can- not but love the Saviour, and embrace his salvation, which proclaims “glory to God in the highest, peace on earth, and good-will to men.” The rejection of Christ by the Jews afforded a proof that they “ had not the love of God in them.” If we love God, we shall love his image in those that are born of him. In fine, if we love God, we shall keep his commandments, and his commandments will not be grievous. It is common for professed infidels, and other enemies to true religion, to cry up morality as something opposed to it; and hence, it may be, some have thought proper to cry it down ; yea, many, who by their practice have proved themselves friendly to a holy life, have yet, on this account, it should seem, found it necessary so to distinguish be- tween morality and religion as to represent the former as something very inferior in its nature to the latter. But it ought to be considered that the morality on which the enemies of true religion love to dwell is of a spurious kind; it does not consist in the love of God in his true cha. racter, or of men in such a way as to rejoice in what con- tributes to their greatest good. It is a morality essentially defective ; it leaves God and religion out of the question, and is confined to what are called the social virtues, or things which every man in his dealings with men finds it his interest to promote. When we hear such characters ery up morality, instead of coldly admitting it to be a very good thing in its place, and insisting that religion is some. thing of an entirely different nature, we ought.cordially to allow the importance of genuine morality, and insist upon it that, if this were attended to, true religion could not be neglected. Such characters would then discover their dis- like to our morality, as much as they now do to what is called religion. Such a statement of matters, though it might grate on their inclinations, must, at least, approvo itself to their consciences. Every man feels himself obliged to act upon the principles of morality. Let us then drive home that point in which we have their consciences on our side ; let us say with the poet, “Talk they of morals, O thou bleeding love 1 The grand morality is love of Thee!” While you speak of religion as something entirely distinct from morality, such a character will rest contented in the neglect of the one, and think himself happy, inasmuch as you allow him to be possessed of the other. But could you prove to him that morality, if genuine, would comprise the love of God, of Christ, of the gospel, and of the whole of true religion, it would plant a thorn in his bosom, which he would find it difficult to extract. Secondly, If the foregoing principles be true, it will follow that men in general are either obliged to perform spiritual actions, or allowed to live in sin and to perform sinful actions. In the voluntary actions of a rational crea- ture, there is no medium between what is good and well- pleasing and what is evil and offensive in the sight of God. All our actions are, in some mode or other, the eacpressions of love, or they are not. If they are, they are spiritually good ; they are acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. Whether we eat or drink, or whatsoever we do, if it be done to the glory of God, this is godliness. The actions performed may be simply natural, but the end to which they are directed, and which determines their quality, de- nominates them spiritual. On the other hand, If they are not, there is no possibility of their being any other than sinful. The want of love is itself a sin ; it is a sinful defect relating to principle ; and whatever is done otherwise than as an expression of love, let it wear what face it may, is a sinful action. We ourselves esteem nothing in a fellow creature which is not in some mode or other the expression of love. If a wife were ever so assiduous in attending to her husband, yet if he were certain that her heart was not with him, he would abhor her endeavours to please him, and nothing that she did would be acceptable in his sight. Instead of its being a question whether God requires any thing of carnal men which is spiritually good, it is evident, both from Scripture and the nature of things, THAT HE REQUIRES NOTHING BUT WHAT IS so. It has been alleged that the obedience which God required of Israel by the Sinai covenant was merely external, and did not eac- tend to the heart. Their government, it is said, was a theocracy; God acted towards them under the character of a civil governor ; and if so, it is supposed, he must for- bear to take cognizance of the heart, which it is beyond the province of creatures to inspect. That God acted to- wards Israel as a civil governor is admitted ; and that it belongs not to a civil governor, in his executive capacity, to take cognizance of the heart, is also admitted. In the be- stowment of rewards and punishments, he must act from what is apparent in the lives of men, having no other me- dium by which to judge of the temper of their hearts; but it is not so with respect to legislation, or the formation of the laws. No civil government upon earth will allow its subjects to hate it in their hearts, provided they do but carry it fair in their conduct. The spirit of all laws, in all nations, requires men to be sincere friends to their coun- try; but as there is no medium for mortals to judge of the heart but that of an overt act, it is fit that this should be the established rule for the dispensation of rewards and punishments. It was thus, I conceive, in the government of God over Israel. Every precept contained in the Sinai covenant required the heart, or, which is the same thing, some genuine expression of it; but, under its ad- ministration, punishments were not always inflicted, nor rewards conferred, according to what men really were, but what they appeared to be, or according to the judgment which would have been pronounced had a fellow creature sat in judgment upon them. It was on this principle that Ahab's punishment was averted on his humbling himself before God. So far was the Divine Legislator from re- Quiring merely external obedience, by the Sinai covenant, that the grand preliminary to that covenant was this: “If ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people.” x 2 30S DIALOGUES AND LETTERS. And what is meant by obeying his voice indeed is suffi- ciently evident, by the subsequent addresses of Moses, Joshua, Samuel, and others; in many of which it is ob- servable, that though the blessings promised were external, yet the proviso on which the promises were made was no- thing less than a heart sincerely devoted to God:—“If ye will hearken diligently unto my commandments, to love the Lord your God, and to serve him with all your heart, and with all your soul, I will give you the rain of your land in his season : the first rain, and the latter rain, that thou mayest gather in thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil.”— “Take heed to yourselves, that your heart be not deceived, and ye turn aside, and serve other gods; and then the Lord’s wrath be kindled against you, and he shut up the heaven that there be no rain, and that the land yield not her fruit, and lest ye perish quickly from off the good land which the Lord giveth you.”—“Take diligent heed to do the commandments which Moses the servant of the Lord charged you, to love the Lord your God, and to walk in all his ways, and to cleave unto him, and to serve him with all vour heart, and with all your soul-Only fear the Lord, and serve him in truth, with all your heart : for consider what great things he hath done for you.” If eacternal obedi- ence were all that God required by the Sinai covenant, why was he not satisfied with the goodly professions which they made during that solemn transaction, saying, “All these things will we do?” and wherefore did he utter that cutting exclamation, “O that there were such a heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my command- ments always, that it might be well with them and their children for ever?” Lastly, If the foregoing principles be just, instead of being a question whether ministers should exhort their carnal auditors to any thing spiritually good, it deserves to be seriously considered whetheR IT BE NOT AT THEIR PERIL TO EXHORT THEM To ANY THING SHORT of IT.-If all duty consists in the genuine operations and expressions of the heart, it must be utterly wrong for ministers to com- promise matters with the enemies of God, by exhorting them to merely external actions, or to such a kind of ex- ercise as may be performed without the love of God. It is disloyalty to God, betraying his just authority over the heart, and admitting that in behalf of him which we should despise if offered to ourselves from a fellow creature. Nor is it less injurious to the souls of men; as it tends to quiet their consciences, and to cherish an opinion that, having complied with many of the exhortations of their minister, they have done many things pleasing and acceptable to God; while, in fact, “every thought and imagination of their heart has been only evil continually.” It may be thought that these things bear hard upon the unconverted sinner, and reduce him to a terrible situation. But if such in fact be his situation, it will not mend the matter to daub it with the untempered mortar of pallia- tion ; on the contrary, it will render it still more terrible. The truth is, there is no way for a sinner to take in which he can find solid rest, but that of returning home to God by Jesus Christ. And instead of trying to render his situation easy, it ought to be our business as ministers to drive him from every other resting-place, not for the sake of plunging him into despair, but, if it please God to bless our labours, that he may be necessitated to betake himself to the “good old way, and find rest unto his soul!” We ought solemnly to assure him that, do what else he will, he sins, and is heaping upon his head a load of guilt that will sink him into endless perdition. If he pray, or fre- quent the means of grace, his prayer “is an abomination to the Lord ;” if he live in the omission of these things, it is worse. Whether he eat or drink, plough the soil, or gather in the harvest, (like the supposed ship's company, mentioned before, who with all their regularity continued in their rebellious course,) all is iniquity. “Incense is an abomination; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.” To die is to be plunged into the gulf of destruction; and to live, if he continue in enmity to God, is worse; as it is heaping up wrath in an enlarged degree against the day of wrath. What then, it will be asked, can sinners do If they go forward, destruction is before them ; if on this hand, or on that, it is the same. Whither can they go 3 and what must they do? All the answer which the Scriptures warrant us to make is included in the warnings and invit- ations of the gospel:—“Repent, and believe the gospel.” —“Repent, and be converted, that your sins may be blot- ted out.”—“Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.”—“Deny thyself, take up thy cross, and follow me, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven . .” If the answer be, We cannot comply with these things; our hearts are too hard ; advise us to any thing else, and we will hearken;–if this, or something like it, I say, should be the answer, the servant of God, having warned them that what they call their incapacity is no other than a wicked aversion to God and goodness, that they judge themselves unworthy of everlasting life, and that their blood will be upon their own heads,-must there leave them. His soul may weep in secret places for them ; but it is at his peril to compromise the matter. If, seeing they cannot find in their hearts to comply with the invitations of the gospel, he should offer any directions which imply that their inability is of such a kind as to afford them any excuse—any directions which imply that it is not their immediate duty to repent and return to God by Jesus Christ—any directions which may descend within the compass of their inclinations—let him look to it ! They may be pleased with his advice, and comply with it; and considering it as about the whole of what can reasonably be expected of them in their present circumstances, they may be very easy; and persisting in such a spirit, they may die in it, and perish for ever; BUT THEIR BLOOD will, suBELY BE REQUIRED AT HIS HAND ! I am, my dear friend, Yours very affectionately, GAIUS, THREE Co NV ERS ATIONS IMPUTATION, SUBSTITUTION, AND PARTICULAR REDEMPTION. CONVERSATION I. ON IMPUTATION. PETER and James considered each other as good men, and had for several years been in the habit of corresponding on Divine subjects. Their respect was mutual. Their sentiments, however, though alike in the main, were not exactly the same ; and some circumstances had lately occurred which tended rather to magnify the difference than to lessen it. Being both at the house of John, their common friend, in his company they fell into the following conversation. I am not without painful apprehension, said Peter to John, that the views of our friend James on some of the doctrines of the gospel are unhappily diverted from the truth. I suspect he does not believe in the proper imput- ation of sin to Christ, or of Christ's righteousness to us; nor in his being our substitute or representative. John. Those are serious things; but what are the grounds, brother Peter, on which your suspicions rest ? Peter. Partly what he has published, which I cannot reconcile with those doctrines, and partly what he has said in my hearing, which I consider as an avowal of what I have stated. John. What say you to this, brother James? James. I cannot tell whether what I have written or spoken accords with brother Peter's ideas on these sub- jects; indeed I suspect it does not : but I never thought of calling either of the doctrines in question. Were I to relinquish the one or the other, I should be at a loss for ground on which to rest my salvation. What he says of my avowing my disbelief of them in his hearing must be a misunderstanding. I did say, I suspected that his views of imputation and substitution were unscriptural, but had no intention of disowning the doctrines themselves. Peter. Brother James, I have no desire to assume any dominion over your faith, but should be glad to know what are your ideas on these important subjects. Do you hold that sin was properly imputed to Christ, and that Christ's righteousness is properly imputed to us, or not ? James. You are quite at liberty, brother Peter, to ask me any questions on these subjects; and if you will hear . patiently, I will answer you as explicitly as I am 3.0 le. John. Do so, brother James; and we shall hear you, not only patiently, but, I trust, with pleasure. James. To impute (nºt Aoyigogal) signifies, in general, to charge, reckon, or place to account, according to the different objects to which it is applied. This word, like many others, has a proper and an improper or figurative meaning. First, It is applied to the charging, reckoning, or placing to the account of persons and things THAT which pro- PERLY BELONGS To THEM. This I consider as its proper meaning. In this sense the word is used in the following passages:—“Elithought she (Hannah) had been drunken.” —“ Hanan and Mattaniah, the treasurers, were counted faithful.”—“Let a man so account of us as the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.”—“Let such a one think this, that such as we are in word by letters when we are absent, such will we be also indeed when we are present.”—“I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed in us.” Reckoning, or ac- counting, in the above instances, is no other than judging of persons and things according to what they are, or appear to be. To impute sin in this sense is to charge guilt upon the guilty in a judicial way, or with a view to punishment. Thus Shimei besought David that his iniquity might not be imputed to him ; thus the man is pronounced blessed “to whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity ?” and thus Paul prayed that the sin of those who deserted him might not be laid to their charge. In this sense the term is ordinarily used in common life. To impute treason or any other crime to a man is the same thing as charging him with having committed it, and this with a view to his being punished. Secondly, It is applied to the charging, reckoning, or placing to the account of persons and things THAT which DoES NOT PROPERLY BELONG TO THEM, AS THOUGH IT DID. This I consider as its improper or figurative meaning. In this sense the word is used in the following passages:— “And this your heave-offering shall be reckoned unto you as though it were the corn of the thrashing-floor, and as the fulness of the wine-press.”—“Wherefore hidest thou thy face, and holdest me for thine enemy?”—“If the un- circumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision ?”—“If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee aught, put that on mine account.” It is in this latter sense that I understand the term when applied to justification. “Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.”—“To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” The counting, or reckoning, in these instances, is not a judging of things as they are ; but as they are not, as though they were. I do not think that faith here means the righteous- ness of the Messiah ; for it is expressly called believing. It means believing, however, not as a virtuous exercise of the mind which God consented to accept instead of perfect obedience, but as having respect to the promised Messiah, and so to his righteousness as the ground of acceptance.* Justification is ascribed to faith, as healing frequently is in the New Testament ; not as that from which the virtue * See Calvin’s Institutes, Book III, Chap. XI. & 7. Also my Ex- pository Discourses on Genesis, Chap. xv. 1–6. 310 CONVERSATION ON IMPUTATION. proceeds, but as that which receives from the Saviour's fulness. But if it were allowed that faith in these passages really means the object believed in, still this was not Abraham's own righteousness, and could not be properly counted by Him who judges of things as they are as being so. It was ºreckoned unto him as if it were his; and the effects, or benefits, of it were actually imparted to him : but this was all. Abraham did not become meritorious, or Čease to be unworthy. “What is it to place our righteousness in the obedience of Christ,” says Calvin, “but to affirm that hereby only we are accounted righteous 3 because the obedience of Christ is imputed to us As IF IT were our own.”* It is thus also that I understand the imputation of sin to Christ. He was accounted in the Divine administra- tion as if he were or had been the sinner, that those who believe in him might be accounted as if they were or had been righteous. *. Brethren, I have done. Whether my statement be just or not, I hope it will be allowed to be explicit. John. That it certainly is; and we thank you. Have you any other questions, brother Peter, to ask upon the subject? Peter. How do you understand the apostle in 2 Cor. v. 21, “ He hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him º'? James. Till lately I cannot say that I have thought closely upon it. I have understood that several of our best writers consider the word áuaptia (sin) as frequently meaning a sin-offering. Dr. Owen so interprete it in his answer to Biddle, (p. 510,) though it seems he afterwards changed his mind. Considering the opposition between the sin which Christ was made and the righteousness which we are made, together with the same word being used for that which he was made and that which he knew ºvot, I am inclined to be of the Doctor's last opinion ; namely, that the sin which Christ was made means sin it- self, and the righteousness which we are made means righteousness itself. I doubt not but that the allusion is to the sin-offering under the law, but not to its being made a sacrifice. Let me be a little more particular. There were two things belonging to the sin-offering. First, The imputation of the sins of the people, signified by the priest’s laying his hands upon the head of the ami- mal, and confessing over it their transgressions, and which is called “putting them upon it;” that is, it was counted, in the Divine administration, as if the animal had been the sinner, and the only sinner of the nation. Secondly, Of. fering it in sacrifice, or “killing it before the Lord for an atonement.” Now the phrase made sin, in 2 Cor. v. 21, appears to refer to the first step in this process in order to the last. It is expressive of what was preparatory to Christ's suffering death, rather than of the thing itself, just as our being made righteousness expresses what was pre- paratory to God’s bestowing upon us eternal life. But the term made is not to be taken literally; for that would convey the idea of Christ's being really the subject of moral evil. It is expressive of a Divine constitution by which our Redeemer, with his own consent, stood in the sinner's place, as though he had been himself the trans- gressor ; just as the sin-offering under the law was, in mercy to Israel, reckoned or accounted to have the sins of the people “put upon its head;” with this difference, that was only a shadow, but this went really to take away sin. Peter. Do you consider Christ as having been punished, 'really and properly PUNISHED 3 * James. I should think I do not. by punishment 3 Peter. An innocent person may suffer, but, properly speaking, he cannot be punished. Punishment necessarily supposes criminality. James. Just so ; and therefore, as I do not believe that Jesus was in any sense criminal, I cannot say he was really and properly punished. Peter. Punishment is the infliction of natural evil for the commission of moral evil. It is not necessary, how- But what do you mean * Institutes, Book III. Chap. XI. § 23. ever, that the latter should have been committed by the party. Criminality is supposed ; but it may be either per- sonal or imputed. James. This I cannot admit. Real and proper punish- ment, if I understand the terms, is not only the infliction of natural evil for the commission of moral evil, but the infliction of the one upon the person who committed the other, and in displeasure against him. It not only sup- poses criminality, but that the party punished was literally the criminal. Criminality committed by one party and imputed to another is not a ground for real and proper punishment. If Paul had sustained the punishment due to Onesimus for having wronged his master, yet it would not have been real and proper punishment to him, but suffering only, as not being inflicted in displeasure against him. I am aware of what has been said on this subject, that there was a more intimate wivion between Christ and those for whom he died than could ever exist between creatures. But be it so ; it is enough for me that the union was not such as THAT THE ACTIONS OF THE ONE BE- CAME THose of THE OTHER. Christ, even in the act of offering himself a sacrifice, when, to speak in the language of the Jewish law, the sins of the people were put or laid upon him, gave himself, nevertheless, THE JUST FOR THE UNJUST, Peter. And thus it is that you understand the words of Isaiah, “The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all?” James. Yes; he bore the punishment due to our sins, or that which, considering the dignity of his person, was equivalent to it. The phrase, “He shall bear his ini- quity,” which so frequently occurs in the Old Testament, means, he shall bear the punishment due to his iniquity. Peter. And yet you deny that Christ's sufferings were properly penal 2 James. You would not deny eternal life which is pro- mised to believers to be properly a reward; but you would deny its being a real and proper reward To THEM. Peter. And what then } James. If eternal life, though it be a reward, and we par- take of it, yet is really and properly the reward of Christ's obedience, and not ours; then the sufferings of Christ, though they were a punishment, and he sustained it, yet were really and properly the punishment of our sins, and not his. What he bore was punishment; that is, it was the expression of Divine displeasure against transgressors. So what we enjoy is reward ; that is, it is the expression of God’s well-pleasedness in the obedience and death of his Son. But neither is the one a punishment to him, nor the other, properly speaking, a reward to us. There appears to me great accuracy in the Scripture language on this subject. What our Saviour underwent is almost always expressed by the term suffering. Once it is called a chastisement : yet there he is not said to have been chastised ; but “the chastisement of our peace was wpon him.” This is the same as saying he bore our pun- ishment. He was made a curse for us ; that is, having been reckoned or accounted the sinner, as though he had actually been so, he was treated accordingly, as one that had deserved to be an outcast from heaven and earth. I believe that the wrath of God which was due to us was poured upon him ; but I do not believe that God for one moment was angry or displeased with him, or that he smote him from any such displeasure. There is a passage in Calvin’s Institutes which so fully expresses my mind that I hope you will excuse me if I read it. You will find it in Book II. Chap. XVI. § 10, 11. “It behoved him that he should, as it were, hand to hand, wrestle with the armies of hell, and the horror of eternal death. The chastisement of our peace was laid wpon him. He was smitten of his Father for our crimes, and bruised for our iniquities; whereby is meant that he was put in the stead of the wicked, as surety and pledge, yea, and as the very guilty person himself, to sustain and bear away all the punishments that should have been laid upon them, save only that he could not be holden of death. —Yet do we not mean that God was at any time either his enemy or angry with him. For how could he be angry with his beloved Son, upon whom his mind rested ? Or how could Christ by his intercession appease his Father's wrath towards others, if, full of hatred, he had CONVERSATION ON IMPUTATION. 3| 1 been incensed against himself? But this is our meaning —that he sustained the weight of the Divine displeasure ; inasmuch as he, being stricken and tormented by the hand of God, DID FEEL. ALL THE TOKENS OF GOD when HE Is ANGRY AND PUNISHETH.” Deter. The words of Scripture are very express: “He hath made him to be sin for us.”—“ He was made a curse for us.” You may, by diluting and qualifying in- terpretations, soften what you consider as intolerable harshness. In other words, you may choose to correct the language and sentiments of inspiration, and teach the apostle to speak of his Lord with more decorum, lest his personal purity should be impeached, and lest the odium of the curse, annexed by Divine law, should remain at- tached to his death ; but if you abide by the obvious meaning of the passages, you must hold with a commuta- tion of persons, the imputation of sin and of righteousness, and a vicarious punishment equally pregnant with eacecration as with death. John. I wish brother Peter would forbear the use of language which tends not to convince, but to irritate. James. If there be any thing convincing in it, I confess I do not perceive it. ‘ I admit, with Mr. Charnock, “that Christ was ‘made sin” as if he had simmed all the sins of men ; and we are ‘made righteousness’ as if we had not sinned at all.” What more is necessary to abide by the obvious meaning of the words? To go further must be to maintain that Christ's being made sin means that he was literally rendered wicked, and that his being made a curse is the same thing as his being punished for it according to his deserts. Brother Peter, I am sure, does not believe this shocking position ; but he seems to think there is a medium between his being treated as if he were a sinner and his being one. If such a medium there be, I should be glad to discover it: at present it appears to me to have no existence. Brother Peter will not suspect me, I hope, of wishing to depreciate his judgment, when I say that he appears to me to be attached to certain terms without having suffi- ciently weighed their import. In most cases I should think it a privilege to learn of him; but in some things I cannot agree with him. In order to maintain the real and proper punishment of Christ, he talks of his being “guilty by imputation.” The term guilty, I am aware, is often used by theological writers for an obligation to punishment, and so applies to that voluntary obligation which Christ came under to sustain the punishment of our sins: but, strictly speaking, guilt is the desert of punishment; and this can never apply but to the offender. It is the oppo- site of innocence. A voluntary obligation to endure the punishment of another is not guilt, any more than a con- sequent exemption from obligation in the offender is in- nocence. Both guilt and innocence are transferable in their effects, but in themselves they are untransferable. To say that Christ was reckoned or counted in the Divine administration as $f he were the sinner, and came under an obligation to endure the curse or punishment due to our sins, is one thing; but to say he deserved that curse is another. Guilt, strictly speaking, is the inseparable at- tendant of transgression, and could never, therefore, for 9ne moment occupy the conscience of Christ. If Christ by imputation became deserving of punishment, we by #9n-inputation cease to deserve it; and if our demerits be literally transferred to him, his merits must of course be the same to us; and then, instead of approaching God as guilty and unworthy, we might take Consequence to ourselves before him, as not only guiltless, but meritorious beings. Peter. Some who profess to hold that believers are jus- tified by the righteousness of Christ deny nevertheless that his obedience itself is imputed to them; for they maintain that the Scripture represents believers as receiving only the benefits, or effects, of Christ's righteousness in justifi. °ºtion, or their being pardoned and accepted for Čhrist's ºrighteousness' sake. But it is not merely for the sake of Christ, or of what he has done, that believes are accepted 9f God, and treated as completely righteous; but it is is him as their Head, Representative, and Substitute, and by the imputation of that very obedience which, as such, he performed to the Divine law, that they are justified. James. I have no doubt but that the imputation of Christ's righteousness presupposes a union with him ; since there is no perceivable fitness in bestowing benefits on one for another's sake where there is no union or relation sub- sisting between them. It is not such a union, however, as that THE ACTIONS OF EITHER BECOME THose OF THE oth ER. That “the Scriptures represent believers as re- ceiving only the benefits or the effects of Christ's righteous- ness in justification” is a remark of which I am not able to perceive the fallacy ; nor does it follow that his obedi- ence itself is not imputed to them. Obedience itself may be and is imputed, while its effects only are imparted, and consequently received. I never met with a person who held the absurd notion of imputed benefits, or imputed punishments; and am inclined to think there never was such a person. Be that however as it may, sin on the one hand, and righteousness on the other, are the proper ob- jects of imputation; but that imputation consists in charging or reckoning them to the account of the party in such a way as to impart to him their evil or beneficial effects. Peter. The doctrine for which I contend, as taught by the apostle Paul, is neither novel nor more strongly ex- pressed than it has formerly been by authors of eminence. James. It may be so. We have been told of an old protestant writer who says, that “In Christ, and by him, every true Christian may be called a fulfiller of the law ;” but I see not why he might not as well have added, Every true Christian may be said to have been slain, and if not to have redeemed himself by his own blood, yet to be worthy of all that blessing, and honour, and glory that shall be conferred upon him in the world to come.—What do you think of Dr. Crisp's Sermons ? Has he not carried your principles to an extreme 3 Peter. I cordially agree with Witsius as to the impro- priety of calling Christ a sinner, truly a sinner, the great- est of sinners, &c., yet I am far from disapproving of what Dr. Crisp, and some others, meant by those exceptionable expressions. James. If a Christian may be called a fulfiller of the law, on account of Christ’s obedience being imputed to him, I see not why Christ may not be called a transgressor of the law, on account of our disobedience being imputed to him. Persons and things should be called what they are. As to the meaning of Dr. Crisp, I am very willing to think he had no ill design; but my concern is with the meaning which his words convey to his readers. He considers God, in charging our sins on Christ, and accounting his righteousness to us, as reckoning of things as they are, p. 280. He contends that Christ was really the sinner, or guilt could not have been laid upon him, p. 272. Im- putation of sin and righteousness, with him, is literally and actually A TRANSFER OF CHARACTER ; and it is the ob- ject of his reasoning to persuade his believing hearers that from henceforward Christ is the sinner, and not they. “Hast thou been an idolater,” says he, “a blasphemer, a despiser of God’s word, a profaner of his name and or- dinances, a thief, a liar, a drunkard 3—If thou hast part in Christ, all these transgressions of thine become actually the transgressions of Christ, and so cease to be thine ; and thou ceasest to be a transgressor from the time they were laid upon Christ to the last howr of thy life: so that now thou art not an idolater, a persecutor, a thief, a liar, &c.—thou art not a sinful person. Reckon whatever sin you commit, when as you have part in Christ, you are all that Christ was, and Christ is all that you were,”—p. 270. If the meaning of this passage be true and good, I see nothing exceptionable in the expressions. All that can be said is, that the writer explicitly states his principle, and avows its legitimate consequences. I believe the principle to be false : 1. Because neither sin nor righteousness is in itself transferable. The act and deed of one person may affect another in many ways, but cannot possibly be- come his act and deed. 2. Because the Scriptures uni- formly declare Christ to be sinless, and believers to be sinful creatures. 3. Because believers themselves have in all ages confessed their sins, and applied to the mercy-seat for forgiveness. They never plead such a union as shall render their sins not theirs, but Christ’s ; but merely such a one as affords ground to apply for pardon in his name, or Jor his sake; not as worthy claimants, but as unworthy supplicants. 312 CONWFRSATION ON SUBSTITUTION. Whatever reasonings we may adopt, there are certain times in which conscience will bear witness that, notwith- standing the imputation of our sins to Christ, we are act- wally the sinners; and I should have thought that no good man could have gravely gone about to overturn its testi- momy. Yet this is what Dr. Crisp has done. “Believers think,” says he, “that they find their transgressions in their own consciences, and they imagine that there is a sting of this poison still behind, wounding them ; but, be- loved, if this principle be received for a truth, that God hath laid thine iniquities on Christ, how can thy trans- gressions, belonging to Christ, be found in thy heart and conscience 3–Is thy conscience Christ?”—p. 269. Perhaps no man has gone further than Dr. Crisp in his attempts at consistency; and admitting his principle, that imputation consists in a transfer of character, I do not see who can dispute his conclusions. To have been perfectly consistent, however, he should have proved that all the confessions and lamentations of believers, recorded in Scripture, arose from their being under the mistake which he labours to rectify; that is, thinking sin did not cease to be theirs, even when under the fullest persuasion that the Lord would not impute it to them, but would graciously cover it by the righteousness of his Son. John. I hope, my brethren, that what has been said in this free conversation will be reconsidered with candour; and that you will neither of you impute designs or conse- quences to the other which are not avowed. CONVERSATION II. ON SUBSTITUTION. John. I THINK, brother Peter, you expressed, at the be- ginning of our last conversation, a strong suspicion that brother James denied the substitution of Christ, as well as the proper imputation of sim and righteousness. What has passed on the latter subject would probably tend either to confirm or remove your suspicions respecting the former. Peter. I confess I was mistaken in some of my sus- picions. I consider our friend as a good man, but am far from being satisfied with what I still understand to be his views on this important subject. John. It gives me great pleasure to hear the honest concessions of brethren when they feel themselves in any measure to have gone too far. Peter. I shall be glad to hear brother James's statement on substitution, and to know whether he considers our Lord in his undertaking as having sustained the character of a Head, or Representative ; and if so, whether the per- sons for whom he was a substitute were the elect only, or mankind in general. James. I must acknowledge that on this subject I feel considerably at a loss. I have no consciousness of having ever called the doctrine of substitution in question. On the contrary, my hope of salvation rests upon it; and the sum of my delight, as a minister of the gospel, consists in it. If I know any thing of my own heart, I can say of my Saviour as laying down his life for, or instead of, sin- ners, as was said of Jerusalem by the captives: “If I for- get thee, let my right hand forget : if I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth " [James here paused, and wept ; and both John and Peter wept with him. After recovering himself a little, he proceeded as follows:] I have always considered the denial of this doctrine as being of the essence of Socinianism. I could not have imagined that any person whose hope of acceptance with God rests not on any goodness in himself, but entirely on the righteousness of Christ, imputed to him as if it were his own, would have been accounted to disown his substi- tution. But perhaps my dear brother (for such I feel him to be, notwithstanding our differences) may include, in his ideas on this subject, that Christ was so our Head and Re- presentative as that what he did and suffered we did and suffered in him. [To this Peter assented.] . If no more were meant by this, resumed James, than that what he did and suffered is graciously accepted on our behalf as if it were ours, I freely, as I have said before, acquiesce in it. But I do not believe, and can hardly persuade myself that brother Peter believes, the obedience and sufferings of Christ to be so ours as that we can properly be said to have obeyed and suffered. Christ was and is our Head, and we are his members : the union between him and us, however, is not in all re- spects the same as that which is between the head and the members of the natural body; for that would go to explain away all distinct consciousness and accountableness on our part. As to the term representative, if no more be meant by it than that Christ so personated us as to die in our stead, that we, believing in him, should not die, I have nothing to object to it. But I do not believe that Christ was so our Representative as that what he did and suffered we did and suffered ; and so became meritorious, or deserving of the Divine favour. But I feel myself in a wide field, and must entreat your indulgence while I take up so much of the conversation. *. Peter and John. without apology. James. I apprehend, then, that many important mis- takes have arisen from considering the interposition of Christ under the motion of paying a debt. The blood of Christ is indeed the price of our redemption, or that for the sake of which we are delivered from the curse of the law ; but this metaphorical language, as well as that of head and members, may be carried too far, and may lead us into many errors. In cases of debt and credit among men, where a surety undertakes to represent the debtor, from the moment his undertaking is accepted the debtor is free, and may claim his liberty, not as a matter of fa- vour, at least on the part of the creditor, but of strict jus- tice. Or should the undertaking be unknown to him for a time, yet as soon as he knows it he may demand his dis- charge, and, it may be, think himself hardly treated by being kept in bondage so long after his debt had been actually paid. But who in their sober senses will imagine this to be analogous to the redemption of sinners by Jesus Christ? Sin is a debt only in a metaphorical sense ; pro- perly speaking, it is a crime, and satisfaction for it requires to be made, not on pecuniary, but on moral principles. If Philemon had accepted of that part of Paul’s offer which respected property, and had placed so much to his account as he considered Onesimus to have “owed ” him, he could not have been said to have remitted his debt ; nor would Onesimus have had to thank him for remitting it. But it is supposed of Onesimus that he might not only be in debt to his master, but have “wronged” him. Perhaps he had embezzled his goods, corrupted his children, or injured his character. Now for Philemon to accept of that part of the offer were very different from the other. In the one case he would have accepted of a pecuniary representative, in the other of a moral one, that is, of a mediator. The satisfaction in the one case would annihilate the idea of remission ; but not in the other. Whatever satisfaction Paul might give to Philemon respecting the wound in- flicted upon his character and honour as the head of a family, it would not supersede the necessity of pardon be- ing sought by the offender, and freely bestowed by the offended. The reason for this difference is easily perceived. Debts are transferable, but crimes are not. A third person may cancel the one, but he can only obliterate the effects of the other; the desert of the criminal remains. The debtor is accountable to his creditor as a private individual, who has power to accept of a surety, or, if he please, to remit the whole without any satisfaction. In the one case he would be just, in the other merciful; but no place is af- forded by either of them for the combination of justice and mercy in the same proceeding. The criminal, on the other hand, is amenable to the magistrate, or to the head of a family, as a public person, and who, especially if the offence be capital, cannot remit the punishment without invading law and justice, nor, in the ordinary discharge of his office, admit of a third person to stand in his place. In extraordinary cases, however, extraordinary expedients are resorted to. A satisfaction may be made to law and Go on, and state your sentiments CONVERSATION ON SUBSTITUTION. 313. justice, as to the spirit of them, while the letter is dis- pensed with. The well-known story of Zaleucus, the Grecian lawgiver, who consented to lose one of his eyes to spare one of his son’s eyes, who, by transgressing the law had subjected himself to the loss of both, is an ex- ample. Here, as far as it went, justice and mercy were combined in the same act ; and had the satisfaction been much fuller than it was, so full that the authority of the law instead of being weakened should have been abund- antly magnified and honoured, still it had been perfectly consistent with free forgiveness. Finally, In the case of the debtor, satisfaction being once accepted, justice requires his complete discharge ; but in that of the criminal, where satisfaction is made to the wounded honour of the law and the authority of the law- giver, justice, though it admits of his discharge, yet no otherwise requires it than as it may have been matter of promise to the substitute. I do not mean to say that cases of this sort afford a competent representation of redemption by Christ. That is a work which not only ranks with extraordinary inter- positions, but which has no parallel; it is a work of God, which leaves all the petty concerns of mortals infinitely behind it. All that comparisons can do is to give us some idea of the principle on which it proceeds. If the following passage in our admired Milton were considered as the language of the law of innocence, it would be inaccurate— “—— Man disobeying, He with his whole posterity must die; Die he, or justice must ; unless for him Some other able, and as willing, pay The rigid satisfaction, death for death.” Abstractedly considered, this is true; but it is not expres- sive of what was the revealed law of innocence. The law made no such condition or provision; nor was it in- different to the Lawgiver who should suffer, the sinner or another on his behalf. The language of the law to the transgressor was not, Thou shalt die, or some one on thy behalf, but simply, Thou shalt die : and had it literally taken its course, every child of man must have perished. The sufferings of Christ in our stead, therefore, are not a pun- ishment inflicted in the ordinary course of distributive justice, but an extraordinary interposition of infinite wis- dom and love ; not contrary to, but rather above the law, deviating from the letter, but more than preserving the spirit of it. Such, brethren, as well as I am able to explain them, are my views of the substitution of Christ. Peter. The objection of our so stating the substitution of Christ as to leave no room for the free pardon of sim has been often made by those who avowedly reject his satisfaction ; but for any who really consider his death as an atonement for sin, and as essential to the ground of a sinner's hope, to employ the objection against us is very extraordinary, and must, I presume, proceed from inad- vertency. Jºnes. If it be so, I do not perceive it. The grounds of the objection have been stated as clearly and as fully as I am able to state them. John. What are your ideas, brother James, with respect to the persons for whom Christ died as a substitute º 'Do you consider them as the elect only, or mankind in general? James. Were I asked concerning the gospel, when it is introduced into a country, For whom was it sent g if I had respect only to the revealed will of God, I should answer, It is sent for men, not as elect or non-elect, but as sinners. It is written and preached “that they might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing they might have life through his name.” But if I had respect to the appointment of God, with regard to its application, I should say, If the Divine conduct in this instance accord with what it has been in other instances, he hath visited that country, to “take out of it a people for his name.” In like manner, concerning the death of Christ, if I speak of it irrespective of the purpose of the Father and the Son as to the objects who should be saved by it, refer- ring merely to what it is in itself sufficient for, and de- clared in the gospel to be adapted to, I should think I answered the question in a Scriptural way in saying, It was for sinners as sinners. But if I have respect to the purpose of the Father in giving his Son to die, and to the design of Christ in laying down his life, I should answer, It was for his elect only. In the former of these views I find the apostles and primitive ministers (leaving the consideration of God’s secret purpose as a matter belonging to himself, not to them) addressing themselves to sinners without distinction, and holding forth the sacrifice of Christ as a ground of faith to all men. On this principle the servants sent forth to bid guests to the marriage-supper were directed to in- vite them, saying, “Come, for all things are ready.” On this principle the ambassadors of Christ besought sinners to be reconciled to God; “for,” said they, “he hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” In the latter view I find the apostles ascribing to the purpose and discriminating grace of God all their suc- cess: “As many as were ordained to eternal life believed:” teaching believers also to ascribe every thing that they were, or hoped to be, to the same cause ; addressing them as having been before the foundation of the world “beloved” and “chosen” of God; the “children” or “soms” whom it was the design of Christ, in becoming incarnate, to bring to glory; the “church” of God, which he purchased with his own blood, and for which “he gave himself, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing.” If the substitution of Christ consist in his dying for or instead of others, that they should not die, this, as compre- hending the designed end to be answered by his death, is strictly applicable to none but the elect ; for whatever ground there is for sinners as sinners to believe and be saved, it never was the purpose or design of Christ to im- part faith to any other than those who were given him of the Father. He therefore did not die with the intent that any others should not die. Whether I can perfectly reconcile these statements with each other or not, I embrace them as being both plainly taught in the Scriptures. I confess, however, I do not at present perceive their inconsistency. If I be not greatly mistaken, what apparent contradiction may attend them arises chiefly from that which has been already mentioned; namely, the considering of Christ's substitution as an affair between a creditor and debtor, or carrying the meta- phor to an extreme. In that view the sufferings of Christ would require to be exactly proportioned to the nature and number of the sins which were laid upon him ; and if more sinners had been saved, or those who are saved had been greater sinners than they are, he must have borne a proportionable increase of suffering. To corre- spond with pecuniary satisfactions, this must undoubtedly be the case. I do not know that any writer has so stated things ; but am persuaded that such ideas are at the found- ation of a large part of the reasonings on that side of the subject. In atonement, or satisfaction for crime, things do not proceed on this calculating principle. It is true there was a designation of the sacrifices offered up by Hezekiah ; they were offered not only for Judah, but for those that remained of the ten tribes; “for so the king commanded, that the burnt-offering and the sin-offering should be made jor all Israel.” But the sacrifices themselves were the same for both as they would have been for one, and re- quired to be the same for one as they were for both. It was their desigmation only that made the difference. Thus I conceive it is in respect of the sacrifice of Christ. If fewer had been saved than are saved, to be consistent with justice it required to be by the same perfect atone- ment; and if more had been saved than are, even the whole human race, there needed no other. But if the sa- tisfaction of Christ was in itself sufficient for the whole world, there is no further propriety in asking, “Whose sins were imputed to Christ 3 or for whom did he die as a substitute 3’ than as it is thereby inquired, Who were the persons whom he intended finally to save 3 That which is equally necessary for few as for many X # 314 CONVERSATION ON SUBSTITUTION. must, in its own nature, be equally sufficient for many as for few ; and could not proceed upon the principle of the sins of some being laid on Christ rather than others, any otherwise than as it was the design of the Father and the Son, through one all-sufficient medium, to pardon the elect, while the rest are, notwithstanding, left to perish in their sins. It seems to me as consonant with truth to say that a certain number of Christ’s acts of obedience become ours as that a certain number of our sins become his. In the former case his one undivided obedience, stamped as it is with Divinity, affords a ground of justification to any num- ber of believers; in the latter, his one atonement, stamped also as it is with Divinity, is sufficient for the pardon of any number of sins or sinners. Yet as Christ laid not his life down but by covenant, as the elect were given him to be the purchase of his blood, or the fruit of the travail of his soul, he had respect, in all he did and suffered, to this recompence of reward. Their salvation was the joy that was set before him. It was for the covering of their transgressions that he became obedient unto death. To them his substitution was the same in effect as if their sins had by number and measure been literally imparted to him. I am not aware that any principle which I imbibe is in- consistent with Christ's laying down his life by covenant, or with his being the Surety of that covenant, pledging himself for the certain accomplishment of whatever he undertook ; as, that all that were given him should come to him, should not be lost, but raised up at the last day, and be presented without spot and blameless. All this I consider as included in the design of the Father and the Son, with respect to the application of the atonement. John. I have heard it objected to your views of the suff- ciency of the atonement to this effect—“How does this principle afford a ground for general invitations, if the de- sign was confined to his elect people? If the benefits of his death were never intended for the non-elect, is it not just as inconsistent to invite them to partake of them as if there were a want of sufficiency 3 This explanation therefore seems only to be shifting the difficulty.” James. Pharaoh was exhorted to let Israel go ; and, had he complied, he had saved his own life and that of a great number of his people ; yet, all things considered, it was not God’s intention to save Pharaoh’s life, nor that of the Egyptians. And is there no difference between this and his being exhorted under a promise in which the object promised had no existence # It is a fact that the Scriptures rest the general invita- tions of the gospel upon the atonement of Christ.* But if there were not a sufficiency in the atonement for the sal- Yation of sinners without distinction, how could the am- bassadors of Christ beseech them to be reconciled to God, and that from the consideration of his having been made sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him What would you think of the fallen angels being invited to be reconciled to God, from the consideration of an atonement having been made for fallen men You would say, It is inviting them to partake of a benefit which has no existence, the obtaining of which, therefore, is naturally impossible. Upon the supposition of the atonement being insufficient for the Salvation of any more than are actually saved by it, the non- elect, however, with respect to a being reconciled to God through it, are in the same state as the fallen angels; that is, the thing is not only morally, but naturally impossible. But if there be an objective fulness in the atonement of Christ, sufficient for any number of sinners, were they to believe in him ; there is no other impossibility in the way of any man’s salvation, to whom the gospel comes at least, than what arises from the state of his own mind. The intention of God not to remove this impossibility, and so not to save him, is a purpose to withhold not only that which he was not obliged to bestow, but that which is never represented in the Scriptures as necessary to the consistency of exhortations or invitations. I do not deny that there is difficulty in these statements; but it belongs to the general subject of reconciling the purposes of God with the agency of man ; whereas, in the * 2 Cor. v. 19—21 ; Matt. xxii. 4; John iii. 16. other case, God is represented as inviting sinners to par- take of what has no existence, and which therefore is physically impossible. The one, while it ascribes the sal- vation of the believer in every stage of it to mere grace, renders the unbeliever inexcusable ; which the other, I conceive, does not. In short, we must either acknowledge an objective fulness in Christ's atonement, sufficient for the salvation of the whole world, were the whole world to believe in him ; or, in opposition to Scripture and common sense, confine our invitations to believe to such persons as have believed already. John. May I ask you, brother Peter, whether, on a re- view of what has passed, you consider brother James as denying the doctrines of imputation and substitution, or either of them ? Peter. Though I consider brother James's statements as containing various mistakes, and though I am exceedingly. averse from the necessary consequences of certain tenets, which, if I rightly understand him, are avowed in them ; yet I am now convinced that respecting those doctrines he did not intend what I supposed he did. It behoves me, therefore, frankly to acknowledge that I have unin- tentionally misrepresented his sentiments respecting them, for which I am truly sorry. John. I hope, brother James, you are satisfied with this acknowledgment. James. Perfectly so; and shall be happy to hear brother Peter's remarks on those particulars in which he may still consider me as in the wrong. CONVERSATION III. ON PARTICULAR REDEMPTION. Peter. NoTWITHSTANDING what our brother James has stated, I am far from being satisfied with his views as they affect the doctrine of particular redemption. If I under- stand him, his sentiment may be expressed in this position : THE PARTICULARITY OF THE ATON EMENT CONSISTS IN THE Sovie REIGN PLEASURE OF GoD witH REGARD To ITS AP- PLICATION. James. I should rather say, THE PARTICULARITY of RE- DEMPTION CONSISTS IN THE SOVEREIGN PLEASURE OF GOD witH REGARD TO THE APPLICATION OF THE ATONEMENT ; that is, with regard to THE PERSONs To WHOM IT SHALL BE APPLIED, John. It is to be understood then, I presume, that you both believe the doctrine of particular redemption, and that the only question between you is, Wherein does it consist 7 James. So I understand it. IPeter. I consider the afore-mentioned position as mere- ly a reconciling expedient, or compromise between prin- ciples which can never be reconciled. James. I am not conscious of embracing it for any such purpose—but let me hear your objections against it. Peter. It places the particularity of redemption in ap- plication. I understand, indeed, that by application you include, not only what the New Testament denominates “receiving the atonement”—“the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ”—and “faith in his blood ; ” but also the absolute intention of Christ in his death to save all those who shall be finally happy. But notwithstanding the unauthorized latitude of meaning which, to render the position more plausible, is here claimed for a particular term, various and cogent reasons may be urged against it. Among others, it confounds the atonement itself with its application to the sinner; whereas, though the former completely ascertains the latter, yet, not being the same fruit of Divine favour, they must not be identified. The term application always supposes the existence of whatever is applied. The atonement, therefore, must be considered as existing, either actually or in the Divine decree, before it can be applied to the sinner. The application of a thing to any person, or for any purpose, ought not to be con- founded with the thing itself. Hence, in former times, hardly any distinction was more common, among theo- CONVERSATION ON PARTICULAR REDEMPTION. 315 logical writers, than that between what they denominated the impetration and the application of redemption. To represent the intention of Christ in his death to save Paul, for instance, and not Judas, under the notion of applying the atonement to the one, and not to the other, is to me at least a perfectly novel sense of the word application, and was, I presume, adopted to meet the necessities of this hypothesis. James. The whole of what you have said rests upon a mistake at the outset. You say the position in question “ places the particularity of redemption IN APPLICATION.” Whereas, if you recollect yourself, you will find that it places it IN THE sover EIGN PLEASURE OF GoD witH RE- GARD TO APPLICATION. The difference between this and the other is as great as that between election and vocation. Instead of my confounding redemption or atonement, therefore, with application, I have just cause to complain of you for having confounded application with the sove- reign pleasure of God respecting it, and for having loaded me with the consequences. Peter. But have you never made use of the term appli- cation so as to include the Divine intention ? James. I am not aware of having done so; but whe- ther I have or not, you were not animadverting on what I may have said at other times, but on the position which you yourself had stated, which position affirms the very opposite of what you allege. Allowing you to animad- vert, however, on other words than those contained in the position, and admitting that I may have spoken or written in the manner you allege, still it has been merely to dis- tinguish what the death of Christ is in itself sufficient for from what it was the design of the Father and the Son actually to accomplish by it. This distinction is neither novel, nor liable to the objection of confounding the impe- tration of redemption with its application. I have no other meaning, that I am aware of, than that of Dr. Owen in the following passage : “Sufficient, we say, was the sacrifice of Christ for the redemption of the whole world, and for the expiation of all the sins of all and every man in the world. This sufficiency of his sacrifice hath a two- fold rise. First, The dignity of the person that did offer, and was offered. Secondly, The greatness of the pain he endured, by which he was able to bear, and did undergo, the whole curse of the law, and wrath of God due to sin. And this sets forth the innate, real, true worth and value of the blood-shedding of Jesus Christ. This is its own true internal perfection and sufficiency. That it should be APPLIED unto any, made a price for them, and become beneficial to them, according to the worth that is in it, is external to it, doth not arise from it, but merely depends upon the intention and will of God.” Peter. Intention enters into the nature of atonement. Christ was voluntary in his sufferings, and his being so was essential to his death as a sacrifice and an atonement. His death, detached from these considerations, would be merely that of a martyr. It was the effect of the highest degree of love, and of the kindest possible intention re- Specting the objects beloved; for otherwise it might well be demanded, To what purpose this waste of love? . James. Intention of some kind doubtless does enter into the essence of Christ's laying down his life a sacrifice; but that it should be beneficial to this person rather than to that appears to me, as Dr. Owen expresses it, “external to it, and to depend entirely on the will of God.” And as to a toaste of love, we might as well attribute a waste of goodness to the Divine providence in its watering rocks and seas, as well as fruitful valleys, with the showers of heaven ; or to our Lord for his commissioning his apostles to preach the gospel to every creature, while he never ex- pected any others to believe and be saved by it than those who were ordained to eternal life. It accords with the general conduct of God to impart his favours with a kind of profusion which to the mind of man, that sees only one or two ends to be answered by them, may have the appearance of waste ; but when all things are brought to their intended issue, it will be found that God has done nothing in vain. John. Placing the particularity of redemption, as you do, in the sovereign pleasure of God with regard to the appli- cation of the atonement, or the persons to whom it shall be applied, wherein is the difference between that doctrine and the doctrine of election ? James. I do not consider particular redemption as being so much a doctrine of itself as a branch of the great doc- trine of election, which runs through all God’s works of grace. If this branch of election had not been more op- posed than others, I reckon we should no more have thought of applying the term particular to it than to vo- cation, justification, or glorification. The idea applies to these as well as to the other. Whom he did foreknow he did predestinate; whom he did predestinate, he called; whom he called, he justified ; and whom he justified, he glorified. John. This would seem to agree with the apostle's ac- count of spiritual blessings in his Epistle to the Ephesians: “He hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ, according as he hath chosen us in him be- fore the foundation of the world.” Peter. I have some questions which I wish to put to brother James on the difference which he appears to make between atonement and redemption. If I understand him, he considers the latter as the effect of the former. James. There are few terms, whether in the Scriptures or elsewhere, that are always used in the same sense. Re- conciliation sometimes means a being actually in friend- ship with God, through faith in the blood of Christ; but when used synonymously with atonement, it denotes the satisfaction of justice only, or the opening of a way by which mercy may be exercised consistently with righteous- ness. In both these senses the word occurs in Rom. v. 10, “ For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.” On this passage Dr. Guyse very properly remarks, “‘ Reconciled to God by the death of his Son,” in the first clause, seems to relate to Christ’s having worked out our reconciliation, or completed all in a way of merit by his death that was necessary to appease the wrath of God, and make way for the riches of his grace to be communicated to us in full consistency with the honour of all his perfections, and of his law and govern- ment, which the apostle had called (verses 6 and 8) “dying for the ungodly,’ and “dying for us;' but “being recon- ciled,” in the last clause, seems to relate to the reconcilia- tion's taking effect upon us, or to our being brought into a state of actual reconciliation and peace with God, through faith in Christ's blood, which the apostle had spoken of in verses 1 and 9, and which, in the verse after this, is called “receiving the atonement.’”—Thus also the term vedemption is sometimes put for the price by which we are redeemed ; mamely, the blood-shedding of Christ. In this sense it appears to be used by the apostle in Rom. iii. 24, “Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemp- tion that is in Jesus Christ.” To be justified “through his redemption” is the same thing, I should think, as be- ing “justified by his blood.” But the term properly and ordinarily signifies, not that for the sake of which we are delivered from the curse of the law, but the deliverance itself. Viewing reconciliation or atonement as a satisfac- tion to Divine justice, and redemption as the deliverance of the sinner, the latter appears to me to be an effect of the former. Peter. I am far from being convinced that redemption is an effect of atonement, any more than that atonement is an effect of redemption : both are the immediate effects of Christ's death, viewed in different points of light. James. I freely admit that both are effects of Christ's death ; but in such order as that one is the consequence of the other. I can conceive of the deliverance of the criminal arising from the satisfaction made to the judge ; but not of satisfaction to the judge arising from the de- liverance of the criminal. Peter. To view the atonement as merely a satisfaction to Divine justice, or as a medium by which mercy may be exercised consistently with the Divine perfections, without considering sinners as actually reconciled to God by it, is to retain little if any thing more than the name of atone- mellt. - James. I see no grounds for calling that which was wrought for us while we were yet enemies actual recon- ciliation. Actual reconciliation appears to me, as it did to 316 CONVERSATION ON PARTICULAR REDEMPTION. Dr. Guyse, to consist in that which is accomplished through faith, or as receiving the atonement. The reconciliation which is synonymous with atonement is expressed in 2 Cor. v. 18, “All things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ.” But this is not supposed by the apostles, important as it was, to have brought sinners into a state of actual friendship with God ; for if so, there had been no occasion for “the ministry of reconciliation,” and for “beseeching sinners to be reconciled to him.” Nor do I see how a state of actual reconciliation could consist with the uniform language of the New Testament con- cerning unbelievers, whether elect or non-elect, that they are under condemnation. I never understood that you held with justification before belièving ; but actual recon- ciliation seems to amount to this. Neither have I under- stood that you have ever attempted to explain away the duty of ministers to beseech sinners to be reconciled to God. On the contrary, if I mistake not, you have pleaded for it. I am surprised, therefore, at your speaking of them as being actually reconciled to God while they are yet enemies. John. What are your ideas, brother James, of that re- conciliation which was effected while we were yet enemies. James. I conceive it to be that satisfaction to the Divine justice by virtue of which nothing pertaining to the moral government of God hinders any sinner from returning to him ; and that it is upon this ground that sinners are in- definitely invited so to do. Herein I conceive is the great difference at present between their state and that of the fallen angels. To them God is absolutely inaccessible; no invitations whatever being addressed to them, nor the gospel preached to them : but it is not so with fallen men. Besides this, as Christ gave himself for us “ that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people,” I consider the actual reconciliation of the elect in the fulness of time as hereby ascertained. It was promised him, as the reward of his sufferings, that he should “see of the travail of his soul, and be satisfied.” Peter. Is there any thing in the atonement, or promised to it, which infallibly ascertains its application to all those for whom it was made 3 & James. If by this you mean all for whose salvation it was sufficient, I answer, There is not. But if you mean all for whose salvation it was intended, I answer, There is. Peter. You consider the PRINCIPAL DESIGN of our Lord's atonement to be the manifestation of God’s hatred to sin, in order to render the exercise of mercy consistent with justice ; but though this idea is supposed, yet it is far from being the first, the most prominent, the characteristic idea of our Lord's death : the grand idea suggested to an en- Jightened mind by the atonement of Christ is not God's hatred to sin, but his love to sinners. James. I hope we shall none of us pretend to be more enlightened than the apostle Paul, and I am mistaken if he does not suggest the idea against which you militate. He represents God as “setting forth” his son as a “pro- pitiation, to declare (or demonstrate) his righteousness in the remission of sins. It is marvellous to me that I should be suspected of holding up God’s hatred of sin to the dis- paragement of his love to sinners, when the former is sup- posed to have been manifested to prepare the way for the Čatter. Were I to say, The PRINCIPAL DESIGN of David in restoring Absalom at the instance of Joab, rather than by sending for him himself, was that even in pardoning the young man he might show some displeasure against sin, and save his own honour as the head of a family and of a nation, I should not be far from the truth. Yet I might be told, The grand, the prominent, the characteristic idea suggested by the king's consent was love; for “ his soul longed to go forth to Absalom.” Love to Absalom doubtless accounts for David's desiring his return ; but love to righteousness accounts for his desiring it in that particular manner. So if the question were, Why did God give his Son to die for sinners, rather than leave them to perish in their sins £ the answer would be, Because he loved them. But if the question be, Why did he give his Son to be an atonement for sinners, rather than save them without one f the answer would be, Because he loved right- eousness, and hated iniquity. Peter. On the principle I oppose, the love of God in applying the atonement is much greater than in giving his Son to be an atonement, since the latter is mere general benevolence, but the former is particular and effectual. James. You should rather have said, The love of God is greater in giving his Son to be a sacrifice in respect of those for whose salvation it was his pleasure to make it effectual, than in merely giving him, as he is said to have done, to some who never received him, John vi. 32; i. 11. If there was a particularity of design in the gift of Christ, it cannot be ascribed merely to general benevolence. And so far as it is so, we have no right to depreciate it on ac- count of its not issuing in the salvation of sinners in gene- ral. It was no diminution to the love of God towards Israel, in bringing them out of Egypt, that the great body of them transgressed and perished in the wilderness; nor could it be truly said that the bringing of Caleb and Joshua into the land of promise was a greater expression of love than that which had been bestowed upon them, and the whole body of their contemporaries, in liberating them from the Egyptian yoke. And let me entreat you to consider whether your principles would not furnish an apology for the unbelieving Israelites.—“There was little or no love in God’s delivering us, unless he intended withal to prevent our sinning against him, and actually to bring us to the good land ; but there was no good land for us—Would to God we had died in Egypt : " To this, however, an apostle would answer, “They could not enter in because of unbelief.” And as this language was written for the warning of professing Christians, whose inclination to relinquish the gospel resembled that of their fathers to return into Egypt, we are warranted to conclude from it, that though the salvation of the saved be entirely of grace, yet the failure of others will be ascribed to themselves. They shall not have the consolation to say, Our salvation was a matural impossibility; or if they were to utter such language, they would be repelled by Scripture and con- science, which unite in declaring, “ They could not enter in because of unbelief.” Peter. I remember an old nonconformist minister says, “If any man be bound to believe Christ’s satisfaction suf- ficient to justify him for whom it was never paid, he is bound to believe an untruth. God will never make it any man's duty to rest for salvation on that blood that was never shed for him, or that satisfaction that was never made for him.” James. This reasoning of the old nonconformist may for aught I know be just on his principles, but it is not so on mine. If satisfaction was made on the principle of debtor and creditor, and that which was paid was just of sufficient value to cancel a given number of sins, and to redeem a given number of sinners, and no more ; it should seem that it could not be the duty of any but the elect, nor theirs till it was revealed to them that they were of the elect, to rely upon it; for “wherefore should we set our eyes on that which is not?” But if there be such a ful- ness in the satisfaction of Christ as is sufficient for the sal- vation of the whole world, were the whole world to be- lieve in him, and if the particularity of redemption lie only in the purpose or sovereign pleasure of God to render it effectual to some rather than to others, no such conse- quence will follow ; or if it do, it will also follow that Divine predestination and human accountableness are utterly inconsistent, and, therefore, that we must either re- linquish the former in favour of Arminianism, or give up the latter to the Antinomians. But though the ideas of my much-respected brother, on the subject of redemption, cannot be very different from those of his old noncon- formist, yet I should not have supposed he would have adopted his reasoning as his own. Deter. Why not ? James. Because it is your avowed persuasion that sin- ners As sINNERs are invited to believe in Christ for salva- tion. Thus you have interpreted the invitations in Isa. lv. 1–7, and various others; carefully and justly guarding against the motion of their being addressed to renewed, or, as some call them, sensible sinners. Thus also you inter- pret 2 Cor. v. 20, of God’s beseeching sinners by the ministry of the word to be reconciled to him. But your old friend would tell you that God will never invite a sin- ner to rest for salvation on that blood that was never shed SIX LETTERS TO DR. RYLAND. 317 for him, or on that satisfaction that was never made for him. I should have thought, too, after all that you have said of the warrant which sinners as sinners have to believe in Christ, you would not have denied it to be their duty, nor have adopted a mode of reasoning which, if followed up to its legitimate consequences, will compel you to maintain either that it is possible to know our election before we be- lieve in Christ, or that in our first reliance on his right- eousness for acceptance with God we are guilty of pre- sumption. John. I conceive, my dear brethren, that you have each said as much on these subjects as is likely to be for edifi- cation. Permit me, after having heard and candidly at- tended to all that has passed between you, to assure you both of my esteem, and to declare that in my opinion the difference between you ought not to prevent your feeling towards and treating each other as brethren. You are agreed in all the great doctrines of the gospel; as the ne- cessity of an atonement, the ground of acceptance with God, salvation by grace only, &c. &c.; and, with respect to particular redemption, you both admit the thing, and I would hope both hold it in a way consistent with the prac- tice of the primitive ministers; or if it be not altogether so, that you will reconsider the subject when you are by yourselves. The greater part of those things wherein you seem to differ may be owing either to a difference in the manner of expressing yourselves, or to the affixing of con- sequences to a principle which yet are unperceived by him that holds it. I do not accuse either of you with doing so intentionally; but principles and their consequences are so suddenly associated in the mind, that when we hear a person avow the former, we can scarcely forbear imme- diately attributing to him the latter. If a principle be proposed to us for acceptance, it is right to weigh the con- sequences; but when forming our judgment of the person who holds it, we should attach nothing to him but what he perceives and avows. If by an exchange of ideas you can come to a better understanding, it will afford me pleasure: meanwhile it is some satisfaction that your visit to me has not tended to widen, but considerably to dimin- ish you differences. Brethren, there are many adversaries of the gospel around you who would rejoice to see you at variance : let there be no strife between you. You are both erring mortals; but both, I trust, the sincere friends of the Lord Jesus. Love one another. SIX LETTERS TO DR. RYLAND RESPECTING THE CONTROVERSY WITH THE REV. A. BOOTH. L ET T E R I. NARRATIVE. MY DEAR BROTHER, January 4, 1803. THOUGH you are not wholly unacquainted with what has lately passed between Mr. Booth and myself, relative to certain points of doctrine, yet I shall briefly state the lead- ing particulars, together with my sentiments on the sub- jects concerning which I am charged with error. In the month of May, 1802, when I was in London, wishing for a better understanding with Mr. B., I requested an interview. With his consent I went two or three times to see him. ...We had much conversation. I cannot pre- tend to recollect all that passed; but some things I well remember. After talking over certain particulars of a personal nature, on which he appeared to be satisfied, he, in a very serious tone, suggested that I had changed my sentiments on some important doctrines of the gospel; “ and here,” said he, “I have little or no hope.” Tó these serious and heavy charges, from an aged and respect- ed minister, I at first made but little answer, being all at- tention to what he had to offer in support of them. I assured him, that I was willing to reconsider anything I had advanced, and desired to know wherein he thought me in the wrong. Mr. B. answered, “It is on the d.º.º. trines of imputation and substitution that I conceive you to err.” I asked whether his ideas on these doctrines did not proceed upon the principle of debtor and creditor; and that, as was the number of sinners to be saved and the .* Yet if mine out of ten of the High Calvinists were asked their Views on the subject, I am persuaded it would appear they had no other notion of it. No other notion, I think, could be collected from quantity of sin to be atoned for, such required to be the degree of Christ's sufferings. This he disowned, saying he never had such an idea, nor did he ever meet with it in any writer;” adding to this effect, I am persuaded that if one sinner only were saved consistently with justice, it re- quired to be by the same all-perfect sacrifice. I felt per- suaded that if Mr. B. admitted this principle in all its bearings, there could be no material difference betwixt us. In his letter to me of September 3rd, he says, “I de- liberately aver that in our second and last conversation I understood you to deny that Christ obeyed and died as a substitute, and that you did not admit a real and proper imputation either of sin to Christ, or of his righteousness to those who believe.” I give him credit for this ; but insist upon it that (excepting what relates to the terms “real and proper”—terms not used in the first note) he has no grounds for so understanding me, and that there were grounds, whether he attended to them or not, for a contrary conclusion. I declare that I never suspected, while in his company, that I was charged with any such things; but merely that my views concerning those doc- trines were not just. Under this impression, I said to Mr. B. to this effect, “I do suspect, sir, that your views on imputation and substitution are not Scriptural.” I did not mean by this to charge him with denying either of those doctrines; and I had no apprehension of his having any such charge to prefer against me. The whole differ- Dr. Gill's exposition of Isa. liii. 6, and all he writes upon the subject seems to go upon that principle. 31.8 LETTERS TO DR. R.YLAND. ence between us appeared to me to consist in the manner of explaining doctrines which we both acknowledged and held fast. - w Mr. B. alleges, as a reason for his understanding me to dery the doctrines in question, that in direct opposition to this he pleaded 2 Cor. v. 21 ; to which, he says, I re- plied, “made sin means became a sacrifice for sin ;” to which he could not accede. Granting this to be a fair statement, surely it does not follow that understanding the phrase “made sin” of Christ’s being “made a sin- offering ” amounts to a denial of the imputation of sin to him. If it does, however, many of our best writers, among whom is Dr. Owen,* are subject to the same charge. But Mr. B. is mistaken in saying that I affirmed “made sin” to mean “made a sacrifice for sin.” I merely asked him whether it did not, whether some expositors did not so interpret it, and whether there was not something in the original word which led to such an interpretation. This, I am certain, was the whole ; for I had not at that time any decided opinion as to the meaning of the passage, and therefore asked him merely for information. I well recol- lect the substance of his answer, namely, that the word &paptía, it was true, was sometimes rendered “sin,” and sometimes a “sin-offering;” but the sin which Christ was made was that which he knew not, and which stood opposed to “the righteousness of God,” which we are made in Him ; to this I made no reply, as thinking there appeared to be force in what he said. I also very well remember his arguing from Gal. iii. 13, and contending that Christ must in some sense be guilty, else God could not have been just in punishing him : this argument did not approve itself to my judgment like the former. I admitted guilt to be necessary to punishment, and had no doubt but that the sufferings of Christ were oemal ; but I had my doubts whether it were so proper to say Christ was punished, as that he bore our punishment; but as I shall give my thoughts more particularly on this hereafter, I only say in this place that this conversation TOOK PLACE BEFORE I PREACHED For HIM, AND BEFORE He ASKED ME TO PREACH For HIM. f. It is somewhat sur- prising to me, therefore, if I was considered as denying the doctrines of imputation and substitution, that I should re- ceive such an invitation. Whatever he may think of me, I would never consent to a man's going into my pulpit whom I considered as denying either the one or the other. I have said Mr. B. had grounds for a contrary conclusion, whether he attended to them or not. He cannot but re- member his putting the Liverpool Magazine into my hands, where he conceived it was proved that I had changed my sentiments. Or his, I said that I was not aware of any such change as he ascribed to me. Mr. B., I well remem- ber, answered, in a tone of surprise, “No 3 Then you are lost !” that is, as I understood him, “You are bewildered in inconsistency, not knowing what you believe.” Now, be it so, that I am lost in inconsistency, this is a very different thing from a denial of what I had before advanced. If I was not aware of having relinquished the leading principles of my answer to Philanthropos, I could not be aware of having given up the doctrines of imputation and substitution, It might also have been supposed that my pleading for Christ’s being made a sin-offering, as I was accounted to do, was not the language of one who “denied that Christ obeyed and died as a substitute;” for what else was the sin-offering but a substitute for the people * Before I left town, I gave Mr. B. the manuscript of our last year's Circular Letter, on the Practical uses of Be- lievers' Baptism, requesting his corrections. In this was the following sentence, with several others of like import —“Christ sustained the deluge of wrath due to our sins: ” nor did this passage escape him ; his first note holds this sentence up as an example of my inconsistency. Some men would have drawn a different conclusion. They would have said, Surely I must have mistaken the writer when in conversation; he cannot mean to discard these doctrines. If he did, why does he thus fully avow them 3 Instead of this, Mr. B., in the note accompanying the MS., flatly charges me with the denial of substitution and of imputation ; not merely in his sense of them, nor with the epithets “proper and real” (since added as saving terms); but so as to disown the vicariousness of what our Saviour did and suffered, which he never did, even “in his juvenile ” years, when I suppose he was a professed Ar- IIll Illa Iſle As this note did not reach me till I was just setting off for home, about the 2nd or 3rd of June, I could not see Mr. B. any more ; and being conscious that I never thought of denying either of the doctrines in question, I supposed Mr. B. could only mean to charge such denial as the conse- quence of what I avowed. I therefore took three or four weeks to consider and re-examine my sentiments, that if . such consequences did attach to them I might discover them. Early in July I answered the note, declared my belief of both the above doctrines, and complained of things be- ing imputed to me as my principles which I did not avow, and which, if they had any connexion with my principles, were merely consequences, which consequences I did not perceive. About the middle of July reports were circulated, both in town and country, that I had acknowledged myself to Mr. Booth to be an Arminian, &c. &c. One of my friends was in London, and heard it in a great number of places; “from Oxford-street,” as he said, “to Ratcliff Highway;” and in every instance it was said to be authorized by Mr. B. I was informed also that it was common talk among those congregations in Northamptonshire which rejected all invitations to the unconverted, and nearly all obligations to spiritual religion. A person residing amongst them, who bore good-will to me, came to my house to know whether the report were true; and he assured me that the whole rested on the testimony of Mr. B. Knowing that I had written to Mr. B., avowing my be- lief both in imputation and substitution, I knew not what to make of things. Early in September, while I was at Edinburgh, I re- ceived a letter from Mr. B., partly averring that he under- stood me, in conversation, to deny that Christ obeyed and died as a substitute, and to disown a real and proper im- putation; and partly inquiring whether I did believe these doctrines, and in what sense it was that I held them. On receiving this letter, it appeared to me to contain a request which, had it been made previously to the sending abroad of a report to my disadvantage, had been fair, and I should freely have complied with it. But as things were, I did not feel free to write any explanation to Mr. B., till he should have given some explanation of his con- duct towards me. I wished for no humiliating concessions from a man so aged and so respectable as Mr. B.; but I did think myself entitled to some explanation; and that to have complied with his request without it had been a tame acknowledgment of guilt and fear, of neither of which I was conscious. To this purpose I wrote, (on October 7th,) in answer to his of September 3rd, wishing for mothing but a few lines, acknowledging that if he had mistaken my meaning, and thereby injured me, he was sorry; or any thing, however expressed, that should have discovered his regret for having been the occasion of misrepresentation. But to this letter Mr. B. has written no answer. I have to thank you, however, for the copy of a letter which he addressed to you, dated December 6th. Here I find my- self charged with having changed my sentiments ; with agreeing with Mr. Baarter in several of his leading pecut- liarities; and with denying the doctrines of imputation and substitution, IN THE SENSE IN which CALVINISTS COM- MONLY HOLD AND HAVE HELD THEMI. I own I feel dissatisfied with this second-hand method of attack, in which the oracles of God are nearly kept out of sight, and other standards of orthodoxy set up in their place. Each of these charges may be true, and yet I may be in the right, and Mr. B. in the wrong. It is no crime * Answer to Biddle, pp. 509, 510. Wide Dr. Owen on Justification, ch. xviii. pp. 504, 505, H. + Mr. B. speaks in his letter of September 3rd of these things oc- curring in our second and last conversation; but I am certain that all those things on which he grounds his charge, and his alleging 2 Cor. v. 21, and Gal. iii. 13, occurred in the first, and before he asked me to preach for him. IMPUTATION. 319 to change our views, unless in so doing we deviate from the Scriptures; nor is it an article of revelation that Mr. Baxter's views are erroneous, or that the notions of Cal- vinists in general concerning imputation and substitution are true. I write not thus because I feel the justice of either of these charges, but because I dislike such circuit- ous methods of judging concerning truth and error. They are unworthy of a candid inquirer after truth, and chiefly calculated to inflame the prejudices of the ignorant. If I have used the term Calvinistic in controversy, it has been merely to avoid circumlocution, and not as criminating my opponents on account of their differing from Calvin. Mr. B. supposes that I suspect him of “ insidious de- signs.” No ; I do not, nor ever did. I never thought him capable of this ; but I do think him capable of being so far prejudiced against another as to think that to be right towards him which he would think very wrong if done to himself. - LETTER II. ON IMPUTATION, Jan. 8, 1803. WHILE Mr. B. refuses to give any explanation of his conduct, there can be no intercourse between me and him. I have no objection to give the most explicit answers in my power to the questions on imputation and substitution. I, shall therefore address them to you ; and you are at liberty to show them to whom you please. To impute * signifies, in general, to charge, reckon, or place to account, according to the different objects to which it is applied. - . This word, like many others, has a proper and a Jigura- tive meaning. First, It is applied to the charging, 'reckoning, or placing to the account of persons and things that whicſ; properL. *NGS To THEM. This, of course, is its proper meaning. In this sense the word is used in the following passages: ... Eli thought that she ( Hannah) had been drunken.”— Hanan and Mattaniah, the treasurers, were counted faithful.”—“ Let a man so account of us, as the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.”—“Let such a one think this, that, such as we are in word by let- ters when we are absent, such will we be also in deed when We are present.”—“I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not Worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed in us.” + Reckoning or accounting, here, is no other than forming an estimate of persons and things, according to what they *...* or %pear to be. To impute sin, in this sense, is to charge 9%lt “pon the guilty in a judicial way, with a view to his being punished for it. Thus Shimei besought David that his iniquity might not be imputed to him. Thus the * is pronounced blessed to whom the Lord imputeth *** *quity; and thus Paul prayed that the sin of those who deserted him might not be laid to their charge.j: ... s In this sense, the term is ordinarily used in common life. To *Pute treason or any other crime to a man is the * thing as charging him with having committed it an; * ſ * to his being punished. to 3. ****, * is applied to the charging, reckoning, o placing to the account of persons and #, THAT º: *** *** ****LY BELONG To THEM, as Tūowgli ITpro, This, of course, is its figurative meaning. In this sense the word is used in the fºllowing passages: “And this your heave-offering shall be reckºned ºt, you as though 2t were the corn of the thrashing-floor, and as the fulness of the wine-press.”—“Wherefore hidest thou thy face, and holdest me for thine enemy?”—“If the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircum- MY DEAR BROTHER, * From DVDſ and Aoyiğouai. is' 1 Sam. i. 13; Neh. xiii. 13; 1 Cor. iv. 1; 2 Cor. x. 11 ; Rom, viii # 2. Sam. xix. 19: Psal. xxxii. 2; 2 Tim. iv. 16. * Numb. xviii. 27–30; Job xiii. 24; Rom. ii. 26; Philem 18 | In the MS. from which this was printed (and which was corrected cision be counted for circumcision ?”—“If he hath wrong- ed thee, or oweth thee aught, put that on my account.” $ It is thus I understand the term, when applied to jus- tification. “Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.--To him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted unto him for righteousness,” Rom. iv. 3, 5. do not suppose that “faith” in these passages means the righteousness of the Messiah ; for it is expressly called “believing.” It means believing, however, not as a vir- tuous exercise of the mind, which God consented to accept by a composition, taking a part for the whole ; but as having respect to the promised Messiah, and so to his right- eousness, as the ground of acceptance. Justification is ascribed to faith as healing frequently is in the New Tes- tament ; not as that which imparted the benefit, but that which afforded occasion to the great Physician to exercise his power and mercy. But if it were allowed that faith, in these passages, means the object believed in, still this was not Abraham's own righteousness; and could not be properly imputed, or counted, by Him who judges of things as they are, as being so. It was reckoned to him as if it were his, and the effects or benefits were actually transferred to him ; but this was all. Abraham did not become meritorious, or cease to be unworthy. “What is it else to set our right- eousness in the obedience of Christ,” says Calvin, “but to affirm that hereby only we are accounted righteous, be- cause the obedience of Christ is imputed to us, as if it were our own 3"—Inst. B. iii. ch. xi. § 23. It is thus also that I understand the imputation of sin to He was made sin for us, in the same sense as we are made the righteousness of God in Him. He was ac- counted in the Divine administration. As IF HE WERE, or HAD BEEN, the sinner; that those who believe on him might be accounted As IF THEY WERE, OR HAD BEEN, righteous. Mr. B. charges me with having explained the phrase “ made sin” made a sacrifice. I have already said that what I asked him was purely for information. Consider- ing his answer as worthy of attention, I have since endea- voured to form a decided opinion on the passage, and to give what he advanced its due weight. I perceive that many able writers, and among them Dr. Owen, understand the term duapria, in this || as in many other places, of a “sin-offering,” and I must say I see no force in the ob- jection that it sounds incongruous to say Christ was “made punishment,” or “made suffering;” for the same objection might be brought against the express words of the prophet—“When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin.” The genius of our language does not allow us to say of any one, “he was made suffering ;” but it allows us to say, “he was made an offering for sin,” which was suffering." The other reasons, however, which Mr. B. suggested, determine my mind to consider duapria, in this place, as meaning sin itself, and not the penal effects of it. I doubt not but the allusion is to the sin-offering under the law, but not to its being made a sacrifice. Let me explain my- self—There were two things belonging to the sin-offer- ing: 1. The imputation of the sins of the people, sig- nified by the priest’s laying his hands on the head of the animal, and confessing over it their transgressions, and which is called “putting them upon it” (Lev. xvi. 21); that is, it was counted in the Divine administration as if it had been the sinner, and the only sinner of the nation. 2. Making it a sacrifice, or “killing it before the Lord for an atonement,” Lev. i. 4, 5. Now the phrase made sin, in 2 Cor. v. 21, appears to refer to the first step in this process, in order to the last. It is expressive of what was preparatory to Christ's suffering of death, rather than of the thing itself; just as our being made righteousness ex- presses what was preparatory to God’s bestowing upon us eternal life. Christ. by Mr. F.) the following sentence, in reference to the above remark, appears in the hand-writing of Mr. Booth :— “ In his book against Biddle he does; but the reverse in a book published some years after on Justification, Ch. XVII I.”—Ed. "I TIept åuaprias, in Rom. viii. 3, seems to mean an offering for sin; as it certainly does, Heb. x. 8. 320 LETTERS TO DR. RYLAND. But the verb étrouhºrev, made, is not to be taken literally; for that would convey the idea of Christ being really the subject of moral evil, which none contend for. It is ex- pressive of a Divine constitution, by which our Redeemer with his own consent stood in the sinner's place, as though he had been himself the transgressor; just as the sin-offer- ing under the law was, in mercy to Israel, reckoned, or ac- counted, to have the sins of the people “put upon its head.” Thus he was made that sin which he knew not, and which is properly opposed to the righteousness of God, which we are made in him. But this, it will be said, is not a “real and proper” imputation. True ; nor is such an imputa- tion maintained, I should think, by Mr. B. any more than by me. A real and proper imputation, unless I have mis- taken the meaning of the term, is that in which there is no transfer of any kind ; and if applied to Christ, would amount to a charge of his having actually committed sin. Mr. B. further argued thus:—“If Christ had not died as a swbstitute—if sin, sin itself, had not really been im- juted to him, he could not have been made a curse for us.” II this is freely admitted, save what respects the term “really,” against which my objection is already stated. “Nor could he have been punished,” he adds, “in our stead by eternal justice; for though an innocent person may suffer, yet, properly speaking, there cannot be punish- ment where there is no guilt, either personally contracted or imputed.” If this sentence had ended with the word “guilt,” I should have fully admitted it. Guilt imputed is not properly opposed to guilt contracted. The term “imputed ” is here used for “transferred,” to which it is not synonymous. But we are perplexed here by affixing different ideas to the same term. I will endeavour to de- fine my own, and then attend to the thing signified. By sin I mean transgression; by guilt, desert of punishment for having transgressed ; * and by punishment, the infliction of evil upon the guilty, in displeasure against him. It is the opposite of reward, which is the bestowment of favour upon the obedient, in token of approbation of his conduct. Finally, Imputation ought not to be confounded with transfer. In its proper sense, we have seen there is no transfer pertaining to it. In its figurative sense, as applied to justification, it is righteousness itself that is imputed ; but its effects only are transferred. So also in respect of sin; sin itself is the object of imputation; but neither this nor guilt is strictly speaking transferred, for neither of them is a transferable object. As all that is transferred in the imputation of righteousness is its beneficial effects, so all that is transferred in the imputation of sin is its penal effects. To say that Christ was reckoned or counted in the Divine administration as if he were the sinner, and came under an obligation to endure the curse for us, is one thing; but to say that he deserved the curse is another. To speak of his being guilty by imputation is the same thing, in my ear, as to say he was criminal or wicked by imputa- tion ; which, if taken improperly, for his being reckoned as if he were so, is just ; but if properly, for his being so, is inadmissible. Guilt is the inseparable attendant of trans- gression.f. If Christ by imputation became deserving of punishment, we by non-imputation cease to deserve it ; and if our demerits be literally transferred to him, his merits must of course be the same to us; and then, instead of approaching God as guilty and unworthy, we might take consequence to ourselves before him, as not only guiltless, but meritorious beings. As to Christ's being punished, I have no doubt, and never had, of his sufferings being penal, any more than I have of our salvation being a reward; but as the latter is not a reward to us, so I question whether the former can properly be said to be a punishment to Him. What he bore was punishment, that is, the expression of Divine displeasure against transgressors, in whose place he stood; so what we enjoy is reward, that is, the expression of God’s well-pleasedness in the obedience and death of his Son; but neither is the one a punishment to Him, nor the other a reward to us. • Some have defined guilt an obligation to punishment; out a vo- luntary obligation to endure the punishment of another is not guilt, any more than a consequent exemption from obligation in the offender is innocence. Both guilt and innocence, though transferable in their effects, are themselves untransferable. There appears to me great accuracy in the Scripture phraseology on this subject. What our Saviour under- went is commonly expressed by the term sufferings. Once it is called a chastisement; yet there he is not said to have been chastised, but “the chastisement of our peace was wpon him.” This is the same as saying, He bore our punishment, He was made a curse for us; that is, having been reckoned or accounted the sinner, as though he had actually been so, he was treated accordingly, as one that had deserved to be an outcast from heaven and earth. . I believe the wrath of God that was due to us was poured upon him ; but I do not believe that God for one moment was angry or displeased with him, or that he smote him from any such displeasure. “It behoved him,” says Cal- vin, “that he should as it were hand to hand wrestle with the armies of hell and the horrors of eternal death. “ The chastisement of our peace was laid upon him.’ He was stricken of his Father for our sins, and bruised for our imiquities; whereby is meant that he was put in the stead of wicked doers, as a surety and pledge; yea, and as the very guilty person himself, to abide and suffer all the pun- ishment that should have been laid upon them. Yet do we not mean that God was at any time his enemy, or angry with him. For how could he be angry with his beloved Som, upon whom his mind rested 3 or how could Christ by his intercession appease his Father's wrath towards others, if, full of hatred, he had been bent against himself? But this is our meaning, That he suffered the grievousness of God’s rigour; for that he, being stricken and tormented by the hand of God, DID FEEL ALL THE TokENs of GoD WHEN HE IS ANGRY AND PUNISHETH.”—Inst. B. II. Ch. xvi. § 10, 11. I remember Mr. B. once said to me, “ Christ was not made sin by participation ; but he was every thing except- ing this.” Herein I perfectly agree. When it is allowed that he was accounted as the sinner, yea, as the greatest of all sinners, as though he had been made up of sin itself, every thing is allowed short of a participation in sin. If it be not, however, it lies upon him to point out a possible medium between his being treated as though he were a transgressor and his actually being one. LETTER III. ON SUBSTITUTION, MY DEAR BROTHER, Jan. 12, 1803. WHETHER Christ laid down his life as a substitute for sinners, was never a question with me. All my hope rests upon it; and the sum of my delight in preaching the gos- pel consists in it. If I know any thing of myself, I can say of Christ crucified for us, as was said of Jerusalem, “If I forget thee, let my right hand forget; if I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth ! ” - I have always considered the denial of this truth as be- ing of the essence of Socinianism. Mr. B. professes, “ in his juvenile years, never to have hoped for salvation but through a vicarious sacrifice.” But if he allow himself to have believed this doctrine when he was an Arminian, it is rather singular that I, who am not an Arminian, as he himself acknowledges, should be charged with denying it. I could not have imagined that any person whose hope of acceptance with God rests not on any goodness in himself, but entirely on the righteousness of Christ, would have been accounted to disown his substitution. But, perhaps, Mr. B. considers “a real and proper imputation of our sins to Christ,” by which he seems to mean their being literally transferred to him, as essential to this doctrine; and if so, I acknowledge I do not at present believe it. For Christ to die as a substitute, if I understand the + This is admitted by Dr. Crisp, who on this ground, argues his point, that Christ was really the sinner, or guilt could not have been charged upon him.—Sermons, p. 272. SUBSTITUTION. 321 term, is the same thing as his dying for us, or in our stead, or that we should not die. The only subject on which I ought to have been here interrogated is, “The persons for whom Christ was a sub- stitute; whether the elect only, or mankind in general.” On this question I will be as explicit as I am able. Were I asked concerning the gospel, when it is intro- duced into a country, For whom was it sent 2 I should answer, if I had respect only to the revealed will of God, and so perhaps would Mr. B., It is sent for men, not as elect, or as non-elect, but as sinners. It is written and preached, “ that they might believe that Jesus is the Christºrthe Son of God; and that believing they might have life through his name.” But if I had respect to the secret will or appointment of God as to its application, I should say, If the Divine conduct in this instance accord with what it has been in other instances, he hath visited that country “to take out of it a people for his name.” In like manner concerning the death of Christ. If I speak of it irrespective of the purpose of the Father and the Son, as to the objects who should be saved by it, merely re- ferring to what it is in itself sufficient for, and declared in the gospel to be adapted to, I should think that I answer- ed the question in a Scriptural way by saying, It was for sinners as sinners ; but if I have respect to the purpose of the Father in giving his Son to die, and to the design of Christ in laying down his life, I should answer, It was for the elect only.* In the former of these views, I find the apostles and primitive ministers (leaving the consideration of God's secret purpose as a matter belonging to himself, not to them) addressing themselves to sinners without distinction, and holding forth the death of Christ as a ground of faith to all men. On this principle the servants sent forth to bid guests to the marriage supper, were directed to invite them, saying, “ Come, FoR all things are ready.” On this principle the ambassadors of Christ besought simmers to be reconciled to God, “for” (said they) “he hath made Him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.” In the latter view, I find the apostles ascribing to the purpose and discriminating grace of God all their success; and teaching believers to ascribe every thing that they were, or hoped to be, to the same cause ; addressing them as having been before the foundation of the world the ob- jects of his love and choice ; the children or sons whom it was the design of Christ in becoming incarnate to bring to glory; the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood, and for which he gave himself, that he might sanctify and cleanse it, and present it to himself. If it be a proper definition of the substitution of Christ, that he died for or in the place of others, that they should not die, this, as comprehending the designed end to be an- swered by his death, is strictly applicable to none but the elect ; for whatever ground there is for sinners, as sinners, to believe and be saved, it never was the design of Christ to impart faith to any others than those who were given him of the Father. He therefore did not die with the in- tent that any others should not die. Whether I can perfectly reconcile these statements with each other, or mot, I believe they are both taught in the Scriptures; but I acknowledge that I do not at present perceive their inconsistency. The latter Mr. B. will ad- mit ; and as to the former, I am quite at a loss what to make of his concessions, if they do not include it. Ac- cording to the best of my recollection, he acknowledged to me that he believed the atonement of Christ to be sufficient Jor the whole world as well as I 5 &nd that ºf one sinner only were saved consistently with justice, it ºrequired to be by the sºme all-perfect sacrifice. So, I am certain, I unde. stood him. Now if it be acknowledged that the obedi- ence and death of Christ was a substitution of such a kind as to be equally required for the salvation of one sinner *..The distinction between what the atonement of Christ is in ; sufficient Jor, and what it is as applied, under the ...; God, is made by Dr. Owen, as well as many others. Speaking of the dignity, worth, or infinite value of the death of Christ,” he ascribes it partly to “the dignity of his person, and partly to the greatness of his sufferings, And this,” he adds, “sets out the inmate, rea, º, .o.º. 2nd value of the blood-shedding of Jesus Christ; this is its OWn true internal perfection and sufficiency. That it should be applied unto Y as for many—is not this the same thing as acknowledging that atonement required to be made for sin as sin ; and, being made, was applicable to sinners as sinners ? In other words, is it not acknowledging that God redeemed his elect by an atonement in its own nature adapted to all, just as he calls his elect by a gospel addressed to all ? If the speciality of redemption be placed in the atone- ment itself, and not in the sovereign will of God, or in the design of the Father and the Son, with respect to the per- sons to whom it shall be applied, it must, as far as I am able to perceive, have proceeded on the principle of pecu- niary satisfactions. In them the payment is proportioned to the amount of the debt; and being so, it is not of suf- ficient value for more than those who are actually liberated by it; nor is it true, in these cases, that the same satisfac- tion is required for one as for many. But if such was the satisfaction of Christ that nothing less was necessary for the salvation of one, nothing more could be necessary for the salvation of the whole world, and the whole world might have been saved by it if it had accorded with sove- reign wisdom so to apply it. It will also follow that if the satisfaction of Christ was in itself sufficient for the whole world, there is no further propriety in such questions as these—“Whose sins were imputed to Christ? for whom did he die as a substitute 3’’—than as they go to inquire who were the persons designed to be saved by him 3 That which is equally necessary for one as for many, must, in its own nature, be equally sufficient for many as for one ; and could not proceed upon the principle of the sins of some being laid upon Christ, rather than others, any other- wise than as it was the design of the Father and the Son, through one all-sufficient medium, ultimately to pardon the sins of the elect rather than those of the non-elect. It seems to me as consonant with truth to say a certain num- ber of Christ's acts of obedience are literally transferred to us, as that a certain number of our sins are literally trans- ferred to him. In the former case, his own undivided obedience, stamped as it is with Divinity, affords a ground of justification to any number of believers; in the latter, his own atonement, stamped also as it is with Divinity, is sufficient to pardon any number of sins or sinners. Yet as Christ did not lay down his life but by covenant—as the elect were given to him, to be as the travail of his soul, the purchase of his blood—he had respect in all that he did and suffered to this recompence of reward. It was for the covering of their transgressions that he became obedient unto death. To them his substitution was the same, in effect, as if their sins had by number been literally trans- ferred to him. I am not aware that any principle that I hold is inconsistent with Christ's laying down his life by covenant, or with his being the surety of that covenant, pledging himself for the certain accomplishment of what- ever he undertook ; as, that all that were given him should come to him, should not be lost, but raised up at the last day, and be presented without spot and blameless. All this I suppose to be included in the design of the Father and the Son, or in the “sovereign application ” of the atonement. It has been objected, though not by Mr. B., “how does the sufficiency of Christ's death afford ample ground for general invitations, if the design was confined to the elect people 3 If the benefits of his death were never in- tended for the non-elect, is it not just as inconsistent to invite them to partake of them as if there were a want of sufficiency 3 This explanation seems to be no other than shifting the difficulty.” To this I amswer:— 1. It is a fact that the Scriptures rest the general invita- tion of the gospel upon the atonement of Christ, 2 Cor. v. 19–21; Matt. xxii. 4; John iii. 16. 2. If there were not a sufficiency in the atonement for the salvation of sinners, and yet they were invited to be reconciled to God, they must be invited to what is naturally any, made a price for them, asd become beneficial to them, according to the worth that is in it, is external to it, doth not arise from it, but merely depends upon the intention and will of God.” And it is on this ground that Dr. O. accounts for the propitiation of Christ being set forth in general and indefinite expressions—and for “the general proffers, promises, and exhortations made for the embracing of the fruits of the death of Christ, even to them who do never actually per- form it.”—Death of Death, &c., Book IV, Ch. I. 322 LETTERS TO DR. R.YLAND. *mpossible. The message of the gospel would in this case be as if the servants who went forth to bid the guests had said, “Come,” though, in fact, nothing was ready if many of them had come. 3. If there be an objective fulness in the atonement of Christ sufficient for any number of sinners, were they to believe in him, there is no other impossibility in the way of any man’s salvation to whom the gospel comes than what arises from the state of his own mind. The inten- tion of God not to remove the impossibility, and so not to save him, is only a resolution to withhold, not only that which he was not obliged to give, but that which is never represented as necessary to the consistency of eachortations and invitations to a compliance. I do not deny that there is a difficulty ; but it belongs to the general subject of re- conciling the purposes of God and the agency of man ; whereas, in the other case, God is represented as inviting sinners to partake of that which does not exist, and which therefore is naturally impossible. The one, while it ascribes the salvation of the believer, in every stage of it, to mere grace, renders the unbeliever inexcusable, which the other, I conceive,"does not. Such, as well as I am able to explain them, are my views of these important subjects. I may be mistaken in some particulars, and, if so, I should be happy to receive further light from any one. But, till I do, I shall not think the worse of what I have written for the names by which it may be stigmatized. LETTER IV. ON CHANGE OF SENTIMENTS. Jan. 17, 1803. MR. B., in his letter to you of Dec. 6, expresses his per- suasion that “I could not now oppose PHILANTHROPos as I formerly did; we being more nearly agreed than we were twelve or fifteen years ago.” When I wrote my Reply to Philanthropos, I acknowledged that I had read and thought but little on the subject, and therefore engaged in that controversy with considerable reluctance. Were I to write it over again, there would, doubtless, be several alter- ations. I might understand some passages of Scripture differently, might demur upon a few of the arguments used to establish my leading principles, and upon some few of the answers to those of Philanthropos; but the lead- ing principles themselves I do still approve. If a new edition were wanted, I should have no other objection than what arises from the above particulars to reprint it as it is. I freely own that my views of particular redemp- tion were altered by my engaging in that controversy; but what alteration there was was before I published my Re- ply. The truth is, I tried to answer my opponent with- out considering the sufficiency of the atonement in itself considered, and of its being the ground of gospel invita- tions; but I could not. I found not merely his reasonings, but the Scriptures themselves, standing in my way. After some serious thought upon the subject, therefore, I formed my judg- ment ; and it was some relief to find all the old Calvinists defending the doctrine upon the same ground. I conceded to my opponent that the death of Christ in *tself considered, i. e. irrespective of the design of the Father and Son as to its application, was sufficient for all mankind ; that a way was opened by which God con- sistently with his justice could forgive any sinner whatever that returns to him by Jesus Christ; that if the whole world were to believe in him, none need be sent away for want of a sufficiency in his death to render his pardon and acceptance consistent with the rights of justice (p. 23); and this is all that I should concede now. This is the whole of what I meant in the second edition of The Gospel Worthy of all Acceptation, by “the peculiarity of re- demption consisting not in its insufficiency to save more than are saved, but in the sovereignty of its application.” If more be conveyed by this sentence than the above, it MY DEAR BROTHER, conveys what I never intended; but I am not able to per- ceive that this is the case. - That for which I then contended was, that Christ had an absolute and determinate design in his death to save some of the human race, and not others; and were I en- gaged in a controversy with Philanthropos now, I should contend for the same thing. I then placed the peculiarity of redemption wholly in the appointment or design of the Father and the Son, which, if I understand my own words, is the same thing as placing it in “the sovereignty of its application.” As my views of particular redemption were somewhat changed between my writing the first edition of The Gospel Worthy of all Acceptation and my Reply to Philanthropos, it was right when publishing a second edition of the former work to render it consistent with the latter, as well as with my then present sentiments. In the course of twelve or fifteen years there are few, if any, thinking men, but what see reason to change their sentiments in some particulars. What I have here stated on imputation may not be the ideas which I entertained at that distance of time, though I do not recollect to have written any thing upon it; yet, to the best of my remem- brance, I thought that in God’s charging our sin on Christ, and placing his righteousness to our account, he reckoned of things as they were ; as Dr. Crisp pleads, (Sermons, p. 280,) though how it was I could form no idea. I did not perceive at that time that imputation and transfer were not the same thing. In short, I had never closely considered the subject. The same might be said of some things which I have written in The Gospel its own Witness, P. ii. ch. iv., as whether the satisfaction of Christ proceeded on the principle of commercial or of moral jus- tice, and whether it was an event admissible in the ordi- mary course of distributive justice, or an extraordinary ex- pedient devised by infinite wisdom, answering all the ends of moral government, and so comporting with the spirit of the law, though not required or admitted by the letter of it. In answering the objection of the infidel against the atonement, that it represented Divine justice as proceed- ing on the same principle in criminal cases as in cases of debt and credit, indifferent to the object so that the pun- ishment was but inflicted, I must either acquiesce, or en- deavour to repel it. Had I acquiesced, and maintained, with Dr. Crisp, “that justice, as a blood-hound, follows the scent of blood, and seizes wherever it finds blood ;”* in other words, that it is indifferent to justice who it punishes, provided it does but punish, whether it be the transgressor, or one who condescends to have his trans- gressions imputed to him ; had I acquiesced, I say, in this, how could I have disproved his calumny, that “what is called justice is not justice, but indiscriminate revenge 3’” These subjects were seriously examined, with no other de- sign than to obtain just views of evangelical truth, and to vindicate it against its adversaries. If in any instance I have betrayed it, I hope I should, on discovering it, be very sorry. The grounds on which I have attempted to vindi- cate the atonement do not appear to me to bear injuriously upon any other doctrine of the gospel, nor upon the lead- ing principles in my former publications. So far from considering what I wrote of late as subversive of them, I always supposed it went to confirm them. They operate, I admit, against that notion of particular redemption which places it not in the design of the Father in giving his Son, nor of the Son in laying down his life, but in the number of sins and sinners for which his sufferings suf- ficed as an atonement; but this in my account is no part of evangelical truth; and by the acknowledgment of Mr. B., that the same sacrifice is necessary for the salvation of one sinner as of many, it would seem to be mone in his. * Sermon, p. 274. CALVIN ISM. 323 LETTER. W. ON CALVIN ISM, MY DEAR BROTHER, Jan. 18, 1803. WHEN I had assured Mr. B., in my letter of July 7, 1802, that I did not deny either imputation or substitu- tion, but merely the sense in which he held them, he writes in answer, “That he is not aware either of his understand- ing or using those terms in a sense which is not common among CALVINISTs.” And in his letter to you, of Dec. 6, while he acquits me of being an Arminian, he says, “It is to me beyond a doubt that he (Mr. F.) does not hold the doctrine of substitution, and of imputation, as CAL- v1NISTs have commonly done, and still continue to do.” The amount is that, at least in these particulars, Mr. B. is a Calvinist, and I am not. If this be true, it does not fol- low that I deny substitution or imputation. Mr. B. says “that in his juvenile years he never hoped for salvation but through a vicarious sacrifice.” If then he could be- lieve this doctrine while an Arminian, surely I might be allowed to believe it, who, as he acknowledges, am not an Arminian. But, passing this, Mr. B.’s views on these subjects may, for aught I know, be more consonant with those of the general body of persons called Calvinists than mine. All the High Calvinists will doubtless agree with him, and disagree with me, so far as they know our senti- ments ; but it does not appear to me that his opinions on either of the subjects in question are those of Calvin or of Calvinists during the sixteenth century. I do not pre- tend to have read so much of either as he has ; but, from what I have seen, so it appears to me. The quotations that have already been made from Calvin, pp. 24.33, 34, prove that he had no other notion of imputation than that of the righteousness of Christ being reckoned to us “as if it were our own,” and of our sins being so reckoned to Christ, that, “as the very guilty person himself, he suffered all the punishment that should have been laid upon us.” I should think it were manifest, from this, that he did not believe in a “real or proper” imputation in either case, nor in Christ's being really guilty, and as such punished. All he pleads for is, that “he felt all the tokens of God when he is angry, and punisheth;” and this is precisely what I believe. With respect to substitution, from what I have read of Calvin, he appears to have considered the death of Christ as affording an offer of salvation to sinners without dis- tinction ; and the peculiar respect which it bore to the elect as consisting in the sovereignty of its application, or in God’s imparting faith and salvation through it, to them, rather than to others, as it was his design to do. To this effect is his comment on John iii. 16, “God so loved the World, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth,” &c. “This,” says he, “is a singular com- mendation of faith, that it delivereth us from eternal de- struction. For his meaning was plainly to express that, though we seem to be born to death, yet there is certain deliverance offered in the faith of Christ; so that death, Which otherwise hangeth over our heads, is nothing to be feared. He added also the universal note whosoever,’ both that he may invite all men in general to the partici- Pation of life, and cut off all excuse from unbelievers. To the same end tendeth the term “world ;’ for though there be nothing found in the world that is worthy of God’s favour, yet he showeth that he is favourable to the whole world, when he calleth all men without exception to the faith of Christ. Let us remember, however, that though life is promised to all who shall believe in Christ, so com. ºonly that yet faith is not common to all men ; for though Christ lieth open to all men, yet God doth only open the eyes of the elect, that they may seek him by faith.” The Calvinists who met at the Synod or Don't have expressed their judgment on redemption in nine propo- sitions. , Were they not too long for transcription, I would insert the whole. The following extracts, however, will *..] question if any such concession as this can be f ſº ---> * > tº g ound in t writings of Dr. Gill, or Mr. Brine, from whom the High àº. **m to have taken their views. Neither of these writers considered sufficiently express their sentiments on the points in ques- tion. “The death of the Son of God is the only and most complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins, of infinite value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.* The promise of the gospel is, that whosoever believeth in Christ crucified shall not perish, but have eternal life ; which promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought promiscuously and indiscrimi- nately to be published and proposed to all nations and in- dividuals to whom God in his good pleasure sends the gospel. The reason why many who are called by the gospel do not repent and believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief, is not through any defect or insufficiency in the sacrifice of Christ offered upon the cross, but through their own fault.”—“All those who truly believe, and by the death of Christ are delivered and saved, have to ascribe it to the grace of God alone, which he owes to no one, and which was given them in Christ from eternity.”— “The gracious will and intention of God the Father was, that the life-giving and saving efficacy of the precious death of his Son should ecert itself in all the elect, to en- due them alone with justifying faith, and thereby infallibly bring them to salvation.” + I would not wish for words more appropriate than the above to express my sentiments. If Mr. B.’s views accord with them, there can be no material difference between us. But if I be not mistaken, Mr. B. holds the substitu- tion of Christ in a way that does not admit of “the com- mand to repent and believe being promiscuously addressed to all.” I have never been able to learn, however, from his writings, preaching, or conversation, after all that has been said about sinners as sinners being warranted to be- lieve, that he even exhorts them to it; or avows it to be the command of God that they should repent and believe, in such a manner as is connected with salvation. Now what is it, but his ideas of imputation and substitution, that can be the cause of this hesitation ? I call it hesita- tion, because I never heard or saw any thing in him that amounted to a denial of it. Yet he does not avow it, though he well knows it was avowed by Calvin, and all Calvinists for more than a century after the Reformation. They held the doctrines of imputation and substitution so as to feel at liberty to exhort sinners, without distinction, to repent and believe in Christ : Mr. B. does not. Have I not a right, then, to infer that his ideas of these doctrines are different from theirs, and that what is now called Cal- vinism is not Calvinism 7 I could extract similar sentiments with the above from many able Calvinistic writers in the seventeenth century; but I think these are sufficient. The sentiment which I oppose does not appear to me to be CALVINISM, but CRISPISM. I never met with a single passage in the writings of Calvin on this subject that clashed with my own views; but in Dr. Crisp I have. He considers God, in his charging our sins on Christ, and accounting his righteousness to us, as reckoning of things as they are.—Sermons, p. 280. “Hast thou been an idol- ater,” says he, “a blasphemer, a despiser of God's word, a profaner of his name and ordinances, a thief, a liar, a drunkard 3 If thou hast part in Christ, all these transgres- sions of thine become actually the transgression of Christ, and so cease to be thine; and thow ceasest to be a trans- gressor from that time they were laid woon Christ to the last hour of thy life: so that now thou art not an idolater, a persecutor, a thief, a liar, &c.—thou art not a sinful per- son. Reckon whatever sin you commit, whereas you have part in Christ, you are all that Christ was, and Christ is all that you were,”—p. 270. . If this be true, all the con- fessions of good men, recorded in the Scriptures, that they were sinners, and deserving of death, were not only un- necessary, but owning what was not true. Dr. Crisp does not pretend that Christ actually committed sin, nor deny that believers committed it ; but while he makes our sins to become “actually the transgressions of Christ,” and teaches that they “cease to be ours,” he undermines all ground for confession or repentance. Whatever reasonings we may adopt, there are certain the gospel as addressed to sinners as sinners, but as sensible sinners; and their ideas of the atonement were calculated to such preaching. t Acta Synod. Dordrecht. Sess, 136, p. 250. Y 2 324 LETTERS TO DR. RYLAND. times in which conscience will bear witness that, notwith- standing the imputation of our sins to Christ, we are ac- twally the sinners, and not He ; and I should have thought that no good man could have gone about gravely to overturn its testimony. Far be it from me to wrest the words of any writer, however ill chosen, to a meaning which he does not hold ; but when I read as follows, what other conclusion can I draw “Believers think that they find their transgressions in their own consciences, and they *magine that there is a sting of this poison still behind, wounding of them ; but, beloved, if this principle be re- ceived for a truth—that God hath laid thine iniquities on Christ—how can thy transgressions, belonging to Christ, be found in thy heart and conscience 3 Is thy conscience Christ?”—p. 269. - Perhaps no man ever went further than Dr. Crisp in his attempts at consistency; and admitting his principle, I am not able to deny his conclusions. To have been perfectly consistent, however, he should have proved that all the confessions and lamentations of believers, recorded in Scripture, arose from their being under the mistake which he labours to rectify; viz. thinking that sin did not cease to be theirs, even when under the fullest persuasion that the Lord would not impute it to them, but would cover it by the righteousness of his Son. If Christ be “actually” the transgressor, and our trans- gressions, being laid upon him, “cease to be ours,” God cannot be offended with us for any thing we do ; nor ought we to be offended, one should think, with one another. Our displeasure ought to terminate on the person to whom the offence actually belongs, be it whom it may. What Mr. B. may think of these sentiments, I know not. For my part, without approving of the Neonomian- ism which was afterwards opposed to them, I account them, to use the softest term, gross extravagance. Yet if this be not what he means by a real and proper imputation, (I mean when pursued to its just consequences,) I have yet to learn what that doctrine is. LETTER VI. BAXTERIAN ISM. MY DEAR BROTHER, Jan. 22, 1803. MR. B. in his letter to you of Dec. 6, 1802, though he acquits me of Arminianism, yet “ventures to say that I appear to him to have adopted some of the leading pecu. Ziarities of Mr. Richard Bacter.” I wish he had named them ; I would in that case have frankly owned whether I approved or disapproved. As it is, I have been con- strained to do what I never did before, look over such polemical pieces of that writer as I could procure. I have found this, I confess, an irksome task. I endeavoured to procure his Aphorisms on Justification, but could not. All I could get of a polemical kind were his treatise on Uni- versa? Redemption, and Four Disputations on Justification. I have bestowed two days upon them, but cannot say that I have read them through. They are so circuitous, and full of artificial distinctions, and obscure terms, that I could not in many cases come at his meaning, nor could I haye read them through without making myself ill. It is true, I have found several of my own sentiments maintained by Mr. Baxter. He speaks of salvation by a substitute as being a measure rather “above law than according to it, and of satisfaction being made “to the Lane. giver rather than to the law.” If he means any thing more by this than what I have said in Lett. IV., I have nº concern in it; and this for substance is allowed by Dr. Owen, in his answer to Biddle,_p. 512. He pleads, also, that the faith by which we are justified includes a sub- mission of heart to Christ, in all his offices, or a reconcil;- ation to God; and, consequently, that a sinner when jus- tified, though ungodly in the eye of the law, yet is not so in the eye of the gospel, or in our common acceptation of the term. In this I agree with him. It appears to me, however, that though it be essential to the genuineness of faith to receive Christ in every character he sustains, so far as it is understood, yet believing for justification has a special respect to Christ’s obedience unto death, with which God is well pleased, and of which our justification is the reward. Mr. Baxter pleads for “universal redemption;” I only contend for the sufficiency of the atonement, in itself con- sidered, for the redemption and salvation of the whole world ; and this affords a ground for a universal invitation to sinners to believe ; which was maintained by Calvin, and all the old Calvinists. I consider redemption as in- separably connected with eternal life, and therefore as applicable to none but the elect, who are redeemed from among men. Mr. Baxter considered the gospel as a new law, taking place of the original law under which man was created; of which faith, repentance, and sincere obedience were the requirements; so, at least, I understand him. But these are not my sentiments : I believe, indeed, that the old law, as a covenant, is not so in force as that men are now required to obey it in order to life; on the contrary, all such attempts are sinful, and would have been so though no salvation had been provided. Yet the precept of it is immutably binding, and the curse for transgressing it re- mains on every unbeliever. I find but little satisfaction in Mr. Baxter's disputations on justification. He says a great deal about it, distinguishing it into different stages, plead- ing for evangelical works as necessary to it, &c. &c. Some- times he seems to confine the works which Paul excluded from justification to those of the common law, (“the bur- densome works of the Mosaical law,”—these are his words,) and to plead for what is moral, or, as he would call it, “evangelical.” Yet he disavows all works as being the causes or grounds on account of which we are justified; and professes to plead for them only as “concomitants; ” just as we say repentance is necessary to forgiveness, and faith to justification, though these are not considerations moving God to bestow those blessings. In short, I find it much easier to express my own judgment on justifica- tion, than to say wherein I agree or differ with Mr. Baxter. I consider justification to be God’s graciously pardoning our sins, and accepting us to favour, exempting us from the curse of the law, and entitling us to the promises of the gospel; not on account or in consideration of any holi- ness in us, ceremonial or moral, before, in, or after believ- ing, but purely in reward of the vicarious obedience and death of Christ, which, on our believing in him, is im- puted to us, or reckoned as if it were ours. Nor do I consider any holiness in us to be necessary as a concomi- tant to justification, except what is necessarily included in believing. Mr. Baxter writes as if the unconverted could do some- thing towards their conversion, and as if grace were given to all, eaccept those who forfeit it by wilful sin. But no such sentiment ever occupied my mind, or proceeded from my pen. Finally, Mr. Baxter considers Calvinists and Ar- minians as reconcilable, making the difference between them of but small amount. I have no such idea ; and if, on account of what I have here and elsewhere avowed, I were disowned by my present connexions, I should rather choose to go through the world alone than be connected with them. Their scheme appears to me to undermine the doctrine of salvation by grace only, and to resolve the difference between one sinner and another into the will of man, which is directly opposite to all my views and ex- perience. Nor could I feel a union of heart with those who are commonly considered in the present day as Baa:- terians, who hold with the gospel being a new remedial law, and represent sinners as contributing to their own conversion. The greatest, though not the only, instruction that I have received from human writings, on these subjects, has been from President Edwards's Discourse on Justification. That which in me has been called “a strange or singular notion ” of this doctrine is stated at large, and I think clearly proved, by him under the third head of that dis- course, pp. 86–95. Here, my dear brother, I lay down my pen. Reduced as I am to the awkward necessity (unless I wish to hold a ON MR. MARTIN’S PUBLICATION. 325 controversy with a man deservedly respected, and who is just going into his grave) of making a private defence against what is become a public accusation, I can only leave it to Him who judgeth righteously to decide whether I have been treated fairly, openly, or in a manner becoming the regard which one Christian minister owes to another. If what I have written contain any thing injurious to the truth, may the Lord convince me of it. And if not, may He preserve me from being improperly moved by the frowns of men. I am, as you know, your affectionate brother. A. F. REMARKS ON MR. MARTIN’S PUBLICATION, ENTITLED « THOUGHTS ON THE DUTY OF MAN RELATIVE TO FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST,” FIVE LETTERS TO A FRIEND. “our want of power (to trust in Christ) is, generally speaking, want of will, and want of love.”—Mr. MARTIN.—Ser, on Rom. x. 3, p. 31. LETTER I. ON MIR. MARTIN’S ACCU SATIONS. lviY DEAR FRIEND, You have requested my thoughts on Mr. Martin's recent publication. I now take up my pen to comply with your request. I cannot help observing that the spirit in which Mr. M. has conducted his performance renders a sober and serious reply to it very difficult. His abounding likewise so much with what respects my personal qualities as a writer and as a Christian must render a minute attention to what he has written equally difficult. There is this comfort, however, that such things do not require an an- swer. Nobody expects that I should go about to defend my own abilities for writing, or the spirit in which I have Written ; the impartial reader, perhaps, may be a better judge of both than either Mr. M. or myself. All I shall attempt will be to notice a few of Mr. M.'s accusations, make some general observations on his per- formance, and discuss two or three of the leading subjects in debate. Most writers propose to establish some system, or hypo- thesis, in the place of that which they go about to de- molish ; but whatever Mr. M. may do in future, I think it must be obvious to every reader that he has done but little in this way at present. The main points that he seems to have kept in view are, to inform the world that there is such a person as a “Mr. Andrew Fuller, of Ket- tering, in Northamptonshire—that he is a very obscure, in- consistent, erroneous, ignorant, artful, vain, hypocritical kind of a writer—that he has written upon humility, but is far from being humble—that he was under the influence of a lust of being consequential”—that when he professes a respect for many of those who differ from him, and a grief of mind for the shyness which he apprehended his publication might occasion, he is not to be believed ; for the whole was only his vanity, or covetousness, which pro- duced an anxious fear common to “poor authors, lest their works should not be read, should not sell, or should not be applauded”—that he is wanting in method—that his style is embarrassed, coarse, comical, and uncouth—that he is unqualified to instruct—and that those who cannot dis- cern these defects and blemishes in his writings are ignor- ant, and incompetent to discover even the mistakes which his Errata were given to correct. That Mr. M., on the contrary, “has had the advantage of trials and observa- tions, more in number and variety than some people have had opportunities to experience and consider”—that “he fancied himself qualified to say something in answer to Mr. Fuller that should be above contempt—that he hoped to gain some repute by it—but that, supposing he should not, yet it must be acknowledged, he thinks, even by his opponent, that he is above contempt.”—Now suppose all this were true, what do mine parts out of ten of it concern the reader ? The question with which he is supposed to take a book in hand is, What is truth 2 but should this be the case with Mr. M.'s reader, must he not at least wait the publication of a second part for an answer? Mr. M., as if he thought scorn to lay hands on a single obscure individual, ventures to extend his attack far and wide. Messieurs Evans of Bristol, HALL of Arnsby, SPENCER of Alcester, and THoMAs of Leominster,” and in- deed the whole Midland Association are attacked amongst the living ; and, amongst the dead, not only PRESIDENT EDWARDs, but all those Calvinists who have pleaded for a love to God and Divine things for their own excellency, fall under his severe rebuke, 160. Well, I am happy in my company. There is no need in this case that I should become the advocate of either the dead or the living; the * The one you know wrote the circular letter which Mr. M. has censured, p. 71, and the other signed it as a moderator, and has since defended it. 326 ON MIR. MARTIN’S PUBLICATION. writings of neither, I should hope, will be much endan- gered by Mr. M.'s attack. I need not say that Mr. M. deals plentifully in accusa- tions. Besides those already mentioned, I am accused of Speaking loosely of the Scriptures—and diminutively of the obligations of men—of aiming to be wise above what is writ- tem—of attempting to equalize the obligations of all man- kind, whose capacities and opportunities God hath so vari- ously distributed—of undervaluing an assurance of interest in Christ—and of importing my sentiments from America. —These, with many other minor charges, Mr. M. has ex- hibited, repeating on almost every occasion, as a kind of chorus to the song, those of OBSCURITY, INCONSISTENCY, and ERRoR. A long train of accusations indeed Are they founded in justice 3 Let us examine— Because I suppose there are some truths which would be evident even to the mind of a heathen, were he but the subject of a right spirit, I am accused of speaking loosely of the Scriptures,-42. This censure, however, falls equally upon the apostle Paul as upon me, Rom. i. 19, 20. - Further, Because I speak of God’s requirements as being in themselves easy to be complied with, as having nothing hard or difficult in them but what arises from the depravity of our hearts, I am accused of diminishing the obligations of men, by representing it “as not being any great difficulty to perform the full extent of duty,”—52, 53. This censure likewise falls upon Moses, Samuel, and Jeremiah, as well as upon me. These each spoke of God’s service in exactly the same kind of language as I have done, and with which Mr. M. is so much offended, Deut. x. 12; 1 Sam. xii. 24; Jer. iii. 13. I am accused likewise of aiming to be wise above what ‘s imparted,—132. To imagine that we ought to be wise above what is imparted in the Scripture is the height of folly and presumption : attempts of this kind were severely censured by Agur, Moses, and John, in the passages quoted by Mr. M. But if it is no man’s duty to be wise but in proportion as wisdom is actually and effectually imparted to him by the Holy Spirit, then it is no man’s duty to be wiser than he is. And if so, there could be no reason in that complaint, “Oh that they were wise 1" Indeed, this is the main tendency of a great part of Mr. M.'s reasonings: if they prove any thing, they prove that no man is obliged to BE more wise, more holy, or more spiritual than he actually is ; and that is the same thing as proving that there is no such thing as sin in the world. Much is said concerning equal obligation, as covering what I have written with obscurity; even the word man, in the connexion in which I have used it, is said to be obscure, 13. All obligation which creatures can be under I have all along supposed to be in proportion to their natu- ºral abilities and opportunities. A child of ten years old is not supposed to be capable of understanding so much as when he becomes a man of thirty; nor is a man obliged to be- Jieye faster or sooner than he has the means of obtaining evidence : but both the child and the man are obliged to be of such a disposition as shall cordially embrace the gospel when it is revealed, and its meaning comes within the reach of their understandings. All this was declared in my Reply to Mr. Taylor, p. 5, which had Mr. M. con- sidered, it might have spared him the trouble (or should I have said, deprived him of the happiness 2 for so he ac- counts it, p. 190) of writing at least about twenty pages of his work. * But if I talk of whderstanding what we believe, I shall be charged with adopting Mr. Foster's maxim, “Where mystery begins, religion ends.” If by understanding were meant a perfect comprehension of all that pertains to a doctrine, the charge were just; but surely I must un- derstand the meaning of the testifier before I can either believe or disbelieve his testimony; except it be in a general way, taking it for granted, from the opinion I have of his veracity, that whatever he says is true. I can believe no particular Scripture doctrine without perceiving that that doctrine is contained in Scripture; and such perception is the same thing as understanding the mean- ing of the testifier. This is no more than Mr. M. himself * Especially pages 13–15, 20, 21. 30–38. 44–46. elsewhere pleads for (143. 182); so that his opposition to it here looks like contention for contention’s sake. Again, I am accused of undervaluing an assurance of a personal interest in Christ; because I suppose, that when compared with the heart's falling in with God’s way of sal- vation, and when that is so attended to as that this is over- looked, it is a mean and low idea of faith,-134. That may be good and desirable in its place, which yet, if put in the place of some other thing of greater excellence, becomes mean and low. There is nothing mean or low in a man’s pursuing his own interest in subordination to the public good, or his own reputation in subserviency to God’s glory; but to make either the direct and tiltimate end of his pur- suits is mean and low, and unworthy of a rational being. Much is said of my having read EDWARDS, BELLAMY, and other American writers. Mr. M. seems as if he would have his readers think he has made a great discovery here, though it is no more than I had freely acknowledged. It is true I have received instruction in reading the authors above-mentioned ; nor do I know of any sin or shame either in the thing itself, or in openly acknowledging it. Mr. M. may wish to insinuate that I have taken matters upon trust from these writers without examining them ; but in answer to such insinuations it is sufficient to say, that is more than he can prove. All he knows or can know of the matter is, that I have read them, and approve of some of their sentiments; and is there any crime in this ? I remember about fourteen years ago to have re- ceived some advantage on the subject now in debate by hearing Mr. MARTIN preach upon it. It is true we were so unhappy them, as well as now, as to differ in our senti- ments. I, at that time, did NOT think as I now do, but Mr. Martin DID. I own I disliked the violence with which he then maintained my present sentiments; and the supercilious language which he used of those who dif- fered from him, whom I then understood to be GILL and BRINE, or writers of their stamp. Upon the whole, how- ever, what he said set me a thinking, and I believe was of use to me. I remember also soon after this time to have read Mr. M.'s sermon on Rom. x. 3, entitled The IRock of Offence the Sinner's last and only Refuge. This sermon, which ascribes men's non-submission to the righteousness of God to voluntary ignorance, prejudice, pride, and self- ºrighteousness, appeared to me to carry in it considerable evidence in favour of those principles concerning the truth of which I then hesitated. And has not Mr. M. derived instruction from the works of men as well as his neigh- bours ? If he has not, it is not much to his honour. Be that as it may, he cannot mean to censure the reading of all human productions, for if so, why does he offer his own to the public If somebody were not to go to market, Mr. M. might be in a similar predicament with other “poor authors—agitated lest his performance should not sell.” —After all, perhaps, it is not going to market that Mr. M. objects to, either in himself or others, but going to an American market; for there are several authors whom he still recommends. Mr. M., whatever is the reason, seems to have an antipathy against America, in religion as well as in politics. There was a time, however, when the Writings of EDWARDs had the honour of his warmest re- commendation, when he accounted his treatise on IReligious Affections “a much wanted, and for that reason, perhaps, a much neglected book.”—END and Evro. of ADoPTION, p. 19. But “time and chance happen to all things.”— “There is a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted.” Finally, I am accused of obscurity, inconsistency, and error. As to obscurity, I shall say nothing, except it be that every one does not think so, nor every one of my op- ponents; Mr. TAYLOR allows me to have written with “perspicuity.” . As to inconsistency, if what Mr. M. says is true, which doubtless it is, that “the most consistent character is only a little less inconsistent than his neigh- bours,” it must be in vain for me wholly to deny the charge. Thus much, however, I may say, that the far greater part of what Mr. M. charges with inconsistency is such in sound only, and not in sense; and that if he had not almost perpetually confounded things that differ, he could not have found so many apparent inconsistencies as he has. No doubt you have observed how he confounds GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. 327 Divine efficiency with human obligation (15); what is with what ought to be (44); men's obligation perfectly to conform to God’s law with an obligation to make recon- ciliation for sin (62); their natural capacity to keep the law perfectly in future (that is, to love God with all their heart) with their capacity to produce such a righteousness as the law requires, which must imply a making atonement for past sins (104. 144); reason for keeping the law with encouragement to comply with the gospel (108. 110); the formal requirement of obedience with that in the Divine character and conduct which affords a reason for such re- quirement being made (40); and that which warrants our coming to Christ with that which warrants us to conclude ourselves interested in eternal life (72–76):—it is on these subjects principally that I am charged with inconsistency. It is allowed there are many opposite things asserted ; but opposites may be asserted surely of things that differ, with- out affording ground for a charge of inconsistency.* As to the charge of error, that will come under consideration when I attempt a discussion of the leading subjects in debate. IETTER II. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. HAVING replied to Mr. M.'s principal accusations, I shall now make a few general observations on his performance. I know not how it is, but it is a fact I have sometimes observed, that, where a person is more than ordinarily ad- dicted to certain vices, it is common for him to be the first that shall discover those vices in his neighbours. I knew a man that every body around him reckoned to be very proud, and yet he was always exclaiming against pride in others. There is some resemblance between this temper of mind, and a certain distemper of the body which makes every object around us appear of the same colour as that with which the eye is infected. Whether this will not ac- count for some of Mr. M.'s charges, particularly for those of obscurity, inconsistency, and error, I leave you to judge from the whole of his performance, especially from what will be noticed in the following observations. I think it must appear to every attentive reader that Mr. M. has hitherto done but little towards overturning my leading propositions, even though these were what in his title-page he proposed to consider. As to the first, he neither denies that whatever God commands is the duty of those to whom it is commanded, nor attempts to in- validate the evidence in favour of faith being commanded of God to unregenerate sinners. As to the second, he has said something about it (32); he has tried his utmost to make it an identical proposition, but cannot gain his point; conscious, it seems, that it would not bear such a con- struction, he allows in the next page (33) that I “must be understood otherwise.”t—All that he has said in answer to it in its true meaning is, that it enjoins equal obligation upon all; but this charge has been already answered in the foregoing letter. The third proposition he has like- Wise glanced at, and says I make the gospel, though not in form, yet in fact, a law,-40. If you look at my treatise, p. 36, you will see the injustice of this remark. The Jourth, fifth, and sixth propositions he has scarcely touch- ed; and the Scriptures under each are never looked in the face. ... " After all that Mr. MARTIN has written upon my inconsistency, is it not rather surprising he should maintain that “our want of power (to trust in Christ) is, generally speaking, want of will and want of love,”--that the reasons or causes of the righteousness of Christ being rejected are voluntary ignorance, prejudice, pride, &c.; and, when ñé has done, find fault with me for maintaining the self same things Do, compare his “Rock of Offence,” &c., pp. 31. 36 —48, with iis “Thoughts on Duty,” pp. 103, 104. 142.-Should it be said it is seven- teen or eighteen years since that sermon was puinted, and Mr. M. may have altered his sentiments in that time; I answer, true, but if this should acquit him of present inconsistency, it must be at the expense of his integrity. lf his sentiments are altered, why did he not homest- ly acknowledge it, and answer his own arguments, instead of falling foul upon those of another, which were expressed in nearly the self. same words? It looks as if Mr. M. strove to conceal his own change It is rather extraordinary, that, of so many publications against an eighteen-penny pamphlet, they should all steer so wide of the body of Scripture evidence contained in the second part, Mr. BUTTON, to do him justice, has said more in a way of reply to this part than any of his coad- jutors. It is to be hoped that Mr. M. will not publish two more two-shilling books, and at last omit executing what in his title-page he has given us to expect. There was an argument which I had urged pretty much in my treatise, 46, and reply to Mr. BUTTON, 152. It was this, Every man ought to be Christ's friend, or his enemy, or to stand neuter and be neither. To suppose the first is to grant all that is pleaded for; to suppose the second is too gross to need a refutation; if then neither of these will satisfy, it must fall upon the third, but this our Lord de- clares to be an impossibility, “He that is not with me is against me.” It might have tended to bring the matter to some issue, if Mr. M. would but have given this argument a fair discussion. He seems to have glanced at it, how- ever, in one place. “Perhaps,” he says, “Mr. Fuller does not sufficiently recollect that in human actions what seems the reverse of doing wrong is not always doing what is right.” There are cases, he supposes, wherein the reverse of doing wrong may be as much of an extreme as the doing wrong itself; and instances in cases of “avarice and prodigality.” &c. &c., 144. True, there are cases in which both ex- tremes may be equally wrong; but the question is, Is it so in respect of being Christ's friend or his enemy; of a per- fect future conformity to God’s law, or a living in the breach of it? Mr. M., to make this observation of any force, must admit that it would be equally an extreme for a sinner to be decidedly for Christ as it is to be decidedly against him ; that it were equally wrong to love God with all the heart as not to love him at all; that his duty is to be of a divided heart, to be neither for Christ nor against him, but in a medium way, just as it is a man's duty to be neither covetous nor prodigal, but something between them. “Perhaps Mr. Fuller has considered,” i that though there are cases in which both extremes are wrong, yet it is not so in this case ; in this case our Lord declares a medium to be impossible. I have taken it for granted, that so far as any thing is charged wbon men as their sin, so far the contrary must be their duty; because where there is no obligation, there can be no transgression. §—I should not have imagined that any man in his senses could have called this in question, and yet this is what Mr. M. has done. He calls it a mere inference, and talks of proving it a false consequence 1–89. In page 146, he speaks of men being given up to vile af- fections—allows such affections to be sinful, and yet will not allow it to be their duty to possess the contrary What he has advanced (89, 90) to prove this “a false conse- quence ’’ amounts to this, that sinners cannot serve the Lord acceptably—and that, whatever good takes place, it is the effect of Divine influence. This is the reasoning that is to prove that though men are criminal for breaking the lato, yet they are not obliged perfectly to keep it—that though wnbelief is a sin, yet faith is not a duty On what prin- ciples, and in what manner, is such a writer to be reasoned With 3 - “Figurative expressions,” Mr. M. contends, “are in- tended to convey a meaning,”—126. Undoubtedly; and Sometimes as strong and stronger a meaning than terms used literally. Mr. M. had no right to represent as if by pleading for a figurative sense of the terms blind, deaf, and dead, I meant to lessen their force. The term quickened has doubtless a meaning, and a very strong one ; and if of sentiments, that he might enjoy the happiness of a few strokes at his AUTHOR for his fickleness in changing his. + Suppose it had been an identical proposition, what then? Why then I must have suffered shame for my ignorance.—True, but my sufferings might have been a little alleviated by Mr. M.'s condescend- ing to become my companion and fellow sufferer. “Are not all men anarious to possess,” he asks, “what they covet to enjoy 2 °-28. Un- doubtedly I and when he shall have informed us of the difference be- tween a being anacious to possess and coveting to enjoy, we may per- ceive the tendency of this “fact,” if it has such a tendency, “to refute my inferences.” # See my IReply, p. 130, note. ? The contrary must be their duty 2–What then, Mr. M. will ask, is prodigality the duty of the covetous? I answer, No; neither is pro- digality, but contentment and generosity, the contrary of covetousness, Heb. xiii. 5. 328 ON MIR. MARTIN'S PUBLICATION. Mr. M. had not thought himself warranted, while he cen- sures his AUTHCR as he calls him for coarseness and un- couthness of style, to be as coarse, as uncouth, as comical, and as irreverent as he pleased himself, he could never have talked of being RUBBED Up by the Spirit of God. Mr. M. frequently writes as if his only end was to op- pose. Sometimes I am accused of equalizing the obli- gations of men whose capacities are various (13); at other times for varying their obligations according to their natural capacity or incapacity, 104. When I make it men’s duty to possess that, in respect of holy dispositions, of which they are destitute, then he will have it that their duty is only to oceupy what they have, 18. On the other hand, when I admit, in respect of natural capacities and opportunities, that men are obliged only to occupy what they have, then he complains that this is putting the Al- mighty off with only a right use of what is left, 98. 104. Thus he falls out with Mr. HALL, of Arnsby, for asserting that “God doth not require more of any man than a right use of what he hath”—alleging, that “if so, it must tnevitably follow that no man need seek for what he has not,”—76. Some people would have thought that rightly to wse or occupy what we have would be to seek that which we have not. If the slothful servant had rightly used his talent, he would have increased it, by seeking that which he had not. If Mr. M.'s “modes of opposition are not more formidable than this conclusion is inevitable,” we have not much to fear. After all, what does he mean 7 what is he about? Has he any sentiment upon the subject? Or does he mean barely to oppose 2 If he has, it must be this, that natural impossibilities ARE binding upon man- kind, but that moral impossibilities ARE NOT sol Whether Mr. M. has not intermeddled in a controversy which, with all his “opportunities” for obtaining know- ledge, he does not understand, some have doubted. What his abilities are for writing perhaps it does not become me to say, nor is it of any great consequence to determine; but I should think it is no great recommendation of his judgment in language to call that dictatorial which any reader may perceive to be written merely in the declaratory style (66); such as every writer must use, unless he will be always repeating the words, I conceive, I apprehend, &c.—It is not language, however, that I chiefly refer to, but sentiment. Nothing is more common than for Mr. M. to be employed in zealously establishing what I never denied, and refuting what I never affirmed. This is the case almost all through his piece when he treats on Divine efficiency, and the duty of men, as he expresses it, to “possess the power of God,” and perform acts peculiar to him. There are not wanting places wherein I am ex- pressly acquitted, on the above subject, of that of which in other places I am accused. Compare p. 96 with p. 125. In the one, it is supposed that I extend duty to “ those actions which are not our own ; or to the possession of the power of God; in the other, it is acknowledged that I am “ of opinion that spiritual blessings, and the IDivine energy that gives us the enjoyment of them, CANNOT come under the notion of duties.” Is it uncandid to im- pute the above to his not understanding the subject on which he writes?——On natural and moral ability and *nability, Mr. M. writes in a manner that is very extra- ordinary. He talks of men being enabled to make a right use of moral ability (118); as if I supposed it to be a kind of talent, which may be used or abused. Of natural ability, he asks, “Does it require ability to reject Christ? let this be proved,”—59. As if it required proof that a man must possess the powers of intelligence and choice in order to reject Christ | If not, a stock or a stone might reject him as well as a man.-On all occasions he denies natural inability to be any excuse for the non-performance of that * Query—Does not Mr. M., by his here distinguishing between judgment and intention, mean to excuse himself from blame, at least in some degree, in case of any supposed misrepresentation 1 But if natural inability has no tendency to excuse, (101,) he might as well have been willing to have it imputed to unfair intention as to a bad judgment. The truth, is, though Mr. M. may treat this subject with scorn, may call it a little distinction, may assume an air of import- ance, and affect great superiority in knowledge, (69,) yet it is a dis- tinction founded in the nature of things; and Mr. M., and every other man, whether he will or no, must feel its propriety, and, by whatever which would otherwise be duty,+101. 122. He seems astonished at my supposing the contrary in cases where the parties have brought that inability upon themselves by their own sin,_104. It seems by this as if Mr. M. would criminate the errors of a lunatic, provided he has lost his reason by his own personal fault ; yea, suppose he has not, his “natural defects and disorders are the continued con- sequences of our first revolt from God,” and therefore it seems are inexcusable !–98. Some people, however, will be ready to think a man cannot be far off such a state of mind himself when he can admit of such an idea. After all, does not Mr. M.'s own description of the case of Samson, (29,) who lost his strength by his own sin, sufficiently refute what he would here establish 3 Mr. M. has greatly abounded in misrepresentation. To enumerate every instance of it were as tedious as it is un- necessary. There are but few pages which are wholly exempt. If, as he assures us, it is none of it to be im- puted to unfair intention, but to a bad judgment, (152,) his judgment must be bad indeed * Much is made of what I said in my treatise of “no sort of hope being held out to sinners as such,”—72, 73. I have long since as good as acknowledged that sentence to be obscure ; and have declared my meaning to be, “merely to disown that any sinner was encouraged by the gospel to hope for eter- nal life without returning home to God by Jesus Christ.” —Reply to Philanthropos, p. 190.—But of this Mr. M. has taken no notice. This might be an oversight. But to what can you impute his applying what was written upon humility in the abstract to my own humility? Fur- ther, what can you make of his representing me as im- puting it to ignorance, pride, dishonesty of heart, and aversion to God, that people do not believe as I believe— that is, that they do not embrace my views of the senti- ment here in dispute 3–133. Is this “the result of fair &ntention ?” It may be said Mr. M. meant to urge the above only as an inference, and that he has so represented it in another place (142): be it so, he had no warrant to represent that inference as my apprehension, which he does,—p. 113. But suppose it were considered as an inference, what then If mental errors are not excusable, as Mr. M. says they are not, (101,) then to what purpose are all his attempts to excuse them ?–132. 143. 182. If mental errors are criminal in others, why should they be thought innocent in Mr. M. or me ! I never professed to be free from prejudice, though I am persuaded it is no more than I ought to be ; and in proportion as this occupies the mind we shall linger and halt in embracing truth. Our Lord, who was never wanting in compassion to his dis- ciples, yet said, “O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken.” I will mention but one instance more of Mr. M.’s mis- representations. I had said, “Some have treated the dis- tinction of inability into natural and moral as a new in- vention ; but that only proves their own want of reading.” Also that, “for want of knowing better, some people had suspected this distinction to be friendly to Arminianism.” Mr. M., after observing that I charge my Calvinistic op- ponents with want of reading, with want of knowing better, &c., adds, “When the characters who are censured, on the one side, and the reading, knowledge, and years of their formidable CENSOR, on the other, are duly considered, will such a contrast give the intelligent reader a high idea of our author's modesty ?”—91. But does Mr. M. know what CHARACTERs these are 3 If not, how can either he or his reader “ consider” any thing about them Will Mr. M. assert there can be no persons found on his side of the question in debate, of whom he himself would be ashamed to say that they are persons of extensive reading 3 While yet there are others, who disagree with me in this point, who would be ashamed to defend their cause by the language he may choose to express it, must use it in ten thousand instances in life. As to the swelling language of p. 69, and indeed almost all through his piece, few people except himself will think that of advantage to his cause.—“The ignorant and the insolent,” as Mr. M. elsewhere observes, “in matters of a religious nature, as well as in what relates to the circle of science, always make a more pompous profession of their knowledge and zeal than those who are wise and humble.”— End and Evid. of Adoption, p. 5. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. 329 rash assertions and mispresentations which some have ad- vanced. Is it any compliment to Calvinists, and Calvinists of character too, to suppose them so ignorant as to treat the above distinction as a new invention ? Is Mr. M. one of these Calvinists 2 If he is, it would be no want of modesty to tell him that his reading must either have been very small, or to very little purpose. One should think it must imply a greater want of modesty to deny than to affirm that, if the above distinction is supposed to be friendly to Arminianism, it must be for want of knowing better, seeing three of the greatest champions that ever engaged in the Arminian controversy have either used it, or declared in its favour. Edwards is well known to have used it, and that to purpose, in his Inquiry into the Freedom of the Will; ToPLADY applauded Edwards's work, as adapted “totally to unravel and defeat the Ar- minian sophistry;” and GILL, though he made but little use of it, yet declared that “the distinction of the natural and moral liberty of the will was of great service in the Arminian controversy.” Query, Did not Mr. M. in the above remark wish to have his reader think that I referred to such CHARACTERS as GILL and BRINE (whose names he mentions within a page or two of the place); and spoke of THEM as men of little reading and little knowledge 2 Why else did he print the word CHARACTERs in capitals 3 and why omit referring, as usual, to the page wherein my words are to be found 3 If this was the case, and this, after all, was the result of fair intention, I say again it must indi- cate a judgment bad indeed! Mr. M. takes one method to work upon his readers, not much to his own honour, or to the credit of the opinion he has of their judgment; that is, of calling himself and those of his opinion “Calvinists, intelligent Calvinists,” (88,) and insinuating that his opponent is at least approaching towards “Baaterianism,”—191. It were puerile to have any dispute with him upon such a subject. “Competent judges” will perceive that I am as far off from Baxterian- ism as he is from Calvinism ; and I need not be further. Mr. M. asks, “Does Mr. Fuller know an intelligent Calvinist that is offended with the character of God—that believes that God is not worthy of being loved with all the heart, soul, mind, and strength—that is so ignorant as not to perceive that want of love to God is so vile a disposition as admits of no excuse?”—88.—Perhaps not ; but he knows of one who calls himself a Calvinist, and in point of intelligence thinks himself pretty much above contempt, who has written above two hundred pages to prove (if they are intended to prove any thing) that the possession of love to God is not incumbent on men in general, but barely an endeavour to possess it; and if so, how is it that the want of it should admit of no excuse 2 Is it so inexcusable a fault to be wanting in what we are not obliged to have 2 Of the anger or resentment of others, Mr. M. seems to have no dread, 71. Heroic man He seems, however, to consider his own anger as very dreadful, and, when roused, very unrulable (93); he did wisely, and gener- ously, no doubt, in avoiding a topic by which he might have set himself on fire. There are many extraordinary features discernible in the face of Mr. M.'s performance, but none more prominent than his desire of applause. It is amusing, as well as astonishing, to see the frankness with which this is pro- claimed, and even defended. Self-applause is his declared motive for loving and praising virtuous actions,—169. JReputation is an end for which he writes, 190. The “,@pplause of competent judges” seems to be the summit of his wishes, 207. HUME, REID, and TopLADY wrote for fame; and so does Mr. MARTIN, and, if he may be * There was a time when Mr. M. spiritualized a watch ; a time also When the ministers with whom he was then connected employed him to write a Circular Letter to the churches; and a time when he used 9°Casionally to print sermons. There was a time also when, in adver- tising a new performance, he thought proper to cry down these old ones, calling them “fugitive pieces, written,” as he in his great hu- \mility informs the world, “at a time when it was his auty to have lººed, and his vanity to publish.” See the advertisement ºf the end of Mr. M.'s Christian š Peculiar Conflict. , Whatever right Mr. M. might have to cry down his other produc- tions, one should have thought he might have let the Circula; i. alone. As it is always customary for the associated ministers and *ššengers to revise, alter, and correct it, and the moderator to sign it, the writer can have at most but a part of the honour or dishonour attending it; and most writers would, in such an instance, have for- Y + believed, every other writer, 170. All this is amusing ; but when the authority of Paul is introduced to justify his folly, this is profane. Paul exhorted us to pursue things which are of good report, but not for the sake of gaining applause by it. The desire of applause is so mean a vice that most other authors, if they have felt it, have chosen to conceal it ; but Mr. M. is superior to conceal- ment. Conscious, it seems, that he is under its governing influence in all he writes, he scorns either to hide it or apologize for it; he dares to avow it, and defend it, as not only lawful, but laudable, and according with apostolic in- junction 1 And yet is it not rather extraordinary that Mr. M. should defend this motive in himself, and at the same time censure it so severely in others, calling it, by way of dis- dain, “the lust of being consequential **–180. It may be alleged, perhaps, that the word lust signifies an inordinate desire; and Mr. M. may think his desire of fame to be more moderate than that of some people. But of this, it may be replied, Mr. M. may hardly be a competent judge. It is not impossible that he may view both his own de- sires, and those of his neighbours, through a deceitful me- dium, by which the latter may be magnified, and the former diminished. Some have thought it was not very prudent in him to hazard the following questions:–“Who are the most anxious to secure (and sometimes by methods de- servedly censured) the shadow of popularity? Who are most desirous of being thought very useful, and fond of being consequential **—58. They will be ready to an- swer, Who indeed? Who is it that pleads for fame as the object of every undertaking? who that labours to obtain 'reputation by degrading others? who that swells with such an idea of himself as to pronounce his qualifications to be above contempt, his arguments formidable, his conclusions *nevitable, and those that oppose him to be guilty of such folly as, if it were possible, would make angels blush 3 * The pursuit of fame is Mr. M.'s avowed object; he would be thought, however, to have steered clear of envy, –71. And yet he speaks as if he was not a little unhappy at hearing “last January of the prevalence of Mr. Fuller's sentiments,”—190. But might not this arise from his re- gard to what he accounted truth? It might ; and if such a regard had not been too disinterested for his theological creed, we might suppose that to be his meaning. Allow this, however, to be his meaning; allow his heart in one instance to be better than his system; this is not all.—He talks of being my competitor, 208. Competitor—for what? for fame, no doubt. Happy man, if he can steer his course clear of envy." But with his motives, excepting so far as he has openly discovered them, I have no concern. To his own Master he standeth or falleth. LETTER III. ON LOVE TO GOD AND DIVINE THINGS FOR THEIR OWN EXCELLENCY, HAVING replied to Mr. M.'s accusations, and made some general observations on his work, I shall now drop some few remarks on three of the principal subjects in debate; namely, love to God, Divine efficiency, and human endea- vowr.—Love to God and Divine things, FoR THEIR own EXCELLENCY, will be the subject of the present Letter. On this subject Mr. M. has dealt largely in misrepre- sentation. borne their claim. If, however, they had put it down amongst their £orks, they would never have thought themselves at liberty to traduce it; knowing this could not be done without insulting the whole asso- ciation. But it seems Mr. M. had much rather insult his former con- nexions than lose an opportunity of praising his last performances, and giving the world to understand that he was now become the ac- complished author. What a method was this to recommend his book 1 ... Pºor authors,” as Mr. M. (feelingly” no doubt) expresses it, (189,) “often as proud, or vain at least, as they are poor; to what measures are they frequently reduced . The book will not be read, will not SELE.”—Ah, Mr. Martin is this your kindness to your old friends ! Verily ministers had need beware of giving their sanction to your per- formances ! * “None but an author knows an author's cares.”—CowPER. 330 ON MB. MARTIN’S PUBLICATION. First, He all along supposes that, by loving God for what he is in himself, I mean a loving him for some ab- stract properties of his nature, no way related to his crea- tures, and in which they have no interest (158. 160. 163); whereas I have said that “I know of no such properties in the Deity ; but that whatever excellence exists in the nature of God, that excellence is engaged in favour of his people.”—Treatise, pp. 98. 102. But does it follow that because, if I am a Christian, there is no excellence in God but what I have an interest in, therefore such interest is the only possible consideration for which I can or ought to love him 3–It is true, in one sense, that I know not what God is in himself, nor even what “a blade of grass is;” neither do I know what a man is in himself;-but yet I can distinguish between the affection I bear to a man on account of his kindness to me, and that which I feel to- wards him on account of his general character. A man of infamous character may in some instance do me a kind- ness: if I am the subject of a right temper, I shall at once feel gratitude and good-will towards him, while yet I am constrained to detest his general disposition and conduct. A man of good character may do me a kindness: if I feel towards him as I ought, I shall love him both for his kind- ness to me, and as well for the excellence of his character in general, which might have been what it is if I had never existed. Secondly, What Mr. M. has written supposes that I am against people's loving themselves—that I want to separate the glory of God and our best interests, and to make it incumbent on men to pursue the one so as to neglect the other, pp. 160. 172,173. But all this is unjust, and what he could never infer from any thing I have written. I never imagined that every kind of self-love was selfish, in the bad sense of the word. On the contrary, I suppose that the law which requires us to love our neighbour as ourselves implies that we ought to love ourselves as our neighbour; we ought to love both, in subserviency to his glory who requires the supreme place in our affections. But does it follow, because it is right to make our own interest a secondary object of our pursuit, or to seek it in subserviency to God’s glory, that therefore it must be the direct object of all our affections 2–160. Does it follow that, because a pursuit of God’s glory cannot be separated from our best interest, therefore it cannot be distinguished from it? Is nothing to be distinguished that cannot be separated 3 If I pursue a line of conduct tending to pro- mote the public good, and if it appear to others that the public good is the grand end I have in view, I shall have reputation; but if it be alleged that, because a pursuit of the public good is attended with reputation, therefore I must needs have such reputation in view as the direct ob- ject of my pursuit, in all my actions, would this be just reasoning? Would it be just to say that, on account of such reputation attending my conduct, it is impossible I should feel any disinterested regard to the public good— that is, any regard but that which I feel towards it on ac- count either of the share I as an individual have in it, or the honour or advantage that will accrue to me from my conduct 7 When I speak of loving God for himself, I neither sup- pose it is on account of some excellences in his nature which have no relation to our welfare, nor that we feel, or ought to feel, regardless of our best interests, true honour, or substantial happiness. These may, and ought, no doubt, to be pursued in subordination to God’s glory; and a proper pursuit of them, instead of setting aside the idea of love to God for his own excellence, necessarily implies it. Am I, for instance, in search of true honour? If I am, it is of that honour that ariseth from being approved of God; but, in order to God's approbation being the summit of my soul's ambition, I must necessarily love him for what he is in himself. What gratification would the applause of a person afford me of whom I had but a mean opinion, and towards whom I had no previous regard f Again, Am I in pursuit of substantial happiness? If I am, I am in search of the enjoyment of GOD, as my everlasting por- tion ; but how could I conceive of God as a portion worthy to be sought, or at all adapted to make me happy, unless I loved him for what he is in himself antecedently to my enjoyment of him Domen ever seek a portion in subordinate end, the charge were just. earthly things without viewing that portion as good and desirable in itself, whether they have it or not? Mr. M. considers a love to God and Divine things for their own excellence as a chimera ; and the ground on which he proceeds seems to be this : Whatever object we love, the enjoyment of that object affords us pleasure or happiness ; and so our love is in no respect disinterested, does not terminate on what God is in himself, but aims DIRECTLY at our own advantage,”—171. 160. This is the argument that is to silence deists, 171. This, I suppose, is the sum of what Mr. M. would wish to have considered as the result of “trials and observations, more in number and variety than some people have yet had opportunities to experience and consider,”—80. And what is it after all ? The question is, Is it possible for us to take pleasure &n an object for its own sake? Mr. M. answers, No.— Wherefore ? Because that object affords us pleasure.— That is, we cannot take pleasure in an object, because we can and do find pleasure in it ! What can be thought of Mr. M.'s ingenuousness in quot- ing Mr. BoyLE (167) against the doctrine of disinterested love, when every one who reads his work must see that that doctrine is these expressly and largely defended ? It is true Mr. Boy LE pleads for God’s blessings being “taken &n among the motives of loving him ; ” and who objects to this? Mr. M. knows his opponent does not. Mr. Boyle pleads that God is to be loved partly “for what HE IS IN HIMSELF,” and partly “for what HE Is To Us.” (These are his own words.) And I have done the same. But Mr. M. seems to wish to insinuate to the reader that I em- brace the same principles with those preachers in the time of Mr. Boyle who “taught the people that to hope for heaven is a mercenary, legal, and, therefore, unfilial affec- tion.” Is this “ the result of fair intention?”—See Mr. Boy Le’s Motives and Incentives to the Love of God, sect. 13. The gospel undoubtedly holds up rewards to stimulate us to duty, rewards addressed to our emulation and thirst of happiness (173); and if the deists on this account re- proach it as a selfish theory, I have no doubt but their re- proach is groundless. The gospel ought not to be deno- minated a selfish theory because it inculcates a regard to ourselves. If, however, it could be proved that we are there taught so to pursue our own interest as that the glory of God shall not be regarded as a supreme, but as a But the rewards contained in the gospel convey no such idea as this, for the following plain reason:—The sum of all these rewards is GoD HIMSELF. Grace and glory are only God’s commu- nications of himself. Hence it follows that such rewards, properly pursued, instead of excluding supreme love to God for what he is in himself, necessarily imply it. With- out such a love, as hath been already observed, it is im- possible in any right manner to seek either his approba- tion or blessing. , Mr. M. himself, it seems, once thought on this subject as his opponent now thinks,—80.* I wonder whether he then held all the extravagancies which he now imputes to me, and whether we are to consider him as exemplifying the character which he has drawn from Mr. Baxter, “ cen- suring others by the measure of his own mistakes,”—192. Did he then “suppose it possible for any man to perceive the highest excellence, so as to prefer it and enjoy it, and yet fancy that such affection might be separated from his best interest and highest pleasure ?”—160. Did he then think he had found out God, and knew the Almighty to per- fection 2 or that he had any other ideas of God than by analogy or similitude 2 Did he then “swell with a vain imagination,” and aspire at independency of God 3 In a word, DID HE THEN THINK HIMSELF A WISER MAN THAN HE DoEs Now % Mr. M. not only denies the possibility of a love to God for what he is in himself, but likewise a love to virtue and virtuous actions for their own sake. He contends it is with a view to the interest that we have in loving and applauding such actions that we love and applaud them. To the objection, how we come to “praise virtuous actions performed in distant ages and remote countries, which have • See also his End and Evidences of Adoption, p. 18–23, and 39. LOVE TO GOD. 33ſ no connexion with our present happiness or security,” Mr. M. answers, “We never cordially bestow praise without being pleased. Nor are we pleased with the report of vir- tuous actions unless we judge them to be such. Nor do we so judge without applauding ourselves for our decision. For we really think it contributes to advance our “present happiness and security,” by increasing our reputation,”— 196. Much to the same purpose is what is advanced in p. 138, in a supposed address to me. This account of the matter, it must be allowed, is very curious. We praise virtuous actions—wherefore ? because those actions please us. But wherefore do they please us? because they cor- respond with what we judge to be truly virtuous. But wherefore do we judge in favour of true virtue 2 because when the decision is past it affords, upon reflection, a ground of self-applause. Self-applause therefore is the original motive or reason why we love and applaud vir- tuous actions ! Mr. M., by making self-applause his motive, must mean either the thing itself, or the desire of it. If he mean the former, he must maintain that self- applause, which arises from a favourable judgment of vir- tuous actions, nevertheless existed before such judgment was made, so as to be the ground and reason of it. It is something of so peculiar a quality as to exist prior to its cause, and give being to that of which itself is the effect! If he mean the latter, that is, the desire of self-applause, and not the thing itself, this, it is possible, may be found to be as far off from the truth as the other. A Christian takes up his Bible—reads the interesting history of Joseph —reads of his patience under sufferings, his chastity in temptations, his firmness, his meekness, his wisdom, his fidelity, his filial duty, but above all his amiable forgiving spirit towards his cruel brethren–His heart begins to burn—with what ? love? No, stay—first with the desire of self-applause ; and knowing that if he judge in favour of Joseph's virtue, is pleased with it, and speaks in praise of it, his desire will be accomplished, he consequently forms the decision, feels pleased, proclaims that pleasure to others, and so accomplishes his end–enjoys the satis- faction of self-applause, increases his reputation, and thus promotes his present happiness and security. I will not deny but that in some cases, and in some de- gree, Mr. M.'s doctrine may be true. Hypocrites will often praise what they never practise; and consequently what they never cordially love. Thus the Pharisees built the tombs of the prophets, and garnished the sepulchres of the ºrighteous. In these cases self-love may be the origin, and *eputation the end; and in this sort it is granted men may applaud really virtuous actions without possessing “re. ligious dispositions,”—168. But perhaps Mr. M. would not thank me for this concession. But Mr. M. seems to think he has loaded the doctrine of disinterested love with sufficient reproach by represent- ing “Arminians, mystics, and deists as its chief detailers and defenders,”—80. But suppose it were so, that would not prove it to be erroneous. Mr. M., however, will not say of Goodwin, Owen, CHARNock, EDwARDs, GILL, or BRINE, that either of them was an “ Arminian, a mystic, or a deist ;” and yet each of them has defended a love to God and Divine things for their own excellency, in distinc- tion from a love to them barely on account of their being advantageous to us.* They admitted that we should love otò'selves, and pursue our own interest in subserviency to God's glory; but to make our own interest the first motive or the last end was what, in their opinion, characterized a hypocrite, or an apostate world. Mr. CHARNock calls the one a “loving of God first, and ourselves in order to God; the other, a loving of ourselves first, and God in order to ow'selves ;” and thus, says he, “Love To Gop is LOST, AND LOVE TO SELF IIATH USURPED THE THRONIE.” It may be presumed, too, that none of these writers had less opportunity for obtaining knowledge, or was possessed of less humility, than Mr. M.; though he ascribes his ideas on this subject to his superior “opportunities to some people,” and the ideas of those who differ from him to a Spirit of pride, the pride of aspiring at independency of God! Nor were they perhaps inferior to him in wisdom and * Goodwin on Ephes. vol. I. p. 152-161, Owen on the Spirit, P. 99. Charnock's Works, vol. I. p. 90–93. Edwards on Affections, p. 139–152. Gill’s Bod. Div. vol. ii.I. ch. 9. Brine's Dialogue, 313-315. EFFICIENCY. solid judgment; though he is pleased to represent those who hold this sentiment as “swelling with a vain imagin- ation,” and their opinion as folly and madness, yea, such folly as is “sufficient, if it were possible, to make angels blush 1 °–158. 160. This is the writer that censures his opponent, and talks of his anger being roused for his want of respect for those who differ from him 1–93. Whether angels can blush may be doubted ; perhaps, as Mr. M. seems to think, they are incapable of it; and does it not seem as if some men were equally incapable 3 LETTER IV. Divine EFFICIENCY, HAVING considered what Mr. M. has advanced on love to God, the next subject that requires discussion is DIVINE I am sorry I should have again to complain of misrepresentation. Though Mr. M. acquits me in one place, (124,) as indeed he ought, of making any thing the duty of men but that wherein they are voluntary, f yet in many other places he represents me as maintaining that it is men's duty to produce spiritual dispositions, (147,) to be born again, (150,) to vivify themselves, to make the word effectual to salvation, (202,) to convince themselves of sin, (120,) to be the sons of God, (125,) &c. &c. I suppose, however, that all he would abide by is, that these are the just consequences of my principles; but suppose they were, Mr. M. had no right to represent me as holding those con- sequences, especially when he knows, and in some places acknowledges, that I disavow them. It was before asked, Do we NEED THE SPIRIT OF GOD TO ENABLE Us To Do OUR DUTY 7 Mr. M. answers, “WE Do,” (116,) but denies the inferences that I have drawn from it. The grand inference that I drew from it was this, If we need the Spirit of God to enable us to do our duty, then our needing the Spirit of God to enable us to BELIEVE will not prove but that BELIEVING MAY BE A DUTY.—Now, ad- mitting the premises, what has Mr. M. said to overthrow this conclusion ? He says, “Let also this question be well weighed, Do we need the Spirit of God on LY to enable us to do our duty 2 Are there not blessings to be enjoyed as well as duties to be discharged 3 blessings which He who came to bless us designed to be our strength 3 blessings by which he turns us from our iniquities, and prepares us for the present and future enjoyment of HIMSELF 3 blessings which, though they are the source and spring of new obe- dience, must not be degraded by the name of duty. For though the proper discharge of duty is our excellence, is it not confined to our acts & Blessing, however, is not our excellence ; but as it is imparted and enjoyed, it is THAT which makes us to excel. Why are things so different and so distinct to be confounded ?”—l 17. Mr. M., I observe, amidst all his exclamations against obscurity, chooses to deal in very vague language. He talks of “blessings bestowed by the Holy Spirit—blessings which are the spring of new obedience, but which must not be degraded by the name of duty–blessing which is not our excellence, but THAT which makes us to excel”— and yet, after all, he has not told us what this blessing is ; whether it is the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit, that is, Divine influence itself; or whether it is a new heart, or new spirit, wrought by that influence. One should think he cannot mean the former, for that he knows and acknowledges I never imagined to be any other than a blessing,-125. And yet it is evident in some places that this is his meaning; particularly in p. 96, where he makes that which I suppose is required of men to be a “possess- £ng of the power of God!” By blessing he must mean, if he mean any thing different from his opponent, a new heart, spirit, or disposition ; and since he sometimes dis- tinguishes “spiritual blessings from the energy that gives us the enjoyment of them,” (125,) and in the above passage confines all duty to our acts, thereby denying it to extend + See my Treatise, Appendix, p. 180. 332 ON MIR. MARTIN’S PUBLICATION to dispositions, one should think he means to affirm that though mental acts may be duties, yet dispositions are not, but are mere blessings ; and that these are not our excel- lence, but what cause ws to excel. To all which it is replied, I. Suppose all duty were confined to our acts, Mr. M., I presume, will not deny that believing in Christ is an act of the mind; and therefore, according to his own reasoning, it may be the duty of men in general, though, like other duty, it cannot be done without the Spirit of God. How then does he overthrow my inference 2 Has he not inadvertently confirmed it? Admitting that we need the Holy Spirit for other purposes as well as to en- able us to do our duty—(indeed this is what I should never deny)—yea, admitting, for argument’s sake, the whole of what he has here alleged to be just, believing in Christ may notwithstanding be a duty—a duty which we need the Holy Spirit to enable us to comply with, and which, therefore, in being a duty, is no way inconsistent with the doctrine of Divine efficiency. If Mr. M.'s reason- ings affect any thing, it is not the duty of believing in Christ, but that of being the subjects of spiritual disposi- tions ; and so of the same thing, in different respects, being both a duty and a blessing. How far this is affected remains to be examined. II. Duty is not to be confined to our acts, it extends to our dispositions.—God requires that we “BE HOLY, for that he is holy”—that “the SAME MIND BE IN US which was in Christ Jesus”—that we BE “ PERFECT, as our Father who is in heaven is perfect.”—If holy dispositions do not come under the denomination of duties, neither do unholy dispositions come under the denomination of sins ; for where there is no obligation there can be no transgres- sion—and so it will follow that a proud, covetous, or malig- nant temper of mind has nothing in it offensive to God, or worthy of his displeasure. Mr. M. would not be thought “so ignorant as not to perceive that the want of love to God is a Disposition so vile as to admit of no excuse,”— 88. But if duty be confined to our acts, how can vileness be attributed to any disposition. In that case it can be neither virtuous nor vicious. III. If duty extend to the temper, spirit, or disposition of the mind, then it must follow that the same thing may, in different respects, be both a duty and a blessing.—It is admitted on all hands that holy dispositions, wherever they exist, are blessings ; and if they come within the compass of duty, then they must be both duties and blessings. Every sinner is required “ to love God with all his heart.” This implies a right spirit. A right spirit in this view is duty. But if any sinner now possesses such a spirit, it is in consequence of that promise, “A new heart will I give them, and a new spirit will I put within them.” A right spirit in this view is a blessing. Nobody imagines that blessing, considered as such, is our excellence ; doubtless it is that, as Mr. M. says, “which makes us to excel.” But if the same thing in one respect may be a duty, as well as in another respect a blessing, then it may in one respect be our excellence after all; ...And is not this the very truth Is not the temper, spirit, or disposition of the mind either its excellence or its disgrace 2 Is not that new heart, and new spirit, which is on all hands allowed to be a blessing of the Holy Spirit, our eaccellence as well as our happiness? Instead of making no part of our excellence, it makes the sum of it; for no &ets are any further excellent, or virtuous, than as they are the expressions of such a disposition. When I speak of the same thing, in different respects, being both a duty and a blessing, Mr. M. calls it halving the matter,-131. But this, I should think, will contri. bute but little to his “ reputation amongst competent judges.” Is it halving of any thing to consider it differ- ently in different respects 3 For example, is it halving or dividing the Deity to say that in different respects he is both three and ome 2 What Mr. M. has said against its being the duty of a bad man to be a good man, and against its being the duty of every good man to be as holy as St. Paul, he may well think will be “considered by some as erroneous and dan- gerous,”–96. I should not exceed truth were I to say, those who have hitherto been Mr. M.'s best friends detest these principles; and in proportion as our Lord's doctrine, which requires us to be perfect even as our Father who is in heaven is perfect, is regarded, they must always be de- tested. If this is not Antinomianism, nothing ever deserved that name. There was a time when Mr. M. himself con- sidered such notions as not only “dangerous, but despi- cable.”—End and Evid. of Adop. p. 46, 47. It is a poor apology that he makes for himself, that he “only means to show that saying it is the duty of a bad man to MAKE HIMSELF a good man, and that it is the duty of a good man to MAKE HIMSELF the best man, is language of a dangerous tendency,”—96. Whether it is the duty of men to make themselves good men, or not, is not the question ; such language, or such ideas, never proceeded from my pen; therefore Mr. M. cannot, with any just pretence, maintain that this is all he means to oppose. The thing which I affirm, and which he denies, is, that it is the duty of a bad man to BE a good man. The ground on which this affirmation rests is this, that the thing which God directly requires is THE HEART, and not barely a go- ing about to use certain means and endeavours in order to make the heart better. If a righteous king confer with a number of his rebellious subjects, the thing that he re- quires is, that they BE will ING to come under his govern- ment. If they allege that their hearts are averse, and they cannot obey him, he is never known to direct them to means and endeavours for changing their hearts. Such a direction would be beneath him ; and such an allegation on their part would be looked upon as an open avowal of their rebellious intention, and the conference must imme- diately break up. And thus it is in the Scriptures. The language of the Bible is not, “Use such and such means to get those dispo- sitions of which you are at present destitute;” but, “BE YE Holy, for I am holy.”—“BE NOT wise in your own conceits.”—“ Let that mind BE IN YoU that was ºn Christ Jesus,” &c. &c. That which God requires of men is not barely that they use certain means in order to bring their hearts to love, repent, and believe ; he requires the things themselves. His language is, “ Thow shalt love the Lord thy God.”—“ Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”—“While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light.” The grounds on which Mr. M. supports his denial of its being the duty of a bad man to be a good man are such, as, if they prove any thing, will prove that it is not the duty of a villain to be an honest man; but barely to make certain endeavours towards it, which may or may not be effectual, as God shall please to bless them. But if such a character were a debtor to Mr. M., and were to urge that though he had endeavoured to his utmost to become of an honest mind, yet it had not pleased God, at present, to crown his endeavours with success; it is well if he was not treated as uncivilly as a supposed character of such a kind is said to have been treated by me, 117. 188. If it is alleged that telling sinners it is their duty to be of such a temper of mind as they must know they are not, and telling them of no means by which they, without pos- sessing any true desire after it, may become of such a tem- per, must needs drive them to despair I answer, First, It is impossible, in the nature of things, for any means or directions to be given which those who have no direct de- sire after a right temper of mind may use in order to obtain such a temper. The use of a means always implies the existence of desire after the end; and the constitution of our souls must be altered before it can be otherwise. Secondly, It is true that such doctrine as this must drive sinners to despair; but it is such despair as must lie at the foundation of all well-grounded hope. It was in this way that sin revived, and the apostle died. And after all that Mr. M. has said about grace and Divine efficiency, it is in this way, and not by his compromising notion of endeavour, that the sinner must be brought to feel himself utterly lost, absolutely at God’s discretion, and in want of a saviour that shall save him, as one may say, in spite of himself. HUMAN ENDEAVOUR. 333 LETTER. W. HUMAN ENDEAVOUR. HAVING in my last considered the subject of Divine offi- ciency, I shall now draw to a close with a few thoughts on Mr. M.'s motion of ENDEAvour. If there is any thing in Mr. M.'s performance from which his real sentiments can be gathered, it is this. All the rest is little more than an attempt to demolish. This is the ground on which he has taken his stand. It is not men's duty to love God, to repent of sin, to believe in Christ, to be perfectly holy; but to ENDEAVOUR a compliance with these things. It is their duty, it seems, not to return to the Lord, but barely to pray that they may be able to return—and so on of every internal exercise of religion,-75.96. I have already drop- ped a few occasional hints on this notion, and shall now consider it more particularly. The following observations are offered to consideration I. This endeavour is supposed to have no certain con- nexion with the thing endeavoured after.—Mr. M. does not mean to say that that endeavour to love God, repent of sin, and believe in Christ, which he grants to be the duty of men, is such as, if exercised, would certainly issue in any of those things. If he did, the difference between us would not be very material. But this would be contrary to the tenor of what he has written, especially to pages 26, 27. According to Mr. M.’s notion, if I understand it, men may endeavour to love God, repent of sin, and be- lieve in Christ, and so perform their whole duty, in that matter, and yet never be able to love him, believe in him, &c., no, not in the least degree; and so may die uncon- verted notwithstanding, and finally perish I II. Endeavour is used by Mr. M. in opposition to pos- session. The thing that he all along opposes is, that men are obliged to possess spiritual dispositions; and this is what he substitutes in the place of such possession,—96. The endeavour, therefore, that he inculcates, must not imply the possession of any spiritual disposition whatever; no, nor of any direct inclination or desire after the things sought. If it did, endeavour would not be properly op- posed to possession ; for it is absurd to say that anything is opposed to that which is necessarily included in it. And this seems to be the kind of endeavour that Mr. M. pleads for in page 26, where he says, “we must pray, as in truth We can, let our frame or state be what it may ”—that is, if we have no desire after God in our hearts, we are only to take care that we pretend to none, and in this way we may pray with integrity and worightness / But, III. Seeking and endeavouring without the possession of any true desire after the things sought can be only indi- ºrect ; and therefore can have no true virtue in it, but, on the contrary, is the essence of hypocrisy.—A disobedient son may know himself in danger of being disinherited by his father. He may, to avoid this, reform his conduct, conform in appearance to his father's will, and endeavour. to reconcile his mind to many things which in themselves he cordially hates. But such endeavour as this few will Pretend has any virtue in it; and yet this is as much as Mr. M.'s motion of endeavour makes to be incumbent on men in general. If they are obliged to seek after God, to pray to him, to strive to enter in at the strait gate ; yet they are not in all or any of these exercises obliged to possess any true desire after God, or the things for which they seek, for that would be the same as being obliged to possess spiritual dispositions. Mr. M.'s endeavours, there- fore, are destitute of all true virtue; have nothing in them truly good, or acceptable to God; on the contrary, they are, abominable in his sight, as containing the very essence of hypocrisy. I can hardly persuade myself that Mr. M. really means to plead for such endeavours as these, though his account of the matter, taken altogether, can agree to no other. He Would not wish, however, I dare say, to be an advocate for any other than sincere endeavours; that is, such a seek- ing and endeavouring as imply a sincere desire after the ...” “A freedom from condemnation sinners want to obtain; but a life of faith in Christ, and holiness from Christ, they do not so much as desire to enjoy; nor ever will, until the Lord takes away the heart Such desire he represents the supposed things sought for. But if son of a deist, in his endeavours, to possess, -26. this is what he pleads for, then all the ends to be answered by it are lost; for he is then but just upon the same ground as his neighbours. If it is the duty of every man sincerely to endeavour to repent of sin, and believe in Christ, then it is his duty to possess a sincere desire to re- pent and believe ; but that amounts to the same thing as its being his duty to possess spiritual dispositions. Mr. M. also, in pleading for this as the duty of men, pleads, just as his opponent does, for that which “never existed, nor ever will,”—120.* Neither can he tell us of any means which those who have no desire to repent and be- lieve may use in order to get such a desire ; so that his reader is just as much perplexed as he supposes mine to be, 17. Such a desire also is a blessing as well as a duty. By the supposition it is the latter, and yet wherever it ex- ists it is the former. It is wrought by Divine efficiency; it is the effect of being created anew in Christ Jesus, and And here Mr. M.'s unmeaning questions (pages 24, 25) might be retorted upon him—“Which must take the lead, the blessing or the duty 2” What he says, likewise, of my making it men's duty to be the AUTHORs of spiritual dispositions (202) falls equally upon himself. If it is men's duty sincerely to en- deavour, then it is their duty to have sincere desire ; but this amounts to as much as I have asserted, and may as well be called a making it the duty of men to be the AUTHORs of such desire, as any thing I have written can be called a making it their duty to be the AUTHORs of spiritual dispositions.—Thus Mr. M.'s notion of endeavour either obliges men to be hypocrites, or places him in the same situation as those he censures, and answers the sub- stance of his own objections. Mr. M.'s own ideas of the matter, however, are widely different. He seems to have such an opinion of this no- tion as to reckon it almost a sufficient ground for antici- pating the issue of the contest, and enjoying beforehand the pleasure of a mental triumph. He requires “Mr. Fuller to show what it is that men are obliged to that is absolutely different from endeavour, and yet short of acting effici ntly. Till this be done,” he adds, in a style peculiar to himself, “he may write, but it is supposed he can never write an answer to the governing propositions of this per- formance : *—154. Truly I do not know that I have any material objection to comprehending the whole of human duty in endequour, though not as explained by Mr. Martin. There is as much included in the word as I have ever pleaded for. First, Endeavour includes the utmost exertion of all our natural powers; but the utmost exertion of all our powers towards spiritual objects is spiritual exercise. Such endeavour as. this to love, repent, and believe, (if it is proper to speak of such exercises as the objects of endeavour,) can never be in vain, because therein it is that the things themselves con- sist. The exertion or outgoing of the will and affections is the same thing as choosing and loving. Seeking after God, and such-like expressions, are always descriptive of spiritual exercise, of such exercise as is connected with eternal life.f. Secondly, Endeavour to perform spiritual actions, and to obtain spiritual blessings, instead of being opposed to the possession of spiritual disposition, neces- sarily implies it. It is impossible, in the nature of things, that we should directly and truly endeavour after that to- wards which we possess no real desire. No man ever yet sought after God, or endeavoured to please him, without possessing a love to him, and desire after him. Thus the whole of what I plead for is included in Mr. M.'s favourite word ENDEAvoUR. * Mr. M., before he has done, gives us to understand that, let the worst come to the worst, he is not without his re- sources of comfort. Suppose, for instance, it should prove that he is as inconsistent as he has attempted to prove his AUTHOR, even that, he thinks, will prove one point which he has long laboured to establish, namely, “the weakness of the human wrºderstanding,”—95. That is, it will prove the weakness of Mr. Martin's understanding. But possibly stands connected with eternal life. of stone, and graciously bestows a heart of flesh.”—Mr. Martin’s Sermon on Rom. x 3, p. 32. t See my Reply to Mr. Button, p. 72–74. (lst ed.) 334 ON MIR MARTIN’S PUBLICATION. that may never have yet been called in question ; or if it have, and if after “long labour” he may be supposed by this time to have put the matter out of all doubt, still it may not follow that, because his understanding is weak, therefore every one’s else must needs be the same. Seriously, was ever any question made of the weakness of the human understanding 3 Was it ever denied that our natural faculties are impaired, as well as our bodies subjected to disease, by the fall ? True, it has been, and is supposed, that, let our natural faculties be impaired as they may, it is not our fault that we do not understand beyond their present extent, any more than it is the fault of a man born blind not to read his Bible. But the chief of what I have written upon the human understanding respects not its natural, but moral weakness; and has this ever been denied ? Has it not all along been maintained that mem are blinded by prejudice, and that even good men are in- fected with a sad degree of the same disease ? And how if it should prove that Mr. M.'s mind is tinctured with such a degree of prejudice, in favour of his own ways of thinking, as that he has involved himself in far greater inconsistencies than those which he thinks he has dis- covered in the author whom he has censured 4 Will this affect any argument in debate between us? I appeal to you, sir, and to all “competent judges,” whether Mr. M.'s understanding must not be weak indeed if he think it will. But suppose Mr. M., instead of gaining, should lose the prize for which he is become a com PETITOR, still he com- forts himself that his ALL will not be lost. He has a stock of respectability that will yet be unexhausted. He does not mean therefore, at any rate, to indulge despair. So well established is his respectability, that even “Mr. Fuller,” he thinks, “cannot hesitate to say that he is above con- tempt,”—208. Mr. M., I observe, though in general fond of self-applause, yet here appears hardly contented with it ; he wishes, it seems, to know his AUTHOR’s opinion concerning him ; but not having patience to wait for it, he ventures to anticipate the matter, and decide it him- self-Had Mr. M. but given me leave to speak for myself, I cannot tell how much I might have said in his praise; as it is, I can only say that if I could have access to him, I would whisper in his ear these lines of Dr. Young :— “Fame is a bubble the reserved enjoy; Who strive to grasp it, as they touch, destroy; 'Tis the world's debt, to deeds of high degree ; º But if you pay yourself, the world is free.” Seriously, is not Mr. M. ashamed " If he is not, must not his best friends be ashamed for him 3 and not only ashamed, but grieved, for the idea he gives the world of the motives of those who are engaged in what he calls a “serious altercation ?” I remain affectionately yours, A. FULLER. POSTSCRIPT. YoU ask what I think of Mr. Martin’s treatment of Mr. Evans, particularly “whether his gross misrepresentation of his meaning, page 70, is to be attributed to ignorance or malevolence 3’’ I think his treatment of Mr. Evans is of a piece with his treatment of others. Mr. M. seems to be so intoxicated with ideas of his own “reputation ” as to be incapable of respecting the character of other men. Few people who may read the 69th, 70th, and 71st pages of his book will think he discovers much of the Christian or the gentle- man ; some may suppose, however, that he has shown himself the man, particularly by his daring manner of speaking concerning Mr. Evans's resentment. If man- liness consisted in the swell of self-importance, or the bold dashes of insolence, Mr. Martin might well be en- titled to that quality; but the boldest attempts to provoke another's resentment are not always the strongest indica- tions of manly courage. There are cases which are be- meath resentment—cases in which the assailant himself cannot have the vanity to expect it. I do suppose Mr. Martin never expected that Mr. Evans would take any notice of what he has written; and this might probably inspire him with courage to write as he did. As to the passage in page 70, I think a very small share of candour and common sense would have con- strued Mr. Evans's words as meaning no more than that men in general have the command of all the members of the body, and the use of all the faculties of the soul. Ig- morance and malevolence, however, are hard words, espe- cially the latter; your “knowledge of Mr. Martin's cha- racter,” you say, “makes you hope it was the former.” For my part, I think it is very well that Mr. Martin has informed us (p. 70) that he is not under the influence of ENVY ; for I confess I should otherwise have imputed his treatment of Mr. Dvans to that cause ; and even as it is, I know not upon what other principle to account for his harping upon the subject of “emolument.” A NT IN O M IAN ISM CONTRASTED WITH THE RELIGION TAUGHT AND EXEMPLIFIED IN THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. INTRODUCTION. WHEN we consider the awful strides which irreligion has lately made in the Christian world, it is almost enough to induce us to think favourably of any thing that bears the name of Christ—at least of any thing which professes to embrace the leading principles of the gospel: but thus it must not be. Irreligion is not so dangerous as false re- INTRODUCTION. 335 ligion; the one is an enemy at a distance, the other at home. The more we are threatened by the former, there- fore, the more necessary it is that we detect the latter. The friends of Christ, though they be but few, had better be by themselves. A little band girt with truth, and strengthened by the Lord of hosts, will do more execution than a heterogeneous mixture of friends and enemies. It is one of the arts of the wily serpent, when he cannot prevent the introduction of the gospel into a place, to get it corrupted, by which means it is not only deprived of its wonted efficacy, but converted into an engine of destruc- tion. In the early ages of the church, men rose up who advanced depreciating notions of the person, work, and grace of the Redeemer. These, however, were repelled, and a stigma fixed upon them, by the labours of the faith- ful; and though they have had their advocates in all suc- ceeding ages, yet men have not been wanting who have exposed their fallacy; so much so, that the serious part of professing Christians have in a good measure united against them. But of late we have been taken as it were by sur- prise: while our best writers and preachers have been directing their whole force against Socimian, Arian, or Ar- minian heterodoxy, we are insensibly overrun by a system of false religion which has arisen and grown up among us under the names and forms of orthodoxy. Several circumstances have concurred to render this system but little noticed. One is, its having been embraced not so much by the learned as by the illiterate part of professing Christianis. Some of its principles, it is true, are common to every unrenewed mind; but, considered as a system, it is especially calculated for the vulgar me- ridian. On this account it has been treated as beneath the notice of the ablest writers. There is also something so low, foul, and scurrilous in the generality of the advo- cates of this system, that few have cared to encounter them, lest they should bring upon themselves a torrent of abuse. But though it is far from agreeable to have to do with such adversaries, yet it may be dangerous to treat their opinions with contempt. The Roman empire was overturned by a horde of barbarians. An apostle did not think it beneath him to expose the principles of men who “crept in unawares, and turned the grace of God into las- Civiousness.” The distinguishing feature of this species of religion is SELFISHNESS. Such is the doctrine, and such the spirit Which it inspires. The love of God as God, or an affec- tion to the Divine character as holy, is not in it. Love as exemplified in the Scriptures, though it can never be will- ing to be lost, (for that were contrary to its nature, which eyer tends to a union with its object,) yet bears an invari- able regard to the holy name or character of God. “How excellent is thy name in all the earth !”—“O magnify the Lord with me, and let us exalt his name together.”—“Let them that love thy name say continually, The Lord be magnified.”—“Blessed be his glorious name for ever and ever; and let the whole earth be filled with his glory. Amen and amen.” But love, as exemplified in the patrons of this system, is mere favouritism. God having as they °onceive made them his favourites, he becomes on that *Count, and that only, a favourite with them. Nor does it appear to have any thing to do with good-will to men as men. The religion of the apostles was full of benevo- lence. Knowing the terrors of the Lord, they persuaded *ēn, and even besought them to be reconcileå to God. They had no hope of sinners complying with these per- º of . 9Wn, accord, any more than the prophet ad in his address to the dry bones of the house of Israel; nor of one more being saved than they who were called .* to the Divine purpose; but they considered election as the rule of God's conduct—not theirs. They Wrote and preached Christ to sinners as freely as if no such doctrine existed. “These things are written,” said they, “that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ and that believing ye might have life through his name.” j GSUlS Wept over the most wicked city in the world; and Paul after all that he had said of the doctrine of election in th. ninth chapter of his Epistle to the Romans, protested that “his heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel was that they might be saved.” He did not pray for them as *epro- *ates, but as fellow sinners, and whose salvation while they were in the land of the living was to him an object of hope.—Though, in his treatment of the most decided enemies of the truth, he sometimes rebuked them sharply, and used an authority which was committed to him as an extraordinary character; yet there is no malignant bitter- ness or low abuse in his language. But the religion of which I speak is in all these respects the very opposite It beseeches not the unconverted to be reconciled to God, because it is God only who can turn their hearts. It re- fuses to pray for their salvation, as not knowing whether it would not be praying for the salvation of the non-elect. It has no tears to shed over a perishing world, but con- signs men to perdition with unfeeling calmness, and often with glee. And as to its adversaries, it preserves no measures of decency with them : personal invective, low scurrility, and foul abuse are the weapons of its warfare. Tell any of its advocates of their unchristian spirit to- wards all who are not of themselves, and you may expect to be answered in some such terms as these—I wish they were in hell : every one should be in his own place, and the sooner the better : Nor is it less a stranger to the love of Christians as Christians. The religion of the New Testament makes much of this. It is that by which men were known to have passed from death to life ; for the love of him that begat and of those who were begotten of him were in- separable. But the love which this species of religion inspires is mere party attachment, the regard of publicans and heathens, any of whom could love those that loved them. If any man oppose their opinions, whatever be his character for sobriety, righteousness, and godliness, he is without hesitation pronounced graceless, a stranger to the new birth, and an enemy of Christ. Even an agreement in principles among the patrons of this religion, provided there be any competition in their worldly interests, pro- duces not union, but rivalship ; and every low method is practised to supplant each other in the esteem of the people. In various other systems, though you have to dig through the whole strata of error and superstition, yet you will occasionally discover a vein of serious and humble piety ; but here all is naught. (I speak of the system as carried to perfection, and which in the present day it is to be hoped it is.) Here nothing is to be met with that re- sembles love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, good- ness, meekness, or temperance; on the contrary, the fruits of this spirit are selfishness, pride, spleen, and bitter- Iness, which, like the bowels of Vesuvius, are ever collect- ing or issuing in streams of death. The origin of this species of religion in individuals will commonly I fear be found in a radical defect in their sup- posed conversion. True Scriptural conversion consists in “repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” But in many of these conversions there is no appearance of one or the other. With regard to repent- ance, the system goes in a great measure to preclude it. The manner in which it represents and dwells upon the fall of Adam, so as nearly to remove all accountableness from his posterity, together with its denial in effect of the Divine authority over the heart, leaves no room for repent- ance, unless it be for a few gross immoralities. The sins of not loving God, and neglecting his great salvation, are entirely kept out of sight. Hence, though you may sometimes see in such conversions great terror of mind, and great joy succeeding to it; yet you will rarely perceive in the party, from first to last, any thing like ingenuous grief for having dishonoured God. As repentance toward God has little if any place in such conversions, the same may be said of faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. The true believer, in his first looking to the Saviour for life, stands upon no higher ground than that of a sinner ready to perish. Whatever evidence he may have afterwards of his being one of God’s chosen people, he can have none at that time ; nor is it in this character that he applies for mercy. The gospel is that which first comforts him, or Christ’s having come into the world to save the chief of sinners. But the conver- sions in question commonly originate in some supposed revelation to the party that he is of the number of God's elect, that Christ had died for him, and that of course he shall be for ever happy. Considering this as coming from 336 ON ANTINOMIANISM. God, he believes it, and thenceforth reckons bimself pos- sessed of the faith of God's elect. If afterwards he be troubled by the dictates of conscience with suspicions of self-deception, he calls these temptations, or the workings of unbelief, and supposes that the enemy of souls wants to rob him of his enjoyments. Neither his faith nor his unbelief has any respect to revealed truth; his whole concern is about his own safety. It is of infinite importance that we be right in our first outset, and that we take up our rest in nothing short of Christ. When a sinner is convinced of his dangerous condition, fears and terrors will commonly possess him. If, under these impressions, he be led to relinquish all other confidences, and to fly for refuge to the hope set before him, all is well. But if, having left off a few of his immoralities, and conformed to the outward exercises of religion, without betaking himself wholly to Christ, he comforts himself that now he is, at least, in a fair way to eternal life, he is building on the sand, and may live and die a mere self-righteous Pharisee. Or should he be deprived of his rest—should his fabric be demolished by the blasts of new temptations, and his mind become rather appalled with fear than elated with self-confidence—if by this he be brought to give up his self-righteous hope, and come to Jesus as a sinner ready to perish, still it is well. “Such things worketh God often- times with man, to bring back his soul from the pit.” But this is not always the issue. Longing for ease to his troubled spirit, he is in the most imminent danger of taking up his rest in any thing that will afford him a present re- lief; and if in such a state of mind he receive an impres- sion that God has forgiven and accepted him, or read a book or hear a sermon favourable to such a mode of ob- taining comfort, he will very probably imbibe it, and be- come inebriated with the delicious draught. And now he thinks he has discovered the light of life, and feels to have lost his burden. Being treated also as one of the dear children of God by others of the same mind, he is attached to his flatterers, and despises those as graceless who would wish to undeceive him : Let us pause a minute, and reflect upon this deplorable case. There is no situation, perhaps, more perilous than that of an awakened sinner prior to his having closed with Christ. He is walking as upon enchanted ground, and is in the utmost danger of falling asleep in one or other of its arbours. Nor is there any case in which it is of greater importance to administer right counsel. To go about to comfort such persons on the ground of their present dis- tress, telling them, as some do, that the Lord first wounds, and then heals, and that their feeling the former is a sign that in due time they will experience the latter, is to be aiding and abetting them in what may prove their etermal ruin. The mischief in these instances arises from a false notion of the case of the awakened sinner, as though he were really willing and even anxiously desirous of being saved in God’s way, if it would but please God to consent that Jic Inight, and to signify that consent by revealing it to him. So he thinks of himself, and so his advisers think of him. But the truth is, he is not straitened in God, but in his own bowels. . The fountain is open; the Spirit saith, Come, and the bride saith, Come, and whosoever will may come, and partake of the water of life freely. God's word directs him to the good way, and counsels him to walk in it, promising that in so doing he shall find rest to his soul. Nothing hinders his coming but a secret at- tachment to his idols, which on coming he is aware must be relinquished. The only comfort that we are warranted to hold up to one in such circumstances is that of Jesus Christ having come into the world to save sinners, and of his being able and willing to save all them that come unto God by him. If this afford no consolation, it is at our peril to console him from what he feels in himself, which, till he falls as a sinner ready to perish at the feet of Jesus, is nothing better than the impenitent distress of a Cain, a Saul, or a Judas. It may terminate in a better issue, and it may not. Our business is to point to the gospel refuge; teaching, entreating, and warning him to flee thither from the wrath to come. If once a sinner derives comfort from any thing short of Christ, he from thence falls asleep in security; and it is well if he awakes in this world. He has obtained a kind of “rest for his soul” without “coming to him for it,” which must needs therefore be delusive. Stupified by the intoxicating potion, he dreams of being a favourite of Heaven, and if any attempt to disturb his repose, it is com- monly without effect. “They have smitten me, (saith he,) and I was not sick; they have beaten me, and I felt it not : when shall I awake 3 I will seek it yet again.” Such, or nearly such, is very frequently the beginning of Antinomian religion. - I call those convictions, terrors, and joys selfish which have no regard to the glory of God, but merely to one’s own safety. Every one that knows any thing of true re- ligion will allow an essential difference between terror on account of the consequences of sin, and an ingenuous grief for having sinned; and the difference is not less be- tween the joy of an imagined safety, (no matter how,) and that which arises from a believing view of the doctrine of the cross. Moreover, I call those impressions delusive in which it is not any part of revealed truth which is im- pressed upon the mind, but a persuasion of our being the favourites of Heaven, loved with an everlasting love, and interested in the blessings of the covenant of grace. Nor is it of any account that the impression may have been made by means of some passage of God’s word occurring to the mind; the question is, whether the idea impressed be revealed truth. Satan, we know, has made use of Scripture passages for the purpose of impressing falsehood, Matt. iv.; and where the true meaning of God’s word is perverted, and something inferred from it which never was in it, there is reason to think be does the same still. That God’s love is everlasting, and that the covenant of grace abounds with blessings, is true ; but it is no where re- vealed of any person in particular that he is interested in them. The promises of God are addressed to mem under certain descriptive characters, in the manner of the beati- tudes in our Lord’s sermon on the mount ; nor can we know our interest in them otherwise than by a conscious- ness of these characters belonging to us. To imagine that it is immediately revealed to us by the Spirit of God is to suppose that the Spirit’s work is not “to take of the things of Christ, and show them unto us;” but to disclose other things which were never before revealed. If “the truth as it is in Jesus” be impressed upon our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whether it be by reading, or hear- ing, or thinking—whether by any particular passage of Scrip- ture or by some leading truth contained in it occurring to the mind—it will operate to produce humility. To be im- pressed, for instance, with a sense of the exceeding sin- fulness of sin, with the love of God in the gift of his Son, with the love of Christ in dying for the ungodly, with his all-sufficiency and readiness to save to the uttermost all them that come unto God by him, or with the freeness of his grace to the most guilty and unworthy, is the same thing as to be made to feel the influence of that gospel which lays low the pride of man. The manner in which these things are impressed upon the mind may be various. I have no doubt but that some conversions which have been very extraordinary have been nevertheless genuine; for the things impressed are true, and might be proved true from the Scriptures; the effects produced also are such as bespeak them to be wrought by the finger of God. But impressions of that which is not truth, or at least not any part of revealed truth, and the tendency of which is to inspire vain-confidence, self-admiration, and a bitter contempt of others, cannot proceed from that Spirit whose office is to lead us into the truth, and whose influence, no less than his nature, is holy. No sooner is this marvel- lous light discovered than the discoverer, encouraged by the example of others, is qualified to decide upon charac- ters; as who are gracious, and who are graceless; and this not by the rule laid down in the Scriptures, but by his own experience, which he sets up as a standard by which others are to be tried. He is also qualified to distinguish between true and false ministers; this is legal, that is dead, and the other knows little or nothing of the gospel; not because their preaching is unscriptural, or unaccompanied with a holy life, but because it does not yield him comfort, nor accord with his experience. It is also remarkable that, in such conversions, repent- INTRODUCTION. 337 ance for past sins has no place. The party, it is true, will talk of his past sins, even such as decency would for- bear to mention; but without any signs of shame or godly sorrow on account of them. On the contrary, it is not uncommon to hear them narrated and dwelt upon with apparent glee, accompanied with occasional turns of wit and humour, sufficiently evincing that they are far from being remembered with bitterness of soul. Genuine conversion includes genuine repentance, and genuine re- pentance looks back upon past sins with silent shame and confusion of face. “That thou mayest remember, and be confounded, and never open thy mouth any more, be- cause of thy shame, when I am pacified towards thee for all that thou hast done, saith the Lord God.” But con- versions like the above are noisy and ostentatious. The party, having forsaken a few gross immoralities, imagines himself a prodigy of grace, boasting of the wonderful change, and challenging his adversaries to accuse him of evil from the time of his supposed conversion. But he that lacketh that faith which is followed by “ virtue, know- ledge, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness, and charity, is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.” When old sins are related with new gust, they are reacted, and, lightly as it may be thought of, recommitted. I know of nothing that bears so striking a resemblance to such con- versions as the case of the demoniac described by Matthew. Under first convictions and terrors of conscience, “the unclean spirit,” by which the sinner has hitherto been governed, “goeth out of him;” and, while “seeking rest” in some other habitation, the house is “swept " of its former filth, and “garnished” with the appearance of re- ligion : still, however, it remains “empty,” or unoccupied by the Spirit of God. Encouraged by so flattering a prospect, the demon “goeth, and taketh with him seven other spirits, more wicked than himself, and they enter in, and dwell there : and the last state of that man is worse than the first.” The former was a state of irreligion, the latter of false religion : in the one case he was void of light ; in the other, the light which is in him is darkness. Neither are these delusive impulses confined to the be- ginning of a religious profession, but generally accompany it in all its stages; and in every stage produce a most in- tolerable degree of spiritual pride. Such persons value themselves as the special favourites of the Almighty, with whom he is on terms of the greatest intimacy, making them, as it were, his confidants, revealing to them the secrets of his heart. Almost all the future events in their own lives, whether prosperous or adverse, with many things in the lives of others, are revealed to them, and not unfrequently their etermal destinies. And these are sup- posed to be “the secrets of the Lord which are with them that fear him l’” - Another mark of this species of religion, nearly akin to the former, and commonly seen in persons of that de- scription, is a disposition to interpret all favourable events in providence as proofs of their being the favourites of Heaven; and all wrfavourable events towards their adver- Saries as judgments for their conduct towards them, and, as ?? were, an avenging of their quarrels. This is a natural and necessary effect of a selfish religion. Supreme self- love, like every thing else which is supreme, subordinates eyery thing else to it. . If men be governed by this prin- ciple, there is nothing in the word or providence of God, in the law, in the gospel, nor even in God himself, which attracts esteem, but as it is subservient to the gratification of their desires. I knew a person of this description who came to the Possession of a large estate. He was much elated by it, often talking of providence, and exulting in his success, as an instance of eternal predestination. In a little time, however, there arose another claimant, who by legal process, wrested it out of his hands. After this. no more was heard of providence or predestination. From Wishing every thing to be subservient to the gratification of self, it is an easy transition to think it is so ; for 9pinions are greatly governed by desires. Hence, if an tºº, be unsuccessful in business, it is the blast of upon him ; if afflictions befall him, they are the sº ºbson's Memoirs of Eminently Pious Women, vol. I. pp. Z arrows of the Almighty discharged at him ; or if he die, he is cut off as a monument of Divine displeasure; and all because he has offended God, by offending this his pe- culiar favourite / A truly humble Christian will regard the providence of God in all things; yet, knowing that “one event happen- eth to all,” he is far from considering its bounties as any proof of an interest in special grace. Neither will he set up his present accommodation as a matter of so much consequence that heaven, and earth, and all which in them is, should be rendered subservient to it. Nor is he dis- posed to triumph over an adversary when evil befalls him ; nor to imagine that it is in just judgment for the offences committed against him. It is said of Lady Rachel Russell, whose lord was beheaded in the latter end of the reign of Charles II., that, “ In the free effusions of her heart to her most intimate friends, with the constant moans of grief for the loss of her dear husband, there did not ap- pear, in all her letters, so much as one trace of keen re- sentment, or reflection upon any person whatever that had any concern in his death, if rather it may not be called his murder. If the duke of York was so malignant as to instigate his brother, King Charles, to be inexorable to the applications that were made for Lord Russell’s life, and even to propose that he should be executed at his own door, the good lady drops no censures upon him ; and even after James II. was no more king, but a wanderer in a foreign land, there is nothing like a triumph over him, or an intimation from her Ladyship that she thought he was justly punished for his bloody crimes.—Even the inhuman Jefferies himself, who distinguished himself by a flaming speech against Lord Russell at his trial, is passed over in silence by her. She takes not the least notice of his dis- grace, imprisonment, and death in the Tower, owing, as it has been thought, to the blows he received while in the hands of an enraged populace.” + This is the spirit possessed by the first character of his age, holy Job, who stood accused, notwithstanding, by those who judged of characters by the events which befell them, of being a wicked man and a hypocrite. “He re- joiced not at the destruction of him that hated him— neither did he suffer his mouth to sin by wishing a curse for his soul.” One would think it did not require any extraordinary discernment to discover that this is true religion, and that it will be approved at that tribunal where a spirit of pride and malignity will be ashamed to show its face. Far be it from me to suggest that all who have cherished notions which belong to this system are destitute of true religion. It is not for us to pronounce upon the degree of error which may be permitted to accompany the truth. I have no doubt but that many good men have been deeply tinctured with these principles, though it is not from them that their goodness has proceeded. I believe, however, that this was more the case formerly than at present. Of late years the true character of the system has been more manifest. Its adherents having proceeded to greater lengths than their predecessors, both in theory and practice, up- right characters, who for a time were beguiled by its specious pretences of magnifying grace and abasing human pride, have perceived its real tendency, and receded. What I have to offer will be comprehended in three parts: the first containing a brief view of the system—the second its influence on some of the principal doctrines of the gospel—and the third its practical efficacy on the spirit and conduct of its professors.t. - TART I. CONTAINING A BRIEF VIEW OF ANTINOMIANISM, witH ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE LEADING PRINCIPLE FROM WHICH IT IS DENOMINATED, THE names given to the different systems or doctrines of religion are seldom so accurate as to render it safe to rest + The author left the MS. in an unfinished state, not having entered on the third part.—ED. 338 ON ANTINOMIANISM. our opinions upon them. They may be supposed to have been first conferred either by friends or enemies : if by the former, they commonly assume the question at issue ; and if by the latter, they are as commonly mere terms of reproach. But allowing them to have been conferred impartially, yet it is next to impossible for a name to ex- press more than some one or two leading doctrines per- taining to a system. Unitarianism, for instance, not only assumes more than its opponents can grant, but, admitting its fairness, it expresses scarcely a tenth part of the prin- ciples of the people who wish to be denominated by it. It is thus in part with respect to Antinomianism. The name signifies that which is contrary to the law; because those who are denominated Antinomians profess to renounce the moral law as a rule of conduct, and maintain that as believers in Christ they are delivered from it. This ap- pellation, so far as it goes, seems to be appropriate ; but it is far from expressing all the distinguishing opinions of which the system is composed. It may be found, however, to be that which the corner-stone is to the building. The moral government of God lies at the foundation of all true religion, and an Ópposition to it must needs be fol- lowed by the most serious consequences. If there be no law, there is no transgression ; and if no transgression, no need of forgiveness. Or if there be a law, yet if it be unjust or cruel, either with respect to its precepts or penalties, it is so far no sin to transgress it, and so far we stand in no need of mercy. Or if there be a just law, yet if on any consideration its authority over us be set aside, we are from that time incapable of sinning, and stand in no need of mercy. The sum is, that whatever goes to disown or weaken the authority of the law, goes to overturn the gospel and all true religion. It has been said that every unregenerate sinner has the heart of a Pharisee. This is true ; and it is equally true that every unregenerate sinner has the heart of an Antino- mian. It is the character expressly given to the carnal mind, that it is “enmity against God;” and the proof of this is that it “ is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” Nor is it surprising that these two ap- parently opposite principles should meet in the same mind. There is no more real opposition between them than there is between enmity and pride. Many a slothful servant hates his master and his service, and yet has pride and presumption enough to claim the reward. It is one thing to be attached to the law, and another to be of the works of the law. The former is what David and Paul, and all the true servants of God, have ever been, loving and delighting in it after the immer man; the latter is what the unbelieving Jews were; who, though they none of them kept the law, yet presumptuously expected eter- mal life for their supposed conformity to it. The quarrels between Antinomianism and Pharisaism arise, I think, more from misunderstanding than from any real antipathy between them. They will often unite, like Herod and Pontius Pilate, against the truth and true religion. The spirit of Antinomianism is to fall out with the government of God, to raise objections against it as rigor- ous and cruel, to find excuses for sin committed against it, and to seize on every thing that affords the shadow of an argument for casting it off; but all this is common to every carnal mind. If our Antinomians could pay a visit to the heathens of Hindoostan, (and probably the same might be said of heathens in general,) they would find millions on millions of their own way of thinking.* Nor need they go so far from home : among the apostles of modern infidelity the same thing may be found in sub- stance. The doctrine of necessity, as embraced by them, f reduces man to a machine, destroys his accountableness, and casts the blame of sin upon his Creator. The body of these systems may be diverse, but the spirit that ani- mates them is the same. Antinomianism, having annihilated moral obligation, might be expected to lead its votaries to the denial of sin: yet, strange as it may appear, there is scarcely any people who speak of their sins in such exaggerating language, or who make use of such degrading epithets concerning * See Periodical Accounts, Vol. I. pp. 227, 228. * + See A Piew of Religions by Hannah Adams, Article JWecessarians, pp. 233—238. their character, as they. But the truth is, they have affixed such ideas to sin as divest it of every thing criminal, blameworthy, or humiliating to themselves. By sin they do not appear to mean their being or doing what they ought not to be or do, but something which operates in them without their concurrence. In all the conversations that I have had with persons who delight in thus magni. fying their sins, I cannot recollect an instance in which they appeared to consider themselves as inexcusable, or indeed ever the worse on account of them. On the con- trary, it is common to hear them speak of their sinful nature with the greatest levity, and, with a sort of cum- ning smile in their countenances, profess to be as bad as Satan himself; manifestly with the design of being thought deep Christians, thoroughly acquainted with the plague of their own heart. There are two principal grounds on which moral government and accountableness are by this system ex- plained away; namely, the inability of man, and the liberty and privileges of the gospel. The former applies to the unregenerate who pretend to no religion, and serves to keep them easy in their sins; the latter to those who consider themselves as regenerate, and serves to cherish in them spiritual pride, slothfulness, and presumption. It is undoubtedly true that the Scriptures represent man by nature as unable to do any good thing ; that is, they declare that an evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit; that they who are evil cannot speak good things; that they whose eyes are full of adultery cannot cease from sin; that they who are in the flesh cannot please God; finally, that they whose hearts are attached to their idols, or to the mammon of this world, cannot serve the Lord.j: This doctrine, if properly understood, is of great account in true religion. Hence arises the necessity of our being created anew in Christ Jesus ere we can perform good works ; and of our being continually kept from falling by the power of God. He that has the greatest sense of his own weakness and insufficiency to do any thing as he ought, will be most earnest in crying to the strong for strength, and most watchful against the temptations of the world. It is thus that “when we are weak, them are we strong.” But if this doctrine be confounded with physical inability, and understood to excuse the sinner in his sins, it is utterly perverted. If the connexion of the above passages were consulted, they would be found to be the language of the most cutting reproach ; mani- festly proving that the inability of the parties arose from the evil dispositions of their own minds, and therefore had not the least tendency to render them less account- able to God, or more excusable in their sins; yet such, in spite of Scripture, conscience, and common sense, is the construction put upon it by Antinomianism. Let a minister of Christ warn the ungodly part of his audience of their danger, and exhort them to flee for re- fuge to the hope set before them ; and if they have learn- ed this creed, they will reply, We can do nothing. We desire to repent and be converted ; but it is God only, you know, that can convert us. All that we can do is to lie in the way, and wait at the pool for the moving of the waters.-Let him visit his hearers upon a bed of affliction, and endeavour to impress them with a sense of their sin, in having lived all their days in a neglect of the great sal- vation, and of their danger while they continue the ene- mies of Jesus Christ—if they have learned this system, he will be told that they have done all that they could, or nearly so ; that they wish for nothing more than to repent and believe in Christ, but that they can as easily take wings and fly to heaven as do either. Thus they flatter themselves that they are willing, only that God is not willing to concur with their sincere desires; whereas the truth is no such desires exist in their minds, but merely a wish to escape eternal misery; and the want of them, together with a strong attachment to their present course, constitutes the very inability of which they are the sub- jects. Here, too, we see how the Antinomian can occa- sionally unite with the self-righteous Pharisee. The latter will insist upon the goodness of his heart; and the former # Matt. vii. 18; xii. 34; 2 Pet. ii. 14; Rom. viii. 8; Josh. xxiv. 19–23; Matt. vi. 24. - ARGUMENTS AGAINST ITS LEADING PRINCIPLE. 339 tells you he wishes, he desires, he means well; but he can- not do it of himself, and God it seems will not help him : but what do all these pretended good wishes and desires amount to short of a good heart? The thing is the same, only expressed in somewhat different language. It is remarkable that we never read of this kind of an- swers being given to the exhortations, in holy Writ. Wicked men of old were, in times of trouble, exhorted to “ stand in the ways, and see, to ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and to walk therein,” and were told that in so doing they should “find rest unto their souls.” To this they roundly answered, “We will not walk therein.” Had these people understood the modern Antinomian refinements, they might, I think, have come off with somewhat a better grace, by alleging their in- ability; but it does not appear that they were acquainted with them, and therefore the true cause was assigned with- out ceremony or disguise.—When John the Baptist, Christ, and his apostles, exhorted their hearers to “repent and believe the gospel,” if they had been acquainted with these notions, they might have answered, We wish to do so; but Jesus himself acknowledges that no one can come to him “except the Father draw him :” the fault, therefore, is not in us. But this method of repelling the truth seems to have been reserved for later ages. I recollect nothing that bears any resemblance to it in the Scriptures, unless it be the words of certain ungodly men in the times of Jeremiah, who said, “We are delivered to do all these abominations; ” and the objection introduced by Paul, “Why doth he yet find fault, for who hath resisted his will ?” These men seem to have been acquainted with that part of the system which finds an excuse in the doc- trine of Divine decrees; but even they do not appear to have learned to plead innocent on the score of inability. And wherefore? Because they were conscious that it lay in the state of their own minds. When asked, therefore, by our Saviour, “How can ye being evil speak good things 3" so far were they from imagining that he meant to excuse them, that they considered his words as the most pointed reproach. With respect to the liberty and privileges of the gospel, it is a truth full of the richest consolation, that those who believe in Jesus are freed, not only from the ceremonial yoke of the Mosaic dispensation, but from the condemning power of the law considered as moral. It is by faith in Christ that believers live. All their hope is derived from his righteousness, which being imputed to them, they are accepted of God on account of it. Being “not under the law” as a covenant, “but under grace,” sin hath no more dominion over them.—But surely it does not follow that they are no longer under obligation to love God with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength, or their neighbour as themselves.* The prodigal son, when forgiven and ac- cepted, was not less obliged to conform to the orders of his father's house than before he left it, but rather the In Ore SO. - I shall conclude this part by offering proof that though the law is dead to a believer, and a believer to it, as a term ºf 'ife, yet he is under perpetual and indissoluble obligation to conform to it as a rule of conduct. To satisfy a serious and sincere mind on this subject, one Would think it were sufficient to read the ten com. mandments in the twentieth chapter of Exodus. Is a be- liever, any more than an unbeliever, allowed to have more gods than one? May he make to himself a graven image, and fall down and worship it? will the Lºrd hold hi. guiltless if he take his name in vain? Is he not obliged to keep holy the sabbath day ? Is he at liberty to dis- honour his parents, or kill his neighbours, or commit adul- tery, or steal, or bear false witness, or covet any thing be- longing to another? Surely the things which are required by all these precepts must approve themselves to every *n's conscience, unless it be perverted and seared as with a hot iron. But in order to set aside the authority of the ten com- mandments as a rule of duty to the believer, it has been objected that they do not contain the aohole of it. If this ... Šeš. Dr. Ryland's Sermon before the Association at Salisb }. The Dependence of the JWhole Law and the proj. i. }'i. *mary Commandments, 1798. Also his sermon . the Associa- were granted, yet it would not follow but that they are binding as far as they go ; but if so, why pretend to be delivered from the law The new commandment of Christ, to love another, does not include the whole of duty, and yet we are not free from obligation to comply with it. If the ten commandments were admitted to be binding as far as they go, their compreheading the whole of duty would be a question of comparatively small importance; but the manifest design of the objector is, by undermining their perfection, to overturn their authority, that, having freed himself from this disagreeable yoke, he may establish what he calls Christian liberty. - To show the perfection, then, as well as the authority of the ten commandments, let it suffice to have recourse to our Saviour’s exposition of them. If that exposition be faithful, they are reducible to two, answering to the tables of stone on which they were written, and consisting in “love to God with all the heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to our neighbour as ourselves.” But love to God and our neighbour comprehends every act of duty that can possibly be performed. Love is the fulfilling of the law, and of all that God requires of man. It is the principle of all positive obedience; for he that loveth God supremely willingly obeys him in whatever forms he shall prescribe. The new commandment, of love to the brethren, is com- prehended in the old commandment; for he that loveth God cannot but love his image wherever it is seen. Hence the former is enforced by the latter, Gal. v. 13– 15; Rom. xiii. 8–12. All the graces of the Spirit, as re- pentance, faith, hope, charity, patience, temperance, good- ness, &c., are but so many modifications of love. He that loveth God cannot but be grieved for having dishonoured him ; cannot but believe his word, and embrace his way of saving sinners through the death of his Son; cannot but build his expectations upon his promises; cannot but love those that love him ; cannot but take every thing well at his hand; in short, cannot but deny himself for his sake, and aspire to be of his mind, who causeth his sun to shine upon the evil and the good, and sendeth his rain upon the just and upon the unjust. Upon this great principle, therefore, as our Lord observed, “hangs all the law and the prophets,” and indeed the whole of true re- ligion. Yes, say some, we must be ruled by a principle of love; but not by the law as requiring it: the love of Christ con- strains the believer to be zealous in the performance of good works.--It is true, we shall never love without a principle, nor run in the ways of God’s commandments, unless constrained to do so by a gracious enlargement of heart. Nor does any thing afford so powerful a motive to it as the dying love of Christ. But to make that the rule which is the moving spring of obedience is to confound things essentially different. “The way of God's com- mandments” is the same, whether our hearts be “enlarged to run therein” or not. To confound the rule with the moving cause, or to make a rule of the latter to the exclu- sion of that which is afforded by the commandment, is to reduce our obligation to the standard of our inclinations, or to consider ourselves as bound to yield just so much obedience to God as we do yield, and no more ; and this is the same thing as professing to live free from sin. Moreover, to make that the rule of obedience which is the moving cause of it, is the same thing as for a son to say to his father, Sir, I will do what you desire me when I feel inclined to do so, but I will not be commanded.— Whatever may be argued against the authority of God, I believe there are few if any parents who could put up with such language with respect to their own. In addition to the above, let the following particulars be duly considered :— I. If we be not under the moral law as a rule of life, we are not obliged to love either God or man, and it is no sön to be destitute of love to both. But such a state of things can never exist. The obligation to love God su- premely, and our neighbour as ourselves, is founded in our relation to him and one another, and cannot possibly bo dissolved while God is God and man is man. To suppose tion at Lyme, on The Wecessity of the Trumpet’s giving a Certain Sound, 1813. Z 2 340 ON ANTINOMIANISM. the contrary, is to suppose that the King of the universe can abdicate his throne, and leave his subjects at liberty to hate and rebel against him with impunity. If all the fathers of families in the world could dispense with filial affection in their children, and all the princes in the world with loyal attachment in their subjects, it were less un- natural, and infinitely less mischievous, than for God to dispense with the requirement of our loving him supreme- ly, and each other as ourselves. © II. Believers are represented as subject to commit sin, and as actually committing it every day of their lives. The petition for daily forgiveness, in the Lord’s prayer, supposes this; and John teaches that “if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” But all sin implies a law of which it is the breach : “Where no law is, there is no transgression.” Believers, therefore, must be under some law. . And that this is no other than the moral law is evident from the definition which is given of sin by the apostle John, that it is “the transgression of the law.” This is the same as saying that every sin which is committed, whether by believers or un- believers, is a deviation from that Divine rule. The sum is, if believers daily break the law, they must of necessity be under it as a rule of duty. If the law were abrogated, or its authority superseded, so as to be no longer a rule of duty to believers, it could be no medium to them by which to come at the knowledge of sin. That by which sin is known must be a living rule. To say otherwise is as absurd as to judge of the criminality of a prisoner by a statute which had been long since re- pealed. *. III. One great and leading design of our Lord, in his sermon on the mount, was to vindicate the precepts of the moral law from the false glosses of Jewish rabbies, and to show that in their most spiritual meaning they were bind- ing upon his followers. Coming into the world, as he did, to introduce a new dispensation, he was aware that men might suppose his mission was at variance with Moses and the prophets. To prevent such conceits, he speaks in the most decided language—“Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets; I am not come to de- stroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” He also goes on to warn his followers against those who should “break the least of the commandments, and teach men so ;” and to declare that “except their righteousness exceeded that of the scribes and Pharisees, they should in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.” To say that we need the righteousness of Christ to be imputed to us is to speak truth, but not the truth of this saying, the manifest design of which is to inculcate a purer morality than that which was taught and practised by the Jewish leaders. The advocates of the system I oppose are offended at the very terms practical preaching and practical religion; yet the sermon on the mount was full of it. The solemn and impressive similitude with which it closes is in the same practical strain. He that heareth his sayings, and doeth them; he buildeth his house upon a rock; and he that heareth, but doeth them not, buildeth his house upon the sand. It was not our Lord's design, indeed, to hold up any of our doings as the rock, but as building our house wpon a rock ; and which none do but those whose faith is operative and practical. Had this sermon been heard by many a modern audience, it would have been condemned as legal, and the preacher pronounced a poor graceless wretch, who knew nothing of the gospel. IV. Believers are exhorted, in the New Testament, to love one another, on the express ground of its being a re- quirement of the moral law. “Brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of an- other.” If the “liberty” possessed by the Galatians con- sisted in a freedom from obligation to obey the precepts of the moral law, it is passing strange that these very pre- cepts should be urged as an authority against their using liberty as an occasion to the flesh. Paul, whatever some of his professed admirers have been, was assuredly a better reasoner than this would make him. The liberty of the gospel includes an exemption from the precepts of the ceremonial law, and from the curse or condemning power of the moral law; and these were privileges of inestima- ble value. They were, however, capable of abuse; and, to guard against this, the holy precept of the law, notwith- standing the removal of its penalty, is held up by the apos- tle in all its native and inalienable authority. To the same purpose the apostle, writing to the believing Ro- mans, inculcates brotherly love and purity from the au- thority of the moral law. “Owe no man any thing, but to love one another; for he that loveth another hath ful- filled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour, therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. And that knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand; let us therefore cast off the Works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light. Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying.” But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.” If any man can read this passage without perceiving that the precepts of the moral law are still binding on believers, he must be proof against evidence; and with such a person it is in vain to reason. If God give him not repentance to the acknowledging of the truth, he must e'en go on, and abide the consequences. W. Believers are either under the law (in the sense in which we plead for it) or “without law.” By the lan- guage of the apostle there can be no medium. There is no other way of exonerating ourselves from the charge of being “without law to God,” but by acknowledging that we are “under the law to Christ.” Such was the ac- knowledgment of Paul in behalf of the primitive Chris- tians; “To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.” His words plainly intimate a change, indeed, in its ad- ministration ; but not of the thing itself. Formerly it was administered by Moses, and attended with that terrific aspect which properly pertains to it when addressed to trans- gressors; now it is administered by Christ, who has placed it at the foundation of his legislative code, and, by divest- ing it of its curse, has rendered it to the believer a friendly guide. But the thing itself is the same, and will remain so when heaven and earth shall have passed away. VI. Those who have the greatest aversion to the law being a rule of life, yet are very willing that others should make it the rule of their conduct towards them. Whether they are bound to love their neighbours as themselves, or not, if they are treated unkindly or unjustly, even by their brethren, they are as much alive to resentment as any other people. But if they be not obliged to love others, why should others be obliged to love them 4 and why should they be offended with them for the contrary 3 And if the second table of the law be mutually binding, on what ground can we plead exemption from the first 3 We have often heard it intimated that the obligation of sinful creatures to love God with all their hearts is very difficult to be understood ; yet we can any of us under- stand, with the greatest ease, the obligations which others are under to us. If a man be a kind and good father, he feels no difficulty in understanding the fitness and reason- ableness of his children loving him, and that with the most unfeigned affection; receiving his instructions, fol- lowing his example, and taking pleasure in obeying his will. Should any one of them be ungrateful or disobedi- ent, and plead that he could not love his father, nor take pleasure in obeying him, he would instantly perceive that what was alleged as his excuse was the very height of his * Even the terms, “Let us,” &c., have of late given offence to some hearers, as savouring of legality; yet Paul's writings abound with Such language. - PERVERSION OF THE PRINCIPAL DOCTRINES OF THE GOSPEL. 341 disobedience, of which he ought to be ashamed. Yet, when God is concerned, the same man will tell you, We are poor sinners, and cannot love him ; and as to your nice distinctions between natural and moral inability, we cannot understand them : if we are unable, we are un- able; and it does not signify of what kind the inability is. So also when we insist on every person or thing being loved in subordination to the blessed God, and every action done with a view to his glory, it is objected that the sub- ject is too abstruse and metaphysical for common Chris- tians to understand it. Yet I never knew a Christian, or any man, but who could pretty well take in the doctrine of subserviency as it related to himself. He can easily understand that a servant whom he pays for his time and labour ought to lay them out in promoting his interest, and not merely his own; and if such servant, when pur- suing his own private interest, should accidentally, or without design, promote that of his master, would his master thank him for it, or think a whit better of him on account of it? No, in all these things man is wise in his generation ; it is only where God and religion are con- cerned that he finds such insuperable difficulties. Every nation, community, or individual knows how to set itself up as supreme, and to wish for all others to be rendered subservient to its interests. Man, by his ingenuity, can draw into subordination to himself the light, the darkness, the fire, the water, the air, the earth, the animals, and al- most every thing else that comes within his reach ; but man cannot understand the abstruse doctrine of loving every thing in subordination to his Creator, and doing every thing in subserviency to his glory ! FART II. THE INFLUENCE OF ANTINOMIANISM IN PERVERTING SOME OF THE PRINCIPAL DOCTRINES OF THE GOSPEL. If the law and the gospel be in harmony—(which if the author of both be immutable they are)—it may be ex- pected that the same great design pervades them both. Such is the fact. The law requires us to love God su- premely, and our neighbour as ourselves. Had this re- quirement been obeyed, the honour of God and the hap- piness of creatures had been for ever united. But men by sin have fallen into a gulf of selfishness. They neither love God, nor their neighbours for his sake. They are “lovers of their own selves;” and care for neither God nor man any further than as they conceive them to be necessary for their own happiness. But what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the corruption of human na- ture, God sent his Son to accomplish. God would be glorified in Christ, though men had dishonoured him ; and though they had incurred his wrath, and become hateful and hating one another, yet peace and reconciliation should be restored to him. Hence, on his first appearance on earth, the angels, entering into the grand design of his coming, Sang, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good-will towards men l’’ But if the law and the gospel be in harmony, they that fall out with the one must fall out with the other. A scheme that sets out with rejecting all obligation to the love of God and man cannot be friendly to either, nor to that gospel whose tendency is to promote them. It must be a mere system of selfishness ; suited not to the condition, but to the propensities of fallen creatures. It might be expected that a System founded on such a principle would go on to a flat denial of most of the doc- trines of Divine revelation. It is not so, however; the forms of orthodoxy are in general retained ; it is the ideas chiefly that are given up. The same terms may be used by different persons to express very different ideas. The Jews in our Saviour's time professed the same creed, per- haps, in the main, as their forefathers. They reckoned themselves, at least, to believe in Moses; but, holding With Moses to the exclusion of Christ, their faith was so different from that of their forefathers as to become void. “If ye believed Moses,” said our Lord, “ ye would have believed me ; for he wrote of me.” From the same prin- ciple it follows that the faith of those who hold with Christ to the exclusion of Moses is void; for if they be- lieved one, they would believe the other, seeing both are in perfect harmony. The doctrine of election, as it is teught in the Scriptures, is of a humbling and holy tendency. The whole differ- ence between the saved and the lost being ascribed to sovereign grace, the pride of man is abased. Upon every other principle, it is the sinner that makes himself to differ; and who must, therefore, find whereof to glory. We may allow ourselves to be unable to repent and be- lieve without the aids of the Holy Spirit; but while we maintain that these aids are afforded to sinners in com- mon, and that faith, instead of being “the gift of God,” is the effect of our having improved the help afforded, while others neglected it, if we think we do not ascribe the very turning point of salvation to our own virtue, we greatly deceive ourselves. But election, while it places no bar in the way of any man which would not have been there without it, resolves the salvation of the saved into mere grace: “ and if of grace, then it is no more of works ; otherwise grace is no more grace.” Such a view of things tends to humble us in the dust. It is frequently the last point which a sinner yields to God; it is the giving up of every other claim and ground of hope from his own good endeavours, and falling into the arms of sovereign mercy. And having here found rest to his soul, he will not be less, but more attentive to the means of salvation than he was before. His endeavours will be more ardent, and directed to a better end. Then he was trying to serve himself; now he will serve the Lord. But if elec- tion be viewed in certain conneacions, it will cease to be a doctrine according to godliness. If faith and works foreseen be connected with it as the procuring cause, grace is excluded, and self-righteous boasting admitted. If, on the other hand, they be not connected with it as effects, the interests of sobriety, righteousness, and godli- ness are relinquished. If we take our views of this great subject with simpli- city from the word of God, we shall consider it, like other Divine purposes, not as a rule of conduct to us, but to himself. We shall agonize through life that we may at last enter in at the strait gate, no less than if all was in itself uncertain. Nay, more so : for as Paul's assuring the mariners that there “should be no loss of any man’s life” would, if believed, inspire them with hope; so our being predestinated to be conformed to the image of Christ furnishes encouragement to be pressing on towards the mark. And as they were told, nevertheless, that except certain means were used they “could not be saved,” so we can have no evidence of our “election to salvation,” but as being the subjects of “sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.” Thus, while the blessing itself is an antidote to despair, the means connected with it are a preservative from presumption. In short, we shall view the doctrine of election in much the same light as we do other Divine appointments concerning our lot in the pre- sent life. We are given to believe that what we enjoy in this life is so ordered by the will of God, and so much the effect of providence, that there is no ground whatever of boasting in any creature; yet we do not on this acconnt neglect to plough or sow, or pursue the good and avoid the evil. A “fleshly mind” may ask, How can these things be? How can predestination be made to comport with human agency and accountableness? But a truly humble Chris- tian, finding both in the Bible, will believe both, though he may be unable fully to conceive of their consistency; and will find in the one a motive to depend upon God, and in the other a caution against slothfulness and a pre- sumptuous neglect of duty. A Christian minister also, if he take his views simply from the Scriptures, will find nothing in this doctrine to hinder the free use of warnings, invitations, and persua- sions, either to the converted or to the unconverted. Not that he will found his hopes of success on the pliability of the human mind; but on the power and grace of God, who, while he prophesieth to the dry bones as he is com- manded, is known to inspire many with the breath of 342 ON ANTINOMIANISM. life. Thus, while the apostle, in the ninth, tenth, and eleventh chapters of his Epistle to the Romans, traces the Divine sovereignty in his calling some from among the Jews, and leaving the greater part of them to perish in unbelief; he nevertheless, so long as they were in this world, was deeply concerned for them. Even in his preaching to the Gentiles he had an eye to them, “if by any means he might provoke to emulation them that were his flesh, and might save some of them.” And though he taught believers from among them to ascribe their salva- tion entirely to electing grace, and spoke of the rest as being blinded, yet he represents that blindness as being their own fault, to which they were judicially given up of God, Rom. xi. 7–10. But, whatever this doctrine is in itself, it may be held in such a manner as to become a source of pride, bitter- ness, slothfulness, and presumption. Conceive of the love of God as a capricious fondness—suppose that, be- cause it had not motive in the goodness of the creature, therefore it was without reason, only so it was, and so it must be—consider it not so much a means of glorifying his character as an end to which everything must become subservient—imagine yourself to be an object of this love, a darling of Heaven, a favourite of Providence, for whom numerous interpositions, next to miracles, are continually occurring—and, instead of being humble before God as a poor sinner, your feelings may resemble those of a flatter- ed female, who, while she affects to decline the com- pliments paid her, is in reality so intoxicated with the idea of her own importance, as to look down with con- tempt on all her former companions. Such views of the doctrine will ordinarily excite con- temptuous feelings towards all who are not its adherents, considering them as graceless sinners, strangers to the liberty of the gospel, Pharisees, Hagarenes, children of the bond-woman, and the like ; towards whom the most malignant bitterness is Christian faithfulness. God’s election of the posterity of Abraham was of sovereign favour, and not on account of any excellence in them natural or moral, Deut. vii. 7 ; ix. 1–6. In this view it was humbling, and had, no doubt, a good ef- fect on the godly Israelites. But the Jews in our Saviour's time turned this their national election into another kind of doctrine, full of flattery towards themselves, and of the most intolerable contempt and malignity towards others. The doctrine of the atonement is, in itself, the life of the gospel system. View it as a glorious expedient de- vised by Infinite Wisdom for the reparation of the injury done by sin to the Divine government, and for the con- sistent exercise of free mercy to the unworthy, and you are furnished with considerations the most humiliating, and at the same time the most transporting, that were ever presented to a creature’s mind. The principles of this Divine interposition are set forth in the Scriptures in divers forms; but probably in none so fully as in the substitutional sacrifices, which, from the fall to the coming of Christ, formed a conspicuous part of instituted worship. The great truth inculcated by these sacrifices, from age to age, would be, “Without shedding of blood there is no remission.” Some of the leading sentiments which they were calculated to inspire may be seen in the sacrifice of Job, on behalf of his three friends. “The Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends; for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my serv- ant Job hath. Therefore take unto you now seven bul- locks and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and of. fer up yourselves a burnt-offering ; and my servant Job shall pray for you, for him will I accept ; lest I deal with you after your folly, in that ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, like my servant Job.” This re- proof and direction would, if rightly taken, excite the deepest repentance and self-abasement. To be told that they had sinned, that the wrath of Heaven was kindled against them, that an offering, and even a petition for mercy, would not be accepted at their hands, that it must be presented by a mediator, and that this mediator should be the very person whom they had despised and condemned as smitten of God and afflicted, was altogether so humiliating, that had they been unbelievers, and left to their own spirit, they would have rejected it with a sullen scorn, equal to that with which many in our day reject the mediation of Jesus Christ. But they were good men, and followed the Divine direction, humiliating as it was, with implicit obedience. “They did as the Lord commanded them : the Lord also accepted Job.” To them, therefore, this direction must have imparted a new set of views and feelings; as full of humility, thank- fulness, conciliation, and brotherly love, as their speeches had been of pride, folly, and bitterness. Such is the nature and tendency of the Christian doc- trine of atonement. But, humbling as this doctrine is in itself, it may be so perverted as to become quite another thing, and productive of an opposite effect. If God as a lawgiver be held up as an Egyptian task-master, and the mercy of the Saviour be magnified at his expense—if his atonement be considered rather as a victory over the law than as an honour done to it—if his enduring the curse be supposed to exonerate us from obeying the precepts— if, in consequence of his having laid down his life, we think more lightly of sin, and imagine it to be a less dan- gerous evil—finally, if, from the full satisfaction which he has made to Divine justice, we reckon ourselves to be freed not only from punishment, but from the desert of it, and warranted not merely to implore mercy in his name, but to claim it as a right—we are in possession of a scheme abhorrent to the gospel, and not a little productive of spi- ritual pride. Such views of the atonement excite an ir- reverent familiarity with God, and, in some cases, a daring boldness in approaching him ; yet such is the strength of the delusion, it passes for intimate communion with him An atonement has respect to justice, and justice to the law or rule which men have violated. If this be worthy of being traduced by a servant of Christ, it was worthy of the same treatment from his Lord and Master; and then, instead of being honoured by his life and death, it ought to have been annulled, both in respect of him and of us. The doctrine of the cross, according to this view of things, was so far from being a display of the Divine glory, that it must have been a most shocking exhibition of injustice. Every instance of punishment among men is a sort of atonement to the justice of the country, the design of which is to restore the authority of government, which transgression has impaired. But if the law itself be bad, or the penalty too severe, every sacrifice that is made to it must be an instance of cruelty; and should the king's own son interpose as a substitute, to save the lives of a number of offenders, whatever might be the love expressed on his part, it would be shocking in the government to permit it, even though he might survive his sufferings. Could the public opinion be expressed on such an occasion, it would be to this effect:—There was no necessity for any atonement: it does no honour, but dishonour to the king ; and though he has liberated, the unhappy men, there was no grace in the act, but mere justice : the law, instead of being maintained by a suffering substitute, ought to have been repealed. It is easy to see, from hence, that in proportion as the law is depreciated, the gospel is undermined, and the necessity, glory, and grace of the atonement rendered void. It is probable there are not many who would in so many words deny the law to be holy, just, and good: on the contrary, there is little doubt but most would in argument acknowledge as much as this ; but if on all other occasions they speak of it with disrespect, comparing it to the task- masters of Pharaoh, and disown the authority of its pre- cepts to be binding on them, such acknowledgments can be considered as nothing more than compliments to the express words of Scripture. If they really believed the law to be holy, just, and good, and holiness, justice, and goodness were their delight, however they might renounce all dependence upon “the works of it” for acceptance with God, they could not object to being under it as a rule of duty. It is the law as abused, or as turned into a way of life in opposition to the gospel, (for which it was never given to a fallen creature,) that the apostle depre- ciates; and not as the revealed will of God, or as the im- mutable standard of right and wrong. In this view he delighted in it; and if we be Christians, we also shall de- PERVERSION OF THE PRINCIPAL DOCTRINES OF THE GOSPEL. 343 light in it; and if so, we shall not object to being under it as a rule of duty; for no man objects to be ruled by the precepts which he loves. Still less shall we allow ourselves to disparage it, and to represent the redemption of Christ as delivering us from its tyrannical yoke. So far as any man is a Christian, he is of Christ's mind, and that was to account it his meat and drink to do the will of his Father. If the law be really an oppressive and tyrannical yoke, it was requisite that our deliverance from it should have been by power, and not by price. This is the way in which we are delivered from the power of darkness. No satisfaction was made to Satan, inasmuch as his dominion was usurped. Captivity was led captive, and the prey taken from the mighty. If such had been the power which the law had over us, such would have been the nature of our redemption from the curse of it. But here the case is different. Christ, however strong his love was to us, did not ask our salvation at the expense of law or justice. He would rather die than admit of such a thought. He was actually set forth to be a propitiatory sacrifice, that he might “declare his righteousness in the remission of sins, and be just in justifying them that believe in him.” After all this, is it credible that he should teach a doctrine, and approve of preaching, the object of which is to traduce that which in life and death it was his delight to honour? The mediation and intercession of Christ are founded on his propitiatory sacrifice, and carry on the great design of saving sinners in a way honourable to the law. Medi- ations require to be conducted according to the nature of the case. . If a father and a son be at variance, and a common friend interpose to effect a reconciliation, his first inquiry is, Is there any fault in the case ? If it be a mere misunderstanding, an explanation is sufficient. If fault exists, and it be on both sides, there will be ground for mutual concession. But if the father be wholly in the right, and the son have offended him without cause, he must do every thing to honour the one, and humble the other. To propose that, after the reconciliation, the former system of family government should be superseded, and that the son in future should be under a different rule, or anything implying a reflection on the father's former con- duct, would render the breach wider instead of healing it. Such is the nature of the case between God and man. If our Advocate with the Father had pleaded for the su- perseding of God’s authority as Lawgiver, he had proved himself utterly unqualified for his undertaking. But he “loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; and therefore God, his God, anointed him with the oil of gladness above his fellows,” and granted him the desire of his heart. Though he undertook the cause of sinners, yet he never pleaded in extenuation of their sins; but presented his own blood as a consideration that they might be forgiven. The Advocate for sinners is, as it was requisite he should be, “Jesus Christ the righteous.” In receiving the doctrine of the mediation and interces- sion of Christ, it is of great importance that we consider it in harmony with the grace of God. Socinians, who re- ject the atonement, are continually alleging its inconsist- ency, with the idea of grace. If forgiveness, say they, equires a satisfaction, how can it be free ? And the way in which satisfaction has been sometimes held up by good men has furnished but too much of a handle for their ob- jeºtions. If the atonement be considered as that through Which mercy is exercised consistently with justice, there Will be nothing found in it inconsistent with grace; but if the benefits resulting from it be considered as objects of claim, or the bestowment of them as required by justice, it will be otherwise. It is doubtless becoming the character 9f Gºd to fulfil his own gracious engagements. Thus “God is not unrighteous to forget our works of faith and Iabours of love ; ” and thus “he is Jaithful and just to forgive us our sins.” But if salvation were so obtained by the propitiation of Christ as that the bestowment of it should be required by essential justice, it had not been an object of intercession on his part, nor of prayer on ours. That which essential justice requires is not of grace, but of debt, and admits of the language of appeal rather than of prayer. These consequences have been actually drawn : º intercession of Christ in heaven has been considered S Possessing the nature of a demand. But whatever merit there was in his obedience unto death, or to whatever re- ward he was entitled from the remunerative justice of God, yet, in asking the life of another, and that other a 'rebel, it must not be in the language of demand. I recollect nothing in the Scriptures favourable to such an idea. The words of our Lord, in John xvii. 24, “Father, I will that they also whom thou hast given me be with me,” &c., express (says Campbell) no more than a petition.* And as to our omitting to pray for the forgiveness of sin, or asking for it in the language of demand, I should hope no serious Christians can act on such principles, though some Antinomians have appeared to do so. I am far from thinking that every one who has pleaded for salvation as a matter required by essential justice is an Antinomian ; but such may be the tendency of the prin- ciple notwithstanding. Every one that knows any thing of the gospel, knows that one of its grand peculiarities is, that it harmonizes the justice and mercy of God in the forgiveness of sins. In it “mercy and truth meet together, righteousness and peace kiss each other.” In it God is just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.” But the principle in question pleads for justice in such a way as to exclude mercy. To say mercy is exercised consist- ently with justice is to represent them as harmonizing in a sinner's salvation; but to say it is required by justice is to say what is self-contradictory. If it be required by justice, it is not mercy, or at least not undeserved favour. If justice, for instance, require that the believer in Jesus be justified, this is more than the covenant engagements of the Father to the Son requiring it: it amounts to this, that it would be an act of essential injustice in God to condemn him. But if so, we are not justified “freely by grace, through the redemption of Christ,” but as a matter of right, in which grace has nothing to do beyond the gift of Christ. It has been thought that the idea of salvation being only consistent with justice, and not required by it, tends to diminish the efficacy and value of Christ's merits. But, as has been hinted already, the efficacy and value of these are in mowise affected by this principle ; for whatever be their value, they cannot render our salvation a matter due to us on the footing of justice, unless they render us me- 'ritorious. If atonement had been made by us, and not by another for us—that is, if we ourselves had sustained the full penalty of the law—we might have claimed an ex- emption from further punishment as a matter of right; and if, in addition to this, we had yielded perfect obe- dience to its precepts, we might claim justification as a matter of right: but if all this be accomplished for us by another as our substitute, though the benefit may be ours, yet it will be altogether of grace, and not by the require- ment of justice. It is no less of grace than if we had been forgiven without an atonement. This will appear from the atonements under the Mosaic law. In cases wherein the sinner was himself made a sacrifice, justice took place, and grace and forgiveness were excluded. “He shall surely be put to death, his blood shall be upon him.” But in cases wherein a substitutional sacrifice was ad- mitted, and the sinner escaped, it was of forgiving grace, the same as if there had been no sacrifice offered. “The priest shall make an atonement for him, and his sin shall be forgiven him.” A substitutional sacrifice was an ex- pedient devised by the Lawgiver, that the exercise of mercy might be consistent with justice, or that God might for- give sin without seeming to connive at it; but it was no part of its design to destroy or diminish the grace of for- giveness, or to render the deliverance of a sinner a matter of claim. To establish the principle of claim, it is necessary to prove that there was such a union between Christ and his people as not merely to furnish a ground for their sins being reckoned as his, but for their really and properly being his : not merely that he might bear the curse due to them ; but that, in sustaining it, he should suffer accord- ing to his desert: not merely that his righteousness should be reckoned or imputed to them by a gracious act of the Lawgiver; but that reckoning things as they are, and ad- .* Hence he renders it, “Father, I would,” &c., and quotes Matt. xii. 38; xxvi. 89; Mark vi. 25, 35, where the same word is used for request, not demand. See his note. 344 ON ANTINOMIANISM. judging to every one what is his own, it should be really and properly theirs: not merely that they should receive the benefit of his merits, but that they themselves should become meritorious, or deserving of all that they receive. But this amounts to Christ and his people being one and the same conscious being ; and if so, there is no propriety in saying he died for them, seeing they themselves died in his death, and redeemed themselves by their own blood. It is this notion of the atonement, or what leads to this, that is continually held up by the Socinians, and which lays the foundation for all that they have advanced, with any degree of plausibility, on its inconsistency with grace. Substitutionary atonement, or atonement made for the sin of another, whether it be by slain beasts, or by any other means, in mowise interferes with grace. In pecuniary sa- tisfactions, if the creditor be but paid, whether it be by the debtor, or by a surety on his behalf, he has received his due, and no room is left for remission or for grace; but it is not so here. In cases of crime, nothing can render de- liverance a matter of claim, but the criminal himself having suffered the full penalty of the law. Deliverance by the interposition of a mediator, though it may answer the great ends of justice, and so be consistent with it, yet can never be required by it, nor be any other than an act of grace. This truth, while it repels the objections of Socinianism, corrects the abuses of Antinomianism. The doctrine of justification by faith in Jesus Christ, without the works of the law, is in itself exceedingly hum- bling ; for it is no other than God’s justifying the ungodly, or accepting to favour a believing sinner, not for any Worthiness in him, but for the sake of his righteousness in whom he believeth. It relates to the way in which we who are unrighteous are accepted of God as the Lawgiver of the world, and treated as righteous. If we had retained our original righteousness, justice itself would have justi- fied us ; but having sinned, the question, How shall man be justified with God? is too difficult for created wisdom to solve. Whatever delight the Creator takes in honour- ing and rewarding righteousness, there is none left in this apostate world for him to honour or reward. “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” If any child of Adam, therefore, be now accepted and rewarded as righteous, it must be entirely on different ground from that of his own righteousness. What ground this could be, God only knew. This great difficulty, however, is solved by the gospel. We are “justified freely by grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness in the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness; that he might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.” Hence it is that justifica- tion is ascribed to faith, not as a virtue which God con- sented to accept for righteousness instead of perfect obedience, but as receiving the righteousness of his Son, of which our justification is the reward. Justification by faith, and being “made righteous by the obedience of Christ,” are the same thing. Believing in him, we are **ted to him, and so possess a revealed interest in him, and in all the benefits and blessings arising from his obedience unto death.* This righteousness is imputed to us, or counted by the Lawgiver of the world, in his treat- ment of us, as if it were our own. Not that it really is our own, for then should we cease to be guilty and un- worthy, and might draw migh to God as meritorious beings; but as Christ was “made sin for us,” though in respect to his real character he “knew no sin;” so we are “made the righteousness of God in him,” though in respect to our real character we are worthy of death. To believe for righteousness is to receive it as a free gift, and so stands opposed to justification by the works of the law, which is to receive it as the reward of our own doings. Hence it is said to be “ of faith,” that it may be of grace, Faith is necessary to justification, and so is repentance to forgiveness; but neither the one nor the other is necessary as a cause, or as being that for the sake of which we are justified or pardoned. With re- * Rom. viii. 1; Phil. iii. 9; 1 Cor. i. 30. | spect to the meritorious or procuring cause, nothing is necessary but the righteousness of Christ. The sinner in his justification is considered as altogether unworthy, and even ungodly. As such our Redeemer died for us, and as such he justifies us. - Being accepted in the Beloved, our services also are accepted through him. The Lord had respect not only to Abel, but to his offering. Thus it is that our duties become rewardable, and that the promises of God are made to them. There are no promises made to the doings of unbelievers, however fair they may appear in the eyes of men. In fine, being thus justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, and draw near to a throne of grace with humble boldness, as to a father. But the subject may be viewed in such a light as to become another doctrine, and to be productive of another spirit. Conceive of the imputation of Christ's righteous- ness as that by which we are not only treated as righteous, but are actually without spot in the sight of God— imagine that he can think a character to be different from what it really is, and suppose justification to include such a remission of our sins, past, present, and to come, as renders daily prayer for forgiveness unnecessary, and even improper—and our souls will be so lifted up as not to be upright in us. It is true that God graciously deals with his people, not according to their sins, but according to the righteousness of his Son; but this is without being blinded to their faults, or the less offended with them for their sins. It is also true that they are delivered from a state of exposedness to condemnation on their first be- lieving, and that provision is made for the remission of all their future transgressions; but as the Scriptures pronounce no sinner justified till he believes, so they de- clare no sin to be forgiven till it is confessed and forsaken, Prov. xxviii. 13; 1 John i. 9. To obviate the plain testimony of Scripture, which de- clares repentance to be necessary to forgiveness, it is commonly alleged that this does not mean forgiveness itself, but a sense of it in the mind : the thing itself is supposed to exist in the secret purpose of God. But for- giveness itself is no more a secret purpose in the mind of God than it is a sensation or persuasion in the mind of man; rather, it is the gracious purpose of God as revealed in the Scriptures. Those sins which the Scriptures for- give are forgiven, and those which they retain are retain- ed; but the Scriptures declare no sin to be forgiven which is unlamented. I do not accuse all who have gone into the unscriptural notions to which I refer of being Antinomians. Many godly people have had their minds greatly perplexed on this subject, who yet have retained and felt so much of the truth as to “count all things but loss that they might win Christ, and be found in him, not having their own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.” Justification has by many been considered as a gracious purpose in the mind of God not to impute sin, but the righteousness of Christ, to an elect sinner. Hence, as no new purpose can arise in the all-comprehending mind, it has been considered as eternal; and what is denominated in the Scriptures justification by faith, as the revelation or discovery of it to the soul. But faith has to do with only revealed truth : supposing, therefore, that it were true of a sinner that he was justified in the Divine purpose from eternity, yet, this being no where revealed of him in the Scriptures, it cannot be by faith that he discovers it. It must either be by a new revelation from heaven, or by an impulse on his imagination which he unhappily mistakes for one. But neither is it true that justification consists in the purpose of God not to impute sin, but the righteousness of Christ, to an elect sinner. It does not belong to the secret, but to the revealed will of God. It is for a believ- ing sinner to be exempted from the curse of the law, and entitled to the blessings of the gospel, not in the Divine purpose, but according to the will of God as revealed in the Scriptures. If justification be a law term, and opposed to condemn- PERVERSION OF THE PRINCIPAL DOCTRINES OF THE GOSPEL. 345 ation, as I believe it is generally allowed to be, it cannot be any thing existing merely in the Divine mind. Neither the one nor the other is a purpose in the mind of the judge, but a sentence passed in open court. Condemna- tion as opposed to justification in the Scriptures is not an appointment of sinners to future punishment, but a state of exposedness to the curse of the law... The former is not true of elect sinners, even while unbelievers, but the lat- ter is.” Whatever be the secret purpose of God in their favour, so long as they reject the Saviour, “the wrath of God abideth” upon them, or, which is the same thing, all the threatenings and curses of the Divine law stand in full force against them. But if condemnation consist not in God’s purpose finally to punish, justification consists not in his purpose finally to acquit; and if the former be that exposedness to the curse of the law which, according to the sentence pronounced in the Scriptures, belongs to every transgressor, the latter must be that change of state, condition, or standing, with respect to the Lawgiver of the world, which takes place on our believing in Christ, and in which the sentence is revoked in respect of us, and we henceforth possess a revealed interest in all the bless- ings and promises of the gospel. I say, a revealed in- terest ; for as the sentence of condemnation stood against us in the Scriptures, so that of justification must there stand for us. It is not the purpose which may exist in the Divine mind, nor the impulse, impression, or per- suasion which may have place in our minds, but the voice of God in his word concerning us, that determines our state, or denominates us justified or condemned. When the revealed will of God is disregarded as a rule of life, it is common for the mind to be much occupied about his secret will, or his decrees, as a substitute for it. It is thus that men stumble upon the dark mountains, and fall into many dangerous errors, besides those on justification. To what other cause can it be attributed that the invitations of the gospel, instead of being address- ed to sinners considered merely as guilty and miserable, should be confined to sensible sinners, or to persons who, though they have never yet come to Christ, taken his yoke, or learned his spirit, are nevertheless supposed to be in possession of something that proves them to be of the elect, and therefore entitled to have the invitations addressed to them 3 Who can trace the delusion which must arise from such a doctrine 3 If a sinner is ever in- vited to come to Christ, it is when he is considered as sufficiently sensible of his lost condition; and this is held up, not merely as that which is necessary in the nature of things to his coming, but as giving him a warrant to come. Thus the sinner is taught to think himself one of God’s elect, while as yet he has neither repentance toward God, nor faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. To what is it owing, but to the substituting of the se- cret for the revealed will of God, that Christians should be afraid to pray for the salvation of their neighbours, ministers for that of their hearers, and parents for that of their children, lest they should not prove to be of the elect " If nothing more were meant than that in all our prayers there should be a condition implied, namely, that what we ask is according to the will of God, there could be no just objection to it. But if, lest what we ask should not accord with the Divine purpose, we refrain from asking any thing, our conduct will resemble that of the slothful servant, who, from certain notions which he entertained of his Lord's character, concluded that there was no encouragement for him to do any thing, and therefore went and buried his Lord's talent in the earth. And why should we neglect to pray for our neighbours, our hearers, or our children only, lest they should not have been elected 3 Why not also on the same ground neglect to pray for ourselves 2 There must have been a time when we had no ground to conclude ourselves elect- ed; and did we wait till we had obtained evidence of this before we began to pray for the salvation of our own Souls 3 If we did not, and yet object on this account to pray for others, surely self-love must be the Alpha and Omega of our religion. Paul, as has been already observed, believed and taught * “We were by nature children of wrath, even as others,” said Paul of himself and the believing Ephesians, chap. ii. 3. Z * the doctrine of election; yet in the same Epistle, nay, in the same chapter, he declared his most anxious solicitude for the salvation of his unbelieving “brethren and kins- men according to the flesh.” And wherefore ? Because he desired any thing contrary to the will of God 3 No ; but not knowing what was the secret will of God re- specting individuals, he was satisfied with obeying his commandments. God he well knew would regulate his own conduct by his wise and righteous decrees, but they could be no rule to him, inasmuch as they were utterly beyond his knowledge.f. It was for him to obey the pre- cept, and to leave the issue to his disposal who “worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.” - . The doctrines of efficacious grace and the final persever- ance of believers, are in themselves of a humbling nature. They imply the utter depravity of the human heart, as being proof against every thing but omnipotent love; and the proneness of the best of men to draw back even to perdition, were it not that they are preserved by grace. When a serious Christian remembers the hateful enmity with which he formerly opposed the Divine authority, and resisted to the utmost the very calls of mercy, his soul is humbled within him. It was God, says he, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved me, even when I was dead in sins, that quickened me together with Christ. By grace I am saved —Or if he survey his life from the beginning of his Christian course, and the innu- merable defects and miscarriages of it are brought to his recollection, shame and confusion overwhelm him. He is God, saith he, and changeth not; therefore it is that I am not consumed !—But these important doctrines may be perverted; and, being so, that which is retained may be as false as they are true, and as productive of spiritual pride as they are of humility. If the influence of either sin or grace be supposed to destroy our accountableness to God— if the necessity of regeneration be contended for on some other ground than our having been degenerate—if it con- sist not in the renewal of the mind to a right spirit, but in the communicating of a principle essentially different from any thing to which we were obliged in our unregeneracy, or from that which we possessed in a state of original purity —if this principle and its opposite, the new and the old man, be considered as agents, and the man himself not an agent, but a passive spectator of their conflicts—if a confident persuasion of our being the children of God be taken for Christian faith, and the apprehensions excited by a guilty conscience be treated as unbelief—finally, if perseverance be considered as a certain connexion between a beginning and an end, while an actual progress in grace and holiness is either denied or overlooked—it is easy to perceive what kind of effects will follow. - It is from these fond notions that men imagine them- selves possessed of such extraordinary knowledge as to be entitled to look down upon all around them, as the Jews in the time of our Saviour looked down upon the Gentiles, treating them as dogs. Not only are natural men despised, as though destitute of common understanding; but the first parent of our race, created in the image of God, is accounted a natural man, and as such utterly incapable of knowing what they know. Even the angels in heaven are in this respect considered as greatly their inferiors. Much is said in the Scriptures of “living by faith; ” and, truly understood, it is of the greatest importance. With- out it there is neither the progress nor existence of true religion. To live by faith on the Son of God is not only to be crucified to the objects of sense which surround us, and alive to unseen realities, but to feel habitually divested of self-sufficiency, and to place our whole confidence in the promised grace of Christ. Such a confidence has revealed truth for its foundation, and operates in a way of un- feigned humility. Hence the language of the prophet : “Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him; but the just shall live by faith.” But if a life of faith be understood to mean a continued unshaken confidence that we are converted and shall be saved, this is entirely another thing. That true Christians may know that they have passed from death to life is readily granted ; this, however, is not an object of faith, but of consciousness. It is no * See, Dr. Ryland's Sermon before the subscribers to the Stepney Institution, preached at Devonshire Square, 1812, pp. 31–34. 346 ON ANTINOMIANISM, where revealed in the Scriptures concerning us that we are true Christians; therefore it can be no exercise of faith to be persuaded of it. A believer may be conscious that he is such, and that he loves our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity; and this faith and love having the promise of salvation, he may probably be also certain that he shall be saved. “If our hearts condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God.” The apostles and primitive Christians appear to have entertained little or no doubt of their personal Christianity. Why? Because “great grace was upon them all.” This afforded a living and constant evidence of their being born of God. But when they speak of “holding fast the beginning of their confidence to the end,” their meaning is not that they are to maintain a good opinion of their own state, but an unshaken attachment to the gospel, in the declarations and promises of which they had from the beginning confided. The most unshaken persuasion of the goodness of our own state may be mere self-confidence; and if it operate in a way of religious vaunting, there is every reason for concluding it will be found nothing better. Such was that of the Pharisees, who boasted that God was their Father, and so trusted that they were righteous, and despised others. The soul of such a man is “lifted up,” and therefore “is not upright in him.” Instead of living by faith, his life is that to which a life of faith is directly opposed. Such doctrine has a bewitching influence upon minds of a certain cast. It is a species of religious flattery, which feeds their vanity, and soothes their selfishness; yet they call it the food of their souls. Like intoxicating liquors to a drunkard, its tendency is to destroy; but yet it seems necessary to their existence ; so much so, that for the sake of it they despise the bread of life. EXPOSITORY DISCO URSES ON T H E B O O K OF G E N E S I S, INTERSPERSED WITH PRACTICAL REFLECTIONS. TO THE BAPTIST CHURCH OF CHRIST AT KETTERING. MY DEAR BRETHREN, IT is now upwards of twenty-two years since I first took the oversight of you in the Lord. During the last fifteen years it has, as you know, been my practice to expound among you, on a Lord’s day morning, some part of the Holy Scriptures, commonly a chapter. From all that I have felt in my own mind, and heard from you, I have reason to hope these exercises have not been in vain. They have enabled us to take a more connected view of the Scriptures than could be obtained merely by sermons on particular passages ; and I acknowledge that, as I have proceeded, the work of exposition has become more and more interesting to my heart. I have not been in the habit of writing dedications to what I have published, but in this instance I feel inclined to deviate from my usual practice. Considering my time of life, and the numerous avocations on my hands, I may not be able to publish any thing more of the kind; and if not, permit me to request that this family book may be preserved as a memorial of our mutual affection, and of the pleasures we have enjoyed together in exploring the treasures of the lively oracles. You will consider these Discourses as the result of having once gone over that part of the Scriptures to which they relate. Were we to go over it again and again, such is the fulness of God’s word, that we should still find interesting and important matter which had never occurred in reading it before; and this should encourage us not to rest in any ex- position, but to be constantly perusing the Scriptures themselves, and digging at the precious ore. As the Exposition was delivered in public worship, it was not my wish to dwell upon particular words, so much as to convey the general scope and design of the Scriptures. Whether I have in any considerable degree caught the spirit which runs through them is too much for me to decide; but this I can say, that such has been my aim. I know by experience that, with respect to this, when I have been the most spiritually-minded, I have succeeded the best; and therefore conclude, that if I had lived nearer to God the work had been better executed. But, such as it is, I commend it to the blessing of God and your candid acceptance; and remain Your affectionate Pastor, Kettering, October 29, 1805. THE AUTHOR. DISCOURSE I. ON THE BOOK IN GENERAL, AND THE FIRST DAY'S CREATION. GENESIS I. 1–4. It is common for the writers of other histories to go back | not knowing whence it came, nor whither it goeth. In in their researches as far as possible; but Moses traces his from the beginning. The whole book is upon the origin of things, even of all things that had a beginning. The Visible creation, the generations of man, moral evil among | men, the spiritual kingdom of the Messiah, the new world, the church in the family of Abraham, the various nations and tribes of man; every thing, in short, now going on in the world, may be traced hither as to its spring-head. Without this history the world would be in total darkness, the first page of this sacred book a child may learn more in an hour than all the philosophers in the world learned without it in thousands of years. There is a majestic sublimity in the introduction. No apology, preamble, or account of the writer: you are in- troduced at once into the very heart of things. No vain conjectures about what was before time, nor why things were done thus and thus; but simply so it was. In this account of the creation nothing is said on the 348 EXPOSITION OF GENESIS. being of God; this great truth is taken for granted. May not this apparent omission be designed to teach us that those who deny the existence of a Deity are rather to be rebuked than reasoned with ? All reasoning and instruc- tion must proceed upon some principle or principles, and what can be more proper than this? Those writers who have gone about to prove it, have, in my opinion, done but little, if any, good; and in many instances have only set men a doubting upon a subject which is so manifest from every thing around them as to render the very heathems without eaccuse, Rom. i. 20. The foundation of this vast fabric is laid in an adequate cause—ELoHIM, The Almighty. Nothing else would bear it. Man, if he attempt to find an adequate cause for what is, to the overlooking of God, shall but weary himself with very vanity. The writer makes use of the plural term Elohim, which yet is joined to singular verbs. This has been generally thought to intimate the doctrine of a plurality in the unity of the Godhead. It is certain the Scriptures speak of the Son and Holy Spirit as concerned in creation, as well as the Father, John i. 1; Gen. i. 2. Nor can I, on any other supposition, affix a consistent meaning to such lan- guage as that which afterwards occurs: “Let us make man in our image, after owr likeness.”—“Behold, the man is become like one of us.” The account given by Moses relates not to the whole creation, but merely to what it immediately concerns us to know. God made angels; but nothing is said of them. The moon is called one of the greater lights, not as to what it is in itself, but what it is to us. The Scriptures are written, not to gratify curiosity, but to nourish faith. They do not stop to tell you how, nor to answer a number of questions which might be asked ; but tell you so much as is necessary, and no more. Ver. 1, 2. The first act of creation seems to have been general, and the foundation of all that followed. What the heavens were when first produced, previously to the creation of the sum, moon, and stars, it did not greatly concern us to know, and therefore we are not told. What the earth was we are informed in verse 2. It was a chaos, without form, and void; a confused mass of earth and water, covered with darkness, and void of all those fruits which afterwards covered the face of it. As regeneration is called a creation, this may fitly represent the state of the soul while under the dominion of sin.—“The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” The word sig- nifies as much as brooded; and so is expressive of “an active, effectual energy, agitating the vast abyss, and in- fusing into it a powerful vital principle.” Hence those lines of Milton :- “And chiefly thou, O SPIRIT- that, with mighty wings outspread, Dove-like, satt'st brooding on the vast abyss, And mad'st it pregnant.” Thus also God hath wrought upon the moral world, which, under sin, was without form, and void ; and thus he operates upon every individual mind, causing it to bring forth fruit unto himself. Ver. 3. From a general account of the creation, the sacred writer proceeds to particulars; and the first thing mentioned is the production of light. The manner in which this is related has been considered as an example of the sublime. . It expresses a great event in a few simple words, and exhibits the Almighty God perfectly in charac- ter: “He speaks, and it is done ; he commands, and it stands fast.” The work of the Holy Spirit upon the dark soul of man is fitly set forth in allusion to this great act of creation : “God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined into our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” As soon might chaos have emerged from its ma- tive darkness as our benighted world, or benighted souls, have found the light of life of their own accord. Nor was it sufficient to have furnished us with a revelation from heaven : the same almighty power that was necessary to give material light a being in the world was necessary to give spiritual light a being in the heart. The light here mentioned was not that of the sun, which was created afterwards. Hence a late infidel writer has raised an objection against the Scriptures, that they speak of light, and even of night and day, which are well known to arise from the situaticin of the earth towards the sun, before the sun was made. But he might as well have ob- jected that they speak of the earth in ver. 1, 2, and yet afterwards tell us of the dry land, as separated from the waters, constituting the earth, ver. 9, 10. The truth seems to be, that what chaos was to the earth, that the light was to the sun : the former denotes the general principles of which the latter was afterwards composed. A flood of light was produced on the first day of creation, and on the fourth it was collected and formed into distinct bodies. And though these bodies, when made, were to rule day and night, yet, prior to this, day and might were ruled by the Creator's so disposing of the light and darkness as to divide them, ver. 4. That which was afterwards done ordinarily by the sun was now done extraordinarily by the division of darkness and light. Ver. 4. “God saw the light that it was good.” Light is a wonderful creature, full of goodness to us. This is sensibly felt by those who have been deprived of it, either by the loss of sight, or by confinement in dungeons or mines. How pathetically does our blind poet lament the loss of it:— “Seasons return ; but not to me returns Day, or the sweet approach of even or morn, Or sight of vernal bloom, or summer’s rose, Or flocks, or herds, or human face divine : But cloud instead, and ever-during dark Surrounds me ! Prom the cheerful ways of men Cut off; and, for the book of knowledge fair, Presented with a universal blank Of nature's works, to me expunged and rased, And wisdom at one entrance quite shut out !” If such be the value of material light, how much more of that which is mental and spirituall and how much are we indebted to the Holy Spirit of God for inditing the Scriptures, and opening our benighted minds to under- stand them : DISCOURSE II. ON THE LAST FIVE DAYS’ CREATION. Gen. i. 6–31. VER. 6–8. We here enter upon the second day, which was employed in making a firmament or eacpanse. It in- cludes the atmosphere, and all that is visible, from the po- sition of the sun, moon, and stars, down to the surface of the globe, ver. 14, 15. 20. The use of it was to “divide the waters from the waters;” that is, the waters on the earth from the waters in the clouds, which are well known to be supported by the buoyant atmosphere. The division here spoken of is that of distribution. God, having made the substance of all things, goes on to distribute them. By means of this the earth is watered by the rain of heaven, without which it would be unfruitful, and all its inhabitants perish. God makes nothing in vain. There is a grandeur in the firma- ment to the eye; but this is not all ; usefulness is com- bined with beauty. Nor is it useful only with respect to animal subsistence ; it is a mirror, conspicuous to all, dis- playing the glory of its Creator, and showing his handi- works. The clouds also, by emptying themselves upon the earth, set us an example of generosity, and reprove those who, full of this world’s good, yet keep it principally to themselves, Eccles. xi. 1–3. Wer. 9–13. God having divided the heavens and the earth, he now, on the third day, proceeds to subdivide the earth, or chaos, into land and water. The globe became terraqueous; partly earth, and partly sea. It is easy to perceive the goodness of God in this dis- tribution. Important as earth and water both are, yet, while mixed together, they afford no abode for creatures; but, separated, each is a beautiful habitation, and each subserves the other. By means of this distribution the waters are ever in motion, which preserves them, and al- LAST FIVE DAYS" CREATION. 3.49 most every thing else, from stagnancy and putrefaction. . That which the circulation of the blood is to the animal frame, the waters are to the world : were they to stop, all would stagnate and die, Eccles. i. 7. See how careful our heavenly Father was to build us a habitation before he gave us a being. Nor is this the only instance of the kind : our Redeemer has acted on the same principle, in going before to prepare a place for us. - Having fitted the earth for fruitfulness, God proceeds to clothe it with grass, and herbs, and trees of every kind. There seems to be an emphasis laid on every herb and tree having its seed in itself. We here see the prudent fore- sight, if I may so speak, of the great Creator in providing for futurity. It is a character that runs through all his works, that, having communicated the first principles of things, they should go on to multiply and increase, not independently of him, but as blessed by his conservative goodness. It is thus that true religion is begun and carried on in the mind, and in care and the world. Ver. 14–19. After dividing this lower world, and fur- nishing it with the principles of vegetation, the Creator proceeded, on the fourth day, to the producing of the heavenly bodies. First they are described in general, as the lights of heaven (ver. 14, 15); and then more par- ticularly, as the sun, moon, and stars, ver. 16–19. The use of these bodies is said to be not only for dividing the day from the night, but “for signs and seasons, and days and years.” They ordinarily afford signs of weather to the husbandman (Matt. xvi. 3); and, prior to the dis- covery of the use of the loadstone, were of great import- ance to the mariner, Acts xxvii. 20. They appear also, on some extraordinary occasions, to have been premonitory to the world. Previously to the destruction of Jerusalem, our Lord foretold that there should be great earthquakes in divers places, and famines, and pestilences, and fearful sights, and great signs from heaven, Luke xxi. 11. And it is said by Josephus that a comet, like a flaming sword, Was seen for a long time over that devoted city, a little before its destruction by the Romans. Heathen astrologers made gods of these creatures, and filled the minds of men with chimerical fears concerning them. Against these God warns his people, saying, “Be ye not dismayed at the signs of heaven.” This, however, does not prove but that he may sometimes make use of them. Modern astrono- mers, by accounting for various phenomena, would deny their being signs of any thing; but, to avoid the super- stitions of heathenism, there is no necessity for our run- ning into atheism. - - The heavenly bodies are also said to be for seasons, as winter and summer, day and night. We have no other standard for the measuring of time. The grateful vicissi- tudes also which attend them are expressive of the good- ness of God. If it were always day or night, summer or Winter, our enjoyments would be unspeakably diminished. Wellis it said at every pause, And God saw that it was good! David improved this subject to a religious purpose: “Day unto day uttereth speech, and might unto night showeth knowledge.” Every night we retire we are re- minded of death; and every morning we arise, of the resurrection. In beholding the sun also, “which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run his race,” we see every day a glorious example of the steady and progressive “path of the just, which shineth more and more unto the perfect day.” Ver, 20–25. We are next led to review the animal creation; a species of being less resplendent, but not less useful, than some of greater note. In one view, the small- est animal has a property belonging to it which renders it Superior to the sun. It has life, and some degree of know- ledge. It is worthy of notice, too, that the creation be- gins with things without life, and proceeds to things pos- Sessing vegetative life, then to those which have animal life, and after that to man, who is the subject of rational life. This shows that life is of great account in the Cre- ator's estimation, who thus causes the subject to rise upon us as we proceed. Ver. 26–31. We are now come to the sixth and last day’s work of creation, which is of greater account to us than any which have gone before, as the subject of it is man.—We may observe, 1. That the creation of man is introduced differently from that of all other beings. It is described as though it were the result of a special counsel, and as though there were a peculiar importance attached to it; “God said, Let us make man.” Under the Great Supreme, man was to be the lord of the lower world. On him would depend its future well-being. Man was to be a distinguished link in the chain of being ; uniting the animal with the spirit- ual world, the frailty of the dust of the ground with the breath of the Almighty; and possessing that consciousness of right and wrong which should render him a proper subject of moral government. 2. Man was honoured in being made after his Creator's £mage. This is repeated with emphasis : “God created man in his own image; in the image of God created he him.” The image of God is partly natural, and partly moral ; and man was made after both. The former con- sisted in reason, by which he was fitted for dominion over the creatures, James iii. 7 ; the latter, in righteousness and true holiness, by which he was fitted for communion with his Creator. The figure of his body, by which he was distinguished from all other creatures, was an emblem of his mind : God made man upright. I remember once, on seeing certain animals which approached near to the hu- man form, feeling a kind of jealousy (shall I call it 7) for the honour of my species. What a condescension then, thought I, must it be for the eternal God to stamp his *mage upon man | “God made man upright.” He knew and loved his Creator, living in fellowship with him and the holy angels. Oh how fallen “How is the gold become dim, and the most fine gold changed . " DISCOURSE III. CREATION REVIEWED. Gen. ii. THIS chapter contains a review of the creation, with the addition of some particulars, such as the institution of the sabbath, the place provided for man, the law given him, and the manner of the creation of woman. Ver. l. There is something impressive in this review : “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them ’’—wisely, mightily, kindly, gradually, but perfectly. Man’s work, especially when great, is com- monly a work of ages. One lays the foundation, and an- other the top-stone; or, what is worse, one pulls down what another had reared ; but God finishes his work. “He is a rock, and his work is perfect.” Ver. 2, 3. The conclusion of so Divine a work required to be celebrated, as well as the Creator adored, in all future ages; hence arose the institution of the sabbath. We are not to imagine that God was weary, or that he was unable to have made the whole in one day; but this was done for an example to us. The keeping of a sabbath sacred for Divine worship has been a topic of much dispute. Some have questioned whether it was kept by the patriarchs, or before the de- parture of Israel from Egypt; supposing that Moses, who wrote the Book of Genesis about that time, might be led to introduce God’s resting from his works on the seventh day as a motive to enforce what was then enjoined upon them. But if there was social worship before the flood, and during the patriarchal ages, one should think there must have been a time for it. We expressly read of time being divided into weeks during these ages, chap. xxix. 27, 28; and as early as the flood, when Noah sent out the dove once and again from the ark, the term of “seven days” is noticed as the space between the times of sending her. Add to this, the division of time into weeks is said to have been very common in heathen nations in all ages; so that though they ceased to observe the sabbath, yet they retained what was a witness against them—the time of its celebration. - The sabbath was not only appointed for God, but to be 350 EXPOSITION OF GENESIS. a day of rest for man, particularly for the poor. It was . enjoined on Israel for this reason, “That thy man-serv- ant and thy maid-servant may rest as well as thou : and remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt.” Those who would set it aside are no less the enemies of the poor than of God and religion: they consult only their worldly interest. If such sordid characters could so order it, their servants would be always in the yoke. Nor would their being so in the least tend to increase their wages: every day’s work would be worth a little less than it is now, and the week’s work would amount to much the same. To those who fear God it is also a rest to the mind; a time of refreshing after the toils of worldly labour. The reason for keeping the sabbath was drawn not only from God’s having rested, but from the rest which Israel felt from the yoke of Egypt, Deut. v. 14, 15. And we have since that time another reason, namely, Christ having rested from his works, as God did from his, Heb. iv. 4—10. Hence, according to the practice of the primitive Christians, the day was altered, Acts xx. 7: and by how much more interesting the work of redemption is than that of creation, by so much is this reason greater than the other. Finally, It is a Jewish tradition, and seems to have generally prevailed, that, as there is a harmony of times in the works of God, this seventh day of rest is prefigura- tive of the seven thousandth year of the world being a rest to the church. We know that years were divided into sevens, and seven times sevens. Every seventh year the land was to have its sabbath, and every fiftieth year its jubilee: and thus it may be with the world. If so, we are not at a great distance from it; and this will be the period when a great number of prophecies of the uni- versal spread of the gospel shall be fulfilled. Ver. 4–7. After reviewing the whole in general, and noticing the day of rest, the sacred writer takes a special review of the vegetable creation, with an intent to mark the difference of its first production and ordinary propa- gation. Plants are now ordinarily produced by rain upon the earth and human tillage : but the first plants were made before there was any rain, or any human hand to till the ground. After this, a mist or vapour arose which engendered rain, and watered the earth, ver. 6. So also after this God formed man to till the ground, ver, 7. It is God’s immediate work to communicate the first principles of things; but their growth is promoted by the instrumentality of man. And now, having made mention of man, he tells us of what he was made. His body was formed “of the dust of the ground.” His soul proceeded from the inspiration of the Almighty. What a wonderful compound is man There seems to be something in the ad- ditional phrase, “And man became a living soul.” God is said to breathe the breath of life into all animals; and we sometimes read of the soul of every living thing : but they are never said to be living souls, as men are. God hath stamped rationality and immortality upon men's sºuls, so as to render them capable of a separate state of being, even when their bodies are dead. Hence the soul of a beast, when it dies, is said to go downwards; but the soul of man upwards, Eccles. xii. 7. Ver. 8. Next we have an account of the place provided for man ; not only the world at large, but a pleasant part of it. . . It was situated in the country of Eden, in Asia; probably among the mountains of the East. It was near the origin of several rivers, which always proceed from mountainous parts of the country. It is spoken of as rich and fruitful in a high degree, so as even to become proverbial, Gen. xiii. 10; Isa. li. 3. Ver. 9. Things were also adapted to accommodate man: trees and fruits, for pleasure and use, were ready to his hand. Among the trees of Eden there were two in par- ticular which appear to have been symbolical, or designed by the Creator to give instruction, in the manner which is done by our positive institutions. One was “the tree of life,” to which he had free access. This was designed as a symbol to him of that life which stood connected with his obedience; and, therefore, when he sinned, he was debarred from eating it, by the flaming sword and cherubim, which turned every way to guard it. The other was “ the tree of knowledge of good and evil,” which was the only tree of the fruit of which he was for- bidden to eat. As the name of the former of these trees is given it from the effect which should follow obedience, so that of the latter seems to have been from the effect which should follow on disobedience. Man, on the day he should eat thereof, should know good in a way of loss, and evil in a way of sufferance. Wer. 10–14. Besides this, it was a well-watered gar- den. A river rose among the mountains of the country of Eden, which directed its course through it ; and after- wards divided into four heads, or branches. Two of them are elsewhere mentioned in Scripture ; viz. the Hiddekel, or Tigris, and the Euphrates, both rivers of Asia. With the others we are less acquainted. Ver. 15. Among the provisions for man’s happiness was employment. Even in innocence he was to dress the garden and keep it. Man was not made to be idle. All things are full of labour : it is a stupid notion that happi- ness consists in slothful ease, or in having nothing to do. Those who are so now, whether the very rich or the very poor, are commonly among the most worthless and miser- able of mankind. Wer. 16, 17. The trial of man, by a special prohibi- tion, was singularly adapted to the end. To have con- formed to his Creator’s will, he must always have been contented with implicit obedience, or satisfied in abstain- ing from a thing on the mere ground of its being forbid- den of God, without perceiving the reason of his being required to do so. In truth, it was a test of his continu- ing in the spirit of a little child, that should have no will of its own ; and this is still the spirit of true religion. The consequences attached to a breach of this positive law teach us also not to trifle with the will of God in his ordinances, but implicitly to obey it. More particularly, Observe, 1. The fulness of the grant. Here was enough for man’s happiness without the forbidden fruit; and so there is now in the world, without transgressing the boundaries of Heaven. 2. The positiveness of the prohibition—“Thou shalt not eat of it.” So long as this was kept in mind it was well; and it appears to have been deeply impressed, from the first answer of the woman to the serpent, chap. iii. 3. It was this impression which he aimed to efface by his devilish question, “Yea, hath God said it?” And when once she began to doubt of this, all was over. Let us learn to keep God’s words in our minds, and hide them in our hearts, that we may not sin against him. It was with— Thus and thus it is written, that our Lord repelled all his temptations. 3. The penalty annexed,—“Thou shalt die,” or, “Dying thou shalt die.” Some think this means corporeal death, and that only; and that if the threaten- ing had been executed man must have been immediately struck out of existence. But the death here threatened, whatever it was, is said to have passed upon all men, which implies the existence of all men, and which would have been prevented if Adam had at that time been re- duced to a state of non-existence. The original constitu- tion of things provided for the existence of every individual that has since been born into the world, and that whether man should stand or fall. The death here threatened doubtless included that of the body, which God might execute at pleasure; the day he should eat he would be dead in law. But it also included the loss of the Divine favour, and an exposedness to his wrath. If it were not so, the redemption of Christ would not be properly op- posed to it, which it frequently is, Rom. v. 12–21; Heb. ix. 27, 28. Nor is Adam to be considered as merely a private individual : he was the public head of all his pos- terity, so that his transgression involved their being transgressors from the womb, and alike exposed to death with himself. Such has been the character of all man- kind; and such is the account of things given in the Scriptures. If men now find fault with this part of the Divine government, it is what they will not be able to stand to at the last day. The Judge of all the earth will, in that day, appear to have done right, whatever may be thought of him at present. 4. The promise of life implied by it. There is every reason to believe that if man had obeyed his Creator's will, he would, of his own boundless goodness, have crowned him with everlasting bliss. It is FALL OF MAN. 351 his delight to impart his own infinite blessedness as the reward of righteousnes; if Adam, therefore, had continued in the truth, he and all his posterity would have enjoyed what was symbolically promised him by the tree of life. Nor is there any reason to suppose but that it would have been the same for substance as that which believers now enjoy through a Mediator; for the Scriptures speak of that which the law could not do (in that it was weak through the flesh, that is, through the corruption of human nature) as being accomplished by Christ, Rom. viii. 3, 4. Ver. 18–25. The subject closes with a more particular account of the creation of woman. We had a general one before (chap. i. 27); but now we are led to see the reasons of it. Observe, 1. It was not only for the propagation of the human race, but a most distinguished provision for hu- man happiness. The woman was made for the man; not merely for the gratification of his appetites, but of his rational and social nature. It was not good that man should be alone; and therefore a helper that should be meet, or suitable, was given him. The place assigned to the woman in heathen and Mahomedan countries has been highly degrading; and the place assigned her by modern infidels is not much better. Christianity is the only religion that conforms to the original design, that confines a man to one wife, and that teaches him to treat her with propriety. Go among the enemies of the gospel, and you shall see the woman either reduced to abject slavery, or basely flattered for the vilest of purposes; but in Christian families you may see her treated with honour and respect; treated as a friend, as naturally an equal, a soother of man's cares, a softener of his griefs, and a part- ner of his joys. 2. She was made after the other creatures were named ; and, consequently, after Adam, having seen and observed all the animals, had found none of them a fit companion for himself, and thus felt the want of one. The blessings both of nature and of grace are greatly en- deared to us by our being suffered to feel the want of them before we have them. 3. She was made out of man, which should lead men to consider their wives as a part of themselves, and to love them as their own flesh. The Woman was not taken, it is true, from the head, neither Was she taken from the feet; but from some where near the heart | 4. That which was now done would be a standing law of nature. Man would “leave father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and they twain should be one flesh.” Finally, It is added, “ They were both naked, and were not ashamed.” There was no guilt, and there- fore no shame : shame is one of the fruits of sin. DISCOURSE IV. THE FALL OF MAN. Gen. iii. 1–7. WE have hitherto seen man as God created him, upright and happy. But here we behold a sad reverse; the introl duction of moral evil into our world, the source of all our misery. There can be no doubt but that the serpent was used as an instrument of Satan, who hence is called “ that old serpent, the devil.” The subtlety of this creature might answer his purposes. . The account of the serpent speaking to the woman might lead us to a number of curious ques- tions, on which, after all, we might be unable to obtain satisfaction. Whether we are to understand this, or the temptations of our Lord in the wilderness, as spoken in an audible voice, or not, I shall not take upon me to decide. Whatever may be said of either case, it is certain, from the whole tenor of Scripture, that evil spirits have, by the Divine permission, access to human minds; not indeed so as to be able to impel us to sin without our consent; but it may be in some such manner as men influence each other's minds to evil. Such seems to be the proper idea of a tempter. We are conscious of what we choose; but are Scarcely at all acquainted with the things that induce choice. We are exposed to innumerable influences; and have therefore reason to pray, “Lead us not into tempta- tion, but deliver us from evil!” With respect to the temptation itself, it begins by calling in question the truth of God.—Is it true that God has prohibited any tree ? Can it be For what was it created ?–Such are the inquiries of wicked men to this day. “For what are the objects of pleasure made,” say they, “but to be enjoyed? Why did God create meats and drinks, and dogs and horses 3 What are appetites for, but to be indulged 1 * We might answer, among other things, to try them who dwell on the earth. It seems also to contain an insinuation that if man must not eat of every tree, he might as well eat of none. And thus discontent continues to overlook the good, and pores upon the one thing wanting. “All this availeth me no- thing, so long as Mordecai is at the gate.” Wer. 2, 3. The answer of Eve seems to be very good at the outset. She very properly repels the insinuation against the goodness of God, as though, because he had withheld one tree, he had withheld, or might as well have withheld, all. “No,” says he, “we may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden ; there is only one withheld.” She also, with equal propriety and decision, repelled the doubt which the tempter had raised respecting the pro- hibition of that one. The terms by which she expresses it show how clearly she understood the mind of God, and what an impression his command had made upon her mind: “Of the fruit of this tree, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it; neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die : ” We do not read that they were forbidden to touch it; but she understood a prohibition of eating to contain a prohibition of touching. And this exposition of the woman, while upright, affords a good rule to us. If we would shun evil, we must shun the appearance of it, and all the ave- nues which lead to it. To parley with temptation is to play with fire. In all this Eve sinned not, nor charged God foolishly. r Wer. 4, 5. The wily serpent now proceeds to a second attack. Mark the progress of the temptation. At the outset he only suggested his doubts; but now he deals in positive assertion. In this manner the most important errors creep into the mind. He who sets off with ap- parently modest doubts will often be seen to end in down- right infidelity. The positivity of the tempter might be designed to op- pose that of the woman. She is peremptory; he also is peremptory; opposing assertion to assertion. This artifice of Satan is often seen in his ministers. Nothing is more common than for the most false and permicious doctrines to be advanced with a boldness that stuns the minds of the simple, and induces a doubt: “Surely I must be in the wrong, and they in the right, or they could not be so con- fident.” Yet the tempter, it is observable, does not positively deny that God might have said so and so; for this would have been calling in question the veracity of Eve, or deny- ing what she knew to be true ; which must have defeated his end. But he insinuates that, whatever God might have said, which he would not now dispute, it would not &n the end prove so. Satan will not be so unpolite as to call in question either the honour or the understanding of Eve, but scruples not to make God a liar; yea, and has the impudence to say that God knew that, instead of prov- ing an evil, it would be a benefit. Alas, how often has man been flattered by the ministers of Satan at God’s expense ! Surely we need not be at a loss in judging whence those doctrines proceed which invalidate the Di- vine threatenings, and teach sinners going on still in their trespasses, “Ye shall not surely die.” Nor those which lead men to consider the Divine prohibitions as aimed to diminish their happiness; or, which is the same thing, to think it rigid or hard that we should be obliged to comply with them. And those doctrines which flatter our pride, or provoke a vain curiosity to pry into things unseen, pro- ceed from the same quarter. By aspiring to be a god, man became too much like a devil; and where human reason takes upon itself to set aside revelation, the effects will continue to be much the same. Ver, 6. This poison had effect . . . . . the woman paused . . . . . looked at the fruit . . . . . it began to appear de- 352 EXPOSITION OF GENESIS. sirable . . . . . she felt a wish to be wise . . . . . in short, she took of the fruit . . . . . and did eat But was she not alarmed when she had eaten ? It seems not; and feeling no such consequences follow as she perhaps ex- pected, ventured even to persuade her husband to do as she had done; and with her persuasion he complied. The connexion between sin and misery is certain, but not al- Ways immediate : its immediate effects are deception and stupefaction, which commonly induce the party to draw others into the same condition. . It does not appear that Adam was deceived ; but the woman only, 1 Tim. ii. 14. He seems to have sinned with his eyes open, and perhaps from love to his wife. It was the first time, but not the last, in which Satan has made use of the nearest and tenderest parts of ourselves, to draw our hearts from God. Lawful affection may be- come a snare. If the nearest relation or friend tempt us to depart from God, we must not hearken. When the woman had sinned against God, it was the duty of her husband to have disowned her for ever, and to have left it to his Creator to provide for his social comfort; but a fond attachment to the creature overcame him. He heark- ened to her voice, and plunged headlong into her sin. Ver. 7. And now, having both sinned, they began to be sensible of its effects. Conscious innocence has forsaken them. Conscious guilt, remorse, and shame possess them. Their eyes are now opened indeed, as the tempter had said they would be ; but it is to sights of woe. Their naked bodies, for the first time, excite shame; and are emblems of their souls; which, stripped of their original right- eousness, are also stripped of their honour, security, and happiness. To hide their outward nakedness, they betake them- selves to the leaves of the garden. This, as a great writer observes, was “to cover, not to cure.” And to what else is all the labour of sinners directed ? Is it not to conceal the bad, and to appear what they are not, that they are continually studying and contriving? And being enabled to impose upon one another, they with little difficulty im- pose upon themselves, “trusting in themselves that they are righteous, and despising others.” But all is mere show, and when God comes to summon them to his bar will prove of no account. DISCOURSE W. THE TRIAL OF THE TRANSGRESSORS. Gen. iii. 8–14. VER. 8. We have seen the original transgression of our first parents ; and now we see them called to account and judged. The Lord God is represented as “walking in the garden in the cool of the day;” that is, in the evening. This seems to denote the ordinary and intimate com- munion which man enjoyed with his Maker, while he kept his first estate. We may be at a loss in forming an idea how God could walk in the garden, and how he spoke; but he was not at a loss how to hold communion with them that loved him. To accommodate it to our weak capacities, it is represented under the form of the owner of a garden taking his evening walk in it, to see, as we should say, “whether the vine flourished, and the pomegranates budded ;” to see and converse with those whom he had placed over it. The cool of the day, which to God was the season for visiting his creatures, may, as it respects man, denote a season of reflection. We may sin in the day time; but God will call us to account at night. Many a one has done that in the heat and bustle of the day which has afforded bitter reflection in the cool of the evening; and such, in many instances, has proved the evening of life. The voice of God was heard, it seems, before any thing was seen ; and as he appears to have acted towards man in his usual way, and as though he knew of nothing that had taken place till he had it from his own mouth, we may consider this as the voice of kindness; such, what- ever it was, as Adam had used to hear beforetime, and on the first sound of which he and his companion had been used to draw near, as sheep at the voice of the shepherd, or as children to the voice of a father. The voice of one whom we love conveys life to our hearts : but, alas, it is not so now ! Not only does conscious guilt make them afraid, but contrariety of heart to a holy God renders them unwilling to draw near to him. The kindest language, to one who is become an enemy, will work in a wrong way. “Let favour be showed to the wicked, yet will he not learn righteousness: in the land of uprightness will he deal unjustly, and will not behold the majesty of the Lord.” Instead of coming at his call, as usual, they “hide themselves from his presence among the trees of the garden.” Great is the cowardice which attaches to guilt. It flies from God, and from all approaches to him in prayer or praise; yea, from the very thoughts of him, and of death and judgment, when they must appear be- fore him. But wherefore flee to the trees of the garden 3 Can they screen them from the eyes of Him with whom they have to do? Alas, they could not hide themselves and their nakedness from their own eyes; how then should they elude discovery before an omniscient God? But we see here to what a stupid and besotted state of mind sin had already reduced them. Wer. 9. God’s general voice of kindness receiving no answer, he is more particular; calling Adam by name, and inquiring, “Where art thou ?” In vain does the sinner hide himself ; the Almighty will find him out. If he answer not to the voice of God in his word, he shall have a special summons served upon him before long Ob- serve what the summons was, “Where art thou?” It seems to be the language of injured friendship. As if he should say, How is it that I do not meet thee as hereto- fore ? What have I done unto thee, and wherein have I wearied thee ? Have I been a barren wilderness, or a land of drought? How is it that thou hailest not my ap- proach as on former occasions?—It was also language adapted to lead him to reflection : “Where art thou?” Ah, where indeed God is thus interrogating sinful men. Sinner, where art thou? What is thy condition ? In what way art thou walking, and whither will it lead thee? Ver. 10. To this trying question man is compelled to answer. See with what ease God can bring the offender to his bar. He has only to speak, and it is done. “He shall call to the heavens and the earth, that he may judge his people.” But what answer can be made to him 4 “I heard thy voice in the garden.”—Did you ? Then you cannot plead ignorance. No, but something worse :—“I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself.” Take notice, he says nothing about his sin, but merely speaks of its effects ; such as fear, and conscious nakedness, or guilt. The language of a contrite spirit would have been, “I have sinned : " But this is the language of impenitent misery. It is of the same nature as that of Cain, “My punishment is heavier than I can bear !” This spirit is often apparent in persons under first convictions, or when brought low by adversity, or drawing near to death; all intent on bewailing their misery, but insensible to the evil of their sin. To what a condition has sin reduced us ! Stripped naked to our shame, we are afraid to meet the kindest and best of Beings O reader we must now be clothed with a better righteousness than our own, or how shall we stand before him Wer. 11. Adam began, as I have said, with the effects of his sin ; but God directed him to the cause of those effects. – Naked how came such a thought into thy mind? The nakedness of thy body, with which I created thee, was no nakedness; neither fear nor shame attached to that. What meanest thou by being naked ?—Still there is no confession. The truth will not come out without a direct inquiry on the subject. Here then it follows: “Hast thou eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?” Thus the sinner stands con- victed. Now we might suppose he would have fallen at the feet of his Maker, and have pleaded guilty. But oh the hardening nature of sin! - - Wer. 12. Here is, it is true, a confession of his sin. It comes out at last; “I did eat;” but with what a circuitous, extenuating preamble, a preamble which makes bad worse. EFFECTS OF THE FALL. 353 The first word is, The woman ; aye, the woman. It was not my fault, but hers. “The woman whom thou gavest to be with me.”—It was not I, it was thow thyself! If thou hadst not given this woman to be with me, I should have continued obedient.—Nay, and as if he suspected that the Almighty did not notice his plea sufficiently, he repeats it emphatically; “She gave me, and I did eat!” Such a confession was infinitely worse than none. Yet such is the spirit of fallen man to this day: It was not I . . . it was my wife, or my husband, or my acquaintance, that per- suaded me; or it was my situation in life, in which thou didst place me !—Thus “the foolishness of man perverteth his way, and his heart fretteth against the Lord.” It is worthy of notice that God makes no answer to these perverse excuses. They were unworthy of an answer. The Lord proceeds, like an aggrieved friend who would not multiply words:—I see how it is : stand aside : Ver. 13. Next the woman is called, and examined : “What is this that thou hast done?” The question im- plies that it was no trifling thing; and the effects which have followed, and will follow, confirm it. But let us hear the woman’s answer. Did she plead guilty? The circumstance of her being first in the transgression, and the tempter of her husband, one should have thought, would have shut her mouth at least ; and being also of the weaker sex, it might have been expected that she would not have gone on to provoke the vengeance of her Creator. But, lo! she also shifts the blame: “The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.”—I was deceived. I did not mean evil; but was drawn into it through the wiles of an evil being.—Such is the excuse which multitudes make to this day, when they can find no better:-The devil tempted me to it!—Still God continues his forbearance ; makes no answer; but orders her, as it were, to stand aside. Wer. 14. And now the serpent is addressed : but mark the difference. Here is no question put to him, but merely a doom pronounced. Wherefore ? Because no mercy was designed to be shown him. He is treated as an avowed and sworn enemy. There was no doubt wherefore he had done it, and therefore no reason is asked of his conduct. The workings of conviction in the minds of men are call- ed the strivings of the Spirit, and afford a hope of mercy. Though they are no certain sign of grace received, (as there was nothing good at present in our first parents,) yet they are the workings of a merciful God, and prove that he has not given over the sinner to hopeless ruin. But the ser- pent has nothing to expect but a fearful looking for of judgment. - The form under which Satan is cursed is that of the serpent. To a superficial reader it might appear that the vengeance of Heaven was directed against the animal, dis- tinguishing him from all cattle, subjecting him to a most abject life, condemning him to creep upon his belly, and of course to have his food besmeared with dust. But was God angry with the serpent? No; but as under that form Satan had tempted the woman, so that shall be the form under which he shall receive his doom. The spirit of the sentence appears to be this–Cursed art thou above all gºatures, and above every being that God hath made. Miserable shalt thou be to an endless duration –some have thought, and the passage gives some countenance to the idea, that the state of fallen angels was not hopeless till now. If it had, the curse could only have added a greater degree of misery. DISCOURSE VI. THE CURSE OF SATAN, INCLUDING A BLESSING To MAN– EFFECTS OF THE FALL. . Gen. iii. 15–24. YPR. 15. By all that had hitherto been said and done God appears to have concealed from man who was hi. tempter; and for this reason, among others, to have pro- nounced the doom on Satan under the form of a CUlrSe upon the serpent. By this we may learn that it is of no account, as to the criminality of sin, whence it comes, or by whom or what we are tempted to it. If we choose it, it is ours, and we must be accountable for it. But mark the wisdom and goodness of God : as under the form of cursing the serpent he had pronounced a most tremendous doom on the tempter, so under the form of this doom is covertly intimated a design of mercy the most transcendent to the tempted . If man had been in a suitable state of mind, the promise might have been direct, and addressed to him : but he was not ; for his heart, whatever it might be afterwards, was as yet hardened against God. It was fit, therefore, that whatever de- signs of mercy were entertained concerning him, or his posterity, they should not be given in the form of a pro- mise to him, but of threatening to Satan. The situation of Adam and Eve at this time was like that of sinners under the preaching of the gospel. The intimation con- cerning the woman's Seed would indeed imply that she and her husband should live in the world, that she should bring forth children, and that God would carry on an op- position to the cause of evil: but it does not ascertain their salvation ; and if there appear nothing more in their favour in the following part of the history than what has hitherto appeared, we shall have no good ground to con- clude that either of them is gone to heaven. The Messiah might come as the Saviour of sinners, and might descend from them after the flesh, and yet they might have no por- tion in him. But let us view this famous passage more particularly, and that in the light in which it is here represented, as a threatening to the serpent. This threatening does not so much respect the person of the grand adversary of God and man as his cause and kingdom in the world. He will be punished in his person at the time appointed ; but this respects the manifestation of the Son of God to destroy his works. There are four things here intimated, each of which is worthy of notice. 1. The ruin of Satan's cause was to be accomplished by one in human nature. This must have been not a little mortifying to his pride. If he must fall, and could have had his choice as to the mode, he might rather have wished to have been crushed by the immediate hand of God ; for however terrible that hand might be, it would be less humiliating than to be subdued by one of a nature inferior to his own. The human na- ture especially appears to have become odious in his eyes. It is possible that the rejoicings of eternal wisdom over man were known in heaven, and first excited his envy ; and that his attempt to ruin the human race was an act of re- venge. If so, there was a peculiar fitness that from man should proceed his overthrow. 2. It was to be accom- plished by the Seed of the woman. This would be more humiliating still. Satan had made use of her to accomplish his purposes, and God would defeat his schemes through the same medium; and by how much he had despised and abused her, in making her the instrument of drawing her husband aside, by so much would he be mortified in being overcome by one of her descendants. 3. The victory should be obtained, not only by the Messiah himself, but by all his adherents. The Seed of the woman, though it primarily referred to him, yet, being opposed to “the seed of the serpent,” includes all that believe in him. And there is little or no doubt that the account in Rev. xii. 17 has allusion to this passage : “And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the | remnant of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” Now if it were mortifying for Satan to be overcome by the Messiah himself, con- sidered as the Seed of the woman, how much more when, in addition to this, every individual believer shall be made to come near, and as it were set his feet upon the neck of his enemy . Finally, Though it should be a long war, and the cause of the serpent would often be successful, yet in the end it should be utterly ruined. The head is the seat of life, which the heel is not : by this language, therefore, it is intimated that the life of Christ's cause should not be affected by any part of Satan's opposition ; but that the life of Satan's cause should by that of Christ. For this purpose is he manifested in human nature, that he may destroy the works of the devil; and he will never desist till he have utterly crushed his power. - 2 A 354 EXPOSITION OF GENESIS. Now as the threatenings against Babylon conveyed good news to the church, so this threatening against the old serpent is full of mercy to men. But for this enmity which God would put into the woman’s seed against him, he would have had every thing his own way, and every child of man would have had his portion with him and his angels. From the whole, we see that Christ is the foundation and substance of all true religion since the fall of man, and, therefore, that the only way of salvation is by faith in him. We see also the importance of a decided attach- ment to him and his interest. There are two great armies in the world, Michael and his angels warring against the dragon and his angels; and, according to the side we take, such will be our end. Ver. 16–19. The sentence of the woman, and of the man, which follows, like the rest, is under a veil. No- thing but temporal evils are mentioned; but these are not the whole. Paul teaches us that, by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation ; and such a condemnation as stands opposed to justification of life, Rom. v. 18. See on chap. iv. 11, 12, p. 356. The woman’s load in this life was sorrow in bearing children, and sub- jection to her husband. The command to be fruitful and multiply might originally, for aught I know, include some degree of pain; but now it should be “greatly multiplied:” and there was doubtless a natural subordination in inno- cency; but through sin woman becomes comparatively a slave. This is especially the case where sin reigns uncon- trolled, as in heathen and Mahomedan countries. Chris- tianity, however, so far as it operates, counteracts it ; re- storing woman to her original state, that of a friend and companion. See on chap. ii. 18–25. The sentence on zman points out to him wherein consisted his sin; namely, in hearkening to the voice of his wife, rather than to God. What a solemn lesson does this teach us against loving the creature more than the Creator, and hearkening to any counsel to the rejection of his And, with respect to his punishment, it is worthy of notice, that as that of Eve was common to her daughters, so that of Adam extends to the whole human race. The ground is cursed for his sake— cursed with barrenness. God would, as it were, take no delight in blessing it; as well he might not, for all would be perverted to and become the food of rebellion. The more he should bless the earth, the more wicked would be its inhabitants. Man also himself is doomed to wretched- ness upon it; he should drag on the few years that he might live in sorrow and misery, of which the thorns and thistles which it should spontaneously produce were but emblems. God had given him before to eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden ; but now he must be expelled thence, and take his portion with the brutes, and live upon the herb of the field. He was allowed bread, but it should be by the sweat of his face ; and this is the lot of the great body of mankind. The end of this miserable state of ex- istence was that he should return to his native dust. Here the sentence leaves him. A veil is, at present, drawn over a future world ; but we elsewhere learn that at what time “the flesh returns to dust, the spirit returns to God who gave it; ” and that the same sentence which appointed man “once to die” added, “but after this the judgment.” It is painful to trace the different parts of this melan- choly sentence, and their fulfilment in the world to this day; yet there is a bright side even to this dark cloud. Through the promised Messiah a great many things per- taining to the curse are not only counteracted, but become blessings. Under his glorious reign “the earth shall yield its increase, and God, our own God, delight in blessing us.” And while its fruitfulness is withheld, this has a merciful tendency to stop the progress of sin; for if the whole earth were like the plains of Sodom in fruitfulness, which are compared to the garden of God, its inhabitants would be as Sodom and Gomorrah in wickedness. The necessity of hard labour, too, in obtaining a subsistence, which is the lot of the far greater part of mankind, tends more than a little, by separating men from each other, and depressing their spirits, to restrain them from the excesses of evil. All the afflictions of the present life contain in them a motive to look upward for a better portion; and death itself is a monitor to warn them to prepare to meet - their God. These are things suited to a sinful world; and where they are sanctified, as they are to believers in Christ, they become real blessings. To them they are “light afflictions,” and last “but for a moment; ” and while they do last, “work for them a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory.” To them, in short, death itself is introductory to everlasting life. Ver. 20. Adam’s wife seems hitherto to have been known only by the name of woman ; but now he calls her Eve, that is, life, living, or the mother of all living. He might possibly have understood from the beginning that the sentence of death would not prevent the existence of the human race, or if not, what had been said of the woman's seed would at least satisfy him on the subject. But it is generally supposed, and there seems to be ground for the supposition, that in calling his wife life, or living, he intended more than that she would be the mother of all mankind; that it is expressive of his faith in the promise of her victorious Seed destroying, what Satan had succeeded in introducing—death, and that thus she should be the means of immortal life to all who should live in him. If such was his meaning, we may consider this as the first evidence in favour of his being renewed in the spirit of his mind. Ver. 21. By the coats of skins wherewith the Lord God clothed them, it seems to be implied that animals were slain, and as they were not at that time slain for food, it is highly probable they were slain for sacrifice, especially as this practice is mentioned in the life of Abel. Sacri- fices therefore appear to have been ordained of God to teach man his desert, and the way in which he must be saved. It is remarkable that the clothing of Adam and Eve is ascribed to the Lord God, and that it appears to have succeeded the slender covering where with they had attempted to cover themselves. Is it not natural to con- clude that God only can hide our moral nakedness, and that the way in which he does it is by covering us with the righteousness of our atoning sacrifice 3 Wer. 22. This ironical reflection is expressive of both indignation and pity.—Man is become wonderfully wise ! Unhappy creature . He has for ever forfeited my favour, which is life, and having lost the thing signified, let him have no access to the sign. He has broken my covenant: let neither him nor his posterity henceforward expect to regain it by any obedience of theirs. * - Ver. 23, 24. God is determined that man shall not so much as dwell in the garden where the tree of life grows, but be turned out as into the wide world. He shall no longer live upon the delicious fruits of Eden, but be driven to seek his food among the beasts of the field; and, to show the impossibility of his ever regaining that life which he had lost, “cherubim and a flaming sword” are placed to guard it. Let this suffice to impress us with that im- portant truth, “By the deeds of the law shall no flesh living be justified ;” and to direct us to a tree of life which has no flaming sword to prevent our access . Yet even in this, as in the other threatenings, we may perceive a mixture of mercy. Man had rendered his days evil, and God determines they shall be but few. It is well for us that a life of sin and sorrow is not immortal. DISCOURSE VII. THE OFFERINGS OF CAIN AND ABEL, Gen. iv. 1–8. HAVING seen the origin of sin in our world, we have now the origin and progress of things as they at present are among mankind, or of the world as it now is. Ver. 1. Adam has by his wife a son, who is called Cain ; viz. a possession or acquisition ; for, said Eve, “I have gotten a man from the Lord ' " Many learned men have rendered it a man, the Lord ; and it is not very impro- bable that she should understand “the seed of the wo— * See on chap. ii. 9, p. 350. CAIN AND ABEL. . . ~ *.*.*.*... • 355 mam” of her immediate offspring ; but if so, she was sad- ly mistaken . However, it expresses what we have not seen before, i. e. Eve’s faith in the promise. Even though she should have had no reference to the Messiah, yet it shows that she eyed God's hand in what was given: iner, and viewed it as a great blessing, especially consider- ing what a part she had acted. In this she sets an exam- ple to parents to reckon their children “a heritage from the Lord.” But she also affords an example of the uncer- tainty of human hopes. Cain, so far from being a comfort to his parents, proved a wicked man ; yea, a pattern of wickedness; held up like Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, as a warning to others: “Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother l’” The joys attending the birth of a child require to be mixed with trembling; “for who knoweth whether he shall be a wise man or a fool 3 '' Wer. 2. Eve bears Adam another son, who was called Abel, or Hebel. In these names we probably see the partiality of parents for their first-born children. Abel signifies vanity, or a vanishing vapour. Probably he was not so goodly a child in appearance as Cain, and did not seem likely to live long. The hearts and hopes of the parents did not seem to centre in him, but in his brother. But God seeth not as man seeth. In bestowing his bless- ing, he has often crossed hands, as Jacob did in blessing Ephraim and Manasseh. “He chooseth the base things of the world, that no flesh should glory in his presence.” These two brothers were of different occupations; one a husbandman, and the other a shepherd; both primitive employments, and both very proper. Ver. 3—5. In process of time the two brothers both present their offerings to God : this speaks something in favour of their parents, who had brought them up “in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” Ainsworth renders it, “At the end of the days,” and understands it of the end of the year, which was then in autumn, the time of the gathering in of the harvest and the vintage. The institution of a solemn feast among the Israelites on this occasion (Exod xxiii. 16) seems therefore to have borne a near resemblance to that which was practised from the beginning. In the offerings of these two first-born sons of man, we see the essential difference between spiritual worship and that which is merely formal. As to the matter of which their offerings were composed, it may be thought there was nothing particularly defective : each brought what he had. There is indeed no mention made of Cain’s being of the best of the kind, which is noticed of Abel's. And if he neglected this, it was a sign that his heart was not much in it. He might also, no doubt, have ob- tained a lamb out of his brother's flock for an expiatory sacrifice. But the chief difference is that which is noticed by the apostle : “By faith Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice than Cain.” Cain's offering was just what a self-righteous heart would offer : it proceeded on the principle that there was no breach between him and his Creator, so as to require any confession of sin, or respect to an atonement. Such offerings abound among us; but they are “without faith,” and therefore it is impossible they should please God. The offering of Abel I need not describe ; suffice it to say, it was the reverse of that pre- sented by Cain. It was the best of the kind, and includ- ed an expiatory sacrifice. & The result was, “the Lord had respect to Abel and to his offering; but unto Cain and his offering he had not respect,”. The one was probably consumed by fire from heaven, the other not so. This we know was afterwards a common token of the Divine acceptance, Lev. ix. 24; Psal. xx. 3, margin. The order of things is worthy of notice. God first accepted Abel, and then his offering. If he had been justified on the ground of his good deeds, the order should have been reversed; but, believing in & * 5 the Messiah, he was accepted for his sake; and being SO, his works were well-pleasing in the sight of God. "And as Abel was accepted as a believer, so Cain was rejected as an unbeliever. Being such, the Lord had no respect to him ; he was under the curse, and all he did was ab- horred in his eyes. * This clause, which is in the middle of verse 7, I Suppose should be in a parenthesis. I have therefore placed the first and last in The rejection of Cain and his offering operated upon him very powerfully. If the love of God had been in him, he would have fallen before him, as Joshua and his brethren did when Israel was driven back ; and have pleaded, “Show me wherefore thou contendest with me?” But “he was wroth, and his countenance fell.” This is just what might be expected from a self-righteous, proud spirit, who thought so highly of his offering as to imagine that God must needs be pleased with it, and with him on account of it. He was very wroth ; and that no doubt against God himself, as well as against his brother. He went in high spirits, like the Pharisee to the temple, but came away dejected and full of foul passions, of which his fallen countenance was but the index. Ver. 6, 7. Cain having returned home, the Lord, per- haps in a dream or vision of the night, expostulated with him. “Why art thou wroth 4°–What cause is there for this enmity against thy Maker, and envy against thy bro- ther?—Doubtless, he thought that he had a cause ; but when interrogated of God he found none. “If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted ? And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.” By doing well he means doing as Abel did, offering in faith, which is the only well-doing among sinful creatures. If Cain had believed in the Messiah, there was forgiveness for him, no less than for his brother ; and he should also have had the excellence attached to the first-born, which he reckoned he had a right to, and the loss of which galled him. “If thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door;”* unforgiven, to go down with thee to the grave, and to rise with thee, and appear against thee in judg- ment. Observe how things are ordered in the dealings of God with men. Abel was not accepted of God for his well- doing; neither faith nor obedience was that on account of which he was justified, but the righteousness of him in whom he believed. Yet it was in well-doing that he obtained eternal life, Rom. ii. 7. Though faith was not the cause of the Lord’s having respect to him, nor his having offered in faith the cause of his having re- spect to his works; yet each was a necessary concomit- ant. And this, while it secures the interests of right- eousness in the righteous, serves to silence the wicked, and make them feel the justice of their condemnation. Thus, at the last judgment, though every one who is saved will be saved by grace only, yet all will be judged according to their works. Things will be so ordered that the righteous will have nothing to boast of, and the wick- ed nothing to complain of, inasmuch as the decision in both cases will proceed according to character. But though Cain was silenced by the Almighty, yet his malice was not subdued, but rather inflamed. If the life of God had been within his reach, he would have kill- ed him; but this he could not do. From that time, there- fore, his dark soul meditated revenge upon Abel, as being God’s favourite, his own rival, and the only object with. in his power. This is the first instance of the enmity of the seed of the serpent breaking out against the seed of the woman ; but not the last ! Observe the subtlety and treachery with which it was accomplished : “Cain talked with Abel his brother.” He talked with him, probably, in a very familiar manner, as though he had quite for- gotten the affair which had lately hurt his mind; and when they were engaged in conversation, persuaded him to take a walk with him into his field; and, having got him away from the family, he murdered him 1 O Adam : thou didst murder an unborn world, and now thou shalt see some of the fruits of it in thine own family Thou hast never before witnessed a human death: go, see the first victim of the king of terrors in the mangled corpse of Abel thy son —Poor Abel ! Shall we pity him In one view we must, but in others he is an object of envy. He was the first of the noble army of martyrs, the first of human kind who entered the abodes of the blessed, and the first instance of death being subservient to Christ. When the serpent had drawn man into sin, and exposed him to its threatened penalty, he seemed to have obtained the power of death ; and, had man been left under the connexion, and introduced this after them, by which the sense is clear. 2 A 2 356 EXPOSITION OF GENESIS. ruins of the fall, he would have been continually walking through the earth, arm in arm, as it were, with the monster, the one taking the bodies and the other the souls of men. But the woman’s Seed is destined to over- come him. By death he destroyed “him who had the power of death, and delivered them who’’ must otherwise, “through fear of death,” have been “all their lifetime subject to bondage,” Heb. ii. 14, 15. DISCOURSE VIII. CAIN’S PUNISHMENT AND POSTERITY, Gen. iv. 9–24. VER. 9. We have seem the tragical end of righteous Abel ; but what becomes of the murderer? Probably he had hid the dead body of his brother to elude detection ; but God will find him out. Jehovah said to Cain, “Where is Abel, thy brother 4" What a cutting question : The words thy brother would remind him of the tender ties of flesh and blood which he had broken ; and if he had any feeling of conscience left in him, must pierce him to the quick. But oh how black, how hardened is the state of his mind Mark his answer. First, The falsehood of it —“I know not.” We feel astonished that a man can dare to lie in the presence of his Maker; yet how many lies are uttered before him by formalists and hypocrites Secondly, The insolence of it—“Am I my brother's keeper?” This man had no fear of God before his eyes; and where this is wanting, regard to man will be wanting also. Even matural affection will be swallowed up in selfishness. Supposing he had not known where his bro- ther was, it did not follow that he had no interest in his preservation ; but he did know, and instead of being his keeper, had been his murderer. Ver. 10. “And he said, What hast thou done?” Ah, what indeed . This was the question put to Eve ; and sooner or later it will be put to every sinner, and con- science must answer to it too! But Cain refuses to speak: be it so ; there needs no confession to substantiate his guilt. His brother's blood had already done this Blood has a voice that will speak; yea, that will “cry to Heaven from the ground” for vengeance on him who sheds it ; and a brother's blood especially.—What a scene will open to view at the last judgment, when the earth shall disclose her blood, and shall no more cover her slain . And if such was the cry of Abel's blood, what must have been that of the blood which was shed on Calvary 3 We should have thought that blood must have called for vengeance sevenfold ; and in one view it did so, but in another it speaks “better things than that of Abel.” Ver, 11, 12. But let us notice the doom of Cain. He was cursed from the earth; it should in future refuse to yield him its wonted fruits, and he should be a fugitive and a vagabond in it. Three things are here observable: 1. By the sovereign will of the Lord of all, his life was spared. Afterwards a positive law was made by the same authority, that “whosoever should shed man’s blood, by man should his blood be shed.” But at present, for rea- sons of state in the breast of the King of kings, the mur- derer shall be reprieved. If he had died by the hand of man, it must have been either by an act of private revenge, which would have increased bloodshed ; or Adam himself must have been the executioner of his son, from which trial of “quenching the coal that was left " God might graciously exempt him. 2. The curse which attached to his life, like that of our first parents, is confined to the present state. There is no reason in the world to suppose that the punishment of such a crime would actually be so, any more than others, nor others any more than this ; but a future life was at that time sparingly revealed, and al- most every thing concealed under the veil of temporal good and evil. 3. It contains a special addition to that which was denounced on Adam. The earth was cursed to him ; but Cain was “cursed from the earth.” It had been his brother's friend, by affording a kind of sanctuary for his blood, which he had pursued; but to him it should be an enemy, not only refusing its wonted fruits, but even a place whereon to rest his foot, or in which to hide his guilty head : Wer. 13, 14. This tremendous sentence draws forth an answer from the murderer. There is a great change since he spoke last, but not for the better. All the difference is, instead of his high tone of insolence, we perceive him sinking into the last stage of depravity, sullen des- peration. Behold here a finished picture of impenitent misery. What a contrast to the fifty-first Psalm . There the evil dwelt upon and pathetically lamented is sin ; but here it is only punishment. See how he expatiates upon it . . . . Driven from the face of the earth . . . . deprived of God’s favour and blessing, and, in a sort, of the means of hope (ver. 16) . . . . a wanderer and an outcast from men . . . . to all which his fears add, Wherever I am, by night or by day, my life will be in perpetual danger —Truly it was a terrible doom, a kind of hell upon earth, “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God . ** Ver. 15. From the last part of what his fears foreboded, however, God was pleased to exempt him ; yet not in mercy, but in judgment. He shall not die, but live, a monument of Divine justice. If he had died, his example might soon have been forgotten ; but mankind shall see and fear. “Slay them not, lest my people forget: scatter them by thy power, and bring them down, O Lord!” God is not obliged to send a sinner to the place of the damned, in order to punish him : he can call his name Magor- missabib, and render him a terror to himself and all about him, Jer. xx. 3, 4. What the mark was which was set upon Cain we know not, nor does it behove us to inquire : whatever it was, it amounted to a safe passage through the world, so far as respected a punishment from man for his present crime. Wer. 16. And now, having obtained a reprieve, he re- tires in the true spirit of a reprobate, and tries to forget his misery. It shocked him at first to be driven out from God’s face, by which perhaps he meant from all connexion with the people and worship of God, from the means of grace, and so from the hope of mercy; but in a little time the sensation subsides, and he resolves to enjoy the pre- sent world as well as he can. He goes out “from the presence of the Lord,” takes a final leave of God, and his worship, and his people, and cares no more about them. If this be the meaning of the words, (and I know of no other so probable,) it wears a very favourable appearance with respect to the state of things in Adam’s family. It shows that the worship of God was there carried on, and that God was with them. Indeed, if it were not carried on there, it appears to have had no existence in the world, which there is no reason to believe was ever the case when once it had begun. With respect to Cain, the country whither he went is called Nod, or Naid, which signifies a vagabond. It was not so called before, but on his ac- count; as who should say, The land of the vagabond. Ver. 17. He was married before this, though we are not told to whom. Doubtless it was to one of Adam’s daugh- ters, mentioned in chap. v. 4, which near affinity, though since forbidden, was then absolutely necessary. Of her, in the land of the vagabond, he had a son, whom he called Enoch; not him who walked with God, but one of the same name. It signifies taught or dedicated : it is rather difficult to account for his calling the child by this name after what had taken place. Possibly it might be one of those effects of education which are often seen in the un- godly children of religious parents. When he himself was born, he was, as we have seen, accounted an acquisition, and was doubtless dedicated, and as he grew up taught by his parents. Of this it is likely he had made great account, priding himself in it, as many graceless characters do in being the children of the righteous; and now, having a child of his own, he might wish to stamp upon him this mark of honour, though it was merely nominal. After this, Cain built, or was building, a city; a very small one no doubt, as need required. He began what his family, as they increased, perfected ; and called it after the name of his son. Thus he amused himself as well as he could. The Divine forbearance probably hardened him in his se- GENERATIONS OF ADAM. 357 curity, as it commonly does the ungodly. “Because sen- tence against an evil work is not executed speedily, there- fore the hearts of the sons of men are fully set in them to do evil.” Ver. 18–24. Next follow the generations of Cain, which present a few general observations,—1. Nothing good is said of any one of them ; but, heathen like, they appear to have lost all fear of God and regard to man. 2. Two or three of them become famous for arts; one was a shepherd, another a musician, and another a smith; all very well in themselves, but things in which the worst of men may excel. Some have supposed that we are indebted to revelation for all this kind of knowledge. Had it been said we are indebted to our Creator for it, it had been true; for to his instruction the discretion of the husband- man is ascribed, Isa. xxviii. 24–29. But revelation was given for greater and better objects; namely, to furnish not the man, but “the man of God.” 3. One of them was infamous for his wickedness; namely, Lamech. He was the first who violated the law of marriage; a man who gave loose to his appetites, and lived a kind of law- less life. Among other evils, he followed the example of his ancestor Cain. It is not said whom he slew ; but he himself says it was a young man. This is the first in- stance, but not the last, in which sensuality and murder are connected. Nor did he barely follow Cain's example; but seems to have taken encouragement from the Divine forbearance towards him, and to have presumed that God would be still more forbearing towards him. Thus one sinner takes liberty to sin from the suspension of judgment towards another. Here ends the account of cursed Cain. We hear no more of his posterity, unless it be as tempters to “the sons of God,” till they were all swept away by the deluge! DISCOURSE IX. THE GENERATIONS OF ADAM. Gen. iv. 25, 26; v. we have of late met with little else than the operations of sin and misery; here I hope we shall find something that Will afford us pleasure. Adam had lived to see grievous things in his family. At length, about a hundred and thirty years after the creation, Eve bare him another son. Him his mother called Seth ; that is, set, or appointed ; “for God,” said she, “hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.” The manner in which the mother of mankind speaks on this occasion is much in favour of her personal religion. The language implies that though at first she had doted upon Cain, yet as they grew up, and discovered their dispositions, Abel was pre- ferred. He was the child in whom all the hopes of the family seem to have concentrated; and, therefore, when he fell a sacrifice to his brother's cruelty, it was considered as a very heavy loss. She was not without a son before Seth was born, for Cain was yet alive : but he was con- sidered as none, or as worse than none ; and therefore, when Seth was born, she hoped to find in him a successor to Abel : and So it proved ; for this appears to have been the family in which the true religion was preserved in those times. At the birth of Enos, which was a hundred and five years after that of his father Seth, it is remarked With emphasis by the sacred historian Cº. Then began men to call ºpon the name of the Lord.” This cheering in- formation doubtless refers to the families in connexion With which it is spoken, and denotes, not that there had been no calling upon the Lord till that time, but that thence true religion assumed a more visible form. the seed of the woman, afterwards called “the sons of God y 3 assembling together to worship him, while the seed of the Serpent might very probably be employed in deriding them. From the genealogy in chap. v. I shall barely offer the following remarks: 1. It is a very honourable one. Not only did patriarchs and prophets, and the church of God for many ages, de- scend from it, but the Son of God himself according to the flesh; and, to show the fulfilment of the promises and prophecies concerning him, is the principal reason of the genealogy having been recorded. 2. Neither Cain nor Abel has any place in it. Abel was slain before he had any children, and therefore could not; and Cain by his sin had covered his name with in- famy, and therefore should not. Adam's posterity there- fore, after a lapse of one hundred and thirty years, must begin anew. 3. The honour done to Seth and his posterity was of grace; for he is said to have been born in Adam’s likeness, and after his image ; a phrase which, I believe, is always used to express the qualities of the mind, rather than the shape of the body. Man was made “after the image of God;” but this being lost, they are born corrupt, the children of a corrupt father. What is true of all mankind is here noted of Seth, because he was reckoned as Adam’s first-born. He therefore, like all others, was by nature a child of wrath; and what he or any of his posterity were different from this, they were by grace. 4. The extraordinary length of human life at that period was wisely ordered ; not only for the peopling of the world, but for the supplying of the defect of a written revelation. From the death of Adam to the call of Abram, a period of about eleven hundred years, there were living either Enoch, Lamech, Noah, or Shem ; besides other godly persons, who were their contemporaries, and who would feelingly relate to those about them the great events of the creation, the fall and recovery of man. 5. Notwithstanding the longevity of the antediluvians, it is recorded of them all, in their turn, that they died. Though the stroke of death was slow in its approach, yet it was sure. If man could live to a thousand years, yet he must die ; and if he die in sin, he will be accursed. 6. Though many of the names in this genealogy are passed over without any thing being said of their piety, yet we are not hence to infer that they were impious. Many might be included among them who “ called upon the name of the Lord,” and who are denominated “ the sons of God,” though nothing is personally related of them. 7. Two of them are distinguished for eminent godli- mess; or, as it is here called, walking with God; namely, Enoch and Noah. Both these holy men are enrolled in the list of worthies in the eleventh chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Let us look a little intensely at the life of the former of these worthies, the shortest of all the lives, but surely the sweetest: “Enoch walked with God, after he begat Me- thuselah, three hundred years.”—“He walked with God, and was not ; for God took him.” This is one of those brief, impressive descriptions of true religion with which the Scriptures abound. Its holy and progressive nature is here most admirably marked. “Enoch walked with God.” He must then have been in a state of reconciliation with God; for two cannot walk together except they be agreed. He was what Paul infers from another consideration, a believer. Where this is not the case, whatever may be his outward conduct, the sinner walks contrary to God, and God to him. What an idea does it convey, also, of his setting God always before him, seeking to glorify him in every duty, and studying to show himself approved of him, whatever might be thought of his conduct by sinful men . Finally, What an idea does it convey of the com- munion which he habitually enjoyed with God! His con- versation was in heaven while dwelling on the earth. God dwelt in him, and he in God! “Enoch walked with God, after he begat Methuselah, three hundred years,” and perhaps some time before that event. Religion with him, then, was not a transient feel- ing, but an habitual and abiding principle. In reviewing such a character, what Christian can forbear exclaiming, in the words of our Christian poet, “Oh for a closer walk with God, A calm and heavenly frame; A light, to shine upon the road That leads me to the Lamb l’’—COWPER, Just so much as we have of this, so much we possess of true religion, and no more. “Enoch walked with God, and he was not ; for God 358 EXPOSITION OF GENESIS. took him ;” that is, as Paul explains it, “he was trans- lated, that he should not see death.” This singular favour conferred on Enoch, like the resurrection of Christ, might be designed to afford a sensible proof of a blessed immortality, which, for the want of a written revelation, might then be peculiarly necessary. He had warned the wicked of his day that “the Lord would come, with ten thousand of his holy ones, to execute judgment; ” and now, however offensive his doctrine might have been to them. God, by exempting him from the common lot of men, will bear testimony that he hath pleased him, not only to the mind of Enoch, but to the world. It is pos- sible, also, that the translation of this holy man might be conferred in order to show what would have been common to all had man persisted in his obedience—a translation from the earthly to the heavenly paradise. With respect to Noah, we shall have an account of his righteous life in the following chapters: at present we are only told of the circumstances of his birth, ver. 28–32. His father Lamech speaks, on this occasion, like a good man and a prophet. He called his son Noah, which sig- nifies rest ; “ for this same,” saith he, “shall comfort us concerning our work, and the toil of our hands, because of the ground which the Lord hath cursed.” Noah, by building the ark, saved a remnant from the flood ; and, by offering an acceptable sacrifice, obtained the promise that the ground should no more be cursed for man’s sake, chap. viii. 21. As Lamech could have known this only by reve- lation, we may infer thence the sweet rest which Divine truth affords to the believing mind from the toils. and troubles of the present life; and if the birth of this child afforded comfort, in that he would save the world and re- move the curse, how much more HIs who would be a greater Saviour, and remove a greater curse, by being IIIMSELF an ark of salvation, and by offering “HIMSELF a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour!” DISCOURSE X. THE CAUSE OF THE DELUGE, Gen. vi. 1–7. VER. 1–3. When we read of men beginning to “call upon the name of the Lord,” we entertained a hope of good times, and of comfort, as Lamech said, after toil and sorrow ; but, alas, what a sad reverse ! A general corrup- tion overspreads the earth, and brings on a tremendous deluge, that sweeps them all, one family excepted, into oblivion. First, We may remark the occasion of this general cor- ruption, which was the increase of population. “When men began to multiply” they became more and more de- praved : yet an increase of population is considered as a blessing to a country, and such it is in itself; but through man's depravity it often proves a curse. When men are collected in great numbers they whet one another to evil, which is the reason why sin commonly grows rankest in populous places. We were made to be helpers; but by sin we are become tempters of one another, drawing and being drawn into innumerable evils. Secondly, Observe the first step towards degeneracy, which was the uniting of the world and the church by mixed marriages :—The sons of God and the daughters of men— the descendants of Seth and those of Cain—the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. The great end of marriage, in a good man, should not be to gratify his fancy, nor to indulge his natural inclinations, but to ob- tain a helper ; and the same in a woman. We need to be helped on in our way to heaven, instead of being him- dered and corrupted. Hence it was that, in the law, marriages with idolaters were forbidden (Deut. vii. 3, 4); and hence Christian marriages were limited to those “in the Lord,” 1 Cor. vii. 39. The examples which we have seen of the contrary have, by their effects, justified these injunctions. I would earnestly entreat serious young people, of both sexes, as they regard God’s honour, their own spiritual welfare, and the welfare of the church of God, to avoid being unequally yoked together with un- believers. Thirdly, Observe the great offence that God took at this conduct, and the consequences which grew out of it : “The Lord said, My Spirit shall not always strive with man,” &c. Had the sons of God kept themselves to themselves, and preserved their purity, God would have spared the world for their sakes; but they mingled toge- ther, and became in effect one people. The old folks were in their account too bigoted, and it seemed much better for them to indulge a more liberal way of thinking and acting. But this, in the sight of God, was worse than almost any thing that had gone before it. He was more offended with the religious than with the irreligious part of them. Seeing they had become one people, he calls them all by one name, and that is man, without any dis- tinction; and in giving the reason why his Spirit should not always strive with man, special reference is had to their having become degenerate—It was for that he also, or these also, were flesh ; that is, those who had been con- sidered as the sons of God were become corrupt. God’s Holy Spirit in his prophets had long strove or contended with the world (see Neh. ix. 30; 1 Pet. iii. 19, 20); and while the sons of God made a stand against their wicked- ness, God was with them, and the contest was kept up : but they having, like false allies, made a kind of separate peace, or rather gone over to the enemy, God will give up the war, let sin have a free course, and let them take the consequences ! “ Bread-corn is bruised, because he will not ever b : threshing it.” Fourthly, Observe the long-suffering of God amidst his displeasure : “ His days shall be a hundred and twenty Ayears.” This refers to the period of time which should elapse before the drowning of the world, “when,” as an apostle expresses it, “ the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was preparing.” All this time God did strive or contend with them ; but it seems without effect. - Ver. 4. Among various other evils which at that time prevailed, a spirit of ambition was predominant; a thirst of conquest and dominion ; and of course a flood of inju- ries, outrages, and oppressions. The case seems to have been this : Previously to the unhappy junction between the families of Cain and Seth, there were, among the former, giants, or men of great stature, who, tempted by their superior strength, set up for champions and heroes, and bore down all before them.* Nor was the mischief confined to them ; for also aft r that, when the two fami- lies had become one, as the children that were born unto them grew up, they emulated, as might be expected, not the virtues of their fathers, but the vices of their mothers, and particularly those of the gigantic and fierce heroes among their relations. Hence there sprang up a number of characters famous, or rather infamous, for their plunders and depredations. Such, in after-times, was Nimrod, that “mighty hunter before the Lord.” * Ver. 5. The church being thus corrupted, and in a manner lost in the world, there is nothing left to resist the torrent of depravity. Man appears now in his true cha- racter. The picture which is here drawn of him, though very affecting, is no more than just. If it had been drawn by the pen of a prejudiced erring mortal, it might be sup- posed to exceed the truth; but that which was written was taken from the perfect and impartial survey of God. Hear, ye who pretend that man is naturally virtuous ! That the wickedness of man has in all ages, though at some periods more than others, been great upon the earth, can scarcely be called in question; but that “every imagina- tion of the thoughts of his heart should be only evil, and that continually,” is more than men in general will allow. Yet such is the account here given. Mark the affecting gradation. Evil : evil without mixture ; “only evil.” Evil without cessation ; “ continually.” Evil from the very fountain-head of action ; “the imagination of the thoughts of the heart.” Nor is it a description of certain vicious characters only, but of “man,” as left to himself. * They are denominated Bºb) from *D) to fall, which in this con- nexion has been thought to mean that they were a kind of fellers, causing men to fall before them like trees by the axe. CHARACTER OF NOAH. 359 And all this “God saw,” who sees things as they are. This doctrine is fundamental to the gospel : the whole system of redemption rests upon it; and I suspect that every false scheme of religion which has been at any time advanced in the world might be proved to have originated in the denial of it. . Ver. 6. The effect of this Divine survey is described in language taken it is true from the feelings of men, but unusually impressive. “It repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart 1" We are not to attribute to an immutable mind the fickle- ness of man, nor to suppose that the omniscient Jehovah was really disappointed ; but thus much we learn, that the wickedness of man is such as to mar all the works of God over which he is placed, and to render them worse than if there were none ; so that if he had not counteracted it by the death of Christ, there had better have been no world. In short, that any one but himself, on seeing his work thus marred and perverted, would have really repent- ed, and wished from his heart that he had never made them . The words express, with an energy and impres- siveness which it is probable nothing purely literal could lave conveyed, the exceeding sinfulness and provoking nature of sin. - Ver. 7. From this cause proceeded the Divine resolution to “destroy man from the face of the earth ;” and, to show the greatness of his sin, it is represented as extin- guishing the paternal kindness of God as his Creator: “The Lord said, I will destroy man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth.”—“He that made them would not have mercy on them, and he that formed them would show them no favour !” And further, to show his dis- pleasure against man, the creatures which were subject to him should be destroyed with him. Thus, when Achan had transgressed, to render his punishment more impres- sive upon Israel, “his sons, and daughters, and oxen, and asses, and sheep, and tent, and all that he had, were brought forth, and with himself stoned with stones, and burnt with fire.” However light man may make of sin during the time of God’s forbearance, it will prove in the end to be an evil and bitter thing. T) ISCOURSE XI. TNOAHI FINDS FAVOUR WITH GOD, AND IS DIRECTED TO T}UILD THE ARK, Gen. vi. 8–22. BY the foregoing account, it would seem as if the whole earth had become corrupt. In the worst of times, how- ever, God has had a remnant that has walked with him ; and over them he has in the most sore calamities directed a watchful eye. When God said, “I will destroy man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth,” it seemed as if he would make an end of the human race. “But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.” Observe, 1. It is painful to find but one family, nay, it would seem but one person, out of all the professed sons of God, who stood firmly in this evil day. Some were dead, and others by mingling with the wicked had apostatized. 2. It is pleasant to find one upright man in a generation of the ungodly ; a lily among thorns, whose lovely conduct would shine the brighter when contrasted with that of the world about him. It is a great matter to be faithful among the faithless. With all our helps from the society of good men, we find it difficult enough to keep on our way; but for an individual to set his face against the whole current of public opinion and custom requires and implies great grace. Yet that is the only true religion which walks as in the sight of God, irrespective of what is thought or done by others. Such was the resolution of J oshua, when the whole nation seemed to be turning aside from God : “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” 3. It is encouraging to find that one upright man was singled out from the rest when the world was to be destroyed. If he had been destroyed with the world, God could have taken him to himself, and all would have been well with him; but then there had been no public expression of what he loved, as well as of what he hated. Wer. 9. As Noah was to be the father of the new world, we have here a particular account of him. His “genera- tions” mean an account of him and his family; of what he was, and of the things which befell him.—See chap. xxxvii. 2. The first thing said of him, as being the great- est, is, “He was a just, or righteous, man, and perfect in his generations, walking with God.” Character is of greater importance than pedigree. But notice particularly, 1. He was just. He was the first man who was so called, though not the first who was so. In a legal sense, a just man is one that doeth good, and sinneth not ; but since the fall, no such man has existed upon earth, save the man Christ Jesus. If any of us be denominated just, it must be in some other sense ; and what this is the Scriptures inform us when they represent the just as living by faith. Such was the life of Noah, and therefore he is reckoned among the believing worthies, Heb. xi. 7. And the faith by which he is justified before God operated in a way of righteousness, which rendered him just before men. He is called “a preacher of righteousness,” and he lived according to his doctrine, 2 Pet. ii. 5. 2. He was perfect in his generations. The term in this connexion is not to be taken absolutely, but as expressive, not only of sincerity of heart, but of a decidedness for God, like that of Caleb, who followed the Lord fully. It does not merely distinguish good men from bad men, but good men from one another. It is said of Solomon, that his “heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father.” Alas, how much of this half- hearted religion there is among us! Instead of serving the Lord with a perfect heart and a willing mind, we halt as it were between two, the love of God and the love of the world. 3. He walked with God. This is the same as was said of Enoch. It not only implies his being reconciled to God, and denotes his acknowledging him in all his ways, and enjoying communion with him in the discharge of duties, but is also expressive of the continuity and pro- gressive tendency of true religion. Whatever he did, or wherever he went, God was before his eyes; nor did he ever think of leaving off till he should have finished his COU TS6, Ver. 10. From Noah's character the sacred writer pro- ceeds to his descendants. He had three sons—Shem, Ham, and Japheth. These afterwards became the patri- archs of the world, between whose posterity the three great divisions of Asia, Africa, and Europe have been principally divided. Thus much at present for the favour- ed family. Ver. 11. Here we have the charge against the old world repeated as the ground of what should follow. If succeeding generations inquire, Wherefore hath the Lord done thus unto the work of his hands 2 What meaneth the heat of this great anger ? Be it known that it was not for a small matter : “The earth was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.” Here are two words used to express the wickedness of the world, corruption and violence, both of which are repeated and dwelt upon in verses 12, 13. The former refers, I con- ceive, to their having debased and depraved the true re- ligion. This was the natural consequence of the junc- tion between the sons of God and the daughters of men. Whenever the church is become one with the world, the corruption of true religion has invariably followed; for if wicked men have a religion, it must needs be such as to accord with their inclinations. Hence arose all the heresies of the early ages of Christianity; hence the grand Romish apostacy ; and in short every corruption of the true religion, in past or present times. The latter of these terms is expressive of their conduct towards one another. The fear of God and the regard of man are closely connected; and where the one is given up, the other will soon follow. Indeed, it appears to be the de- cree of the eternal God, that when men have cast off his fear, they shall not continue long in amity with one another. And he has only to let the laws of nature take their course in order to effect it; for when men depart. 330 OF GENESIS. EXPOSITION. from God, the principle of union is lost, and self-love governs every thing; and being “lovers of their own selves,” they will be “covetous, boasters, proud, blas- phemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, truce-breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, trai- tors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God.” Such a flood of wickedness is at any time sufficient to deluge a world with misery. If these things did not then break forth in national wars as they do with us, it was merely because the world was not as yet divided into nations : the springs of domestic and social life were poisoned, the tender ties of blood and affinity violated, and quarrels, intrigues, oppression, rob- beries, and murders pervaded the abodes of man. From the influence of corruption in producing violence, and bringing on the deluge, we may see the importance of pure religion, and those who adhere to it, to the well- being of society. They are the preserving principle, the salt of the earth; and when they are banished, or in any way become extinct, the consequences will be soon felt. While the sons of God were kept together and continued faithful, for their sakes God would not destroy the world ; but when reduced to a single family, he would, as in the case of Lot, take that away and destroy the rest. The late convulsions in a neighbouring nation may I appre- hend be easily traced to this cause : all their violence originated in the corruption of the true religion. About a hundred and thirty years ago, the law which protected the Reformation in that country was repealed, and almost all the religious people were either murdered or banished. The consequence was, as might have been expected, the great body of the nation, princes, priests, and people, sunk into infidelity. The protestant religion, while it continued, was the salt of the state; but when banished, and superstition had nothing left to counteract it, things soon hastened to their crisis. Popery, aided by a des- potic civil government, brought forth infidelity; and the child as soon as it grew up to maturity murdered its parents. If the principal part of religious people, in this or any other country, were driven away, the rest would soon become infidels and practical atheists; and what every order and degree of men would have to expect from the prevalence of these principles there is no want of examples to inform them. Ver. 12, 13. The corruption and violence which over- spread the earth attracted the notice of Heaven, God knows at all times what is doing in our world; but his looking upon the earth denotes a special observance of it, as though he had instituted an inquiry into its affairs. Thus he is represented as “going down to Sodom, to see whether they had done altogether according to the cry of it, which was come up unto him.” Such seasons of inquiry are the days of “inquisition for blood,” and are so many days of judgment in miniature. The inquiry being instituted, sentence is passed, and Noah is informed of it. “God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me . . . . . behold, I will de- stroy them with the earth.” In cases where individuals only, or even a majority, are wicked, and there is yet a great number of righteous characters, God often inflicts only a partial punishment; but where a whole people are become corrupt, he has more than once made a full end of them. Witness the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the seven nations of Canaan; and thus it will be with the world when the righteous shall be gathered out of it. Ver. 14–16. As it was the design of God to make an exception in favour of his faithful servant Noah, he is di- rected to the use of an extraordinary means, namely, the building of the ark; a kind of ship which, though not in the shape of ours, as not being intended for a voyage, should float on the surface of the waters, and preserve him and his family alive in the midst of death. It is pos- sible that this was the first floating fabric that was ever built. Its dimensions were amazing. Reckoning the cubit at only a foot and a half, which is supposed to be somewhat less than the truth, it was a hundred and fifty yards long, twenty-five yards wide, and fifteen yards deep ; containing three stories, or, as we should call them, decks, each five yards in depth. It had a window also, it should seem, from end to end, a foot and a half deep, for light, and perhaps for air. * Ver. 17. When Joseph was called to interpret the dream of Pharaoh, he observed concerning its being doubled that it was “because the thing was established by God, and God would shortly bring it to pass ; ” and thus we may consider the repetition which is here given of the sentence : “Behold I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh wherein is the breath of life from under heaven.” Ver. 18–22. But though it was the purpose of God to make an end of the world that then was, yet he did not mean that the generations of men should here be termi- nated. A new world shall succeed, of which his servant Noah should be the father. Thus when Israel had of- fended at Horeb, the Lord said unto Moses, “Let me alone, that I may destroy them, and I will make of thee a great nation.” Hence pairs of every living creature were to go with Noah into the ark, to provide for futurity. The terms in which this gracious design is intimated are worthy of special motice : “With thee will I establish my covenant.” Observe three things in particular. 1. The leading ideas suggested by a covenant are those of peace and good-will between the parties, and if differ- ences have subsisted, forgiveness of the past, and security for the future. Such were the friendly alliances between Abram and Abimelech, Isaac and another Abimelech, and between Jacob and Laban. God was highly dis- pleased with the world, and would therefore destroy that generation by a flood; but when he should have dome this, he would return in loving-kindness and tender mer- cies, and would look upon the earth with a propitious eye. Nor should they be kept in fearful expectation of being so destroyed again; for he would pledge his word no more to be wroth with them in such a way, nor to rebuke them for ever. 2. In covenants wherein one or both of the parties had been offended it was usual to offer sacrifices, in which a kind of atonement was made for past offences, and a perfect reconciliation followed. . Such were the covenants before referred to ; and such, as we shall See at the close of the eighth chapter, was the covenant in question. “Noah offered sacrifices, and the Lord smelled a sweet savour, and promised to curse the ground no more for man’s sake.” 3. In covenants which include a blessing on MANY., and them unworthy, it is God’s ordinary method to bestow it in reward, or for the sake, of one who was dear to him. God loves men, but he also loves right- eousness; hence he delights to bestow his blessings in such a way as manifests his true character. If there had been any dependence on Noah's posterity, that they would all have walked in his steps, the covemant might have been established with them, as well as with him ; but they would soon degenerate into idolatry and all manner of wickedness. If therefore he will bestow favour on them in such a way as to express his love of righteousness, it must be for their father Noah's sake, and in reward of his righteousness. To say, “With thee will I establish my covenant,” was saying, in effect, I will not treat with thine ungodly posterity; whatever favour I show them, it shall be for thy sake. It was on this principle that God made a covenant with Abram, in which he promised great blessings to his pos- terity. “As for me,” saith he, “behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.” Hence, in a great number of instances wherein mercy was shown to the rebellious Israelites, they were reminded that it was not for their sakes, but on account of the covenant made with their father Abraham, and renewed with Isaac and Jacob. It was upon this principle also that God made a covenant with David, promising that his seed should sit upon his throne for ever. And this is expressed in much the same language as that of Noah and Abraham : “My covenant shall stand fast with him.”—“Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before him.” Solomon pleaded this at the dedication of the temple. Hezekiah also derived advantage from it; and when the seed of David corrupted their way, the Lord re- f Noah's ank is said to have been equal to forty of our largest men Of War. . . - - THE FLOOD. 361 minded them that the favours which they enjoyed were riot for their own sakes, but for his name's sake, and for the covenant which he had made with David his servant. After these remarks, I scarcely need say that, by these proceedings, God, even at this early period, was preparing the way for the redemption of his Son, by rendering the great principle on which it should proceed familiar to man- kind. A very small acquaintance with the Scriptures will enable us to perceive the charming analogy between the language used in the covenants with Noah, Abram, David, &c., and that which respects the Messiah, “I will give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages.”—“It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant, to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel; I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation to the ends of the earth.”—“Ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen for thine inherit- ance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy posses- sion.” “He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied.” In these, as in the former instances, God’s covenant stands fast with one, and many are blessed for his sake; their salvation is his reward. DISCOURSE XII. THE FLOOD. Gen. vii. We have seen the preparation of the ark, the warnings of God by it, and his long-suffering for a hundred and twenty years. Now we see it finished ; now the end of all flesh is come before him. Ver. 1. Observe, 1. God gave special notice to Noah, saying, “Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous.” He who in well-doing commits himself into the hands of a faithful Creator, needs not fear being overtaken by surprise. What have we to fear when he whom we serve hath the keys of hell and of death 3 This is not the only instance in which, when impending ills have been ready to burst upon the world, God has, in effect, said to his servants, “Come, my people, enter thou into thy chambers, and shut thy doors about thee ; hide thyself, as it were for a little moment, until the indignation be overpast.” 2. God gave him all his house- hold with him. We are not informed whether any of Noah's family at present followed his example; it is cer- tain that all did not ; yet all entered with him into the ark for his sake. This indeed was but a specimen of the mercy which was to be exercised towards his distant pos- terity on behalf of him, as we have seen in the former chapter. But it is of importance to observe, that though temporal blessings may be given to the ungodly chil- dren of a godly parent, yet without walking in his steps they will not be partakers with him in those which are spiritual and eternal. 3. It is an affecting thought that there should be no more than Noah and his family to enter into the ark. , Peter speaks of them as few ; and few they were, considering the vast numbers that were left be- hind. Noah had long been a preacher of righteousness; and what! is there not one sinner brought to repentance by his preaching 4 It should seem not one ; or, if there were any, they were taken away from the evil to come. Not one that we know of was found at the time who had received his warnings, and was desirous of casting in his lot with him. We are ready to think our ministry has but little success; but his, so far as appears, was without any ; yet, like Enoch, he pleased God. 4. The righteousness of Noah is reported as the reason of the difference put be- tween him and the world. This does not imply that the * Such a mode of speaking is usual in the Scriptures. 6 with ver, ll, and chap. xl. 18, 2 t The great deep seems to mean that vast confluence of waters said to have been gathered together on the third day of the creation into one place, and called seas, chap. i. 9, 10. These waters not only ex- tend over a great part of the surface of the earth, but probably flow, as Chrough a number of arteries º veins, to its most interior recesses, A * Compare ver. favour shown to him is to be ascribed to his own merit; for whatever he was, he was by grace; and all his right- eousness was rewardable only out of respect to Him in whom he believed ; but being accepted for his sake, his works also were accepted and honoured. And while the mercy of God was manifested towards him, the distinction between him and the world being made according to cha- racter, would render his justice apparent. Thus at the last day, though the righteous will have nothing to boast of, yet, every man being judged according to his works, the world will be constrained to acknowledge the equity of the Divine proceedings. Wer. 2, 3. Of the animals which were to enter into the ark with Noah, those that were clean, that is, those which were fit for human food and for sacrifice to God, were to go in by sevens, and those which were unclean, only by two of a kind. It would seem as if this direction differed from that in chap. vi. 19, 20, which mentions only two of every sort; but the meaning there may be, that whatever number entered in they should be in pairs, that is, male and female, to preserve them alive ; whereas here the di- rection is more particular, appointing the number of pairs that should be admitted, according as they were clean or unclean. This order is expressive of the goodness of God in providing food for man, and of his regard for his own worship. Wer. 4—9. Just one week was allowed for Noah to em- bark. What a week was this ' What feelings must it ex- cite His heighbours had seen him busily employed for the last hundred and twenty years in rearing the massy fabric ; and doubtless had had many a laugh at the old man's folly and credulity; and now, behold, he is going to remove all his family into it, with birds, and beasts, and creeping things, and provisions for their accommodation : “Well, let him go a week longer, and we shall see what will become of his dreams!” Meanwhile they eat and drink, and buy and sell, and marry and are given in mar- riage. As for Noah, he must have felt much in contem- plating the destruction of the whole of his species, to whom he had preached righteousness in vain. But it is not for him to linger; but to “do according to all that the Lord commanded him.” He had borne his testimony; he could do no more. He, his sons, his wife, and his sons' wives, therefore, with all the inferior creatures, which probably were caused to assemble before him by the same power which brought them to Adam to be named, enter into the ark. The same thing which is said of him in ver. 7 is re- peated in ver, 13. He doubtless would have to enter and re-enter many times in the course of the week; but the last describes his final entrance, when he should return In O In OTe. Wer. 10—16. From the account taken together, it ap- pears that though God suffered long with the world dur- ing the ministry of Noah, yet the flood came upon them at last very suddenly. The words, after seven days, in ver, 10, seem to mean on the seventh day; * for that was the day when Noah made his final entrance into the ark; namely, the seventeenth day of the second month, answer- ing to our October or November, in the six hundredth year of his life ; and “on that same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven opened.” What a scene of consternation and dismay must that day have exhibited, on the part of those who were left behind . The manner in which the rains set in would leave little or no hope of their being soon over. It was not a common rain : it came in torrents, or, as we should say, in a manner as though heaven and earth were come together. The waters of the subterraneous cavities from beneath, and of the clouds from above, all met to- gether at God’s command, to execute his wrath on guilty men.f. There is one sentence concerning Noah which is worthy of special notice : when he and all pertaining to him had entered into the ark, it is said, “And the Lord shut him in.” The door of such a stupendous building and occupy its centre. This body of waters, which was Órdained, as I may say, unto life, was turned, in just displeasure against man's sin, into an engine of destruction. Bursting forth in tremendous floods, multitudes were hereby swept away; while, from above, the clouds poured forth their torrents, as though heaven itself were a reservoir of waters, and God had opened its windows. 362 EXPOSITION OF GENESIS. may be supposed to have been too large for human hands to fasten, especially so few as they were, and all within- side it. It is possible, too, there might be, by this time, numbers crowding round it for admittance; for those who trifle with death at a distance are often the most terrified when it approaches. But lo, all is over ! That act which shut Noah and his family in shut them for ever out ! And let it be considered that something very nearly resembling this will ere long be acted over again. “As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be at the coming of the Son of man.” Not only shall the world, as then, be full of dis- sipation, but the concluding scene is described in nearly the same words—“And they that were ready went in, and the door was shut !” Ver. 17–24. We hear no more of the inhabitants of the world, except that “all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man : all in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.” We are informed, however, of the progress of the flood. For six weeks, within two days, it continued to rain incessantly ; during which period it was of sufficient depth to bear up the ark from the earth, which after this floated upon the surface of the waters, like a ship on the sea. For some time, however, there were mountains and high hills which were out of water. Hither therefore, we may naturally sup- pose, the inhabitants of the earth would repair, as to their last refuge : but, by the end of the forty days, these also were covered ; the waters rising above seven yards higher than the highest of them. Thus every creature was swept away and buried in one watery grave, Noah and his family only excepted. The waters prevailed upon the earth a hundred and fifty days (that is, about five months) before they began to abate. This might seem to us unnecessary, seeing every living creature would be drowned within the first six weeks; but it would serve to exercise the faith and pa- tience of Noah, and to impress his posterity with the greatness of the Divine displeasure against man's sin. As the land of Israel should have its sabbaths during the cap- tivity, so the whole earth, for a time, shall be relieved from its load, and fully purified, as it were, from its uncleanness. DISCOURSE XIII. THE FLOOD (continueD). Gen. viii. THE close of the last chapter brought us to the crisis of the flood, or to the period in which it had arrived at its greatest height: hence it began to abate. Observe the form in which it is expressed ; “God remembered Noah, and those that were with him in the ark.” A common historian would only have narrated the event; but the sacred writers ascribe every thing to God, sometimes to the omission of second causes. The term is figurative ; for, strictly speaking, God never forgot them : but it is one of those modes of speaking which convey a great ful- ness of meaning. It is expressive of tender mercy, of covenant mercy, and of mercy after a strong expression of displeasure. These are things which frequently occur in the Divine proceedings. Hence a wind passes over the Parth, and the waters begin to assuage. Ver, 2–4. The causes of the deluge being removed, the effects gradually subside ; and the waters, having per- formed their work, return into their wonted channels. The ark, which had hitherto floated on the waters, now finds land, and rests upon the top of one of the Armenian mountains; and this just five months after the entrance into it. For a ship in the sea to have struck upon a rock or land would have been extremely dangerous; but at this stage of the flood we may suppose the heavens were clear and calm, and the waters still. Noah did not steer the ark ; it was therefore God's doing, and was in mercy to him and his companions. Their voyage was now at an end. They put in as at the first possible port. The rest which they enjoy is a prelude to a more perfect one ap- proaching. Thus God places believers upon high ground, on which they are already safe, and may anticipate a better country, even a heavenly one. Ver. 5–13. The first objects that greet them, after having been nearly eight months aboard, are the tops of the mountains. They had felt one of them before ; but now the waters are sufficiently abated to see several of them. If we had been on a long and dangerous voyage at sea, we should be better able to conceive of the joy which this sight must have occasioned than we possibly can be without it. Often has a ship's company been called on deck to see a distant object which promised to be land. Often too have Christians in their voyage been cheered by the signs of approaching blessedness, and the happy foretastes bestowed upon them. After the lapse of forty days more, the window of the ark was opened, and a raven sent forth for the purpose of experiment, that they might see whether it could subsist of itself or not ; and the event proved that it could subsist, for it returned no more. This was encouraging. Seven days after this, Noah tries a more delicate bird, the dove, which could not live unless the ground was at least in some places dry; but she from necessity returned. A proof this that the waters as yet were on the face of the whole earth. Tar- rying yet other seven days, Noah sends out a second time his faithful messenger, the dove, which again returned to him in the evening; but lo, a sign is in her mouth which gladdens all their hearts . It is “an olive leaf plucked off!” An olive leaf might have floated upon the surface of the waters; but it was observable of this that the dove had plucked it off the tree; a proof that the tops of the trees, in some places, were out of water. Perhaps it is from this event that the olive branch has ever since been considered as the emblem of peace. After seven days more, Noah sends forth the dove again ; which returning no more, he knew the earth must in some places be dry. The repeated mention of seven days seems to imply that from the beginning time had been divided into weeks ; which can no otherwise be accounted for, that I know of, than by admitting that, from the beginning, those who feared God remembered the sabbath day to keep it holy. About a month after this the waters are dried up from off the earth, and the covering of the ark is removed. Now they have the pleasure to look around them, and to see the dry land in every direction ; but still it is not habitable. And as Noah came into the ark by God’s command, so he must wait his time ere he attempts to go out, which will be nearly two months longer. Wer. 14–19. At length the set time to favour this little company is come. On the 27th day of the second month, that is, just a year and ten days after their en- trance into the ark, they are commanded to go forth of it, with all that pertained to them, and to begin, not the world, as we should say, again, but a new world. Obedi- ent to the heavenly vision, they take leave of the friendly vessel which through many a storm had preserved them, and landed them in safety. - Ver. 20–22. The first object of attention with a world- ly man might have been a day of rejoicing, or the begin- ning to build a house ; but Noah begins by building an altar to Jehovah, on which he offered “burnt-offerings of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl.” I think this is the first time we read of a burnt-Qſfering. It was so called, as Moses says, “because of the burning upon the altar all night unto the morning.” It was a substitu- tional sacrifice, for the purpose of atonement. The pro- cess is described in Lev. i. 2—9. The sinner confessed his sin upon its head; the animal was killed, or treated as if it were the transgressor, and as if the sin had been actually transferred to it; the blood of the creature being shed, was sprinkled round about upon the altar; and to show the Divine acceptance of it on behalf of the offerer to make atonement for him, it was consumed by fire, either descending immediately from heaven, as was the case on some occasions, or kindled by the priest from the sacred fire kept for the purpose (Lev. ix. 24; Psal. xx. 3, mar.); finally, the sacrifice being sprinkled with salt, THE FLOOD. 363 and perhaps with odours, ascended up in a sweet savour, and God was propitious to the offerer. The burnt-offerings of Noah, according to this, must have been designed for an atonement in behalf of the remnant that was left; and, as Hezekiah said after the carrying away of the ten tribes, “for the making of a covenant with the Lord.” This his offering was gracious- ly accepted : “The Lord smelled a sweet savour,” and bestowed upon him, and those who were with him, a covenant promise, not to curse the ground any more for man's sake. The reason given for this is singular: “for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth.” If God had dealt with man according to law and justice, this should have been a reason for destroying rather than spar- ing him; and was the reason why the flood was brought upon the earth. But here he is represented as dealing with him through a substitute (for the promise follows the acceptance of the burnt-offering); and in this view the wickedness of man, however offensive, should not determine his conduct. He would, as it were, look off from him, and rest his future conduct towards him on another ground. He would, in short, knowing what he was, deal with him on a footing of mercy and forbearance. Surely I need not say that this sacrifice of Noah was one of those which bore a peculiar aspect to the offering of the body of Jesus once for all. It is not improbable that the apostle has a direct allusion to it when he says, “Christ hath loved us, and given himself for us, an offer- ing and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour.” In reviewing the destruction of the world by a flood, and the preservation of Noah and his family, we are fur- mished with three important reflections:— 1. It is a solid proof of the truth of Divine revelation. “We are acquainted,” says a late perspicuous and forcible Writer, “with no ancient people who were without tradi- tions of this great event. From Josephus we learn that Berosus, a Chaldean historian whose works are now lost, related the same things as Moses of the deluge, and the preservation of Noah in an ark. Eusebius informs us that the history of the flood was contained in the works of Abydemus, an Assyrian writer. Lucian, the Greek Writer, says that the present is not the original race of men ; but is descended from Deucalion, who was pre- served in an ark from the universal deluge which destroy- ed men for their wickedness. Varro, the Roman writer, divided time into three periods, the first from the origin of men to the deluge. The Hindoo puranas contain the history of the deluge, and of Noah under the name of Satyavrata. They relate that Satyavrata was miraculously preserved in an ark from a deluge which destroyed all mankind.”* The same writer adds, “That the whole of our globe has been submerged by the ocean is proved, not by tradition only, but by its mineralogical and fossil his- tory. On the summits of high mountains, and in the Centres of continents, vast beds of shells and other marine productions are to be found. Petrified fishes and sea Weed exist in the heart of quarries. The vegetable and animal productions of the torrid zone have been dug up in the goldest regions, as Siberia; and, vice versa, the Productions of the polar regions have been found in warm climates. These facts are unanswerable proofs of a deluge.” . 2. It is intimated by the apostle Péter that the saiva- tion of Noah and his family in the ark was a figure of our salvation by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It was for * time buried, as it were, in the floods of Divine wrath from above and from beneath. It rose however, and Weathered the storm, safely landing those on dry ground who had been committed to its care. I need of make the application. A “like figure” of the same thing is Christian baptism, in which believers are said to be bap. tized into the death of . Christ : “Buried with him into death, that like as he was raised up from the dead by the ; ºf the Father, so they also should walk in newness Of Ilfe, * Letters on the Evidences of the Christian Religi * quirer. First printed in the Oriental star, at Calcutta *...", Serampore in 1802; and since reprinted in England, with additions and corrections by the author. * In defending the principles of civil and religious liberty against Persecution for conscience' sake, it has often been alleged that civil 3. We are directed to consider the destruction of the world by water as a presage and premonition of its being destroyed in the end by fire. “The heavens and the earth, which now are, are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment, and perdition of ungod- ly men.” DISCOURSE XIV. i GOD'S COVENANT WITH NOAH. Gen. ix. VER. 1, 2. We have now the beginning of a new world, and various directions given to those who are to people it. In several respects it resembles its first beginning; parti- cularly in the command to be fruitful and multiply, and in the subjection of the creatures to man. But there is one great difference: all must now rest upon a gracious covenant. Man by sin had forfeited, not his existence indeed, (for that was given him to hold on no conditional tenure,) but the blessing of God, and his dominion over his creatures. Nevertheless, he shall be reinstated in it. God will, as it were, make a covenant for him with the beasts of the field, and they shall be at peace with him, or at least shall be awed by his authority. All this is out of respect to the mediation of Christ, and for the accomplish- ing of the designs of mercy through him. Wer. 3, 4. Here is also a special grant, which does not appear to have been given before : not only the herbs of the field, but the animals, are given to man for food. It is however accompanied with a special exception with re- gard to blood, which is the life. This, being forbidden to Noah, appears also to have been forbidden to all mankind; nor ought this prohibition to be treated as belonging to the ceremonies of the Jewish dispensation. It was not only enjoined before that dispensation existed, but was enforced upon the Gentile Christians by the decrees of the apostles, Acts xv. 20. To allege, as some do, our Lord’s words, “not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man,” would equally justify the practice of can- nibals in eating human flesh. The reason of this prohi- bition might be in part the prevention of cruelty; for the eating of blood implies and cherishes a ferocious disposi- tion. None but the most ferocious of animals will eat it in one another; and one would think none but the most ferocious of mankind could endure it. But there may be a higher reason. Blood is the life, and God seems to claim it as sacred to himself. Hence, in all the sacrifices, the blood was poured out before the Lord ; and, in the sacrifice of Christ, he shed his blood, or poured out his soul unto death. Ver. 5, 6. As God was tender of animal blood, in not suffering man to eat it, so, on the other hand, he would be especially tender of human blood. If any animal slew a man, let him be slain on that account; or if any man slew himself, God would require it; or if any man slew another man, he should be put to death by man. This also appears to be a new law, as we read of no executions for murder among the antediluvians. The reason for this law is not taken from the well-being of man, but man’s being made in the image of God. The image of God is of two kinds, natural and moral. The latter was lost by sin; but the former continues with man in every state, and renders it peculiarly criminal to abuse him. To de- face the king's image is a sort of treason among men, im- plying a hatred against him, and that if he himself were within reach, he would be served in the same manner; how much more treasonable must it be to destroy, curse, oppress, or in any way abuse the image of the King of kings —James iii. 9.f. government has no right to restrain or punish men, but on account of their injuring their fellow men. That whatever is punishable by man is injurious to man is true, because all sin in some way or other is So 3 but to make this the sole ground, or reason, of punishment, is selfish and atheistical. It is #: ourselves the chief end ; whereas this is what God claims to himself at the hand of every man and body 364 EXPOSITION OF GENESIS. Ver. 7. The command to multiply is repeated, and con- tains permission, not of promiscucus intercourse, like the brutes, but of honourable marriage. The same law which forbade the eating of blood, under the gospel, forbade formi- cation, which was common among the heathen ; and, alas, too common among those who call themselves Christians ! Wer. 8–17. Having given the foregoing precepts, God graciously proceeds to enter into a solemn covenant with Noah and his posterity, and every living creature that was with them, no more to destroy them by water, of which “ the bow in the cloud '’ was to be the token. This covenant is an amplification of what was said at the altar, where the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and indeed the first seventeen verses of this chapter are a continuation of that subject. We see here, 1. The mercy and goodness of God in proceeding with us in a way of covenant. He might have exempted the world from this calamity, and yet not have told them he would do so. The remembrance of the flood might have been a sword hanging over their heads in ter- 7:orem. But he will set their minds at rest on this score, and therefore promises, and that with an oath, that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth, Isa. liv. 9. Thus also he deals with us in his Son. Being willing that the heirs of promise should have strong consolation, he confirms his word by an oath, Heb. vi. 17, 18. 2. The importance of living under the light of revelation. Noah's posterity by degrees sunk into idolatry, and became “strangers to the covenants of promise.” Such were our fathers for many ages, and such are great numbers to this day. So far as respects them, God might as well have made no promise; to them all is lost. 3. The importance of being believers. Without this it will be worse for us than if we had never been favoured with a revelation. Finally, We see here the kind of life which it was God's design to encourage—a life of faith. “The just shall live by faith.” If he had made no revelation of himself, no covenants, and no promises, there would be no ground for faith ; and we must have gone through life feeling after him, without being able to find him ; but having made known his mind, there is light in all our dwellings, and a sure ground for believing, not only in our exemption from another flood, but in things of far greater importance. With respect to the sign, or token, of this covenant, the bow in the cloud, as it seems to be the effect of causes which existed from the beginning, it is probable that that also existed ; but it was not till now a token of God’s cove- nant with the world. Such a token was extremely suit- able, on account of its conspicuousness, and its appearance *n the cloud, or at a time when the fears of man would be apt to rise, lest they should be overwhelmed with another flood. This being a sign of peace, the King of Zion is described as having “a rainbow about his throne.” Ver. 18, 19. God having thus saved, counselled, and covenanted with this little company, Moses proceeds to narrate their history. In general, we are informed that the fathers of the new world were Noah’s three sons, Shem, and Ham, and Japheth; from whom the earth was peopled. And having mentioned Ham, he says, “He was the father of Canaan.” This remark of Moses was doubt- less made with a special design ; for living, as he did, when the Israelites, who descended from Shem, were about to take possession of the land of Canaan, it was of peculiar im- portance that they should be informed that the people whose country the Lord their God had given them to pos- sess were under a curse from the days of their first father. The particulars of this affair will appear in the sequel. Ver. 20–23. Noah, as soon as he could get settled, be- took himself to the employment of husbandry; and the first thing he did in this way was to plant a vineyard. So far all was right; man, as we have seen, was formed origin- ally for an active, and not an idle life. Adam was ordered to keep the garden, and to dress it ; and, when fallen, to till the ground whence he was taken, which now required of men. The cognizance of the civil magistrate ought indeed to be confined to what is civil and moral; but, in punishing men for im- morality, he ought not merely to regard his own safety, nor even that of the community, but the honour of God; and if he be a good man, he will do so. If he regard merely his own safety, punishing crimes only in so far as they endanger it, the people will soon perceive that he is a much labour. Perhaps there is no employment more free from snares. But in the most lawful occupations and en- joyments we must not reckon ourselves out of danger. It was very lawful for Noah to partake of the fruits of his labour; but Noah sinned in drinking to excess. He might not be aware of the strength of the wine, or his age might render him sooner influenced by it : at any rate we have reason to conclude, from his general character, that it was a fault in which he was “overtaken.” But let us not think lightly of the sin of drunkenness. “Who hath woe 3 who hath redness of eyes? They that tar, y long at the wine.” Times of festivity require a double guard. Neither age nor character is any security in the hour of temptation. Who would have thought that a man who had walked with God perhaps more than five hundred years, and who had withstood the temptations of a world, should fall alone 3 This was like a ship which had gone round the world being overset in sailing into port. What need for watchfulness and prayer . One heedless hour may stain the fairest life, and undo much of the good which we have been doing for a course of years Drunkenness is a sin which involves in it the breach of the whole law, which requires love to God, our neighbour, and ourselves. The first as abusing his mercies ; the second as depriving those who are in want of them of necessary support, as well as setting an ill example; and the last as depriving ourselves of reason, self-government, and common decency. It also commonly leads on to other evils. It has been said, and justly, that the name of this sin is “Gad—a troop cometh 1 ° But sinful as it was for Noah thus to expose himself, it was still more so for Ham, on perceiving his situation, to go out and report it with malignant pleasure to his bre- thren. None but a fool will make a mock at sin in any one ; but for children to expose and sneer at the sin of their parents is wickedness of the most aggravated kind. It indicates a heart thoroughly depraved. The conduct of Shem and Japheth on this unhappy occasion was as com- mendable as the other was censurable, and as worthy of our imitation as that is of our abhorrence. Wer. 24. When Noah came to himself, he knew what had been done by his younger son. Nothing is said of his grief for his own sin. I hope his anger did not turn merely against that of his son. Nor are we to consider what follows as an ebullition of personal resentment, but as a prophecy, which was meant to apply, and has been ever since applying, to his posterity, and that which it was not possible for human resentment to dictate. But as this prophecy is very comprehensive, and will lead us to take notice of some of the great principles of revelation, I shall reserve it for a future discourse. DISCOURSE XV. NOAHI’S PROPHECY. Gen. ix. 25–27. It was common among the patriarchs, when about to die, to pronounce a prophetic sentence on their children, which frequently bore a relation to what had been their conduct, and extended to their remote posterity. This prophecy, however, though not immediately after the flood, was pro- bably many years before the death of Noah. I shall first attempt to ascertain its meaning, and its agreement with the great outlines of historic fact ; and then endeavour to justify the ways of Providence in such dispensations. The prophecy is introduced with a curse upon the pos- terity of one of Noah's sons, and concludes with a blessing upon the other two ; each corresponding with his conduct on the late unhappy occasion. “Cursed be Canaan: a servant of servants” (that is, selfish tyrant, and cares not for the general good; and if he regard only the public safety, punishing crimes merely on account of their being injurious to men, it is still a spirit of selfishness, only a little. more extended ; and God will disapprove of this, as the people do of . the other, d NOAH'S PROPHECY. 365 the meanest of servants) “shall he be unto his brethren.” But why is the name of Ham omitted, and the curse con- fined to his son Canaan 3 Some suppose that Canaan must have been in some way partaker in the crime; but this is uncertain. It is thought by several able critics that in- stead of Canaan we should read, as it is in ver. 22, “ Ham the father of Canaan;”* and this seems very plausible, as otherwise there is nothing said of Ham, except in the per- son of his son ; and, what is still more, the curse of servi- tude actually came, though at a remote period, upon other branches of the posterity of Ham as well as Canaan. It is manifest, however, that it was directed against him prin- cipally in the line of Canaan; and that it was related by Moses for the encouragement of Israel in going up against his descendants, the Canaanites. Canaan is under a curse of servitude to both Shem and Japheth : the former was fulfilled in the conquest of the seven nations by Israel, and the latter in the subjugation of the Tyrians and Cartha- ginians (who were the remainder of the old Canaanites) by the Greeks and Romans. So far as the curse had reference to the other descend- ants of Ham, it was a long time, as I have said, ere it came upon them. In the early ages of the world they flourished. They were the first who set up for empire ; and so far from being subject to the descendants of Shem or Japheth, the latter were often invaded and driven into corners by them. It was Nimrod, a descendant of Ham, who founded the imperial city of Babylon; and Mizraim, another of his descendants, who first established the king- dom of Egypt. These, it is well known, were for many ages two of the greatest empires in the world. About the time of the captivity, however, God began to cut short their power. Both Egypt and Babylon within a century sumk into a state of subjection, first to the Persians, who descended from Shem, and afterwards to the Greeks and Romans, who were the children of Japheth. Nor have they ever been able to recover themselves; for to the do- minion of the Romans succeeded that of the Saracens, and to theirs that of the Turks, under which they, with a great part of Africa, which is peopled by the children of Ham, have lived, and still live, in the most degraded state of subjection. To all this may be added that the inhabit- ants of Africa seem to be marked out as objects of slavery by the European nations. Though these things are far from excusing the conduct of their oppressors, yet they establish the fact, and prove the fulfilment of prophecy. “Blessed be Jehovah, God of Shem " The form of this blessing is worthy of notice. It may not seem to be pronounced on him, but on his God. But such a mode of speaking implies his blessedness no less than if it had been expressly spoken of him ; for it is a principle well known in religion, that “blessed is that people whose God is Jehovah.” They are blessed in his blessedness. It is in this form that Moses describes the blessedness of Israel: “There is none like unto the God of Jeshurun, who rideth upon the heaven in thy help, and in his excellency on the sky.” Shem was the ancestor of Abram, and so of Israel, who, while the descendants both of Ham and Japheth were lost in idolatry, knew and worshipped Je- hovah the only true God; and “ of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God, blessed for ever.’’ It has been remarked, too, that Shem is the first person who had the honour of having the Lord styled his God ; and that this expression denotes his being in covenant with him, as when he is called the God of Abram, of Isaac, and of Jacob. , Noah, foreseeing, by a spirit of prophecy, that God would enter into a Special covenant with the posterity of Shem, taking them to be his peculiar people and binding himself to be their God, was affected at ths consideration of so great a privilege, and breaks out into an ascription of praise to God on this account. “God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem.” If this part of the Prophecy have respect to temporal dominion, it seems to refer to the posterity of Japheth being formerly straitened, but in the later ages of the world enabled to extend their conquests; tº tº ; and this exactly corresponds with history. For more than two * Ainsworth says, “By Canaan may be understood or implied naan's father, as the Greek translation hath Ham, and as 3. in Scripture Goliath is named for Goliath's father, 2 Sam, ºxi. 19, thousand years the empire of the civilized world has in a manner been in the hands of the posterity of Japheth. First the Greeks, after them the Romans, and, since the declension of their empire, the different powers of Europe, have entered into the richest possessions of Asia, inhabited by the children of Shem. Add to this, their borders have lately been enlarged beyond the Atlantic, and bid fair to extend over the continent of America. But as Japheth united with Shem in the act of filial re- spect to his father, it would seem as if the dwelling of the one in the tents of the other must be friendly, and not hostile ; but as the blessing of Shem had a peculiar re- ference to the church of God among his descendants, it may be considered as prophetic of the accession of the Gentiles to it under the gospel. It is a fact that Chris- tianity has principally prevailed among the posterity of Japheth. The Lord God of Shem is there known and honoured. The lively oracles given to the fathers of the one are possessed and prized by the other: they laboured, and we have entered into their labours. This interpreta- tion is favoured by the marginal reading, which the very learned Ainsworth says the original word properly signi- fies: “God shall persuade Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem.” Let us proceed in the next place to offer a remark or two on the justice of the Divine proceeding in denouncing a curse upon children, even to remote periods, for the iniquity of their parents. It is worthy of notice, that the God of Israel thought it no dishonour to his character to declare that he would “visit the iniquity of the fathers upon the children in those that hated him,” any more than that he would “show mercy to those that loved him,” which he did in an eminent degree to the posterity of Abram. And should any object to this, and to the Bible on this account, we might appeal to universal fact. None can deny that children are the better or the worse for the conduct of their parents. If any man insist that neither good nor evil shall befall him, but what is the immediate consequence of his own conduct, he must go out of the world ; for no such state of existence is known in it. There is, however, an important difference between the sin of a parent being the occASION of the prediction of a curse upon his posterity, (who were considered by Him who knew the end from the beginning as walking in his steps, ) and its being the formal CAUSE of their punishment. The sin of Ham was the occasion of the prediction against the Canaanites, and the antecedent to the evil predicted; but it was not the cause of it. Its formal procuring cause may be seen in the eighteenth chapter of Leviticus. To Ham, and perhaps to Canaan, the prediction of the servitude of their descendants was a punishment; but the fulfilment of that prediction on the parties themselves was no further such than as it was connected with their own sin. There is also an important difference between the provi- dential dispensations of God towards families and nations in the present world, and the administration of distributive justice towards individuals with respect to the world to come. In the last judgment “every one shall give an account of himself to God, and be judged according to the deeds done in the body;” but while we are in this world we stand in various relations, in which it is impossible that we should be dealt with merely as individuals. God deals with families and nations as such ; and in the course of his pro- vidence visits them with good and evil, not according to the conduct of individuals, but, as far as conduct is con- cerned, that of the general body. To insist that we should in all cases be treated as individuals is to renounce the social character. We are informed, at the close of the chapter, that Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years, and died at the age of nine hundred and fifty. How long this was after the foregoing prophecy we are not informed ; but he lived to see, in the descendants of Shem, Eber and Nahor and Terah the father of Abram. - - compared with 1 Chron. xx. 5.” Sce also Bishop Newton on the Pro- plmecies, Dissert. l. * \- 366 EXPOSITION OF GENESIS. DISCOURSE XVI. THE GENERATIONs of NoAH. Gen. x. WITHOUT this genealogy we should not have been able to ascertain the fulfilment of Noah's prophecy; but, after what has been said on that subject, I need not be particu- lar here. The chapter contains the origin of the various nations of antiquity; and the more it is examined and compared with universal history, the more credible it will appear. All the researches of the Asiatic Society into the ancient Hindoo records go to confirm it. But it does not comport with the object of these discourses to enter mi- nutely into such subjects; I shall therefore pass over it with only a few remarks. 1. Concerning the posterity of Japheth, ver, 2–5. His family was the largest, and almost every one of his sons became the father of a nation. In them we trace, among others, the names of Madia, the father of the Medes—of Javan, and his two sons, Kittim and Dodanim, the fathers of the Ionians, or Greeks, and of the Romans. It was from Japheth that all the nations of Europe appear to have been peopled ; who seem, at this early period, to have ob- tained the name of Gentiles; namely, peop'es, or nations, ver. 5. This name was given in apostolic times to all who were not Jews; but in earlier ages it seems to have been chiefly, if not entirely, applied to the Europeans. Such at least is the meaning of “the isles of the Gentiles,” in which, by a synecdoche, those places which were the near- est to the situation of the sacred writer are put for all the countries beyond them. And the Scriptures foreseeing that Europe would, from the first, embrace the gospel, and for many ages be the principal seat of its operation, the Messiah himself is introduced by Isaiah as addressing him- self to its inhabitants:—“Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from afar ! Jehovah hath called me from the womb, and hath said unto me, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob—I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be my salvation to the end of the earth.” Here we see not only the first peopling of our native country, but the kind remembrance of us in a way of mercy, and this though far removed from the means of salvation. What a call is this to us who occupy what is denominated “ the end of the earth” to be thankful for the gospel, and to listen to the sweet accents of the Sa- viour's voice º 2. Concerning the posterity of Ham, ver, 6–20. In them we trace, among others, the names of Cush, the father of the Ethiopians—of Mizraim, the father of the Egyptians—and of Canaan, the father of the Canaanites. Particular notice is taken of Nimrod, the son of Cush, as the first who set up for empire. He might, for any thing I know, be fond of hunting beasts; but the con- nexion of his character with a kingdom induces me to think that men were the principal objects of his pursuit, and that it is in reference to this that he is called “a mighty hunter,” a very proper name for what modern his- torians would have called a hero. Thus we see, from the beginning, that things which are highly esteemed among men are held in abomination with God. This perfectly accords with the language of the prophets, in which the great conquerors of the earth are described as so many wild beasts pushing at one another, whose object is to seize and tear the prey.—Nimrod was a mighty hunter “ before the Lord.” This may denote his daring spirit, doing what he did in the face of Heaven, or in defiance of the Divine au- thority. Thus the inhabitants of Sodom are said to be wicked, and sinners “before the Lord.” Nimrod's fame was so great that his name became proverbial. In after- times, any one who was a daring plunderer in defiance of Heaven was likened to him, just as the wicked kings of Israel were likened to “Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin.” In short, he became the type, pat- tern, or father of usurpers and martial plunderers. Till his time government had been patriarchal ; but his ambi- tion led him to found a royal city, even that which was afterwards called Babel, or Babylon; and to add to it (for the ambition of conquerors has no bounds) “Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.” Nor was this all. Either he drove Ashur, the son of Shem, from the land of Shinar, (who, taking up his residence in Assyria, built Nineveh, and other places,) or else, as Ainsworth and the margin of our own Bibles render it, “He (Nim- rod) went forth out of that land to Ashur, or Assyria, and builded Nineveh.” The latter is very probably the true meaning, as the sacred writer is not here describing what was done by the posterity of Shem, which he introduces afterwards, but by that of Ham ; and it perfectly accords with Nimrod's character, to go hunting from land to land, for the purpose of increasing his dominion. From Mizraim, the father of the Egyptians, descended also the Philistines. Their situation was near to that of the Canaanites; but, not being of them, their country was not given to Israel. This accounts for their not attempt- ing to take it, though in after-times there were frequent wars between them. Finally, Moses was very particular with regard to the Canaanites, describing not only what nations they were, but what were their boundaries, that Israel might know and be content with what the Lord their God had given them. Under this head, we see much of what pertains to this world, but that is not all. We may learn from it that men may be under the Divine curse, and yet be very suc- cessful for a time in schemes of aggrandizement. But if this be their all, woe unto them . There are instances, however, of individuals, even from among Ham's posterity, who obtained mercy. Of them were Rahab the harlot, Uriah the Hittite, Obed-edom, and Ittai, and his brethren the Gittites, and the Syrophenician woman who applied to Christ. The door of mercy is open to faith, without. distinction of nations; nor was there ever a time in which the God of Israel refused even a Canaanite who repented and embraced his word. 3. Concerning the posterity of Shem, ver. 21–32. The account of this patriarch is introduced in rather a singular manner; it is mentioned as an appendage to his name, a kind of title of honour that was to go along with it, that he was “father of all the children of Eber, and brother of Japheth the elder.” Shem had other sons as well as these, and another brother as well as Japheth; but no such spe- cial mention is made of them. When Moses would de- scribe the line of the curse, he calls Ham “the father of Canaan;” and when the line of promise, he calls Shem “ the father of all the children of Eber.” And as Japheth had been the brother of Shem in an act of filial duty, his posterity shall be grafted in among them, and become fel- low heirs of the same promise; yet, as in divers other in- stances, the younger goes before the elder. Among Shem's other descendants we find the names of Elam and Ashur, fathers of the Persians and Assyrians, two great Asiatic nations. But these, not being of the church of God, are but little noticed in the sacred history, except as they come in contact with it. Eber is said to have had two sons, one of whom is called Peleg, division ; because in his days the earth was divided. This event took place subsequently to the confusion of tongues, which is yet to be related. It seems to refer to an allotment of different countries to different families, as Canaan was divided among the Israelites by Joshua. This division of the earth is elsewhere ascribed to the Most High, Deut. xxxii. 8. Probably it was by lot, which was of his disposing ; or if by the fathers of the different families, all was subject to the direction of His providence who fixes and bounds our habitation. It is intimated in the same passage that, at the time of this di- vision, God marked out the Holy Land as Israel's lot, so that the Canaanites were to possess it only during his mi- nority, and that by sufferance. It was rather lent than given to them from the first. CONFUSION OF TONGUES. 367 DISCOURSE XVII. THIE CONFUSION OF TONGUES. Gen. xi. 1–9. IT has been before noticed that this story is thrown fur- ther on, on account of finishing the former. The event took place before the division of the earth in the time of Peleg; for every family is there repeatedly said to be di- vided after their tongues ; which implies that at that time they spake various languages, and that this was one of the rules by which they were distinguished as nations. Prior to the flood, and down to this period, “the whole earth was of one language.” We are not told what this was. Whether it was the same which continued in the family of Eber, or whether from this time it was lost, is a matter of small account to us. But it seemed good in the sight of God hence to divide mankind into different na- tions, and to this end to give them each a different tongue. The occasion of this great event will appear from the fol- lowing story. The posterity of Noah, beginning to increase, found it necessary to extend their habitations. A company of them, journeying from the east, pitched upon a certain plain in the land of Shinar, by the river Euphrates. Judg- ing it to be an eligible spot, they consulted and deter- mined here to build a city. There was no stone, it seems, near at hand ; but there was a kind of earth very suitable for bricks, and a bituminous substance which is said to ooze from certain springs in that plain, like tar or pitch, and this they used for cement. Of these materials were afterwards built the famous walls of Babylon. Having found a good material, they proposed to build “a city and a tower” of great eminence, by which they should obtain a name, and avoid the evil of which they thought themselves in danger, of being scattered upon the face of the whole earth. But here they were interrupted by a Divine interposition: the Lord came down and con- founded their language, so that they could not understand one another's speech. ... To perceive the reason of this extraordinary proceeding, it is necessary to inquire into the object, or design, of the builders. If this can be ascertained, the whole passage may be easily understood. It could not be, as some have Supposed, to provide against a future flood; for this would have needed no Divine interposition to prevent its having effect. God knew his own intention never to drown the World any more; and if it had been otherwise, or if they, from a disbelief of his promise, had been disposed to pro- Yide against it, they would not have been so foolish as to build for this purpose a tower upon a plain, which, when raised to the greatest possible height, would be far below the tops of the mountains. It could not have been said of such a scheme, “This they have begun to do ; and now nothing will be restrained from them which they have imagined to do;” for it would have defeated itself. Neither does it appear to have been designed, as others have supposed, for an idol's temple. At least there is no- thing in the story which leads to such a conclusion. It was not for the name of a god, but for their own name, that they Proposed to build; and that not the tower only, . a city and a tower. Nor was the confounding of their anguage any way adapted, that I can perceive, to defeat such a design as this. Idolatry prevailed in the world, for aught that appears, as much under a variety of languages as it would under one. b -- “5 m.º.º.º merely ºn Ovy º,” ºral ambition, like the pyramids of Egypt. This *PPºsition might in a measure agree with the idea of doing it for a name; but it is far from har- monizing with other parts of the history. It contains no such deep-laid scheme as is intimated in the 6th VerSe and given as the reason of the Divine interference. Il Ol' i. it supposable that God should interpose in so extraordinary * manner, by working a miracle which should remaiº, throughout every age of the world, or which at least has remained to this day, merely for the purpose of counter- acting a momentary freak of human vanity. | confounding their language. There are four characters by which this design, what- ever it was, is described.—l. It was founded in ambition ; for they said, “Let us make us a name.”—2. It required wnion ; for which purpose they proposed to build “a city,” that they might live together, and concentrate their strength and counsels. This is noticed by the Lord him- self: “Behold, the people,” saith he, “are one, and have all one language;” and his confounding their language was for the express purpose of destroying this oneness, by “scattering them abroad upon the face of the earth.”—3. It required that they should be furnished with the means of defence ; for which they proposed to add a “tower” to the city, to which the citizens might repair in times of danger; and of such a height as to bid defiance to any who should attempt to annoy them with arrows, or other missive weapons.—4. The scheme was wisely laid; so much so that, if God had not interposed to frustrate it, it would have succeeded : “And this they have begun to do; and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.” The only object which appears to accord with all these general characters, and with the whole account taken to- gether, is that of A UNIVERSAL MONARCHY, by which all the families of the earth, in all future ages, might be held to subjection. A very little reflection will convince us that such a scheme must of necessity be founded in am- bition ; that it required union, and of course a city, to carry it into execution; that a tower, or citadel, was also necessary to repel those who might be disposed to dispute their claims; and that if these measures were once car- ried into effect, there was nothing in the nature of things to prevent the accomplishment of their design. If there were no other reasons in favour of the sup- position in question, its agreement with all these cir- cumstances of the history might be sufficient to establish it; but to this other things may be added, by way of cor- roboration. The time when the confusion of tongues took place renders it highly probable that the scheme which it was intended to subvert was of Nimrod's forming, or that he had a principal concern in it. It must have been a little before the division of the earth among the sons of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, “after their tongues, in their countries, and in their nations;” being that which rendered such division necessary. Now this was about the time of the birth of Peleg, who was named from that event; and this, by reckoning the genealogies mentioned in chap. xi. 10– 16, will appear to have been about a hundred years after the flood. At this time, Nimrod, who was the grandson of Ham, must have been alive and in his prime. And as he was the first person who aspired to dominion over his brethren, and as it is expressly said of him that “the be- ginning of his kingdom was Babel,” nothing is more ma- tural than to suppose that he was the leader in this famous enterprise, and that the whole was a scheme of his, by which to make himself master of the world. It was also natural for an ambitious people, headed by an ambitious leader, to set up for universal monarchy. Such has been the object of almost all the great nations and conquerors of the earth in later periods. Babylon, though checked for the present, by this Divine interference, yet afterwards resumed the pursuit of her favourite object; and, in the time of Nebuchadnezzar, seemed almost to have gained it. The style used by that monarch in his proclamations comported with the spirit of this idea : “To you it is commanded, O people, nations, and tongues!” Now if such has been the ambition of all Nimrod's suc- cessors, in every age, it is nothing surprising that it should have struck the mind of Nimrod himself, and his adherents. They would also have a sort of claim to which their suc- cessors could not pretend ; namely, that of being the first, or parent kingdom; and the weight which men are apt to attach to this claim may be seen by the later pretensions of papal Rome, (another Babylon,) which, under the cha- racter of a mother church, headed by a pope, or pretended holy father, has subjected all Christendom to her dominion. To this may be added, that the means used to counter- act these builders were exactly suited to defeat the above design; namely, that of dividing and scattering them, by And it is worthy of notice, 36S EXPOSITION OF GENESIS. that though several empires have extended their terri- tories over people of different languages, yet language has been a very common boundary of nations ever since. There is scarcely a great nation in the world but what has its own language. The dividing of languages was therefore, in effect, the dividing of nations; and so a bar to the whole world being ruled by one government. Thus a perpetual miracle was wrought, to be an antidote to a perpetual disease. But why, it may be asked, should it be the will of God to prevent a universal monarchy, and to divide the in- habitants of the world into a number of independent nations : This question opens a wide field for investiga- tion. Suffice it to say, at present, such a state of things contains much mercy, both to the world and to the church. With respect to the world, if the whole earth had con- tinued under one government, that government would of course, considering what human nature is, have been ex- ceedingly despotic and oppressive. We know that in every state of society where power, or wealth, or commerce is monopolized by an individual, or confined to a few whose interests may unite them to one another, there is the greatest possible scope for injustice and oppression ; and where there is the greatest scope for these evils, human nature being what it is, there they will most abound. Different nations and interests in the world serve as a balance one to the other. They are that to the world which a number of rival merchants, or smaller tradesmen, are to society; serving as a check upon each other's ra- pacity. Union, when cemented by good-will to men, is exceedingly desirable; but when self-interest and ambition are at the bottom, it is exceedingly dangerous. Union, in such cases, is nothing better than a combination against the general good. It might be thought that if the whole world were under one government, a great number of wars might be pre- vented, which, as things now are, would be certain to take place. And it is true that one stable government, to a certain eactent, is on this account preferable to a great number of smaller ones, which are always at variance. But this principle, if carried beyond certain limits, be- comes inimical to human happiness. So far as different nations can really become one, and drop all local distinc- tions and interests, it is well; but if the good of the country governed be lost sight of, and every thing be done to aggrandize the city or country governing, it is other- wise. And where power is thus exercised, which it cer- tainly would be in case of universal monarchy, it would produce as many wars as now exist, with only this differ- ence, that instead of their being carried on between in- dependent nations, they would consist of the risings of different parts of the empire against the government, in a way of rebellion ; and by how much wars of this kind are accompanied with less mutual respect, less quarter given and taken, and consequently more cruelty, than the other, by so much would the state of the world have been more miserable than it is at present. The division of the world into independent nations has also been a great check on persecution, and so has operated in a way of mercy towards the church. If the whole world had been one despotic government, Israel, the people of God, must in all ages have been in the con- dition to which they were reduced from the times of the captivity as a punishment for their sins, a mere province of another power, which might have crushed them and hindered them, as was the case from the times of Cyrus to those of Darius. And since the coming of Christ, the only way in which he permits his followers to avoid the malice of the world, which rages against them for his sake, is this: “If they persecute you in one city, flee to another.” Of this liberty millions have availed them- selves, from the earliest to the latest periods of the Chris- tian church ; but if the whole world had been under one government, and that government inimical to the gospel, there had been no place of refuge left upon earth for the faithful. The necessary watch also that governments which have been the most disposed to persecute have been obliged to keep on each other has filled their hands, so as to leave them but little time to think of religious people. Saul, when pursuing David, was withdrawn from his purpose by intelligence being brought him that the Philistines had tnvaded the land; and thus, in innumerable instances, the quarrels of bad men have been advantageous to the righteous. The division of power serves likewise to check the spirit of persecution, not only as finding employment for per- secutors to watch their rivals, but as causing them to be watched, and their conduct exposed. While the power of papal Rome extended over Christendom, persecution raged abundantly more than it has done since the Reformation, even in popish countries. Since that period, the popish powers, both ecclesiastical and civil, have felt themselves narrowly watched by protestants, and have been almost shamed out of their former cruelties. What has been done of late years has been principally confined to the secret recesses of the Inquisition. It is by communities as it is by individuals; they are restrained from innumer- able excesses by the consideration of being under the eye of each other. Thus it is that liberty of conscience, being granted in one or two nations, and becoming honourable, has insensibly made its way into the councils of many others. From the whole we may infer two things:–1. The harmony of Divine revelation with all that we know of fact. If any object to the probability of the foregoing account, and imagine that the various languages spoken in the world must have been of human contrivance, let them point us to a page in any history, ancient or modern, which gives an account of the first making of a language, dead or living. If all that man can be proved to have done towards the formation of any language be confined to changing, combining, improving, and reducing it to gram- matical form, there is the greatest probability, independ- ently of the authority of revelation, that languages them- selves were originally the work of God, as was that of the first man and woman.—2. The desirableness of the uni- versal spread of Christ's kingdom. We may see, in the reasons which render a universal government among men incompatible with the liberty and safety of the world, abundant cause to pray for this, and for the union of all his subjects under him. Here there is no danger of ty- ranny or oppression, nor any need of those low motives of rivalship to induce him to seek the well-being of his subjects. A union with Christ and one another embraces the best interests of mankind. DISCOURSE XVIII. THE GENERATIONS OF SHEM, AND THE CALL OF ABRAM. Gen. xi. 10–32; xii. 1–4. THE sacred historian, having given an account of the re- peopling of the earth, here takes leave of the “children of men,” and confines himself to the history of the “sons of God.” We shall find him all along adhering to this principle. When any of the posterity of the righteous turn their backs on God, he presently takes leave of them, and follows the true church and true religion wherever they go. - Ver. 10–26. The principal use of the genealogy of Shem to Terah, the father of Abram, may be to prove the fulfilment of all the promises in the Messiah. To this purpose it is applied in the New Testament. Wer. 27—29. Terah, after he was seventy years of age, had three sons, Abram, Nahor, and Haran. But the order in which they here stand does not appear to be that of seniority, any more than that of Shem, and Ham, and Japheth; for if Abram had been born when Terah was seventy years old, he must have been a hundred and thirty- five at the time of his father's death; whereas he is said to have been but seventy-five when, after that event, he set out for Canaan. Haran therefore appears to have been the eldest of the three sons. He died in Ur of the Chaldees ; but left behind him a son and two daughters, Lot, and Milcah, and Iscah. The two surviving sons, Abram and Nahor, took them wives: the name of Abram's CALL OF ABRAM. 369 wife was Sarai, of whose descent we are not here told ; but by what he said of her in chap. xx. 12, it would seem that she was his half-sister, or his father's daughter by another wife. In those early ages nearer degrees of con- sanguinity were admitted than were afterwards allowed by the Divine law. Nahor married his brother Haran's eldest daughter Milcah. Ver. 31. It is said of Terah that he took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haram, his grandson, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, his son Abram's wife; and that they went from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Ca- naam. But here is something supposed which the historian reserves till he comes to the story of Abram, who, next to God, was the first mover in the undertaking, and the principal character in the story. In chap. xii. 1, we are told that “the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will show thee.” Taking the whole together, it appears that God revealed himself to Abram, and called him to depart from that idolatrous and wicked country, whether any of his relations would go with him or mot; that Abram told it to his father Terah, and to all the family, and invited them to accom- pany him; that Terah consented, as did also his grandson Lot ; that Nahor and his wife Milcah were unwilling to go, and did not go at present; that, seeing they refused, the venerable Terah left them ; and though not the first mover in the affair, yet, being the head of the family, he is said to have taken Abram, and Sarai, and Lot, and jour- neyed towards Canaan; that, stopping within the country of Mesopotamia, he called the place where he pitched his tent Haran, in memory of his son who died in Ur of the Chaldees; finally, that during his residence in this place he died, being two hundred and five years old. But though Nahor and Milcah, as it should seem, refused to accompany the family at the time, yet as we find them in the course of the history settled at Haram, and Abraham and Isaac sending to them for wives, to the rejection of the idolaters among whom they lived, we may conclude that they afterwards repented. And thus the whole of Terah's family, though they do not go to Canaan, yet are rescued from Chaldean idolatry; and, settling in Haram, maintain for a considerable time the worship of the true God. Chap. xii. 1–3. But Abram must not stop at Haran. Jehovah, by whom he was called to depart from Ur, has another country in reserve for him; and he being the great patriarch of Israel, and of the church of God, we have here a more particular account of his call. It was fit that this should be clearly and fully stated, as it went to lay the foundation of a new order of things in the world. It was therefore like the spring of a great river; or rather like the hole of a quarry whence the first stone was taken of which a city was built. It is this which is referred to for the encouragement of the church when in a low condition, and likely to become extinct. God called Abram alone, and blessed him, and increased him. Hence the faithful are directed to “look to the rock whence they were hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence they were digged; ” and to depend upon his promise who assured them he would comfort the waste places of Zion. How long Abram continued at Haran we are not told, but, about nine years after his departure from it, we read of his having three hundred and eighteen trained servants, who were “born in his house: ” he must therefore have kept house between twenty and thirty years at least before that time, either in Haran, or in both Úr and Haran. ... In the call of Abram we may observe, 1. The grace of it. There appears no reason to conclude that he was better than his neighbours. He did not choose the Lord, but the Lord him, and brought him out from amongst the idolaters, Neh. ix. 7. 2. Its peremptory tone : “Get thee Sut.” The language very much resembles that of Lot to his sons-in-law, and indicates the great danger of his pre- sent situation, and the immediate necessity of escaping as it were for his life. Such is the condition of every uncon- Verted sinner, and such the necessity of fleeing from the Wrath to come to the hope set before us in the gospel. §: The self-denial required by it. He was called to leave his country, his kindred, º even his father's house, if they B refused to go with him ; and no doubt his mind was made up to do so. Such things are easier to read concerning others than to practise ourselves; yet he that hateth not father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, in comparison of Christ; cannot be his disciple. We may not be called upon to part with them ; but our minds must be made up to do so, if they stand between us and Christ. 4. The implicit faith which a compliance with it would call for. Abram was to leave all and to go . . . . he knew not whither . . . . wnto a land that God would show him. If he had been told that it was a land flowing with milk and honey, and that he should be put in possession of it, there had been some food for sense to feed upon ; but to go out, “not knowing whither he went,” must have been not a little trying to flesh and blood. Nor was this all ; that which was promised was not only in general terms, but very dis- tant. God did not tell him he would give him the land, but merely show him it. Nor did he in his lifetime obtain the possession of it; he was only a sojourner in it, without so much as a place to set his foot upon. He obtained a spot it is true to lay his bones in, but that was all. In this manner were things ordered on purpose to try his faith ; and his obedience to God under such circumstances was among the things which rendered him an example to future generations, even “the father of all them that believe.” Ver. 2. The promise had reference to things which could be but of small account to an eye of sense; but faith would find enough in it to satisfy the most enlarged de- sires. The objects, though distant, were worth waiting for. He should be the father of “a great nation ; ” and, what was of greater account, and which was doubtless understood, that nation should be the Lord's. God him- self would bless him ; and this would be more than the whole world without it. God would also make his name great; not in the records of worldly fame, but in the his- tory of the church ; and being himself full of the blessing of the Lord, it should be his to impart blessedness to the world : “I will bless thee, and thou shalt be a blessing.” The great names among the heathen would very com- monly arise from their being curses and plagues to man- kind; but he should have the honour and happiness of being great in goodness, great in communicating light and life to his species. This promise has been fulfilling ever since. All the true blessedness which the world is now, or shall hereafter be, possessed of, is owing to Abram and his posterity. Through them we have a Bible, a Saviour, and a gospel. They are the stock on which the Christian church is grafted. Their very dispersions and punishments have proved the riches of the world. What then shall be their recovery, but life from the dead 3 It would seem as if the conversion of the Jews, whenever it shall take place, will be a kind of re- surrection to mankind. Such was the hope of this calling. And what could the friends of God and man desire more ? Yet, as if all this were not enough, it is added— Wer. 3. “I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee.” This is language never used but of an object of special favour. It is declaring that he should not only be blessed himself, but that all others should be blessed or cursed as they respected or injured him. Of this the histories of Abimelech, Laban, Poti- phar, both the Pharaohs, Balak, and Balaam furnish ex- amples. Finally, Lest what had been said of his being made a blessing should not be sufficiently explicit, it is added, “And in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.” This was saying that a blessing was in reserve for all na- tions, and that it should be bestowed through him and his posterity, as the medium. Paul applies this to Christ, and the believing Gentiles being blessed in him ; he calls it, “The gospel which was preached before unto Abraham.” Peter also makes use of it in his address to those who had killed the Prince of life, to induce them to repent and be- lieve in him. “Ye are the children of the prophets,” says he, “and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. Unto you first, God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in 370 EXPOSITION OF GENESIS. turning away every one of you from his iniquities.” As if he had said, You are descended from one whose pos- terity were to be blessed above all nations, and made a blessing. And the time to favour the nations being now at hand, God sent his Son first to you, to bless you, and to prepare you for blessing them ; as though it were yours to be a nation of ministers, or missionaries to the world. But how if, instead of blessing others, you should continue accursed yourselves? You must first be blessed, ere you can, as the true seed of Abraham, bless the kindreds of the éarth, and that by every one of you being turned from his iniquities. Ver. 4. The faith of Abram operated in a way of prompt and implicit obedience. First it induced him to leave Ur of the Chaldees, and now he must leave Haran. Haran was become the place of his father’s sepulchre, yet he must not stop there, but press forwards to the land which the Lord would show him. On this occasion, young Lot, his nephew, seems to have felt a cleaving to him, like that of Ruth to Naomi, and must needs go with him ; encouraged no doubt by his uncle in some such manner as Moses afterwards encouraged Hobab : “Go with me, and I will do thee good ; for the Lord hath spoken good concerning” Abram. Ver. 5. We now see Abram, being seventy-five years old, and Sarai, and Lot, with all they are and have, taking a long farewell of Haram, as they had done before of Ur. “The souls that they had gotten in Haran" could not refer to children, but perhaps to some godly servants who cast in their lot with them. Abram had a religious household, who were under his government, as we after- wards read, one of whom went to seek a wife for Isaac. We also read of one “Eliezer of Damascus,” who seems to have been not only his household steward, but the only man he could think of, if he died childless, to be his heir. With these he set off for the land of Canaan, which by this time he knew to be the country that the Lord would show him ; and to the land of Canaan he came. DISCOURSE XIX. A BIRAM DWELLING IN CANAAN, AND REMOVING TO EGYPT ON ACCOUNT OF THE FAMIN E. Gen. xii. 6—20. VER. 6. Abram and his company, having entered the country at its north-eastern quarter, penetrate as far southward as Sichem ; where meeting with a spacious plain, the plain of Moreb, they pitched their tents. This place was afterwards much accounted of. Jacob came thither on his return from Haran, and bought of the She- chemites a parcel of a field. It might be the same spot where Abram dwelt, and was perhaps selected by Jacob on that account. After this it seems to have been taken from him by the Amorites, the descendants of Hamor, of whom he had bought it; and he was obliged to recover it by the sword and by the bow. This was the portion which he gave to his son Joseph. There seems to be something in the history of this place very much re- sembling that of the country in general. In the grand division of the earth, this whole land was assigned to the posterity of Shem ; but the Canaanites had seized on it, and, as is here noticed, “ dwelt in the land.” As soon therefore as the rightful owners are in a capacity to make use of the sword and the bow, they must be dispossessed of it.—See on ch. x. 25. Ver. 7. Abram having pitched his tent at Sichem, the Lord renews to him the promise of the whole land, or rather to his seed after him; for, with respect to him- self, he was never given to expect any higher charac- ter, than that of a sojourner. But considering the great ends to be answered by his seed possessing it, he is well satisfied, and rears an altar to Jehovah. One sees here the difference between the conduct of the men of this world and that of the Lord’s servants. The former no Booner find a fruitful plain than they fall to building a city and a tower, to perpetuate their fame. The first concern of the latter is to raise an altar to God. It was thus that the new world was consecrated by Noah, and now the Land of Promise by Abram. The rearing of an altar in the land was like taking possession of it, in right, for Jehovah. - - Ver. 8, 9. The patriarchs seldom continued long at a place, for they were sojourners. Abram removes from the plain of Moreh, to a mountain on the east of what was afterwards called Beth-el; and here he built an altar, and called upon the name of the Lord. This place was also much accounted of in after-times. It was not far hence that Jacob slept and dreamed, and anointed the pillar. We may on various occasions change places, pro- vided we carry the true religion with us : in this we must never change. - Ver. 10–20. Abram was under the necessity of re- moving again, and that on account of a grievous famine in the land. He must now leave Canaan for a while, and journey into Egypt, where corn, it seems, was generally plentiful, even when it was scarce in other countries, be- cause that country was watered not so much by rain as by the waters of the Nile. Hither therefore the patriarch repaired with his little company. And here we see new trials for his faith. Observe, 1. The famine itself being in the Land of Promise must be a trial to him. Had he been of the spirit of the unbe- lieving spies, in the times of Moses, he would have said, Would God we had stayed at Haran, if not at Ur Surely this is a land that eateth up the inhabitants.-But thus far Abram sinned not. 2. The beauty of Sarai was another trial to him ; and here he fell into the sin of dissimulation, or at least of equivocation. She was half-sister to him, it seems (see on chap. xi. 27–29); but not in such a sense as he meant to convey. This was one of the first faults we read of in Abram’s life ; and the worst of it is that it was repeated, as we shall see hereafter. It is remarkable that there is only one faultless character on record; and more so that, in several instances of persons who have been distinguished for some one excellence, their principal failure has been in that particular. Thus Peter, the bold, sins through fear; Solomon, the wise, by folly; Moses, the meek, by speak- ing unadvisedly with his lips; and Abram, the faithful, by a kind of dissimulation arising from timid distrust. Such things would almost seem designed of God to stain the pride of all flesh, and to check all dependence upon the most eminent or confirmed habits of godliness. 3. Yet from these trials, and from the difficulties into which he had brought himself by his own misconduct, the Lord mercifully delivered him. He feared they would kill him for his wife's sake; but God, by introducing plagues annong them, inspired them with fear, and in- duced them to send him and his wife away in safety. It was thus that he rebuked kings for their sakes, and suffer- ed no man to hurt them. In how many instances has God, by his kind providence, extricated us from situations into which our own sin and folly had plunged us! DISCOURSE XX. THE SEPARATION OF ABRAM AND LOT, Gen. xiii. VER. 1–4. Till now we have heard nothing of Lot, since he left Haran ; but he appears to have been one of Abram's family, and to have gone with him whithersoever he went. Here we find him returning with him from Egypt, first to the south of Canaan, and afterwards to Beth-el, the place of his second residence, where he had before built an altar. The manner in which “the place of the altar” is mentioned seems to intimate that he chose to go thither, in preference to another place, on this account. It is very natural that he should do so; for the places where we have called upon the name of the Lord, and enjoyed communion with him, are, by associa- ABRAM AND LOT. 371 There Abram tion, endeared to us above all others. again called on the name of the Lord, and the present exercises of grace, we may suppose, were aided by the remembrance of the past. It is an important rule, in choosing our habitations, to have an eye to the place of the altar. If Lot had acted upon this principle, he would not have done as is here related of him. Ver. 5, 6. We find by the second verse that Abram was very rich ; and here we see that Lot also had “flocks, and herds, and tents;” so that “the land was not able to bear them, that they should dwell together.” It is pleas- ing to see how the blessing of the Lord attends these two sojourners; but it is painful to find that prosperity should become the occasion of their separation. It is pity that those whom grace unites, and who are fellow heirs of eternal life, should be parted by the lumber of this world. Yet so it is. A clash of worldly interests has often se- parated chief friends, and been the occasion of a much greater loss than the greatest earthly fulness has been able to compensate. It is not thus with the riches of grace, or of glory; the more we have of them, the closer we are united. Ver. 7. The first inconvenience which arose from the wealth of these two good men appeared in strifes between their herdmen. It was better to be so, than if the mas- ters had fallen out; but even this is far from pleasant. Those of each would tell their tale to their masters, and try to persuade them that the others had used them ill ; and the best of men, hearing such tales frequently repeat- ed, would begin to suspect that all was not fair. What can be done “The Canaanite and the Perizzite also dwelt in the land.” Now Abram and Lot, having never joined in the idolatries and other wickednesses of the country, must needs have been marked as a singular kind of men, and passed as worshippers of the invisible God. If therefore they fall out about worldly matters, what will be thought and said of their religion ? “See how these religious people love one another . " Ver. 8, 9. Abram's conduct in this unpleasant business was greatly to his honour. To form a just judgment of any character, we must follow him through a number of different situations and circumstances, and observe how he acts in times of trial. We have seen Abram in his first conversion from idolatry; we have noticed the strength of his faith, and the promptness of his obedience to the heavenly call; we have admired his godly and consistent conduct in every place where he has sojourned, one in- stance only excepted ; but we have not yet seen how he would act in a case of approaching difference with a friend, a brother. Here then we have it. Observe, 1. He foresees the danger there is of a falling-out be- tween himself and Lot. It is likely he perceived that his countenance was not towards him as heretofore, and that he discovered an uneasiness of mind. This would ex- cite a becoming apprehension, lest that which begun with the servants should end with the masters, and be produc- tive of great evil to them both. 2. He deprecates it in the frankest, most pacific, and most affectionate manner. “Let there be no strife be- tween me and thee, and between my herdmen and thy herdmen, for we are brethren.” Yes, brethren, not only in the flesh, but in the Lord. 3. He makes a most wise and generous proposal. “ The whole land is before us: separate thyself, I pray thee, from me. If thou wilt go to the left hand, I will go to the right; or if thou wilt go to the right hand, then I will go to the left.” As the elder man, Abram might have insisted upon the right of choosing his part of the country first ; and especially as he was the principal, and Lot only accompanied him; he might have told him that if he was not contented to live with him, he might go Whither he would ; but thus did not Abram. No, he would rather forego his civil rights than invade religious peace. What a number of bitter animosities in families, in churches, and I may say in nations, might be prevent- ed, if the parties could be brought to act towards one another in this open, pacific, disinterested, and generous manner. There are cases in which it becomes necessary for very worthy and dear friends to separate: it were better to part than live together at variance. Many may be good neighbours who could not live happily in the same family. Abram and Lot could love and pray for one another when there was nothing to ruffle their feel- ings; and Saul and Barnabas could both serve the cause of Christ, though unhappily, through a third person, they cannot act in close concert. In all such cases, if there be only an upright, pacific, and disinterested disposition, things will be so adjusted as to do no material injury to the cause of Christ. In many instances it may serve to promote it. In a world where there is plenty of room to serve the Lord, and plenty of work to be done, if those who cannot continue together be disposed to improve their advantages, the issue may be such as shall cause the parties to unite in a song of praise. Ver. 10, 11. But how does young Lot conduct himself on this occasion ? He did not, nor could he, object to the pacific and generous proposal that was made to him ; nor did he choose Abram's situation, which, though love- ly in the one to offer, it would have been very unlovely in the other to have accepted; and I hope, though nothing is said of his making any reply, it was not from a spirit of sullen reserve. But, in the choice he made, he appears to have regarded temporal advantages only, and entirely to have overlooked the danger of his situation with re- gard to religion. “He lifted up his eyes, and beheld a well-watered plain ; ” and on this he fixed his choice, though it led him to take up his abode in Sodom. He viewed it, as we should say, merely with a grazier's eye. He had better have been in a wilderness than there. Yet many professors of religion, in choosing situations for themselves and for their children, continue to follow his example. We shall perceive, in the sequel of the story, what kind of a harvest his well-watered plain produced him : Ver. 12, 13. It is possible, after all, that his principal fault lay in pitching his tent in the place he did. If he could have lived on the plain, and preserved a sufficient distance from that infamous place, there might have been nothing the matter; but perhaps he did not like to live alone, and therefore dwelt in the cities of the plain, and pitched his tent towards Sodom. The love of society, like all other natural principles, may prove a blessing or a curse; and we may see, by this example, the danger of leaving religious connexions; for as man feels it not good to be alone, if he forego these he will be in a man- ner impelled by his inclinations to take up with others of a contrary description. It is an awful character which is here given of Lot's new neighbours. All men are sin- ners; but they were “wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly.” When Abram went to a new place, it was usual for him to rear an altar to the Lord ; but there is no mention of any thing like this when Lot settled in or near to Sodom. But to return to Abram— Ver. 14—17. From the call of this great man to the command to offer up his son, a period of about fifty years, he was often tried, and the promise was often renewed. It was the will of God that he should live by faith. Its being renewed at this time seems to have been on occa- sion of Lot's departure from him, and the disinterested spirit which he had manifested on that occasion. Lot had lifted up his eyes and beheld the plain of Jordan ; and being gone to take possession of it, God saith unto Abram, Lift up now thine eyes, and look northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward ; for all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever. Thus he who sought this world lost it ; and he who was willing to give up any thing for the honour of God and religion found it. Wer. 18. After this, Abram removed to “the plain of Mamre, which is Hebron,” where he “continued many years. It was here, a long time after, that Sarah died. It lay about two and twenty miles south of Jerusalem. This removal might possibly arise from regard to Lot, that he might be nearer to him than he would have been at Beth-el, though not so near as to interfere with his tempo- ral concerns. Of this we are certain, he was able, from a place near where he lived, to descry the plains of Sodom ; and when the city was destroyed, saw the smoke ascend like that of a furnace. Here, as usual, Abram built an altar unto Jehovah. 2 B 2 372 EXPOSITION OF GENESIS DISCOURSE XXI. ABRAM'S SLAUGHTER OF THE KINGS. Gen. xiv. IT has been already observed, that, to form a just judgment of character, we must view men in divers situations: we should not have expected, however, to find Abram in tu- character of a warrior. Yet so it is : for once in his life, though a man of peace, he is constrained to take the sword. We have seen in him the friend of God, and the friend of a good man; now we shall see in him the friend of his country, though at present only a sojourner in it. The case appears to have been as follows:— Ver, 1–7. Elam and Shinar, or Persia and Babylon, and the country about them, being that part of the world where the sons of Noah began to settle after they went out of the ark, it was there that population and the art of war would first arrive at sufficient maturity to induce them to attempt the subjugation of their neighbours. Nimrod began this business in about a century after the flood, and his successors were no less ambitious to continue it. The rest of the world, emigrating from those countries, would be considered as colonies which ought to be subject to the parent states. Such, it seems, were the ideas of Chedor- laomer, who was at this time king of Elam, or Persia. About three or four years before Abram left Chaldea he had invaded Palestine ; which being divided into little kingdoms, almost every city having its king, and having made but little progress in the art of war in comparison of the parent nations, fell an easy prey to his rapacity. In this humiliating condition they continued twelve years; but being by that time weary of the yoke, five of these petty kings, understanding one amother, thought they might venture to throw it off. Accordingly, the next year they refused to pay him tribute, or to be subject to the authority under which he had placed them. Chedorlaomer hearing of this, calls together his friends and allies among the first and greatest nations; who con- sent to join their forces, and go with him to reduce these petty states to obedience. Four kings and their armies engage in this expedition. If each one only brought five hundred men with him, they would form a great host for that early age of the world, and capable of doing a great deal of mischief. This they did : for, not content with marching peaceably through the country till they arrived at the cities which had rebelled, they laid all places waste which they came at ; Smiting in their way, first the Re- phaims, the Zwrims, and the Emāms; then the Horites of Mount Seir ; and after them the Amalekites and the Amorites. Ver. 8–10. By this time Abram's neighbours, the kings of Sodom, Admah, Zeboim, and Bela, must have been not a little alarmed. They and their people, however, deter- mine to fight—and fight they did. The field of action was “ the vale of Siddim.” Unhappily, the ground was full of slime pits, or pits of bitumen, much like those on the plains of Shinar; and their soldiers being but little skilled in the art of war could not keep their ranks, and so were foiled, routed, and beaten, by the superior discipline of the -nvaders. Many were slain in the pits, and those that escaped fled to a neighbouring mountain, which, being probably covered with wood, afforded them a shelter in which to hide themselves. Ver. 11, 12. The conquerors, without delay, betake themselves to the spoil. They take all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all the victuals; and what few people are left they take for slaves. Among these was Lot, Abram's brother's son, his friend, and the companion of his travels, with all his family and all his goods; and this, not withstanding he was only a sojourner, but lately come among them, and seems to have taken no part in the war. O Lot, these are the fruits of taking up thy residence in Sodom ; or rather the first-fruits of it: the harvest is yet to come ! Ver. 13. Among those who fled from the drawn sword, and the fearfulness of war, there was one who reached the plain of Mamre, and told the sad tale to Abram. Abram feels much ; but what can he do º Can he raise an army wherewith to spoil the spoilers and deliver the captives 3 He will try. Yes, from his regard to Lot, whose late faults would be now forgotten, and his former love recur to mind ; and if he succeed, he will not only deliver him, but many others. The cause is a just one ; and God has promised to bless Abram, and make him a blessing. Who can tell but he may prove in this instance a blessing to the whole country, by delivering it from the power of a cruel foreign oppressor 3 Now we shall see how the Lord hath blessed Abram. Who would have thought it? He is able to raise three hundred and eighteen men in his own family; men well instructed too, possessing skill, principle, and courage. Moreover, Abram was so well respected by his neighbours, Mamre, Eshcol, and Aner, that they had already formed a league of confederacy with him, to defend themselves, per- haps, against this blustering invader, whose coming had been talked of more than a year ago; and they, with all the forces they can muster, consent to join with Abram in the pursuit. Ver. 15, 16. By prompt movements, Abram and his troop soon come up with the enemy. It was in the dead of night. The conquerors, it is likely, were off their guard, thinking, no doubt, that the country was subdued, and that scarcely a dog was left in it that dare move his tongue against them. But when haughty men say, Peace, peace,—lo, sudden destruction cometh ! Attacked after so many victories, they are surprised and confounded ; and it being in the night, they could not tell but their assailants might be ten times more numerous than they were. So they flee in confusion, and are pursued from Dan even to Hobah in Syria, a distance, it is said, of four- score miles. In this battle, Chedorlaomer, and the kings who were with him, were all slain. Abram's object, how- ever, was the recovery of Lot and his family; and having accomplished this, he is satisfied. It is surprising that amidst all this confusion and slaughter their lives should be preserved ; yet so it was ; and he with his property and family, and all the other captives taken with him, are brought safe back again. It was ill for Lot to be found among the men of Sodom ; but it was well for them that he was so, else they had been ruined before they were. Ver. 17–24. This expedition of Abram and his friends excited great attention among the Canaanites. At the very time when all must have been given up for lost, lo, they are, without any effort of their own, recovered, and the spoilers spoiled ! The little victorious band, now re- turning in peace, are hailed by every one that meets them; nay, the kings of the different cities go forth to congratu- late them, and to thank them as the deliverers of the country. If Abram had been of the disposition of those marauders whom he had defeated, he would have followed up his victory, and made himself master of the whole country; which he might probably have done with ease in their present enfeebled and scattered condition. But thus did not Abram, because of the fear of God. In the valley of Shaveh, not far from Jerusalem, he was met and congratulated by the king of Sodom, who by some means had escaped in the day of battle, when so many of his people were slain. He was also met in the same place, and at the same time, by another king, of high character in the Scriptures, though but rarely mentioned, namely, “Melchisedek, king of Salem.” He came, not only to congratulate the conquerors, but brought forth “bread and wine” to refresh them after their long fatigues. The sacred historian, having here met with what I may call a lily among thorns, stops, as it were, to describe it. Let us stop with him, and observe the description. Men- tion is made of this singular man only in three places; viz. here, in the 110th Psalm, and in the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. He is held up in the two latter places as a type of the Messiah. Three things may be remarked concerning him :--1. He was doubtless a very holy man ; and if a Canaanite by descent, it furnishes a proof, among many others, that the curse on Canaan did not shut the door of faith upon his individual descendants. There never was an age or country in which he that feared God and worked righteousness was not accepted. 2. He was a personage in whom were united the kingly SLAUGHTER OF THE KINGS. 373 and priestly offices; and, as such, he was a type of the Messiah, and greater than Abram himself. Under the former of these characters, he was by interpretation “king of righteousness, and king of peace ;” and, under the lat- ter, was distinguished as the “priest of the most high God.” This singular dignity conferred upon a descendant of Canaan shows that God delights, on various occasions, to put more abundant honour upon the part that lacketh. 3. He was what he was, considered as a priest, not by inheritance, but by an immediate Divine constitution. Though as a man he was born like other men, yet as a priest he was “without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God, abiding a priest con- tinually.” That is, neither his father nor his mother was of a sacerdotal family; he derived his office from no pre- decessor, and delivered it up to no successor, but was himself an order of priesthood. It is in this respect that he was “made like unto the Son of God ;” who also was a priest, not after the manner of the sons of Aaron, by descent from their predecessors (for he descended from Judah, of which tribe Moses said nothing concerning priesthood); but after the similitude of Melchisedek, that is, by an immediate Divine constitution ; or, as the New Testament writer expresses it, “by the word of the oath;” and, “continuing ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.” Ver. 19, 20. Melchisedek being “priest of the most high God,” he in that character blessed Abram. It be- longed to the priest, by Divine appointment, to bless the people. In this view the blessing of. Melchisedek would contain more than a personal well-wishing ; it would be prophetic. In pronouncing it, he would set his official seal to what God had done before him. It is not unlikely that he might know Abram previously to this, and be well acquainted with his being a favourite of Heaven, in whom all the nations of the earth were to be blessed, and to whose posterity God had promised the land of the Ca- naanites; and if so, his blessing him in so solemn a man- ner implies his acquiescence in the Divine will, even though it would be at the expense of his ungodly country- men. His speaking of the most high God as “possessor of heaven and earth” would seem to intimate as much as this ; as it recognises the principle on which the right of Abram's posterity to possess themselves of Canaan de- pended. There is much heart in the blessing. We see the good man, as well as the priest of the most high God, in it; from blessing Abram it rises to the blessing of Abram’s God, for all the goodness conferred upon him. In return for this solemn blessing, Abram “gave him tithes of all.” This was treating him in character, and, * º presenting the tenth of his spoils as an offering to O(1. Ver, 21. All this time the king of Sodom stood by, and heard what passed; but it seems without feeling any interest in it. What passed between these two great characters appears to have made no impression upon him. He thought of nothing, and cared for nothing, but what respected him- self. He could not possibly claim any right to what was recovered, either of persons or things; yet he asks for the former, and speaks in a manner as if he would be thought not a little generous in relinquishing the latter. Ver. 22, 23. Abram knew the man and his communi- eations; and, perceiving his affected generosity, gave him to understand that he had already decided, and even sworn, in the presence of the most high God, what he would do in respect of that part of the spoils which had previously belonged to him. Abram knew full well that the man who affected generosity in relinquishing what was not his own would go on to boast of it, and to reflect on him as though he shone in borrowed plumes. No, says the pa- triarch, “I will not take from a thread even to a shoe- latchet that which was thine, save that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men that went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre.” ... • * What Moses says, in Exod. vi. 3, that God appeared to “Abraham Isaac, and Jacob, by the name of God ...}}. but that by his name “JEHOVAH " he was not known to them, cannot be under. stood absolutely. It does not appear, however, to have been used among the patriarchs in so peculiar a sense as it was after the times of Moses among the Israelites. Thence it seems very generally to de- In this answer of Abram we may observe, besides the above, several particulars :— 1. The character under which he had sworn to God : “Jehovah, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth.” The former of these names was that by which God was made known to Abram, and still more to his posterity.” The latter was that which had been just given to him by Melchisedek, and which appears to have made a strong impression on Abram’s mind. By uniting them together, he, in a manner, acknowledged Melchi- sedek’s God to be his God; and, while reproving the king of Sodom, expressed his love to him as to a brother. 2. His having decided the matter before the king of Sodom met him, as it seems he had, implies something highly dishonourable in the character of that prince. He must have been well known to Abram, as a vain, boasting, unprincipled man, or he would not have resolved in so solemn a manner to preserve himself clear from the very shadow of an obligation to him. And, considering the polite and respectful manner in which it was common for this patriarch to conduct himself towards his neighbours, there must have been something highly offensive in this case to draw from him so cutting and dismaying an in- timation. It is not unlikely that he had thrown out some malignant insinuations against Lot and his old wealthy uncle, on the score of their religion. If so, Abram would feel happy in an opportunity of doing good against evil, and thus of heaping coals of fire upon his head. The reason why he would not be under the shadow of an obligation, or any thing which might be construed an obligation, to him, was not so much a regard to his own honour as the honour of HIM in whose name he had sworn. Abram’s God had blessed him, and promised to bless him more, and make him a blessing. Let it not be said by his enemies, that, with all his blessedness, it is of our sub- stance that he is what he is. No, Abram can trust in “the possessor of heaven and earth’” to provide for him, without being beholden to the king of Sodom. 3. His excepting the portion of the young men who were in league with him shows a just sense of propriety. In giving up our own right, we are not at liberty to give away that which pertains to others connected with us. Upon the whole, this singular undertaking would raise Abram much in the estimation of the Canaanites, and might possibly procure a little more respect to Lot. It had been better in the latter, however, if he had taken this opportunity to have changed his dwelling-place. DISCOURSE XXII. AB RAM JUSTITIED BY FAITH, Gen. xv. 1–6. ABRAM was the father of the faithful, the example or pat- term of all future believers; and perhaps no man, upon the whole, had greater faith. It seems to have been the design of God, in almost all his dealings with him, to put his faith to the trial. In most instances it appeared unto praise, though in some it appeared to fail him, Ver. 1. Several years had elapsed, perhaps eight or nine, since God had first made promise to him concerning his seed; and mow he is about eighty years old, and Sarai is seventy, and he has no child. He must yet live upon assurances and promises, without any earthly prospects. He is indulged with a vision, in which God appears to him, saying, “Fear not, Abram : I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.” This is certainly very full and very encouraging. If, after having engaged the kings, he had any fears of the war being renewed, this would allay them. Who shall harm those to whom Jehovah is a note the specific name of the God and King of Israel. In this view we perceive the force and propriety of such language as the follow- ing :-‘‘Jehovah is our Judge, Jehovah is our Lawgiver, Jehovah is our King.”—“O Jehovah, our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth !” 374 EXPOSITION OF GENESIS. shield? Or if, on having no child, he had fears at times lest all should prove a blank, this would meet them. What can be wanting to those who have God for their “exceeding great reward 2’’ Abram had not availed him- self of his late victory to procure in Canaan so much as a place to set his foot on ; but he shall lose nothing by it. God has something greater in reserve for him : God him- self will be his reward; not only as he is of all believers, but in a sense peculiar to himself: he shall be the father of the church, and the heir of the world. Ver. 2, 3. Who would have thought, amidst these ex- ceeding great and precious promises, that Abram's faith should seem to fail him $ Yet so it is. The promise, to be sure, is great and full ; but he has heard much the same things before, and there are no signs of its accom- plishment. This works within him in a way of secret anguish, which he presumes to express before the Lord, almost in the language of objection: “Lord God, what wilt thou give me?” “Thou speakest of giving thy servant this and that . . . . . but I shall soon be past receiving it . I go childless. This Eliezer of Damascus is a good and faithful servant ; but that is all . . . . . Must I make him my heir ; and are the promises to be fulfilled at last in an adopted son 3” Ver, 4–6. God, in mercy to the patriarch, condescends to remove his doubts on this subject, assuring him that his heir should descend from his own body; yet he must con- tinue to live upon promises. These promises, however, are confirmed by a sign. He is led abroad from his tent in the night time, and shown the stars of heaven ; which when he had seen, the Lord assured him, “So shall thy seed be.” And now his doubts are removed. He is no longer weak, but strong in faith ; he staggers not through unbelief, but is fully persuaded that what God has pro- mised he is able to perform. And therefore “it was im- puted to him for righteousness.” Much is made of this passage by the apostle Paul, in establishing the doctrine of justification by faith ; and much has been said by others, as to the meaning of both him and Moses. One set of expositors, considering it as extremely evident that by faith is here meant the act of believing, contend for this as our justifying righteousness. Faith, in their account, seems to be imputed to us for righteousness by a kind of gracious compromise, in which God accepts of an imperfect instead of a perfect obedience. Another set of expositors, jealous for the honour of free grace, and of the righteousness of Christ, contend that the faith of Abram is here to be taken objectively, for the righteousness of Christ believed in. To me it appears that both these expositions are forced. To establish the doctrine of justification by the righteousness of Christ, it is not necessary to maintain that the faith of Abram means Christ in whom he believed. Nor can this be maintained ; for it is manifestly the same thing, in the account of the apostle Paul, as believing, (Rom. iv. 5,) which is very distinct from the object believed in. The truth appears to be this : It is faith, or believing, that is counted for righteousness; not however as a righteous act, or on account of any inherent virtue contained in it, but in respect of Christ, on whose righteousness it terminates.* That we may form a clear idea, both of the text and the doctrine, let the following particulars be considered. 1. Though Abram believed God when he left Ur of the Chaldees, yet his faith in that instance is not mentioned tº connecton with his justification ; nor does the apostle, either in his Epistle to the Romans or in that to the Ga- latians, argue that doctrine from it, or hold it up as an example of justifying faith. I do not mean to suggest that Abram was then in an unjustified state ; but that the instance of his faith, which was thought proper by the Holy Spirit to be selected as the model for believing for justification was not this, nor any other of the kind ; but those only in which there was an immediate respect had to * Calvin's Institutes, Book III. Chap. XI. § 7. + President Edwards's Sermons on Justification, Disc. I. p. 9. #. From the above remarks, we may be able to solve an apparent difficulty in the case of Cornelius. He “ſeared God,” and “his alms and prayers came up for a memorial before God.” He must therefore have been at that time in a state of salvation. Yet after this he was directed to send for Peter, who should tell him words by which he and all his house SHOULD BE saved, Acts x. 2. 4; xi. 14. What the person of the Messiah. The examples of faith referred to in both these Epistles are taken from his believing the promises relative to his seed; in which seed, as the apostle observes, Christ was included, Rom. iv. 11; Gal. iii. 16. Though Christians may believe in God with respect to the common concerns of this life, and such faith may ascertain their being in a justified state ; yet this is mot, strictly speaking, the faith by which they are justified, which in- variably has respect to the person and work of Christ. Abram believed in God as promising Christ; they believe in him as having “raised him from the dead.” “By him, all that believe (that is, in him) are justified from all things, from which they could not be justified by the law of Moses.” It is through faith in his blood that they ob- tain remission of sins. He “is just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.” 2. This distinction, so clearly perceivable both in the Old and New Testament, sufficiently decides in what sense faith is considered as justifying. Whatever other properties the magnet may possess, it is as pointing invariably to the north that it guides the mariner; so, whatever other pro- perties faith may possess, it is as pointing to Christ, and bringing us into union with him, that it justifies, Rom. viii. 1; 1 Cor. i. 30; Phil. iii. 9. It is not that for the sake of which we are accepted of God ; for if it were, justification by faith could not be opposed to justification by works; nor would boasting be excluded; neither would there be any meaning in its being said to be by faith, that *t might be of grace : but, believing in Christ, we are con- sidered by the Lawgiver of the world as one with him, and so are forgiven and accepted for his sake. Hence it is that to be justified by faith is the same thing as to be jus- tified by the blood of Christ, or made righteous by his obe- dience, Rom. v. 9. 19. Faith is not the grace wherein we stand, but that by which we have access to it, Rom. v. 2. Thus it is that the healing of various maladies is ascribed in the New Testament to faith : not that the virtue which caused the cures proceeded from this as its proper cause ; but this was a necessary concomitant to give the parties access to the power and grace of the Saviour, by which only they were healed. 3. The phrase “counted it for righteousness” does not mean that God thought it to be what it was, which would have been merely an act of justice; but his graciously reckoning it what in itself it was not, viz. a ground for the bestowment of covenant blessings. Even in the case of Phinehas, of whom the same phrase is used in reference to his zeal for God, it has this meaning ; for one single act of zeal, whatever may be said of it, could not entitle him and his posterity after him to the honour conferred upon them, Psal. cwi. 30, 31, comp. Numb. xxv. 11—13. And, with respect to the present case, “The phrase, as the apostle uses it,” says a great writer, “manifestly im- ports that God, of his sovereign grace, is pleased, in his dealings with the sinner, to take and regard that which indeed is not righteousness, and in one who has no right- eousness, so that the consequence shall be the same as if he had righteousness, and which may be from the respect which it bears to something which is indeed righteous- ness.”f The faith of Abram, though of a holy mature, yet contained nothing in itself fit for a justifying right- eousness : all the adaptedness which it possessed to that end was the respect which it had to the Messiah, on whom it terminated. 4. Though faith is not our justifying righteousness, yet it is a necessary concomitant and means of justification ; and being the grace which above all others honours Christ, it is that which above all others God delights to honour. Hence it is that justification is ascribed to it, rather than to the righteousness of Christ without it. Our Saviour might have said to Bartimeus, Go thy way, I have made thee whole. This would have been truth, but not the whole of the truth which it was his design to convey. The Abram was in respect of justification, before he heard and believed what was promised him concerning the Messiah, Cornelius was in respect of salvation before he heard and believed the words by which he was to be saved. Both were the subjects of faith according to their light. Abram believed from the time that he left Ur of the Chaldees; and Cornelius could not have feared God without believing in him : but the object by which they were justified and saved was not from the first so clearly revealed to them as it was afterwards. PROMISES TO ABRAM. 375 necessity of faith in order to healing would not have ap- peared from this mode of speaking, nor had any honour been done or encouragement given to it; but by his say- ing, “Go thy way, thy faith hath made thee whole,” each of these ideas is conveyed. Christ would omit mention- ing his own honour, as knowing that faith, having an im- mediate respect to him amply provided for it. I) ISCOURSE XXIII. RENEWAL OF PROMISES TO ABRAM. Gen. xv. 7—21. WER. 7. The Lord, having promised Abram a numerous offspring, goes on to renew the promise of the land of Ca- maan for an inheritance ; and this by a reference to what had been said to him when he first left the land of the Chaldees. It is God's usual way, in giving a promise, to refer to former promises of the same thing, which would show him to be of one mind, and intimate that he had not forgotten him, but was carrying on his designs of mercy towards him. Ver. 8. Abram, however, ventures to ask for a sign by which he may know that by his posterity he shall inherit the land. This request does not appear to have arisen from unbelief; but having lately experienced the happy effects of a sign, he hopes thereby to be better armed against it. Ver, 9. The purport of the answer seems to be, Bring me an offering, which I will accept at thy hand, and this shall be the sign. It is in condescension to our weakness that, in addition to his promises, the Lord has given us sensible signs, as in the ordinances of baptism and the supper. If it were desirable to Abram to know that he should inherit the earthly Canaan, it must be much more so to us to know that we shall inherit the heavenly Ca- naan; and God is willing that the heirs of promise should on this subject have strong consolation, and therefore has confirmed his word with an oath. Ver. 10. Abram, obedient to the Divine command, takes of the first and best of his animals for a sacrifice. Their being divided in the midst was the usual form of sacrificing when a covenant was to be made. Each of the parties passed between the parts of the animals: q. d. Thus may I be cut asunder if I break this covenant! This was called making a covenant by sacrifice, Jer. xxxiv. 18, 19 ; Psal. l. 5. This process therefore, it appears, was accom- panied with a solemn covenant between the Lord and his servant Abram. Ver, 11. Having made ready the sacrifices, he waited perhaps for the fire of God to consume them, which was the usual token of acceptance; but meanwhile the birds of prey came down upon them, which he was obliged to drive away. Interruptions, we see, attend the father of the faithful in his most solemn approaches to God; and interruptions of a different kind attend believers in theirs. How often do intruding cares, like unclean birds, seize upon that time and those affections which are devoted to God! Happy is it for us, if by prayer and watchfulness We can, drive them away, so as to worship him without distraction. Wer. 12–16. By the account taken together, it appears as if this was a day which Abram dedicated wholly to God. His first vision was before day-light, while the stars were yet to be seen ; in the morning he prepares the sacrifices ; and while he is waiting the sun goes down, and no imme! diate answer is given him. At this time he falls into a deep sleep, and now we may expect that God will answer him, as he had done before, by vision. But what kind of vision is it? Not like that which he had before ; but “lo, a horror of great darkness falls upon him.” This might be designed in part to impress his mind with an awful reverence of God; for those who rejoice in him must re- joice with trembling : and partly to give him what he * These four hundred years are reckoned by Ainsworth to have $9mmenced from the time of Isaac's being weaned, when the son of agar the Egyptian mocked. So that as soon as Abram's seed, ac- asked for, a sign : not merely that he should inherit the land, but of the way in which this promise should be ac- complished, namely, by their first going down and endur- ing great affliction in Egypt. The light must be preceded by darkness. Such appears to be the interpretation given of it in the words which follow : “Know of a surety that thy seed shall be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them, and they shall afflict them four hundred years.”* Egypt is not named ; for prophecy requires to be delivered with some degree of obscurity, or it might tend to defeat its own design; but the thing is certain, and God will in the end avenge their cause. It is remark- able how the prophecies gradually open and expand, be- ginning with what is general, and proceeding to particu- lars. Abram had never had so much revealed to him before, as to times and circumstances. He is given to understand that these things shall not take place in his day; but that he should first “go to his fathers,” and that “in peace, and be buried in a good old age ;” but that “in the fourth generation ” after their going down they should return. It is enough to die such a death as this, though we see not all the promises fulfilled. The reason given for their being so long ere they were accomplished is, that “the iniquity of the Amorites was not yet full.” There is a fitness in all God’s proceedings, and a wonderful fulness of design, answering many ends by one and the same event. The possession of Canaan was to Israel a promised good, but to the Canaanites a threatened evil. It is de- ferred towards both till each be prepared for it. As there is a time when God’s promises to his people are ripe for accomplishment, so there is a time when his forbearance towards the wicked shall cease; and they often prove to be the same. The fall of Babylon was the deliverance of Judah ; and the fall of another Babylon will be the signal for the kingdoms of this world becoming the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ. Ver. 17. After this, when the sun was set, and it was dark, Abram, perhaps still in vision, has the sign repeated in another form. He sees “a smoking furnace,” and “a burning lamp.” The design of these, as well as the other, seems to be to show him what should take place hereafter. The former was an emblem of the affliction which his posterity should endure in Egypt, that “iron furnace ’’ (Deut. iv. 20); and the latter might denote the light that should arise to them in their darkness. If, like the pillar of fire in the wilderness, it was an emblem of the Divine Majesty, its passing through the parts of the Divine sacrifices would denote God’s entering into cove- nant with his servant Abram, and that all the mercy which should come upon his posterity would be in virtue of it. Wer. 18. That which had been hinted under a figure is now declared in express language. “The same day Je- hovah made a covenant with Abram ;” making over to his posterity, as by a solemn deed of gift, the whole land in which he then was, defining with great accuracy its exact boundaries; and this notwithstanding the afflictions which they should undergo in Egypt. Thus the burning lamp would succeed and dispel the darkness of the smoking furnace. DISCOURSE XXIV. SARA1’s CROOKED POLICY FOR THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE PROMISE, Gen. xvi. VER. 1–3. We have had several renewals of promises to Abram ; but as yet no performance of them. Ten years had elapsed in Canaan, and things remained as they were. Now though Abram's faith had been strengthened, yet that of Sarai fails. At her time of life, she thinks, there is no hope of seed in the ordinary way; if therefore the promise be fulfilled, it must be in the person of am- cording to the promise, was born, he began to be afflicted, and that by one of Egyptian extraction, 376 EXPOSITION OF GENESIS. other. And having a handmaid whose name was Hagar, she thinks of giving her to Abram to wife. Unbelief is very prolific of schemes ; and surely this of Sarai is as carnal, as foolish, and as fruitful of domestic misery as almost any that could have been devised. Yet such was the influence of evil counsel, especially from such a quar- ter, that “Abram hearkened to her voice.” The father of mankind sinned by hearkening to his wife, and now the father of the faithful follows his example. How ne- cessary for those who stand in the nearest relations to take heed of being snares, instead of helps, one to another It was a double sin : first, of distrust ; and, secondly, of deviation from the original law of marriage; and seems to have opened a door to polygamy. We never read of two wives before, except those of Lamech, who was of the descendants of Cain ; but here the practice is coming into the church of God. Two out of three of the patri- archs go into it; yet neither of them of his own accord. There is no calculating in how many instances this ill ex- ample has been followed, or how great a matter this little fire kindled. The plea used by Sarai in this affair shows how easy it is to err by a misconstruction of providence, and following that as a rule of conduct, instead of God’s revealed will. “The Lord,” says she, “hath restrained me from bearing ;” and therefore I must contrive other means for the fulfilment of the promise ! But why not in- quire of the Lord? As in the crowning of Adonijah, the proper authority was not consulted. Ver. 4, 5. The consequence was what might have been expected : the young woman is elated with the honour done her, and her mistress is despised in her eyes. And now, when it is too late, Sarai repents, and complains to her husband; breaking out into intemperate language, accusing him as the cause, as though he must needs have secretly encouraged her : “My wrong be upon thee!” Nor did she stop here ; but, taking it for granted that her husband would not hear her, goes on to appeal to God himself; “The Lord judge between me and thee l’” Those who are first in doing wrong are often first in complain- ing of the effects, and in throwing the blame upon others. Loud and passionate appeals to God, instead of indicating a good cause, are commonly the marks of a bad one. Ver. 6. Abram on this vexing occasion is meek and gentle. He had learned that a soft answer turneth away wrath ; and therefore he refrained from upbraiding his wife, as he might easily have done ; preferring domestic peace to the vindication of himself, and the placing of the blame where it ought to have lain. It is doubtful, how- ever, whether he did not yield too much in this case ; for though, according to the custom of those times, Hagar was his wife only with respect to cohabitation, and with- out dividing the power with Sarai, yet she was entitled to protection, and should not have been given up to the will of one who on this occasion manifested nothing but jea- lousy, passion, and caprice. But he seems to have been brought into a situation wherein he was at a loss what to do ; and thus, as Sarai is punished for tempting him, he also is punished with a disordered house for having yield- ed to the temptation. And now Sarai, incited by revenge, deals hardly with Hagar; much more so, it is likely, than she ought ; for though the young woman might have acted vainly and sinfully, yet her mistress is far from being a proper judge of the punishment which she de- served. The consequence is, as might be expected, she leaves the family, and goes into a wilderness. Indeed it were “better to dwell in a wilderness than with a con- tentious and angry woman.” But as Sarai and Abram had each reaped the fruits of their sin, Hagar, in her turn, reaps the fruit of hers. If creatures act disorderly, God will act orderly and justly in dealing with them. - Ver. 7, 8, Hagar, however, though an Egyptian, shall reap advantage from her connexion with Abram’s family. Other heathens might have brought themselves into trou- ble, and been left to grapple with it alone ; but to her an angel from heaven is sent to afford direction and relief. Bending her course towards Egypt, her native country, and finding a spring of water in the wilderness, she sat down by it to refresh herself. While in this situation she hears a voice, saying, “Hagar, Sarai’s maid, whence comest thou ; and whither wilt thou go 4” She would perceive, by this language, that she was known, and con- clude that it was no common voice that spoke to her. He that spoke to her is called “the angel of the Lord ; ” yet he afterwards says, I will multiply thy seed exceeding- ly. It seems therefore not to have been a created angel, but the same Divine personage who frequently appeared to the fathers. In calling Hagar Sarai’s maid, he seems tacitly to disallow of the marriage, and to lead her mind back to that humble character which she had formerly sustained. The questions put to her were close, but ten- der, and such as were fitly addressed to a person fleeing from trouble. The former might be answered, and was answered : “I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai.” But with respect to the latter she is silent. We know our present grievances, and so can tell whence we came, much better than our future lot, or whither we are going. In many cases, if the truth were spoken, the answer would be from bad to worse. At present, this poor young woman seems to have been actuated by merely natural principles. In all her trouble there appears nothing like true religion, or committing her way to the Lord ; yet she is sought out of him whom she sought not. Ver. 9, 10. The counsel of God here was to return and submit. Wherefore ? She had done wrong in despising her mistress, and must now be humbled for it. Hard as this might appear, it was the counsel of wisdom and mer- cy : a connexion with the people of God, with all their faults, is far preferable to the best of this world, where God is unknown. If we have done wrong, whatever temptations or provocations we may have met with, the only way to peace and happiness is to retrace our foot- steps in repentance and submission. For her encourage- ment, she is given to expect a portion of Abram’s blessing, of which she must have often heard ; namely, a numerous offspring. And by the manner in which this was promised, —“I will multiply thy seed,”—she would perceive that the voice which spake to her was no other than that of Abram’s God. Wer. 11. With respect to the child of which she was then pregnant, it is foretold that it should be a son, and that his name should be called Ishmael, or, God shall hear, from the circumstance of God having “heard her affliction.” God is not said to have heard her prayer; for it does not appear that she had as yet ever called upon his name ; she merely sat bewailing herself, as not knowing what would become of her. Yet, lo, the ear of mercy is open to affliction itself! The groans of the prisoner are heard of God : not only theirs who cry unto him, but, in many cases, theirs who do not. Wer. 12. The child is also characterized as a wild man, a bold and daring character, living by his bow in the wil- derness, and much engaged in war; his hand being, as it were, “against every man, and every man’s hand against him :” yet that he should maintain his ground notwith- standing, “ dwelling in the presence of all his brethren,” and dying at last in peace. See chap. xxv. 17, 18. Nor was this prophecy merely intended to describe Ishmael, but his posterity. Bishop Newton, in his Dissertations on the Prophecies, has shown that such has been the character of the Arabians, who descended from him, in all ages; a wild and warlike people, who, under all the conquests of other nations by the great powers of the earth, remained unsubdued. Ver. 13, 14. The effect of this Divine appearance on Hagar was to bring her to the knowledge and love of God; at least the account wears such an aspect. She who, for any thing that appears, had never prayed before, now addresses herself to the angel who spoke to her, and whom she considers as Jehovah, calling him by an en- dearing name, the meaning of which is, Thou God seest me. She did not mean by this to acknowledge his omni- science, so much as his mercy, in having beheld and pitied her affliction. On his withdrawing, she seems to have looked after him, with faith, and hope, and affectionate desire; and, reflecting upon what had passed, is overcome with the goodness of God towards her, exclaiming, “Have I also here looked after him that seeth me?” It was great mercy for God to have looked on her, and heard her afflictive moans; but it was greater to draw her heart to look after him ; and greater still that he should do it here, COVENANT WITH ABRAM. 377 in the wilderness, when she had lived so many years where prayer was wont to be made in vain. Under the influence of these impressions, she calls the well by which she sat down Beer-lahai-roi, a name which would serve as a memorial of the mercy. Let this well, as if she had said, be called Jehovah's well, the well of him that liveth and seeth me ! Thus God, in mercy, sets that right which, through human folly, had been thrown into disorder. Hagar returns and submits; bears Abram a son when he is fourscore and six years old ; and Abram, on being in- formed of the prophecy which went before, called his name Ishmael. DISCOURSE XXV. GOD’s COVENANT WITH AB RAM AND HIS SEED. Gen. xvii. THIRTEEN years elapse, of which nothing is recorded. Hagar is submissive to Sarai, and Ishmael is growing up; but as to Abram, things after all wear a doubtful aspect. It is true, God hath given him a son ; but no intimations of his being the son of promise. No Divine congratula- tions attend his birth; but, on the contrary, Jehovah, who had been used to manifest himself with frequency and free- dom, now seems to carry it reservedly to his servant. It is something like the thing which he had believed in ; but not the thing itself. He has seen, as it were, a wind, a fire, and an earthquake; but the Lord is not in them. Ver. 1. After this, when he was ninety-nine years old, the Lord again appeared to him, and reminded him of a truth which he needed to have reimpressed ; namely, his almighty power. It was for want of considering this that he had had recourse to crooked devices in order to ac- complish the promise. This truth is followed by an ad- monition—“Walk before me, and be thou perfect;” which admonition implies a serious reproof. It was like saying, “Have recourse no more to unbelieving expedients; keep thou the path of uprightness, and leave me to fulfil my promise in the time and manner that seem good to me!” What a lesson is here afforded us, never to use unlawful means under the pretence of being more useful, or pro- moting the cause of God! Our concern is to walk before him, and be upright, leaving him to bring to pass his own designs in his own way. Ver. 2, 3. Abram having been admonished, the pro- mise is renewed to him ; and, the time drawing near in which the seed should be born, the Lord declares his mind to make a solemn covenant with him, and to mul- tiply him exceedingly. Such language denotes great kindness and condescension, with large designs of mercy. Abram was so much affected with it as to fall on his face, and in that posture “the Lord talked with him.” Ver. 4–6. It is observable that the last time in which mention is made of a covenant with Abram (chap. xv. 18) God made over to his posterity the land of Canaan for a possession ; but the design of this is more extensive, dwelling more particularly on their being multiplied and blessed. The very idea of a covenant is expressive of peace and good will; and, in this and some other instances, it is not confined to the party, but extends to others for his sake. Thus, as we have seen, God made a covenant of peace, which included the preservation of the world; * As an Antipaedobaptist, I see no necessity for denying that spi- ritual blessings were promised, in this general way, to the natural seed of Abraham; nor can it I think be fairly denied. The Lord en- gaged to do that which he actually did ; namely, to take out of them, rather than other nations, a people for himself. This, I suppose, is the seed promised to Abraham, to which the apostle refers when he says, “They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted for the Seed,” Rom. ix. 8. By “the children of the promise ’’ he did not mean the elect in general, composed of Jews and Gentiles, but the elect from among the Jews. , Hence he reckons himself “an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, and the tribe of Benjamin,” as a living proof º “goa had not cast away his people whom he foreknew,” Rom. Xl. 1, 2. But I perceive not how it follows hence that God has promised to take a people from among the natural descendants of believers, in dis- but it was with one man, even Noah, and the world was preserved for his sake. And the covenant in question is one that shall involve great blessings to the world in all future ages; yet it is not made with the world, but with Abram. God will give them blessings, but it shall be through him. Surely these things were designed to familiarize the great principle on which our salvation should rest. It was the purpose of God to save perishing sinners; yet his cove- nant is not originally with them, but with Christ. With him it stands fast; and for his sake they are accepted and blessed. Even the blessedness of Abram himself, and all the rewards conferred on him, were for his sake. He was justified, as we have seen, not by his own righteousness, but by faith in the promised Messiah. Moreover, a covenant being a solemn agreement, and indicating a design to walk together in amity, it was pro- per there should be an understanding, as we should say, between the parties. When Israel came to have a king, “Samuel told them the manner of the kingdom, and wrote it in a book, and laid it up before the Lord.” Thus, as Abram is about to commence the father of a family, who were to be God’s chosen people, it was fit at the outset that he should not only be encouraged by promises, but directed how he and his descendants should conduct them- selves. The first promise in this covenant is, that he shall be “the father of many nations;” and, as a token of it, his name in future is to be called ABRAHAM. He had the name of a high, or eminent, father, from the beginning; but now it shall be more comprehensive, indicating a very large progeny. By the exposition given of this promise in the New Testament (Rom. iv. 16, 17) we are directed to understand it, hot only of those who sprang from Abram’s body, though these were many nations; but also of all that should be of the FAITH of Abraham. It went to make him the father of the church of God in all future ages; or, as the apostle calls him, “the heir of the world.” In this view he is the father of many, even of a multitude of nations. For all that the Christian world enjoys, or ever will enjoy, it is indebted to Abraham and his seed. A high honour this, to be the father of the faithful, the stock from which the Messiah should spring, and on which the church of God should grow. It was this honour that Esau despised, when he sold his birth-right; and here lay the profaneness of that act, which involved a contempt of the most sacred of all objects—the Messiah, and his ever- lasting kingdom Ver. 7–14. The covenant with Abraham, as has been observed already, was not confined to his own person, but extended to his posterity after him in their generations. To ascertain the meaning of this promise, we can proceed on no ground more certain than fact. It is fact that God in succeeding ages took the seed of Abraham to be a pe- culiar people unto himself, above all other nations; not only giving them “the land of Canaan for a possession,” but himself to be their God, King, or temporal Governor. Nor was this all : it was among them that he set up his spiritual kingdom; giving them his lively oracles, sending to them his prophets, and establishing among them his holy worship; which great advantages were, for many ages, in a manner confined to them ; and, what was still more, the great body of those who were eternally saved, pre- viously to the coming of Christ, were saved from among them. These things, taken together, were an immensely greater favour than if they had all been literally made kings and priests. Such them being the facts, it is natural to suppose that such was the meaning of the promise.* What was promised to Abraham was neither promised nor fulfilled to every good man. Of the posterity of his isinsman, Lot, nothing good is recorded. 1t is true the labours of those parents who bring up their children “in the nurture and ad- monition of the Lord” are ordinarily blessed to the conversion of some of them ; and the same may be said of the labours of faithful ministers, wherever Providence stations, them.–But, as it does not follow in the one case that the graceless inhabitants are more in cove- nant with God than those of other places, neither does it follow in the other that the graceless offspring of believers are more in covenant with God than those of unbelievers. “New Testament saints have nothing more to do with the Abrahamic covenant than the Old Tes- tament believers who lived prior to Abraham.” I am aware that the words of the apostle, in Gal. iii. 14, “The bless- ing of Abraham is come on the Gentiles, through Jesus Christ,” are alleged in proof of the contrary. But the meaning of that passage, tinction from others. 2 B 378 EXPOSITION OF GENESIS. As a sign or token of this solemn covenant with Abra- ham and his posterity, “every man child among them ’’ was required to be “circumcised in the flesh of his fore- skin ;” and not only their own children, but those of their “servants born in their house, or bought with their money.” This ordinance was the mark by which they were distinguished as a people in covenant with Jehovah, and which bound them by a special obligation to obey him. Like almost all other positive institutions, it was also prefigurative of mental purity, or “putting off the body of the sins of the flesh.” A neglect of it subjected the party to a being cut off from his people, as having broken God’s covenant. º Ver. 15, 16. As Abram's name had been changed to Abraham, a similar honour is conferred on Sarai, who in future is to be called Sarah. The difference of these names is much the same as those of her husband, and corresponds with what had been promised them both on this occasion. The former meant, My princess, and was expressive of high honour in her own family; but the lat- ter, A princess, and denoted more eartensive honour, as it is here expressed, “A mother of nations.” This honour conferred on Sarai would correct an important error into which both she and her husband had fallen ; imagining that all hope was at an end of a child being born of her, and therefore that if the promise were fulfilled, it must be in Ishmael. But not only must Abram become Abra- ham, “the father of many nations;” but Sarai Sarah, “the mother of nations;” and this not by her hand- maid, as she had vainly imagined ; but God would give him a son also “ of her,” and kings of people should be ‘‘ of her.” Ver. 17, 18. The effect of this unexpected promise on Abraham was that he “fell on his face and laughed.” The term does not here indicate lightness, as we common- ly use it; but joy, mingled with wonder and astonish- ment. “Shall a child be born,” saith he, “unto him that is a hundred years old 3 and Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?” In another case, (chap. xviii. 12, 13,) laughter implied a mixture of doubting; but not in this. Abraham believed God, and was overcome with joyful surprise. But a doubt immediately occurs which strikes a damp upon his pleasure : The promise of another son destroys all my expectations with respect to him who is already given | Perhaps he must die to make room for the other, or if not, he may be another Cain, who went out from the presence of the Lord. To what draw- backs are our best enjoyments subject in this world; and, in many cases, owing to our going before the Lord in our hopes and schemes of happiness! When his plan comes to be put in execution, it interferes with ours, and there can be no doubt, in such a case, which must give place. If Abraham had waited God’s time for the fulfil- ment of the promise, it would not have been accompanied with such an alloy ; but having failed in this, after all his longing desires after it, it becomes in a manner un- welcome to him : What can he do or say in so delicate a situation ? Grace would say, Accept the Divine promise with thankfulness. But nature struggles: the bowels of the father are troubled for Ishmael. In this state of mind be presumes to offer up a petition to Heaven : “Oh that Ishmael might live before thee!” Judging of the import of this petition by the answer, it would seem to mean, either that God would condescend to withdraw his pro- mise of another son, and let Ishmael be the person, or if that could not be, that his life might be spared, and him- self and his posterity be among the people of God, sharing the blessing, or being heir with him who should be born I conceive, is not that through Jesus Christ every believer becomes an Abraham, a Jather of the faithful; but that he is reckoned among his children: not a stock, on which the future church should grow ; but a branch, partaking of the root and fatness of the olive tree. So, at least, the context appears to explain it: “They which are of faith are the children of faithful Abraham,” ver. 7. But if it were granted that the blessing of Abraham is so come on the believing Gentiles as not only to render them blessed as his spi- ritual children, but to insure a people for God from among their na- tural posterity rather than from those of others, yet it is not as their natural, posterity that they are individually entitled to any one spi- ritual blessing; for this is more than was true of the natural seed of Abraham. Nor do I see how it follows hence that we are warranted to baptize them in their infancy. Abraham, it is true, was command- of Sarah. To live, and to live before God, according to the usual acceptation of the phrase, could not, I think, mean less than one or the other of these things. It was very lawful for him to desire the temporal and spiritual welfare of his son, and of his posterity after him, in sub- mission to the will of God; but in a case wherein na- tural affection appeared to clash with God’s revealed de- signs, he must have felt himself in a painful situation ; and the recollection that the whole was owing to his own and Sarah's unbelief would add to his regret. Wer. 19–27. As Abraham’s petition seemed to contain an implied wish that it would please God to withdraw his promise of another son, the answer to it contains an im- plied but peremptory denial, with a tacit reflection on him for having taken Hagar to be his wife : “And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed.” As if he should say, She is thy wife, and ought to have been thine only wife, and verily it shall be in a son born of her that the promise shall be fulfilled.—It is also intimated to him that this should be no grief to him ; but that he should call his name Isaac, that is, laughter or gladness, on account of the joy his birth should occasion. And as Abraham's petition seemed to plead that Ishmael and his posterity might at least be heir with Isaac, so as to be ranked among God’s covenant people, this also by impli- cation is denied him. “I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.” Ishmael, while he is in Abraham’s family, shall be considered as a branch of it, and as such be cir- cumcised; but the covenant of peculiarity should not be established with him and his descendants, but with Isaac exclusively. As many, however, who were included in this covenant had no share of eternal life, so many who were excluded from it might, notwithstanding, escape eternal death. The door of mercy was always open to every one that believed. In every nation, and in every age, he that feared God and wrought righteousness was accepted of him. But shall no part of this petition be granted ? Yes. “As for Ishmael, I have heard thee; Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation . . . . but my covenant will I establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear unto thee.” And having said thus much, the very time of his birth is now particularly named ; it shall be “at this set time in the next year.” Here ended the communications of this kind between the Lord and his servant Abraham ; and it appears that from this time he was satisfied. We hear nothing more like an objection to the Divine will, nor any wish to have things otherwise than they were. On the contrary, we find him immediately engaged in an implicit obedience to the command of circumcision. His conduct on this occasion furnishes a bright example to all succeed- ing ages of the manner in which Divine ordinances should be complied with. There are three things in particular in the obedience of Abraham worthy of notice. 1. It was prompt. “In the self-same day that God had spoken unto him " the command was put in execution. This was “making haste, and delaying not to keep his command- ments.” To treat the Divine precepts as matters of small importance, or to put off what is manifestly our duty to another time, is to trifle with supreme authority. So did not Abraham. 2. It was punctilious. The correspondence between the command of God and the obedience of his servant is minutely exact. The words of the former are, “ Thow shalt keep my covenant, and thy seed after thee . . . . and he that is born in thy house, or bought with ed to circumcise his male children; and if we had been commanded to baptize our males, or females, or both, or any example of the kind had been left in the New Testament, we should be as much obliged to comply in the one case as he was in the other. But we do not think ourselves warranted to reason from circumcision to baptism ; from the circumcision of males to the baptism of males and females; and from the circumcision of the children of a nation, (the greater part of whom were unbelievers,) and of “servants born in the house, or bought with money,” to the baptism of the children of believers. In short, we do not think ourselves warranted, in matters of positive institution, to found our practice on analogies, whether real or sup- posed; and still less on one so circuitous, dissonant, and uncertain as that in question. Our duty, we conceive, is, in such cases, to follow the precepts and examples of the dispensation under which we live. & - ABRAHAM ENTERTAINS ANGELS. 379 money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.”. With this agrees the account of the latter: “In the self-same day was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael his son ; and all the men of his house, born in the house and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him.” A rigid regard to the revealed will of God enters deeply into true religion ; that spirit which dispenses with it, though it may pass under the specious name of liberality, is antichristian. 3. It was yielded in old age, when many would have pleaded off from engaging in any thing new, or different from what they had before received ; and when, as some think, it would be a further trial to his faith as to the fulfilment of the promise. “Ninety and nine years old was Abraham when he was circumcised.” It is one of the temptations of old age to be tenacious of what we have believed and practised from our youth ; to shut our eyes and ears against every thing that may prove it to have been erroneous or defective, and to find excuses for being exempted from hard and dangerous duties. But Abraham to the last was ready to receive further instruc- tion, and to do as he was commanded, leaving conse- quences with God. This shows that the admonition to “walk before him, and be perfect,” had not been given him in vain. DISCOURSE XXVI. ABRAHAM ENTERTAINING ANGELS, AND INTERCED ING FOR SODOM. Gen. xviii. VER. 1–3. The time drawing nigh that the promise should be fulfilled, God’s appearances to Abraham are frequently repeated. That which is here recorded seems to have followed the last at a very little distance. Sitting one day in a kind of porch, at his tent door, which screen- ed him from the heat of the sum, “he lift up his eyes, and lo, three men” stood at a little distance from him. To him they appeared to be three strangers on a journey, and as such he treated them. His conduct on this occasion is held up in the Epistle to the Hebrews as an example of hospitality; and an admirable example it affords. His generosity on this occasion is not more conspicuous than the amiable manner in which it was expressed. The in- stant he saw them he rises up, as by a kind of instinctive courtesy, to bid them welcome to his tent, and that in the most respectful manner. Though an old man, and they perfect strangers to him, he no sooner saw them than he “ ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground;” and observing one of them, as it should seem, presenting himself to him before the other, he said to him, “My lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant.” Ver. 4, 5. And whereas they were supposed to be weary, and overcome with the heat, he persuades them to wash their feet, and sit down under the shade of the spreading oak near his tent, and take a little refreshment, though it were but a morsel of bread, to comfort their hearts; after which they might go forward on their journey. Something may be said of the customs of those times and countries, and of there being then but few, if any, inns for the ac' commodation of strangers ; but it certainly affords a charming specimen of patriarchal urbanity, and an ex- ample of the manner in which kindness and hospitality should be shown. To impart relief in an ungracious and churlish manner destroys the value of it. We see also in this conduct the genuine fruits of true religion. That Which in worldly men is mere complaisance, dictated often by ambition, in Abraham was kindness, goodness, sympa- thy, and humbleness of mind. It is to the honour of re- ligion that it produces those amiable dispositions which the worst of men are constrained, for their own reputation, to imitate. If such dispositions and such behaviour were universal, the world would be a paradise. Ver, 6–8. The supposed strangers having consented to accept the invitation, the good old man, as full of pleasure as if he had found a prize, resolves to entertain them with something better than “a morsel of bread,” though he had modestly used that language. Hastening to Sarah, he desires her to get three measures of fine meal, and bake cakes upon the hearth; while he, old as he was, runs to the herd, and fetches a calf, tender and good, and gives it to one of his young men, with orders to kill and dress it immediately. And now, the table being spread beneath the cooling shade of the oak, the veal, with butter and milk to render it more palatable, is placed upon it, and Abraham himself waits on his guests. Such was the style of patriarchal simplicity and hospitality. As yet Abraham does not appear to have suspected what kind of guests he was entertaining. He might probably be struck from the first with their mien and appearance, which seem to have excited his highest respect; yet he considered them merely as strangers, and as such entertained them. It was thus that he “entertained angels unawares.” Ver. 9, 10. But while they sat at dinner under the tree, inquiry was made after Sarah his wife. Abraham an- swered, “Behold, she is in the tent.” This inquiry must excite some surprise; for how should these strangers know the name of Abraham's wife, and her new name too ; and why should they inquire after her ? But if the inquiry must strike Abraham with surprise, what followed must have a still greater effect. He who was the first in the train on their arrival, and whom he had addressed in terms of the highest respect, now adds, “I will certainly return unto thee, according to the time of life, and lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son.” This language must remind him of the promise which he had so lately received, and con- vince him that the speaker was no other than Jehovah, under the appearance of a man. In the progress of the Old Testament history we often read of similar appear- ances; particularly to Jacob at Peniel, to Moses at the bush, and to Joshua by Jericho. The Divine personage who in this manner appeared to men must surely have been no other than the Son of God, who thus occasionally assumed the form of that nature which it was his inten- tion, in the fulness of time, actually to take upon him. It was thus that, “being in the form of God, he thought it not robbery to be equal with God ;” that is, he spake and acted all along as God, and did not consider himself in so doing as arrogating any thing which did not properly belong to him. Ver. 11—15. Sarah having overheard what was said concerning her, and knowing that according to the ordi- nary course of things she was too old to have a son, laughed within herself at the saying. She supposed, however, that as it was to herself the whole was unknown ; but it was not. The same word is used as was before used of Abra- ham, but it was not the same thing. His laughter was that of joy and surprise ; hers had in it a mixture of unbelief, which called forth the reproof of Jehovah. “Je- hovah,” the same personage who is elsewhere called an angel and a man, “ said unto Abraham,” in the hearing of his wife, “Wherefore did Sarah laugh " And to de- tect the sinfulness of this laughter, he points out the prin- ciple of it—it was saying, “Shall I of a surety bear a child, who am old 3” which principle he silences by asking, “Is any thing too hard for Jehovah'ſ '' And then he solemnly repeats the promise, as that which ought to suffice : “At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son.” This language, while it proved that he who uttered it was a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the leart, covered Sarah's face with confusion. In her fright, she denies having laughed ; but the denial was in vain. He who knew all things replied, “Nay, but thou didst laugh.” We may imagine that what merely passes in our own minds has in a manner no existence, and may almost per- suade ourselves to think we are innocent; but in the pre- sence of God all such subterfuges are no better than the fig-leaves of our first parents. When he judgeth, he will OVerCOme. Ver, 16–19. The men, as they are called, according to their appearance, now take leave of the tent, and go on their way towards Sodom. Abraham, loth to part with them, went in company, as if to bring them on their way. While they were walking together, Jehovah, in the form of 380 EXPOSITION OF GENESIS. * a man, said unto the other two, (who appear to have been created angels,) “Shall I hide from Abraham the thing which I do?” Two reasons are assigned for the contrary. First, The importance of his character. He was not only the friend of God, but the father of “a great nation,” in which God would have a special interest, and through which all other nations should be blessed. Let him be in the secret. Secondly, The good use he would make of it. Being previously disclosed to him, he would be the more deeply impressed by it; and, according to his tried and approved conduct as the head of a family, would be con- cerned to impart it as a warning to his posterity in all future ages. As the wicked extract ill from good, so the righteous will extract good from ill. Sodom’s destruction shall turn to Abraham's salvation ; the monument of just vengeance against their crimes shall be of perpetual use to him and his posterity, and contribute even to the bringing of that good upon them which the Lord had spoken concern- £ng them. The special approbation with which God here speaks of family religion stamps a Divine authority upon it, and an infamy upon that religion, or rather irreligion, which dispenses with it. Ver. 20, 21. JEHow AH, having resolved to communicate his design to Abraham, proceeds to inform him as follows: “Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and, because their sin is very grievous, I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.” This language, though spoken after the manner of men, contains much serious and important instruction. It teaches us that the most abandoned people are still the subjects of Divine government, and must sooner or later give an account; that impiety, sensuality, and injustice are followed with a cry for retribution; that this cry is often disregarded by earthly tribunals; that where it is so, the prayers of the faithful, the groans of the oppressed, and the blood of the slain, constitute a cry which ascendeth to heaven, and entereth into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth ; and finally, that in executing judgment, though God will regard these cries, especially where they wax greater and greater, as this is afterward said to have done ; yet, as they may be partial and erroneous, he will not proceed by them as a rule, but will avail himself of his own omniscience, that the worst of characters may have no cause to com- plain of injustice. Ver. 22–33. It is natural to suppose that the mind of Abraham must be forcibly impressed with this intimation. He would feel for his poor ungodly neighbours; but espe- cially for Lot, and other righteous men whom he might hope would be found among them. At this juncture the ºnen, that is, two out of the three, (chap. xix. 1,) went to- wards Sodom ; but the third, who is called Jehovah, con- tinued to converse with Abraham. The patriarch standing before him, and being now aware that he was in the pre- sence of the Most High, addressed him in the language of prayer, or intercession. A remarkable intercession it is. We remark, 1. Abraham makes a good use of his previous knowledge. Being made acquainted with the evil coming upon them, he stands in the gap, and labours all he can to avert it. They knew nothing ; and if they had, no cries, except the shrieks of desperation, would have been heard from them. It is good to have such a neighbour as Abra- ham ; and still better to have an Intercessor before the throne who is always heard. The conduct of the patriarch furnishes an example to all who have an interest at the throne of grace, to make use of it on behalf of their poor ungodly countrymen and neighbours. 2. He does not plead that the wicked may be spared for their own sake, or be- cause it would be too severe a proceeding to destroy them ; but for the sake of the righteous who might be found among them. Had either of the other pleas been advanced, it had been siding with sinners against God, which Abraham would never do. Wickedness shuts the mouth of inter- cession ; or if any should presume to speak, it would be of no account. Though Noah, Daniel, and Job should plead for the ungodly, they would not be heard. Right- eousness only will bear to be made a plea before God. But how then, it may be asked, did Christ make interces- sion for transgressors f Not by arraigning the Divine law, nor by alleging aught in extenuation of human guilt ; but by pleading his own obedience unto death. 3. He chari- tably hopes the best with respect to the number of right- eous characters even in Sodom. At the outset of his in- tercession, he certainly considered it as a possible case, at least, that there might be found in that wicked place fifty righteous; and though in this instance he was sadly mis- taken, yet we may hope hence that in those times there were many more righteous people in the world than those which are recorded in Scripture. The Scriptures do not profess to be a book of life, containing the names of all the faithful ; but intimate, on the contrary, that God reserves to himself a people, who are but little known even by his own servants. 4. God was willing to spare the worst of cities for the sake of a few righteous characters. This truth is as humiliating to the haughty enemies of religion as it is encouraging to its friends ; and furnishes an im- portant lesson to civil governments, to beware of under- valuing, and still more of persecuting and banishing, men whose concern it is to live soberly, righteously, and godly in the world.* Except the Lord of hosts had left us a remnant of such characters, we might ere now have been as Sodom, and made like unto Gomorrah! If ten right- eous men had been found in Sodom, it had been spared for their sakes ; but, alas, there is no such number God called Abraham to Haran, and when he left that place, mention is made, not only of “the substance which he had gathered,” but of “the souls which he had gotten.” But Lot, who went to Sodom of his own accord, though he also gathered substance, yet seems not, by his residence in the place, to have won a single soul to the worship of the true God. T) ISCOURSE XXVII. THE DESTRUCTION OF SODOM AND GOMORRAHI. Gen. xix. VER. 1, 2. The two angels who left Abraham commun- ing with Jehovah went on their way till they came to Sodom. Arriving at the city in the evening, the first per- son whom they saw appears to have been Lot, who was sitting alone, it should seem, at the gate of the city. They had found Abraham also sitting alone, but it was at his own tent door. Lot, whose house was in the city, had probably no place where he could be out of the hear-. ing of those whose conversation vexed his righteous soul: he therefore took a walk in the evening, and sat down without the city gate, where he might spend an hour in retirement. Seeing two strangers coming up to him, he behaved in much the same courteous and hospitable man- ner as Abraham had done. Bowing himself with his face toward the ground, he said, “Behold now, my lords; turm in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways.” This was lovely; and the contrast between this and the conduct of his neighbours shows, what was suggested in the former chapter, the genuine fruits of true religion. What is said to be the customary hospitality of the age and country was far from being practised by the other inhabitants of Sodom. But though ilot had given them so kind an invitation, they seem de- termined not to accept of it—“Nay,” say they, “but we will abide in the street all might.” This might be either for the purpose of being eye-witnesses of the conduct of the citizens, or to express their abhorrence of the general character of the city; as when the prophet of Judah was sent to Beth-el, he was forbidden either “to eat bread or drink water in that place,” 1 Kings xiii. 8–17. Ver, 3. After being greatly pressed, however, by Lot, they yielded to his importunity, and entered into his house; where he made them a feast, as Abraham had dome, and they did eat. Ver. 4, 5. But while things were going on well with respect to Lot, the baseness of his neighbours soon be- * Chap. vi. 11. DESTRUCTION OF SODOM. 381 trayed itself. A little before bed-time they beset the house; not for the purpose of robbing, or insulting them in any of the ordinary ways of brutal outrage—this had been bad enough, especially to strangers—but to perpetrate a species of crime too shocking and detestable to be named ; a species of crime which indeed has no name given it in the Scriptures but what is borrowed from this infamous place. Ver. 6–9. The conduct of Lot, in going out and ex- postulating with them, was in several respects praise- worthy. His shutting the door after him expressed how delicately he felt for his guests, though at present he does not appear to have considered them in any other light than that of strangers. It was saying, in effect, Let not their ears be offended with what passes abroad ; whatever is scurrilous, obscene, or abusive, let me hear it, but not them.—His gentle and respectful manner of treating this worst of mobs is also worthy of notice. He could not respect them on the score of character; but he would try and do so, as being still his fellow creatures and near neighbours. As such he calls them brethren, no doubt hoping, by such conciliating language, to dissuade them from their wicked purpose. But when, to turn off their attention from his guests, he proposes the bringing out of his daughters to them, he appears to have gone too far. It is not for us to go into a less evil, in the hope of pre- venting a greater; but rather to consent to no evil. It might be owing to the perturbation of his mind ; but probably, if he had not lived in Sodom till his mind was almost familiarized to obscenity, he would not have made such a proposal. Nor had it any good effect. He only got himself more abused for it; and even his gentle remonstrance was perversely construed into obtrusive for- wardness, and setting himself up for a judge, who was merely a sojourner among them. Persuasion has no force with men who are under the dominion of their lusts. So now their resentment burns against him, and they will be revenged on him. They will not be contented now with having the men brought out, but will go in unto them, and break the door open, to effect their purpose. Ver. 10, 11. Such an attempt, and such a perseverance in it, must have been proof sufficient to the heavenly mes- sengers that the cry of Sodom had not exceeded the truth. Putting forth their hands, therefore, they pulled Lot into the house to them, shut to the door, and smote the people without with blindness. The power and indignation dis- played in these acts would convince him that they were no common strangers; and, one would have thought, might have struck them with awe, and caused them to desist from their horrid purpose : but they are infatuated. Though supernaturally smitten with blindness, they must still “weary themselves to find the door.” Such daring pre- sumption, in the face of Heaven, must have filled up the measure of their crimes, and rendered them ripe for de- struction. Ver, 12, 13. Things are now hastening to their awful crisis; but mark the mercy of Divine proceedings. Ten righteous men would have saved the city; but there seems to have been only one. Well, not only shall that one escape, but all that belong to him shall be delivered for his sake; or if otherwise, it shall be their own fault. Sons-in-law, sons, daughters, or whatever he had, are di- rected to be brought out of this place ; for, said they, as it were opening their commission and reading it to Lot, “We will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of Jehovah, and jehovah hath sent us to destroy it.” Ver. 14. Giving full credit to the Divine threatening, and being deeply impressed with it, Lot went forth to warm his sons-in-law, who had married his daughters. We do not read till now that Lot had a family. It looks as if he had taken his wife from Sodom, soon after he had parted from Abraham ; and as he must have been there about twenty years, he had daughters, some of whom were mar- ried, and two remained with him single. No mention is made of his married daughters being alive at this time ; but by the manner in which the others are spoken of, in Verse 15, “Thy two daughters which are HERE,” it is pro- bable they were elsewhere; viz. along with their husbands, and perished with them in the overthrow. The warming given to his sons-in-law was abrupt and pointed “Up, get ye out of this place ; for Jehovah will destroy this city . But he seemed to them as one that mocked,” or who was in jest. He believed, and therefore spake ; but they disbelieved, and therefore made light of it. A striking example this of the ordinary effect of truth upon the minds of unbelievers. Ver. 15, 16. All this had taken place in one night. Early in the morning, Lot is hastened away from the de- voted spot. And as his sons-in-law, and it seems their wives with them, would not hear, he is commanded to leave them ; and, without further delay, to take his wife, and his two daughters who were with him, lest he should be consumed in the overthrow of the city. The threaten- ing part of this language would probably not have been addressed to him, had he not discovered a reluctance to depart. I hope it was not his worldly substance that clave to him, much less any attachment to that wicked city; but rather that it was his daughters and their husbands, who could not be persuaded to accompany him, that oc- casioned this strong conflict. It was on this account, I suppose, that he is said to have lingered; and his deliverers were at last obliged to lay hold upon his hand, and upon the hand of his wife, and upon the hand of his two daughters, and (Jehovah being merciful unto him) by force, in a manner, to set them without the city. Such has been the struggle in many minds, when called to leave all and flee from the wrath to come ; and such the mercy of God towards them. Wer. 17. Having been so far saved, almost in spite of himself, he is now solemnly charged to “escape for his life,” not so much as to look behind him, nor stay in all the plain ; but to “escape to the mountain,” lest he should be “consumed.” This was continuing to be mercifully severe ; and such are our Lord’s commands which require us to deny self, take up the cross, and follow him. It was better for Lot to be thus warned off the ground, than to be consumed upon it; and we had better cut off a right hand, or pluck out a right eye, than be cast into hell. Wer. 18–22. Lot was certainly a righteous man ; but in times of trial his graces do not appear to the best ad- vantage. He is directed to flee to the mountain, and he had better have been there all his days than where he was ; but he pleads hard to live in a city, and hopes he may be excused in this desire, seeing it was “a little one.” Had he properly confided in God, he would have gone to the mountain without hesitation ; but his faith is weak, and his fears prevail, that if he go thither “some evil will take him, and he shall die.” This his imbecility, how- ever, is graciously passed over; his request is granted, and the city spared for his sake. Nor was this all. The angel kindly hastens his escape to this city, formerly call- ed Bela, but henceforward Zoar, that is, little ; for that he could do nothing till he should have come thither. All this was merciful, very merciful ; and proves not only that the Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of tempta- tion, but also that their blood is precious in his sight. Ver. 23–25. By the time that Lot entered into Zoar, the sun had risen upon the earth. It promised perhaps to be a fine day; and the inhabitants of Sodom, after their night’s revel, would be going forth to do as at other times. But lo, on a sudden, floods of fire and brimstone from the Ilord out of heaven descend upon this and the neighbouring city of Gomorrah, utterly consuming them, and all their inhabitants | Some have supposed this tremendous judgment to have been effected by a volcanic eruption in the neighbourhood, the lava of which, first ascending high into the atmosphere, and then descending upon the devoted cities, destroyed them. If so it were, God's hand was in it, directing and timing its operations, no less than if it were accomplished without the inter- ference of any second cause. Wer. 26. The Lord delivered just Lot; and his whole family, as we have seem, had much mercy shown them for his sake. But favour may be shown to the wicked, yet will they not learn righteousness. Some refused to go with him, and those that did go proved to him a grief and a snare. His wife is said to have “ looked back from be- hind him " during their journey, and was instantly struck dead, and remained upon the spot a petrified mo- nument of Divine vengeance. It may be thought a hard 382 EXPOSITION OF GENESIS. fate for a mere glance of the eye ; but that glance, no doubt, was expressive of unbelief, and a lingering desire to return. Probably she was of much the same mind as her sons-in-law, and attributed the whole to the resentment of the strangers, whom her husband was weak enough to believe. It is certain that her example is held up by our Lord as a warning against “turning back,” which inti- mates that such was the meaning of her look. Ver. 27—29. Abraham having made intercession, though the issue of it gave him but little hope of success, yet is anxious to see what will be the end of these things. Unable, it seems, to rest in his bed, he arose early the next morning, and went to the place where he had stood before the Lord. From having a view of the plain, he beheld, and lo the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace. He had not mentioned Lot by name, in his intercession, though doubtless it had respect to him; and the Lord so far hearkened to his prayer as to deliver that good man in answer to it. Lot could not pray for himself, for he was not aware of his danger till it in a manner came upon him. What a mercy it is to have an Intercessor who knows all the evils which are coming upon us, and prays for us that our strength fail not But to return to Lot— Ver. 30. On leaving Sodom he was very earnest to have Zoar granted him for a refuge, and to be excused from going to dwell in the mountain ; yet now, all on a sudden, he went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the moun- tain ; and that for the very reason which he had given for a contrary choice. Then he feared some evil would take him if he went to the mountain ; now he “fears to dwell in Zoar.” It is well to know that the way of man is not in himself, and that it is not in man to direct his steps. Our wisdom is to refer all to God, and to follow wherever his word and providence lead the way. But why did not Lot return to Abraham There was no occasion now for strife about their herds ; for he had lost all, and but just escaped with his life. Whatever was the reason, he does not appear to have made a good choice. Had he gone to the mountain when directed, he might have hoped for preserving mercy; but going of his own accord, and from a motive of sinful distrust, evil in reality overtakes him. His daughters, who seem to have contracted such habits in Sodom as would prepare them for any thing, however unnatural, draw him into intemperance and incest, and thus cover his old age with infamy. The offspring of this illicit in- tercourse were the fathers of two great but heathen na- tions, viz. the Moabites and the children of Ammon. The dishonourable end of this good man shows that we are never out of danger while we are upon earth. He whose righteous soul was grieved with the filthy convers- ation of the wicked while in a city, is drawn into the same kind of evils himself when dwelling in a cave His whole history also, from the time of his leaving Abraham, furnishes an affecting lesson to the heads of families in the choice of habitations for themselves or their children. If worldly accommodations be preferred to religious ad- vantages, we have nothing good to expect, but every thing evil. We may, or we may not, lose our substance as he did ; but, what is of far greater consequence, our families may be expected to become mere heathens, and our own minds be contaminated with the examples which are con- tinually before our eyes. Such was the harvest which Lot reaped from his well-watered plain ; and such are the fruits very commonly seen in the experience of those that follow his example : DISCOURSE XXVIII. ABRAHAM AND ABIMELEC H., * Gen. xx. VER. 1. After the affecting story of Lot, we return to Abraham. When he and his kinsman parted, he pitched his tent in the plains of Mamre, and appears to have con- tinued there nearly twenty years. At length he removes again, journeying southward, and taking up his residence for a time at Gerar, which was then a royal city of the Philistines. Ver. 2. And here we find him a second time saying of Sarah his wife, “She is my sister.” His sin in so speak- ing seems to be much greater than it was before. For, 1. He had narrowly escaped the first time. If God had not remarkably interposed in his favour, there is no saying what would have been the consequence. The repetition of the same fault looked like presuming upon providence. 2. Sarah was now pregnant, and that of a son of promise; he might therefore surely have trusted God to preserve their lives in the straight-forward path of duty, instead of . having recourse to his own crooked policy. But he did not. There are exceptions in every human character, and often in the very thing wherein they in general excel. The consequence was, Abimelech, king of Gerar, sent and took her, probably by force, to be one of his wives. We should have thought that the age of Sarah might have ex- empted both her and her husband from this temptation; but human life was then much longer than it is now ; and she was a beautiful woman, and we may suppose carried her years better than many. Be that as it may, she is involved in a difficulty from which she cannot get clear, nor can Abraham tell how to deliver her. It has been observed, that when wicked men deviate from truth, they will very commonly get through with it; but if a good man think to do so, he will as commonly find him- self mistaken. If once he leave the path of rectitude, he is entangled, and presently betrays himself. The crooked devices of the flesh are things in which he is not sufficiently an adept, and conscience will often prevent his going through with them. God also will generally so order things that he shall be detected, and put to shame at an early stage, and that in mercy to his soul; while sinners are left to go on in their evil courses with success. Ver. 3—7. Man’s wisdom leads him into a pit, and God’s wisdom must draw him out. God has access to all men's minds, and can impress them by a dream, an affliction, or in any way he thinks proper. He did thus by Abimelech. Dreams, in general, are mere vanity, the excursions of imagination, unaccompanied with reason ; yet these are under the control of God, and have, in many instances, been the medium of impressing things of great importance on the mind. Abimelech dreamed that he heard the voice of the Almighty, saying unto him, “Be- hold, thou art a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken, for she is a man’s wife.” Whether Abime- lech was an idolater I know not ; but this I know, that if, in countries called Christian, every adulterer were “a dead man,” many would be numbered with the dead who now glory in their shame. And though human laws may wink at this crime, it is no less heinous in the sight of God than when it is punished with death. Abimelech, conscious that he had not come near the woman, answered in his dream, “Lord, wilt thou slay also a righteous na- tion ? Said he not unto me, She is my sister ? And she, even she herself, said, He is my brother. In the integrity of my heart and innocency of my hands have I done this.” The first sentence in this answer appears to contain a re- ference to the recent and awful event of Sodom's over- throw, which must have greatly impressed the surrounding country. It is as if he had said, I am aware that thou hast slain a nation motorious for its filthy and unnatural crimes; but we are not such a nation; and in the present case all that has been done was in perfect ignorance. Surely thou wilt not slay the innocent.—The answer of God admits his plea of ignorance, and suggests that he was not charged with having yet sinned, but threatened with death in case he persisted, now that he was informed of the truth. It is intimated, however, that if he had come near her, he would in so doing have sinned against God, whether he had sinned against Abraham or not ; and this, perhaps, owing to her being in a state of pregnancy, of which, in that case, he could not have been ignorant. But God had mercifully withheld him from thus sinning against him, for which it became him to be thankful, and without delay to “restore the man his wife.” It was also added that the man was “a prophet,” or one who had special intercourse with Heaven; and who, if he restored ABRAHAM AND ABIMELECH. 383 his wife, would pray to God for him, and he should live ; but if he withheld her, he should surely die, and all that belonged to him. We see in this account, 1. That absolute ignorance ex- cuses from guilt; but this does not prove that all ignorance does so, or that it is in itself excusable. Where the powers and means of knowledge are possessed, and ignor- ance arises from neglecting to make use of them, or from aversion to the truth, it is so far from excusing, that it is in itself sinful. 2. That, great as the wickedness of men is upon the face of the earth, it would be much greater were it not that God by his providence, in innumerable instances, withholds them from it. The conduct of intel- ligent beings is influenced by motives; and all motives which are presented to the mind are subject to his dis- posal. Hence we may feel the propriety of that peti- tion, “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.” Wer. 8. Abimelech, awaking, is deeply impressed with his dream. He rises early, calls together the principal people about him, and imparts particulars to them, at the rehearsal of which they are sore afraid. Some afflictions had already been laid upon them, of which they seem to have been aware (ver. 18); and considering the late tre- mendous judgments of God upon Sodom, with the terrific dream of the king just rehearsed, it is no wonder they should be seized with fear. Ver. 9, 10. After speaking to his servants, he next sent for Abraham to converse the matter over. His address to the patriarch is pointed, but temperate : “What hast thou done unto us ; And (in) what have I offended thee, that thou hast brought on me and on my kingdom a great sin? Thou hast done deeds unto me that ought not to be done. —What sawest thou, that thou hast done this thing 3’’ We are grieved to find Abraham in such a situation. How honourable did he appear before the king of Sodom, and the king of Salem ; but how dishonourable before the king of Gerar ! Sin is the reproach of any people, and the greater and better the man, the greater is the reproach. Ver. 11—13. But let us hear his apology. “And Abra- ham said, Because I thought, Surely the fear of God is not in this place, and they will slay me for my wife’s sake. And yet, indeed, she is my sister: she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother ; and she became my wife. And it came to pass, when God caused me to wander from my father's house, that I said unto her, This is thy kindness which thou shalt show unto me: at every place whither we shall come, say of me, He is my brother.” According to his account, to be sure, there was nothing against Abimelech in particular; and this might serve to appease him : but with respect to God, or his “doing deeds that ought not to be done,” what he had said, if not a lie, was yet an equivocation. Many things of this sort pass among men; but they will not bear a strict scrutiny. If our words, though in some sense true, yet are designed to convey what is not true, as was the case in this instance, we are guilty of doing what ought not to be done. Ver. 14, 15. Abimelech, satisfied with this answer, so far as respected himself, restored Sarah to her husband, and that with a trespass-offering, like that which was Afterwards presented by his countrymen with the ark (1 Sam. vi. 3); adding, with great courteousness, “ Be- hold, my land is before thee; dwell where it pleaseth thee.” For he saw that the Lord was with him. Yer. , 16–18. He did not part with Sarah, however, without giving her a word of reproof. In calling Abraham her brother, he made use of her own language in a sarcas- tic way; and tells her that her husband should be to her as a veil, that she should look on none else, and none else should look on her. Some have rendered the words, “It,” that is, the silver, “shall be to thee a covering for the eyes, unto all that are with thee, and to all other.” As if he had given it to buy her a veil, which might prevent all such mistakes in future. Take this, (q. d.) and never go Without a veil again, nor any of your married servants. “So she was reproved.” . The issue was, Abraham prayed, and the Lord answered him, and healed the family of Abimelech. He would feel * motive for prayer, in this case, which he did not when interceding for Sodom ; for of this evil he himself had been the cause. DISCOURSE XXIX. THE BIRTH OF ISAAC, &c. Gen. xxi. VER. 1. Abraham, still sojourning in the land of the Phi- listines, at length sees the promise fulfilled. It is noted with some degree of emphasis, as forming a special epoch in his life, that “ the Lord visited Sarah as he had said, and the Lord did unto Sarah as he had spoken.” Such a kind of language is used of his posterity being put in pos- session of the Promised Land : “The Lord gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers—there failed not aught of any good thing which the Lord had spoken unto the house of Israel : all came to pass.” And such will be our language sooner or later concerning all the good things promised to the church, or to us as individuals. Ver. 2. Two things are particularly noticed in the birth of this child : It was in Abraham’s “old age,” and “at the set time of which God had spoken to him.” Both these circumstances showed the whole to be of God. That which comes to us in the ordinary course of things may be of God, but that which comes otherwise manifestly appears to be so. One great difference between this child and the son of Hagar consisted in this: the one was born “after the flesh ;” that is, in the ordinary course of gener- ation : but the other “ after the Spirit;” that is, by ex- traordinary Divine interposition, and in virtue of a special promise, Gal. iv. 23. 29. Analogous to these were those Jews on the one hand who were merely descended from Abraham “according to the flesh ;” and those on the other who were “not of the circumcision only, but also walked in the steps of the faith of their father Abraham,” Rom. iv. 12. The former were the children of the bond-woman, who were cast out ; the latter of the free- woman, who, being “his people whom he foreknew,” were not “cast away,” but were counted for his seed, Gal. iv. 28–31 ; Rom. ix. 7. 9; xi. 1, 2. Wer. 3, 4. The name by which this extraordinary child should be called was Isaac, according to the previous di- rection of God. It signifies laughter, or joy, and corre- sponds with the gladness which accompanied his birth. Children are ordinarily “a heritage of the Lord.” On account of the uncertainty of their future character, how- ever, we have reason to rejoice with trembling : but in this case it was joy in a manner unmixed ; for he was born under the promise of being “blessed, and made a bless- ing.” But what a difference between the joy of Abraham at the birth of a child, and that which is commonly seen among us ! His was not that vain mirth, or noisy laugh- ter, which unfits for obedience to God : on the contrary, he circumcised his son when he was eight days old, not in conformity to custom, but “as God had commanded him.” Ver, 5–7. The sacred writers seldom deal in reflections themselves; but will often mention those of others. Moses, having recorded the fact that “Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born unto him,” tells us of the joyful sayings of Sarah :-‘‘ God,” saith she, “ hath made me to laugh, so that all who hear will laugh with me.”—“Who would have said unto Abraham that Sarah should have given children suck 3 For I have borne him a son in his old age l’” Yes, God had made her to laugh, and that without any of her crooked measures ; and not merely with a private, but a public joy; for “all that hear shall laugh with her.” Ver. 8. For a time nothing remarkable occurred : the child grew, and all went on pleasantly. When the time came for his being weaned, a great feast was made, in token of joy that he had passed the most delicate and dangerous stage of life. Ver. 9. But the joy of that day was imbittered. The son of Hagar, being stung with envy, cannot bear such 384 EXPOSITION OF GENESIS. an ado about this child of promise. So he turns it into ridi- cule, probably deriding the parents and the promise toge- ther; and all this in the sight of Sarah . Thus he that was born after the flesh began at an early stage to perse- cute him that was born after the Spirit; and thus Sarah's crooked policy, in giving Hagar to Abraham, goes on to furnish them with new sources of sorrow. From what was said of Hagar in chap. xvi. we conceived hopes of her ; but whatever she was, her son appears at present to be a bitter enemy to God and his people. Ver. 10–13. The consequence was, Sarah was set on both the mother and the son being banished from the family. Abraham had earnestly desired that Ishmael might live before God; but Sarah says, He shall not be heir with her son, with Isaac. This resolution on the part of Sarah might be the mere effect of temper; but whatever were her motives, the thing itself accorded with the design of God; though therefore it was grievous to Abraham, he is directed to comply with it. The Lord would indeed rake a nation of Ishmael, because he was his seed ; but ºn Isaac should his seed be called. We must not refuse to join in doing what God commands, however contrary it may be to our natural feelings, nor on account of the suspicious motives of some with whom we are called to act. Wer. 14. Impressed with these principles, the father of the faithful without further delay rose early the next morning, probably before Sarah was stirring, and sent away both the mother and the son. His manner of doing it, however, was tender and kind. Giving Hagar a por- tion of bread, and a bottle of water, he committed them to Him who had in effect promised to watch over them. And now for a little while we take leave of Abraham’s family, and observe the unhappy Hagar and her son wan- dering in the wilderness of Beersheba. . Ver. 15, 16. It was doubtless the design of Hagar, when she set off, to go to Egypt her native country; but having to travel through a desert land, where there was ordinarily no water, it was necessary she should be fur- mished with that article. Whether “ the wilderness of Beersheba,” as it was called at the time Moses wrote the narrative, was directly in her way, or whether she went thither in consequence of having “wandered,” or lost her way, so it was, that she was reduced to the greatest dis- tress. The bread might not be exhausted, but the water was ; and no spring being to be found in this inhospi- table place, she and Ishmael appear to have walked about, till he, overcome of thirst, could walk no longer. She had supported him, it seems, as long as she could ; but fearing he should die in her arms, she cast him under a shrub, just to screen him from the scorching sun, and “went and sat herself down over against him, a good way off, as it were a bow-shot ; for she said, Let me not see the death of the child ! And she sat over against him, and lifted up her voice and wept.” Ver. 17, 18. A more finished picture of distress we shall seldom see. The bitter cries and flowing tears of the afflicted mother, with the groans of her dying son, are heard, and seen, and felt, in a manner as though we were present. And wherefore do they cry 3 Had there been any ear to hear them, any eye to pity them, or hand to help them, these cries and tears might have been mingled with hope ; but, as far as human aid was con- cerned, there was no place for this. Whether any of them were directed to Heaven we know not. We could have wished, and should almost have expected, that those of the mother at least would have been so; for surely she could not have forgotten Him who had seen and delivered her from a similar condition about sixteen years before, and who had then promised to “multiply her seed,” and to cause this very child to “dwell in the presence of all his brethren.” But whether any of these expressions of distress were directed to God or not, the groans of the distressed reached his ear. “God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel 6f God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee, Hagar 3 Fear not ; for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he is. Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand ; for I will make him a great nation.” Ver. 19. At this instant, lifting up her eyes, she saw a spring of water, which before she had overlooked; and, filling her bottle from it, returned to the lad, and gave him drink. “To God the Lord belong the issues from death.” He maketh strong the bands of the mocker; and again he looseth his prisoners, and delivereth those that were appointed to die. If Ishmael were at any future time possessed of true religion, he must look back upon these humbling but gracious dispensations of the God of his father Abraham with very tender emotions. Ver. 20, 21. Whether Hagar and her son continued any longer in the wilderness of Beersheba we are not in- formed : it would rather seem that they left it and pro- secuted their journey. They did not however settle in Egypt, though in process of time she took a wife for him from that country; but in “the wilderness of Param,” where the providence of God watched over him, and where he lived and perhaps maintained his mother by the use of the bow. But to return— Ver. 22–24. Abraham still continued to sojourn in the land of the Philistines, not indeed at Gerar, but with- in a few miles of it. Here he was visited by king Abi- melech, who, attended by the captain of his host, in the most friendly manner, in behalf of himself and his pos- terity, requested to live in perpetual amity with him. “God is with thee,” saith he, “ in all that thou doest. Now therefore swear unto me here by God that thou wilt not deal falsely with me, nor with my son, nor with my son’s son; but according to the kindness that I have done unto thee, thou shalt do unto me, and to the land wherein thou hast sojourned. And Abraham said, I will swear.” Observe, 1. The motive that induces this friendly request: he saw that God was with him. Probably the news of the extraordinary birth of Isaac had reached the court of Abimelech, and become a topic of conversation. This, said he, is a great man, and a great family, and will become a great nation ; the blessing of Heaven attends him. It is our wisdom, therefore, to take the earliest opportunity to be on good terms with him Had Abi- melech's successors always acted on this principle towards Israel, it had been better for them ; for, whether they knew it or not, God in blessing Abraham had promised to “bless them that blessed him, and to curse them that cursed him.” 2. The solemnity with which he wished the friendship to be confirmed : “swear unto me by God.” It is a dictate of prudence, very common among magistrates, to require men to swear by a name which the party holds sacred. In this view, Abimelech certain- ly acted a wise part; for whoever made light of God’s name, the party here would not. 3. Abraham’s cheerful and ready compliance. I hope he did not need to be sworn not to deal falsely ; but, as posterity was concern- ed, the more solemn the engagement the better. The friend of God has no desire but to be the friend of man. Ver. 25, 26. Now that they are entering into closer terms of amity, however, it is proper that if there be any cause of complaint on either side, it should be mentioned and adjusted, that nothing which is past, at least, may inter- rupt their future harmony. Abraham accordingly makes mention of “a well of water” which Abimelech’s servants had violently taken away. In this country, and to a man whose substance consisted much in cattle, a spring of water was of consequence; and to have it taken away by mere violence, though it might be borne with from an enemy, yet is not to be overlooked where there is professed friendship. In this matter Abimelech fairly and fully ex- onerates himself: “I wot not,” saith he, “who hath done this thing : neither didst thou tell me, neither yet heard I of it but to-day.” Public characters cannot always be ac- counts.ſe for the misdeeds of those who act under them ; they had need take care, however, what sort of servants they employ, as, while matters are unexplaimed, that which is wrong is commonly placed to their account. Ver. 27–32. Abraham, satisfied with the answer, pro- ceeds to enter into a solemn covenant with Abimelech, and, as it should seem, a covenant by sacrifice.* The “sheep and oxen” appear to have been presented for this purpose ; and the “seven eve lambs '' were probably a consideration to him, as lord of the soil, for a rightful and * See on chap. xv. 10. ABRAHAM COMMANDED TO OFFER UP ISAAC. 385 acknowledged propriety in the well. Having mutually sworn to this covenant of peace, the place where it was transacted was hence called Beersheba, the well of the oath, or the well of seven, alluding to the seven lambs which were given as the price of it. Matters being thus ad- justed, Abimelech and Phicol, the chief captain of his host, took leave and departed. Ver. 33, 34. Abraham, being now quietly settled at Beersheba, “ planted a grove, and called there on the name of Jehovah, the everlasting God.” The grove might be for the shadowing of his tent, and perhaps for a place of worship. Such places were afterwards abused to idol- atry; or if otherwise, they became unlawful when the temple was erected. The use which Abraham made of it was worthy of him. Such was his common practice; wherever he pitched his tent, there he reared an altar to the Lord. A lovely example this, to all those who would tread in the steps of the faith of Abraham. It does not appear, however, that this was a common, but rather a special act of worship ; somewhat like that of Samuel, when he set up a stone between Mizpeh and Shen, and called it Ebenezer, saying, “Hitherto the Lord hath helped us.” There are periods in life in which we are led to review the dispensations of God towards us with special gratitude and renewed devotion. In this situation Abraham con- tinued “many days;” but still he is “a sojourner,” and such he must continue in the present world. DISCOURSE XXX. AB RAHAM COMMANDED TO OFFER UP HIS SON ISAAC. Gen. xxii. WHEN Isaac was born, Abraham might be apt to hope that his trials were nearly at an end ; but if so, he was greatly mistaken. It is not enough that, in consequence of this event, he is called to give up Ishmael; a greater trial than this is yet behind. “And it came to pass, after these things, that God did tempt Abraham.” Many temptations had assailed him from other quarters, out of which God had delivered him ; and does he after this become his tempter? As “God cannot be tempted with evil, so neither (in one sense) tempteth he any man.” But he sees fit to try the right- eous; and very frequently those most who are most dis- tinguished by their faith and spirituality. So great a value doth the Lord set upon the genuine exercises of grace, that all the grandeur of heaven and earth is overlooked, in comparison of “a poor and contrite spirit, which trembleth at his word.” It is no wonder, therefore, that he should bring his servants into situations which, though trying to them, are calculated to draw forth these pleasant fruits. In discoursing upon this temptation of Abraham, I shall deviate from my usual practice of expounding verse by Verse ; and shall notice the trial itself—the conduct of the patriarch under it—the reward conferred upon him— and the general design of the whole. First, with respect to the trial itself. The time of it is worthy of notice. The same things may be more or less trying as they are connected with other things. If the treatment of Job's friends had not been preceded by the loss of his substance, the untimely death of his children, the cruel counsel of his wife, and the heavy hand of God, it had been much more tolerable; and if Ábraham's faith and patience had not been exercised in the manner they Were anterior to this temptation, it might have been some. what different from what it was. It is also a much greater trial to be deprived of an object when our hopes have been raised, and in a manner accomplished, respect- ing it, than to have it altogether withheld from us. The Spirits of a man may be depressed by a heavy affliction; but if he be nearly recovered, and experiences a relapse, if *gain he recovers, and again relapses, this is much more pressing than if no such hopes had been afforded him. ‘Thou hast lifted me up,” said the psalmist, “and cast ºne down " Now such was the temptation of Abraham. It was “after these things” that God did tempt Abra- ham ; that is, after five-and-twenty years' waiting; after the promise had been frequently repeated ; after hope had been raised to the highest pitch ; yea, after it had been actually turned into enjoyment; and when the child had lived long enough to discover an amiable and godly dis- position, ver, 7. The shock which it was adapted to produce upon his na- tural affections is also worthy of notice. The command is worded in a manner as if it were designed to harrow up all his feelings as a father: “Take now thy son, thine ONLY SON (of promise)—Isaac, whom THOU LovEST’’—Or, as some read it, “Take now that son . . . . that only one of thine . . . . whom thou lovest . . . . that ISAAC *—and what? Deliver him to some other hand to sacrifice him 2 No : be thou thyself the priest ; go, “offer him up for a burnt-offering !” When Ishmael was thirteen years old, Abraham could have been well contented to have gone without another son ; but when Isaac was born, and had for a number of years been entwining round his heart, to part with him in this manner must, we should think, be a rending stroke. Add to this, Isaac’s having to carry the wood, and himself the fire and the knife ; but, above all, the cutting question of the lad, asked in the simplicity of his heart, without knowing that he himself was to be the victim : “Behold the fire and the wood; but where is the lamb for a burnt-offering 4"—This would seem to be more than human nature could bear. But the shock which it would be to natural affection is not represented as the principal part of the trial ; but rather what it must have been to his faith. It was not so much his being his son, as his only son of promise ; his Isaac, in whom all the great things spoken of his seed were to be fulfilled. When called to give up his other son, God con- descended to give him a reason for it; but here no reason is given. In that case, though Ishmael must go, it is be- cause he is not the child of promise ; “for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.” But if Isaac go, who shall be a substitute for him? Let us next observe the conduct of Abraham under this sharp trial. In general, we see no opposition, either from the struggles of natural affection or those of unbelief; all bow in absolute submission to the will of God. We may depict to ourselves how the former would revolt, and how the latter would rise up in rebellion, and what a number of plausible objections might have been urged ; but there is not a single appearance of either in Abraham. We have here, then, a surprising instance of the efficacy of Divine grace, in rendering every power, passion, and thought of the mind subordinate to the will of God. There is a wide difference between this and the extinction of the passions. That were to be deprived of feeling ; but this is to have the mind assimilated to the mind of Christ, who, though he felt most sensibly, yet said, “If this cup may not pass from me, except I drink it, thy will be done !” No sooner had the father of the faithful received the heavenly mandate than, without further delay, he prepares for the journey. Lot lingered, even when his own de- liverance was at stake ; but Abraham “rose early in the morning,” in prompt obedience to God. He had to go three days’ journey ere he reached the appointed spot; a distance perhaps of about sixty miles. Sarah seems to have known nothing of it. He takes only two young men with him to carry what was necessary; and on his arrival within sight of the place, they were left behind. “Abide you here,” said he, “with the ass, and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you.” This would intimate that he wished not to be interrupted. In hard duties and severe trials, we should consider that we have enough to struggle with in our minds, without having any interruptions from other quarters. . Great trials are best entered upon with but little company. Such was the precaution taken by our Lord himself. It is admirable to see how, in this trying hour, Abraham possessed his soul. He lays the wood upon his son— takes the fire and the knife—they go both of them to- gether—he evades the cutting question of Isaac so as to prevent disclosure, and yet in such a manner as to excite resignation to God—built the altar—stretched forth his hand—and took the knife with an intention to slay his son : 2 C 386 EXPOSITION OF GENESIS. But what did he mean by telling his two servants that he and the lad would come again to them 3 These words, compared with those of the apostle, in Heb. xi. 17, ex- plain the whole story. They show that Abraham from the first believed that the lad would in some way be re- stored to him, because God had said, “In Isaac shall thy seed be called.” He expected no other than that he should have to slay him, and that he would be burnt to ashes; but if so it were, he was persuaded that he should receive him again, “accounting that God was able to raise him up even from the dead.” Such was the victory of faith. Take notice, in the next place, of the reward conferred upon him. At the very moment when he was about to give the fatal stroke, and to which Isaac seems to have made no resistance, the angel of the Lord, who visited him at Mamre, and with whom he had interceded in be- half of Sodom, called unto him to forbear : “ for now I know,” saith he, “that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me.” The Lord knew the heart of Abraham before he had tried him ; but he speaks after the manner of men. It is by a holy and obedient reverence of the Divine authority that faith is made manifest. As a sinner, Abraham was justified by faith only; but as a professing believer, he was justified by the works which his faith produced. This accounts, I apprehend, for what is said by Paul on the former of these subjects, and by James on the latter. They both allege the example of Abraham ; but the one respects him as ungodly, the other as godly. In the former instance he is justified by faith, exclusive of works, or as having reference merely to the promised seed; in the latter by faith as producing works, and thereby proving him to be the friend of God, Rom. iv. 3—5; James ii. 21—24. Abraham, being thus agreeably arrested in his design, makes a pause, and, lifting up his eyes, sees “a ram caught in a thicket by his horns.” Him he takes, as pro- vided of God, and “offers him up for a burnt-offering in- stead of his son.” This extraordinary deliverance so im- pressed his mind, that he called the name of the place “Jehovah-jireh; The Lord will see, or provide.” And this name seems to have become a kind of proverb in Is- rael, furnishing not only a memorial of God’s goodness to Abraham, but a promise that he would interpose for them: that trust in him in times of extremity. To all this, the Lord adds a repetition of the promised blessing. The angel of the Lord, who called unto him before, “called unto him a second time, saying, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord ; for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son; that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand upon the sea-shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his ene- mies; and in thy seed shall all nations of the earth be blessed, because thou hast obeyed my voice.” Though the things here promised are much the same as had been promised before; yet they are more than a mere repetition. The terms are stronger than had ever been used on any former occasion, and, as such, more expressive of Divine complacency. “Blessing I will bless thee,” &c., is a mode of speaking which denotes, I will greatly bless thee, chap. iii. 16. It is also delivered in the form of an oath, that it may be a ground of strong consolation; and the same things which were promised before are now pro- mised as the reward of this singular instance of obedience, to express how greatly God approved of it. A few remarks on the general design of the whole will conclude this subject. Though it was not the intention of God to permit Abraham actually to offer a human sacrifice, yet he might mean to assert his own right, as Lord of all, to require it, as well as to manifest the im- plicit obedience of faith in the conduct of his servant. Such an assertion of his right would manifest his goodness in refusing to exercise it. Hence, when children were sacrificed to Moloch, who had no such right, Jehovah could say in regard of himself, “It is what I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind.” God never accepted but one human sacrifice; and blood in that case was not shed at his command, but by the wicked hands of men. It is necessary, however, that we should resign our lives, and every thing we have, to his disposal. We cannot be said to love him supremely if father, or mother, or wife, or children, or our own lives be preferred before him. The way to enjoy our temporal comforts is to resign them to God. When we have in this manner given them up, and receive them again at his hand, they become much sweeter, and are accompanied with blessings of greater value. But in this transaction there seems to be a still higher design; namely, to predict in a figure the great substitute which God in due time should “see and provide.” The very place of it, called “the mount of the Lord,” seems to have been marked out as the scene of great events ; and of that kind too in which a substitutional sacrifice was offered and accepted. Here it was that David offered burnt-offerings, and peace-offerings, and called upon the Lord; and he answered him from heaven by fire upon the altar of burnt-offering, and commanded the angel of death to put up his sword, 1 Chron. xxi. 26, 27. It was upon the same mountain that Solomon was afterwards directed to build the temple, 2 Chron. iii. 1. And, if it were not at the very spot, it could not be far distant that the Sa- viour of the world was crucified. Mount Moriah was large enough to give name to a tract of land about it, wer. 2. Mount Calvary therefore was probably a smaller mountain, which ascended from a certain part of it. Hither then was led God’s own Son, his only Son, whom he loved, and in whom all nations of the earth were to be blessed ; nor was he spared at the awful crisis by means of a substitute, but was himself freely delivered up as the substitute of others. One reason of the high approbation which God expressed of Abraham’s conduct might be its affording some faint likeness of what would shortly be his OWI) , The chapter concludes with an account of Nahor's family, who settled at Haran. Probably this had not been given, but for the connexion which it had with the church of God. From them Isaac and Jacob took them wives; and it is as preparatory to those events that the genealogy is recorded. DISCOURSE XXXI. THE DEATH AND BURIAL OF SARAHI. Gen. xxiii. WE have no such account of the death of any woman be- fore, or of the respect paid to her memory, as is here given of Sarah. She was not without her faults, and who is ? but she was upon the whole a great female character. As such her name stands recorded in the New Testament among the worthies, and the memory of her was more than usually blessed. Wer. 1, 2. Observe, 1. The time of her death. She was younger by ten years than Abraham, and yet died thirty- eight years before him. Human life is a subject of very uncertain calculation : God often takes the youngest be- fore the eldest. She lived, however, thirty-seven years after the birth of Isaac, to a good old age, and went home as a shock of corn ripe in its season. 2. The place. It was anciently called Kirjath-arba, afterwards Hebron, situated in the plain of Mamre, where Abraham had lived more than twenty years before he went into the land of the Philistines, and whither he had since returned.—See p. 371. Here Sarah died, and here Abraham mourned for her. We may take notice of the forms of it. He came to mourn ; that is, he came into her tent where she died, and looked at her dead body; his eye affected his heart. There was none of that false delicacy of modern times which shuns to see or attend the burial of near relations. Let him see her, and let him weep ; it is the last tribute of affection which he will be able in that manner to pay her. We should also notice the sincerity of it ; he wept. Many affect to mourn who do not weep ; but Abraham both mourned and wept. Religion does not stop the course of nature, though it moderates it; and, by inspiring DEATH OF SARAH. 387 the hope of a blessed resurrection, prevents our being swallowed up of overmuch sorrow. Wer. 3, 4. From mourning, which was commonly ac- companied with sitting on the ground, (Job i. 20; ii. 13; Lam. i. 1,) Abraham at length “stood up from before his dead,” and took measures to bury her. It is proper to indulge in weeping for a time, but there is a time for it to abate ; and it is well there is. The necessary cares at- tending life are often a merciful means of rousing the mind from the torpor of melancholy. But see what a change death makes. Those faces which once excited strong sensations of pleasure require now to be buried “ out of our sight.” In those times, and long afterwards, they appear to have had no public burying-places; and Abraham, often removing from place to place, and not knowing where his lot might be cast at the time, had not provided one. He had therefore at this time a burying- place to seek. As yet he had none inheritance in the land, though the whole was given him in promise. We see him here pleading for a grave as “a stranger and a sojourner.” This language is commented upon by the apostle to the Hebrews: “They confessed,” says he, “that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth; and they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a coun- try.” Abraham did not sustain this character alone, nor merely on account of his having no inheritance in Canaan; for Israel, when put in possession of the land, were taught to consider it as properly the Lord's, and themselves as strangers and sojourners with him in it, Lev. xxv. 23. Even David, who was king of Israel, made the same con- fession, Psal. xxxix. 12. Wer. 5–16. One admires to observe the courteous be- haviour between Abraham and the Canaanites; for Heth was a son of Canaan. On his part, having signified his desire, and receiving a respectful answer, he “bowed himself to them;” and when he had fixed upon a spot in his mind, he does not ask it of the owner, but requests them to entreat him on his behalf; expressing also his desire to give him the full value of it, and refusing to accept it otherwise. Nor is there any thing wanting on their part ; but every thing appears generous and love- ly. Abraham calls himself a stranger and a sojourner: but they call him “a mighty prince among them; ” give him the choice of their sepulchres; offer any one of them gratis; and when he insisted on paying for it, mention its value in the most delicate manner, intimating that such a sum was as nothing between them. Were commerce con- ducted on such principles, how pleasant would it be How different from that selfish spirit described by Solomon, and still prevalent among men; “Naught, naught, saith the buyer; but when he is gone his way, then he boasteth !” Civility, courtesy, and generosity adorn religion. The plainness of Christianity is not a rude and insolent one ; it stands aloof from flattery, but not from obliging beha: viour. Some who are very courteous to strangers are Very much the reverse to those about them ; but Abra- ham's behaviour to his neighbours is no less respectful than it was to the three strangers who called at his tent. It is painful to add, however, that civility and courtesy may be where there is no religion. However it may tend to smooth the rugged paths of life, and however much we are indebted to the providence of God for it, yet this alone will not avail in the sight of God. Yer. 17–20. Respecting the purchase of this sepulchre, I observe it was an exercise of faith. Jacob and J oseph had certainly an eye to the promise, in requesting their bones to be carried up from Egypt. A Sepulchre was like an earnest, and indicated a persuasion of future possession, Isa. xxii. 16. It would tend also to endear the land to his posterity. This was so much a dictate of nature, that Nehemiah could urge it to a heathen king, whom no re- ligious considerations would probably have influenced (Neh. ii. 3); and when to this was added the character of those who should be there deposited, it would render the country still more endeared. Heathens venerate the dust of their forefathers, but contemplate it without hope. It is not so with believers; those who should lie in this sepulchre walked with God in their generations; and, though dead, yet lived under the promise of a glorious resurrections Upon the whole, it is natural to wish to mingle dust with those whom we love : “Where thou diest there will I be buried.” And sometimes with those whom we only respect: “When I am dead,” said the old prophet of Beth- el to his sons, “bury me in the sepulchre wherein the man of God is buried, and lay my bones beside his bones.” But, after all, the chief concern is with whom we shall rise. DISCOURSE XXXII. ABRAHAM SENDING HIS SERVANT TO OBTAIN A WIFE FOR ISAAC. Gen. xxiv. THE last chapter contained a funeral ; this gives an ac- count of a marriage. Such are the changes of human life : Let not this minute narrative seem little in our eyes. It was thought by the Spirit of God to be of more import- ance than all that was at that time going on among the great nations of antiquity. It is highly interesting to trace great things to their small beginnings ; and to them that love Zion it must be pleasant to observe the minute turns of providence in respect of its first fathers. Wer. 1–9. Abraham being now an old man, and hav- ing lost the partner of his life, feels anxious to adjust his affairs, that he may be ready to follow her. “The Lord had blessed him in all things,” and he had doubtless much to dispose of; but the greatest blessing of all related to his seed, and this occupies his chief attention. Aware that character, as well as happiness, greatly depended on a suitable connexion, he was desirous that before he died he might discharge this part of the duty of a father. Calling to him therefore his eldest servant, who was al- ready steward of his affairs, and in case of death must have been his trustee in behalf of Isaac, he bound him in a solemn oath respecting the wife that he should take to him. We are not here told the servant's name; but by the account which is given of him, compared with chap. xv. 2, it is not unlikely that it was Eliezer of Damascus. The characters of men are not so easily ascertained from a few splendid actions as from the ordinary course of life, in which their real dispositions are manifested. In this domestic concern of Abraham we see several of the most prominent features of his character. 1. His decided aversion to idolatry. “I will make thee swear by Jeho- vah, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that thou wilt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell.” Had Abraham then contracted prejudice against his neighbours ? This does not appear by what occurred between them in the last chapter. He does not complain of their treatment of him, but of their alienation from his God. He has no objection to an exchange of civilities with them ; but to take their daughters in marriage was the sure way to cor- rupt his own family. The great design of God, in giving the land to Abraham's posterity, was the eventual over- throw of idolatry, and the establishment of his true worship on earth. To what purpose then was he called from among Chaldean idolaters, if his son join affinity with those of Canaan 3 Such, or nearly such, were the sentiments which dictated the address to his servant. “The Lord God of heaven, who took me from my father's house, and sware unto me, saying, Unto thy seed will I give this land, he shall send his angel before thee.” 2. His godliness. There does not appear in all this concern the least taint of worldly policy, or any of those motives which usually govern men in the settlement of their children. No men- tion is made of riches, or honours, or natural accomplish- ments; but merely of what related to God. Let not the woman be a daughter of Canaan, but of the family of Nahor, who had forsaken Chaldean idolatry, and with Milcah his wife settled at Haran, and who was a wor- shipper of the true God, ch. xxxi. 53. 3. His faith and obedience. The servant being about to bind himself by oath, is tenderly concerned lest he should engage in more than he should be able to accomplish. “Peradventure,” 2 C 2 388 EXPOSITION OF GENESIS. saith he, “the woman will not follow me into this land : must I needs bring thy son again to the land whence thou camest?” No : as Isaac must not marry a daughter of Canaan, neither must he leave Canaan to humour a daugh- ter of Haran ; for though Canaan's daughters are to be shunned, yet Canaan itself is to be chosen as the Lord’s inheritance, bestowed on the promised seed. Nor do these supposed difficulties at all deter Abraham : “The Lord God of heaven,” saith he, “who took me from my father's house, and from the land of my kindred, and who spake unto me, and sware unto me, saying, Unto thy seed will I give this land, HE shall send his angel before thee, and thou shalt take a wife unto my son from thence.” On the ground of this promise, he would send him away, fully acquitting him of his oath, if the party should prove unwilling; only charging him not to bring Isaac to Haran, as he had before charged him not to marry him to a daughter of Canaan. Ver. 10–14. Abraham's servant having, on the above terms, consented to take the oath, now betakes himself to his journey. No time seems to have been lost; for his heart was in the business. He did not trouble his aged master in things of inferior moment; but having all his affairs intrusted to him, adjusts those matters himself. Taking with him ten camels, and of course a number of attendants, partly for accommodation, and partly, we may suppose, to give a just idea of his master's substance, he set off for Mesopotamia, to the city of Nahor. Nothing remarkable occurs by the way; but arriving, on a sum- mer's evening, at the outside of the city, he espies a well. Here he causes his camels to kneel down for rest, and with a design, as soon as opportunity offered, to furnish them with drink. Now it was customary in those coun- tries for the women, at the time of the evening, to go out to draw water. Of this Abraham’s servant is aware. And having placed himself and his camels by the well, in a waiting posture, he betakes himself to prayer for Divine direction. Light as men make of such concerns in com- mon, there are few things of greater importance, and in which there is greater need for imploring the guidance and blessing of Heaven. Upon a few minute turns at this period of life more depends than can possibly be conceived at the time. Young people ! pause a moment, and con- sider . . . . Think of the counsel of God . . . . “In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.” That which is done for life, and which may involve things of another life, requires to be done well ; and nothing can be done well in which the will of God is not con- sulted, and his blessing implored. Let us each pause a few minutes, too, and notice the admirable prayer of Abraham's servant. Truly he had not lived with Abra- ham in vain : Observe, 1. The character under which he addresses the Great Supreme : “O Jehovah, God of my master Abraham.” He well knew that Jehovah had en- tered into covenant with Abraham, and had given him exceedingly great and precious promises. By approaching him as a God in covenant, he would find matter for faith to lay hold upon ; every promise to Abraham would thus furnish a plea, and turn to a good account. Surely this may direct us, in our approaches to a throne of grace, to make mention of a greater than Abraham, with whom also God is in covenant, and for whose sake the greatest of all blessings may be expected. The God and Father of our I lord Jesus Christ is to us what the God of Abraham was to Eliezer, and in the name of our Redeemer we may pray and hope for every thing that is great and good. 2. The limitation of the prayer to the present time ; Send me good speed this day. We may in a general way ask for grace for our whole lives; but our duty is more especially to seek direction at the time we want it. Our Lord teaches us to pray for daily bread as the day occurs. 3. The sign which he presumed to ask for; that the damsel to whom he should say so and so, and who should make such and such answers, should be the person whom the Lord had appointed for his servant Isaac. In this he might be under extraordinary influence, and his conduct therefore affords no example to us. The sign he asked, however, was snch as would manifest the qualifications which he desired and expected to find in a companion who should be worthy of his master's son; namely, industry, courtesy, and kindness . admirable. to strangers. 4. The faith in which the prayer was offered. He speaks all along under a full persuasion that the pro- vidence of God extended to the minutest events, to the free actions of creatures, and even to their behaviour, of which at the time they are scarcely conscious. His words are also full of humble confidence that God would direct him in a matter of so much consequence to his church in all future ages. I believe, if we were to search the Scrip- tures through, and select all the prayers that God has answered, we should find them to have been the prayers of faith. Wer. 15–28. While he was speaking, a damsel, with a pitcher upon her shoulder, came towards the well. By her appearance he is possessed of the idea that she is the person, and that the Lord hath heard his prayer. He said nothing to her till she had gone down to the well, and was come up again. Then he ran towards her, and ad- dressed her in the words which he had resolved to do, en- treating permission to drink a little water of her pitcher. To this she cheerfully consented, and offered her assistance to give drink also to his camels; all exactly in the manner which he had prayed for. The gentleness, cheerfulness, assiduity, and courtesy manifested towards a stranger, of whom she at present could have no knowledge, is truly The words in which it is described are pic- turesque and lively to the highest degree. We need only read them in order to feel ourselves in the midst of the pleasing scene. “And she said, Drink, my lord; and she hasted, and let down her pitcher upon her hand, and gave him drink. And when she had given him drink, she said, I will draw for thy camels also, until they have done drink- ing. And she hasted, and emptied her pitcher into the trough, and ran again unto the well to draw, and drew for all his camels.” This conduct, in itself so amiable, and so exactly in unison with the previous wishes of the man, struck him with a kind of amazement, accompanied with a momentary hesitation whether all could be true. “Won- dering at her, he held his peace, to wit, whether the Lord had made his journey prosperous or not.” We pray for blessings, and when our prayers are answered, we can scarcely believe them to be so. There are cases in which the mind, like the eye by a great and sudden influx of light, is overpowered. Thus Zion, though importunate in prayer for great conversions, yet, when they come, is de- scribed as being in a manner confounded with them : “Thine heart shall fear, and be enlarged—thou shalt say in thine heart, Who hath begotten me these ?” Recover- ing from his astonishment, and being satisfied that the Lord had indeed heard his prayer, he opens his treasures, and presents the damsel with certain Eastern ornaments, which he had provided for the purpose ; inquiring at the same time after her kindred, and whether they had room to lodge him. Being told, in answer, that she was “the daughter of Bethuel, the son of Nahor and Milcah,” and that they had plenty of accommodation for him and his company, his heart is so full that he cannot contain him- self, but even in the presence of Rebecca, and perhaps of the men who were with him, “bowed down his head, and worshipped, saying, Blessed be Jehovah, God of my master Abraham, who hath not left destitute my master of his mercy and his truth : I being in the way, Jehovah led me to the house of my master's brother l’” We see here not only a grateful mind, equally disposed to give thanks for mercy as to pray for it, but a delicate and impressive man- ner of communicating to Rebecca a few particulars which he wished her to know. His words were addressed to the Lord ; but being spoken in her hearing, she would per- ceive by them who he was, whence he came, and that the hand of the God of Abraham was in the visit, whatever was the object of it. Full of joyful surprise, she runs home, with the bracelets upon her hands, and tells the family of what had passed. But here I must break off for the present, and leave the conclusion of this interesting story to another discourse. ABRAHAM'S SERVANT SEEKS A WIFE FOR ISAAC. 3S9 DISCOURSE XXXIII. ABRAHAM SENDING HIS SERVANT TO OBTAIN A WIFE For ISAAC (contLNUED). Gen. xxiv. 29–67. VER. 29–31. As yet, no one suspects the object of the visit ; but all hearts are full, and there is much running hither and thither. No mention is made at present of Bethuel, or of Milcah; they were aged people, and the affairs of the family seem principally to have devolved on its younger branches. Laban appears to have taken a very active part in this business. Hearing his sister's tale, and seeing the ornaments upon her hands, he is all alive, and runs towards the well, to welcome the man into his house. By the account which is afterwards given of Laban, it is perhaps more than probable that these golden ornaments had great influence on what would otherwise appear a very generous behaviour. His whole history shows him to have been a mercenary man; and we fre- quently see in such characters the truth of Solomon’s re- marks; “A man’s gift maketh room for him.—It is as a precious stone in the eyes of him that hath it ; whither- soever it turneth it prospereth.” If a man be in straits, he is coldly treated; but if once he begin to rise in the world, he becomes another man, and his company and acquaintance are courted. Such is the spirit of this world. But whatever were Laban's motives, he carried it very kindly to Abraham's servant. Finding him at the well, modestly waiting for a further invitation from some of the heads of the family, he accosted him in language that would have befitted the lips of a much better man : “Come in, thou blessed of the Lord ; wherefore standest thou without? For I have prepared the house, and room for the camels.” It becomes us to bless and welcome those whom the Lord hath blessed; nor must we confine it to those whom he hath blessed with outward prosperity: a Christian spirit is in the sight of God of great price, and ought to be so in ours. Ver. 32, 33. On this becoming invitation, the man goes into the house ; and we see Laban very attentive. First he ungirds the poor beasts which had borne the burdens, and furnishes them with provender; then he provides water for the man, and those who were with him, to wash their feet; and after this, sets meat before him. All this is proper. But the good man’s heart is full, and he cannot eat till he has told his errand. Such are the feelings of a servant of God whose heart is in his work. Where this is the case, personal indulgence will give place to things of greater importance. “I will not give sleep to mine eyes,” said David, “nor slumber to mine eye- lids, till I find out a place for Jehovah, a habitation for the mighty God of Jacob.” While the woman of Samaria Was gone to tell her neighbours of the man who had told her all things that ever she did, his disciples, knowing how weary and faint he must have been, “prayed him to eat.” But seeing the Samaritans flocking down the hill to hear the word of God, he answered, “I have meat to eat that ye know not of.-My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work. Say ye not, There are yet four months, and then cometh harvest? Behold-lift up your eyes, and look on (yonder com- panies)--the fields are white already to harvest 1” Ver. 34, 35. Being requested to tell his tale, the serv- ant begins by informing them who he is. His prayer to “the God of his master Abraham,” in the hearing of Re- becca, might possibly have superseded the necessity of this part of his statement, but lest it should not, he tells them expressly, “I am Abraham's servant.” He was an up- Fight man, and upright men do not conceal who they are. He was also a humble man, and humble men are not ashamed to own their situation in life, though it be that of a servant. A vain man might have talked about him- self, and that he was the first servant of the house, the Steward that ruled over all that Abraham had, and that all his master's goods were in his hand, Esth. v. 11, 12. But not a word of this is heard ; for his heart was set on his errand. He has no objection, however, to tell of the glory of his master; for this would tend to promote the object. Nor does he fail to acknowledge the hand of God in it; “The Lord hath blessed my master greatly.” And if they were worthy to be connected with Abraham, this would tend further to promote the object; yea, more than all the riches and glory of Abraham without it. Ver. 36. And now for the first time he makes mention of Isaac. A messenger less ingenuous might have given a hint of this kind to the damsel, when he presented her with the “earring and bracelets;” but so did not Abra- ham's servant. Not an intimation of the kind is given till he is before her parents. In their presence, and that of the whole family, he frankly makes mention of his master’s son ; and as his object was to recommend him to their esteem, and to prepossess Rebecca in his favour, it is admirable to see how he accomplishes his end. All is in the form of a simple narrative ; yet every moving consideration is worked into it that the subject will admit. In only this single verse we observe four circum- stances touched upon, each of which would have a power- ful effect—He was the son of the highly honoured Abra- ham—by the much-loved Sarah—in their old age—(of course he himself must be young)—and was made heir of all his father’s substance. Ver. 37, 38. Hence he proceeds to a still more explicit mention of the object of his journey, mixing with it such grounds or reasons as must ingratiate both his master and his master’s son in their esteem, and so tend to accomplish his design. He informs them that Abraham was utterly averse from his son’s being united with a daughter of Canaan; so much so that he even made him solemnly swear upon the subject. The family at Haran might possibly have thought that ere now Abraham had forgotten his old friends, and formed new connexions; but they would perceive by this that he had not. There is a charming delicacy in his introducing the subject of mar- riage. He speaks of “a wife being taken º’ for his mas- ter's son ; but first mentions it in reference to the daugh- ters of Canaan, whom he must not take, before he suggests any thing of the person he wished to take ; thus giving them to infer what was coming ere he expressed it. And now, having intimated to the family whom his master pre- ferred, he represents him as speaking of them in the most affectionate language; “My father's house, my kindred.” Wer. 39–41. Next he repeats what passed between his master and himself, as to the supposed willingness or un- willingness of the party; and here also we see much that will turn to account. In expressing Abraham's persuasion in the affair, he appeals to their piety. It was saying, in effect, The hand of God was in it; and this with godly minds would be sure to weigh. Indeed it did weigh ; for when required to give an answer, it was this : “The thing proceedeth from the Lord.” Religion, thus mingled with natural affection, sanctifies it, and renders sweetness itself more sweet. In repeating also the words of Abraham, Thou shalt take a wife for my son “ of my kindred, and of my father's house,” he touches and retouches the strings of fraternal love. And in that he intimates that his mas- ter had laid nothing more upon him than to tell his tale, and leave the issue to the Lord, he gives them to under- stand that whether they were willing or unwilling he should be clear of his oath. In this, and several other parts of this pleasant story, our thoughts must needs run to the work of Christ's servants, in espousing souls to him. They may be clear of the blood of all men, though sinners may be unwilling ; and it is their duty to tell them so ; that while, on the one hand, they allure them by exhibiting the glory of their Master, they may, on the other, convince them that their message is not to be trifled with. Both are means appointed of God to bring them to Christ; and if the Lord be with them in their work, such will be the effect. Wer. 42—49. The repeating of the interview with Re- becca at the well was all admirably in point, and of a tendency to bring the matter to a crisis.-I came to the well—I called on the God of my master Abraham—I ask- ed for a sign—a sign was given me—every thing answered to my prayer—judge ye—let Rebecca judge—whether the hand of the Lord be not in it 3–" And now, if ye will deal kindly and truly with my master, tell me, and if not, tell me; that I may turn to the right hand, or to the left.” 390 EXPOSITION OF GENESIS. Ver. 50–52. With this simple but interesting account the whole family is overcome : one sentiment bows every mind. Rebecca says nothing; but her heart is full. It is an affair in which little or nothing seems left for crea- tures to decide. “The thing,” say they, “proceedeth from the Lord : we cannot speak unto thee good or bad. Behold, Rebecca is before thee; take her, and go, and let her be thy master's son's wife, as the Lord hath spoken ” Such was the happy result of this truly religious courtship; and the good man, who saw God in all things, still keeps up his character. Hearing their words, he bowed himself to the earth, and worshipped God! How sweet would all our temporal concerns be rendered, if they were thus in- termingled with godliness Ver. 53. The main things being settled, he, according to the customs of those times, presents the bride elect with “jewels of silver, jewels of gold, and raiment” suited to the occasion; and, further to conciliate the esteem of the family, “he gave also to her brother, and to her mother, precious things.” Presents, when given from sincere af- fection, are very proper, and productive of good effects. It is by a mutual interchange of kind offices that love is often kindled, and always kept alive. Our Saviour ac- cepted the presents which were offered him, not only of food, but raiment, and even the anointing of his feet. Where love exists, it is natural and grateful to express it in acts of kindness. Ver. 54–58. The good man would not eat till he had told his errand ; but now that his work is done, he and the men who were with him both eat and drink; and doubtless it would add to the enjoyment of their meal to know that the Lord had made their way prosperous. The next morning, having accomplished his object, the diligent and faithful servant wants to be going. To this proposal however, though honourable to him as a servant, the mo- ther and the brother object; pleading for a few days, ten at least, ere they parted ; nor does their objection seem to be unreasonable. Though willing upon the whole that she should go, yet parting is trying work, especially when they considered that they might never see her more in this world, as in truth they never did. The man, however, knows not how to consent to it; but entreats that he might not be hindered, seeing the Lord had prospered his way. Whether we consider him as too pressing in this case, or not, we may lay it down as a general rule, never to hinder those who are engaged in a right way, and who have received manifest tokens that God hath blessed them in it. The case being somewhat difficult, and neither of the parties disposed to disoblige the other, they consent to leave it to the damsel herself. A few days to take leave of her friends could not, we may suppose, have been dis- agreeable to her ; but seeing, as she did, so much of God in the affair, and the man's heart so deeply set upon it; feeling also her own heart entirely in it; she would not so much as seem to make light of it, or hinder it even for an hour ; but, far from all affectation, answered, “I will go.” Ver. 59, 60. And now preparation is made for her de- parture. Before she goes she must be provided with “a nurse.” Rebecca's having been employed in drawing water, we see, was no proof of the poverty of her parents, but rather of the simplicity of the times. Daughters were not yet taught to be so delicate as scarcely to “adventure to set the sole of their foot upon the ground.” But now that she is going to leave her family, it is desirable that she should have one of its domestics, who had probably been brought up with her from her childhood, who in times of affliction would kindly wait on her, and at all times be a friend and companion. The name of this nurse was Deborah. We hear no more of her till we are told of her death. She appears to have survived her mistress, and to have died in the family of Jacob, much lamented, chap. xxxv, 8. To an affectionate nurse, they added a parting blessing. The language used in it shows that Abraham’s servant had told them of the promises which God had made to his master, and which were to be fulfilled in Isaac and his posterity. They speak as believing the truth of them, and as having their hearts full of hope and joy, amidst the natural sorrow which must have attended the parting scene. “They blessed Rebecca, and said unto her, Thou art our sister; be thou the mother of thousands of millions, and let thy seed, possess the gate of those that hate them : * Ver. 61–63. Taking leave of Haran, they go on their way towards Canaan. A little before their arrival at Hebron, they are unexpectedly met by a person who was taking an evening walk. This was no other than Isaac. It may be thought that he was looking out in hope of meeting them ; but we are expressly told that his walk was for another purpose, namely, to “meditate.” It is a word which is sometimes used for prayer, and hence it is so rendered in the margin of our Bibles. He was a man of reflection and prayer; and, in the cool of the evening, it might be common for him to retire an hour to converse, as we should say, with himself and with his God. Admit- ting that the thought might occur, -I may possibly see my father’s servant on his return—still his object would be, on such an important turn in his life, to commit the mat- ter to God. Those blessings are likely to prove substan- tial and durable which are given us in answer to prayer. Wer. 64, 65. Rebecca, having espied a stranger ap- proaching towards them, inquires of her guide whether he knew him ; and being told that it was no other than his young “master,” she modestly alighted from the camel, and took a veil and covered herself. This Eastern head dress might in the present instance answer a double pur- pose : First, it would express her subjection to her hus- band, as being already his espoused wife. Secondly, it would prevent that confusion which the exposure of her person, especially in so sudden and unexpected a manner, must have occasioned. Wer. 66, 67. Isaac, observing her to have put on her veil, very properly avoids addressing himself to her ; but walking awhile with the servant by himself, heard the whole narrative of his journey, which appears to have wrought on his mind as the former had wrought on that of Rebecca. And now the marriage is consummated. “Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent, and took Rebecca, and she became his wife, and he loved her : and Isaac was comforted after his mother's death.” In this tender manner is the admirable story closed. Who can forbear wishing them all happiness 3 The union of filial and conjugal affection is not the least honourable trait in the character of this amiable man. “He brought her into his mother Sarah's tent;” and was then, and not till them, comforted for the loss of her. Dutiful sons promise fair to be affectionate husbands; he that fills up the first sta- tion in life with honour is thereby prepared for those that follow. God, in mercy, sets a day of prosperity over against a day of adversity. Now he woundeth our spirits by dissolving one tender union, and now bindeth up our wounds by cementing another. DISCOURSE XXXIV. ABRAHAM’S MARRIAGE WITH KETURAH, AND DEATH.-ISH- MAEL’S PoSTERITY AND DEATH.--THE BIRTH AND CHA- RACTERS OF ESAU AND JACOB, Gen. xxv. THIS chapter gives an account of several changes in the families of Abraham, Ishmael, and Isaac. In each the sacred writer keeps his eye on the fulfilment of the great promise to the father of the faithful. - Ver, 1–6. The marriage of Abraham to Keturah is an event which we should not have expected. From the last account we had of him, charging his servant respecting the marriage of his son Isaac, we were prepared to look for his being buried rather than married. I do not know that it was a sin; but it is easy to see in it more of man than of God. No reason is given for it; no marks of Divine approbation attend it; five-and-thirty years pass over with little more than recording the names of his children, and that not from any respect to the connexion, but to show the fulfilment of the Divine promise of multiplying his seed. During this last period of his life we see nothing of that extraordinary strength of faith by which he was ABRAHAM'S DEATH AND BURIAL. 391 formerly distinguished; but, like Samson when he had lost his hair, he is become weak like another man. While the promise of Isaac was pending, and while Abraham was employed in promoting that great object, the cloud of glory accompanies all his movements; but this being ac- complished, and his mind diverted to something else, the cloud now rests upon Isaac ; and he must walk the re- mainder of his journey in a manner without it. Who Keturah was we are not told ; probably she was one of his family. She and Hagar are called concubines. This does not mean, however, that they were not his law- ful wives, but that they occupied a less honourable station than Sarah, who was a fellow heir with him in promise. Keturah bare Abraham six sons, among whose descend- ants were preserved, in some measure, the knowledge and fear of the true God. From one of them, namely Midian, descended Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses; and it is not improbable that Job and his friends had the same general origin. We have seen how the last thirty-five years of Abra- ham's life fall short of what it was in former periods; it is pleasant, however, to observe that his sun does not set in a cloud. There are several circumstances which shed a lustre upon his end. Among others, his regard for Isaac, constituting him his heir, and settling his other sons at a sufficient distance from him, shows that his heart was still with God’s heart, or that he whom the Lord had chosen was the object to whom his thoughts were chiefly directed. He was not wanting in paternal goodness to any of his children. Though Ishmael was sent away, and as it should seem by the other parts of the history with nothing, yet it is here plainly intimated that his father gave gifts to him, as well as to the sons of Keturah. Probably he visited and provided for him in the wilderness of Paran, and gave him a portion when he married. But God’s covenant being established with Isaac, his settlement in Canaan is that to which all the others are rendered subservient. All this shows that his faith did not fail; that he never lost sight of the promise in which he had believed for justifica- tion ; but that as he had lived, so he died. Wer. 7–10. Let us notice the death and burial of this great and good man. His death is expressed by a common but impressive Scriptural phrase—“he gave up the ghost ;” and his burial by another—“he was gathered to his peo- ple.” The one is the parting of body and soul; the other the mingling of our dust with that of our kindred who have gone before us. Even in the grave, it is natural to wish to associate with those whom we have known and loved on earth ; and still more in the world to come. When all the sons of Adam shall be assigned their portion, each in a sense will be gathered to his people ! The in- scription on his tomb, if I may so call it, was, “He died in a good old age.” On this I have two remarks to offer. 1. It was according to promise. Upwards of fourscore years before this, the Lord told Abraham in vision, saying, “Thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age.” In every thing, even in death, the promises are fulfilled to Abraham.—2. It is language that is never wsed of wicked men, and not very commonly of good men. It is used of Gideon and of David (Judg. viii. 32 ; 1 Chron. xxix. 28); and I know not whether of any other. The idea answers to what is spoken by the psalmist, “They shall bring forth fruit in old age;” or that in Job, “Thou shalt come to thy grave in a full age, like as a shock of corn cometh in in his season.” Isaac and Ishmael are both present at his funeral. We have no ac- count of their having ever seen each other before, from the day that Ishmael was cast out as a mocker; but whether they had or not, they met at their father's interment. Death brings those together who know not how to asso- ciate on any other occasion, and will bring us all together, sooner or later. Finally, the place where they buried him was the same as that in which he had buried his beloved Sarah. Ver. 11. The death and burial of so great and good a man as Abraham must have made an impression upon sur- vivors: howbeit, the cause of God died not. “It came to pass after the death of Abraham that God blessed his son Isaac.” Isaac was heir to the promise ; and though all flesh withereth and fadeth like the grass, yet the word of the Lord shall stand for ever. We shall hear more of Isaac soon ; at present we are only told, in general, that he “dwelt by the well Lahai-roi,” It was necessary in those countries to fix their residence by a well; and it is no less necessary, if we wish to live, that we fix ours near to the ordinances of God. The well where Isaac pitched his tent was distinguished by two interesting events: 1. The merciful appearance of God to Hagar, whence it received its name—“The well of him that liveth and seeth me.” Ha- gar or Ishmael, methinks, should have pitched a tent there, that it might have been to them a memorial of past mercies; but if they neglect it, Isaac will occupy it. The gracious appearance of God in a place endears it to him, let it have been to whom it may. 2. It was the place from the way of which he first met his beloved Rebecca; there therefore they continue to dwell together. Ver. 12–18. A short account is here given of Ishmael’s posterity, and of his death. His sons were numerous and great; they had their towns and their castles ; nay, more, they are denominated “twelve princes, according to their nations.” Thus amply was fulfilled the promise of God concerning him : “Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly ; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.” But this is all. When a man leaves God and his people, the sacred historian leaves him. After living in prosperity a hundred and thirty-seven years, “he gave up the ghost, and died ; ” and was “gathered unto his people.” As this language is applicable to men, whether good or bad, no conclusion can be drawn from it in favour of his having feared God. It is added that “he died in the presence of all his brethren ;” that is, in peace, or with his friends about him ; which, considering how his hand had been against every man, and of course every man's hand against him, was rather surprising ; but so it had been promised of the Lord to his mother, at the well Lahai- roi, “He shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.” So he lived, and so he died, an object of providential care for his father's sake; but as to any thing more, the oracles of God are silent. . Ver. 19—23. The history now returns to the son of promise. Forty years old was he when he took Rebecca to wife; and for twenty years afterwards he had no issue. We should have supposed that, as the promise partly consisted in a multiplication of his seed, the great number of his children would have made a prominent part of his history. When Bethuel, and Milcah, and Laban, took leave of Rebecca, saying, “Be thou the mother of thousands of millions,” they doubtless expect- ed to hear of a very numerous family. And she herself, and her husband, would, as believing the Divine promise, expect the same. But God's thoughts are not as our thoughts, nor his ways as our ways. Abraham's other sons abound in children, while he in whom his seed is to be as the stars of heaven for multitude lives childless. In this manner God had tried his father Abraham ; and if he be heir to his blessings, he must expect to inherit a por- tion of his trials. God bestows his mercies upon wicked men without waiting for their prayers; but his conduct is somewhat different with them that fear him. Isaac had received Rebecca in answer to prayer; and let him not expect to receive seed by her in any other way. Well, the good man is led to pray : “ Isaac entreated the Lord for his wife, because she was barren ; and the Lord was entreated of him, and Rebecca conceived.” During the time of her pregnancy, she was the subject of some extraordinary sensations, which filling her mind with perplexity, she “inquired of the Lord.” Both the en- treaty of Isaac, and the inquiry of Rebecca, might be im- proper in ordinary cases; but as it was not the natural desire of children that prompted him, so neither was it an idle curiosity that excited her: they each kept in view the promise of all nations being blessed in their posterity, and therefore were not only solicitous for children, but anxious concerning every thing which seemed indicative of their future character. And as Isaac had received an answer to prayer, so it is revealed to Rebecca that the sensations which she felt were signs of other things—that she was pregnant of twins—that they should become two nations—and not only so, but two manner of nations— 392 EXPOSITION OF GENESIS. lastly, that the elder should serve the younger. The struggle between these children, which was expressive of the struggles that should in after-ages take place between their posterity, furnished another instance of the opposi- tion between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent, both which are commonly found in most religious families. Paul introduces this case as an instance of the sovereignty of God in the dispensation of his grace. The rejection of a great part of the Jewish nation was to some a stumbling-block. It seemed to them as if the word of promise to the fathers had taken nome effect. The apostle, in answer, maintains that it was not the original design of God in the promise to save all Abraham’s pos- terity; but, on the contrary, that from the beginning he drew a line of distinction between Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, though all were alike descended from him according to the flesh. To a further supposed ob- jection, that such a distinction between children, while they were yet unborn, reflected on the righteousness of God, he contents himself with denying the consequence, and asserting the absolute right of God to have mercy on whom he will have mercy. Ver. 24–28. As there were extraordinary sensations during the pregnancy of the mother, so in the birth of the children there was a certain circumstance which betoken- ed that the one should prevail over the other; and that not only in his person, but in his posterity. Hence the prophet Hosea, reproaching the degenerate sons of Jacob, says of him, “He took his brother by the heel in the womb—and by his strength had power with God.” But, as if he should say, Are you worthy of being called his children : Hos. xii. 3. From the circumstances attending the birth of a child, it was common in those ages to derive their names; and thus it was in the present instance. The first-born, from his colour, was called Esau, i.e. red ; the younger, from the circumstance of his taking hold of his brother's heel, was called Jacob, a supplanter. Both these names were prophetic. Esau was of a sanguinary disposition, and his posterity, the Edomites, always cherished a most cruel and bloody antipathy against Israel. In allusion to this, when the enemies of the church are punished, they are not only represented as Edomites, but God is de- scribed as giving them as it were blood for blood: “Who is this that cometh from Edom, with dyed garments from Bozrah 3—Wherefore art thou red in thine apparel, and thy garments like him that treadeth in the wine-fat 3. I have trodden the wine-press alone ; and of the people there was none with me : for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury, and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment.” Jacob, on the other hand, supplanted his brother in the affair of the birthright, as we shall see presently. As his having hold of his brother's heel seemed as if he would have drawn him back from the birth, and have been before him ; so his mind in after-life appeared to aspire after the blessing of the first-born, and never to have rested till he had obtained it. As they grew up they discovered a different turn of mind. Esau was the expert huntsman, quite a man of the field; but Jacob was simple-hearted, preferring the more gentle employment of rearing and tending cattle. The partiality of Isaac towards Esau, on account of his venison, seems to have been a weakness rather unworthy of him : that of Rebecca towards Jacob appears to have been better founded; her preference was more directed by the prophecies which had gone before of him, choosing him whom the Lord had chosen. Wer. 29–34. In process of time, a circumstance arose in the family which in its consequences was very serious. Jacob was one day boiling some pottage, perhaps for his dinner; for he lived mostly upon herbs. Just then came in Esau from hunting, very faint and hungry, and had a great mind to Jacob’s pottage. Its very colour, cor- responding with his sanguinary disposition, seemed to take his fancy; on which account he was called Edom, a name commonly applied to his posterity, and of similar * He could not mean surely that he should then die of hunger, un- less heate of the pottage; for that is scarcely conceivable, while he had full access to all the provision in Isaac's house; but that in a import with that which was at first given to him. There seems, at first sight, to be something ungenerous in Jacob's availing himself of his brother's hunger in the manner he did ; but if there were, however it may reflect dishonour upon him, it reflects none upon the event. God often brings his purposes to pass by means which on man’s part are far from justifiable. The Reformation was a great and good work, and we may wish to vindicate every measure which contributed to it; but that is more than we can do. God’s thoughts are not as our thoughts, nor his ways as our ways. It will be found that “he is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works;” but this is more than can be said of his best servants, in any age of the world. A close inspection of this affair, how- ever, will convince us that whether Jacob was right as to the means he used or not, his motives were good, and those of Esau were evil. Observe, particularly, 1. The birthright attached to seniority. 2. It ordinarily consist- ed in the excellence of dignity, the excellence of power, and a double portion, Gen. xlix. 3.; Deut. xxi. 17. 3. These privileges of the first-born were in several in- stances forfeited by the misconduct of the parties; as in the case of Cain, Reuben, &c. 4. There was in the family of Abraham a peculiar blessing, which was supposed to be attached to the birthright, though God in several instances put it into another direction. This blessing was prin- cipally spiritual and distant, having respect to the setting up of God’s kingdom, to the birth of the Messiah, or, in other words, to all those great things included in the covenant with Abraham. This was well understood by the family: both Esau and Jacob must have often heard their parents converse about it. If the birthright that was bought at this time had consisted in any temporal advantages of dignity, authority, or property to be en- joyed in the lifetime of the parties, Esau would not have made so light of it as he did, calling it this birthright, and intimating that he should soon die, and then it would be of no use to him.* It is a fact, too, that Jacob had none of the ordinary advantages of the birthright during his lifetime. Instead of a double portion, he was sent out of the family with only a staff in his hand, leaving Esau to possess the whole of his father’s substance. And when, more than twenty years afterwards, he return- ed to Canaan, he made no scruple to ascribe to his brother the excellence of dignity, and the excellence of power, calling him, My lord Esau, and acknowledging himself as his servant. The truth is, the question between them was, which should be heir to the blessings promised in the covenant with Abraham. This Jacob desired, and Esau despised; and in despising blessings of so sacred a nature, and that for a morsel of meat, he was guilty of profane- ness. The spirit of his language was, “I cannot live upon promises: give me something to eat and drink, for to- morrow I die.” Such is the spirit of unbelief in every age; and thus it is that poor deluded souls continue to despise things distant and heavenly, and prefer to them the momentary gratifications of flesh and sense. From the whole, we may perceive in this case a doctrine which runs through the Scriptures; namely, that while the salvation of those that are saved is altogether of grace, the destruction of those that are lost will be found to be of themselves. From what is recorded of Jacob, he certainly had nothing to boast of ; meither had Esau any thing to complain of. He lost the blessing, but not without hav- ing first despised it. Thus when the apostle had asserted the doctrine of election, and grounded it upon God's abso- lute right to have mercy on whom he would have mercy, he nevertheless proceeds to ascribe the cause of the over- throw of them that perish merely to themselves. “But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore ? Because they sought it not by faith; but as it were by the works of the law : for they stumbled at the stumbling- stone.” I am aware that when we preach in this manner many are ready to accuse us of inconsistency. “You preach the doctrine of election,” say they : “ but before you have done you destroy your own work, by telling the little time he should be dead; and then of what account would these fine promises be to him '' ISAAC AND ABIMELECH. 393 unconverted that if they perish, the fault will lie at their own door.” We answer, it is enough for us to teach what the Scriptures teach. If we cannot conceive how the purposes of God are to be reconciled with the agency and accountableness of man, let us be content to be ignorant of it. The Scriptures teach both ; and true wisdom will not aspire to be wise above what is written. T)ISCOURSE XXXV. ISAAC AND ABIMIELEC H., Gen. xxvi. WE saw Abraham in a great variety of situations, by means of which sometimes his excellences and sometimes his failings became the more conspicuous. Isaac has hitherto been but little tried, and therefore his character is but little known. In this chapter, however, we shall see him roused from his retirement, and brought into situations in which, if there be some things to lament, there will be many to admire. Ver. 1–6. We now see him in affliction, by reason of “a famine in the land, besides the first famine that was in the days of Abraham.” There seem to have been more famines in the times of the patriarchs than usual; which must not only be afflictive to them in common with their neighbours, but tend more than a little to try their faith. Every such season must prove a temptation to think lightly of the Land of Promise. Unbelief would say, “It is a land that eateth up the inhabitants;” it is not worth waiting for. But faith will conclude that he who hath promised to give it is able to bless it. Thus Abraham believed, and therefore took every thing patiently; and thus it is with Isaac. He first went to Abimelech, king of the Philis- tines, at Gerar. His father Abraham had found kind treatment there about a hundred years before, and there was a covenant of peace between them. It seems, how- ever, as if he had thought of going as far as Egypt; but the Lord appeared to him at Gerar, and admonished him to put himself under his direction, and go no where with- out it. “ Dwell,” saith he, “ in the land that I shall tell thee of: sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and I will bless thee.” In times of trouble we are apt to cast, and forecast, what we shall do ; but God mercifully checks our anxiety, and teaches us, by such dispensations, in all our ways to acknowledge him. To satisfy Isaac that he should never want a guide, or a provider, the Lord renews to him the promises which had been made to his father Abraham. Had he met with nothing to drive him from his retreat by the well of Lahai-roi, he might have enjoyed more quiet ; but he might not have been indulged with such great and precious promises. Times of affliction, though disagreeable to the flesh, have often proved our best times. Two things are observable in this solemn renewal of the covenant with Isaac. 1. The good things promised. The sum of these blessings is, the land of Canaan, a numerous progeny, and, what is the greatest of all, the Messiah, in whom the nations should be blessed. On these precious promises Isaac is to live. God provided him with bread in the day of famine; but he lived not on bread only, but on the words which proceeded from the mouth of God. It was in reference to such words as these that Moses said unto Hobab, “We are journeying to the place of which the Lord said, I will give it you : come thou with us, and we will do thee good; for the Lord hath spoken good concerning Israel.” 2. Their being given for Abraham’s sake : “Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” We are expressly informed in what manner this patriarch was accepted of God, namely, as “believing on him who justifieth the ungodly;” and this accounts for the accept- ance of his works. The most spiritual sacrifices, being offered by a sinful creature, can no otherwise be acceptable to God than by Jesus Christ; for, as President Edwards justly remarks, “It does not consist with the honour of the majesty of the King of heaven and earth to accept of any thing from a condemned malefactor, condemned by the justice of his own holy law, till that condemnation be removed.” But a sinner being accepted as believing in Jesus, his works also are accepted for his sake, and become rewardable. It was in this way, and not of works, that Abraham’s obedience was honoured with so great a re- ward. The blessings here promised are called the mercy to Abraham, Mic. vii. 20. Hence we perceive the fal- lacy of an objection to the New Testament doctrine of our being forgiven and blessed in Christ's name, and for his sake ; that this is no more than was true of Israel, who were blessed and often forgiven for the sake of Abraham. “Instead of this fact making against the doctrine in ques- tion,” says a late judicious writer, “it makes for it; for it is clear from hence that it is not accounted an improper or unsuitable thing, in the Divine administration, to confer favours on individuals, and even nations, out of respect to the piety of another to whom they stood related. But if this principle be admitted, the salvation of sinners, out of respect to the obedience and sufferings of Christ, cannot be objected to as unreasonable. To this may be added, that every degree of Divine respect to the obedience of the patriarchs was in fact no other than respect to the obedi- ence of Christ, in whom they believed, and through whom their obedience, like ours, became acceptable. The light of the moon, which is derived from its looking as it were on the face of the sun, is no other than the light of the sun itself reflected. But if it be becoming the wisdom of God to reward the righteousness of his servants, and that many ages after their decease, so highly, (which was only borrowed lustre,) much more may he reward the righteous- ness of his Son, from which it originated, in the salvation of those that believe in him.” + The renewal of these great and precious promises to Isaac in a time of famine would preserve him from the fear of perishing, and be more than a balance to present inconveniences. It is not unusual for our heavenly Father to make up the loss of sensible enjoyments by increasing those of faith. We need not mind where we sojourn, nor what we endure, if the Lord be with us and help us. When Joseph was sold into a strange land, and unjustly cast into prison, it was reckoned a sufficient antidote to add, “But the Lord was with Joseph.” Ver. 6–11. After so extraordinary a manifestation of the Lord’s goodness to Isaac, we might have supposed he would have dwelt securely and happily in Gerar: but great mercies are often followed with great temptations. The abundance of revelations given to Paul were suc- ceeded by a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan sent to buffet him. It is said of our Lord himself, after the heavens were opened, and the most singular testimony had been borne to him at Jordan, “ Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.” Heavenly enjoyments are given to us in this world, not merely to comfort us under present troubles, but to arm us against future dangers; and happy is it for us if they be so improved. Isaac had generally lived in solitude; but now he is called into company, and company becomes a snare. “The men of the place asked him of his wife.” These questions excited his apprehensions, and put him upon measures for self-preservation that involved him in sin. Observe, 1. He did not sin by thrusting himself into the way of tempt- ation ; for he was necessitated and directed of God to go to Gerar. Even the calls of necessity and duty may, if we be not on our watch, prove insmaring ; and if so, what must those situations be in which we have no call to be found? 2. The temptation of Isaac is the same as that which had overcome his father, and that in two instances. This rendered his conduct the greater sin. The falls of them that have gone before us are so many rocks on which others have split; and the recording of them is like placing buoys over them, for the security of future mariners. 3. It was a temptation that arose from the beauty of Rebecca. There is a vanity which attaches to all earthly good. Beauty has often been a snare, both to those who possess it and to others. In this case, as in that * Williams's Letters to Belsham, pp. 156–158. 2 C # 394 EXPOSITION OF GENESIS. of Abraham, it put Isaac upon unjustifiable measures for the preservation of his own life; measures that might have exposed his companion to that which would have been worse than death. Man soon falls into mischief when he sets up to be his own guide. And now we see, what we are grieved to see, a great and good man let down before heathens, and reproved by them for his dissimulation. He had continued at Gerar a long time uninterrupted, which sufficiently showed that his fears were groundless; yet he continued to keep up the deception, till the king observed from his window some freedoms he took with Rebecca, from which he inferred that she was his wife. The conduct of Abimelech on this occasion was as worthy of a king as that of Isaac had been unworthy of a servant of God. Ver. 12–17. Things being thus far rectified, we see Isaac engaged in the primitive employment of husbandry; and the Lord blessed him and increased him, so that he became the envy of the Philistines. Here again we see how vanity attaches to every earthly good; prosperity be- gets envy, and from envy proceeds injury. The wells which Abraham's servants had digged Isaac considered as his own, and made use of them for his' flocks; but the Philistines, out of envy to him, “stopped them up, and filled them with earth.” Had they drank of them, it might have been excused ; but to stop them up was down- right wickedness, and a gross violation of the treaty of peace which had been made between a former Abimelech and Abraham. The issue was, the king, perceiving the temper of his people, entreated Isaac quietly to depart. The reason he gave for it, that he was much mightier than they, might be partly to apologize for his people’s jealousy, and partly to soften his spirit by a compliment. If Isaac was so great as was suggested, he might, instead of re- moving at their request, have disputed it with them; he might have alleged the covenant made with his father, the improvement of his lands, &c. But he was a peaceable man ; and therefore, without making words, removed to the valley of Gerar, either beyond the borders of Abime- lech's territory, or at least farther off from the metropolis. A little with peace and quietness is better than much with envy and contention. Wer. 18–22. Isaac, though removed to another part of the country, yet finds “wells of water which had been digged in the days of Abraham his father,” and which the Philistines had stopped up after his death. It seems, wherever Abraham went, he improved the country; and wherever the Philistines followed him, their study was to mar his improvements, and that for no other end than the pleasure of doing mischief. Isaac, howevéſ, is resolved to open these wells again. Their waters would be doubly sweet to him for their having been first tasted by his be- loved father; and to show his filial affection still more, he called their names after the names by which his father had called them. Many of our enjoyments, both civil and religious, are the sweeter for being the fruits of the labour of our fathers; and if they have been corrupted by adversaries since their days, we must restore them to their former purity. Isaac's servants also digged “new wells,” which occasioned new strife. While we avail ourselves of the labours of our forefathers, we ought not to rest in them without making further progress, even though it expose us to many unpleasant disputes. Envy and strife may be expected to follow those whose researches are really beneficial, provided they go a step beyond their forefathers. But let them not be discouraged : the wells of salvation are worth striving for; and, after a few con- flicts, they may enjoy the fruits of their labours in peace. Isaac's servants dug two wells, which, from the bitter strife they occasioned, were called Esek and Sitnah, contention and hatred; but peaceably removing from these scenes of wrangle, he at length digged a well for which “they strove not.” This he called Rehoboth, saying, “Now the Lord hath made room for us, and we shall be fruitful in the land.” Ver. 23–25. The famine being now over, Isaac returned to Beersheba, the place where he and his father had lived many years before. It may seem strange, after God had made room for him at Rehoboth, that the next news we hear is that he takes leave of it. This however might be at some distance of time, and Beersheba was to him a kind of home. . Here, the very first night, he arrived, the Lord appeared to him, probably in vision, saying, “I am the God of Abraham thy father ; fear not, for I am with thee, and will bless thee, and multiply thy seed, for my servant Abraham's sake.” Isaac was attached to the wells which his father had digged, and to the place where he had sojourned; and doubtless it would add endearment to the very name of Jehovah himself, that he was the God of Abraham, especially as it would remind him of the covenant which he had made with him. A self-righteous spirit would have been offended at the idea of being blessed for another's sake; but he who walked in the steps of his father's faith would enjoy it : and by how much he loved him for whose sake the blessing was bestowed, by so much would this enjoyment be the greater. The promises are the same for substance as were made to him on his going to Gerar. The same truths are new to us under new cir- cumstances, and in new situations. To express the grate- ful sense he had of the Divine goodness, he arose and “built an altar, and called upon the name of the Lord :” and now, the very place being rendered doubly dear to him, “there he pitched his tent, and there his servants digged a well.” Temporal mercies are sweetened by their contiguity to God’s altars, and by their being given us after we have first sought the kingdom of God and his righteousness. Ver, 26–31. One would not have expected, after driving him, in a manner, out of their country, that the Philistines would have had anything more to say to him. Abimelech, however, and some of his courtiers, pay him a visit. They were not easy when he was with him, and now they seem hardly satisfied when he has left them. I believe they were afraid of his growing power, and, conscious that they had treated him unkindly, wished for their own sakes to adjust these differences before they proceeded any further. Isaac, while they acted as enemies, bore it patiently, as a part of his lot in an evil world; but now they want to be thought friends, and to renew covenant with him, he feels keenly, and speaks his mind: “Wherefore come ye to me, seeing ye hate me, and have sent me away from you?” We can bear that from an avowed adversary which we cannot bear from one in habits of friendship. “It was not an enemy that reproached me ; then I could have borne it.” To this they answer, “We saw certainly that the Lord was with thee.” Had they any regard, them, for Isaac's God, or for him on that account 3 I fear they had not ; they feel however a regard to themselves, and a kind of respect for Isaac, which is very commonly seen in men of no religion towards them that fear the Lord. We do not blame them for wishing to be on good terms with such a man as Isaac ; but they should not have pretended to have “done unto him nothing but good,” when they must know, and he must have felt, the contrary. But this is the very character of a self-righteous heart, when seeking re- conciliation with God as well as with man. It palliates its sin, and desires peace in return for its good deeds, when in fact its deeds are evil. Isaac, being of a peace- able spirit, admitted their plea, though a poor one, and treated them generously. Next morning they arose; and having solemnly renewed covenant with each other, parted in peace. Wer. 32, 33. The same day in which Abimelech and his courtiers took leave, the news came out of the field that Isaac’s servants had discovered a well. It is the same well as they are said in the 25th verse to have digged ; only there the thing is mentioned without respect to the time. Here we are told that the news of the discovery of the well arrived immediately after the mutual oath which had been taken between Isaac and Abimelech, and he for a me- morial of the event called it Sheba, an oath ; and a city being afterwards built on the spot, was hence, it seems, called Beersheba, the well of the oath. Indeed this name had been given it by Abraham above a hundred years before, and that on a similar occasion; but what was now done would serve to confirm it. Wer. 34, 35. The Lord had promised to multiply Isaac's seed; and they are multiplied in the person of Esau; how- beit not to the increase of comfort, either in him or in Re- becca. Esau went into the practice of polygamy, and took JACOB'S OBTAINING THE BLESSING. 395 both his wives from among the Canaanites. Whether he went into their idolatrous customs we are not told, nor whether they lived in the father's family. However this might be, their ungodly, and some think undutiful be- haviour, was a grief of mind to their aged parents. Isaac entreated the Lord for his wife when she bare no chil- dren; and now that they have children grown up, one of them occasions much bitterness of spirit; this indeed is not uncommon. Such an issue of things in this instance would tend to turn away the hopes of Isaac from seeing thé accomplishment of Abraham's covenant in the person of his first-born son, to whom he appears to have been in- ordinately attached. By other instances of the kind, God teaches us to beware of excessive anxiety after earthly com- forts, and in receiving them to rejoice with trembling. DISCOURSE XXXVI. JACOB's OBTAINING THE BLESSING. Gen. xxvii. BEFORE we entered on the history of Isaac, we met with some painful events respecting the departure of Ishmael ; but in the introduction to the history of Jacob, we find things much more painful. In the former instance, we found him that was rejected a mocker; but in this we see in the heir of promise a supplanter. This deviation from rectitude, though it changes not the Divine purpose, but, on the contrary, is overruled for its accomplishment, yet sows the seed of much evil in the life of the offender. Isaac retained his place in the family; but Jacob was obliged to depart from it. When the former was of age to be married, an honourable embassy was sent to bring it about; but the latter is necessitated to go by himself, as one that had just escaped with his life. There is a deep mystery in the system of providence, and much eventual good brought out of great evils. Ver. 1–4. Isaac was now about a hundred and thirty- seven years of age, and “his eyes were dim, so that he could not see.” He therefore called Esau his eldest son, and said, “Behold now, I am old, I know not the day of my death—take I pray thee thy weapons—and go out to the field, and take me some venison; and make me savoury meat, such as I love, and bring it to me that I may eat, that my soul may bless thee before I die.” Isaac lived forty-three years after this; but as it was unknown to him, he did very properly in settling his affairs. The day of our death is concealed from us for the very purpose that we may be always ready ; and when life is upon the wane, especially, it becomes us to do what we do quickly. The above account, however, does not appear greatly to his honour. His partiality towards Esau would seem to imply a disregard to what had been revealed to Rebecca; and his fondness for the venison has the appearance of weakness. But, passing this, there are two questions which require an answer—Wherein consisted the blessing which was now about to be bestowed 3 and why was savoury meat required, in order to the bestowment of it? Respecting the first, I might refer to what has been said already on the birthright, chap. xxv. 29–34. There was, no doubt, a common blessing to be expected from such a father as Isaac on all his children, and a special one on his first-born ; but in this family, there was a blessing superior to both. It included all those great things contained in the covenant with Abraham, by which his posterity were to be distin- guished as God’s peculiar people. Hence that which Isaac did is said to have been done in faith, and was pro- phetic of “things to come,” Heb. xi. 20. The faith of this good man was however, at first, much interrupted by natural attachment. . Desirous of conferring the blessing on Esau, he gives him directions as to the manner of re- ceiving it. And here occurs the second question, Why was savoury meat required in order to the bestowment of the blessing 3 The design of it seems to have been, not merely to strengthen animal nature, but to enkindle affec- tion. Isaac is said to have loved Esau on account of his venison, (chap. xxv. 23); this therefore would tend, as he supposed, to revive that affection, and so enable him to bless him with all his heart. It seems, however, to have been but a carnal kind of introduction to so Divine an act; partaking more of the flesh than of the Spirit, and savouring rather of that natural affection, under the in- fluence of which he at present acted, than of the faith of a son of Abraham. Ver. 5–10. Rebecca, overhearing this charge of Isaac to his son Esau, takes measures to direct the blessing into another channel. This is a mysterious affair. It was just that Esau should lose the blessing, for by selling his birth- right he had despised it. It was God’s design too that Jacob should have it. Rebecca also knowing of this de- sign, from its having been revealed to her that the elder should serve the younger, appears to have acted from a good motive. But the scheme which she formed to cor- rect the error of her husband was far from being justifi- able. It was one of those crooked measures which have too often been adopted to accomplish the Divine promises; as if the end would justify, or at least excuse, the means. Thus Sarah acted in giving Hagar to Abraham ; and thus many others have acted, under the idea of being w8eful in prºmoting the cause of Christ. The answer to all such things is that which God addressed to Abraham ; “I AM GoD ALMIGHTY ; walk before me, and be thou perfect.” The deception practised on Isaac was cruel. If he be in the wrong, endeavour to convince him ; or commit the affair to God, who could turn his mind, as he afterwards did that of Jacob, when blessing Ephraim and Manasseh ; but do not avail yourself of his loss of sight to deceive him. Such would have been the counsel of wisdom and recti- tude; but Rebecca follows her own. Wer. 11—13. We ought not to load Jacob with more of the guilt of this transaction than belongs to him. He was not first in the transgression. His feelings revolted at it when it was proposed to him. He remonstrated against it. Considering too that it was against the advice, or rather the command, of a parent, such remonstrance would seem to go far towards excusing him. But no earthly authority can justify us in disregarding the authority of God. Moreover, the remonstrance itself is founded merely on the consequences of the evil, and not on the evil itself. What a difference between this reasoning and that of his son Joseph : “I shall bring a curse upon me,” said he, “ and not a blessing.” “How can I do this great wick- edness,” said the other, “ and sin against God!” The zesoluteness of Rebecca is affecting. “ Upon me be thy curse, my son : only obey my voice.” Surely she must have presumed upon the Divine promise, which is a dan- gerous thing: our Lord considered it as tempting God, Matt. iv. 7. Those who do evil under an idea of serving God commonly go to the greatest lengths. It was in this track that the Lord met Saul in his way to Damascus. Wer. 14—17. If Jacob's remonstrance had arisen from an aversion to the evil, he would not so readily have yielded to his mother as he did; but, to resist temptation with merely the calculation of consequences, is doing nothing. Rebecca takes the consequence upon herself, and then he has no more to object, but does as she in- structs him. She also performs her part ; and thus be- tween them the scheme is executed. What labour and contrivance are required to dissemble the truth and carry on a bad cause ! Uprightness needs no such circuitous IſleaSUlreS. Wer. 18–24. Jacob now enters upon the business. And first, with all the artifice of his mother, she cannot guard him at all points. He is obliged to speak, and he could not counterfeit his brother's voice. “My father,” said he the patriarch starts . . . . . “Who art thou, my son ?” It was the voice of one of his sons, but not of him whom he expected. And now what can Jacob answer ? He must either confess the deception, or persist in it at all events. He chooses the latter. One sin makes way for another, and in a manner impels us to commit it : “Jacob said, I am Esau thy first-born—I have done according as thou badest me—Arise, I pray thee, sit, and eat of my venison, that thy soul may bless me.” Isaac, still sus- picious, inquires how he came so soon. The answer inti- 396 EXPOSITION OF GENESIS. mates that by a special interposition of his father's God he had met with early success . It is not easy to conceive of any thing more wicked than this. It was bad enough to deal in so many known falsehoods; but to bring in the Ilord God of his father, in order to give them the appear- ance of truth, was much worse, and what we should not have expected but from one of the worst of men. There is something about falsehood which though it may silence, yet will not ordinarily satisfy. Isaac is yet suspicious, and therefore desires to feel his hands; and here the deception answered. The hands, he thinks, are Esau's ; but still it is mysterious, for the voice is Jacob’s. Were it not for some such things as these we might overlook the wisdom and goodness of God in affording us so many marks by which to detect imposture, and distinguish man from man. Of all the multitudes of faces, voices, and figures in the world, no two are perfectly alike ; and if one sense fail us, the others are frequently improved. Such was the strength of Isaac's doubts, that he would not be satisfied without directly asking him again, “Art thou my very son Esau ?” and receiving for answer “I am.” After this he seems to have thought that it must be Esau, and therefore proceeded to bless him. The adversaries of revelation may make the most they can of these narrations: evil as was the conduct of Jacob and of Rebecca, the history of it contains the strongest internal evidence that it is written by inspiration of God. Had it been a cunningly devised fable, it would have been the business of the writer to have thrown the faults of this his great ancestor into the shade : but the Scriptures do not profess to describe perfect characters; they represent men and things as they were. We feel for the imposition practised on Isaac ; and yet it was no doubt a chastise- ment to him for his ill-placed partiality for Esau, on grounds so unworthy of him, and to the disregarding of what God had revealed concerning them. Ver. 25—29. It was of the Lord that Jacob should have the blessing, notwithstanding the unwarrantable means he had used to obtain it. In pronouncing it, Isaac was supernaturally directed ; otherwise it would not have cor- responded with what afterwards actually befell his pos- terity, which it manifestly does; nor would he have felt himself unable to revoke it. It is observable, however, that the blessing is expressed in very general terms. No mention is made of those distinguishing mercies included in the covenant with Abraham ; and this might be owing to his having Esau in his mind, though it was Jacob who was before him. He could not be ignorant how that young man had despised these things, and this might be a check to his mind while he thought he was blessing him. Moreover, his attachment to Esau, to the disregard of the mind of God, must have greatly weakened and injured his own faith in these things: it might therefore be expected that the Lord would cause a comparative leanness to at- tend his blessing, corresponding with the state of his mind. Ver. 30–33. Jacob had scarcely left the room when Tsau, returning from the chase, enters it, and presents his father with his venison. This at once discovers the impo- sition. Isaac is greatly affected by it. At first, when he heard his voice, he was confounded : “Who art thou ?” And when he perceived that it was indeed his first-born son, Esau, he “trembled very exceedingly,” and said, “Who, where is he that hath taken venison, and brought it to me, and I have eaten of all before thou camest, and have blessed him 3’” Such a shock must have been more than he knew how to sustain. To ascertain the sensations of which it was composed, we must place ourselves in his situation. As an aged and afflicted man, the imposition which had been practised on him would excite his indig- nation. Yet a moment's reflection would convince him that the transfer of the blessing must have been of the Lord ; and, consequently, that he had all along been act- ing against his will in seeking to have it otherwise. Two such considerations rushing upon his mind in the same instant sufficiently account for all his feelings: it was to him like a place where two seas met, or as the union of subterraneous fires and waters, the commotion of which causeth the earth to tremble. It must have appeared to him as a strong measure, permitted of God for his correc- tion ; and that he had thus caused him to do that against his choice which should have been done with it. Viewing it in this light, and knowing the blessing to be irrevocable, he, like a good man, acquiesced in the will of God, saying, “ Yea, and he shall be blessed.” Ver, 34–40. The very exceeding trembling of Isaac is now followed by “a great and exceeding bitter cry” on the part of Esau. Nothing he had ever met with seems to have affected him like it. But how is it that he who made so light of the birthright, as to part with it for a morsel of meat, should now make so much of the blessing connected with it 3. It was not that he desired to be a servant of the Lord, or that his posterity should be his people, according to the tenor of Abraham's covemant ; but as he that should be possessed of these distinctions would in other respects be superior to his brother, it be- came an object of emulation. Thus we have often seen religion set at nought, while yet the advantages which ac- company it have been earnestly desired ; and where grace has in a manner crossed hands, by favouring a younger or inferior branch of a family, envy, and its train of malignant passions, have frequently blazed on the other side. It was not as the father of the holy nation, but as being “lord over his brethren,” that Jacob was the object of Esau’s envy. And this may further account for the blessing of Isaac on the former dwelling principally upon temporal advantages, as designed of God to cut off the vain hopes of the latter of enjoying the power attached to the blessing, while he despised the blessing itself. When Esau perceived that Jacob must be blessed, he entreated to be blessed also : “Bless me, even me also, O my father l’” One sees in this language just that partial conviction of there being something in religion, mixed with a large portion of ignorance, which it is common to see in persons who have been brought up in a religious family, and yet are strangers to the God of their fathers. If this earnest request had extended only to what was consistent with Jacob’s having the pre-eminence, there was another blessing for him, and he had it; but though he had no desire after the best part of Jacob’s portion, yet he was very earnest to have had that clause of it reversed, “Be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother's sons bow down to thee.” If this could have been granted him, he had been satisfied ; for “ the fatness of the earth” was all he cared for. But this was an object concerning which, as the apostle observes, “he found no place of repentance,” (that is, in the mind of his father,) “though he sought it carefully with tears.” Such will be the case with forni- cators, and all profane persons, who, like Esau, for a few momentary gratifications in the present life, make light of Christ, and the blessings of the gospel. They will cry with a great and exceedingly bitter cry, saying, “Lord, Lord, open unto us?” But they will find no place of repent- ance in the mind of the Judge, who will answer them, “I know you not whence ye are: depart from me, ye workers of iniquity.” Esau’s reflections on his brother for having twice sup- planted him were not altogether without ground ; yet his statement is exaggerated. It was not accurate to say, “He took away my birthright,” as though he had robbed him of it, seeing he himself had so despised it as to part with it for a morsel of meat ; and having done so, what- ever might be said of Jacob’s conduct in the sight of God, he had no reason to complain. Ver. 41. Esau obtained, as we have seen, a blessing, and some relief on the score of subjection ; yet because he could not gain his point, but the posterity of Jacob must needs have the ascendancy, there is nothing left for him but to “hate him for the blessing wherewith his father blessed him.” He was not ignorant of Isaac's partiality; he must therefore have known that it was not owing to him, nor even to Jacob’s subtlety, that the first dominion was given him. He must have perceived, from what his father had said, that the thing was of the Lord, and therefore could not be reversed. Hence it appears that the hatred of Esau was of the same nature with that of Cain to Abel, and of Saul to David ; and operated in the same way; it was directed against him principally on account of his having been an object whom the Lord had favoured. Such also was the motive of hatred which, in after-ages, subsisted in the Edomites against Israel. As JACOB'S DEPARTURE FROM BEERSHEBA. 397 nothing could comfort Esau but the hope of murder, so nothing could satisfy his posterity but to see Jerusalem razed to its fountains. Isaac had talked of dying, and Esau thought to be sure the time was not far distant; and then, during the days of mourning for his father, he hoped for an opportunity of murdering his brother. He might think also that it was best to suppress his resentment till the poor old man was dead, and then it would not be a grief to him. The most cruel designs of wicked men may be mixed with a partiality for those who have been partial to them. Wer. 42—45. Esau, it seems, had not only said in his heart, I will slay my brother, but had put his thought into words, probably before some of the servants. The hint, however, was carried to Rebecca, and she clearly foresaw what was to be expected. She therefore sent for Jacob, and told him of his brother's design, counselling him at the same time to go to her relations at Haran, and tarry there awhile, till Esau’s anger should have subsided. The rea- son which she urges to enforce her counsel is very strong: “Why should I be deprived of you both in one day ?” Had Esau’s purpose succeeded, the murderer, as well as the murdered, had been lost to her. We see here the bit- ter fruits which Rebecca begins to reap from her crooked policy; she must part with her favourite son to preserve his life, and will never see him again in this world, though she thinks of sending in a little time to fetch him home. Ver, 46. By the manner in which things are here re- lated, it appears that Isaac was so infirm as to have lost all the power of management, and that the whole in a manner devolved on Rebecca. She advises Jacob what to do ; it is expedient, if not necessary, however, before he takes his departure, to obtain his father’s concurrence. She does not choose to tell her husband the true reason of her wishes, as that was a tender point, and might lead to a subject which she might think it better to pass over in silence; but knowing that he as well as herself had been grieved with Esau’s wives, (chap. xxvi. 35,) she judges that the most likely means of success would be a proposal for Jacob to go to Haran for the purpose of taking a wife from among their relations in that country. She does not propose it, however, directly, but merely ex- presses her strong disapprobation of his following the example of his brother, leaving it to Isaac to mention positively what should be done. And this, her apparent modesty, answered the end, as we shall see in the follow- ing chapter. DISCOURSE XXXVII. JACOB'S DEPARTURE FROM BEERSHEBA. Gen. xxviii. VER, 1–4. The hint which Rebecca had dropped against Jacob's taking a wife from among the daughters of Heth quite fell in with Isaac's mind ; and knowing that there Was but one place for him to go to on such an errand, he determines without delay to send him thither. The ac- count here given of his calling, blessing, and charging him is very much to his honour. The first of these terms im- plies his reconciliation to him; the second, his satisfaction in what had been done before without design ; and the last, his concern that he should act in a manner worthy of the blessing which he had received. How differently do things issue in different minds ! Esau, as well as Isaac, was exceedingly affected by what had lately oc- curred; but the bitter cry of the one issued in a settled hatred, while the trembling of the other brought him to a right mind. He had been thinking matters over ever since, and the more he thought of them, the more satisfied he was that it was the will of God, and that all his private partialities should give place to it. One sees in what he now does that his heart is in it. He not only blesses him, but invokes the blessing of Al- mighty God to attend him : “God Almighty bless thee, and make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, that thou mayest be a multitude of people; and give thee the blessing ol. Abraham to thee, and to thy seed with thee, that thou mayest inherit the land wherein thou art a stranger, which God gave unto Abraham.” Who does not perceive the difference between this blessing and the former ? In that he was thinking of one person, and blessing another; in this he understands what he is about. Then his mind was straitened by carnal attachment, now it is enlarged by faith. The rich promises of Abraham’s covenant seem there to have been almost forgotten ; but here they are expressly named, and dwelt upon with delight. Of what importance is it for our minds to be kept one with God’s mind and what a difference it makes in the discharge of duty : We may pray, or preach, after a manner, while it is otherwise ; and God may preserve us from uttering gross error: but what we deliver will be miserably flat and defective in comparison of what it is when a right spirit is renewed within us. Ver. 5–9. The departure of Jacob was attended by many painful and humiliating circumstances, as well it might; for these are the necessary consequences of sin. The parting scene to Isaac was tender; but Jacob and his mother must have felt something more than tenderness. As to Esau, it is not likely that he was present. He was near enough however to eye his motions, and by some means to make himself acquainted with every thing that passed. Probably he expected more supplanting schemes were forming, and longed for the time when a fair op- portunity should offer for his being revenged on the sup- planter. But when he found that his father had blessed him, and charged him not to take a wife of the daughters of Canaan, and that he had obeyed his voice, and was gone to Padan-aram, it seems to have wrought in a way that we should scarcely have expected. Finding himself left in the possession of all the substance of the family, and Jacob out of his way, he thinks he has now only to please his father, and, notwithstanding the loss of his birthright and blessing, all will be his. And now, to accomplish his end, he carefully notices the means by which Jacob succeeded in pleasing his parents. One great advantage which he had gained over him, as he perceived by his father's charge, was in reference to marriage. He had obeyed the voice of his father and his mother, and was gone to take a wife from the family of Bethuel. I will take another wife then, said Esau to himself, if that will please them ; and, as they seem attached to their relations, it shall be from among them. Moreover, as Jacob, who is his mother’s favourite, intends to marry into her family, I, who am my father’s, will marry into his. See what awkward work is made when men go about to please others and promote their worldly interest, by imitating that in which they have no delight. Ignorance and error mark every step they take. Esau was in no need of a wife, for he had two already ; nor did his parents desire him to add to the number ; nor would they be gratified by his connexion with the apostate family of Ishmael ; nor was it principally on account of Bethuel’s being a relation that Abraham’s family took wives from his. In short, he is out in all his calculations; nor can he discover the principles which influence those who fear the Lord. Thus have we often seen men try to imitate religious people, for the sake of gaining esteem, or in some way promoting their selfish ends; but instead of succeeding, they have commonly made bad worse. That which to a right mind is as plain as the most public high- way, to a mind perverted shall appear full of difficulties. “The labour of the foolish wearieth every one of them, because he knoweth not how to go to the city.” But to return :- Ver. 10, 11. The line of promise being now fully as- certained, Jacob becomes the hero of the tale. He was now about seventy-seven years old; and though his brother Esau had two wives, yet he was single. The posterity of Ishmael and Esau increased much faster than those of Isaac and Jacob. It seemed to be the design of God that the fulfilment of the promise should be protracted in order to try the faith of his servants. Setting out from his father's house at Beersheba, we find Jacob journeying towards Haran, a distance of about five hundred miles. Without a servant to attend him, or a beast to carry him, or any other accommodation, except, as he afterwards in- 398 EXPOSITION OF GENESIS. forms us, a staff to walk with, he pursues his solitary way. Having travelled one whole day, the sun being set, he alighted on a certain place, where he took up his abode for the night. The place was called Luz, and is said to have been a city, ver. 19. Jacob, however, does not seem to have entered it ; but, for some reason, chose to sleep in the open air in its suburbs. Sleeping abroad is a custom very common in the East, and less dangerous than in colder climates. The stones which he used for a pillow might preserve him from the damp of the ground ; but, we should think, must have contributed but little to rest his weary body. Ver, 12–15. During the night he had a very extraordi- nary dream, almost every particular of which is introduced by the sacred writer with the interjection “Behold 1’’ We might have been at a loss in ascertaining the mean- ing of the ladder, if the great medium of communion be- tween heaven and earth had not almost expressly applied it to himself. “Hereafter,” said Jesus to Nathanael, “ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending (that is, to heaven) and descending (that is, to the earth) upon the Son of man.” Our Lord's design appears to have been to foretell the glory of gospel times, in which, through his mediation, heaven should as it were be opened, and a free intercourse be established between God, angels, and men. But, it may be asked, What analogy could there be between this and that which was revealed to Jacob 3 I answer, We have seen that the Messiah was not only included in the promises to Abraham, but that he made a principal part of them ; and as these promises were now renewed to Jacob, though we had read nothing of his vision of the ladder, yet we should have known that they looked as far forward as to him, and to that dispens- ation in which “all the families of the earth should be blessed” in him. As it is, we may conclude that what was seen in vision was of the same general import as what was heard in the promises which followed. It was giving the patriarch a glimpse of that glory which should be accom- plished in his seed. - There was something very seasonable in this vision, and in the promises which accompanied it. Jacob had lately acted an unworthy part, and, if properly sensible of it, must have been very unhappy. His father, it is true, had blessed him, and of course forgiven him ; but, till God has done so too, he can enjoy no solid peace. Now such was the present vision : it was the Lord his God saying Amen to his father's blessing, ver. 3, 4, with 13, 14. He was taking leave of Canaan, and if he had calculated on human probabilities, he was never likely to return to it, at least during the lifetime of Esau : but, by the gift of the land on which he lay to him and to his seed, he was taught to expect it, and to consider himself only as a sojourner at Haran. Considering his age, too, there seemed but little probability of his having a numerous offspring. If the blessing consisted in this, it seemed much more likely to be fulfilled in his brother than in him ; but he was hereby assured that his seed should be as the dust of the earth, spreading abroad in every direction. The thought also of leaving his father's house, and of going among strangers, must needs have affected him. During his solitary waſk from Beersheba' he had doubtless been thinking of his lonely condition, and of the difficulties and dangers which he had to encounter. How seasonable then was the promise, “Behold, I am with thee, and will keep thee in all places whither thou goest, and will bring thee again into this land l’’ Finally, the present was a new epoch in his life, and, as an heir of promise, a kind of commencement of it. . In this character he must, like his predecessors, live by faith. Esau’s blessing was soon fulfilled ; but Jacob's related to things at a great distance, which none but God Almighty could bring to pass. How seasonable then were those precious promises which fur- nished at his outset a ground for faith to rest upon “I will not leave thee till I have done that which I have spoken to thee of.” Ver. 16–22. Awaking from sleep in the night time, and reflecting on his dream, he was greatly affected, as well he might. “Surely,” exclaimed he, “Jehovah is in this place, and I knew it not l” And he was afraid, and said, “How dreadful is this place : This is none other desires for inferior things, as it did Jacob’s. than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven l’” As if he had said, Surely this is no common dream | God is in it! God is near ! I went to sleep as at other times, expecting nothing ; and lo, ere I was aware, God hath visited me ! Feeling himself as in the presence of the Divine Majesty, he trembles; the place seems to be holy ground, the temple of Jehovah, the suburbs of heaven : Whether he slept after this we are not told : be that as it may, he “rose early in the morning; and, deeply impressed with what had passed, resolved to perpetuate the remem- brance of it. Taking the stone upon which he had lain, he set it up for a pillar, or monument; and, that he might consecrate it to the future service of the Lord, “poured oil upon the top of it.” This done, he gave the place a new name. Instead of Luz, (probably so called on ac- count of a number of almond or nut trees growing near it,) he called it “Beth-el—the house of God.” Finally, He closed this extraordinary vision by a solemn vow, or dedication of himself to God. The terms of this solemn vow were not of Jacob’s dictating to the Almighty, but arose out of his own gracious promises; and so furnish a lovely example of the prayer of faith. God had pro- mised to be with him, to keep him, to bring him again into the land, and not to leave him. Jacob takes up the precious words, saying, “If God will thus be with me, and keep me, and provide for me, and bring me home in peace, then in return I will be his for ever.” We may pray for things which God hath not promised in submission to his will, as Abraham interceded for Sodom, and Moses for the idolaters at Horeb; but when we ask for that which he hath engaged to bestow, we approach him with much greater encouragement. The order of what he de- sired is also deserving of notice. It corresponds with our Saviour's rule, to seek things of the greatest importance first. By how much God’s favour is better than life, by so much his being with us, and keeping us, is better than food and raiment. A sense of this will moderate our A little with the fear of the Lord is better than great treasures with trouble. If God be with us, and keep us, the mere neces- saries of life will make us happy. The vow itself contains an entire renunciation of idolatry, and a taking Jehovah to be his God. And inasmuch as it looks forward to his return to Canaan, it includes a solemn promise to maintain the worship of God in his family. Then he would rear an altar to him in Beth-el, and consecrate the tenth of all his substance to his cause. In the course of the history we shall perceive the use that Jacob made of this vision, and that which the Lord made of the vow which here he vowed to him. But I conclude with only remarking that in the former chapter we saw much of man ; but in this we have seen much of God. In the works of the one, sin abounded ; in those of the other, grace hath much more abounded. DISCOURSE XXXVIII. JACOB’S ARRIVAL AT HARAN. Gen. xxix. VER. 1. Jacob’s second day’s journey was very different from the first ; then he had a heavy burden, but now he has lost it. His outset from Beth-el is expressed by a phrase which signifies he lifted up his feet ; that is, he went lightly and cheerfully on. Nothing more is recorded of his journey, but that “he came into the land of the people of the east.” Ver. 2—10. The first object that struck him was a well, with three flocks of sheep lying by it, ready to be watered. The shepherds coming up rolled away the stone from the well’s mouth, watered the flocks, and then put the stone again in its place. Jacob, who had hither- to looked on, now began the following conversation with them.—My brethren, whence be ye?—Of Haran.--Know ye Laban, the son of Nahor?—We know him.—Is he well? He is well ; and, behold, Rachel his daughter * JACOB IN HARAN. 399 cometh with the sheep.–On this Jacob suggests that it was too soon to gather all the flocks together, as they did at night; and that there was much time for their being again led forth to pasture. ... “Water ye the sheep,” said hé, “and go and feed them.” It might appear somewhat out of character for a stranger to be so officious as to di- rect them how to proceed with their flocks; but the de- sign was, I apprehend, to induce them to depart, and to leave him to converse with Rachel by herself. They tell him, however, that they must stop till all the flocks are watered; Rachel’s, it seems, as well as the rest. Such probably was the custom, that the well might be left se- cure. While they were talking Rachel came up. The sight of the daughter of his mother's brother affected Ja- cob. He could have wished that so tender an interview had been by themselves; but as this could not be, he, in the presence of the shepherds, went and “rolled away the stone from the well’s mouth, and watered her flock; ” which being done, he “kissed Rachel, and lifted up his voice and wept.” The tears shed on this occasion must have arisen from a full heart. We cannot say that the love which he afterwards bore to Rachel did not com- mence from his first seeing her. But however that might be, the cause of this weeping was of another kind; it was her being “the daughter of his mother's brother” that now affected him. Every thing that revived her memory, even the very flocks of sheep that belonged to her brother, went to his heart. Nor did he wish to be alone with Rachel, but that he might give vent without reserve to these sens- ations. Wer. 12–14. It must have excited surprise in Rachel’s mind to see a stranger so attentive in watering her flock, and still more so to receive from him so affectionate a salutation; but now, having relieved his heart by a burst of weeping, he tells her who he is ;-he is her father's near kinsman, Rebecca’s son And now we may expect another very tender interview. Rachel ran and told her father ; and the father “ran to meet him, and embraced him, and kissed him, and brought him to his house.” After an interchange of salutations, Jacob tells him his whole story; and Laban seems much affected with it, and speaks to him in affectionate language, “Surely, thou art my bone and my flesh.” Wer. 15–20. During the first month of his stay, Jacob employed himself about his uncle’s business; but nothing was said with respect to terms. On such a sub- ject it was not for Jacob to speak; so Laban very proper- ly intimated that he did not desire to take advantage of his near relationship, that he should serve him any more than another man for nothing. Tell me, said he, what shall be thy wages. This gives Jacob an opportunity of expressing his love to Rachel. Aware that he had no dowry, like his father Isaac, he could not well have asked her, but for such an opportunity as this being afforded him. It was humiliating, however, to be thus in a man- ner obliged to earn his wife before he could have her. This is twice afterward referred to in the Scriptures, as an instance of his low condition. It was a part of the confession required to be made by every Israelite, when he presented his basket of first-fruits before the Lord, “A Syrian, ready to perish, was my father l’’ And when, in the days of Hosea, they were grown haughty, the pro- phet reminds them that “Jacob fled into the country of Syria, and Israel served for a wife, and for a wife he kept sheep.” Half the generosity which Laban's words seem to express, would have given Jacob the object of his choice, without making him wait seven years for her. It was very proper for the one to offer it; but it was mean and selfish for the other to accept it. If he had really esteemed his daughters, and on this account set a high value on them, he would not afterwards have imposed two, where only one was desired. But his own private interest was all he studied. In his sister Rebecca's mar- riage there were presents of gold and silver, and costly raiment, besides an assurance of the Lord having greatly blessed the family, and that Isaac was to be the heiy, These were things which wrought much on Laban's mind. He could then say, “Behold, Rebecca is before thee, take her, and go, and let her be thy master's son's wife.” But here are none of these moving inducements. Here is a man, it is true, and he talks of promised bless- ings; but he is poor, and Laban cannot live upon pro- mises. He perceives that Abraham's descendants are partial to his family, and he is resolved to make his market of it. The sight of the very flocks of Laban, as being his mother's brother, interested Jacob's heart; but he would soon find that Laban will make him pay for his attachments. Such, however, was the love he bore to Rachel, that he took all in good part, and consented to serve seven years for her. Nay, such was the strength of his affection, that “they seemed unto him but a few days.” Some would suppose that love must operate in a contrary way, causing the time to appear long rather than short ; and therefore conclude that what is here spoken is ex- pressive of what it appeared when it was past : but the phraseology seems rather to denote what it appeared at the time. The truth seems to be this : when there is nothing to obstruct a union, love is impatient of delay; but when great difficulties interpose, it stimulates to a patient and resolute course of action, in order to sur- mount them. Where the object is highly valued, we think little of the labour and expense of obtaining it. “Love endureth all things.” Ver. 21–24. At the expiration of the time Jacob de- manded his wife, and preparation is made accordingly for the marriage. Laban, like some in their gifts to God, is not wanting in ceremony. He made a feast, gave his daughter a handmaid, and went through all the forms; but the gift itself was a deception: it was not Rachel, but Leah, that was presented. It seems somewhat extra- ordinary that Jacob should be capable of being thus im- posed upon. Perhaps the veil which was then worn by a woman on her marriage might contribute to his not per- ceiving her. It was a cruel business on the part of Laban; yet Jacob might see in it the punishment of his having imposed upon his father. In such a way God often deals with men, causing them to reap the bitter fruits of sin, even when they have lamented and forsaken it. “When thou shalt make an end to deal treacherous- ly, they shall deal treacherously with thee.” Ver. 25–30. Jacob, perceiving by the light of the morning, how he had been deceived, remonstrated; but it was to no purpose. The answer of Laban was frivol- ous. If the custom of the country was as he alleged, he ought to have said so from the first ; but it is manifest that he wanted to dispose of both his daughters in a way that might turn to his own advantage. Hence he adds, “Fulfil her week, and I will give thee this also.” These words would seem to intimate that he had seven years longer to stay for Rachel; but this does not agree with other facts. Jacob was twenty years in Haran, chap. xxxi. 41. At the end of fourteen years Joseph was born. At which time Rachel had been a wife, without bearing any children, for several years, chap. xxx. 22–25. The two marriages therefore must have been within a week of each other ; and the meaning of Laban’s words must be, Ful- fil the seven days’ feasting for Leah, and then thou shalt have Rachel, and shalt serve me seven years after the marriage on her account.—With this perfectly agrees what is said in ver. 30, in which he is said to have gone in also unto Rachel, denoting that it was soon after his having gone in unto Leah ; and in which the seven years’ service is spoken of as following his marriage to her. This pro- posal on the part of Laban was as void of principle as any thing could well be. His first agreement was un- generous, his breach of it unjust ; and now to extort seven years' more labour, or withhold the object agreed for, was sordid in the extreme. Jacob had no desire for more wives than one ; yet as polygamy was at that time tolerated, and as the marriage had been consummated, though ignorantly, with Leah, he could not well put her away; yet neither could he think of foregoing Rachel. So he acceded to the terms, notwithstanding their injustice, and was married also to Rachel; and Bilhah was given to her for a handmaid. But it was to him a sore trial, and that which laid the foundation of innumerable dis- cords in his family, of which the succeeding history of it abounds. The following prohibition to Israel seems to have been occasioned by this unhappy example in their great ancestor : “Thou shalt not take a wife to her sister, 400 EXPOSITION OF GENESIS. to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, besides the other, in her lifetime.” Wer. 31–35. That Leah, who was never the object of Jacob’s choice, and who must have had a share in the late imposition, should be hated in comparison of Rachel, is no more than might be expected ; yet it is worthy of no- tice how God balances the good and ill of the present life. Leah is slighted in comparison of Rachel; but God gives children to her, while he withholds them from the other ; and children, in a family whose chief blessing consisted in a promised seed, were greatly accounted of. The names given to the children were expressive of their mother's state of mind; partly as to her affliction for want of an interest in her husband’s heart, and partly, we hope, as to her piety, in viewing the hand of God in all that befell her. Four children were born of her successively; name- ly, Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah ; and thus God was pleased to put more abundant honour upon the part that lacked. The name of the last of these children, though given him by his mother merely under an emotion of thank- fulness, yet was not a little suited to the royal tribe, whence also the Messiah should descend. Of this his father was made acquainted by revelation when he blessed his sons. “Judah,” said he, “thou art he whom thy brethren shall PRAISE—the sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come ; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be l’’ One sees, in the conduct of both Jacob and Leah, under their afflictions, a portion of that patience which arose from a consciousness of their having brought them upon themselves. They were each buffeted in this manner for their faults; and, being so, there was less of praiseworthi- ness in their taking it patiently. Yet, when compared with some others, who, in all their troubles, are as bul- locks unaccustomed to the yoke, we see what is worthy of imitation. DISCOURSE XXXIX. JACOB IN HARAN, Gen. xxx. ; xxxi. 1–16. THOUGH every part of Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for various purposes, yet I conceive it is no disparagement from its real value to say that every particular passage in it is not suited for a public exposition. On this ground I shall pass over the thirtieth chapter, with only two or three general remarks. First, The domestic discords, envies, and jealousies, be- tween Jacob's wives, serve to teach us the wisdom and goodness of the Christian law, that every man have his own wife, as well as every woman her own husband. No reflecting person can read this chapter without being dis- gusted with polygamy, and thankful for that dispensation which has restored the original law of nature, and with it true conjugal felicity. Secondly, Though the strifes and jealousies of Jacob’s wives were disgusting, yet we are not to attribute their desire of children, or the measures which it put them upon for obtaining thein, to mere carnal motives. Had it been so, there is no reason to believe that the inspired writer would have condescended to narrate them. “It would,” as an able writer observes, “have been below the dignity of such a sacred history as this is to relate such things, if there had not been something of great consideration in them.” The truth appears to be, they were influenced by the promises of God to Abraham ; on whose posterity were entailed the richest blessings, and from whom the Messiah was, in the fulness of time, to descend. It was the belief of these promises that rendered every pious female in those times emulous of being a mother. Hence also both Leah and Rachel are represented as praying to God for this honour, and, when children were given them, as acknow- ledging the favour to have proceeded from him, ver. 17, 18. 22. Thirdly, The measure which Jacob took to obtain the best of the cattle would at first sight appear to be selfish and disingenuous; and if viewed as a mere human device, operating according to the established laws of mature, it would be so : but such it was not. As when unbelievers object to the curse of Noah upon his son that it was the mere effect of revenge, we answer, Let them curse those who displease them, and see whether any such effects will follow ; so if they object to the conduct of Jacob as a crafty device, we might answer, Let them make use of the same, if they be able. I believe it will not be pretended that any other person has since made the like experiment with success. It must therefore have been by a special direction of God that he acted as he did, chap. xxxi. 10–12. And this will acquit him of selfishness, in the same manner as the Divine command to the Israelites to borrow of the Egyptians acquits them of fraud. Both were extraordi- nary interpositions in behalf of the injured; a kind of Divine reprisal, in which justice was executed on a broad scale. And as the Egyptians could not complain of the Israelites, for that they had freely lent or rather given them their jewels, without any expectation of receiving them again; * so neither could Laban complain of Jacob, for that he had nothing more than it was freely agreed he should have ; nor was he on the whole injured, but greatly benefited by Jacob's services. Chap. xxxi. 1, 2. It is time for Jacob to depart; for though Laban has acknowledged, in the hope of detaining him, that the Lord had blessed him for his sake, yet there is at this time much envy and evil-mindedness at work in the family against him, overlooking all their gains, and dwelling only upon his. Mercenary characters are not contented to prosper with others, but think much of every thing that goes beside themselves. If a poor tenant or a servant thrive under them, they will soon be heard mur- muring, “He hath taken away all that was ours, and of that which was ours hath he gotten all this glory.” If Laban's sons only had murmured thus, Jacob might have borne it; but their father was of the same mind, and car- ried it thus unkindly towards him. He had been very willing to part with his daughters, more so indeed than he ought to have been ; but Jacob’s increase of cattle under him touches him in a tender part. Wer. 3. The Lord had promised to be with Jacob, and to keep him in all places whither he went ; and he makes good his promise. Like a watchful friend at his right hand, he observes his treatment, and warns him to depart. If Jacob had removed from mere personal resentment, or as stimulated only by a sense of injury, he might have sinned against God, though not against Laban. But when it was said to him, “Return unto the land of thy fathers, and to thy kindred, and I will be with thee,” his way was plaim before him. In all our removals, it becomes us to act as that we may hope for the Divine presence and bless- ing to attend us; else, though we may flee from one trou- ble, we shall fall into many, and be less able to endure them. Ver. 4–13. And now, being warned of God to de- part, he sends for his wives into the field, where he might converse with them freely on the subject, without danger of being overheard. Had they been servants, it had been sufficient to have imparted to them his will ; but being wives, they require a different treatment. There is an authority which Scripture and nature give to the man over the woman ; but every one who deserves the name of a man will exercise it with a gentleness and kind- ness that shall render it pleasant, rather than burdensome. He will consult with her as a friend, and satisfy her by giving the reasons of his conduct. Thus did Jacob to both his wives, who, by such kind conduct, forgot the differences between themselves, and cheerfully cast in their lot with him. The reasons assigned for leaving were partly the treat- ment of Laban, and partly the intimations from God. “I see your father's countenance,” says he, “that it is not toward me as before.” It is wisely ordered that the countenance shall, in most cases, be an index to the heart; else there would be much more deception in the world than there is. We gather more of men's disposition to- • The Hebrew word "sw often signifies merely to ask, Psal. ii. 8. JACOB IN HARAN. 401 wards us from looks than from words; and domestic hap- piness is more influenced by the one than by the other. Sullen silence is often less tolerable than contention itself, because the latter, painful as it is, affords opportunity for mutual explanation. But while Jacob had to complain of Laban's cloudy countenance, he could add, “ The God of my father hath been with me.” God’s smiles are the best support under man's frowns; if we walk in the light of his countenance, we need not fear what man can do unto us. He then appeals to his wives, as to the faithful- ness and diligence with which he had served their father, and the deceitful treatment he had met with in return. “Ye know that with all my power I have served your father; and your father hath deceived me, and changed my wages ten times.” Next he alleges the good hand of his God upon him, that he had not suffered him to hurt him ; but, in whatever form his wages were to be, had caused things in the end to turn to his account; and that the purport of this was revealed to him by a dream before it came to pass, in which he saw the cattle in those colours which were to distinguish them as his hire. Moreover, that he had very lately had another dream, * in which the Angel of God directed him to observe the fact as accom- plished, of which he had before received only a pre-inti- mation ; and accounted for it, saying, “I have seen all that Laban doeth unto thee.” In alleging these things in his defence, Jacob said, in effect, If your father's cattle have of late been given to me, it is not my doing, but God’s, who hath seen my wrongs, and redressed them. Finally, He alleges, as the grand reason of his departure, the command of God. The same Angel who had directed him to observe the accomplishment of his former dream, at the same time added, “I am the God of Beth-el, where thou anointedst the pillar, and vowedst a vow unto me : now arise, get thee out from this land, and return unto the land of thy kindred.” sº Let us pause, and observe with attention this important passage. “I am the God of Beth-el !” Such words could never have been uttered by a created angel; nor does the appearing in the form of an angel, or messenger, accord with the Scripture account of God the Father : it must therefore have been the Son of God, whose frequent ap- pearances to the patriarchs afforded a prelude to his incar- nation. Paul, speaking of Christ in his incarnate charac- ter, says, that, “being in the form of God, he thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” But to what does the apostle refer When or where had he appeared equal with God? In such instances as these, no doubt; where- in he constantly spoke of himself, and was spoken to by his servants, as God: and in a manner which evinces that he accounted it no usurpation of that which did not belong to him. “I am the God of Beth-el!” When at Beth-el, the Lord said, “I am Jehovah, God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac.” He might have said the same now ; but it was his pleasure to direct the attention of his servant to the last, and to him the most interesting, of his manifesta- tions. By giving him hold of the last link in the chain, he would be in possession of the whole. The God of Beth-el was the God of his fathers, Abraham and Isaac ; the God who had entered into covenant with the former, had renewed it with the latter, and again renewed it with him. What satisfaction must it afford to be directed by such a God . $ It is also observable, that, in directing Jacob's thoughts to the vision at Beth-el, the Lord reminds him of those solemn acts of his own by which he had at that time de- voted himself to him. “I am the God of Beth-el, where thou amointedst the pillar, and vowedst a vow unto me.” It is not only necessary that we be reminded of God's promises for our support in troubles, but of our own solemn engagements, that the same affections which distinguished the best seasons of our life may be renewed, and that in all our movements we may keep in view the end for which we live. The object of the vow was that Jehovah show.ld be his God : and whenever he should return, that that Stone should be God’s house. And now that the Lord .* I am aware that the dreams in verses 10, 11, are generally con- sidered as one and the same. But those who thus consider them are commands him to return, he reminds him of his vow. He must not go to Canaan with a view to promote his own temporal interest, but to introduce the knowledge and worship of the true God. This was the great end which Jehovah had in view in all that he did for Abraham’s pos- terity, and they must never lose sight of it. Ver, 14–16. Jacob, having given the reasons for his proposed departure, paused. The women, without any hesitation, acquiesce, intimating that there was nothing in their father's house that should induce them to wish to stay in it. It is grievous to see the ties of nature dis- solved in a manner by a series of selfish actions. I am not sure that Rachel and Leah were clear of this spirit towards their father; their words imply that they were sufficiently on their own side. Yet the complaints which they make of him were but too well-founded. The sordid bargain which he had made with Jacob, exacting fourteen years' labour from him as the price of his daughters, appears to have stung them at the time; and, now that an opportu- nity offers, they speak their minds without reserve. They felt that they had been treated more like slaves than daughters, and that he had not consulted their happiness any more than their husband’s, but merely his own inter- est. Moreover, they accuse him of having devoured all their money. Instead of providing for them as daughters, which the law of nature required, (2 Cor. xii. 14,) he seems to have contrived to get all that private money which it is common to allow a son or a daughter while residing with their parents into his hands, and had kept them in a man- ner pennyless. Hence they allege that all the riches which had been taken from him and given to their hus- band were theirs and their children’s in right ; and that God, knowing their injuries, had done this to redress them. Upon the whole, their mind is that Jacob should go, and they will go with him. We have seen some things in the history of these women which has induced us to hope well of them, notwithstand- ing their many failings: but though in this case it was their duty to comply with the desire of their husband, and to own the hand of God in what had taken place between their father and him ; yet there is something in their manner of expressing themselves that looks more like the spirit of the world than the spirit which is of God. A right spirit would have taught them to remember that La- ban, whatever was his conduct, was still their father. They might have felt it impossible to vindicate him ; but they should not have expatiated on his faults in such a manner as to take pleasure in exposing them. Such con- duct was but too much like that of Ham towards his father. And as to their acknowledging the hand of God in giving their father's riches to their husband, this is no more than is often seen in the most selfish characters, who can easily admire the Divine providence when it goes in their favour. The ease, however, with which all men can discern what is just and equitable towards themselves, renders the love of ourselves a proper standard for the love of others, and will, sooner or later, stop the mouth of every sinner. Even those who have no written revelation have this Divine law engraven on their consciences; they can judge with the nicest accuracy what is justice to them, and therefore cannot plead ignorance of what is justice from them to others. DISCOURSE XL. JACOB'S DEPARTURE FROM HARAN. Gen. xxxi. 17–55. VER. 17–21. Jacob having consulted with his wives, and obtained their consent, the next step was to prepare for their departure. Had Laban known it, there is rea- son to fear he would either have detained him by force, or at least have deprived him of a part of his property. not only obliged to interpret those as one which the text represents as | two, but what is said by the Angel in the 12th and 13th verses as two Speeches, which manifestly appears to be one. ID 402 EXPOSITION OF GENESIS. He must therefore, if possible, depart without his know- ledge. At that time Laban was three days’ journey from home, at a sheep-shearing. Jacob, taking advantage of this, effected his escape. The women, returning from the field, collected their matters together in a little time; and being all ready, Jacob rose up, set his family upon the camels, and, with all his substance, set off for his father's house in the land of Canaan. Being apprehensive that Laban would pursue him, he passed over the Euphrates, and hastened on his way towards Mount Gilead. I do not know that we can justly blame Jacob for this his sudden and secret departure ; but when we read of Rachel’s availing herself of her father's absence to steal his images, a scene of iniquity opens to our view What, then, is the family of Nahor, who left the idolatrous Chal- dees—the family to which Abraham and Isaac repaired, in marrying their children, to the rejection of the idola- trous Canaanites—is this family itself become idolaters ? It is even so. But is Rachel, the beloved wife of Jacob, not only capable of stealing, but of stealing images 3 Some, reluctant to entertain such an opinion of her, have supposed she might take them away to prevent their ill effects on her father's family; but subsequent events are far from justifying such a supposition. It is a fact that these teraphim afterwards proved a snare to Jacob's family, and that he could not go up to Beth-el till he had cleansed his house of them, chap. xxxv. 1–3. But had the family of Laban cast off the acknowledgment of Jehovah, the one true God? This does not appear, for they make frequent mention of him. Both Rachel and Leah, on the birth of their children, were full of apparently devout acknowledgments of him ; and we were willing, thence, to entertain a hope in favour of their piety. Laban also, notwithstanding his keeping these images in his house, could afterwards in- voke Jehovah to watch between him and Jacob, ver. 49. The truth seems to be, they were like some in after-times, who sware by the Lord and by Malcham (Zeph. i. 5); and others in our times, who are neither cold nor hot, but seem to wish to serve both God and mammon. The teraphim that Rachel stole were not public idols, set up in temples for worship; but, as some think, little images of them, a kind of household gods. Laban's family would probably have been ashamed of publicly accompanying the heathen to the worship of their gods; but they could keep images of them in their house, which implies a superstitious respect, if not a private homage paid to them. This dividing of matters between the true God and idols has in all ages been a great source of corruption. A little before the death of Joshua, when Israel began to degenerate, it was in this way. They did not openly re- nounce the acknowledgment of Jehovah, but kept images of the idols in the countries round about them in their houses. Of this the venerable man was aware ; and therefore, when they declared, saying, “We will serve Jehovah, for he is our God,” he answered, “Ye cannot serve Jehovah, for he is a holy God, he is a jealous God ; he will not forgive your transgressions, nor your sins.” And when they replied, “Nay, but we will serve Jeho- vah,” he answered, “Put away the strange gods that are among you :” as if he should say, “You cannot serve God and your idols: if Jehovah be God, follow him; but if Baal, follow him.” What is popery 3 It does not pro- fess to renounce the true God ; but abounds in images of Christ and departed saints. What is the religion of great numbers among protestants, and even protestant Dis- senters ? They will acknowledge the true God in words; but their hearts and houses are the abodes of spiritual idolatry. When a man, like Laban, gives himself up to covetousness, he has no room for God or true religion. The world is his god ; and he has only to reside among gross idolaters in order to be one, or at least a favourer of their abominations. Ver. 22—30. The news of Jacob’s abrupt departure was soon carried to Laban, who, collecting all his force, immediately pursued him. It was seven days, however, ere he came up with him. Without doubt, he meditated mischief. He would talk of his regard to his children and grandchildren, and how much he was hurt in being prevented from taking leave of them; but that which lay nearest his heart was the substance which Jacob had taken with him. This, I conceive, he meant by some means to recover. And if he had by persuasion or force induced the family to return, it had been only for the sake of this. But, the night before he overtook Jacob, God appeared to him in a dream, and warned him not only against doing him harm, but even against “speaking to him (that is, on the subject of returning to Haran) either good or bad.” From this time his spirit was mani- festly overawed, and his heart was smitten as with a pal- sy. Overtaking Jacob at Mount Gilead, he begins with him in rather a lofty tone, but falters as he proceeds, dwelling upon the same charges over and over again. “What hast thou done,” said he, “that thou hast stolen away unawares to me, and carried away my daughters, as captives taken with the sword?” Wherefore didst thou flee away secretly, and steal away from me? and didst not tell me, that I might have sent thee away with mirth, and with songs, with tabret and with harp 3 and hast not suf- fered me to kiss my sons and my daughters ? thou hast now done foolishly in so doing.” In all this he means to insinuate that Jacob had no cause to leave him on ac- count of any thing he had done; that where there was so much secrecy there must be something dishonourable; and that, in pursuing him, he was only moved by affection to his children. He adds, “It is in the power of my hand to do you hurt; but the God of your father spake unto me yesternight, saying, Take thou heed that thou speak not to Jacob either good or bad.” Without doubt Laban’s company was much more powerful than that of Jacob, and he meant to impress this idea upon him, that his forbearance might appear to be the effect of generosity; nay, it is possible he might think he acted very religiously, in paying so much deference to the warning voice of his God. He concludes by adding, “And now, though thou wouldest needs be gone, because thou sore longedst after thy father's house; yet wherefore hast thou stolen my gods 3’” The manner in which he accounts for his desire to be gone has an appearance of candour and sympathy; but the design was to insinuate that it was not on account of any ill treatment he had received from him, and per- haps to give an edge to the heavy charge with which his speech is concluded. It was cutting to be accused of theft; more so of having stolen what he abhorred ; and, for the charge to be preferred by a man who wished to make every possible allowance, would render it more cut- ting still. Jacob felt it, and all his other accusations, as his answers sufficiently indicate. Ver. 31, 32. With respect to the reiterated complaints of the secrecy of his departure, Jacob answers all in a few words: It was “because I was afraid ; for I said, peradventure thou wouldst take by force thy daughters from me.” This was admitting his power, but impeaching his justice; and as he had dwelt only upon the taking away of his daugh- ters, so Jacob in answer confines himself to them. La- ban might feel for the loss of something else besides his daughters; and Jacob, when he left Haran, might be afraid for something else; but as the charge respected only them, it was sufficient that the answer corresponded to it. If by withholding the women he could have de- tained him and his substance, his former conduct proved that he would not have been to be trusted. With respect to the gods, Jacob’s answer is expressive of the strongest indignation. He will not deign to disown the charge ; but desires that all his company might be searched, say- ing, “With whomsoever thou findest thy gods, let him not live l’” It was worthy of an upright man to feel in- dignant at the charge of stealing, and of a servant of God, at that of stealing idols. But unless he had been as well assured of the innocence of all about him as he was of his own, he ought not to have spoken as he did. His words might have proved a sorer trial to him than he was aware of. Though Laban had not expressly charged him with fraud in any thing except the gods; yet, having dwelt so much upon the privacy of his departure as to intimate a general suspicion, Jacob answers also in a general way, “Before our brethren, discern thou what is thine with me, and take it to thee.” It was unpleasant to be thus pur- sued, accused, and searched; but it was all well. But for. JACOB'S DEPARTURE FROM HARAN. 403 this, his uprightness would have appeared in a more sus- picious light. Ver. 33–42. Laban accepts the offer, and now begins to search. Going from tent to tent, he hopes to find at least his gods. Rachel's policy, however, eludes his vigi- lance : “he searched, but found not the images.” No mention is made of his going among the cattle, which proves he had no suspicion of being wronged in respect of them. During the search, Jacob looked on and said no- thing; but when nothing was found that could justify the heavy charges which had been preferred against him, his spirit was provoked. “He was wroth, and chode with Iaban.” . Hard words and cutting interrogations follow. “What is my trespass 3 what is my sin, that thou hast so hotly pursued after me? Whereas thou hast searched all my stuff, what hast thou found of all thy household stuff? Set it here before my brethren, and thy brethren, that they may judge betwixt us both 3’” He goes on, and takes a review of his whole conduct towards him for twenty years past, and proves that he had been very hardly dealt with, summing up his answer in these very emphatic terms: “Except the God of my father, the God of Abra- ham, and the fear of Isaac had been with me,” notwith- standing all thy talk of sending me away with mirth and with songs, with tabret and with harp, “surely thou hadst sent me away now empty : God hath seen mine affliction, and the labour of mine hands, and rebuked thee yester- night.” Laban made a merit of obeying the dream ; but Jacob improves it into an evidence of his evil design, for which God had rebuked him, and pleaded the cause of the injured. Ver. 43–53. Laban, whose spirit was checked before he began, was now confounded. He quite gives up the cause, and wishes to make up matters as well as he can. He cannot help prefacing his wish, however, with a portion of vain boasting and affected generosity. “These daughters are my daughters, and these children are my children, and these cattle are my cattle, and all that thou seest is mine : and what can I do this day unto these my daughters or unto their children which they have borne 3’” As if he had said, Yes, yes, God hath given you many things ; but re- member they were all mine, and you have obtained them under me. Let us have no more disputes however; for though I am come so far, and possess so great a force, yet how can I find in my heart to hurt my own children ? Come, therefore, and let us make a covenant and be good friends. Jacob makes no reply to Laban's boasting, but lets it pass ; and though he had felt so keenly, and spoken so warmly, yet he consents to a covenant of peace. Anger may rise in the breast of a wise man; but it resteth only &n the bosom of fools. He said nothing, but expressed his mind by actions. He first “took a stone, and set it up for a pillar;” then said to his brethren, “Gather stones; and they took stones, and made a heap, and did eat together,” in token of reconciliation, upon it. This done, Laban called it Jegar-sahadutha, and Jacob Galeed: the one was the Syriac and the other the Hebrew word for the same thing; that is, the heap of witness. It was also called Mizpah, a beacon, or watch-tower. The mean- ing of these names, in reference to the present case, is ex- plained by Laban, as being the elder man, and the leading party in the covenant. “This heap,” said he, “is a wit. ness between me and thee this day. Jehovah watch be- tween me and thee, when we are absent one from another. If thou shalt afflict my daughters, or if thou shalt take other wives besides my daughters, no man is with us: see, God is witness betwixt me and thee.” To this he added, “Behold this heap, and behold this pillar—this heap be witness, and this pillar be witness, that I will not pass over this heap to thee, and that thou shalt not pass over this heap and this pillar unto me, for harm. The God of Abraham, and the God of Nahor, the God of their father judge betwixt us.” To this covenant Jacob fully assented, and sware by the fear of his father Isaac ; that is, by the God whom Isaac feared. We are surprised to hear a man who had been seven days in pursuit of certain stolen gods speak so much, and in so solemn a manner, about Jehovah ; but wicked men will, on some occasions, utter excellent words. After all, * 2 D 2 * - * * he could not help manifesting his attachment to idolatry. When speaking to Jacob of Jehovah, he calls him “the God of your father,” in a manner as if he was not his God; and in swearing to the solemn covenant which had been made between them, he does not appear to have in- voked Jehovah as the only true God. It is very observ- able, that though he makes mention of “the God of Abra- ham,” yet it is in connexion with Nahor and their father, that is, Terah ; but when Abraham was with Nahor and Terah, they were idolaters. To this purpose we read in Joshua : “Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, even Terah the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor ; and they served other gods.” The God of Abraham, and Nahor, and Terah, therefore, were words capable of a very ill construction. Nor does Jacob appear to be ignorant of Laban's design in thus referring to their early ancestors ; and therefore, that he might bear an unequivocal testimony against all idolatry, even that of Abraham in his younger years, he would swear only by “the fear of his father Isaac,” who had never worshipped any other than the true God. It were worth while for those who plead for an- tiquity as a mark of the true church to consider that herein they follow the example of Laban, and not of Jacob. Wer. 54, 55. Laban had professed his regret that he had not an opportunity to enjoy a day of feasting and of mirth at parting with his children. Such a parting would hardly have been seemly, even in a family which had no fear of God before their eyes. Jacob, however, makes a religious feast, previously to the departure of his father-in-law. “He offered sacrifices upon the Mount Galeed, and called his brethren,” that is, the whole company, “to eat bread: and they did eat bread, and tarried all night in the mount. And early in the morning Laban rose up, and kissed his sons and his daughters, and blessed them : and Laban departed, and returned unto his place.” This parting proved final. We hear no more of Laban, nor of the family of Nahor. They might for several ages retain some knowledge of Jehovah ; but, mixing with it the su- perstitions of the country, they would in the end sink into gross idolatry, and be lost among the heathens. On observing the place from which Balaam, the son of Beor, is said to have been sent for, to curse Israel, namely, Pethor of Mesopotamia, (Deut. xxiii. 4,) or Aram, (Numb. xxiii. 7,) or, as it is frequently called, Padan-aram, and that it is the same with that in which Laban dwelt, I have been inclined to think he might be one of his de- scendants. He is supposed to have lived about two hun- dred and eighty years after Jacob’s departure from that country, which in those ages would not include above two or three generations. The opinion of ancient Jewish writers, though often fabulous, yet, when agreeing with what is otherwise probable, may serve to strengthen it. “The Targum of Jonathan on Numb. xxii. 5, and the Targum on 1 Chron. i. 44, make Balaam to be Laban himself: and others say he was the son of Beor, the son of Laban.” # The former of these opinions, though in itself utterly incredible, yet may so far be true as to hit upon the family from which he descended ; and the latter, allowing perhaps for a defect of one generation, appears to me to be highly probable. Add to this, that the tera- phim, or images, which Laban kept in his house, and which he would doubtless replace on his return, are sup- posed to be a sort of “talismans;” they “were consulted as oracles, and in high esteem with the Chaldeans and Syrians, a people given to astrology, and by which they made their divinations, Hos. iii. 4; Zech. x. 2.”f Ac- cording to this, Balaam, the soothsayer, would only tread in the steps of his ancestors; not utterly disowning Je- hovah, but being devoted to the abominations of the heathem. If the above remarks be just, they show, in a strong point of light, the progress of apostacy and corruption. Laban imitated the corruptions of his ancestors, some of whom were good men; and his descendants degenerated still more. Thus you will often see a man who has de- scended from religious parents, but whose heart is entirely taken up with the world; he keeps up the forms of god- * See Gill on Numb. xxii. 5. + Gill on Gen. xxxi. 19. 404 EXPOSITION OF GENESIS. liness, though he denies the power, and mixes with them all the evil that he can rake up from the examples of his forefathers, and considerable additions of his own. The next generation degenerates still more, having less of the form of religion, and more conformity to the world. The third throws off both the form and the power, retaining no vestige of the religion of their ancestors, excepting a few speculative notions, learnt from a few old books and say- ings, which have no other influence upon them than to enable them to be more wicked than their neighbours, by sinning against somewhat of superior light. How im- portant is it for good men to act in character in their families, inasmuch as every evil which they practise will be reacted and increased by their carnal posterity : DISCOURSE XLI. JACOB's FEAR OF ESAU. HIS WIRESTLING WITH THE ANGEL. Gen. xxxii. VER. 1, 2. The sacred writer, pursuing the history of Ja- cob, informs us that he went on his way, and the angels of God met him. And when he saw them, he said, “This is God’s host; and he called the name of that place Maha- naim.” That the angels of God are “ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of sal- vation,” is a truth clearly revealed in the Scriptures; but this their ministry has seldom been rendered visible to mortals. “The angel of Jehovah,” it is said, “encamp- eth round about them that fear him, and delivereth them.” But I do not recollect that any of these celestial guardians have appeared in this character to the servants of God, except in times of imminent danger. When a host of Sy- rians encompassed Dothan, in order to take Elisha, his servant was alarmed, and exclaimed, “Alas ! master, how shall we do?” The prophet exclaimed, “Fear not ; for they that be with us are more than they that be with them.” Yet there was no earthly force to protect them. But when, in answer to the prophet's prayer, “the young man’s eyes were opened, he saw the mountain full of horses, and chariots of fire round about Elisha.” In this case, God’s host became visible, to allay the fear of man’s hosts. Thus it was also in the present instance. Jacob had just escaped one host of enemies, and another is com- ing forth to meet him. At this juncture God’s host makes its appearance, teaching him to whom he owed his late escape, and that he who had delivered did deliver, and he might safely trust would deliver him. The angels which appeared on this occasion are called God's host, in the singular ; but by the name which Jacob gave to the place, it appears that they were divided into two, encom- passing him as it were before and behind ; and this would correspond with the two hosts of adversaries which at the same time, and with almost the same violent designs, were coming against him ; the one had already been sent back without striking a blow, and the other should be the same. This however was not expressly revealed to Jacob, but merely a general encouragement afforded him ; for it was not the design of God to supersede other means, but to save him in the use of them. Ver, 3–5. Jacob had as yet heard nothing of his brother Esau, except that he had settled “in the land of Seir, the country of Edom ; ” but knowing what had formerly taken place, and the temper of the man, he is apprehensive of consequences. He therefore resolves on sending messen- gers before him, in order to sound him, and, if possible, to appease his anger. These messengers are instructed what they shall say, and how they shall conduct themselves on their arrival, all in a way to conciliate. “Thus shall ye speak unto my lord Esau; Thy servant Jacob saith thus: I have sojourned with Laban, and staid there until now. And I have oxen, and asses, flocks, and men-servants, and women-servants; and I have sent to tell my lord, that I may find grace in thy sight.” Observe, 1. He declines the honour of precedency given him in the blessing, call- ing Esau his lord. Isaac had said to him, “Be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother's sons bow down to thee; but Jacob either understood it of spiritual ascendancy, or if of temporal, as referring to his posterity rather than to him. He therefore declines all disputes on that head. 2. He would have him know that he was not come to claim the double portion, nor even to divide with him his father's inheritance; for that God had given him plenty of this world’s goods without it. Now as these were the things which had so greatly provoked Esau, a relinquishment of them would tend more than any thing to conciliate him. Wer. 6—12. The messengers had not proceeded far ere they met Esau coming forth to meet his brother Jacob, and four hundred men with him. It would seem, by the account, that they went and delivered their message to him. But however that was, they appear to have been struck with the idea that he was coming with a hostile de- sign, and therefore quickly returned and informed their master of particulars. We are surprised that Jacob's jour- ney, which had taken him only about a fortnight, and had been conducted with so much secrecy, should yet have been known to Esau. His thirst for revenge must have prompted him to great vigilance. One would think he had formed connexions with persons who lived in the way, and engaged them to give him information of the first movements of his brother. However this was, Jacob was greatly afraid, and even distressed. This term with us is sometimes lightly applied to the state of mind pro- duced by ordinary troubles; but in the Scriptures it de- notes a sore strait, from which there seems to be no way of escape. This distress would probably be heightened by the recollection of his sin, which first excited the resent- ment of Esau. There is no time, however, to be lost. But what can he do $ Well, let us take notice what a good man will do in a time of distress, that we may as oc- casion requires follow his example. First, He uses all possible precaution, “dividing the people that was with him, and the flocks, and herds, and the camels, into two bands,” saying, “If Esau come to the one company and smite it, then the other company which is left shall escape.” Secondly, He betakes himself to prayer; and as this is one of the Scripture examples of successful prayer, we shall do well to take particular notice of it. Observe, 1. He ap- proaches God as the God of his father; and as such, a God in covenant. “O God of my father Abraham, and God of my father Isaac l’” This was laying hold of the Divine faithfulness; it was the prayer of faith. We may not have exactly the same plea in our approaches to God; but we have one that is more endearing, and more prevalent. The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is a character which excites more hope, and in which more great and precious promises have been made, than in the other. 2. As his own God, pleading what he had promised to him. “Jehovah, who saidst unto me, Return unto thy country, and to thy kindred, and I will deal well with thee.” Je- hovah has never made promises to us in the same extraor- dinary way as he did to Jacob ; but whatever he hath promised to believers in general may be, pleaded by every one of them in particular, especially when encountering opposition in the way which he hath directed them to go. 3. While he celebrates the great mercy and truth of God towards him, he acknowledges himself unworthy of the least instance of either. The worthiness of merit is what every good man, in every circumstance, must disclaim ; but that which he has in view I conceive is that of meetness. Looking back to his own unworthy conduct, especially that which preceded and occasioned his passing over Jor- dan with a staff only in his hand, he is affected with the returns of mercy and truth which he had met with from a gracious God. By sin he had reduced himself in a manner to nothing ; but God’s goodness had made him great. As we desire to succeed in our approaches to God, we must be sure to take low ground ; humbling ourselves in the dust before him, and suing for relief as a matter of mere grace. Finally, having thus prefaced his petition, he now presents it: “Deliver me, I pray thee, from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau; for I fear him, lest he will come and smite me, and the mother with the children.” This was doubtless the petition of a kind husband and a tender father; it was not as such only, nor principally, however, but as a believer in the promises JACOB'S WRESTLING WITH THE ANGEL. 405 that he presented it: the great stress of the prayer turns on this hinge. It was as though he had said, If my life, and that of the mother, with the children, be cut off, how are thy promises to be fulfilled ? Hence he adds, “And thou saidst, I will surely do thee good, and make thy seed as the sand of the sea, which cannot be numbered for multitude.” It is natural for us as husbands and as parents to be importunate with God for the well-being of those who are so nearly related to us; but the way to obtain mercy for them is to seek it in subordination to the Divine glory. Ver. 13–30. Jacob and his company seem now to have been north of the river Jabbok, near to the place where it falls into the Jordan. Here he is said to have “ lodged that night.” Afterwards we read of his rising up, and sending his company over the ford, ver. 22. Probably it was during one single night that the whole of what follows in this chapter occurred. The messengers having returned towards evening, he divided his com- pany into two bands, and then committed his cause to God. After this he halted for the night; but whatever sleep might fall to the lot of the children, or rest to the beasts of burden, there was but little of either for him. First, he resolves neither to flee nor fight; but to try the effect of a present. Upwards of five hundred head of cattle were sent off in the night, under the care of his servants; and, to produce the greater effect, they were divided into droves, with a space between drove and drove. Having sent off the present, he seems to have tried to get a little rest ; but not being able to sleep, he rose up, and took his whole family, and all that he had, and sent them over the ford of Jabbok. Every servant presenting his drove in the same words, would strike Esau with amazement. It would seem as if all the riches of the East were coming to him ; and every one concluding by announcing his master as coming behind them would work upon his generosity. He expected, it is likely, a host of armed men, and felt resolved to fight it out; but, instead of an army, here is a present worthy of a prince, and the owner coming after it with all the confidence of a friend, and kindness of a brother. Whether he thought it would express more friendship, and be better taken, to be at the trouble of crossing the ford in order to meet Esau, than to oblige Esau to cross it in order to meet him, or whatever was his reason, so he acted; and, the family being all over the river, he him- self staid behind. Here it was that he met with that ex-, traordinary appearance on which he wrestled with the Angel and prevailed. The account is as follows:– “And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day. And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him. And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me. And he said unto him, What is thy name 3 And he said, Jacob. And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel (that is, a prince of God); for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed. And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name: and he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name 3 And he blessed him there. And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” On this singular manifestation of God to his servant, we offer the following remarks:–1. It does not appear to be a vision, but a literal transaction. A personage, in the form of a man, really wrestled with him, and permit- ted him to prevail so far as to gain his object. 2. Though the form of the struggle was corporeal, yet the essence and object of it was spiritual. An inspired commentator on this wrestling says, “He wept and made supplication to the Angel.” That for which he strove was a blessing, and he obtained it. 3. The personage with whom he strove is here called a man, and yet, in seeing him, Jacob said, “I have seen God face to face, and my life is pre- served.” Hosea, in reference to his being a messenger of God to Jacob, calls him “the Angel ; ” yet he also de scribes the patriarch as having “power with God.” Upon the whole, there can be no doubt but that it was the same Divine personage who appeared to him at Beth-el, and at Padan-aram ; who, being in the form of God, again thought it no usurpation to appear as God. 4. What is here recorded had relation to Jacob’s distress, and may be considered as an answer to his evening supplications. By his power with God he had power with men. Esau and his hostile company were conquered at Peniel. 5. The change of his name from Jacob to Israel, and the blessing which followed, signified that he was no longer to be regarded as having obtained it by supplanting his brother, but as a prince of God, who had wrestled with him for it, and prevailed. It was thus that the Lord par- doned his sin, and wiped away his reproach. It is ob- servable, too, that this is the name by which his posterity are afterwards called. Finally, The whole transaction furnishes an instance of believing, importunate, and suc- cessful prayer. As Jacob would not let the angel go ex- cept he blessed him; and as the latter (though to con- vince him of his power he touched the hollow of his thigh, and put it out of joint) suffered himself to be overcome by him ; so every true Israelite pleads the promises of God with an importunity that will take no denial, and God is pleased to suffer himself in this manner to be as it Were OVerCOme. Ver. 30–32. What a night was this to Jacob | What a difference between what he felt the past evening, on the return of the messengers, and what he now felt! Well might he wonder and exclaim, “I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved : " Passing over Peniel, however, to rejoin his family, just as the sun rose upon him, he halted upon his thigh. This would be a memo- rial to him of his own weakness, as well as of the power and goodness of God, who, instead of touching a single part, might, as he intimated, have taken away his life. The law which afterwards prevailed in Israel, of not eating of the sinew which shrank, might be of Divine origin, as it corresponds with the genius of the ceremonial economy. DISCOURSE XLII. JACOB's INTERVIEW WITH ESAU, AND ARRIVAL IN CANAAN . Gen. xxxiii. VER. 1–4. No sooner had Jacob passed over the ford of Jabbok, and rejoined his family, but, lifting up his eyes, he saw his brother approaching him, and four hundred men with him. He has just time before he comes up to arrange his family, placing the children with their re- spective mothers, and those last for whom he has the tenderest affection. This circumstance shows that though he treated Esau with the fullest confidence, yet he was still secretly afraid of him. He must, however, put the best face he can upon it, and go on to meet him. This he does ; and as he had by his messengers acknowledged him as his lord, so he will do the same by bowing down to him. His object was to satisfy him that he made no claim of that kind of pre-eminence which the other's heart was set upon, but freely gave it up. And this seems to have had the desired effect on Esau’s mind; for though he did not bow in return to his brother, since that had been relinquishing his superiority; yet “he ran to meet him, and embraced him, and fell on his neck, and kissed him :” nor could such an unexpected meeting fail to dis- solve both of them in tears It is pleasant and affecting to see the bitter heart of Esau thus melted by a kind and yielding conduct. We must not forget that God’s hand was in it, who turneth the hearts of men as rivers of water ; but neither must we overlook the means by which it was effected. “A soft tongue,” saith Solomon, “ breaketh the bone.” On which our commentator Henry remarks, with his usual pith, “Hard words, we say, break no bones, and therefore we should bear them patiently ; but it seems soft words do, and therefore we should on all occasions give them prudently.” Treat 406 EXPOSITION OF GENESIS. men as friends, and make them so. Pray but as Jacob did, and be as obliging and condescending as he was, and you will go through the world by it. Ver. 5–7. The two brothers having wept over each other, Esau, lifting up his eyes, saw the women and chil- dren, and inquired who they were 3 Jacob’s answer is worthy of him. It savours of the fear of God which ruled in his heart, and taught him to acknowledge him even in the ordinary concerns of life. They are, saith he, “the children which God hath graciously given thy servant. Then the handmaidens came near, they and their children, and they bowed themselves. And Leah also, with her children, came near, and bowed themselves : and after came Joseph near, and Rachel, and they bowed them- selves.” Had this been done to Jacob, methinks he would have answered, “God be gracious unto you, my children l’’ But we must take Esau as he is, and rejoice that things are as they are. We have often occasion to be thankful for civilities, where we can find nothing like religion. One cannot help admiring the uniformly good behaviour of all Jacob’s family. If one of them had failed, it might have undone all the good which his ingratiating conduct had done; but, to their honour it is recorded, they all acted in unison with him. When the head of a family does right, and the rest follow his example, every thing goes on well. Ver. 8. But Esau desires to know the meaning of these droves of cattle being sent to him. The answer is, “These are to find grace in the sight of my lord.” This would express how high a value he set upon his favour, and how much he desired to be reconciled to him ; and so tended to conciliate. We might, in most cases, purchase peace and good-will from men at a much cheaper rate than this; a few shillings, nay, often only a few kind words, would do it ; and yet we see, for the want of these, strifes, con- tentions, lawsuits, and I know not what evil treatment, even between those who ought to love as brethren. But if the favour of man be thus estimable, how much more that of God! Yet no worldly substance, nor good deeds of ours, are required as the price of this ; but merely the receiving of it as a free gift, through Him who hath given himself a sacrifice to obtain the consistent exercise of it towards the unworthy. Ver. 9–11. The reply of Esau to this obliging answer was, “I have enough, my brother, keep that thou hast unto thyself.” There might be in this language pretty much of a high spirit of independence. Whatever effect Jacob’s present had had upon him, he would not be thought to be influenced by any thing of that kind ; especially as he had great plenty of his own. Jacob, however, con- tinued to urge it upon him, mot as if he thought he needed, but as a token of good-will, and of his desire to be recon- ciled. He did not indeed make use of this term, nor of any other that might lead to the recollection of their for- mer variance. He did not say that he should consider the acceptance of his present as a proof that he was cordially reconciled to him ; but what he did say, though more de- licately expressed, was to the same effect. Such I con- ceive to be the import of the terms, “If now I have found grace in thy sight, then receive my present at my hand.” The receiving of a present at another's hand is perhaps one of the greatest proofs of reconciliation. Every one is conscious that he could not receive a present at the hand of an enemy. And upon this principle no offerings of sinful creatures can be accepted of God, till they are re- conciled to him by faith in the atonement of his Son. To find grace in the sight of Esau, and to have his present accepted as a token of it, was the desire of Jacob. To these ends he further assures him how highly his favour was accounted of, and that to have seen his face in the manner he had was to him next to seeing the face of God. This was strong language, and doubtless it was expressive of strong feelings. Reconciliation with those with whom we have long been at variance, especially when it was through our own misconduct, is, as to its effect upon the mind, next to reconciliation with God. Finally, he en- treats him to accept what he had presented, as his blessing ; (8o a present was called when accompanied with love or good-will ; see Josh. xv. 19; 1 Sam. xxv. 27; 2 Kings v. 15;) and the rather, because God had graciously bless- ed him, and given him enough , may more, had given him . all things. * Esau on this accepted it ; and, as far as we know, the reconciliation was sincere and lasting. Ver. 12–15. Esau proposes to be going, and to guard his brother and his family through the country. The pro- posal was doubtless very friendly and very honourable; and appears to have contained an invitation of Jacob and his family to his house at Seir ; but Jacob respectfully declines it, on account of the feebleness of the cattle, and of the children. There is no reason that I know of for supposing Jacob had any other motive than that which he alleged ; and this is expressive of his gentleness as a shep- herd, and his tenderness as a father. There are many persons with whom we may wish to be on good terms, who nevertheless, on account of a difference of character, taste, or manners, would be very unsuitable companions for us. Jacob proposes going to Seir after his arrival; and this he probably did, though we read not of it. We have no account of his visiting his father Isaac till he had been several years in Canaan; yet, to suppose him capable of such a neglect, were not only injurious to his character, but contrary to what is implied in Deborah, one of Isaac's family, being found in his house at the time of her death, chap. xxxv. 8. Esau’s first proposal being declined, he next offers to leave a part of his men, as a guard to Jacob’s company; but this also he respectfully declines, on the ground of its being unnecessary; adding, “Let me find grace in the sight of my lord”—which I conceive was equal to saying, Let me have thy favour, and it is all I desire. Ver. 16–20. The two brothers having parted friendly, Esau returns to Seir, and Jacob journeyed to a place east of Jordan, where he stopped awhile, and built a house for his family, and booths for his cattle. Upon this spot a city was afterwards built, and called Succoth, that is, booths, from the circumstance above related, Josh. xiii. 27 ; Judg. viii. 5. He did not stop here, however, with a design to abide ; for he was commanded to return to the land of his kindred, that is, to Canaan, and he was as yet not in Canaan : but finding it a country abounding with rich pasture, he might wish to refresh his herds, and take time for inquiry into a more suitable place for a con- tinued residence. Hence, when after this he passed over Jordan, and “came to Shalem, a city of Shechem, in the land of Canaan,” it is said to be “when he came from Padan-aram;” intimating that till then he had not arrived at the end of his journey. Shalem is considered by Ains- worth, and some others, not as the name of a city, but as a term denoting the peace and safety with which Jacob arrived. Hence they render it, “He came in safety, or, in peace, to the city of Shechem.” It is an argument in favour of this translation that we have no account of a city called Shalem near to Shechem. All agree that it could not be the place where Melchizedek reigned, as it was forty miles distant from it; and as to that near Enon, where John was baptizing, (John iii. 23,) it was not in the neighbourhood of Shechem, but of Jordan. This ren- dering also gives additional propriety and force to the phrase, “When he came from Padan-aram.” It is a de- claration to the honour of him who had said, “Behold, I am with thee, and will keep thee in all places whither thou goest, and will bring thee again into this land.” He arrived in peace at his journey's end, notwithstanding the dangers and difficulties he met with by the way. Shechem, before which Jacob pitched his tent, was a city called after the name of the son of Hamor, its king, of whom we shall presently hear more. It is the same place as that which in the New Testament is called Sy- char, John iv. 5. Here he bought “a parcel of a field,” that neither he nor his cattle might trespass on the pro- perty of others. This field was afterwards taken from him, it should seem, by the Amorites; and he was under the necessity of recovering it “by his sword and his bow ;” which having accomplished, he bequeathed it to his son Joseph. I have sometimes thought that this par- cel of ground might be designed to exhibit a specimen of the whole land of Canaan. When the Most High divided * Though both expressions are rendered alike, I have enough, yet they differ in the original: Esau said, an ºw. Ihave much ; but Jacob, 55 ºh w' I have all.—R. DINAH DEFILED. 407 to the nations their inheritance, he marked out an allot- ment for the children of Israel (Deut. xxxii. 8) ; but the Canaanites, taking possession of it, were obliged to be dis- possessed by the rightful owners, with the sword and with the bow. But that which requires the most particular notice is, that “he erected there an altar, and called it El-elohe- Israel, i. e. God the God of Israel.” It was worthy of this great and good man publicly to acknowledge God, after so many signal deliverances, and soon after his arrival. His first purchasing a piece of ground, and there erecting his altar, was like saying, Whenever this whole country shall be in possession of my posterity, let it in this manner be devoted to God. Nay, it was as if he had then taken possession of it in the name of the God of Israel, by set- ting up his standard in it. It is the first time also in which he is represented as availing himself of his new mame, and of the covenant blessing conferred upon him under it. The name given to the altar was designed, no doubt, to be a memorial of both ; and whenever he should present his offerings upon it, to revive all those sentiments which he had felt when wrestling with God at Peniel. It were no less happy for us than consistent with our holy profession, if every distinguishing turn of our lives were distinguished by renewed resignations of ourselves to God. Such times and places would serve as memorials of mercy, and enable us to recover those thoughts and feelings which we possessed in our happiest days. DISCOURSE XLIII. DIN Air DEFILED, AND THE SHECHEMITES MURDERED. Gen. xxxiv. THE arrival of Jacob in Canaan promised fair for a holy and happy residence in it. Laban no more oppresses him, and the breach between him and his brother Esau is healed. But, alas ! foreign troubles being removed, do- mestic ones take place of them. He had but one daugh- ter, and she is defiled. He had many sons, and the greater part of them are deceitful and cruel. What with the con- duct of the one and the other, his heart must be sorely grieved. It was not however till he had lived six or seven years in the neighbourhood of Shechem that these troubles came upon him ; for in less time than this the two bre- thren could not have arrived at man’s estate; and there is reason to believe that, from his first settlement at this place, his mind began to sink into a state of spiritual de- clension. One would think, if he had had a proper sense of things, he could not have continued so long to expose a family of young people to the contagious influence of a heathen city. It was next to the conduct of Lot when he took up his residence in Sodom. Wer. 1, 2. It is natural to suppose that the younger branches of the family, hearing every thing that was going on among the youth of the place, would think it hard if they must not go among them. Whether the sons formed acquaintances among the Shechemites, we know not ; but Dinah, on a certain occasion, “ must needs go out to see the daughters of the land.” She wished mo doubt to be acquainted with them, to see and be seen of them, and to do as they did. It might not be to a ball, nor a card party; but I presume it was to some merry-making of this kind ; and though the daughters of the land were her professed companions, yet the sons of the land must have assembled with them, else how came Shechem there 3 Young people, if you have any regard for your parents, or for yourselves, beware of such parties: The consequence was what might have been expected. Shechem was the son of the “prince of the country,” and men of rank and opulence are apt to think themselves entitled to do any thing which their inclinations, prompt them to. The young woman was inexperienced, and unused to company of this kind; she therefore fell an easy prey to the seducer. But could Dinah have gone without the consent or con- mivance of her parents, at least of one of them : We should think she could not. I fear Leah was not clear in this matter. Ver. 3, 4. The story is such as must needs excite indig- nation : some circumstances, however, bad as it is, tend in a certain degree to extenuate it. The young man is not like Amnon by Tamar; he is attached to her, and applies to his father Hamor to obtain her for him to wife. Had this been done at first, all had been honourable ; but a bad beginning seldom admits of a good ending. And though a respectful application was immediately made to the parents of the damsel, yet she herself was at the same time detained in Shechem’s house. But let us observe the effect of this disgraceful transaction. Wer. 5–24. The news soon reached Jacob's ear; his sons were in the field; he felt much, no doubt, but said nothing till they returned. He did not, however, foresee what would follow, or he would not have reserved the utterance of his grief to them. But probably he knew not what to do. If Leah had connived at her daughter's visit, he would not know how to speak to her; and as to Ra- chel, the jealousies between the sisters might prevent his speaking freely to the one on the concerns of the other. So he held his peace till his sons should return. Mean- while Hamor, and it seems his son with him, came out of the city to Jacob, to commune with him on the subject, and to ask the young woman in marriage. It had been well if he and Jacob had settled it, and this to all appear- ance they might have done; but scandal, with its swift wings, reaching the young men in the field, brought them home before the usual time ; so that Hamor and his son had scarcely entered Jacob's door ere they followed them. Had Jacob and Hamor conversed the matter over by themselves, or Jacob and his sons by themselves, their anger might have been somewhat abated; but, all meeting together, there was no vent for the first strong feelings of the mind; and such feelings when suppressed, like sub- terraneous fires, must find their way, and very commonly issue in some dreadful explosion. The young men said little, but thought the more. The real state of their minds is thus described : “And the men were grieved, and they were very wroth, because he had wrought folly in Israel in lying with Jacob’s daughter, which thing ought not to be done.” There certainly was cause for great displea- sure; and provided it had been directed against the sin, frankly avowed, and kept within the limits of equity, great displeasure ought to have been manifested. Light as hea- thens and other wicked men may make of fornication, it is an evil and a bitter thing. To the honour of Jacob and his posterity, he that was guilty of it among them was said to have “wrought folly in Israel,” and to have done that which “ought not to be done.” It might be from the present early example that this phraseology became pro- verbially descriptive of a fornicator (2 Sam. xiii. 12); and a great advantage it must be to any people where the state of society is so far influenced by principles of honour and chastity, as by common consent to brand such characters with infamy. It was proper that the brothers of the young woman should be grieved; it was not unnatural that they should be wroth : but wherefore did they feel thus strong- ly ? Was it for the sin committed against God, or only for the shame of it in respect of the family 3 Here, alas ! they failed ; and this it was that prompted them to all their other wickedness. Jacob was grieved and displeased as well as they ; but his grief and displeasure wrought not in the manner theirs did. The reserve which they as- sumed, while Hamor and his son were speaking, concealed behind it the most deadly resentment. They heard all that was said (and many fine things were said, both by the father as a politician, in favour of intermarriages be- tween the families in general, and by the son as a lover, in order to gain the damsel); they heard it, I say, with much apparent coolness, and stated their objections in a manner as if there was nothing between them but the compliance with a certain ceremony, and as though they felt nothing for their sister that should hinder their enter- ing into a covenant of peace with him who had seduced her. But all was deceit, a mere cover to a bloody design, which they appear to have formed for the purpose of re- venge, because he had deftled Dinah their sister. The deceitful proposal, however, succeeded : “Their 408 EXPOSITION OF GENESIS. words pleased Hamor, and Shechem, Hamor's son.” So they go about forth with to persuade the citizens into a compliance with them ; not as a matter of principle, but of policy, as a measure which would contribute to the country's good. They also succeed, the Shechemites are circumcised, and all seems to bid fair for an amicable issue. But let us pause and reflect on the right and wrong in these transactions. What was the line of conduct that Hamor and Shechem should have pursued 3 They ought no doubt, in the first place, to have restored the young woman to her parents ; and at the same time to have ac- knowledged the great injury done to her and to the family, and expressed their sorrow on account of it. Till they had done this, they had no reason to expect any thing like a reconciliation on the part of Jacob or his sons. But it is likely the young man being of so honourable a family, and the sin of fornication being so common in the country, made them think these punctilios might be dispensed with in the present instance. And being wholly under the influence of sensual and worldly motives, they are pre- pared to profess any religion, or profane any institution, however sacred, so that they may accomplish their selfish ends.-But what was the line of conduct which ought to have been pursued by Jacob and his sons 3 If the one had taken a greater share in the conversation, and the other a less, it had been more to the honour of both ; and might not have issued in the manner it did. It is very proper for brothers to consider themselves as guardians of a sister's honour; but not in such a way as to supersede the au- thority or silence the counsel of a father. The answer to the question, Whether Dinah should be given in marriage to Shechem, belonged to the parents, and not to the brothers. With respect to the displeasure which required to be expressed, it ought to have been confined to words; and if the proposed marriage could not be acceded to, they should, as they said, have “taken their sister and been gone.” As to their objection on the score of cir- cumcision, there appears to have been no such law estab- lished as yet in Jacob’s family. It is true they were dis- couraged from marrying with the devotees of idolatry; but the circumcision of the Shechemites was merely a form ; and had they been suffered to live, would have produced no change in respect of this. Could they indeed have been induced to renounce their idolatrous practices, and to cast in their lot with Israel, the good had over- balanced the evil; but religion was no part of the young men's concern : the whole was a mere pretence to cover their malignant designs. Ver. 25–29. The result was shocking. Simeon and Levi, two of Dinah’s brethren by the same mother, as well as father, availing themselves of the present inca- pacity of the Shechemites to resist them, took each man his sword, and slew all the males of the city, with Hamor, and Shechem his son, and took their sister out of his house, and went their way ! Nor was this cruel business to be attributed to the two brothers only; for the rest were so far accessory as to join in plundering the city, and taking captive all the females. Alas, how one sin leads on to another, and, like flames of fire, spreads desolation in every direction | Dissipation leads to seduction ; seduction produces wrath ; wrath thirsts for revenge; the thirst of revenge has recourse to treachery ; treachery issues in murder; and murder is followed by lawless depredation Were we to trace the history of illicit commerce between the sexes, we should find it, more perhaps than any other sin, terminating in blood. We may read this warning truth, not only in the history of David and his family, but in what is constantly occurring in our own times. The murder of the innocent offspring by the hand of the mother, or of the mother by the hand of the seducer, or of the seducer by the hand of a brother or a supplanted rival—is an event which too frequently falls under our notice. Nor is this all, even in the present world. Murder seldom escapes detection; a * Simeon and Levi are brethren, Instruments of violence are their fraudulent bargains: Into their secret come not thou, O my soul; Dnto their assembly be not united, mine honour ; I'or in their anger they slew a man, And in their self-will they exterminated a prince. Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce; public execution therefore may be expected to close the tragical process . Ver. 30, 31. It is some relief to find the good old man expressing his disapprobation of these proceedings : “Ye have troubled me,” says he to Simeon and Levi, “to make me stink among the inhabitants of the land—and I being few in number, they shall gather themselves together against me, and I shall be destroyed, I and my house.” Both Abraham and Isaac had carried it peaceably in all places where they pitched their tents, and by their good conduct had recommended true religion, and gained great respect among the heathen. It was Jacob's desire to have trod in their steps ; but his sons were children of Belial, who knew not the Lord ; yet, being so nearly akin to him, his character is implicated by their conduct. Their answer is insolent in the extreme : “Should he deal with our sister,” say they, “as with a harlot 3’” As if their father had no proper concern for the honour of his chil- dren, and cared not what treatment they met with, so that he might be at peace and maintain his credit. But how is it that Jacob should dwell only upon the consequences of thes sin, and say nothing about the sin it- self? Probably because he knew his sons to be so hardened in wickedness, that nothing but consequences, and such as affected their own safety too, would make them feel. It is certain that he did abhor the deed, and that with all his soul. Of this he gave a most affecting proof upon his dying bed, when, instead of blessing the two brethren with the rest of his children, he in a manner cursed them, or at least branded their conduct with perpetual infamy. “Simeon and Levi,” said he, “are brethren ; instruments of cruelty are in their habitations. O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united; for in their anger they slew a man, and in their self-will they digged down a wall. Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce; and their wrath, for it was cruel: I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel !” + We read no more of Dinah, except her bare name: probably she died single. Her example affords a loud warning to young people to beware of visiting in mixed companies, or indulging in amusements by which they put themselves in the way of temptation. T)ISCOURSE XLIV. JACOB'S REMOVAL TO BETH-EL.—GoD's RENEWAL OF Cove- NANT WITH HIM.—THE DEATH OF DEBORAH, RACHEL, AND ISAAC.—ESAU'S GENERATIONS. * Gen. xxxv., xxxvi. THERE is a greater diversity in the life of this patriarch than in that of Abraham, and much greater than in that of Isaac. If he did not attain to “the days of the years of the life of his fathers,” the records of his pilgrimage are not less useful than those of either of them. Ver. 1. It might have been expected that Jacob would leave Shechem, on account of what had taken place; yet he would not know whither to flee ; but “God said unto him, Arise, go up to Beth-el, and dwell there ; and make there an altar unto God that appeared unto thee when thou fleddest from the face of Esau thy brother.” This admonition appears to resemble that which was addressed to Abram, “Walk before me, and be thou perfect;” that is, it implies a reproof, and was intended to lead Jacob to reflect upon his conduct. There were two things in par- ticular which required serious consideration. 1. Whether he had not neglected to perform his vow. He had so- lemnly declared, in the presence of God, that if he would be with him, and keep him in the way he went, and give And their excess of passion, for it was cruel. I will divide them in Jacob, And scatter them in Israel. But Venema would render the last distich in a good sense. [Yet] I will grant them a portion in Jacob, And cause them to be diffused abroad (Gen. x. 18) in Israel.-R. JACOB's REMOVAL TO BETH-EL. 409 him bread to eat, and raiment to put on, then Jehovah should be his God; and that the stone which he then set up for a pillar should be God's house, chap. xxviii. 20–22. Now God had performed all these things on his part ; but Jacob had not been at Beth-el, even though he had now resided in Canaan about seven years. And what was worse, though Jehovah had been his God, so far as re- spected himself, yet his house was not clear of idols | Rachel’s stolen teraphim had proved a snare to the family. At the time Laban overtook him, Jacob knew nothing of them, but he appears to have discovered them afterwards; and yet, till roused by this Divine admonition, he never interposed his authority to have them put away. 2. Whether the late lamentable evils in his family had not arisen from this cause. Had he gone sooner to Beth-el, his house had been sooner purged of the strange gods that were in it, and his children had escaped the taint which they must of necessity impart. At first the gods of Laban were hid by Rachel, and none of the family except her- self seemed to know of them ; but now Jacob had to speak to his “household, and to all that were with him,” to cleanse themselves. Moreover, had he gone sooner to Beth-el, his children might have been out of the way of temptation, and all the impure and bloody conduct in which they were concerned have been prevented. From the whole, we see the effects of spiritual negligence, and of trifling with temptation. Do not neglect God’s house, nor delay to keep his commandments. He that puts them off to a more convenient season has commonly some idols about him, which it does not suit him just yet to put away. Ver. 2, 3. No sooner is Jacob admonished to go to Beth-el than he feels the necessity of a reformation, and gives command for it. This proves that he knew of the corrupt practices of his family, and had too long connived at them. We are glad, however, to find him resolved at last to put them away. A constant attendance on God’s ordinances is dwelling as it were in Beth-el; and it is by this that we detect evils in ourselves which we should otherwise retain without thought or concern. It is “com- ing to the light,” which will “manifest our deeds, whether they be wrought in God” or not. Wicked men may re- concile the most sacred religious duties with the indul- gence of secret sins; but good men cannot do so. They must wash their hands in innocency, and so compass God’s altar, Psal. xxvi. 6. Jacob not only commands his house- hold to put away their idols, but endeavours to impress upon them his own sentiments. “Let us arise,” saith he, “ and go up to Beth-el; and I will make there an altar unto God, who answered me in the day of my distress, and was with me in the way which I went.” He is de- cided for himself, and uses all means to persuade his family to unite with him. His intimating that God had hereto- fore answered him in the day of his distress might be de- signed not only to show them the propriety of what he was about to do, but to excite a hope that God might disperse the cloud which now hung over them on account of the late impure and bloody transaction. Ver. 4. Considering the evils which prevailed in this family, and the bewitching mature of idolatry, it is rather surprising to observe the readiness with which they con- sent to give it up. But no doubt the hand of the Lord was in it. When Jacob spoke as he ought to speak, their hearts were bowed before him. Difficulties which, in a languid state of mind, seem insurmountable, are easily got over when once we come to act decidedly for God; and those whom we expected to oppose the good work shall frequently be found willing to engage with us in it. They not only gave their gods, but even their earrings, which in those times were convertible, and often, if not always, converted, to purposes of idolatry, Exod. xxxii. 2; Hos. ii. 13. But why did Jacob bury them : We may think they might have been melted down, and converted to a better use ; but that was expressly forbidden by the Mosaic law, Deut. vii. 25, and it seems the patriarchs acted on the same principle. But why did he not utterly destroy them 3 Perhaps it would have been better if he had. I hope, however, he hid them where they were found no more. Upon the whole, we see at this time a great change for the better in Jacob's family. He should not have been reluctant, or indifferent, to going up to Beth-el; for it ap- pears to have been the design of God to make it one of his best removals. It was a season of grace, in which God not only blessed him, but caused even those that dwelt under his shadow to return. I have more hope of Rachel and Leah’s having relinquished all for the God of Israel from this time than from any thing in the former part of their history. Wer. 5. We now see Jacob and his family on their jour- ney. It would appear to the cities round about that the slaughter of the Shechemites was the cause of this re- moval. Their not pursuing them being ascribed to the terror of God being upon them, implies that the public in- dignation was so excited against them, that if they had dared, they would have cut them off. The kind care which God exercised on this occasion was no less contrary to the parent’s fears than to the deserts of his ungodly children; and its being extended to them for his sake must, if they had any sense of things, appal their proud spirits, and repress the insolence with which they had lately treated him. Ver. 6, 7. Arriving at Beth-el in safety, Jacob, accord- ing to his vow, “built there an altar” unto Jehovah, and gave it a name which God had graciously given himself; namely, “El-beth-el, the God of Beth-el.” This altar, and this name, would serve as a perpetual memorial of God’s having “appeared to him when he fled from the face of his brother.” And as that time many great and precious promises were made to him, it would be natural for him to associate with the idea of the God of Beth-e! that of a God in covenant ; the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Wer. 8. While Jacob and his family were at Beth-el, their enjoyments seem to have been interrupted by the death of “Deborah, Rebecca's nurse.” Some particu- lars are here implied which are not recorded in the history. Deborah did not belong to the family of Jacob, but to that of Isaac. Jacob must therefore have gone and visited his father; and finding his mother dead, and her nurse far advanced in years, more fit to be nursed herself than to be of any use to her aged master, he took her home, where she would meet with kind attentions from her younger countrywomen, and probably furnished his father with an- other more suitable in her place. Nothing is said of her from the time she left Padan-aram with her young mis- tress; but, by the honourable mention that is here made of her, she seems to have been a worthy character. The death of an aged servant, when her work was done, would not ordinarily excite much regret. To have afforded her a decent burial was all that in most cases would be thought of; but Jacob’s family were so much affected by the event, as not only to weep over her grave, but to call the very tree under the shadow of which she was interred Allon-bachuth, the oak of weeping. It is the more singular, too, that the family who wept over her was not that in which she had lived in what we should call her best days; but one that had merely taken her under their care in her old age. It is probable, however, that the sorrow express- ed at her interment was on account, not only of her cha- racter, but her office, or her having been “Rebecca’s nurse.” The text seems to lay an emphasis upon these words. The sight of the daughter of Laban, “his mother's brother,” and even of his sheep, had interested Jacob's heart, chap. xxix. 10; much more would the burial of her nurse. In weeping over her grave, he would seem to be weeping over that of his beloved parent, and paying that tribute of affection to her memory which providence had denied him at the time of her decease. Ver, 9–15. During the seven years in which Jacob resided at Shechem we do not find a single instance of God’s manifesting himself to him, except that of admon- ishing him to depart. But now that he is come to Beth- el, and has performed his vow, “God appeared unto him again, and blessed him.” But how is it that this is said to be “when he came out of Padan-aram ** The design of the phrase, I apprehend, is not to convey the idea of its being at the time of his return from that country, or immediately after it; but to distinguish it from that ap- pearance of God to him, in the same place where he now was, in his way thither. He appeared to him at Beth-el 2 D # 410 EXPOSITION OF GENESIS. when he was going to Padan-aram ; and now he “ap- peared to him again,” at the same place, “when he was come out of it.”* The whole account given in these verses of the appearance of God to Jacob, and of his con- duct in return, describes a solemn and mutual renewal of covenant. There is nothing material in what is here said to him but what had been said before; and nothing material which he did but what had been done before ; but the whole was now as it were consolidated and con- firmed. 1. God had before told him that his name should no more be called Jacob, but Israel, chap. xxxii. 28 ; this honour is here renewed, and the renewal of it contained an assurance that he should still go on and prevail. 2. God had before declared that the promises made to Abra- ham should be fulfilled in him and his posterity, chap. xxviii. 13, 14; this declaration is here renewed, and pre- faced with an assertion of his own all-sufficiency to fulfil them. he set up a pillar of stone, and poured oil upon it, and called the name of the place Beth-el, chap. xxviii. 18, 19; this process he now renewed, with the addition of a drink- offering, for which on his first journey he probably had not the materials. These renewals of promises and ac- knowledgments may teach us not to be so anxious after new discoveries as to overlook those which we have al- ready obtained. God may appear to us by the revival of known truths, as well as by the discovery of what was unknown ; and we may glorify him as much by “doing our first works,” as by engaging in something which has not been done before. Old truths, ordinances, and even places, become new to us when we renew communion with God in them. Wer. 16—20. We are not told the reason of Jacob’s leaving Beth-el. Probably he was directed to do so. However this might be, his removal in the present instance was accompanied with a very painful event; namely, the loss of his beloved Rachel, and that in the prime of life. Journeying from Beth-el, and within a little of Ephrath, or Bethlehem, she “travailed, and had hard labour.” The issue was, the infant was spared but the mother re- moved. Thus she that had said, “Give me children, or I die,” died in child-birth ! Several circumstances which attended this afflictive event are deserving of notice. 1. The words of the midwife ; “Fear not ; thou shalt have this son also.” When Ra- chel bare her first son, she called him Joseph, that is, Adding ; “for,” said she, by a prophetic impulse, “the Lord shall add to me another son.” It is probably in reference to this that the midwife spake as she did. Her words if reported to Jacob, with the recollection of the above prophetic hint, would raise his hopes and render his loss more affecting, by adding to it the pain of disap- pointment. They appear to have no influence, however, on Rachel. She has the sentence of death in herself, and makes no answer ; but turning her eyes towards the child, and calling him Ben-oni, the son of my sorrow, she expires 2. The terms by which her death is described— “It came to pass, as her soul was in departing.” An or- dinary historian would have said, as she was dying, or as she was ready to expire; but the Scriptures delight in an impressive kind of phraseology, which at the same time shall both instruct the mind and affect the heart. It was by means of such language, on various occasions, that the doctrine of a future state was known and felt from gener- ation to generation among the Israelites, while the hea- then around them, with all their learning, were in the dark upon the subject. 3. The change of the child’s name : “She called his name Ben-oni ; but his father called him Benjamin.” The former, though very appro- priate at the time, yet, if continued, must tend perpetu- ally to revive the recollection of the death of his mother ? and of such a monitor Jacob did not stand in need. The name given him signified, the son of my right hand; that is, a son of the most tender affection and delight, inheriting the place which his mother had formerly possessed in his father's heart. If the love of God be wanting, that of a creature will often be supreme ; and where this is the case, the loss of the object is frequently known to leave * So the passage is rendered by Ainsworth. 3. When God had before appeared to him, the party utterly inconsolable: but though the affection of a good man may be very strong, and his sorrow pro- portionably deep, yet he is taught to consider that every created good is only lent him ; and that, his generation work being as yet unfulfilled, it is not for him to feed melancholy, nor to pore over his loss with a sullenness that shall unfit him for duty, but rather to divert his affections from the object that is taken, and direct them to those that are left. 4. The stone erected to her memory, which appears to have continued for many ge- nerations. Burying her in the place where she died, “Jacob set a pillar upon her grave;” and that was the pillar of Rachel’s grave when her history was written. It was near this place, if not upon the very spot, that the tribe of Benjamin afterwards had its inheritance; and therefore it is that the people who lived in the times of Jeremiah are called “Rachel’s children,” Jer. xxxi. 15. The babes which Herod murdered are also so called ; and she herself, though long since dead, is supposed to rise, as it were, out of her grave, and witness the bloody deed; yea more, to stand upon it and weep, refusing to be com- forted, because they were not Wer. 21. It is proper that Jacob, or, as he is now called, Israel, after having interred his beloved Rachel, should remove to some little distance, at least, from her grave. The tower of Edar, near to which he next spread his tent, was in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem. In removing, however, from the scene of one sorrow he is soon overtaken by another. While dwelling in that land, a criminal intercourse took place between Reuben and Bilhah, his father's wife. It was done in secret; but Israel heard of it. For this, his unnatural wickedness, Reuben was afterwards cursed as a tribe, the heavier on account of his being the first-born of the family, chap. xlix. 4. By his conduct, however, in reference to his brother Joseph, (chap. xxxvii. 20, 22,) he seems to have obtained at least a mitigation of his punishment; for Moses, in blessing the tribes, said of him, “Let Reuben live, and not die, and let not his men be few.” Yet even here he does but live: no idea is suggested that he should ever earcel, and with this the history of his tribe, in after- ages, perfectly accords. Ver. 22–26. The history will henceforward princi- pally respect “the sons of Jacob,” as being the fathers of the twelve tribes of Israel. We have here, therefore, at the outset, a particular account of them, as descended from the different wives of their father Jacob. Wer. 27–29. Before the sacred writer, however, pro- ceeds to narrate their history, he furnishes two other sub- jects, that the thread of the story may not be broken. One of them is the conclusion of the life of Isaac ; and the other, which is contained in the thirty-sixth chapter, a brief sketch of the family and temporal prosperity of Esau. If the former of these events had been introduced in the order of time, it would have fallen in the midst of the history of Joseph ; for it occurred about twelve or thirteen years after his being sold into Egypt. There are not many particulars concerning it. Jacob seems to have been sent for just in time to witness his father's decease. By the years of his life, namely, a hundred and fourscore, it appears that he must have lived fifty-seven years in a state of blindness and inactivity. This is one of the mys- teries of Providence which often strikes us : an aged and afflicted person, whose usefulness appears to us at an end, shall have his life prolonged, while a hundred active young people around him shall be cut off. We know not the reason of these things in the present state; but we may know it hereafter. Chap. xxxvi. With respect to Esau, he and his brother had been together at their father's funeral, and, for aught that appears, were on brotherly terms. In the course of this chapter we find them separated ; not however from any difference arising between them, but on account of their great prosperity. Their riches are said to have been “more than that they might dwell together; and the land wherein they were strangers could not bear them, because of their cattle.” The account which is here given of him and his pos- terity is, however, a kind of leave taken of them; we shall hear no more of Esau, nor of his descendants, but as ene- º JOSEPH HATED BY HIS BRETHREN. 41 I mies to the people of God. It is remarkable that three times in this chapter when Esau is spoken ºf we meet with the phrase “This is Edom ;” and twice, “He is Esau, the father of the Edomites,” verses 1.8, 9. 19. 43. We have seen that the name of Edom was given him on account of his sanguinary disposition (chap. xxv.24–34); and as this was notoriously the character of the Edomités, especially towards Israel, it would seem as if the Holy Spirit would have it well remembered that the bitterest enemies of the church of God descended from this man. He seems to be marked as the father of persecutors, in some such manner as Ahaz is marked by his wickedness of another kind, “This is that king Ahaz,” 2 Chron. xxviii. 22. Finally, It is remarkable that Esau, though he had despised and lost his birthright, yet was prospered in his lifetime, and for several generations, more than his bro- ther. While the latter was a servant at Padam-aram, he established his dominion in Mount Seir ; and while the descendants of the one were groaning under Egyptian bondage, those of the other were formed into an inde- pendent kingdom, and had eight kings in succession, be- jore there reigned any king over the children of Israel. In this manner did God order things, to show, it may be, that the most valuable blessings require the greatest exer- cise of faith and patience. DISCOURSE XLV. JOSEPH SOLD FOR A SLAVE. Gen. xxxvii. WE now enter on the very interesting history of Joseph, a history in which I feel not pleasure only, but a portion of dismay ; and this because I have but little hope of doing justice to it. It is a history, perhaps, unequalled for dis- playing the various workings of the human mind, both good and bad, and the singular providence of God in making use of them for the accomplishment of his purposes. Ver. 1. Jacob is represented as “dwelling in the land wherein his father was a stranger.” The character of sojourners was common to the patriarchs: it is that which Jacob afterwards confessed before Pharaoh ; on which the apostle remarks, that “they who say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.” Ver. 2. The “generations of Jacob’’ seem here to mean his family history: so the word is used of Adam, chap. v. 1. And Joseph being, as we should say, the chief hero of the tale, it hegins with him. It was the design of the sacred writer, in the course of his narration, to tell of all the great events of that family; as of their going down into Egypt, remaining there for a number of years, and at last being brought out by the mighty hand of God; at present his object is to lead us to the origin of nese events, as to the spring-head of a great river, or to describe the minute circumstances by which they were brought about. Joseph was distinguished by his early piety. His brethren were most, if not all of them, very wicked; and he, being frequently with them in the field, saw and heard such things as greatly affected him. We are not told what they were : the oracles of God have thrown a veil over them till the judgment day. Suffice it for us to know that the mind of this godly youth was hurt by their conversation and behaviour, and that he could not be easy without disclosing particulars to his father. In this he was to be commended; for though a child should not in- dulge, nor be indulged by his parents, in reporting every trivial tale to the disadvantage of his brothers or sisters; yet, where wickedness is acted, it ought not to be con- cealed. The parents should know it, that they may cor- rect it ; or if that cannot be, that they may be enabled to counteract its effects. But that which was commendable in him produced hatred in them. They would perceive that he did not join them when in company, and perhaps the carriage of their father would lead them to suspect that this his favourite son had been their accuser. In this, the outset of Joseph’s story, we perceive a striking re- semblance between him and our Lord Jesus Christ, whom “ the world hated, because he testified of it that the works thereof were evil.” Here, therefore, before I proceed any further, I would offer a few words on the question whether Joseph is to be considered as a type of Christ. I am far from thinking that every point of analogy which may be traced by a lively imagination was designed as such by the Holy Spirit; yet neither do I think that we are warranted in rejecting the idea. We have already seen that God prepared the way for the coming of his Son by a variety of things, in which the great principles of his undertaking were prefigured, and so rendered familiar to the minds of men; (see on chap. vi. 18; xvii. 4;) and he pursued the same object by a variety of persons, in whom the life and character of Christ were in some degree previously manifest. Thus Melchizedek prefigured him as a priest, Moses as a prophet, and David as a king; and I cannot but think that in the history of Joseph there is a portion of designed analogy between them. But to return— Ver. 3, 4. The hatred of Joseph’s brethren on account of his reports was not diminished, but heightened, by his father’s partiality towards him. It is much less difficult to account for this partiality than to justify it, or at least the method of expressing it. He was the son of the be- loved Rachel; and though Benjamin was in this respect equal to him, yet he was but a child, and had as yet de- veloped nothing as to character: he therefore would be out of the question. Joseph seems to have been the only one in the family who had hitherto discovered either the fear of God, or the duty of a child. From these con- siderations his father might be allowed to love him with a peculiar affection ; but his clothing him with “a coat of many colours” was a weakness calculated only to excite envy and ill-will in his brethren. If he had studied to provoke these dispositions, he could scarcely have done it more effectually. The event was, that the hatred of the brothers could no longer be concealed, nor could they speak in the usual strain of civility to Joseph. Ver. 5–11. Another circumstance occurred which tended still more to heighten the enmity, namely, certain dreams which Joseph had at this time, and which he in the simplicity of his heart related to his brethren. These were Divine intimations of his future advancement, and were remarkably fulfilled in Egypt about twenty-three years afterwards. But at present they inflamed a resent- ment already too strong; and even his father thought it necessary to chide what seemed a little presumptuous in his son. Yet as Jacob felt a check on this occasion, and observed the saying, suspecting, it should seem, that there might be more in it than he was at present aware of, so I apprehend his sons had a secret persuasion that these dreams were prophetic ; but that which softened the fa- ther only hardened and inflamed the sons. Their hatred had originated in religion; and the thought of God having determined to honour him provoked them the more. Such were the operations of malice in Cain towards Abel, in Esau towards Jacob, in Saul towards David, and in the scribes and Pharisees towards the Lord of glory. Ver, 12–17. Things now approach fast to a crisis. It seems as if the vale of Hebron, where Jacob now was, did not contain sufficient pasturage for his flocks: the young men therefore take them to Shechem, a distance it is said of about sixty miles, and the place where they lived for the first seven years after their return from Padan-aram. Jacob, feeling anxious about them and the cattle, (as well he might, considering the part they had acted there,) pro- poses to Joseph that he should go and inquire, and bring him word of their welfare; to which the latter with cheer- ful obedience consents. Arriving at Shechem, he finds they had left it with the flocks; and being informed by a stranger that they were gone to Dotham, a distance of about eight miles, he proceeds thither. - Ver. 18–22. The sight of Joseph, while he was yet afar off, rekindles all the foul passions of his brethren, and ex- cites a conspiracy against him. “Behold,” say they, with malignant scorn, “this dreamer cometh ! Come now, let us slay him : " In some cases sin begins upon a small 412 EXPOSITION OF GENESIS. scale, and increases as it advances; but the very first pro- posal in this case is murder . This shows the height to which their hatred had been previously wrought up, and which, now that opportunity offered, raged like fire with uncontrollable fury. But have they no apprehensions as to consequences 3 What tale are they to carry home to their father? O, they are at no loss for this. Malice has two intimate friends always at hand to conceal its dark deeds; namely, artifice and falsehood. “We will cast him into some pit,” say they, “ and we will say, Some evil beast hath devoured him ; and we shall see what will become of his dreams:" Who will say that the workers of iniquity have no knowledge 3 They have all the cun- ning as well as the cruelty of the old serpent. See how they wrap it up. But what do they mean by that sarcastic saying, “We shall see what will become of his dreams ?” If they had considered them as feigned through ambition, they would not have felt half the resentment. No, they would have winked at it as a clever piece of deceit, and have had a fellow feeling for him. I doubt not but they considered these dreams as the intimations of Heaven, and their language included nothing less than a challenge of the Almighty! But is it possible, you may say, that they could think of thwarting the Divine counsels? It is pos- sible, and certain, that men have been so infatuated by sin as to attempt to do so. Witness Pharaoh’s pursuit of Israel, after all that he had seen and felt of the Divine judgments; Saul's attempts on David's life; Herod’s mur- der of the children of Bethlehem; and the conspiracy of the Jews against Christ, who, as many of them knew, had raised Lazarus from the dead, and done many miracles. Yes, we will kill him, say they, and then let God advance him to honour if he can But they shall see what will become of his dreams. Yes, they shall see them accom- plished, and that by the very means they are concerting to overthrow them. Thus, though “the kings of the earth take counsel together against the Lord, and against his Anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us;” yet “He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh at them, the Lord shall have them in derision.” Joseph's brethren, like the sheaves in the dream, shall make obeisance to him ; and “at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that he is Lord, unto the glory of God the Father.” In this bloody council there was one dissentient. God put it into the heart of Reuben, though in other respects none of the best of characters, to oppose their measures; and, being the elder brother, his opinion must have some- what the greater weight. He appears to have utterly dis- approved of their intention, and wished earnestly to get the lad safe out of their hands, that he might deliver him to his father; though perhaps through fear of his own life he made only a partial opposition. His counsel, however, saved his life, and he was doubtless raised up on this oc- casion for the very purpose; for Joseph’s time was not yet CO II) e. Ver. 22–24. All that had hitherto taken place was during the time that Joseph was absent. Glad to have caught the sight of them, he was walking towards them in the simplicity of his heart, while they were taking counsel to destroy him! He arrives. Like beasts of prey, they immediately seize him, and tear off the envied “ coat of many colours.” . It was not enough to injure him; they must also insult him. Thus Jesus was stripped and de- graded before he suffered. Now it was, as they after- wards confessed one to another in the Egyptian prison, that they “saw the anguish of his soul, when he besought them, and they would not hear:” now it was that Reuben interceded on his behalf, saying, “Do not sin against the child ; but they would not hear,” chap. xlii. 21, 22. No, they would not hear: “they took and cast him into a pit;”, probably a hole in the earth, both dark and deep; for he does not appear to have been able to get out again. It was however empty, or without water. Whether they knew of this circumstance or not, God knew it; and it seems to have been known to Reuben when he made the proposal of his being cast into it, seeing he hoped by this means to save his life. Ver. 25–28. Having thus far gratified their revenge, they retire, and with hardened unconcern “sit down to eat bread.” It is probable that they both ate and drank; and made merry; and it may be partly in allusion to this that certain characters, in the times of the prophet Amos, are described as drinking wine in bowls, and anointing themselves with the chief ointments, but were “not grieved for the affliction of Joseph.” At this juncture appeared a company of merchants, who were going down to Egypt. They are called Ishmaelites, and also Midianites ; they were it seems a mixed people, composed of both. On the sight of them a thought occurs to the mind of Judah, that they had better sell their bro- ther for a slave than murder him, which he proposes to the rest. His proposal contains words of mercy, but it was mercy mixed with covetousness. I am not sure that Judah felt any tenderness towards Joseph, as being his “brother, and of his flesh,” any more than his name-sake did in selling Christ : it is not unusual for covetous men to urge their objects under a show of generosity and kind- ness. But if he did, it was the profit that wrought upon the company. The love of money induced them to sell their brother for a slave ; and the same principle carries on the same cruel traffic to this day. So they sold Joseph for “twenty pieces of silver,” the value of which was about twenty shillings of our money, ten shillings less than the price of a slave, Exod. xxi. 32. A goodly price at which they valued him But let not Joseph complain, seeing a greater than he was sold by Judas Iscariot for but a little II), Ore., Ver. 29, 30. During this iniquitous transaction Reuben was absent. I suppose, while they were eating and drink- ing, he stole away from their company, with the intention of going by himself to the pit and delivering Joseph ; and to the pit he went : but taking a circuitous course, it may be to prevent suspicion, he was too late . At this he is greatly affected, rends his garments, returns to the com- pany, and exclaims, “The child is not ; and I, whither shall I go!” But though he spoke like a brother, and an elder brother, who was obliged to give account to his father, yet it appears to have made no impression on them. Like the scribes and Pharisees, they were ready to answer, “See thou to that l” Ver. 31–36. They feel not for Joseph, nor for Reuben; but have some concern about themselves, and immediately fall upon a stratagem wherewith to deceive their father. A kid is slain, and the coat of Joseph is dipped in its blood. This is to be carried home, and shown to Jacob, with the addition of a lie, saying, they had “found” it ; and thus the poor old man was to be persuaded that some evil beast had devoured him. Who will say that the workers of iniquity have no knowledge 3 Yet one cannot but remark the difficulty of supporting a feigned character. To have done it completely, they should first have seen their father without the coat, broke it to him by degrees, affected to grieve with him for the loss, and at last have presented the coat with apparent reluct- ance, as that which must harrow up his feelings. Instead of this, the whole is done in the most unfeeling and un- dutiful manner that it could be: “ This have we found,” say they, “know now whether it be thy son’s coat, of no l’” They could not deny themselves the brutal plea- sure of thus insulting their father, even in the hour of his distress, for his former partiality. Wicked dispositions often make men act like fools: hence it is that murderers commonly betray themselves. The disguise of hypocrisy is generally very thin : truth only is throughout consist- ent. This disguise, however, thin as it was, seemed at present to answer the end. Jacob knew the bloody garment, and said, “It is my son’s coat; an evil beast hath devoured him : Joseph is without doubt rent in pieces.” No, it is no evil beast, but men more cruel than tigers, that have done towards him what is done : but thus Jacob thought, and thus he mourned. We are ready to wonder how Reuben could keep his counsel, yet with all his grief he did so : perhaps he might be afraid for his own life. Whatever was the cause, however, of Jacob’s being thus imposed upon, it was wisely ordered that he should be so. The present concealment of many things contributes not a little to the accomplishment of the Divine counsels, and to the augmentation of future joy. Jacob's mourning is deep and durable : when, after a GOD BLESSES JOSEPH IN HIS CAPTIVITY. 413 *A. time, his sons and his sons' wives rose up to comfort him, he refused to be comforted ; resolving to die a mourner, and to welcome the grave, which, though a land of darkness, should be dear to him, because his beloved Joseph was there ! “Thus his father wept for him.” From the whole, one sees already with admiration the astonishing machinery of providence. The malignant brothers seem to have obtained their ends; the mercenary merchants, who care not what they deal in so that they get gain, have also obtained theirs; and Potiphar, having got a fine young slave, has obtained his. But, what is of greater importance, God’s designs are by these means all in train for execution. This event shall issue in Israel’s going down to Egypt; that in their deliverance by Moses; that in the setting up of the true religion in the world; and that in the spread of it among all nations by the gospel. “The wrath of man shall praise the Lord, and the remainder thereof will he restrain.” DISCOURSE XLVI. THE CONDUCT OF JUDA.H.—JOSEPH's PROMOTION AND TEMPTATION, Gen. xxxviii., xxxix. IF we turn aside with the sacred writer for a few minutes, and notice the conduct of Judah about this time, we shall perceive new sources of sorrow for the poor old patriarch. This young man, whatever was the cause, must needs leave his father's family; and, wandering to- wards the south, he entered into the house of one Hirah, an inhabitant of Adullam, with whom he formed an in- timate acquaintance. If all the brethren had dispersed and mingled among the heathen, if we consider only their state of mind, there had been nothing surprising in it. While tarrying here, he saw a young female, whose father's name was Shuah ; and though he had joined in objecting to his sister's marriage with Shechem, yet he makes no scruple of taking this Canaanitish woman to be his wife; and that without at all consulting his father. The children which he had by this marriage were such as might be expected ; and the loose life which he himself led, aided in it as he was by his friend the Adullamite, was that of a man who, weary of the restraints of religion, had given himself up to his evil propensities. Yet it is observable how he keeps up the customs of his father’s family, by directing his younger son to take the widow of the eldest, that he might raise up seed unto his brother; and though he himself indulged in licentious- ness, yet he can feel indignation and even talk of burning his daughter-in-law for the same thing. Thus we have often seen men tenacious of ceremonies while living in the grossest immorality, and quick to censure the faults of others while blinded to their own. The odious wickedness committed in this family might not have been recorded but for the purpose of chronology, and to show what human nature is till it is renewed by the grace of God. How this connexion between Judah and his friend the Adullamite came to be broken we know not ; but, finding him afterwards in his father's house, we hope it was so. Even while he continued on that side of the country he had some remorse of con- science, particularly when he discovered the supposed harlot to be his daughter Tamar. “She hath been,” said he, “more righteous than I.” -- But we return to the history of Joseph— Chap. xxxix. We left him in Egypt, sold to Potiphar, a captain of the guard ; and here we find him. He was sent beforehand as a saviour; and, like the Saviour of the world, was not sent in state, but in the form of a servant. Nothing is said of the grief of mind which he felt on the occasion, but this must needs have been great. A youth of seventeen, torn from his father, enslaved, to all appear- ance, for life, and that among idolaters, where the true God was utterly unknown . If the day of Jacob's de- parture from his father's house was “the day of his dis- much better to cast in our lot with them. tress,” chap. xxxv. 3, what must Joseph’s have been . The archers may well be said to have “sorely grieved him 1" Wer. 2, 3. But here is a remedy equal to this or any other disease; “the Lord was with Joseph I’” God can make up any loss, sustain under any load, and render us blessed in any place. To this Moses alludes in his dying blessing upon the tribe of Joseph : “Blessed of the Lord be his land, for the precious things of heaven—for the precious things of the earth”—and for the “good-will of him that dwelt in the bush : let the blessing come upon the head of Joseph, and upon the top of the head of him that was separated from his brethren : " If we be but in the path of duty, we have nothing to fear. Whatever wrongs we suffer, if we be but kept from doing wrong, we shall enjoy the peace of God in our hearts, and all will come to a good issue. What a difference is there between the cases of Joseph and Jonah . They were both in trouble, both absent from God’s people, both among the heathen ; but the sufferings of the one were for righteous- ness' sake, while those of the other were of his own pro- curing. God makes Joseph prosperous. He must then have submitted with cheerfulness to his lot, studied to make himself agreeable and useful to his master, and applied attentively to business. Herein he was an example of resignation to the will of God in afflictive circumstances. Fretfulness greatly aggravates the ills of life, while a cheerful submission to the will of God alleviates them. The prosperity attending Joseph was manifest ; his master sees it, and sees that “Jehovah is with him,” and that it is his hand which blesses all he does. This is a circum- stance not a little to Joseph’s honour; for it implies that he made no secret of his religion. He must have refused to join in Egyptian idolatry, and have avowed himself a worshipper of Jehovah, the only true God. In many cases, for a poor unprotected slave to have done this, would have cost him his life ; but the Lord was with Joseph, and had all hearts in his hand. Potiphar, ob- serving that the religion of the young man turned to his account, like many irreligious masters in the present day, makes no objection to it. This holds up a most en- couraging example to religious servants to recommend the gospel by their fidelity and diligence ; and to all Christians to be faithful to God, even when there are no religious friends about them to watch over them. This is walking with God. Ver. 4. The effect of this is, Joseph comes into favour, and is promoted over all the other servants. From a slave he is made a steward; a steward not only of the household, but over all his master's affairs, and this though but a youth. Ver. 5. And now, as Potiphar favours the Lord's serv- ant, the Lord will not be behindhand with him, but will favour him. From this time forward every thing is blessed and prospered “for Joseph’s sake.” We see here that it is good to be connected with them that fear God, but In that case we shall not only gain by them for this life, but, as Moses told Hobab, whatever good thing the Lord doth to them shall be done to us. , Here also we see the promise to Abraham fulfilled in his posterity: he not only blesses them, but “makes them a blessing.” Such was Jacob to Laban; such is Joseph to Potiphar, and afterwards to all Egypt; and such has Israel been to the world, who from them derive a Saviour, and all that they possess of true religion. Even the casting away of them has proved the reconciling of the world, and how much more shall the receiving of them at a future day be as life from the dead! It might, also be the design of God, by this as well as other of his proceedings, to set forth under a figure the method in which he would bless the world; namely, “for the sake of another that was dear unto him.” Potiphar was not blessed for his own sake, or on account of any of his good deeds; but for the sake of Joseph. Even his receiving Joseph into favour was not that on account of which he was blessed, though that was necessary to it; it was Joseph to whom the eye of the Lord was directed : he looked on him, and blessed Potiphar. So that for the sake of which we are accepted and saved is not any work of righteousness which we have done, nor even our be- 414 EXPOSITION OF GENESIS. lieving in Christ, though this is necessary to it; but the name and righteousness of Jesus. Thus, in both cases, grace is displayed, and boasting excluded. Finally, It was a proverb in Israel, that “when it goeth well with the righteous, the city rejoiceth.” This was singularly exemplified in the prosperity of Joseph, and still more in the exaltation of Christ. From the day that he was made head over all principalities and powers, from that time for- ward the Lord hath blessed the world for his sake. Ver. 6. So great was the confidence which Joseph's fidelity inspired in his master, that all his concerns were left in his hands; and for his own part, he did nothing but enjoy the prosperity which was thus bestowed upon him. This circumstance might be wisely ordered to pre- pare this lovely youth for his future station. He was now brought into business, and inured to management: had he been raised to his last post first, he might have been less qualified to fill it. Sudden advancements are seldom safe. Under all this prosperity, what may we suppose to be the state of Joseph’s mind 3 No doubt his thoughts would sometimes glance to the vale of Hebron, and he would ask himself, “How does my father bear the rending stroke; and what is become of my poor wicked brethren? But as to himself, so far as it was possible to be happy in a strange land, happy he must have been. God was with him, every thing he did prospered, and every thing he met with was extremely flattering. Indeed there are few cha- racters who, at his period of life especially, could bear such a tide of success. We see in him nothing assuming or overbearing towards his fellow servants, nor forgetful of his God. If, however, any thing of this kind should have been at work in his heart, he will soon meet with that which shall recall him to a right mind. A sharp temptation approaches, in which his virtue and patience shall be put to the proof. After a day of prosperity, let us expect a day of adversity; for “God hath set the one over against the other,” even in the lot of his most fa- voured servants. Ver. 7–9. Joseph’s goodly and well-favoured counte- nance excites the lawless desires of a faithless woman, who, in violation of her marriage vows, and of all the modesty and decency which should distinguish her sex, tries to seduce him. In such a situation, how many young men would have been carried away ! Nay, how many are so, where the temptation is far less powerful . His conduct on this occasion is a proof of great grace, and exhibits to all posterity an example of what may be done by closely walking with God. The first attack upon him is repelled with a modest but severe remonstrance, exactly suited to his situation. Let us examine it minutely. There are four things in it wor- thy of admiration. 1. He is silent with respect to the wickedness of the tempter. He might have reproached her for the indelicacy, the infidelity, and the baseness of her proposal; but he confines himself to what respected his own obligation, and what would be his own sin. In the hour of temptation it is enough for us to look to our- selves. It is remarkable that all our Lord’s answers to the tempter, as recorded in the fourth chapter of Matthew, are in this way. He could have accused him of insolence and outrage ; but he barely refuses to follow his counsels, because thus and thus it was written. 2. Joseph con- siders his obligation as rising in proportion to his station : “There is none greater in this house than I.” Some young men would have drawn a contrary conclusion from the same premises, and on this ground have thought them- selves entitled to take the greater liberties; but this is the true use to be made of power, and riches, and every kind of trust. , 3. He considers it as heightened by the gene- rosity and kindness of his master, who withheld nothing else from him. Eve reasoned at first on this principle, chap. iii. 2; and had she kept to it, she had been safe. When we are tempted to covet what God has forbidden, it were well to think of the many things which he has not forbidden, but freely given us. 4. He rises from created to uncreated authority : It would not only be treachery to my master, but “wickedness,” “great wickedness, and sin against God.” In the hour of temptation it is of in- finite importance what view we take of the evil to which we are tempted. If we suffer our thoughts to dwell on its agreeableness, as Eve did concerning the forbidden fruit, its sinfulness will insensibly diminish in our sight, a number of excuses will present themselves, and we shall inevitably be carried away by it ; but if we keep our eye stedfastly on the holy will of God, and the strong obli- gations we are under to him, that which would otherwise appear a little thing will be accounted what it is, a great wickedness, and we shall revolt at the idea of sinning against him. This is the armour of God, where with we shall stand in the evil day. Wer. 10. This remonstrance, however, strong as it was, has no lasting effect upon the woman ; for sin, and this sin in particular, is outrageous in its operations. Joseph therefore finds it necessary to shun her company, care- fully avoiding, as much as possible, to be with her any where alone. This showed, First, great sincerity; for if we throw ourselves in the way of temptation, or be not careful to shun it when occasions offer, in vain do we talk against sin. Secondly, great wisdom ; for though he had been kept hitherto, he was not sure that he should be so in future. Thirdly, great resolution and perseverance; for it is not every one who withstands a temptation in the first instance that holds out to the end. Eve repelled the tempter on his first onset, but was carried away by the second. Job endured a series of trials, and sinned not ; yet afterwards spake things which he ought not. Finally, great grace. “Can a man go on hot coals, and his feet not be burned 7” No ; if we voluntarily go into tempt- ation, we shall assuredly be hurt, if not ruined by it; but when God by his providence leads us into it, for the trial of our graces, we may hope to be kept in it, and brought victorious out of it. Wer. 11–20. If we were told of a young man in Joseph’s situation, we should probably advise his leaving the family; but, circumstanced as he was, that might be impossible. He was a bought servant, however exalted, and therefore was not at liberty to leave. Nor could he speak on the subject to his master without ruining his peace for ever. He therefore kept it to himself, and went on as well as he could, watching and praying, no doubt, lest he should enter into temptation. One day, being under the necessity of going into the house about busi- ness, his mistress renewed her solicitations; on which he fled from her presence as before ; but, as he was escaping, she caught a piece of his garment, and kept it by her. Wantonness being disappointed, and pride wounded, the whole is now turned into hatred and revenge. She will work his overthrow, that she will ! Mark how the cunning of the old serpent operates. The servants are called in to witness how she had been mocked, or, as we should say, insulted by this Hebrew. If they knew nothing from other quarters, it was very natural they should think it was so ; and thus they were every thing but eye-witnesses of Joseph’s guilt. Presumptive evidence is certainly very strong against him. Yet, with all this cunning, like other hypocrites, she does not do it completely. She should have pretended how much she felt for the insult offered to her husband, as well as to herself; but the truth will come out, after all the pains taken to conceal it. How dis- respectfully she speaks of him to the servants, half attribut- ing the pretended insult to him : “See,” saith she, “he hath brought an Hebrew unto us, to mock us !” Such language not only betrayed the alienation of her heart from her husband, but tended to set the servants against him. Nothing but truth is consistent throughout. If these servants possessed only a moderate share of good sense, they must have seen through this thin disguise, whether they chose to speak their minds or not. The scheme however took. Potiphar thought the story so plausible that there could be no doubt of its being true. His wrath therefore was kindled, and without further ceremony he took Joseph, and committed him to prison. Being fired with anger, he had no ear to hear what could be said on the other side ; and perhaps Joseph might think that nothing he could say would be regarded ; or if it were, it must ruin his master's peace of mind; he would therefore go in silence to prison, trusting in God to vin- dicate his injured character. But what an affecting reverse of condition Poor young man a stranger in a strange land, without a friend to JOSEPH IN PRISON. 415 speak for him or to care about him. Behold him confined in the dungeon, and think what must have been his re- flections.—Oh, if my father knew of this, what would he feel on my account . How mysterious are the ways of Providence, that, by an inflexible adherence to righteous- ness, I should be brought into this horrid place —He was not only confined in a dungeon, but, as we are told in the 105th Psalm, “his feet were hurt with fetters, being laid in iron.” The last phrase is very emphatic. Calvin renders it, “The iron entered into his soul.” + Not only were his feet galled, but his heart was grieved; and pro- bably he expected nothing but death. Wer. 21—23. But as under his former affliction, so under this, “the Lord was with Joseph.” What was once said to Abraham might now be said to him ; “I am God all-suffi- cient: walk before me, and be thou perfect.” All will be right at last. Where providence leads us into difficulties and hardships, grace can sustain us under them ; and if we suffer for righteousness' sake, as Joseph did, we may be assured it will be so. Nothing shall eventually harm us, if we be followers of that which is good. In a little time, Joseph obtains favour in the eyes of the keeper of the prison, as he had done before in those of Potiphar. And now he has an opportunity of showing the power of true religion in the prison, by his fidelity, his tenderness, and his worship of the only true God. It might be wisely ordered, too, that he should go into his high station by way of a prison ; he might not otherwise have been so well qualified to feel for his brethren, and for other prisoners. Nor would he have been in the way of his future ad- vancement, if he had not been there. “Before honour is humility.” The Lord of glory himself obtained not the crown but by first enduring the cross. DISCOURSE XLVII. JOSEPH IN PRISON, Gen. xl. WE left Joseph in prison ; but, by the good hand of God upon him, its hardships are greatly mitigated. At first he is thrown into a dungeon, and laid in irons; but now he is made a kind of steward, or overseer of the other prison- ers. Yet it is a prison still, and he desires to be free ; but he must wait awhile. God will deliver him in his own time and way. This chapter contains the story of the means by which his deliverance was effected. Ver. 1, 2. Two of Pharaoh’s officers offend their lord, for which they are committed to prison—the chief butler and the chief baker. Whether they suffered justly for having attempted to poison the king, which was often done in heathen countries, or merely on account of unfounded suspicion; whether, if there were any thing actually at- tempted, it was their doing, or that of some of the under butlers and bakers, for whose conduct they might be re- sponsible; we know not : but imprisoned they were. Ver. 3, 4. The prison into which they were sent is called the house of “the captain of the guard.” This title is more than once before given to Potiphar, chap. xxxvii. 36 ; xxxix. 1. It is probable that he had the chief oversight of the prison, and that the keeper was a person employed under him. If so, it seems likely that Potiphar was reconciled to Joseph. There is little reason to think that his wife would long conceal her character; and that being known would operate in Joseph's favour; and though he might not wish to release him out of prison, for his own credit, yet he might be induced to connive at the keeper's kindness to him. It is remarkable that the prison to which these persons were sent should be the same as that wherein Joseph was confined. In this we see the hand of God ordering all events. They might have been sent to another place of confinement, but then the chain had been broken. On how many little incidents, of which the parties at the time think nothing, do some of the greatest Yūjpl. mTSh ºn tº events depend ? If they had gone to another prison, Jo- seph might have died where he was, and no provision have been made for the seven years of famine ; and Jacob and his family, with millions of others, have perished for want; and so all the promises of their becoming a great nation, and of the Messiah springing from among them, and all nations being blessed in him, would have been frustrated. But he that appoints the end appoints all the means that shall lead to it; and not one of them, however small or incidental, shall be dispensed with. In this prison Joseph is said to have served the chief butler and the chief baker; that is, he carried them their daily provisions, and so was in the habit of seeing them every day, and conversing with them. Ver. 5–8. One morning, when he went to carry them their usual food, he finds them more than ordinarily de- jected, and kindly inquires into the reason of it. It ap- pears hence that Joseph was not a hard-hearted overseer. Unlike many petty officers, whose overbearing conduct towards their inferiors is most intolerable, he sympathizes with the sorrowful, and makes free with them. The fear of God produces tenderness of heart, and compassion to- wards men, especially to the poor and the afflicted. On inquiry, he found that they had each had a dream, which, by the circumstances attending it, they considered as ex- traordinary. Both of them dreamed, and both in one night; both their dreams related to their past employ- ments, and seemed therefore to be ominous of their future destiny; yet they knew not what to make of them, and had no interpreter at hand who could instruct them. Such was the cause of their dejection. Though the greater part of dreams be vanity, yet in all ages and places God has sometimes impressed the mind of man by these means ; and especially, it would seem, in countries which have been destitute of Divine revelation. We have many instances of this in the book of Daniel, and by which, as in this case, the servants of God came into request, and the glory of God eclipsed the powers of idolatry. But what kind of interpreters did these men wish for 3 Such, no doubt, as Pharaoh, on his having dreamed, called for ; namely, the magicians and the wise men of Egypt; and because they had no hopes of obtaining them in their present situation, therefore were they sad. Here lies the force of Joseph’s question ; “Do not interpretations belong to GoD 3” which was a reproof to them for looking to their magicians instead of to him : hence also he offered him- self, as the servant of God, to be their interpreter. It is worthy of motice, that what Joseph’s interpretation was to the dreams of the butler and the baker, that the oracles of God are to the notices and impressions on the human mind by the light of nature and conscience. Man in every age and country has felt in himself a conscious- ness of his being what he ought not to be, a fearfulness of having in another state to give an account, with many other things of the kind; but all is uncertainty. He only knows enough, if he regard it not, to render him inexcusa- ble ; and if he regard it, to make him miserable. It is only in the Scriptures that the mind of God is revealed. Ver, 9–15. The butler first tells his dream, which Joseph interprets of his deliverance and restoration to office; and having told him this good news, he very naturally throws in a request on behalf of himself. There is no proof or symptom of impatience in this ; but patience itself may consist with the use of all lawful means to obtain deliver- ance. The terms in which this request is made are mo- dest, and exceedingly impressive : “Think on me when it shall be well with thee, and show kindness, I pray thee, unto me, and make mention of me unto Pharaoh, and bring me out of this house.” He might have asked for a place under the chief butler, or some other post of hon- our or profit : but he requests only to be delivered from “this house.” He might have reminded the butler how much he owed to his sympathetic and kind treatment ; but he left these things to speak for themselves, using no other language than that of humble entreaty ; “I pray thee show kindness unto me!” In pleading the exalted situation in which the chief butler was about to be rein- stated, he gently intimates the obligations which people in prosperous circumstances are under to think of the poor and the afflicted ; and Christians may still further improve 416 EXPOSITION OF GENESIS. the principle, not to be unmindful of such cases in their approaches to the King of kings. This plea may also di- rect us to make use of His name and interest who is ex- alted at the right hand of the Majesty on high. It was on this principle that the dying thief presented his peti- tion ; “Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.” A petition which the Lord of glory did nei- ther refuse nor forget ; and still he liveth to make inter- cession for us. Joseph, in order to make a deeper impression upon the butler's mind, tells him a few of the outlines of his his- tory: “I was stolen,” says he, “from the land of the He- brews.” But was this a just account 3 Did not the Ish- maelites buy him 3 They did ; but it was of them who had no right to sell him, and therefore it was in reality stealing him. Such, you know, would be the purchase of a child by a kidnapper of an unprincipled nurse ; and such is the purchase of slaves to this day on the coast of Africa. The account was not only just, but generous. In making use of the term stolen, without any mention of particulars, he seems to have intended to throw a veil over the cruelty of his brethren, whom he did not wish to re- proach to a stranger; and the same generous spirit is dis- covered in what he says of his treatment in Egypt. We have seen in a former discourse how this great and good man refused to reproach his tempter, confining himself to what was his own duty; and now, when he had suffered so much through her base and false treatment, and when it might have been thought necessary to expose her in order to justify himself, he contents himself with asserting his own innocence : “And here also have I done nothing that they should put me into the dungeon.” What an example is here afforded us of temperateness and forbear- ance, under the foulest and most injurious treatment Such was Joseph's request, and such his pleas to enforce it. If there had been any gratitude, any bowels of mercy, or any justice in the butler's heart, surely he must have thought of these things. Ver. 16–19. But, before telling us the issue of the above, the sacred writer informs us of the request of the baker. Observing the success of his companion, he is en- couraged to tell his dream also ; but here is a sad reverse. In three days his life will be taken from him . Whether he would suffer justly or unjustly we know not ; but as his death was so near, it was an advantage for him to know it; and if he had been properly affected, he had now an opportunity of inquiring at the hand of a servant of God concerning his eternal salvation. Ver. 20–23. The third day after these things, being Pharaoh’s birth-day, both these prisoners were brought forth. Whether they were put to a formal trial, or whe- ther their fate was determined by the mere will of the king, we are not informed ; but the chief butler was rein- stated in his office, and the chief baker hanged, according to the word of the Lord by his servant Joseph. We should now have expected to read of the chief but- ler's intercession to the king in behalf of an amiable and injured young Hebrew, whom he had met with in prison. But instead of this we are told, “Yet did not the chief butler remember Joseph, but forgat him : " Alas, what a selfish creature is man How strangely does prosperity intoxicate and drown the mind . How common is it for people in high life to forget the poor, even those to whom they have been under the greatest obligations ! Well, be it so ; Joseph's God did not forget him ; and we, amidst all the neglects of creatures, may take comfort in this, Jesus does not neglect us. Though exalted far above all princi- palities and powers, he is not elated with his glory, so as to forget his poor suffering people upon earth. Only let us be concerned not to forget him. He who needs not our esteem, as we do his, hath yet in love condescended to ask us to do thus and thus in remembrance of him 1 DISCOURSE XLVIII. JOSEPH'S ADVANCEMENT. Gen. xli. VER. 1–14, “Hope deferred maketh the heart sick.” It is not the intenseness of our trials, but the duration of them, that is the greatest test of patience. “Two full years” longer must Joseph remain in prison. How long he was at the house of Potiphar, before he was sent to this dis- mal place, I do not recollect that we are informed ; but we learn that it was thirteen years in the whole ; for when he came out of Canaan he was but seventeen, and he was thirty when he stood before Pharaoh. God sel- dom makes haste to accomplish his designs. His move- ments, like those of a comet, fetch a large compass, but all comes right at last. The time is now come for Joseph’s advancement, and God makes way for it by causing Pha- raoh himself to dream. Abraham made a point of not laying himself under obligation to the king of Sodom ; and though Joseph in the grief of his soul would gladly have been obliged to both Pharaoh and the butler for his deliverance, yet God will so order it that he shall be obliged to neither of them. Pharaoh shall send for him ; but it shall be for his own sake. Though a poor friend- less young man himself, yet he is a servant of the great King, and must maintain the honour of his Lord. It might be for this that God suffered the butler to forget him, that he might not take from a thread to a shoe-latchet what was theirs, and that the king of Egypt might not have to say, I have made Israel rich. Abraham and his posterity were made to impart blessedness to mankind rather than to receive it from them. If it be more blessed to give than to receive, theirs it is to be thus blessed and thus honoured. Oh the depth of the wisdom and good- mess of God, not only in giving, but in withholding his gifts till the time when they shall best subserve the ends for which they are conferred And now that the set time to favour Joseph is come, events rise in quick succession. Pharaoh’s mind is im- pressed with an extraordinary dream—the same is repeated in another form—each appears to portend something of importance—his spirit is troubled—he sends for his magi- ciams and wise men, but their wisdom fails them—all are nonplused—what is to be done 3—Just now it occurs to the butler that this had once been his own case—Oh, and I have forgotten my kind and worthy friend Stupid creature . That is the man for the king.—Obtaining an audience, he confesses the whole truth, and ingenuously acknowledges his faults.-Joseph is now sent for in haste. He shaves himself, changes his raiment, and obeys the summons. Thus, in a few hours, he is delivered from the dungeon, and introduced to the court of what was then perhaps the first nation upon earth. Were we unac- quainted with the event, with what anxious solicitude should we follow him 1 and even as it is, we cannot wholly divest ourselves of these feelings. Ver. 15–24. Being introduced to the king, he is told for what cause he is sent for. “I have,” said Pharaoh, “dreamed a dream, and there is none that can interpret it : and I have heard say of thee that thou camst under- stand a dream, to interpret it.” The meaning of this was, that he had a case in hand which baffled all the wise men of Egypt, but that, from what he had heard of Joseph, he supposed he might be a wiser man, or more deeply skilled in occult science, than any of them. Such a compliment from a king would have been too much for a vain mind : if he had affected to disclaim superior wisdom, it would have been done in a manner which betrayed what lurked within. But Joseph feared God; and is the same man in a palace as in a prison “It is not in me,” said he ; “God shall give Pharaoh an answer of peace.” In this brief answer we see a spirit of genuine humility, dis- claiming all that kind of wisdom for which Pharaoh seemed very willing to give him credit, or indeed any other, but what God gave him. We see also a disin- terested concern to glorify the true God, in the face of the mightiest votaries of idolatry, who had power to do what JOSEPH'S ADVANCEMENT. 417 they pleased with him. It is observable, he does not say the God of Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob, or the God of the Hebrews. Such language might have been understood by Pharaoh and his courtiers as setting up one titular Deity in opposition to others, the God of his country against the gods of Egypt: but he simply says GoD ; a term which would lead their thoughts to the One great Supreme, before whom all idols would fall to the ground. Thus, with great wisdom, modesty, and firmness, he states truth, and leaves error to fall of its own accord. In as- suring Pharaoh that God would give him an answer of peace, he would remove all fear from his mind of an un- favourable interpretation, which, from the butler’s report, he might have some reason to apprehend ; inasmuch as though he had foretold his restoration to office, yet he had prophetically hanged the chief baker. & Pharaoh’s mind being thus relieved and encouraged, he without further hesitation proceeds to tell his dreams of the fat and lean-fleshed kine, and of the rank and withered ears of corn. Ver. 25–31. The answer of Joseph is worthy of the man of God. You perceive no shuffling to gain time, no juggling, no peeping and muttering, no words of dark or doubtful meaning : all is clear as light, and explicit as the day.--The dreams are one ; and they were sent of God to forewarn the king of what he would shortly bring to pass. The seven good kine, and the seven ears, are seven years of plenty; and the seven evil kine, and thin ears, are seven years of famine. And the reason of the dream being doubled is to express its certainty, and the near approach of the events signified by it. Ver. 32—36. Having made the matter plain, and so relieved the king's mind, he does not conclude without offering a word of counsel; the substance of which was to provide, from the surplus of the seven good years, for the supply of the seven succeeding ones. If he had only interpreted Pharaoh’s dreams, he might have gratified his curiosity, but that had been all. Knowledge is of but little use, any further than as it is converted into practice. With respect to the advice itself, it carried with it its own recommendation. It was no more than what com- mon prudence would have dictated to any people. If they had doubted Joseph’s interpretation of the dreams, and whether any such years of plenty and of scarcity would follow, yet they could not, even upon this sup- position, object to his counsel; for nothing was to be ex- pended, nor done, but upon the actual occurrence of the plenteous years; which, as they were to come first, af. forded an opportunity of which wisdom would have availed itself, if there had been no dreams in the case, to provide for a time of want. Nor is there any reason, from what we know of Joseph’s character, to suspect him of interested designs, like those of Haman, who wished to recommend himself. He appears to have had no end in view but the good of the country where God had caused him to sojourn. Ver. 37, 38. Happily for Egypt, Pharaoh and his ministry saw the propriety of what was offered, and readily came into it. . It is a sign that God has mercy in store for that people whose rulers are open to receive good counsel, and know how to appreciate the worth of good men. As Joseph had recommended a wise man to be employed in the business, Pharaoh without further hesitation appeals to his courtiers, whether any man in Egypt was so fit for the work as himself—a man who had not only proved himself wise in counsel, but had also intercourse with God, and was inspired of him to reveal the secrets of futurity. Such language proves that Joseph's mentioning the true God to Pharaoh had not been without effect. To this, however, the courtiers make no answer. If they felt a little jealous of this young foreigner, it were not to be wondered at. Such were the feelings of the Babylonish nobles towards Daniel. It were easier to see the good- ness of the counsel which left a hope to each man of a new office, than to see that Joseph was the only man in the land that could execute it. They knew very well that they had not, like him, “the Spirit of God;” but might think themselves capable, nevertheless, of managing this business. However, they silently acquiesce; and Pharaoh Proceeds without delay to carry his purpose into effect. - O E * Ver, 39–45. And now all power, except that which is supreme, is put into his hands, over the house and over the nation ; and, as the courtiers had probably discovered a secret reluctance, Pharaoh repeats his determination the more earnestly, that as the dream had been repeated to him, the thing might be established, and immediately put in execution. To words were added signs, which tended to fix his authority in the minds of the people. The king took his ring from his hand, and put it upon the hand of Joseph, clothed him in fine linen, and put a gold chain about his neck. Nor was this all : he caused him to ride in the second chariot through the streets of the city, and that it should be proclaimed before him, “Bow the knee,” or “Tender father.” The Chaldee translates it, as Ains- worth observes, “The father of the king, master in wis- dom, and tender in years ;”—as who should say, Though a youth in age, yet a father in character. In addition to this, Pharaoh uses a very solemn form of speech, such as that which is prefixed or affixed to many of the Divine commands: “I am Pharaoh, and without thee shall no man lift up his hand or foot in all the land of Egypt.” See Lev. xix. Finally, to crown him with respect, he gave him a new name, the meaning of which was, a re- vealer of secrets ; and the daughter of a priest, or prince, to be his wife. Pause a moment, my brethren, and re- flect . . . . Who, in reading the preceding sufferings and present advancement of Joseph, can forbear thinking of | HIM who, “for the suffering of death, was crowned with glory and honour—whom God hath highly exalted, giving him a name which is above every name; that at the name of JESUS every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father?” Surely it was the design of God, by these sweet analogies, to lead the minds of be- lievers imperceptibly on, that when the Messiah should come, they might see him in perfection, in their Josephs, and Joshuas, and Davids, as well as in their sacrifices, their cities of refuge, and their jubilees. Ver. 46–49. Joseph, being thirty years old when he stood before Pharaoh, was just suited for active life. At such a period, however, and raised from such a situation, many would have been lifted up to their hurt; but he who enabled him to repel temptation, and endure affliction, enabled him also to bear the glory that was conferred upon him with humility. It is observable, that, on going out from the presence of Pharaoh, he did not go hither and thither to show his greatness; but immediately be- took himself to business. New honours, in his account, conferred new obligations. The first thing necessary for the execution of his trust was a general survey of the country ; which having taken, he proceeded to execute his plan, laying up grain during the seven plentiful years beyond all calculation. Ver. 50–52. During these years of plenty, Joseph had two sons by his wife Asenath, both which are significantly named, and express the state of his mind in his present situation. The first he called Manasseh, that is, forget- ting ; “ for God,” said he, “ hath made me to forget all my toil, and all my father's house.” A change from the extremes of either joy to sorrow or sorrow to joy is ex- pressed by the term forgetfulness ; and a very expressive term it is. “Thou hast removed my soul far off from peace : I forgot prosperity.—A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come ; but, as soon as she is delivered, she remembereth no more the an- guish, for joy that a man is born into the world.” But what, had Joseph forgotten his father's house 3 Yes, so far as it had been an affliction to him ; that is, he had for- gotten the cruel treatment of his brethren, so as no longer to lay it to heart. His second son he called Ephraim, that is, made fruitful; “for God,” said he, “ hath caused me to be fruitful in the land of my affliction . " In both he eyes the hand of God in doing every thing for him, and gives the glory to him only. Ver. 53–57. But now the day of prosperity to Egypt is at an end, and the day of adversity cometh : “God hath set the one over against the other,” to sweep away its ful- ness, that man should find nothing after him. And now the people, being famished for want of bread, resorted to 418 EXPOSITION OF GENESIS. Pharaoh. Had not Pharaoh been warned of this evil be- forehand, he might have replied as Jehoram did to her that cried, “Help, my lord, O king—If the Lord do not help thee, whence shall I help thee ? Out of the barn- floor, or out of the wine-press 3’” But provision was made for this time of need; and the people are all directed to “go to Joseph.” And here, I may say again, who can forbear thinking of HIM in whom it hath pleased the Fa- ther that all fulness should dwell, and to whom those who are ready to perish are directed for relief? This sore famine was not confined to Egypt, but ex- tended to the surrounding countries: and it was wisely ordered that it.should be so; since the great end for which God is represented as calling for it (Psal. cv. 16) was to bring Jacob's sons, and eventually his whole family, into Egypt; which end would not otherwise have been an- swered. Joseph is now filling up his generation work in useful and important labours; and, like a true son of Abraham, he is blessed and made a blessing. Yet it was in the midst of this career of activity that his father Jacob said, with a deep sigh, “Joseph is not l” What a large portion of our troubles would subside, if we knew but the whole truth ! DISCOURSE XLIX. THE FIRST INTERVIEW BETWEEN JOSEPH AND HIS BRETHREN. Gen. xlii. THINGs now approach fast to a crisis. We hear but little more of the famine, but as it relates to Jacob's family, on whose account it was sent. It is remarkable that all the three patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, experienced a famine while sojourning in the Land of Promise; a circum- stance sufficient to try their faith. Had they been of the disposition of the spies in the time of Moses, they would have concluded it to be a land which ate up the inhabit- ... ants, and therefore not worth accepting; but they believed God, and thought well of whatever he did. Ver. 1, 2. Jacob and his family have well nigh exhausted their provision, and have no prospect of recruiting it. They had money, but corn was not to be had for money in their own country. They could do nothing, therefore, but look one at another in sad despair. But Jacob, hearing that there was corn in Egypt, rouses them from their tor- por. His words resemble those of the four lepers: “Why sit we here until we die 3’” It is a dictate of nature not to despair while there is a door of hope; and the principle will hold good in things of everlasting moment. Why sit we here, poring over our guilt and misery, when we have heard that with the Lord there is mercy, and with him there is plentedus redemption ? How long shall we take counsel in our soul, having sorrow in our hearts daily Let us trust in his mercy, and our hearts shall rejoice in his salvation. Ver. 3, 4. The ten brethren immediately betake them- selves to their journey. They are called “Joseph’s bre- thren,” and not Jacob's sons, because Joseph is at present the principal character in the story. But when Benjamin is called “his brother,” there is more meant than in the other case. It would seem to be assigned as the reason why Jacob is unwilling to part with him, that he was the only surviving child of Rachel, and brother of him that was not As mischief had befallen him, he was afraid the same should befall his brother, and therefore wished the young men to go without him. Jacob does not say, “Lest you should do him mischief, as I fear you did his brother;” but I suspect there was something of this at the bottom, which, when afterwards urged by a kind of necessity to part with Benjamin, came out: “Me ye have bereaved Joseph is not l” ver. 36. At first he appears to have thought that some evil beast had devoured him ; but, upon more mature observation and reflection, he might see reason to suspect, at least, whether it was not by some foul dealing on their part that he had come to his end. As nothing, however, could be proved, he at present kept his suspicions to himself; and the matter passed, as it had done from the first, that mischief in some unknown way had befallen him. Ver. 5. Nothing is said of their journey, except that a number of their countrymen went with them on the same errand ; for the famine was in the land of Canaan. Such a number of applicants might possibly excite fears in their minds lest there should not be enough for them all. Such fears, however, if they existed in this case, were unneces- sary ; and must always be unnecessary, where there is enough and to spare. Ver. 6. Now, Joseph being governor of the land, they find him on their arrival fully employed in serving the Egyptians. He had assistants; but his eye pervaded every thing. As soon as they could get access to the governor, they, according to the Eastern custom, bow themselves be- fore him, with their faces to the earth. Ver, 7. We may wonder that Joseph could live all this time in Egypt, without going to see his father or his bre- thren. We might indeed allege, that while with Potiphar he had probably neither opportunity nor inclination ; when in prison, he was not allowed to go beyond its walls; and when advanced under Pharaoh, his hands were so fully employed that he could not be spared. We know that when his father was to come down to him he could only send for him ; and when he went to bury him, there was great formality required to attend his movements, a number of the Egyptians going with him. But it was doubtless ordered of God that he should not go, but that his brethren should come to him; for on this depended the whole issue of the affair. And now comes on the delicate part of the story: “Joseph saw his brethren, and knew them.” What must have been his feelings . The remembrance of the manner in which he parted from them two-and-twenty years ago, the events which had since be- fallen him, their prostration before him, and the absence of Benjamin, from which he might be apprehensive that they had also made away with him—all together, must have been a great shock to his sensibility. Let him beware, or his countenance will betray him. He feels the danger of this, and therefore immediately puts on a stern look, speaks roughly to them, and affects to take them for spies. By this innocent piece of artifice, he could interrogate them, and get out of them all the particulars that he wished, without betraying himself, which he could not have done by any other means. The manner in which he asked them, “Whence come ye?” would convey to them an idea of suspicion as to their designs. It was like saying, Who and what are you? I do not like your looks. Their answer is humble and proper, stating the simple truth . . . . they came from Canaan, and had no other design in view than to buy food. Ver. 8. “Joseph knew his brethren,” and felt for them, notwithstanding his apparent severity ; “but they knew not him l’” It was wisely ordered that it should be so, and is easily accounted for. When they last saw each other, they were grown to man’s estate, but he was a lad; they were probably in much the same dress, but he was clothed in vestures of fine linen, with a golden chain about his neck; and they had only one face to judge by, whereas he had ten, the knowledge of any one of which would lead to the knowledge of all. Now Joseph sees, without being seen ; and now he remembers his dreams of the sheaves, and of the stars. - Ver, 9–14. Determined to continue at present un- known, and yet wishing to know more of them, and of matters in Canaan, Joseph still speaks under an assumed character, and affects to be dissatisfied with their answer. “Ye are spies,” saith he, “to see the nakedness of the land are ye come.” They modestly and respectfully dis- own the charge, and repeat the true and only object of their coming ; adding, what is very much in point, “We are all one man’s sons.” This was saying, Ours is not a political, but a domestic errand; we are not sent hither by a king, but by a father, and merely to supply the wants of the family. Still he affects to disbelieve them ; for he does not know enough yet. He therefore repeats his sus- picions, in order to provoke them to be more particular; as if he should say, I will know all about you before I sell JOSEPH'S FIRST INTERVIEW WITH HIS BRETHREN. 419 you corn, or send you away. This had the desired effect. “Thy servants,” say they, “are [or were] twelve brethren, the sons of one man in the land of Canaan; and, behold, the youngest is this day with our father, and one is not.” This is deeply interesting, and exquisitely affecting to Jo: seph. By this he learns that his father was yet alive, and his brother too. O these are joyful tidings! . This was the drift of his questions, as they afterwards tell their father Jacob : “ The man asked us straitly of our state, and of our kindred, saying, Is your father yet alive 3 Have ye another brother? And we told him according to the tenor of these words,” chap. xliii. 7. But what must have been his sensations at the mention of the last words, “One is not l” . . . . Well, he conceals his feelings, and affects to turn their account of matters against them. They had not told all the truth at first. It seems at first there were only ten of them, and now there were eleven : “That is it that I spake unto you, saying, Ye are spies.” Wer. 15, 16. He now proposes to prove them. “ By the life of Pharaoh,” saith he, “ you shall not go hence, except your youngest brother come hither. Send one of you and fetch him, that your words may be proved, whether there be any truth in you ; or else, by the life of Pharaoh, surely ye are spies.” Some suppose that Joseph had learned the manner of the Egyptians by living among them, or that he would not thus have sworn by the life of Pharaoh ; but I see no ground for any such thing. We might as well say that he had learned to speak untruth, because he really had no such suspicions as he feigned ; or that he had learned magic, seeing he afterwards talked of “divining;” or that our Saviour had learned the proud and haughty spirit of the Jews, who treated the Gentiles as dogs, because, for the sake of trying the woman of Ca- naan, he made use of that kind of language. The truth is, Joseph acted under an assumed character. He wished to be taken for an Egyptian nobleman, with whom it was as common to swear by the life of Pharaoh as it was after- wards for a Roman to swear by the fortune of Caesar. But wherefore does Joseph thus keep up the deception? and why propose such methods of proving his brethren 3 I suppose at present his wish is to detain them. Yes, they must not leave Egypt thus: had they done this, he might have seen them no more ; yet he had no other cause to assign but this, without betraying the truth, which it was not a fit time to do at present. Ver. 17, 18. Take these men up, said Joseph to his officers, and put them into a place of safe custody; it is not proper they should be at large. Here they lie three days; a period which afforded him time to think what to do, and them to reflect on what they had done. On the third day he paid them a visit, and that in a temper of more apparent mildness. He assures them that he has no designs upon their life, nor any wish to hurt their family; and ventures to give a reason for it, which must to them appear no less surprising than satisfying: “I fear God.” What, an Egyptian nobleman know and fear the true God If so, they have no injustice to fear at his hands; nor can he withhold food from a starving family. The fear of God will ever be connected with justice and humanity to man. But how mysterious an affair . If he be a good man, how is it that he should treat us so roughly How is it that God should suffer him so to mistake our designs? Se- verity from the hand of goodness is doubly severe. Their hearts must surely by this time have been full. Such were the methods which this wise man made use of to agitate their minds, and to touch every spring of sensibility within them; and such were the means which God by him made use of to bring them to repentance. This in- deed is his ordinary method of dealing with sinners: now their fears are awakened by threatenings, or adverse provi- dences, in which death sometimes stares them in the face ; and now a little gleam of hope arises, just sufficient to keep the mind from sinking; yet all is covered with doubt and mystery. It is thus, as by alternate frost and rain and sunshine upon the earth, that he humbleth the mind, and maketh soft the heart of man. & Ver, 19—24. Joseph, still under a disguise, though he consents that nine out of the ten should go home with provision for the relief of the family, yet, that he may have Some pledge for their return, insists on one being detained as a hostage till they should prove themselves true men, by bringing their younger brother; and his will at present must be their law. Having thus determined their cause, he withdraws from their immediate company to a little distance, where perhaps he might stand conversing with some other persons, but still within hearing of what passed among them. As he had all along spoken to them by an interpreter, they had no suspicion that he understood He- brew, and therefore began talking to one another in that language with the greatest freedom, and, as they thought, without danger of being understood. Their full hearts now began to utter themselves. Perhaps their being obliged to speak of Joseph as “not” might serve to bring him to their remembrance. Whatever it was, the same thoughts had been in all their minds, which probably they could read in each other's looks. As soon, therefore, as one of them broke silence, the rest immediately joined in ascribing all this evil which had befallen them to this cause. “They said one to another, We are verily guilty concerning our brother, in that we saw the anguish of his soul, when he besought us, and we would not hear; there- fore is this distress come upon us!” God, in dealing with sinners, usually adapts the punishment to the sin, so as to cause them to read the one in the other. Hence adverse providences call our sin to remembrance ; our own wick- edness corrects us, and our backslidings reprove us. They would not hear Joseph in his distress, and now they could not be heard; they had thrown him into a pit, and are themselves now thrown into prison : These convictions are heightened by the reproaches of Reuben, who gives them to expect blood for blood. Reuben was that, me- thinks, to his brethren which conscience is to a sinner; remonstrating at the outset, and, when judgment over- takes him, reproaching him, and foreboding the worst of consequences. His words are sharp as a two-edged sword : “Spake I not unto you, saying, Do not sin against the child; and ye would not hear? Therefore behold, also, his blood is required ' " But, that which is still more affecting, Joseph hears all, and understands it, and this without their suspecting it. Such words however were too much for the heart of man, at least such a man as he was, to bear : it is no wonder, therefore, that he “turned himself about from them, and wept " " But having re- covered himself, he returned to them, and with an austere countenance took Simeon, and bound him before their eyes. This must be cutting work on both sides. On the part of Joseph, it must be a great force put upon his feel- ings; and on theirs, it would seem a prelude to greater evils. There might be a fitness in taking Simeon rather than any other. He had proved himself a ferocious cha- racter by his conduct towards the Shechemites; and there- fore it is not unlikely he was one of the foremost in the cruelty practised towards Joseph. Perhaps he was the man who tore off his coat of many colours, and threw him into the pit. If so, it would tend to humble him, and heighten all their fears, as beholding in it the righteous judgment of God. Ver, 25–28. This done, their sacks are ordered to be filled, and their money restored ; not by giving it into their hands however, but by putting it into the mouths of their sacks. But why all this mysterious conduct? was it love 3 It was, at the bottom ; but love operating at present in a way tending to perplex, confound, and dismay them. It could not appear to them in any other light than as either an oversight, or a design to insnare and find occa- sion against them. It was certain to fill their minds with consternation and fear ; and such appears to have been the intention of Joseph from the first. It accords with the wisdom of God, when he means to bring a sinner to a right mind, to lead him into dark and intricate situations, of which he shall be utterly unable to perceive the design; to awaken by turns his fears and his hopes; bring his sin to remembrance ; and cause him to feel his littleness, his danger, and his utter insufficiency to deliver his soul : and such, in measure, appears to have been the design of Joseph, according to the wisdom that was imparted to him on this singular occasion. If his brethren had known all, they would not have felt as they did ; but neither would they have been brought to so right a state of mind, nor have been prepared, as they were, for that which fol- 2 E 2 420 EXPOSITION OF GENESIS. lowed. And if we knew all, with respect to the mysteri- ous dispensations of God, we should have less pain ; but then we should be less humbled, and less fitted to receive the mercy which is prepared for us. It is remarkable how this circumstance Operates on their minds. They construe it to mean something against them ; but in what way they know not. They do not reproach the man, the lord of the land, though it is likely from his treatment of them that they would suspect some ill design against them ; but, overlooking second causes, they ask, “What is this that God hath dome to us!” . To his righteous judgment they attributed what they had al- ready met with, ver. 21, 22; and now it seems to them that he is still pursuing them in a mysterious way, and with a design to require their brother's blood at their hand. Such a construction, though painful for the pre- sent, was the most useful to them of any that could have been put upon it. Ver. 29–35. Arriving at their father's house, they tell him of all that had befallen them in Egypt, that they may account for their coming home without Simeon, and their being required when they went again to take Benjamin with them. But the mysterious circumstance of the money being found by the way in their sacks they appear to have concealed. Mention is made of only one of the sacks being opened ; yet, by what they afterwards said to the steward, chap. xliii. 21, it appears that they opened them all, and found every man’s money in his sack’s mouth. But they might think their father would have blamed them for not returning with it when they were only a day's journey from Egypt, and therefore agreed to say nothing to him about it, but leave him to find it out. Hence it is that they are represented, on opening their sacks, as discovering the money in a manner as if they knew mothing of it before ; not only participating with their father in his apprehensions, but seeming also to join with him in his surprise. Wer. 36–38. If the discovery of the money affected Jacob, much more the requirement of his darling son. This touches him to the quick. He cannot help thinking of the end that Joseph had come to. The reasons he had to suspect some foul dealing, in that affair, had probably made him resolve long ago that Benjamin should never be trusted in their hands ! Yet things are now so circum- stanced that he must go with them. It was a distressing case. Jacob speaks, as well he might, in great anguish ; having in a manner lost all his earthly hopes, save one ; and of that he is now in danger of being deprived. His words have too much peevish sorrow about them ; they certainly reflect upon his sons; and the last sentence would almost seem to contain a reflection upon Provi- dence. The words “all these things are against me.” must have some reference to the promise, “I will surely do thee good;’ and if so, they were like saying, Is this the way ? Surely not —Yet so it was. The conduct of God towards Jacob is covered with as great a mystery as that of Joseph towards his brethren ; but all will be right at last. Much present trouble arises from our not know- ing the whole truth. In mentioning the name of Joseph, Jacob had touched a tender place ; an old wound, which Providence too had been lately probing. On this occasion, all that were guilty, you will perceive, are silent. Reuben is the only one that speaks, and he dares not touch that subject; but with strong and passionate language seems to aim to divert his mind from it, and to fix it upon Benjamin only : “Slay my two sons, if I bring him not to thee.” This language so far answers the end, as that no more is said of their having “bereaved” him of Joseph ; but he still dwells upon his being “dead,” nor can he at present be persuaded to part with his brother. “If mischief,” saith he, “befall him in the way in which ye go, then shall ye bring down my grey hairs with sorrow to the grave.” DISCOURSE L. THE SEconID INTERVIEw BETween Joseph AND HIs BRETHREN. Gen. xliii. VER. 1, 2. The relief obtained by the first journey to Egypt is soon exhausted ; for “the famine was sore in the land,” and therefore nothing of its native productions could be added to the other to make it last the longer. “Go,” said Jacob to his sons, “ and buy us a little food.” Avarice and distrust would have wished for much, and have been for hoarding it in such a time as this ; but Ja- cob is contented with a little, desirous that others should have a part as well as himself; and, with respect to futu- rity, he puts his trust in God. Ver. 3—5. Buthere the former difficulty recurs. they can- not, must not, will not, go without their younger brother. This is trying. Nature struggles with nature ; the af- fection of the father with the calls of hunger; but the former must yield. Jacob does not appear, however, at present, to be entirely willing ; wherefore Judah, con- sidering it as a fit opportunity, urges the matter, alleging the peremptory language of the man, the lord of the land, on the subject. Ver. 6, 7. This brings forth one more feeble objection, or rather complaint, and which must be the last; “Where- fore dealt ye so ill with me as to tell the man whether ye had yet a brother?” To which they very properly answer that they could not do otherwise, being so straitly ex- amined ; nor was it possible for them to know the use that would be made of it. Ver. 8–10. While matters were thus hanging in sus- pense, Judah very seasonably and kindly attempts to smooth the difficulty to his father, by offering in the most solemn manner to be surety for the lad, and to bear the blame for ever if he did not bring him back and set him before him. In addition to this, he alleges that the life of the whole family depended upon his father’s acquies- cence, and that they had been too long detained already. Ver. 11–14. And now Jacob must yield—must yield up his beloved Benjamin, though not without a mixture of painful reluctance ; but imperious necessity demands it. He who a few weeks before had said, “My son shall no go down with you,” is now upon the whole constrained to part with him. Thus have we often seen the tender relative, who in the first stages of an affliction thought it impossible to sustain the loss of a beloved object, gradually reconciled, and at length witnessing the pangs of wasting disease, almost desirous of the removal. Thus it is that the wisdom and goodness of God are seen in our bereave- ments: the burden which at first threatens to crush us into the grave, being let down gradually upon our shoul- ders, becomes not only tolerable, but almost desirable. But mark the manner in which the patriarch acquiesces; his is not the sullen consent of one who yields to fate, but in his heart rebels against God. No, he yields in a manner worthy of a man of God ; proposing first that every possible means should be used to conciliate the man, the lord of the land, and then committing the issue of the whole to God. Just thus he had acted when his brother Esau was coming against him with four hundred men, chap. xxxii. 6—12. “Take of the best fruits of the land in your vessels, and carry down the man a present— take double money in your hands, and the money that was brought again in the mouth of your sacks—take also your brother—and God Almighty give you mercy before the man, that he may send away your other brother, and Benjamin. If I be bereaved, I am bereaved l’” The fruits of Canaan, especially in a time of famine, would be a great token of respect; the double money might be ne- cessary, as the continuance of the famine might enhance the price of corn; and the restoration of that which was returned would prove their integrity. But we must not pass over the concluding part without noticing two or three things in particular. 1. The cha- racter under which the Lord is addressed ; “God Al- mighty,” or God all-sufficient. This was the name under JOSEPH's SECOND INTERVIEW witH HIS BRETHREN. 42} which Abraham was blessed : “I am God Almighty ; ” and which was used by Isaac in his blessing Jacob ; “God Almighty bless thee, and give thee the blessing of Abra- ham.” It is natural to suppose that Jacob, in putting up this prayer, thought of these covenant promises and bless- ings, and that it was the prayer of faith. 2. The mistake on which the prayer is founded, which yet was acceptable to God. He prayed for the turning of the man's heart in a way of mercy; but the man's heart did not need turning. Yet Jacob thought it did, and had no means of knowing otherwise. The truth of things may in some cases be concealed from us, to render us more importunate; and this importunity, though it may appear at last to have been unnecessary, yet, being right according as circumstances appeared at the time, God will approve of it, and we shall find our account in it. 3. The resignation with which he concludes ; “If I be bereaved, I am bereaved : " It is God's usual way, in trying those whom he loves, to touch them in the tenderest part. Herein the trial consists. If there be one object round which the heart has entwined more than all others, that is it which is likely to be God’s rival, and of that we must be deprived. Yet if, when it goes, we humbly resign it up into God’s hands, it is not unusual for him to restore it to us, and that with more than double interest. Thus Abraham, on giving up Isaac, received him again ; and David, on giving up himself to God to do with him as seemed good in his sight, was pre- served in the midst of peril. Wer. 15, 16. Jacob's sons now betake themselves to their second journey, and do as their father had directed them. On arriving in Egypt, they are introduced to Joseph. Joseph, looking upon them, beholds his brother Benjamin. It is likely that his eyes would here be in some danger of betraying his heart; and that, being conscious of this, he instantly gives orders to his steward to take these men home to his house, and prepare a dinner, for that they must dine with him at noon. By this means he would be able to compose himself, and to form a plan how to conduct and in what manner to discover himself to them, which it appears by the sequel it was his design at this time to have accomplished. See how fruitful love is of kind contrivance, seeking and finding opportunities to gra- tify itself by closer and closer interviews. Thus when two of John's disciples were kindly asked, “What seek ye', '' they answered, “Master, where dwellest thow 2’’ As who should say, We want to be better acquainted with thee, and to say more than could be said in this public place. And thus when Jesus himself would commune with his disciples, he saith unto them, “Children, come and dime !” Ver. 17, 18. But to Joseph’s brethren things still wear a mysterious and confounding aspect ; that which he meant in love, they construed as a design to insnare and enslave them. The mind, while in a state of dark suspense, is apt to view every thing through a discouraging medium. It will miscontrue even goodness itself, and find fear where no fear is. Thus it is that souls depressed under God's hand often misinterpret his providences, and draw dismal conclusions from the same things which in another state of mind would afford them relief. When the soul is in such a frame as to “refuse to be comforted,” it will “remember God, and be troubled,” Psal. lxxvii. 2, 3. - Ver, 19–23. Being introduced into the house of Joseph, however, though it excited their fears, yet it afforded an opportunity during his absence of speaking to the steward concerning the money found in their sacks, which was the circumstance that at present most alarmed them. It was wise in them to be first in mentioning this matter, that if any thing were afterwards said by J oseph about it, they might appeal to the steward, and he could declare on their behalf that, without any accusation, they had of their own accord mentioned the whole business to him, and returned the money. But the answer of the steward is surprising. He could scarcely have spoken more suitably, if he had been in the secret. I do not suppose he knew that these were Joseph’s brethren ; but he would know that they were his countrymen ; and perceiving the interest which he took in them, and the air of mystery which attended his conduct towards them, he would be at no loss to con- clude that there was no ill design against them. It is likely he knew of the money being returned by Joseph's order; and he knew his master too well to suppose that, whatever might be his design in it, he would hurt the poor men for what had been done by his own order. Moreover, this steward, whoever he was, appears to have learnt some- thing by being with Joseph concerning the true God, the God of the Hebrews. His answer is kind, and wise, and religious. “Peace be unto you, fear not ; your God, and the God of your father, hath given you treasure in your sacks: I had your money.” q. d. Let your hearts be at rest; I will be answerable that you paid what was due ; inquire no further about it; providence brought it, and let that satisfy you. To render them still more at ease, Simeon is brought out of his confinement, and introduced to them ; which, being done by the order of Joseph, was a proof of his being satisfied. The deliverance of the hostage was an evidence that all was well. Thus the “bringing again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep,” was to us a token for good, and therefore is ascribed to God, as the God of peace, Heb. xiii. 20. Ver. 24, 25. While Joseph is busy about his concerns, and thinking how he shall conduct himself towards his brethren, they are busy in washing and dressing them- selves to appear before him, and in preparing the present which they had brought for him. What was done re- quired to be done in a handsome manner, and they are disposed to do their best. Wer. 26, 27. And now, the business of the morning be- ing over, Joseph enters. They immediately request his acceptance of the spices and sweetmeats of Palestine, sent as a present by their father, bowing down their faces to the earth, as they had done before. Thus Joseph's dream, which was repeated to him, is repeated in its fulfilment. There is nothing said of his manner of receiving it; but doubtless it was kind and affable. And as they would present it in the name of their father, this would furnish a fair opportunity to inquire particularly respecting him ; a subject on which his feelings would be all alive. It is charming to see how he supports the character which he had assumed, that of an Egyptian nobleman, who remem- bered what they had said about a venerable old man, of whose welfare he very politely inquires. “Is your father well, the old man of whom ye spake 2 Is he yet alive 3’’ Ver. 28. They answer very properly, and call their father his servant, and again make obeisance. Thus, in them, Jacob himself bowed down to Joseph; and thereby that part of his dream was also fulfilled. Ver. 29. When Joseph first saw his brethren, his eyes, perhaps without his being aware of it, were fixed on Ben- jamin, ver. 16. But having detected himself in that in- stance, he appears to be more upon his guard in this. He receives the present, and converses with them about their father’s welfare, without once turning his eyes towards his brother. But having done this, he thinks he may ven- ture a look at him. He “lifted up his eyes, and saw his brother Benjamin, his mother's son, and said " to the others, but still under the same disguise, “Is this your younger brother, of whom ye spake unto me?” If he could have waited for an answer, they would doubtless have told him it was ; but his heart is too full. No sooner is the question out of his lips than (it may be with his hand upon his head) he adds, “God be gracious unto thee, my son 1’’ O Joseph, on what tender ground dost thou presume to walk | This benediction, though under the disguise of a good wish from a stranger, was in reality an effusion of a full heart, which in this manner sought for ease. Genuine love longs to express itself. Ver. 30. This little indulgence of affection, however, had well nigh betrayed him. Ardent desires will always plead hard to go a little way, and presume not to go too far ; but to indulge them a little is like letting air into a room on fire. Joseph is so affected by what has passed that he is obliged to quit the company, and retire into his chamber to weep there. Ver. 31. Having recovered himself, and washed his face, that they might not discover his tears, he re-enters, and behaves with much hospitality and attention. Ver. 32—34. And now I apprehend it was Joseph's wish to discover himself to his brethren, or rather to en- able them to discover him. There are three things in 422 EXPOSITION OF GENESIS. particular, while they were at dinner, each tending to this end, and, as I conceive, designed for it. 1. The order of the tables. One for himself, one for the strangers, and one for the Egyptians. The design of this was to set them a thinking of him, and who he was, or could be. That the Egyptians and Hebrews should eat apart, they could easily account for : but who or what is this man 3 Is he not an Egyptian 3 Yet if he be, why eat by himself? Surely he must be a foreigner. 2. The order in which they themselves were seated: it was “before him,” so that they had full opportunity of looking at him ; and, what was astonishing to them, every man was placed “ac- cording to his age.” But who can this be, that is ac- quainted with their ages so as to be able to adjust things in this order? Surely it must be some one who knows us, though we know not him. Or is he a diviner ? Who or what can he be 3 They are said to have “marvelled one at another,” and well they might. It is marvellous that they did not hence suspect who he was. 3. The peculiar favour which he expressed to Benjamin, in sending him a mess five times more than the rest. There is no reason to suppose that Benjamin ate more than the rest; but this was the manner of showing special favour in those times. —See chap. xlv. 22, 23. It was therefore saying, in effect, I not only know all your ages, but towards that young man I have more than a common regard . . . . Look at all this, and look at me . . . . Look at me, my brother Ben- jamin. Dost thou not know me?—But all was hid from them. Their eyes, like those of the disciples towards their Lord, seem to have been holden, that they should not know him. Their minds, however, are eased from all apprehensions, and they drank and were cheerful in his company. DISCOURSE LI. THE CUP IN BENJAMIN’s SACK. Gen. xliv. 1–17. VER. 1, 2. As every measure which Joseph had yet taken to lead his brethren to discover who he was had failed, he must now have recourse to another expedient to detain them. Their sacks are ordered to be filled, and their beasts laden with as much corn as they can carry, their money restored as before, and a silver cup put into the sack’s mouth of the youngest. All this is love ; but it is love still working in a mysterious way. The object seems to be to detain Benjamin, and to try the rest. Ver, 3–6. Having stopped over the night, next morning at break of day they are dismissed, and set off for home. After the treatment which they had received, we may sup- pose they were now all very happy. Simeon is restored, Benjamin is safe, and they are well laden with provisions for the family. They would now be ready to anticipate the pleasure of seeing their father, and easing his anxious heart. But, lo! another dark cloud presently overspreads their sky. They had scarcely got out of the city before the steward overtakes them, and charges them with the heinous crime of having stolen his lord’s cup ; a crime which would have been highly offensive at any time, but much more so after the generous treatment which they had received. And, to perplex them the more, he inti- mates as if his lord were a diviner, and must needs be able to find out stolen property | Such we see was heathemism in those early ages ; and such heathemism is found even in Christian countries to this day. Ver. 7–9. At this they are all thunderstruck with sur- prise ; yet, conscious of their innocence, they disown the charge, and express the utmost abhorrence at such a con- duct. They appeal also to a fact with which the steward was well acquainted ; namely, their having brought again the money which they had found in their sacks. Did this conduct comport with the character of thieves | Can it be supposed after this, say they, that we should steal out of my lord’s house either silver or gold 3 Search us through- out. On whomsoever it be found, let him die, and we will all consent to become slaves —Such was their con- fidence that the charge was unfounded; and their invok- ing so severe a penalty would be a presumptive evidence that it was so. - Ver. 10, 11. The steward, who is well aware of some profound design on the part of his master, though he knew not the whole of it, humours the thing with much address. He accedes to the mode of trial, but softens the penalty, proposing that mone but the guilty should suffer, and he nothing more than the loss of his liberty. With this they readily acquiesce; and being stung with reproach, they, with indignant sensations, hastily unlade every man his beast, in order to disprove the charge. How willing is conscious innocence that things should be searched to the bottom ; and how confident of an honourable acquittal | Wer. 12. And now search is made from the eldest to the youngest. Ten out of eleven are clear, and enjoy the tri- umph of a good conscience; but, lo, in the sack of the youngest the cup is found ! Every thing seems contrived to give an edge to their sorrow. It was when they were leaving Egypt, in high spirits, that they were stopped ; and now when they have disproved the charge, except in one instance, lo, that instance fails them . To have their hopes raised within one step of an acquittal, and then to be at once disappointed, was very affecting. “Thou hast lifted me up and cast me down.” But what a confounding event Could they really think for a moment that Benjamin had been guilty of the mean and wicked action which seems to be proved upon him # I do not suppose they could. They must remember having found the money in their sacks' mouths, when, nevertheless, they knew themselves to be innocent. Nay, and in searching for the cup, though nothing is now said of the money, yet they must have found it there a second time. All this would acquit Benjamin in their account. Yet what can they allege in his favour, without reflecting upon his accusers? The article is found upon him ; which is a species of proof that seems to admit of no answer. A deep and dismal silence therefore pervades the company. In very agony they rend their clothes, reload their beasts, and return into the city. As they walk along, their thoughts turm upon another event—an event which had more than once occurred to their remembrance already. It is the Lord . We are murderers; and though we have escaped human detection, yet Divine vengeance will not suffer us to live. There, though guilty, we were acquit- ted ; here, though innocent, we shall be condemned Ver. 13–17. Arriving at Joseph's house, where he still was, no doubt expecting their return, Judah and his bre- thren fall prostrate before him. Judah is particularly mentioned, as having a special interest at stake on account of his suretiship; but neither he nor his brethren can utter a word, but wait in this humble posture to hear what is said to them. Joseph, having carried matters to this height, once more assumes the tone of a great man, highly offended; suggesting, withal, that they ought to have known that such a man as he could certainly divine, and that there- fore it would be in vain to think of escaping with his property undetected. As Judah appeared foremost on their entrance, Jo- seph’s words would probably be directed to him for an answer. But what answer can be given 3 The surety and the advocate is here dumb ; for he had been a party in guilt; not indeed in the present instance, but in an- other. He can therefore only exclaim, “What shall we say unto my lord 4 What shall we speak, or how shall we clear ourselves? God hath found out the iniquity of his servants / Behold, we are my lord’s servants; both we, and he also with whom the cup is found !” He did not mean by this to plead guilty to the charge ; but neither dare he plead innocent, for that would have been accusing the offended party of having insnared them, and so have made the case still worse; neither was he able to confront the evidence which appeared against his younger brother. What can he say or do? He can only suggest that it is a mysterious providence, in which it appears to be the design of God to punish them for their ForMER CRIMEs. This answer, which was manifestly dictated by what lay uppermost in all their minds, was at THE CUP IN BENJAMIN'S SACK. 423 the same time the most delicate and modest manner in which he could possibly have insinuated a denial of the charge. While it implied their innocence in the present instance, it contained no reflection upon others, but an acknowledgment of the Divine justice, and a willingness to bear the punishment that might be inflicted upon them, as coming from above. If Joseph had really been the character which he appeared to be, such an answer must have gone far towards disarming him of resentment. How forcible are right words ! The simple and genuine utterance of the heart is the most irresistible of all elo- quence. Joseph, in answer, disclaims every thing that might wear the appearance of cruelty. No, he will not make bond-men of them, but merely of him on whom the cup was found. Such is the sentence. They may go about their business ; but Benjamin must be detained in slavery. Alas! and is this sentence irrevocable. Better all be de- tained than he ; for it will be the death of his father What can be said, or done? The surety now becomes the advocate, and that to purpose. Such an intercession as that which follows we shall no where find, unless it be in His whom the Father “heareth always.” But I shall here close the present discourse, with only a reflection or two on the subject. 1. We see a striking analogy between the conduct of Joseph towards his brother Benjamin, and that of Jesus towards his people. “Whom I love, I rebuke and chasten.” Benjamin must have thought himself peculiar- ly unhappy to be one day marked out as a favourite, and the next convicted as a criminal ; and yet in neither in- stance able to account for it. It might teach him how- ever, when the mystery came to be unravelled, not to draw hasty conclusions from uncertain premises; but to wait and see the issue of things, before he decided upon them. Such a lesson it will be well for us to learn from it. The Lord often brings us into difficulties that he may detain us, as I may say, from leaving him. Were it not for these, he would have fewer importunate applications at a throne of grace than he has. He does not “afflict willingly,” or from his heart; but from necessity, and that he may bring us nearer to him. 2. We see also a striking analogy between Joseph’s conduct towards his brethren, and that of the Lord towards us. In all he did, I suppose, it was his design to try them. His putting the cup into Benjamin’s sack, and convicting him of the supposed guilt, would try their love to him, and to their aged father. Had they been of the same disposition as when they sold Joseph, they would not have cared for him. Their language would have been somewhat to this effect:—Let this young favourite go, and be a slave in Egypt. If he have stolen the cup, let him suffer for it. We have a good riddance of him ; and without being under the necessity of dealing with him as we did with his brother. And as to the old man, if he will indulge in such partial fondness, let him take the consequence. — But, happily, they are now of another mind. God appears to have made use of this mysterious providence, and of Joseph's behaviour, among other things, to bring them to repentance. And the cup being found in Benjamin’s sack would give them occasion to manifest it. It must have afforded the most heartfelt satisfaction to Joseph, amidst all the pain which it cost him, to Witness their tender concern for Benjamin, and for the life of their aged father. This of itself was suffi- cient to excite, on his part, the fullest forgiveness. Thus God is represented as “looking upon a contrite spirit,” and even overlooking heaven and earth for it, Isa. lxvi. 1, 2. Next to the gift of his Son, he accounts it the greatest blessing he can bestow upon a sinful creature. Now that on which he sets so high a value he may be expected to produce, even though it may be at the ex- pense of our present peace. Nor have we any cause of complaint, but, the contrary. What were the suspense, the anxiety, and the distress of Joseph’s brethren, in com- parison of that which followed ? And what is the sus- pense, the anxiety, and the distress of an awakened sin- ner, or a tried believer, in comparison of the joy of faith, or the grace that shall be revealed at the appearing of Jesus Christ? It will then be found that our light afflic- tion, which was but for a moment, has been working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory. DISCOURSE LII. JUDAH'S INTERCESSION. Gen. xliv, 18–34. Joseph, in the character of a judge, has sternly decided the cause, that Benjamin, the supposed offender, should be detained a bond-man, and the rest may go in peace. But Judah, the surety, wounded to the heart with this decision, presumes as an advocate to plead, not that the sentence may be annulled, but that it may be changed with respect to its object. It was a difficult and delicate undertaking; for when a judge has once decided a cause, his honour is piedged to abide by it. He must, there- fore, have felt the danger of incurring his displeasure, by attempting to induce him in that stage of the business to alter his purpose. But love to his father, and to his brother, with a recollection of his own engagement, im- pose upon him the most imperious necessity. Ver. 18. Prompted by these sentiments, he approaches the judge. His first attempt is to conciliate him : “O my lord, let thy servant, I pray thee, speak a word in my lord’s ears, and let not thine anger burn against thy serv- ant; for thou art even as Pharaoh.” This brief introduc- tion was admirably calculated to soften resentment, and obtain a patient hearing. The respectful title given him, My lord—the entreaty for permission to speak—the inti- mation that it should be but as it were a word—the depre- cation of his anger, as being in a manner equal to that of Pharaoh-and all this prefaced with an interjection of sorrow, as though nothing but the deepest distress should have induced him to presume to speak on such a sub- ject, showed him to be well qualified for his undertaking. Ver. 19. And now, perceiving in his judge a willing- ness to hear, he proceeds, not by passionate declamations and appeals to his generosity, but by narrating a simple tale, and then grounding a plea upon it. Truth is the best weapon wherewith to assail the heart : only let truth be represented in an affecting light. His object, remem- ber, is to persuade the judge so far to reverse the doom as to accept of him, the surety, for a bond-man, instead of the supposed offender. Mark how every thing he says leads to this issue. “My lord asked his servants, say- ing, Have ye a father, or a brother?” Here the judge is gently reminded that the occasion of this unhappy young man coming at all into Egypt was what he himself had said. He does not mean to reflect upon him for it ; but he might hope that merely this circumstance would have some weight in softening his resentment against him. It is observable, however, that in repeating the questions of Joseph, or their own former answers to him, he does not confine himself to terms. Joseph did not say, in so many words, Have ye a father, &c. . . . . nor did they make answer in the exact form as is here repeated ; but he pretends only to repeat the tenor of what passed, of the justness of which the judge himself would be well ac- quainted. Nor is this verbal deviation to be attributed merely to the failure of memory; for he avails himself of it to introduce every affecting circumstance that could possibly touch the heart, which if he had adhered to a mere verbal rehearsal, would have been lost. Of this the following words are a remarkable instance. Wer. 20. “And we said unto my lord, We have a father, an old man, and a child of his old age, a little one; and his brother is dead, and he alone is left of his mother, and his father loveth him.” All these things were said, I believe, either expressly or by implication, but not in this order. As they were said before, they were merely rays of light diffused in the air; but here they are reduced to a focus, which burns every thing before it. I need not repeat how every word in this inimitable passage tells ; how it touches every principle of compassion in the hu- man mind ; in short, how it rises, like a swelling wave, 424 EXPOSITION OF GENESIS. till it overcomes resistance, and in a manner compels the judge to say, in his own mind, “Well, whatever this young man has done, he must not be detained l’” Ver. 21—29. Having already intimated that the coming of the lad was occasioned by the inquiries concerning the family, and made a proper use of that, the advocate pro- ceeds another step, and reminds his judge that it was in obedience to his command: “Thou saidst, Bring him down unto me, that I may set mine eyes upon him.” This cir- cumstance, though it conveyed no reflection, any more than the former, yet would work upon a generous mind, not to distress an aged father by taking advantage of an affair which had occurred merely from a willingness to oblige him. To this he adds, that they discovered at the time a reluctance, on their father’s account, to comply with this part of his request; but he would have no denial, protesting that, except their younger brother came with them, they should see his face no more. Nor was this all ; not only did they feel reluctant on their father's ac- count, but he, when told of it on their return, felt a still greater reluctance. The manner in which he introduces his father's objection, repeating it in his own words, or rather in his own words at different times reduced as to a focus, is amazing. We repeated, q, d., the words of my lord to our father; and when, feeling the imperious calls of nature, he requested us to go again, and buy a little food, we answered him that we could not go without our younger brother, for we could gain no admittance except he were with us. On this painful occasion thy servant, our father, addressed us as follows:– “Ye know that my wife bare me two sons. And the one went out from me, and I said, Surely he is torn in pieces: and I saw him not since. And if ye take this also from me, and mischief befall him, ye shall bring down my grey hairs with sorrow to the gravel ” To point out the force of this overwhelming argument requires a view of the human mind, when, like a com- plicate machine in motion, the various powers and passions of it are at work. The whole calamity of the family arising from obedience to the judge's own command ; an obe- dience yielded to on their part with great reluctance, be- cause of the situation of their aged father; and on his part with still greater, because his brother was as he sup- posed torn in pieces, and he the only surviving child of a beloved wife; and the declaration of a venerable, grey- headed man, that if he lose him it will be his death . . . . was enough to melt the heart of any one possessed of hu- man feelings. If Joseph had really been what he ap- peared, an Egyptian nobleman, he must have yielded the point. To have withstood it, would have proved him not a man, much less a man who “feared God,” as he had professed to be. But if such would have been his feelings even on that supposition, what must they have been to know what he knew 3 What impression must it have made upon his mind to be told of Jacob's words; “My wife bare me two sons ; and the one went out from me, and I said, Surely he is torn in pieces !” It is also observable with what singular adroitness Ju- dah avoids making mention of this elder brother of the lad, in any other than his father's words. He did not say he was torn in pieces. No ; he knew it was not so . But his father had once used that language; and though he had lately spoken in a manner which bore hard on him and his brethren, yet this is passed over, and nothing hinted but what will turn to account. Ver. 30, 31. The inference of what effect the detention of Benjamin would have on the aged parent might have been left for the judge to make; but it is a part of the subject which will bear a little enlargement, and that to a very good purpose. Thus therefore he proceeds: “When I come to thy servant my father, and the lad be not with us, (seeing that his life is bound up in the lad’s life,) it shall come to pass, when he seeth that the lad is not with us, he will die; and thy servants shall bring down the grey hairs of thy servant our father with sorrow to the gravel ” The whole of this intercession taken together is not a twentieth part the length of what our best ad- vocates would have made of it in a court of justice; yet the speaker finds room to expatiate upon those parts which are the most tender, and on which a minute de- scription will heighten the general effect. We are sur- prised, delighted, and melted with his charming paren- thesis : “Seeing that his life is bound up in the lad’s life.” It is true it does not seem to inform us of any thing which we might not have known without it; but it represents what was before stated in a more affecting light. . It is also remarkable how he repeats things which are the most tender ; as, “When I come, and the lad be not with us.” “It shall come to pass, when he seeth that the lad , is not with us.” So also in describing the effect this would pro- duce : “When he seeth that the lad is not with us, he will die ; and we shall bring down the grey hairs of thy servant my father with sorrow to the grave.” This last sentence, also, not only repeats the death of the aged parent in a more affecting manner than the first, but contains a plea for Benjamin’s release, founded on the cruel situation of their being otherwise forced in a manner to become par- ricides : Ver. 32—34. One plea more remains, which will at once contain an apology for his importunity, and make way for what, with humble submission, he means to pro- pose. This is, “Thy servant became surety for the lad unto my father.” And, that he may make the deeper im- pression, he repeats the terms of it: “If I bring him not unto thee, let me bear the blame for ever.” And now, having stated his peculiar situation, he presumes to ex- press his petition. But why did he not mention that at first, and allege what he has alleged in, support of it? Such might have been the process of a less skilful ad- vocate; but Judah’s feelings taught him better. His withholding that till the last was holding the mind of his judge in a state of affecting suspense, and preventing the objections which an abrupt introduction of it at the be- ginning might have created. He might in that case have cut him short, as he had done before, saying, “God for- bid that I should do so : the man in whose hand the cup is found, he shall be my servant.”. But he could not refuse to hear his tale; and by that he was prepared to hear his petition. Thus Esther, when presenting her petition to Ahasuerus, kept it back till she had, by holding him in suspense, raised his desire to the utmost height to know what it was, and induced in him a predisposition to grant it. But what is Judah’s petition? That the crime may be passed over, and that they may all return home to their father ? No: “Let thy servant, I pray thee, abide in- stead of the lad a bond-man to my lord, and let the lad go up with his brethren : " If we except the grace of an- other and greater Substitute, never surely was there a more generous proposal : And when to this is added the filial regard from which it proceeds, “for how shall I go up to my father, and the lad be not with me ; lest per- adventure I see the evil that shall come on my father l’” this in itself, distinct from all which had gone before it, was enough to overcome every objection. DISCOURSE LIII. JOSEPH MAKES HIMSELF KNOWN TO HIS BRETHREN. Gen. xlv. VER. 1–3. The close of Judah’s speech must have been succeeded by a solemn pause. Every heart is full; but every tongue is silent. The audience, if they understood the language, would be all in tears. The ten brethren, viewing the whole as the righteous judgment of God upon them, would be full of fearful amazement as to the issue. Benjamin would feel both for his dear father and his be- loved brother who had offered to give himself for him : But what saith the judge 3 How does he stand affected ? I have no doubt but that he must have covered his face during the greater part of the time in which Judah had been pleading ; and now this will not suffice. The fire burns within him, and it must have vent. “Cause every man,” said he, “to depart from me !” And then he breaks out in a loud weeping, so that the Egyptians from without JOSEPH MADE KNOWN TO HIS BRETHREN. 425 heard him. Their minds no doubt must be filled with amazement, and desire to know the cause of this strange affair; while the parties within would be still more con- founded, to witness such a burst of sorrow from him, who, but a while before, was all sternness and severity. But now the mystery is at once revealed, and that in a few words—I AM JOSEPH !!! DOTH MY FATHER YET LIVE 7 If they had been struck by an electrical shock, or the most tremendous peal of thunder had instantly been heard over their heads, its effect had been nothing in comparison of that which these words must have produced. They are all struck dumb, and as it were petrified with terror. If he had been actually dead, and had risen and appeared to them, they could not have felt greatly different. The flood of thoughts which would at once rush in upon their minds is past description. No words could better express the general effect than those which are used : “They could not answer him ; for they were troubled at his presence l’’ Wer. 4–8. A little mind, amidst all its sympathy, might have enjoyed the triumph which Joseph now had over them who once hated him, and have been willing to make them feel it ; but he has made them feel sufficiently al- ready; and having forgiven them in his heart, he remem- bers their sin no more, but is full of tender solicitude to heal their wounded spirits. “Come near unto me,” saith he, “I pray you. And they came near. And he said, I am Joseph your brother, whom ye sold into Egypt.” This painful event he does not seem to have mentioned but for the sake of convincing them that it was he himself, even their brother Joseph, and not another ; and lest the men- tion of it should be taken as a reflection, and so add to their distress, he immediately follows it up with a dissua- sive from overmuch sorrow : “Now therefore be not griev- ed, nor angry with yourselves, that ye sold me hither: for God did send me before you to preserve life. For these two years hath the famine been in the land : and yet there are five years, in the which there shall be neither earing nor harvest. And God sent me before you, to preserve you a posterity in the earth, and to save your lives by a great de- liverance. So now it was not you that sent me hither, but God : and he hath made me a father to Pharaoh,” &c. In this soothing and tender strain did this excellent man pour balm into their wounded hearts. A less delicate mind would have talked of forgiving them ; but he entreats them to forgive themselves, as though the other was out of the question. Nor did he mean that they should abuse the doctrine of providence to the making light of sin ; but merely that they should eye the hand of God in all, so as to be reconciled to the event, though they might weep in secret for the part which they had acted. And it is his desire that they should for the present, at least, view the subject much in that point of light, which would arm them against despondency and a being swallowed up of over- much sorrow. Their viewing things in this light would not abate their godly sorrow, but rather increase it : it would tend only to expel the sorrow of the world, which worketh death. The analogy between all this, and the case of a sinner on Christ's first manifesting himself to his soul, is very striking. I cannot enlarge on particulars ; suffice it to say, the more he views the doctrine of the cross, in which God hath glorified himself, and saved a lost world by those very means which were intended for evil by his murderers, the better it will be with him. He shall not be able to think sin on this account a less, but a greater, evil; and yet he shall be so armed against de- spondency as even to rejoice in what God hath wrought, while he trºmbles in thinking of the evils from which he has escaped. Ver, 9–11. It is not in the power of Joseph's brethren to talk at present; he therefore talks to them. And to divert their minds from terror, and gradually remove the effects of the shock, he goes on to tell them they must make haste home to his father, and say thus and thus to him in his name; and invite him, and all his family to come down forthwith into Egypt, where he and they shall be well provided for during the five years' famine yet to come, and where he shall be near unto him. Ver. 12–15. While he is thus talking with his brethren, they would be apt to suspect whether all could be true, and whether they were not in a dream, or imposed upon in some supernatural way. To obviate these misgivings of mind, he adds, “And behold, your eyes see, and the eyes of my brother Benjamin, that it is my mouth which speaketh unto you, and you shall tell my father of all my glory in Egypt.” The former part of this speech must needs have produced in him a fresh flood of tears. As to them, I know not whether they could weep at present. Nothing is said of the kind ; and it is natural to suppose that they had too much fear as yet mingled with their sorrow to admit of its being vented in this manner. He however, having made mention of Benjamin, cannot for- bear falling upon his neck and weeping over him ; and Benjamin, not feeling that petrifying guilty shock which must have confounded them, fell upon his neck, and wept with him. * Joseph had said nothing to his brethren of forgiving them ; but he would now express as much, and more, by his actions; giving an affectionate kiss to every one of them, accompanied with tears of tenderness. This ap- pears more than any thing to have removed their terror, so that now they are sufficiently composed to talk with him, if not to mingle their tears with his. Ver. 16–24. The secret, being once disclosed within doors, soon got out ; and the news of Joseph’s brethren being come flies through the city, and reaches the palace. Pharaoh and his court too are well pleased with it; or if there were any who might envy Joseph’s high honour, they would not dare to express it. In other cases, Pharaoh had left every thing to Joseph ; and Joseph knowing what he had done, and the con- fidence which he possessed, had given orders in this case ; yet, to save his feelings in having to invite his own rela- tions as it were to another man’s house, as well as to ex- press the gratitude of the nation to so great a benefactor, the king in this instance comes forward, and gives orders himself. His orders too were more liberal than those of Joseph : he had desired them to bring with them all the property they had ; but Pharaoh bids them to disregard their stuff, for that the good of all the land of Egypt was theirs. Joseph had said nothing about the mode of con- veyance ; but Pharaoh gives orders for waggons, or cha- riots, as the word is sometimes rendered, to be sent to fetch them. Joseph, however, in executing these orders, gives fresh testimonies of affection, not only in furnishing them with “provisions by the way,” but to each man changes of raiment, and to Benjamin his brother three hundred pieces of silver, and five changes of raiment. And to his hon- oured father, though he could not on account of business go and fetch him, yet he sends the richest present ; namely, ten asses laden with the good things of Egypt, and ten she asses laden with corn and bread and meat for him by the way. These things might not be all necessary ; Jacob would need no more for himself than any other individual of the family; but, as we saw in the mess which was sent to Benjamin, this was the mode at that time of expressing peculiar affection. To all this kindness he added a word of counsel : “See that ye fall not out by the way.” Jo- seph had already heard from Reuben some severe reflec- tions on his brethren (chap. xlii. 22); and might suppose that such things would be repeated when they were alone. One might be accused of this, and another of that, till all their minds would be grieved and wounded. But he that could find in his heart to love them after all their un- worthy conduct, gives them, as I may say, “a new com- mandment, that they should love one another l’’ Ver, 25–28. And now the young people betake them- selves to their journey, and in a little time arrive at their father's house. Jacob had doubtless been looking and longing for their return, and that with many fears and misgivings of mind. If the matter was announced as suddenly as it is here related, it is not surprising that “Jacob’s heart fainted, and that he believed them not l” It must appear too much to be true. The suddenness of the transition would produce an effect like that of fire and water coming in contact; and though he had suspected that Joseph had not been fairly treated by his brethren, yet he never seems to have doubted that he was dead. It would appear therefore, at first, as if they meant to tanta- lize him. Perhaps, too, we may partly account for this 2 E * 426 * EXPOSITION OF GENESIS. incredulity from the aptness there is in a dejected mind to believe what is against him rather than what is for him. When they brought the bloody garment, he readily believed, saying, “Joseph is without doubt rent in pieces !” But when good news is told him, it seems too good to be true ! They went on, however, and told him of all the words of Joseph ; that is, of the invitations which he sent by them ; and, as a proof, pointed to the waggons which were come to take him down. The sight of these overcomes the incredulity of the patriarch, and revives his spirit. “It is enough,” said he “Joseph my son is yet alive. I will go and see him before I die : " Yes, this was enough, not only to remove his doubts, but to heal his wounded heart, to set all right, to solve all mysteries, and to satisfy his soul. He had no more wishes on this side the grave. No mention is made of how he received the gifts, or what he said of his son's glory: it was enough for him that he was alive. The less must give way to the greater. He seems to have considered death as near at hand, and as though he had nothing to do but to go and see him, and, like old Simeon by the Saviour, depart in peace, chap. xlvi. 30. But he must live a few years longer, and reflect upon the wisdom and goodness of God in all these mys- terious events. DISCOURSE LIV. JACOB's GOING DOWN INTO EGYPT. Gen. xlvi. THE patriarch, having resolved to go and see his beloved Joseph, soon gets ready for his journey, and takes with him “all that he had.” It was generous in Pharaoh to propose his leaving the stuff behind him, but Jacob was not elated with the riches of Egypt, and might wish to put his friends to as little expense as possible. Those things which Pharaoh would call stuff might also have a peculiar value in his esteem, as having been given him in answer to prayer, chap. xxviii. 20. What is given by our best Friend should not be set at nought. But does not Jacob acknowledge God in this under- taking. It is a very important one to him and to his pos- terity. Surely he does not “use lightness” in such an affair ; and “the thing which he purposeth is not accord- ing to the flesh.” No, he will solemnly invoke the Divine blessing, but not till he has gone one day's journey. He had doubtless privately committed his way to God, and we hope was satisfied as to the path of duty ; but he might have a special reason for deferring his public devotions till he should arrive at Beersheba. This was a distinguished spot: what had there taken place would tend to assist him in his approaches to God. It was there that Abraham, after many changes and trials, “called on the name of the everlasting God; ” and there that Isaac had the promise renewed to him, “built an altar, and called also upon the name of Jehovah.” This therefore shall be the place where Jacob will offer a solemn sacrifice, and invoke the Divine blessing on himself and his children. Arriving at the appointed place towards evening, he and all his company stop ; and having reared an altar, or re- paired that which had been built aforetime, “offered sacri- fices to the God of his father Isaac.” Jacob, in his ap- proaches to God, did not forget to avail himself of the covenant made with his forefathers, and of the promises already on record. His coming to this place seems to have been with the very design that his eyes, in beholding the surrounding objects, might assist his mind and affect his heart in the recollection. Nor must we in ours forget to avail ourselves of the covenant of God in Christ, in which is all our salvation. The remembrance of the god- liness of our predecessors also, in like circumstances with ourselves, may have a happy influence on our devotions. It is sweet to a holy mind to be able to say, “He is my God, and I will exalt him : my father's God, and I will build him a habitation ’’ Wer. 2–-4. Jacob, having closed the day by a solemn act of worship, retires to rest; and, as in a former instance, God appeared and spake to him in visions of the night; calling him twice by name, “Jacob, Jacob!” To which the patriarch answers, “Here am I,” ready to hear what God the Lord will speak unto his servant. And he said, “I am God.” To one so well acquainted with the Divine character as Jacob was, this would be cheering ; especially as it would indicate his acceptance of the sacrifice, and his being with him in the way he went. ... It would seem enough for a godly mind to know that God is with him. But, in compassion to Jacob, it is added, “the God of thy father.” As such he had sought him, and as such he found him. This language amounted to a renewal of the covenant of Abraham, that “God would bless, and make him a blessing; and that in him, and his seed, all the nations of the earth should be blessed.” And, lest this should be thought too general, it is added, “Fear not to go down into Egypt; for I will there make of thee a great nation. I will go down with thee into Egypt; and I will also surely bring thee up again, and Joseph shall put his hand upon thine eyes.” Though Jacob's affection to Joseph made him resolve at first to go and see him, yet it is likely he had afterwards some misgivings of mind upon the subject. Abraham went once into Egypt; but he left it under a cloud, and never went again. Isaac in a time of famine was forbidden to go, chap. xxvi. 2. And though Jacob had sent his sons to buy corn, yet it did not seem to be the place for him. But God removes his fears, and in- timates that Egypt is designed to be the cradle of that great nation which should descend from his loins. They were idolaters, and should prove in the end oppressors ; but the promise of God to go with him was enough. Neither temptation nor persecution need dismay us, when we are led into it by the Lord : if he lead us into it, we may hope that he will keep us in it. The Lord, in pro- mising Jacob that he would surely bring him ºp again, did not mean that he himself should come back again alive; but that his posterity should, after becoming a great nation. With respect to himself, he was given to expect that his beloved Joseph should survive him, and be present at his death to close his eyes. But his descendants should be brought back with a high hand; and as what was spoken of bringing him up again respected them, so that of going down with him extended to them also. Wer. 5–7. After so signal an instance of mercy, Jacob can leave Beersheba with a cheerful heart. He is now so far advanced in life, however, as to be glad of a carriage to convey him, and of all the kind and dutiful assistance of his sons to accommodate him. Time was when he wanted no accommodation of this sort ; but set off on a much longer journey with only a staff; but sixty years' toil and trouble, added to the seventy which had gone before, have reduced him to a state of feebleness and de- bility. Nature is ordained to decay; but if grace do but thrive, it need not be regretted. It is wisely and merci- fully ordered that the strong should bear the infirmities of the weak, and that those who in infancy and childhood have been borne by their parents should return the kind- ness due to them under the imbecility of age. In taking all his substance, as well as all his kindred, he would cut off occasion from those who might be dis- posed, at least in after-times, to reproach the family with having come into Egypt empty-handed, and thrown them- selves upon the bounty of the country. Ver. 8–27. The name of Jacob’s descendants who came with him into Iºgypt are here particularly recorded. Compared with the families of Abraham and Isaac, they appear to be mumerous, and afford a prospect of a great nation ; yet, compared with those of Ishmael and Esau, they are but few. Three-and-twenty years ago there was “a company of Ishmaelites,” who bought Joseph : and as to Esau, he seems to have become a nation in a little time. We see hence that the most valuable blessings are often the longest ere they reach us. “The just shall live by faith.” There seems to be some difference between the ac- count of Moses and that of Stephen in Acts vii. 14. Mo- ses says, “All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his loins, besides his sons' wives, were threescore and six, ver. 26. And all the souls of the sons JACOB IN EGYPT. 427 of Jacob which came into Egypt,” that is, first and last, including Jacob himself, his son Joseph, and his two sons Ephraim and Manasseh, who came in his loins, “were threescore and ten,” ver. 27. But Stephen says, “Joseph called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, three- score and fifteen souls.” Moses speaks of him and those who “ descended from his loins,” to the exclusion of “his sons' wives ; ” but Stephen of his kindred in general, which would include them. Ver, 28. Drawing nigh to Egypt, Judah is sent before to apprize Joseph of his father's arrival. , Judah had ac- quitted himself well in a former case of great delicacy, and this might recommend him in the present instance. He who could plead so well for his father shall have the honour of introducing him. It is fitting, too, that the father of the royal tribe, and of the Messiah himself, should not be the last in works of honour and usefulness, but rather that he should have the pre-eminence. When in- quiry was made in the times of the judges, “Who shall go up for us against the Canaanites first to fight against them 3 The Lord said, Judah shall go up.” Wer. 29. Joseph, on receiving the intelligence, makes ready his chariot to go and meet his father; for being in high office, he must act accordingly; else another kind of carriage, or perhaps a staff only, would have satisfied him as well as his father : but situations in life often impose that upon humble minds which they would not covet of their own accord. The interview is, as might be expected, tender and affecting. The account is short but appro- priate. He presents himself to his venerable father; but, unable to speak, “fell upon his neck, and wept a good while !” And who that reflects on the occasion can for- bear to weep with him Wer. 30. As to the good old man, he feels so happy that he thinks of nothing but dying. Perhaps he thought he should die soon ; having enjoyed as much as he could desire in this world, it was natural now to wish to go to another. Having seen all things brought to so blessed an issue, both in his circumstances and in the character of his children, it is not surprising that he should now desire to quit the stage. “Lord, now let thy serv- ant depart in peace, for mine eyes have seen thy salva- tion l’” Yet Jacob did not die for seventeen years ; a proof this that our feelings are no certain rule of what shall befall us. Ver. 31–34. As soon as the tenderness of the inter- view would permit, Joseph kindly intimates to his father and his brethren what was proper to be done, as to their being introduced to the king; and, that they might be prepared for that piece of necessary formality, he gives them some general instructions what to answer. And here it is observable how careful he is to keep them clear of the snares of Egypt. A high-minded young man would have been for introducing his relations into posts of hon- our and profit, lest they should disgrace him. But Jo- seph is more concerned for their purity than their out- ward dignity. “I will go before you,” says he, “and tell the king that you are shepherds,” and have been so all your lives, and your fathers before you. This will pre- vent his making any proposals for raising you to posts of honour in the state ; and he will at once feel the pro- priety of assigning you a part of the country which is suited to the sustenance of your flocks and herds, and where you may live by yourselves uncontaminated by Egyptian customs. And when you come before the king, and he shall ask you of your occupation, them do you confirm what I have said of you; and as the employment of a shepherd is meanly accounted of in Egypt, and those that follow it are despised and reckoned unfit for the higher offices of the state, this will determine the king to say nothing to you on that subject, but to grant you a place in Goshen. Thus, while men in general are pressing after the high- est stations in life, and sacrificing every thing to obtain them, we see a man who had for nine years occupied one of these posts, and felt both its advantages and its disad- vantages, carefully directing his dearest friends and re- lations into another track; acting up to Agur’s pray- er; “Give me neither poverty nor riches; but give me food convenient.” The cool and sequestered path of life is the safest, happiest, and most friendly to true religion. If we wish to destroy our souls, or the souls of our chil- dren, let us seek, for ourselves and them, great things; but if not, it becomes us, having food and raiment, therewith to be content. A rage for amassing wealth, or rising to eminence, is a whirlpool in which millions have perished. DISCOURSE LV. JOSEPH'S CONDUCT IN THE SETTLEMENT OF HIS BRE- THREN, AND IN THE AFFAIRS OF EGYPT. Gen. xlvii. VER. 1, 2. Joseph having adjusted matters with his fa- ther and his brethren, with respect to their appearance before the king, takes with him five of the latter, and in- troduces them. His object is not merely a compliance with the rules of respect which were proper on such an occasion, but to obtain for them a residence in Goshen, where they might pursue their usual avocations, and be near unto him. To this end he mentions that they were then in that part of the country with their flocks and their herds ; hoping that this might induce the king to consent to their continuance there. Ver. 3, 4. The young men appearing before Pharaoh, he asks them, as Joseph supposed he would, what was their occupation. A very proper question to be put by a magistrate to young men at any time ; but the object in this case seems to have been to ascertain what posts in the state they were qualified to fill. He took it for granted that they were of some lawful calling ; and every government has a right to require that those who enjoy its protection should not be mere vagrants, but by their industry contribute in some way to the public good. Their answer accords with their previous instructions; they were “shepherds, both they and their fathers.” To this they added what was their wish, if it might please the king, which was, not to be naturalized, but merely to so- journ for a season in the country, with their flocks and their herds, which were starved out by the severity of the famine in their own land. This language implies their faith in the Divine promises; for they that say such things declare plainly that they seek another country. It would also tend to second the endeavours of Joseph, in removing from the king's mind all thoughts of promoting them to places of honour, and obtaining for them a residence in Goshen. Their answer concludes with an express peti- tion for this object. Ver. 5, 6. Pharaoh, turning himself to Joseph, with much politeness and frankness, thus addressed him : Thy father and thy brethren are come unto thee; the land of IEgypt is before thee. In the best of the land, in the land of Goshen, seeing they prefer it, Jet them dwell. And as to promoting them, it does not seem to suit their call- ing or their inclinations to be raised in the manner which I might have proposed on their behalf; I will therefore leave it to you to make them happy in their own way. If there be one or more of them better qualified for busi- ness than the rest, let them be appointed chief of my herdsmen. Ver. 7–10. The grand object being accomplished, all hearts are at rest, and now Joseph introduces to the king his aged father; not upon business, but merely in a way of respect. When the young men were presented, they stood before him; but Jacob, in honour of his years, and in compassion to his infirmities, is placed upon a seat. The first object that meets his eyes is Pharaoh, sitting in his royal robes before him. The sight of a prince who had shown such kindness to him and his, in a time of distress, calls forth the most lively sensations of gratitude, which he is prompted to express by a solemn blessing! How befitting and how affecting is this It was reckoned by the apostle as a truth “beyond all contradiction, that the less is blessed of the better,” or greater. In one respect Pharaoh was greater than Jacob ; but, in another, Jacob 428 EXPOSITION OF GENESIS. was greater than he ; and Jacob knew it, and thought it no presumption to act upon such a principle. He was a son of Abraham, whose peculiar honour it was that he and his posterity should be blessings to mankind : “I will bless thee, and thou shalt be a blessing.” He was also himself a man who, “as a prince, had power with God and men, and prevailed.” The blessing of such a man was of no small account ; for God suffered not the words of his servants to fall to the ground. It would seem at first sight as if Pharaoh was not struck with the blessing, but merely with the venerable aspect of the man, and therefore proceeded to inquire his age ; but I incline to think he was chiefly struck with the former. He must have perceived a wide difference between this and any thing he had ever met with from the Egyptian sages, something heavenly and Divine: and as the steward appeared to be well acquainted with the religion of the family, telling the brethren that “their God, and the God of their father, had given them the treasure in their sacks” (chap. xliii. 23); so we may suppose was Pharaoh himself. He would see also in this solemn blessing, in which Jacob no doubt made use of the name of the Lord, something perfectly correspondent with what might have been expected from the father of “a man in whom was the Spirit of God.” If he felt the force of these things, it would overcome him, and render him scarcely able to speak ; and hence it would be matural, in order to recover himself, to turn the conversation upon a less affecting topic, inquiring, “How old art thou ?” The answer to this question is very pathetic and impressive : “The days of the years of my pilgrimage are a hundred and thirty years; few and evil have the days of the years of my life been, and have not attained unto the days of the years of the life of my fathers in the days of their pilgrimage.” We have a comment upon this answer in Heb. xi. 13, 14, where it is called a confession, and its implication is in- sisted on : “They that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.” We may see in it a charming ex- ample of spirituality, and how such a state of mind will find a way of introducing religion, even in answer to the most simple and common questions. We go into the company of a great man, and come away without once thinking of introducing religion ; nay, it would seem to us almost rude to attempt it. But wherefore ? Because of our want of spiritual-mindedness. If our spirits were imbued with a sense of Divine things, we should think of the most common concerns of life in a religious way ; and, so thinking of them, it would be matural to speak of them. Jacob, in answer to this simple question, introduces several important truths, and that without any force or awkwardness. He insinuates to Pharaoh that he and his fathers before him were strangers and pilgrims upon the earth ; that their portion was not in this world, but in another; that the life of man, though it extended to a hundred and thirty years, was but a few days; that those few days were mixed with evil; all which, if the king properly reflected on it, would lead him to set light by the earthly glory with which he was loaded, and to seek a crown which fadeth not away. It is admirable to see how all these sentiments could be suggested in so prudent, so modest, so natural, and so inoffensive a manner. If Pharaoh was affected with Jacob's blessing him, and wished by his question to turn the conversation to some- thing less tender, he would be in a manner disappointed. He is now in company with a man who, talk on what he will, will make him feel; and yet it shall be in a way that cannot hurt him, for he says nothing about him, but speaks merely of himself. Having thus made a suitable confession, the patri- arch, whose heart was full, could not take leave of the king without repeating his solemn blessing. Pharaoh ever saw him again we are not told ; but if what was then said had a proper effect, he would remem- ber this interview as one of the most interesting events of his life. Ver. 11, 12. Joseph, having obtained the consent of the king, places his father and his brethren in the situation he intended, and there continues to nourish and cherish them, “as a little child is nourished.” And thus he is made, more than at the birth of Manasseh, to forget all Whether his toil and all the distresses which he had met with in his father’s house. Ver. 13–26. The sacred writer informs us, as a matter by the by, of the state of things in Egypt during the re- maining five years of famine, under Joseph’s administration. The famine was so sore in the land, that, to purchase the necessaries of life, the inhabitants first parted with all their money; and not only they, but the countries ad- jacent; so that the king's treasury became greatly en- riched. And when money failed, their cattle were re- quired ; and last of all their lands, and their persons, save only that the lands of their priests, or princes, were not sold ; for being, according to the laws of the country, considered as a part of the royal household, they were not under the necessity of selling their estates, but were par- ticipants of all the advantages which Pharaoh derived by Joseph. This part of Joseph’s conduct has been thought by some very exceptionable, as tending to reduce a nation to poverty and slavery. I am not sure that it was entirely right, though the parties concerned appear to have cast no reflection upon him. If it were not, it only proves that Joseph, though a good and great man, yet was not perfect. But difference of time and circumstances may render us incompetent to judge of his conduct with ac- curacy. The following remarks, if they do not wholly exculpate him, may at least serve greatly to extenuate the evil of his conduct. 1. He does not appear to have been employed by the country, but by the king only, and that for himself. He did not buy up corn during the plentiful years at the public expense, but at that of the king, paying the people the full price for their commodities, and, as it would seem, out of the king's private purse. 2. If the Egyptians had believed the word of God, as the king did, they had the same opportunity, and might have laid by grain enough, each family for itself, during the seven plentiful years, fully to have supplied their own wants during the years of famine. But it seems they paid no regard to the dreams nor to the interpretation, any more than the antediluvians did to the preparations of Noah. All the plenty which had been poured upon them, ac- cording as Joseph had foretold, did not convince them : the only use they made of it was to waste it in luxury as it came. It was just, therefore, that they should now feel some of the consequences. 3. In supplying their wants, it was absolutely necessary to distribute the provisions not by gift, but by sale ; and that according to what we should call the market price : otherwise the whole would have been consumed in half the time, and the country have perished. 4. The slavery to which they were re- duced was merely that of being tenants to the king, who accepted of one-fifth of the produce for his rent. Indeed it was scarcely possible for a whole mation to be greatly oppressed, without being driven to redress themselves; and probably what they paid in after-times as a rent was much the same thing as we pay in taxes, enabling the king to maintain his state and support his government, without any other burdens. There is no mention, I be- lieve, in history, of this event producing any ill effects upon the country. Finally, Whatever he did, it was not for himself, or his kindred, but for the king by whom he was employed. The utmost, therefore, that can be made of it to his disadvantage does not effect the disinterested- ness of his character. Wer. 27, 28. The sacred historian, now returning to Israel, informs us that they “dwelt in Goshen, and had possessions, and grew and multiplied exceedingly ;” and this during the lifetime of Jacob, who lived seventeen years in Egypt. The vision which he had at Beersheba contained an intimation that he should die in that country, else we may suppose he would have been for returning as soon as the famine had subsided ; but Jacob is directed by the will of Heaven, as his descendants were by the cloud in the wilderness. Wer. 29–31. And now, the time drawing nigh that Israel should die, he sends for his son Joseph, and engages him by a solemn oath to bury him, not in Egypt, but in the sepulchre of his fathers. This request was not merely the effect of natural affection, but of faith. As it was by faith that Joseph gave commandment concerning his bones, JOSEPH'S INTERVIEW WITH HIS DYING FATHER. 429 ioubtless this arose from the same principle. The patri- arch, relying on the covenant made with his fathers, and believing that his posterity would hereafter possess the land, wished to lie among them, and to have his body car- ried up, to take a kind of previous possession on their be- half. To this request of his father Joseph readily consents. The venerable man, however, is not yet at the point of death, but is desirous of setting things in order, that when he comes to die, he may have nothing else to think about. DISCOURSE LVI. JOSEPH's INTERVIEW WITH HIS DYING FATHER, WITH THE BLESSING OF HIS SONS. Gen. xlviii. VER. 1. Jacob did not die immediately after having sent for his son Joseph ; but he seems at that time to have been confined to his “bed,” and probably it was by the same affliction which issued in his death. Joseph, as soon as he was told of his father being sick, without waiting to be sent for another time, proceeded to the place, and took his two sons to obtain his dying benediction. Ver. 2. On entering the house his name is announced; the mention of which gives the venerable patriarch a por- tion of new life. He “strengthened himself, and sat upon the bed.” And now we may expect to hear something worthy of attention. The words of dying men to their children are, or should be, interesting, especially of good men, and still more of men inspired of God. Ver. 3. The man of God has neither time nor strength to lose in ceremony; he comes therefore immediately to the point. “God Almighty,” said he, “appeared unto me at Luz, in the land of Canaan, and blessed me, and said unto me, Behold, I will make thee fruitful, and mul- tiply thee; and I will make of thee a multitude of people, and will give this land to thy seed after thee, for an ever- lasting possession.” Observe, l. The appearance at Luz, or Beth-el, chap. xxviii. If it was not the first time in which God had made himself known to Jacob, it was cer- tainly the most remarkable epoch in his life; and almost all that had gone before it was nothing, or worse than no- thing. 2. Though the mention of Luz, or Beth-el, must ever be sweet to Jacob, and though he could have told what a support the promise there made had been to him through the pilgrimage of life, yet he confines himself at present to the aspect which it bore to his posterity, whom he was now about to bless. The promise made to Abra- ham's seed involved all the goodness intended for the world in after-ages ; and this occupies the chief attention of Ja- cob. The dying words of David dwell upon the same thing; the everlasting covenant, which contained “all his salvation and all his desire,” was that in which God had promised of his seed to raise up the Messiah, whose king- dom should endure to all generations. To “see the good of his chosen, to rejoice in the gladness of his nation, and to glory with his inheritance,” is enough for a servant of God; and for an aged parent, after seeing much evil in his family, to be able to take leave of them in the full expect- ation of the Divine blessing attending them, is a death which better characters than Balaam might wish to die. 3. The mention of Canaan to Joseph was designed to draw off his attention from a permanent settlement in Egypt, and to fix his faith upon the promise; that, like his fathers before him, he might pass his life as a pilgrim till it should be accomplished. Ver. 4–7. And now, having given this general inti- mation to Joseph, he solemnly adopts his two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, as his own, constituting them two tribes in Israel. Thus Joseph had a double portion, the first birthright being taken from Reuben, and given to him, 1 Chron. v. 1, 2. And thus his sons, as well as himself, were taught to fix their faith and hope, not in Egypt, whatever might be their expectations as the de- scendants of Joseph by an Egyptian princess, but in Ca- naan, or rather in the promise of the God of Israel. The * mention of the death and burial of Rachel might be partly to furnish Joseph with another motive of attachment to Canaan; and partly to account for this double portion being conferred upon him, she being in the most proper sense his wife, and he in a sense his first-born son. Ver. 8–11. Jacob had made mention of Ephraim and Manasseh before, but he had not seen them. Lifting up his eyes, he perceives two young men standing by the side of his beloved Joseph, and inquires who they are. “They are my sons,” said Joseph, “whom God hath given me in this place.” On this he requests them to be brought unto him, that he might bless them. He could scarcely see them, for his eyes were dim of age ; but his heart was full of tenderness towards them, for their father's sake, and for the sake of the hope of which they were heirs; there- fore he kissed and embraced them. And being full of holy affection, he looks back upon his past sorrows, and admires the grace of God towards him and his. “I had not thought,” said he to Joseph, “to see thy face ; and, lo, God hath showed me also thy seed.” How much better is God to us than our fears . Only let us wait with faith and patience, and our desponding thoughts will be turned into songs of praise. Ver. 12–14. After this affectionate embrace, Joseph brought forth the two young men from between his father's knees, and bowed himself with his face to the earth, in token of thankfulness for the kindness conferred upon himself and his sons, and in expectation of a further blessing. And having probably observed the order in which his father had spoken of them, putting Ephraim before Manasseh, ver. 5, he wished to correct it as a mis- take, and therefore placed the young men according to their age, Ephraim towards Israel’s left hand, and Manas- seh towards his right hand, and in this manner presented them before him. But the conduct of the patriarch was not thus to be corrected. God, from whom the blessing proceeded, directed him in this case to cross hands. Nor is this the only instance in which the order of nature is made to give way to that of grace; for of this Jacob him- self had been an example. Wer. 15, 16. In this attitude Jacob proceeds to bless the lads. “And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day, the Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads! And let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers, Abraham and Isaac ; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.” Observe, 1. Though Ephraim and Manasseh were both constituted heads of tribes, yet they were blessed in the person of their father Joseph : He blessed Joseph, &c. In this, as in many other in- stances, God would exemplify the great principle on which he designed to act in blessing mankind in the name and for the sake of another. 2. Jacob, though now among the Egyptians, and kindly treated by them, yet makes no mention of their gods, but holds up to his posterity “the living and true God.” In proportion as Egypt was kind to the young people, such would be their danger of being seduced; but let them remember the dying words of their venerable ancestor, and know whence their blessedness cometh. 3. The God whose blessing was bestowed upon them was not only the true God, but “the God of their fathers;” a God in covenant with the family, who loved them, and was loved and served by them. “God, before whom my fathers, Abraham and Isaac, did walk.” How sweet and endearing the character , and what a recom- mendation of these holy patterns to the young people ! Nor was he merely the God of Abraham and Isaac, but Jacob himself also could speak well of his name ; adding, “The God who fed me all my life long unto this day !” Sweet and solemn are the recommendations of aged piety. “Speak reproachfully of Christ,” said the persecutors to Polycarp, when leading him to the stake. “Eighty-six years I have served him,” answered the venerable man, “during all which time he never did me any injury: how then can I blaspheme him who is my King and my Sa- viour 3” Hearken, O young people, to this affecting language It is a principle dictated by common pru- dence, “Thine own friend, and thy father's friend, for- sake not ;” and how much more forcibly does it apply to 430 EXPOSITION OF GENESIS. the God of your fathers! 4. This God is called “the Angel who redeemed him from all evil.” Who this was it is not difficult to decide. It was the Angel, no doubt, with whom Jacob wrestled and prevailed, and concerning whom he said, “I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved,” chap. xxxii. 24–30; Hos. xii. 2, 5. The blessing of God, under all these endearing characters, is invoked upon the lads, their forefathers’ names put upon them, and abundant increase promised to them. Surely it is good to be connected with them that fear God; yet those only who are of faith will ultimately be blessed with their faithful predecessors. Ver. 17–20. Joseph’s enjoyment of this sweet and solemn blessing was sadly interrupted by the unpleasant circumstance of his father's crossing his hands, and he could not refrain from respectfully remonstrating. Thus our frail minds are liable to be ruffled by some trivial event, even on the most solemn occasions, and so to lose the advantage of some of the happiest opportunities, Jacob, however, is not to be dissuaded. He had been guided by an unseen hand; and, like Isaac after having blessed him, he could not repent. “I know it, my son,” said he, “I know it—He shall be great; but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he.” God is as immutable as he is sovereign. It does not become us to contend with him ; and it is to the honour of Joseph, that as soon as he perceived his father knew what he did, be- lieving him to be directed from above, he acquiesced. Hence the patriarch went on without further interrup- tion, saying, “In thee shall Israel bless, saying, God make thee as Ephraim, and as Manasseh " Ver. 21. A word or two more to Joseph, and the pre- sent interview is closed. “I die,” said Israel; “but God, shall be with you, and bring you again unto the land of your fathers.” All that he had said before tended to break off their attachment to Egypt, and to fix their faith in the Divine promise: such also was the design of these words. How satisfactory is it to a dying saint to consider that God lives, and will carry on his cause with- out him as well as with him. The great John Owen, two days before he died, (which was in 1683, a time when popery and arbitrary power threatened to overspread the land,) thus wrote in a letter to a friend :—“I am leaving the ship of the church in a storm ; but whilst the great Pilot is in it, the loss of a poor under-rower will be in- considerable.” Ver. 22. One more special token of love is added to Joseph’s portion ; namely, a parcel of ground which had been originally bought of the sons of Hamor ; but, as it would seem, being seized by some of their descendants, Jacob was necessitated to recover it by force of arms, chap. xxxiii. 18–20. This portion he gave to Joseph, and the tribe of Ephraim afterwards possessed it, John iv. 5. The hazard at which this portion was obtained would no doubt endear it to Joseph ; for we prize those things which they who were dear to us acquired at a great expense. On this principle we have often been ad- monished to hold fast our civil liberties. On this prin- ciple especially it becomes us to value our religious ad- vantages, for which so much blood has been shed. And on this principle we are called to prize, more than any thing, the hope of the gospel, to obtain which our Saviour laid down his life . DISCOURSE LVII. JACOB's BLESSING ON THE TRIBEs. Gen. xlix. VER. 1, 2. Jacob having blessed Joseph’s sons, and feel- ing that he drew near his end, sent for the rest of his children, that he might in the same prophetic style de- clare to them what should befall them, and their posterity after them. The solemn manner in which he called them together and bespoke their attention shows that, being uuder a Divine inspiration, he would deliver things of great importance, and such as, corresponding in many instances not only with the meaning of their names, but with their personal conduct, would furnish matter for re- flection and encouragement. Ver. 3, 4. Reuben, being his first-born son, is first addressed. He is reminded of his superior advantages. He was the first effect of “ his might,” or “the begin- ning of his strength;” and to him as such naturally be- longed “the excellence of dignity, and the excellence of power.” But as Esau and others forfeited the birth- right, so did Reuben. His character did not answer to the dignity of his situation. He is charged with being “unstable as water.” The word is used I believe in only three other places in the Old Testament (Judg. ix. 4; Jer. xxiii. 32; Zeph. iii. 4); and in them it is rendered light, or lightness; denoting not only a readiness to turn aside for want of solid principles, but that species of levity in particular which belongs to a lascivious mind, and which is ordinarily denominated looseness, or lewdness. Such was the spirit of Reuben, or he could not have acted as he did towards Bilhah, his father's wife, chap. xxxv. 22. The manner in which the patriarch expatiates upon this crime shows how heinous it was in his eyes. “Thou wentest up to thy father's bed; then defiledst thou it.” And, to show his abhorrence, he turns away from him, and addresses his other sons, as it were by way of appeal: “He went up to my couch ” For this lewd behaviour he is told he shall not earcel. It is a brief mode of ex- pression, alluding to the excellence of dignity and of power which pertained to him as the first-born ; and de- notes that all his advantages were reversed by his base conduct, and that which would otherwise have been a blessing was turned into a curse. The double portion was taken from him, and given, as we have seen, to Jo- seph, (chap. xlviii. 5–7,) the kingdom to Judah, and the priesthood to Levi ; and thus the excellence of dignity, and the excellence of power, were separated from his tribe, which never sustained any conspicuous character in Israel. From what is said of Reuben we may learn the offen- sive, the debasing, and the dangerous nature of that light-mindedness which indulges in filthiness and foolish talking, jesting, and lewd behaviour. Such appears to have been the spirit of the false prophets in the times of Jeremiah, whose “ lies and lightness” caused God’s people to err, Jer. xxiii. 32. And such, alas ! is the character of too many who sustain the name of Chris- tians, and even of Christian ministers, at this day. As- suredly they shall not excel; and, without repentance, woe unto them when God shall call them to account Ver. 5–7. The next in order of years are Simeon and Levi, who also in their posterity shall reap the bitter fruits of their early sins; and having not only descended from the same parents, but been associates in iniquity, they, according to the meaning of the name of the latter, are joined together in receiving the reward of it. At the time when these young men, with equal treachery and cruelty, took each his sword and slew the Shechemites, Jacob expressed his disapprobation of the deed ; but now he censures it in the strongest terms. “Instruments of cruelty are in their habitations;” which is saying that they were bloody men. Ainsworth renders it, “ sojourn- ing habitations,” which heightens the sin, as being com- mitted in a place where they had no residence but by the courtesy of the country. “O my soul, come not thou into their secret ; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united'’ What we cannot prevent, we must be contented to disavow, having “no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness.” These young men took counsel together: they were very careful to conceal their design from Jacob their father, knowing beforehand that he would be certain to oppose their schemes; and now Jacob is no less careful to disavow all connexion with them in the horrid deed. Such a disavowal, though it must give the most acute pain to the sons, yet was worthy of the father. A great deal of evil had been wrought in his family; but be it known to all the world, by the dying testimony which he bears against it, that it was altogether contrary to his mind. And let young people hear and know that the crimes of youth will some time THE BLESSING OF JUDA.H. 431 find them out. If they repent and obtain mercy, as there is reason to believe these young men did, yet they shall reap the bitter fruits of their sin in the present life; and if they remain impenitent, tribulation and anguish will overtake them in the next. The crime of these brethren is thus described : “In their anger they slew a man,” even Hamor, king of the country, as well as Shechem his son; and that not in the open field of contest, but by assassination | Anger in general is outrageous; but in young men, whose immature judgment and slender experience afford but little check to it, it is commonly the most mischievous. “In their self- will they digged down a wall,” or, as some render it, “ they houghed the oxen.” “ The former would express their breaking into houses to murder the inhabitants, and the latter their cruelty extending even to the dumb ani- mals. Anger, when accompanied with self-will, rages like fire before the wind. How important is the government of one’s own spirit ! and, considering what human nature is, what a mercy it is that the wrath of man is under the Divine control . . If Simeon and Levi had not repented of this sin, it is likely that the curse, like that of Noah on Canaan, would have fallen upon their persons; but, as it was, it alights only upon their dispositions and actions: “Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce; and their wrath, for it was cruel!” God in mercy forgave them, but took vengeance of their inventions. And, with respect to the tribes of which they were the heads, they were to be “di- vided and scattered in Israel.” “The Levites,” says Mr. Henry, “were scattered throughout all the tribes, and Simeon’s lot lay not together, and was so strait that many of that tribe were forced to disperse themselves in quest of settlements and subsistence. This curse was afterwards turned into a blessing to the Levites; but the Simeonites, for Zimri's sin, had it bound on, Numb. xxv. Shameful divisions are the just punishment of sinful unions and confederacies.” Ver. 8–12. From what was said of the first three sons, the rest might begin to tremble, lest the whole should be a succession of curses instead of blessings. But in what respects Judah we see a glorious reverse. The blessedness of this tribe principally consists in that blessing which was in it, the Lord Messiah. “Judah,” saith the patriarch, “ thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise; thy hand shall be in the neck of thine enemies: thy father's children shall bow down before thee.” In the first sentence allu- sion is had to his name, which signifies praise : and the meaning of the whole is, that this tribe should be distin- guished, first by its victories over the Canaanites, and afterwards by its being the tribe which God would choose to bear rule in Israel. Hence also it is represented, in verse 9, by a lion, the most majestic of animals, and the proper emblem of royalty. Much of this prophecy was doubtless fulfilled in David and his successors; but all was prefigurative of the Messiah, who, in allusion to this pas- Sage, is called “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” In him all that is said of Judah is eminently fulfilled. He is in- deed the object of praise, his hand has been in the neck of his enemies, and before him his brethren have bowed down. Grappling with the powers of darkness, we see him as a lion tearing the prey; ascending above all heavens, as a lion going up from the prey; and seated at the right hand of God, as a lion couchant, or at rest after his toils, where it is at the peril of the greatest monarchs to rouse him up, Psal. ii. 10–12. That which before is represented under strong figures is in verse 10 declared, plainly, viz. that Judah should be the governing tribe, and that its chief glory should consist in the Messiah, who should descend from it; yea, the very time of his coming is marked out. The sceptre, or go- vernment, should not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh came. The govern- ment departed from ten tribes, out of the twelve, during the reign of Hezekiah, and has never been restored; but Judah continued to rule with God. At length they also were carried into captivity; yet God's eye was upon them, and in seventy years they were restored. And notwith- * 'Eveupokárnorav Taipov.–LXX. But rather, “They exterminated a prince.” See p. 408. standing the many overturnings of the diadem by the suc- cessive monarchies of Persia, Greece, and Rome, yet it continued till the coming of Christ. The theocracy then being dissolved, and the power given to him whose right it was, Judah in a few years ceased to be a body politic, or to have any government of its own. If there be such a thing as an irrefragable proof, surely this is one, that SHI- LoH, the peaceable, the prosperous, the Saviour, is come ; and it is a mark of judicial blindness and hardness of heart in the Jews that they continue to disbelieve it. Of Shiloh it is added, “To him shall the gathering of the people be.” As all the tribes of Israel gathered toge- ther, and anointed David king in Hebron; so all the tribes of man shall sooner or later submit to the kingdom of Christ. During his ministry, his enemies, touched with fear and envy, were ready to say, Behold, the world is gone after him And no sooner was he lifted up upon the cross than he began to draw all men unto him. Multi- tudes of his own countrymen, who had before seen no form or comeliness in him, now believed on him. Now also began to be fulfilled all the prophecies which had gone before, of the calling of the Gentiles. For such was the value of his sacrifice and mediation, that it was con- sidered as a light thing for him merely to raise up the tribes of Jacob : he must be a light to the Gentiles, and God’s salvation to the ends of the earth. Nor has this promise yet spent its force : probably the greater part of it is yet to be fulfilled. What is foretold to the church in the 60th of Isaiah, of multitudes of all nations gathering together unto her, will be the accomplishment of this pro- mise concerning Christ; for those that are gathered to her are first gathered to him. The 11th and 12th verses are expressive of the great plenty of wine and milk which the tribe of Judah should possess. Wines, even the most choice, should be so com- mon that you might have tied your beasts to them, as you would here tie them to an elm or ash ; or so abundantly productive, that it should be the ordinary practice to bind a colt to the vine, and load it with its fruits. Wine with them should be so plentiful that you might have washed your garments in it. The inhabitants, even the common people, might drink of it till their eyes were red; and such an abundance should there be of the milk of kine, that their teeth might be white with it.* This plenty of milk and wine may have a further reference, however, to the plenty of evangelical blessings under the reign of the Mes- siah, in the same manner as the dominion ascribed to Judah has an ultimate reference to his dominion. The language used by Isaiah, “Come, buy wine and milk, without money and without price,” certainly refers to the great plenty of those articles in the Land of Promise, and seems to allude to the very words of Jacob in this pro- phecy. Wer. 13. The blessing of Zebulum predicts the situation of that tribe in the Promised Land. They should be a maritime people, bordering upon the sea of Galilee east- ward, and upon the Mediterranean on the west. Its “border reaching unto Zidon’” does not mean the city, but the country of that name, that is, Phoenicia. If the future settlement of the tribes had been of choice, it might have been said that they contrived to fulfil these predictions; but being by lot, the hand of God is seen, both in them and their accomplishment. There seems to be a distinc- tion made between Zebulun being “at the haven of the sea,” and his being “for a haven of ships.” The former may denote his advantages; and the latter, the benevolent use he should make of them, opening his harbours for the reception of distressed mariners. We have all our situa- tions and advantages according to the will of God, and should be concerned to employ them to a good purpose. This tribe had also its disadvantages, being far from the seat of Divine instruction, its inhabitants are described as “sitting in darkness.” Upon them, however, the light of the gospel, by the personal ministry of our Lord, sprung up. Ver. 14, 15. Next follows the blessing of Issachar. The character given to this tribe intimates that it should be addicted to husbandry, as Zebulun was to the dangers + Or it may be rendered, His eyes shall be more sparkling than wine, And his teeth whiter than milk. See LXX. 432 EXPOSITION OF GENESIS. and perils of the sea. He is compared to a “strong ass, couching down between two burdens; ” not on account of any thing mean in him, but for his industrious, patient, and peaceable disposition. This situation would neither require the heroic qualities of Judah, nor the enterprising ones of Zebulun ; and his disposition should coincide with it, preferring the fruits of peace and industry, though obliged to pay tribute for them, to the more splendid for- tunes of commerce, or triumphs of war. Some men would pronounce Issachar, and those of his mind, mean spirits; but let not this part of the community be thought light of. If it be less brilliant, it is not less useful than the others. The king is served by the field. No condition of life has fewer temptations, nor is any more friendly to true re- ligion. Though the people of this tribe were still and peaceable, yet there were among them “men who had understanding of the times, and who knew what Israel ought to do: ” nor was it any disparagement to their “brethren to be at their commandment,” 1 Chron. xii. 32. Ver. 16, 17. The blessing of Dan alludes to the meaning of his name, that is, judging, and signifies that he should maintain his authority ; not only in respect of his rank among the tribes, but in the preservation of order in his own territory. His being compared to “a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse-heels, so that his rider shall fall backward,” would seem to intimate, however, that the Danites would be a subtle and mis- chievous people, carrying on their wars more by stratagem and artful surprise than by conflict in the open field. Such were the wars of Samson, who was of this tribe, against the Philistines. Ver. 18. Here the man of God seems to have paused, perhaps on account of bodily weakness; and lifting up his eyes to heaven, said, “I have waited for thy salvation, O Lord.” Had these words followed the blessing of Judah, we might have supposed that the salvation he referred to was the coming Messiah ; but standing where it does, it appears to have been merely a sudden ejaculation, sent up at the close of his pilgrimage, in a view of being delivered from all its evils. It serves to show the state of the patri- arch's mind ; and that while pronouncing blessings on his posterity, in respect to their settlement in the earthly Ca- maan, he was himself going to a better country, even a heavenly one. When he thought that Joseph was dead, he talked of “going down into his grave mourning; ” and afterwards, when he found him alive, he seems as if he could have descended into it rejoicing (chap. xxxvii. 35 ; xlvi. 30): but it was not for him to determine the time of his departure, but to wait his appointed time. Old age is the time for the patience of hope to bear its richest fruits; and a pleasant thing it is to see this and other graces in full bloom, while the powers of nature are falling into decay. Ver. 19. The patriarch, resuming his subject, proceeds to bless the tribe of Gad. His name signified a troop, and it is intimated that they should be a warlike people. Their situation was east of Jordan, where they were ex- posed to the incursions of the neighbouring nations; par- ticularly those of the Moabites, the Ammonites, and the Syrians. But it is predicted that, however they might for a time be overcome, yet they should overcome at last ; and this exactly accords with their history, Judg. x., xi., xii.; 1 Chron. v. 18–22. In this blessing we see not only an example of the life of every believer, but the wisdom of God in so ordering it, as an antidote to presumption and despair. Present defeats have a tendency to preserve us from the one, and the promise of being finally victorious from the other. Ver. 20. Next follows Asher, whose name signifies the happy, or the blessed, or making happy; and with his name corresponds his blessing. The meaning is, that his lot should be a rich one ; yielding not only necessaries, but dainties, even royal dainties. Such is the lot of a few in this world, and it is well that it is but a few ; for while men are what they are, great fulness would soon render them like Sodom and Gomorrah. Ver. 21. Naphtali is described by “a hind let loose,” and is said to “give goodly words.” The description would seem to hold up, not a warlike tribe, nor a tribe noted for its industry; but rather a people distinguished by their vivacity, timidity, and softness of manners. The diversity of matural dispositions contributes upon the whole to human happiness. Men have their partialities, some to this, and others to that ; and if their wishes could be gratified, would commonly shape all others by their own favourite model; but, after all, variety is the best. As the delicate could not subsist without the laborious and the resolute, so many a rugged spirit, both in the world and in the church, would be worse than useless, but for its union with others more gentle and affectionate. Ver. 22–26. We next come to the blessing of Joseph, and on this the patriarch delights to dwell. His emblem, taken from the meaning of his name, is that of “a fruitful bough,” situated by a well, by which its roots were water- ed, and its branches caused to run over the wall. The meaning is, that his posterity should be distinguished by their extraordinary increase. But now the imagery is dropped, or rather changed, and his personal history re- viewed. He was attacked at an early period, as by a band of archers, who “sorely grieved him, shot at him, and hated him.” There is a delicacy in his speaking of the brethren (who were standing by) in the third person rather than the second, and that under a figure ; let him express it, however, in what form he will, they must feel it. He adds, “But his bow abode in strength, and the arms of his hands were made strong by the mighty God of Jacob ; from thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel.” As his brethren were a band of archers, he is described under the same character, but as one only against many. Their arrows were those of hatred ; but his of love, over- coming evil with good. They strengthened one another in an evil cause ; but he was strengthened by “the mighty God of Jacob.” In these particulars, surely, he was a type of Christ; and still more in being, by the blessing of the God of Jacob, “the shepherd and stone of Israel; ” providing for their wants, and supporting their interests. In blessing Joseph, Jacob feels his heart enlarged ; pour- ing upon him the blessings of Almighty God, the God of his father ; blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that lieth under, blessings of the breasts, and of the womb ; intimating also that his power of blessing when terminating on him exceeded that of his fathers, extending not only to the land in general, but to the very mountains, on which his children should reside. And that which drew upon his head all these blessings was the painful, but endearing, circumstance, of his having been “separ- ated from his brethren.” Joseph considered his separation as ordered of God for the good of others (chap. xlv. 7, 8); and he seems all along to have acted upon this principle ; but a life so spent shall lose nothing by it in the end. God will take care of that man, and pour the richest blessings upon his head, whose great concern it is to glorify him, and do good in his gener- ation. Jacob felt much for Joseph’s separation. The spirit of his benediction was, By how much he was afflict- ed for the sake of others, by so much let him be blessed and honoured, and that to the latest posterity —And such is the mind of God, and all his true friends, concerning a greater than Joseph. “Por the suffering of death, he is crowned with glory and honour.—And I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne, and the living crea- tures, and the elders; and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands ; saying, Worthy is the Lamb that was slaim to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing !—Unto Him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to Him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.” Ver. 27. The last blessing is that of Benjamin. Of him it is said, “He shall ravin as a wolf: in the morning he shall devour the prey, and at night he shall divide the spoil.” In this we see that it should be a warlike tribe ; and this it was, or it could not have resisted all the tribes of Israel in the manner it did, as recorded in the last chapters of Judges. But this is saying no more than might have been said of many of the heathen nations. If Jacob had been influenced by natural affection, there had doubt- less been something tender in the blessing of Benjamin, as well as in that of Joseph ; but he was guided by a ; FEARS OF JOSEPH'S BRETHREN. 433 spirit of prophecy, and therefore foretold the thing as it was. Wer. 28. Such were the tribes of Israel, and such “the blessings wherewith their father blessed them.” But how blessed them It might be thought that the first three at least were cursed, rather than blessed. No, they were rebuked, but not cursed, nor cast off, like Esau ; they still continued among the tribes of Israel. It must have been very affecting for these brethren thus to stand by and hear, as from the mouth of God, what would be the con- sequences of their early conduct on their distant posterity; and as their minds were now tender, it may be supposed to have wrought in them renewed repentance, or gratitude, as the subject required. Wer. 29–33. The patriarch now gives directions con- cerning his burial. He desires to be interred, not in Egypt, but in the burying-place at Mamre, where lay Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, and Leah. If he had been governed by natural affection, he might have chosen to lie by the side of his beloved Rachel; but he “died in faith,” and therefore requests to mingle dust with his fathers, who had been heirs with him of the same promise. Having said all he had to say, he cheerfully re- signed his soul into the hands of him that gave it, and was numbered with his departed ancestors. Thus died Jacob ; a man whose conduct on some occa- sions was censurable, whose life was filled up with numer- ous changes, but whose end was such as his worst enemies might envy. DISCOURSE LVIII. THE BURIAL OF JACOB.-JOSEPH REMOVES THE FEARS OF HIS BRETHREN.—THE DEATH OF JOSEPH. Gen. l. VER. 1. We have seen the venerable patriarch yielding up the ghost ; and now we see the expressions of affection toward him by the survivors. Let the memory of the just be blessed. It was revealed to Jacob in his lifetime that Joseph should “put his hand upon his eyes;” and Joseph not only did this, but, in the fulness of his heart, “fell upon his face after he was dead, and wept upon him, and kissed him.” This is all that we can do towards the most beloved objects, when death has performed his office. The mind is gone ; the body only remains ; and of this we must take a long farewell. Faith, however, looks for- Ward to a joyful resurrection, and teaches us not to sorrow as those that have no hope. Ver. 2., Joseph next proceeds to have the dead body embalmed with sweet spices. This was an art carried to great perfection in Egypt: the effects of it are not totally extinct even to this day. It was suitably applied in the present instance, not only as an honour done to a great and good man, but as a means of preserving the body from putrefaction, during its removal to Canaan. , Ver. 3. Nor was this the only honour that was paid to him. The family no doubt mourned very sincerely for him; and, to express their respect for Joseph, the Egyp- tians, probably the court and the gentry, went into mourn- ing ; and not merely forty days, which was customary it seems for every one who had the honour of being ém- balmed, but, in this instance, another month was added. The customs of polite nations, though often consisting Of mere forms, yet serve in some instances to show what showld be. They express, in this case, a respect for de- parted worth, and a sympathy with afflicted survivors, weeping with them that weep. Ver, 4–6. The days of formal mourning being ended, Joseph next proceeds to the burial of his father. But for this he must first obtain leave of absence from the king; and, desirous of conducting the business with propriety, he applies to some of the royal household to make the request for him; not, as some have supposed, because it was improper for him to appear before the king in mourn- ing apparel; for “the days of his mourning were past;” but with a view of honouring the sovereign, and cultivating the esteem of those about him. A modest behaviour is said to be rarely found in royal favourites; but by the grace of God it was found in Joseph. The plea he urged was nothing less than his being under a solemn oath, im- posed upon him by the dying request of his father; a plea to which Pharaoh could make no objection, especially as it was accompanied with a promise of a return. Wer. 7–11. We now behold the funeral procession. The whole family (except their little ones, who, with their cattle, were left behind) were, as we should say, the first followers; but all the elders of respectability, of the court, and of the country, with both chariots and horse- men, were in the train. He was “a very great company,” not only in number, but in quality. For grandeur and magnificence it is said to be without a parallel in history. This great honour was not in consequence of any wish on the part of Jacob : all he desired was, to be carried by his sons, and buried in the Land of Promise. His desire was that of faith, not of ambition. But, as in the case of Solomon, seeing he asked for that which God approved, he should have his desire in that, and the other should be added to it. Thus God delights to honour those who honour him. And as it was principally for Joseph’s sake that this great honour was conferred on his father, it shows in what high esteem he was held in Egypt, and serves to prove, that whatever modern adversaries may say of his conduct, he was considered at the time as one of the greatest benefactors to the country. Nothing remarkable occurred in the procession till they came to the threshing-floor of Atad, which was within the land of Canaan, near to Jericho, and not many miles from the place of interment. Here they stopped, it would seem, for seven days, performing funeral obsequies, or “mourning with a great and sore lamentation.” So great was it that it drew the attention of the Canaanites, who, on seeing and hearing what passed, observed one to an- other, “This is a grievous mourning to the Egyptians;” (for such they considered them, seeing they came from Egypt;) wherefore the name of the place was afterwards called Abel-Mizraim—“the mourning of the Egyptians.” Wer. 12–21. Joseph and his brethren, having buried their father in the place where he requested to lie, return to Egypt, with the company which went with them. The pomp and hurry of the funeral, while it lasted, would occupy their attention ; but, this having subsided, the thoughts of the ten brethren were directed to other things. The death of great characters being often followed by great changes, conscious guilt being always alive to fear, and the chasm which succeeds a funeral inviting a flood of foreboding apprehensions, they find out a new source of trouble : Peradventure, all the kindness hitherto shown us has been only for our father's sake . . . . Peradventure, Joseph, after all, never forgave us in his heart . . . . and now our father is dead, so as not to be grieved by it, per- adventure he will feel that hatred to us which we once felt to him ; and if so, he will certainly requite the evil which we have dong unto him. O jealousy is it not rightly said of thee, #hou art cruel as the grave 3 But how can they disclose their suspicions 3 To have done it personally would have been too much for either him or them to bear, let him take it as he might. So they “sent messengers unto him,” to sound him. We know not who they were ; but if Benjamin was one of them, it is no more than might be expected. Mark the deli- cacy and exquisite tenderness of the message. Nothing is said of their suspicions, only that the petition implies them; yet it is expressed in such a manner as cannot offend, but must needs melt the heart of Joseph, even though he had been possessed of less affection than he was. 1. They introduce themselves as acting under the direction of a mediator, and this mediator was none other than their deceased father. He commanded us, say they, before he died, that we should say thus and thus. And was it pos- sible for Joseph to be offended with them for obeying his orders ? But stop a moment—May not we make a similar use of what our Saviour said to us before he died ? He commanded us to say, “Our Father—forgive us our debts.” Can we not make the same use of this as Jacob's sons did of their father's commandment # 2. They present 434 EXPOSITION OF GENESIS. the petition as coming from their father: “Forgive, I pray thee, the trespass of thy brethren, and their sin ; for they did unto thee evil.” And was it possible to refuse complying with his father's desire ? The intercessor, it is to be observed, does not go about to extenuate the sin of the offenders; but frankly acknowledges it, and that, if justice were to take its course, they must be punished. Neither does he plead their subsequent repentance as the ground of pardon ; but requests that it may done for his sake, or on account of the love which the offended bore to him. 3. They unite their own confession and peti- tion to that of their father. It was certainly proper that they should do so; for though they no more plead their own repentance as the ground of forgiveness than the mediator had done, yet it was fit they should repent, and acknowledge their transgressions, ere they obtained mercy. Moreover, though they must make no merit of any thing pertaining to themselves; yet if there be a character which the offended party is known to esteem above all others, and they be conscious of sustaining that character, it will be no presumption to make mention of it. And this is what they do, and that in a manner which must make a deep impression upon a heart like that of Joseph. “And now, we pray thee, forgive the trespass of the servants of the God of thy father l’” It were sufficient to have gained their point, even though Joseph had been reluctant, to have pleaded their being children of the same father, and that father making it, as it were, his dying re- quest; but the consideration of their being the servants of his father's God was overcoming. Were we to look back to some former periods of their history, we could not have considered them as entitled to this character; but since that time God had brought them through a series of trials, by means of which he had turned them to himself. And though they are far from considering their present state of mind as obliterating the guilt of their former crimes, yet, knowing that Joseph was himself a servant of God, they knew that this consideration would make a deep impression upon him. It is no wonder that, at the close of this part of the story, it should be added, “And Joseph wept when they spake unto him l’’ But this is not all ; they go in person, and “fall before his face,” and offer to be his servants. This extreme abasement on their part seems to have given a kind of gentle indignancy to Joseph’s feelings. His mind revolted at it. It seemed to him too much. “Fear not,” saith he ; “for am I in the place of God?” As if he should say, It may belong to God to take vengeance; but for a sinful worm of the dust, who himself needs forgiveness, to do so, were highly presumptuous ; you have therefore nothing to fear from me. What further forgiveness you need seek it of him. Ver. 20, 21. There was a delicacy in the situation of the ten brethren, in respect to this application to Joseph, as it would imply a doubt of his former sincerity. They were aware of this, and therefore in every thing they say, whether by messengers or in personal interview, are careful to avoid touching upon that subject. Nor is there less delicacy in Joseph’s answer. He does not complain of this implication, nor so much as mention it; but his answering them in nearly the same words as he had done seventeen years before, “Ye thought evil against me, but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass as it is this day, to save much people alive ;” I say, his answering them in this language was saying, in effect, Your suspicions are unfounded ; what I told you seventeen years ago I meant; and the considerations which then induced me to pass over it induce me still to do the same. “Now, therefore, fear ye not ; I will nourish you and your little ones.” I will not be your master, but your brother, and, as it were, your father. In this manner did he “comfort them, and spake kindly unto them.” Ver. 22, 23. Joseph was about fifty-six years old when his father died ; he must therefore have lived fifty-four years afterwards; during which period he saw Ephraim's children, of the third generation; and the grandsons of Manasseh were brought up, as it were, upon his knees. Ver, 24–26. And now the time draws near that Jo- seph also must die; and, like his worthy ancestors, he dies in faith. 1. He is persuaded of the truth of God to his covenant promises. “I die,” saith he ; “and God shall surely visit you, and bring you out of this land unto the land which he sware to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.” 2. Under the influence of this persuasion he takes “an oath of the children of Israel,” that when they should de- part from Egypt they would take his “bones with them.” Such a desire might have arisen merely from a wish to mingle dust with his forefathers; but we are directed to attribute it to a higher motive. It is in reference to this exercise of faith that his name is enrolled in the catalogue of believing worthies, Heb. xi. 22. Having said all he wished to say, “he died, being a hundred and ten years old; and they embalmed him, and he was put in a coffin in Egypt.” As the burial of Jacob in Canaan would attract the minds of Israel to that country, so the deposit- ing of Joseph in a movable chest, together with his dying word, would serve as a memento that Egypt was not their home. CONCLUSION. I HAVE endeavoured to intersperse reflections on the vari- ous subjects as they have occurred ; but there are a few others which arise from a review of the whole, and with these I shall conclude. First, The truth of revelation, and its leading doctrines. That which accounts for things as they are, or as they actually exist in the world, and that in such a manner as nothing else does, carries in it its own evidence. "Look at things as they are, and look at this, and you will find that as face answereth to face in water, so doth the one answer to the other. Look at the material creation around you, and ask the philosophers of all ages how it came into being. One ascribes it to a fortuitous assemblage of atoms ; another conceives matter to have been eternal; another imagines God himself a material being. But revelation, like the light shining upon chaos, dissipates in a few words all this darkness, informing us that, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Look at human nature as it now is ; depraved, misera- ble, and subject to death, Ask philosophy to account for this. The task will be found to surpass its powers. None can deny the fact that men are what they ought not to be ; but how they came to be so cannot be told. To say, as many do, that the stock is good, but that it gets corrupt in rearing, is to reason in a manner that no one would have the face to do in any other case. If a tree were found which in every climate, every age, every soil, and under every kind of cultivation, brought forth the fruits of death, nobody would hesitate to pronounce it of a poisonous nature. Such is the account given us by revelation, and this book informs us how it became so. It is true it does not answer curious questions on this awful subject. It traces the origin of evil as far as so- briety and humility would wish to inquire. It states the fact, that God hath “made man upright,” and that he “ hath sought out many inventions; ” but there it leaves it. If men will object to the equity of the Divine pro- ceedings, and allege that what is in consequence of their first father's transgression is on their part guiltless, they must go on to object. Every man's conscience tells him he is accountable for all he does from choice, let that choice have been influenced by what it may ; and no man thinks of excusing his neighbour in his ill conduct towards him because he is a son of Adam. Out of their own mouth, therefore, will such objectors be judged.— But if the doctrine of the fall, as narrated in this book, be admitted, that of salvation by free grace, through the atonement of Christ, will follow of course. I do not say that redemption by Christ could be inferred from the fall itself; but being revealed in the same sacred book, we cannot believe the one without feeling the necessity of the other. Look at the page of history, and you will find yourselves in a world of the existence of which you can find no traces CONCLUSION. 435 till within about four thousand years. All beyond is dark- ness; and all pretensions to earlier records carry in them self-evident marks of fable. These things are accounted for in this book. If the world was destroyed by a flood, there could no nations have existed till a little before the times of Abraham. Nay, this book gives us the origin of all the nations, and calls many of them by the names which they sustain to this day. Finally, Look at the antipathy which is every where to be seen between the righteous and the wicked, between them that fear God and them that fear him not. All the narratives which have passed. under our review, as those of Cain and Abel, Enoch and his contemporaries, Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, are pictures of originals which the world continues in every age to exhibit. But this book traces this antipathy to its source, and gives us reason to expect its continuance till Satan and his cause shall be bruised under our feet. sº Secondly, The peculiar characters of sacred history. It is the most concise, and yet comprehensive, of any record that has ever yet appeared in the world. In the Book of Genesis only we have gone over the history of two thou- sand, three hundred, and sixty-nine years. A common historian might have used more words in giving us an ac- count of one of Nimrod's expeditions. Yet it is not like the abridged histories of human writers, which often con- tain a string of unconnected facts, which leave no impres- sion, and are nearly void of useful information. You see human nature, as created, as depraved, and as renewed by the grace of God ; you see the motives of men, and the reason of things, so as to enable you to draw from every story some important lesson, some warning, caution, coun- sel, encouragement, or instruction in righteousness. The reason of so much being included in so small a compass is, it is select. It is not a history of the world, but of persons and things which the world overlooks. It keeps one great object always in view, namely, the pro- gress of the church of God, and touches other societies and their concerns only incidentally, and as they are connected with it. The things which are here recorded are such as would have been mostly overlooked by common historians, just as things of the same kind are overlooked to this day. If you read many of even our Church Histories, you will perceive but little of the history of true religion in them. There are more of the genuine exercises of grace in a page of the life of Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob, than you will fre- quently find here in a volume. If the world overlooks God and his cause, God, in return, overlooks them and theirs. His history holds up an Enoch, and preserves a Noah, while a world lying in wickedness is destroyed by an overwhelming flood. It follows an Abraham, an Isaac, a Jacob, and a Joseph, through all their vicissitudes, nar- rating the trials and triumphs of faith in these holy men; while the Ishmaels, the Esaus, and all who apostatized from the true God, are given up, and lost in the great world. It traces the spiritual kingdom of God to its smallest beginnings, and follows it through its various ob- structions ; while the wars, conquests, and intrigues of the great nations of antiquity are passed over as unworthy of notice. In all this we see that the things which are highly esteemed among men are but lightly accounted of by the Lord ; and that He who hath heaven for his throne, and earth for his footstool, overlooks both, in comparison of a poor and contrite spirit. - Lastly. The slow but certain progress of the Divine de- signs. God promised Abraham a son when he was seven- ty-five years old; but he was not born till he was a hun- dred. And when he is born, he lives forty years unmar- ried ; and when married, under an expectation of great fruitfulness, it is twenty years more ere Rebecca bears children; and then it is not without earnest prayer. And now that he has two sons born, Jacob, in whom the pro- mise is to be fulfilled, lives seventy-five years single, and his life is a kind of blank : and when he goes to Padan- | aram for a wife, he must wait seven years longer ere he obtains her : and when he has a family of children, they prove some of the worst of characters. The only one that is any way hopeful is taken away, he knows not how ; and a long series of afflictions follow, one upon another, ere any thing like hope makes its appearance. Yet all this while the Lord had promised, “I will surely do thee good;” and in the end the good is done. God’s ways fetch an astonishing compass. His heart is large, and all his plans are great. He does not make haste to fulfil his counsels; but waits, and causes us to wait, the due time. But at that time they are all fulfilled. We may observe a difference, however, as to the time taken for the fulfilment of different promises. Those which were made to Abraham’s other children, and which had no immediate relation to God’s spiritual kingdom, as has been remarked in the course of the work, were very soon accomplished, in comparison of that which was con- fined to Isaac. Small legacies are often received and spent before the heir comes to the full possession of his inherit- ance. And even those which are made to the church of God, and have respect to his spiritual kingdom, vary in some proportion to their magnitude. “God made pro- mise of a son to Abraham : five-and-twenty years elapse ere this is accomplished. He also promised the land of Canaan for a possession to his posterity : there the per- formance required a period of nearly five hundred years. At the same time Abraham was assured that the Messiah should descend from his loins, and that in him all the na- tions of the earth should be blessed: this promise was nearly two thousand years ere it came to pass. These events resemble the oval streaks in the trunk of a tree, which mark its annual growth : each describes a larger compass than that which precedes it, and all which pre- cede it are preparatory to that which follows. The estab- lishment of Abraham's posterity in Canaan was a greater event than the birth of Isaac, and greater preparations were made for it. But it was less than the coming of Christ, and required less time and labour to precede it.” From this ordinary ratio, if I may so speak, in the Di- vine administration, we are furnished with motives to patience, while waiting for the fulfilment of promises to the church in the latter days. The things promised are here so great and so glorious that they may well be sup- posed to fetch a large compass, and to require a period of long and painful suspense ere they are accomplished. The night may be expected to bear some proportion to the day that succeeds it. It is a consolation, however, that the night with us is far spent, and the day is at hand. The twelve hundred and sixty years of antichrist’s dominion, and of the church's affliction, must needs be drawing to- wards a close ; and a season so dark, and so long, augurs glorious times before us. We may have our seasons of despondency, like the patriarchs; but there will come a time, and that probably not very distant, when what is said of Israel in the times of Joshua shall be fulfilled on a larger scale: “And the Lord gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers.—There failed not aught of any good thing which the Lord had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass.” 2 F 2 E X POSITO R Y DISC O U R S E S ON THE APOCALYPSE. TO THE BAPTIST CHURCH OF CHRIST AT KETTERING. DEAR BRETHREN, IT is at your request that these Discourses appear in print. When in the course of exposition I first entered on them, it was not from an idea that I at that time sufficiently understood the prophecy, but from a hope that by this means I might understand it better. And now that I have ventured to publish, it is not because I am fully satisfied of having given the true meaning in every instance. There are parts in which I can only say, I have done the best I could. If, however, I had not been satisfied as to the general meaning of the prophecy, or had been conscious of having thrown no new light upon it, I should have felt it to be my duty to withhold my papers from the public eye. Observing the blessing pronounced on “him that readeth, and on them that hear, the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein,” I had a desire to enter upon it, accompanied, I think, with some sense of my dependence upon the enlightening influences of the Holy Spirit. The reason also assigned why we should study this part of the Holy Scriptures in particular, that “the time is at hand,” seemed to have greater force after a lapse of above seventeen hundred years than it could have at the time of its being written. I conceived also that the events of the present times, though we should beware of illusive hypotheses founded upon them, yet called for a special attention to prophecy. They might also be expected to throw some light upon it. Some late writers upon the subject appear to understand many things which earlier ones did not; and there is reason to expect that prophecy will be understood much better in years to come than it is at present. - The method I pursued was, first to read it carefully over, and, as I went on, to note down what first struck me as the meaning. After reducing these notes into something like a scheme of the prophecy, I examined the best expositors I could procure, and, comparing my own first thoughts with theirs, was better able to judge of their justness. Some of them were confirmed, some corrected, and many added to them. I have dealt but little in quotations, refusing nothing, however, from any writer, which appeared to me to be just. And as to what appeared otherwise, I have generally passed it over without attempting to refute it, as being rather desirous of giving the true meaning than of proving that other men's opinions were founded in mistake. The exposition of a prophecy, delivered in symbolical language, must be liable to many mistakes. A style so highly figurative furnishes great scope for the imagination, which, unless it be accompanied with a sober and just judgment, will lead us into labyrinths of error. How far I have been enabled to avoid them, and to succeed in throwing light upon any part of the prophecy, it is not for me to decide. This I know, my object has been to obtain its true mean- ing, and to communicate it in a manner suited, not to the curious, but to the Christian reader. The manuscript has lain by me between four and five years, during which I have frequently re-examined its con- tents, and availed myself of any further light which by reading or reflection has appeared on the subject. During this period several of our most highly esteemed friends, who joined in the request, are gone the way of all the earth. We shall soon follow them. We have seen enough, amidst all the troubles of our times, to gladden our hearts; and trust that our children will see greater things than these. I am your affectionate Pastor, Rettering, March 21, 1815. ANDREW FULLER. SC HEME OF THE PROPHECY. THE addresses to the seven churches are applicable to all other churches in similar circumstances in all ages, but not prophetic.—The things which the apostle was commanded to write being those which he had seen, those which were, and those which should be hereafter, prove that the pro- phecy commences, not from the time of the vision, but probably from the ascension of Christ, in like manner as the four monarchies of Daniel commenced from the rising up of the Babylonish empire, many years before the time of the vision.—Chapters i-iii. The book of seven seals contains the whole of the pro- phecy, the trumpets being only a subdivision of the seventh seal, and the vials of the seventh trumpet.—Chapters iv., v. The opening of the first seal,—on which appeared “a white horse, and he that sat on him had a bow ; and a crown was given unto him : and he went forth conquer- SCHEME OF THE PROPHECY. 437 ing and to conquer,”—represents the great progress of the gospel in the apostolic age.—Chapter vi. 1, 2. The opening of the second seal,—on which there ap- peared “a red horse, and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another,”—signifies the wars between the Jews and the Romans, who had united in persecuting Christ and his followers.-Chap. vi. 3, 4. The opening of the third seal,—on which there appear- ed a “black horse, and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his hand,” &c., denotes a famine, or scarcity approaching to famine, in which the necessaries of life would be required to be weighed out with the utmost care, and which was fulfilled during the reigns of the Antonines.—Chap. vi. 5, 6. The opening of the fourth seal,—on which there ap- peared “a pale horse, and his name that sat on him was Death, and hell followed,” — signifies great mortality, owing to the intrigues and intestine wars in the empire, between the years 193 and 270, which produced famine and pestilence, and by diminishing the number of men gave ascendency to the beasts of prey.—Chap. vi. 7, 8. The fifth seal was opened, on which were seen “un- der the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: and they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth'? And white robes were given unto every one of them, and it was said unto them that they should rest [or wait] yet for a little season, un- til their fellow servants also, and their brethren that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.” This seal represents the state of the church about the year 270, when it had endured nine out of the ten heathen persecu- tic ns, and was about to endure the tenth, under Diocle- sian and Maximian, after which God would avenge their cause, by an utter overthrow of their persecutors.—Chap. vi. 9—11. The opening of the sixth seal,—on which appeared “an earthquake,” and as it were a day of judgment, signified the revolution of Constantine, when the pagan empire was overthrown, and the prayers of the souls under the altar were answered.—Chap. vi. 12–17. The “sealing of the servants of God in their fore- heads” portends danger to the spiritual interests of the church from its outward prosperity, and distinguishes the faithful from the crowd of nominal Christians that would now be pressing into it.—Chap. vii. 1–8. This chapter concludes with a vision of the martyrs who had overcome, serving to strengthen the servants of God to encounter new trials.-Chap. vii. 9—17. The seventh seal is opened.—A solemn pause ensues.— It is then subdivided into seven trumpets, which are put into the hands of seven angels; and the sounding of them is prefaced by “another angel’s offering up the prayers of the saints with much incense, filling his censer with fire, and casting it into the earth,” denoting that the judg- ments to be brought by the trumpets would be in answer to their prayers.-Chap. viii. 1–5. The sounding of the first four trumpets, which affect “the earth, the sea, the fountains of waters, and the sun, moon, and stars,” denote the judgments on the continental, the maritime, and the mountainous parts of the empire, by the invasion of the northern nations, the issue of which was the eclipse of the government supreme and sub- ordinate. As the seals overthrew the pagan empire, these overthrow the Christian.—Chap. viii. 6–12. The sounding of the fifth, or first woe-trumpet, on which followed “ smoke from the bottomless pit, and locusts,” represents popery as filling the world with in- fernal darkness, and thus preparing the way for Maho- medan delusion and depredation.—Chap. ix. 1–12. The sixth, or second woe-trumpet, is complex, relating partly to the “loosing of the four angels in Euphrates,” followed by “an army of horsemen,” and partly to the conduct of “the rest of the men, who were not killed by these plagues,”—the former denoting the rise and ravages of the Turks, by whom the eastern empire, and with it the Greek church, were overthrown; and the latter, the idolatries and cruelties of the members of the western name written in their foreheads. church, who, instead of taking warning from the fate of the eastern, repented not, but persisted in corrupting the religion of Jesus Christ, and in persecuting his witnesses. —Chap. ix. 13–21, to chap. xi. 14. The vision of the angel with “a little book open,” whose cry was followed by “seven thunders,” refers to the western or papal church, which the prophecy now goes some ages back to take up, and which occupies the whole of what follows till the beast and the false prophet are taken, or down to the times of the Millennium.—The “thunders” may probably refer to the same things, in the form of a general threatening, which are afterwards par- ticularly disclosed under the vials; for it appears to be of their execution that the angel swears by Him that liveth for ever and ever that there shall be no delay: but that in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, (that is, in the times of the pouring out of the vials,) the mystery of God should be finished. This accounts for the command “not to write them,” as they would be particularized under the vials.-Chap. x. The eleventh and three following chapters are consider- ed as three general descriptions of the false church, chief- ly under the 1260 years of antichristian usurpation, to- gether with the state of the true church during the same period. These general descriptions of course are not con- fined to the times of this or that trumpet, but comprehend those of the greater part of the trumpets. The first general description, contained in the eleventh chapter, denominates the false church “Gentiles,” and the true church “witnesses,” who bear testimony against them. It leaves out of “the temple of God” the place occupied by the former. It represents, by the “slaughter of the witnesses,” the prevalence of the antichristian party ; by their “resurrection and ascension to heaven,” the protestant Reformation ; and by the “earthquake,” in which a tenth part of the city fell, (and which, by the way, marks the termination of the sixth, or second woe- trumpet,) the late revolution in France. By the sound- ing of the seventh angel, a signal is given of the progress of the gospel. And, by the song of the heavenly choir, are intimated the judgments which should be inflicted on the antichristian party, and the Millennial glory that should follow.—Chap. xi. The second general description, contained in the twelfth chapter, represents the true church, prior to the intro- duction of antichristian corruptions, as “clothed with the sun, having the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars.” These corruptions originate in a third part of the stars of heaven being drawn from their orbits by the tail of the dragon, and cast upon the earth; or by the rulers of the church being seduced by the riches and honours of the Roman empire. The dragon, having thus prevailed over a part of the Christian church, aims to devour the other. The true church fleeth into the wilderness, where she exists without legal protection or toleration till the Reformation in the sixteenth century, when Michael fights her battles, and the dragon is cast down. Succeeding persecutions are the effect of his de- feat.—Chap. xii. The third general description, contained in the thir- teenth and fourteenth chapters, represents “a beast rising out of the sea, with seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, &c.,” signifying that secular govern- ment by which the false church has been all along sup- ported—namely, the Roman empire under its last head, after it had been divided into ten independent kingdoms, each of which was a horn of the beast. When paganism was overthrown, the beast in one of its heads was “as it were wounded to death; ” but, when Christianity became so corrupted as to be paganized, “the deadly wound was healed.”—Chap. xiii. 1–10. Another beast “rose out of the earth, with two horns like a lamb, but who spake as a dragon,”—denoting the hierarchy, or false church itself, which is contemporary, and all along acts in concert, with the first or secular beast.—Chap. xiii. 11–18. During the ravages of these beasts, and in opposition to them and their followers, appears “a Lamb standing upon Mount Zion, and with him 144,000, having his Father's Their victory over anti- 438 EXPOSITION OF THE APOCALYPSE. christian error and corruption at the Reformation is signi- fied by “the voice of many waters, like thunder, and of harpers harping with their harps.” The spirit lately ex- cited to carry the gospel to the heathen is thought to be denoted by the evangelical “angel.” The diminution and approaching dissolution of the antichristian power is represented by “another angel following, and saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen " And the danger of sym- bolizing and tampering with antichristianism is suggested by the solemn warnings of a “third angel.” Then fol- lows that of which the signal only had been given in the cry of the second angel—namely, the overthrow of Ba- bylon, which is denoted by a harvest and a vintage.— Chap. xiv. Three general descriptions having been given, each of which carried us to the end of the 1260 years, the series of the prophecy, from the time of the sounding of the seventh, or third woe-trumpet, is now resumed. This trumpet wears a twofold aspect ; it is partly a woe- trumpet, and partly what may be called a jubilee-trumpet. In the former view the seveN v1ALs are a subdivision of it—in the latter it comprehends the Millennium, and all that follows to the end of the prophecy.—Chap. xv. The sounding of the seventh angel is the signal for the commencement of the pouring out of the vials, and is sup- posed to have taken place within the last five-and-twenty years. The vials are interpreted on the principle of their resemblance to the trumpets:—namely, the first, poured out on the “earth,” is supposed to denote the late wars on the continent, between France and the other con- tinental powers; the second, poured upon the “sea,” the Wars carrying on in the maritime nations of Spain and Portugal; the third, poured upon the “rivers and foun- tains of waters,” the wars which, if the principle here adopted be just, will ere long befall Italy and Savoy, the countries where was shed in shocking profusion the blood of the Waldenses; the fourth, poured upon the “sun,” the oppression of the supreme government to which the antichristian church will be subjected at the time; the Jifth, poured on the “seat of the beast,” such judgments as will either drive him from his den, or render him very miserable in it; the sixth, poured on “Euphrates,” and producing the battle of “Armageddon,” partly the over- throw of the Turkish empire, and partly the temporal ruin of the adherents of popery ; the seventh, poured into the “air,” the overthrow of the spiritual power of popery, and of every other species of false religion.—Chap. xvi. The three following chapters are considered as Notes of Illustration, containing more particular accounts of several subjects which have been already introduced. In the first of them (chap. xvii.) the false church is described under the opprobrious name of “the great whore,” and the powers which support her under that of “a beast with seven heads and ten horns.” This beast, namely, the Roman empire, “was, and is not, and yet is.” When it was pagan, it existed with all its beastly properties; when it became Christian, it was supposed to have lost them, and to be a beast no longer; but by the corruptions in- troduced into Christianity, and which were supported by it, the beast still continued. The “seven heads” of the beast have a twofold ap- plication.—First, they are said to be “seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth;” referring to the seven hills on which Rome, when in its full extent, is well known to have stood, and so pointing out the seat of the hierarchy.— They are also said to be “seven kings,” that is, govern- ments, under which the empire had subsisted, did subsist, or would subsist hereafter. The forms under which it had subsisted, but which were passed away at the time of the commencement of the prophecy, were kings, consuls, dic- tators, decemvirs, and military tribunes ; the form under which it then subsisted was that of emperors ; and that which was “yet to come, and to continue a short space,” was the government which succeeded the overthrow of the emperors, and continued under various changes for about 300 years, till the days of Charlemagne; when a govern- ment was established which combined all the nations of Europe in support of the antichristian hierarchy. This short-lived intermediate power might, on some accounts, be considered as the “seventh '' head of the beast, and as such be distinguished from its last head, which, in this view, would be the “eighth ;” but upon the whole it was rather to be considered as belonging to that in which it terminated, and which in this view would be “of the Seven.” The “ten horns” are the kingdoms of Europe, which, till the Reformation, all united with the empire in sup- porting the harlot; but which have already begun and will go on to hate her, to eat her flesh, and to burn her with fire.-Chap. xvii. The second of these Notes of Illustration (contained in the 18th chapter and the first eight verses of the 19th) is a sacred ode, sent, as it were, from heaven, to be sung at the overthrow of the antichristian church, in which are celebrated not only the “fall of Babylon,” but “the mar- riage of the Lamb ;” that is, not only the termination of the reign of the beast, but the introduction of the Mil- lennial reign of Christ, which shall follow upon it.— Chap. xviii.; xix. 1—8. The third and last of these notes (which begins at the ninth verse of the 19th chapter) describes the actual ac- complishment of the fall of Babylon, which the foregoing ode had anticipated. He whose name is the Word of God goes forth “riding upon a white horse,” (the appropriate symbol for the success of the gospel,) joined by his faith- ful followers. This provokes the adherents of the beast and of the false prophet, who, gathering together their forces to oppose them, perish in the attempt.—Chap. xix. 9—21. As the overthrow of the antichristian hierarchy was celebrated in the preceding ode, under the symbol of “the fall of Babylon,” prior to its actual accomplishment; so was the Millennium under that of “the marriage supper of the Lamb.” This glorious period in now introduced as actually taking place. The “beast and the false pro- phet,” or the secular and ecclesiastical powers, being fallen, the dragon himself is next seized and thrust into a state of confinement.—-“Thrones” may denote stations of im- portance both in the world and in the church, which will now be filled by righteous men; thus “the kingdom is given to the people of the saints of the Most High ;” and as the public mind will favour it, righteousness will every where prevail; corruptions, oppressions, wars, tumults, and rebellions will cease from the earth, and all nations feel towards each other as children of the same family.— Now “judgment” is given to the martyrs, inasmuch as the cause for which they were slain is vindicated, and their memory honoured ; while “the rest,” or the rem- nant of the antichristian party, who escaped from the battle in which their leaders were “taken,” will be as dead men till the thousand years are ended. To them this glorious period will be a burial, but to the other a “ resurrection.” After the Millennium, Satan is loosed for a little season, and makes one more desperate effort to corrupt the world, and to destroy the church.-This brings on the general conflagration—the resurrection of the dead—and the last judgment.—Chap. xx. After this appear “the new heavens and the new earth,” spoken of by Peter, “wherein dwelleth righteousness.” The world, purified from sin and its effects, becomes the everlasting abode of the righteous, who, having been raised from the dead, are immortal.-The whole animate and inanimate creation, in so far as it has been “made subject to the vanity” of subserving the cause of evil, is emancipated, and possesses that for which it has “travailed in pain,” from the fall of man until now.—No more shall the earth be polluted and desolated by a succession of beasts ; but lo, “the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself will be with them, and be their God! CoNCLUSION.—The present the period of the vials; or that space of time which begins with the sounding of the seventh trumpet, and ends in the Millennium.—The ter- mination of the 1260 years probably uncertain. A time of persecution to be previously expected.—Great success will attend the preaching of the gospel before the Mil- lennium.—Aspect of the present times.—The Millennial glory —Concluding reflections on the recent changes in Europe. INTRODUCTION. 439 asº DISCOURSE I. THE INTRODUCTHON AND PREPARATORY WISION. Revelation i. I Have lately expressed a wish to enter upon this difficult part of the Holy Scriptures; not because I conceive myself at present equal to the undertaking, but because I think I understand something of it, and hope, by going through it in the way of exposition, to understand more. I enter on it with fear; but as I shall not attempt to explain that which appears to me of doubtful import, I hope it may not be presumptuous, but a profitable undertaking.” Ver. 1–3. The book takes its title, it seems, from the first verse. All Scripture is a revelation, in some sense, but this is a disclosure of things to come. Christ is the great Prophet of the church. He it was, as we shall see, that was found worthy to open the sealed book. It is necessary to distinguish between the know- ledge of Christ as a Divine person, and that which he pos- sesses as the Prophet of his church. As Divine he knows all things; all things are naked to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do ; but as a Prophet he receives his messages from the Father, and makes them known to us. In this sense he knew not the day of judgment; that is, it was no part of the revelation which God gave to him to make known to men. As Christ in the character of a Prophet has these things revealed to him, so, in communi- cating them after his ascension, he made use of an angel. It might have been too much for a mortal man to be ad- mitted directly to converse with him in his glorified state. The writer introduces himself to the churches in the character of a witness, declaring that the things which he was about to Gommunicate were from above—they were “the word of God,” and therefore might be depended upon—“the testimony of Jesus Christ,” on the fulfilment of which he rested the truth of the gospel, and which he himself in vision plainly “saw.” To induce us to give the most serious attention to the subject, a blessing is pronounced on those who “read, and hear, and keep ’’ the words of this prophecy, especially as the time of its fulfilment was at hand. I recollect no other part of Scripture that is prefaced with such an in- ducement to read and understand and practically regard it. The prophecy must be of immediate concern to the church of Christ, and requires to be read and heard, not for the gratifying of curiosity, but for the obedience of faith. We must “keep” it, as one engaged in a voyage through dangerous seas keeps his chart, and consults it on all ne- cessary occasions. It is that to the New Testament church which the pillar of the cloud was to the church in the wilderness, guiding it through the labyrinths of anti- christian errors and corruptions. It must not be neglected under a notion of its being hard to be understood. As well might the mariner amidst the rocks neglect his friend- ly chart under an idea of its being difficult to understand and apply it. It would seem, too, from this promise, that the success- ful study of the prophecy depends not merely on literary attainments, but on a practical regard to the things con- tained in it. Whatever advantages attach to the former, and these are many and great, they will not succeed nor obtain the blessing without the latter. Ver. 4–7. The proconsular Asia had probably been the chief seat of the writer’s labours since the death of the apostle Paul. To the churches in this province, therefore, he was directed to address the prophecy. The benediction is affectionate and appropriate. The periphrasis used of God the Father, “Who is, and who was, and who is to come,” is singularly appropriate as an introduction to a prophecy concerning the mutability of creatures. The * These Discourses were delivered in the years 1809 and 1810, drawn out in 1811, and have lain by from that time to the present (1815). “seven Spirits” are the abundant gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit, or the Holy Spirit in respect of his abundant gifts and graces. The number seven is not only a well- known symbol of perfection, but corresponds with the number of the churches; and as they represent the whole church, so these describe the Holy Spirit in his rich and abundant influences. To the blessing from the Father and the Holy Spirit he adds, “And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth.” By the first of these appellations our Lord accredits the prophecy as being his testimony; and by the last two cheers his suffering followers, by reminding them of his having emerged from death and obtained a complete ascendancy over all his and their enemies. And now, having mentioned the name of Jesus Christ, he cannot leave it without adding a sweet doxology on his dying love, and its interesting effects—“Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.” Nor has he yet taken leave of this subject ; Christ's suffering people must be directed to his second coming, when the persecuting Jews who pierced him in his person, and the persecuting Gentiles who were now piercing him in his members, will be called to account. To their just punishment, dreadful as it will be, the serv- ants of God will add their “Amen.” Ver. 8. The apostle, after expatiating on the glory of Christ in his salutation, now introduces him as speaking himself. That these are his words, and not those of the Father, will appear from comparing them with chap.i.1, and xxii. 6—16. It was Jesus Christ, and not the Father, who communicated, through the angel, with his servant John. The Father is sometimes referred to in the prophecy; but, if I mistake not, it is in the third person only; not as speaking, but as spoken of. Jesus Christ therefore is “the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the ending, who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty;” and consequently is able to preserve his church, and to execute the punishments denounced in this prophecy against her enemies. Ver, 9–20. It was usual for the most eminent prophets to be introduced to their work by an extraordinary vision. Such was the introduction of Isaiah, (chap. vi.,) of Jere- miah, and of Ezekiel ; and such is that of John. Having been banished to the Isle of Patmos by Domitian for preaching Christ, the Spirit of prophecy came upon him on the Lord’s day, when he heard from behind him a great voice as of a trumpet, saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, and what thou seest write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia. Turn- ing to see whence the voice proceeded, he saw “seven golden candlesticks, and in the midst of them one like unto the Son of man.” It was from him therefore that the great voice proceeded. In short, he saw the Lord Jesus Christ, who as to his human nature had lived and died on earth, but who as to his Divine person was “the first and the last,” standing, as the great High Priest over the house of God, in the midst of his churches, clothed with ineffa- ble glory. The effect of such a vision was more than a frail mortal could sustain. He who when his Lord was upon earth leaned familiarly on his bosom, now “fell at his feet as dead.” But, laying his right hand upon him, he said, “Fear not, I am the first and the last : I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.” This impressive 440 Exposition OF THE APOCALYPSE. vision would not only excite in his mind a deep in- terest in the kingdom of Christ, and so prepare him for what he was to see, and hear, and write ; but must have tended greatly to relieve him from his anxieties for his brethren and companions in tribulation from , whom he had been separated. All the apostles were dead: he only was left, and the heathen rulers had banished him. Hell and death threatened to swallow up the church. In this situation he is told not to fear, for that his Lord lived, and had the control of both the invisible and visible world. Being commanded to write “the things which he had seen, the things that were, and the things that should be hereafter,” we may conclude that what he wrote respected not only the future state of the church from the time of the vision, but the whole gospel dispensation, from the ascension of Christ to the end of the world. What is said of the “seven stars and seven golden candlesticks” would tend greatly to encourage both the ministers and the churches of Christ. candlestick in the tabernacle, and in the second temple, Exod. xxv. 31–40 ; Zech. iv. 2. That was but one candlestick, though it had seven branches; but these are seven candlesticks; agreeing with the different constitu- tions of the Old and New Testament church, the former being national, and the latter eongregational. DISCOURSE II. THE EPISTLES TO THE CHURCHES. Rev. ii. 1–17. Before we enter on these epistles distinctly, it is proper to make a few general remarks. First, Some have considered these churches as pro- phetically representing the different states of the church at large wider the gospel dispensation. There is no doubt but analogies may be found between them ; but it appears to me that the hypothesis is unfounded. The church of Ephesus, if designed to represent the whole Christian church in the age of the apostles, might be expected to sustain as high a character at least as any that follow ; whereas Smyrna, in respect of its purity, is manifestly superior to it. Every thing addressed to the latter is in its praise ; which is not the case with the former. But surely it is not true that any age of the church since that of the apostles is to be compared with it, much less that it has excelled it in evangelical purity. Others, doubting the justness of this hypothesis, have considered the epistles to the churches as referring to the then present state of the church, and the sealed book to that which was future. And this they consider as agree- ing with the division of the book into “things which the writer had seen, things which were, and things which should be hereafter,” chap. i. 19. This is MR. Low MAN's view of it. When I entered upon these Discourses from the pulpit I adopted this opinion ; but before I had pro- ceeded far in the work I was compelled to give it up ; the reasons for which will appear when we enter on the open- ing of the seals, in chap. vi., under the fifth general re- mark in Discourse VI. Instead of considering the epistles to the seven churches either as prophetic, or as descriptive of the state of the church at large as it then was, I should rather consider them as descriptive of the state of those seven churches as they then were, and as designed to furnish encouragements, reproofs, warnings, and counsels to all other churches and Christians, in all future ages, as their cases are found to resemble theirs. The application ought not to be confined to one age more than to another, nor even to collective bodies : every one, in every age, that hath an ear to hear, is called to “hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.” In applying them to ourselves, we should consider the great Head of the church as watching over us, and closely observing the state of our hearts towards him, with all our proceedings, whether good or evil; and inquire There was a golden . what would be his address to us were he to commission an angel or an apostle to write to us. Secondly, By the epistles being addressed to the angels, we are not to understand them as concerning the pastors only, in distinction from the churches, but to consider them as their representatives. That which the Spirit saith in these epistles is “to the churches.” Thirdly, In every address to the churches Christ as- sumes a distinct character, taken from some one part of the description given of him in the preceding vision ; each of which, if we rightly understand it, will be found to be appropriate to the character or circumstances of the church addressed. Fourthly, Every address begins with commendation, provided there be any thing to commend. This shows that Christ knows all, and notices that which is good amongst us as well as that which is evil ; nay, that he takes more pleasure in noticing the good than in com- plaining of the evil—an example worthy of our imitation in dealing with one another. If we wish to reclaim our brethren who have fallen into sin, we must begin by ap- preciating the good in them, and by candidly commending it, before we reprove them for their faults. Such was the conduct of Paul to the Corinthians, when about to cen- sure them for their abuse of the Lord’s supper—“Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them unto you.” Fifthly, Most of the churches have somewhat on ac- count of which they are censured and admonished. This is a humbling truth, even of the first and purest churches; how much more of those in our times | If the Son of God, whose eyes are as a flaming fire, were to pronounce our character, would there not be “somewhat against us?” We can see each other's errors and defects; but it were to much more advantage if we could detect our own. Finally, Every epistle concludes with a promise to him that overcometh, and an eachortation to hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches. Professing Christians in this world are soldiers enlisted under the banner of Christ. Seme have proved deserters; many have been partially overcome ; the Captain of the Lord’s host here addresses | them, holding forth the glory that awaits them who are finally victorious. Ver. 1–7. Ephesus was the metropolis of the Procon- sular Asia; and it is probable that all these churches were planted by the labours of the apostle Paul, during his two years' residence at Ephesus, when “all they who dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks,” Acts xix. 10. The Ephesians appear to have been in a good state when the apostle Paul took leave of their elders at Miletus ; but he then gave them to expect a time of trial after his departure, and which by this time seems to have come upon them. - The character which our Lord here assumes is taken from chap. i. 16. 20, and seems to contain both encourage- ment and warning ; which fitly applies to their character, as partly commendable and partly blamable. They had been distinguished by their exertions in promoting the cause of Christ, and their sufferings on account of it. They “worked,” yea, they “laboured ” for Christ, and, when called to encounter persecution, bore it with “pa- tience.” They were zealous also in the exercise of a strict and holy discipline, not suffering evil characters and impostors to remain amongst them; and in this course of obedience they had “not fainted.” Altogether, this is a high character. Yet even here is something amiss; they had “ left their first love.” We see here that the Lord looketh at the heart. We may retain our character and respectability among the churches, while yet, as to the state of our minds, Christ hath somewhat against us. To leave our first love is a very common case, so much so that some will give young Christians to expect it as a matter of course ; but Christ treats it as a sin, and calls on the par- ties to “repent” of it, yea, and threatens to “remove their candlestick out of its place except they repented.” To decline in our attachment to Christ, his gospel, his ordi- nances, his people, and his cause, is practically reproaching him ; it is saying to those around us, We have not found that in his religion which we once expected to find. “O THE EPISTLEs To THE CHURCHES. 441 my people, what have I done unto thee, and wherein have I wearied thee 3 Testify against me!” A declension in love is followed by a degeneracy in good works. If this had not been the case, they would not have been admonished to do their “first works.” Either they were neglected, or attended to in a half-hearted man- ner, different from what they were at the beginning. The Lord, to show that he did not find fault with them with pleasure, again commends them as far as they were commendable: they hated the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which he also hated. Clemens of Alexandria, as quoted by Eusebius, speaks of these as a people who practised a community of wives, living in fornication and adultery. It is thought, and with some probability, that they were the people to whom Peter and Jude refer—the Antinomi- ans of the primitive church. If we have an ear to hear what the Spirit saith unto this church, we shall learn from it, among other things,—that works are the chief test of character—that in serving the Lord in this world there is great occasion for patience un- der sufferings, and discrimination of characters—and that, while justly censuring others, we may decline in spiritual- ity ourselves. The promise to him that overcometh is, that he shall “eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the para- dise of God.” That which grew in the earthly paradise became inaccessible by sin; but no flaming sword nor cherubim prevent access to this. Wer. 8–11. Of the church of Smyrna, as well as several others, no mention is made except in these epistles.—Po- lycarp, the disciple of John, was pastor of it, and suffered martyrdom. Whether he was the angel here addressed is uncertain ; but when he suffered, which was about the year 162, he speaks of himself as having served Christ eighty-six years, and Irenaeus speaks of him as having been ordained bishop of Smyrna by the apostles. This church seems distinguished by its persecutions ; all that is said has respect to them. - The character under which Christ addresses them is taken from chap. i. 11, 18 : “These things saith the first and the last, who was dead, and is alive.” The former is expressive of his Godhead, and suggests how vain it is for the enemies of the gospel to oppose him. In the latter he holds up himself as an example of persecution before them, and as an earnest of deliverance from it. The commendation of their “works” in the midst of tribulation and poverty (poverty, it is likely, arising from their persecutions) is much to their honour. We see here of what little account worldly wealth is in the estimation of Christ. We hear much of respectable congregations and churches, when little else is meant but that they are nu- merous or opulent ; but the estimation of Christ goes on quite another principle. What a contrast there is between this church and that at Laodicea . They were rich in this world’s goods, but poor towards God; these were poor in this world, but rich towards God. It is intimated that they had not only to contend with heathens, but Jews, who had a synagogue in this city; and it is remarkable that, in the account of the martyrdom of Polycarp, the Jews are spoken of as being very active in it, and as joining the heathems; in kindling the fire. We see here to what a state of mind that people were left after having rejected Christ: they had been the people of God, but were now no longer such, but blasphemers: their synagogues had been places where God had been worship- ped ; there our Lord himself attended, and to them the friends of God in heathen countries had been used to re- sort; but hence they became the synagogues of Satan! They are given to expect more persecutions, but are en- couraged to meet them with fortitude. The devil would stir up his agents to imprison some of them for a season, and some of them might expect to die for the name of Christ; but if faithful unto death, they are promised a crown of life. It was about sixty-seven years after this that Polycarp, and other members of this church, suffered martyrdom ; the account of which is given by Eusebius in a letter from the church of Smyrna. When Polycarp was apprehended by his persecutors, they set him on an ass, and brought him to the place of judgmeº He was met by some of sº F the magistrates, who took him into their carriage, and tried to persuade him to deny Christ and save his life, but which he resisted. On his approaching the place of exe- cution, the proconsul, ashamed of putting so aged and venerable a man to death, urged him to blaspheme Christ. It was then that he answered, “Eighty-six years I have served him, during all which time he never did me injury; how then can I blaspheme my King and my Saviour !” When further urged, his answer was, “I am a Christian.” When threatened with wild beasts, he said, “ Bring them forth.” When with fire, he reminded them of the eternal fire that awaited the ungodly. His last address to God had more of praise in it than of prayer. It is a high honour to this persecuted people, that no thing is said to them in a way of reproof. To be “blame- less and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in an evil generation,” is great, even in respect of our fellow creatures; but to be without rebuke from Christ himself is much greater. To this suffering church Christ saith, “Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life. He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.” Let every one that hath an ear hear this language, and be armed by it against the fear of man. Ver. 12–17. Pergamos was a city of Mysia, not far from Troas. We find the apostle Paul at this latter city more than once; and “a door was here opened to him of the Lord, to preach Christ's gospel,” 2 Cor. ii. 12. Here it was that he afterwards commemorated the Lord’s death with the disciples; and as he had to wait seven days for their coming together, it would seem as if they had to come from some great distance. The church at Pergamos might therefore be planted about the same time. The character under which our Lord addresses them is taken from chap. i. 16,-" He that hath the sharp sword with two edges”—and wears a terrible aspect towards a corrupt party amongst them, against whom he threatens to wage war. Kind and encouraging things however are addressed to the body of them. Christ knew their “works,” and their firm adherence to him under great trials and persecutions, in which one of their number in particular, and probably their pastor, had suffered martyrdom. Pergamos was a city said to be “sacred to the gods:” here therefore we might expect to find the head-quarters of idolatry and per- secutions; and their standing firm in such a place, and at such times, was much to their honour. But there were “a few things” amongst them which displeased Christ. Some of the members tampered with idolatry and its ordinary attendant, fornication ; and the rest connived at it. This is called “ the doctrine of Ba- laam,” because it was in this way that that wicked pro- phet drew Israel into sin. They had also some of the “Nicolaitanes” amongst them, whose principles and prac- tices the Lord abhorred. They are called upon to repent on pain of Christ's dis- pleasure, who threatens, except they repent, to come unto them quickly, and to execute the judgments of his word against them, even against the transgressors themselves, and all who favoured them. These warnings and threatenings require our attention, and that of all who are guilty in a greater or less degree of the same evils; nor do the encouragements to them that overcome require it less. The “hidden manna,” the “white stone,” and the “new name,” being promised as the reward of them that overcome, seems to refer to the blessedness and honour of a future state, rather than of the present; though Christians doubtless have a foretaste of them even in this life. The “hidden manna’’ refers to those who should deny themselves of “eating things sacri- ficed to idols,” and other carnal enjoyments, for Christ’s sake; and denotes that there is a feast in reserve for them, which shall infinitely exceed the pleasures of flesh and sense. The Romans in judgment are said to have given their suffrage for condemnation by casting black stones into an urn, and, for absolution, by casting in white stones. White stones are also said to have been given by the Greeks to the conquerors in the Olympic games, with their names upon them, and the value of the prize they won. The application of this is easy. EXPOSITION OF THE APOCALYPSE. T) ISCOURSE III. THE EPISTLES TO THE CHURCHES CONTINUED, Rev. ii. 18–29; iii. THE character under which our Lord addresses the church of Thyatira is taken from chap. i. 13–15, with this vari- ation : there he is described as “one like unto the Son of man ;” but here he is called “The Son of God;” as de- noting his Divine personality. With this agrees what is said of him, that “his eyes were like unto a flame of fire,” discerning the secrets of the heart; “and his feet like fine brass,” denoting the stability and glory of his proceedings. It is like saying, “All things are naked and open to the eyes of him with whom you have to do.” “Seeing then that ye have a great High Priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, hold fast your profession 1’’ It is a high commendation that is given of this church, for its “works, and charity, and service, and patience, and works.” Nor is this last word repeated without cause ; it denotes their persevering and even abounding in good works; “the last were more than the first.” There are few churches, I fear, of which this can be said. Christ may know our works—and our works; but in most cases the first are more than the last ! Yet, with all this excellence, Christ has a few things against them. With all this positive good, there was a mixture of relative evil. “ The woman Jezebel ” seems to relate to a corrupt part of the church, who though united to God’s people, as Jezebel was by marrying an Israelitish prince, yet were in heart attached to idolatry, and laboured to seduce others into it. As a corrupt part of the Christian church is described as a harlot, so a cor- rupt part of a particular church may be thus designated; and as Jezebel pretended to Divine authority, and had her pro- phets to draw the servants of God into literal and spiritual fornication, so these had a kind of religion which would comport with eating and drinking at idolatrous temples, and so with occasional conformity to idolatry. They had had space to repent ; the Lord had long borne with them ; but his forbearance operated, as it often does, to harden them in their sin. This forbearance, however, will not continue always; Jezebel, with her adulterous paramours, will, ex- cept they repent, be cast together into a bed of devouring fire ; and this for a warning to the churches. - It seems that, like some among the Corinthians, they boasted of their knowledge, as being able to distinguish between eating at an idol’s temple and worshipping it (1 Cor. viii. 1); they spoke of their depths in knowledge; but Christ calls them “the depths of Satan,” and virtually disowns their abettors, distinguishing the faithful from them—“Unto you, I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and who have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden. But that which ye have hold fast till I come.” The promise to them that overcome the temptations of the present life is a final triumph. They shall judge the world of the ungodly ; and those who have persecuted them, and set themselves against them, will then fall be- fore them. As a potter's vessel is broken to shivers, so shall they be destroyed ; and all this according to the commission which Christ received of his Father. Nor is this all : Christ will give unto them that over- come “the morning star.” As this is one of the names assumed by himself, (chap. xxii. 16,) it may denote that he himself will be their portion. The exhortation “He that hath an ear, let him hear,” &c., may in this case direct our attention to the following important particulars:—That we may be members of a true church, and yet not true members of the church ; that the mixture of evil characters and evil things which at present is found in Christ’s visible kingdom greatly tar- nishes its glory, but in the end he will gather them out, and then shall the righteous shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father; that we may have space given us for repentance, and yet never repent, which will greatly aggravate our doom ; that there is a species of knowledge with which it is our honour and happiness to be unac- quainted; finally, that the hope of victory is sufficient to stimulate us under all our conflicts. Chap. iii. ver, 1–6. The church of Sardis lies under the heavy charge of having “a name to live while it was dead.” The address to it is taken from chap. i. 4. 20, and may be designed to direct them and their pastor where to look for reviving grace. Nothing is said, in a way of commendation, except to individuals amongst them. This indicates a bad state indeed. There are not many churches but individuals might be found in them who love the Lord. The “works’’ which Christ knew appear to be the same as those which he had “not found perfect before God.” Though therefore he knew them, he did not approve of them. It is bad for the world to be dead; but for a church to be so is worse : this is salt without savour, which is neither fit for the land nor the dunghill. It is bad for individuals to be dead; but for the body of a church to be so is deplorable. It is implied that they were not only destitute of spirituality, but had defiled their garments by worldly conformity. - There had been some good amongst them, or they would not have been called to “remember how they had received and heard ; ” and some remains of it might con- tinue. As no complaint is made of false doctrine, it is likely they continued orthodox, and kept up the forms of godliness. There seem to have been something of truth, love, and zeal; but they were like dying embers, ready to expire. - Christ admonished them to awake from their supineness, to take the alarm, and to strengthen the things which re- mained, that were ready to die. This is done by each one beginning with himself, and ending with one another. The means of recovery from such a state are, “remem- bering how we received and heard ” the gospel at the first. Call to remembrance the former days, not to get comfort under our declensions, but to recover those views and sensations which we had at the beginning of our Christian course. There were many, also, who at first had received the gospel with much heart, and had heard it with delight, but who in the course of forty years would be removed by death. Let them call to remembrance the love and zeal of their fathers, and be ashamed of their own declensions. If these admonitions did not awaken them, they are given to understand that Christ will come upon them in an unexpected hour, even as a thief cometh in the night. The “few names which had not defiled their garments” are highly commended. To walk with God at any time is acceptable to him ; and to do this while others around us are corrupt is more so. This is being faithful among the faithless. They shall walk with Christ in glory, hon- our, and purity. With this agrees the promise to them that overcome : “They shall be clothed in white raiment; and Christ will not blot out their names from the book of life.” The blessed God is represented as keeping a regis- ter of his servants, not as elect, or as redeemed, or as call- ed, but as his professed followers. When any turn back, their names are blotted out. Hence at the last judgment it is made the rule of condemnation. “Whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire,” chap. xx. 15. Some were never there, having never professed to be the followers of Jesus, while others who had been there were blotted out ; in either case their names would not be found there. Hence also it is the rule of admission into the New Jerusalem, chap. xxi. 27. “He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear.” Let us beware of judging ourselves by what others think of us. We may have a name to live amongst our brethren, and yet be dead. Our names may be written among the pro- fessed followers of Christ, and yet be blotted out when he comes to judgment. But let faithful individuals know, that whatever may be the end of others, Jesus will confess them before his Father, and before his angels. Wer. 7—13. There is a great difference between the church at Philadelphia, and that at Sardis : in that there was nothing to commend, in this nothing is censured. The character under which they are addressed is taken from chap. i. 18, and accords with the address itself. “He that was holy and true” approved of them; and THE EPISTLES TO THE CHURCHES. 443 “he that had the keys of David, who opened, and no man shut,” had “set an open door before them.” The Lord knew and approved of their works, and would make them more and more successful. They were not distinguished by opulence, nor perhaps by any of those things that render a people respectable in the eyes of the world; but of their “little strength '' they had made good use; they held fast the truth, and stood firm under persecution, which is of more account in the esteem of Christ than all other things. This, and most of the primitive churches, met with great opposition from the Jewish synagogue, which is here again called “ the synagogue of Satan; ” whose members, having rejected the Messiah, were no longer worthy of the name of Jews. They that say they are what they are not, whether it be Jews or Christians, are commonly the bitterest of persecutors. Their “coming” to them in a way of cringing submission may refer to a state of things in which, a door being opened in a way of success, the Christians should be increased in number and in power; while the Jews, owing to their wars with the Romans, would be glad of their friendship. The gospel is called “the word of Christ’s patience,” in respect of what it was to them. The retention of it under a succession of cruel persecutions required great patience; yet they had kept it, and the Lord promised in return to keep them in a particular time of trial that was coming upon the world. It might be by a renewal of persecution in the empire, or by the prevailing of corrup- tions in the church. As the Lord punishes sin by giving men up to sin, so he rewards righteousness by preserving them in the paths of it. We have had many of these hours of temptation, and may have many more : blessed are they that are preserved through them : They are directed to look for the coming of their Lord, and to hold fast truth and true religion, lest their adver- saries should wrest it out of their hands, and so deprive them of their reward. The promise to them that overcome is, that they shall be “pillars” in the celestial temple; and, unlike those of the Jewish temple, which were removed by the Chaldeans and by the Romans, shall “go no more out.” We are not to reckon the future greatness of men according to their talents in this life, but according to the use made of them. Those who have here had but “a little strength” may there become pillars in the temple. The pillars of the church on earth go out and leave it by death; but those of the church above will abide for ever. The writing upon them of the name of God, and the name of the city of God, the New Jerusalem, and of his own new name, doubtless means as much as this—that they shall be treated as the sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty, as citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem, and as those who are redeemed from among men. It is for us, both as individuals and as churches, to take encouragement from this address to hold that fast which we have, that no man take our crown. Ver, 14–22. The Laodicean church appears to have been in the worst state of any of the seven. Sardis, though it had nothing to commend, had a few excellent names; but Laodicea is censured without distinction. Yet even this church is not given up, but rebuked in love. The character under which the Laodiceans are address- ed is that of “the Amen, the faithful and true witness.” Being lifted up with their riches, they might be tempted to refuse this faithful witness that was borne against them; but, however disagreeable, it was “true.” Christ is here called “The beginning of the creation of God.” It is true that as to his human nature he was himself created; the name here assumed, however, does not refer to this, but to his being the Head (apxn) and First Cause of crea: tion. Thus, in Col. i. 15, he is called “ the first-born of every creature ;” not as being himself a creature, but the First Cause of creation: “For (it is added) by him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by him and for him. And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” A message from such a character de- served their serious attention. Christ knew their works, but could not approve of them; for they were “neither cold nor hot.” They may be said to be cold who have no religion, and pretend to none; and they to be hot who are zealously engaged in Christ's work: but these people were neither this nor that. They were not decidedly religious, and yet would not let religion alone. This state of mind is represented as being peculiarly offensive to Christ. To halt between truth and error, God and the world, is worse in many respects than to be openly irreligious. Corrupt Christianity is more offen- sive to God than open infidelity. No man thinks the worse of religion for what he sees in the openly profane ; but it is otherwise in respect of religious professors. If he that nameth the name of Christ depart not from ini- quity, the honour of Christ is affected by his misconduct. These people appear to have been very proud, and withal very ignorant of themselves. Their opulence seems to have lifted them up. Religion seldom thrives with much worldly prosperity. Men covet such things, and value themselves upon them ; but they are commonly snares to their souls. It is a hard thing for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. If these were the “riches” of which they boasted, it shows that the esti- mate of worldly greatness, formed by the faithful and true witness, is very different from that of the generality of men. Of what account is it in his sight to be rich and increased in goods, while as to our spiritual concerns we are wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked 3 Being charged with blindness, and counselled to use means to remove it, it would seem, however, that the riches of which they boasted included those of the mind; and that they were proud of their knowledge and gifts as well as of their wealth. Like the Corinthians, “they were full, they were rich, they reigned as kings” without the apostles. There is much of this still among profess- ing Christians. One party looks down upon another, and values itself for its superior light; one declaims against Pharisaism in the true spirit of a Pharisee; another is busy about the mote in his brother's eye, regardless of the beam in his own. The sentence of the faithful and true witness, concerning all that are wise and righteous in their own eyes, is, Thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked, and knowest it not In respect of the counsel offered them, they are address- ed like sinners in common, who knew not the Saviour. This was probably the case with many of them; and if some had known him, yet, being in a backsliding state, the best counsel that could be given them was, that they should come as sinners immediately to the Saviour. They are directed to seek the true riches, the true right- eousness, and the true wisdom, and to deal with Christ for them ; not as giving him any valuable consideration for them, (for this as being poor they could not,) but as part- ing with all for them. This is “buying without money and without price.” This is the way in which sinners come to Christ at first, and this is the way for backsliders to be restored. The child that has been ill taught must begin anew, and go over every rule again. To reconcile them to this sharp and humbling reproof, they are assured that these were not the words of an ene- my, but of one that bore them good-will. It shows the great forbearance and long-suffering goodness of our Lord, even towards them that have greatly dishonoured him. It also teaches us to put a right construction on Divine rebukes, receiving them as the rod of correction to bring us to repentance. To counsel is added a word of encouragement and of warning :–“ Behold, I stand at the door, and knock : if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.” Here again they seem to be treated rather as sinners than as Christians. If the common invitations of the gospel be acceptable, they are welcome to them. Jesus stands at their door, and knocks for admission. Do they hear him t and will they open the door and welcome him # If so, he will come in, and be their guest. But if they are so taken up with their present company as not to hear him, or at least not to open to him, he will go away as he did from 444 EXPOSITION OF THE APOCALYPSE. the Jewish temple—“Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.” If this serious and tender address did not reclaim them as a body, yet the promise to them that should overcome, that they should “sit down with him in his throne, as he also had overcome, and was set down with his Father in his throne,” might encourage individuals to return and hold out to the end. Let these censures, warnings, and encouragements, ad- dressed to the seven churches in Asia, as a specimen of the whole, be heard and regarded by the churches of Christ, and by every individual member of them, to the end of time. DISCOURSE IV. THE VISION PRECEIDING THE BOOK WITH SEVEN SEALS. Rev. iv THE whole of this chapter is introductory to what follows. The scene of the vision is the heavenly world. No where else could it have been with equal propriety. Where, but at the fountain of intelligence and influence, should a creature learn the secrets of futurity ? When Ahab's destiny was revealed to Micaiah, the scene of the vision was laid in heaven, 1 Kings xxii. 19–22. A door being opened, the apostle is invited to enter in. Having entered, he immediately finds himself under pro- phetic inspiration. He was not removed from the earth as to his body ; but as Ezekiel was carried by the spirit to Jerusalem, and saw what was transacting there, while his body was still in Chaldea, so it was with him ; he was still in the Isle of Patmos, while rapt up by Divine inspira- tion, and introduced into the immediate presence of God. In this supernatural state of mind he beheld a “throne,” and one “sitting upon it,” who was the supreme disposer of all the concerns of creatures. Such a sight would im- press him with the conviction that whatever should befall the church, or the world, it was all according to his will who ruled in the armies of heaven and among the in- habitants of the earth, ver. 1, 2. No description is given of the ever-blessed God, only that his glory seemed to resemble the lustre of certain pre- cious stones; and this may allude to the visible glory of the God of Israel as displayed in the temple. A rainbow was also round about the throne, in appearance like an emerald. We know that this from of old was a sign of peace and good-will to men. It may here denote that the glorious majesty of God, which in itself was too much to be endured, would be displayed towards his church in con- mexion with covenant mercy, ver, 3. Having spoken of the king eternal, immortal, and in- visible, sitting on his throne, he next describes his retinue. Here are twenty-four seats, or subordinate thrones, on which sat twenty-four elders, clothed in white, and with crowns of gold upon their heads. The “lightnings, and thunderings, and voices,” may denote not only the awful majesty of God, as when he appeared at Sinai, but that from him proceeded all the terrible judgments which would shortly afflict the earth. Besides these, there were “seven lamps of fire before the throne,” which are said to be “the seven spirits of God;” answering, it may be, to the seven candlesticks, and being as it were a lamp to each candle- stick. The light imparted by the churches is all derived from the Holy Spirit. These seven lamps enlighten the world, ver. 4, 5. “Before the throne was a sea of glass like unto crystal.” This crystal sea, as it was in appearance, but which was so solid that the harpers are afterwards described as standing upon it, may be opposed to the troubled, tumultuous sea out of which the beast would rise, and may denote the grandeur and immutability of the Divine throne as opposed to the turbulence and uncertainty of earthly thrones. The four living creatures seem to be the same as those described by Ezekiel, and to allude, as they did, to the cherubim in the holy of holies. That which the wheels were to the one, the elders are to the other; connected with them, like horses in a chariot, in all their movements. Of the former it is said, “When the living creatures went, the wheels went by them ; when those stood, these stood; and when those were lifted up from the earth, these were lifted up over against them ; for the spirit of the living creature was in the wheels,” Ezek. i. 21. Of the latter it is said, “When those living creatures give glory, and honour, and thanks to him that sitteth on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever, the four-and-twenty elders fall down before him, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory, and honour, and power, for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.” The living creatures cannot be angels, for both they and the elders are distinguished from them in chap. vii. 11, where all the angels are said to “stand round about the throne, and about the elders, and the four living crea- tures.” Besides this, the living creatures and the elders speak of themselves as “redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation,” chap. v. 9. Those who led the worship under the Old Testament might be meant by the living creatures of Ezekiel ; and those who lead the worship under the New Testament may be signified by those of John. They and the elders, like the stars and the candlesticks, appear to be the representatives of Christ's ministers and churches in the heavenly assembly. They are not described as being themselves on earth, or in a state of affliction, but as be- fore the throne of God, as though a number of the spirits of just men made perfect had been chosen of God to repre- sent in his immediate presence their brethren upon earth, and who, as things should be described which concerned the church, would express the interest they felt in them. The description of the living creatures as bearing a re- semblance to certain animals, and as having each six wings, which wings were “full of eyes within,” would naturally express their useful properties, particularly the union of zeal and knowledge ; and their unceasing ascrip- . tions of glory to God may denote the tendency of their ministerial labours. The elders were crowned, but they cast their crowns before the throne. Such appear to be the scene and scenery of this preparatory vision, ver, 6–11. T)ISCOURSE W. THE BOOK WITH SEVEN SEALS. Rev. v. THAT which is here called “a book” must not be sup- posed to resemble our books, which since the invention of printing have been very different from those of the an- cients. Conceive of seven skins of parchment, written upon on one side,” and rolled up, suppose on wood. At the end of every skin a seal is affixed on the backside, so that the contents of it cannot be read till the seal is opened. This book, or roll, or volume, being “in the right hand of him that sat on the throne,” denotes that futurity is known only to God. The proclamation made for one that should be worthy to open the book, shows how desirable it was that the mind of God in regard to futurity should be re- vealed, for strengthening the faith and supporting the hope of his church upon earth; and as John had been invited for the very purpose of learning “the things that should be hereafter,” things which related to the church of Christ, which he had been employed in raising, it must be peculiarly interesting to him. He must needs be * By the punctuation in our translation it would seem as if the were written upon on both sides; but this would not comport § the contents being secret, which they were till the seals were unloosed. It seems, therefore, that a comma is necessary after the word “with- in,” in verse 1. Several other versions, and some editions of our own, read it, A book written within, and on the backside sealed with seven seals. THE SEALED BOOK. 445 anxious to know the things that should befall these his people in the latter days. To see a book therefore which contained them, and yet none in heaven or earth found worthy to open it, might well make him weep, ver, 1–4. This want of a suitable person to open the book is in- troduced for the purpose of doing honour to the Lamb, whose success gives universal joy and satisfaction. The work of making known the mind of God was an honour too high for any mere creature in heaven or on earth ; it was given to Christ as the reward of his obedience unto death, ver. 9. The honour of preaching the gospel is represented as being of grace : “Unto me, (said Paul,) who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ.” That which Christ received as the re- ward of his death, we receive in our measure of grace, and for his sake ; and a great favour it is to be bearers of such good tidings. - - One of the elders, perceiving the apostle to weep under an apprehension that all must remain unknown, saith unto him, “Weep not ; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.” John was not so unacquainted with the Scriptures as to be at any loss whom this could mean. Probably, however, he expected to behold his Lord in some majestic form corresponding to the imagery; but lo, instead of a lion, he saw a lamb, a lamb as it had been slain yet invested with perfect au- thority, and possessing perfect knowledge, so as to qualify him for the work; for he had “seven horns, and seven eyes,” ver. 5, 6. - This glorious personage, in whom are united the ma- jesty of the lion and the gentleness of the lamb, ap- proaches him that sat upon the throne, and takes the book out of his right hand; denoting on his own part the undertaking of the work, and on that of God his perfect approbation, ver. 7. And now the whole church of God by their represent- atives are described as falling down before the Lamb, and joining in a chorus of praise. “The golden vials full of odours” doubtless allude to those of the priests who of— fered incense, and denote that the church on earth is ever employed in presenting its petitions before the throne. They had also “harps” as well as vials, and “sung a new song,” denoting the great occasion there now was for joy and praise. A new song is suited to a new manifestation of mercy. The Lamb is found worthy to take the book, and to open the seals; and they perceive the ground of it to lie in his having redeemed them at the expense of his blood. For this they bless his name, as also for his having made them kings and priests unto God, and given them to expect that, however they were at present oppressed on earth, they should even there be finally victorious, ver. 8–10. Nor could the angels on such an occasion be silent, but must join in the choir. Myriads of myriads, a number that no man could number, unite in ascribing worthiness to the Lamb, and that on the same ground as redeemed men had done, namely, his having been “slain ;” a proof this of disinterested affection, both to the Redeemer and the redeemed. “He took not on him the nature of angels, but the seed of Abraham;” yet angels unite in praising him for his love to men. In enumerating the things which he was worthy to re- ceive, it is remarkable how they keep their eye on those perfections of which he had emptied himself in his humili- ation. He did not lay aside any thing pertaining to his goodness, but merely what belonged to his greatness. He was no less holy, just, faithful, and merciful, when on earth, than he is now in heaven ; but he emptied himself of “power,” as laying aside his authority, and taking upon him the form of a servant—of “riches,” as becoming poor, that we through his poverty might be made rich—. of “wisdom,” as making himself of no reputation—of “strength,” as becoming weak and subject to death like other men—of “honour,” as not appearing in his native Divinity, but as a man, and a man of obscure birth, de- spised of the people—of “glory,” as subjecting himself to shame and disgrace—and of “blessing,” as receiving not the benedictions so much as the execrations of those among whom he sojourned. The purport of the song is, By how much he hath emptied himself on earth, by so much let him be magnified and exalted in heaven : ver. 11, 12. Nor is the song confined to angels; the whole creation joins in praising him that sitteth on the throne, and the Lamb, for ever; while at every pause the representatives of the redeemed add their emphatic “Amen,” adoring in humble prostration him that liveth for ever and ever, ver. 13. Such an august and affecting representation expresses the sentiments which become the friends of Christ while contemplating that great cause which is carrying on in the world, and which the world in a manner overlooks. To this may be added, If such be the glory ascribed to the Saviour whilst events are merely foretold, what will it be when they are actually accomplished, and when they shall be reviewed in the heaven of heavens to all eternity : DISCOURSE WI. T H E S E A L S O P E N E D. Rev. vi. BEFORE we enter on the opening of the seals, the sound- ing of the trumpets, or the pouring out of the vials, it will be proper to make a few general remarks. First, The whole series of events here revealed is in- cluded in the sealed book. We are not to conceive of the seals as containing one series of events, the trumpets an- other, and the vials another; but as all being included in the seals: for the seven trumpets are only subdivisions of the seventh seal, and the seven vials of the seventh trumpet. Secondly, This division into seals, and subdivision into trumpets and vials, appears to be the only one which the prophecy requires, or even admits. Not to mention its division into chapters, which are sometimes made in the midst of a subject, the scheme of dividing it into periods, which MR. Low MAN and many others have favoured, seems to be merely a work of the imagination. There are doubtless some remarkable periods in the prophecy, such as that of the 1260 years, &c.; but to make them seven in number, and for this purpose to reckon the day of judgment, and the heavenly state, as periods, is fanciful. It is by the division of the prophecy itself into seals, and the subdivision of the seventh seal into trumpets, and of the seventh trumpet into vials, that we must steer our COUll"See Thirdly, In tracing the events symbolized by the seals, trumpets, and vials, there is no necessity for supposing that every preceding one must be finished before that which follows it can have begun. It is enough if they succeed each other in the manner of the four monarchies predicted in the seventh chapter of Daniel. The Baby- lonish empire was not extinct before that of Persia began; nor that of Persia before that of Macedonia began ; nor that of Macedonia before that of Rome began. The latter end of each would be contemporary with the be- ginning of that which followed; yet upon the whole they succeeded each other in the empire of the world; and this was sufficient to justify their being represented in succes- sion. Thus the wars of the red horse in this chapter might commence before the conquests of the white horse were ended, and continue in part while the events sig- nified by the black horse occurred. The beginnings and endings of each might run into the other, while yet upon the whole they were successive. It is on this account that I am not solicitous to determine the year when each begins or ends. Fourthly, So far as the seals, trumpets, or vials re- spect the world, it is as connected with the church. The plan of this prophecy is much the same as that of the Old Testament ; it follows religion, and what concerns religion only. Why is there so much said in the Scrip- tures of Nineveh and Babylon rather than of other heathen cities in those times, but because these powers had to do with the people of God? Why are the ravages of the foul 446 EXPOSITION OF THE APOCALYPSE. beasts predicted by Daniel, but for the same reason 3 Had it not been for this, they might have risen and fallen un- noticed by the Scriptures, as much as Carthage, Palmyra, or Pekin. It is this that accounts for so much being said by Daniel of Antiochus Epiphanes. It is this that ac- counts for so much being said by John of the Roman em- pire rather than of the other great empires of the earth ; for it was here that Christianity would be principally em- braced. And as the Roman empire and the profession of Christianity would in the latter ages be in a manner con- fined to Europe, so the greater part of what respects the world in the latter part of these prophecies is in a manner confined to that quarter of the earth. The Scriptures, foreseeing that Europe would be the seat of both the Christian church and the antichristian beast and harlot, predict events concerning this part of the world while they overlook the other parts. * Nor must we expect to find all the great events even of those parts of the world which are connected with the church. As the Old Testament history, in respect of the nations connected with Israel, is select, so we may expect to find the New Testament prophecy. If some of the mightiest changes in Europe have no place in this pro- phecy, we are not to consider the omission of them as a defect, but rather take it for granted that God did not judge the introduction of them necessary for his purpose. Fifthly, The commencement of the prophecy is, I ap- prehend, to be reckoned from the ascension of Christ. It has been common, I am aware, to reckon it from the time of the vision, which is supposed to have been under the reign of Domitian, about the year 95. On this principle MR. Low MAN proceeds. Hence he confines the opening of the first seal, on which it is said “ there appeared a white horse, and he that sat on him had a bow, and a crown, and went forth conquering and to conquer,” to the success of the gospel after the year 95, leaving out the whole of that which accompanied the labours of the apostles. In like manner the opening of the second seal, on which there went forth “a red horse, and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another,” is confined to those wars between the Jews and Romans which occurred between the years 100 and 138, leaving out the whole of those which issued in the destruction of Jerusalem.* But surely it must appear singular that in a prophetic description of the success of the gospel in the early ages the most glorious part of it should be left out ; and that in a like description of the wars between the Jews and Romans the most terrible part should be omitted. The reason given by Mr. Lowman for its being so is, “ The destruction of Jerusalem, being past, can hardly be supposed to be denoted by a prediction of a judgment to come.” Doubtless it is in general true that prophecies are predictions of things to come : in some in- stances, however, they may refer to events the beginnings of which are already accomplished. There is a remarkable instance of this in the prophecies of Daniel concerning the four monarchies. He speaks of his seeing them all “rise up out of the sea,” chap. vii. 1–3; yet at the time of the vision the first of them, namely, Babylon, had risen, and reigned, and was near its end ; for it was in the first year of Belshazzar, who was its last king. And why should not the apostle in like manner commence the prophecy with the commencement of the Christian dispensation, though he wrote above sixty years after it? This makes the seal- ed book to contain a perfect system of New Testament prophecy, from the ascension of Christ to the end of all things. By this we include the success of the apostles in the conquests of the man on the white horse under the first seal, and the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in those of the red horse under the second seal. By this too we are furnished with an easy interpretation of the division of the book into “things which the writer had seen, things which were, and things which should be here- after.” He had actually seen the great progress of the gospel from the time of Christ’s ascension, and the de- struction of Jerusalem by the Romans; he then saw the church struggling under a cruel persecution; and that which should be revealed to him would carry on those * See Lowman's History of the First and Second Seals, pp. 40–42. + Mr. Lowman, from Usher’s Annals, says, “A million and a half struggles till she should rise triumphant over all opposition in her New Jerusalem glory. Wer. 1, 2. There is no doubt of this being meant of the glorious success of the gospel in the early ages of the church, even when it had to encounter the most bloody persecutions. Of this the white horse is the appropriate symbol, chap. xix. 11, 12. “Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O most mighty : with thy glory and thy majesty. And in thy majesty ride prosperously, because of truth, and meekness, and righteousness : and thy right hand shall teach thee terrible things,” Psal. xlv. 3, 4. I need not show how truly this accords with historic fact. Suffice it to say, that from the beginning, as the Jews alleged against the apostles, “Jerusalem was filled with their doc- trine.” It was foretold that, before the destruction of that city, the gospel should be preached in all the world, Matt. xxiv. 14. Paul himself preached it, and that fully, “ from Jerusalem round about unto Illyricum,” and, as he says in behalf of himself and his fellow labourers, “God always caused them to triumph in every place.” The Caesars set themselves against it ; yet in spite of all their efforts there were, even in Paul’s time, saints in Caesar’s household. The epistles of Pliny and Tiberianus, governors of Asia Minor and Syria, to Trajan the emperor, within ten or twelve years after the banishment of John to the Isle of Patmos, furnish a striking and unexceptionable proof of the progress of the gospel in those times. By the amazing number of persons who avowed themselves Christians, and so exposed themselves to death, they were moved with compassion, and wrote to know what they were to do with them. “ The number is so great,” says Pliny, “as to call for the most serious deliberation. Informations are pour- ing in against multitudes, of every age, of all orders, and of both sexes: and more will be impeached; for the con- tagion of this superstition hath spread, not only through cities, but villages, and hath even reached the farm-houses.” He also speaks of the temples as having been almost deso- late, the sacred solemnities [of idolatry] as having been intermitted, and the sacrificial victims as finding but few purchasers. “I am quite wearied,” says Tiberianus, “ with punishing and destroying the Galileans.” Ver. 3, 4. This and the two following seals relate to the judgments of God upon the church’s enemies. Great and terrible wars are as naturally suggested by the symbol of a red horse as the success of the gospel was by a white one. The wars particularly alluded to appear to be those between the Jews and Romans, who having united in persecuting the church, as well as in crucifying its Head, were now permitted to “kill one another.” It is well known that in the reign of Vespasian, the Jews having rebelled against the Romans, Jerusalem was taken and destroyed, the temple reduced to ashes, and an immense number of persons slain.f Forty or fifty years after this, in the reign of Trajan, the Jews in Egypt and in Cyprus rebelled, and are said to have slain, with great marks of cruelty, four hundred and sixty thousand men ; yet the Jews were every where subdued : a far greater number, therefore, must have been slain amongst themselves. Soon after this, in the reign of Hadrian, the Jews who were left in Palestine after the destruction of their metropolis were drawn into a new rebellion, by adhering to a pretended Messiah, whose name was Barchocab. In these wars, bé- sides what were lost on the side of the Romans, the Jews are said to have had a thousand cities and fortresses de- stroyed, with the slaughter of above five hundred and eighty thousand men. The Jews having employed the Roman power to crucify the Lord of glory, God employed it to destroy them and their city. Their carnal policy told them that if they let him alone all men would believe on him, and the Romans would come and take away both their place and nation. Whether guilty or not guilty, it was judged expedient that he should die, and that the whole nation should not perish. The whole nation how- ever did perish, and that by means of the Romans. Such was the result of that policy which was employed against the Lord, and against his Christ: and thus was fulfilled the prophecy of Daniel,-‘And after threescore and two according to some, according to others two millions, besides wha were slain on the side of the Romans.” THE OPENING OF THE SEALS. 447 weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary, and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are deter- mined,” chap. ix. 26. DISCOURSE WII. THE OPENING OF THE SEALS CONTINUED, Rev. vi. VER. 5, 6. A black horse is the symbol of famine, or of a scarcity approaching to famine, by which the necessaries of life required to be dealt out by weight and measure, and special orders to be given that nothing should be wasted, Lam. v. 10; Lev. xxvi. 26. Such appears to have been the state of things in the Roman empire for a long time, during the reigns of the Antonines. It is in reference to these, among other calamities, that Tertullian speaks, re- presenting the heathens as ascribing them to the Christians, because they taught men to despise the gods. * The “measure” here referred to is the choenix, which contained the ordinary allowance of corn to a man for a day; and as the price of a measure of wheat in those times was a Roman “penny,” which was the amount of a day’s wages, it follows that for a poor man to have lived on wheaten bread would have required all his labour, with- out any thing for other necessaries, or even bread for his family Ver. 7, 8. The pale horse was the symbol of great mortality, by various means; particularly by the sword, by hunger, by pestilence, and by the beasts of the earth. The facts were, that between the years 193 and 270, that is, in less than eighty years, there were more that twenty emperors, and at one time thirty pretenders to the throne. It is said also there were thirty usurpers, who raised war for themselves in different parts of the empire. Such a state of things is sufficient to account for all that is here predicted ; for intestine wars must needs produce famine and pestilence, and by destroying men give an ascendency to the beasts of prey. In this manner the enemies of the gospel were visited, who continued, with but little inter- mission, to persecute the church of God. In understanding the symbols of the white, the red, the black, and the pale horses, of the success of the gospel, and the judgments of God on its enemies, there is sufficient unity of design. They all bear a relation to the church, and to the Jews and Romans only as persecuting it. Ver. 9–11. A view of an altar, and the sacrifices that had been made upon it, fitly represent the numerous martyrdoms which had been made at the time under the heathen emperors. The “souls under the altar” are the departed spirits of those Christians who had fallen in the arduous contest, which are supposed to cry aloud for re- tribution. The “white robes’ denote the heavenly honours conferred upon them. The answer to their ap- peal, in which they are encouraged to expect a retribution “after a little season, and when the number of their fellow servants and brethren, who should be killed as they were, [by the hands of paganism, should be fulfilled,” deter- mines the period to which the vision refers. It is sup- posed that they had suffered under nine of the ten per- secutions, and had only to wait for the completion of their number under the tenth, which being accomplished, God would take vengeance on their persecutors. The opening of this seal, therefore, would refer to about the year 270, when the ninth persecution was past, and the tenth, under Dioclesian and Marimian, was approaching ; and which is said to have been more extensive and bloody than any which had gone before it. Its professed object was no. thing less than the utter extirpation of Christianity. The places for Christian worship were every where demolished, Bibles destroyed, and an immense number of Christians put to death. “It were endless and almost incredible,” * Apology, Ch. XL. Lowman's History of the Third Seal, p. 46. + Roman. History, Vol. II. p. 550. Eusebius in the VIIIth book of says Echard, “to enumerate the variety of sufferers and torments: they were scourged to death, had their flesh torn off with pincers, and mangled with broken pots; were cast to lions, tigers, and other wild beasts; were burnt, beheaded, crucified, thrown into the sea, torn in pieces by the distorted boughs of trees, roasted by gentle fires, and holes made in their bodies for melted lead to be poured into their bowels. This persecution lasted ten years under Dioclesian and some of his successors; and the number of Christians who suffered death and punish- ment made them conclude that they had completed their work; and in an ancient inscription they tell the world that they had effaced the name and superstition of the Christians, and had restored and propagated the worship of the gods. But they were so much deceived, that this hastened the destruction of paganism.”f This was the first persecution that reached Britain, then a Roman colony, in which Alban suffered, and great num- bers after him. “Our stories record,” says Fox the mar- tyrologist, “ that all Christianity almost in the whole island was destroyed, the churches subverted, all books of Scripture burned, and many of the faithful, both men and women, slain.” Ver. 12–17. “An earthquake” is the appropriate symbol of a revolution ; and an earthquake accompanied with an eclipse of the sun and moon, and, what was more than an eclipse, the “falling of the stars eo the earth,” as though nature itself were dissolved, denotes, I conceive, the overthrow of the pagan empire by the arms of Con- stantine. The ruling powers of the world are that to the common people which the sun, and moon, and stars are to the earth: hence great changes in nations are expressed by God’s “shaking the heavens and the earth,” and sometimes by the very imagery here used. “All the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll : and all their host shall fall down as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree. For my sword shall be bathed in heaven : behold, it shall come down upon Idumea, and upon the people of my curse, to judgment,” Isa. xxxiv. 4, 5. The revolution that took place in the time of Con- stantine was not of a civil, so much as of a religious cha- racter. The government was still imperial, and the dif- ference between one emperor and another would be of little or no account. But it was an eclipse of those powers which had so long endeavoured to crush the cause of Christ. It is language applicable to the last judgment ; and was to them actually a day of judgment in miniature. The bloody enemies of Christ must now have felt, whether they would or not, that they had incurred the wrath of the Lamb. Now the number of the martyrs under the pagan persecutions is completed, and the prayers of the souls under the altar are answered, DISCOURSE VIII. THE SEA LING OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD, Rev. vii. VER. 1–8. This chapter is a continuation of the sixth seal; and bears a relation to the great revolution which had taken place by the accession of a Christian emperor. Considering what the church had had to encounter under a succession of heathens, this event would appear to be most auspicious. Christians would now look forward to times of peace, happiness, and prosperity. And true it is that during the life of this emperor there was not only a ‘season of peace, but considerable accessions to the Christian profession. On this account, it seems, Mr. Low MAN and others have been led to interpret this sealing of the servants of God in their foreheads of the numerous conversions made in those times to the Christian faith. But sealing denotes, not conversion, but the preservation of those who are converted. Those who were sealed did his Ecclesiastical History gives a particular account of this persecu- tion, of which he was an eye-witness. - 448 EXPOSITION OF THE APOCALYPSE. not by this become the servants of God, but are supposed to be such already. Instead of signifying the enlargement of the church, the object is to prevent it from being utterly swept away. It portends danger no less than the striking of the door-posts of the Israelites when the destroying angel should pass through the land; or than the marking of those who “sighed and cried ” when Jerusalem was to be destroyed by the Chaldeans. It was for the preserva- tion of a seed for God amidst a flood of corruption. Hence, when these evils had actually deluged the church, we find the sealed servants of God standing in triumph upon Mount Sion, chap. xiv. 1. God seeth not as man seeth; that which man is apt to think a great acquisition, God often knows to be a great temptation. It is remarkable that, instead of a congratulation of the church on its recent victory, by the striking up of the heavenly choir, (as is usual in the prophecy when new and glorious events occur,) the choir on this occasion is mute. It is described, indeed, as a day of judgment to the per- secuting heathens, and in itself doubtless afforded matter of thankfulness to Christians; but had they known what would arise out of it, the joy of that day would have been turned into mourning. From this time men were ripe for such speculations as those of Arius, who argued, that if Christ was begotten of the Father, there must have been a time when he was not ; and for all the intrigues, wars, and persecutions which on both sides by turns were practised. From this time our Lord’s doctrine of the new birth seems in a manner to have been laid aside, and conversion to Christianity was little more than being baptized, or consenting to wear the Christian badge. From this time conversions were mostly produced by authority, or by the hope of worldly advantage, or by exhortations addressed to kings that they should con- vert their subjects. From this time the glory of the church seems to have been placed more in splendid edifices and pompous ceremonies than in conformity to its Head. In short, from this time she became a courtier, and, laying aside her own simple garb, appeared in a dress more befit- ting the mother of harlots than the bride of Christ. “What she gained in outward splendour and prosperity,” says MR. FABER, “she lost in purity of manners and doctrine. The holy simplicity of primitive Christianity was no more ; and the heresy of Arius introduced a succession of crimes disgraceful alike to humanity and religion.”—See Mo- sheim’s Account of the Fourth Century. Doubtless there were hypocrites and merely nominal Christians in all ages of the church ; but they were never before so designated as they now are. “The servants of God” are from this time distinguished from “the men who had not the seal of God in their foreheads.” This dis- tinction might not take place immediately after the acces- sion of Constantine, but from that time the seeds of it were Sown. The alliance between the civil and ecclesi- astical authorities, described in the thirteenth and seven- teenth chapters by a woman riding on a beast, originated here. Here, therefore, we must look for the grand origin of that apostacy which the apostle Paul foretold, and which succeeding ages witnessed. If the account given of the state of things by Mosh EIM be just, it requires a great stretch of charity to believe that what was called the catho- lic church, even in the fourth century, was the church of Christ. Christ certainly had a people at that time, but they seem to have consisted of individuals rather than of that visible community which called itself the church. They were “the servants of God whom he sealed in their foreheads.” These ideas will be confirmed by attending to the man- ner in which the sealing of the servants of God is intro- duced. Four angels are seen “standing on the four corners of the earth.” Angels are the executioners of the Divine Providence. Their number answering to the four quarters of the earth may express its extending over the whole world. Their “holding the winds” would denote that they were commissioned of God to afflict the earth with evils, or to withhold them, according to his will. The short period in which they held back the winds seems to refer to that season of tranquillity which the church enjoyed on the government’s becoming Christian, and before the tempta- tions of its new situation had had time to operate, ver. 1, 2. But as the principal part of the commission of the four angels was to “hurt the earth and the sea,” they stand ready, only waiting till the greater angel has sealed the servants of God ere they execute it. The “winds,” which were to be let loose upon the earth and the sea, were spiritual rather than temporal judgments, and would principally grow out of the new order of things; namely, errors, superstitions, corruptions, divisions, and a conformity to the manners and habits of the world. These were the winds which in the end swept away the great body of nominal Christians into the gulfs of popery and Mahomedism, ver, 3. - And as many of the symbols in the prophecy are taken from the Jewish temple, so the servants of God are sym- bolized by a certain number for an uncertain, taken from the twelve tribes of Israel. The Christian church, being now the true “Israel of God,” were to the apostate Chris- tians what Israel was to an apostate world; namely, God’s witnesses, ver. 4–8. Ver. 9—17. After the sealing of God’s servants is ac- complished, the saints and martyrs of Jesus, who during the preceding persecutions had overcome and been received into glory, joining with the whole heavenly chorus, engage in a triumphant song of praise to God and to the Lamb. The reason of their being here introduced seems to be that the sealed servants of God, who were yet on earth, and had to pass through a series of trials, might by a view of their happy end be strengthened to follow their ex- ample. As great numbers would be against them in this world, they are directed to view the numbers of friends which they have in heaven; who not only look back to their own deliverance, and ascribe it to God, but seem to look down to their brethren upon earth, and to say, “Hold fast the profession of your faith without wavering !” The view of such a holy and happy assembly is supposed to excite in the apostle emotions of admiration and joy. On this one of the elders asks him what he conceives them to be, and whence they could come. It would seem as if they must be pure celestial beings, whose whole existence had been filled up with righteousness and blessedness. He does not presume, however, to say what he thought they were, whether men or angels, nor to offer any opinion as to whence they came, but modestly refers it to his in- structor to inform him. The answer is, in effect, that they are men—men who were lately upon earth, exposed to great tribulations, but who had come out of them. And as to their “white robes,” they had been once impure, but were washed and made white, not in their own blood, though that in innumerable instances had been shed, but “in the blood of the Lamb.” It was as believing in his death that they were justified and sanctified ; and having lived by faith on him, they were without fault “before the throne of God.” Still more to stimulate the servants of God in this world to persevere, he adds, “And he that sitteth upon the throne shall dwell among them. They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat. For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters; and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes 1’’ - DISCOURSE IX. THE SUBDIVISION OF THE SEVENTH SEAL INTO SEVEN TRUM PETS. Tèev. viii. VER. 1–6. We are now come to the opening of the last of the seven seals, and which is longer, and includes far more, than the preceding six. They have reached but little be- yond three hundred years; whereas this will reach thence to the end of all things. “Silence in heaven about the space of half an hour” seems to denote a solemn pause preparatory to other events. It is like saying, And now prepare thee for another scene ! THE FIRST FOUR TRUMPETS. 449 —This scene is, “the appearance of seven angels standing before God, to whom were given seven trumpets.” As nothing is said on the opening of the seventh seal but what follows under the trumpets, the latter must be considered as a subdivision of the former. But, prior to the sounding of the trumpets, “another angel” comes forward, and stands at the altar, “having a golden censer, to whom much incense is given, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar before the throne.” There were two altars belonging to the temple-worship ; one for sacrifice, called “the altar of burnt-offering,” and the other for burning incense, called “the golden altar before the throne.” The allusion here is to the latter. Our great High Priest, hav- ing offered himself without spot to God, passed into the heavens, where he ever liveth to make intercession for us. Through him our prayers ascend with acceptance be- fore God. The “prayers” here referred to appear to have a special relation to the events about to be predicted by the sound- ing of the trumpets. The events would occur in answer to those prayers ; which might be so many intercessions for the success of Christ’s cause, and against that of its adver- saries. Heathen Rome was overthrown in answer to the prayers of the souls under the altar, and Christian Rome may fall in the same manner. Should it be objected that in the latter there would be less to pray against, it may be answered that those who, under the name of Christians, corrupted and debased Christianity, modelling it to their fleshly minds, and converting it into an engine of state policy, might incur more of the Divine displeasure than | those who, under the name of heathens, openly opposed it. For the persecutions of pagan Rome the persecutors only were punished, having their power taken from them, and given to the Christians; but for the corruptions of Christian Rome we shall see the empire itself dissolved, and divided amongst the barbarians. The symbolical language under which these events are represented is that of the angel taking the censer, filling it with fire of the altar, and casting it into the earth; on which follow voices, and thunderings, and lightnings, and an earthquake. “Fire” cast into the earth by an angel would be the precursor of dreadful wars; and an “earthquake” is the well-known symbol of a revolution, or such an overturning in matters of government as should introduce a new order of things. Such were the events which distinguished the times between Constantine and Augustulus, especially those between the years 400 and 476. Whatever virtues attached to Constantine or his successors, and whatever obligations the Christians were under for the protection afforded them by their govern- ment, yet the system which from those times was adopted proved ruinous both to the church and to the empire. The corruptions of the former, as we have seen already, required the servants of God to be sealed in their foré- heads ; and the calamities of the latter we shall see de- scribed under the sounding of the first four trumpets. Ver, 7–12. The fulfilment of these predictions must, according to the chronological series of the prophecy, be looked for in the fourth or fifth centuries. They are the same things particularly described as those which followed the fire cast by the angel into the earth. Moreover, as the seals went to destroy the empire as pagan, the trumpets Will go to overturn it as Christian. Both issue in an “earthquake,” (chap. vi. 12, with viii. 5,) the ordinary symbol of a revolution. tº The Roman empire, as being now the seat of Christian- ity, is here considered as a world of itself; having not only its earth, its sea, and its rivers, but its Sun, and moon, and stars. By the earth we may understand those parts of the empire which were continental, as Gaul and the southern parts of Germany. On these fell the effects of the first trumpet, burning up the trees and the grass, or destroying great numbers among the middle and love, orders of men. By the sea we may understand those parts of the empire which were maritime, such as Spain, Portu. gal, and the lower parts of Italy. On these fell the effects of the second trumpet, turning the waters into blood, and destroying whatever was in them. By the rivers and Jountains of waters may be understood the mountainous Roman empire. body of hostile emigrants were added several instances of defeated, and the emperor lost his life. parts of the empire, as Upper Italy, and the countries about the Alps; at no great distance from which rise the Loire, the Po, the Rhine, the Rhone, and the Danube. On these fell the effects of the third trumpet, imparting to their streams a mortal bitterness. By the sun, moon, and stars we may understand the governing powers, su- preme and subordinate. On these fell the fourth trumpet, Smiting them with darkness, or with a general eclipse. Finally, By a third part only being affected at once may be meant, not only that the events should take place by several successive calamities, but that the effect of the whole would not be to destroy the western empire, but merely to subvert it. The empire was to continue, though under another form, namely, as composed of the ten king- doms. MR. CUNINGHAME very properly remarks the differ- ence between the effects of the trumpets, which refer to the subversion of the empire, and those of the vials, which refer to its final dissolution. The former are partial, the latter total.--Dissertation, pp. 80, 81. Whether the events pertaining to each trumpet can be exactly ascertained or not, thus much is certain, that the ravages of the Goths, the Vandals, and the Huns were that to the empire which a terrible hail-storm, accompanied with thunder and lightning, is to the “trees and the fields;” which a burning mountain, thrown into the sea, would be to the waters; and which a blazing meteor that should fall upon the rivers and fountains of waters, and imbitter them, would be to a country; while the effects of these successive ravages on the government would resemble a great though not a total eclipse of the heavenly bodies. APPENDIX TO DISCOURSE IX. Containing a Sketch of the History of the First Four Trumpets. IN the northern and north-eastern parts of Europe, bor- dering on the Baltic and the Euxine seas, there were many barbarous nations which were never subdued by the Ro- man arms : such were the Saxons, the Visigoths, the Ostro- goths, the Vandals, the Burgundians, the Huns, the Alans, &c.; and who were often associated in their enterprises. About the year 376, during the reign of the Eastern empe- ror Valens, the Goths having been driven from their own country by the Huns and Alans, a body of not fewer than two hundred thousand of them, besides women and chil- dren, under Alavīvus and Frötigern, two of their chiefs, obtained permission to settle in Thrace, a province of the To the imprudence of admitting such a injurious treatment after their arrival. These first produced resistance, and that a battle, in which the Romans were By the prudent and energetic measures of Theodosius the Great, who succeed- ed Valens, the Gothic emigrants were so far subjugated as to be rendered serviceable to the empire. But after his death the jealousies between Rufinus and Stilicho, minis- ters of state at Constantinople and Rome, under Arcadius and Honorius the emperors, afforded them opportunity to renew their hostilities. Alaric, an Arian Christian, the successor of Fritigern, had been in the Roman serviee for several years, having commanded a body of his countrymen in the wars of Theodosius ; but thinking himself not sufficiently reward- ed by that prince, and perceiving as he thought a fair opportunity, he was disposed to carve for himself. To this he is said to have been encouraged by Rufinus, princi- pal ruler under Arcadius at Constantinople, whose duty it was to oppose him. Marching his army into Macedonia and Thessaly, he laid waste the country as he went. Through the treachery of Rufinus the straits of Thermo- pylae were left unguarded, and so opened a free passage for him into Greece, where the villages were plundered and burnt, the males who were capable of bearing arms mas- sacred, and the females led captive. His successes ob- tained for him a command in the Eastern empire, which having improved to the strengthening of his own army, 2 G 450 EXPOSITION OF THE APOCALYPSE. he resolved to invade that of the west. Having laid waste Epirus and Pannonia, he in 402 entered Italy. Italy how- ever was for this time delivered from his depredations. The Romans under Stilicho, after twice defeating him, suffered him to quit the country with the remnant of his army. In 406 another vast army, composed of Goths, Huns, Vandals, Suevi, Burgundians, Alani, &c., under Rada- gaisus, a heathen, attempted the invasion of Italy. The number of fighting men is said to have been two hundred thousand, besides slaves, women, and children, who are reckoned to have amounted to as many more. But nei- ther were they successful. Radagaisus was defeated and slain, and a great part of his army either perished or were sold for slaves. But though the capital of the western empire was by these events once more saved, yet its provinces were re- duced to desolation. Gaul was at this time invaded by the Vandals, the Suevi, the Alani, and the Burgundians, who, with the remains of Radagaisus's army, destroyed all before them. “On the last day of the year, (says Gibbon,) when the waters of the Rhine were probably frozen, they entered without opposition the defenceless provinces of Gaul. This memorable passage of the Suevi, the Wandals, the Alani, and the Burgundians, who never afterwards re- treated, may be considered as the fall of the Roman empire in the countries beyond the Alps; and the barriers which had so long separated the savage and the civilized nations of the earth were from that fatal moment levelled with the ground.—The banks of the Rhine were crowned, like those of the Tiber, with elegant houses, and well culti- vated farms. This scene of peace and plenty was sud- denly changed into a desert; and the prospect of the smoking ruins could alone distinguish the solitude of nature from the desolation of man. The flourishing city of Mentz was surprised and destroyed ; and many thousands of Christians were inhumanly massacred in the church. Worms perished after a long and obstinate siege ; Stras- burgh, Spires, Rheims, Tournay, Arras, and Amiens ex- perienced the cruel oppression of the German yoke; and the consuming flames of war spread from the banks of the Rhine over the seventeen provinces of Gaul. That rich and extensive country, as far as the ocean, the Alps, and the Pyrenees, was delivered to the barbarians, who drove before them in a promiscuous crowd the bishop, the sena- tor, and the virgin, laden with the spoils of their houses and altars.”—Decline, &c., chap. xxx. - Thus far events appear to answer to the “hail and fire mingled with blood” under the first trumpet, which, as they are said to be on the earth, correspond with the ca- lamities which in those times were brought upon the con- tinental parts of the empire. Alaric, the king of the Visigoths, had made peace with the emperor Honorius, and been made master-general of the Roman armies in Illyricum. In the invasion of Ra- dagaisus he took no part, but was attentive to the recruit- ing of his own army. In 408 he made large demands on the Roman government, accompanied with intimations of what would follow if they were not complied with. Stilicho persuaded the senate to comply with them, and four thousand pounds of gold were promised him under the name of a subsidy. But, before the promise was ful- filled, Stilicho was disgraced and slain. Of the measures of his successors, Alaric is said to have had just cause of complaint. The result was, he determined again to in- vade Italy. Passing over the Alps, he pillaged the cities of Aquileia, Altinum, Concordia, and Cremona, which yielded to his arms; increased his forces by the accession of thirty thousand auxiliaries; and without opposition marched to the gates of Rome. Here, encompassing the city, he reduced it to a state of famine, of which many thousands died. To this succeeded a destructive pestilence. At length, the siege was raised on a large sum of money being paid him ; but his terms of peace being rejected by Honorius, who had shut himself up in Ravenna, Rome was a second time besieged. After this it was taken, and for three days given up to the plunder of the besiegers. Vast numbers of the Romans were slain, not only by the Goths, but by their own slaves, forty thousand of whom, being liberated, fell upon their masters. About ten months before this terrible calamity on Rome and the lower parts of Italy by the Goths, Spain and Portugal were invaded by the Vandals, the Suevi, and the Alani. These nations had already desolated Gaul, whence passing over the Pyrenees they conquered the Peninsula. Echard says, “The Vandals took Galicia, where they settled; the Suevi pushed their conquests farther; and the Alani fixed themselves in Portugal and Andalusia. From these barbarians (he adds) descended the ancient kings of Spain.” The calamities of this invasion are thus described by Gibbon from a Spanish historian:-‘The barbarians exer- cised their indiscriminate cruelty on the fortunes of the Romans and Spaniards, and ravaged with equal fury the cities and the open country. The progress of famine re- duced the miserable inhabitants to feed on the flesh of their fellow creatures; and even the wild beasts, that mul- tiplied without control in the desert, were exasperated by the taste of blood, and the impatience of hunger, boldly to attack and devour their human prey. Pestilence soon appeared, the inseparable companion of famine ; a large portion of the people was swept away; and the groans of the dying excited only the envy of their surviving friends. At length the barbarians, satiated with carnage and rapine, and afflicted by the contagious evils which they themselves had introduced, fixed their permanent seats in the depopu- lated country.”—Rom. Hist, chap. xxxi. - These events seem to answer to the “burning mountain cast into the sea,” causing a third part of it to become blood, and destroying a third part of all which were in it, as described under the second trumpet. If AEtna or Ve- suvius had literally been thrown into the ocean, it could hardly have produced a greater effervescence among the waters than these things produced among the nations. The sea would also have a special reference to these calamities being brought upon the maritime parts of the empire. After this, the empire received another mighty shock from the Scythians, or Huns, a heathen nation, more barbarous and cruel than either the Goths or Wandals. Attila, their king and commander, was distinguished by his ferocity, affecting to be called “the scourge of God,” and declaring that “the grass would never grow upon those places where his horse had trodden l’’ About 441 he fell upon the eastern empire, where, bearing down all before him, the country was in a manner destroyed by fire and sword. Gibbon says, “The whole breadth of Europe as it extends above five hundred miles, from the Euxine to the Adriatic, was at once invaded, and occupied, and desolated by him.” The government at Constanti- nople, after seventy cities had been razed to the ground, was compelled ignominiously to purchase his retreat. In the year 450 Attila again declared war against both the eastern and western empires. He was defeated in Gaul with a loss (says Echard) of 170,000 men; yet in the following year he invaded Italy with a larger army than that with which he had entered Gaul. Aquileia after a siege of three months was taken, and so effectually de- stroyed, that the succeeding generation could scarcely dis- cover its ruins. After this Verona, Mantua, Padua, and many other cities, shared the same fate; the men were slain, the women ravished, and the places reduced to ashes. These devastations, however, were confined to those parts of Italy which border on the Alps. Attila threatened Rome, but was induced, partly by fear of the Roman army, partly by the remonstrances of his own, and partly by the embassy of Leo the Roman pontiff, to forego the attempt, and, returning into his own country, he shortly after ended his days. This surely must be the “great star burning as it were a lamp,” which followed the sounding of the third trum- pet, and which, shooting like a fiery meteor from east to west, and falling upon the rivers and fountains of waters, impregnated the streams with a mortal bitterness. If the rivers and fountains denote, as has been supposed, the mountainous parts of the empire, whence they have their origin, the facts have a remarkable coincidence with the prediction. - As to the remainder of the history, everything from this time went to eclipse the imperial government. Africa, Spain, Britain, the greatest part of Gaul, Germany, and THE SMOIKE AND LOCUST.S. 451 Illyricum, are said to have been dismembered from the empire ; the court was full of intrigues and murders ; Wa- lentinian the emperor ravished the wife of Maximus, one of his senators; Maximus in return got Valentinian mur- dered, usurped his throne, and compelled Eudoxia the empress to marry him ; Eudoxia, in hatred to the usurper, invited Genseric, the Vandal, to come over from Africa and revenge the death of Valentinian ; Genseric prepared to invade Italy; Maximus, on hearing it, instead of taking measures for repelling him, sunk into despondency; the senators stoned him to death, and threw his body into the Tiber; Genseric entered Rome without opposition, and gave it up to be sacked and plundered by his soldiers for fourteen days. Hence, as Bishop Newton observes, “the western empire struggled hard, and gasped as it were for breath through eight short and turbulent reigns for the space of twenty years, and at length expired in the year 476, under Momyllus, or Augustulus, as he was named in derision, being a diminutive of Augustus.” After this, Odoacer, king of the Ostrogoths, invaded the country and seized the government, which he held, how- ever, not as head of the western empire, but merely as king of Italy. There were indeed a senate and council after this, but they had only the shadow of authority. Thus it was, I conceive, that the eclipse of the sun, moon, and stars, as described under the fourth trumpet, was accomplished. It may be thought that these events had too slight a relation to the church of Christ to become the subject of prophecy: two things, however, may be al- leged in answer. First, They were necessary for the ac- complishment of other prophecies, particularly Dan. vii. 7, 8; 2 Thess. ii. 7. Hereby a way was made for the beast to have “ten horns,” as after the overthrow of the empire it was divided into so many independent kingdoms, which with little variation continue to this day. Hereby also a way was made for the “little horn” of Daniel’s fourth beast, or the papal antichrist, to come up amongst them ; or, as the apostle expresses it, for the man of sin to be re- vealed. “The mystery of iniquity hath already begun to work, (saith he,) only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way: and then shall that wicked (one) be revealed.” While the imperial authority con- tinued, there was not sufficient scope for ecclesiastical ambition ; but when this was removed, the other soon appeared in its true character. The Goths embracing the ºreligion of the conquered Romans, the clergy became ob- jects of superstitious veneration amongst a barbarous people, and of this they availed themselves to the establish- ing of their spiritual authority. Hence the see of Rome made no scruple of setting up for supremacy. Secondly, In these judgments upon the empire we per- ceive the Divine displeasure for its having corrupted the Christian religion, and transformed it into an engine of state. The wars of the Assyrians and Babylonians were the scourges of God on those who had corrupted the true religion; and such were those of the Goths, the Vandals, and the Huns, on the Christian governments of the fourth and fifth centuries. DISCOURSE X. THE FIRST WOE-TRUMPET, OR TIIE SMOKE AND LOCUSTs. Rev. viii. 13; ix. 1–12. As the first four trumpets were connected in their objects, so are the last three. The last verse of the eighth chapter is introductory to them. Ver. 13. “This solemn denunciation seems to be intro- duced for the purpose of drawing our attention to the great importance of the events which were to happen un- der the last three trumpets. It serves also as a chrono- logical mark to show that these three trumpets are all pos- * Cuninghame's Dissertation, p. 84. * It is true that that part of the prophecy which treats directly of the great papal community is yet in reserve; but as in a history of *y nation frequent mention requires to be made of other nations, so, terior to the first four, not only in order, but in time; and that they belong to a new series of events.” # The most distinguishing plagues which were to befall the church and the world are designated by them. The first two seem to refer to the prevalence of popery and Mahomedism, and . the last to those vials of wrath which should effect their overthrow. Chap. ix. ver, 1–12. The fifth, or first woe-trumpet, is short, but awfully impressive. Looking at this dreadful irruption of darkness and desolation, we perceive the ne- cessity there was for “sealing the servants of God in their foreheads,” that they might be preserved amidst these try- ing times. These are the “winds" which those ministers of vengeance to whom it was given to hurt the earth (chap. vii. 1, 2) at length let loose upon it. The profess- ing Christian world being exceedingly corrupt, it became necessary to try them. The “sealed” servants of God would endure the trial ; but “those men who had not the seal of God in their foreheads” would be carried away and perish. That the locusts refer to the ravaging hordes of Saracens, who, with Mahomed at their head, subdued and destroyed the eastern part of Christendom, seems to be generally ad- mitted ; and some have considered the “ smoke” as de- noting his false doctrine, and the “star” which fell from heaven to the earth as meaning himself. But, on the most mature consideration, I concur with those expositors who, while admitting the locusts to be Mahomed’s destructive hordes of Saracens, yet understand the smoke of popish darkness, which was preparatory to the other, and the fallen star, of the fallen bishop of Rome.f. If the fourth trumpet refer to the subversion of the imperial government under Augustulus, it may be presumed that the fifth would refer to things not very distant from it, and probably rising out of it; but the appearance of Mahomed was 130 years after this event, and seems to have no immediate connex- ion with it. On the other hand, there is a connexion be- tween the subversion of the imperial government and “tºe revelation of the man of sin.” It was the imperial au- thority which “let” or hindered him, and which, when “taken out of the way,” made room for his appearing, 2 Thess. ii. 4–8. Thus the eclipse under the fourth trumpet prepared the way for the irruption of darkness under the fifth. The mystery of iniquity had long been at work; but now it burst forth as the smoke of a great fur- nace, impeding the light of the gospel, and darkening the moral atmosphere of the Christian world. With this also agrees the application of “the fallen star.” to the pope or bishop of Rome. It comports with the symbolical style of the book that a prophetical person should denote not an individual, but a succession of indi- viduals in an official character. The bishop of Rome was once a star in the Christian firmament; but abandoning the doctrine and spirit of a Christian minister, and setting up for worldly domination, he “fell from heaven unto the earth,” and thus became a fit agent for “opening the bot- tomless pit.” The bishop of Meaux acknowledges that “hell does not open of itself; it is always some false doctor that opens it.” The darkness of popery is not only of infernal origin, but brings with it a state of mind prepared for the grossest delusions. Intercepting the light of truth, it darkened the world with its doctrines. It changed the truth of God into a lie, and, like old heathenism, “worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever, Amen l’” Wherefore God gave them up to Ma- homedan imposture, depredation, and ruin. As the smoke brought forth the locusts, (though both proceeded from the pit,) so popery brought forth Mahomedism. But for the one, the other could not have prevailed as it did where the light of the gospel had once appeared. The Roman catholics have made great noise about the keys; and truly a key has been given them, “the key of the bottom- less pit !” As to the locusts, they are described chiefly by their depredations. The wrath of God is less directed against in a prophecy of the ravages of Mahomedism, mention may require to be made of popery, as preparing its way. # See Mr. Cuninghame's Dissertation on the Trumpets, chap. VI. 2 G 2 452 EXPOSITION OF THE APOCALYPSE. them than against that out of which they came. They were indeed from beneath, and so was the conquering system of Assyria and Babylon; but as these powers were the rod of God’s anger against a nation which had cor- rupted the true religion, it is not till they in their turn are punished that much is said of their crimes. And thus the destructive hordes of Saracens that laid waste a great part of the eastern world are described as executing a commis- sion, not against “grass, or green things, or trees,” like ordinary locusts, but “against the men who had not the seal of God in their foreheads”—that is, against the cor- rupters of Christianity, ver, 4. There was a direction given to their successes very much like that which has of late years been given to those on the continent of Europe against the papal countries. The Christianity of the Greek church, whose patriarch resided at Constantinople, was in a great degree absorbed by them. It is observable, however, that the men against whom their commission was directed were not to be killed, but tormented for a certain time. They doubtless did kill great numbers, individually considered; but with all their ravages they only harassed those countries where cor- rupted Christianity prevailed. They were not able to destroy either the Greek or the Latin church. The time in which they should harass them is limited to “five months,” which probably alludes to the usual season for the ravages of the natural locust. It has been thought to intend so many prophetical days or years. Five months, reckoning thirty days to a month, and each day a year, would be 150 years; and this was the period in which the Saracen arms are said to have prevailed. They began about 612. After the death of Mahomed, they continued, though with some interruptions, to carry on their conquests. In 713 they entered Spain, which in a few years was subjugated to them, and, passing the Pyrenees, they entered France, which was then said to be the only rampart of Christianity. They advanced as to a certain victory, whereupon ensued one of the bloodiest battles that the world had ever seen. Of the Saracens there were 400,000 men, besides women and children, who came with them, designing to settle in France, and no doubt to extirpate Christianity from Europe. Three hun- dred and seventy thousand of them are said to have been slain, including their general. This battle was fought by Charles Martel, the grandfather of Charlemagne, in 734, and put a stop to the progress of the Saracen arms in Europe. About 762, after the “five months” of years which were given them to continue had elapsed, they ceased to extend their conquests by settling peaceably in the countries which they had conquered, and so ceased to ravage as locusts. The description given of these locusts, ver. 7–10, an- swers to most of the peculiarities of the Saracen armies; as their use of cavalry; their turbans, resembling crowns, in which they gloried; the union of fierceness and ef- feminacy in their character; the impenetrability of their forces; the rapidity of their conquests; and their carrying with them the sting of a deadly imposture. Finally, This fearful army is described as having “a king over them, even the angel of the bottomless pit,” whence they came, and “whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek Apollyon.” This would seem to be Mahomed and his successors, or Satan as working by them. The genius of Mahomedism is to destroy the lives as well as the souls of men. After this we are told, “One woe is past; and behold there come, two woes more hereafter.” By the term “hereafter ’’ it seems to be intimated that the second woe would not follow very soon after the first, but that a con- siderable lapse of time would intervene betwixt them. In this respect the language differs from the introduction of the third woe, in chap. xi. 14, where it is said, “The second woe is past, and behold the third woe cometh Quickly.” DISCOURSE XI. THE SECOND WOE-TRUMPET, OR THE ARMY OF HORSE MIEN . Rev. ix. 13–21. We here enter on the sixth, or second woe-trumpet, which, embracing different contemporary events, may be expected to require several discourses. That part of it which we are now upon contains a description of the revival of the Mahomedan desolations by the Turks, in the thirteenth and following centuries. It will be recollected that the second woe was not to come quickly, but “hereafter.” Such was the fact. Several centuries elapsed between the ravages of the Saracens and those of the Turks. But as the desolations wrought by the followers of Mahomed, whether Saracens or Turks, would be less injurious to the cause of Christ than the abominations of popery, there is not only much less said of them than of the other, but what is said is finished before the other is particularly begun, that the thread of the principal subject might not be broken. There is no reason to think that the Turkish wars would have occupied a place in Scripture prophecy, but for their being the appointed means of crushing a corrupt part of the Christian church. For these reasons I question the propriety of calling the Mahomedan power the eastern antichrist. There is no doubt of its being op- posed to Christ, and the same may be said of heathenism ; but nothing is called antichrist in the Scriptures which znakes no profession of being on the side of Christ. If there was an eastern antichrist, it was that community which the Mahomedans destroyed, namely, “the men who had not the seal of God in their foreheads !” The leading facts corresponding with this part of the prophecy were as follows:—The Turks, a people who in the ninth century had migrated from the neighbourhood of Mount Caucasus, and settled in Armenia Major, by the eleventh century became formidable to their neighbours. They consisted of four sultanies, the seats of which were at Bagdad, Damascus, Aleppo, and Icon, um ; all in the neighbourhood of the Euphrates. Their principal strug- gles were with the eastern Roman empire, or the Christians of the Greek church. For about two centuries their am- bition was restrained, partly it may be by the European crusades, or what were called the holy wars, for the re- covery of Jerusalem ; but the disasters which attended these undertakings inducing the European princes at length to relinquish them, they were then at liberty to pursue their objects. In 1281 they obtained a decided victory over the eastern Christians; and in 1299 a new empire was founded by Othman, composed of the four Turkish sultamies, which still subsists, and is called after his name the Ottoman empire. During the fourteenth century their successes continued. In the middle of the fifteenth (1453) Constantinople was taken, the eastern Roman empire fell, and with it the Greek church, neither of which, except in the religion of the latter being em- braced by the Russians, has since lifted up its head. The “four angels” then denote the four Turkish govern- ments near the Euphrates. These are called angels, as being messengers of wrath, commissioned to destroy the corrupt Christians of the east. The “loosing” of them refers to the removal of those obstructions which for a time impeded their progress. The “voice” which ordered them to be loosed proceeding from the “four horns of the golden altar” signifies that these judgments, like those in chap. viii. 3–5, would be in answer to the prayers of the saints; or perhaps, as Bishop Newton says, “intimating that the sins of men must have been very great, when the altar, which was their sanctuary and protection, called aloud for vengeance.” Their continuance “for an hour and a day, and a month and a year,” reckoning by pro- phetic time, includes 391 years; which beginning from 1281, the year of their first victory over the eastern Roman empire, extends to 1672, the year of their last victory over the Poles; from which period they have been sinking into such disorder and imbecility as forebode their ruin. Their armies being described as “horsemen” answers to the WESTERN APOSTACY. 453 numerous cavalry of the Turks. The number of them, consisting of “myriads of myriads,” shows the vast armies which they brought into the field. “Breastplates of fire, of jacinth, and of brimstone,” may denote the glittering harness with which the horses were caparisoned. Their “heads being as the heads of lions” is expressive of their strength and fierceness. “Fire, and smoke, and brimstone, issuing out of their mouths,” seems to allude to the use of gunpowder in war, which began about this period. Great guns were used in the taking of Constantinople in 1453. The symbol is expressive of what a body of horse- men, fighting with fire-arms, would appear to a distant spectator, who had never before seen or heard of anything of the kind. . There is one remarkable difference between the locusts and the horsemen : the former were not commissioned to hill, but merely to torment; whereas of the latter it is said, “By these were the third part of men killed, even by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone which issued out of their mouths.” They both, doubt- less, killed men as individuals; but the latter only were permitted to kill those political bodies to which the pro- phecy refers. The eastern Roman empire, and the Greek church as connected with it, fell not by the Saracens of the eighth, but by the Turks of the fifteenth century. Finally, their “power was in their mouth, and in their tails.” Now as the fire and smoke and brimstone are said to issue from the former, they would seem to denote their artillery; and as in respect of the latter they re- semble the locusts, these are the destructive principles which they propagate by the sword in common with the Saracens. Mahomedism was that to the Christian church in the east which Assyria and Babylon were to Samaria and Jerusalem. Its first appearance in the seventh and eighth centuries was a judgment upon them for having corrupted the Christian doctrine and worship; but as a body it went only to “torment” them, not to “kill” them. It said, “Repent, or I will remove thy candle- stick out of his place : * but they repented not. Its last appearance therefore, in the fourteenth and fifteenth cen- turies, carried the threatening into execution. The candlestick of the eastern church was removed, and her children were killed with death ! But that which is the most remarkable is the effect, or rather the want of effect, of these terrible judgments on those who survived them. “The rest of the men (that is, of the men who had not the seal of God in their fore- heads) who were not killed by these plagues, repented not.” As those that were killed were the eastern Ro- man empire and the Greek church as connected with it, so those that were not killed were the western Roman empire and the Latin church. These two churches were as Aholah and Aholibah. The fall of the one ought to have been a warning to the other; but it was not. They persisted in their image-worship, which was only the old idolatry of the pagans under a new form ; nor were they behind them in their murderous persecutions, their foul impostures, their filthy intrigues, and their fraudulent impositions. And though, soon after the overthrow of the Greek church, the Reformation began, yet they re- formed not. The council of Trent, which was called on this occasion, sat eighteen years, and at last left things as it found them. Babylon was not to be healed ! * From the beginning of chap. x. to the end of chap. xix. + This appears to be evidently made out by Mr. Scott, in his notes on 2 Thess. ii. 3—12, and 1 John ii. 18. As to its being a character of antichrist that he “denieth the Father and the Son,” (ver. 22,) it is of the antichrist already come that this is spoken, who had professed Christianity, and whose apostacy consisted not in a disavowal of the name of Christ, but of certain Christian doctrines, which included a virtual denial of Jesus being the Christ, as that also was a virtual de- nial of the Father. Had these “forerunners of antichrist,” as Mr. DISCOURSE XII. INTRODUCTION TO THE WESTERN OR PAPAL APOSTACY. Rev. x. THE eastern church, as connected with the Roman em- pire, being slain, the remainder of the prophecy may be expected to concern the western, or “the rest of the men who were not killed by these plagues.” This it does; so much of it, at least, as brings us to the taking of the beast and of the false prophet, and so to the commence- ment of the Millennium. The corruptions of the western church have been intimated before; as by the sealing of the servants of God in their foreheads, chap. vii.; by the judgments inflicted on the western empire under the first four trumpets, chap. viii.; and by the cloud of smoke from the bottomless pit: but now the prophecy treats directly and exclusively of them. Nor is it surprising that the apostacy of this church should occupy so large a part of the prophecy,” inasmuch as both for its duration and mischievous effects there is nothing equal to it under the gospel dispensation. The period allotted for its con- tinuance is no less than 1260 years; during which the holy city is trodden under foot, the witnesses prophesy in sackcloth, the true church fleeth into the wilderness, and the saints of the Most High are persecuted to death by a ferocious and cruel beast. This apostate church was, no doubt, the man of sin foretold by Paul ; and, notwith- standing what has been advanced against it by a late re- spectable writer, I have no doubt of its being the anti- christ which the Christians in John's time had heard should come.f. - Before we enter upon this subject it will be proper to give the outlines of the ten chapters in which it is con- tained. Chap. x. I consider as merely introductory. Chap. xi. gives a general representation of this corrupt and persecuting power, with the state of the church of Christ under it, during the 1260 years. Chap. xii. gives a second, and chap. xiii. and xiv. a third general repre- sentation of it during the same period. Chap. xv. and xvi. give a more particular account of that part of the subject which commences at the sounding of the seventh trumpet, and contains a subdivision of that trumpet into seven vials, the pouring out of which brings us down to the Millennium. The xviith, xviiith, and xixth chapters contain what in modern publications we should call notes of illustration, giving particular accounts of things which before had only been generally intimated. We are not to expect the events relating to the western church to follow the conclusion of those of the eastern, in order of time. In tracing the issue of the one, we were led almost down to the times of the Reformation ; but, in taking up the other, we must expect to go many centuries back again. It is in prophecy as it is in history, when describing contemporary events, the writer, having gone through one series, returns and takes up the other. It is thus in the history of Judah and Israel in the Second Book of Kings; with this difference, that, in carrying on those histories together, the writer went through only a single reign of one of them ere he returned to the other; whereas in this the overthrow of the eastern church is completed before the account of the western is begun. The former brought us down to the fifteenth century; the latter, when tracing the origin of things, may glance at events as early as the fourth. Ver. 1–11. The “mighty angel” appears by his de- scription to be the Son of God himself, and this may indi- cate the importance of the vision. His being “clothed with a cloud” may express the concealment of his de- Scott very properly calls them, been avowed infidels, they could not have been seducers to the churches of Christ, (ver. 26,) a name given to false teachers. Such were those deceivers in 2 John 7, who, by deny- ing the real humanity of Christ, denied his being come in the flesh. But if a virtual denial of the Father and the Son rendered those who were already come antichrists, there is no reason why it should not do the same of him that show.ld come. It is not probable that John would have allowed “ the man of sin” to acknowledge either the Father or the Son, while he usurped the place of both. 454 EXPOSITION OF THE APOCALYPSE. signs, and the hiding of his power. He could have crush- ed this great conspiracy at the outset, but he did not. The “rainbow on his head” is the sign of peace, or of covenant mercy, and may here denote that whatever evils might be permitted in order to try the church, yet there should not be such a deluge as to destroy it. His coun- tenance being compared to “the sun,” and his feet to “ pillars of fire,” may intimate that neither is his glory tarnished, nor his majesty diminished, by all the corrup- tions which are introduced under his name. Finally, his “coming down from heaven” seems to denote a change of scene. The Lamb's company stand upon Mount Sion ; but the harlot sitteth upon the waters, and the beast riseth out of the sea. Thus, as the subject respects the same apostate community, the scene is the earth, and the angel descends from heaven to disclose it. The “little book” which the angel held open in his hand relates doubtless to the western apostacy. It has been thought to be a kind of Appendia, or Codicil, to the seal- ed book, and a part of what follows to be chapters of it. But this seems too much ; for if so, it would not proper- ly belong to the sealed book, whereas all that pertains to the apostacy, and to the state of the church to the end of the world, belongs to the trumpets, which trumpets are a sub- division of the seventh seal. It is not therefore any thing added to the sealed book, but a marked division of it, a book as it were within a book.-The angel’s setting his right foot upon the sea, and his left foot on the earth, would express his absolute dominion over both. His “cry- ing with a loud voice as when a lion roareth’’ was awfully preparatory to the seven thunders which immediately ut- tered their voices. On hearing them, John was about to write, but is told by a voice from heaven to “seal up the things which the thunders uttered, and write them not.” The thunders then were not mere sounds, but certain “things,” which, though they were not at present to be disclosed, yet in due time should be fulfilled. Their ful- filment too was an object of such importance, and lay so near the angel's heart, that with the utmost indignation he “sware by Him that liveth for ever and ever that there should be no delay; ” but that in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he should begin to sound, they should be accomplished.* From these considerations it appears plain that the seven thunders relate to the same “things” as those which are afterwards disclosed under the seven vials. They both express the wrath of God against the papal antichrist; the one describes it only in general, and that in the form of threatenings, the other descends to particulars, and de- scribes it as actually ea:ecuting. The thunders being in- troduced before the prophetic account of the apostacy may denote the displeasure of God against it from its very be- ginning, and tend to support the faith and patience of the church-under it. - The forbidding the apostle to write, and commanding him to eat the book, seems like saying, The apostacy is not yet ripe. The wrath of God against it will be defer- red for the present. Under the sounding of the seventh angel he will pour forth the vials of his indignation upon it. At present, therefore, write it not ; but receive a general impression of things by eating the book —The allusion doubtless is to Ezek. iii. 1–3, and denotes that he must understand and digest its contents. The book, he was told, would be sweet in his mouth, but bitter in his belly. . The same desire of understanding the future state of the church which made him weep when no one was found worthy to open the sealed book, must make him rejoice when an open book was put into his hand, with a direction to eat it; but when he came to digest it, and to per- ceive the corruptions and persecutions that should prevail, * Whether ort Xpovor ovk gara, ert be rendered, as in our version, that there jºid* be lime no longer; or more literally, as by Mr. DAUBIZ and others, that the time shall not be yet; or, as DR. GILL says the words will bear to be rendered, that there should be delay no longer ; the meaning cannot be that time itself should then be at an end. Nor does it seem to be an object of sufficient importance for an oath that the time for the seven thunders to be executed should not be gyet. It is not their not being yet, but their being at the appointed time; not the protraction, but the accomplishment notwithstanding the protraction, to which the angel swears. There is a manifest re. ference in the passage to Dan. xii. 7 : “And I heard the man clothed in linen, who was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his and for so long a period retard the progress of the gospel, it would be grievous to him. To teach him that what he had now seen and done was designed only as a general impression, preparatory to what should follow, he is given to understand that he must go over the ground “again,” writing prophecies which re- spect many “peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.” - - T) ISCOURSE XIII. THE FIRST GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PAPAL Apost Acy, AND OF THE STATE OF THE CHURCH UNDER IT, Rev. xi., &c. I conCEIVE with MR. Low MAN that the following chapters contain three general descriptions of the papal antichrist, and of the state of the church under it; only he confines them to the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth chapters, whereas it appears to me that the thirteenth and fourteenth should not be divided, but considered as containing be- tween them the third general description. The reasons for considering these four chapters not as one continued prophecy, but as general representations of the events of the same period, are the following:— First, The events foretold by the slaughter and resur- rection of the witnesses in chap. xi.; by the flight of the woman into the wilderness, and the victory over the dragon, in chap. xii.; with the ravages of the beasts and the tri- umph of the Lamb’s company in chapters xiii. and xiv., are the same.—Secondly, These representations are not confined to one or two trumpets, but comprehend the times of the greater part of them. Some of the things repre- sented, particularly those at the beginning of chap. xii., in which the origin of the apostacy is traced, appear to go back to the times of the first four trumpets, namely, to the fourth and fifth centuries; others, particularly those at the close of chapters xi, and xiv., which describe the overthrow of the apostate church, go forward to the times of the last trumpet, and even of the last vials, into which that trumpet is subdivided. This will be evident by comparing chap. xi. 19, with chap. xvi. 18. In both mention is made of “lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earth- quake, and great hail;” both, therefore, manifestly refer to the same events.-Thirdly, In each of these descriptions there is a reference to the 1260 years, the period which in prophecy marks the duration of the antichristian power. So long were the witnesses to prophesy in sackcloth, so long the woman to be in the wilderness, and so long the beast to make war with the saints. It is therefore to the events of this period that these chapters relate; containing an account of the rise, the reign, and the overthrow of the papal antichrist. It could scarcely be expected that so long a period, em- bracing such multifarious characters and events, events too which so deeply interest the church of God, should be passed over without particular notice. The sacred writer is as it were made to pause, and to give us several distinct views of the subject, according to the different lights in which he beheld it. I only add, if these chapters do really comprehend the events of the 1260 years, we might almost presume, in going over them, to meet with something under each description relating to so distin- guished an event as the Reformation, and must certainly have thrice to cross the meridian of our own times. The first of these general descriptions, which we now right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever, that it shall be for a time, times, and a half, and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.” It was of the papal antichrist, of whom Antiochus Epiphanes was a type, that the man clothed in linen spake, and of him speaks the angel to John. As the former predicts his fall, so does the latter; and as Antiochus had been permitted to scatter the power of the holy people for a time, times, and half a time, so should antichrist be permitted to scatter the church, of Christ for the same prophetic period, reckoning a year for a day, that is, for the space of 1260 years. See “Prideaux's Connexion,” Part II. Book III. at the close. THE TWO WITNESSES. 455 enter upon, does not appear to trace the origin of the apostacy, but to take it up from the time in which things were so matured, that, in taking the measurement of God’s temple, the papal community was ordered to be left out, as not belonging to it. Ver. 1, 2. The language no doubt is Jewish, but the doctrine, worship, and worshippers of the Christian church are intended. Christianity, having become the religion of the state, abounded with converts; but such would be their character, and such the kind of religion they would introduce, that the extent of the church would require to be contracted. The outer court, containing the body of the worshippers, must be left out. That which had been known by the name of the catholic church must be given up as idolatrous; and thus the profanation of the temple by Antiochus would be acted over again.” Ver. 3–6. The import of these verses is, that, dur- ing the long period of papal corruption and persecution, God would have his faithful witnesses, who should bear testimony against it, though it were in sackcloth. As, in the language of the prophecy, a king denotes not an indi- vidual monarch, but a succession of kings, or a kingdom ; so by “two witnesses” we are doubtless to understand not two individual witnesses, but a competent succession of them. This is manifest from their continuing through the long period of 1260 years, which can only be true of a succession of men. Some have supposed them to be the Old and New Testaments, others the Old and New Testa- ment churches; but I see no reason why they should not be understood of the faithful servants of Christ, who, during this period, would bear witness for the truth. It is of the true church as opposed to the false that the other general descriptions speak; namely, of the woman and her seed who fled into the wilderness, and of the Lamb's company as opposed to that of the beast ; I conclude, therefore, that such are the two witnesses in this. Moreover, the correspondence of 1260 days, in which they should prophesy, with the “time, times, and the dividing of time,” in Daniel, (chap. vii. 25,) not only de- termines the general application of the prophecy, but the parties concerned in both to be the same. In the latter end of the fourth, or Roman, government, according to Daniel, a little horn should grow up among the ten horns, that should “wear out the saints of the Most High, until a time, times, and the dividing of time.” According to John, the witnesses, during the same period, should pro- phesy in sackcloth, and be persecuted and slain. The witnesses of John, therefore, and the saints of Daniel, are the same. These two witnesses are said to be “the two olive trees and the two candlesticks, standing before the God of the earth.” The olive trees and the candlestick of Zechariah, to which there is a manifest reference, were not the same. The former supplied the latter, or the two sides of the bowl of it, with oil. The candlestick seems to have signi- fied the church, and the olive trees the prophets of God who were with the builders helping them, Ezra v. 2. Corresponding with this, the olive trees of John are faith- ful ministers, and the candlesticks Christian churches. The same prophesying which bears witness against the corruptions of antichrist supplies the friends of Christ as with fresh oil, and enables them to shine as lights in the World. Both the olives trees and the candlesticks in dif- ferent ways are witnesses to the truth. The “fire that proceedeth out of their mouth '' denotes the Divine threatenings to which those who reject their testimony are exposed. In this way all who have perse- veringly set themselves against the truth of God have been slain by it, not only as incurring the wrath to come, but spiritual judgments even in this life; such are blindness of mind and hardness of heart, the most awful and sure preasges of eternal death. Their having “power to shut heaven that it rain not * “Our Reformers (says MR. FABER) never thought of unchurching the church of Rome, though they freely declared it to have erred. Hence, while they rejected its abominations, they did not scruple to derive from it § line of episcopal and Sacerdotal ordination.” Vol. II. p. 3, note. The English Reformers might allow the church of Rome to be a true church of Christ; but do the Scriptures support them in this concession? The church of Rome was once a part of God’s temple; in the days of their prophecy, to turn waters into blood, and to smite the earth with plagues as often as they will,” denotes the influence of prayer when presented in faith and in conformity to the will of God. There is a refer- ence no doubt to the prayer of Elijah against apostate Israel, which prayer was answered with a dearth ; but, without any thing properly miraculous, the prayers of God’s suffering servants may draw down both temporal and spiritual judgments on persecuting nations. The terrible things which God is now in righteousness inflict- ing on the nations may be in answer to the prayers of his servants of former ages, who century after century have been crying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth 3 '' Such cries enter the ears of the Lord of hosts, and must be answered. APPENDIX TO DISCOURSE XIII. THE history of the witnesses prior to the eleventh and twelfth centuries is difficult to be traced, owing to the want of materials; and during those centuries almost all the accounts that we have of them are from the pens of their persecutors, who have not failed to transmit their memory to posterity in the most odious colours. That some who in church history are deemed heretics were really such need not to be questioned; but let any serious Christian read the church history of Mos HEIM ; and, un- less he can find a portion of true religion under the article of “heresies and heretics that disturbed the peace of the church during this century,” it is difficult to say where he is to look for it. After the utmost search through other parts, he may ask, “Where is wisdom, and where is the place of understanding 3” There is little doubt but that all through these dark ages there were many thousands who stood aloof from the corruptions of the times, and bore practical testimory against them ; and who, notwithstanding some errors, were much nearer the truth and true religion than those who have reproached them as heretics. There is reason to believe that amongst the Novatians, the Paulicians, the Cathari, the Paterimes, and others who separated from the catholic church, and were cruelly persecuted by it, there were a great number of faithful witnesses for the truth in those days. We should not, like Bishop Newton, confine the wit- nesses to councils, princes, and eminent men, who in their day bore testimony against error and superstition. They will be found, I doubt not, in great numbers amongst. those who were unknown, and consequently unnoticed by historians. God hath chosen the things that are not to bring to nought the things that are. Let a church his- tory of our own times be written on the principles of that of Mos HEIM, and the great body of the most faithful wit- messes would have no place in it. The history of the witnesses will be principally found in that of the Waldenses and Albigenses, who for a suc- cession of centuries spread themselves over almost every nation in Europe, and in innumerable instances bore tes- timony, at the expense of their lives, against the corrup- tions of the antichristian party. John Paul Perrin, a French protestant of the city of Lyons, who early in the seventeenth century wrote the history of these churches, traces their origin to Peter Waldo, who was also a citizen of Lyons. Waldo, as we shall see presently, was not the father of the Waldenses ; but he was an excellent man. About the year 1160 he began to bear testimony against the papal corruptions. The archbishop of Lyons, being informed of his proceed- ings, sought to apprehend him ; but Waldo, having many but hence it is left out of the measurement. Instead of being “ the holy city,” it is a body of idolaters who tread it under foot. It is not Zion, but Babylon. Some of God's people might be found in her, but they are commanded to come out of her. She is not the bride, the Lamb's wife, but the mother of harlots. Finally, If the church of Rome continued to be a church of Christ, what must that church be who fled from her persecutions into the wilderness 7 456 EXPOSITION OF THE APOCALYPSE. friends in the city, was concealed there for about three years. After this, he was driven from Lyons, and it is said that he retired into Dauphine in the south of France, and afterwards into Picardy in the north ; and that his followers spread themselves, not only in Piedmont, Pro- vence, Languedoc, &c., but in almost all the nations of Europe. Waldo translated, or procured to be translated, the Scriptures into the French language; by means of which his followers disseminated the truth over a great part of Europe. * In Piedmont, whither some of his followers were driven, churches were planted, which though exposed to innumerable oppressions and persecutions from their princes, who were stirred up by the priests, yet continued to bear witness to the truth, not only till the Reformation, but for a considerable time after it. In Picardy, whither Waldo himself retired, the houses of three hundred gen- tlemen who adhered to him were razed to the ground, and several walled towns were destroyed. Being driven thence, he and his followers retired into Flanders, where great numbers of them were burnt to death. Thence many fled into Germany, particularly into Alsace, and the country along the Rhine, where the bishop of Mayence caused to be burnt thirty-five burgesses in one fire, and eighteen in another, who with great constancy suffered death. At Strasburg eighty were burnt at the instance of the bishop of the place. They were scattered through the whole kingdom of France. From the year 1206, when the In- quisition was established, to 1228, such multitudes were seized, particularly in France, that even the bishops de- clared to the monks inquisitors, that “the expense of sup- porting them would be more than could be defrayed, and that there would not be found lime and stone sufficient to build prisons which should contain them : " A hundred and fourteen were burnt alive at one time in Paris. In 1223 they had goodly churches in Bulgaria, Croatia, Dal- ºmatia, and Hungary; and notwithstanding the persecu- tion, in Germany, one of their martyrs assured his perse- cutors, in the year 1315, that there were then 80,000 of the same mind in the country. In Bohemia, a colony of Waldenses settled and planted churches 240 years before the time of Huss. Another colony went from Dauphine about 1370, and settled in Calabria, where they were de- fended by their landlords against the priests till 1560, when they were exterminated by the papal soldiery. In England, during the reign of Henry II., namely, from 1174 to 1189, they were persecuted under the name of Publicans. About 1315, LoLLARD, who was seven years afterwards burnt to death at Cologne, came over to England and taught many, who thence were called Lollards, and were persecuted without mercy. Soon after the death of Lollard, the same doctrines were taught by Wickliff, whose followers also for a century and a half, down to the Reformation, were burnt in great numbers. Perrin, as has been observed, traces the origin of the Waldenses and Albigenses to PETER WALDo; yet there are several things even in his history which prove their existence LoNG BEFore THE TIME of WALDo. He quotes Reynerºus the inquisitor, who wrote within sixty years after Waldo, as saying of the Waldenses that “they had resisted the church of Rome for a long time.” He quotes a Waldensian poem, called The Noble Lesson, which poem appears by its contents to have been written about the year 1100, that is, forty or fifty years at least before the appearange of Waldo. He quotes Claudius Rubis, who, in his History of Lyons, says of the Waldenses, in a way of reproach, that “being retired unto the Alps, at their departure from Lyons, they became like the rest of the people of that country, besom-riders,” or sorcerers. There must then have been a people among the Alps who were * It was on occasion of this horrible massacre that MILTON wrote the following sonnet:— * Avenge, O Lord, thy slaughtered saints, whose bones Lie scattered on the Alpine mountains cold; Even them who kept thy truth so pure of old, When all our fathers worshipped stocks and stonés, Forget, not : in thy book record their groans, Who were thy sheep, and in their ancient fold Slain by the bloody Piedmontese, that rolled Mother and infant down the rocks. Their moans The vales redoubled to the hills, and they reproached as sorcerers, before the disciples of Waldo went and joined them. Finally, in Perrin's History of the Albigenses, he says, They received the belief of the Wal- denses soon after the departure of Waldo from Lyons, that is, soon after 1160, and yet that the instruments who were employed in this work were Peter of Bruis, Henry, Joseph, Esperon, and Arnold Holt. But Peter of Bruis began to preach against the corruptions of popery in 1110, and was burnt in 1130, and Henry was soon after im- prisoned at Rome; all before the times of Waldo. There must therefore have been a body of these faithful witnesses from an early period, probably from the times in which the Christian church began to be overspread with corruptions. In the spring of 1655 a most horrible massacre of the Waldenses was perpetrated in the dominions of the duke of Savoy. On this occasion Sir Samuel Morland, going over as envoy from the protector Cromwell to the court of Savoy, was charged, as he says, by Archbishop Usher, before he left England, to make the most diligent inquiry into the antiquity of the Waldenses.* Having finished his business at Turin, and retired to Geneva, he was re- quested by Secretary Thurloe to write his History of the Evangelical Churches of the Valleys of Piedmont. In his history, Sir Samuel, besides relating many things of the Waldenses since the days of Perrin, and narrating the particulars of the late massacre, makes it appear that these churches remained united with all other Christian churches so long as they retained the true religion ; but when the church of Rome departed from it, they began to depart from her; and that the followers of Peter Waldo, who about 1165 fled from the south of France into the valleys of Piedmont, were not the first Waldenses, but rather that they joined themselves to those their faithful brethren who had been there long before them. The learned DR. ALLIx, a French protestant who took refuge in England on the revocation of the edict of Nantes, largely establishes the same thing in his Remarks on the Ecclesiastical History of the Ancient Churches of Piedmont and of the Country of the Albigenses. He has proved that these people, from their situation in the valleys, and not from Waldo, were denominated Wallenses, or the Vaudois —that though not free from a portion of the general cor- ruption, yet they continued to maintain the leading prin- ciples of what is now called the protestant religion—that before the year 1026 a body of men in Italy, connected with Gundulfus, believed contrary to the opinions of the church of Rome, condemned its errors, and sent their bre- thren into divers places to oppose themselves to the super- stitions that reigned throughout the west—that in the same century another body of the Christians of Italy, de- nominated Paterines, and whose principles were much the same with those who were afterwards called Waldenses, separated from the church of Rome—that soon after the year 1100 it was said, “If a man loves those that desire to love God and Jesus Christ, if he will neither curse, nor swear, nor lie, nor whore, nor kill, nor deceive his neigh- bour, nor avenge himself of his enemies, they presently say, He is a Vaudès, he deserves to be punished; and by lies and forging are found to take away from him what he has got by his lawful industry”—that about 1160 many of the followers of Peter Waldo retired into the valleys of Pied- mont, and there joined the Vaudois—that, Waldo himself being condemned as a heretic, it was common for the pa- pists to call all religious people Waldenses, hoping thereby to fix a stigma upon them, and to represent them as a sect but newly risen up—and that from this time to the Re- formation, a period of between three and four hundred years, the Waldenses were persecuted with but little inter- mission; partly by armies sent to destroy them, and partly by the horrid process of the inquisition ; which persecu- tions they bore with unparalleled constancy. To heaven. Their martyred blood and ashes sow O'er all th’ Italian fields, where still doth sway A triple tyrant; that from these may grow A hundredfold, who, having learned thy Way, Early may fly the Babylonian woel Not only did the English government interfere, with the court of Turin in behalf of the remnant of these persecuted people, but a gol- lection was made for them through the nation, which amounted to nearly £40,000, (a prodigious sum in those times,) which was sent to them by Sir Samuel Morland. ! SLAYING OF THE WITNESSES. 457 Similar remarks are made by Dr. Allix on the churches of the Albigenses, so called from Albi, a city in the south of France. He has proved that these churches continued for many centuries independent of the pope—that about the middle of the eleventh century Berengarius of Tours opposed the doctrines of the Romish church, and was charged by its adherents with having corrupted almost all the French, Italians, and English—that early in the twelfth, namely, about the year 1110, Peter of Bruis, and after him Henry, taught the same doctrines, for which the former was burnt, and the latter died in prison—that in the fourth canon of the Council of Tours, held in the year 1163, it is said, “In the country about Thoulouse there sprang up long ago a damnable heresy, which by little and little, like a canker, spreading itself to the neighbouring places in Gascoin, hath already infected many other pro- vinces”—that between 1137 and 1180 Languedoc was so full of the disciples of Peter of Bruis and Henry, that the archbishop of Narbonne, writing to Louis VII. king of France, complains as follows:– “My lord the king, We are extremely pressed with many calamities, among which there is one that most of all affects us, which is, that the catholic faith is extremely shaken in this our diocess, and St. Peter's boat is so violently tossed by the waves that it is in great danger of sinking!” From the whole it appears that in the early ages of the papal apostacy, before the introduction of image-worship, transubstantiation, and other gross departures from the faith, the opposition of the faithful would be less decided than in later times. Other Christian churches, while they preserved their independency, might not go the same lengths as that of Rome; but neither might they at once separate from it, nor probably be clear of a participation in its corruptions. The opposition to it might be ex- pected also to be chiefly from individuals rather than from churches; and this appears to have been the fact. The famous CLAUDE, bishop of Turin, in the ninth century, though he preached the doctrine of Christ in great purity, and boldly opposed almost all the errors of popery, yet does not appear to have so separated from the church of Rome as to form independent churches. The principles however which he taught led to this issue, and were acted upon after his death. His preaching and writings contributed greatly to the spread of true religion in the valleys of Piedmont. From the fourth to the tenth century but little is said of the Waldenses in history: yet as Reynerius, who wrote about the year 1230, speaks of the Vaudois as “a sect of the longest standing,” and as the Council of Tours, about seventy years before this, speaks of the same heresy as having “sprung up long ago,” we may conclude, even from the acknowledgments of the adversaries, that God was not without his witnesses in those dark ages. MILton also, in the sonnet before quoted, represents the Vaudois, or people of the valleys, as having “kept God’s truth so pure of old, when all our fathers worshipped stocks and stones.” He must therefore have considered them as having preserved the purity of Christianity while our Saaron ancestors were yet heathens. After the tenth century, when iniquity was at the full, the opposition was more decided. For 500 years, during the most murderous wars and per- secutions, the Paterines, the Petrobrussians, the Wal- denses, the Albigenses, the Lollards, the Wickliffites, &c., maintained their ground. Nor were they contented to bear witness to the truth in their own countries, but em- ployed missionaries to almost all the nations of Europe; and this notwithstanding each missionary could expect nothing less than martyrdom for his reward I Nor were their labours unproductive. The numbers who espoused their principles in the south of France only were such that a crusade of 500,000 men was sent against them. It was by this army of bloody-minded fanatics that the city of Beziers was taken, and the inhabitants, with- out distinction, men, women, and children, to the number of 60,000, were put to the sword : DISCOURSE XIV. THE FIRST GENERAL DESCRIPTION CONTINUED ; or THE SLAUGHTER AND RESURRECTION OF THE WITNEsses, WITH THE FAILLING OF A TENTH PART OF THE CITY. Pev. xi. 7–13. VER. 7–12. If the testimony of the witnesses be the same as their prophesying in sackcloth, it must continue through the whole of the 1260 years. But it does not appear that the beast at the termination of that period will be able to “overcome and kill them,” seeing he him- self will then be slain, and his body given to the burning flame. Several commentators therefore have rendered it, while they shall perform, or be about to finish, their tes- timony, &c. And with this agrees the account which re- presents the beast and his party at the time of the slaying of the witnesses as being in the plenitude of their power. The slaughter of the witnesses would not, according to the usual style of the prophecy, denote their being put to death as individuals, but silenced and crushed as wit- nessing bodies. It was thus, as we have seen, that the eastern empire, and the Greek church as connected with it, were killed by the Turkish horsemen, chap. ix. 18. Of the beast that shall kill them no mention is made before ; but we shall hear much of him hereafter. Suffice it at present to say, it is the same as Daniel’s fourth beast, chap. vii., and as that which is described by John, in chap. xiii. 1–8 of this book, as having “seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns:” it is the Roman empire under its last form, as divided into ten independent kingdoms. There he is described as rising out of the sea; here out of the abyss, or bottomless pit : the one, as Mr. Faber remarks, may denote his political, and the other his spiritual origin. The witnesses were to be killed in the great city, which “spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.” We shall have occasion more than once to notice an antichristian city as opposed to the church of Christ, just as the great harlot is opposed to the bride the Lamb's wife. It will be proper therefore to fix the meaning at the outset. If the prophecy had related to Old Testament times, when God chose a literal city in which to build his temple, a literal city might have been properly opposed to it. When Zion was his dwelling- place, Babylon was its adversary. But as the true church under the gospel is not confined to place, neither is the false church. The New Testament Zion does not consist of material buildings, but is a community scattered among the nations; and such is the New Testament Babylon. The “great city” therefore means Rome, not in respect of its buildings, nor the inhabitants within its walls, nor as a political empire, the symbol of which is the beast; but as the head of the antichristian community. This city, or community of nations under one ecclesiastical head, was a Sodom for its filthiness, an Egypt for its idolatry and persecution, and a Jerusalem for its malignant hatred of the Lord Jesus Christ. The dead bodies of the witnesses were to lie in the street of the great city wrºburied; that is, being silenced and crushed throughout Christendom, they would for a time be treated with the utmost indignity and reproach, as those are who are denied the ordinary decencies of burial. Nor would these indignities be inflicted by the highest orders only; but “peoples, and kindreds, and tongues, and nations,” that is, the body of the inhabitants of Christendom, would take a part in them. While in- sulting the witnesses, they would make merry on their own account, as being no longer tormented with their testimony. Such is the description given of the witnesses, and of the treatment which they would receive, both from the ruling powers and the common people. The question is, What are the facts which correspond with it? It is thought by some that both the slaughter and the resur- rection of the witnesses are yet to be fulfilled. If so, it is vain to look for corresponding facts in past events. This was the opinion of Bishop Newton, of Doctor GILL, 458 EXPOSITION OF THE APOCALYPSE. and of other expositors of note. I cannot but conside. this as a mistake. In the bishop it appears to have been founded on the supposition of the time of the dead that they should be judged, spoken of in ver. 18, referring to the last judgment, or “the consummation of all things;” but which manifestly refers to the avenging of the martyrs by the judgments to be inflicted on the papal power, under the seven vials, antecedent to the Millennium.— Comp. chap. xi. 18, 19; chap. xvi. 12—21. DR. GILL speaks of the war by which the witnesses are slain as being “the last war of the beast” (on chap. xi. 8); but the last war of the beast is that in which he and the false prophet will be taken ; and in which the followers of Christ, instead of being killed, shall be victorious over their enemies, chap. xix. 20.* It is remarkable, too, that both the slaughter and resurrection of the witnesses, together with the falling of a tenth part of the city, are introduced before the termination of the sixth, or second woe-trumpet. I question therefore whether these pro- phecies can refer to events of so late a date as this hypo- thesis requires. The time in which the witnesses are slain, and their bodies lie unburied, appears to be a time in which the beast is in the height of his power, or, as PRESIDENT EDwARDs says, “in which the true church of Christ is lowest of all, most of all prevailed against by antichrist, and nearest to an utter extinction ; a time in which there is left the least visibility of the church of Christ, yet sub- sisting in the world, and the least remains of any thing appertaining to true religion whence a revival of it could be expected,”—p. 92. It is true we know not what is be- fore us; but if such a state of things as this should return after what has occurred in Europe within the last three hundred years, it will, as Mr. Edwards I think has proved, be contrary to all God’s usual methods of proceeding. I cannot therefore but think with him that the persecution and slaughter of the witnesses preceded the Reformation. After the suppression of the Bohemians, for nearly a hundred years, true religion was in a manner crushed. The enemy continued without resistance to “wear out the saints of the Most High.” Not a society or body of C}ristians was to be found which dared to oppose the general corruption. The popish party considered the heretics as suppressed, and congratulated each other on so happy an event. The security that they felt was mani- fest by the barefaced manner in which they sold their pardons and indulgences at the time when Luther’s in- dignation was first kindled against them. Whether the “three days and a half,” during which the witnesses should lie unburied, denote three years and a half, and refer to a particular period of that duration, or only to a short space of oppression, in allusion to the “three times and a half,” as being a kind of 1260 years in miniature, I am not able to determine; nor have I seen any thing on the subject relating to a particular period which afforded me satisfaction. However this may be, if the slaying of the witnesses refer to the times immediately preceding the Reformation, their resurrection and ascen- sion to heaven must denote the Reformation itself, and the placing, by Divine Providence, of the parties con- cerned in it out of the reach of their enemies. The re- surrection, as it were, of the Waldenses, the Wickliffites, and other reputed heretics, in the persons of Luther and his contemporaries, with the rapid progress made by them in various nations nearly at the same time, would cause great fear to fall upon their adversaries; and the sécurity in which they were placed by the secession of those nations from the see of Rome was equal to their being taken up to heaven in a cloud, where those who thirsted for their blood could only look after them with malignity and envy. Ver, 13. After the resurrection of the witnesses, and before the sounding of the seventh, or third woe-trumpet, follows an earthquake, and a tenth part of the city falls. In the earthquake are slain of men (or names of men) seven thousand, and the remnant are affrighted, and give glory to the God of heaven. If the meaning of this pas- sage can be clearly ascertained, it will determine the time * See President Edwards on Agreement in Extraordinary Prayer, p. 100. of the sounding of the seventh angel, and serve as a me- dium by which to judge of several other things. The “earthquake” must, I conceive, denote a revolu- tion, as this is the appropriate and well-known symbol of such an event. The “city” is doubtless the same as that which in the 8th verse is “spiritually called Sodom and Egypt;” that is, the Romish church, or the Apocalyptic Babylon. By “a tenth part” of it must be understood a considerable portion of it, and very probably a part be- longing to one of the ten horns, or kingdoms, into which the empire under its papal form was to be divided. By “the names of men,” DR. GooDw1N and others have un- derstood titles or orders of men, and supposed that the revolution signified by the earthquake would destroy them. Or if the phrase denote, as some have understood it, men of name, it would signify the destruction made among the higher orders, and which would of course be accompanied with great slaughter among the common people. “The remnant that were affrighted and gave glory to God.” would denote those of the same community who escaped, and whose fears would forebode other examples of the Divine justice. What event is there during the 1260 years of anti- christian usurpation which answers to these characters? It has been understood of the fall of the Greek church in 1453, when Constantinople was taken by the Turks: but that event has been described in the vision of the horse- men (chap. ix); and it is the western or Latin church that occupies the whole of these chapters. It were much better to understand it of the falling off of the northern nations from the see of Rome, which was an immediate consequence of the Reformation. Its being “in the same hour” with the resurrection of the witnesses would favour this interpretation, but in several other particulars it does not agree. No reason can be given why the seceding northern nations should be called “a tenth part of the city;” nor do any events which attended the Reformation appear to correspond with the slaughter of “seven thou- sand names of men.” If the tenth part of the city fell as early as the Reformation, the seventh angel must have sounded his trumpet “quickly ” after it; and this some writers who believed the former have very consistently maintained, conceiving also that the Millennium com- menced, or would commence, towards the middle of the eighteenth century. But surely we must allow that events have contradicted this explication. The character of the seventh trumpet is, that under it the kingdoms of this world were to become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ; but the nations which have fallen off from the papal see have not answered to this description, but have rather sunk into formality and irreligion. And as to the Millennium, one of its characters is, that the beast and the false prophet shall first have gone into perdition, and Satan be bound; but neither of these has taken place. It is also in the Millennium, if ever, that we are to look for the cessation of war, and the universal prevalence of true religion, both among Jews and Gentiles, neither of which has yet come to pass. - All things considered, I know of no event that seems to correspond so well with the prophecy as the late revolution in France. Thus it has been understood by some of the ablest expositors, and that for ages prior to the event. A writer in the Eclectic Review has collected no fewer than ten of them who have referred to this event, and that long before it occurred, and several of them in commenting on the passage. Among these are the names of DR. THOMAS GooDw1N, and WITRINGA. DR. GooDw1N, who wrote in 1639, says, “By the tenth part of the city, I understand, as Mr. Brightman before me, some one tenth part of Europe.” “I think it probable that France may be this country; and that in this revolution men will be deprived of their names and titles, which are to be rooted out for ever, and condemned to perpetual forgetfulness.” “France may have the honour to have the last great stroke in the ruining of Rome. And this figurative earthquake, though happening only in one country, may extend its effects to others, so that a great shaking of states, as well political as ecclesiastical, may be intended.” VITRINGA, who wrote in 1719, asks, “What can be more suitable than to understand here by the tenth part END OF THE SECOND WOE.—THE SEVENTH TRUMPET. 459 of the city some illustrious kingdom, which, being under the dominion of Rome with respect to religion, was of distinguished rank among the ten kingdoms, and had hitherto defended the Romish superstitions? It is here said, in a figurative sense, that it would fall, since by means of those mighty commotions by which it was to be shaken it would be torn from the body of the antichris- tian empire.” “France may be the forum of the great city.” “The earthquake in this tenth part of the city is an event which history must illustrate. It is not perfectly clear from the prophecy of what kind these commotions are; whether warlike, such as are wont to shake the world, and subvert the existing government, or whether they are such as arise on a sudden from the insurrection of a nation that has been long oppressed : the words of the prophecy appear to favour the latter sense. In the predicted catastrophe some thousands will undoubtedly perish distinguished by their elevated dignities or nobility of birth.”—Eclectic Review for February, 1814. DR. GILL, in 1748, speaking of the earthquake, says, “Something yet to come is here intended;” and “I rather think the kingdom of France is meant, the last of the ten kingdoms which rose up out of the ruins of the Roman empire.” And in his note on chap. xiii. 18, he speaks of the destruction of antichrist as “quickly fol. -owing the downfal of the kingdom of France, as the tenth part of the city, which should fall a little before the third woe came on.” The revolution in France has been truly a moral earth- quake, which has shaken the papal world to its centre. One of the ten kingdoms which composed it, and that the principal one, has so fallen as at present to be rather a scourge than a support to it. If by names of men be meant titles, they were abolished; or if men of name, the slaughter predicted of them certainly corresponds with the calamities which befell the princes, the nobles, and the priests, during that awful period ; and as the fall of a few thousands of great men would involve that of an immense number of the common people, such has been the effect in this instance. Whether the remaining adherents to the papal cause have given “glory to God” in the man- ner they ought, or not, they have felt his hand, and by their fear and dismay have been compelled to yield a sort of involuntary acknowledgment of his justice. The only objection that I feel to this application of the prophecy is, that it is said to be “in the same hour” as that in which the witnesses ascended into heaven, which, if understood of that legal security which from the Re- formation was afforded to the protestants against popish persecution, may seem to be at too great a distance for such a mode of expression. It is however not only under the same trumpet, but during the period in which the wit- messes continue to enjoy that security to which they were then introduced, that this event has occurred. Instead of the great Babylonish city recovering itself so as to renew its persecutions against the witnesses, it is itself smitten of God as by an earthquake and in a measure overthrown. If the opinions of GooDw1N, WITRINGA, and GILL be correct, and if the events which have of late years occur- red be the accomplishment of them, the last of these Writers must have been mistaken in supposing the slay- ing of the witnesses to be something future ; for the fall of the city is placed after the slaying and rising again of º witnesses. If therefore the one be now past, so is the Cther. DISCOURSE XV. THE FIRST GENERAL DESCRIPTION CoNCLUDED ; OR THE SOUNDING OF THE SEVENTH ANGEL, Itev. xi. 14—19. AFTER the great earthquake, we hear as it were the cry of the watchman, telling us the hour of the night—“The se- cond woe is past, and behold the third woecometh quickly!” When the first woe was past, the second and third woes were to come hereafter ; but between the last two there would be but a short space. As things should approach to a crisis, events would occur in more rapid succession. This second woe, as it introduced the Turkish horsemen, (chap. ix. 13–19,) must have commenced about 1281, and (if the falling of a tenth part of the city has been rightly interpreted) ended about 1791. Its having com- menced with the introduction of the Turks does not prove that it comprehended them only, nor that it must needs end with the passing away of their empire. On the con- trary, the accomplishment of their overthrow seems to be reserved for the sixth vial of the third woe-trumpet, which will be poured upon the Euphrates, near the times of the Millennium. But, it may be asked, how is it that the sounding of the trumpets should be introduced in this place 3 If this and the three following chapters contain general descrip- tions of the papal apostacy, including the times of various trumpets, but not divided by them, how is it that in the midst of one of these descriptions mention should be made of the second woe ending, and of the third woe coming quickly 3 I answer, Though these general descriptions are not divided by trumpets, yet, as they comprehend the times of the trumpets, each of them might have been so, and, for our information, one of them actually is so. And as the termination of the sixth and the sounding of the seventh trumpet forms an era in the church of Christ, it is here marked with peculiar emphasis. It is from this era, as we shall find, that, after these three general descrip- tions are given, the series of the prophecy is resumed, and the vials are introduced. But if the sounding of the seventh angel forms an era in the Christian church, it requires that we pause, and pay particular attention to it. The events of this trumpet were anticipated by the angel at the distance probably of more than a thousand years, when he forbade the seven thunders to be written— “The days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he should begin to sound,” are marked as the period when the great designs of Heaven, foretold in prophecy, should be accomplished, chap. x. The contents of this trumpet are of deeper interest than any that have preceded it, both to the enemies of the church and to the church itself. It wears a twofold aspect. Towards the enemies of the church it is a woe- trumpet, and a signal of mighty vengeance ; towards the church itself it is a harbinger of joy, a kind of jubilee- trumpet, announcing the year of enlargement; for when the “seventh angel sounded, there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ; and he shal reign for ever and ever !” Under the former of these as- pects it includes the seven last plagues, which are but so many subdivisions of it, and which are, I conceive, the execution of the seven thunders in chap. x. These thun- ders, it is observable, are not only referred to “the days of the voice of the seventh angel,” but to those in which he should “begin to sound,” that is, to the early part of them. Under the latter aspect it comprehends all the success of the gospel previous to and during the Millen- nium, with all the glorious results of it as described in the remainder of the prophecy. We are not to consider it, however, under either of these aspects as being more than a signal of things which are to follow. As the vengeance will not all be poured forth at once, so neither will the kingdoms of this world at once become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ; but from the sounding of this trumpet both shall have a commencement, and both be singularly progressive under it. With respect to the time, if the application of the “earthquake and the falling of a tenth part of the city” to events which have occurred within the last twenty years be just, there can be little if any doubt of the seventh angel’s having sounded his trumpet within that period, and of the whole of these verses containing a general view of the state of things from our times to the Commencement of the Millennium. On this occasion the heavenly chorus strikes up. The four-and-twenty elders, who sit before God on their seats, fall upon their faces and worship God. This heavenly 460 EXPOSITION OF THE APOCALYPSE. chorus is not introduced on ordinary occasions. Things must therefore be pending of deep interest to the church of God. By the matter of the song we may learn some- thing of what they are. Corresponding with the twofold aspect of the seventh trumpet, those who have destroyed the earth are to be destroyed, and those who have suffered for Christ are to be rewarded. The character under which the Most High is praised— “ the Lord God Almighty, who is, and was, and is to come”—seems to imply that he could have suppressed the power of his enemies at any time ; that though, for wise reasons, he had not for ages past exerted his strength, yet now he was about to “take unto him his great power, and to reign; ” and that all this is the result of his immutable counsels. The “anger” of the nations had been great both against God and his servants, opposing him, and persecuting them with unrelenting cruelty : but now his wrath is come ; now the blood of the martyrs of past ages shall be avenged (chap. xviii. 20); now their labours and sufferings shall produce their effects ; from the seed which has been sown during a succession of centuries in tears and blood a har- vest of joy will spring up ; finally, those who by persecu- tions, corruptions, and unjust wars have destroyed the earth, shall now be themselves destroyed. Under the image of opening the heavenly temple seems to be set forth the glorious state of the church when these judgments shall be executed upon her enemies. As the tem- ple was polluted and shut up under certain idolatrous reigns, and opened in times of reformation, so the gospel temple has been treated under the reign of antichrist, and so it shall be restored at or towards the end of the #260 years. “The ark of the testament being seen” implies the re- moval of the veil ; and as it was not to be seen in the second temple, but only in the first, its being seen here would seem to denote the restoration of pure primitive Christianity, as it was taught, believed, and practised when the gospel temple was first erected. “The light- nings, voices, thunderings, earthquake, and hail,” are the same things which are described under the seventh vial, chap. xvi. 18–21. Both refer to the same events; only this is general, and that more particular; and as there the language seems to refer to the efficacy of the gospel, and of the spiritual judgments on those who reject it—purify- ing the moral atmosphere of the world—such appears to be its meaning here. DISCOURSE XVI. THE SECOND GENERAL DESCRIPTION ; or THE GREAT RED DRAGON, AND THE WOMAN FLYING INTO THE WILDERNESS. Rev. xii. 1–6. TIIe first general description, it has been observed, took up the apostacy at the time when things were so matured that the catholic church was ordered to be left out of God's temple, as not belonging to it; but this appears to trace it to its origin. Here we go back to an early period of history; possibly as far as to the fourth century, and to the times of some of the first trumpets. At a time when the church was in danger of being lost in superstition and worldly conformity, it was natural for the faithful to feel anxious for the cause of Christ. For their encouragement, the church is described in vision as bearing a seed which should be preserved by the special care of Heaven, through all these evil times, and become in the end victorious over the whole earth. Such appears to be the scope of this second general description. Prior to the introduction of antichristian corruptions, the church is described as “a woman clothed with the sun, and having the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars;” denoting the plenitude of gospel light which compassed her as a garment; her superiority to the Jewish dispensation; and, in consequence of her adherence to the doctrine and examples of the apostles, her triumph over ten successive persecutions. The woman is said to be “with child, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered ;” denoting, it may be, the earnest desires of the true church after the increase of believers. Such has always been its character. Worldly men who have taken upon them the Christian name have invariably been employed in compassing selfish objects. But true Christians have at all times been distinguished by a desire to extend the kingdom of Christ. The following description, by EUSEBIUs, of the labours of the immediate successors of the apostles, is doubtless applicable to the church so long as it adhered to their doc- trine and example. “They built up those churches the foundations of which were laid by the apostles, promoting greatly the doctrine of the gospel, and scattering the salu- tary seed of the kingdom of heaven at large over the whole world.—Travelling abroad, they performed the work of evangelists to those who as yet had not heard the word of faith, being very ambitious to preach Christ, and to deliver the books of the Divine Gospels. And these per- sons having only laid the foundation of faith in remote and barbarous places, and constituted other pastors, committed to them the culture of those they had perfectly introduced to the faith, departing again to other regions and nations, accompanied with the grace and co-operation of God.”— Lib. III. c. 37. - While the woman is thus in labour, “behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads, whose tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth, stands be- fore her, ready to devour her child as soon as it was born.” The dragon is in ver. 9 expressly called “ the devil and Satan who deceiveth the whole world,” and all that is said of him in the remainder of the prophecy agrees with this in its literal application; but, by his having the heads and horns of the Roman beast, is intimated that it was under this form, or by means of this government, that he did what he did in the present instance. As the woman is not an individual, but the society of the faithful, so neither is the man-child an individual, but the woman’s seed, which, in ver. 17, is explaimed of them who “keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” It was this seed that the dragon aimed by persecution and corruption to destroy. This child was born to rule : not however at present; for if so, there had been no need of his being caught up to the throne of God, nor for his mother's flying into the wilderness for 1260 years. It is at the termination of that period that the man-child, or the seed of the church, shall rule; and this accords with Dan. vii. 27, “The king- dom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High.” Nor need it be objected that the sceptre of this government is a rod of iron; for such the kingdom of Christ must ever be to the ungodly. There are two marks by which the times referred to in this vision may, if I mistake not, be ascertained. One is the 1260 days, or years, which, being the appropriate num- ber of the reign of the papal antichrist, proves it to have no reference to the times of paganism. The other is, that the ten horns are not upon the beast, but upon the dragon, and the crowns are not as yet upon them, but upon the seven heads. When the horns are spoken of in reference to the times following the overthrow of the empire by the northern nations, and of its becoming ten independent kingdoms, they are described as being upon the beast, and as having crowns upon them, chap. xiii. 1. This indicates that the introduction of the vision contained in the first five verses of this chapter, though it does not go so far back as to the days of paganism, yet neither does it go so far forward as to the times of popery; but to those which were intermediate and preparatory, namely, the fourth and fifth centuries, in which Christianity became exceedingly corrupt, and a connexion was introduced be- tween the secular and ecclesiastical powers which issued in what is exhibited in chap. xvii., a woman riding upon a scarlet-coloured beast ! I do not suppose that the 1260 years of the reign of antichrist are to be reckoned from the time when these corruptions began. Antichrist did not commence his reign from his birth ; but thence his way was preparing. It is of what was done prior to the THE WOMAN AND THE DRAGON. 46] woman's flight into the wilderness for 1260 years that these verses speak. By the accession of Constantine, the beast was “as it were wounded to death;” and this may be the reason why no mention is made of him. Under the Christian emperors the beast for some time would lie apparently dead: the dragon, however, “that old serpent the devil and Satan, who deceiveth the whole world,” knew how even at that time to make use of the pomp and power of the empire to serve his purposes. It is in the corruptions of the fourth and fifth centuries that we are to look for the origin of popery. It was by the influx of worldly power and glory into the church that Satan first seduced a great part of those who had shone like stars in the Christian firmament, and (allud- ing perhaps to his having originally drawn into apostacy a great part of the angels of heaven) cast them to the earth. But perceiving, notwithstanding what had been done as to a number of the leaders of the church, that a large body of the faithful were still intent on not only preserving, but extending the Redeemer's kingdom, the dragon aims to destroy the fruits of their labours. When he saw that the bait of worldly pomp and power had so far succeeded as to draw the principal men into his met, it was doubtless his object to make a full end of the church of Christ. But he was disappointed. The woman “brought forth a man-child, who, in the end, would rule all nations as with a rod of iron.” By the woman’s flying into the wilderness seems to be meant her retiring into obscurity, where she would exist without legal protection, in some such manner as David did when he fled from the persecutions of Saul, and with- out any other defence than that which was afforded by the shielding providence of God. In this way the true church existed in all the nations of Europe from the time that popery first obtained the ascendency, and during the long period of its domination. Wherever this religion prevailed, all those Christians who refused to yield to its corruptions were driven into obscurity. It was thus not only in those countries bordering upon Italy, but in others at the greatest distance. It is thought by some to have been thus with the British churches in Wales, with the Culdees in Scotland and Ireland, and probably with every other body of Christians where this influence ex- tended. Many of them were so pursued by persecution, that, if they had any communion with each other, it was in a secret way. If they met to worship God, it must be in the night, in woods, or mountains, or caves of the earth. So little visibility belonged to the church in this state, that it requires some attention to ascertain where it was to be found. To the question, however, “Where was your church before Luther?” we may answer, IN THE WILDERNEss, where prophecy has placed her, and whither those who ask the question had driven her. If one place was more distinguished than another as afford- ing a shelter to the faithful, it was among the mountains and valleys of the Alps. It may be difficult to decide upon the time when the Woman fled into the wilderness. This, however, we know, that very soon after the revolution by the accession of Constantine corruptions in doctrine, divisions, in- trigues, persecutions, and a flood of superstition, over- spread the catholic church.* In such a state of things true Christians must not only be offended, but must become offensive to others, and so be persecuted, and compelled to retire as into the wilderness. The ancient Vaudois are said to “ date their origin from the beginning of the fourth century; when one Leo, at the great revolution in religion under Constantine the * We may see into what a gulf of superstitious imposture the catho- lic church was sunk within fifty years after the death of Constantine by the following story, taken from DR. ALLIx, Sulpicius Severus. who lived early in the fifth century, wrote The Life of a St. Mº, Qf Tours, who had lived in the latter part of the fourth. In writing this life, Sulpicius speaks of a certain altar, which the popular super: Stition had rendered famous, because some martyr was pretended to have been buried in the place. “St. Martin not being able to make any certain discovery of the name of the martyr, and the circumstances of his sufferings, and being loth absolutely to doubt the truth of it, thought fit himself to go to this famous sepulchre in company with Some of his brethren. Being come to the place, he earnestly begged of God to reveal to him the name and merit of the martyr. After this, Great, opposed the innovations of Sylvester, bishop of Rome. This agrees with what was said by Rainerius, a monk inquisitor of the thirteenth century, that they were the most pernicious of all sects, for three reasons. 1. “Because it is the most ancient. Some aver their existence (says he) from the days of Sylvester, others from the very times of the apostles. 2. Because it is so universal ; for there is hardly a country into which this sect has not crept. 3. Because all others render themselves detestable by their blasphemies; but this has a great appearance of godliness, living a righteous life before men, believing right concerning God, confessing all the articles of the the creed, only hating and reviling the church of Rome. DISCOURSE XVII. THE SECOND GENERAL DESCRIPTION CONTINUED ; OR THE WAR BETWEEN MICHAEL AND THE DRAGON, Bev. xii. 7–17. VER. 7–12. The dragon, having driven the true church into the wilderness, is supposed to have carried things in his own way amongst the rest. At a certain period, how- ever, during her 1260 years' residence in the wilderness, Michael her prince espouses her cause, and makes war upon the dragon. There is no doubt a reference in this part of the pro- phecy to what was predicted in Dan. x. 13–21; xii. 1. Michael is there described not only as standing up for the people of God under Persian oppression, but as fighting the battles of the church in later ages, even during the “time, times, and half a time,” or during the dominion of antichrist. The account given of Michael agrees not with the cha- racter of a created angel, but with that of Messiah the Prince, who defends his church against the dragon, “that old serpent the devil.” Each has his angels, who per- haps are the visible agents in the war. But, before we determine the application of this part of the vision, it will be proper to notice a few of its general characters. First, The scene is laid in “heaven.” Yet in this heaven there is supposed till now to have been a place found for the dragon. It could not therefore be in the church above, where there has been no place for him since he “ left his first estate.” But in the church below there has. The latter therefore must have been the scene of the present contest. Secondly, The war is made by Michael on the dragon, and not by the dragon on Michael. This intimates that it must have been at a time when the dragon possessed such a plenitude of power in what was called the Chris- tian church, that his object was not to extend so much as to retain it. Thirdly, Whatever of worldly power and policy might accompany the war, the war itself was spiritual. It was a war between truth and error, righteousness and unright- eousness; for the victors “overcame by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony.” Fourthly, It is supposed that in this great struggle many of Michael’s adherents would lose their lives, but that nevertheless they would overcome. The cause of truth and righteousness would prevail, and those who suffered for Christ's sake would bear such a testimony for truth, and obtain such a victory over the world, as to be more than conquerors. turning himself towards the left, he saw standing a hideous ghost. They command him to declare himself. The ghost obeys, tells his name, confesses that he had been executed for robbery, that it was only the error of the people that caused him to be canonized, that he was in nothing like the martyrs, they were in glory, whereas he was in pain. The good St. Martin, being troubled to hear this account, caused the altar to be carried to another place, and so, says his biogra- pher, delivered the people from a superstitious error.” The same Sulpicius Severus, though a monk himself, yet speaking of the monks of his time, says, “They do almost all things in such a manner that you would not so much think they had repented for their former crimes, as that afterwards they had repented of their re- pentance l’’ 462 EXPOSITION OF THE APOCALYPSE. Such are the characters of the war : to what event during the 1260 years of antichristian usurpation does it apply? I can conceive of none but the Reformation in the sia teenth century. Satan, as ruling by means of Rome, was then attacked, and cast out of those nations where the Reformation prevailed; which nations, being the seat of Christ's visible kingdom, are accounted as “heaven,” while those which still cleave to the apostacy are “the earth.” A song of the heavenly host is introduced on this occa- sion; for the “ loud voice” (ver. 10) does not appear to be that of an individual, but of a multitude, who join as with one voice in a shout of joy and praise. It fits the lips of the holy army of martyrs before the throne, who, feeling for their brethren upon earth, rejoice in their hav- ing obtained a portion of relief. As Satan accused Job, and obtained permission of God to persecute him, so, by the agency of the bishop of Rome, he had from century to century accused and persecuted the saints of the Most High. But now were come “ salvation and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ; for the accuser of our brethren,” say they, “is cast down, that accused them to our God day and night.” The Reform- ation was at once a pledge of antichrist’s consumption, and of the increase of the Redeemer's kingdom. The weapons by which the victory was obtained are celebrated by the heavenly host, and are worthy of our special attention. Some of the followers of Christ among the Albigenses, the Bohemians, and the Reformers thought it necessary to take arms, and fight for their religion; but it has proved, I believe, in almost every instance, that where a body of Christians have taken the sword to defend themselves against persecution, they as a body have perished by the sword. Whatever of this spirit there might be amongst the Reformers, it was not by this, but by “the blood of the Lamb, and the word of their testimony,” that they overcame. * The “heavens,” from which the dragon is cast out, are called upon to rejoice, while a woe is pronounced upon the inhabiters of “the earth and of the sea,” or those com- timental and maritime nations where he still dwelleth, and to which his influence is in one sense confined. The power of Satan in this way, being reduced to narrower limits, would be the more mischievous within those limits. He would consider the Reformation as only a first step towards the overthrow of a system by which, under the Christian name, ne had deceived mankind with equal fa- cility as by the delusions of heathenism. I(nowing there- fore that his time was short, he would be the more assidu- ous in improving it. The denunciation wears a terrible aspect towards those nations which, notwithstanding all the light of the Reformation, still cleave to the apostacy. It may be equal to saying, Woe unto you, Austria, France, Spain, Portugal, and Italy; for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time !—From this language it might be expected that, in those countries which rejected the Re- formation, popery would operate so as either, by producing its proper effect, to lead its votaries into downright infi- delity, or, by rivetting the delusion, to render them more and more the dupes of imposture. And thus it has actual- ly operated: the nations which still cleave to it are nearly divided into two classes, the deceivers and the deceived; the former of which appear to be the destined instruments of Heaven in destroying the latter, and so of executing the vials of God's displeasure upon them. Ver, 13–17. The wrath of the dragon, for having been cast out of heaven, is directed against not only the spiritual welfare of his own subjects, but the lives of those Chris- tians who were situated within his territories. The friends of Christ in popish countries have since the Reformation been persecuted with increased violence. In the ordinary measures of legal process, persecution has indeed diminish- ed; it has in a manner been shamed out of countenance by the prevalence of tolerant principles; but the more it has been restrained in this way, the more violent have been its ebullitions in a way of occasional outrage. Of this the massacre of Paris in 1572, the cruelties in the valleys of Piedmont in 1655, and the revocation of the edict of Nantes in 1685, are horrible examples. From the times of the Reformation the church of Christ had in a manner come out of the wilderness. Having ob- tained a degree of legal protection in several nations, its members were not obliged as heretofore to retire into woods, and mountains, and caves, nor to have recourse to midnight assemblies for the purpose of hearing the gospel; but after these renewed persecutions the woman is obliged to fly a second time into the wilderness, as to her wonted place of refuge. Such has been the state of the protestants in all popish countries; such has been their state in France from the revocation of the edict of Nantes, in 1685, to the revolution, in 1789, though of late they were treated with less severity than formerly, being allowed to meet in the day time, only under military inspection. Nor was it in popish countries only that the wrath of the dragon vented itself. A portion of the poison of a persecuting spirit was found among protestants, even in our own country, from the Reformation to the revolution of 1688. If one place was more distinguished than another, as affording a shelter for the woman at the time of this her second flight, I suspect it was North America, where the church of Christ has been nourished, and may continue to be nourished during the remainder of the 1260 years. And as to those parts of the church which still exist in a state of insecurity, the serpent has not been suffered to make a full end of them ; they are nourished by the word of God, and shall doubtless survive the reign of antichris- tian corruption and persecution. The flood of waters cast after the woman by the dragon, and the war made on the remnant of her seed, referring, as it appears, to the latter end of the 1260 years, may be something yet to come. It is not impossible that persecu- tion may yet be revived. The antichristian cause can hardly be supposed to expire without some deadly strug- gles. Indeed it is in the very act of “making war on him that sitteth upon the horse, and his army,” that the “beast and the false prophet will be taken ;” and this seems to be the same war which is here made with the “remnant of the woman's seed.” Should a flood of persecution yet be in reserve for the church of Christ, it may be the last effort of an expiring fbe ; and from that the earth will preserve her by swallow- ing it up ; it may be in some such way as the invasion of the Philistines preserved David, or as political struggles have often been favourable to Christians, by furnishing those who wished to persecute them with other employ- ment. The dragon, provoked by his want of success against the woman, may vent his malice on the remnant of her seed that are within his reach ; but his time is short. His agents, “the beast and the false prophet,” will soon be taken ; and the Angel, with a great chain in his hand, shall next lay hold of him, and cast him into the bottomless pit. DISCOURSE XVIII. THE THIRD GENERAL DESCRIPTION ; OR THE BEAST WITH SEVEN HEADS AND TEN HORNS. Rev. xiii. 1–10. THE apostle, in vision, standing as upon the sea-shore, sees “a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.” A beast rising out of the sea is an empire opposed to God and his Christ rising out of the perturbed state of things in the world. The description given of this beast leaves no doubt of its being the same as the fourth beast in the seventh chap- ter of Daniel, namely, the Roman empire; with only a few circumstantial differences. Daniel viewed, it in its whole duration, whereas John describes it with special reference to its last or papal form; Daniel says nothing of its heads, which John does; and, lastly, Daniel speaks merely of the ten horns pertaining to the beast, but John describes them as having “crowns,” which shows that the times referred to are those in which the Western empire THE TEN-HORNED BEAST. 463 would be overthrown, and ten independent kingdoms arise out of it. This seven-headed and ten-horned beast does not ap- pear to be the pope, or popedom, nor the church of Rome; but that secular power which has supported the church of Rome through the whole of her corrupt and bloody progress. The beast is not the harlot, but that on which the harlot rides. That which has been denominated The Holy Roman Empire, of which sometimes a French and some- times a German monarch has been the head, seems to be the government principally intended, as being the great supporter of that church. It is not this government, how- ever, eacclusively of that of the other European nations, but merely as a principal amongst them. The ten horns were not distinct from the beast, but constituent parts of it. Europe, prior to the Reformation, was a family of nations, united in respect of religion by one ecclesiastical head. As nations they were independent, and often en- gaged in war with one another; but in supporting the church they were united. The beast is indeed distinguished from its horns, as any other beast may be, while yet the horns are constituent parts of it. The ten horns are said to “agree and to give their kingdom to the beast” (chap. xvii. 17); that is, they united with the emperor in sup- porting the church. Things were so managed indeed by the church, that the rulers of every nation in Christendom were in a manner compelled to unite in her support. “All the civil powers were obliged by the council of Lateran to take an oath, on pain of ecclesiastical censures, that they would endeavour to exterminate all who were de- clared heretics by the church out of their dominions; and if any prince or ruler refused to do so, after admonition, it was to be certified to the pope, who should declare all his subjects absolved from their allegiance, and any ca- tholic was free to seize his dominions.” Such was this monstrous beast, and such the means used by his rider to guide and govern him. Of the heads and horns of the beast we shall have oc- casion to speak hereafter more particularly. At present we may observe he is described as possessing the properties of the first three of Daniel’s four beasts, a leopard, a bear, and a lion, each ferocious and destructive ; and whereas the dragon is said to have given him his authority, the government, though professedly Christian, was under the influence of the wicked one. After the empire became Christian, the dragon for a while seemed to take the work of seducing and persecuting men into his own hand (chap. xii. 1–6); but he is now contented to transfer it to the beast as a kind of deputy under him, ver, 2. “I saw one of his heads,” continues the apostle, “as it were wounded to death, and his deadly wound was healed, and all the world wondered after the beast.” To under- stand this, we must know what is meant by the heads of the beast, and this we must learn from chap. xvii. 7–11. They are there said to be “seven mountains on which the woman sitteth, and seven kings, five of which are fallen, one is, and the other is not yet come.” It was not one of the seven mountains that was “as it were wounded to death,” but one of the seven kings, or governments, or forms of government, under which Rome existed. These, according to Tacitus the Roman historian, were kings, consuls, dictators, decemvirs, military tribunes, and empe- *ors ; five of which forms of government had passed away at the time of the prophecy; the sixth, namely, that of emperors, them was, and the other was not yet come. The wound which the beast is said to have received in one of his heads was so serious that he was for a time considered as dead; yet was he not dead in reality, but merely “as it were wounded to death ; ” for after this he revived and lived and reigned, to the wonder of the world. Hence the language in chap. xvii. 8, “And they that dwell on the earth shall wonder—when they behold the beast that was, and is mot, and yet is /* There are two interpretations of this part of the pro- phecy on which good commentators have been divided. One is, that the sword by which the beast was wounded was that of the northern nations, in the fifth century, by which Rome, under its sixth or imperial head, was over- thrown; but by means of popery the wound was healed, and she who had been given up for lost became in a new form the mistress of the western world. The other is, that the deadly wound was caused by the sword of Con- STANTINE, who, having in different engagements defeated his pagan colleagues, subverted the ancient religion of the empire, so that for a few years the beast was as it were dead ; but that when, under the influence of corruption, it again became idolatrous and persecuting, the beast re- vived, and the world wondered after him. Till of late I have preferred the former of these inter- pretations; but upon a closer examination of the prophecy I am inclined to think the latter to be the meaning. It does not seem likely that so extraordinary a change in the empire, and one that so deeply interested the church of God, should be overlooked, while one which is much more ordinary, and of but small account to religion, should be held up to view. It seems also, notwithstanding the cor- ruptions introduced under the first Christian emperors, it were too much to suppose that the empire continued to be the same beast as it was in the times of paganism, or that the difference was so small as not to require any kind of notice in the page of prophecy. That the species of Christianity introduced in the times of Constantine was injurious to the church is allowed, even by those who approve of national religious estab- lishments; yet the prophecy may be very applicable to the event. Supposing this to be its true meaning, there is no countenance given by it to that partial and corrupt system which at that time was introduced. On the con- trary, there is a strong intimation conveyed in those saving terms “ as it were’’ that the beast, though stunned, was not slain. He was not wounded to death, but merely as it were wounded to death. As soon as circumstances favoured his recovery, the wound was healed, and the beast resumed his wonted vigour, ver. 3. “They worshipped the dragon and the beast.” The homage of the world is generally paid to success, though it be in the worst of causes. Those powers which raised and supported the antichristian harlot, being successful, receive the homage of the nations called Christian, though in paying it they sink into the old idolatry under a new name, and in reality worship the wicked one, ver, 4. The “great things” spoken by this secular beast may refer to that spirit which gives not God the glory of suc- cess, but, like Sennacherib and Nebuchadnezzar, arrogates every thing to self. Its “blasphemies” relate to words and assumptions more immediately directed against God and his cause. The charge of blasphemy was preferred against all the heads of the beast, (ver. 1,) though most of them were pagan, and of course unacquainted with the true God. The blasphemies referred to therefore must be not merely his speeches directly uttered against the Greaſ Supreme, but his arrogating and assuming that which eac- clusively belongs to him. This charge is repeated and en- larged upon in ver. 6, where also it is followed with “mak- ing war upon the saints.” If God had been within the reach of the beast, he would have made war with him ; but as he was not, his hatred against him was discovered in making war upon his people. A species of practical blasphemy seems to constitute the principle from which all persecution proceeds ; for it is no other than usurping the throne of God in the mind of man. This principle has been common through all those pagan and papal go- vernments which have come in contact with the church of God. Nay, is it not exceedingly prevalent in almost all the governments now in being 3 It is rare, very rare, for those who occupy the supreme place in civil affairs to respect the claims of conscience and of God. Had these claims been properly respected, it had never entered the minds of the rulers of any nation that all the people within certain geographical boundaries should be com- pelled to worship God in a given way ! The blasphemies of this beast are directed not only against the “mame,” but against “the tabermacle of God, and them that dwell in heaven,” or his celestial attend- ants. The very saints and angels before the throne are by him represented as rebels against God, by receiving that homage which is due to him, and participating in their abominations. The church of God on earth, rela- tively considered, or as being his “tabernacle,” possesses a sacred character. If any man destroy or defile it, as 464 EXPOSITION OF THE APOCALYPSE. Antiochus did that of the Jews, him will God destroy. What then must be the guilt contracted by those perse- cuting powers who, under the pretence of extirpating heresy, have reproached the living God, and done every thing in their power to drive the religion of the Bible out of the world ! The time allotted for the continuance of this beast is “forty and two months.” A day being here put for a year, it is the same period as the “thousand two hundred and threescore days” in which the witnesses were to pro- phesy in sackcloth, and the woman was to continue in the wilderness. The war which it was “given him to make with the saints” is the same as that which he is said to have made against the witnesses, chap. xi. 7. It is that continued series of persecutions which, during that part of the 1260 years which has already elapsed, he has been carrying on against the followers of Christ. As the beast had assumed the place of God, so the multitude consented to treat him as the sovereign lord of conscience, and to be of that religion which he required. In describing this unworthy compliance, however, the Holy Spirit takes care to except “those whose names were written in the Lamb’s book of life ;” thus branding the idolaters with the black mark of reprobation. Such language wears a terrible aspect towards those who enter into the abominations of antichrist and persevere therein; but a pleasing one towards the chosen of God, who in the worst of times maintain their allegiance to Christ, ver, 8. The account of this secular beast (which from its cha- racter of supporting the popish hierarchy may be denomi- nated papal) here closes with a few words by way of solemn warning—“If any man have an ear, let him hear. He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity; he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and faith of the saints.” The per- secutor shall soon be persecuted, and the destroyer de- stroyed; and this not only in the world to come, but even in this world. Meanwhile, let the saints know that this is the season for the trial of their patience, and of their faith; the one to bear up under the persecutions of their enemies, and the other to keep in view the crown of life before them, ver. 9, 10. IDISCOURSE XIX. THE THIRD GENERAL DESCRIPTION contLNUED ; OR THE BEAST WITH TWO HORNS LIICE A LAMBe Rev. xiii. 11—18. VER. 11—15. The former of these beasts we have con- sidered as designed to symbolize the Roman empire under its last head, or that secular government which, in con- nexion with the ten horns or kingdoms of Europe, sup- ported popery through all its foul and bloody deeds; but here arises another beast, diverse from the former, yet acting in concert with him. Daniel, when describing the fourth or Roman beast, speaks of a little horn which should grow up as it were insensibly among the ten horns, and displace three of them. John says nothing of this little horn of Daniel, and Daniel is equally silent about this second beast of John ; but from the character given to them both they appear to be one and the same, namely, that ecclesiastical power which was to co-exist with the secular, and both assist it and be assisted by it. This beast is described as “rising out of the earth,” in which particular it is distinguished from the other, which “ rose out of the sea.” For a beast to rise out of the sea is for an empire to rise out of the perturbed state of things in the world, and such was the empire before described ; but for one to rise from the earth is for a power to grow up insensibly, like a weed in a garden, out of the estab- lished order of things.--Such was popery. “And he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.” This perfectly answers to that affectation of Christian meekness, accompanied in reality by the spirit and doctrine of the wicked one. On one occasion it can be the servant of servants; on another the deposer of kings and disposer of empires. . “He exerciseth all the power of the first beast before or in the sight of him.” “He is (says Bishop NEWToN) the prime minister, adviser, and mover of the first or secular beast. He holdeth imperium in imperio, an empire within an empire; claimeth a temporal authority as well as a spiritual ; hath not only the principal direction of the temporal powers, but often engageth them in his service, and enforceth his canons and decrees with the sword of the civil magistrate.” “He causeth men to worship the first beast.” As the secular authority invested the ecclesiastical with power, and riches, and honours, so, in return, the ecclesiastical, by consenting that Christianity should become an engine of state policy, and conscience itself be subjected to its interests, transferred that homage to man which was due only to the eternal God. It is this ecclesiastical in- fluence that has constituted the European nations a con- tinuation of the old Roman empire. It is the only bond which for ages has held them together, so as to render them one great antichristian beast, ver. 12. He is next described by his pretended miracles. He doeth great wonders, so that he maketh (or seemeth to make) “fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, and deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast.” This part of his character an- swers to what was foretold by the apostle of the man of sin—that he should come with “signs and lying wonders.” All these impositions of “the false prophet,” as he is elsewhere called, (chap. xvi. 13, 14,) being wrought in the sight of the first beast, and in that of the people, were to ingratiate himself with them, and to persuade them that he was, as is said of the sorcerer, “the great power of God.” While therefore he was professing to honour magistracy, he was labouring to subject it to himself. To show his devotion to the secular beast, he directs the people to make an image to him ; which being done, he, after his manner, endues it with life, and speech, and great authority: but all is “deceit ;” for the object is not to exalt the secular beast, but himself. This making of an image to the beast seems to allude to the heathen practice of making images to their deities. The gods themselves were supposed to be invisible. The same deity had images made to him in divers places. The design of making an image to a god would be to acknow- Hedge him as their deity, and to give a visibility and an establishment to his worship. To “make an image to the beast whose deadly wound was healed” would therefore be to give visibility and authority to his worship ; or to require implicit obedience to his commands in whose reign paganism was revived wnder the name of catholic Christianity / It is as guarantee of this system that the first beast is designated by the healing of his deadly wound, and that the second beast exerts all his influence in his favour. It has been observed, that while the secular beast is said to make war upon the saints, the ecclesiastical is only said to “cause them to be killed.” The council of Lateran decreed not to put heretics to death, but to deliver them over to the secular power to be killed ! “The inquisitors (says BURNET) on this occasion, with a disgusting affect- ation of lamb-like meekness, are wont to beseech the civil magistrates to show mercy to those whom they them- selves have given up to be consigned to the flames 1’’ ver. 15. Ver. 16–18. Such was to be the growing influence of this last beast, that he could “cause” all ranks and degrees of men to enlist under the banners of the first, to receive like soldiers his mark and number, and so to be aiding and assisting in the execution of his measures. Such has actually been the conduct of the Roman hierarchy; so that the common rights of men have been suspended on condition of their receiving the papal badge. Such, in fine, is the nature of the alliance established by this system be- tween the ecclesiastical and the secular powers; each plays into the other's hands; the church consents that religion shall be an engine of state policy, and in return the state supports the church in all her corrupt proceedings. } THE LAMB'S COMPANY. 465 Respecting the “mark” and the “name" of the beast, it is opposed, I conceive, to the seal of God on the fore- heads of his servants, chap. vii. And as the seal and name of God on the forehead appear to be the same, (com- pare chap. vii. 3, with chap. xiv. 1,) so may the mark and the name of the beast. Both are thought to allude to the ancient practice of marking servants and soldiers with their owner’s name in their forehead or in their hand. I cannot pretend to be certain what is meant by the “name of the beast.” It may be observed, however, that as the beast here evidently means the secular, and not the ecclesiastical power, there is a name given to him in the prophecy. He is called “the beast that was, and is not, and yet is ” (chap. xvii. 8. 11); the meaning of which I conceive to be, the government that existed in all its beastly properties as pagan, that appeared to have lost them as Christian, but that in supporting a corrupted Christianity resumed them. In other words, it is pa- gaxism revived under the form of catholic Christianity. Now as names are signs of character, to have this name or mark of the beast would be the same thing as being openly of this character or religion. As to the “number of his name,” I have nothing to offer which is fully satisfactory to my own mind. It is something which requires “wisdom and understanding to count it;” and yet, by its being the number of a man,” it would seem not to surpass human comprehension. It may be a name whose numerals amount to 666, as the Greek word Aarelvos, or other words in which this num- ber has been found; but as this appears to be merely conjecture, I leave it undecided. DISCOURSE XX. THE THIRD GENERAL DESCRIPTION continued ; or THE LAMB’s COMPANY. Rev. xiv. 1–5. UNLESS we consider the whole of the fourteenth chapter as a continuation of the thirteenth, we cannot be said to have a third general view of the rise, reign, and overthrow of popery; for the whole of the thirteenth chapter is taken up with a description of its rise and reign, and nothing is said in it of its downfal. Nor is any thing said of the state of the church of Christ during these “forty and two months,” save that the beasts “made war” with its mem bers, and “caused them to be killed.” But if the four- teenth chapter be considered as a continuation of the subject, we have then a complete view of it, and a most animating description of the state of the church of Christ during the “forty and two months,” or 1260 years, in beautiful opposition to the beasts and their followers. Ver: 1. The first of the beasts was a monster, having seven heads and ten horns; a compound of the leopard, the bear, and the lion. And as to the last, though in re- spect of its horns it was like a lamb, yet it had nothing of a lamb in its nature. What a charming contrast is here ; not only between the kingdom of heaven and the kingdoms of this world, but between a compound of hypocrisy and malignity, and the religion of Jesus Christ: "There was something like a lamb; but, lo, here is a Lamb . One of the beasts is described as rising out of the sea and the other out of the earth; but the iamb as standing upon a mountain. “Standing” is a reignin Dan. xi. 3. He had been slain, but now #. rules with great dominion.” It also denotes that the party is not only unvanquished, but triumphant. It might have been supposed that from the rising up of these beasts the Lamb should have found no place to exercise his government among men; but he stands his ground, and has his followers, as the beasts have theirs. His kingdom Was never overturned even in the most corrupt ages. . The place on which he stood was “Mount'sion.” This is his proper ground, as much as Babylon was of the other, In his church even upon earth, and amidst the sharpest Persecutions, the Lamb standeth upon the Mount Sion. The company said to be with him are the same that were sealed in chap. vii. This sealing was prior to the papal apostacy, and contained an assurance that God would preserve himself a people under it; and Io, after all the ravages of the beasts, here we find them ; not in |Babylon, but with the Lamb in Sion. The followers of the beast were designated by his mark and the number of his name; and the followers of the Lamb “have his Father’s name written in their foreheads.” These are the same with the two witnesses, and the woman that fled into the wilderness; they denote the Israel of God, and were that to an apostate church which the twelve tribes who served God day and night were to an apostate world. In reviewing the dark ages of popery, we are apt to think there could have been but few who clave to the truth in those times ; but, if the Christian world were again put to such a test of their sincerity, it were well if the number of the faithful proved greater than in those days. MEDE (says Bishop NEwTon) hath observed, from good authorities, that in the war with the Waldenses and Albigenses there perished in France alone a million: from the first institution of the Jesuits to the year 1480, that is, in little more than thirty years, nine hundred thousand. In the Netherlands alone, the duke of Alva boasted that within a few years he had despatched to the amount of thirty-sia, thousand, and those all by the hand of the com- mon executioner. In the space of scarcely thirty years the inquisition destroyed by various kinds of tortures one hundred and fifty thousand. Saunders, himself a popish writer, confesses that an innumerable multitude of Lollards and Sacramentarians were burnt throughout all Europe; who yet, he says, were not put to death by the pope and bishops, but by the civil magistrates.” That is, the secular beast did the work, and the ecclesiastical only caused it ! These, and many more whose names will appear another day, composed the company who stood with the Lamb. Wer. 2, 3. But hark . A sound is heard—It is from a great distance—It is like the roaring of the sea, or the rolling of thunder—It is the sound of a multitude—There is music—It seems like a new song—It is the moving of God’s host —What can be the meaning 3 If I mistake not, this is a description of the same event which is signi- fied in the first general view by the resurrection of the witnesses, and in the second by the victory of Michael and his angels over the dragon and his angels; that is to say, The Reformation of the sixteenth century. The song intimates that something has occurred which furnishes matter for rejoicing. A new song commonly supposes a new or recent deliverance : and to what event during the 1260 years can this be applied unless it be to the Reforma- tion? It was then that the army of the Lamb felt its ground, and gloriously triumphed. That which at a dis- tance was only “as it were " a new song, on drawing nearer proved to be one in reality, and one that none but the redeemed could unite in. The joy attending the Re- formation would be confined to the faithful. As to worldly men who engaged in it, they would rejoice only as their temporal interests were promoted by it; and as to the devotees of the beasts, they would deplore the dangers of the church : but they who had been reclaimed from the apostacy of their species, and preserved from that of professing Christians, would enter into the spirit of it. In them it was the triumph of faith. The blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony would be the bur- den of their song. The Lamb’s company are here particularly characterized. First, By the things from which they had been preserved ; namely, spiritual fornication and adultery, into which the generality of professing Christians had fallen. Secondly, By the course they had pursued. They followed the Lamb whithersoever he went ; in his doctrine, worship, afflictions, spirit, and conduct he was their example. Thirdly, By the distinguished blessings conferred upon them. They were “redeemed from among men, being the first-fruits unto God and to the Lamb.” They were the travail of his soul, in which he was satisfied. In them appeared the efficacy of his death ; while others, though calling themselves Christians, still continued under the worst of bondage. And as, in the law of the first-fruits, a part was accepted for the whole, so, when that which 2 H 466 EXPOSITION OF THE APOCALYPSE. called itself the church apostatized, those who continued faithful were accepted as the Christian church, or reckoned as the Lord’s portion. Fourthly, By their sincerity and purity. “In their mouth was found no guile; for they were without fault before the throne of God.” While the followers of the beasts were trimming and worshipping, as their worldly interests required, these were upright before God in all their conversation. Such is the contrast between the beast and the blas- phemies of his worshippers on the one hand, and the Lamb and the praises of his followers on the other. DISCOURSE XXI. THE THIRD GENERAL DEscRIPTION concLUDED ; or THE MESSAGES OF THE THREE ANGELS, THE HARVEST, AND THE WINTAGE, Rev. xiv. 6—20. IF the foregoing application of the new song of the Lamb's company to the Reformation in the sixteenth century be just, it may be expected that what follows will relate to events subsequent to that distinguished era. Ver, 6, 7. I am aware that this commission of the flying angel has been generally understood as addressed to papal idolaters, and the passage of course applied to the evan- gelical labours of the reformers. The fall of Babylon, and the warnings against worshipping the beast and his image which follow, may have led to this application. There are other things, however, which have led me to consider “the angel flying in the midst of heaven” as sent to pagan rather than to papal idolaters. It is true we are in danger of magnifying the events of our own times, and of expecting to find things occupying a conspicuous place in prophecy which upon the great chart of the Divine proceedings may have no place, or at most be only as a speck. I have not sought however for any thing which might be applied to the events of present times, nor interpreted the passage in any other than what appears to be its most natural meaning. There are four characters pertaining to the prophecy, some of which appear to be inapplicable to the evangelical labours of the reformers, but which are all applicable to the attempts to evangelize the heathem. 1. The parties to whom the message is sent are not merely the nations of Europe, but EVERY NATION, AND KINDRED, AND TONGUE, AND PEOPLE. 2. The message itself seems to intimate that they had hitherto read only the book of nature, and that without learning from it so much as who MADE THE HEAVENS, AND THE EARTH, AND THE SEA, AND THE FOUN- TAINS OF WATERs. 3. It is supposed that when the spread of the gospel should be attempted in good earnest, and in a humble dependence upon God, difficulties which before seemed insuperable would subside. The church has long felt too much like the unbelieving Israelites in respect of going up to possess the Promised Land. Giants have seemed in the way, and walls reaching up to heaven; but when the work is attempted in the name of Christ, it is like an angel flying in the midst of heaven, whose course none are able to arrest. 4. The tone in which the nations are addressed is solemn and imperious. “The hour of his judgment is come 1” There was something resembling this when the gospel was first announced. “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”—“The times of this ignorance God winked at ; but now com- mandeth all men every where to repent: because he hath appointed a day in the which he will judge the world in righteousness,” &c. The kingdom of the Messiah was then at hand, but now it draws near in its most extended form ; and those nations and governments that will not bow to him shall be dashed in pieces as a potter's vessel ! It is now coming to this, that “all they that go down to the dust shall bow before him ; and none can keep alive his own soul; ”—which, as our poet expresses it, is equal to saying— And all the kindreds of the earth Shall worship, or shall die! The desire which has been kindled of late years to carry the gospel among the heathen does not appear to be an object unworthy of a place in prophecy. It has engaged the attention of a larger portion of the Christian church, and excited more earnest prayer and disinterested exertion, than perhaps any thing which has occurred since the Re- formation. Nor ought we to consider what has hitherto been done as any thing more than the commencement of the angel's flight. It has indeed for its object the evan- gelizing of “every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people ; ” but at present this is far from being accomplish- ed. We have seen enough, however, to convince us with what ease the great God, by touching the hearts of a few individuals, can accomplish it. * Wer. 8. This is the first time that mention is made of Babylon. The allusion doubtless is to old Babylon, by which the church was formerly oppressed; and to the pre- dictions of her fall as given by the prophets (Isa. xxi. 9; Jer. li. 8): but the Babylon here referred to doubtless is Rome, considered as the head of that great antichristian community which has corrupted the religion of Christ, and persecuted his followers. There may be no such immediate connexion between the preaching of the everlasting gospel to the heathen world and the fall of antichristian Babylon as that the latter should be the effect of the former; but it may comport with the wisdom of God to render it a concomitant. When the servants of Christ lay themselves out for his name in one way, it is not unusual with him to promote the same general object in another. If we seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, temporal blessings are added unto us; and thus if we lay ourselves out in extending his cause among the heathen, he may at the same time, by his providence, be working in another quarter the over- throw of that which is opposed to it. The cry of the angel does not denote that Babylon would be immediately and entirely destroyed at this time; for if so, the warnings of the third angel, which follow, would be unnecessary. Besides, it is by the harvest and the vintage, towards the close of the chapter, that the overthrow will be effected. But the church is here called upon to expect it, and to observe the course of events, as preparing the way for it. Ver, 9–13. This is the language of solemn warning. It is addressed to all whom it concerns, good and bad, especially to those who live at the time here referred to, the time immediately preceding the fall of the antichristian power, and so looks with a severe aspect on those who persevere in their attachment to it, notwithstanding the light which will have been diffused in the world. They who at any period surrender their consciences to human authority, and fully imbibe the antichristian system, will incur the wrath of God; but they who do this in the face of that light which by this time will be spread through the world, will incur greater degrees of the Divine displeasure than those who have been carried away with it in darker ages. The twelfth and thirteenth verses would seem to portend a time of persecution prior to the final overthrow of the antichristian power; a time which may be as the last struggles of the beast. This is the flood cast out of the mouth of the dragon after the woman (chap. xii. 15); the gathering together of the “kings of the earth and of the whole world to the battle of the great day of God Almighty” (chap. xvi. 14); and the war made by the beast and the kings against him who sat upon the horse, and against his army, chap. xix. 19. Ver, 14–20. The angels have delivered their messages, and now the Lord himself appears. He comes as it were to judgment, and to the antichristian party a terrible judg- ment it will be. Under the symbols of a harvest and a vintage is predicted its utter overthrow. Whatever dis- tinction there may be between the one and the other, both I doubt not refer to that series of calamities which is re- served to destroy the beast and his adherents. They refer to the same things which have been noticed from chap. xi. 18, when the wrath of God was come, and the time of the dead that they should be avenged, and those destroyed who had long destroyed the earth. This being a general INTRODUCTION TO THE WIALS 467 description of events which will be more particularly set forth under the pouring out of the vials, we shall find them again under “the battle of Armageddon, or the great day of God Almighty” (chap. xvi.); also in the “supper of the great God,” to which the fowls are invited, and in which “ the beast and the false prophet are taken,” chap. xix. One thing is remarkable in both the harvest and the vintage, they indicate that the papal abominations shall be ripe, fully ripe. There is a tendency to maturity in both good and evil, in individuals and communities, and even in the world itself. Popery matured is infidelity. To this it tends, and here it will probably land the great body of its adherents. I see no solid ground for Mr. Faber’s hy- pothesis of an infidel king, any more than of an infidel antichrist, the historical exposition of the eleventh chapter of Daniel by Prideaux (Connexion, Part II. Book II., III.) appearing to me to be the true one ; but I have no doubt that infidelity is, and will be, the distinguishing feature of the last times. What is said of the “scoffers of the last times” is indeed descriptive of what we daily witness; but it is only of individuals that these things are spoken. In- fidelity does not appear to be symbolized in the Scriptures either by a beast, a horn, or a king ; it is merely the papal beast grown old, or popery as having produced its proper fruits, which fruits may be the appointed means of its de- struction. DISCOURSE XXII. INTRODUCTION TO THE WIALS, Rev. xv. THREE general descriptions having been given of the anti- christian power, each of which carried us to the end of the 1260 years, the series of the prophecy from the time of the sounding of the seventh trumpet is now resumed. This trumpet, it has been observed before, wears a twofold aspect. It is partly a woe-trumpet, and partly the har- binger of joy. The seven vials are a part of it, and answer to the former view. The other part comprehends the suc- cess of the gospel preparatory to the Millennium, the Mil- lennium itself, and all that follows to the end of the pro- phecy, and answers to the latter view. At present we are to consider it as a woe-trumpet, or as comprehending the seven vials; which, containing a more particular account of the judgments already hinted at towards the end of the general descriptions, will, like them, bring us to the close of the 1260 years. The angels with the vials are called “a sign in heaven, great and marvellous,” because the judgments which follow are signal and fearful, and the times very eventful, so as deeply to interest the church of God. The seven vials are denominated “the seven last plagues, in which will be filled up the wrath of God.” This sup- poses that in various instances God had already poured forth his wrath upon these antichristian powers, but that this should be the FINISHING BLow. Hence it follows that we are not to consider these vials as including all those plagues which at different periods have been poured upon the antichristian party, but merely those which shall bring it to its end. As the vials are a subdivision of the third and last woe-trumpet, they could not begin to be poured out till that, trumpet was sounded ; and as they are emphatically called the seven last plagues, they must refer to the latter end of the 1260 years. In short, they are the particulars of what was signified under the general representations by God’s wrath being come, and the time of the dead that they should be avenged—and by the har- vest and the vintage, chap. xi., xiv. All those expositions of the vials, therefore, which sup- pose them to have been pouring out at different periods from the beginning of the 1260 years, appear to me to be founded in mistake. The furthest point to which we can look back for the commencement of these calamities may be found to be within the last five-and-twenty years, Ver. 1. The “sea of glass mingled with fire” is the same which is said in chap. iv. 6 to have been before the throne. It is opposed, I conceive, to that perturbed element from which the beast arose; and describes the pure, calm, and tri- umphant state of those who have overcome. The striking up of the heavenly choir on this occasion was to express the great good that should arise from these evils. The song they sing is that of “Moses and the Lamb.” As the song of Moses at the Red Sea magnified the victory of the Lord over the Egyptians, so this song will celebrate the triumph of the Lamb and of his followers over enemies of a similar character. If the works of God in redeeming his people from the long and hard bondage of Egypt were “great and marvellous,” much more so would they be in delivering his saints from the long and hard bondage of “ that great city which is spiritually called Egypt;” and if his “ways were just and true” in the former instance, they would be still more manifestly so in the latter, ver. 2, 3. It is not in malignity towards any creature, but in love to God, whose honour had for so long a time been tram- pled under foot, that these heavenly minds rejoice; not for the evil considered as evil, but for the good that should arise from it. Hence, anticipating the righteousness which the world shall learn when these judgments are abroad in the earth, they triumphantly ask, “Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name 3 for thou only art holy : for all nations shall come and worship be- fore thee; for thy judgments are made manifest.” By this language we are given to expect that the judgments on the antichristian powers, in connexion with the preaching of the gospel, will contribute to the universal spread of true religion over the face of the earth, ver, 4. As the throne of the God of Israel was in the holy of holies, so his throne in heaven is described as in his tem- ple; and as, when the high priest entered into the former once a year, he saw the ark of the testimony, so, the hea- venly temple being opened, the apostle looked and saw the seven angels come out from before the throne, as having received their commissions. They are described as “ clothed in pure and white linen, and having their breasts girded with golden girdles.” Nothing could better express the state of their minds in executing the Divine displea- sure. God had sometimes employed evil angels to execute his will, even towards his own people, as in the case of Job, and in such instances they have been certain to dis- cover their malignity. But when good angels execute the Divine will, though it be upon his worst enemies, they have no malignant bitterness, but are influenced purely by the love of God and righteousness, ver. 5, 6. Next to the description of the messengers follows the delivering to them their respective messages; and this was from the hand of one of the four living creatures who re- presented redeemed men. God does not usually employ his people in this world to overthrow either corrupt churches or antichristian governments. This is a kind of work not suited to them. They must, however, have some concern in it. Their prayers for deliverance are answered by terrible things in righteousness upon their persecutors; and to all the judgments of God they must add their cor- dial Amen, ver. 7. The effect of the delivery of these messages is described as “filling the temple with smoke from the glory of God, and from his power, so that no man could enter it.” “This cloud (says DR. GUYSE) appeared like a thick smoke, awfully glorious, which was a symbol of the Divine vengeance, (Psal. xviii. 8,) as going forth from the pre- sence of the Lord, and to be executed by the glory of his power, in the destruction of antichrist; even as the cloud on the tabernacle was of his dreadful judgment upon Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, and the murmuring Israelites; (Numb. xvi. 19.42;) and as Moses could not enter into the tabernacle, nor the priests stand to minister in the temple, while the glory of the Lord filled the house of the Lord ; (Exod. xl. 35; 1 Kings viii. 11;) so no one could enter into this heavenly temple to intercede for the pre- venting of these grievous calamities upon the beast : none were suffered to do this, that judgment might have its free course, till all the seven punishments to be inflicted by the ministry of the seven angels were fully executed in their order.” 2 H 2 468 EXPOSITION OF THE APOCALYPSE. DISCOURSE XXIII. ON THE WIALS. IRev. xvi. l—9. I ENTER upon this part of the subject with diffidence, be- cause I consider the events predicted as mostly future ; and the exposition of unfulfilled prophecy, especially when couched under symbolical language, is rarely accurate. When in looking at a symbol we compare it with facts, we can judge of the one as being designed to predict the other; but, in looking at the symbols without the facts, we can seldom make much out in explaining them. Nor does it appear to have been the design of prophecy to enable us to foresee things with any considerable degree of precision ; but to keep up a general hope before the accomplishment, and to strengthen our faith after it. Ver. 1. Before entering on particulars I shall offer two or three general remarks:— First, Some of these “plagues,” and it may be the greater part of them, will consist in wars between the nations of Christendom. Such is doubtless the meaning of those in which mention is made of “blood,” and of the “battle of Armageddon, the great day of God Al- mighty.” It is thus that the nations which have shed the blood of his saints will have blood given them to drink! Secondly, As the grand design of these wars is the de- struction of the antichristian hierarchy, they may be ex- pected to have a providential direction given to them, causing them to bear more especially upon that object. If this remark be just, it furnishes a presumption that the vials have been pouring out for the last twenty years. As a fire kindled in a city has a direction given to its ravages, by the wind, or by some other means; so Providence has caused the desolations of the continent to bear princi- pally, though not entirely, upon the papal cause. Thirdly, The resemblances between the vials and the trumpets may throw more light upon the subject than any other medium of which we are in possession. It is a fact very remarkable, that each of the seven trumpets has a point of resemblance to one of the seven vials—For ex- ample, The first trumpet affected the earth ; and so does the first vial.” The second trumpet turned the sea into blood ; and the second vial was poured out upon the sea, which became as the blood of a dead man.f. The third trumpet affected the rivers and fountains of water; and so does the third vial. The fourth trumpet respected the sun , and the fourth vial does the same. The fifth trumpet was followed by darkness and pain ; and such were the effects of the fifth vial. The sixth trumpet was complex, relating partly to the depredations of the Eu- phratean horsemen in the east, and partly to the idolatries and persecutions of the beast and his associates in the west ; and so is the sixth vial, relating partly to the Eu- phratean waters being dried up, and partly to the battle of Armageddon, by which the cause of the beasts will be ruined." Finally, the seventh trumpet presents a closing scene ; and so does the seventh vial. ** These resemblances cannot be accidental. Though they refer to events, there- fore, more than a thousand years distant from each other, yet there must be some important points of likeness be- tween them ; and as the trumpets are all, except the last, fulfilled, we may by means of them form some judgment of the vials which yet may be unfulfilled. It is on this principle that DR. GILL seems to have pro- ceeded in expounding the vials. “The first vial,” says he, “will be poured out upon the earth, and designs those popish countries which are upon the continent, as France and Germany, especially the latter; and as the first trumpet brought the Goths into Germany, so the first vial will bring great distress upon the popish party in the empire.—The second vial will be poured upon the sea, and may intend the maritime powers belonging to the church of Rome, particularly Spain and Portugal; and as the second trumpet brought the Wandals into these • Comp. chap. viii. 7; xvi. 2. + Chap. viii. 8; xvi. 3. # Chap viii. 10, 11 : xvi. 4. * Chap. viii. 12; xvi. 8, 9. | Chap. ix. 1–3; xvi. 10. places, so this vial will affect the same, and bring wars and desolations into them.—The third vial will be poured out upon the rivers and fountains of waters, which may point to those places adjacent to Rome, as Italy and Savoy; and as the third trumpet brought the Huns into those parts, so this vial will bring in large armies hither, which will cause much bloodshed, and a great revolution in church and state.”ff. This comment on the vials, founded upon their analogy with the trumpets, bids fair, in my judgment, to be the true one ; especially that on the first three which has just been quoted. The Doctor adds—“As yet I take it none of them are poured out, though some great and learned men have thought otherwise. As yet there have been no such de- vastations on the continent, as in France and Germany, as to produce the above effects; nor in the countries of Spain, Portugal,” &c. This was doubtless the case in 1752, the year in which the sermon from which the above extract is made was printed, but this is more than can be said in 1810 ! Ver. 2. If by the “earth” be meant “the continent, as France and Germany, especially the latter,” (and I know of no interpretation more natural,) we have certainly seen a succession of evils falling upon the men who “ had the mark of the beast,” first in France, and after that in Germany, grievous as the most “noisome sores,” and like them indicative of a state of corruption and approaching dissolution. Ver. 3. If this vial respect the papal maritime nations, particularly Spain and Portugal, (and here also I know of no interpretation more natural,) we have seen a com- mencement of things in those countries, but have not yet seen the issue. What it will be God knoweth. Whether this or that political party prevail, it will be a plague, and a plague that will tend to accomplish, the ruin of the anti- christian cause. There is a circumstance of additional horror in this vial, which was not in its corresponding trumpet : the blood into which this “sea’’ would be turned is described as stagnant, “as the blood of a dead man;” as though such a quantity should be shed as not only to tinge, but to congeal the ocean, turning it as it were into a putrid mass! Wer. 4–7. If the rivers and fountains of waters denote “Italy and Savoy,” these countries may be expected to be the scene of the next great convulsions which shall agitate Europe. And if it be so, it may be a just retribution for the blood of the Waldenses, which was there shed in shocking profusion for many successive centuries. The responsive language of the angels on this occasion accords with such an interpretation, and is exceedingly impressive. It shows in what light the persecution of the faithful is viewed in heaven. This sin implies such a hatred of God and his image as would, if he were within reach, dethrone and kill him Unjust war is a great sin ; it is murder on an extended scale ; yet it is not to be named in comparison of persecution for Christ's sake. The ome is destroying God’s natural image ; but the other is aimed at his moral image. In the former “the potsherd striveth with the potsherds of the earth;” but in the latter man striveth with his Maker . This was the sin which crowned the wicked life of Herod the tetrarch, who to all his other crimes “added this, above all, that he shut up John in prison : " Blood shed in persecution of God’s servants hath a cry which must sooner or later be heard. The persecutions of former ages may be forgotten by men; but he “who is, and was, and shall be?” will not forget them. The judgments of our own times are examples of this ; all Europe, previously to the Reformation, was stained with the blood of the martyrs; and since that memorable era, France, and Germany, and Spain, and Portugal, and Italy have been deeply engaged in that im- pious practice. Is it surprising then that all Europe in measure, and those nations in particular which have per- sisted in it, should be made to drink the bloody draught? While we feel, and ought to feel, for suffering humanity, it is not for us to join with the merchants of the earth in T Comp. chap. ix. 14; xi. 14; xvi. 12–16. ** Chap. xi. 15; xvi. 17. ++ Sermon on The Glory of the Church in the Latter Day, pp. 12–15. THE LAST THREE WIALS. 469 3. their wailings; but rather with the angels in heaven, say- ing, “Thou art righteous, O Lord, because thou hastjudged thus !” Wer. 8, 9. In discoursing upon the trumpets, it was ob- served that the Roman empire, then become the seat of Christianity, was considered as a world of itself; having not only its earth, its sea, and its rivers, but its sun, and moon, and stars; symbols of its supreme and subordinate govern- ments, chap. viii. 6–12. When the sun was eclipsed, on the sounding of the fourth trumpet, it signified the fall of the imperial authority ; but the fourth vial, though poured upon the sun, yet, unlike its corresponding trumpet, does not terminate upon it, but upon the people on whom it shines. The sun here, instead of being eclipsed, or having its power diminished, has it increased. Its heat is ren- dered more intense, so as to become a plague to those who are under its influence. By the “sun” is undoubtedly to be understood the su- preme secular government of what is called the Holy Ro- man Empire, which is denominated the beast, and distin- guished by its carrying or supporting the harlot. Its scorching heat cannot be understood of the persecution of the faithful; for they would not “blaspheme" under it. It would seem, therefore, to be the galling tyranny by which the adherents of the beast will be oppressed; while yet they repent not of their deeds. I)ISCOURSE XXIV. THE WIALS CONTINUED. Rev. xvi. 10–21. VER, 10, 11. By the “beast” we have all along under- stood that secular government which at the head of the other European governments has supported the papal anti- christ. This certainly has not been the imperial govern- ment of France, but of Germany, to which therefore the character of the beast belongs. The station from which his influence and authority proceeds will be his “seat,” or throne, or we may say his den ; and that which the swellings of Jordan were to the lions which made their dens amongst the thickets growing upon its margin, (Jer. xlix. 19,) that will this plague be to him, causing him, if not to quit his den with howlings, yet to be very miserable in it. This is intimated by his “kingdom being full of darkness,” and by their “gnawing their tongues for pain.” The sup- porters of the papal cause will be confounded. Darkness and anguish will come upon them. Yet being given up, like Pharaoh, to hardness of heart, they will continue to blaspheme the God of heaven, and will not repent of their deeds. These blasphemies and this perseverance in im- penitence are sure signs of its being the determination of Heaven to destroy them. Individuals may repent and escape; but as a community they are appointed to utter destruction. Ver, 12–16. This vial, so far as respects the temporal dominion of Christ's enemies, possesses a final character; and seems partly to respect the overthrow of the Turkish Pºwer, signified by the “drying up of the waters of the Eul phrates,” and partly that of the papal, signified by the battle of “Armageddon,” or of that “ great day of God Almighty.” With regard to the first, as the sixth trumpet respected the rise of the Turkish power to punish the eastern church so the sixth vial seems to denote its overthrow, along with that of the western church. The drying up of waters fitly expresses that diminution of strength and defence in a nation which issues in destruction. Thus, when God would destroy Babylon, he saith, “A drought is upon her waters, and they shall be dried up—I will dry up her sea, and will make her springs dry. And Babylon shall become heaps, a dwelling-place for dragons, an astonishment and a hissing, without an inhabitant.” “The kings of the east” may denote those who shall be employed in overthrowing this power, as the armies of Cyrus and Darius, on the waters of the Euphrates being diverted, were employed in overthrowing Babylon. I have expressed a doubt whether either the doctrines or the wars of Mahomed would have had a place in this prophecy but for their relation to the Christian church (on chap. ix. 13–21); and I think it questionable whether the downfal of the Turks would have been noticed but on the same account. This was the reason of so much being said of old Babylon. She might have risen and fallen unnoticed by the prophets, if she had had nothing to do with Jerusalem. But though she was an instrument in God’s hand in purging that corrupted city, yet seeing she “meant not so,” but set herself against God himself, it required that she should in the end be overthrown, and that her overthrow should be marked in prophecy. In like manner, though Mahomed and his followers were in- struments in punishing a corrupt part of the Christian church, yet seeing they meant not so, but set themselves against Christ himself, they also shall be overthrown, and their overthrow is marked in prophecy. With regard to the second part of this vial, or that which respects the papal powers, this is the most tremen- dous. This is the last struggle of the beast and his ad- herents, and it will issue in their utter overthrow. This is “the great day of God Almighty;” the same as the harvest and the vintage in chap. xiv., and the “taking of the beast and the false prophet,” in chap. xix. Preparatory to this great day we have the mustering of the forces.—“Three unclean spirits like frogs” are de- scribed as going forth amongst the nations to gather them together; one from the mouth of the dragon, another from that of the beast, and another from that of the false pro- phet. These spirits may denote the corrupt principles which shall be disseminated in the earth, tending to deceive and to destroy mankind. As the dragon is described as the grand mover of all these mischiefs, as he is not said to be taken with the beast and the false prophet in chap. xix., and is denominated “that old serpent the devil and Satan,” I consider him as a being of a different order from either of them ; and as the unclean spirit which proceeded from the dragon may be supposed to correspond with his cha- racter, it may be a spirit of diabolical malignity against God and true religion.—The beast being understood of the last head of the Roman empire, the great supporter of popery, the unclean spirit proceeding out of his mouth may be that which assumes the place of God in the con- sciences of men, and converts Christianity into an engine of state policy.—The false prophet, though designated by a new name, appears to be the same power that was repre- sented in chap. xiii. by the two-horned beast, and in 2 Thess. ii. 3 by “the man of sin.” This is evident from the character of each being the same. The coming of the man of sin was to be with “signs and lying wonders.” The two-horned beast “deceived them that dwell on the earth by means of his miracles; ” and amongst the oper- ations of the three evil spirits mention is made of “mira- cles,” which seem to pertain to the false prophet. The man of sin, the two-horned beast, and the false prophet, therefore, are the same ; namely, the papal hierarchy, or the community of which the pope is the head. The evil spirit proceeding out of his mouth may be that of blind zeal, and religious impostwre. These three evil spirits, discordant as they may be in some respects, will be united in their opposition to true religion. Hence in the great battle wherein the beast and the false prophet are taken, (chap. xix.) and which, as has been observed, is the same as this at Armageddon, the whole triumvirate is engaged “against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.” It will be a character, it seems, of these times, that the friends and enemies of Christ will be nearer together than they have been wont to be : irreligion and false religion will unite their stand- ards and fight with neither small nor great but with Christ and his adherents. Where men agree in the grand out- lines of false doctrine, and conceive themselves to meet in their political interests, they can easily overlook other differences. It seems as if a spirit of infatuation, like that in Pharaoh and his host at the Red Sea, would possess the enemies of Christ prior to this their last overthrow. The kings of the 470 EXPOSITION OF THE APOCALYPSE. earth are gathered together, partly by hatred of God and religion, (the spirit of the dragon,) partly by the desire of subjugating both to political purposes, (the spirit of the beast,) and partly by blind zeal and religious imposture, (the spirit of the false prophet,) and being assembled will direct all their force against God and his cause. In what particular mode their hostility will be manifested, and by what means Christ will prevail against them, it is too much for us to determine. The former may be by direct perse- cution, or, if by war, it will be one whose object shall be to exterminate the true religion ; and the latter may be by turning their hearts one against another. Though they have been gathered together, and have unitedly engaged in this notable enterprise, yet, finding it unsuccessful, they may fall out with one another. The spirit of the dragon may prevail over that of the beast and that of the false prophet, and he may think to govern the world without them. The antichristian kings also, perceiving how things are going, may be for joining the strongest side. But if so, they will find themselves deceived. The next vial will purify the world of their baleful influences, and the angel with a great chain in his hand stands ready to lay hold on the dragon himself, and to cast him into the bottomless pit. The warning language addressed to the faithful (ver. 15) seems to intimate that these important events will come upon men unexpectedly, and that many will be stripped by them of their professions and prospects. Blessed are they whose religion will stand the test of such times of trial. Wer. 17–21. As the sixth vial has issued in the over- throw of the temporal power of antichrist, the seventh seems to respect its spiritual dominion, or the hold which it has on the minds of men.” The moral atmosphere of the world has long been pol- luted by false religion, from which it seems to be the ob- ject of this vial to cleanse it as by a thunder-storm, which thunder-storm produces a great earthquake, and this the falling to pieces of the great antichristian city, and other cities with it. The face of the world hence becomes changed, and the wrath of God pursues, as by a terrible hail-storm, the men who repent not of their deeds. Nor will this purification of the moral atmosphere be confined to Christendom, but will extend to the whole earth. Paganism, Mahomedism, apostate Judaism, and every thing which stands opposed to the truth, shall now be driven out of the world. An “earthquake” is the well- known symbol of a revolution; and so great and mighty a revolution of religious principle may well justify the de- scription given of it. And now, a voice out of the temple of heaven, even from the throne of God, is heard, saying, “IT IS DONE!” The threatening of the angel in chap. x. 7 is accomplished—the 1260 years are ended—THE MYSTERY OF GoD IS FINISHED ! As this vial seems to be wholly of a spiritual nature, the “ thunders, and lightnings, and earthquake, and hail” do not seem to refer to wars, or to any other temporal calami- ties, but it may be to the effects of truth, and to those spiritual judgments which will fall on them who continue to reject it. The body of antichrist, as I may say, will be destroyed by the temporal sword, as described under the preceding vial ; but the “spirit of Christ's mouth” shall destroy his spirit. Such from the beginning was the doom passed upon that wicked one ; and such is the punishment of those who escape in the great battle wherein the beast and false prophet shall be taken, but who repent not of their deeds: they shall be “slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceedeth out of his mouth,” chap. xix. 21. The city being “divided into three parts,” as by an earthquake, denotes I think the breaking up of the papal system ; and what “the cities of the nations” which fall with it can be understood to mean but those worldly establishments of religion which have symbolized with popery, not only in worship and ceremonies, but in an alliance with the kingdoms of this world, I cannot conceive. To understand “the great city” of the Roman empire, and “the cities of the nations” of particular states, neither comports with the meaning of the terms in other parts of * That these are very distinct we need go no further than Ireland for proof. Popery has there long existed, not only without the aid of the prophecy, nor with the spiritual judgments denoted by this vial. “The great city” is mentioned in several other places in the prophecy—as in chap. xi. 8, “Their dead bodies shall lie in the streets of the great city, which spi- ritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.”—And in chap. xiv. 8, “Babylon is fallen, that great city.”—And in chap. xviii. 10. 21, “Alas, that great city, Babylon.”—“Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down.” In none of these passages does it appear to mean the empire, but the church of Rome. The empire is symbolized by a beast, from which the great city is distinguished, chap. xi. 7, 8. But if “the great city” mean the church of Rome, even “great Babylon who now comes in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath,” “the cities of the nations” must mean those ecclesiastical communities which have symbolized with her. DISCOURSE XXV. THE GREAT HARLOT, AND THE BEAST THAT CARRIETH HER. Rev. xvii. HAVING gone through the vials, we have arrived at the commencement of the Millennium. Indeed we descended to this period in each of the three general descriptions, and in the pouring out of the vials have only retraced the latter part of the ground more particularly. All that re- mains between this and the twentieth chapter would in modern publications be called notes of illustration. No new subject is introduced, but mere enlargement on what has already been announced. We have heard much of the beast in the thirteenth chapter; but in the seventeenth we have a still more particular account of him, and of the woman that sitteth upon him, without which we should not have been able to understand the other. We had a hint given us of the fall of Babylon in the fourteenth chapter; but in the eighteenth and part of the nineteenth we have a triumphant ode, sent as it were from heaven, to be sung on the occasion. Finally, we have been given to expect, in the fourteenth chapter, that prior to the over- throw of the antichristian cause the gospel would be making progress; but in the nineteenth we see the word of God going forth, riding upon a white horse, and the antichristian powers destroyed in the very act of opposing him. - The first of these illustrative notes, as we shall call them, is contained in the seventeenth chapter, and respects the leading characters of the antichristian party. Ver. 1–6. The object of this vision was not to gratify curiosity, but to show the justice of those plagues which were, or were about to be, inflicted. The opprobrious name given to the woman determines its reference to a corrupt and false church, as opposed to “the bride the Lamb's wife.” Her “sitting upon many waters,” and which are said to be “peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues,” (ver. 15,) prove that this cor- rupt and false church would not be confined to a single city or nation, but would extend over a number of nations. The “kings of the earth that have committed fornication with her,” are all those governments which are or have been within the pale of her communion, and which till the Reformation included the whole of western Europe, “the great Gothic family,” as they have been denominated. It is this their idolatrous communion with her that is called fornication. Those who have been made “drunk with the wine of her fornication,” are those who have drunk into her doctrines, worship, spirit, and practices, and have be- come as it were intoxicated by them. To have a view of this harlot, the apostle is carried in vision “into the wilderness.” She was represented before as sitting upon many waters; but as she is now to be described as riding upon a beast, it is proper that it should be upon the earth. Though the imagery however is temporal power, but in a manner against it; yet there are few if any countries where it has faster hold on the minds of men } THE HARLOT AND THE BEAST. 471 changed, yet the meaning may be much the same ; for a wilderness, no less than many waters, signifies peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues. Hence the nations into which Judah was carried captive are called “the wil- derness of the people,” Ezek. xx. 35. For the apostle to be carried into the wilderness may be equal to his being placed in the midst of the nations of Europe—say in Lon- don, Paris, Madrid, or Vienna—at a time when papal Rome was in all her glory. Being in the wilderness, he sees a woman sitting upon a beast, which beast was caparisoned with scarlet trappings, full of the names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. This beast is manifestly the same as that which is described in the thirteenth chapter as “rising out of the sea,” and is no other than the Roman empire under its last head or form of government, or that which has been known in his- tory as the western or holy Roman empire, in connecion with the kingdoms of Europe, which are its ten horns. It is this government which has given the title of emperor, sometimes to a king of one nation, and sometimes of an- other ; but whoever has possessed it, he has been con- sidered as the grand supporter of the papal hierarchy. It is said that the ancient pagan emperors were wont to be dressed in “scarlet” in times of war, a fit attire then for a bloody period, and now for a bloody persecuting government. Its “names of blasphemy” express its impi- ous and antichristian character, assuming the throne of God in the minds and consciences of men. The “purple, and scarlet, and gold, and precious stones, and pearls,” with which the woman was arrayed, allude no doubt to the attire of a harlot of no ordinary rank. The design is to describe her as being of the world, and seeking the things of the world, or as contriving by her meretricious ornaments to dazzle the eyes of her beholders. It is by that ceremonious pomp, splendour, and will-worship, which have often been defended under the name of decency, and deemed necessary, both to gratify the taste of the polite and to excite the admiration of the vulgar, that false religion makes its way. The “golden cup in her. hand, full of abominations and filthiness of her fornica- tion,” are her corrupt principles and idolatrous practices, recommended by her seducing emoluments. The “name on her forehead” is thought to allude to the ancient prac- tice of harlots, who not only used to put their names on their doors, but some of them upon their foreheads. It is expressive not only of the general character of the anti- christian church, but of her impudence; practising day by day the foulest and filthiest impostures, and yet calling herself the holy catholic church, and denying salvation to all without her pale ! The name of “mystery” was given to this apostacy by Paul as well as John, and with this very proper exposition, “The mystery of iniquity.” The system is full of “the depths of Satan,” which it is an honour not to know.—She is further denominated “Babylon the great.” Here we see that the Apocalyptic Babylon and the harlot are the same ; it is Rome, as an antichristian community extending over many nations. What Babylon was to the Old Testament church she is to the New ; and such will be her end.—Finally, she is de- nominated “the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth.” There are other corrupt churches as well as that of Rome; but she is the principal, and the parent of them, the harlot of harlots. Not only by “forbidding to marry '' does she open the flood-gates to illicit com- merce between the sexes, and even to unnatural crimes, ë. sºils indulgences and pardons in the name of Jesus rist | To complete the character of this mother of harlots, she is described as making others intoxicated, and as being herself “drunken with the blood of the saints tº Persecu. tion is the crowning sin of the greatest sinners. The apostle, having beheld her, “wondered with great admiration,” as well he might. So much wickedness, be it committed by whom it might, was wonderful ; but who could have thought that this was a picture of what would be called the holy catholic church, in whose pale only was salvation 1 / 1 The Christian church was an object dear to him: what then must be his feelings to be told that it should come to this Ver 7. The answer of the angel is designed to allay the admiration of the apostle; and this it does by account- ing for what had been seen. When Hazael wondered at his own predicted cruelties, and scarcely thought them possible, he was told in answer, “The Lord hath showed me that thou shalt be king over Syria.” This was answer sufficient; and that of the angel resembles it. The cha- racter of the woman is accounted for by her alliance with the beast. Let the Christian church consider this, and tremble at such alliances ! Wer. 8–11. Having given an account of the woman, the angel proceeds to describe “the beast that carrieth her.” This no doubt is the Roman empire, described as the “beast that was, and is not, and yet is.” Prior to the overthrow of paganism by Constantine, it was—it was that idolatrous, blasphemous, persecuting power which Daniel had foretold. From that period, professing to be- come a Christian government, the properties of the beast were as it were laid aside, and it was not. Such was its character from the days of Constantine to the revelation of the man of sin. It might have been denominated the beast that was, and is not; or the late pagan, but now Christian empire. But, notwithstanding this his profes- sion of Christianity, his origin is “the bottomless pit,” and his end “perdition.” He may deceive the blinded multitude with his pretences of being not that which he once was ; but, as the angel informs the apostle, he yet is. He had indeed a “wound by a sword,” which was thought at the time to be mortal, but it did not prove so. The corruptions of Christianity healed it, and all the proper- ties of the beast revived in their wonted vigour. The angel proceeds to inform the apostle more particu- larly concerning the “seven heads " of the beast, and in- timates that in understanding this subject there will be employment for “wisdom.” They are said first to be “seven mountains on which the woman sitteth.” This determines the seat of the hierarchy to be Rome, well known as standing, when in its full extent, upon seven hills. They are also said to be “seven kings,” or forms of government, under which the empire had subsisted, did subsist, or would hereafter subsist. The forms which had subsisted (as has been observed on chap. xiii.) were kings, consuls, dictators, decemvirs, and military tribunes; the form which subsisted at the time of the commence- ment of the prophecy was that of emperors ; and that which was yet to come, and to “continue a short space,” seems to be that non-descript government which succeeded the overthrow of the emperors, and continued in divers forms for about three hundred years, till the establishment of that government which from the days of Charlemagne to the Reformation (a space of above seven hundred years) combined all the nations of Europe in support of the antichristian hierarchy. This short-lived intermediate power might on some accounts be considered as the “seventh ** head of the beast, and as such be distinguished from its last head, which in this view would be the “eighth ; ” but upon the whole it was rather to be considered as belonging to that in which it merged, and which in this view would be the seventh, or “ of the seven.” There is an apparent difficulty in this last head of the Roman government being described as the beast that was and is not, as though the changes here alluded to were peculiar to that last head, when in fact they respect the beast under different heads. The answer I conceive to be this :—The beast, it is true, was under his first five heads, and was not under his sixth ; but till the last stages of his existence this description could not be applied to him, or become as it were his proper name. From this time he would be known as the beast which was and is not, or as the no longer pagan, but Christian empire. Wer. 12–18. In every description of the Roman beast, whether by Daniel or John, the ten horns are a distin- guished part of it. “Ten kings,” in the language of prophecy, are ten kingdoms, or governments. They were not kingdoms at the time of the vision; hence the kings are said to have “received no kingdom as yet ; ” but, on the overturning of the empire by the Goths in the fifth century, those nations which had before been dependent provinces, together with others that were without its jurisdiction, became independent kingdoms; and having 472 EXPOSITION OF THE APOCALYPSE. embraced the religion of Rome, in process of time united in supporting it. The reign of these kings is said to be “one (or the same) hour with the beast;” that is, with the last head of the Roman empire. They had overturned the empire in its preceding head or form ; but by agreeing together in religion they established it under a new form: and being of the same mind with the beast in this his new form as to supporting the church, they unanimously “gave their power and strength and kingdoms to him,” for this end. They did not subject their kingdoms to him as a secular power, for then had they not been independent; their only connexion with him would be ecclesiastical, or in his supporting the harlot. That this was the only bond of union between them is manifest from the result of things: when their love should be turned into hatred, they are not said to hate the beast, but the whore; it was the whore therefore, and not the beast, that was the object of their attachment. While he, caparisoned in scarlet, should carry her through all her filthy and bloody courses, they would be with him, holding up his trappings, or lending their authority to enforce his measures. Such was actually the conduct of all the governments of Christendom prior to the Reformation, and such has been the conduct of many of them since. It is thus that they are said to have made “war with the Lamb.” Their proceedings with respect to religion have been antichris- tian. All that has been done for more than a thousand years in invading the rights of conscience has been assuming his throne; and all the cruel edicts against what they call heresy and heretics, with all the bloody execu- tions of them, have been in direct hostility against his kingdom. “But the Lamb shall overcome them.” Who- soever shall gather together against him will fall for his sake. They may ask, Who is like unto the beast, and who is able to make war with him $ But the Lamb is “Lord of lords, and King of kings,” and must prevail. His army, too, is a select band, “called, and chosen, and faithful,” who following their Leader are certain to be vic- torious. The overthrow of the governments of Christen- dom does not respect them as monarchical in distinction from republican, (for one of Daniel’s “kingdoms” was a republic,) but as antichristian. Those governments that “make war with the Lamb,” whatever be their form, the “Lamb will overcome them.” In the progress of this war it is intimated that the kings who have supported the harlot shall have their hearts turned to “ hate” her, and shall be instruments in her destruction. The hierarchy will become as odious in the eyes of the nations as a wrinkled prostitute is in the eyes of her paramours. This is the way in which the anti- christian church is doomed to fall. It will not be from the increase of religious people who withdraw from her communion, as she has always apprehended ; but from those who have been her companions in sin, and who, when nothing more is to be expected from her, shall turn against her and destroy her. It is not by protestantism, nor by Methodism, (as serious Christianity is now called amongst us,) but by infidelity, that false religion will be overthrown. It may seem strange that the powers which supported the antichristian harlot should be the instruments em- ployed in destroying her; but so it is appointed of Heaven. God, who saw the end from the beginning, intended for wise ends to permit the apostacy, and so to order it that the governments of Europe should for a time unite in supporting it. . But it is only for a time: when the pur- poses and prophecies of God are fulfilled, he will cause a spirit of discord to separate these workers of iniquity, so that they shall destroy one another. Finally, That no doubt might be left as to what was signified by the woman, she is called “that great city which reigned ” at the time of the vision “over the kings,” or kingdoms, “of the earth.” This was equal to saying, It is ROME, considered as the seat of an anti- christian hierarchy, which in the latter part of her empire shall prevail, but which, like all her other forms, shall go into perdition. DISCOURSE XXVI. THE FALL OF BABYLON, AND THE MARRIAGE OF THE LAMB, Rev. xviii.; xix. l—10. CHAP. xviii. This is another note of illustration; a sacred ode, much resembling that on the fall of old Baby- lon, Isa. xiv. 4–23; xxi. 9. That which old Babylon was to Zion, the Roman hierarchy has been to the Chris- tian church; and the end of the one shall correspond with that of the other. Her fall being sudden, and accomplished by the “strong arm of Him that judgeth her,” seems to relate to her political overthrow, as predicted by “the harvest and the vintage,” chap. xiv.; by the “battle of Armageddon,” chap. xvi. ; and by “the supper of the great God,” chap. xix. And as the city to be destroyed does not con- sist of material buildings, but is a community extending over many nations, so the fire by which it is consumed will doubtless be such as is suited to the object. The events of war may be that to the antichristian cause which fire is to a city. sº I shall barely notice the contents of the song, and remark on a few of its parts. An angel descends from heaven, and proclaims the important event; and while he pro- nounces the doom of the criminal, states withal what have been her crimes, ver. 1–3. Another voice is heard from heaven addressed to the people of God who have in differ- ent ways and degrees been connected with her, to come out of her as Lot escaped from Sodom, lest, being par- takers of her sins, they receive also of her plagues, ver, 4. This second voice also confirms the charges exhibited against her by the first ; and reiterates her doom, ver. 5–8. A description is given of her overthrow under the image of a city on fire: Those who have been seduced by her wiles shall be filled with astonishment at beholding her fearful end, ver. 9—13. The criminal herself is tauntingly addressed, as having lost all that her heart had been set upon, ver, 14. Interested men make great lamentations on account of her, ver. 15–19. Apostles, prophets, and martyrs are called upon to rejoice over her, ver. 20. Her fall is compared to the sinking of a great millstone cast into the sea, ver. 21. Her desolations are described by the loss of all her enjoyments, ver. 22–24, Great interest is excited in heaven by her overthrow, chap. xix. 1–6. A general joy pervades the church of God both in heaven and earth, and the Millennium quick- ly follows, ver. 7–9. The song concludes with an ac- count of the effect of the vision on the apostle towards his informant, ver. 10. By the language in chap. xviii. 6, 7, it may seem as if the servants of God would be the executioners of his wrath upon this corrupt community ; but their being called to “reward her as she rewarded them” may only denote that the judgments inflicted upon her will be according to their testimony, and in answer to their prayers. It was thus that the two witnesses inflicted plagues upon their ene- mies, chap. xi. 5, 6. The visible agents employed in the work will be the governments of Christendom which will “hate the whore, and eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.” - That which will greatly contribute to the fearfulness of her overthrow will be her previous security. She saith in her heart, “I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.” If she had been “the bride, the Lamb’s wife,” she could not have been more secure; so much the greater therefore will be her fall. The events which to a political eye seem to occur only from the chances of war, are here described as the process of the Judge of heaven and earth. The power which will be exerted will be that exercised over a condemned male- factor by a judge, at whose command the officers of justice proceed to execution. Power is the only thing that she has respected; and by the strong arm of power she shall be brought down ver. 8. - We have heard of the hearts of the kings being turned to hate the whore; yet we find here kings lamenting her FALL OF BABYLON, AND MARRIAGE OF THE LAMB. 473 overthrow. The kings or kingdoms of Europe may then be what they now are—divided into parties. One party, and that the successful, will, from interested considerations, hate and set themselves against her ; another party, from similar considerations, will espouse her cause, and these, proving unsuccessful, will lament over her, ver, 10. The kings are joined in their lamentations by the “mer- chants,” who seem to be those who have made a trade of religion; which, however it may include many amongst the laity, must refer more immediately to the mercenary part of the clergy. The most notable article in the list of her commodities is “the souls of men.” There is doubtless an allusion to Ezek. xxvii. 13, but “the persons of men” can there mean only slaves, whereas “the souls of men’’ are here distinguished from slaves. Tyre dealt only in men’s bodies, but Rome in their souls. I know not what else to make of the sale of indulgences and pardons; of the buying and selling of church livings; of confessions, prayers for the dead, and of every other means of extorting money from the ignorant. That which will excite the most doleful lamentations among the adherents of the antichristian church will cause the friends of Christ to shout for joy. The marks of de- solation are recounted with triumph. The sounds of music, the bustle of craftsmen, the grinding of the mill- stone, the light of a candle, and the joyful salutations of the bridegroom and the bridè, are all ceased, and suc- ceeded by the awful stillness of death. And if any ask, Wherefore hath the Lord done this What meaneth the heat of this great anger? the answer is, “In her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.” The first ten verses of the nineteenth chapter, which are a part of the sacred ode, describe the effect of the fall of Babylon on the friends of God both in heaven and earth. Chap. xix. 1–8. The heavenly host with one voice raises the shout of “ALLELUIA Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God; for true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand. And again they said, ALLELUIA 1 and her smoke rose up for ever and ever.” What a contrast between this and the whining lamentations of the merchants : The punishment of every community as such requires to be in this world : when therefore her smoke is said to “rise up for ever and ever,” the allusion may be to a city consumed by fire; and the meaning is, that it shall never be rebuilt, but its overthrow, like that of Sodom, shall be set forth for an everlasting monument of the Divine dis- pleasure. After this a voice is heard out of the throne, saying, “Praise our God, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, both small and great.” The theme is acceptable to him that sitteth upon the throne, and must be encored. In answer to this call of the angel, the servants of God both in heaven and earth are described as in a state of delightful agitation. With one voice they renew the song, and ex- patiate on the subject. The sound of their voices is as that of an immense multitude of people, or as the roaring 9f, the sea, or as continued peals of thunder, saying, “ALLELUIA ; for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth !” God had always been omnipotent, and had always reigned; but While his enemies were suffered to prevail on earth he did not appear to reign in that part of his empire as he now will. Now his right hand and his holy arm will have gotten him the victory ! But the song is not yet finished: it is added, “Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him, for the mar- riage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.” The Lamb and his wife are fitly introduced in opposition to the harlot and her paramours; namely, the beast and the kings of the earth. The fall of the ºne is the signal for the glorious appearance of the other, such Was the taking away of the dominion of the little horn to the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the king- dom under the whole heaven, being given to the people of the saints of the Most High, Dan. vii. 26, 27. This marriage of the Lamb I conceive is the Millennium itself. Both this and the fall of Babylon, which precedes it, are here introduced by way of anticipation. They each come into the song of heaven previously to their being actually accomplished on earth. The account of the one follows in the remainder of this chapter, where the beast and the false prophet are taken ; and that of the other in the first six verses of the chapter following. The accession of believers to Christ at any period is re-. presented by the espousal of a chaste virgin to her hus- band; and the whole gospel dispensation is described as a marriage supper. What an espousal, then, and what a supper will that be, when Jews and Gentiles, from every nation under heaven, shall be brought to believe in him : The appearance of the Christian church has not been such of late ages as might have been expected of one that had Christ for her Head. She has been not only scattered by persecution, but her beauty greatly tarnished by errors, corruptions, and divisions, so as scarcely to sustain a visible character; but when believers all over the world shall have purified their souls by obeying the truth—when they are what they were in the days of pentecost, “ of one heart and of one soul”—and when there is nothing but distance of situation to hinder their being united in one body—then will “the bride have made herself ready.” The church is described as being active in putting on her robes of glory, but they are ready prepared for her. To her was “granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white.” Reference may be had to the wedding garments provided, according to the representation in the parable, at the expense of the bridegroom. It is said to be “the righteousness of the saints;” yet as it respects the saints not individually, but collectively, and at the Millennial period, it would seem to denote a justi- Jication of the church from all things which have stood against her, analogous to that of an individual believer on his first espousal to Christ. As the perdition of the anti- christian community is described in language alluding to that of individual unbelievers, (ver. 3. 20,) so the glory bestowed on the church at this period alludes to that which is conferred on individual believers when they are “washed, and justified, and sanctified, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.” Thus the church in the days of Zerubbabel, when she had been polluted among the heathen, is represented by Joshua the high priest “clothed with filthy garments,” and her justification by the “taking away of his filthy garments and clothing him with change of raiment.” Thus also the glory of the church at another period is expressed in language ap- plicable at all times to individual believers :–“I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of sal- vation, and hath covered me with the robe of righteous- ness, as a bridegroom decketh with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth with jewels.” Christ’s salvation will then be to her as a beautiful garment, and his righteousness as an ornamental robe. Ver. 9. A blessing was pronounced by our Lord on those who saw and heard the things which were then to be seen and heard, and a still greater blessing is in reserve for those who shall see and partake of the good here pre- dicted. The most glorious things spoken of the church of God will then be accomplished. The success of the gospel in different parts of the world during the period of the vials will then meet as a confluence of rivers near the ocean. The tides of mercy and judgment towards Jews and Gentiles will now find their level in the salvation of both. “In times past we believed not God, but obtained mercy through their unbelief;" now “through our mercy they also shall, have obtained mercy,” Rom. xi. 30, 31. In former ages God blessed the eastern parts of the world; of late ages the western ; but now the kingdom of Christ, like a returning tide, shall spread over both west and east, Isa. lx. 1—ll. “Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand, three hundred, and five-and-thirty days!” Dan. xii. 12. These predictions respecting the overthrow of Babylon, and the establishment of the church, are attested by the angel as “the true sayings of God.” Such an attestation would tend to strengthen the faith and hope of believers, who might otherwise, during the long reign of the anti- 2 H # 474 EXPOSITION OF THE APOCALYPSE. christian beasts, be tempted to think that God had for- gotten to be gracious, and would be favourable to his church no more. Here I consider the sacred ode on the fall of Babylon and the marriage of the Lamb as closing, with only a few words of the apostle concerning his informant. Wer. 10. The angel here spoken of seems to be him whose voice was heard out of the throne, calling for a repetition of the song, ver. 5. John probably supposed him to be the Son of God himself, who had more than once in his visions appeared as an angel, and whom he was in the habit of worshipping. But the angel refuses his adoration on the ground of his being merely a servant, the fellow servant of him and of his brethren, who had the testimony of Jesus. They testified of things concern- ing him which were accomplished ; as of his birth, life, death, resurrection, ascension, and the way of salvation by him : he revealed prophecies which as yet were unac- complished. Yet their work was much the same : the theme of their testimony contained the spirit or substance of what he had imparted for prophecy. They were there- fore fellow labourers in the same cause, and must not worship one another, but God. Christ himself is not an object of worship considered as man, but as God only. That he is God as well as man, and as such an object of Divine worship, this circumstance of the angel’s refusal fully evinces. ...We see in his conduct what we see in that of Paul and Barnabas at Iconium ; and every creature who fears God must follow the example. If Jesus there- fore were not God, he ought on all occasions to have re- fused Divine worship, and certainly would have done so. His never having done this is sufficient proof of his Di- vinity. Nor can it be justly alleged that the worship paid to Christ was mere civil respect; for then the same might be said of John’s worshipping the angel, and which he might have done without being repulsed. We learn there- fore from this circumstance that Jesus is not only the theme of the gospel ministry, and the spirit or substance of prophecy, but that he is truly and properly Divine. DISCOURSE XXVII. THE TAKING OF THE BEAST AND THE FALSE PROPHIET. Rev. xix. 11—21. WHEN the Israelites, full of fearful apprehension from the pursuit of their enemies, cried out for fear, Moses said unto them, “Fear not, stand still and see the salvation of the Lord ; for the Egyptians, whom ye have seen to-day, ye shall see no more for ever !” In going over these last ten chapters we have seen and heard much of the beast and the false prophet, and of the mischiefs which they have wrought upon the earth ; but this is the last account that we shall have of them. By the prophecies in these verses they are buried in oblivion, so that the church in after-times shall know of them only as we know of Pha- raoh and his host, namely, as matters of history. In cases wherein the parties have been assured of victory, it has not been unusual for a battle to be preceded by a song of triumph. It was thus when Jehoshaphat went forth against his enemies: singers were first appointed to praise the Lord, and then the army was led on to the en- gagement, 2 Chron. xx. And thus our Lord, when about to engage the powers of darkness, being certain of victory, exclaimed, “Now is the judgment of this world : now shall the prince of this world be cast out!—Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him : " John xii. 31 ; xiii. 31. It is thus, I conceive, that the prophecy, having anticipated the victory over Babylon in a song of triumph, proceeds to describe the battle. The scene of the song was in heaven, but the battle in which the event will actually occur is upon earth. It is the same as that before described under the sixth vial, namely, the battle of Armageddon, “the great day of God Almighty,”— “the supper of the great God ..." Observe the preparations for it.—“Heaven is opened, a white horse is seen, and he that sat upon it is called faith- ful and true, who in righteousness doth judge and make war.” We can be at no loss in deciding who this great warrior is. He is doubtless the same that is addressed in Psal. xlv. 3, 4:—“Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O most mighty, with thy glory and thy majesty: and in thy ma- jesty ride prosperously, because of truth, and meekness, and righteousness: and thy right hand shall teach thee terrible things.”—I may add, he is the same that is de- scribed in the first six verses of the sixty-third chapter of Isaiah ; and what is here predicted by John not only al- ludes to that prophecy, but appears to refer to the same event. His coming up from Edom with garments stained with the blood of his enemies appears to be justly para- phrased by Dr. Watts – “I lift my banner (saith the Lord) Where antichrist has stood; The city of my gospel foes Shall be a field of blood. My heart hath studied just revenge, And now the day appears; The day of my redeemed is come, To wipe away their tears. Slaughter, and my devouring sword, Shall walk the streets around; Babel shall reel beneath my stroke, And stagger to the ground.” It may be thought that this bloody representation is un- suitable to the character of the Prince of peace; and that the battle between him and his army on the one side, and that of the beast and kings on the other, is contrary to the genius of the gospel dispensation. To solve this difficulty, let it be observed that the war here described is of two kinds, and Christ sustains a twofold character in conducting it. The first is spiritual ; and this he under- takes as the “Head of the church.” In this character he rides upon a white horse, and the armies of heaven follow him upon white horses; fitly representing the great efforts that shall be making, at the very period of Babylon’s over- throw, to spread the gospel over the whole earth. The second is providential ; and this he undertakes as “Head over all things to the church.” In this character he is “clothed with a vesture dipped in blood.” In making war in his spiritual character, he does not wait to be at- tacked by his enemies: he goes forth in this respect con- quering and to conquer. But in so far as the war is of a providential character, the enemies are the aggressors. The beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, “gather together to make war against him and his army,” ver. 19. The idea conveyed by this language is, that while he who sitteth upon the white horse and his army are going forth, to spread the everlasting gospel in the world, the beast and his allies will gather together to oppose its progress, and will perish in the attempt. There is no necessity for supposing the armies of Christ will have literally to fight with those of the beast and the kings; but while they are following him in spreading the gospel, He, as “King of kings and Lord of lords,” may work the utter overthrow of their adversaries, by setting them at variance with one another. We have seen this ac- complished in part already in the antipathies and wars which have raged between infidelity and popery ; and such may be the progress of things, till, like two furious beasts of prey, they shall both be destroyed. The account itself agrees with this supposition ; for though the armies of the beast are said to have gathered together against the armies of him that sat upon the horse, yet there is no mention of any being engaged in their overthrow but he himself. It is he that “smites the nations,” “treads the wine-press,” and has his “vesture dipped in blood.” It is remarkable, too, that in the corresponding prophecy of Isa. lxiii. 1–5, he is said to have “trodden the wine- press ALONE, and of the people THERE WAS Non E WITH HIM.” These remarks may suffice for the general meaning of the prophecy. Let us now attend to a few of the par- ticulars. It is a joyful sight to see the Son of God riding forth upon the white horse. He will not wait for the fall of the antichristian powers ere he extends his spiritual king- dom. The flight of the evangelical angel was prior to the THE BEAST AND THE FAILSE PROPHET TAKEN. 475 fall of Babylon ; such is still the order of things; and it is in opposing this great and good work that the enemies of the gospel will bring destruction upon themselves. The character given to this Divine warrior must not be overlooked. He is “faithful and true,” as performing all his engagements to God, and fulfilling all his promises to men. “In righteousness he doth judge and make war.” The cause in which he is engaged is just, and all his mea- sures are in harmony with it. “His eyes were as a flame of fire,” burning with holy indignation against his ene- mies. “And on his head were many crowms,” denoting his great power and numerous conquests. “And he had a name written that no man knew but he himself;” for after all that is known of the glory of his character, it pass- eth knowledge. The “vesture dipped in blood” refers to what has been said of the destruction of his enemies by means of wars kindled by their own malignity. “His name is called the Word of God,” as being that Divine person whose office it is to reveal the mind of God to men, and whose victories are accomplished by means of the gos- pel. “The armies of heaven on white horses” are the friends of Christ who go forth in their respective stations, and lay themselves out to promote his kingdom. “The sharp sword that goeth out of his mouth" is his truth, which is not only the means of saving believers, but of punishing unbelievers. By his word they shall be judged at the last day, and his threatenings will fall upon them even in the present world. Those who are not destroyed by his judgments on the antichristian party will be de- spoiled of their power, and ruled as with a rod of iron. “And he treadeth the wine-press of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.”—The vine of the earth being ripe for destruction, like grapes cast into a press, he will tread them in his anger, and trample them in his fury. “And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.” In this there is something especially appropriate, as it re- spects those kings who have opposed his gospel, and lorded it over the consciences of his subjects. He has long sus- tained this name in right, but henceforward he will sustain it in fact. And now comes on the decisive battle, “the battle of Armageddon,” “the great day of God Almighty,” “the supper of the great God l’’ Terrible things in right- eousness have occurred in our times; but by the strong language used to express this event, it seems as if it would surpass every thing which has gone before it. It is un- likely that it should consist of a single battle, but rather of a war, or succession of battles, though doubtless one must be the last. It is proclaimed by an “angel standing in the sun,” whose voice would of course be heard from the rising to the going down thereof. The mode in which he announces it is by an invitation to the fowls of heaven to come as to a supper, to feast upon the carcasses of all ranks and degrees of men who shall be found on the antichris- tian side. The beast and the kings of the earth who make common cause with him, being gathered together with their armies to make war against him that sitteth upon the horse and against his army, will now be utterly overthrown. Those powers which shall be found supporting the papal hierarchy, together with “the false prophet,” or the hier- archy itself, after a corrupt and bloody reign of 1260 years, will be “taken and cast alive into a lake of fire, burning with brimstone.” It was remarked, on chap. xvii. 7, that the corruption of the church is ascribed to her alliance with the secular beast, and it is no less remarkable that the overthrow of the secular beast is ascribed to its alliance with the church. It was “because of the great words that the little horn spake against the Most High that the beast on whose head it grew should be slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame,” Dan. vii. 11. Let govern- ments consider this, and tremble at such alliances. It is true that neither political nor ecclesiastical bodies as such can be literally cast into a place of torment, as in- dividual unbelievers that compose them will be ; they may, however, be cast into perdition so as never to rise any more, which may be the whole of what is intended. As the Christian church in her Millennial glory is described in language applicable to individual believers, (ver, 8,) so the antichristian church is represented as a hardened sin- ner, arrested in a course of wickedness, and sent to his own place. I’inally, It is supposed that after this terrible overthrow there will be a remnant, like the scattered remains of a defeated army, who shall still be on the side of antichrist; but they shall be “slain by the sword of him that sitteth upon the horse, which sword proceedeth out of his mouth.” As the battle above described is the same as that of Arma- geddon under the sixth vial, so “the sword proceeding out of Christ's mouth” corresponds with the spiritual judg- ments under the seventh vial. They who have escaped the temporal calamities of the former will, except they re- pent, fall under the spiritual judgments of the latter. The threatenings of Christ's word will overtake them. Their hearts will fail within them, as did the heart of Nabal when told of the words of David. Like him they will be smitten of God and die; and having no successors to stand up in their place, their cause will die with them. DISCOURSE XXVIII. ON THE MILLENNIUM. Rev. xx. 1–6. VER. 1–3. We have seen the taking of the beast and the false prophet, and in that the fall of Babylon; but the principal mover in the confederacy is the dragon, and of him no mention was made in the battle before described. Hence, though he had not been expressly called “that old serpent the devil and Satan,” we might have presumed that he was not of an order of beings to be crushed by the hand of man. His being in one place described as “a great red dragon, with the seven heads and ten horns” of the Roman beast, (chap. xii. 3,) can therefore only respect the form under which he at that time acted out his mischiev- ous designs. This great red dragon that had formerly been cast out of heaven is supposed to be yet on earth, and after the taking of his agents, the beast and the false prophet, is about to rally his scattered forces, and to engage in new schemes against the Lord and against his Christ. If he be not bound, all the success against the other will signify but little ; for he will not be at a loss how to deceive the world, and to engage them anew in some antichristian enterprise. But who is able to bind him # The hand of man cannot take him. Lo, “an angel comes down from heaven, hav- ing the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand, and lays hold on him and binds him a thousand years : " The apprehension and imprisonment of this enemy will complete the victory. - There can be no doubt who this angel is; for we know who hath the “keys of hell and of death.” To him it appertaineth, after having been manifested to destroy his works, to arrest him in his course, and to set bounds to his operations. The hand of man could not take him ; but the hand of Christ can lay fast hold of him. The dragon being cast into the bottomless pit, and shut up, and a seal set upon him to prevent his deceiving the nations for a thousand years, the kingdom of Christ shall now be established over the whole earth. Various questions have arisen concerning this Millennial state, both as to its nature and duration. With respect to the latter, the “thousand years” require, I think, in this instance to be taken literally; for if understood of so many years as there are days in this period, the duration of the world would greatly exceed what we are elsewhere given to expect. The apostles seem to have considered themselves as having passed the meridian of time, and as drawing on towards the close of it. Such appears to be the import of the following passages:—“God hath in these last days spoken to us by his Son.—But now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself—The end of all things is at hand- The coming of the Lord draweth nigh.-Behold, the Judge 476 EXPOSITION OF THE APOCALYPSE. standeth before the door.—He that testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly l’” But if the thousand years were reckoned a day for a year, we are at present but upon the threshold of time : the last judgment must in this case be at a distance of hundreds of thousands of years. A question of more importance is that which respects the nature of this Millennial reign of Christ, whether it be spiritual or personal.” Those who favour the former, consider it as a time in which the gospel will be spread over the whole earth, and cordially embraced both by Jews and Gentiles; when those prophecies will be fulfilled which speak of the cessation of wars—of the stone cut out without hands becoming a great mountain and filling the whole earth—of the little leaven leavening the whole lump —of the knowledge of the Lord covering the earth as the waters cover the sea—of the first dominion coming to Zion —and of the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom, under the whole heaven, being given to the people of the saints of the Most High. Those, on the other hand, who plead for a personal reign of Christ upon earth, consider the Millennium as a state of immortality, a state subsequent to the general confla- gration, wherein the righteous, being raised from their graves, shall live and reign with Christ a thousand years; after which, the wicked dead being raised, the general judgment shall follow. Whatever respect I feel for some who have maintained the latter hypothesis, I find insurmountable objections to the hypothesis itself. First, The idea of a personal reign appears to me nearly to exclude that of a spiritual one, by leaving little or no place for it.—It is clear that the pouring out of the seven vials is principally for the purpose of destroying the antichristian system, and that when this is accomplished the Millennium follows. No sooner are the beast and the false prophet taken under the sixth vial, and the world (like the temple after being polluted by Antiochus) purified from its abo- minations by the seventh, than the dragon is bound for a thousand years. If then this thousand years' reign be personal, the second coming of Christ must immediately succeed the ruin of antichrist. But if so, how or when are all those prophecies to be fulfilled which describe the prosperity of the church in the latter days 3 How is war to cease in the earth, and peace succeed to it, when, as soon as the troubles of the earth are destroyed, the world will be at an end ? On this principle antichrist will reign till the heavens are no more. The end of the 1260 years will be the end of time, and the church will have no ex- istence upon the present earth but “in the wilderness.” Instead of the stone, after breaking in pieces the image, “ becoming a great mountain, and filling the whole earth,” no sooner is the image broken to pieces than the earth itself shall be burnt up. And on the destruction of the little horn, (Dan. vii. 26, 27,) instead of “the kingdom, and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, being given to the people of the saints of the Most High,” no sooner shall that horn be broken than the whole earth will be destroyed with it ! Secondly, The idea of a personal reign represents Christ's second coming at a thousand years' distance from the last judgment; whereas the Scripture speaks of the one as immediately following the other, and as being the grand ob- ject of it. “The Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with ever- lasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; when HE shALL come to Be GLo- RIFIED IN HIS SAINTs, and to be admired ºn all them that believe IN THAT DAY.”—“Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousand of his saints to execute judgment upon all,” &c.—“I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his ap- pearing and kingdom.” Thirdly, The idea of a personal reign represents be- lievers as raised to a state of immortality a thousand years * I say nothing of a third class, which might be denominated poli- tical, and which, in the delirium that prevailed a few years since, made the dragon to be “monarchy in general,” the JMillennial thrones (chap. xx. 4) seats of magisterial authority to which the people were ex- before the close of Christ's mediatorial kingdom ; whereas the Scripture represents the one as immediately succeeding the other. Speaking of the resurrection, the apostle says, “ Christ the first-fruits, and afterwards they that are Christ's at his coming. THEN cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power; for he must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.” Now the resurrection of the saints will itself be the destruction of death. If therefore the end then cometh, there is no place for a personal reign of a thousand years between them. Besides, if death be the last enemy, and this enemy be destroyed in the resurrec- tion, how can there be a Gog and Magog army to be de- stroyed a thousand years after it? Fourthly, Those who consider the Millennial reign as personal confine the last resurrection and the final judgment, as described in the latter part of the chapter, to the wicked: but there is nothing in that account of the resurrection which requires it to be limited to them. The sea is said to give up the dead which were in it; and death and hell (or the grave) to give up the dead which were in them ; which language equally applies to the righteous and the wicked : and as to the last judgment, which immediately follows, had it been confined to the wicked, it would not have been said “ whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire,” since on this principle they could none of them be found written in it. If the last judgment, as described in chap. xx. 11–15, do not include that of the righteous as well as the wicked, there is no proof from this account of their being judged at all. The Scriptures, however, are very express, that “we must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, and give account of the deeds done in the body;” and that “ God will bring every work into judgment, whether it be good or whether it be evil.” Fifthly, The account of Satan's being loosed after a thousand years' restraint, and going forth to deceive the nations, and to gather together the armies of Gog and Ma- gog, does not comport with a state of immortality, or with the condition of men after their resurrection. Wicked men may rise, indeed, with the same enmity against God and religion as they possessed at death ; but as to their being able to collect together, and to encompass the church of God in hope of destroying it, the idea is gross and inad- missible. The sea and the grave will give up their dead, not to become followers of Satan in a new enterprise, but to be judged every man according to his works, ver, 13. Finally, To represent the Millennium, which precedes the last judgment, as a state of immortality, is to confound it with the New Jerusalem which follows it. The latter is indeed a state of immortality; for “there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain; for the former things are passed away” (xxi. 4); but this language itself implies that till after the final judgment it shall not be so. For these reasons, as well as from the figurative lan- guage of almost the whole of the prophecy, I cannot think that the Millennium is to be understood of a personal reign of Christ, in a state of immortality; but of that glorious rest which the church will enjoy after the destruc- tion of her antichristian enemies. Under this view, there- fore, I shall now attend to the description given of it. Wer. 4–6. These thrones correspond with the account in Dan. vii., where, after the power of the little horn is broken, it follows, “And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, was given to the people of the saints of the Most High.” Stations of importance, both in the world and in the church, will be filled by righteous men. Righteousness therefore will flow as a river, and corruption and violence will re- cede before it. The public mind will favour this course of things. Thus it is that wars and oppressions, and all other disorders, will in a great measure subside. Every thing being done on Christian principles, Christ will reign. alted, and the new heavens and the new earth the results of the Ame- rican and French Revolutions !. Such are the effects of interpreting prophecy with the view of establishing a political hypothesis. THE MILLENNIUM. 477 “God’s way will be known upon earth, and his saving health among all nations. The peoples shall be glad and sing for joy, for the Lord will judge them righteously,” Psal. lxvii. The “judgment given unto them, and to the souls that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus,” denotes that God will now vindicate their characters, and avenge their wrongs. This appears to be the meaning in chap. xi. 18, and xviii. 20. The vengeance poured upon the antichris- tian party is in the former of these passages called judging the dead, because it vindicates them and the cause in which they suffered, and avenges them on their adversaries. Thus it will be during the Millennium. The cause in which the martyrs have suffered will then triumph ; and while the names of their persecutors will rot in execration, their labours will be in request, and their characters em- balmed in the memory of mankind. It is thus, I con- ceive, that the martyrs will “live and reign with Christ a thousand years.” The antichristian party, on the other hand, called “the rest of the dead,” or the “remnant’’ that escaped from the battle in which “the beast and the false prophet were taken, were slain with the sword of him that sat on the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth.” In other words, they will become as dead men during the whole of the Millennial period. They would die as a body in that they had no successors to stand up in their place, and as individuals, if any remained, would be unable to impede the progress of the gospel. After this their leader being let loose, and permitted to make one more desperate effort, they will then “live again,” though it will be but for a short season. “This (adds the sacred writer) is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrec- tion ; on such the second death hath no power; but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.” Those who consider the reign of Christ personal understand this of the resurrection of the bodies of the righteous, which they suppose will be a thousand years before that of the wicked. A “first resur- rection” doubtless implies a second, as much as a “second death" implies a first; but as the first and second deaths are different in their nature, so may the first and second resurrections. I question if there be any proof of the cor- poreal resurrection of the righteous being prior in order of time to that of the wicked. The only passage that I re- collect to have seen alleged for it is 1 Thess. iv. 16, “And the dead in Christ shall rise first.” It is not, however, in respect of the resurrection of the wicked that they are said to rise first, but of the change of the living saints; for it follows, “ then we who are alive, and remain, shall be caught up,” &c. The context says nothing of the wicked, or of their resurrection. The resurrection of the righteous being mentioned alone, or without that of the wicked, does not prove that the one will be prior to the other. If it prove any thing concerning the wicked, it would seem to be that there will be no resurrection of them ; but knowing from other scriptures that there will be a resurrection “both of the just and the unjust,” we do not draw this inference; nor have we any ground for drawing the other. The “first resurrection” appears to me to be no other than the Millennium itself, to which all that is said of it will apply. During this glorious period, the church will have its Pauls, and Peters, and Johns over again. Men will be raised up who will go forth in the spirit and power of those worthies, as much as John the Baptist did in the spirit and power of Elias. Thus the apostles and martyrs will, as it were, be raised from their graves and live again upon the earth. - The blessedness pronounced upon him that hath a part in it is expressive of the happiness of those times. The idea is the same as that in chap. xix. 9, “Blessed are they that are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb;”— and that in Dam. xii. 12, “Blessed is he that waiteth and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five-and-thirty days." Each of these passages refers to the same period. If a blessing was pronounced on those who saw the early part of gospel times, much more on those who shall enjoy the latter. It were not enough however to eacºst in those times; to be blessed we must have “a part” in all that is going on; and in order to this we must be “holy ’ Otherwise, God might work a work in our days which we should not believe, but despise it, and wonder, and perish : The first resurrection supposes a second, and which seems to be that of the just and the unjust. In this the wicked shall be raised to die a second death ; but over the followers of Christ the second death shall have no power. As a pledge of their victory, they are already made priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign in spiritual prosperity from generation to generation, for the space of a thousand years. DISCOURSE XXIX. THE FALLING AWAY. —THE END OF THE WORLD.—THE RE- SURRECTION OF THE DEAD.—AND THE LAST JUDGMENT. Rev. xx. 7–15. WER. 7, 8. It seems almost incredible, after so long and 7 glorious a season of grace, that Satan should so recover his influence in the world, as that the number of his adherents should become “as the sand of the sea l’” Yet thus it is. What is ordinarily called the religion of a people becomes a sort of national habit, to which they are attached from generation to generation. But it is not thus with true religion. There is nothing in it suited to the temper of mind with which men are born into the world. If therefore the Holy Spirit be aggrieved, and withdraw his influence but from one generation, it will be like that which succeeded the times of Joshua, that “knew not the Lord.” If in such a state of things Satan be permitted to ply with his temptations, he is certain to be successful. “The four quarters of the earth” prior to this must have been evangelized by the gospel; but the dragon being let loose deceives them ; not by any new superstition, like that of popery; for as to the beast and the false prophet, they will long since have gone to perdition. . It may be by a persecuting infidelity, the spirit inspired by the dragon himself, that this last effort will be made. Having seen so much Christianity in the world, the hearts of the wicked will rise against it, and be so far “deceived” by the wicked one as to imagine themselves capable of extirpat- ing it from the earth. The name given to the enemies of Christ is borrowed from the thirty-eighth and thirty-ninth chapters of Eze- kiel, where mention is made of Gog and Magog. It does not appear however that the prophecy of Ezekiel and John refer to the same period; but that the language is merely allusive. Ezekiel's Gog and Magog seem to refer to a combination among the nations against the house of Israel, soon after their restoration to their own land and their conversion to Christ, and which will be prior to or at the commencement of the Millennium ; but the Gog and Magog army of John is “after the thousand years are ex- pired.” The meaning may be, that, like as the nations will combine against restored and converted Israel, so will the whole world of the ungodly combine to extermi- nate Christianity from the earth ; and as the one would issue in the utter overthrow of the assailants, so would the other. Wer. 9, 10. As there is nothing in the account which intervenes between this and the resurrection of the dead, the “fire that cometh down from God out of heaven” may be no other than the general conflagration itself, spoken of by the apostles Peter and Paul—“The day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night ; in the which the hea- vens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat ; the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burnt up.–The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ,” 2 Pet. iii. 10; 2 Thess. i. 8. And now the grand mover of all the mischief which has taken place in the world is not merely bound for a season, as before, but cast into perdition, where his agents, the 478 EXPOSITION OF THE APOCALYPSE. beast and the false prophet, are. There is no mention of their being “tormented,” because they as political bodies were incapable of it; but of him it is said he “shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.” Perdition to them will be oblivion ; but to him a state of everlast- ing punishment. Ver. 11—15. A more impressive description of the resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment, is scarcely in the power of language. The words are simple, but the sentiments exceedingly sublime. “The language is so plain (says MR. BLACKwell) as not to need, and so majestic and grand as to exceed, commentary or para- phrase.” But it is not for us to stand admiring the lan- guage till we overlook the event itself. Lo, the dead, both “small and great, stand before God!” Young and old, rich and poor, all appear before the judg- ment-seat of Christ. None are so insignificant as to be overlooked, none so mighty as to escape; the governors and the governed, the parent and the child, the master and the servant, the oppressor and the oppressed, the preacher and the hearer, all must give an account of them- selves to God | Men, owing to the imperfection of their knowledge, and of their memories, make use of “books; ” but God’s infinite knowledge requires no such assistance. It is merely in allusion to human proceedings that this is spoken. His memory is itself the book from which he will judge the world. Believing sinners are justified by grace ; but both be- lievers and unbelievers will be judged “according to their works.” Those who have sinned without the light of revelation will be judged by the light of nature. Those who have sinned against revelation will be judged by it, according to the light they had, or might have had. Be- lievers themselves, though not dealt with according to their deserts, (for they will “obtain mercy of the Lord in that day !”) yet their works will be censured or approved according to what they were. Their sinful works will be burnt up, though they themselves are saved ; and as to their good works, though there be nothing in them de- serving eternal life, or furnishing the least ground for boasting, yet will they be admitted as evidences in their favour, Matt. xxv. 31–40. There have been many days of judgment, as it were, in miniature, but this will be universal. Whether men have died at sea, or on land ; and whatever became of their bodies, whether slain in battle, devoured by beasts of prey, or decently interred in their graves; all will rise and be judged, ver. 13. “Death and hell (or the grave) were cast into the lake of fire.” Death and the grave are things which belong to time, and which, as rivers are lost in the ocean, will now be swallowed up in eternity. Prior to the day of judg- ment the ungodly were confined under their power as in a prison; but having received their doom, they shall not be remanded thither, but shall go away into everlasting punishment. “This is the second death.” Into this dreadful abyss all will be cast, as the just punishment of their sins, excepting those whose names are “written in the book of life.” An interest in the salvation of Christ is the only security against eternal death. T)ISCOURSE XXX. THE NEW IIEAVEN AND THE NEw EARTH, witH THE NEW JERUSALEM. Rev. xxi.; xxii. 1–5. CHAP. xxi. We have seen, in the foregoing chapter, the end of the world and the last judgment, even that fearful issue of things described by the apostle Peter: “The day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in the which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat ; the earth also, and the works that are therein, shall be burnt up.”—But as the same apostle adds, “Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness ; ” so in this chapter, and the first five verses of the next, we find an ample description of them. What then are we to understand by this “new heaven and new earth,” this “new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven,” and this “pure river of the water of life,” which is supposed to flow in the midst of it? Some have considered it as only a more particular account of the Millennium. But to this it is objected—First, The Millennium precedes the last judgment, whereas the new heavens and the new earth follow it. Secondly, The Mil- lennium was for a limited time; but this is “for ever and ever,” chap. xxii. 5. Thirdly, Under the Millennium the dragon is only bound for a season, and afterwards loosed; but here there is no dragon nor enemy of any kind. The devil will have been cast into the lake of fire and brim- stone, to be tormented day and night for ever and ever (chap. xx. 10); “and there shall be no more death, nei- ther sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain; for the former things are passed away,” ver, 4. For these reasons others have considered it as no other than the heavenly state.* Yet it seems singular that the heavenly state should be introduced as a subject of pro- phecy. It is doubtless an object of promise, but prophecy seems rather to respect events in the world in which we dwell than in the world to come. Whatever is meant by the glorious state here described, the earth, as purified by the conflagration, is the scene of it. The whole of what is said, instead of describing the heaven of heavens, repre- sents the glory of that state as “coming down upon the earth,” ver. 1–4. The truth appears to me to be this : it is a representation of heavenly glory in so far as that glory relates to the state of the earth on which we dwell; which, instead of being the stew of the mother of harlots, shall become the seat of “the holy city, the new Jerusa- lem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.” The earth will not be annihilated by fire any more than it was by water. It will be purified from sin, and all its effects. The gener- ations of a corrupt race of creatures having terminated, it will become the perfect and perpetual abode of right- eousness. The creation has long been subjected to the “vanity” of supplying its Creator's enemies with the means of carrying on their rebellion against him. Under this “bondage of corruption” it has “groaned and tra- vailed,” as it were in pain, longing to be delivered. And now the period is arrived. The liberation of the sons of God from the power of the grave shall be the signal of de- liverance to the whole creation, Rom. viii. 19—23. It is not the object of the Holy Spirit to tell us what the heavenly glory is, but rather what this world shall be- come, in opposition to what it now is. This opposition is preserved throughout the description. We have read of Babylon; not that in Chaldea, but a new Babylon : here we read of Jerusalem ; not that in Palestine, but a new Jerusalem—of a city by whose delicacies the merchants of the earth were made rich; now of another city in the light of which “the nations of them that are saved shall walk, and to which kings shall bring their glory and honour”— of a troubled “sea,” whence arose those monsters which were the plagues of the earth; now of there being “no more sea”—of the “great whore that sat upon many waters;” now of “the bride the Lamb's wife”—of “great tribulations out of which the saints of God have had to come;” now of “all tears being wiped from their eyes, and of death, and sorrow, and crying, and pain having passed away”—finally, of “a golden cup full of abominations and filthiness;” but now of the “pure river of the water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb,” together with the “fruits of the tree of life, which bears twelve kinds of fruit, and yields its fruit every month.” As the new Jerusalem is denominated “the bride, the Lamb's wife,” all that is said of her as a city, from ver, 10–27, though couched in highly figurative language, is descriptive of the church triumphant. In this, as in many other places, there is a reference to the prophecies of Eze- * Lowman–Hopkins on the Millennium, p. 48. t ATTESTATIONS TO THE TRUTH OF THE PROPHECY. kiel, (chap. xlviii. 31–34,) though the events predicted are not always the same. The city in Ezekiel seems to be the church in a day of great spiritual prosperity; this in a state of immortality. Her high wall denotes her complete security; her twelve gates, on which were inscribed the names of the twelve tribes of Israel, denote that none but Israelites indeed, who have the seal of God in their fore- heads; will enter into it; her twelve foundations may re- fer to the doctrine of the apostles on which she stands; the pearls and precious stones with which she is adorned are her spiritual riches and glory; there being “no tem- ple, nor sun, nor moon,” denotes that there will be no need of those means of grace which we now attend upon; what we now receive mediately, we shall then receive • immediately; finally, the nations of the saved walking in the light of it may allude to the interest which surround- ing nations take in a metropolitan city, and denotes that the saved, who have been gathered from all nations, will rejoice in the honour that God will have bestowed upon his church. " - To complete the description of the city, and to finish the prophecy, we must consider the first five verses of the twenty-second chapter in connexion with the foregoing. Chap. xxii. 1–5. There is doubtless an allusion in these verses to the waters of the sanctuary, and the trees of life, described in Ezek. xlvii. 1–12. Both Ezekiel and John make mention of a city—of a river—of trees growing upon the banks of it—and of the fruit thereof being for meat, and the leaf for medicine. Ezekiel’s waters flowed from the temple, near the altar; those of John out of “the throne of God and of the Lamb.” The city is doubtless the same in both ; but I conceive at different periods. Ezekiel’s city had a temple, but that of John, as we have seen, had no temple ; for “ the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.” . The former therefore describes the church in her latter-day glory; the latter, in a state of perfection—and which answers to the promise in chap. ii. 7, “To him that overcometh will I give to eat of .* of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of O .” DISCOURSE XXXI. ATTESTATIONS TO THE TRUTH OF THE PROPHEcy, &c. Rev. xxii. 6—21. WE have gone through the prophecy: all that remains consists of attestations, directions, invitations, and warn- ings concerning it. Ver, 6. Such is the solemn attestation of the angel to the truth of all that he had made known to the apostle. He had received it from the Son of God, even the Lord God of the holy prophets, who had sent by him to signify it unto his servant John, chap. i. 1. , Ver, 7. After the attestation of the angel follows that of him that sent him. The “coming of Christ” refers to his second appearing. His declaring that this would be quickly,” is declaring that the things which had been foretold should soon be accomplished. Meanwhile they would be a guide to the faithful, and a blessing should attend those who adhered to them. Ver, 8. This is the attestation of the writer. He not only saw and heard these things, but such was their effect on his mind, that on one occasion he conceived the angel who revealed them to him to have been the son of God himself, and therefore fell down to worship him. Some have expressed surprise that the apostle, after the angel had once refused his adoration, should offer it a secºnd time; but it appears to me that what is here related is merely a repetition of what was said and done before, chap. xix. 10. He first tells of his having “ seen , the things that were to be seen, and “heard” the things that Were to be heard; and now of his having been so overcome by them as to suppose the angel from whom they pro- ceeded to be the Son of God, and of course to have fallen down to worship him. The design of the repetition is merely to add weight to the attestation. 479 Ver, 10–16. He who speaketh in these verses is not the angel, but the Son of God himself, whose speech is resumed from verse 7. The eighth and ninth verses are a parenthesis, in which the writer expresses his own feelings. He who in verse 7 said, “Behold, I come quickly,” here adds, “Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand.” As if he should say, Do not conceal, but declare them, for they are things of immediate concern.—To this is added a solemn declaration of the near approach of that period when the characters of men should be unalterably fixed. Let the persecutors and cor- rupters of the gospel know that there is no change but on earth, no Saviour nor Sanctifier beyond the grave. Let the righteous know also, who have faithfully adhered to him through all the temptations and persecutions of the world, that the time draws nigh when their conflicts shall be ended, and they shall be immutably confirmed in right- eousness and true holiness. And now the solemn warning of his near approach is repeated, accompanied with a de- claration that “ his reward is with him, and that he will give every man according as his work shall be.” The character assumed by the Judge, that of “Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last,” while it ascertains his proper Divinity, conveys an impres- sive idea of the proceedings of that day. It is equal to saying, He that shall judge the world will be possessed of a Divine as well as of a human nature ; and, where God is judge himself, the heavens will declare his righteousness. —Blessed shall they be in that day who have “done his commandments,” or who, amidst the temptations and per- secutions of the world, have kept his sayings. All the blessedness contained in partaking of “the tree of life,” and of the glory of “the new Jerusalem,” shall be theirs. —On the other hand, “dogs, and sorcerers, and whore- mongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie,” are “ without.” Nor does this description appear to refer to ordinary sinners, of which the world is full, but rather to the enemies of the gospel, and the corrupters of pure religion. Thus “dogs’ denote false teachers; “ sorcerers” those who have been employed in drawing away mankind by the lures of the mother of harlots; “whoremongers” those who have committed spiritual fornication with her, or her daughters; “mur- derers” those who have entered into her persecuting spi- rit; “idolaters” those who have gone into the worship of saints and images; and “he that loveth and maketh a lie” is one whose heart favouring false doctrine, has em- ployed himself in framing and propagating it.—See chap. xxi. 8. The Lord Jesus, having from the 10th to the 16th verse addressed himself to the apostle, here turns to the churches, assuring them that all which was revealed in the foregoing prophecy was for their use : “I, Jesus, have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches.” Nor was it to those only which were then in being, but to all the churches of succeeding ages. The things contained in this prophecy therefore are a message from Christ in his glorified state to us. And as in reference to his second coming he assumed the charac- ter of “the first and the last,” here he is “ the root and the offspring of David, the bright and morning star,” which names are descriptive of Him who is God in our nature, and whose coming will introduce an everlasting day of light, and joy, and gladness. Ver. 17—21. Christ does not only assume a name suited to the revelations which had been made, but draws from them the most affecting invitations and solemn warnings; and with these the book concludes. Reader, as if he should say, You have read of “the water of life:” you are invited to “come,” and drink “freely” of it. You have read or heard of “the Spirit” that spake to the churches: he speaks also to you in- dividually, and the sum of what he saith is, “Come.” You have heard of the “bride,” and of the glories pre- pared for her : she does not covet to enjoy these things by herself, but joins with the Spirit of inspiration in in- viting you to “come.” Nay, every one that “heareth.” and believeth these things is warranted to invite his neighbour. And let every one who has any regard for his own soul avoid the cup of the mother of harlots, and 4S0 EXPOSITION OF THE APOCALYPSE. come to these living waters. There need be no hesitation on the score of qualifications, for it is free to all who are willing to receive it. Know also that the words of this prophecy are sacred. If any man add to them, God will add to him its plagues; and if any man take away from them, God will take away from him whatever he may have expected to receive of its blessings. He who testifieth these things saith, the third time, “SURELY I come QUICKLY.” To this solemn testimony of Christ the apostle adds his cordial “Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus !” And as he had introduced the prophecy with an address to the seven churches, so he concludes it with the apostolic benediction : “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.” CONCLUSION. THE reader may ask, What are the signs of the present times?—What judgments may yet be expected to befall the nations?—and, What cheering prospects await the church 3 If the outlines of the foregoing commentary be just, we are now under the period of the vials, or that space of time which commences with the sounding of the seventh angel, and terminates in the Millennium. This is a period which appears to be marked in the prophecy; par- ticularly in chap. x. 7, “But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mys- tery of God shall be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.” That is, in the times in which the seven vials shall be poured out, the great designs of Heaven concerning the overthrow of the papal antichrist, and the establishment of the kingdom of Christ, as fore- told by the prophets, shall be accomplished. This is the period in which, according to Daniel, “The thrones are pitched down, and the Ancient of days doth sit—in which they shall take away the dominion of the little horn, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.” We see not yet the kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ; but we see that which is both preparatory and introductory to it. Moreover, If the exposition of the vials by the trum- pets, adopted from DR. GILL, be just, we are as yet but under the second vial, which for several years has been pouring out upon the sea, or the maritime papal nations of Spain and Portugal; and notwithstanding what has taken place, it may be suspected that much of it is yet to CO II] 6. Much has been written on the commencement and con- sequent termination of the 1260 years assigned in pro- phecy for the continuance of the antichristian power. If the former couſd be ascertained, the latter would follow of course. Some think that they have already terminat- ed, and others that they are on the point of doing so. But of this I think we may be certain, that unless the vials are all poured out, to which few if any will pretend, the reign of the papal antichrist cannot have terminated, seeing they are the appointed means of its destruction. The finishing of “the mystery of God” (chap. x. 7) is the same as the termination of the 1260 years, as is evi- dent from the corresponding passage in Dan. xii. 7, where the angel swears that it shall be for “a time, times, and a half.” The pouring out of the last vial is the termination of the 1260 years: accordingly, a great voice is then heard out of the temple of heaven, saying, “It Is Done,” chap. xvi. 17. It may be questioned, however, whether the precise time of the commencement and termination of this period be not purposely concealed from us. It does not appear to be the design of prophecy so to fix the time of future events as that we should know them beforehand, to a day, or a month, or a year. . It deserves, moreover, to be particularly noticed, that those prophecies in which an cract number of years is specified are generally, if not always, covered with obscurity in respect of the time of .14—21 ; Ezra vi. their accomplishment, and in some cases have appeared to have had different accomplishments. Seventy years, for instance, were determined for the Babylonish captivity; but as the captives were carried away and restored at different times, it was hard to say when it began, and consequently when it ended. From the first captivity in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, when Daniel and others were carried to Babylon, to the first restoration by the decree of Cyrus, was seventy years; that is, from A. M. 4108 to 4178, 2 Chron. xxxvi. 5–7. 22, 23. From the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, in the reign of Zedekiah, to the decree of Darius to restore it, was seventy years; that is, from A. M. 4126 to 4196, 2 Chron. xxxvi. And from the captivity by Nebuzar- adan, which finished the desolations, to the dedication of the second temple, which completed the restoration, was seventy years ; that is, from A. M. 4130 to 4200, Jer, lii. 30; Ezra vi. 16–22. See the Tables in Pri- deaux. Again, seventy weeks of years were determined for the coming of Messiah ; but things were so ordered, that though the weeks were well understood to mean 490 years, yet the exact time of their commencement was not understood. A general expectation of him certainly did prevail about the time that he appeared, but that was all that was gathered from the prophecy, and might be all that it was intended should be gathered. Those who entertained carnal views of his kingdom were so blind as not to know it when it did appear. The Pharisees de- manded of him when the kingdom of God should come. “The kingdom of God cometh (answered he) not with observation ; neither shall they say, Lo here ! or lo there ! for, behold, the kingdom of God is among you !” As if he should say, The kingdom of God will not, like the kingdoms of this world, rise out of turbulence, intrigue, and bloodshed, nor be accompanied with ostentation and parade. Imperceptible and gradual in its operations, it comes when you little expect it. You shall not be able to point to the place and say, Lo it is here, or lo it is there ! Nay, little as you may think of it, it is already in the midst of you ! In some such manner as this we may look for the ex- piration of the years of antichrist, and the coming of the kingdom of Christ in these latter days. While curiosity is gaping after wonders, and demanding, When shall these things be 3 behold, it will be amongst us ! The antichristian cause rose gradually, and will probably fall gradually. “They shall take away his dominion to consume and to destroy it unto the end.” Its temporal power has already been shaken and diminished ; but it is reserved for the battle of Armageddon, that “great day of God Almighty,” under the sixth vial, to accomplish its overthrow. And when this is done, the seventh will purify the moral at- mosphere of the world from its abominable principles, and so make way for the Millennium. When two of Christ's disciples were inquiring after the honours of his kingdom, they were asked, “Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be bap- tized with the baptism that I am baptized with.” He would himself have to suffer before he reigned, and they must expect to suffer with him. It is true his sufferings would be but for a short time, and so might theirs; but they required to be the immediate object of their atten- tion. Something similar to this may be expected in what is before us. Some commentators have supposed the slaughter of the witnesses in chap. xi. to intimate as much as this. I have already given my reasons for understand- ing that part of the prophecy of past events ; but there are other passages which seem to give us to expect that the adversary will not expire without a deadly struggle. Thus towards the close of the 1260 years, in which the church is described as being in the wilderness, the dragon is represented as casting out of his mouth a “flood” after her, and as making war with her seed, chap. xii. 15–17. Previously to “the harvest and the vintage”—which, syn- chronizing with the sixth vial, describe the utter overthrow of the antichristian powers—the patience of the saints is celebrated, and a blessing pronounced on the dead that die in the Lord, chap. xiv. 12, 13. Previously to the battle of Armageddon, the kingdoms are gathered together .* , * * CONCLUSION. 481 to fight against God, chap. xvi. 14. The beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, are gathered together to make war with him that sat on the horse, and against his army, and perish in an attempt to crush them, chap. xix. 11–21. - If these events signify war between the nations, as possibly they may, yet it will be a war directed against Christ and true religion, and in which the church of Christ may expect a sharp persecution; and this not merely from one, but all parties, who, like Herod and Pilate, will be made friends, and unite in such a work as this. We may think that, from the repeated blows which popery has received on the continent, it will never be able to persecute to any considerable degree again; that from the antipathy between its adherents and the patrons of infidelity they can never again coalesce; and that, from the dishonour which public opinion attaches to intolerance, persecution can never more lift up its head: but we may be mistaken in all these particulars. If the temporal power of popery has diminished on the continent, its spiritual power has increased in Britain.” If papists and the avowed enemies of religion have fallen out, it has been chiefly on political subjects, a union in which would bring them together again. We have lived to see both whigs and tories unite in opposing a free toleration of Christian missionaries ; and an English writer of note, who professes to be “the enthusiastic friend of freedom,” though he wishes the “catholics the utmost degree of religious liberty,” yet proposes in respect of the evangelical party, “by well- concerted and well-applied regulations, to restrain them!”f The spirit of the beast and the false prophet certainly can and will unite with that of the dragon in the war with God Almighty. It is a consolation that this persecution, or this war against religion, will be the last, and of short duration: this very effort of the enemy will prove his final over- throw : our immediate inquiry, however, seems to be, Are we able, previously to our entrance on the Millennial reign of Christ, to drink of his cup, and to be baptized with his baptism ? But though our Lord checked the aspiring minds of his disciples concerning his kingdom by presenting to them a time of trial, yet he did not fail to cheer them with the promise of glorious things beyond it. “A woman (saith he) when she is in travail hath sorrow because her hour is come : but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world. And ye now therefore have sorrow : but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man taketh from you.” The glory of the Millennium will more than balance all the trials during the 1260 years of antichristian usurpation. Nor shall we have to wait for the Millennium, nor even for the ruin of the antichristian cause, ere we see glorious times. Two hundred years have been thought to be the utmost point to which the pouring out of the vials can extend : they may terminate in less time : but if not, there is great encouragement for the friends of Christ in the promised progress of his cause during this period. We shall not have to wait for the Millennium, I say, ere we see glorious days in respect of the success of the gospel. The seventh trumpet, though it includes the vials, and in this view is a woe-trumpet, yet is introductory of good tidings to the church. At the same time that her enemies are bleeding under the strokes of Heaven, the “kingdoms of this worlä are becoming the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ.” The pouring out of the vials will be to the Millennium that which the wars of David were to the pacific reign of Solomon. The servants of Christ may have to encounter great opposition ; but as “the Lord prospered David whithersoever he went,” so he will prosper them. Pagan- ism, Mahomedism, popery, and infidelity shall fall before them. Nor shall the obstinacy of Judaism maintain its ground. The wall shall be built, though it be in troublous times. . What short of this can be intimated by the “angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gos- * Recent events have also revived its temporal power. N. B. Writ- ten in 1814. , t Characters of the late Charles James Fox. By Philopatris Var- Vicensis, Eclectic Review for December 1809, p. 1128, pel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people”—and this before the fall of the antichristian Babylon 2 chap. xiv. 6–8. What else can be meant by the song preceding the pouring out of the vials—“All nations shall come and worship before thee, for thy judgments are made mani- fest ?” chap. xv. 3, 4. The judgments referred to are those of the vials, or “seven last plagues” (chap. xv. 1); the effect of which on the nations will be to induce them to “come and worship” before God. They shall so “manifesty” appear to be the judgments of God against the antichristian powers, that the nations will be deeply impressed by the conviction ; and, by the concurring in- fluence of the Holy Spirit and the “everlasting gospel,” will be subdued to the obedience of faith. To the same purpose is that remarkable passage in Isa. xxvi. 9, “When thy judgments are in the earth, the in- habitants of the world will learn righteousness.” “The church under the gospel dispensation,” says an able writer, “is in this and the preceding chapter the principal subject of prophecy. Zion is introduced singing. A song is always in the prophecies a symbol of the enlargement of the church. In verses 17, 18, she complains of feeble and ineffectual efforts in extending the interests and kingdom of her Redeemer: “We have not wrought any deliverance in the earth, neither have the inhabitants of the world fallen.” She receives in answer the consoling promise of a period when she shall make vigorous and successful exertions, and no longer complain of abortive labours; when converts numerous as the morning dew shall join her standard : “Thy dead shall live.”—“Awake and sing—thy dew is as the dew of herbs.” No season or time is particularly ascertained when this promise will be accomplished; but another event is foretold, and immedi- ately connected with this. A judgment, a singular judg- ment, inflicted as the punishment of a peculiar and enormous crime, is mentioned. The event is represented as inevitable ; the Lord’s people may not pray for its removal, but are directed to fly to their chambers, and hide them- selves until the indignation be overpast. ‘For behold the Lord cometh out of his place to punish the inhabit- ants of the earth for their iniquity: the earth also shall disclose her blood, and shall no more cover her slain l’ The terms here used, compared with parallel expressions in the Revelation, put it beyond a doubt that the blood of the martyrs is intended, and the punishment predicated is the avenging of that blood. This is introduced as a coetane- ous event with the enlargement of the church. Whenever that precious blood begins to be avenged, then Zion will sing of mercy as well as judgment; then a new and pros- perous ministry will arise in the church, and her borders be widely extended.” # If the “punishment” referred to at the close of the twenty-sixth chapter of Isaiah be that which is appointed for the antichristian Babylon for her having shed the blood of the martyrs, in which not only this writer, but almost all our ablest commentators, are agreed, the ninth verse doubtless refers to the same events. The pouring out of the vials are the “judgments” which while they are in the earth the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness. Many judgments have been in the earth without producing this effect; but the Lord will in this instance accompany them with his word and Spirit, and so render them effect- ual to salvation. The same things in substance are taught us in Rev. xix. 11—19, where, prior to the last struggle with the beast and the false prophet, Christ is described as “going forth upon a white horse, and as being followed by the armies of heaven on white horses.” And when their enemies, provoked by their success, shall gather together in order . to oppose their progress, they themselves shall fall to rise In O II, Ore. The period of the vials being a season of warFARE, it is in this, rather than in the Millennium itself, that we are to look for the most distinguished victor IEs over error, # DR. LIVINGSTONE’s Sermon on Rev. xlv. 6, before the New York Miss. Soc., April 3, 1804. 2 I 482 Exposition OF THE APOCALYPSE. superstition, and irreligion. The Millennium is a reign ; but a reign presupposes possession of the throne, and that, in cases where it has been previously occupied by an enemy, a victory. It is in this period therefore that we are to look for the overthrow of paganism, Mahomedism, popery, and infidelity; and towards the close of it may expect the malignant opposition of the Jews to give place to the gospel. The glorious Millennial rest will not com- mence while such an enemy remains unsubdued. The marriage supper of the Lamb must include the children of Abraham in its train. The return of this long-lost prodi- Agal will heighten the joy of the feast, and be as life from the dead. Supposing the period of the vials to have commenced within the last five-and-twenty years, let it be considered whether the aspect of the times do not correspond with what we are given to ea:pect. It must of necessity be a period of wnprecedented wars ; and if those wars are designed of God to avenge the blood of the martyrs, it may be expected they should have a kind of special direction given them towards the countries where that blood has been principal- ly shed. How far this is applicable to late events it is easy to judge. It must also be a period of extraordinary prayer and unprecedented eacertion for the spread of the gospel. It is during this period that “the kingdoms of the world are to become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ.” But the accomplishment of such mighty moral changes is not to be expected by any other than the means above mentioned. When the Lord buildeth up Zion, he regards the prayer of the destitute ; and when his servants take pleasure in her stones, and favour her dust, then the time to favour her, even the set time, is come, Psal. cii. 14—17. Had we been more importunate in prayer, we might have been more successful; but, with all our imperfections, the prayer of faith has been presented and heard | God hath given the word, and, compared with former times, great is the company of those that pub- lish it. Can we overlook that providence which has been raising up numerous societies and plans, some for teaching the poor to read, and others for furnishing them with books, especially with the oracles of God 3 Ought we to overlook the translation of the Scriptures into the various languages of the East ; or the circulation of them through the earth in such a degree as perhaps was never before known 3 Can we be inattentive to the desire after evan- gelical preaching which prevails, not in one or two coun- tries only, but almost every where? If our Lord con- cluded, from the flocking of the Samaritans to hear the word, that “the fields were white already to harvest,” are we not warranted to draw the same conclusion ? Let us observe the state of the public mind a little be- fore the coming of Christ, and compare it with its present state. “The people were in expectation, and all men mused in their hearts whether John were the Christ or not.” And who that is not blind to the operations of -God’s hand does not muse in his heart whether the extra- ordinary changes which have of late years taken place in the world do not indicate something great to be pending —whether, notwithstanding the many venders of false prophecies, and mistaken comments on the true, there be not a body of genuine and important prophecies fulfilling and about to be fulfilled—whether some of the convulsions among the nations may not issue in what is foretold of the restoration of the Jews—and, finally, whether all that is going on be not a preparing the way of the Lord, and making straight his paths 3 Look at the blessing already attending the various at- tempts to propagate the gospel. To some it may appear a “ day of small things;” but if God does not despise it, it will increase. Already have we been provoked to jealousy by Hindoos and Hottentots: nor is this all ; look at our fleets and armies: did we ever before hear of so many lovely groups of Christian people amongst them ? It would seem as if God had begun with these publicans and sinners to shame the rest of the nation. Finally, If these be not sufficient, look at the state of mind amongst the enemies of religion. Do not their hearts fail them, like those of the Canaanites before Joshua and his army Why do the Brahmans tremble for their gods? and why are practical unbelievers afraid of godliness, whether in or out of the establishment # It is pleasant to observe, while endeavouring to stigmatize it under the name of “Methodism,” how despondingly they confess their inability to arrest its progress.” Surely these are tokens for good to the church of Christ. On the period of the vials being closed, that of the Mil- lennium will commence. “The Lord gave Solomon rest round about from all his enemies ;” and the Lord will now give rest to his people from theirs. It is probably in allusion to his quiet and pacific reign that that of the Messiah is denominated a rest—“His rest shall.be glori- ous,” Isa. xi. 10. Then wars and oppressions will cease; then the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold of the image, being broken to pieces, and become like the chaff of the summer thrashing-floors, the stone that smote it will have become a great mountain, and shall fill the whole earth ; then the judgment having sat upon the little horn, and his dominion being taken away, “the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him. Amen.” ADDED IN 1814. The above was written in 1810 or 1811, since which time the tide of human affairs has taken another turn. A mighty change has taken place in Europe, in favour of old establishments, and so in favour of popery. We have seen the inquisition, which had been suppressed in Spain, re- vived ; and the pope, whose temporal power had been taken away, restored. But as the foregoing exposition rests not on any hypothesis formed from passing events, so it is not materially affected by them. The direction that things have taken as it relates to the liberation of nations, and their restoration to peace and independence, must needs be grateful to every friend of humanity and justice ; and though the papal cause may hereby regain some of its former ascendency, yet this may be but for a short time, and that it may be destroyed for ever. These tides in hu- man affairs may be permitted, as by a flux and reflux of the ocean, to wash away those things which it is the pur- pose of Heaven to destroy. The antichristian power may rise and fall repeatedly before it falls to rise no more. Irrespective of prophecy, it is easy for an observant mind to perceive that, notwithstanding the political advantages which have arisen from recent changes to most of the papal nations, yet they are not at ease. There remains in them the seeds of discontent and of future wars. Look at the state of Spain, in particular.—Popery must be what it always has been, a persecuting enemy of true religion, or nothing. The preponderating powers of Europe, by re- storing its authority, and recommending it to exercise a liberal government, suited to the times, have done all per- haps that was in their power towards lengthening out its tranquillity; but it is in vain. WE woulD HAVE HEALED BABYLoN, they may say, BUT SHE IS NOT HEALED ! * See Edinburgh Review, No. XXII., p. 241, Art. Methodism. E X P O S IT IO N OF T H E S E R M O N O N T H E M O U NT. SECTION I. ON THE BEATITUDES. Matt. v. 1–12. VER. 1, 2. We have already had a general account of our Saviour's ministry (iv. 23); but here the evangelist in- forms us of his doctrine. Of this the sermon on the mount is an important specimen. Observe, First, The occasion of this sermon—it was on seeing the multitudes that he betook himself forthwith to a convenient place to instruct them. Christ never beheld a multitude of people without sentiments of compassion. It was on seeing the Sama- ritans coming down the hills to hear the word that he told his disciples the fields were white already to harvest, and, like Abraham's servant, refused to eat bread till he told his tale. Secondly, The place–He went up into a moun- tain. Mountains were commonly covered, at least in part, with wood. Hence they afforded secrecy and retirement. In, or among, these mountain woods, the defeated forces of the five kings found shelter, Gen. xiv. 10. Thither also the spies fled and hid themselves three days, when they departed from the house of Rahab the harlot, Josh. ii. 22. The object of our Saviour was retirement. Seeing mul- titudes of people who wished to hear him, he drew them away from the interrupting concerns of cities and, towns, into a place where all was still, solemn, and impressive. Thirdly, The posture—He sat and taught them. This is said to have been the usual posture of eminent teachers among the Jews. It certainly was befitting the majesty of this Teacher, who taught as one having authority—as a judge, rather than as a counsellor. Fourthly, He spoke in the hearing of all, but with a special respect to his dis- ciples. Not that our Saviour confined his preaching to believers ; but this discourse seems to have been prin- cipally addressed to them. Having lately called his dis- ciples, it was his intention to instil into their minds, at the outset, right sentiments. At the same time, if the multi- tudes mixed faith in hearing, they would be no less profited by it than if it had been immediately addressed to them. Our Saviour begins his sermon by declaring who were blessed; and, considering him as the future J udge of the world, an extraordinary importance attaches to his de- cisions. It is observable, in general, that the characters which he pronounces blessed are not those accounted so by the world; on the contrary, they are such as the world hate, despise, and persecute. On this account all these beatitudes possess the air of paradox. It is also observ- able, that it was our Saviour's manner of preaching to ex- hibit marks or signs of grace, and to pronounce those, and those only, who possess them, in a blessed state. The offer of salvation was made to every creature; but the blessings were promised only to believers. Some have pretended that marks and signs are no certain evidences of". grace; and that this is a legal and dangerous way of preaching, as tending to lead men to look into themselves for comfort; but, so far as comfort proceeds from evidence of our interest in the Divine favour, it must imply a con- sciousness of our being the subjects of those spiritual dis- positions to which the promises are made. It is true the first genuine comfort which a soul possesses is by directly believing in Christ ; or from a view of what he is, rather than from any thing in himself; for it is impossible that he should be conscious of any good in himself, till he has believed in him. I may add, it is equally true that the richest consolations to a believer are derived from the same source ; namely, from beholding the glory of Christ, and of salvation through his name. But there is no contradic- tion between this and his knowing himself to be interested in that salvation, by an habitual consciousness of his pos- sessing those dispositions, or sustaining those characters, to which it is promised. “Hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.” If our hearts condemn us of hypocrisy, much more will the all- searching eye of God; but if our hearts condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God, 1 John iii. 19—21. Wer. 3. The first of these beatitudes is pronounced on the poor in spirit.—Many seem to think that because they are poor in circumstances, or great sufferers in this world, therefore they shall be blessed in another; but this will prove a fatal mistake. Nor is every kind of poverty of spirit that which the Lord approves. The Laodiceans were censured for being poor; and the same censure falls on multitudes in the present day. It is not what we are, but what we are in our own estimation, that is here intended ! To be poor in spirit is the opposite of being proud in spirit, or rich and full in our own eyes. He who trusts in his own righteousness, his own wisdom, his own strength, or his own inherent graces, has this lesson yet to learn ; and, let me add, it is a lesson that none can learn but he that is taught of God. A lowly spirit is one of the most diffi- cult things in the world to assume, where it is not pos- sessed.—The blessing pronounced is suited to encourage them under the contempt of the present world, and to teach them to bear it with patience. An everlasting kingdom awaits them ; and even in the present state they have received a kingdom that shall not be moved. Wer. 4. The next blessing is on the mourner.-The mourning to which Christ promises comfort must be re- stricted to that which is spiritual ; as mourning on account of our own sins, or the sins of others, or for any thing by which the name of the Lord is dishonoured, or his cause injured or impeded. We are hereby taught, First, The folly of measuring the profitableness of preaching by the degrees of comfort which it affords us. We may not go to hear in a condition for the gospel to comfort us. Con- viction may be more necessary for us than comfort. If 2 I 2 484 EXPOSITION OF THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. the gospel comfort those that mourn, that is all which it professes to do. Secondly, The connexion between godly sorrow and gospel joy. We have heard much of the gospel containing comfort for the mere sinner; and if, by the mere sinner, be meant one that has nothing to plead but the mercy of God, through the atonement, like the pub- lican in the parable, it is for such, and only such, that the gospel contains consolation. But if, by the mere sinner, be meant the impenitent though distressed sinner, it has no comfort for such in their present state. Repentance is necessary to forgiveness, in the same sense as faith is necessary to justification; for it is not possible for a sin- ner either to embrace the Saviour, or prize the consolations of the gospel, while insensible to the evil of sin. There is no grace in the gospel, but upon the supposition that God is in the right, and that sin is exceedingly sinful; and consequently none to be perceived or prized. Ver. 5. The next blessing is on the meek.—The word signifies gentle, humble, lowly. Every grace, however, has its semblance. There is a kind of meekness, as well as of mourning, which is merely natural or constitutional. A lamb-like temper is a blessing, and however it may be despised by the hectoring spirits of this world, it is highly advantageous to society; but the gentleness of a renewed mind is a different thing, and has the promise of different blessings. Saul of Tarsus was naturally violent; but, being apprehended of Jesus, he came to him, took his yoke, and learned his spirit. This is that spirit which receives the ingrafted word ; which insures our being guided in judgment; which is an ingredient in the wisdom from above; which submits to God under adverse pro- vidences; which stands aloof from noise, contention, and clamour, and renders our religion still and affectionate ; which, in fine, is the ornament of Christians, and causes them to resemble the myrtle trees that grew in the valley, and had the Lord among them. But how is it that such characters should have the promise of inheriting the earth ? It seems to be supposed that in one respect they have but little of it. But, First, Meekness of spirit is connected with rest to the mind; and this makes much of a little. The proud and restless do not inherit the earth, though it be in their hand. The humble Christian has far more enjoyment in a cottage than they can have in distressing and dividing the world. “A little with the fear of the Lord is better than great treasure, and trouble therewith.” Secondly, The meek ones shall have the rule of the world in God’s due time, Dan. vii. 27. Nor need they lay aside their meekness or engage in revolutionary schemes to ac- complish it: God will revolutionize the world, by planting fear in the hearts of princes as well as subjects, and then the work is done; and Christian principles will govern the nations. Ver. 6. “Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness,” &c.—It is a truth that the obedience of Jesus unto death, which is the righteousness on account of which believers are justified, is the object of their most intense desire; but as this is less introduced prior to its being actually wrought than afterwards, I doubt not but that the term in this place refers to the universal pre- valence of righteousness in the mind and in the world. Unbelievers are hungering and thirsting, but it is after carmal and worldly gratifications. Some thirst for gold, and care not much by what means they obtain it; others may be more scrupulous on this head, yet it is chiefly on account of their own honour. Self, in one shape or other, is the idol in the heart of every sinner. What then is true religion ? An earnest desire to do right, and to see right- eousness toward God and toward man prevail in the earth. Hence arise the believer’s desires for the spread of Christ's kingdom, his sighs for the evils among men, and his secret moans over those of his own heart.—It is a source of great joy, that, while those who hunger and thirst after the world are disappointed, those who hunger and thirst after right- eousness shall be filled. The way to have our desire is for the mind to be one with the mind of God. Wer. 7. “Blessed are the merciful,” &c.—This cha- racter respects our dispositions towards men. It is that kindness and goodness which feels the miseries of others, not only as our fellow creatures, but as God’s creatures, and, it may be, the purchase of the Saviour's blood. There is a principle of compassion in that mutual affection which God has planted in all men, and even in animals towards their kind: and where it is cherished by the grace of God, or even by an enlightened conscience, it is pro- ductive of great and good effects to society. The true knowledge of God, as taught among the Israelites, had such an influence upon Ahab and his predecessors, that, idolaters as they were, its effects were not wholly ob- literated; for the kings of the house of Israel were still known and acknowledged among the heathen as merciful kings. The same effects are seen to this day in countries where the gospel is preached, compared with those where it is not preached. This is certainly to the honour of re- ligion, and affords much cause for thankfulness. It must not, however, be confounded with that spirit of which our Saviour speaks. True religion may cherish natural af. fection, and false religion quench it; but its proper origin is not religion, but creation. That merciful spirit to which Christ annexes the blessing is an effect of the grace of God, or of love written upon the fleshly tables of the heart. Christ was full of compassion ; and, as we learn of him, we feel as he felt. An ummerciful spirit is inconsistent with true religion.—Whatever pretences we may make to orthodoxy, or to devotion, if we show no mercy to the poor and the afflicted, we shall on a future day meet with judgment without mercy. But he who imbibes the mer- ciful spirit of Jesus, and acts upon the principles upon which he acted, shall obtain mercy. He shall seldom want a sympathizing friend in this world; and, what is infinitely more, shall obtain mercy of the Lord another day. Ver. 8. “Blessed are the pure in heart,” &c.—The import of this phrase, I take it, is much the same as what we mean by pure intention, or godly simplicity. It is the opposite of subtlety and duplicity. Genuine Christianity lays aside, not only malice, but guile and hypocrisy. It is not enough to be pure in words, nor in outward de- portment, and still less to be pure in our own eyes; for all this may consist with inward wickedness. True re- ligion has its seat in the heart, whence are the issues of life. Purity is a quality but little esteemed in the world. Men bless the subtle, rather than the simple-hearted ; but Christ judges otherwise : the one may succeed in his measures, and rise high in things of this life; but the other shall see God, and stand accepted in his presence. Ver. 9. “Blessed are the peace-makers,” &c.—As one of the ways in which lust operates is by breeding divisions, contentions, strifes, wars, and the like, and thus diffusing death through every vein of society; so one of the ways in which true religion operates is by preventing, or al- laying them. The desire of such persons is not merely to avoid giving or taking offence, and to stand aloof from the quarrels of the neighbourhood; but, if possible, by a wise, temperate, and friendly interference to heal them at an early stage. It is a great blessing to a church, a neighbourhood, or a nation to have such characters among them. There is no calculating the mischiefs which have raged in these different departments of society, and which might have been prevented by listening to a few wordz from a pacific friend.—The blessedness pronounced on these characters is the honour of being called “the chil- dren of God;” and this no doubt because they resemble him. He that seeks peace on pure and honourable prin- ciples is of God’s mind, acting on the same principles as God acts in reconciling the world to himself through Jesus Christ. Ver. 10–12. “Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake,” &c.—It is a strong proof of human depravity, that men’s curses and Christ's blessings should meet on the same persons. Who would have thought that a man could be persecuted and reviled, and have all man- ner of evil said of him, for righteousness' sake? And do wicked men really hate justice, and love those who defraud and wrong their neighbour? No; they do not dislike righteousness as it respects themselves ; it is only that species of it which respects God and religion that excites their hatred. If Christians were content with doing just- ly, and loving mercy, and would cease from walking hum- bly with God, they might go through the world, not only in peace, but with applause ; but he that will “live godly CHARACTER OF CHRISTIANS AND CHRISTIAN MINISTERS. 485 in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.” Such a life re- proves the ungodliness of men, and provokes their resent- ment. Persecution is not confined to those acts of vio- lence which are sanctioned by law, and affect liberty, property, or life; but extends to slanderous and reproachful language, and every other way in which enmity is ex- pressed. Through the goodness of God we have been long protected from legal persecution ; but the enmity of the serpent will find ways of expressing itself. If, from the most disinterested compassion, you warn your wicked neighbours of their danger, you will be called disturbers of the peace; crimes will be imputed to you of which you are innocent; and even your best actions ascribed to the worst motives. If you model your religion by the word of God, and pay no regard to human establishments any further than as they agree with it, you may expect to be represented as enemies to government, a discontented sort of people, “turning the world upside down.” A view of such a state of things, to one that is weak in faith, may appear discouraging; but there is no just cause for being cast down. Only see to it that whatever you suffer be “for righteousness' sake,” and that all the evil which is said of you be false, and for Christ's sake, and, instead of being discouraged, you will have reason to “rejoice and be exceedingly glad.” Unbelievers may tell you that this is extravagant and impossible, and that no man can be happy in such circumstances; but it is not so. The pri- mitive Christians entered into the spirit of their Lord’s doctrine, “rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name’s sake.” When to this is added the promised “kingdom,” the “reward in heaven” which awaits those that overcome, miserable as your lot may be accounted by the world, it will be found to be not only preferable to that of your persecutors, but even to that of such Christians as, by yielding in a measure to the world, escape a few of its censures. You have more satisfaction, and consequently more happiness, in this life; and your reward in heaven will be greatly augmented ; for if afflic- tions in general “work for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory,” much more those which we have suffered for righteousness' sake. Every wound received in this warfare will then be a scar of honour; a seed, pro- ductive of a harvest beyond all our present conceptions. SECTION II. ON THE CHARACTER OF CHRISTIANS AND CHRISTIAN MINISTERS. Matt. v. 13–16. VER. 13. “Ye are the salt of the earth,” &c.—This cha- racter, I conceive, applies to the disciples, both as Chris- tians and as Christian ministers. There are three things observable. First, Their use as a preservative.—The world is cor- rupt, and, if left to itself, would in a little time work its own ruin ; but as the Lord of hosts had a seed in Israel, who otherwise would have been as Sodom and Gomorrah, so he has a people scattered over the towns, cities, and nations of the earth, who to them are that which salt is to a substance tending to putrefaction. The influence which a few people, who imbibe the gospel and act up to its Principles, have upon the consciences and conduct of others, is much beyond calculation. Had the ruling powers of France been friendly to the servants of Christ in the seventeenth century, it might have prevented the horrors of a revolution in the eighteenth; but having destroyed or banished them, nothing was left to counteſſ act the torrent of infidelity; which, being natural to the carnal mind, and cherished by popery, had before risen to a great height, and now overwhelmed the country. Hum- ble and serious Christians, though often accused of being inimical to civil government, are in reality its best friends. while those governments which persecute them are their OWIl enem leS. Secondly, Their value as consisting in their savour.— There are many things which, though useless for one pur- pose, yet may be very useful for another; but things which, by possessing only one distinguishing property, are designed for a single specific purpose, if that property be wanted, are good for nothing. It is thus with the vine, as to bearing fruit. If other trees were barren, yet their trunks might be applied to various uses; but if a vine be barren, it is good for nothing but to be burnt, Ezek. xv. 1–6. The same may be said of salt. Many things which have ceased to be good for food, may yet be useful for manure ; but salt, if it once lose its savour, is good for nothing; it is fit for neither the land nor the dunghill. And thus if Christians lose their spirituality, or Christian ministers cease to impart the savour of the heavenly doc- trine, of what use are they 3 of what in the family 3–of what in the church 3—of what in the world ! Thirdly, Their irrecoverable condition on having lost their savour. It is true all things are possible with God; but where persons, after having professed the name of Christ, and in some cases preached his word, turn back, or go into another gospel, there is little hope of them, and in- deed none from the ordinary course of things. Salt may recover unsavoury meat; but what is to recover unsavoury salt 3 Ver. 14–16. “Ye are the light of the world,” &c.— This character implies that the world, notwithstanding its attainments in science, is in a state of darkness ; and that the only true light that is to be found in it is that which proceedeth from Christ. It may seem too much for our Saviour to give that character to his disciples which he elsewhere claims as his own. The truth is, He, as the sun, shines with supreme lustre, and they, as the moon, derive their light from Him, and reflect it on the world. As ministers, it is for them to show unto men the way of salvation; and, as Christians, to set the example of walking in it. On this account they require to be conspi- cuous. There is indeed a modesty in true religion, which, so far as respects ourselves, would induce us to steal through the world, if possible, unnoticed ; but this cannot be ; Christians being diverse from all people in their prin- ciples and pursuits, all eyes will be upon them. They are as “a city set upon a hill, which cannot be hid.” Their faults, as well as their excellences, will be marked both by friends and enemies. Nor is it desirable it should be otherwise. Light is not intended to be hid, but exposed for the good of those about it. On this account we must even be coneerned to let our light shine before men; not by any ostentatious display of ourselves, but by a practical and faithful exhibition of the nature and effects of the gospel, by which our heavenly Father is glorified. It is not merely by words, but works, that gospel light is con- veyed to the consciences and hearts of men. There is another saying of our Lord in another place, nearly akin to this, though under a different image: “Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bring forth much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.” The glory of a hus- bandman does not arise from his fields or vines bearing fruit, but much fruit. A few ears of corn in the one, nearly choked with weeds, or here and there a branch, or a berry, on the other, while the greater part is covered with leaves only, would rather dishonour than honour him. And thus it is in spiritual fruitfulness. A little re- ligion often dishonours God more than none. An unde- cisive spirit, halting between God and the world, walking upon the confines of good and evil, now seeming to be on the side of God, and now on that of his adversaries, causes his name to be evil spoken of much more than the excesses of the irreligious. Hence we may see the force of the re- buke to Laodicea ; “I know thy works, that thou art nei- ther cold nor hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.” It is also intimated that without bearing much fruit we are unworthy to be considered as Christ's disci- ples. He was indeed a fruitful bough. His life was filled with the fruits of love to God and man. It behoves us either to imitate his example, or forego the profession of his name. The glory of God being manifested by the good works of his children implies that they are all to be ascribed to him as their proper cause. Though we act, he actuates. 486 EXPOSITION OF THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. A mind set on things too high for it may deny the con- sistency of this with the free-agency and accountableness of creatures; but the humble Christian will turn it to a better use. “Thou wilt ordain peace for us, for thou hast wrought all our works in us.” SECTION III. ON THE PERPETUITY AND SPIRITUALITY OF THE MORAL LAW. Matt. v. 17–32. VER. 17–19. It might appear to some of our Lord’s disciples as if he intended to set aside the religion which had been taught by Moses and the prophets, and to intro- duce an entirely new state of things. It was true indeed that he would abolish the ceremonial law, and explode all dependence upon the works of any law for acceptance with God, as indeed Moses and the prophets had done before him ; but it was no part of his design to set aside the law itself. Being about to correct various corruptions which had obtained among the Jews, he prefaces what he has to say by cautioning them not to misconstrue his de- sign, as though he were setting himself against either Moses or the prophets, neither of whose writings were at variance with his kingdom, but preparatory to it. So far from his having any such design, he, with the most solemn asseveration, declares the law to be of perpetual obligation. Such also was his regard for it, that if any one professing to be a minister in his kingdom should break the least of its precepts, and teach others to make light of it, he should be as little in the eyes of his Lord as the precept was in his eyes; while, on the contrary, those ministers who should practise and inculcate every part of it should have his highest approbation. Ver. 20. Having made these declarations by way of introduction, (and to which we may have occasion here- after to refer,) our Lord proceeds to denounce the system of Pharisaical religion, and to exhibit in contrast with it that of Moses and the prophets, which, purified from all corrupt glosses, he recommends to his followers. In general he declares that, “except their righteousness ex- ceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, they could in no case enter the kingdom of heaven.” This, at the time, must have been a most extraordinary and alarming declar- ation. The scribes and Pharisees were the reputed models of strict religion. The common people seem to have thought that men in general could not be expected to attain the heights of purity to which they had arrived. If, therefore, any had attached themselves to Jesus, in hopes of obtaining a little more latitude than was allowed them by their own teachers, they would find themselves greatly mistaken. For not only did he inculcate an equal, but even a superior degree of strictness to that which they practised. Nor did he, by righteousness, mean that judgment, mercy, and love of God, of which the scribes and Pharisees, with all their tenacity for forms and cere- monies, were woefully destitute. In proof of the gross defectiveness of the Pharisaical system of morality, he goes on to account for it, by con- victing its authors of having by their glosses, in a course of time, greatly corrupted the law ; and this must have cut the deeper on account of an attachment to the law being their principal pretext for opposing him. Ver. 21, 22. The first example alleged is the sixth commandment, “ Thou shalt not kill.” All that the Phari- sees understood by this was a prohibition of the act of murder; but our Lord insists that the commandment, taken from its true intent, prohibited not only the overt act, but every evil working of the mind, which led to it ; such as causeless anger, with contemptuous and provoking language. This was going to the root or principle of things. The different degrees of punishment here referred to allude doubtless to the courts of justice among the Jews; and express not merely what sin was in itself as a favour. breach of the Divine law, (for in that sense all sin exposes to hell-fire,) but how many degrees of evil there were, short of actual murder, which would endanger a man's salvation. - Ver. 23, 24. Of this doctrine our Lord proceeds to make some practical uses, by applying it to certain cases. First, he enforces speedy reconciliation with an offended brother.—Be sure there be no enmities rankling in thy bosom from day to day, every one of which is murder in embryo ; nor let any conduct of thine be the cause of their rankling in the bosom of another. The best means of preventing both is to examine thyself in thy most solemn approaches to God; for then, if ever, the con- science is tender, and likely to bring to remembrance what is wrong between thee and thy brother.—What must I do, say you, who have offended my brother? Must I not worship God nevertheless 3 No, not in that state, for God will not accept of thy gift. What then, must I keep away ? No; but go immediately to thy brother, and ac- knowledge thy fault, or if no offence were intended, ex- plain matters to him, and, thus being reconciled to thy brother, then come and offer thy gift.—If the door of God’s house were shut against every one who refused to comply with this direction, it would make many feel : yet the door of mercy, or Divine acceptance, is shut ; which is of far greater account. It is observable, that the ex- hortation is given to the offender, and the term reconciled is not expressive of a conciliatory spirit on his part, but of its effect upon his brother. The meaning of it is, Be restored to thy brother's favour. And this is the sense in which the word is sometimes used on a higher subject, namely, that of reconciliation to God. We are often told by the adversaries of the atonement that God is never said to be reconciled to us by the death of Christ, but to have reconciled us to himself by it. This is true ; but the term in this connexion does not mean his appeasing our anger by offering us mercy through Christ ; but his making his soul an offering for sin, and thereby restoring w8 to his Hence God’s having reconciled us to himself by Christ is alleged as a motive to our being, as to the state of our minds, reconciled to him, 2 Cor. v. 18–20. Wer. 25. From the case of an offended brother, he pro- ceeds to that of an adversary, recommending a speedy agreement with him also. The law of love, if truly com- plied with, would promote universal peace. But a small difference, where there is little or no love to counteract it, often terminates in mutual and settled dislike ; and being accompanied with a proud reluctance to concession, liti- gations and contentions frequently follow, to which death only puts a period. But what is this 3 It is murder!— And wouldst thou wash thy hands from thy neighbour's blood 4 Go then, and be at peace with him Human prudence would recommend a timely agreement for thine own sake : let religion, let benevolence, even to thine adversary, recommend it for his. Say not, Our differences shall be tried before legal judges, whatever be the conse- quences; but offer just and generous terms whilst thou art in the way with him, that if the breach can be healed it may, or if not, that the fault may not lie at thy door. which was imputed to them for justification ; but that || —It were desirable that there were no strife among us, and if we loved one another as God’s law requires, there would be none ; but seeing it is otherwise, the same prinčiple which in innocent creatures would operate to prevent it must in guilty creatures operate to heal it. Wer. 27, 28. Having taken an example from the sixth commandment, and reproved the Pharisaical system with respect to sins of the mind, our Lord proceeds to the seventh, and detects the sins of the flesh. heard that it was said to them of old time, “ Thow shalt They had not commit adultery;” and they had heard the truth: but the Pharisaical glosses would confine its meaning, as in the former instance, to outward actions ; whereas, in its true intent, it comprehended the inward affections of the mind, censuring the wanton look and the impure desire. The Pharisees were worldly men, and the religion of such men is merely political : so far as good and evil affect society, they feel in some degree ; but as to the honour of God, they have no concern about it. Wer. 29, 30. As Christ had turned his former decision to practical use, so he does the present one. “If thy ! ON OATHS. 487 right eye offend thee, pluck it out; or if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off,” &c. The word rendered offend, in this and several other passages in the New Testament, does not mean to displease, but to cause to Qöend, and so it is rendered in the margin. The meaning is not, If they displease thee; but if, by becoming a stumbling- block or snare to thy soul, they cause thee to offend God, &c. Neither was it our Lord’s design that we should literally go about to maim our bodies; but he hereby teaches us either that we had better be without eyes or hands than to employ them in wantonness, or that we must on pain of eternal damnation give up those com- panions, situations, or pursuits, though dear to us as right eyes, or right hands, which prove a snare to our souls. The tremendous consequences held up to induce such sacrifices teach us that a single lust persisted in will issue in eternal ruin, and that it is necessary even for those whom the Lord may know to be the heirs of salvation, in certain situations, to be threatened with damnation, as the means of preserving them from it. Ver. 31, 32. Under the head of adultery there occurred another case, namely, that of divorce, in which the Pha- risaical doctrine had greatly corrupted the law. In this case our Saviour may seem to depart from the law of Moses rather than to expound it; and true it is that he took for his standard, in this instance, the original law of creation, to which it was his design, under the gospel dispensation, to bring his followers. This law, however, as well as the other, was given by Moses; and the differ- ence between them he elsewhere accounts for, by alleging that Moses rather suffered divorce than required it, and that because of the hardness of their hearts. In what he now taught, therefore, he was not against the mind of Moses or of God, neither of whom approved of divorce, except in case of fornication ; but barely permitted it to prevent a greater evil. And though the law respecting marriage, as given to Israel, was less pure than the ori- ginal law of creation, yet it was much purer than it had since become in the hands of Pharisaic expositors, through whom divorces were become so common, as, in a manner, to deluge the land with adultery. SECTION IV. ON OATHS, Matt. v. 33–37. WHAT our Lord says of swearing may have respect to the third commandment, in which we are forbidden to “take the name of the Lord our God in vain.” It had also been said, “Thou shalt not swear by my name false- ly ; neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God.” And again, “If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond, he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.”. To these passages, and to the construc- tion Which had been put upon them, our Lord seems to have alluded in what he here teaches. Many have supposed that oaths of every kind are here forbidden, and therefore refuse in any form, or on any occasion, to take them. To determine this question, we must have recourse to the principles laid down at the out- set of the sermon. “Think not that I am come to de- stroy the law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, ºnejot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled,” ver. 17, 18. The question is, then, whether oaths of any kind belonged to the law, or whether they arose from the false glosses of the elders? If the former, it was not Christ's design to destroy them; but if the latter, it was. That they were a part of the Divine law, and not of merely human authority, is suffi- ciently manifest from Deut. vi. 13, “Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name.” Consequently, it was not our Lord's design to destroy them. If it be objected, that though Christ did not destroy the moral law, yet there were various precepts pertaining to the ceremonial and judicial laws of Israel which, on his appearance, ceased to be binding, and that oaths might be of this description,--I answer, In abolishing things which had been of Divine authority, he is never known to have cast reproach on them, or to have imputed the ob- servance of them to evil. He could not therefore be said to have destroyed even the ceremonial law, but rather to have fulfilled it. But the oaths against which he inveighs are expressly said to come of evil; and therefore could never have been of Divine authority. To this may be added, If all oaths be unlawful under the gospel dispensation, some of the most solemn and im- pressive passages in the Epistles of Paul must be utterly wrong. “The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not—God is my witness, whom I serve in the gospel of his Son.” Each of these is an oath, and that of the most solemn kind; yet who ever thought of accusing the apostle of violating his Lord’s precept 3 The truth appears to be this—the Jews had construed the commandment merely as a prohibition of perjury ; accounting that if they did but swear truly as to matters of fact, or perform their oaths in case of promise, all was right. They seem to have had no idea, or at most but a very faint one, of sinning by swearing lightly. But for an oath to be lawful, it required, not only that the affirma- tion were true, or the vow performed ; but that such a mode of affirming or vowing were necessary. This is evident from the words of the Divine precept, “Thou shalt not swear by my name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God.” Thousands of things are true which yet it would be profaning the name of God to swear to. Here lay the sin which it was the design of Christ to reprove. He did not censure his countrymen for what was said before a magistrate, to put an end to strife; but for what passed in their ordinary communica- tions (ver. 37); that is, for light and unnecessary oaths, by which the name of God was profaned. This was a sin so prevalent among the Jews, that even Christians, who were called from among them, stood in need of being warned against it, James v. 12. It may appear rather extraordinary that any person who fears God should stand in need of these warnings; and if profane swearing were confined to expressly naming the name of God, they might be in general unne- cessary among persons who had any claim to seriousness of character. But as both Jews and Christians have learned to mince and soften their oaths, by leaving out the name of God, while yet it is implied, and consequent- ly profaned, such warnings cannot be considered as super- fluous. We perceive by our Lord’s words that it was common among the Jews to swear “by heaven, by earth, by Jerusalem, by the temple, by the altar, by their own head,” &c. &c. They had also some curious distinctions between swearing by the temple, and by the gold of the temple; the altar, and the gift upon the altar; but our Lord, looking deep into the principles of things, con- siders them all as amounting to the same thing—the pro- fanation of God’s holy name, Matt. xxiii. 16–22. It is thus that oaths are used among men calling them- selves Christians. In popish countries, your ears are continually stunned by hearing people swear, not only by their saints, but by Jesus, by his blood and his wounds; and even in protestant countries, these terrible oaths are turned into exclamations on many a trivial occasion. The words 'S blood, 'S wounds, &c., are no other than these old popish oaths minced, or contracted by the dread of expressly naming the blood and wounds of Christ. Every person who uses such language may not be ap- prized of the meaning; but every thing of the kind cometh of evil. The same may be said of all such phrases as the following—Of faith, By my troth, Upon my soul, Upon ny life, Upon my honour, Upon my word. By our Lord’s exposition of such language, in Matt. xxiii. 16–22, all these modes of speaking would be found to bear a relation to God, and so to be a profaning of his name. 488 ExPOSITION OF THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. . How opposite to all this profane jargon is the simple and dignified language prescribed by our Lord —“Let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay; for what- soever is more than these cometh of evil.” He that is conscious of a want of veracity may find it necessary to confirm his words with oaths; but he that habitually speaketh the truth will have no occasion for resorting to such mean and profane expedients. SECTION W. ON RESISTING EVIL. Matt. v. 38–42. IN the judicial law of Israel, it had been enacted as fol- lows:—“If men strive and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow, he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.” This law, in the hands of the magis- trate, was equitable, and adapted to the general good; nor was it our Lord’s design to undermine its authority. But, by the glosses of the Jews, it had been perverted in favour of private retaliation and revenge. Against this principle our Saviour inveighs. He did not complain of the law in the hands of the magistrate, nor forbid his fol- lowers appealing to it for the public good; but they must neither take upon them to judge of their own cause, nor repair to a magistrate from a principle of revenge; but must keep in view the good of the party, or at least that of the community. He does not crush any passion,” no, not that of anger; but merely requires that it be not selfish, but subordinate to the glory of God, and the good of man- kind. And however unbelievers may affect to deride this precept, it so approves itself to the judgment of men in general, that you shall rarely know an individual appeal to justice, but under a profession, at least, of being influenced by some other motive than that of private revenge. With respect to the precept of “turning the other cheek to him that smiteth thee,” it certainly does not mean that we should court insult, or in all cases submit to it without any kind of resistance; for this was not the practice of our Lord himself. When unjustly smitten before the high priest, he did not invite the repetition of the indignity; but, on the contrary, remonstrated against it. “If,” said he, “I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why Smitest thou me !” In this remonstrance, how- ever, he was not influenced by a spirit of retaliation, but of justice to his own character, which, under the form of striking his person, was assaulted; and what he said had a tendency to convict the party and assembly. Such re- monstrances are doubtless allowable in his followers. But the meaning of the precept is, that we render not evil for evil ; but rather suffer injury, and that injury to be re- peated, than go about to avenge ourselves. It is the principle, rather than the act, which is inculcated; yet even the act itself would be right in various cases; and instead of degrading the party, would raise him in the esteem of the wise and good. When Greece was invaded by Persia, Themistocles, the Athenian general, by warmly urging a point in a council of war, is said to have so pro- voked the displeasure of Eurybiades, the Spartan, the commander in chief, that the latter lifted up his cane over his head in a menacing posture. “Strike, (said the noble Athenian,) but hear me ! ” He did hear him, and the country was saved. And why may not a Christian act, or rather forbear to act, on the same principle, and for an in- finitely greater end, even the eternal salvation of his ene- mies? What else has been the language of the noble army * The passions are commonly confounded by infidel writers with vicious propensilies. The former is the name indeed by which they choose fo denominate the latter; and that with the obvious intent of apologizing for them. But they are, nevertheless, perfectly distinct, of the martyrs from the beginning 3 Have they not prac- tically said to an enraged world, Strike, but hear us f Similar remarks might be made on the precept of giving our “cloak to him that would sue us and take away our coat.” It is the principle that is to be regarded, rather than the act. It would be far from just in many cases to give place to the overbearing treatment of men, as it must tend not only to ruin our own families, but to encourage the wicked in their wickedness. But the spirit here in- culcated is of the greatest importance; it is that disposi- tion which would rather put up with injury than engage in litigious contests. All strife for victory, or for the sake of having our will of men, is here forbidden, as carnal and antichristian. The precept of going “two miles with him that would compel you to go with him one,” teaches us to need no compulsion in works of benevolence; but to be willing to do good to all men, even beyond their requests. In harmony with this is the practice of “giving and lending to them that ask us.” To suppose that Christ is here laying down a literal and universal rule of action would be supposing him to inculcate a practice which must soon destroy itself, by putting it out of our power either to give or lend. But by this language he recom- mends a kind and liberal spirit, ready to do good to the utmost of our power. Such was the spirit of Christ him- self towards an impoverished world, and such is the spirit of his religion; selfishness, in every shape and form, is antichristian. SECTION VI. ON LOVE TO EN EMIES. Matt. v. 43–48, It was written in the law of Moses, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” The construction which the Jews put upon this precept is easily discerned by the question of the self-justifying lawyer, “And who is my neighbour?” They excluded from that character heathens and Samari- tans, and indeed all those of their own country who were unfriendly towards them ; and so considered the command to love their neighbours as allowing them to hate their enemies. - In opposing this sentiment, our Lord did not oppose the law; but merely the selfish gloss of the rabbin ; for the law did not allow of any such hatred as they cherished. Yet, in comparing it with David’s language in the Psalms, some Christian writers have seemed willing to concede that the Jewish gloss was really founded upon the spirit of the Old Testament, and have represented the doctrine of love to enemies as peculiar to the gospel dispensation. That it is more clearly taught and powerfully enforced by our Sa- viour, than it had been before, is allowed ; but the notion of his opposing his doctrine to that of Moses or David is inadmissible ; for this had been to “destroy the law,” and to render the New Testament at variance with the Old. That good-will to men is both taught and exemplified in the Old Testament is manifest from the joy expressed by David and the prophets, when predicting the conversion of the heathem. They even prayed, and taught their coun- trymen to pray for the blessing of God upon themselves in subserviency to it.—See Psal. lxvii.; Isa. xlix. Nor are the prayers of David against his enemies at variance with this principle. If they be, however, the New Testament is also at variance with it; for the same kind of language is used in Paul’s Epistles as abounds in David's Psalms. “If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed.”—“Alexander, the coppersmith, did me much evil; the Lord reward him according to his works!” Much confusion has arisen, on these subjects, from not distinguishing between benevolence and complacency. The The former belong to us as creatures, the latter as sinners; the Scrip- tures regulate the one, but prohibit the other. Elias was a man of like passions with other men; but in praying for the giving or with- holding of rain, he did not act under the influence of vicious propensity. oN LOVE TO ENEMIES. 489 one is due to all men, whatever be their character, so long as there is any possibility or hope of their becoming the friends of God; the other is not, but requires to be founded on character. The Old Testament writers, being under a dispensation distinguished by awful threatenings against sin, dwell mostly upon the latter, avowing their love to those who loved God, and their hatred to those who hated him ; the New Testament writers, living under a dis- pensation distinguished by its tender mercy to sinners, dwell mostly upon the former : but neither of these prin- ciples is inconsistent with the other. We may bear the utmost good-will to men as the creatures of God, and as being within the limits of hope; while yet, considered as the Lord’s enemies, we abhor them. If we love others as we love ourselves, that is all that is required ; but the love which a Christian bears to his own soul is consistent with his abhorring himself as a sinner. Our Lord ex- emplified both these dispositions at the same time. In denouncing the damnation of hell against the scribes and Pharisees, you would think him void of every feeling but that of inflexible justice; yet, looking upon the same people in reference to their approaching miseries, he burst into a flood of tears. The same spirit possessed the apostle Paul towards his countrymen. When they rejected the gospel, he did not scruple to apply to them the awful pro- phecies of Isaiah, “Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive,” &c.; yet the same apostle solemnly declares that he had great heaviness and con- tinual sorrow in his heart on their behalf. So far from an abhorrence of the wicked in respect of their wickedness being inconsistent with genuine benevolence, it is neces- sary to it. The compassion that is void of this is not be- nevolence, but the working of disaffection to God, and of criminal partiality towards his enemies. Benevolence has not, as observed before, an immediate respect to character; yet it considers its objects within the limits of hope, in respect to their becoming the friends of God. If a creature be a confirmed enemy to God, as in the case of devils and lost souls, true benevolence will cease to mourn over them, as it would imply a reflection upon the Creator. It is on this principle that Aaron was forbidden to mourn for his sons Nadab and Abihu, and that Samuel was reproved for mourning over Saul, Lev. x. 6; 1 Sam. xvi. 1. Hence also we see in the benevolence of David and Isaiah towards the heathen (Psal. lxvii.; Isa. xlix.) a prospect of their future conversion ; and as this prospect was to be realized under the gospel dispensation, we perceive the reason of benevolence in it arising to its highest pitch. By the appearance and sacrifice of Christ, the glory of God was to be manifested in a way of good- will to men, even to enemies; angels therefore dwelt upon this idea at his birth, and the disciples were taught to cherish it. But to bear good-will to our enemies, to pity them that hate us, and to pray for them that despitefully use us and persecute us, is, after all, a strange doctrine in the ac- count of a selfish world. If the love of God be not in us, self-love, in one shape or other, will have possession of our souls. Hence infidels have treated this precept as extravagant, and imputed the conduct of Christians to affectation. Conscious, it seems, that self-love is the governing principle of their own actions, they imagine it to be the same with all others. The general prevalence also of this spirit leads them to expect little else from one another, and to act as if it were a law of nature for every one to love himself supremely, and all other beings only as they are subservient to him. Nor are infidels the only persons who have spoken and written in this strain; many of the advocates of Christianity have so formed their sys- tems as to render self-love the foundation on which they rest. Neither God nor man is to be regarded but on our own account. On this principle, however, it would follow that there is no such thing as glorifying God as God, nor hating sin as sin, and that the gospel has no charms on account of its revealing mercy in a way of ºrighteousness, any more than if it had revealed it in a way of unright- eousness. If our love be directed merely “to that which relieves us,” it would be equally worthy of acceptation, in our account, let that relief come how it might; and thus the character of God as “the just, and the justifier of them that believe in Jesus,” forms no part of the good news to sinful men : the glory of the gospel is no glory. There is much meaning in the words of the apostle John—“We are of God : he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.” Every false system of religion originates and terminates in self. This is the character of the spirit of error. But if we be of God, we shall love him, and every image of him in creation. Those objects which bear his moral image, such as his holy law, his glorious gospel, and his renewed peo- ple, will occupy the first place in our esteem; and those which at present bear only his natural image, while there is any hope of their recovery to a right mind, will be the objects of our tender compassion, and their salvation the subject of our earnest prayers. It is thus that we manifest ourselves to be “the chil- dren of our Father who is in heaven ;” who, till sinners are fixed in a state of irreconcilable enmity to him and to the general good, “causeth his sun to rise and his rain to descend” upon them, whatever be their characters. If self-love be the spring of our religion, it is declared by our Saviour to be of no value, and that it will issue in no Divine reward. How should it be otherwise, when it differs not from the spirit of the world 3 The most aban- doned men love those that love them. If this were true religion, we do not need to be taught it of God; for it is perfectly suited to our depraved nature. But if true re- ligion consists in being of the mind of God, or in being “perfect, as our Father who is in heaven is perfect,” it is absolutely necessary that we be born again, or we cannot see the kingdom of God. SECTION VII. - -- ON ALMS-GIVING, AND PRAYER. Matt. vi. 1–8. OUR Saviour having detected various false glosses upon the law, and shown the spirituality of its requirements, proceeds to discourse on some of the most common and important duties of religion. Of these he instances alms- giving and prayer. Three things are observable from what is said of the former, ver. 1–4. First, It is taken for granted that the disciples of Christ were in the habit of giving alms; and this notwithstanding they generally consisted of persons who laboured for their subsistence. And would this bear to be taken for granted of the body of professors among us ; They might have said, We have enough to do to provide for our own houses; it is for the rich, and not for labouring people, to give alms. But feeling, as they did, for the afflicted and neces- sitous, especially for those of the household of faith, they would deny themselves many comforts for the sake of being able to relieve them. True religion always teaches men to be merciful. Secondly, As, through the deceitfulness of the human heart, the most beneficial actions may arise from corrupt designs, and thereby be rendered not only void, but evil in the sight of God, we are warned as to our motives— “Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them—do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do.” In what concerns the relief of individuals this counsel will commonly apply in the most literal sense of the words. The liberality of vain men, having no other object than to be thought generous, is commonly either publicly proclaimed, or exercised in a way that shall by some means come to the knowledge of the neighbourhood; while that of the modest Christian, desirous only of ap- proving himself to God, is done in secret. The words, however, do not apply in all cases. It is not so much the act as the principle, or motive, that our Lord condemns. If we understand it literally of the former, it would follow that nothing ought to be given in public subscriptions or collections for the poor; for, in this, concealment would 490 ExPOSITION OF THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. be improper, if not impossible. The primitive Christians did not always conceal their donations; but consulted and subscribed for the poor brethren at Jerusalem, Acts xi. 29, 30. Nor would privacy be consistent with other com- mandments; particularly that in chap. v. 16, “Let your light so shine before men, that others, seeing your good works, may glorify your Father which is in heaven.” There is no evil in our works being seen of men, provided they be not done for this end, but for the glory of God. Secrecy itself may become a cloak to avarice ; and it is a fact that many, by affecting to be very private in their donations, have contrived to keep their money to them- selves, and at the same time to be thought very generous. The evil lies in the motive ; doing what we do from ostent- ation, or to be seen of men. The desire of human applause is a canker that eats out the charity of many gifts, and renders that which would otherwise be good and well pleasing to God a mere exercise of selfish hypocrisy. Thirdly, As every thing in this world bears a relation to eternity, we are reminded of the final issue of things. If we give from ostentation, we HAVE our reward; but if from love, and with an eye to the glory of God, “that which has been done in secret shall be rewarded openly.” It is so ordered in the Divine administration, that the selfish soul shall be disappointed in the end; while he who seeks the good of others shall find his own. But how is it that the works of sinful creatures should be re- warded with eternal life? In themselves considered they cannot ; and if any man think, by a series of beneficent actions, to atone for the sins of his past life, and to obtain the kingdom of heaven, he will be awfully deceived. But if he believe in Jesus, he is accepted in him ; and, being so, his offerings are accepted and rewarded, both in this world and that which is to come. From alms-giving our Lord proceeds to prayer, ver. 5––8. The former respected our conduct to men, the latter our approaches to God. And here also it is ob- servable, that it is taken for granted that Christ's disciples are praying men. What he says is not to persuade them to prayer, but to direct them in it. Infidels may imagine that God does not concern himself with the affairs of mortals, and may excuse themselves by pretending that it were presumption in them to solicit the Supreme Being to do this or that ; formalists may say their prayers, and be glad when the task is over; but Christians cannot live without communion with God. Prayer has with propriety been called the breath of the new creature. To satisfy Amanias that Saul was become a Christian, it was enough to say, “Behold, he prayeth !” What is said of the privacy of prayer will literally apply to that which is personal, or expressive of individual de- sire. The proper resort for this is the closet, or a place of retirement from the interruptions and observations of men. A vain-glorious professor may enjoy no freedom in this, because there is none to witness and admire his devotions: but the child of God is here at home, even in the pre- sence of his Father, who heareth him in secret. If we have no freedom in private prayer, but live nearly if not | entirely in the neglect of it, and at the same time possess great zeal and fluency in our public exercises, we ought surely to suspect that things are far from being right be- tween God and our souls. as The words of our Lord, however, must not be literally applied to all cases. Respect is had more to the principle of the act than to the act itself. To understand it of the latter would be to censure all public prayer, and standing in prayer, which was no part of the design. A good man might pray “standing in the synagogue,” or even at “a corner of the street,” on some occasions. Paul prayed with the Tyrian disciples, with their wives and children, and gave thanks to God, in the presence of a ship's com- pany. That which Christ meant to censure was the loving to pray in public places in order to be seen of men. His object was not to appoint the place or the posture of prayer; but to detect the vanity of the mind, and to direct his followers to seek the approbation of God rather than the applauses of men. . The motive with which these counsels are urged is very * Heathenism still retains the same character as it did in the days of Flijah. The Hindoos at this day, in worshipping the idol Kreeshinoo, and manner of it. tures, as well as to believers. every one who can cordially utter its sentiments there is impressive : “Verily I say unto you, They have their re- ward ' " God will apportion our rewards according to the things we seek. If the objects of our desire be confined to this world, this world shall be our all; but if they ex- tend to another, that other shall be our portion. What is said of “vain repetitions,” and “much speak- ing,” admits of similar remarks to that which goes before it. In general, it is right to avoid long prayers, especially in the family, and in the church, which are not only weari- some to men, but offensive to God. A proper sense of the majesty of the great Supreme would cure this evil. “God is in heaven, and we on earth; therefore let our words be few.” The contrary practice savours of heathen- ism. Let the devotees of Baal vociferate from morning till noon ; but let not the worshippers of Jehovah imitate them.* Our heavenly Father knoweth what things we need. If he require importunity in prayer, it is not be- cause he needs to be persuaded ; but that his favours may be known, accepted, and prized. It is not our Lord's design, however, to condemn all long prayers, nor all repetitions. He himself, on some occasions, continued for a whole night; and in Gethsemane he three times repeated the same words. They are vain repetitions which he censures, and the hope of being heard for much speaking. It is observable, however, that whenever Christ or any of the apostles were long in prayer, it was in private. If many who pray for an hour or longer in public, and with tedious repetitions, were equally cir- cuitous in the closet, whether we should commend their discretion or not, we might hope well of their sincerity. But where the reverse of this is true, it certainly has the appearance of the very spirit which it was our Saviour’s intention to condemn. SECTION VIII. ON THE LORD’s PRAYER. Matt. vi. 9—I5, THIS admirable summary of prayer, as introduced by Matthew, would seem to be only for the purpose of illus- trating, by example, the foregoing precepts. Luke, how- ever, represents it as occasioned by our Saviour's being engaged in prayer at a certain place, and when he ceased, one of his disciples saying unto him, “Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples.” If in any thing we need Divine instruction, it is in drawing near to God. It does not appear to have been Christ’s design to estab- lish a form of prayer, nor that it was ever so used by the disciples; but merely a brief directory as to the matter Such a directory was adapted not only to instruct, but to encourage Christians in their ap- proaches to God. It was putting words into their mouths. In supplicating Divine mercy, they might plead, Thus and thus our Saviour taught us to say ; even he in whom thy soul delighteth : hear us for his sake : Observe, First, The character under which we are allowed to draw near to the Lord of heaven and earth.-‘‘Our Father.” It has been a question, though I conceive it ought not, whether God is here to be considered as our Father in Jesus Christ, and not rather as our Creator; and whether the prayer be not suited to all men, who are God’s crea- That the prayer is free to no doubt ; but whatever others have done, Christ would never prescribe a prayer suited to an unbeliever. As the Scriptures inculcate no precept but what, if obeyed in its true intent, would prove us in the way to eternal life, so they prescribe no prayer but what, if offered up in its true meaning, would be heard and answered. It is true that God is the Father of all men by creation; but, like pro- digals, they are by sin alienated from him, and his Iove to them as a Creator is in a manner extinguished. He can- not consistently treat them as children, but as strangers or Hurry, will cry for hours together, without intermission, “Hurry bolo' Hurry bolo : " i. e. Kreeshmoo, speak || Kreeshnoo, speak! * THE LORD'S PRAYER. 491 and enemies. If strict justice had its course, he would “destroy man, whom he hath created, from the face of the earth.” The effect is, that if any of the sons of men ap- proach him as a Father, it must be through a Mediator. The original relation is, as to any access to him, or com- munion with him, dissolved. If any sinner be now treated as a child of God, it is as an adopted alien put among the children.—See John i. 13. It is no small proof that the privilege of approaching God as a Father has respect to the mediation of Christ, that it is almost confined to the gospel dispensation. To Israel, it is true, pertained the national adoption; but this was only a shadow of that to which believers were predes- tinated through Jesus Christ. Old Testament believers were no doubt related to God as a Father, as well as we ; but they were not ordinarily in the habit of addressing him under that endearing character. The spirit of that dis- pensation was, when compared with ours, a spirit of bond- age. It was reserved for the times of the Messiah, in the spirit of adoption, to cry, Abba, Father. The encourage- ment contained in this tender appellation is inexpressible. The love, the care, the pity, which it comprehends, and the filial confidence which it inspires, must, if we are not wanting to ourselves, render prayer a most blessed exercise. Secondly, The place of the Divine residence.—“Our Father, who art in heaven.” As the endearing character of a father inspires us with confidence, this must have no less a tendency to excite our reverence ; and both to- gether are necessary to acceptable worship. “As for me, I will come into thy house in the multitude of thy mercy; and in thy fear will I worship toward thy holy temple.” Fear without hope would sink us into despair; and hope without fear would raise us to presumption; but united together, they constitute the beauty of holiness. It is not, however, for the purpose of inspiring reverence only that God is said to be in heaven, but to encourage us to con- fide in his absolute supremacy and almighty power. He is above all our enemies, and has the direction and control of all events. What can be more consoling than the thought of having the Lord of the universe for our Father When the heathen triumphed over the church, and sneer- ingly asked each other, “Where is now their God 3’ it was sufficient to answer, “Our God is in the heavens, he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.” Thirdly, The social principle which pervades the prayer. —“Our Father—forgive us,” &c. Assuredly we are hereby taught not to confine our petitions to what respects our- selves, but to identify with our own cases those of our brethren. Nor is it necessary that they should be actually present to hear us, and join with us; the prayer of faith and love will embrace in its arms brethren at the greatest distance; and not only such as are known, but such as are unknown, even the whole family of God upon earth. Neither is it necessary to social prayer that all who are present should be believers. Were this the case, we must restrain prayer in our congregations, and in our families. The worship of the primitive churches had in it both prayer and singing, and that in a language that might be understood ; yet it was open to unbelievers, or any person who chose to join in it, I Cor. xiv. 15. 23–25. If either prayer or praise was a positive institution, we might be under the necessity of refusing admission to some cha- racters, as is the case in other positive institutions; but if they are immediately binding on all men, whatever be their characters, any man has a right to be present. If he can join in either, let him ; and if not, it is to himself 9nly. Our only concern in such cases is, not to give un- believers to understand that they are considered differ- ently from what they are ; and this may be avoided, with- out refusing to pray or praise in company with them. Paul would not have united with the ship's company in cele- brating the Lord's supper, but he did not scruple to take common bread, and “give thanks” on their behalf, “ in the presence of them all.” Fourthly, The brevity of it.—“Use not vain repetitions, but in this manner pray ye.” The prayers recorded in the Scriptures are commonly as brief as they are impressive. It is true our Lord continued in prayer for a whole night; but he was then by himself. The importunity which in- duces us when alone to wrestle with our heavenly Father for a blessing, and to be unwilling to retire without it, is very different from that tedious circumlocution so weari- some to families, and disgusting to the most solemn assem- blies. There may be indeed an extreme on the other side. Some persons conclude their prayers ere they have well begun them, and without affording opportunity for their own hearts, or the hearts of others, to be affected in them. Prayer is the pouring out of the soul before God; it there- fore requires to be long enough to interest the mind and affections, and not so long as to drown them in a flood of unmeaning words. Fifthly, The order of it.—Our attention is first directed to those things which are of the first importance, and which are fundamental to those which follow. Such are sancti- fying and hallowing the name of the Lord, praying that his kingdom may come, and that his will may be done on earth as it is in heaven. After this, we are allowed to ask for those things which pertain to our own immediate wants, both temporal and spiritual. This is seeking first the kingdom of God and his righteousness. The glory of God’s character, and the coming of his kingdom, stand first in all his works, and therefore must have the prece- dence in all our prayers. The love of God stands before the love of our neighbour, or of ourselves, in the Divine law; and the glory of God before peace on earth and good- will to men, in the gospel. We must subscribe to this ere we are allowed to ask for our daily bread, or the forgive- ness of our sins. To desire salvation at the expense of the Divine honour would be direct rebellion against the Majesty of heaven and earth. Self-love may induce a sinner to regard a doctrine which relieves him, and merely on account of its relieving him ; but that which endears the gospel to a Christian is that it reveals a way in which “God can be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.” Why is it that sinners, under the preaching of the gospel, continue averse to the way of salvation ? It is not because they would not be glad to have their sins for- given ; but having no regard for the honour of God’s name, they see no need for such an interposition as the gospel exhibits, in order to sanctify it, and render forgive- ness consistent with it. Hence, like Cain, they present their offerings without an eye to the gospel sacrifice. That which some have denominated “ disinterested love,” or the love of God for what he is in himself, as far as I understand it, is no other than hallowing his name, which is essential to true religion. Not that we are called upon to love any thing in the Divine character which is not manifested in the work of saving sinners, nor to be uncon- cerned about our own salvation ; but to embrace the gospel as first glorifying God, and then giving peace on earth ; and to seek our own interest as bound up with the honour of his name, and as tending to promote it. We are taught to pray for even the coming of God’s kingdom, and the universal prevalence of righteousness in the world, in subserviency to the honour of HIS NAME. It is to this end that God himself pursues these great objects; to this end therefore we must pray for them. But though they are placed after the hallowing of his name, yet they stand before any private petitions of ours, and in this order each requires to be sought. Why is it that so little has been done, from age to age, for the general interest of Christ? Is it not owing to a practical error on this sub- ject 3 placing our own private interests before his, dwelling in our ceiled houses, while the temple of God has been in ruins, or at most seeking the prosperity of a small part of the church which happens to be connected with us, to the utter neglect of the general kingdom of the Redeemer. As Christ has taught us to pray for the coming of God’s kingdom, and the universal spread of righteousness in the world, we may rest assured that these things will come to pass. Christ would not have directed us to ask for a specific object, and without any proviso, when he knew it would never be granted. Whether the kingdom of God here means the same as the Messiah's kingdom, or whether it relates to that state of things when the kingdom shall be delivered up to the Father, and God shall be all in all, it makes no difference. The coming of the latter supposes the gradual completion of the former : to pray therefore for what is ultimate in the system is to pray for whatever is intermediate. At present God’s name, 492 EXPOSITION OF THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. instead of being sanctified in the earth, is disregarded and blasphemed. He reigns in the hearts of but few of the children of men. Instead of earth resembling heaven, as to obedience to the Divine will, it bears a much nearer resemblance to hell. But it shall not be thus always. He who taught us thus to pray was manifested to destroy the works of the devil, and destroyed they will be. And as the grand means by which this great end will be accom- plished is the preaching of the cross, we have abundance of encouragement to persevere in that arduous employ- ment. As there are three petitions in respect of God’s name and cause in the world, so there are three which regard our own immediate wants; one of which concerns those which are temporal, and the other two those which are spiritual. - “Give us this day (or day by day) our daily bread.” Bread comprehends all the necessaries, but none of the superfluities, of life. If God give us the latter, we may receive them with thankfulness, only considering them as a trust committed to us, but we are not at liberty to ask for them. Nor are we allowed to ask for what may be necessary in days to come ; but, as children on their father, must depend upon God for the bread of each day as the day occurs. Still less are we allowed to ask for the bread of others, or to covet our neighbours' goods; but must be contented with what the Lord gives us in the way of honest industry, or by the kindness of our friends. Such is the spirit inculcated by this petition. How opposite to the spirit of this world ! Man as a sinner aspires to be independent of God, and to raise himself out of the reach of adversity. He cannot trust God to provide for him and his children, but desires to take the charge upon himself. Unlike the sheep of Christ's pasture, who go in and out as he leads them, he emulates the wild beasts which roam through the forest in quest of prey for them- selves and for their young ones. Ever anxious to accumu- late, he has neither time nor inclination to think of any thing else, till, in some unexpected hour, he is arrested in his course, and is obliged to spare time—to die Chris- tian, canst thou envy such a character? wilt thou learn his ways 3 No, surely . Covet not to be rich, lest it should cause thee to deny thy God, and, by treating sacred things with lightness, to take his name in vain. Is it best for thee, is it best for thy children, even in the present world, that thou shouldst emulate the beast of prey in providing for thy young ones 3 Remember “the young lions do lack and suffer hunger; but they that seek the Lord shall not want any good thing.” “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.” As bread in this prayer comprehends all the necessaries of life, so the forgiveness of sin comprehends the substance of all that is necessary for the well-being of our souls. Sin is the only bar between God and man ; if, therefore, this be removed, there is nothing left to impede the most ample communications of his favour. Sins are called debts, not properly, but metaphorically. All that belongs to a debt will not apply to a crime. . The former, as being a mere private obligation, may be remitted by the creditor, if he please, without any satisfaction ; but the latter being a public evil, committed against God as the Governor of the world, cannot be consistently forgiven without an atone- ment which shall effectually distinguish that forgiveness from connivance. There is a sufficient resemblance, how- ever, between them to justify the use of the term. We owe to God as his creatures supreme love and unreserved obedience ; and, in default of paying it, fall under an ob- ligation to punishment. As a rebel against the state for- feits his life, which is his all, to his injured country; so, as rebels against God, we have forfeited our souls, which are our all, to his injured government. From this petition we learn four things. First, That we have daily sins to be forgiven. It is to our shame that it should be so ; but so it is. To disown it does not make it the better, but the worse. The direction of Christ con- tains an insuperable objection to the motion of those de- luded people who imagine themselves to have attained to a state of sinless perfection. No man that is not blinded to the spirituality of that law which requires supreme, per- fect, and unabated love, can be insensible of his vast de- fects. The highest degree of love that we at any time attain comes immensely short of what we ought to feel, and of what we shall feel when presented faultless before the presence of the Divine glory. The only reply that can be made is, that the petition may refer to past sins, and not to present ones. But is it not presented along with a petition for our daily bread, and in a prayer which is sup- posed to be daily offered. Secondly, That the shedding of Christ's blood as the price of our redemption is perfectly consistent with the free grace of God, not only in pro- viding the Saviour, but in forgiving the sinner for his sake. If we had borne the full penalty due to sin in our own proper persons, all must allow there had been no place for forgiveness. And if the union between Christ and his elect people had been so intimate as to render the actions or sufferings of one the very actions and sufferings of the other, the same consequence would follow. Or if the satisfaction made by Christ in our stead had been on the principle of debtor and creditor, whatever obligation we might have been under to the surety, or to the creditor for providing him, the debt could not be said to have been forgiven. But as we have not borne the penalty of sin in our own persons, and as sin itself is transferable to another only in its effects, we must still be considered as deserving of death, and, whatever be the considerations on which God proceeds in our forgiveness, as being freely forgiven. We may plead the atonement as that for the sake of which we may be forgiven, in a way glorious to the Divine cha- ractes, together with the invitations and promises of the word; but this is all. We must not go as claimants, but as supplicants. Thirdly, That the perfection and per- petuity of justification are consistent with a daily applica- tion to God for forgiving mercy. It is an important truth that he that believeth in Christ “shall not come into con- demnation.” There is no such idea, however, held out in the Scriptures as the pardon of sins, past, present, and to come. Forgiveness invariably presupposes repentance. It is not bestowed on that account, yet it is inseparably connected with it. As justification includes forgiveness, we may be said to be fully forgiven from the first moment that we believe in Christ; but it is in some such way I conceive as we are said to be glorified. The thing is ren- dered sure by the purpose and promise of God; but as in that case a perseverance to the end is supposed and pro- vided for, so is repentance and a continued application for mercy through Jesus Christ in this. If it were true that a believer might not persevere to the end, it would be equally true that he might never be glorified ; and if it were possible for him to live in sin, and never repent of it, it would be equally possible that he would never be for- given—but he that has promised that which is ultimate has provided for every thing intermediate. Fourthly, That we are not allowed to ask or hope for forgiveness at the hand of God while we refuse it to those who have offended us. It is not enough to say, we cannot expect the comfort of it: we cannot expect the thing itself. While we in- dulge in implacable resentment, it is presumption to ex- pect any other than that we shall perish in our sins, ver. 14, 15. “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.” The last petition respected the bestowment of the greatest good; this, deliverance from the worst of evils. Christ teaches us to suspect ourselves. To be delivered from evil, we must not only avoid running into temptation, but pray that God in his providence may not lead us into it. Though temptation and sin be not in themselves necessa- rily connected, yet there is almost a moral certainty of their being so in our case. Christ indeed went into the field of contest, and came out unhurt ; but this is more than can be said with certainty of any of his followers. They have indeed been preserved from actual compliance with many evils ; but the temptation may nevertheless have left such impressions upon their imaginations and de- sires as to be a source of guilt and shame for years to come. He that carries about him inflammable materials will do well to keep at the greatest possible distance from fire. Many a fair character, both in the world and in the church, if led into temptation, would be soon stripped of his glory. What then do we mean by courting applauses, by forming carnal connexions, by plunging into unneces- ON FASTING, AND OTHER DUTIES. 493 sary cares, or by coveting lucrative situations Much of what men call the leadings of providence is in fact God’s leading them into temptation, for the detecting of their true character. Lot might no doubt have pleaded that providence led him to discover a rich and well-watered Plain, and he only followed its openings. Gehazi had a fine opportunity afforded him; and he only embraced it. Moses, however, had a much greater opening than either of them ; but he declined it. The truth is, providence is no rule of duty, independent of Scripture. If the Scrip- tures warrant a measure, and providence open the way, we may safely walk into it; but woe to hitn that catcheth every opportunity that offers to aggrandize himself! Many a man would have killed Saul in the cave of Adul- lam, and have pleaded, as David’s servants did, that “the Lord had delivered his enemy into his hand ;” but so did not David, because of the fear of God.—I only add, There is no necessary connexion between going into temptation and coming out of it. Both Judas and Peter went in, but only one of them returned ; and those who go in on a presumption of coming out again by repentance will pro- bably be fatally mistaken. The concluding doxology, though omitted by Luke, and thought by some not to have been originally included by Matthew, appears to agree with the foregoing petitions, and to furnish encouragement to hope for an answer. k- ---- “’ - SECTION IX. ON FASTING, AND OTHER DUTIES. Matt. vi. 16–34. OUR Lord's discourse is not designed to amuse his disci- ples with curious disquisitions, but to direct them as to their daily walk, partly in their approaches to God, and partly in their conversation with the world. Ver. 16. “Moreover, when ye fast,” &c. Fasting is supposed to be the ordinary practice of the godly. Christ does not make light of it, but merely cautions them against its abuses. There has doubtless been much formality and hypocrisy in some who have attended to it; but it does not follow that the thing itself should be neglected. It is an appendage to prayer, and designed to aid its importu- mity. It is humbling, and in a manner chastising, our- selves before God. The spirit of it is expressed in the following passages—“So do God to me, and more also, if I taste bread, or aught else, till the sun be down.”— “Surely I will not come into the tabernacle of my house, nor go up into my bed; I will not give sleep to mine eyes, nor slumber to mine eye-lids, until I find out a place for the Lord, an habitation for the mighty God of Jacob.” No mention is made of the time, or how often the duty should be attended to. It seems to be proper on various occasions, especially when, as the Scripture phrase is, we “set ourselves to seek the Lord.” It is only a means however; if rested in as an end, it will be an abomination in the sight of God. In the direction of our Lord concerning it, respect is had to the principle of things rather than to the things themselves. A sad coun- tenance, if it be expressive of a sad heart, and in our se- cret approaches to God, has nothing in it improper. The evil consists in counterfeit sadness and ostentatious grief, Whatever be your concern of mind, make no show of it before men, but rather appear, when in company, as at other times. Let all be between thyself and thy Father, who seeth in secret. Ver. 19, 20. “Lay not up for yourselves treasures,” &c. The Lord here proceeds to a variety of counsels, and all upon things in common life. The inhabitants of this busy world are taken up in accumulating something which may be called their own, and in setting their hearts upon it rather than upon God. So common is this practice, that, provided they do not injure one another, it insures commendation rather than reproach. “Men will praise thee when thou doest well to thyself.” Hence we are in greater danger of this sin than of most others. In oppo- sition to this, we are directed to “lay up treasures in heaven.” Not that the heavenly inheritance is the reward of our doings; but, believing in Christ, and setting our affections on things above, where Christ sitteth at the right hand of God, every thing we do in his name, whe- ther it be to the poor, or any others, for his sake, turns to our account. Heavenly enjoyment accumulates, as we in this way make much of it. It is thus that, in “giving alms, we provide ourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens which faileth not.” Men commonly choose a safe place to lay up their treasure. It is said that many millions, during the late depredations on the continent, have been placed in the English funds; and no wonder. But still there is nothing secure in this world. If we would place our treasure in a bank where no marauder cometh, it must be “hid with Christ in God.” From this passage, some have seriously concluded that it is forbidden us in any case to add to our property. To be consistent, however, they should not stop here, but go on to “sell what they have and give it to the poor;” for the one is no less expressly required than the other. But this were to overturn all distinctions of rich and poor, and all possession of property, which is contrary to the whole current of Scripture. To lay up “treasures upon earth” is to trust in them, or make them our chief good, instead of using them as a means of glorifying God and doing good in our generation. This is evident from the reason given against it, that “where our treasure is, there will our heart be also.” The Lord prospered David ; yet David’s treasures were not in this world. On the con- trary, he was distinguished from “men of this world, who had their portion in this life;” declaring, “As for me, I will behold thy face in righteousness; I shall be satisfied when I awake in thy likeness.” If, however, our trea- sure be in heaven, we shall not be eager to lay up worldly wealth ; but rather to lay out that which God intrusts in our hands for promoting the good of his cause, and the well-being of mankind. Wer. 22–24. “The light of the body is the eye,” &c. Our Lord here seems to illustrate and enforce the principle on which he had all along proceeded; namely, the importance of pure design or right motive in every thing we do. This, to the soul, is that which a clear sight of the eye is to the body. A single eye has but one object, and this is God.* It is opposed to an evil eye. The one is expressive of that spirituality of mind, which, as the apostle says, “approves the excellent,” Phil. i. 10. The other is a mind blinded by the love of the world, or other corrupt affections, by which the judgment, which should be the guide of the soul, becomes dark, and leads it into evil. Thus the gos- pel is rejected, and some false doctrine received instead of it ; and thus religion, by which men hope to find their way out of their labyrinths, serves only to bewilder them more and more, till at length they plunge into perdition. To show the importance of a single eye, it is added, “No man can serve two masters,” &c. He that has his eye partly on God and partly on mammon, wishing to grasp both worlds, will deceive his soul. He may lose both ; or if not, he will certainly lose the kingdom of God. Our minds must be supremely set on him, and the world must be sought only in subserviency to him. Two mas- ters We cannot Sel"We. Ver. 25. “Therefore I say unto you, take no thought for your life,” &c. This affectionate dissuasive from worldly anxiety is supposed to be the natural consequence of what had been spoken. It is as though he had said, Seeing you cannot serve two masters, serve the Lord ; and as you must not look two ways, let your eye be single; keeping one great end in view, and treating every thing else as a secondary or subordinate object. The command, “Take no thought,” may seem to be incon- sistent with that diligence in business which the Scrip- tures commend, and which is necessary to the providing of things honest in the sight of God and man. Certain it is that this cannot be done without thought ; but the word here used is expressive of anarious solicitude. It does not mean every care, but the care which groweth of distrust. * Dr. Campbell excludes the idea of single, rendering the word “sound,” as opposed to “distempered; ” but the context clearly favours the common translation. 494 EXPOSITION OF THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. It becomes us, after using all lawful means, to be anxious- ly careful for nothing, but in every thing by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, to let our requests be made known unto God. - Ver. 26–34. To enforce the most entire confidence in our heavenly Father, we are reminded that, having done the greater, he will do the less (he has given us our lives and our bodies; and the life is more than meat, and the body more than raiment)—that he provides for the fowls of the air, which, without anxiety, receive their food at his hand—and that all our fretfulness is unavailing ; for, however we may think to raise ourselves by it, we can accomplish nothing beyond the will of God, any more than we can add to our stature. And as to dress, God clothes the lilies, without any solicitude on their part, so as to cause them to surpass us all in finery. To be anxious concerning what we shall eat, what we shall drink, and where withal we shall be clothed, is heathemism, and more suited to men who live without God in the world than to the children of the Most High. All such anxiety and distrust must proceed on the principle that God either does not know our wants, or that he careth not for us. Let it suffice us, therefore, to be told that “our heavenly Father knoweth that we have need of all these things.” Seek those things first which are of the first importance. Take care of God’s interest, and God will take care of yours. The ills of the time present are sufficient for us, without calling in those of futurity. God has promised strength for the day, but no more : the evils which we bring in from the morrow, we must bear our- selves. SECTION X. ON JUDGING OTHERS, AND CASTING OUR PEARLS BEFORE SWINE. Matt. vii. 1–6. VER. 1–5. “Judge not,” &c. This prohibition, like many others in our Lord’s discourse, if interpreted in its utmost latitude, would go to censure what is elsewhere commended. If we judge not truth and error, good and evil, we cannot embrace the one and avoid the other ; neither can we discharge the duties of our station in the world, or in the church, without forming some judgment of those about us. Paul and Silas are supposed to have judged Lydia to be faithful, ere they entered her house; and Peter did not scruple to tell the sorcerer that he “ perceived him to be in the gall of bitterness, and in the bonds of iniquity.” We are not only allowed, but direct- ed, even in this discourse, to judge of men, as of trees, by their fruit, ver, 16–20. It is part of our duty as minis- ters to declare from God’s word that they who live after the flesh will die; and that they who are carried away by strong delusions and the belief of a lie are in the utmost danger of damnation. They may be displeased with us for thinking so hardly of them, and may allege this pas- sage as a reproof to our presumption. The judgment which Christ forbids is that which arises not from good- will and a faithful discharge of duty, but from a censorious spirit, which takes pleasure in thinking and speaking evil of those about us, puts the worst construction upon actions of doubtful motive, and is severe in detecting smaller faults in another, while blinded to far greater ones in ourselves. It stands opposed by Luke to a for- giving spirit, chap. vi. 27. It is therefore the judgment of rancour, selfishness, and implacability. “All men,” says Calvin on the passage, “do flatter and spare them- selves ; and every man is a severe censor against others. There is a certain sweetness in this sin, so that there is scarcely a man who itcheth not with a desire to inquire after other men's faults. This wicked delight in biting, carping, and slandering doth Christ forbid, when he saith, Judge not.” It is remarkable that those who are most disposed to detect the faults of others are commonly the most faulty themselves, and therefore the least qualified for that which they are so eager to undertake. And herein lies their hypocrisy : they would seem to be great enemies to sin, whereas, if this were the case, they would begin with their own. It is therefore nothing better than self- ish rancour, under the mask of zeal and faithfulness. It also deserves notice, that he who is under the dominion of any sin is utterly unqualified to reprove ; but he that has first repented of his own sin shall thereby be fitted to deliver his brother from his. “When thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.” To deter us from this evil spirit and practice, we are given to expect that if we judge we “shall be judged,” and that “ with what measure we mete it shall be measured to us again.” Such is the ordinary course of things even in the present life. A censorious spirit to- wards others brings censure in abundance upon ourselves. Hence arise debates, envyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults. Thus the sweets of society, both civil and religious, are imbittered; and, in- stead of the ills of life diminishing, they greatly accumu- late in our hands. Neither is it in this life only, nor chiefly, that such things will meet with a righteous retri- bution. If we go on condemning in this manner till death, we must expect to be condemned at a judgment- seat, from the decisions of which there is no appeal. Ver. 6. “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs,” &c. This precept may have no immediate connexion with the foregoing one, and may apply to the disciples as teachers. Though they must preach the word to all, yet it must be with due discrimination, giving to every cha- racter that which the Scripture assigns him. Thus did Christ himself, at the beginning of this sermon. I am inclined to think, however, that there is a connexion be- tween this precept and the foregoing one ; and that the former dissuades from evil-minded censures, and this from &mprudent ones. Though we should reprove men from . the purest motives, yet if what we say be harsh or un- seasonable, instead of doing them good, we shall provoke their resentment, and do both them and ourselves harm. The conduct of Paul in his voyage to Rome (Acts xxvii.) furnishes an example of the contrary. He was not so awed as to leave the company in any doubt who he was, nor yet so obtrusive as unnecessarily to draw upon him their displeasure. His behaviour was such from the be- ginning as to procure him a courteous treatment from Ju- lius the centurion, ver. 3. When danger approached, he gave them a respectful admonition, and, to excite their attention to the gospel, foretold what would be the dis- astrous issue of the voyage, ver, 10. Finding his word disregarded, he held his peace, till “all hope that they should be saved was taken away.” Then, with a gentle reproof for their unbelief, he renews his predictions, de- clares the ground on which he uttered them, acknow- ledges himself more fully the servant of God, and ad- dresses them in encouraging language, ver, 21–25. After this he rises in their esteem, his influence among them is extended, he takes bread and gives thanks in the presence of them all, and they are cheerful, and eat with him, ver. 31–36. Whether this conduct issued in the conversion of any of them, or not, it so interested the centurion, that when the soldiers wanted to kill the prisoners, he kept them from their purpose for Paul’s sake. We see in it a union of zeal, which never lost sight of its object, and of discretion, which selected the best means and seized the fittest opportunities for accomplishing it. All was the effect of good-will, which, wherever it prevails, either prevents the violent attacks of the wicked, or, if they come unprovoked, enables us to bear them. SECTION XI. ON PRAYER AND EQUITY. Matt, vii. 7–12. FROM negative religion, our Lord proceeds to enforce that which is positive—prayer to God, and justice to men. ON PRAYER AND EQUITY. 495 We have had directions already concerning the duty of prayer, and are now furnished with encouragements to engage in it. Observe the terms by which it is expressed—asking, seeking, knocking. No mention is made of what we are to ask or seek for; but it is understood that every thing we want, both for this world and that to come, is richly provided, and that the way of access to God is opened by the Saviour. Such an invitation would not else have been given. It is also understood that what we receive is of grace, and that we must apply for it, not as haughty claimants, but as needy and unworthy supplicants. The prayer of the Pharisee had not a single petition in it. We may also perceive that true prayer is that by which we look out of ourselves, and seek help from above. The formalist rests in the deed done, but the believer in Jesus thinks not of his own seekings, but of the objects sought. There is also a gradation of desire expressed in the terms. Seeking is somewhat more than asking, and knocking more than seeking. The mind, when properly engaged in this exercise, increases in its importunity, like his who said, “I will not let thee go except thou bless me.” Observe, next, the encouragements afforded us in the exercise. It is wonderful how they are heaped, as it were, one upon another. Here are first promises, “It shall be given you,” &c.; next examples, “Every one that asketh receiveth,” &c.; and then an appeal to the feelings of a parent, arguing thence to the compassion of our heavenly Father. It is of great account in prayer to lay hold of the pro- mises. It is this constitutes it the prayer of faith. It is true we may pray for temporal things which are not spe- cifically promised, provided it be in submission to the will of God, leaving it to his wisdom to give or to withhold, as seemeth good to him. But even here we must not lose sight of his general promise, to withhold no good thing from them that walk uprightly. It is also true, that if there were only a possibility of success in matters of sal- vation, considering the urgency of our case as lost and helpless sinners, we might well supplicate mercy. Such were the reasonings of the four lepers, and of Esther the queen ; but though they have sometimes been applied to the sinner's application for mercy, yet they are not cases in point. We must not compare our heavenly Father to capricious heathens, who might have spurned their suppli- cants, instead of hearing their petition ; nor an application at a mere peradventure to coming on an invitation, and under a promise of acceptance. And then, with respect to eacamples, our Lord directs the attention of his followers to facts. “Every one that asketh receiveth ; and he that seeketh findeth.” This is like challenging them to find an instance of a poor sup- plicant perishing at a throne of grace, or of a single petition offered in the faith of Jesus falling to the ground. Lastly, His appealing to the heart of an earthly parent, and arguing that “if we, being evil, know how to give good gifts to our children, much more will our heavenly Father give good things to them that ask him,” is truly overwhelming. And is it possible, after all this, that we should ever feel reluctant to draw near to him Oh what must be that alienation of heart which can make light of such a privilege, that guilt and shame that makes it seem almost a duty to stand aloof, and that distrust of God which gives to our approaches before him an appearance of presumption : Ver. 12. “Therefore all things whatsoever,” &c. It may seem as if there could be no connexion between this precept and those which preceded it. On close inspection, however, we may find it otherwise. It may have a con. mexion with various other precepts which had gone before, and, so far as they related to the duty of man to man, contain a sort of summary of the whole. Or it may well be con- sidered as connected with what is said on prayer. All inordinate affection toward this world (which is the im. petus that moves men to overreaching practices) has its root in a distrust of God. Were we daily to ask for all We want of him, seeking first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and relying upon his promise to add other things as he sees them to be best for us, we should have no inclination to covetousness or injustice. But if, instead of depending like sheep on the care of their shep- herd, we set off like beasts of prey, to forage the world for ourselves, we shall often judge it to be wise and ne- cessary to seize on that which equity forbids. Hence arises the hateful distinction among statesmen between what is right and what is politic, and hence all the rapacity which desolates the earth. It will be found in the end that whatever was right was wise ; but this lesson is seldom learned till it is too late. Oh what a world would it be if this rule were acted upon . What families, churches, cities, and nations, would our eyes behold ! But this is not to be expected till it shall be-written in the hearts of men by the Spirit of God. It is remarkable that this golden rule, as we call it, is God’s witness in every human breast. Every one has so much regard for himself as quickly to feel wherein he is wronged, and to pass censure on the person who has wronged him. He has therefore only to apply the prin- ciple to his own conduct, and the right and the wrong must instantly appear. Hence no one can plead ignor- ance. Even the heathens, who have not the written law, “are a law unto themselves, their consciences bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.” SECTION XII. ON THE BROAD AND NARROW WAY ; AND HOW To JUDGE OF TEACHERS WHO DIRECT TO THE ONE AND TO THE OTHER, Matt. vii. 13—20. VER. 13, 14. “Enter ye,” &c. Our Lord now proceeds to set before his hearers life and death, exhorting them to choose life. From the whole of what he had advanced, it must appear that the way of the world was broad, and that his own was narrow, or difficult ; but though the one might be agreeable to the flesh, and the other dis- agreeable, his counsel is, “Enter ye in at the strait gate.” It is as if he had said, If you walk in the way which I have been warning you against, the entrance will be easy, and you will meet with but few obstructions in your pro- gress. Every thing will accord with your corrupt pro- pensities. The transition from sin to sin, and from occa- sional to habitual indulgences, will be quite easy. You will have full scope for inclination, and free choice of the vices best suited to your birth, rank, or turn of mind. Temptations, like wind and tide, will help you on 1 You will be in no want of company; for old and young, rich and poor, learned and illiterate, walk there ; but remember “it leadeth to destruction : " If, on the other hand, you walk in the way which I have marked out, great difficulties may present themselves at your entrance, hard struggles will attend your progress, and you may expect but few to keep you company; but it “leadeth unto life : ” Who- soever therefore chooses the broad way, “enter ye in at the strait gate l’’ Ver. 15–20. “Beware of false prophets,” &c. As this warning was designed for Christians in every age, the term rendered prophets must here, as it often is elsewhere, be understood of ordinary teachers. There are few, if any, more dangerous temptations than those which arise from false teaching. Men are led on by one another, and by preaching more than by most other things. As the true doctrine directs to the narrow way, which leadeth unto life; so false doctrine directs to the broad way, which leadeth to destruction. It is the characteristic of false teachers, that they recommend a loose religion, a flesh- pleasing scheme, the effects of which are commonly fatal. A criterion therefore by which they may be known and avoided must needs be of the greatest importance. It is remarkable that this criterion does not consist of any external distinction conferred by others. Whatever may be said in favour of ordination from any order of men, it is not this that will render us true ministers. It is not any profession that may be made by the parties; for they 496 EXPOSITION OF THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. may come in sheep's clothing, and yet be wolves. Loud professions of zeal and sanctity may be resorted to merely as means of success. It is the spirit and conduct by which we are directed to judge of men, and of the tendency of their ministry. “Ye shall know them by their fruits.” The principle on which this rule proceeds is this; true teachers have imbibed the true doctrine, which is produc- tive of good fruit both in themselves and others; and false teachers have imbibed a false doctrine, which is productive of evil fruits both in themselves and others. There may be difficulties in applying the rule ; we may be mistaken both on the favourable and the unfavourable side ; yet as a general direction for those who sit not as final judges, but merely for the practical purposes of the present life, there is none like it. Men may put on the demure and the devout for mere selfish purposes, but follow them into private and domestic life, and they will ordinarily declare themselves. We may at least know enough of men by this medium to guide us in our choice of them ; and that is the end to be answered. There are two kinds of fruit by the presence or absence of which we are directed to judge of teachers; namely, good and evil. With respect to the former, every true minister of Christ is a good tree, and bringeth forth good fruit. Having believed the gospel himself, he speaks it from the fulness of his heart. The love of Christ con- strains him. The love of souls induces him to labour, and to deny himself for their salvation. He seeks not theirs, but them. And where it is so, it will appear and approve itself to the consciences of those about him. A false teacher, on the other hand, can no more bring forth this good fruit than a thorn can bear grapes, or a thistle figs. There will be a manifest want of those fruits of the Spirit enumerated by the apostle ; namely, of “love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, tem- perance.” Even in those who may have maintained a fair character, as it is commonly accounted by the world, you will often perceive a shocking vacancy with respect to these things. When the Pharisee, full of scorn and self- complacency, thought ill of Christ even for his suffering a sinner to wash his feet with her tears, he was told of his own sins. But what were they Neither himself nor his acquaintance might know of any that could be laid to his charge. Jesus, however, was not at a loss to find them ; and they consist, not so much in what he had done, as in what he had not done. In this view, how naked does the poor creature appear, and what a disparity is there between him and the sinner whom he had despised “I entered into thy house ; thou gavest me no water for my feet; but she hath washed my feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head. Thou gavest me no kiss; but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet: mine head with oil thou didst not anoint; but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment.” With respect to the presence or absence of evil fruit, a true minister of Christ cannot live in sin, no, not in private, - any more than a good tree can “bring forth evil fruit.” Neither can a false teacher suppress for any considerable time the ruling propensity of his heart, nor forbear to manifest it, though undesignedly, to those about him. “A corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.” The motives which influence these different characters being opposite, their effects will ordinarily correspond with them. All the labours of a false teacher originate and terminate in self. Some, under the disguise of apparent sanctity, are seeking to gratify the foulest proponsities. Others flatter their audiences either as to what human na- ture is, or what they are in distinction from many around them. Some are adepts at gaining an ascendency over the minds of the people, and so of getting possession of a con- siderable part of their property. Others, less addicted to avarice, are eager after applause; hence their chief study is to obtain the graces of a public speaker, or that elegance of diction which shall render them admired. Where such things are, they cannot be concealed, unless it be from those who are willingly ignorant. But how opposite to every thing of the kind is the spirit and conduct of the man of God . Read 1 Thess. ii. “Our exhortation was not of deceit, nor of uncleanness, nor of guile; but as we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gos- pel, even so we speak, not as pleasing men, but God, who trieth our hearts. For neither at any time used we flat- tering words, as ye know, nor a cloak of covetousness; God is witness! nor of men sought we glory, neither of you, nor yet of others. Being affectionately desirous of you, we were willing to have imparted unto you, not the gospel of God only, but also our own souls, because ye were dear unto us.” False teachers will often be on their guard before enemies, but when with their friends only, will throw off their disguise, and indulge in licentious freedoms, under the name, it may be, of the liberty of the gospel; but it was not so with the apostles and true ministers of Christ : “Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily, and justly, and unblamably we behaved ourselves among you that believe.” SECTION XIII. ON THE LAST JUDGMENT, AND WHAT WILL BE ACCOUNTED TRUE RELIGION IN THAT DAY, Matt. vii. 21–29. OUR Lord, in drawing to the close of his discourse, is un- usually solemn and impressive. He anticipates the last judgment, and places his hearers before the great tribunal. The sum of what he says is, that mere profession will avail nothing, and that real practical godliness is the only thing which in that day will be approved. Ver. 21—23. “Not every man that saith unto me, Lord, Lord,” &c. The greater part of those who in that day will have to stand before him have not acknowledged him as their Lord ; and not every one of them that have will be accepted. Professions, though repeated with earnest- ness, will avail nothing. It is not what we say, but what we do, that will be admitted as evidence in that day. As to what we do, unless the Father's will be our will, Christ will not regard us. Such is the union between the Law- giver and the Saviour, that each is guarantee as it were to the honour of the other. If the Father's wrath abide on all who believe not on the Son, the Son no less excludes from the kingdom of heaven all who obey not the Father. Many who in this world have said, “Lord, Lord,” in a way of high profession, will in that day repeat their words with very different sensations, and with earnest impor- tunity for admittance, but all in vain. They may plead their having been not only professing Christians, but Chris- tian teachers, and some of them possessed of extraordinary gifts, but all in vain. Having been workers of iniquity, whatever else they have wrought, it stands for nothing. They were never known as his friends in this world, and shall be utterly disowned in the next. Nothing will avail in that day but what is holy. Holiness is made of little account here; shining talents carry the bell: but there the meanest Christian is approved ; while the most distin- guished preacher who has lived in sin will be cast out. Ver, 24–29. “Therefore whosoever heareth these say- ings of mine, and doeth them,” &c. The regard or dis- regard we pay to the doctrine and precepts of Christ in this world is here compared to building a house on a good or a bad foundation, and the issue of things at the last judgment to a tempest that shall try our work. Still he presses the necessity of practical godliness. It is he that heareth his sayings and doeth them whose religion will stand the test; while he that heareth them and doeth them not—he who has heard and talked about repentance, but never repented—has heard and talked about believing, but never believed—has heard and applauded the morality of the gospel, but never walked by it—his building shall fall, and “great will be the fall of it !” Other losses have been repaired by time, but this will be irreparable and eternak. There are two ways, and perhaps I may say three, in which this solemn passage has been perverted. We see here, say some, that it is by doing, rather than by believing, that we shall stand approved. But though doing, in the article of justification, stands opposed to believing, (Gal. CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 497 iii. 10–12,) yet here, being introduced as the evidence of a state of salvation, it is opposed to saying, or to mere profession, and includes believing. Faith itself is a prac- tical persuasion of the truth of Christ's sayings, and is followed with a course of obedience to his precepts. Moreover, the doctrine of Christ's sayings is not the rock, but the building upon it.—We see, say others, that it matters but little what doctrines we believe, provided we lead a good life; it is not by what we have believed, but by what we have done, that we shall be judged . But if doing Christ's sayings, instead of being opposed to be- lieving, include it, this remark is altogether unfounded. Finally, Others, overlooking the scope of our Lord, are from this passage continually insisting on the doctrine of justification by faith, in opposition to the works of the law, and comparing those who believe in the Saviour for acceptance with God to the wise man who built his house upon a rock; and those who depend upon their own righteousness to the foolish man who built his house upon the sand. But this way of treating the Scriptures betrays the truth into the hands of its adversaries, who, perceiving the force put upon them in supporting a favourite doctrine, conclude that it has no foundation in Scripture. The truth is, our Lord is not discoursing on our being justified by faith, but on our being “judged according to our works,” which, though consistent with the other, is not the same thing, and ought not to be confounded with it. The character described is not the self-righteous rejecter of the gospel, but one who, though he may hear it and profess to believe it, yet brings forth no corresponding fruits. The impressive manner in which he who will be our Judge enforces the practice of religion reminds me of the words of that miserable man, Francis Spira, who was a fearful example of the contrary. “Take heed,” said he to the spectators who surrounded his bed, “ of relying on that faith which works not a holy and unblamable life, worthy of a believer. Credit me, it will fail. I have tried ; P presumed I had gotten the right faith ; I preached it to others; I had all places in Scripture in memory that might support it ; I thought myself sure, and in the mean time lived impiously and carelessly; and, behold, now the judgment of God hath overtaken me not to correction, but to damnation º’” EXPOSITORY REMARKS RELATIVE TO THE C O N V E R S I O N OF T H E J E W S, L E T T E R. I. Ezek. xxxvii. TO THE EDITOR OF THE I was lately reading a book, published about eighty years ago, in which the author reproves another for having prayed for the conversion of the Jews, contending that they had sinned “the sin unto death;” that therefore prayer for them was not the prayer of faith; and that there was nothing in the Scriptures whence we could conclude that they ever would be converted. I shall not trouble your readers with the author’s arguments, which appear to me to have no weight; but having been employed of late years in a morning exposition, I have met with several parts of the prophecies which have appeared to me inex- plicable on any other supposition; and as it may furnish Christians with matter and motives for prayer, I will offer a few remarks on two or three passages which I conceive to relate to this subject. My present paper will be grounded on the vision of the dry bones, in the 37th chapter of Ezekiel. This vision, I allow, had its first and immediate accom- plishment in the restoration of the Jews from the Baby- lonish captivity, who in that country were like dead men, or rather like bones of a dead man disunited and scat. tered, and in a manner without hope of recovery. Their restoration by Cyrus was a kind of resurrection from the dead ; and as the Assyrian power, which carried away the ten tribes, had been swallowed up by that of Babylon, and Babylon was now in its turn swallowed up by that of Media and Persia, opportunity would probably be afforded for many of the other tribes to attach themselves to Judah, and return with them. The inquiry at that time does not MISSIONARY MAGAZINE. appear to have been, whether they were of Judah, or Benjamin, or Levi ; but whether they were of Israel. This may in some degree answer to the two sticks of Ephraim and Judah becoming one. Being governed also by princes of the house of David, he might be said to reign over them, and to be their one shepherd, ver. 16–24. But as it is not unusual for the same thing (the passover for instance) to refer immediately to one event, and re- motely to another, so it is common for a prophecy to have a partial fulfilment in something at or near the time, and a more perfect one at some distant period. God’s works being a whole, and the end seen from the beginning, there is often a dignified analogy between them ; system as it were within system ; one train of events making way for another, and furnishing an earnest of its fulfilment. Thus the kingdom of the Messiah is manifestly predicted in the seventy-second Psalm, though it is mostly under the form of the prosperous reign of Solomon. In like manner the vision in question contains a prediction of the restoration and conversion of the Jews in the latter days, though it is mostly under the form of the return of their forefathers from Babylon. In proof of this, let the following par- ticulars be considered. First, The number of the ten tribes who might return with Judah was too small to con- tain a full accomplishment of the prophecy, which is ex- pressly applied to “the whole house of Israel.” Secondly, Those who were to return are described as an exceedingly great army, but that of Judah and the other tribes which returned from Babylon was very far from answering to 2 K 498 CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. this description ; they were but a small company com- pared with the number which usually composed an Eastern army, Ezra ii. 64. servant, who was to be king over them, that he should be their “prince for ever.” This is language which very much resembles that of the covenant with David, that “his seed should be established for ever, and his throne built up to all generations, even as the sun and moon in the heavens,” which is clearly to be understood of the kingdom of Christ. There is also a similar phraseology in a prophecy of Hosea: “For the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and with- out an ephod, and without teraphim. Afterward shall the children of Israel return and seek Jehovah their God, and David their king, in the latter days.” Fourthly, Though the company who returned with Zerubbabel were many of them godly people, yet the history of the nation from that event till the coming of Christ is far from an- swering to what is said of them in this prophecy, that they should “walk in God’s judgments, observe his statutes, and do them.” Such promises also as “his tabernacle being with them, and his sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore,” seem to be much too strong for the above period. Finally, It accords with the general design of this prophet, towards the latter end of his prophecies, which was, under the form of Jewish phraseology, to foretell the glory of the latter days. Hence his description of a new temple (chap. xl., xli., xlii.); of the glory of the God of Israel as dwelling in it (xlii.); of the division of the land by lot (xlv.); of the holy waters (xlvii.); and of the city whose name should be called Jehovah-shammah, The Lord is there (xlviii.). Admitting the prophecy to refer to the condition of the Jews in their last dispersion, and future return to Christ, there is something very impressive in the whole account. Their present scattered and unconverted state is fitly re- presented by a number of dry bones. The allusion may be to a field of battle, where, many years before, thou- sands upon thousands fell by the sword, and, their bodies remaining unburied, their bones lay scattered over all the plain. Once they lived, but can they live again 3 Israel was once a living body, and, what was more, lived to God; yea, they were the only people who did so. But what are they now 3 scattered over the face of the earth ; no longer a body, but separated bone from his bone; no more possessed of that life and spirit which distinguished their holy predecessors, but dry as bones which have been long dead; not only devoid of every thing like true re- ligion, like other sinners, but singularly averse to it. All unconverted sinners are dry, but they are very dry. They indeed retain something of the resemblance of religion; but it is that which a skull retains of the human coun- tenance—ugly, disgusting, and horrid. Their hopeless condition is also fitly expressed by the question to the prophet, “Can these bones live?” Judging by sense, the answer must have been—They cannot. There is no people so apparently hardened against conviction ; none who have lived among Christians so much in vain; none who manifest such diabolical enmity and wrath when , reasoned with, though it be in the meekest manner. The frequent disappointments which we have met with in at- tempting their conversion is almost enough to overcome us with despair. Even they themselves seem to have no hopes, except what are of a worldly nature. Yet, hoping in him with whom all things are possible, we may answer with the prophet, “O Lord God, thou knowest.” Their restoration and conversion are no less fitly repre- sented by a resurrection. Such is the idea given us by the apostle of this very event. “If the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be but life from the dead 2’” So extraordinary an instance of Divine power and goodness could scarcely be illustrated by any thing more suitable. The order in which it will be accomplished is worthy of notice. Several things, it seems, will precede their be- coming truly alive to God, some of which may be pre- paratory to it. If they should be collected and combined by some occurrence in providence, previously to their conversion to Christ, it will correspond not only with the Thirdly, It is said of David, God’s account here given of their first “coming forth out of their graves,” &c., and their “having the Spirit of God im- parted,” but with another given by Zechariah. Jerusalem is, by him, represented as “a torch of fire in a sheaf to her enemies,” and afterwards as having “a spirit of grace and supplication ” given her, by which her inhabitants should “look on him whom they had pierced and mourn.” Though sinners do nothing preparatory to their own con- version, yet God frequently does much in this way with them, and for them; and many events may precede the effectual calling of God’s ancient people, which may an- swer to the “noise,” the “shaking,” and “the bones coming together, bone to his bone.” Even “the sinews and the flesh may come upon them, and the skin cover them from above,” while yet there is “no breath in them.” In other words, they may become a body politic, and possibly have the form of devotion as heretofore, while yet it is only a form. But if, while the doctrine of the cross is preached, the Spirit of life from God out of heaven breathe upon these slain that they live, then shall they “know that the Son of God is come, and, having an un- derstanding given them to know Him that is true, shall believe and be in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ,” 1 John v. 20. - In two or three future papers, I may offer some remarks on a few more prophecies on this subject. At present, I only observe that God’s designs of mercy towards the descendants of his ancient people are, I hope, sufficiently manifest to afford a ground for the prayer of faith. LETTER II. IHos. i., ii., iii. HAVING in a former paper considered the vision of the dry bones, I shall here offer a few remarks on some passages which I conceive have reference to the same subject in the prophecies of Hosea. These are chiefly addressed to the ten tribes, as those of Ezekiel were to Judah. Under the form of signs and parables, as I suppose, he delivers in the first chapter some very pointed reproofs to that idolatrous people; but concludes with great and pre- cious promises to their distant posterity. He is commanded to go and take “a wife of whore- doms, and children of whoredoms,” and is supposed to have children by her. Such a command communicated to the people would shock them as grossly indelicate. “Nay,” saith the prophet, like Nathan to David, “but ye are the men . If the Lord be a husband to you, he must have a wife of worse whoredoms than these !” This wife of whoredoms is supposed to bear him three children, whose names are prophetic. The first, Jezreel, predicts evil against the government, of which this place was a seat; the second, Lo-ruhamah, intimates the discon- tinuance of the Divine mercy to the nation; and the third, Lo-ammi, God’s renouncing them as his people. Yet these terrible denunciations are followed (in verses 10, 11) by something not a little encouraging to the faithful, whose hearts would tremble as for the ark of God. The pro- mises to Abraham should nevertheless be fulfilled ; chil- dren should be raised up to him from the Gentiles. Nor is this all: the children of Judah and of Israel, forgetting their former enmities, should unite in the Messiah, as un- der a captain or leader ; and then Jezreel, from being a scene of wickedness and bloodshed, should have her day of mercy. Nor does this seem to conclude the prophecy; the first verse of the second chapter seems properly to be- long to the preceding rather than the following subject, and to contain an address to the faithful of the land, di- recting them to look out of the then present generation for brethren and sisters, even to the latter days, and, in the name of the Lord, to greet them with the cheering names of Ammi and Ruhamah, My people having obtained mercy! After many cutting things in the second chapter, in which, to show the odiousness of Israel’s conduct and to bring it home to their bosoms, they are again compared to an adulterous wife, who, having dissolved the marriage HOSEA. I. II. III. 499 bond, deserved to be stripped, and, with her spurious off- spring, turned out by her injured husband. They are even told that such will actually be their portion. Yet after this, from ver, 14 to the end, the most precious promises are made to their posterity. His “alluring her, and bring- ing her into the wilderness,” however, seems rather to be expressive of present judgments than of future mercies. It denotes, I apprehend, not the drawings of love, but the devisings of Providence to render her sin its own punish- ment.* As an injured husband makes use of the adulte- ries of his wife to convict and banish her ; so the Lord would cause the fondness of this people for idolatry and idolaters to draw them into the Assyrian net, (chap. vii. 11, 12,) and they should be carried away captive among the nations as into a wilderness, and for a long time be in a manner lost, Ezek. xx. 35. Yet as in the wilderness of old he spake kindly to their fathers, and thence gave them the land of promise, so thence shall she again “receive her vineyards:” and as “the valley of Achor,” where Achan's -idolatry was punished, was to Israel “a door of hope,” in that the fierce anger of the Lord was hereby turned away (Josh. vii. 26); so shall it be in this case. After having made an example of many for their idolatry, his anger will be turned away, and he will comfort the survivors. Then shall they “sing as in the days of their youth, as in the day when they came up out of the land of Egypt.”—See also Exod. xv.1—21, compared with Isa. xi. 11–16, and xii. And now, being brought to believe in the Messiah, she shall be cured of her spiritual adultery and become chaste to God, no more polluting his worship with idolatrous mixtures, but cleaving to him with singleness of heart, as to the husband of her youth, ver. 16, 17. In that day, the whole creation, which has in a manner been at war with her, shall be at peace, (ver. 18,) and he that had cast her off, saying, “She is not my wife, neither am I her husband,” shall “betroth her unto him for ever in righteousness, and in judgment, and in loving-kindness, and in mercies.” Nor are these the only attributes that shall be glorified in her recovery : “he will betroth her unto him in faithfulness, and she shall know the Lord ;” his covenant promises, made even from the days of Abra- ham, shall now be fulfilled, and the veil which has so long remained on her heart shall be taken away, ver. 19, 20. Finally, He who had taken away his corn, his wine, his oil, and his flax, owing to their being ascribed to idols, and abused to idolatry, will now graciously restore them. God will hear, and supply the heavens with water; they the earth with rain, and the fruits of it with moisture; and these the people with plenty. The earth shall yield her increase, and God, even their own God, will take pleasure in blessing them. Nor is this all: Israel shall be a bless- ing to the world. What the seed is to the harvest, that shall they be to the nations among whom they have so- journed. And now, instead of “Lo-ruhamah” and “Lo- ammi,” they are called Ruhamah and Ammi ; “for I will have mercy upon her, saith the Lord, that had not obtained ºercy, and will say to them that were not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God.” Thus, like friends reunited after a long separa- tion, their communion is more intimate than ever. The third chapter contains another prophecy on the same subject. Like the former, it is introduced under the form, of a parable. The case supposed is that of a man attached to a woman who is an adulteress. Go, saith the Lord to the Prophet, see if thou canst love such a one ; Yet such, if any thing, must be my love to this people. The Prophet is further supposed to go and covenant with this adulteress, engaging her to desist for many days from her lewd courses, living as it were a widow by herself, and afterwards she should become his wife, such was the love of the Lord to the children of Israel. He loved them notwithstanding their idolatry, and intended, at a future time, to take them to be his people. He would not re- •eive them, however, in their idolatry, nor till a proper time had elapsed, in which they should live in a state of §§paration ; but in due season he would take them to . as his church and people, remembering their sin Ore., * I cannot find that Tinpany where signifies to influence in a way of *rcy, but properly means to entice or deceive; and thus God, in just “The children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice.” Never surely has a prophecy corresponded more exactly with fact. Nor is this all : the whole of the Israelitish race with whom we have any acquaintance have also been “without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim ;” that is, though mixed with the nations of the world, and in other respects wicked in the extreme, yet they have not been suffered to go into their former idola- trous practices; and thus have answered to the adulteress ceasing from playing the harlot, and abiding for her hus- band in a state of separation many days. “Afterwards shall the children of Israel return and seek Jehovah their God, and David their king; and shall fear the Lord and his goodness in the latter days.” On this no reflection need be made, save this, that the superabundant grace of God towards them in their outcast and perishing condition shall not only fill their hearts with gratitude, but inspire them with a holy fear of offending him any more. LETTER III. Hos. xi., xiii., xiv.; Jer. xxxi. 15–21. IN my last I offered some observations on those prophecies which I considered as relating to God's future designs of mercy towards Israel, in the first three chapters of Hosea ; in this I shall notice some others in the remaining part of that book, together with a passage from Jeremiah. The ten tribes, in this and other prophecies, are fre- quently personified under the name of Ephraim. Much is said of Ephraim's sin, and of his punishment ; but several strong intimations are also given of his being brought to repentance, and obtaining mercy. Of this we have a beautiful example in chap. xi. 8, &c.: “How shall I give thee up, Ephraim : Shall I deliver thee, Israel ? How shall I make thee as Admah 7 Shall I set thee as Zeboim 3 Mine heart is turned within me; my repentings are kindled together.” Half the force and meaning of this melting passage appears to me to be lost, by twice in- troducing the supplementary term how. So read, it con- tains one continued appeal of Jehovah to his own mercy and faithfulness; but, read without it, it is an alternate appeal, first in the language of covenant mercy, addressed to himself, and then in the language of justice, addressed to the conscience and other feelings of the offender: q. d. How can I bear to give thee up, Ephraim : yet thou de- servest to be delivered over to destruction. What sayest thou? Shall I deliver thee ? How can I bear to make thee as Admah? Yet this is thy due. What sayest thou ? Shall I set thee as a monument of endless displeasure, like Zeboim Ah no my heart revolts at the thought, my repentings are kindled together; I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger; I will not return to destroy Ephraim; for I am God, and not man, the Holy One in the midst of thee; and I will not enter into the city as an avenger, but rather as a father will turn away mine eyes from thee, that I may not be provoked by thy sins. In verses 10, 11, it is intimated that there should come a time when Ephraim should be of another mind, and the Lord would spare that generation, as well as many suc- ceeding ones, for their sakes ; that the signal of their re- turn to God should be some terrible event in the world, in which he would “roar like a lion,” filling the minds of men with consternation and terror; and that, in the midst of these alarms, they should come from the west, and from the south, and from the east, as trembling doves to their windows, “ and I will place them in their houses, saith the Lord.” In chap. xiii. 14, Ephraim is considered as dead and buried ; and now what will his Father do ſº Will he lament over him, like David over Absalom ? No; his power is equal to his mercy. He will storm the castle that detains him. “I will ransom him from the power of the grave, I will redeem him from death. O death ! I will be thy judgment, entices and deceives sinners, by giving them up to their own delusions. See 2 Chron. xviii. 19–22; Ezek. xiv. 9. 2 K 2 500 CoNVERSION OF THE JEws. plagues. O grave I will be thy destruction. Repent- ance shall be hid from mine eyes : * In this astonishing language, we see the anger of the father towards his dis- obedient son, now that he is dead, turned against death itself that cut him off, and the grave that enclosed him, resolving to rescue him by destroying his destroyers. To the above, I think I ought to add chap. xiv. 4–8, as belonging to the same subject. It is, I am aware, ex- pressive of the blessings which the Lord would have be- stowed upon Israel in case of their return to him, as they were most pathetically exhorted to in the preceding verses. But if there come a time when they shall thus return, the blessings will then be actually bestowed. Like a field re- freshed by dew, like a lily blossoming with beauty, like Lebanon casting forth her roots, God will bless him, and he shall be a blessing to all about him. Nor shall this goodness be abused as heretofore, but shall heighten his abhorrence of his former courses. Ephraim, being grafted into “the green fir tree,” shall answer to his name ; he shall be “fruitful” among his brethren ; nor shall he, as formerly, bring forth fruit unto himself, but to him that hath had mercy upon him. I shall conclude this piece with a few remarks on a well-known passage in the prophecies of Jeremiah, as be- longing to the same subject. I refer to chap. xxxi. 15–21. The ten tribes are here, as in other prophecies, personified under the name of Ephraim. They had, at the time of its delivery, been carried away captive more than a century. Alluding to the distresses of that period, the prophet spake as follows: “Thus saith the Lord, A voice was heard from Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping ; Rachel, weeping for her children, refused to be comforted for her children because they were not l’’ Rachel was the mother of Joseph, from whom Ephraim descended ; and, by a most affecting figure of speech, she is here represented as risen from the grave, and looking about for her children; but, finding none of them in the land of their fathers, she weeps for the loss of them with bitter lamentations. But let not Rachel, or rather the church of God whom she personates, despair. “Thus saith the Lord, Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears; for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the Lord, and thy children shall come again from the land of the enemy. And there is hope in thine end, saith the Lord, that thy children shall come again to their own border.” But whence is this hope to be entertained by Rachel ? Her children had been gone for more than a century ; and their name and memorial were in a manner perished. Observe the answer, “I have surely heard Ephraim bemoaning himself, Thou hast chastised me, and I was chastised as a bullock unaccustomed to the yoke : turn thou me, and I shall be turned ; for thou art Jehovah my God. Surely after that I was turned, I re- pented ; and after that I was instructed, I smote upon my thigh : I was ashamed, yea, even confounded, because I did bear the reproach of my youth.” This confession of Ephraim is not historic, but prophetic ; for the state of mind here depicted is represented as taking place at a time so very distant, that he should look back upon the days of his idolatry as the period of his youth. Never- theless, when he shall return to the Lord, he shall obtain mercy. Ephraim has not only a mother to bewail him, but a father, who, as soon as he hears the voice of the prodigal, is moved with compassion, and runs to meet him. “Is Ephraim my dear son 3 is he a pleasant child 3 for since I spake against him, I do earnestly remember him still: therefore my bowels are troubled for him ; I will surely have mercy upon him, saith the Lord.” The virgin of Israel is then directed to prepare for returning home. “Set thee up way-marks, make thee high heaps; set thine heart toward the high way, even the way which thou wentest : Turn again, O virgin of Israel, turn again to these thy cities.” But Rachel was not only the mother of Joseph, and so of Ephraim, but also of Benjamin, whose tribe adhered to Judah ; and inasmuch as her voice was heard from Ra- mah, a city of Benjamin, the prophecy would not only have a retrospective aspect to the captivity of Ephraim by Assyria, but a prospective one to that of Judah and Ben- jamin by Babylon. It was in the latter that the children were carried away from Ramah, which seems to have been the head-quarters of the Babylonish general after the taking of Jerusalem, and whence he disposed of his pri- soners, Jer. xl. 1–3. Thus both the ten and the two tribes, sustaining a relation to Rachel, are combined in the prophecy, as they should actually be in their restora- tion. Hence it follows, “How long wilt thou go about, O thou blacksliding daughter ? For the Lord hath created a new thing in the earth. A woman shall compass a man. Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, As yet they shall use this speech in the land of Judah, and in the cities thereof, when I shall bring again their captivity, The Lord bless thee, O habitation of justice, and moun- tain of holiness. And there shall dwell in Judah itself, and in all the cities thereof together, husbandmen, and they that go forth with flocks. For I have satiated the weary soul, and I have replenished every sorrowful soul.” The import of these verses I take to be this : How long wilt thou seek deliverance from human help ? God will cause, what is contrary to all human calculation, weakness to overcome strength, and the church to be triumphant. Judah, with Ephraim, shall return ; and righteousness, holiness, and peace shall be established in their land. The prophecy being a vision, the prophet adds, “Upon this I awaked, and beheld ; and my sleep was sweet unto me.” As there is nothing in all this which intimates the re- turn of the ten tribes as a distinct nation, but in connexion with Judah, so neither is there any thing which leads us to look for the fulfilment merely in the return of Judah from Babylon, accompanied with a few of the Israelites ; and if we read on to ver. 31–34, we shall find that the blessings promised were not to be under the same covenant as that of their fathers, but “a new covenant,” in which God will “put his law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and will be their God, and they shall be his people ; ” all which determines it to have reference to gospel times. LETTER IV. Isa. xi., xii. THAT these chapters refer to the gospel dispensation there can be no doubt, seeing they are introduced with a pro- phecy “that a rod shall come forth out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots; ” and by some passages in them they would seem to have a special reference to the latter part of it. The language in which peace and amity, as succeeding to a state of enmity and hostility, is described in ver, 6–8, seems much too strong for any thing the church has yet seen, and to accord with no period short of that mentioned ver. 9, when “the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.” Ver. 10 describes the great accession to the church of Christ from among the Gentiles. “In that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign to the people ; to it shall the Gentiles seek, and his rest shall be glorious.” The term rest denotes an established government, succeeding to wars and troubles, like the reign of Solomon to that of David. Such will be the government of Christ in that day, to what it has been in all former periods, during which it has been engaged in one continued struggle. And as the reign of Solomon was exempted from wars, and distinguished by its build- ings, so shall be the reign of Christ in that day. The Lord will then build up Zion, and appear in his glory. In the midst of this glory God is represented as remem- bering his ancient people, both Israel and Judah. “It shall come to pass, in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand a second time to recover the remnant of his people which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together ISAIAH XI. XII. 501 the dispersed of Judah, from the four corners of the earth. The envy also of Ephraim shall depart, and the adversa- ries of Judah shall be cut off: Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim.” This second time of God’s setting his hand cannot refer to the restor- ation of the Jews from Babylon ; for though that event might be so denominated in respect of their being first brought out of Egypt, yet the period of the whole pro- phecy does not answer to it. That which is here referred to is something which should be wrought for Israel under the reign of the Messiah, and at a time when “the earth should be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea; ” and what it can be but their conversion to him I am not able to conceive. What follows, in ver. 14—16, compares the return of the remnant of God’s ancient people to the coming up of their fathers out of Egypt. The kingdom of the Messiah shall be enlarged, as the borders of Israel were formerly by their victories over the surrounding nations; and as then God dried up the tongue, or bay, of the Red Sea, and caused the waters of Jordan to go backward, so now he will remove every obstruction out of their way, and bring them home to himself with a high hand and an out- stretched arm. Chap. xii. is a continuation of the subject, and contains a hymn, or sacred song of praise, suited to the joyful oc- casion of their deliverance. It is observable, that their first deliverance from Egypt was followed by a triumphant song on the shores of the Red Sea. So also was their de- liverance from Babylon, Psal. cxxvi. Their joy on that occasion was so great, that what had taken place seemed to them a dream—too much to be true. Surrounding nations beheld and acknowledged “that the Lord had done great things for them; ” while their thankful spirits echoed the acknowledgment: “ The Lord hath done great things for us, whereof we are glad.” But neither of these deliverances was equal to that which is here celebrated. We may observe, in the first place, the use of the singular pronouns: “ Thou shalt say, O Lord, I will praise thee,” &c. This may denote the unity that shall prevail among them. In their divided and scattered con- dition they said, “Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost; we are cut off for our parts; ” but now they are of one heart and of one soul. With respect to the matter of the song, they begin with praise to Jehovah for his great mercy in pardoning their sins, or removing that fierce anger which had for so many ages burned against them. “ Thou shalt say, O Lord, I will praise thee; though thou wast angry with me, thine anger is turned away, and thou comfortest me.” This is perfectly in character : true penitents look back upon past sins with bitterness, and thankfulness for having escaped them and the wrath of God revealed from heaven against them. The anger of God against the Jews, for their crucifying his Son, the Lord of glory, and continu- ing in such bitter enmity against him, has indeed been great. It was truly said of them that “wrath was come upon them to the uttermost.” The calamities which befell them in the destruction of their city, the length of their dispersion, the contempt they have endured, and, what is more than all, the judicial blindness and hard- mess of heart to which they are given up, are so many ex- bressions of Divine displeasure against them, with which their former history furnishes no parallel. The remem- brance therefore of this, while it fills them with the deep- est self-abasement, furnishes them with the highest sensa- tions of grateful joy. It is this compound sensation that is described in Hos. iii. 5, “They shall fear the Lord, and his goodness, in the latter days.” The language of ver. 2, though suited to Old Testament times, conveys the strongest ideas of joyful amazement. “Behold, God is my salvation ; I will trust, and not be afraid : for the Lord Jehovah is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation.” Had this part of the song been expressed in New Testament language, it might have been nearly in the words of the apostle, “I count all things but loss for the excellency of the know- ledge of Christ Jesus my Lord ; for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, and be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.”—“I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have com- mitted unto him against that day.” Of old he had been the salvation of their fathers; of late of the Gentiles: but now “all Israel shall be saved ; as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.” Such an interposition of free and great grace may well be introduced with the note of attention “behold !” And now he will be to them a re- fuge. Though their sins have been great as the sea, yet, without fear, they may trust in him to heal them ; and though their builders formerly set him at nought, yet, without any apprehension of being confounded, they may rest their hopes upon him : and wherefore ? Because in him they shall recognise “the everlasting Jehovah,” the God of their fathers. The effect of so great a salvation must needs be a gene- ral, an exceeding, a mighty joy. Such is that described in ver. 3, “With joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation.” It is said to have been the custom of the Jews, on the last day of the feast of tabernacles, to draw water in a golden pitcher from the well of Siloam, and to pour it, mixed with wine, on the sacrifice as it lay on the altar, singing all the while a part of this hymn, especially this third verse, with great rejoicings, and looking for- ward to that abundance of blessings which they expected in the times of the Messiah. If so it was, they were not far from the true intent either of their feast of tabernacles or of the prophecy. The words of our Saviour, in John vii. 37, will hence appear peculiarly appropriate :-‘‘In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any one thirst, let him come unto me and drink!” As the keeping of the feast of the passover was prefigurative of the joy and obedience of faith under the gospel, (1 Cor. v. 8,) so was the keeping of the feast of tabernacles: hence, in the prophecy of Zechariah, a re- jection of Christ is expressed by a refusal to come up to Jerusalem to keep this feast, chap. xiv. 16, 19. But though some, even in the latter-days, will thus stand out against the Saviour, yet the feast shall be kept by the great body of mankind, especially by God's ancient people the Jews. The salvation of Christ shall be to them as wells of water in a dry land, from which they shall draw in abundance. Such will be the types and prophecies of their own sacred writings; which, though full of living water, have, through their unbelief, been of no account to them. The wells were deep, and they had nothing to draw with. Such also will be the doctrines and ordi- nances of the New Testament, in which they have hereto- fore seen no beauty, but rejected the counsel of God against themselves. And now, being filled with joy themselves, they will not be able to contain it, but will feel an ardent desire to recommend the Saviour to the Gentile nations. “In that day shall ye say, Praise the Lord, call upon his name, declare his doings among the people, make mention that his name be exalted. Sing unto JEHOVAH ; for he hath done excellent things; this is known in all the earth,” ver. 4, 5. From this and other passages, especially Rom. xi. 12. 15, it appears that the conversion of the Jews will be a kind of resurrection to the world. In every way, God, according to his promise, will make Abraham's seed a blessing to mankind. Their fall and diminution were an occasion of our riches; but their recovery will be much more so. So great an event, “known in all the earth,” will in a manner put infidelity out of countenance. Their coming over to Christ will be like Abner’s coming over to David, which broke up the power of his enemies, and issued in the peaceable establishment of his kingdom. Finally, Zion is congratulated and called upon to “cry out and shout, for that God will then dwell in the midst of her,” ver. 6. I am not sure that Zion in this place is not to be understood literally of the city of Jerusalem. I may be mistaken in thinking that God has promised, not only to convert the great body of Abraham's descendants, but to restore them to their own country; but I am not able, on any other supposition, to understand several pas- 502 CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. sages of Scripture ; especially Zech. xii. 6, and Luke xxi. 24, “Jerusalem shall be inhabited again IN HER own PLACE, EVEN IN JERUSALEM.—They shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all na- tions; and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gen- tiles, UNTIL THE TIMEs of THE GENTILES BE FULFILLED.” Whatever figurative meaning may be put upon the words of the prophet, which however, it appears to me, must be very forced ; yet there can be no figure in those of our Lord, which clearly intimate that the same Jerusalem which shall be for a time trodden down by the Gentiles shall be no longer so than TILL the times of the Gentiles shall be fulfilled. But whether Zion in this passage be taken literally for Jerusalem, or figuratively for the whole church of God, both Jews and Gentiles being united in the faith of Christ, the presence and blessing of God will be her greatest glory. The name of the city from that day shall be called Jehovah-shammah, THE LORD IS THERE. LETTER. W. Zech. xi., xii., xiii. 1. THAT we may perceive the connexion of the prophecy in chap. xii., it will be proper to observe that chap. xi. con- tains a prediction of the overthrow of the Jewish nation by the Romans. It is introduced by the burning of the temple, composed of the wood of Lebanon, (ver. 1,) by the fall of some of their great men, (ver. 2,) and by the con- sternation of others, ver. 3. To represent the state of religion among them at this time, the prophet is directed to “take unto him the instruments; ” that is, to person- ate certain shepherds which God would raise up in the land. First, the great and good Shepherd of the sheep, who should now make his appearance upon earth, ver. 4–14. Secondly, a foolish and sordid shepherd, to which they should be given up after having rejected him, ver. 15–17. While personating the former, the prophet speaks of himself as commissioned to feed the flock of slaughter, especially the poor of the flock, whose possessors slew them and held themselves guiltless, ver. 4, 5. These possessors, with the great body of the nation, are given up, ver, 6. But a remnant should be saved from among the poor, and these should be fed by the good Shepherd, (ver. 7,) who also would set himself against those who sought not them, but theirs, ver, 8, 9. By the breaking of his staves, Beauty and Bands, (the instruments of his rule as a shep- herd,) is set forth the dissolving of the covenant of pecu- liarity made with Israel, and the giving them up to divi- sions one among another. This judgment should be so manifest that the believing part of the nation should see the hand of God in it, and that it was his design thereby -to put an end to their place and nation, ver. 11. The cause of these great evils is found in their contemning, re- jecting, and crucifying Christ, ver. 12, 13. And now, having rid themselves, as they supposed, of him, God would, in just judgment, raise up for them a foolish shep- herd; denoting that they should not only be deserted of God, and punished by the Roman sword, but given up to the influence of a set of blind and sordid priests, who should lead them into the ditch, and there perish with them, ver, 15–18. Such appears to be the sum of chap. xi., which is altogether against the body of the Jewish na- tion ; but chap. xii. contains a prophecy of their restora- tion, and is therefore called, “The burden of the word of the Lord Fort Israel,” ver. 1. The events of this and the foregoing prophecy, though wide asunder as to time, yet very properly follow each other. Paul takes but little notice of the state of the Jews during their long dispersion; but passing over that chasm, as included in their being “broken off.” proceeds to speak of their being “grafted in again,” Rom. xi. The prophecy finds Jerusalem “besieged ” by enemies, but very differently circumstanced from what she was in the foregoing chapter. Her enemies were then avenging the cause of God and of his Christ ; and therefore, what- ever might be their motives, were successful : but in this siege God is on her side, and therefore she is “a cup of trembling” to her enemies. Of course, this must refer to the period when she shall be restored. The character which Jehovah assumes in the preface to the prophecy is worthy of notice : “Thus saith the Lord, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the found- ation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.” These mighty works relate to the first creation of the world, and the mention of them may intimate that, at the time of the prophecy being fulfilled, they shall in a manner be acted over again. That which he will then accomplish towards his ancient people shall be a kind of new creation. It were presumptuous to be very positive as to the mean- ing of a prophecy which is yet to be accomplished; but comparing it with other prophecies of the same event, the following particulars appear to be conveyed by it. First, That the Jews shall be restored to their own land prior to their conversion : “Jerusalem shall be inhabited again in her own place, even in Jerusalem,” ver, 6. This event may be accomplished in the ordinary course of providence, by some of the great conquerors of the world, who shall find their interest in it, and be induced, as Cyrus was in a former instance, to favour it. Secondly, That a grand combination will be formed against them with a view to dispossess them, ver, 2.9. Thirdly, That the nations en- gaged in this combination will be repulsed, and sorely punished for their presumptuous attempt, which, after witnessing the remarkable fulfilment of prophecy towards the Jews, must be against the light of their own con- sciences : “Jerusalem shall be a cup of trembling (a cup as it were of poison) to those who go up against her ; a rock falling upon their heads; a hearth of fire among the wood ; and a torch in a sheaf,” ver, 2–6. Fourthly, That the country and the city shall be united against the enemy, ver. 5–7. Fifthly, That they shall be guarded by Providence, and strengthened to encounter the greatest difficulties : “The Lord will defend them, and he that is feeble among them shall be as David,” &c., ver, 8. Sixthly, That, after all these temporal interpositions, the Lord will pour upon them a Spirit of grace and of supplications, and they shall lament over their sins, and the sins of their fathers, particularly in having crucified the Lord of glory, ver. 10. This order of things seems perfectly to agree with what is said in Ezek. xxxvii., where the process is described, first by “a noise,” then “a shaking, a coming together bone to his bone,” a being covered with “sinews and flesh and skin,” and last of all by their having breathed into them “the breath of life,” ver. 7–9. To the same pur- pose they are described in ver. 13, 14, as first brought out of their graves, and then as knowing their deliverer. The only difficulty attending this statement seems to arise from ver. 5, where, previously to the pouring out of the Spirit of grace upon them, the governors of Judah are supposed to strengthen themselves, and one another, in “ the Lord of hosts, their God.” But it is no unusual thing for the leaders of a people in time of war, though destitute of true religion, yet to have so much of a convic- tion of the dependence of all upon God as to strengthen themselves and their armies by a hope of Divine assistance. Joab could say to his brother, “Be of good courage, and let us play the man for our people, and for the cities of our God ; and the Lord do that which seemeth him good,” 2 Sam. x. 12. So Abijah, 2 Chron. xiii. A few remarks on the spiritual part of the prophecy shall conclude this paper. First, The subjects of this great change; these will be both princes and people. In the pouring out of the Spirit, on the day of Pentecost, there were many of the latter, but few if any of the former; but now all descriptions of men shall bow to our Redeemer's sceptre. Secondly, The cause of it; namely, the pouring upon them “a Spirit of grace and of supplications.” The spirit of true religion is a Spirit of grace in respect of its source, and of supplications in respect of its issue, impor- tunate prayer. Looking at the state of these people at present, we are grieved for the hardness of their hearts; but when the Spirit of the living God shall take the work in hand, the heart of stone shall become a heart of flesh. Thirdly, The grand medium of it ; namely, the remem- w TROPHECIES RELATING TO THE MILLENNIUM. 503 brance of Him whom their fathers crucified, and whom they themselves have pierced by justifying them in it. A believing view of Jesus on the cross will dissolve the most obdurate spirit in godly sorrow. Fourthly, The in- tenseness of the grief; it shall be a great mourning, like that of a father for the loss of an only son, or like the la- mentations at the death of Josiah, in the valley of Megid- don. Fifthly, Its universality: the land shall mourn, and every family of every remaining tribe. Scarcely a house shall be found, but, on entering it, you shall find them weeping over their former obstinacy and unbelief. Sixthly, The individuality and retirement of it: “Fvery family shall mourn apart, and their wives apart.” They will not only weep together when they meet, but retire to lament in secret over their own iniquity. Scarcely a closet or private place shall be found, but some one will be water- ing it with his tears. Finally, The remedy to all this grief: “In that day, there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness.” By looking to Jesus they were wounded, and by looking to Jesus they are healed. The “first-fruits” of this great work appeared on the day of Pentecost, when thousands were pricked to the heart, repented, and were baptized in that name which they had despised ; but “the lump" is yet to appear. “Blessed be the Lord God, the God of Israel, who only doth won- drous things. And blessed be his glorious name for ever: and let the whole earth be filled with his glory. Amen and amen l’’ EXPOSITION OF THE PROPHECIES IN ISAIAH XXVI. AND ITS CONNEXION, AS RELATING TO THE TIMES OF THE MILLENNIUM, AND THOSE WHICH PRECEDE IT, INCLUDING OUR OWN. [Written in the beginning of 1815.] IT is very evident that the prophecies in Isaiah xxvi., and other chapters connected with it, relate to gospel times. It must be in them that the Lord of hosts makes a feast of fat things unto all people—destroys the face of the covering cast over all people—swalloweth up death in victory—and wipeth away tears from all faces, chap. xxv. 6–9. The only question is as to what part of the gospel dispensation this strong language can apply. Some of it appears to be too strong to agree with events which have yet occurred, and therefore has been generally understood of the latter-day glory, when Jews and Gentiles shall em- brace the gospel to a far greater extent than has hitherto been seen. With this accords the language at the close of chap. xxiv., and which seems to glance at the conversion of God’s ancient people. “Then the moon shall be con- founded, and the sun ashamed, when the Lord of hosts shall reign in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, and before his ancients gloriously.” With this also accords the whole xxvth chapter, which describes the triumphs of the church over her, enemies, and to have been complete should I COn Celve have included the first two verses of the xxvith, Where the city of God is represented as having salvation for walls and bulwarks, and as throwing open her gates and inviting the faithful to enter in. But as certain parts of the xxvth chapter refer to the conflicts which precede the triumph, so does the remainder of the xxvith, and the first verse of the xxviith. Now it is in these prophecies, referring to times which precede the Millennium, that we shall find the events of our own times. By giving what appears to be the meaning of every verse, accompanied by a quotation of the verse itself, the reader will be able to judge of the justness of the application of the prophecy. Ver, 3–6. The faithful are encouraged to trust in the Lord in troublous times; for before the city of God shall be encompassed with salvation, Babylon, the antichristian city, must be destroyed; which will be attended with such calamities that peace will in a manner be taken from the earth.-‘‘Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace whose mind is stayed on thee, because he trusteth in the. Trust ye in the Lord for ever; for in the Lord Jehovah is everlasting strength. For he bringeth down them that dwell on high ; the lofty city he layeth it low, even to the ground; he bringeth it even to the dust. The foot shall tread it down, even the feet of the poor, and the steps of the needy.” Ver, 7. The church pleading with God takes encourage- ment from his regard to righteousness that he will not always suffer her enemies to triumph over her.—“The way of the just is uprightness: thou, most upright, dost weigh the path of the just.” Wer. 8, 9. The grievous persecutions which she had borne during the long and dark night of antichristian domination are viewed as Divine chastisements, or “judg- ments beginning at the house of God;” under which she declares her feelings, and hopes for deliverance.—“ Yea, in the way of thy judgments, O Lord, have we waited for thee; the desire of our soul is to thy name, and to the re- membrance of thee. With my soul have I desired thee in the night; yea, with my spirit within me will I seek thee early.” W. 9, latter part. The ground of this hope is, not only that God has punishments in reserve for her enemies, but that the calamities which the infliction of these pun- ishments will bring upon the world shall be made subser- vient to her increase.—“For when thy judgments are abroad in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness.” Ver. 10, 11. The adherents of antichrist will not profit by these events; but, being given up to perverseness and blindness, neither mercies nor judgments will humble them : that, however, which was unaccomplished by for- bearing goodness shall be accomplished by the strong arm of justice—they shall be humbled and consumed in fires of their own kindling.—“Let favour be shown to the wicked, yet will he not learn righteousness: in the land of uprightness will he deal unjustly, and will not behold 504 PROPHECIES RELATING TO THE MILLENNIUM. the majesty of the Lord. Lord, when thy hand is lifted up, they will not see : but they shall see, and be ashamed for their envy at the people; yea, the fire of thine enemies shall devour them.” Ver, 12. The church expresseth her confidence that these calamities, though they should take peace from the earth, yet shall contribute to her prosperity; for all that she hath wrought, it is God that hath wrought it in and by her ; and he will not forsake the work of his own hands.-‘‘Lord, thou wilt ordain peace for us : for thou also hast wrought all our works in us.” * Ver. 13, 14. She recounts her persecutions, cleaves to Christ, and anticipates the fall of her persecutors.—“O Lord our God, other lords besides thee have had do- minion over us; but by thee only will we make mention of thy name. They are dead, they shall not live ; they are deceased, they shall not rise: therefore hast thou visited and destroyed them, and made all their memory to perish.” Wer. 15, 16. After the fall of the antichristian powers the church will be increased, and God will be glorified ; especially by the conversion of the Jews, who under the chastising hand of God shall be brought to pray unto him. —“Thou hast increased the nation, O Lord, thou hast increased the nation: thou art glorified: thou hadst re- moved it far unto all the ends of the earth. Lord, in trouble have they visited thee, they poured out a prayer when thy chastening was upon them.” Ver. 17, 18. She laments her ineffectual and abortive labours for ages preceding in subduing the world to Christ. —“Like as a woman with child, that draweth near the time of her delivery, is in pain, and crieth out in her pangs; so have we been in thy sight, O Lord. We have been with child, we have been in pain, we have as it were brought forth wind; we have not wrought any deliverance in the earth ; neither have the inhabitants of the world fallen.” Ver. 19. To these complaints of the church, God gra- ciously answers by promises of better times.—“Thy dead shall live, my deceased, they shall arise (Lowth). Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead.” Wer. 20, 21, and chap. xxvii. 1. He answers further by inviting her to retire into her chambers, as for shelter from the storm. There will be no need for her to fight in this battle, but to pray in secret: it will be soon over: the blood of the martyrs must be avenged, and the antichris- tian power, that great leviathan, that piercing and crooked serpent, must be slain by the “sore, and great, and strong” sword of Jehovah. Then the church of Christ shall shine forth in all her Millennial glory.—“In that day sing ye unto her, A vineyard of red wine. "I the Lord do keep it, I will water it every moment: lest any hurt it, I will keep it night and day !” chap. xxvii. 2, 3. REMARKS ON ISAIAH XXVI. 9, IN REFERENCE TO THE PRESENT TIMES. “When thy judgments are abroad in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness.” IF the foregoing piece contain the true meaning of these prophecies, there can be no doubt but the words in verse 9 refer to the calamities preparatory to the overthrow of the papal antichrist and the introduction of the Millen- nium. Some of these we have seen ; others are yet to come ; but the most interesting character pertaining to them is, that under them “the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness.” It is not enough to understand them of what ought to be, but of what will be. The in- habitants of the world have in all ages been taught right- eousness by the judgments of God ; but now they shall learn it. The same thing is foretold in Rev. xv. 4; where, in reference to the pouring out of the vials, it is asked, “Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy : for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made mani- fest.” The sense is, that the judgments already found upon the earth, and those which are yet to come, will, with the word of God, which shall at the same time be spread- ing, be the means of effecting that great change in the moral state of the world which prophecy gives us to expect. Let us observe the effects produced by the events which have already occurred. We are informed, by a serious and intelligent spectator, that a deep impression was made upon the continental armies by the late sanguinary con- tests. The Rev. M.R. HALLBECK, Moravian minister, who, in the summer of 1813, travelled through the north of Germany, while occupied by the French and Allied armies, and published a narrative of his journey, writes as follows:–“ It is impossible to describe the ardour and enthusiasm which prevailed in Prussia, as soon as the people were permitted to take up arms against their op- pressors. Scarcely were the intentions of the monarch known, before the whole country was in motion, and thousands flew to arms. Counts and barons, professors and students, masters and servants, enrolled themselves as common soldiers, and those who could not bear arms gave money. The ladies sold their jewels, their gold, their very hair, to aid the common cause; they left the toilet to pro- vide for hospitals, to dig entrenchments, &c. “This enthusiasm, to which modern history presents no equal, was combined with a RELIGIOUs spirit pervading the whole nation. The iron time (as it is called) since 1807 had subdued the pride of the people, and the terrible judgments in Russia had opened their eyes. The soldiers were solemnly consecrated for the war by their parish ministers. It was a most affecting scene to see some thou- sands of young warriors together, receiving instructions from their minister, and the blessing of the church, of their parents and relatives, before they went to fight for liberty. Every heart was moved, every eye shed tears. “The same good disposition and unparalleled enthusi- asm pervaded also the regular troops. They were no more the boasting, self-confident Prussians of 1809; on the con- trary, modesty, and dependence on help from above, formed the general character of Blucher's army. WITH GoD, FoR OUR KING AND COUNTRY, was the motto embroidered on their standards, engraven in their hearts. Cursing and swearing, the common vices of soldiers, were seldom heard; no songs were allowed to be sung till revised by the colonel, and approved by a clergyman. Many of these songs were of a religious, and all of a moral tendency. The regiments were not indeed provided with chaplains, but they attended Divine service as often as circumstances permitted. “Eight hundred Prussians were once quartered in Herrnhut. The commanding officer had ordered the band to parade the streets as usual in the evening ; but being told that there was a meeting for Divine worship at that hour, he postponed the music, and he and all the officers and soldiers attended the chapel. “To this modest and pious spirit was joined a bravery equally enthusiastic, of which it is not easy to form an idea without having been a witness to it. ConquER or DIE was a resolution legible in the countenance of every soldier, which was not effaced by the most adverse cir- cumstances, and which influenced those who were na- turally of a weak and timid disposition.” I lay no stress on the durability of these impressions: some of them may have continued, others may have sub- sided ; but however this be, we may see how the mighty hand of God, when stretched out, can subdue the spirits of men. The inhabitants of Prussia, and other con- tinental nations, have of late years been said to be re- markable for their infidelity; but infidelity at this time seems to have hid its head. Further, is it not deserving of notice, that while some of the most awful judgments have been abroad in the earth, and men’s minds have been impressed by them, an impulse has been given to circulate the Holy Scriptures, such as was never before known 3 Without inquiring whence this impulse proceeded, its existence and extent are manifest to every observant eye. The remarks made upon this subject in respect of Russia, in the Eclectic Re- view for November, are worthy of notice, and will in part apply to other nations as well as Russia. “In con- templating the exertions which are made by Christians of ON THE UNPARDONABLE SIN. 505 all denominations for the universal diffusion of religious knowledge, it is indeed gratifying to reflect on the power- ful influence which the Russian church, and the Russian people, may exert on the progress of Divine truth among the nations. Their capabilities in this view are extreme- ly great, nearly surrounded as they are by many numer- ous tribes, who are sitting in darkness, and in the land of the shadow of death ; and their zealous co-operation in the cause of revealed truth may be regarded as one of those events which, under the guidance of a Divine agency, bear the closest relation to the propagation of the gospel, and the immortal interests of the human race,” . 431. p From what is said of the inhabitants of the world, that “when God’s judgments are abroad in the earth, they will learn righteousness,” we are not to suppose that this effect will be produced by the events of Providence only: the word of God, and the Spirit of God, will accompany them and co-operate with them. Such appears to be the actual state of things already in some degree, and such we may expect will be their progress. - These remarks may be thought to afford but little pros- pect of continued peace, but rather give us to expect a succession of judgments. I wish all success to every at- tempt at peace; but, so long as popery remains in the earth, I believe there will be no continued peace for it. “Is it peace, Jehu ? What peace, so long as the whore- doms of thy mother Jezebel, and her witchcrafts, are so many ?” Prophecy apart, it cannot escape the observa- tion of thinking men that popery, notwithstanding its being raised by recent events to somewhat of its former greatness, is still dissatisfied. It must be a persecuting enemy of true religion, or nothing. There is not a papal nation in being, of any account, but what has in it the seeds of discontent and future wars. The preponderating powers of Europe will have to say, We would have healed Babylon, but she is not healed ! - EXPOSITION OF PASSAGES RELATING TO T H E U N P A R D ON A B L E SIN. THE forgiveness of sin is doubtless one of the most in- teresting subjects to a sinful creature ; and if there be one sin upon which the Divine Being has thought fit to set a mark of peculiar displeasure, by declaring it unpardonable, it is worthy of the most serious inquiry to determine what it is. Perhaps the most likely method of coming at the truth will be by first taking a view of those passages of Scripture where it is either fully expressed or implied, and then making a few remarks upon them. There is no express mention of the sin against the Holy Spirit under the former dispensation. It seems, however, that there was a period in the lives of Cain and Saul, and perhaps of some others, when they were given up of God to inevitable destruction. The first, or rather the only express mention that we have of it, is in the evangelists, where it is applied to the Pharisees, on occasion of their blasphemously asserting, “ This fellow doth not cast out devils but by Beelzebub, the prince of the devils.” Dr. Whitby thinks these passages were only designed to warn them of the sin, and that it was not possible to be actual- ly committed till the pouring out of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost; and assigns this as a reason, that Christ afterwards prayed for those very persons. But those for whom Christ prayed “knew not what they did;" they were in the same situation with Saul while a per- secutor ; “they did it ignorantly, and in unbelief.” This, however, was not true of all his murderers. Those who made answer to Judas, who confessed that he had betrayed innocent blood, “See thou to that,” could not, I am afraid, have this plea alleged on their behalf. It is true the multitude did it ignorantly, and many of their rulers, as Peter candidly acknowledged; but this, I should think, is more than could be said of them all. It is pretty evident that some of them acted upon the principles sug- gested by our Lord : “This is the heir, come let us kill him.” It is no objection to this that it is said, “If they had known him, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory ; ” for knowledge is not here put for a mere con- Viction that he was the Messiah, but for that spiritual discernment which is possessed only by believers, being “revealed to them by the Spirit, who searcheth the deep things of God.” From certain passages of Scripture it appears to me that some of the Pharisees were guilty of the unpardonable sin. See John ix. 41, and xii. 42, 43. Perhaps the next intimation that is given of this sin is in Peter’s address to Simon Magus : “Repent of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.” It does not appear that the apostle considered the sorcerer as having certain- ly committed the unpardonable sin ; but it seems he con- sidered it as a matter of doubt, and therefore, with a view to impress upon his mind the greatness of his wickedness, and the danger he was in, expressed himself in that doubt- ful manner which he was not used to do in ordinary cases. The apostle Paul seems to have had an eye to this sin, when, speaking of himself, he says, “I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly and in unbelief.” None will suppose that Saul’s ignorance, much less his unbelief, had any thing in it meritorious, which could induce the Divine Being to show him mercy : on the contrary, it was sinful, and that for which he reckoned himself the chief of sin- ners. But it was not accompanied with such circum- stances of aggravation as to exclude him from an interest in Divine mercy ; it was not the unpardonable sim. In the Epistle to the Hebrews there are several inti- mations of this sin ; particularly in the following pas- sages: “It is impossible for those who were once enlight- ened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.”—“For if we sin wilfully, after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment, and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses's law died without mercy, under two or three wit- nesses: of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite to the Spirit of grace 3’’ Peter also describes the same characters : “For if after 506 EXPOSITION OF PASSAGES they have escaped the pollutions of the world, through the-knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteous- ness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is hap- pened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again ; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.” Lastly, It must be with reference to this sin that John writes in his First Epistle ; “If any man see his brother sin a sin not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life.—There is a sin unto death ; I do not say that he shall pray for it.”—“We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keep- eth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.” The above are the principal, if not the only, passages in which reference is made to the unpardonable sin. From these, taken altogether, I shall offer the following re- marks :- First, When the Scripture speaks of any sin as wnpar- donable, or of the impossibility of those who have com- mitted it being renewed again unto repentance, we are not to understand them as expressing any natural limita- tion of either the power or the mercy of God, nor yet of the efficacy of the Saviour's blood; but merely of a limit- ation dictated by sovereign wisdom and righteousness. Secondly, It is not any one particular act of sin that denominates it unpardonable, but the circumstances under which it is committed. The act, in the case of the Pha- risees, was uttering blasphemous language against the miracles of Christ ; in the supposed case of Saul, it was blasphemously persecuting, and otherwise injuriously treating, the church of Christ; in the case of the Hebrews, it was apostacy from the truth ; in the false teachers de- scribed by Peter, it was not only perverting the truth, but returning to sensual abomination. These acts being various, the unpardonable sin could not consist in any one of them in itself considered, but in their being committed under certain circumstances. Thirdly, The peculiar circumstances under which any of these acts becomes unpardonable seems to be the party being possessed of a certain degree of light; and that not merely objective, as exhibited in the gospel, but subjective, as possessed by the understanding. This light, which is attributed to the Holy Spirit, seems to afford the specific reason of the unpardonable sin being represented as com- mitted against him. The distinction which our Lord makes between blasphemy against the Son of man and that against the Holy Spirit, declaring the one pardonable and the other unpardonable, seems to consist in this: the former, during his humiliation, might be the effect of ig- norance and unbelief; but the latter (imputing to Satanic influence those benevolent miracles which were not only wrought before their eyes by the Spirit of God, but ap- proved themselves to their consciences to be of God) could be no other than wilful malignity. And this would be the case especially after the pouring out of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, when such a blaze of light shone forth in confirmation of the gospel : a blasphemous oppo- sition to it at that period would, where the light was not only exhibited, but possessed in the understanding, be a black mark of reprobation. The blasphemy of Saul was accompanied with a great degree of objective light; but it did not so possess his understanding and conscience but that he did it ignorantly and in unbelief. Had he com- mitted the same blasphemy knowingly, or in spite of a full persuasion in his conscience that the cause he opposed was the cause of God, it is supposed, by his own manner of speaking, that it would have been unpardonable, and that he would not have obtained mercy. The case of the Hebrews turns entirely upon the same circumstance: they not only had the gospel objectively exhibited before them, but became the subjects of deep convictions, and powerful impressions. They were “enlightened,” and had “ tasted the heavenly gift;” were made “partakers of the Holy Spirit; tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come.” None of these expressions, it is true, denotes that Divine change which accompanies sal- vation, being expressly distinguished from it, (and John also, in his First Epistle, intimates that those who are “born of God” cannot be guilty of this sin,) yet they undoubtedly express powerful impressions, and deep con- victions, together with some extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit, which were common in those times. All this rendered a departure from the truth what the apostle, in the tenth chapter of the same Epistle, calls “sinning wil- fully, after we have received the knowledge of the truth ; treading under foot the Son of God, and doing despite to the Spirit of grace.” It is also upon this circumstance of light that the case of those apostates mentioned by Peter turns. “After they have known the way of righteousness, to turn from the holy commandment” is that which seals their doom. Fourthly, The impossibility of such characters being recovered and saved arises from two causes :- 1. The only way, or medium, of a sinner's salvation is by the sacrifice of Christ; but the nature of their sin is such that they “wilfully tread him under foot, and treat the blood of the covenant, where with he was sanctified, as an unholy thing.” Now if the sacrifice of Christ be thus treated, there is no other way of escape : “There remaineth no more sacrifice for sin, but a fearful looking for of judgment.” Hence it becomes a hopeless under- taking for the servants of God to attempt any thing for their recovery. What can they do? Nothing but what they have done already in vain. The grounds which they have ordinarily to go over, in saving sinners from the wrath to come, are, “Repentance from dead works; faith towards God; baptism” of water, and in the primitive times of the Holy Spirit, accompanied with “the laying on of hands;” exhibiting to them “the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment;”, but these things have been known and rejected, have lost their force : why should they be repeated? No, saith the apostle, “leaving these first principles,” and those who have rejected them, in the hand of God, we will “go on” with our work “unto per- fection.”—“The ploughman doth not plough all day to sow"—and “bread-corn is bruised, because he will not ever be threshing it.” 2. The only efficient cause of a sinner's being brought to repentance, and so to forgiveness, is the almighty and sovereign influence of the Holy Spirit; and the only hope that is left for such characters must arise from the exertion of His power, with whom all things are naturally possible: “But of him they are given up ! they have done despite to the Spirit of grace,” and he hath utterly abandoned them to their own delusions ! See Heb. vi. 7, 8. Fifthly, The cases which in our times appear to ap- proach the nearest to this sin are those of persons who apostatize from the truth after having enjoyed great re- ligious advantages, obtained much light, felt strong con- victions, and made considerable progress in reforming their conduct. The apostacy of such characters, as of some among the Hebrews, is sometimes sentimental. Having long felt the gospel way of salvation to grate upon their feelings, they fall in with some flesh-pleasing scheme, either that of open infidelity, or some one of those which approach the nearest to it; and now, their conduct be- coming equally loose with their principles, when reproved by their friends, they keep themselves in countenance by professing to have changed their sentiments in religious matters. In them is fulfilled what was predicted of some by the apostle Paul : “They received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusions, that they should believe a lie ;-and be damned.” The apostacy of others, like those described in the Second Epistle of Peter, is of a more practical nature. Having long felt the yoke of religion galling to their in- climations, they burst the bonds and let loose the reins of lust; and to ward off reproof, and keep themselves in countenance, they affect to treat all religion with contempt, raking together the faults of professing Christians, as an excuse for their own iniquities. Such characters are com- monly the worst of all, and the most dangerous to society; nor do I recollect any instance of their having been “re- newed again unto repentance:” “twice dead,” they seem doomed to be “plucked up by the roots.” In them is ON THE UNPARDONABLE SIN. 507 verified what our Lord speaks, of a man out of whom should be cast an unclean spirit, which goeth forth in search of a new habitation, seeking rest, but finding none, and at length resolves on a return to his old abode. “And when he cometh, he findeth it empty, swept and garnished. Then he goeth, and taketh with him seven other spirits, more wicked than himself, and they enter in, and dwell there; and the last state of that man is worse than the first.” I am afraid that to the above might be added a great number of characters who, in early life, were of a decent and grave deportment; and who, possessing promising abilities, were encouraged by their friends to engage in the work of the ministry. Their main study being to cultivate their powers, they have at length attained the art of con- veying truth and commending virtue in a style of pleasing energy. But as they have never loved nor lived upon the truth which they have communicated, so neither have they practised the virtues which they have recommended. Slaves to popularity, avarice, or lust, they pass through life under a disguise; and being conversant with Divine things as surgeons and soldiers are with the shedding of human blood, they cease to have any effect upon them with re- spect to their own souls. I would not presume to pass sentence on all such characters; but neither would I be in their situation for the whole world ! The chief difficulties which attend the account of the unpardonable sin affect ministers, in their praying for and preaching to sinners and dejected souls, who are apt to draw dark conclusions against themselves. With respect to prayer, we have directions given us on this head, 1 John v. 16. We are not to pray that God would forgive men this sin, because this would be contradicting the re- vealed will of God; but as we cannot tell with certainty who are the subjects of it, we may pray for sinners, with- out distinction, that God would give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth ; always submitting our petitions to the sovereign direction of unerring wisdom. But it may be asked, with respect to preaching, How can a minister proclaim the mercy of God to his auditory in an indefinite way? How can he invite them to a partici- pation of the blessings of the gospel ? How can he de- clare that if any one of them, even the greatest sinner among them, return to God by Jesus Christ, he will be accepted ; when, for aught he knows, there may be persons in his presence who may be in the situation above de- scribed, and for whom no mercy is designed ? To this I answer, The same objection may be made against the doc- trine of election ; and is made by the adversaries of that doctrine. Let a minister pursue his work, and leave the effect to God. What he declares of the willingness of Christ to pardon and receive all who return to him is true; and it might be said of any man, in truth, that if he re- turned to God by Jesus Christ, he would be forgiven. The impossibility, with respect to those who have committed the unpardonable sin, respects their repentance as well as their forgiveness; and even that is not a natural, but a moral impossibility. With respect to dejected minds, let it be observed, that no person, let his crimes have been what they may, if he be grieved at heart for having committed them, and sin- cerely ask forgiveness in the name of Christ, needs to fear that he shall be rejected. Such grief is itself a proof that he has not committed the sin against the Holy Spirit, be- cause it is a mark of that sin to be accompanied with a hard and impenitent heart. Such characters may feel the remorse of a Cain, a Saul, or a Judas; but a tear of godly sorrow never dropped from their eyes. EXPOSITORY NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE. ON THE EXTRAORDINARY APPEARANCE TO ELIJAH AT MOUNT HOREB. 1 Kings xix. (written IN 1799.] ELIJAH lived in a time of great apostacy. His history is more particularly related than that of most of the other prophets, and is very interesting. The most distinguishing event of his time was a sore famine. For three years and six months the heavens were shut up. Of this Ahab was previously warned; and to prove that it was a visitation from God for sin, he was assured by Elijah that, as the Lord God of Israel lived, there should be neither dew nor rain, but according to his word. Hitherto he preserves his character, not only as a man, but as a man of God. We admire his magnanimity also, whem, towards the close of this afflictive period, he looked Ahab in the face and reproved him. Still more do we admire him when, singly by himself, he braved the host of Baal's adherents, and confounded them before the “people. But, alas, what is man After all this, he is intimidated by the threatenings of Jezebel, and flees for his life. After going a day's journey into the wilderness, he sits down under a juniper tree, and requests for himself that he may die. Hence he arose and went to Horeb, the mount of God. Entering into a cave, he was there interrogated by him whose cause he had seemed to desert, What dost thou here, Elijah He attempts to excuse himself by accusing Israel. He had been very jealous for the Lord God of Israel; but they had digged down his altars, and slain his prophets with the sword; he only was left, and they sought his life. Thus, according to his account, it seemed time for him to flee. But that which is worse than all, in excusing him- self, he does not barely accuse Israel, but seems tacitly to reflect upon the Lord himself, as though he had done little or nothing to windicate his own name, and what then could his poor servant do there alone 3 Jehovah could no doubt have confounded the com- plaining prophet; but forbearing, like himself, when dealing with erring creatures, he makes him no answer, but calls him forth to appear on the top of the mount. Here he is made to witness a very extraordinary scene.— “The Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent 508 EXPOSITORY NOTES.–I, KINGS XIX. the mountains, and broke in pieces the rocks ; but the Lord was not in the wind : and after the wind an earth- quake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake: and after the earthquake a fire ; but the Lord was not in the fire : and after the fire a still small voice. And it was so when Elijah heard it, that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out, and stood in the entering in of the cave.” - “The Lord was not in the wind ;”—that is, he did not answer Elijah out of the whirlwind, as he did Job; nor out of the earthquake, nor out of the fire. These awful appearances were only harbingers which preceded the voice of Jehovah. On hearing the still small voice, like the seraphim on the appearance of the Divine glory, he wrapped his face in his mantle, and retired to his cave. The interrogation, “What dost thou here, Elijah 3 '' is repeated, and Elijah repeats his answer. The Lord re- plies, by directing him to go on his way to the wilderness of Damascus; to anoint Hazael to be king over Syria, Jehu to be king over Israel, and Elisha to be a prophet in the place of himself. This was an answer to Elijah's tacit reflection. It was saying, I have judgments enough in reserve, both temporal and spiritual, to vindicate my name, and Israel shall feel them in due time; for “it shall come to pass that him that escapeth the sword of Hazael shall Jehu slay, and him that escapeth the sword of Jehu shall Elisha slay.” But is all Israel gone off from God? Is it as Elijah supposes, that he only is left; and is it all wrath and terror that is revealed against them 3 No ; there is a heart-reviving exception at the end : “Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the names which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him.” These great events undoubtedly bear a near resemblance to the extraordinary appearances on the mount ; and it seems probable, if not more than probable, that the one were designed to represent the other. If so, the wind, the earthquake, and the fire, would refer to those dire calamities with which God was about to punish Israel for their apostacy; and the still small voice to the mercy and peace which should follow. Particularly, first, by the great and strong wind that rent the mountains, and broke in pieces the rocks, understand Hazael's wars, by which “the strong holds of Israel were set on fire, their young men slain with the sword, their children dashed, and their women with child ripped up :” by these means God pun- ished the common people. Secondly, by the earthquake understand the revolution of Jehu, who “ smote the house of Ahab, and avenged the blood of the prophets, and of all the Lord’s servants, at the hand of Jezebel :” by this God punished the royal family. Thirdly, by the fire un- derstand Elisha's trying prophecies, and the judgments which accompanied them : by these it is probable the idolatrous priests and false prophets were confounded. Fourthly, by the still small voice understand the mercy and goodness which followed these dire calamities. It was doubtless soothing to Elijah's mind to be told of seven thousand faithful men in reserve; and while they re- mained in the nation a reserve of mercy in its favour might be expected, notwithstanding all their transgressions. And this was actually experienced under the reigns of Je- hoahaz the son and Joash the grandson of Jehu. The for- mer “besought the Lord, and the Lord hearkened unto him ; for he saw the oppression of Israel, because the king of Syria oppressed them.—Hazael king of Syria oppressed Israel all the days of Jehoahaz; but the Lord was gracious unto them, and had compassion on them, and had respect unto them, because of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and would not destroy them, neither cast he them from his presence as yet ; so Hazael king of Assyria died, and Benhadad his son reigned in his stead.” As there appears to have been a resemblance in the wind, the earthquake, the fire, and the still small voice, to the events which succeeded, so there is something in the order of these things analogous to the general tenor of the Divine proceedings. It is common for the still small voice to succeed the wind, the earthquake, and the fire; or, in other words, for the blessings of mercy and peace to be preceded by terrible things in righteousness. When God revealed his word unto Moses, and by him to Israel, the terrors of Mount Sinai were preparatory to other things of a different mature. Many of the appear. ances on that solemn occasion i esembled those on the pre- sent; and indeed there appears a manifest allusion in the account of Elijah to that in the nineteenth chapter of Exodus. Nor does the still small voice which terminated the one less resemble the declarations of mercy which fol- lowed the other. Jehovah proclaimed himself, “the Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth;” promising also “to raise up unto them a prophet from the midst of them, like unto Moses, to whom they should hearken.” The dispensations of Providence have generally moved in a similar order. Many terrible judgments have fallen on the world; but they have been commonly followed with peace and mercy to the church. The plagues of Egypt, and the destruction of Pharaoh and his host in the Red Sea, terminated in the joyful deliverance of the peo- ple of God. The same was true of the overthrow of Ba- bylon by the Persians. Thus it was that by terrible things in righteousness God answered the prayers of his people. The great calamities with which the world was afflicted, by the successive struggles of the four great monarchies of Babylon, Persia, Macedon, and Rome, ter- minated in the peaceful empire of the Son of God. The diadem was overturned, overturned, and overturned again, till he came whose right it was, and to him it was given. Similar observations might be made on the Lord’s pro- ceedings in the dispensation of his grace. As the thunders of Sinai preceded the blessings of Zion, so the terrible is still seen in many instances to go before the peaceful. Deep conviction may produce fearful expectation of eternal ruin; but if it terminate in a well-grounded peace, we do not regret the pain of mind, because it renders the hope of the gospel more welcome. Finally, Is there not reason to hope from these things that the present convulsions of the world will be followed with peace and prosperity to the church 3 The fall of ancient Babylon was followed by the liberation of the people of God; and it is intimated in prophecy that the fall of the New Testament Babylon shall be followed by the “marriage-supper of the Lamb.” The present may be the time of whirlwinds, earthquakes, and fires, and God as the God of grace may be in none of them ; but they may be preparatory to the still small voice of truth and peace. In this God will be present, and will be heard. Then “the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills, and all nations shall flow unto it.” Should this be the issue of the present convulsed state of the nations, afflictive as it may be, it will be more than compensated, and serve as a foil to heighten the glory that shall follow. THE LYING SPIRIT PERSU AIDING AHAB. 1 Kings xxii. 21—23. WHEN Ahab sent for Micaiah, there was evidently no sincerity in his request. Like many others, who ask counsel of their friends, and even seek direction of God, not with a view to be influenced, but in hope of being countenanced by it, he was determined to go against Ramoth-gilead, let Micaiah say what he might. The messenger sent to call Micaiah seems to have been fur- nished with a secret message ; and tried what he could do at tampering with the prophet. Hence it appears evident that Ahab did not desire to know the mind of God, but chose delusion. Micaiah came, and Ahab thus accosted him : “Micaiah, shall we go against Ramoth-gilead to battle, or shall we forbear’: " Micaiah answered in a strain of irony, (which might be very evident from his tone and manner of delivery,) “.Go and prosper. The Lord will doubtless deliver it into the hand of the king;” for who can hesitate on the truth of that which has the testi- mony of four hundred prophets to confirm it? Ahab felt the irony, and conjured him to be serious. THE MYSTERY OF PROVIDENCE. 509 Micaiah then assumed another tone, and told him the truth with out reserve; and which amounted to nothing less than that he should lose his life in the battle. Ahab, full of rancour, appealed to Jehoshaphat, that he had told him beforehand what would be the effect of sending for this man. Micaiah, like a man of God, now looked the very monarch in the face, and said, “Hear the word of the Lord!” It may be thought incredible that I only should be right, and four hundred prophets in the wrong: I will relate a vision that will perfectly account for it :— I beheld the Lord, the great disposer of all events, sit- ting upon his throne, surrounded by the host of heaven. Fully acquainted with the whole of thy ungodly life, and viewing thee as ripe for destruction, he determined to destroy thee; and seeing that, in this instance, thou hast preferred flattery to truth, he has determined to destroy thee by means of flattery. Know then, Ahab, that hell and all its agents, delusion and all its instruments, are under his control ; they go and come at his bidding. That spirit to whom thou hast sold thyself to work wickedness in the sight of the Lord now desires thee for his prey. He that has seduced thee into sin now asks permission of God to deceive thy prophets, that he may plunge thee into destruction ; and God has granted him his desire. And that which Satan is doing for his own ends God will do for his. There is as much of the judicial band of God in a lying spirit having misled thy prophets, as of readiness in the evil one to entangle and seize thee as his prey. THE MYSTERY OF PROVIDENCE. Job xii. 6—25. THE great controversy between Job and his friends re- spected the system of providence. They maintained that God governed the world upon the principle of minute retribution, rendering to every man in the present life according to his works. When, therefore, great calamities befell an individual, they concluded that he was more wicked than other men. He, on the contrary, maintained that the system of providence proceeded on no such prin- ciples, but on a large scale, full of inscrutable wisdom ; and that good and evil came alike to men, whether they were righteous or wicked. In proof of this, he appeals to the following things:– First, The success which often attends the worst of men, even in the worst of causes: “The tabernacles of robbers prosper, and they that provoke God are secure, into whose hand God bringeth abundantly.” Secondly, The large proportion which wicked men pos- sess of the earth and its productions: “But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee; or speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee; and the fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee.” As if he should say, Ask them to whom they belong. Is it to good men only, or chiefly 7 Is it for the righteous few that the animals breed, or the produc- tions of the earth vegetate 3 Is it not also, yea principally, the proud and the luxurious 3 Thirdly, Adverse providences towards individuals and families, which are dispensed alike to good and bad, which there is no withstanding, and from which there is no escaping : “Behold, he breaketh down, and it cannot be built again: he shutteth up a man, and there can be no opening.” Fourthly, Public calamities, which also come alike to all ; such as drought and consequent famine at one time ; and desolating inundations at another : “Behold, he withholdeth the waters, and they dry up ; also, he sendeth them out, and they overturn the earth.” Fifthly, The absolute and supreme control of God over all the devices and intrigues of men. Instead of preserv- ing the weak, and punishing the mighty, according to the minute rules of retributive justice, he in this world lays his mighty hand on both, and causes each to subserve his infinitely wise purposes: “With him is strength and wis- dom; the deceived and the deceiver are his.” Lastly, He appeals to those events which agitate the world, and involve the overthrow of nations; in which calamities come alike to all, without respect to character. It is a very affecting picture which is here drawn, from the 17th verse to the end of the chapter, of the overthrow of a nation by invasion. It is described as follows:— The great advisers of public measures are driven from their seats, and the administrators of government are like men beside themselves, not knowing what measures to take : “He leadeth counsellors away spoiled, and maketh the judges fools.” . The strong band of power which kept all orders of the state in subjection is dissolved, and the sovereign himself becomes bound with the cord of a captive : “He looseth the bond of kings, and girdeth their loins with a girdle.” Governors of provinces are led captive, and the com- manders of armies defeated in battle : “He leadeth princes away spoiled, and overthroweth the mighty.” The patriotic orator, whose eloquence has so often charmed a nation, and whose counsel has been frequently resorted to in a perilous hour, is heard no more; the wisdom also of the most experienced statesman is nonplussed : “He removeth away the speech of the trusty, and taketh away the understanding of the aged.” The most illustrious characters are stripped of their ex- cellency, and those whose words made nations tremble, having lost their influence, are become weak as other men: “He poureth contempt upon princes, and weaken- eth the strength of the mighty.” On such an awful occasion, a darkness supernatural seems to have burst upon the world ; as though the shades of death had found their way from beneath, and had covered the face of the earth, so that men are bewildered and lost in their pursuits: “He discovereth deep things out of darkness, and bringeth out to light the shadow of death.” Such an event has an influence on surrounding nations. Like a mountain sinking into the sea and agitating the waters, it puts every thing out of place. Some are in- creased by its spoils, others ruined by its overthrow, and even the same nation is by turns both sunk and raised, contracted and enlarged : “He increaseth the nations, and destroyeth them : he enlargeth the nations, and straiten- eth them again.” Finally, Those great characters of the land who have escaped the hands of the conqueror, yet, having lost all spirit to resist or to stand their ground, betake themselves to flight. Wandering up and down the world, like men who have lost their way in a wilderness, they become in- toxicated with grief and dismay, and know not what measures to take to retrieve their losses; or if they did, have no resolution to pursue them : “He taketh away the heart of the chief of the people of the earth, and causeth them to wander in a wilderness where there is no way. They grope in the dark without light, and he maketh them to stagger like a drunken man.” O my soul can I meditate on such a catastrophe with- out feeling for others, or fearing for my native country 3 Yet, if such should be its lot, it is a part of that great sys- tem of providence that directs all human suffering, and will ultimately issue in the greatest good. Meanwhile, “ having received a kingdom that cannot be moved,” may I have grace that I may serve God acceptably with rever- ence and with godly fear. THE WISDOM PROPER, TO MAN. Job xxviii. IN the warm disputes between Job and his friends, the great question was, Whether the providence of God towards men, in a way of prosperity or adversity, afforded any criterion of character. They contended it did ; and there- fore concluded from the sore calamities which had befallen him that he was a wicked man. He, on the contrary, contended that it did not ; and that there is a depth in God's ways which surpasseth mortal scrutiny. Such is the 5 10 EXPOSITORY NOTES.—JOB XXVIII. drift of his argument all through this chapter; in which he allows that man had dug deep, but contends that it was not deep enough for this; that this was wisdom peculiar to God, and that the wisdom which was proper to man was of another description. Man, he allows, had found out many things ; he had not only surveyed all that was visible on the face of the earth, but had gone into the bowels of it in search of hid- den treasures. By carrying artificial light into the mine- ral regions, he had in a manner contracted the reign of darkness. Subterranean floods had yielded to his control. Leaving far behind him that part of his species who ob- tained bread by cultivating the surface, he had descended in search of the sparkling ore and the brilliant gems. He had trodden a path unoccupied by either bird or beast. By applying his skill to the massy rocks, though so deep as to form as it were the roots of mountains, he had piece by piece fairly overturned them. Being incommoded by waters, he had, for the purpose of drawing them off, and for washing away the rubbish, that the precious ob- jects of his pursuit might become visible, made channels at the bottom of the mine like rivers ; and, lest they should rise and overflow him, he had contrived by the use of machinery to diminish and thereby to confine them within proper bounds. In short, by his skill and perseverance he had brought forth the precious articles to light. See him walking upon the earth in triumph : Who can deny him their applause ? After all these deep and successful researches, however, one question remained unanswered—“Where shall wis- dom be found 3 and where is the place of understanding 3" The vein, or mine, where wisdom grows was yet unex- plored. The depths of providence were still beyond human reach. Industry could not discover it, nor all its precious treasures purchase it ! You may search, not the earth only, but the ocean, and still the question will return, “Whence cometh wisdom ? and where is the place of understanding?” It is hid from the eyes of all living, even from the most soaring minds. Death or futurity may throw some light upon it; but even that will be partial. A perfect com- prehension of it is the prerogative of God only. He only who made all things can comprehend his own designs. There is, however, a species of wisdom within the pro- vince of man; and let him attend to that as his own pro- per concern. Unto man he said, “The fear of the Lord, that is wisdom ; and to depart from evil is understanding.” From the whole, we see there are three species of wis- dom :—The first is the wisdom of this world, which is common among men;–the next is the wisdom peculiar to God, but to which men too frequently aspire;—and the last is the wisdom from above, which is proper to man. With respect to the first, there is much to admire. The extent to which human ingenuity will go, in accomplish- ing worldly objects, is astonishing. The energies herein - exerted are worthy of a better cause. What self-denial, what resolution, what contrivance, what application, what patience, what perseverance 1 There is scarcely a danger, but men will encounter it; or a difficulty, but they will surmount it. That which strength cannot effect at once, art and application will accomplish by degrees. But, alas ! the prize for which all these energies are exerted is perish- ing, and will shortly be of no account. “Where then is wisdom and where is the place of understanding 2" Surely it is not here ! With respect to the second, it is not Job's friends only that have intruded into things which they have not seen. “It is well,” said a great writer, “for man to know the length of his tether.” Our Saviour was asked, “Whether there were few that should be saved ?” But he refused a direct answer; and there are hundreds of questions started in divinity, which, I believe, Christ and his apostles would have treated in the same manner. I have seem attempts to ascertain how God exists in three persons,—how Divine predestination consists with human agency and account- ableness, how a pure creature came to entertain the idea of casting off the government of his Creator; and many other things of the kind; but they always seemed to me to darken counsel with words without knowledge. We find the solution of no such question in the word of God; and we find Moses warning the Israelites that “secret things belong unto the Lord our God; but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever.” We also hear David declaring, “Lord, my heart is not haughty, nor mine eyes lofty; neither do I exercise myself in great matters, or in things too high for me. Surely I have behaved and quieted myself as a child that is weaned of his mother ; my soul is even as a weaned child.” Let vain men on this account go on to speak of the Scriptures as not adapted to “any high perfection in knowledge; ”—let them charge the sacred writers, and even their Lord himself, with ignorance ; * but let not serious Christians aim to be wise above what is written. When we see a writer of this description discussing sub- jects too high for him, and concerning which the Scriptures are silent, however we may respect his character or his talents, we must needs say to him as Job does to the miner, “Where is wisdom ? and where is the place of un- derstanding 3’” It is beyond the limits of thy researches. The third and last kind of wisdom is that which is pro- per to man. “Unto man he said, The fear of the Lord, that is wisdom ; and to depart from evil is understanding.” It is practical, and not merely speculative. All speculative knowledge is either in itself injurious, or, through the corruption of the human heart, dangerous; but this di- rectly tends to humble, and so to profit the soul. The very words are of a humbling nature ; it is the language of a wise master to a weak but conceited servant, charging him to keep to that employment which he has set him about, and not to neglect it by interfering in what does not concern him, It is language that abases the pride of science; for in fearing the Lord, and departing from evil, the unlearned and learned stand upon the same ground. Science, it is true, is in many ways friendly to religion; but, to render it truly profitable, it is necessary that, amidst all its acquirements, a man should “ become a fool that he may be wise.” Finally, the language implies that man is so sunk and entangled in evil, that there is work enough for his understanding, during the short space allotted him in this world, to depart from it. Instead of perplexing himself with things too high for him, let him ask, “Where with shall a young man cleanse his way ?” How is the love of evil to be conquered ? What principle is that which will raise my soul from the bondage of cor- ruption ? Where is the good way, that I may walk in it, and find rest for my soul ? “Here is wisdom, and here is the place of understanding,” at least, that which is pro- per to man. INWARD WITNESS OF THE SPIRIT, OR GOD SPEAKING PEACE TO HIS PEOPLE. Psal. lxxxv. 8; xxxv. 3. THE meaning of these passages requires to be ascertaine, from the context. The former appears to have been writ- ten after the captivity, and on account of the Jews having fallen into sad declensions, which had brought on fresh troubles. In the foregoing part of the Psalm, the writer acknowledges God's great goodness in their restoration; and on this grounds a plea that he would again turn them from their sins, and cause his anger to cease. And having offered up his petition, “Show us thy mercy, O Lord, and grant us thy salvation,” he sets himself as it were upon his watch tower, to receive an answer, which his confidence in the Divine goodness presumed would be an answer of peace. The word “shalom,” in the Old Testament, com- monly signifies prosperity. This was the object for which he had been praying; and when he says, “God will speak peace unto his people,” he means, I take it, that he will bestow prosperity upon them. For GoD to speak peace is the same thing as to bestow it; he speaks, and it is done ; he commands, and it stands fast. - The meaning of the other passage is much the same. It is a prayer of David, that God would save him from his enemies; as if he should say, Speak but the word, “I am thy salvation,” and all my enemies will be disappointed. * Lindsey's Apology, Chap. II. Priestley on Necessity, p. 133. INWARD WITNESS OF THE SPIRIT". 5 ! I Concerning believers of the present day, the question amounts to this : In what form or manner does God com- municate peace to our minds, and the knowledge of our in- terest ºn his salvation ? There is no doubt but that true Christians do possess, though not without interruption, peace of mind, joy in the Holy Ghost, and a solid, well-grounded persuasion of their interest'in eternal life ; and some have represented these enjoyments as conveyed to the heart by immediate revela- tion from heaven, or by the suggestion of some passage of Scripture to the mind, the import of which seems to include the happy intelligence. Suppose, for example, a person to be under great dejection and fear respecting his interest in Christ, and while he is poring over his case the passage above alluded to is suggested to his mind, “I am thy salva- tion;” some would suppose this was no other than the voice of God speaking peace to his soul, and that for him to question the goodness of his state after this would be unbelief. If this be God’s way of manifesting himself to his people, then revelation is not perfect; but God is making new revelations, and revelations of new truths continually; for as to the interest that any individual has in spiritual bless- ings, be it ever so much a truth, it is no where directly re- vealed in the Scriptures; nor is there any possible way of proving it thence, except by inference. There is not a passage in the Bible that says, concerning any one of us, “I am thy salvation.” The Scripture speaks only of characters; and if we answer to these characters, we can prove that the things promised belong to us, but not other- wise. I own that I consider all such suggestions, wherein it is not the truth contained in the passage itself, but a presumption of its being immediately sent from God to the party, that affords the comfort, as real enthusiasm, and as destitute of all foundation in the word of God. I do not deny that many godly people have been carried away by such things; but I have seen evils, more than a few, which have arisen from them. Those persons who ground their evidences for heaven on impressions of Scripture on their minds are generally favoured, as they suppose, with many other revelations, besides those which relate to their interest in eternal life. They are often directed as to present duty, and informed of future events. If in a state of hesitation as to the path of duty, they pray to the Lord; so far they do well. But in addition to this, instead of inquiring into the mind of God as revealed in his word, they expect some immediate sug- gestion from him. And if, while they are thinking of the conduct in question, such a passage as that occur to their minds, “This is the way, walk ye in it,” they immedi- ately conclude that this is a direction from God to follow that particular course which at the time occupied the mind, and which generally if not always proves to be the course to which their hearts were previously inclined. By such means many have been deluded into great errors, to the dishonour of God and the ruin of their future peace. . By the same means others have been led to suppose themselves in the secret of God concerning future events. They have been praying, it may be, for the conversion of a favourite child, and some such passage as this has been Suggested to their minds. “I will surely have mercy upon him, saith the Lord.” Hence they have concluded that the child would sometime be converted and saved. And this their confidence has been communicated till the child himself has heard of it; and being willing to catch at any thing that might buoy up his vain hope, he has presumed upon a future conversion while living in a course of sin. At length, however, the parent has witnessed the death of the child, and that without any signs of a change. The consequence has been despondency, and calling in question his own personal religion. If, says he, this promise did not come from God, I have no reason to think any other did ; and so all may be delusion. This is not the worst. Godly persons are not the only characters who have passages of Scripture impressed upon their minds, and that “with power,” as it is often termed. The most abandoned sinners, if they have been used to read and hear the word of God, can talk of such things as these. I have seldom known persons of this description but who have some such false hope, by which they quiet their minds amidst a career of iniquity. Twenty or thirty years ago, they will tell you, they were under strong con- victions, and they had a promise; and have ever since had some hope that they should at last be saved, though they must confess that their life has been very far from what it should have been. But the question will again be asked, In what way does God speak peace to his people, or say wrºto a soul, I am thy salvation ? If I were to answer, By bestowing gospel peace upon them, or enabling them to discern and approve the gospel way of salvation, it would be a just application of the pas- sages where these expressions are found, and would accord with other scriptures. The Lord directs poor sinners, saying, “Ask for the good old way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls,” Jer. vi. 16. Our Lord takes up this language, and applies the good old way to himself, saying, “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me, and ye shall find rest to your souls,” Matt. xi. 28, 29. Thus it is by an approving view of God’s way of salvation, such a view as leads us to walk in it, that we may obtain peace : and thus it is that God speaks peace to the soul, and says, “I am thy salvation.” It is very indifferent by what means we are brought to embrace the gospel way of salvation, if we do but cordially embrace it. It may be by silent reflection, by reading or hearing the word, or by some suitable part of Scripture occurring to the mind, by means of which the soul is led to see its lost condition and the only door of hope opened by the gospel. There is such a harmony in Divine truth, that a proper view of any one branch of it will lead on to a discovery of others; and such a connexion that we can- not cordially approve of a part, but that the whole will follow. And no sooner is the gospel in possession of the heart than joy and peace will ordinarily accompany it ; for if we behold the glory of God’s way of saving sinners, and approve of it, we must, in a greater or less degree, be cone scious of it; and knowing that the whole tenor of the New Testament promises eternal life to believers, we can- not but conclude ourselves interested in it. Believing on the Son of God, we are justified ; and being thus justified, we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, Rom. v. 1. PASSAGES IN THE BOOK OF PROVERBS. CHAP. xii. 1, “Whoso loveth instruction loveth know- ledge; but he that hateth reproof is brutish.” He and he only that loves the means loves the end. The means of knowledge are “instruction” in what is right, and “reproof” for what is wrong. He who is an enemy to either of these means is an enemy to the end ; and, whatever he may pretend to, he deserves not the name of a man, but of a “ brute.” Ver. 3, “A man shall not be established by wickedness; but the root of the righteous shall not be moved.” Men are apt to think of gaining their ends by wicked means, but they shall not succeed. In the end their building shall fall; but righteousness will stand at last, when all is said and done. Wer. 5, “The thoughts of the righteous are right; but the counsels of the wicked are deceit.” A righteous man, in taking counsel, does not merely consult what will be for his worldly interest, but whether the thing itself be right in the sight of God and man; and as to those who never take this into consideration, though they think they have advantage of an upright man, in that they are not scrupulously confined to rule as he is, yet it is all self-deception. They shall either be disappointed of their ends, or disappointed in them. “ Do they not err that devise evil? But mercy and truth shall be to them that devise good,” chap. xiv. 22. Chap. xiii. 11, “Wealth gotten by vanity shall be di- minished; but he that gathereth by labour shall increase.” Lightly come, say we, lightly go. What is ill-gotten is commonly ill-spent. Yea, not only wealth obtained by * tº 512 ExPOSITORY NOTES.–ECCLES. VII. 15–19. injustice, but that also which is obtained by mean and niggardly actions. - Ver. 14, “The law of the wise is a fountain of life, to depart from the snares of death.” Place a wise man in the seat of government, and the “ law” he enacts will not be such as shall be grievous to the people, but rather such as shall be a blessing to them, and like a fence to guard the traveller from falling into a it. Ver. 19, “The desire accomplished is sweet to the soul; but it is abomination to fools to depart from evil.” The accomplishment of desire is essential to happiness; this is only to be expected in the way of righteousness: but it is abomination to fools to depart from evil. Chap. xiv. 2, “He that walketh in his uprightness fear- eth the Lord: but he that is perverse in his ways despiseth him.” All our actions, in some respects, have God for their object. Real uprightness is fearing God; and perverse- mess, by disregarding his authority, is a contempt of God. Ver. 6, “A scorner seeketh wisdom, and findeth it not : but knowledge is easy unto him that understandeth.” The state and disposition of the heart determine our success in the pursuit of truth. If our inquiries be influ- enced by a spirit of pride and self-sufficiency, we shall stumble at every thing we meet with ; but he who knows his own weakness, and conducts his inquiries with hu- mility, shall find knowledge easy of attainment. “The meek will he guide in judgment, and the meek will he teach his way,” Psal. xxv. 9. Ver. 7, “Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge.” Silence is the best answer to some persons; disputing with them will be of no use. Ver. 23, “In all labour there is profit: but the talk of the lips tendeth only to penury.” Tell me not of those who talk most, but of those who do most. Chap. xxx. 24–28, “There be four things which are little upon the earth, but they are exceeding wise. The ants are a people not strong, yet they prepare their meat in the summer : the conies * are a feeble flock, yet make they their houses in the rocks: the locusts have no king, yet go they forth all of them by bands: the spider taketh hold with her hands, and is in kings' palaces.” Man is here sent to four of the most diminutive parts of the creation, to learn wisdom from their instinctive sa- gacity. Each of them is “little, but exceeding wise.” Vain man would be wise, but it cannot be. Ere he can be wise, he must become a fool. Man is naturally more diminutive in the sight of God than the smallest insect can be in our sight; and by sin has rendered himself of little account indeed in a moral view. Child of man know thine insignificance, and follow the example of these little creatures, who are placed before thee to furnish thee with instruction. Go to the ants, and know in this thy day the things which belong to thy peace, ere they be for ever hid from thine eyes. Go to the rabbits, and learn to trust not in thine own strength, but in the power of omnipotent grace. Go to the locusts, which, without king or commander, preserve the strictest order; and be ashamed that the best laws, human or Divine, are insufficient to prevent thy dis- cords, or preserve moral order in the world. Go to the spider, and observe the slender curtains by which she is surrounded. Hail, rain, or wind would sweep them all away; beasts of the field would tread them under foot; birds of the air would seize the inhabitant for their prey. But she avails herself of the abodes of the lord of the creation for a shelter, and even of the sumptuous buildings of the most exalted characters. Learn hence, feeble and despicable as thou art, to trust for safety where alone it can be found ; aspire to the heaven of heavens, and lay hold of eternal life. • The word by some is rendered mountain mice. MEDIOCRITY IN WISDOM AND WIRTUE SATIRIZED. w Eccles. vii. 15–19. THERE have been various opinions on the advice of the wise man, “Be not righteous overmuch,” &c. Great numbers have produced it with a view to censure religious zeal, and in favour of a spirit of indifference. Others, who would abhor such an abuse of it, have yet thought it di- rected against intemperate zeal. Others have thought righteousness and wisdom here to mean a spirit of self- righteousness, and a being wise in our own eyes. Others have thought the verses to be a caution against presumption on the one hand, and despair on the other. And some have considered the whole book as a dialogue between a libertine and a moral philosopher ; and that the above passage is the language of the former. It is not my design to find fault with any except the first ; though I acknow- ledge they have none of them afforded me satisfaction. The following paraphrase is submitted to the judgment of the intelligent reader. Suppose Solomon to be addressing himself to a young man, which he frequently does, under the character of a son, not only in the Proverbs, but in this book also, chap. xi. 9; xii. 1, 12. And suppose verses 16 and 17 to be an irony, or a cutting sarcasm upon the wºnrighteous and foolish taste of the world. - Ver. 15, “ All things have I seen in the days of my vanity: there is a just man that perisheth in his righteous- ness, and there is a wicked man that prolongeth his life in his wickedness.” I have lived to see many strange things in my lifetime; things that have made me lose all liking to the present state. I have seen uprightness, instead of promoting a man in the esteem of those about him, only serve to bring him to ruin. I have also seen wickedness, instead of ex- posing a man to the loss of life or estate, often go un- punished, yea, and even be the means of his promotion. Ver. 16, “Be not righteous over-much, neither make thyself over-wise: why shouldest thou destroy thyself?” My son, if you wish to go through the world with ap- plause, hearken to me. You must not be very righteous, I assure you ! nor yet very wise. A man whose conscience will stick at nothing will get promoted before you ; and a vain, confident fool will gain the popular applause, while you, with your sterling but modest wisdom, will be utterly neglected. Be not over-much wise nor righteous, my son: why should you ruin yourself? Wer. 17, “ Be not over-much wicked ; neither be thou foolish: why shouldest thou die before thy time?” - Only take care you be not too much wicked ; for, how- ever mankind are averse to tenderness of conscience, they do not like an arrant villain. If you play too much at that game, you may lose your life by it. Neither must you be too much of a fool; for however mankind are not fond of sterling wisdom, yet barefaced folly will not always go down with them : if you would please the world, and get honour among the generality of men, you must be neither a sterling wise man nor a stark fool. - As it is the distinguishing mark of an irony to close seriously, and as such a close gives it its edge and force (see 1 Kings xxii. 15, 17; Eccles. xi. 9); so now it is supposed the irony ends, and the serious style is resumed. Ver. 18, “It is good that thou shouldest take hold of this; yea, also from this withdraw not thine hand : for he that feareth God shall come forth of them all.” As if he should say, But hearken, my son ; another word before we part. Notice what I say to you, and abide by it. Let the world say what they will, and let things go as they may in the world, righteousness and wisdom shall be found best at last ; and he that feareth God will not dare to sacrifice these excellences to obtain a few temporary honours: he will sooner live and die in obscurity. Ver, i9, “Wisdom strengtheneth the wise more than ten ºn:ghty men which are in the city.” A consciousness of his being in the right, too, will wonderfully sustain his mind; far more than any popular j FULFILMENT OF PROPHECY. 513 applause could do, or even the rewards and honours of the great. If the above be the sense of the passage, then, it may be observed, how foreign as well as foolish is that sense which some have put upon it, as if it were intended to recommend a kind of mediocrity of virtue and vice; whereas this is the very thing intended to be satirized . A sensualist might as well plead for his practices from chap. xi. 9, “Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth,” &c., as a lukewarm professor use this passage to plead for his in- difference. THE ZEAL OF THE LORD OF HOSTS PLEDGED FOR THE FULFILMENT OF PROPHECY. Isa. ix. 7. PROPHECY is with great propriety called “a light that shineth in a dark place.” There is not only a general darkness attending the present state, under which the light of revelation is as a lamp to our feet; but a more particular one with respect to the events of futurity, into which the light of prophecy, and that only, can penetrate. We are not to indulge an idle curiosity to pry into things which God hath been pleased to conceal ; but neither ought we to neglect those things which are not concealed, but rather to search them out. To the “sure word of prophecy we do well to take heed.” The context contains a glorious prediction of the coming and kingdom of the Messiah, a part of which we have already seen accomplished. We can now say in the lan- guage of history, what was then said only in the language of prophecy, “Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given.” We have seen the “government upon his shoul- ders,” and acknowledged him under all those expressive names by which he is there described, “Wonderful, Coun- sellor, mighty God, everlasting Father, Prince of peace.” There is one part of the prophecy however which yet re- mains to be fulfilled, and an important part too ; so im- portant as to interest the very heart of God. If Lowth's version be just, “the greaves of the armed warrior, and the garment rolled in much blood, shall be for a burning, even fuel for the fire,” (and it certainly agrees with what follows of the government of the Prince of peace,) this remains at present to be accomplished. Nor is this all : there is an increase in the government of the Messiah which has not yet been carried to its full extent. We have seen him sitting upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it, with judg- ment and with justice; but we have not yet seen judg- ment sent forth unto victory. Christ has yet to conquer a large portion of heathen superstition, Madomedan delu- sion, popish corruption, Jewish obstimacy, and deistical malignity. But it is not my design to insist so much on the specific objects of prophecy, as on the ground of assurance that We possess of its being accomplished; much has already come to pass, and the zeal of the Lord of hosts is pledged for the fulfilment of what remains. Zeal, as it respects the disposition of creatures, is an ardent affection of the mind. It comes from a word which signifies to burn. But this does not sufficiently distinguish it from other affections; for the same may be said of love and anger. ... Among other things, it is distinguished from these affections by its object. Love and anger commonly terminate on persons ; but zeal on a thing or things. Zeal is that ardour of mind which prompts us to pursue a course or undertaking with earnestness and perseverance, and to encounter every difficulty that may stand in the way of attaining our object. To render it justifiable, it requires that the object be good; that it be a good pro- portioned in magnitude to the effort ; and that it be itself pot a mere momentary passion, but an abiding principle. Each of these ideas is included in the words of the apostle to the Galatians, “It is good to be zealously affected always in a good thing;” and each will apply to the zeal of God, as well as to that of creatures. It may be questioned by some whether zeal is properly gº applied to the Divine Being, any more than anger and re- pentance. The reason why the latter, when applied to God, are interpreted figuratively, is, if I mistake not, that taken in their literal sense they, in their own nature, imply imperfection ; but I know not that this can be said of zeal, any more than of love ; and we are certainly not to conceive of God as void of pleasure or displeasure, or imagine that he is unconcerned with the affairs of his creatures. We might as well deprive him of existence as reduce him to a stock. We have the fullest evidence that his heart is deeply and invariably interested in his own cause ; and it is fit it should ; it is a cause which embraces every thing great and good, and therefore worthy of it. The strength of zeal is estimated by the degree of at- tention which it excites. Where we see the thoughts ab- sorbed in an object, the mind rejoicing in the contempla- tion of it, and other things pursued only in subserviency to it, we ascribe great zeal to the party. And thus it is, or nearly thus, that the Scriptures represent the Divine Being as engaged in the establishment of his own cause. It occupied his thoughts before the worlds were made. His infinite wisdom was exercised concerning it ; “re- joicing in the habitable part of the earth ; and its delights were with the sons of men.” All his other works have been pursued in subserviency to this. The work to be accomplished by Christ is that great work to which all others are preparatory ; for all things were created not only by him, but for him. The strength of zeal is estimated also by the efforts wsed and the expense bestowed in carrying it into execution. It was not the pleasure of God to exert his power to the uttermost at any period, but to accomplish his designs by slow degrees, that creatures at every step might perceive and admire; yet, from the day that war was first declared against the kingdom of Satan, never did he lose sight of his grand object, which was to establish another kingdom upon its ruins, or, as the Scriptures express it, “to send forth judgment unto victory.” For this he called Abraham, blessed and increased him, watched over his posterity, and made of them a great nation :-for this they were brought out of Egypt with a high hand, preserved in the wilder- ness, planted in Canaan, and every nation punished that set themselves to oppose them ;-for this Jehovah conde- scended to become their Legislator, gave them a body of laws, set up his worship amongst them, preserved them amidst the hatred of surrounding nations, and raised up his servants the prophets to bear testimony in their day, and to commit to writing the lively oracles of truth. If God interpose by a series of miracles, we may be assured it is for some great object, and something that lies near his heart. He would not turn the established laws of nature out of their course, for the accomplishment of little things. If the great exertions of Divine power in Egypt, in the wilderness, and through the whole history of Israel, had terminated in the events of those times,— if the Divine Being had no other object in view than taking part with one nation against a number of others, we might well be surprised, and almost question, as some on this account have dome, whether the religion of the Old Testament was a religion worthy of God. But if those Divine interpositions, unimportant as some of their events, unconnected with other things, may appear, were so many parts of one great design, they were worthy of him who is great in counsel and mighty in working. We have no reason to think the Divine Being would have made such sacrifices, as of Egypt, and the seven nations of Canaan, wicked as they were, but for the sake of some greater good that should result from it. To them it was a just punishment for their iniquity; but to the world, in its succeeding generations, as well as to Israel, it was a proceeding full of wisdom and mercy, and while we speak of the efforts and sacrifices which the Lord hath made in carrying this great cause into execution, the labours and sufferings of his servants must come into ac- count. Their tears have not escaped his notice, and their blood has been precious in his sight; nor would he have suffered millions of them to have fallen in a contest the issue of which would not more than make amends for all. But why do I speak of the sacrifice of nations, or of the blood of martyrs 3 He hath given his only begotten Son, 2 L 514 EXPOSITORY NOTES.–ISA. XXI. 11, 12. and given him to be made a sacrifice. For this purpose was the Son of God manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Now if such has been the zeal of Jehovah’s mind in the fulfilment of this great cause ; if it has occupied his thoughts before the worlds were made—if he rejoiced in the contemplation of its issue—if all his other works were pursued in subserviency to it—and if the greatest sacri- fices have been made to accomplish it—may we not hence form a judgment of the force of that sacred pledge that is given us for every part of it being in due time carried into execution? The zeal of the Lord of hosts, under whose banner we fight, ought, undoubtedly, to stimulate ours. It is the distinguishing character of a Christian to be of one heart with God and with Christ; this was the object of our Sa- viour's intercessory prayer, that we all might be one. If he, who in righteousness doth judge and make war, is described as riding on a white horse, the armies of heaven must also follow him upon white horses. Can we con- ceive of any encouragement to Christian activity equal to this 3 The zeal of prophets, apostles, and martyrs ani- mates us ; the efforts to spread the gospel among all de- nominations of serious Christians provoke us; and the disinterested love of those who have left all to bear the name of Christ amongst the heathen excites in us a lively hope that some good fruits will follow ; but what is all this to the zeal of the Lord of hosts? The great cause in which we are engaged lies nearer his heart than ours. Our little fires were kindled at his altar, and are fed by him continually. We are damped by difficulties, and dis- mayed by repeated disappointments, but he is not dismay- ed. What are Hindoo castes, Otaheitan voluptuousness, African barbarism, popish prejudice, Jewish obstinacy, or deistical malignity? Who will set the briers and thorns against him in the day of battle 4 He will go through them ; he will burn them up together. Finally, It is a truth that ought to sink deep into our hearts, that though God is pleased to honour us with being instruments in promoting his cause in the world, yet it is not because he stands in need of us. His cause will go on whether we help or hinder. If we are wicked, we may perish in our wickedness, but we cannot impede his designs. If, through weakness, fickleness, or unbelief, we go not up to possess the land; if missionary societies fail in their undertakings, and missionaries themselves be discouraged through want of success; the work will never- theless go on. Deliverance will arise. When our car- casses are dead in the wilderness, our children will renew the contest and succeed. The promise of Jehovah is pledged. The sacrifice of his Son will be rewarded. The souls under the altar will be heard. THE BURDEN OF DUMAH. Isa. xxi. 11, 12. IN offering an exposition of a difficult passage of Scripture, which has so much divided interpreters, it doubtless be- comes us to be diffident; yet I hope no apology need be made for attempts to elucidate any part of the sacred oracles. There are three distinct prophecies in this chapter, and they are all termed burdens, as containing heavy judg- ments. The first respects Babylon, called “the desert of the sea,” whose overthrow by the Medes and Persians is predicted in the first ten verses; the next Dumah, Idumea, or Edom, inhabiting Mount Seir ; and the last Arabia. The fall of Babylon by the Medes and Persians is an- nounced under the form of a watchman stationed to dis- cover approaching objects, with orders to declare what he saw, ver, 6–9. It was an event peculiarly interesting to Judah. Babylon was the floor on which Judah was to be thrashed, till the refuse should be separated from the grain. The event which destroyed the one delivered the other. It was on account of this interest which the people of God had in the fall of this oppressive city that the Scriptures deign to notice it, as is intimated in that pathetic address in ver, 10, “O my threshing, and the corn of my floor: that which I have heard of the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, have I declared unto you.” The fall of Babylon was interesting to other nations as well as Judah; particularly to the Idumeans or Edomites, who were reduced to servitude by its arms within a few years after the taking of Jerusalem. Now, seeing that Judah had received a favourable report, Edom must needs inquire of the watchman (like Pharaoh’s baker of Joseph, after he had announced good tidings to the butler) whe- ther there were nothing equally favourable for them. The answer is, NOTHING ; but, on the contrary, the lot of Ju- dah’s enemies, “a burdem.” - The revolution would indeed, for a time, excite the joy of the conquered nations; all the trees of the forest would triumph on that occasion ; saying to Babylon, “Since thou art fallen, no feller is come up against us;” but the Edomites should meet with a disappointment. To them a change of government should be only a change of masters. The fair morning of their hopes should issue in a long and dark night of despondency. In the day of Babylon’s fall, according to the prayer of the captives, when every prisoner was lifting up his head in hope, Edom was re- membered, as excepted from an act of grace, on account of his singular atrocities, Psal. cxxxvii. 7–9. The Edomites were very impatient under the Baby- lonish yoke, and very importunate in their inquiries after deliverance; reiterating the question, “What of the night? watchman, what of the night?” When will this dark and long captivity be ended ? And now that their hopes are repulsed by the watchman’s answer, they are exceedingly unwilling to relinquish them. Loth to depart with an answer so ungrateful, they linger, and inquire again and again, in hopes that the sentence may be reversed. But they are told that all their lingering is in vain. “If ye will inquire, inquire ye, return, come * again; yet shall your answer be the same. * And what was the crime of the Edomites that should draw down upon them this heavy burden, this irresistible doom ? Their inveterate hatred of the people of God. “For thy violence against thy brother Jacob shame shall cover thee, and thou shalt be cut off for ever,” Obad. 10. Perhaps there was no nation whose treatment of Israel was so invariably spiteful, and whose enmity was ac- companied with such aggravating circumstances. They were descended from Abraham and Isaac, and were treated by Israel, at the time they came out of Egypt, as brethren; but as then they returned evil for good, (Numb. xx. 14–21,) so it was ever afterwards. Their conduct, on the me- lancholy occasion of Jerusalem’s being taken by the Chaldeans, was infamous beyond every thing. They re- joiced in it, joined the plunderers, insulted their afflicted rethren, and stood in the cross-ways to cut off, or deliver up, those of them that had escaped, Obad. 10–16. The passage affords a tremendous lesson to ungodly sinners, and especially to those who, having descended from pious parents, and possessed religious advantages, are, notwithstanding, distinguished by their enmity to true religion. The situation of the Edomites rendered it impossible for them to be so ignorant as other heathen nations of the God of Israel; and their hatred appears to have been proportioned to their knowledge. Such is the character of great numbers in the religious world. They have both seen and hated the truth. The consequence will be, if grace prevent mot, they will flatter themselves awhile with vain hopes; but, ere they are aware, their morning will be changed into endless night. Edom was once addressed in the language of kindness and brotherly affection; but having turned a deaf ear to this, all their inquiries after deliverance are now utterly disregarded. Such will be the end of sinners. “When once the Judge hath risen up, and shut the door,” they may begin to knock, may inquire and return, and come again, but all will be in vain : a night of ever-during darkness must be their portion. The passage also, taken in its connexion, holds up to us the different situation of the friends and enemies of God under public calamities. It is natural in such seasons for all to inquire, “What of the night? watch- APPLICATION OF ABSOLUTE PROMISES. 515 man, what of the night? Each also may experience 3, portion of successive light and darkness in his lot. But the grand difference lies in what shall be the issue of things. God's people were thrashed on the floor of Babylon; and, when purified, were presently restored. To them there arose light in darkness. Weeping con- tinued for a night, but joy came in the morning. Not so with Edom ; their night came last. Such will be the por- tion of God’s enemies: they may wish for changes, in hope of their circumstances being bettered; but the prin- cipal thing wanting is a change in themselves. While strangers to this, the oracles of heaven prophesy no good concerning them. A morning may come ; but the night cometh also. APPLICATION OF ABSOLUTE PROMISES, Such as Isa. xliii. 25. THE sense of this passage, like most others, requires to be ascertained from the context. God is addressing Jacob, or Israel, as a nation, and reminding them of their great depravity; whence he asserts that all the mercy exercised towards them must be free or unmerited. God often spared them as a nation, when he might utterly have destroyed them, and must have done so had he dealt with them according to their sins; and his thus remitting the punishment of their iniquity was a kind of national pardon, Numb. xiv. 19, 20. Such a pardon was bestow- ed of God, for his “ own name’s sake; ” or, as he often reminds them, out of regard to the covenant which he had made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ; and was extend- ed equally to the godly and ungodly among them. To fulfil the promise which he had made to the patriarchs, of preserving their posterity in being as a nation, till Shiloh the Messiah should come, it was necessary that many such national remissions should be bestowed ; though multitudes among them were uninterested in such a pardon as is connected with eternal life. If the forementioned passage include any thing more than the above, if it comprehend such a forgiveness of sins as implies the special favour of God, it could belong to none but the godly among them. The truth taught in the passage will doubtless apply to them, and to all other godly persons; namely, that the forgiveness of their sins is wholly owing to the free grace of God. It is not for any thing in us, but for his own name’s salke, that he saveth and calleth us, forgiveth and accepteth us. As to naming this an “absolute promise,” all promises of spi- ritual blessings are in this sense absolute, though made to characters of a certain description; yet it is not on account of any goodness in them, but for his own name's sake, that every blessing is conferred. Where promises are addressed to particular characters, as in 1 John i. 9, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins,” they are designed to point out the subjects interested in them, and to exhibit encouragements to re- turn to God. Where no character is described which is of a spiritual nature, as in the passage in question, the design is to point out the cause of salvation. But the Scriptures ought to be taken together, and not in detach- ed sentences. No person has a warrant to conclude him- self interested in a promise, wherein God merely teaches the cause of forgiveness, unless he possess that contrition which leads him to “confess and forsake his sins: ” for this would be to have fellowship with him while we waii. in darkness, 1 John i. 6; Prov. xxviii. 13. Still it is inquired, What use may the people of God in all ages make of those promises and declarations of Scrip- ture which were made to particular persons on special occasions? “As thy day is, so shall thy strength be.”— “The eternal God is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms.”—“I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee.”—“When thou passest through the waters, I will be, with thee,” Deut. xxxiii. 25, 27; Josh. i. 5; Isa, xliii. 2. I answer, examine the truth contained in each of the 2 L 2 promises, and try whether it fairly applies to your parti- cular case, as well as theirs to whom it was originally addressed. General truths, or truths of general use, are often delivered in Scripture to particular persons, and on special occasions. If the above passages were originally addressed to men considered as the people of God in the highest sense, that is, to the truly godly among the Israel- ites, they are equally applicable to the people of God in all ages of time, when placed in similar circumstances. Or if otherwise, if they had an immediate reference to God’s providential care over Israel as a nation, still it is just to reason from the less to the greater. Dear as that nation was to God, yet “Israelites indeed,” the spiritual children of Abraham, are still more so. That, therefore, which to them would contain only blessings of an earthly nature, to the others would include blessings spiritual, heavenly, and without end. There is nothing in any of these passages, that I recollect, but what in other parts of Scripture is abundantly promised to all the people of God in all ages of time. It is therefore consistent with the whole tenor of God’s word, that Christians, through patience and comfort of such promises of Holy Scripture, might have hope. I shall add one thing which may afford assistance to some who are desirous of knowing whether they have an interest in the Divine promises. If the blessing contain- ed in any promise of a spiritual nature be such as to meet your desires; if you be willing to receive it in the way that God bestows it; if you would prefer this blessing, could you but obtain it, above any thing and every thing of a worldly nature, it is undoubtedly your own : for every one that thirsteth is welcome to the waters of life. FINAL DESTRUCTION OF MYSTICAL BABYLON. Isa. lxiii. 1–6. IT is not uncommon, I believe, to understand this sublime passage of the coming of the Messiah, to shed his blood for the salvation of his people; * but it is evidently the design of the Holy Spirit to describe the apparel of the conqueror, not as red with his own blood, but with that of his enemies. The event described is not any personal appearance of the Messiah, but a tremendous carnage among the wicked, which he would accomplish by his providence, and which should issue in favour of his church. The dreadful overthrow of Jerusalem, and that of the Roman heathen empire, are each represented by “the coming of the Son of man in the clouds of heaven;” each being a day of judgment, as it were, in miniature, Luke xxi.; Rev. vi. 12–17. The objects of his vengeance are described under the name Edom, the ancient enemy of Israel, in much the same way as Rome is called Baby- don, as being another Babylon to the church of God. The period to which the prophecy refers may, I think, be collected with a good degree of certainty, partly from the context, and partly from the nineteenth chapter of the Revelation of John, where many things appear to be bor- rowed from this passage. The foregoing chapter, namely, the sixty-second, is manifestly prophetic of glorious times yet to come ; times when “the righteousness of the church shall go forth as brightness, and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burneth’”—when she shall be “a crown of glory in the hand of her God”—when she shall be “called Hephzi-bah, and her land Beulah ; for the Lord will de- light in her, and her land shall be married ”—and when “God himself shall rejoice over her, as a bridegroom re- joiceth over his bride.” The last three verses seem to have an allusion to the taking of old Babylon, and to the consequent deliverance of the church from her captivity, in which Cyrus and his armies, though messengers of death to the former, were to the latter the harbingers of life and peace. And while e * This erroneous idea is countenanced by a misprint in some edi- tions of Dr. Watts's Hymns, (28, 1 B, line 20,) where the pronoun “my’’ is substituted for their. 516 TSXPOSITORY NOTES.–EZEK. I. AND X. they should be “going through and through the gates,” the friends of Zion are commanded to “prepare the way, and to lift up the standard.” Analogous to this shall be the overthrow of mystical Babylon. Her gates, which have long been barred, must be thrown open. At them destruction shall enter to her, but salvation to those whom she has oppressed and persecuted; and while this is going on by instruments that “mean not so,” let the friends of Christ be active in their proper sphere, “preparing the way,” removing obstructions, and “lifting up the stand- ard” of evangelical truth. Lo, then “cometh the salva- tion of Zion : behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him l’” The issue is, the church shall become “a holy people, the redeemed of the Lord ; and she shall be called, Sought out, a city not forsaken.” It is thus that the sublime passage under consideration is introduced. It is not enough to say, the salvation of Zion will come; but we are presented, as it were, with a sight of Him, glorious in his apparel, travelling in the greatness of his strength, declaring to his admiring people that the day of vengeance is in his heart, and the year of his redeemed, the jubilee of the church, is come ! Then follows a penitential confession of the Jewish church, which is supposed to be overwhelmed and melted into repentance by his great goodness and the multitude of his loving-kindnesses towards them, amidst all their dis- obedience and rebellion against him. Hence it is not difficult to perceive that the prophecy is yet to be fulfilled. But another source of evidence of the same thing may be taken from the nineteenth of the Revelation, where many things, as already noticed, are borrowed from this passage. As in Isaiah, so here, we see a glorious personage in war- like attire : “His name is Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. He is clothed in a vesture dipped in blood, and treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.” The fowls of heaven are called together “to eat the flesh of kings, and of captains, and of mighty men, and of horses, and of them that sat on them, and of men both free and bond, small and great.” The issue of this dreadful war is, that the beast and the false prophet are taken, Satan is bound, and Christ reigns. 4. But little if any doubt, I think, can be entertained of the events in these two passages being the same, and of their being designed to describe the tremendous wars by which the great Head of the church accomplishes the ruin of anti- christ. “Behold, he cometh as a thief: blessed is he that watcheth and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.” EZERIEL'S VISIONS. ICzek. i. and x. THESE visions seem very obscure. Most expositors con- sider the “living creatures” to be angels; but they appear to be the same as the “four beasts,” or living creatures, in Rev. v. 8, 9. And these are redeemed men; for they sung, “Thou hast redeemed us.” Others interpret them by the four beasts in the Revelation, understanding both of gospel ministers. But what relation had gospel minis- ters with the visions of Ezekiel, or the prophecies that follow? | Probably the following observations may cast some light upon the subject. 1. It was not unusual for the prophets, when they first received their commission, to be favoured with some ex- traordinary vision, Isa. vi. ; Rev. i. 2. These visions had something in them suited to the occasion. The year that king Uzziah died, Isaiah had a vision of Jehovah “sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.” The great High Priest of the church, “walking among the seven golden candle- sticks,” denoted the interest he took in the affairs of the church, to which the prophecies of the Revelation referred. We may therefore expect to find something in Ezekiel's visions suited to the state of things at that time. 3. They may therefore be understood in general as a re- presentation of the God and King of Israel, with a glorious retinue, in a movable position, as ready to take leave of Jerusalem. God had been used to “dwell between the cherubim " in the temple: this was the character under which he was often addressed, Psal. lxxx. 1. The cheru- bim formed, as it were, the retinue or attendants of the God and King of Israel. While he dwelt in Zion, they were stationary; but now he was about to depart from his abode, and therefore his retinue are represented as in a movable position, connected with a kind of wheel chariot, or movable vehicle. This accords with the glory of God departing from the temple, and standing upon the thres- hold, Ezek. x. 4. This also would render the exclamation, “O wheel !” very affecting, as the sight of a chariot ready to take away your dearest friend, chap. x. 13. 4. This retinue may perhaps be interpreted by a refer- ence to the “living creatures” in the Revelation, who, as we have noticed, appear to be redeemed men. Who then amongst men were the attendants of God? The priests and prophets under the Old Testament, and evangelical ministers under the New. By the “living creatures” therefore, in Ezekiel, may be understood those servants of God who attended him in that day, of which the cherubim in the temple were emblematical ; and by those of John, the ministers of the gospel who attended him under that dispensation, and took the lead in the worship and progress of the church. The stationary situation of the cherubim in the temple might afford a constant lesson to the servants of God. Their figure and position would point out to them their duty. And the appearance of them to Isaiah and Ezekiel in vision would impress them with a lively sense of the importance of that office they were going to assume. Perhaps, after all, the retinue of the God and King of Israel included not only the priests and prophets, but the holy angels. The seraphim in Isaiah’s vision seem most easily applied to them ; and in allusion to the stooping posture of the cherubim over the ark and mercy-seat in the temple, the angels are said to “look into " the things of the gospel, 1 Pet. i. 12. DANIEL’S CONFLICT WITH THE PERSIAN COURT. Dan. x. 13. THIS vision is said to be in the third year of Cyrus, that is, two years after the proclamation for Judah’s return, Ezra i. That we may understand it, it is necessary to review the situation of persons and things at the time. Daniel himself did not return with the other captives into Judea, but remained in Persia till his death, which was in a few years. As they were still dependent on the Persian government, they needed a friend at court to counteract the machinations of enemies, which would certainly be at work against them ; it was therefore wisely ordered that he should remain where he was. He would serve the in- terests of the church more by this than by going. But though absent from his brethren in body, he was pre- sent with them in spirit. The welfare of Jerusalem lay near his heart. Previously to the vision which he saw, he is said to have “mourned three full weeks.” What could be the cause of this mourning 3 The first four chapters of the book of Ezra, I conceive, will furnish an answer. It was the state of things in Judea, which was not un- known to Daniel, that afflicted him. His eye and heart had followed Sheshbazzar and his goodly company in some such manner as ours have followed those disinterested servants of Christ who have gone forth to proclaim the word of life among the heathen. The pious Jews set out under favourable auspices; prophecy encouraged them, the royal proclamation was on their side, their brethren blessed and prayed for them, and the hand of God was with them. No sooner had they arrived at Jerusalem than they “set up the altar,” and prepared to rebuild the temple. In the second year of their coming to Jerusalem, that is, in the third year of Cyrus, things were in such a t DANIEL’S CONFLICT WITH THE PERSIAN COURT. 517 state of forwardness that the foundation of the Lord’s house was laid; and though the old men, who had seen the glory of the former house, lamented the disparity, yet, upon the whole, it was a time of great joy. But, alas, when all were filled with expectation of seeing the temple erected, the adversaries of Judah were suffered to retard the work : First, they endeavoured to weaken the hands of the builders; and when this could not be accomplished, they “hired counsellors” against them at the court of Persia ; and, strange as it may seem, Cyrus himself appears to have been influenced by them in such a degree as to discourage the work which he had begun to patronize ; for we are told that they frustrated the purposes of the builders all the days of Cyrus, even until the reign of Darius (Hystaspes) king of Persia, a period of about fifteen years. Now as this counsel, which operated in the Persian court and put a stop to the building of the temple, could not be unknown to Daniel, who was upon the spot, we may easily perceive the cause of his mourning “three full weeks, eating no pleasant bread,” and “setting his heart to chastern himself before his God,” ver. 2, 3. 12. Hence, also, we may understand the seasonableness of the visions which are recorded in the tenth and eleventh chapters, respecting the oppositions the church should meet with, and the help that should be afforded her. After three weeks' mourning and chastening himself, the prophet, being by the river Hiddekel, saw a vision. A great personage appeared to him, who, by the descrip- tion given of him, (verses 5, 6) could be no other than the Son of God.—See Rev. i. 13–15. At first he seems to have been awake, and heard the words which were spok- en to him ; but afterwards was cast into a deep sleep, with his face to the ground. While asleep, an angel, who seems to have accompanied this august personage, touched him, and set him upon his feet; and, as he stood trembling, thus addressed him :—“Fear not, Daniel; for, from the first day that thou didst set thine heart to under- stand, and to chasten thyself before thy God, thy words were heard, and I am come for thy words. But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days; but lo, Michael, the first of the chief princes, came to help me, and I remained there with the kings of Persia. Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days.” It may appear strange that the heavenly messenger should be withstood by the prince of Persia, and detained for one and twenty days. But the language, I apprehend, is figurative and prophetic. Under the form of the prince of Persia opposing the angel, who was commissioned with words of peace to the pro- phet, is signified the opposition which should be made for a time by the Persian government to the rebuilding of the temple. The prince of Persia does not mean, perhaps, any one of its kings in particular, but the power or govern- ment of Persia, as in other parts of this prophecy a king is put for a kingdom or government, chap. vii. 17. The Persian government, which was heathem, was under the influence of the god of this world, and therefore had a natural tendency to oppose the kingdom of God. The conflict which is here described, between the angels and the power of Persia, represents the influence of invisible agents upon the counsels of princes. While Satan, by means of the Samaritans, was blowing up the envy, jea- lousy, and ambition of this court, and thereby provoking it to oppose the church, the holy angels were employed in counteracting these machinations. Without doubt it is an allusion to this language, and expressive of the same truth, that the papal persecutions carried on against the Christian church are described “as a war in heaven ; Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon and his angels,” Rev. xii. And as, during the detention of the angel, the prophet “mourned and chastened himself;” so, during the obstruction of the work of God, the church should have to do the same. Finally, As the angel came at length to the prophet with words of peace and comfort, so the people of God, after a while, should be relieved from their affliction, and be permitted to resume their labours. And, with respect to more distant times, though exposed to various hardships and cruel persecutions, during the wars, intrigues, and struggles of the surrounding nations, to which they would be subject; yet Michael, their prince, would stand up on their behalf, and bring all things to a glorious issue. From the whole, we see in this account how much the holy angels are interested in the welfare of the church on earth, and the promotion of true religion. We know so little of the invisible world, that we should not have sup- posed an angel could have said what he did to John ; “I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus.” Though we might have admitted that these glorious intelligences are “fellow servants,” employed by the same Lord and Master, yet we could scarcely have imagined that they were employed about the same work as ourselves, the promotion of the gospel. The young man who was with Elisha would not have supposed that they were surrounded with “horses and chariots of fire,” to protect them from the wrath of the Syrians; yet so it was. Assuredly it affords a source of great encouragement, that though principalities and powers are engaged against us, yet principalities and powers are also engaged for us; and that in all our efforts to promote the gospel they are our fellow labourers. Who can tell how much we are indebted to their suggestions to the minds of leading characters for the warding off of persecu- tions, and the concessions which of late ages have been made to the rights of conscience % When we read accounts of the perils and hair-breadth escapes which those servants of Christ have experienced that are gone forth among the heathen, we tremble and rejoice. To us it often seems as if the continuance of their labours, and in some cases of their lives, has depended on the humour of individuals; but events which to us may appear merely casual may have been influenced by invisible agency. A single turn of thought in some leading character has given a favour- able turn to their affairs; and that thought might be sug- gested by an angel, who was all intent on their preserva- tion and the progress of their undertaking. Nor is it merely from the ministry of angels that we are here encouraged ; “Michael, our prince, standeth for us !” Whatever they effect, it is owing to his holding with them in these things. If, instead of fears and distrustful hesitations, we lived under the influence of these important truths, much more would be done for God than is done, and that which was done might be expected to be followed with a much greater blessing than that which we ordi- marily perceive. We should think of nothing, in order to determine our conduct, but what is duty ; and be always ready to die, if called to it, for the name of the Lord Jesus. THE ROYAL TRIBE. Zech. x. 4. “OUT of him,” namely, Judah. Judah had all along been a favoured tribe, whence proceeded their governors, who were as “corner-stones” in the building ; as “nails,” on which was suspended the glory of the nation ; as “battle-bows” for annoying the enemy, and preserving order at home : see Isa. xxii. 23, 24. The word whº signi- fies to oblige to perform work, or to pay money, either by right or by power. Here it manifestly denotes a legal eaaction, and therefore ought not to have been rendered “oppressor.” Out of Judah also should proceed the Messiah, the greatest of all rulers, in whom all these characters are united ; and it seems to be of his reign that the passage speaks, and out of regard to him that God would visit his ancient flock, and have mercy upon them, and cause them to be as though he had not cast them off. ON THE LATTER, DAYS. Mal. iii. 18. THE conduct of God in the administration of his provi- dence, however dark and mysterious it may have appeared 5IS EXPOSITORY NOTES.–MAL. III. 18. at particular seasons, even in the eyes of his own people, has always been the result of infinite and unerring wis- dom; and not the least event has at any time taken place, whether in the history of nations or that of individuals, which has not been designed of God to illustrate and promote the glory of his own name. His path indeed has often been in the sea, and his footsteps in the mighty waters; and men have been ready to exclaim in beholding the triumph of the ungodly, or the depression of those who feared the name of the Lord, “Surely God seeth not, neither doth the God of Jacob regard;” but the event has shown, or assuredly will show ere long, that as the ears of the Lord are always open to the cry of his people, so his face is uniformly set against all those who do wick- edly. In the ages that are past the Lord in his dealings towards men has, for the most part, reserved the wicked for the day of wrath. In the present life they have hitherto been the most prosperous, and their success in unhallowed enterprises has oftentimes been ready to stumble the minds of the Lord’s own dear children; but when they went into the sanctuary and viewed their end—when God drew aside the veil, and showed them their misery in the eternal state—oh how were their minds impressed with solemn awe how did they exclaim, Surely, Lord, “thou didst set them in slippery places, and in a moment thou castedst them down into destruction : they are utterly consumed with terrors : * The ungodly, however mighty and exalted in power, now appear to them objects of the greatest pity. They perceive that their triumphing is but for a moment, and that, though for a while they may exult as princes, their latter end is that they perish for ever. The firm persuasion of this truth has a suitable effect upon the minds of the people of God. It completely cures them of their envy of sinners, and they desire rather to suffer af- fliction for the name of Jesus, than to enjoy those plea- sures, if such they may be called, which are low and de- basing in their nature, temporary and uncertain in their duration, and assuredly leading to destruction in their issue. But still, with regard to the bulk of men, the charm remains. Not only do the honours, riches, and pleasures of a present life attract their notice, but also the characters of those that enjoy them. These they behold living without God in the world, openly despising his au- thority, and casting all his commandments behind their backs; and as sentence against their evil works is not executed speedily, therefore the hearts of multitudes are fully set in them to join their evil and ungodly courses. One generation thus passeth away, and another succeeds in the same round of wickedness and carnal security, and God endureth with much long-suffering those vessels of Wrath who are thus fitting themselves for signal and ever- lasting destruction. But the long-suffering and forbearance of God appear to have their limits, even in a present life. There seems, from the predictions of the word of God, to be a time coming when such a distinction of character shall be made 3LS shall serve to impress the minds of men with a solemn conviction that God will not be mocked, and when the discriminating nature of his judgments shall enable them to discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not. This is not an inference drawn from a doubtful or solitary pas- Sage of Scripture. It appears to be predicted in explicit language by many of the prophets; and, if the writer do not mistake, some characters of the period are given so plainly as to enable them that believe to ascertain when it is drawing nigh. A reference to the prophets themselves will afford the best illustration of this remark. In the 2nd chapter of Isaiah's prophecy, we read of God “ arising to shake terribly the earth.” “The day of the Lord,” it is said, “shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and he shall be brought low ; and the loftiness of man shall be bowed down, and the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day; and the idols shall be utterly abolished.” In the 34th chapter of the same book, it is said, “The indignation of the Lord is upon all nations, and his fury upon all their armies;” and it is styled, “the day of the Ilord’s vengeance, the year of recompences for the contro- versy of Zion.” It is abundantly manifest that the first prediction yet remains to be accomplished ; and others of the prophets will equally show that the latter refers, not to any period prior, but subsequent to the destruction of the Jewish state. In the 23rd chapter of the prophecy of Jeremiah, at ver. 19, it is said, “Behold, a whirlwind of the Lord is gone forth in fury, even a grievous whirlwind; it shall fall grievously upon the head of the wicked. The anger of the Lord shall not return till he have executed and till he have performed the thoughts of his heart. In the latter days” (a phrase uniformly applied to express the times of Christianity) “ye shall consider it perfectly.” In the 30th chapter the same declaration is repeated ; and, to mark the period, it is said, chap. xxxi., “At the same time will I be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be my people.” The whole of the 25th chapter seems to be a prediction respecting the same time : at ver. 30 it is said, “The Lord shall roar from on high ; he shall shout against all the inhabitants of the earth. He hath a controversy with all nations. He will plead with all flesh, and will give them that are wicked to the sword. Behold, evil shall go forth from nation to nation, and the slain of the Lord shall be at that day from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth.” Daniel seems to point to the very same time, when he says, in chap. xii. of his prophecy, “There shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation, even to that same time.” That this has not yet taken place is plain from his immediately adding, “at that time thy people shall be delivered;” evidently referring to the return of the Jews in the last days. It is in this awful manner, it would seem, that God means to arise and plead his own cause. It is in this aw- ful manner that Messiah intends to arise and assert his right to universal empire, and to introduce his glorious and peaceful government among all the nations of the habit- able earth. And what if he be already risen up 3 the inquiry is not only important, but it is the indispensable duty of every professing Christian, lest that denunciation should apply to him, “Because they regard not the oper- ation of the Lord, therefore will he destroy them, and not build them up.” In connexion with the passages formerly quoted, there is a very striking one in the book of the prophet Zepha- niah, which states in the most unequivocal manner that the universal spread of truth and of righteousness shall be preceded or accompanied by universal judgment. In chap. iii. 8, “Therefore wait ye upon me, saith the Lord, until the day that I rise up to the prey, for my determin- ation is to gather the nations, that I may assemble the kingdoms to pour upon them mine indignation, even all my fierce anger, for all the earth shall be devoured by the fire of my jealousy. For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord with one consent. From beyond the rivers of Ethiopia my suppliants, even the daughter of my dispersed, shall bring mine offering.” This passage serves as a key to the others, inasmuch as it shows that the period predicted shall be coincident with God’s turning to the nations a pure language; and the others at the same time serve to show, that though the judgments of God shall be universal, yet they shall be discriminating—that they shall chiefly fall on the heads of the wicked. It is too plain that all the kingdoms of the earth have been guilty of much sin ; and therefore all of them are to suffer exemplary punish- ment. This, it would appear, God intends to employ as a means of awakening men every where to call upon his name. If they refuse to repent and turn to the Lord, “ they shall be devoured with the sword, for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.” The purpose of God, in re- gard to the period referred to, seems to be that men shall either be saved by the gospel or destroyed by judgments, and thus the earth shall be cleansed, in order to its be- coming a quiet resting-place for the servants of Jesus : “There shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation.” Our Lord uses similar language respecting the destruction of Jerusalem. Like many de- clarations in the prophecies, this may be considered as having both a primary and a plenary accomplishment. In both views, it may be capable of a consistent interpreta- tion. The sufferings of the siege of Jerusalem may pro- bably have been greater in their nature than any that ever THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN FORCED. 519. have been or shall be; but in respect of the universality of their eatent, the judgments of God which shall be poured out in the last days may render the language of the pro- phecy equally and exclusively applicable in that sense. That this time has already passed will not be proved, until it be shown that all nations have already united in calling upon the Lord with one consent, as prophesied by Ze- phaniah. . When, however, in obedience to the command of Christ, we mark the signs of the times—when we be- hold the Lord putting it into the hearts of his people to commiserate the state of the heathen, and messengers going forth to gather them unto Jesus—and when at the same time we mark the judgments of God extending from nation to nation—surely we discern enough to incite to holy watchfulness, lest the day of the Lord should come upon us at a moment when we are not aware. “Behold, I come as a thief,” says Jesus, “blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and men see his shame.” Let sinners in Zion be afraid ; let them seek the Lord now while he is to be found, and call upon him while he is near, lest suddenly wrath should come upon them to the uttermost. THE RIN GDOM OF HEAVEN FORCED. Matt. xi. 12, 13. THERE is no doubt, I think, that the question sent by John to Jesus—“Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another ?”—must have arisen from a miscon- ception of the design of his appearance, probably of the same kind with that which occupied the mind of Christ's disciples, as to the nature of his kingdom. It has been a question whether John himself was the subject of this misconception, or some of his disciples whom he per- sonated. There is certainly an air of reproof contained in the answer, ver, 4–6. First, In its being indirect, Jesus would not say whether he was the Messiah or not ; but left it for his works, and their correspondence with prophecy, to determine the question. Secondly, In its implying that his outward meanness had proved an oc- casion of offence. Whether it were John or his disciples, some must have been offended, and sinfully too, else such language would not have been used. * It may be thought that John himself, like the disciples of Christ, might be infected with the notion of the king- dom of Christ being a temporal kingdom ; that on his being cast into prison, he expected Christ would publicly assume his throne, and release him; and that hearing of nothing more than of his being followed up and down by a number of poor people, and by few if any of better con- dition, he was stumbled, and knew not what to make of things. But on reviewing the chapter, and comparing it with other things spoken of John, it seems more natural to think that the doubt belonged to his disciples. Two reasons may here be mentioned for this. First, There appears to have been a greater degree of gospel light in the mind of John than in any of Christ's disciples prior to his resurrection. They never seem to have understood the doctrine of his putting away sin by the sacrifice of himself till the thing was accomplished; but he pointed his disciples to the Saviour as the “Lamb of God that should take (or bear) away the sin of the world.” And When an attempt was made to excite his jealousy, (John iii. 25, 26,) his answer contains an exhibition of the per- son and work of Christ, worthy of an evangelical minister. “The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. He that believeth on the Son hath ever. lasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not See life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.” He was a burning and a shining light, while as yet darkness covered their minds. He was not allowed to enter into the gospel rest; but he had a Pisgah’s view of it beyond any of his contemporaries. Secondly, Jesus, on the de- parture of the messengers, vindicated him before the mul- titudes, and that from being “a reed shaken with the wind,” as the message which had been sent by him would seem to represent him. The chief design of our Lord, however, in this his vin- dication of John, was to establish his ministry and former testimonies, and by consequence his own Messiahship. These, by the message recently sent, were in danger of suffering in the esteem of the people. It is in respect of this his ministry, as the Messiah’s harbinger, rather than of his personal qualities, that he is declared to be “more than a prophet,” and yet “less than the least in the king- dom of heaven.” Thus it is that Jesus continues mag- nifying his own spiritual kingdom, and describing the in- terest which it had already excited from the time that John had proclaimed it. The Pharisees and lawyers in- deed refused to enter in, and did all they could to hinder others; but the common people and the publicans “jus- tified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.” See Luke vii. 18–30. By comparing this passage with that in question, it is manifest that this was the violence which the kingdom of heaven suffered. As the two blind men, when rebuked by the multitude, and charged to hold their peace, cried the more a great deal, and pressed towards the Saviour, so the publicans and sinners were not to be deterred by the rebukes of their leaders; but, on hearing of the kingdom of God, “pressed into it.” To account for the mighty effects of John’s ministry, on those who believed it, and to show the inexcusableness of those who disbelieved it, his preaching is contrasted with that of Moses and the prophets. They speak of things as at a distance, but he of things as at hand. There seems to be an ellipsis in ver. 13, which requires to be supplied as follows. “All the prophets and the law pro- phesied until John,” but he did more than prophesy. He declared that the Messiah was now among them, and that his kingdom was at hand. Hence, the door being opened, there was a pressing into it; it was taken in a manner by force. THE DUTY OF CHRISTIAN FORGIVENESS. Matt. xviii. 23, and following verses. THE manifest design of the parable is to impress upon us the duty of forgiveness one to another, from the consider- ation of God’s freely forgiving us. That in the parable, I imagine, which struck the querist” as inconsistent with Calvinistic principles, was the supposition of a man being given up to the tormentors whose sins had been forgiven. Some expositors, in order to solve this difficulty, suppose the punishment to mean his being given up to church censures; others, to temporal calamities, and the accusa. tions of a guilty conscience. But it appears to me that this is altogether foreign from the design of Christ. Our Lord certainly meant to suggest to all the professors of Christianity, all the subjects of his visible kingdom, that unless they forgave men their trespasses they themselves should not be forgiven, but should be cast into endless torment. The true solution of the difficulty I take to be this : It is common with our Lord in his parables to ad- dress men woon their own principles; not according to what they were in fact, but what they were in profession and expectation. For example, “There is joy over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and mine just persons which need no repentance.—The whole need not a physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” Not that there were any among mankind who where righteous, whole, and needed no repentance, in fact, but merely in their own account. The elder son in the parable, in Luke xv., is doubtless intended to represent the scribes and Pharisees, who at that time drew near and murmured at Christ's re- ceiving sinners, ver. 1, 2. And yet this elder son is al- lowed to be very obedient, (at least he is not contradicted in this matter,) and to have a large interest in his father’s inheritance ; not because it was so in fact, but as reason- ing with them upon their own principles. * This article first appeared in the Evangelical Magazine, in reply to the inquiries of a correspondent. 520 EXPOSITORY NOTES.—LUKE XVI. 1–12. But what is nearer still to the case in hand is the para- ble addressed to Simon the Pharisee. Our Lord here sup- poses that Simon was a little sinner, and a forgiven sinner; and yet in fact he was neither. No set of men were greater sinners in reality than the Pharisees; and this man gave proof of his being in an impenitent and unforgiven state. But Christ reasoned with him upon his own prin- ciples: q. d. You reckon yourself a little sinner, and that what few failings you have will doubtless be forgiven you: well, be it so ; this woman is a great sinner, and so ac- counts herself: I forgave her all her transgressions, and therefore you need not wonder at her conduct; her love to me is greater than yours, even allowing, for argument's sake, that your love is sincere. - Thus, in the parable under consideration, our Lord solemnly warns all the members of his visible kingdom, who professed to be the people of God, and who had their expectations of being forgiven of him, without determining whether their professions were sincere or their expectations well-founded, that if they forgave not men their trespasses, neither would his heavenly Father forgive them their tres- passes. Whether they were sincere or not, made no dif- ference as to the argument: If a person lays his account with being forgiven of God, and is unforgiving to his bro- ther, his conduct is inconsistent and wicked ; for being under the power of self-deception, his motive is the same as if it had been otherwise. There are some subjects on which I feel myself inca- pable of throwing any fresh light. Where this is the case I think it my duty to decline them. Under this descrip- tion I must reckon the questions of a correspondent who signs himself A BEREAN ; and another who has addressed me under the signature of CANDIDUs, concerning the de- crees of God. I feel difficulties upon those great subjects, on which, at present, I had rather pray than write. ON THE PARABLE OF THE UNJUST STEWARD. Luke xvi. 1–12. IT will not be expected that we should affix a distinct idea to every term in a parable. almost every composition of this kind which belong to what may be called the drapery of it; and were we to aim at a minute explication of them, we should presently feel ourselves lost in mazes of folly and impertinence. The first and chief object in the exposition of parables is to find out the leading design of the speaker. The leading design in this parable is manifestly to expose the sin of covetousness. So it was understood by the Pharisees, who, as the sacred writer observes, (ver. 14,) “were covetous,” and who, “when they heard these things, derided him.” They perceived the parable was aimed at a sin in which they lived ; but instead of being reproved and humbled, they affected, like the same kind of people in the present day, to carry it off with a high hand, and treated the re- prover with derision. To show the evil of the sin of covetousness, our Lord represents every man in the possession of worldly property as a steward under God, and intimates that a time will come when we must give account of our stewardship, and be no longer stewards. From the supposed case of one of the “children of this world,” who, on being summoned to give account of his stewardship, took measures to ingratiate himself with his lord's tenants, our Saviour takes occasion to reprove the folly of avarice, and to enforce the practice of charity, and liberality; by which that worldly property which had hitherto been unjustly detained from the neces. sitous, and which, therefore was in danger of proving in- jurious to the souls of its possessors, might be turned to their everlasting advantage. “The children of this world,” he observed, “are wiser in their generation than the chil- dren of light.” The expedient supposed to be used by one of the former is introduced in order to shame the lat- ter, and to provoke them to be as wise for their souls as the others are for their bodies. The want of integrity in the unjust steward does not There are some parts of . appear to consist in his giving back a part of the rents to his lord’s tenants, but in his having embezzled and misap- plied his property. The abatements which he is supposed to have made seem to have been, whatever might be his motive, but an exercise of justice towards those whom for his own private interest he had oppressed. In oppressing the tenants and defrauding his lord, the unjust steward fitly represents the conduct of those who at the same time withhold what is meet from the poor and from the Lord, appropriating what Providence puts into their hands to merely selfish purposes. Worldly riches are called “the mammon of unrighteous- ness,” not because it is unrighteous to be rich, nor, as I am inclined to think, on account of their having been ob- tained by unrighteous methods; but rather because of their being unrighteously detained from the poor and needy. Our riches may have been righteously obtained with re- spect to men, and yet umrighteously detained with respect to God, and with respect to the poor, who are his tenants, his representatives in this world. Such an unrighteous detention of our worldly wealth is tantamount to the con- duct of the unjust steward, who “wasted his lord’s goods.” That which is not applied to the purposes for which it was intrusted in our hands is embezzled and misapplied in God’s account. In this view the most covetous persons are the greatest wasters; and every one who possesses more than he ought, by having detained it from the poor and needy, is in possession of unrighteous mammon, is an un- just steward, and must shortly have to give account of his stewardship ! - But if the mere detention of our property beyond what is fit and right constitute it the mammon of unrighteous- ness, who then is innocent? Who that is in possession of wealth can wash his hands, and say, “I am clear in this matter; I owe nothing to religion, nothing to the poor?” Alas, every one must feel self-condemned . The preva- lence of this sin may account for our Lord’s speaking of riches in general, in ver. 11, as the unrighteous mammon. There is perhaps a part at least of every man’s property that, if all had their dues, would not be his. And what is to be done with this overplus, this un- righteous mammon ? The answer is, Apply it to the uses to which it ought to have been applied before; not only communicate liberally of your substance to all those pur- poses for which you are intrusted with it, which ought to be your general course, but, like Zaccheus, pay up your arrears. This will be “making friends of,” or by, “the mammon of unrighteousness; laying up treasure in hea- ven; laying up in store for ourselves a good foundation against the time to come, that we may lay hold on eternal life.” It is true, the mere communication of relief to the needy, if unaccompanied by love, will avail us nothing; and even if it spring from love, there is nothing in it that can, strictly speaking, merit the kingdom of God; yet, God having graciously promised eternal life as the reward of those who give but a cup of cold water to a disciple of Christ because he belongs to him, a compliance with the one affords a foundation to expect the other. As God graciously rewards even his own work in this world, so it will be in that to come : those who have sown sparingly here will reap sparingly hereafter, while those who have sown plentifully shall reap plentifully. We may as truly be said, by laying out ourselves for God, to lay up treasure in heaven, as if eternal life were literally the reward of human merit; and though when we have done all, we are unprofitable servants, having done no more than was our duty to do, yet, through the superabounding goodness of God, we may be said by these means to make to ourselves friends, who will bear such witness in our favour as that we shall be received into everlasting habitations. To enforce the exercise of liberality, our Lord holds up the disparity between earthly and heavenly riches; the one as little, the other as much ; the one as wnrighteous, deceit- jul, or false mammon, the other as the true riches; this as pertaining to another man, of which we are only stewards, that as being properly our own, an inalienable and eternal inheritance ; seriously warning us, at the same time, that if we continue unfaithful in the one, we can never expect to be put in possession of the other. - THE CASE OF THE 521 CONVERTED THIEF. ON THE CASE OF THE CONVERTED THIEF. Luke xxiii. 39–43. IT is an opinion entertained by some who imbibe what is called rational Christianity, that character being formed by habits, and habits by a series of actions, sudden conver- sions are impossible. It would seem to be in support of this hypothesis that doubts have been suggested as to the previous character of the converted thief, as whether his crime might not consist in some affair of a political nature, which, being accounted seditious, affected his life; and whether he might not, upon the whole, have been a good character notwithstanding. There is nothing, however, in the story that countenances such a notion. He is call- ed a malefactor or evil-doer; and the term here rendered a thief signifies as much as a robber. It is the same word that is used of Barabbas, who was a robber and murderer. Besides, he condemns himself; who then shall go about to justify him 4 Those who imbibe this opinion could have nothing to say to a condemned malefactor, unless it were to examine him as to the reality and heinousness of his crimes, hoping to find him less guilty than was alleged. If on inquiry they find he has been a bad character, they must give him up as to any change being effected in this life. The gos- pel which they preach will not reach his case. He must die, therefore, in his sins, and whither the Saviour is gone he cannot go Some that have not carried matters to this length have yet considered the conversion of bad characters as every thing but hopeless. They do not say it is impossible, but conceive it to be exceedingly improbable ; as if the pro- bability of a sinner's conversion depended on his previous character, and was influenced by it. Jesus, however, com- missioned his disciples to “preach repentance and remis- sion of sins, in his name, among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem,” the crimes of whose inhabitants, in crucifying the Lord of glory, were such that, compared with them, those of ordinary malefactors are but little follies. The doctrine of grace to the chief of sinners never seems to be guarded in the Scriptures in the manner we some- times see it in human writings. The salvation of a great sinner is not there held up as a singular instance, which we are not to expect to see repeated; but rather as a proof that no sinner need despair on account of the magnitude of his sins.—“For this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show forth all long-suffering, for a pattern to them who should hereafter believe on him to everlasting life.” The way in which the Scriptures guard the doctrine of grace is not by limiting its operations, but by insisting upon its effects. They put no questions to a sinner coming to Jesus for mercy, as to the magnitude of his sins; but they declare without reserve, that “if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” On this principle let us care- fully inspect the case of the converted thief, and apply it as We go along to cases in our own times. First, He frankly acknowledges his guilt and the justice of his condemnation.—“We, indeed, justly ; ”—“we re- ceive the due reward of our deeds.” The sinner who pal- liates or prevaricates as to any part of his conduct is not a new creature, and therefore is not in Christ. It is possible, however, that a convict may, through the fallibility of the most upright judge and jury, be condemn- ed to die for a crime of which he is not guilty, although he has been guilty of many other crimes; while, therefore, he acknowledges the justice of God in his condemnation, he cannot in respect of the proceedings of man say, with the dying thief, I suffer justly. Such a case as this may occur, and where it does it is doubtless right for the party to speak the truth. But before he is entitled to credit, the credibility of the evidence against him requires to be care- fully and impartially considered. Truth also is consistent, and very rarely devoid of evidence. Before he is entitled to credit, in the denial of what has been legally proved against him, it should be considered also that he may have an interest in trying to persuade those about him of his innocence in respect of the crime for which he is condemned to suffer, as it is by this only that he can hope for an application being made on his behalf for the mitigation of his punish- ment. When a compassionate minister attends a convict in such circumstances, and hears him confess how great a sinner he has been in other things, though as to the crime for which he is about to suffer he is innocent, he may be induced to believe him, and this the convict will quickly perceive, and will go on by every means in his power to work up his feelings. The convict may even exaggerate his other crimes for the sake of producing a belief of his innocence of the crime for which he stands condemned. But it ought to be considered that, for the crimes which he confesses, he lies under no indictment, and therefore they do not affect his life; but for the crime which he de- nies, he stands not only indicted, but condemned:—this therefore affecting his life, he is under the strongest tempt- ation that can be conceived to deny it. The sum is, that when a person is found guilty by a humane judge and an impartial jury, it may be laid down as a general rule that he is guilty, and no professions of repentance while he continues to deny it can be sincere; and though there are particular eacceptions to this rule, yet no convict ought to be considered as one of them on his own bare word, unac- companied with evidence, especially when he is under the greatest possible temptation, though he were guilty, to wish to be thought innocent. Secondly, The few things uttered by the dying thief had no bearing on his temporal interest, but were the pure dic- tates of truth and righteousness.-In condemning his own conduct, he justified his countrymen as to their treatment of him ; yet at the same time he condemned them as to their treatment of Jesus. If, by the former, he might be supposed to conciliate them, and induce them to make interest for his being taken down from the cross, the latter would have a contrary effect. His words, therefore, taken together, must have arisen from a regard to what was true and right. Thirdly, His repentance toward God was accompanied with “faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ.”—The prayer that he offered was that of faith, and, considering his cir- cumstances, of great faith. A man of his habits cannot be supposed to have been much acquainted with the pro- phecies or the miracles of Christ. Excepting the general notion, which may be considered as common to every Jew, that the Messiah would come, he would probably know little or nothing of religion. It is not unlikely that, till he saw Jesus in the hands of the rulers, he knew nothing of him; and now that he saw him, it was under every cir- cumstance of weakness and disgrace; his enemies were triumphing over him, his friends had mostly forsaken him, public opinion was against him, and his very crucifixion was deemed inconsistent with his Messiahship. The low- liness of his condition from the beginning was a great stumbling-block to the Jews, and the circumstances of his death must render it more, especially to one who had never seen him but in this situation. Even those who had be- lieved in him were made to doubt by his crucifixion. Yet under all these disadvantages he had the fullest conviction of his Messiahship, or he could not have offered the prayer which he did, “Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom l’” By the request to be remembered, he must have meant as much as if he had asked to be saved, which implies his belief in Jesus as the Saviour. Indeed he must have believed him to be the Saviour even of the chief of sinners, or he would not have hoped to be remem- bered by him. A self-righteous spectator would have cried shame on such a petition ; and had he himself been influenced by that spirit, he might have suppressed it, as being unworthy of so great a favour. He must also have believed that this Jesus, though now expiring upon the cross, would shortly be in possession of a kingdom in the heavenly world. In this again he was before the apostles, whose notions of an earthly kingdom blinded their minds. Finally, it would seem as if he believed that in that blessed kingdom Jesus would “ make intercession for trans- gressors;” why else did he ask to be remembered by him? This is certain, that if he had possessed the clearest views of the intercession of Christ, he could not have expressed himself better. 522 EXPOSITORY NOTES.—LUKE XXIII. 39–43. How full and appropriate was the term which his heart dictated . It is as if he had said, Think of me when it shall be well with thee.—He might have said, Pardon me, save me, bless me ; but the words “remember me” include them all. An interest in Christ's heart will comprehend an interest in all his benefits. Nor was the term less appropriate to the condition of the petitioner; an outcast from society, who will remember him # The public would think no more of him ; his friends would be glad to for- get him, as having disgraced the family; but there is one with whom he ventures to lodge a petition, “Lord, re- member me !” How shall we account for so large a portion of faith and spiritual understanding in one circumstanced as he was, and in so short a time 3 Without Divine influence it cannot be accounted for, but with it that which he saw and heard was sufficient for every purpose. When led to the place of execution, he heard the answer of Jesus to the women who lamented him, “Daughters of Jerusa- lem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children : for behold the days are coming in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck. Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us: for if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry 3” He had also heard the prayer for his enemies, when they were nailing him to the cross, “Father, for- give them ; for they know not what they do.” To a heart which the Lord had opened, these sayings would be more than so many sermons. Nor was this all : he would gather from the very jeers of his enemies that Jesus professed to be Christ, the Son of God, and the Saviour of men. Even the impenitent thief knew this, and join- ed in reproaching him for it. The superscription written over him, “This is the King of the Jews,” was equal to saying, This is the Messiah; and so contained a testimony for him, on which account the Jews wished to have it altered. He would also perceive the spirit of the sufferer and that of his persecutors. Altogether, he saw that he had done nothing amiss; and his mind, being open to conviction, would quickly admit the consequences—He must be what he professes to be, Christ, the Son of God, and the Saviour of the world. From this conviction proceeded his petition to be re- membered by him ; and, considering the well-known character of Christ, it was not surprising that it should be heard and answered. He had declared in his dis- courses, “Him that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out; ” and he acted up to it.—“Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” Of the reproaches that were cast upon him by his enemies he took no notice; but the prayer of the -contrite and believing sinner arrested his attention. At a time when he was grappling with the powers of dark- ness, and sustaining the load of human guilt, we should have thought he might have been excused from attending to individual applications; but a sinner can never come to him in an unacceptable time. He gives him an answer of peace, and that without delay. There was a case in which he held the petitioner awhile in suspense, alleging, “It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and cast it to the dogs;” but this was an urgent case. In a very little time the spark of life would be extinguished. The word must be nigh him, or it will be unavailing. Had he been required to ascend to heaven or to descend into the deep for the blessing, it had been utterly out of reach. Had it been necessary for him to possess a set of virtuous habits, each acquired by a series of virtuous acts, the way had been too circuitous for him : but the word of faith was nigh him, and he laid hold of it ; with his heart be- lieving, unto righteousness, and with his mouth making confession unto salvation. As the request to be remembered included much, so did the answer. To be with Christ in paradise, not only supposes that his soul would exist when separated from the body, but intimates the forgiveness of his sins, and all that was necessary to salvation. It exceeds all that he asked or thought : he asked to be remembered by him, and is told he shall be with him : he asked to be remem- bered at a future time, he knew not when ; and is assured that, before the day should end, they would be together in paradise. And, lest it should seem too much to be true, Jesus prefaced the assurance with the solemn assevera- tion, “Verily I say unto thee.” The dying man, no doubt, believed him, and rejoiced in hope of eternal life. But, fourthly, Though assured of being with Christ in paradise, there is no mention of his making this a part of his confession, or telling the spectators that he was going to heaven.—What was said on this subject was by Christ, and not by him. Is it unnatural to suppose that the cir- cumstances under which he died would induce him to suppress things which might have been proper in other circumstances 3 Had he been a martyr to the truth, he might have declared, with great propriety, that though they had cast him out, God would receive him ; or had he died in his bed, like other righteous men, he might have said with an apostle, “If the earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens; ” but, dying as a malefactor, whatever were his hopes or joys, he would not be forward to speak of them. If, in cases where men are “buffeted for their faults,” the most ex- emplary patience loses its glory and thankworthiness, much more where they are executed for their crimes. It must appear to the dying thief, and I think to any true penitent in his situation, that the expressions of a lively hope would have no glory, but must rather appear incon- gruous and disgusting. In such circumstances, therefore, he would rather choose to steal out of the world in silence. Duty required him to acknowledge his sin, and he did so, without prevarication or reserve. Let the world think ill of his conduct; the more they do this, the better; but as to their thinking well of his future state, he discovered no concern about it. Besides, except his acknowledgment of the justice of his sentence, he had no claim to the credence of the spec- tators for the sincerity of his repentance. Unless his life had been prolonged, he could give no proof of it: what right then had he to expect to be credited as to his future happiness 3 The testimony of a single witness was not admitted in certain cases under the Mosaic law : what- ever, therefore, such a witness might know, he would not be forward to utter, and still less to claim credit for the truth of that of which he could produce no legal proof: so the truly penitent convict, knowing that he has no such means of proving his sincerity as he would have if his life were prolonged, will not be eager in proclaim- ing it. The above remarks are submitted to the serious con- sideration of those ministers or private Christians who are called to attend persons under sentence of death. Let the case of the dying thief have all its weight in en- couraging us to use means for their comversion ; but let us not hastily flatter ourselves, and still less the unhappy convict, that we have succeeded. If his supposed penitence be attended with an eagerness to proclaim his own sin- cerity, and his certain expectation of future happiness, it should be strongly suspected ; and if with a denial of what has been clearly proved against him, or a disposition to palliate or prevaricate, utterly discredited. The boasting language so common among convicts who profess to repent and believe the gospel, in our times, has caused some to ask whether the gallows was not the surest way to heaven. There certainly are principles, apart from religion, which account for much that in such circumstances passes for conversion. Besides what has been observed under the first remark, of men being induced to profess repentance for their other sins while they deny that for which they are to suffer, in hope of saving their lives, there may be strong feelings respecting a future state, while yet there is no true repentance. When a man has received the sentence of death, and knows he must shortly stand before his Maker, is it surprising that his heart fails him 2 And if, when his character and condition are faithfully stated to him, he weeps, is it any wonder § I add, if when the hope of salvation by Jesus Christ is held up to him, he catches at it with eagerness, as his only refuge against terror, and if a gleam of hope be thus kindled in his mind, JOHN’S TESTIMONY OF JESUS AS THE MESSIAH. 523 and he be encouraged to think well of his state, it does not require the supernatural influences of the Holy Spirit to cause him to weep for joy. And this in the account of a good minister, whose desires are ardently drawn forth for his salvation, will render him an object of hope. But, after all, should the convict be pardoned, the minister, if he be wise as well as good, will have many painful appre- hensions lest the event that terminates his terrors should also terminate his religion 1 If only one in ten of those for whom hope is entertained in the hour of terror should, on their lives being prolonged, prove truly religious characters, it is sufficient to encourage the utmost efforts for the conversion of such unhappy men, but not to justify our pronouncing on every one, who dies with apparent contrition, that he is gone to heaven. JOHN’S TESTIMONY OF JESUS AS THE MESSIAH. John iii. 22—36. WHILE John and Jesus were both baptizing at a little dis- tance from each other, there arose questions between some of the disciples of the former and the Jews about purify- ing. Whether they conceived of baptism, as a mode of purifying, and thought they had enough of this already, or whatever they thought, they were manifestly disposed to set John at variance with Jesus, by endeavouring to work upon his jealousies. Probably the objection was first made by the Jews to some of John's disciples; and they, being staggered by it, came with it to their master : “Rabbi,” say they, “he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come unto him.” If John had been under the influ- ence of such principles as govern the greater part of man- kind, this poison must have taken effect. Its import was nothing less than this : This Jesus whom you exalt is be- come your rival, and draws away your disciples after him. Can he be the Messiah 3 John, instead of being fired with jealousy, feels indig- nant at the attempt to place him in competition with his Lord, and rejects the idea with great force of language. “A man,” saith he, “can receive nothing except it be given him from heaven ;” and be assured it was never given me from heaven to be a competitor with the Saviour of the world, ver, 27. “Ye yourselves bear me witness that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him,” wer. 28. And as to “all men coming to him,” it is as it should be. Instead of undermining the proof of his Messiahship, it establishes it: for “he that hath the bride” (i. e. the people who believe in him) “is the bride- groom.” Envy not, I beseech you, therefore for my sake. It is enough for me to be “the bridegroom's friend.” I have seen him, and heard his voice, and this to me is joy unspeakable, ver. 29. That of which you complain is the course in which things will continue to move; “ for he must increase, and I decrease,” ver, 30. Nor ought any to desire it to be otherwise ; for “ he that cometh from above (as Jesus doth) is above all : he that is of the earth (as I am) is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all,” and ought not, there- fore, to be compared with a worm of the dust, ver, 31. Having thus commended his person, he proceeds to com- mend his doctrine, and, like an evangelical minister, to ex- hibit him as the only author of salvation. He describes his testimony as different from all others, in that it con- sists of things which he had “seen and heard” in heaven, as being privy to all the Divine counsels; whereas those who were of the earth could only believe and therefore speak. But though he spoke as never man spoke, yet men in general rejected his testimony; those however who re- ceived it, as there were some that did, (ver. 32,) in so doing not only did him just honour, but subscribed to the veracity of God in all the promises and prophecies of his word; while those who rejected it, however they might make their boast of God, treated his oracles as lies, and himself as a liar, ver. 33. The reason given for his thus identifying the testimony of Christ and the truth of God is, that God had “sent him, and he spake the very words of God;” and this not only as having been privy to all his counsels, but as partaking of his Spirit without measure, ver. 34. He proceeds to warn them of the danger of being found fighting against God. “The Father,” saith he, “ loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hands.” Will you set yourselves against the mind and purpose of God 3 He is his chief delight. His heart is set on honouring him. To him he hath committed all the great concerns of his moral empire, that he may restore it to order, and carry into execution all his designs of mercy and judg- ment. Be ye therefore of God’s mind, ver. 35. If ye believe on the Son, everlasting life is yours: if ye believe not the Son, you will never see life; but “the wrath of God” revealed from heaven against you, in all the curses of his righteous law, will be bound for ever upon you ! ver. 36. Let the reader seriously consider this testimony of John. Let him remember that it is as applicable to us in these days as it was to the parties immediately addressed. It is the same doctrine as that which our Lord himself delivered to Nicodemus, in verses 14–18, and is that word by which we shall be judged at the last day : “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that who- soever believeth on him should not perish, but have ever- lasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world ; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not con- demned ; but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only be- gotten Son of God.” ON THE TRIAL OF SPIRITS. 1 John iv. l. THE predicted enmity between the seed of the woman and of the serpent has been peculiarly fulfilled in the times of the gospel. No sooner was the Christian church estab- lished, by the preaching of the cross, than it began to be assailed by a flood of false doctrine. Christ had his minis- ters in every quarter, and Satan had his. It is in this way that the devil has wrought his greatest achievements. The persecutions of the first three centuries accomplished but little in his favour, but the corruptions of the fourth intro- duced a species of apostacy which has deluged the Chris- tian world for more than a thousand years. The design of God in permitting these things may sur- pass our comprehension : we are told, however, that “it must needs be that offences come,” and that “ there must be heresies among us, that they who are approved may be made manifest.” The existence of such things, therefore, should neither vex nor surprise us, but merely excite in us that circumspection which is necessary in walking among pits and snares. Such was the temper of mind which the apostle John aimed to excite in the primitive Christians. “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God ; because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” If such caution was neces- sary for the primitive Christians, unless we could depend on the floods of false doctrine having of late ages sub- sided, or on our having better securities against them than those who were contemporary with the apostles, it must be necessary for us. As neither of these suppositions can be admitted, I may be allowed to apply the warning lam- guage of the apostle to our own times. The spirits which are to be tried seem to refer not so much to persons as to things; things which are presented for belief, or doctrines. The “spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh” appears to be the same thing as the doctrine that is opposed to that great 524 EXPOSITORY NOTES.—JOHN IV. I. truth.* This doctrine may be called a spirit, not only as professing to come from Divine inspiration, but on ac- count of its emergies. False doctrines are described as contagious winds, that waft poison into the minds of men ; a pestilence that walketh in darkness, insinuating its malignant influence in so insensible a manner that the work of death is effected ere the party is aware. Beloved, believe not every doctrine that is proposed to you, whatever may be the pretensions or the confidence of the proposer. Error seldom or never goes abroad un- disguised. Believe not every doctrine that comes to you in a ra- tional garb. There is nothing in true religion repugnant to sound reason ; but a system that hangs upon subtle reasoning is not the gospel. There is no cause but what may be made to appear plausible by ingenious men ; of this any one may satisfy himself who listens but a few hours to the speeches of the bar or the senate. For a doctrine to be of God, it must not only be conveyed in plain language, such as without any force put upon it naturally suggests the idea to a humble and intelligent reader, but must quadrate with the whole word of God, and be productive of effects similar to that of Christ and his apostles. The same Divine oracle which teaches us to “incline our ear unto wisdom, and apply our heart to understanding,” directs to “cry and lift up our voice for it, to trust in the Lord with all our heart, and not to lean to our own understanding.” Believe not every doctrine that comes to you in a holy garb. That the gospel is holy, and of a holy tendency, cannot be doubted by one who believes it ; but holiness itself is capable in a degree of being assumed. The false teachers, who corrupted the Corinthians, found it necessary, in order to accomplish their ends, to “transform them- selves into the apostles of Christ ; and no marvel,” saith Paul, “for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.” It is no uncommon thing for the gospel to be undermined by a pretended zeal for morality. The Pharisees were wont to be considered as almost the only friends to good works; alleging against Jesus, that he kept company with sinners, and ate with them. Yet they were denounced as hypocrites. If an evangelical minis- ter among us be called to contend for the purity, spirit- uality, and perpetual authority of the Divine law, or for any particular branch of practical godliness; it is not un- usual for others, who are very differently affected to evan- gelical truth, to claim kindred with him, and to wish to have it thought that all the suspicions that had been enter- tained of them were merely owing to their zeal for holi- ness. But there are few men who are farther off from the holiness of the New Testament than those who urge the duty to the neglect of the principles from which it rises. We must both “rebuke and exhort,” but it must be with “all long-suffering and doctrine.” Believe not every doctrine that comes to you in an evangelical garb. Nothing can be truly evangelical but it must be of God; but, under the pretence of this, some of the most pernicious errors have been introduced. That species of religion which by the professed adherence to faith “maketh void the law” is chiefly under the dis- guise of exalting grace. Of this kind was the religion of those of whom James writes, whose “faith was dead, being alone.” Of this kind was the religion of those awful characters described by Peter and Jude. “Speak- ing great swelling words of vanity, alluring through the lusts of the flesh and much wantonness those who were clean escaped from them who live in error, promising them liberty, while they themselves were the servants of corruption.” Finally, Of this mature appears to have been “the doctrine of the Nicolaitans,” which led to un- holy deeds, and which the Lord hated. Believe no doctrine in matters of religion but what is of God. This is the criterion by which we are directed to try the spirits. For a doctrine to be of God, it must be expressive of the mind of God as revealed in his word. If we lose sight of this, we shall soon be lost in the mazes of uncertainty. “We are of God,” saith the apostle; * The three unclean spirits coming out of the mouth of the dragon, of the beast, and of the false prophet, (Rev. xvi. 13,) may be no other than delusive and destructive principles. “he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.” The doctrine of the apostles being itself of God was a test by which to try the spirits, and such it still continues. We see in their writings the very mind of God on all the great subjects pertaining to his character, government, and gospel. If they write of God, it is with the profoundest reverence, as of Him who is “bless- ed for ever; ” if of his law, it is “holy, just, and good ; ” if of sin, it is “exceeding sinful; ” if of sinners, they are “under the curse; ” if of Christ, “as concerning the flesh, he was of the seed of David ; ” but, as concerning his original nature, “the Son of God, over all, God bless- ed for ever; ” if of salvation, it is “ of grace, through faith, and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God.” Finally, If they describe the end for which Christ gave himself for us, it was that he might “redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zeal- ous of good works.” This doctrine is of God; and he that knoweth God heareth it. But that which begets high thoughts of ourselves, low thoughts of God, light thoughts of sin, and mean thoughts of Christ, is not of God, and it is at the hazard of our salvation to receive it. Lastly, That which is of God will lead us to side with God in the great controversy between him and his apostate creatures. The spirit of apostacy has always been com- plaining of the ways of the Lord as unequal. His pre- cepts are too rigid at least for a poor fallen creature; his threatenings are too severe ; it is hard to punish with ever- lasting destruction the errors of a few years; it had been hard if he had not sent his Son to save us ; and is still hard if, after doing all we can, we must stand upon the same ground as the chief of sinners : surely he does not mean, after all, to punish unbelievers with eternal punish- ment.—Such are the workings of an apostate mind, and every false system of religion favours them. But that which is of God will take a different course. While it teaches us to seek the salvation of our fellow sinners, it will never suffer us to palliate or excuse their sin. Its language is, “I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way.—Thou art holy in all thy ways, and righteous in all thy works.— Behold, I am vile; what shall I answer thee ? I will lay mine hand upon my mouth. Once have I spoken, but I will not answer; yea, twice, but I will proceed no further. —Thou shalt be justified when thou speakest, and clear when thou judgest.—If thou, Lord, shouldest mark ini- quity, O Lord, who shall stand?—God be merciful to me a sinner.” - ON CHIRIST’S WASHING THE DISCIPLES' FEET. John xiii. THIS significant action, so full of kindness and conde- scension on the part of our Saviour, is recorded for our example. Happy shall we be, if we truly copy it. Here is no affectation of humility, but humility itself; nor is it performed as a mere ceremony, but to teach us “in love to serve one another.” Its being done at a time when “Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father,” renders it additionally impressive. It was the same night in which he was betrayed; a night in which it might have been thought his own approaching trials would have engrossed his whole attention ; yet then he was fully employed in behalf of others; setting an example of brotherly affection, ordaining a standing memorial of his death, fortifying, by a speech full of unparalleled consolation, the hearts of his disciples, and commending them to the care of God his Father. “Surely he hath borne our griefs, and car- ried our sorrows,” not only in making his soul an offering for sin, but in every step that led on to that awful crisis. Laying aside his garments, he took a towel, girded him- self with it, poured the water into a bason, and went from one to another, performing the work of a menial servant. When it came to Peter's turn, his feelings revolted at the ON CHRIST'S WASHING THE DISCIPLES’ FEET. 525 idea. “Lord,” saith he, viewing his dignity on the one hand, and his own insignificance on the other, “dost, thow wash my feet?” Jesus answered, “What I do thou knowest not now ; but thou shalt know hereafter ; ” inti- mating that he had a reason for so doing, which, though it might not be manifest at present, would at a future time be rendered plain. “Nay,” saith Peter, almost indig- nantly, “thou shalt never wash my feet !” As though he had said, This is too much, and what I can never submit to 1 Jesus answered him, “If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.” What! if he washed not his feet? No, his soul, from the pollution of sin. Transitions like this, from things natural to things spiritual, were usual with our Saviour. Thus, when he had healed a blind man, he took occasion to observe, “For judgment I am come into this world, that they who see not may see ; and that they who see may be made blind.” The answer in the present instance was to this effect.—Dost thou account it too great a stoop for me to wash thy feet? Let me tell thee, I must stoop lower than this, or woe be to thee! I must cleanse thee from a defilement much more loathsome than this, or thou canst have no part with me in my kingdom. Peter, perceiving now that he spoke of the purifying of his soul from sin, suddenly changed his tone. “Lord,” saith he, “not my feet only, but also my hands and my head.” q. d. If this be thy meaning, I know that I need to be cleansed throughout. Jesus saith unto him, “He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit; and ye are clean, but not all.” As it is sufficient for persons who have bathed their bodies in the stream to wash off the de- filement attached to their feet by walking on the shore, so they that have believed in Christ shall never come into condemnation, and need not the repetition of a passing from death to life, but merely an application for the par- don of their daily sins. Such was the character of all the disciples, except Judas, who, notwithstanding his profes- Sion, was yet in his sins. From this interesting conversation, we are taught several important truths. First, We may sin against Christ, under a show of modesty and reverence for his name. There is no doubt but that Peter's first objection sprang from these motives; and had he yielded to the first answer, perhaps he had been blameless; but to resist after he was assured that his Lord had a good reason for what he did, though he at present did not comprehend it, was setting up his own wisdom and will against his. Nor was this the first instance in which Peter was guilty of so doing. When our Saviour spoke of going up to Jerusalem, and of suffering many things, and being killed, and rising again the third day, he rebuked him, saying, “Be it far from thee, Lord; this shall not be unto thee.”. In all this he “savoured not the things that were of God, but the things that were of men.” There is much of this spirit in our self-righteous objec- tions to the grace of the gospel, and self-willed oppositions to Christ's revealed will. One pleads that salvation by mere grace is dishonourable to God's moral government; but let him know, from the example of Peter, that there may be a regard to Christ's honour which he doth not re- quire at our hands; and that we should act much more becoming by acquiescing in his will, than by obtruding our own conceits in opposition to it. Another alleges, It is too much for a sinner so unworthy as I am to hope for so great salvation.—But can you do with less 1 and is it the comparatively worthy that mercy delighteth to honour? True wisdom will fall in with that way of honouring God which is revealed in the gospel; and genuine modesty will not dispute with the Saviour, but humbly take him at his word. And the same spirit that receives his grace without hesitation will obey his precepts without delay; not asking why or wherefore the Lord requireth this, but accounting it our meat to do his will. Secondly, A cordial and practical acquiescence in the way of salvation through the blood of Christ is necessary to a participation of his benefits. It may seem rather singular hat Christ should suspend his blessing on his own act— If I wash thee not,” &c., but that act supposes the con- currence of the party. He stood ready to wash Peter, and stands ready to wash the foulest of sinners. If there- fore they be not washed, it is owing to their preference of pollution, or their self-righteous objections to the way of being cleansed. To feel ourselves entirely polluted, and ready to perish—to despair of being cleansed by any thing that we can perform, or work ourselves up to—to place no dependence on prayers or tears, on our bitterest repentance or most unfeigned faith, considered as acts of holiness— and to repair, altogether vile as we are, to the blood of Jesus, as to a fountain set open for sin and for unclean- mess—this is the hinge of true religion, without which we shall have no interest with him in his benefits, nor portion with him in his heavenly kingdom. If we come not to him as polluted sinners to be washed, our iniquities are still upon our head; and if we die in this state, they will go down with us to the grave, rise with us at the resur- rection, be found upon us at judgment, and for ever bar against us those gates through which nothing unclean can enter. In this case, so far as we are concerned, the Saviour might as well have never come into the world, nor have laid down his life; nay, better; for if our filthiness be found upon us at the last day, it will be the bitterest of all aggravations that the kingdom of Christ has been nigh unto us. Thirdly, Though the believer, who hath passed from death to life, shall never come into condemnation ; yet he standeth in need of continual cleansing from his daily de- filements. The notion that it is inconsistent for a believer to pray for the pardon of his sins is contrary to the express directions of Christ, and to the example of the godly in all ages. It belongs to a “life of faith on the Son of God;” and without it, whatever self-flattering ideas we may en- tertain, we are dead while we live ; and in whatever de- gree we come short of such a life, wearing away our transgressions by forgetfulness, instead of washing them away by repeated application to the blood of the cross, we incur the displeasure of Christ, and forsake our own In eI'CleS. ON FINAL RESTITUTION. Acts iii. 21. OF all the sentiments advanced in the religious world, there are few perhaps that are likely to have a greater spread than that of final and wniversal salvation, or the re- lease of wicked men and devils, at some unknown period after the day of judgment. It is not supposed that this senti- ment is attended with such convincing evidence as must bear all before it : far from it; but it is a sentiment suited to the corrupt passions and prejudices of men; and we know the propensity of our minds to believe a thing to be as we would wish to have it. It is one presumptive argument, however, against the sentiment referred to, that it is destitute of real wtility. Admitting it to be true, of what use is it? Who are en- couraged by it 3 Not the upright; they are safe without it. It is the ungodly sinner, if any. He is encouraged, it is true ; not however to forsake his sins, or to flee to the remedy ; but to conclude that he shall have peace at last, “ though he walk after the imagination of his heart, to add drunkenness to thirst.” If it be a truth, it seems to be of such a nature that the world would be much better with- out the knowledge of it than with it. On the other hand, admitting it to be an error, it must be allowed to be tre- mendous in its consequences. Nothing ought more to be dreaded than that which tends to deceive the souls of men, and that in matters of everlasting consequenceſ The following thoughts are not offered as a discussion of the subject, but merely as what may throw some light upon one particular passage of Scripture upon which it is fre- quently grounded. This passage is in Acts iii. 21, “Jesus Christ—whom the heavens must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.” On this passage I would offer the three following observ- ations, 526 EXPOSITORY NOTES.—ACTS III. 21. First, The times of restitution cannot mean any time or times beyond those of the resurrection and the last judg- ment. This is evident from the passage itself compared with various other scriptures. The heavens have received Christ, and will retain him till the times of restitution of all things—but the whole tenor of Scripture declares that the heavens will not retain Christ beyond the times of the resurrection and the last judgment—therefore the times of restitution cannot be beyond that period. Christ's being retained in the heavens till the times of the restitution of all things is said to have been “spoken by the mouth of all the holy prophets since the world began.” This, if applied to the kingdom of the Messiah terminating in the resurrection and the last judgment, is true ; for from Enoch to Malachi this was a subject to which all the prophets bore witness. But if applied to some future period after the final judgment, when wicked men and devils shall be released, it is not true, the abettors of this notion themselves being judges. What evidence can they pretend to, supposing the thing itself were a truth, that God by the mouth of all his holy prophets said any thing about it? Much less that Christ should be re- tained in the heavens till the arrival of this supposed period. On the contrary, by the mouth of all his holy prophets he hath said just the reverse. He hath all along represented Christ's second coming as being immediately before and in order to the last judgment, and not after it, Jude 14, 15 ; Job xix. 25, 26; Psa. l. 3, 4; xcvi. 13; xcviii. 9; Joel iii. 13. Secondly, The times of the resurrection and the last judgment are with peculiar propriety called the times of restitution of all things, because that is the period when the moral disorder of the creation shall come to an end. By the introduction and prevalence of moral evil, every thing in creation has been disjointed and thrown into a state of anarchy and confusion. God's authority has been set aside, his just revenue of glory withheld, and even the creatures, which were all designed to promote righteous- ness, order, and happiness, are abused, and made to sub- serve the gratifications of brutal appetite. The sun emits his rays, and the clouds let fall their showers, the moun- tains abound with cattle, and the valleys with corn; and all to furnish man with what he subverts to the vilest pur- poses. All this is unnatural to the creation. The grand end of every being, intelligent or unintelligent, was to subserve the Creator's glory. If the creatures of God are made to promote the cause of iniquity, it is unnatural. It is a vanity to which they are www.illingly, as it were, made subject, and under which, as under a burden, “they groan and travail in pain,” longing for the “glorious liberty of the sons of God,” which shall arrive at the resurrection. The empire of sin shall then be utterly destroyed, order fully restored, and peace and righteousness flow in their ancient channels. But nothing of all this implies the restoration of wicked men and devils to their original state. If a rebellion break out in the dominions of an earthly king, which is carried to such a height that the laws are set aside, the royal authority disregarded, and all the productions of that part of his dominions appropriated to purposes of hos- tility ; if after this the king should crush the conspiracy, reinstate himself upon his throne, and call the offenders to justice ; if he should pardon some, punish others, and restore law, peace, and order to his whole dominions; this might be termed a restitution of all things : but who would imagine that this implied the restitution of all the rebels to their ancient dignities and honours? Thirdly, The times of refreshing from the presence of the Lord, and the times of restitution of all things, appear to be the same ; and a share in both is held up as a motive to repentance and conversion. The apostle, in the text, says, “Repent therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. And he shall send Jesus Christ, who before was preached unto you ; whom the heavens must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.” This, if applied to the times of the resurrection and the last judgment, is all rational and beautiful; but if applied to some period after those times, when devils and wicked men shall be released, it is absurd and contradictory. Is it possible to suppose Peter's meaning should be to the following pur- pose :—Repent and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when these times of refreshing and restitution shall come; though, after all, your sins shall then be blotted out, whether you repent and be converted or not? THE HONOUR CONFERRED ON CHRIST'S WEAIKER, DISCIPLES. 1 Cor. xii. 24. AMONG other disorders in the church at Corinth, they were lifted up with their gifts. Hence this whole chapter is spent on the subject. Indeed the same spirit is noticed at the outset of the Epistle, (chap. i. 12,) where, though he mentions his own name, and those of Apollos, &c., as the idols of their admiration, yet it was only in a figure, (chap. iv. 6,) that he might with a better grace pull them down. Probably the objects of their idolatry were neither Paul nor Apollos, but their own false teachers. In order to impress a true sense of things upon their minds, he represents them under the form of a human body, com- posed of many members, insinuating that it was no less absurd for invidious, distinctions and divisions to take place on account of different gifts, than it would be for certain members of the body to be exalted, and the rest set at nought. The apostle first addresses himself to the inferior mem- bers, who were in danger of being discouraged : “If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body ?” And, afterwards, to the superior members who were in danger of discou- raging them : “And the eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.” Finally, he notices the peculiar honour which we confer upon those parts of the body which are least comely or honourable : “And those members of the body which we think to be less honour- able, upon these we bestow more abundant honour, and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.” And he intimates in the text that God does the same to his church. Consequently we ought to follow the example, giving more honour, rather than less, to the feeble members of Christ's body. What is this? What is the peculiar honour which God has conferred on the less splendid mem- bers of the church, rather than the other ? First, That which distinguishes the ordinary members of Christ's body is of far greater importance than that which distinguishes the extraordinary, or gifted ones. The one is grace, the other gifts. This idea is held up in the text. After speaking of apostles and prophets, and pastors and teachers, &c., he allows them to covet the best gifts. “Yet,” says he, “show I unto you a more excellent way.” And what was this but charity, or love 3 Hence he goes on to contrast gifts and tongues with charity, in chap. xiii., giving the decided preference to the latter. Now this was giving honour to the part that lacked; making that which was common to Christians, even the meanest, of infinitely greater account than that which was possessed by a few of the gifted among them. Secondly, The most gifted members of Christ's body, in a proper state of mind, when they have expressed their strongest desires, and the objects in which they have glo- ried, have never selected those things which were peculiar to them as gifted, but those which are possessed by good men in common. The highest object of David’s desire was that which was possessed by the meanest good man. “One thing have I desired of the Lord ; that will I seek after ; that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the Lord, and to inquire in his temple.” That in which Paul gloried was not his greatness, but his infirmity, and the “cross of Christ ; ” and that which he desired was to be “found in him, not having his own righteousness.” THE HONOUR CONFERRED ON CHRIST’S WEAKER DISCIPLES. 527 Thirdly, The greater is subordinate to the less, and not the less to the greater. Churches are not for ministers, but ministers for churches. The poor, the feeble, and the afflicted are not ordained to honour a splendid orator, by attending upon him and admiring him; but the most ac- complished orator, or even apostle, to be “their servant for Jesus' sake.” As the eye and the hand are subservient to the body, so, “whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or life, or death, all are yours.” The greatest of all must be the servant of all : “And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ; till we all come in the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.” Fourthly, In their vocation God has conferred peculiar honour upon the poor, and the weak, and the feeble, in taking the generality of his people from among them. “God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to con- found the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty.— Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.” Fifthly, All the consolations and promises of God are addressed to us, not as gifted, but as gracious. God speaks encouraging words to both rich and poor; but mark the difference: “Let the brother of low degree re- joice in that he is exalted; but the rich in that he is made low ; because as the flower of the grass he shall pass away.” See also the beatitudes. Sixthly, That which distinguishes the gifted members of Christ is only for time, and is found in hypocrites; but that which is common to the weak is “a well, springing up unto eternal life.”—“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven ; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name, and in thy name have cast out devils, and in thy name done many wonderful works? And them will I profess unto them, I never knew you : depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” This subject may be applied to the suppression of vanity, and the removal of despondency. Gifts and knowledge puff men up now as well as for- merly. A poor or feeble-minded Christian is in danger of being overlooked, and men are valued by the splendour of their appearance or talents. Ministers also, of less splendid abilities, are often despised by those who have itching ears and curious minds. But these things ought not so to be. We have seen that God does not proceed on any such principle. If ye say, I am for this great man, and I for that, “are ye not carnal?” And if any one set himself above his brethren, let him know that he could not do without them. “The eye,” beautiful and piercing as it is, “cannot say to the hand, I have no need of thee.” The greatest of Christian ministers, such as Paul, felt his need of his brethren. Hence he frequently entreats their prayers for him. The influence which the early attendance, lively attention, and affectionate re- ception of the word in common Christians has upon a minister's heart is indescribable. Oh what a difference do We feel in preaching to a humble, spiritual, and affection- ate congregation, to what we do when addressing a haughty, Worldly, and unfeeling people ! The uniform demeanour of serious Christians in life recommends the doctrines delivered from the pulpit ; yea, it has been known to carry conviction where the gospel itself has been preached without effect: Listen, ye wives || “Be in subjection to your own husbands, that if any obey not the word, they also may, without the word, be won by the conversation of the wives.” And as some are puffed up in these times, as well as formerly, so others are consequently cast down. Many a poor Christian, because he is poor, thinks himself a dry tree, of little or no use, like the strangers, or eunuchs (Isa. lvi.); and many a feeble-minded, low-spirited Chris- tian, whose words are few, feels the same. Yea, many a worthy minister of less splendid talents, being overlooked by others, feels his heart sink within him, and is as if he were not of the body. “But if the foot say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body, is it therefore not of the body?” &c. Assuredly it is a necessary part of it. “Nay, much more, those members of the body which seem to be more feeble are necessary.” And as God has put more abundant honour upon the part which lacked, let them not be discouraged. . That one question, “Is it not of the body ?” is full of meaning. It denotes that you are connected with Christ your Head, and partakers of his fulness, even all that is common to the body. Particularly you have an interest in Christ's love : “For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.” In his salvation : “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the Head of the church : and he is the Saviour of the body.” In all that is communicated from him, you have a part : “But, speaking the truth in love, may grow up unto him in all things which is the Head, even Christ; from whom the whole body, fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body, unto the edifying of itself in love.” Yea, you are necessary to his relative fulness, the fulness of him that filleth all in all : “Which is the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.” If the least member were gone, it would not be a full or perfect body. WINDICATION OF THE APOSTI,E PAUL. 2 Cor. xii. 16. THIS passage is so far from being friendly to the exercise of guile, that it is a manifest disavowal of it. It is an irony. The apostle does not describe what had actually been his conduct, but that of which he stood accused by the Corinthian teachers. They insinuate that he was a sly, crafty man, going about “preaching, persuading, and catching people with guile.” Paul acknowledges that he and his colleagues did indeed “persuade men,” and could not do otherwise ; for “the love of Christ constrained them,” chap. v. 11, 14. But he indignantly repels the insinuation of its being from mercenary motives. “We have wronged no man,” says he ; “we have corrupted no man; we have defrauded no man,” vii. 2. Having denied the charge, he shows the absurdity of it. Mercenary men, who wish to draw people after them, have an end to an- swer; and what end, says Paul, could I have in view, in persuading you to embrace the gospel ? Have I gained any thing by you? When I was with you, was I burden- some to you ? No; nor, as things are, will I be burden- some. “Yet, being crafty,” forsooth, “I caught you with guile !” Oh, said the accusers, he affected great disinterestedness at first, that he might the more easily take you in after- wards. He declined taking any thing with his own hands, with the intention of sending others to collect it for him at a more convenient season : “Did I then make a gain of you,” replies the apostle, “by any of them whom I sent unto you? I desired Titus, and with him I sent a brother: did Titus make a gain of you ? Walked we not in the same spirit? walked we not in the same steps ?” chap. xii. 17, 18. Nothing is more evident than that “all guile and hy- pocrisy were laid aside” by the primitive ministers. “Our rejoicing is this,” says the apostle, “the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not in fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly to you- ward,” chap. i. 12. 528 EXPOSITORY NOTES.—I PET. I. 12. EVANGELICAL TRUTH THE GRAND OBJECT OF ANGELICAL RESEARCH. 1 Pet. i. 12. IT is a truth allowed by all Christians, that the dispensa- tion under which we live affords us far greater advantages for spirituality and heavenly enjoyment than any other which preceded it. To us life and immortality are brought to light. The spirit that properly belongs to it is not a spirit of bondage, but of ádoption; crying, “Abba, Father.” The happiness attainable under it approaches nearer to that of the heavenly world; so nigh does its land border as it were upon it, that believers in the present state are said to be “come to Mount Sion, to the city of the living God, to the heavenly Jerusalem, to the innumerable company of angels, to the spirits of the just made perfect,” &c. Yet it is not less true that the greater part of professing Christians live as though they stood upon no such ground, and possessed no such op- portunities. We possess an Old Testament spirit amidst New Testament advantages. A promise is left us of en- tering into rest; but we seem, at least, to come short of it. How is this? Is it not owing, in a great degree, to the neglect of the gospel ? Having assented to a system of doctrines, we fancy we know almost the whole that is to be known upon this subject, and have nothing more to do than to hold them fast against the errors of the times, and take heed that we do not dishonour them by incon- sistency of conduct. Hence what is called religious con- versation seldom turns upon the gospel, unless any part of it be called in question; but either upon our own want of spirituality, or the pleasures that we have formerly ex- perienced, or perhaps upon the talents of this or that popular preacher. When a company of Christians meet together, and feel a wish for improving conversation, let one of them take a Bible and read, and, as he reads, let him frequently pause, and let any one who can make a remark, or ask a serious question, so as upon the whole to promote the understand- ing of what is read. This would draw off the attention from less profitable things; and the blessing of the Lord attending it would, ere we are aware, produce those holy pleasures which, while poring over our own barrenness, we shall sigh after in vain. To comfort the primitive Christians, who were “ in heaviness through manifold temptations,” Peter took no other method than that. of declaring unto them the glori- ous truths of the gospel, and the vast advantages which they had over all others of former ages, in possessing the knowledge of them. Three things in particular he holds up to their consideration : 1. That the prophets were ministering servants to us: “Not unto themselves, but unto us, did they minister things which are now report- ed.” They sowed that we might reap. 2. That the things which they foretold, and which we possess, were the objects of their own most intense research : “Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched dili- gently; searching what, and what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ, which was in them, did signify, when it testified beforehand of the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.” 3. That such is the excellence and glory of the gospel as not only to be the study of pro- phets, but of angels: “Which things the angels desire to look into.” It is generally supposed, I believe, that the phrase “ look into” + alludes to the cherubim which were placed bending over the mercy-seat, and looking as it were with intenseness at it. Thus Mary stooped, and looked into the sepulchre, in hope of discovering her Lord ; and thus believers are described as looking into the perfect law of liberty, or the gospel of Christ. * In former ages, the angels employed their capacious powers on other themes. At first, the display of the Divine perfections in creation furnished them with matter for praise and gladness: “The morning stars sang to- gether, and the sons of God shouted for joy.” After- * IIapakvirtuo, to bend or stoop. wards, the providence of God, in the government of the world, enlarged their mental boundary : “One cried to another, saying, Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory !” But since the coming of the Son of God in our nature, and the laying down of his life, they appear to have been so engaged on this subject as to be comparatively indifferent to every other. In the other works of God, they had seen some- times one perfection glorified, and sometimes another ; but here all unite their beams, and form one general blaze. These are the things, therefore, which now they “ desire to look into.” The powers of angels are far superior to those of men. Their means of instruction also, and long experience of Divine things, must render them far more capable of un- derstanding the gospel than we. Yet, with all their ad- vantages and discoveries, such is the fulness of the sub- ject, that they are at an infinite distance from compre- hending it : all that is said of them is that they desire to look into it. Angels were doubtless acquainted with the general de- sign of salvation, from its first discovery to man; but the particular way in which it should be accomplished appears to have been, in a great measure, hidden from them. It was a way so much above what any creature would have expected, that though there were hints of it under the Old Testament, and some very plain intimations, yet it was far from being clearly comprehended. The prophets, as we have seen, did not fully understand their own pro- phecies, but diligently searched into the meaning of them ; neither did the apostles, with all their advantages, prior to the event; neither did evil angels, with all their subtlety; for if Satan had known that from the death of Christ his cause would receive so deadly a wound, it is scarcely conceivable that he would have stirred up Judas and the Jewish rulers to accomplish it. He appears to have entertained a kind of forlorn hope, that, by getting him put to death in the most ignominious form, and by the only religious nation upon earth, he should be able to stamp everlasting infamy upon his name, and that all future generations would be ashamed to own him. The disappointment and unexpected shock that he and his adherents met with on this occasion seem plainly in- timated by our Saviour’s having “spoiled principalities and powers, and made a show of them openly, triumph- ing over them on his cross; ” and though the holy angels might be supposed to understand much more than fallen ones, yet were they not equal to this subject till events made it manifest. Hence it is said “from the beginning of the world to have been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ, to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers it might be known by the church (that is, by the redemption of the church) the manifold wisdom of God.” When the event transpired, therefore, it was like a flood of light bursting forth upon them. The resurrection of Christ filled all heaven with transport. Hence, perhaps, we may account for the question of the angel to Mary, “Woman, why weepest thou?” q. d. Did you but know all, you would not weep ! It is not you that should weep now, but your adversaries : The cross of Christ, instead of issuing in disgrace, is followed with glory. His friends learned to glory in it; yea, and to glory in nothing else : and well they might. It was glorious to see the powers of darkness stripped naked, as it were, to their shame; to see Satan foiled by the woman’s Seed, and his schemes exposed to the derision of the universe ; to see him taken in his own net, and falling into the pit that himself had digged. It was glorious to contemplate the numerous and important bearings of this one great event. By this the Divine dis- pleasure against sin is manifetsed in stronger language than if the world had been made a sacrifice;—by this a way is opened for the consistent exercise of mercy to the chief of sinners;–by a believing view of this peace arises in the mind, and at the same time purity in the heart;- for this he is crowned with glory and honour in the heavens, principalities and powers being made subject to him. This is the only hope of a lost world, the only me- dium of acceptance with God, and the only admissible REGENERATION BY THE WORD OF GOD. 529 plea in our approaches before him. This it is which will put every grace in exercise in this world, and impart all the happiness in that to come of which created minds are susceptible. These are a few of the bearings of the doctrine of the cross. Is it any wonder that angels should desire to look into it? Rather is it not matter of wonder and shame that we, who are more immediately interested in it than they, should be so far behind 3 How is it that we should be the last to bring back the King, who are his bone and his flesh! Our Redeemer took not upon him the mature of angels; yet they love him, and the gospel of salvation by him ; and wherefore ? They love God, and therefore re- joice in every thing that glorifies him in the highest;— they love men, and therefore rejoice in that which brings peace on earth and good-will to them ;—they rejoice in every instance of the prosperity of Christ's kingdom, and in being themselves made subject to him. Had we but their love, with our interest, we should not only emulate, but exceed their highest praise. While they, in innumerable myriads, were saying with a loud voice, “Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing,” we should not only say, “Amen;” but add, “Thou art worthy; for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, out of every kindred,and tongue, and people, and nation!” REGENERATION BY THE WORD OF GOD. 1 Pet. i. 23. THE incorruptible “seed,” by which, according to this passage, we are born again, alludes to the first principle, not in vegetables, but in animals ; and what this is in generation, the word of God is allowed to be in regenera- tion. This I apprehend is giving all the scope to the pas- sage which can reasonably be desired. That there is a Divine influence in this change which is immediate, or without any instrument whatever, is sup- posed in a former communication ; * but I do not consider this as expressive of the whole change denoted by the term ºregeneration. I admit regeneration to be by the word of God, and that this truth is taught us by the passage in question, and also in James i. 18; nor does this concession appear to clash with the above position. When God created man, he breathed into him the breath of life, and man became a living soul. And in procreation, unless we maintain that souls are generated by human instru- mentality, there is an immediate Divine agency, very similar to that in creation, and which is expressed by “forming the spirit of man within him.” Now as this is consistent with man's being brought into existence by the instrumentality of man, why should not an immediate in- fluence from Him who “quickeneth all things” be con- sistent with the instrumentality of the word in regenera- tion ? Regeneration has frequently been distinguished from conversion ; and I have no doubt but the terms are of different signification, as are also the terms creation and resurrection, by which the same Divine change is indicated. I am inclined to think that these terms are not designed to express the different stages of God’s work upon the Soul, but the same Divine work under different ideas or representations. It has been said that regeneration ex- presses that part of the change wherein we are passive, and conversion that wherein we are active ; but the idea of passivity, as well as activity, is included in conversion. God turns us ere we turn to him. Sinners are said to be converted, as well as to convert. On the other hand, the idea of activity, as well as of passivity, is included in re- generation. Whatever may be said of the generation of an animal, we can form no conception of the change in the temper of a rational soul, or, as the Scriptures express it, of “renewing the spirit of our minds,” without the mind being in exercise. It is passive with respect to the agency of the Holy Spirit in producing the change, so as to contribute nothing towards it ; but the very nature of the change itself, being from a state of enmity to love, implies activity of mind. It does not therefore seem per- fectly accurate to say we are first endued with spiritual life, and then we become active ; no otherwise, at least, than as by the order of nature, seeing that activity is of the very essence of spiritual life. Now, considering regeneration as expressive of that en- tire change by which we enter as it were a new moral world, and possess a new kind of being, (and in this sense I think it is always to be understood in the New Testa- ment,) it is as proper to say we are regenerated by the word of God, as it is to say that “Abraham begat Isaac ;” though in Isaac's coming into the world he was the sub- ject of a Divine agency in which Abraham had no concern. EXPOSITION OF PASSAGES APPARENTLY CONTRADICTORY. “And yelºre not willing to come to me that ye might have life.” —John v. 40. sº “No man can come to me except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him.” “* It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard and hath learn. ed of the Father cometh unto me.” “Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not: and he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no-man can come unto me except it were given unto him of my Father.”—John vi. 44, 45. 64,65. ADMITTING the Divine authority of the Holy Scriptures, their harmony ought not to be called in question; yet it must be allowed by every considerate reader that there * On the Power and Influence of Truth, are apparent difficulties, Nor is it unlawful, but laud- able, to wish to see those difficulties removed, and to aim at a perception of the particular beauty of God’s word, as well as a general persuasion of its harmony. My thoughts on the above passages will be comprised in the seven following observations:– First, There is no way of obtaining eternal life but by Jesus Christ. This observation is fully implied in the first passage, and I suppose may stand without any further con- firmation. Secondly, They that enjoy eternal life must come to Christ for it. Coming is not an act of the body, but of the mind and heart. It is a term which in the New Tes- tament is commonly used as synonymous with believing in Christ. In common speech we frequently apply it to the 2 M 530 APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS. yielding of a person’s mind who has heretofore been in a state of enmity or variance. When we see a change in his views of things, his proud spirit begin to subside, his prejudice give way, the high tone of his expressions lowered, and his heart inclining towards a reconciliation, we say, He is coming. Thirdly, It is the revealed will of Christ that every one who hears the gospel. should come to him for life. This position, I should think, is equally evident from the text in question as either of the above. Our Lord would not have complained of the Jews for not coming to him, nor have imputed it to the obstimacy of their will, if the con- trary had not been their duty, as well as their highest in- terest. I’very one who hears the gospel must either feel willing to be saved in God’s way, or unwilling, or neither the one nor the other. If we are willing, we are true be- lievers ; if unwilling, we are what the Scriptures style disobedient, like these Jews, and like them fall under the displeasure of Christ. But may we not be neutral? That a being positively unwilling to be saved in God’s way is sinful seems to be almost self-evident; but is there no such thing as a medium ? To which I answer, If there be a medium between a being willing and unwilling, it must consist in that state of mind wherein a person feels indif- ferent; that is, neither for Christ nor against him. But this is declared to be impossible: “He that is not against us,” said Christ, “is on our side.” If a person could feel indifferent in this case, that indifference would be deemed disloyalty. As the curse fell upon Meroz for his not com- ing forth to the help of the Lord against the mighty, so an Anathema Maranatha is denounced against any man that loveth not our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. It is inconsistent with the perfections of God to allow any sin- ner who hears the gospel of Christ to feel either aversion or indifference towards him. Fourthly, The depravity of human nature is such that ºno man, of his own accord, will come to Christ for life. This position, it may be objected, is not sufficiently evident from Christ’s words in the first of these passages; seeing it does not follow that, because the Jews would not come to him, therefore rone else would. To this it is replied, Be it so ; it is sufficiently evident from this passage, taken in connexion with other scriptures, and even with those two with which it is here attempted to be reconciled. To come to Christ for life is to feel the danger of our situation, and be in real earnest after escape ; in such earnest as one that was fleeing to the city of refuge, with the avenger of blood in pursuit of him. But men are naturally at ease, or if awakened by the alarms of providence or conscience, are disposed to fly to any refuge rather than Christ. To come to Christ for eternal life is to feel and acknowledge ourselves destitute of every claim on his favour, and wor- thy of eternal death; but this is too humiliating to human pride. To come to Christ for life, in short, is to give up our own righteousness, and be justified by his ; our own wisdom, and be guided by his ; and our own will, and be ruled by his : it is to receive him as our all in all: but man by mature is unwilling to part from his idols; he had rather hazard his soul’s eternal welfare than give them up. . Fifthly, The degree of this depravity is such as that, figuratively speaking, men cannot come to Christ for life. It is not here supposed that they would come to Christ but cannot ; nor that they could not come if they would. It is true, when the word cannot is used in its literal and proper sense—that is, when it is applied to a natural in- ability—this idea is always implied : “Ahijah could not see, by reason of his age.”—“The king of Moab would have broken through the hosts of his enemies, but he could ºot.”—“The mariners rowed hard to bring the ship to land, but they could not.” In each of these cases there was properly a want of power, which denominated the parties unable, though they were, or might be supposed to be, ever so willing. But it is usual, both in Scripture and in common speech, to express the state of a person under the dominion of an exceedingly strong propensity by the terms cannot, unable, &c. “They that are in the flesh cannot please God.”—“Why do ye not understand my speech 3 Because ye cannot hear my word.”—“Having eyes full of adultery, and cannot cease from sin.”—“Joseph's brethren could not speak peaceably to him.”—“How can ye, being evil, speak good things 3’-" How can ye believe, who receive honour one of another?” Now, when the word is used in this sense, it would be a contradiction to suppose a willingness, or an incapacity in case of willingness, see- ing it is the want of willingness wherein the incapacity consists. That the term cannot, in John vi. 44, denotes the strength of evil propensities, and not any natural and ex- cusable hinderance, is evident from the cure here men- tioned; namely, the Father's drawing. When we are drawn by Divine influence to come to Christ, it is a draw- ing of the heart towards that to which it was before averse; consequently it was the aversion of the heart wherein the inability consisted. It has been usual with writers to express the difference between these two different kinds of inability by the terms natural and moral. To this it has been objected, “that the Scripture knows of no such distinction.” If by this is meant that the Scripture does not expressly make such a distinction, it is true ; but if this be a proof that the Scripture knows nothing of the thing, it will at the same time prove that the Scripture knows nothing of the doctrines of the Trinity, Divine providence, the satis- faction of Christ, with many other acknowledged truths of the last importance. After all, terms are not worth disputing about, provided the ideas included under them are admitted. That the ideas in this case are Scriptural is sufficiently evident from the forecited passages. Every person of common understanding, whether he will or not, must of necessity perceive a difference between the in- ability of the mariners recorded in Jonah and that of the adulterers mentioned by Peter; and that the one rendered the parties excusable, and the other constituted them the more highly culpable. Let this difference be but admitted, it matters not what terms are used, provided they do but sufficiently express it. Sixthly, A conviction of the righteousness of God's go- vernment, of the spirituality and goodness of his law, the evil of sin, our lost condition by nature, and the justice of our condemnation, is necessary in order to our coming to Christ. I think each of these ideas is included in the phrase “learned of the Father.” Without this, there can be no solid conviction of the need of a Saviour. The sinner will be whole in his own account ; and they that are whole need not a physician. A knowledge of the Father, as the Lawgiver of the world, must precede a hearty reception of Christ as a Saviour. It is “through the law we become dead to the law, that we may live unto God. The law is our schoolmaster, to bring us to Christ.” It is therefore very unreasonable, as well as unscriptural, for any, under the pretence of knowing Christ, to decry the law of God, seeing it is by learning at that school we are prepared to come to Christ. Lastly, There is absolute necessity of a special Divine agency in order to our coming to Christ. “No man can come unto me, except the Father, who sent me, draw him.” Those who deny the grace of God to be invincible in its operations, understand this, and other passages, of what is sometimes called, I think, moral influence ; that is, such influence as men may have upon the minds of each other in a way of persuasion. And so they suppose the sense of the text is, that no man can come to Christ unless he have the gospel preached unto him. But it ought to be considered that “drawing,” in ver. 44, is tantamount to having “learned of the Father,” in ver. 45, where it is de- clared that “every man that hath heard and learned of the Father cometh unto Christ.” But it is not every one that hath been objectively instructed by the preaching of the gospel who comes to Christ: it must therefore be such an instruction and drawing as is peculiar to true believers; such a drawing as that whereon our coming certainly fol- lows: and thus we believe “according to the working of his mighty power.” - Upon the whole, we see from these passages taken toge- ther, first, if any man is lost, whom he has to blame for it —HIMSELF ; secondly, if any man is saved, whom he has to praise for it—God. APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS. 531 “It repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.”—Gen. vi. 6. “The Lord is not a man, that he should repent.”—l Sam. xv. 29. The seeming contradiction in these passages arises from the same term being used in the one metaphorically, and in the other literally. It is literally true that repentance is not predicable of the Divine nature, inasmuch as it im- plies mutability and imperfection in knowledge and wis- dom, neither of which can be applied to the infinitely blessed God. But, in order to address himself impressive- ly to us, he frequently personates a creature, or speaks to us after the manner of men. It may be doubted whether the displeasure of God against the wickedness of men could have been fully expressed in literal terms, or with any thing like the effect produced by metaphorical language. To evince this, I shall take the liberty to introduce a few brief expository notes which I have by me on the six pre- ceding verses in Genesis:–This chapter gives us an ac- count of the corruption which preceded the flood, and which moved an infinitely good and merciful Being to bring it upon the earth. We may notice, 1. The occasion of this corruption, viz. the increase of population: it was “when men began to multiply on the face of the earth” that they began to corrupt one another. Population is itself a good : but it often becomes the oc- casion of evil; because men, when numbers of them assemble together, excite and provoke one another to sin. Hence it is that sin commonly grows rankest in populous places. We are originally made to be helpers of one an- other ; but sin perverts the course of things, and renders us tempters of one another. We draw and are drawn into innumerable evils. “O draw me not with the Workers of iniquity 1" 2. The first step towards this corrupt state of things was the mixing of the church and the world in marriages. “The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair ; and they took them wives of all whom they chose.” “The sons of God” were those of the family of Seth, of whom we read lately that they “called upon the name of the Lord,” iv. 16. “The daughters of men” were of the race of Cain, whose parents, having gone forth “from the presence of the Lord,” or turned their back on religion, were a kind of atheists. This was a conjunction between the seed of the woman and the seed of the ser- pent, which must needs be unnatural and mischievous. The object of a good man's choice should be a “help- meet.” We need to be helped in our way to heaven, and not hindered and corrupted. Hence God forbade all such alliances with idolaters (Deut. vii. 3, 4); and hence also Christian marriages were limited to those “ only in the Lord” (1 Cor. vii. 39): the examples which we have seen to the contrary have, by their lamentable effects, fully justified these restrictions. They corrupt and ruin many a promising character; and we see by this history that they were the first cause of the ruin of a world ! 3. The great offence which God took at this conduct, and what grew out of it. “The Lord said, My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh; yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.” Had the sons of God kept themselves to themselves, and pre- served their purity, God, it may be supposed, would have spared the world for their sakes; but they mingled toge- ther, and became one people. This he considered as a heinous crime. The name by which they are called is worthy of notice—man. Seeing the sons of God have be- come one people with the daughters of men, they have lost their honourable distinction, and are called by the common name of the species. The special notice taken of the conduct of professors, rather than of others, is likewise observable. He also, or they also, as some read it, namely, the sons of God, are flesh ; viz. they, as well as the others, are become corrupt. By the Spirit of God is meant the Holy Spirit in the prophets, by which he preached and contended with the wicked.—See Neh. ix. 30 ; 1 Pet. iii. 19, 20. But now, seeing the professedly righteous, who should have stood firm, had, as it were, joined the standard of the enemy, God resolved to give them all up together, or to decline any further strivings with them. “ The Ploughman will not plough all day to sow—bread-corn is bruised, because he will not ever be threshing it, nor break it with the wheel of his cart, nor bruise it with his horse- men.” Yet amidst all this displeasure there is great long- suffering. “His days shall be a hundred and twenty years.” God would wait that time ere he brought the flood upon them, 1 Pet. iii. 20. All this time God did strive or contend with them ; but, that proving ineffectual, they were at last given up. 4. Observe the fruits of these unlawful mixtures; a sort of monstrous beings, whose figures were but emblems of their minds. They seem to have been fierce and cruel men. The word giants signifies fellers, or men who caused others to fall before them like trees before an axe. So far as respects character, this was the natural effect of such intermarriages: family religion is subverted; and the fear of God has a greater connexion with a proper regard to man than many are willing to allow. 5. Observe the estimate which God makes of things. “God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” Such is the case when the church is gone and lost in the world. There were some hopeful appearances when the “sons of God began to call upon the name of the Lord ;” but now, a very few excepted, they are all gone. What a picture is here given of what the world naturally is . It is evil; without mix- ture—only evil; without cessation—evil continually; from the very fountain-head of action—“ the thoughts of the heart;” and all this is not the exaggerated language of creatures—-‘‘ God saw it !” 6. Notice the amazing displeasure of God against sin. “It repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart l’’—Was ever such lan- guage uttered What words, besides them, could convey to us such an idea of the evil of sin # It is true we are not to understand them literally; but they convey to us an idea that the sin of man is so heinous, and so mis- chievous, as to mar all the works of God, and to render them worse than if there were none. So that, if God had not counteracted it, there had better have been no world ! Any created being, on seeing all his works thus perverted, would repent, and wish he had never made them. Oh the exceedingly provoking nature of sin . What must be that grace which could give his only-begotten Son to die for it, and could find in his heart, for his sake, freely to forgive it ! Be it our great concern, that, like Noah in the ark, we may be found in him. “ I please all men in all things.”—l Cor. x. 33. s º I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.”—Gal. l. 1U. THoug H both these kinds of action are expressed by one term, to please, yet they are exceedingly diverse ; no less so than a conduct which has the glory of God and the good of mankind for its object, and one that originates and terminates in self. The former of these passages should be read in connexion with what precedes and follows it: ver, 31–33, “Whether, therefore, ye eat or drink, or whatever ye do, do all to the glory of God. Give mone offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God; even as I please all men in all things; not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.” Hence it appears plain that the things in which the apostle pleased all men require to be restricted to such things as tend to their “profit, that they may be saved.” Whereas the things in which, according to the latter passage, he could not please men, and “yet be the servant of Christ,” were of a contrary tendency. Such were the objects pursued by the false teachers whom he opposed, and who desired to make a fair show in the flesh, lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ, chap. vi. 12. The former is that sweet inoffensiveness of spirit which teaches us to lay aside all self-will and self-importance; that charity which “seeketh not her own,” and “is not easily provoked; ” it is that spirit, in short, which the same writer elsewhere recommends from the example of Christ himself: “We then, who are strong, ought to bear the 2 M 2 532 APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS. infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves.—Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edifi- cation ; for even Christ pleased not himself; but as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me.” But the latter spirit referred to is that sordid compliance with the corruptions of human nature of which flatterers and deceivers have always availed themselves, not for the glory of God or the good of men, but for the promotion of their own selfish designs. “While the earth remaineth, seed time and harvest shall not cease.” —Gen. viii. 22. “There are five years in which there shall be neither earing nor harvest.”—Gen. xlv. 6. THE former of these passages contains a general truth or rule, which, as is common with general rules, has its particular exceptions. And yet it hardly amounts to an exception; for there never was a year since the flood in which there was no harvest throughout the world. To understand the promise of God’s engaging never to afflict any particular nation, or number of nations, with famine, is to make it universal as to place, as well as uninterrupted in respect to time ; and this would go to insure a harvest to the sluggard who refuses to sow. “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.”—Prov. xxvi. 4. “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own con- ceit.”—Prov. xxvi. 5. A “Fool,” in the sense of Scripture, means a wicked man, or one who acts contrary to the wisdom that is from above, and who is supposed to utter his foolishmess in speech or writing. Doubtless, there are different descrip- tions of these characters; and some may require to be answered, while others are best treated with silence. But the cases here seem to be one ; both have respect to the same character, and both require to be answered. The whole difference lies in the manner in which the answer should be given. The terms “according to his folly,” in the first instance, mean in a foolish manner, as is mani- fest from the reason given, “lest thou also be like unto him.” But in the second instance, they mean in the man- ner which his folly requires. This also is plain from the reason given, “lest he be wise in his own conceit.” A foolish speech is not a rule for our imitation ; nevertheless our answer must be so framed by it as to meet and repel it. Both these proverbs caution us against evils to which we are not a little addicted ; the former, that of saying and doing to others as they say and do to us, rather than as we would they should say and do ; the latter, that of suffering the cause of truth or justice to be decried, while we, from a love of ease, stand by as unconcerned spectators. The former of these proverbs is exemplified in the answer of Moses to the rebellious Israelites; the latter in that of Job to his wife. It was a foolish speech which was ad- dressed to the former : “Would God that we had died when our brethren died before the Lord ' And why have ye brought up the congregation of the Lord into this wil- derness, that we and our cattle should die there ?” Un- happily this provoked Moses to speak unadvisedly with his lips; saying, “Hear now, ye rebels; must we fetch you water out of this rock 3" This was answering folly in a Joolish manner, which he should not have done; and by which the servant of God became but too much like them whom he opposed. It was also a foolish saying of Job’s wife, in the day of his distress, “ Curse God, and die l’” Job answered this speech, not in the manner of it, but in the manner it required. “What, shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?”—In all the answers of our Saviour to the scribes and Pharisees, we may perceive that he never lost the possession of his soul for a single moment ; never answered in the manner of his opponents, so as to be “like unto them ; ” but neither did he decline to repel their folly, and so to abase their self-conceit. * - º the works of the law shall no flesh living be justified.”—Gal. ll. 10. “Was not Abraham, our father, justified by works.”—James ii. 21. PAUL treats of the justification of the ungodly, or the way in which sinners are accepted of God, and made heirs of eternal life. James speaks of the justification of the godly, or in what way it becomes evident that a man is approved of God. The former is by the righteousness of Christ ; the latter is by works. The former of these is that which justifies ; the latter is that by which it appears that we are justified. The term justification, in the former of these passages, is taken in a primary sense ; in the latter, it is taken in a secondary sense only, as in Matt. xi. 19, and in other places. “I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.”—Exod. xx. 5. “The soul that sinneth, it shall die : the son shall not bear the ini- quity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son.”—Ezek, xviii. 20. NEITHER of these passages appears to be applicable to men as the individual subjects of God's moral government, and with respect to a future world, but merely as members of society in the present life. Nations, and other com- munities, as swch, are considered in the Divine adminis- tration as persons. That which is done by them at one period is visited upon them at another; as the history of the children of Israel and of all other nations evinces. The effects of the conduct of every generation not being con- fined to itself, but extending to their posterity, would, in proportion as they were possessed of natural affection, fur- nish a powerful motive to righteousness ; and, to them who sinned, prove an aggravation of their punishment. º This part of Divine providence was objected to in the times of Ezekiel as unjust. “The fathers,” said they, “have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge : the ways of the Lord are not equal.” To this objection two things were suggested in reply:— 1. That though it was so that the sins from the times of Manasseh fell upon that generation, yet there was no injustice in it; but, on the contrary, much mercy; for what they bore was no more than what their own sins de- served ; and its not having been inflicted before was owing to Divine forbearance. God might have punished both their fathers and them. Hence, “As I live, saith the Lord, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel.”—“The soul that sinneth, it shall die : ” Which is as if he had said, I will no more forbear with you as I have done, but will punish both father and son, instead of the son only, Ezek. xviii. 1–4. 2. That if the sins of the fathers fell upon the children, it was not without the children having adopted and per- sisted in their fathers’ crimes. ' The visiting of the ini- quity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation, is only of them that hate him ; that is, where the fathers hate him, and the children tread in the fathers’ steps. If Judah in the times of Ezekiel had been righteous, they had not gone into captivity for what was done in the times of Manasseh. “Arise, walk through the land, for I will give it unto thee.”—Gen. xiii. 17. “And the field of Ephron, which was in Machpelah, the field and the cave which was therein, and all the trees which were in the field, that were in all the borders round about, were made sure unto Abra- ham for a possession.”—Gen. xxiii. 17, 18. “He gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on : yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him.”—Acts vii. 5. THE first of these passages is the language of promise ; the last intimates that the promise was not performed to Abraham, but reserved for his posterity. It is true he purchased a burying-ground of the sons of Heth, accord- ing to the second passage; but that could hardly be called ground to set his foot on, which expresses an idea different APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS. 533 from that of a place to lay his bones in ; and much less an inheritance of God’s giving him to set his foot on. His having to purchase even a grave was rather a proof that he was considered as a stranger than of his being a native of the soil. An inheritance given of God he had not ; that only was such which his posterity enjoyed without pur- chase, the inhabitants of the land being driven out before them. “I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.”—Gen. xxxii. 30. “Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live.”—Exod. xxxiii. 20. THE difference here seems to arise from the phrase “face of God.” In the one case it is expressive of great fa- miliarity, compared with former visions and manifestations of the Divine glory; in the other, of a fulness of know- ledge of this glory, which is incompatible with our mortal state, if not with our capacity as creatures. What Jacob said of himself, that he had seen God “face to face,” is repeatedly spoken of Moses, and as that by which he stood distinguished from other prophets, Deut. xxxiv. 10. Even in the same chapter wherein it is said he could not see his face and live, it is said that Jehovah spake unto him face to face, Exod. xxxiii. 11. 20. He whom Jacob saw had at least the appearance of a man, who conversed and wrestled with him till day-break. Yet, before they parted, he was convinced that he was more than man, even God; who on that, as on other occasions, assumed a visible and tangible form to commune with his servants, as a prelude of his future incarnation. The face which was seen on this occasion was human, though belonging to one that was Divine. Jacob said, “I have seen God face to face.” Thus, also, that which was beheld by Moses is called “the similitude of Jehovah,” (Numb. xii. 8,) or a glorious Divine appearance; of which, though we are unable to form an adequate idea, yet we may be certain that it came short of what he was afterwards told he “could not see and live.” Though, in comparison of other dark speeches and visions, it was seeing him face to face; yet, when compared with a perfect knowledge of the glory of God, it was but seeing what among creatures would be called the shadow, or at most the back parts of a great personage. “The anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved Rºgainst them to say, Go, number 1srael and Judah.”—2 Sam. XXIV. I. “And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.”—l Chron. xxi. 1. THE English translators consider the pronoun he in the former of these passages as relating not to Jehovah, but to Satan, referring in the margin to the latter passage as a proof of it. But this seems to be a forced meaning ; for not only is the name Jehovah placed as the immediate and only antecedent to the pronoun, but also a reason why he did it. 1. It is certain that God did not so move David to sin as either to partake of it, or to become his tempter; for “he cannot be tempted of evil, neither tempteth he any man.” It was Satan that tempted David to sin, not Je- hovah. - 2. It is equally certain that the providence of God was concerned in this affair; and that, Israel having offended him, he determined in this way to punish them. 3. God is said to do that which is done upon the minds of men by the ordinary influence of second causes, which causes would not have been productive of such effects but for their depravity. The hardness of clay, no less than the softness of wax, is ascribed to the sun ; yet the sun's producing this effect is entirely owing to the qualities of the object on which he shines. God hardened the heart of Pharaoh by so ordering things by his providence, that considerations should present themselves to his mind, when placed under certain circumstances, which (he being righteously given up of God) would be certain to provoke his pride and resentment, and to determine him to run all risks, for the sake of having his will. In other words, God led him into temptation ; and there, in just judg- ment, left him to its influence. With respect to David, it is probable his mind was previously lifted up with his great successes in war. It is after the relation of these that the story is introduced, both in Samuel and the Chronicles. The Lord therefore led him into temptation, and righteously left him in it; the certain issue of which was that which actually took place. If it be observed that this is ascribing sin to God ind:- rectly, though not directly, I answer, It is no otherwise ascribing it to God than as any man is willing to have it ascribed to himself. The conduct of a good father may, through the disaffection of a son, cause him to go on worse and worse. His threatenings may harden, and his kindest entreaties and promises excite nothing but con- tempt. What then? Is this to the father's dishonour? Certainly not. It were strange if God must cease from doing what is right, lest sinful men should be induced by it to become more sinful. The best use for us to make of such a doctrine is, not curiously to pry into things too high for us, but when we pray, to say, “Our Father—lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil ” “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.”—Matt. vii. 7, 8. “Strive to enter in at the strait gate; for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.”—Luke xiii. 24. SoME have supposed a difference in the latter passage be- tween seeking and striving ; as though it were not enough to seek, without striving, even to an agony. But this does not reconcile the two passages; for seeking in the one is connected with finding, whereas in the other it is not. The distinction appears to lie in the time and nature of seeking. Seeking, in Matthew, refers to the application for mercy through Jesus Christ, in the present life ; but, in Luke, it denotes that anxiety which the workers of iniquity will discover to be admitted into heaven at the last day. The strait gate in this latter passage does not mean an introduction to the kingdom of grace, but of glory; and striving, or agonizing, to enter in at it, does not describe an exercise of mind which is necessary to conversion, but to final salvation. The striving here ex- horted to is the life’s work of a Christian, in order that he may enter into the kingdom of heaven at last. All this is manifest from the context, which determines it to refer to what shall take place at the great day, “when the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and sinners shall begin to stand without, to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto them, I know you not whence you are ; de- part from me, all ye workers of iniquity.” There is therefore no contradiction whatever in these passages. Every one that seeketh mercy in the name of Jesus, while the door is open, succeeds ; but he that seek- eth it not till the door is shut will not succeed. “Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me.” “Let another praise thee, and not thine own mouth; a stranger, and not thine own lips.”—Prov. xxvii. 2. “I laboured more abundantly than they all.—In nothing am I be- hind the very chiefest apostles.”—l Cor. xv. 10; 2 Cor. xii. 11. So near is the resemblance of good and evil, with respect to their outward expressions, that the one is very liable to be mistaken for the other. Vices pass for virtues, and virtues for vices. Thus indifference is taken for candour, bitterness for zeal, and carnal policy for prudence. The difference in these things may frequently lie, not in the expression or action, but merely in the motive, which, being beyond human cognizance, occasions their being so often confounded. It is thus that a just and necessary vindication of our- 534 APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS. selves, when we have been unjustly accused, is liable to be construed into self-applause. That which was con- demned by Solomon, and that which was practised by Paul, were far from being the same thing; yet they appear to be so with respect to the outward act or expression. A vain man speaks well of himself; and Paul speaks well of himself. Thus the branches intermingle. But trace them to their respective roots, and there you will find them distinct. The motive in the one case is the desire of ap- plause ; in the other, justice to an injured character, and to the gospel which suffered in his reproaches. The apostle, in defending himself, was aware how near he approached to the language of a fool, that is, a man desirous of vain-glory, and how liable what he had written was to be attributed to that motive. It is on this account that he obviates the charge which he knew his adversaries would allege. “Yes,” says he, “I speak as a fool . . . . but ye have compelled me.” This was owning that, as to his words, they might indeed be considered as vain-glory- ing, if the occasion were overlooked ; but if that were justly considered, it would be found that they ought rather to be ashamed than he, for having reduced him to the dis- agreeable necessity of speaking in his own behalf. “Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.”—Matt. v. 16. “Take heed that ye do not your alms before men to be seen of them; otherwise ye have no reward of your Father who is in heaven.”— Matt. vi. 1. THIS is another of those cases in which the difference lies in the motive. It is right to do that which men may see, and must see ; but not for the sake of being seen by them. There are, indeed, some duties, and such are prayer and the relief of the needy, in which a truly modest mind will avoid being seen; but in the general deportment of life no man can be hid, nor ought he to desire it. Only let his end be pure, namely, “to glorify his Father who is in heaven,” and all will be right. “Jesus straitly charged them, saying, See that no man know it.”— Matt. ix. 30. “Jesus said unto him, Go home to thy friends, and tell them what great things the Lord hath done for thee, and hath had compassion on thee.”—Mark v. 19. The foregoing remarks may be of some use here. Our Saviour did not wish his miracles to be utterly unknown ; for then God would not have been glorified, nor the end of establishing the truth of his Messiahship answered; but neither did he wish to make an ostentatious display of them. First, Because he had no desire of vain-glory about him. Secondly, He did not wish to give any un- necessary provocation to his enemies, which might have hindered him in the execution of his work. Thirdly, Where there was no danger from enemies, yet such was the eagerness of the people to see his miracles, that they flocked together from all parts of the country, thronging and hindering him in preaching the gospel. To the two former of these causes the injunction of secrecy seems to be attributed in Matt. xii. 13–20 ; and to the last in Mark i. 4, which is the case in question, as related by Mark. We are there informed that, owing to the leper having “blazed abroad the matter, Jesus could no more openly enter into the city; but was without in desert places,” which was a serious injury to that work which his miracles were intended to subserve. But in the country of the Gadarenes the case was differ- ent. He was there in no danger of being hindered from his great work by the thronging of the people; on the con- trary, they were afraid, and “prayed him to depart out of their coasts ;” and he did depart. In such circumstances let not the story of the destruction of the swine be the only one in circulation; let the deliverance of the poor demoniac also be told ; and let him be the person who should tell it. Let him leave these people who wanted to get rid of the Saviour, and go home to his friends, and tell how great things the Lord had done for him, and had had compassion upon him. Luke tell us that he pub- lished it throughout the whole city, chap. viii. 39. “This is Elias, who was to come.”—Matt. xi. 14. “Art thou Elias And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.”—John i. 21. John the Baptist was not literally the person of Elias; and it was proper for him to say he was not, in order to correct the gross notions of the Jews on that subject. Had he answered in the affirmative, and had they be- lieved him, he would have confirmed them in a gross falsehood. Yet John the Baptist was that Elias of whom the pro- phet Malachi spoke (chap. iv. 5); that is, as Luke ex- presses it, he came “in the spirit and power of Elias” (chap. i. 17); and so was, as it were, another Elias. “This is the heir ; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his in- heritance.”—Matt. xxi. 38. “Which none of the princes of this world knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.”—l Cor. ii. 8. IT is difficult to decide whether the Jewish rulers acted directly against the light of their consciences in crucifying the Lord of glory, or whether they did it ignorantly and in unbelief, as Saul persecuted the church. ...} pas- sages seem to favour the former of these hypotheses. They who took counsel to put Lazarus to death, because that through him many believed in Jesus (John xii. 10, 11)— and they who replied to Judas, “What is that to us? see thou to it (Matt. xxvii. 4)—do not seem to have acted ignorantly. The counsel of Caiaphas, to which the rest agreed, did not proceed upon the ground of Christ’s being an impostor, but merely that of ea pediency, John xi. 50. That is, policy required that he should be made a sacri- fice ; for the Jewish church was in danger. With this agrees the former of the above passages: “This is the heir ; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours.” With this also agrees the intimation that some of them had committed the sin against the Holy Spirit, which should never be forgiven, by ascribing his casting out devils to Beelzebub, the prince of devils, when in their consciences they knew better, Matt. xii. 24—32. Finally, perhaps with this also agrees such language as the following:— “If I had not come and spoken to them, they had not had sin; but now they have no cloak for their sin.”— “He that hateth me, hateth my Father also.”—“If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin : but now they have both seen and hated both me and my Father.” On the other hand, there are several passages which seem to maintain the contrary. Among these, some have reckoned the latter of the above passages, namely, 1 Cor. ii. 8, “Had they known,” &c. But I apprehend the term “known,” in this passage, is put for that spiritual discernment which is peculiar to true Christians. The knowledge which the princes, or great ones, of this world had not, is said to be revealed to believers by the Holy Spirit, which proves it to be spiritual. Had the mur- derers of our Lord been possessed of this, they would not, they could not, have crucified him. But whatever light they had in their consciences, they were blind to the real glory of his character, and such is every unregenerate sinner. But though this passage be easily reconciled with the foregoing hypothesis, yet there are others more difficult ; particularly the words of Peter in Acts iii. 17, and of Paul in Acts xiii. 27: “And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers.”—“For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of their prophets, which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him.” - I know of no way to reconcile these things but by sup- posing, what indeed is very probable, that there were some of each description ; and that the former passages refer to the one and the latter to the other. } APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS. 535 “He shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his king- dom there shall be no end.”—Luke i. 33. “Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the king- dom to God, even the Father; when he shall, have put down all rule, and all authority, and power.”—1 Cor. xv. 24. WHEN the kingdom of Christ is said to have “no end,” it may mean that it shall never be overturned or succeeded by any rival power, as all the kingdoms of this world have been, or shall be. Such is the interpretation given of the phrase in Dan. vii. 14, “His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.” But this need not be alleged in order to account for the phraseology, which will be found to be literally true. The end of which Paul speaks does not mean the end of Christ's kingdom, but of the world, and the things thereof. “The delivering up of the kingdom to the Father” will not put an end to it, but eternally establish it in a new and more glorious form. Christ shall not cease to reign, though the mode of his administration be different. As a Divine person, he will always be one with the Father ; and though his mediatorial kingdom shall cease, yet the effects of it will remain for ever. There will never be a period in duration in which the Redeemer of sinners will be thrown into the shade, or become, of less account than he now is, or in which honour, and glory, and blessing will cease to be ascribed to him, by the whole creation. “Blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see.”—Luke x. 23. gº ºned are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.”—John XX, 29. - THE former of these passages pronounces a blessing upon those who saw the fulfilment of what others have believed; the latter upon those who should believe the gospel upon the ground of their testimony, without having witnessed the facts with their own eyes. There is no contradiction in these blessings; for there is a wide difference between "equiring sight as the ground of faith, which Thomas did, and obtaining it as a completion of faith, which those who saw the coming and kingdom of the Messiah did. The one was a species of unbelief, the other was faith termi- nating in vision. “If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.”—John v. 31. ... Thºugh I bear record of myself, yet my record is true.”—John Vlli, gº OUR Lord, in one of these passages, expresses what was to be admitted as truth in the account of men ; in the other, what his testimony was in itself. Admitting their laws or rules of evidence, his testimony would not have been credible ; and therefore, in the verses following, he appeals to that of John the Baptist, and the works which he had Wrought in his Father's name, which amounted to a testi- mony from the Father. But though he in a manner gave *p his own testimony, yielding himself to be tried even by their forms of evidence, yet would he not so far concede as to dishonour his character. He was in fact, whatever they might judge of him, the Amen, the faithful and the true witness; and, as such, he taught many things, pre- facing what he delivered with that peculiar and expressive phrase—“Verily, verily, I say unto you !” “Who through faith—obtained promises.”—Heb. xi. 33. “And these all—received not the promise.”—Heb. xi, 39. THE promises which were obtained by faith refer to those which were fulfilled during the Old Testament dispensa- tion. It was promised to Abraham that he should have a Son ; to Israel, that they should possess the land of Canaan 9r an inheritance; to David, that they should return from the Babylonish captivity, &c.; and by faith each of them in due time obtained the promise. But there was one promise which was of greater import- *ce than all the rest; namely, the coming of the Messiah. In the faith of this the fathers lived and died; but they saw not its accomplishment. To see this was reserved for another generation. Hence the words of our Saviour to his disciples:—“Blessed are your eyes, for they see ; and your ears, for they hear. For verily I say unto you, that many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them ; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.” It is thus that God has wisely balanced the advantages of different ages. The fathers obtained much, but not all. In respect of the blessings of Messiah’s kingdom, they sowed, and we reap ; they laboured, and we enter into their labours. Thus it is ordered, that “they without us should not be made perfect.” The fulfilments of our times must come in to answer the faith and complete the hopes of those who have gone before us. “Jesus saith unto Mary, Touch me not: for I am not yet ascended to my Father.”—John xx. 17. “Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side; and be not faithless, but believing.”—John xx. 27. IT is manifest, from these and other passages, that the reason why Mary was forbidden to touch her risen Saviour was not because the thing itself was impossible. Indeed, if it had been so, the prohibition had been unnecessary; for we need not be forbidden to do that which cannot be done. There might, however, be an impropriety in her using the same freedoms with him in his immortal state as she had been wont to do in his mortal state. It might be proper to touch him at his own invitation, and so to answer an important end, (see Luke xxiv. 39,) and yet improper to do so without it. By comparing the passage with Matt. xxviii. 9, 10, it appears that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary who was with her did touch him ; for they are said to have “held him by the feet, and worship- ped him.” There is reason to think, therefore, that the words, “Touch me not,” in John, were used merely to induce her to desist from what she was doing ; and that on account of his having more important employment for her —“Go, tell my brethren : " This agrees with the reason given in John—“Touch me not; for I am not yet ascend- ed to my Father,” &c. This was as much as if he had said, You need not be so unwilling to let go my feet, as though you should see me no more : I am not yet ascend. ed, nor shall I ascend at present. Yet do not imagine that I am raised to a mere mortal life, or am going to set up a temporal kingdom in this world . . . . No. . . . . “I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and unto my God, and your God.” “The Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law.”—Rom. ii. 14. “Among whom we all had our conversation in times past . . . . and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.”—Eph. ii. 3. THE term “mature” in these two passages is of very dif- ferent signification. In the former it stands opposed to the written law of God, or the light of revelation. In the latter it is opposed to custom, education, or any thing merely accidental. In the one case, it is expressive of their want of external means ; in the other, of the inward disposition of their minds. The phrase “by nature,” in the former, refers to the rule of action ; but, in the latter, to the cause of it. All arguments, therefore, against the total depravity of human nature, or in favour of a natural disposition to virtue, drawn from the former of these pas- sages, are entirely unfounded. “One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” –Rom. xiv. 5. “Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.”—Gal. iv. 10, 11. THE key to this apparent difficulty will be found in attend- ing to the persons addressed. The Roman and Galatian 536 APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS. churches were each composed of both Jews and Gentiles; but they are not addressed promiscuously; neither are they the same description of people who are addressed in both passages. Those who regarded days among the Romans were the converted Jews, who, having from their youth observed them as Divine appointments, were with difficulty brought to lay them aside. And as their attach- ment had its origin in a tender regard to Divine authority, they were considered as keeping the day unto the Lord ; and great tenderness was enjoined upon the Gentile con- verts towards them in that matter. Those, on the other hand, who among the Galatians “observed days, and months, and times,” were converted Gentiles, as is manifest from the context, which describes them as having, in their unconverted state, done “service to them which by nature were no gods,” ver. 8. These, being perverted by certain judaizing teachers, were, con- trary to the apostolical decision, (Acts xv.,) circumcised, and subjected themselves to the yoke of Jewish ceremo- nies. Nor was this all : they were brought to consider these things as necessary to justification and salvation, which was subversive of the doctrine of justification by faith in Jesus Christ, Acts xv. 1; Gal. v. 4. Considering these differences, the different language of the apostle is perfectly in character. Circumcision, and conformity to the laws of Moses, in Jewish converts, was held to be lawful. Even the apostle of the Gentiles him- self to the Jews became a Jew, frequently, if not con- stantly, conforming to the Jewish laws; and writing to others he expresses himself on this wise : “Is any man called being circumcised ? Let him not become uncir- cumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision ? Let him not become circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and un- circumcision is nothing ; but keeping of the command- ments of God.” But for Gentiles, who had no such things to be alleged in their favour, to go off from the liberty granted to them, (Acts xv.,) and entangle themselves under a yoke of bondage—and not only so, but to make it a term of justification—was sufficient to excite a fear lest the la- bour which he had bestowed upon them was in vain. “And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.”—Acts ix. 7. “And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.”—Acts xxii. 9. THE statement in these two passages contains a variety, but no contrariety, the former observing that the men “heard a voice; ” the latter, that “they heard not the voice of him that spoke” to Saul. They heard a sound which terrified them ; but did not understand the mean- ing, which Saul did. The one says that they “saw the light;" the other that they “saw no man.” In all this there is no inconsistency. The reason why they are said to have “seen no man” is not to distinguish them from Saul ; for neither did he see the personage who spoke to him ; but to account for their terror, or their being struck speechless. It must have been overwhelming to their minds to have heard a voice, and yet to see no person near from whom it should proceed. The difference upon the whole, however, between the case of these men and Saul was great, and strongly marks the difference between mere convictions and true conver- sion. The voice of the Lord was heard by both ; but to the one it was a mere general and indistinct sound ; to the other it was a word that entered into his soul. They “saw the light, and were afraid ; ” but that was all : he saw, and heard, and understood, and felt, and inquired, “Who art thou, Lord?—Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” . Many hear the word in a general way, and see enough to make them tremble; but then it is truly effect- ual when it is addressed to us as the voice of one that speaks to us from heaven ; when it disarms us of our enmity to Christ, excites in us the desire of knowing him, and makes us willing, without hesitation or delay, to obey his commandments. “God, who is faithful, will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able.”—l Cor. x. 13. “We were pressed out of measure, above strength, insomuch that we despaired even of life.”—2 Cor. i. 8. THE ability in the former of these passages, and the strength in the latter, are far from being the same. The one is expressive of that Divine support which the Lord has promised to give to his servants under all their trials; the other of the power which we possess naturally as creatures. We may be tried beyond this, as all the mar- tyrs have been, and yet not beyond the other. The out- ward man may perish, while the inward man is renewed day by day, “Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.”— Gal. vi. 2. “Every man shall bear his own burden.”—Gal. vi. 5. THE former is an exhortation to Christian sympathy under present afflictions; the latter is a declaration of the rule of future judgment, according to character. We may alleviate each other's sorrows in this life, but cannot stand in each other's place at the last day. “The Lord is at hand.”—Phil. iv. 5. “Be not soon shaken in mind, nor troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter, as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.”—2 Thess. ii. 2. EveRY thing with respect to degrees is what it is by comparison. Taking into consideration the whole of time, the coming of Christ was “at hand.” There is reason to believe from this, and many other passages of the New Testament, that the sacred writers considered themselves as having passed the meridian of time, and entered into the afternoon of the world, as we may say. Such appears to be the import of the following, among other passages: “God hath in these last days spoken to us by his Son.”— “Once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.”—“Upon whom the ends of the world are come.”—“The coming of the Lord draweth nigh.”—“Surely I come quickly.” But taking into consideration only a single generation, the day of Christ was not at hand. The Thessalonians, though a very amiable people, were by some means mis- taken on this subject, so as to expect that the end of the world would take place in their lifetime, or within a very few years. To correct this error, which might have been productive of very serious evils, was a principal design of the Second Epistle to that people. “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.”—l John i. 8. “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin, for his seed re- maineth in him ; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.”— 1 John iii. 9. IT appears that the word sin, in these passages, is of different significations. In the former it is to be taken properly, for any transgression of the law of God. If any man say, in this sense, he has no sin, he only proves him- self to be deceived, and that he has yet to learn what is true religion. But in the latter, it seems, from the context, that the term is intended to denote the sin of apostacy. If we were to substitute the term apostacy for sin, from the sixth to the tenth verse, the meaning would be clear. Whoso abideth in him apostatizeth not : whosoever apostatizeth hath not seen him, neither known him.—He that is guilty of apostacy is of the devil; for the devil hath been an apostate from the beginning.—Whosoever is born of God doth not apostatize ; for his seed remaineth in him ; and he cannot apostatize, because he is born of God. This sense of the latter passage perfectly agrees with what is said of the “sin unto death,” ver. 16–18. “There is a sin unto death . . . . . . . . We know that whosoever APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS. 537 is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.” It also agrees with chap. ii. 19, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would, no doubt, have continued with us. But they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” Altogether, it affords what we might presume to call an incontestable proof of the certain per- severance of true believers. “All that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.”— 2 Tim. iii. 12. “When a man's ways please the Lord, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him.”—Prov, xvi. 7. SoME consideration is required for the difference of times. It was the genius of the Old Testament, more than of the New, to connect obedience to God with temporal prosperity; and therefore that might be said under the one which would be less applicable under the other. It is allowed, however, that this is not sufficient to solve the difficulty. There has always been the same radical enmity in general between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman. He that was born after the flesh then, persecuted him that was born after the Spirit; and so it is now. And by how much more spiritual the church at any time has been, by so much higher has the enmity arisen against them. It is also true under the gospel, as well as under the law, that where a man perseveres in right- eousness and godliness, though he may have many enemies, yet their enmity shall frequently be prevented from hurt- ing him, and even turned away from him into other chan- nels. The truth seems to be, that neither of the above passages is to be taken universally. The peace possessed by those who please God does not extend so far as to ex- empt them from having enemies; and though all godly men must in some form or other be persecuted, yet none are persecuted at all times. God has always given his people some seasons of rest. The former of these passages may, therefore, refer to the native enmity which true god- liness is certain to excite, and the latter to the Divine control over it. The rod of the wicked must be expected to fall, but not to rest upon the lot of the righteous. Man's wrath shall be let loose in a degree ; but further than what is necessary for the praise of God it shall not go. It shall be suffered to shoot forth in measure ; but God will debate with it. “He stayeth his rôugh wind in the day of his east wind.” “But meat commendeth us not to God,” &c.—1 Cor. viii. 8–13. “The things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils and not to God, and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils: ye can- not be partakers of the Lord’s table and of the table of devils.”— 1 Cor. x. 20, 21. IN the former of these passages the apostle presses the discontinuance of eating meats offered to idols as merely inea pedient ; in the latter as absolutely unlawful. To ac- count for this, it may be proper to observe that eating part of the sacrifices of the city, which might be provided at the public expense, had been the custom in all former times; and it was probably thought a hardship to be for- bidden it. Some of the members of the church at Corinth proceeded so far as to resume their old stations at these public feasts; and justified themselves on the ground that they were not so ignorant as not to be able to distinguish between idolatry and good eating and drinking; they did not mean by it to do any honour to the idol, but merely to partake of the repast. Yet by their example many weaker brethren, who still retained the prejudices of their heathen education, were actually drawn into a superstitious veneration of the idol.—The thing also was in itself wrong, as it was having fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness. To remedy this evil, the apostle first reasons with them on their own principles. Be it so, as if he had said, that there is no evil in it, and that you by your superior know- ledge (thus satirizing their vain pretences) can walk over these coals without being burnt; yet that is more than your weaker brethren can do. You make them sin, though you be sinless yourselves.—In this view he allows their conduct, for argument sake, to be lawful, but denies it to be expedient. But having “thus proved the impropriety of their conduct, even upon their own principles, he then proceeds to evince its utter unlawfulness ; calling it “idol- atry,” chap. x. 14, and proving it to be so on this general principle—that he who voluntarily associates with others in any act is a partaker of that act. On this ground, says he, it is that in the Lord’s supper we hold professed com- munion with Christ ; that those who among the Jews ate of the sacrifices partook of the altar; and, upon this ground, you cannot eat and drink things offered to idols without having fellowship with demons. S E R M O N S AND S K ET CHES OF SERM ONs. SERMON I. [Preached at Nottingham before the Northamptonshire Association, June 2, 1784.] THE NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF WALKING BY FAITH. “We walk by faith, not by sight.”—2 Cor. v. 7. MUCH is said concerning faith in the Holy Scriptures, especially in the New Testament ; and great stress is laid upon it, especially by the author of the Epistle to the He- brews. This, I apprehend,” is not very difficult to be ac- counted for. Ever since the fall of man, we have been entirely dependent on the mercy of God, through a Me- diator. We all lie at his discretion, and are beholden to his mere sovereign grace for all the happiness we enjoy. We have nothing on which we can rely for the possession or continuance of any good, but the word and will of God. The only life, therefore, proper for a fallen creature in our world, is a life of faith—to be constantly sensible of our dependence upon God, continually going to him, and re- ceiving all from him, for the life that now is and that which is to come. Believers, and they only, are brought to be of a spirit suitable to such a kind of life. The hearts of all others are too full of pride and self-sufficiency; but these are contented to be pensioners on the bounty of another, can willingly commit their all into Christ's hands, and venture their present and everlasting concerns upon his word. “The just shall live by faith.” Self-renunciation, and confidence in another, are ideas which seem ever to accompany that of faith. The apostle speaks of being justified by faith; that is, not by our own righteousness, but by the righteousness of another:-of living by faith ; that is, not by our own earnings, so to speak, but by the generosity of another:-of standing by faith ; that is, not upon our own legs, as we should say, but upon those of another: and here, of walking by faith; which is as much as if he had said, 'We walk, not trusting our own eyes, but the eyes of another; we are blind, and cannot guide ourselves; we must therefore rely upon God for direction and instruction. This, my brethren, is the life we must live, while in this world, and this the manner in which we must walk in our progress toward the hea- venly state. Great is the wisdom and goodness of God in so ordering it; great glory hereby redounds to him, and great good accrues to us. º All I shall attempt will be to ea plain the NATURE, and show the IMPORTANCE, of the Christian's walk by faith. Both are necessary: the one, that we may form just ideas of what we have to do ; and the other, that we may feel our hearts excited to do it. Oh may the same Spirit who indited the sacred passage breathe upon us, that these ends may be accomplished I. Let us inquire what Is INTENDED by the sacred writer, when he says, “We walk by faith, not by sight.” Faith and sight, it is easy to see, here stand opposed ; as, indeed, they do in many other parts of Scripture; especially in that remarkable definition of faith wherein the apostle to the Hebrews calls it “the evidence of things not seen.” But what kind of sight it is opposed to may deserve our attentive inquiry. And here, before I proceed any further, in order to make the way clear, I will advert to a notion which has been too generally received, but which appears to me unscrip- tural and pernicious; what I refer to is, that faith is to be considered as opposed to spiritual sight, or spiritual dis- cernment. It is true I never heard of any person, either in preaching, writing, or conversation, who said so in ex- press words; but expressions are often used which con- vey the same idea. When the terms faith and sense are used, it is common with many to understand, by the latter, sensible communion with God. So it is common to hear a life of faith opposed to a life of frames and feelings. Those times in which we have the most spiritual discernment of God’s glory, sensible communion with him, and feel our love most ardently drawn out to him, are thought to have the least of the exercise of faith. It is common to say, There is no need for faith then; at those times we live by sense : but that when all our graces seem dead, and we can see no evidence from which to draw the favourable conclusion, then is the time to walk by faith. The mean- ing is, then is the time to believe all is well, and so rest easy, whether we have evidence that it is so or not. Thus we have often heard several passages of Scripture applied, or rather miserably misapplied ; for instance, that in the last chapter of Habakkuk : “Although the fig tree shall not blossom, neither shall fruit be in the vines, the labour of the olive shall fail, and the fields shall yield no meat, the flock shall be cut off from the fold, and no herd in the stalls; yet will I rejoice in the Lord, I will joy in the God of my salvation.” As if by the fig tree not blos- soming, &c. were meant the Christian graces not being in exercise ; and that then was the time to walk by faith, to rejoice in the God of our salvation . That passage also concerning Abraham, “who, against hope, believed in hope,” has been understood as if to be strong in faith, giving glory to God, like Abraham, was to maintain an unshaken persuasion of the goodness of our state, whether we have evidence or no evidence. WALKING BY FAITH. 539 * So also that passage in the fiftieth of Isaiah has been frequently brought for this purpose: “Who is among you that feareth the Lord, that obeyeth the voice of his serv- ant, that walketh in darkness, and hath no light? let him trust in the name of the Lord, and stay upon his God.” As though a state of darkness there meant a state of mind wherein a person could discern no evidence whatever of his being a good man; and as though such were there en- couraged to make themselves easy, and leave the matter with God, not doubting the goodness of their state. Our Lord's rebuke to Thomas has been understood in the same manner: “Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.” As if a blessing should rest upon those who, destitute of all discernible evidence of their Christianity, nevertheless believe it with an unshaken confidence. If this is to walk by faith, then faith must stand opposed to spiritual sight or spiritual discernment. - I doubt not but there is such a thing as to live upon frames ; which ought to be guarded against. If I imagine, for instance, that God changes as I change—that he ad- mires me at one time, and not another—or that his great love, whence all my hope of salvation springs, rises and falls according to the state of my mind; this is, doubtless, to dishonour God, as it strikes at the immutability of his love. So if I derive my chief consolation from reflecting upon what I am, instead of reflecting upon what Christ is, this is to dishonour Christ, and may very properly stand opposed to living by faith. But this is not the common idea of living upon frames. It has been usual with many to account that man to live upon frames, who, when he is stupid, and dark, and carnal, cannot be confident about the safety of his state; and him to live by faith who can main- tain his confidence in the worst of frames. Allow me, brethren, to offer three or four plain reasons against this notion of the subject. 1. Faith is the only means of spiritual discernment and communion with God; and therefore cannot be opposed to them. Our best frames are those in which faith is most in exercise; and our worst when it is the least. Faith is the eye of the mind. It is that by which we realize in- visible and spiritual objects, and so have fellowship with God. Yes, it is by this grace that we “behold the glory of the Lord,” and are changed into the same image from glory to glory, by the “Spirit of the Lord.” 2. If faith is opposed to spiritual discernment and com- munion with God, then it must work alone; it must never act in conjunction with any of those graces wherein we jeel our hearts go out to God; for this would be to con- found faith and sense together. But this is contrary to fact. When we have most faith in exercise, we have most love, most hope, most joy; and so of all the graces; all sweetly act in harmony. Thus the Scriptures represent it as ever accompanied by other graces; especially by love, purity, and lowliness of heart. It is expressly said to “Work by love ;” and, it should seem, never works with- out it. It is also said to “purify the heart.” The exer- cise of faith, therefore, and the exercise of holiness, can never be separated. Equally true is it that it is ever at- tended with “lowliness of heart.” There are two in- stances of faith recorded which our Lord particularly com- mended, saying, he had not seen such great faith, no, not in Israel: the one was the case of the woman of Canaan, and the other that of the Roman centurion; and both these were attended with great humility. The one was com- tented to be treated as a dog, and the other thought him- self unworthy that Christ should come under his roof. A confidence unaccompanied with these, if it may be called faith at all, seems nearly to resemble what the apostle James called “faith without works;” which he pronounced to be “dead, being alone.” 3. If faith is to be understood in this sense, then it not only works without other graces, but contrary to them. The Scriptures encourage a spirit of self-examination and godly jealousy. These are modest and upright graces, and constitute much of the beauty of Christianity. “Ex- amine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith,” say the inspired writers; “try your own selves | *—“Let us fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of us should seem to come short of it.”—“Let us pass the time of our sojourning here in fear.” But always to be confident of the safety of our state, let the work of sanc- tification go on as it may, is not only unfriendly to such a spirit, but subversive of it. Hence it is common, with some, to call every degree of godly jealousy by the name of unbelief, and to impute it to the enemy; yea, to shun it, and cry out against it, as if it were itself a devil . This is not the most favourable symptom of an honest heart. Surely a heart truly upright would not wish to receive comfort itself, but upon solid evidence ; and where it was taught to call such a fear by the name of unbelief I know not ; I think I may say, it never came from the word of God. If the veracity of God were called in question, no doubt it would be unbelief; but the question, at those times, with a sincere mind, is not whether God will prove faithful in saving those that trust in him, but whether he be indeed the subject of that trust. . His doubts do not respect God, but himself. Love and fear are the two great springs and guardians of right action. When love is in exercise, we do not stand in need of fear to stimulate or guide us; but when we are not constrained by the former, it is well to be restrained by the latter. 4. Faith, in that case, must be unsupported by evidence. God’s word affords us no warrant to conclude ourselves interested in his promises, and so in a state of safety, un- less we bear the characters to which the promises are made. We have no right, for instance, to apply to our- selves that promise—“Fear thou not, for I am with thee: be not dismayed, for I am thy God : I will strengthen thee, yea, I will help thee, yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness,”—unless we bear the character of the party there addressed. This is expressed in the foregoing verse, “But thou, Israel, art my servant,” &c. If, from the real desire of our hearts, we yield not ourselves servants to God, no impression of this passage upon our minds can warrant us to conclude that God is indeed our God, or that we shall be strengthened, helped, or upholden by him. So also no man has any right to conclude himself interested in that promise, “I have loved thee with an everlasting love, therefore with loving-kind- ness have I drawn thee,” unless he be so drawn from the love of sin, self, and the world, as to love God better than any of them. But if we are to hold fast the confidence of our safety, whatever be the condition of our mind or the evils in our conduct, then we are, in that instance, to be- lieve without evidence. If the work of sanctification be the only Scriptural evidence of our interest in Christ, then, in proportion to that work increasing or declining, our evidence must be strong or weak. When we degenerate into carnality and indifference, it must, of course, diminish. To say, then, that those are the times in which we exer- cise most faith, is the same thing as to say we exercise most faith when we have least evidence; and, consequent- ly, it must be a kind of faith, if it be faith at all, that is unsupported by evidence.* There are but two cases, that I recollect, in the whole * * All true faith must have TRUTH for its foundation. That faith to which the Scriptures promise salvation is founded upon evidence; and that evidence is the Test IMONY of God. Hence it is, with great pro- priety, by the apostle, defined the belief of the truth.” This definitiºn includes more than many seem to apprehend. To believe the truth in reality is cordially to credit the account which God has given of him. self. of us, of sin, of Christ, of earth, of heaven, &c. Whoever thus realizes Divine truth must, of necessity, feel its influence. The same apºstle tells us that those who receive the word as it is find it effect. %lly to work in them. Hence we are said to be sanctified through the truth, to know the truth, and to be made free by it. I cannot te. lieve God to be that amiable and gracious Being which his word repre- §ents him to be, without loving him. I cannot believe myself to be that vile and worthless being that God represents me to be, without abhorring myself in dust and ashes. . If I really credit what God hath said of the exceeding sinfulness of sin, it is impossible but that I should hate it, and perceive its dreadful demerit, and plainly see my- self righteously condemned for being a subject of it. If I really be- lieve the record that God has given of his Son, that is the same thing as to think of his excellences, in measure, as God thinks of them ; and, in that case, I cannot but embrace him with all my heart, and venture my everlasting all upon his atonement. If, from my heart, I believe what God hath said of the vanity of this world, and the substantial bliss of that to come; if I realize the emptiness of all the enjoyments of the former, and the eternal weight of glory pertaining to the latter; I shall necessarily labour, not for the meat that perisheth, but for that which endureth unto everlasting life. If this be a just notion of faith, then it will follow, l. That all un- 540 SERMONS AND SKETCHES. system of true Christian experience, which so much as seem to resemble this notion; and these are, in fact, essentially different from it. One is that of the most eminent Chris- tians having a general and well-grounded persuasion of their interest in Christ, even at those times wherein they may not experience such evident and sensible eacercises of grace as they do at other times. But then, it is to be observed, grace has more ways than one of being in exercise : the grace of love, for instance ; sometimes it is exercised in the most tender and affectionate feelings of the heart towards Christ, longing to be with him, and to enjoy him, in the world to come ; at other times, it works more in a way of serving him, and promoting his interest in the present world. This latter may not so sensibly strike the person himself as being an exercise of love ; but perhaps other people may consider it superior evidence. The industrious peasant, sitting in his evening chair, sees his children gathering round him, and courting his affections by a hundred little winning ways. He looks, and smiles, and loves. The next day he returns to his labour, and cheerfully bears the burden of the day, in order to provide for these his little ones, and promote their interest. During his day’s labour, he may not feel his love operate in such sensible emotions as he did the evening before. Nay, he may be so attentive to other things as not immediately to have them in his thoughts. What then 3 he loves his children: indeed he gives proof of it, by cheerfully enduring the toils of labour, al.d willingly denying himself of many a comfort, that they might share their part; and were he to hear of their being injured or afflicted, he would quickly feel the returns of glowing affection, in as strong, and perhaps stronger, emotions than ever. Thus the believer may have real love to God in exercise, exciting him to a cheerful and habitual discharge of duty, and a careful watch against evil, and yet feel little, or none, of that desirable tenderness of heart which, at other times, he experiences. He has grace in exercise, only it does not work in the same way as it does at some other times ; and he in general enjoys a conscious satisfaction that the more he knows of God, his holy law, and glorious gospel, the more he loves them. During this, he may have an abiding satisfaction that things are right with him. But this is a very different thing from a person, at all events, maintaining the safety of his state ; yea, and reck- oning himself, in so doing, to be strong in faith, giving glory to God, while carnality governs his spirit, and folly debases his conversation. The other case is when, on a failure of evidence from a reflection on past experiences, the believer has recourse to an immediate application to the Lord Jesus Christ, casting himself directly on his mercy, and relying on his word; seeing he has said, “Him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out.” This case no doubt often occurs. The believer, through the prevalence of carnality, with some other causes, too often finds his evidences for glory so ob- scured, that past experiences will afford but small consola- tion. At such a time, his mind is either easy and carnally disposed, (in that case, a few painful fears will do him no harm,) or else his heart is depressed with perplexity and gloom, in which case nothing is better than immediately to go to Christ as a poor sinner for salvation. This is the shortest, and it is commonly the surest way. It is not best in such a state of mind to stand disputing whether we have believed or not ; be that as it may, the door of mercy is still open, and the Redeemer still says, “Him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.” It is best, therefore, to make a fresh venture of our souls upon him ; that if we have never before trusted in him, we may now. This is no more than he has a warrant at any time to do, let things be as they may with him ; for though internal qualifications are necessary to our concluding ourselves £nterested in Christ, yet it is not so in respect of applica- tion to him. The perplexed soul need not stay, before he ventures, to inquire whether he be fit to come to Christ. It is not required that he should prove his saintship before he applies for mercy, though it is before he claims an in- terest in gospel blessings. All that is necessary here is that he be sensible of his being a vile and lost sinner; and that is not to be considered as a qualification, giving him a right to come, but as a state of mind essential to the act it- self of coming. Many a Christian has found sweet rest to his soul by such a direct application to Christ ; and surely it would be much better for Christians who go almost all their life in painful perplexity, lest they should be mistaken at last, if, instead of perpetually poring on past experiences, they were to practise more in this way. This would furnish them with present evidence, which is much the best, and what God best approves; for he loves to have us continue to exercise our graces, and not barely to remember that we have exercised them some time or other heretofore. This in some sort may be called walking by faith, and not by sight; and, in this case, faith may in some sense be op- posed to spiritual sight. It is opposed to that discernment which we sometimes have of being true Christians, from a review of past experiences. But then this is ever attended with present spiritual discernment of Christ's excellence, and a longing desire after interest in him ; and herein es- sentially differs from what we have been opposing. Con- fidence in the one case is nothing else but carnal security, tending to make men easy without God : confidence in the other is an actual venture of the soul afresh on the Lord Jesus, encouraged by his gracious testimony. The subject of the one considers himself as an established saint; the other as a poor lost sinner, and deals with Christ for salvation just as he did when he first applied to him. To the one we say, “Be not high-minded, but fear;” to the other, “Fear not, thou shalt not be ashamed ; none ever trusted in him, and was confounded.” . In what sense then do we walk by faith, and not by sight? I answer in general, Walking by faith is a GoING FORWARD IN THE WAYS OF GODLINESS, AS INFLUENCED, NOT BY SENSIBLE, BUT BY INvisiBLE OBJECTS-objecTS OF THE REALITY OF WHICH WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE BUT THE TES- TIMONY of GoD. But perhaps faith may be considered as opposed to sight more particularly in three senses; namely, to corporal sight, to the discoveries of mere reason, and to ultimate vision. - 1. To walk by faith is opposed to walking by corpora! sight. In this sense we shall find it plentifully used in the eleventh chapter to the Hebrews, concerning Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and others. Thus Abel, by faith, offered a more excellent offering than Cain. God had said in effect, once for all, that he would never speak nor be spoken to in a way of friendship by any of the human conterted men are truly, and in the most literal and proper sense of the *cord, UNBELIEVERs. Whatever they may pretend, they do not real- ize what God has revealed of his character or their own, of the nature of sin and its dreadful demerit, of the excellence of Christ, of the vanity of this world, and the solid bliss of the next. Nor can this their unbelief be removed but by their becoming entirely new crea- tures, by a work of the almighty Spirit of God. 2. That a mere cold assent to things, commonly called believing the doctrines of the gospel, wnaccompanied with love to them, or a dependence on Christ for sal- nation, is very far from º; true saving faith. Let but the doctrines of the gospel be really and hearlily believed, as God has revealed them, and, as before said, it will be impossible but that we should feel a determination to venture upon Christ alone for salvation, with all the proper effects of living faith. But persons may profess to believe those doctrines when they do not, or may believe them partially, but not as God has revealed them. , Yea, a person may think these his profes- sions to be true, and these his notions to be just, and yet be an infidel at heart. The Jews professed to believe Moses, and no doubt verily thought they did; but our Lord told them, “Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me, for he wrote of me.” We are under a ne- cessity, therefore, of concluding that, where these effects are not pro- duced, the faith of such persons is, in a great degree, pretended, and not real; and in that degree in which it is real, it is very superficial : it reaches only to the shell of truth, at farthest. The essence and glory of the gospel is by them neither discerned nor believed. 3, That all that confidence which is unsupported by evidence, held fast by so many, is not faith, but presumption or delusion. If faith is the belief of the truth, then whatever I believe ought to be a truth, and a truth. supported by evidence, prior to, and independently of, my believing it. This is certainly the case respecting the excellence and all-sufficienc of Christ. He is what he is, whether I believe it or not. However may disallow him, he is chosen of God, and precious. Whatever real excellence I at any time discern or believe to be in him, I only believe the truth, and what would have been the truth if I had never believed it. Faith, therefore, draws aside the veil, and discovers things in some measure as they are. So if that persuasion which I may have of my interest in Christ have any right to the name of faith, it must be a truth, and a truth capable of being proved by Scripture evidence at the time. WALKING BY FAITH. 541 race, but through a mediator. This was intimated partly by man's being debarred from all access to the tree of life, partly by the promise of the woman's Seed, and partly by the institution of sacrifices. Cain overlooked all these, and approached God without an ea:piatory sacrifice ; as if there had been no breach between them, and so no need of an atonement. This was an instance of daring un- belief. Abel, on the contrary, took God at his word, per- ceived the evil of sin and the awful breach made by it, dared not to bring an offering without a victim for atone- ment, had respect to the promised Messiah, and thus, by faith in the wriseen Lamb, offered a more excellent offering than Cain. Thus also it is said of Noah, “By faith he, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house ; by the which he con- demned the world,” &c. No doubt the world were ready to despise Noah, while building his ark, as an enthusiast whose faculties were probably deranged, who put himself to a deal of trouble, and wanted to put other people to as much, merely through a notion that ran in his head that the world should be drowned. Why, was there any thing in the world that looked like it, or seemed to portend such an event? Nothing at all : all things seemed to continue as they were from the creation. What then could induce Noah to do as he did 3 Nothing but the testimony of God, which he credited, and acted accordingly. * So also it is said of Abraham, when called to go into another country, “by faith he obeyed, and went out, not knowing whither he went.” A pretty errand it would seem to his friends and neighbours! It is possible that some of these, observing him preparing for a journey, might inquire whither he was going.—Going? I am going to a land which the Lord is to show me.—And have you ever seen this land 3–No : I neither know the country, nor a step of the way to it.—A fine tale, indeed , but, seriously, what in the world can move you to such an un- dertaking ?—I rely upon the testimony of God. He hath said, “Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, unto a land that I will show thee: ” I take him at his word, and act accordingly. These were cases in point for the apostle to quote. The Hebrews seemed hardly contented with an unseen High Priest, an invisible religion. They had been used to priests and sacrifices that they could hear, and see, and handle with their bodily senses. Like their fathers by Moses, therefore, they were ready to say of Jesus, We know not where he is gone ; come, let us make us a captain, and return to Judaism.—Judaism says the apostle—methinks true Judaism would condemn you. All your forefathers acted upon a principle which you seem about to abandon. They walked by faith, not by sight. They lived, they died, in the faith, even in the faith of that very Messiah of whom you make so light. In this sense, it is easy to see, faith and sight are to be taken in our Lord's rebuke to Thomas, when he says, Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have be. lieved.” It is as if he had said,—You think you have acted very prudently ;-but what must the Christian world do in after-ages, if they act upon your principle 3 Chris- tianity in the whole of it will depend upon testimony; Wh9ever receives it after your death, yea, in your lifetime, besides yourselves, must receive it upon your testimony. Blessed are they that shall cordially so receive it; and * May not the great disputes which have taken pl in or faith and reason, as if the one were opposite to the .."º: in a great degree, from, using the term reason without defining it i The word Teason, like the word understanding, has two senses. *I it signifies the Jitness of things. So the apostles used it, when they said, “It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables;” that is, it is not fit or proper. 2. It signifies our power or capacity of reasoning... So, it is said of Nebuchadnezzar that his Yeason returned to him; that is, his power or ca, acity of reasoning Now it is easy to see that these are two essentially different ideas : the one is perfect and immutable, remaining always the same; the other is shattered and broken by sin, and liable to a thousand variº atiºns, through blindness and prejudice. No Divine truth can disagree With the former; but it may be both above and contrary to the later. If people were to talk, in matters of science and philosophy, as Some have affected to talk in religion, they would be treated as fools and deemed unworthy of attention: A philosopher, for instance, tells * unlettered countryman that it is generally thought that the earth turns round, every day, upon its own axis, and not the sun round the blessed had you been, Thomas, to have set them the ex- ample, by believing the testimony of your brethren. 2. Faith may be considered as opposed to the discoveries of mere reason unassisted by revelation. In this sense it seems to be used in reference to Sarah. “Through faith she received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.” How Sarah should have a son was not only indiscernible by the corporal eye, but by an eye of reason; since it must be, if at all, en- tirely beside the common course of nature. She had no- thing to rely upon in this case but the promise of God. We do not suppose faith and right reason to be oppo- sites: that be far from us. On the contrary, nothing is more evident than that Christianity is entirely a rational system ; and it is its glory that it is so. We should never have been required to give a reason for the hope that is in us, if there had been no reason to be given. But though nothing in revelation be contrary to right reason, yet there are many things which our reason could never have found out, had they not been made known by the Supreme In- telligence. The plan of redemption by Jesus Christ, in particular, contains a set of truths which the eye had never seen, nor the ear heard, nor had they entered the heart of man to conceive, had not God revealed them to us by his Spirit. For all the pleasure that we enjoy, brethren, in contemplating these glorious truths, we are wholly in- debted to the testimony of God. Indeed, so far are they from being discoverable by mere reason, that every bless- ing contains in it abundantly more than men or angels could have asked or thought ! It staggers our reason to receive it, even now it is told us. At every pause we must stand and wonder, saying, “Is this the manner of man, O Lord :'' Not only was our reason incapable of finding out many truths before they were revealed ; but even now they are revealed, they contain things above our comprehension. It is one thing to say that Scripture is contrary to right reason, and another thing to say it may exhibit truths too great for our reason to grasp.” God must have told us nothing about his own existence and infinite perfections, if he had told us nothing but what we could fully com- prehend. In this case, it becomes us to know our little- ness, and to bow our understandings to the Supreme In- telligence. It is the most rational thing in the world so to do. If God has said any thing, we ought to rest as- sured that so it is. In these cases, we ought to trust his eyes, so to speak, rather than our own, and be content to walk by faith, not by sight. 3. Faith may be considered as opposed to ultimate vision. The saints in glory are described as “seeing Christ as he is,” as “knowing even as they are known,” and as being citizens of a city where there shall be “no night,” and where they shall need “no candle, neither light of the sun, nor light of the moon, for the Lord God shall be the light thereof.” Our knowledge of things there will be immediate and intuitive, and not, as it is here, through the medium of the word and ordinances. The sacred Scrip- tures are to us (with reverence be it spoken) like a letter from a distant friend ; but when we come face to face, ink and paper shall be needed no more. However, for the present, it is otherwise. We are yet in the body; and while such, as the apostle observes in the verse preceding the text, “we are absent from the Lord,” and must be earth. The countryman replies, “I don’t believe it.” “Very likely,” says the philosopher; “but why not?” “It is contrary to my reason.” “Contrary to your reason that may be ; but I hope you do not think that every thing contrary to your reason is contrary to right reason l' Were men of the greatest understanding but to consider that there is a far greater disproportion between some truths respecting the exist- ence of a God and their capacities than between any truths of human science and the capacity of the most ignorant rustic, they would be ashamed to disbelieve a truth because it is not according to their TeaSOIl. It is right, and stands commended in Scripture, to apply owr hearts to understanding; but it is wrong, and stands condemned in Scrip- ture, by the same pen, and in the same page, to team to our own um- derstanding... So, I apprehend, it is right to adhere to right reason, and to use all means to find out what it is ; but it is wrong and pre- sumptuous to set up our reason as a standard competent to decide what is truth, and what is error; for that is the same thing as Sup- posing that our ideas of fitness and unfitness always accord with the real fitness of things. 542 SERMONS AND SKETCHES. glad of these helps. Let us make much of this letter, and be thankful that we can walk by it through this world, as by a “light in a dark place,” till we come to a better, where we shall no more walk by faith, but by sight. Thus far I have dwelt chiefly upon the terms ; but, that we may obtain a more comprehensive view of the thing itself, (namely, of a Christian's walking by faith,) let us take a view of a few of those circumstances and situations through which he has to pass during the pre- sent life. It is in these that faith, as well as every other grace, is exercised. Allow me, then, to request your attention, brethren, to four or five observations on the subject. 1. There are many dark seasons in God’s providential dealings with us, in which we can see no way of escape, nor find any source of comfort, but the testimony of God. God’s friends are not distinguished in this world by an exemption from trying providences; he views that, me- thinks, as too trifling a badge of distinction. They shall be known by what is far more noble and ‘advantageous; namely, by patience, obedience, submission, and Divine support under them. Moreover, as we profess to be friends of God, and to trust the salvation of our souls, with all our concerns, in his hands, he sees it proper to prove the sincerity of our professions, and the stability of our hearts. He brings us into such circumstances, there- fore, as shall try us, whether we will confide in him or not. Christ has told his followers, once for all, that “all power in heaven and earth is in his hands ; ” that he is “Head over all things to the church; ” that he “will surely do them good; ” that, however things may seem, “all things shall work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose ; ” that, as to temporal things, let them but “trust in the Lord, and do good, and they shall dwell in the land, and verily they shall be fed;” and as to eternal things, if they have a few light afflictions, they shall last but for “a moment,” and shall “work for them a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory.” These promises seem easy to be believed, when things are smooth and pleasing ; and it is very natural for us, in a day of prosperity, to talk of these things, and try and comfort those with them who are labouring in adversity. But the greatest trial is when it comes home to ourselves. Then it is well if we fall not under the reproof of Eli- phaz, “Thy words have upholden him that was falling, and thou hast strengthened the feeble knees: but now it is come upon thee, and thou faintest; it toucheth thee, and thou art troubled.” Then, if ever, is the time for us to walk by faith, and not by sight. We create to ourselves darlings, and place much of our -happiness in their enjoyment. God not unfrequently takes these first away, as being most his rivals. If one child is more beloved than all the rest, if he must be clothed with a coat of many colours, the coat must quickly be returned without the owner; yes, the period rºl ust soon arrive when it shall be said, Joseph is not / These, with a few more strokes of the kind, will try Jacob’s faith to the uttermost ; and he will find it hard work to reconcile promises with providences. “Thou saidst, I will surely do thee good ;” but “all these things are against me.” Ah, he fails . He fails, like Asaph in a similar condition, who could not see how God could be “good to Israel,” when “waters of a full cup were wrung out to them.” The Shunammitish woman will set us a better example than either the patriarch or the prophet. “Is it well ?” said Elisha's servant, when her child lay dead in her house. She replied, “It is well.” This was, in effect, saying,-Whether I can see it or not, I know he doth all things well.—This is believing when we can- not see, taking God at his word, against all the rebellion of sense and feeling. This is what Jacob should have done; but oh that Jacob had failed alonel If to resemble him, in this instance, would constitute us Israelites, we should most of us be Israelites indeed / We are often very thrifty in devising plans for futurity, and apt to promise ourselves great degrees of happiness, when they are accomplished. Here it is common for God to throw confusion upon our schemes, and cause things to run in a different channel from what we ex- pected. Job, while in prosperity, sat, like a bird in her well-feathered nest, and thought within himself-I shall live to enjoy numerous years of uninterrupted prosperity, to see children's children, and then go down to the grave in peace; or, as he himself afterwards, in the bitter hour of reflection, expressed it, “I said, I shall die in my nest, I shall multiply my days as the sand l’’ Well, so he did at last ; but there was a melancholy chasm in his life, which he never expected. Such there are, more or less, in all our lives ; and, in such situations, it is well if we do not think hard of our best Friend. Some have been ready to ask, Is this love? Is this His doing who has said, I will surely do thee good 3 Yes, and you shall see it in the end, as Asaph did; who, after he had been to God’s sanctuary, and saw things as they were, went home, it seems, and penned the seventy-third Psalm, be- ginning it all in ecstasy, saying, “Truly God is good to Israel l’’ Christians, how criminal, how cruel, that He that never failed us at any time should be so mistrusted as he is . It should seem to suggest as if he were such a God that we cannot trust him out of sight ! How amiable is that spirit, how happy is that heart, that, in every situation, places unbounded confidence in JEHOVAH's word | Such may be hedged up on every side, and encompassed, like Israel at the Red Sea, with seemingly insurmountable difficulties; yet, even here, they will follow Israel’s example, they will cry unto God, and rely upon his mercy. If means can be used, they will use them ; if not, they will “stand still and see the salvation of the Lord.” “Speak unto the children of Israel,” said the Lord, “that they go forward.” Go for- ward they might have replied, what, leap at once into the jaws of destruction . But nothing of this. At first, indeed, their faith seemed to fail them, but they soon re- covered themselves. “Speak unto the children of Israel,” said the Lord, “ that they go forward”—they went—a way was made in the sea, and a path in the mighty waters. Well may it be said, BY FAITH Israel passed through the Red Sea. Minds thus disposed might defy the united sources of worldly sorrow to render them un- happy. Let poverty stare them in the face, let pinching want stretch over them her miserable sceptre, they have been known, even here, by faith, to break forth into songs of praise. Thus sang good Habakkuk, (and this evidently appears to be his situation, and not a state of spiritual declension,) “Although the fig tree shall not blossom, neither shall fruit be in the vines, the labour of the olive shall fail, and the fields shall yield no meat, the flock shall be cut off from the fold, and no herd in the stalls; yet will I rejoice in the Lord, I will joy in the God of my salvation.” Thus also sang the church, even in her captivity, when her country was laid waste, Jeru- saled razed to the ground, and the temple burnt to ashes : “The Lord is my portion, saith my soul, therefore will I hope in him ''' . 2. In all our approaches to and fellowship with Christ, it is by faith in the account that God has given of him in his word. Christ’s excellence, undertaking, and benefits are the joy, and even the life, of our souls, if we are true Christians. But what evidence have we of all or any of these ? Yea, what evidence have we that there is, or ever was, such a person as Jesus Christ 3 or if there was, that he was the Messiah, the Son of God . We neither saw him alive, nor die, rise again, mor ascend to heaven. We never saw the miracles he wrought, nor heard the voice from the excellent glory, saying, “This is my be- loved Son, hear ye him.” We speak of his personal ex- cellences, Divine and human ; of his love, zeal, righteous- ness, meekness, patience, &c.; but what know we of them $ We rejoice in his being constituted our Surety, to obey the law and endure the curse in our stead; but how know we that so indeed it is ? We glory in the im- putation of his righteousness, and exult in the hope of being found in him, and being for ever with him, fault- less before his throne, to serve him day and night in his temple ; but on what do we rely for all this? If our ex- pectations are but just, truly they are noble; but if groundless, extravagant. Are they, then, well-founded ? Yes, the testimony of God is the rock wheron they rest. He has told us by the mouth of his servants, the inspired WALKING BY FAITH. 543 writers, all that is necessary for us to know, of the character, conduct, and errand of his Son ; of every office he sustained, and every end for which he came into the world. To all this he has added that “whosoever be- lieveth on him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.” So they have preached, and so we have believed. We have, through grace, ventured our everlasting ALL in his hands; nor is it in the hands of we know not whom : *: we know whom we have trusted, and are persuaded that he is able to keep that which we have committed to him against that day.” For though none of these things are visible to our mortal eye, yet, having evidence that God has said them, we are satisfied. We would as soon trust God’s word as our own eyes. Thus we walk, like Moses, “as seeing him who is invisible;” and thus answer to that description, “Whom having not seen ye love, in whom, though now ye see him not, yet, believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable, and full of glory.” In all our applications to Christ, we have to rely merely upon the testimony of God. Here is a poor, self-con- demned sinner, who comes pressing through the crowd of discouraging apprehensions, that he may, so to speak, touch the hem of the Redeemer’s garment, and be made whole. As he approaches, one set of thoughts suggests, How can such a monster hope for mercy? Is it not doubtful whether there be efficacy enough in the blood of Christ itself to pardon such heinous crimes?—I know my crimes are heinous beyond expression, replies the burdened soul, and I should doubtless give up my case as desperate, but that I have heard of him that “he is able to save to the uttermost all that come unto God by him.” I will go, therefore ; who can tell ?—As he goes, other objections assail him, questioning whether Christ can find in his heart to accept of such a one 3—I should think not, indeed, rejoins the poor man ; but he has said, “Him that cometh to me I will in nowise cast out.” I know, were I to consult nothing but my feelings, and only to fix my eyes on the enormity of my sin, I should utterly despair ; but encouraged by HIs worD, I will go forward; I will walk by faith, not by sight: O, I hear him say, “Come unto me, all ye that labour, and are heavy laden— and ye shall find rest unto your souls : * This, this is what I want Depart from me, all ye that vex my soul; I will go in the strength of the Lord God : 3. We have to give up many present enjoyments, for Christ's sake, wherein we have no visible prospect of recompence, none of any kind but what arises from the promise of God. Self-denial is one of the initial laws of Christ's kingdom. Far from enticing people into his ser- vice by promises of wealth, ease, and honour, he set out with this public declaration, “Whosoever will be my dis- ciple must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.” But who would enter upon these terms ? Who would give up houses, lands, friends, and reputation, and expose himself to hardships, persecution, and death, for nothing? Yet many followed him, and that to the day of their death; Yea, and upon these very terms too: “they left all, and followed him.” What then induced them 4 Did not they act irrationally? Prophets, apostles, and martyrs what mean ye Have ye no regard for yourselves? What are you destitute of the feelings of men 3–No such thing; we “have respect unto the recompence of reward.”—Re- ward what can that be? nothing surely below the sun, unless it were every thing the reverse of what is agreeable to human nature —True; but our Lord has declared, “Whosoever shall forsake houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive a hundredfold and inherit everlasting life.” We rely upon this, and this Sup- ports us. God's friends, in all ages, have forsaken sensible for invisible enjoyments. Encouraged by considerations like these, Ruth forsook her father and her mother, and the land of her nativity, and came to a people whom she knew not. It was this that determined her to go forward, when, as Naomi told her, there were no earthly prospects before her. It was this that made her resolve not to go back With Orpah, but to cast in her lot with the friends of the God of Israel. “The Lord recompense thy work,” said Boaz to her afterwards, “ and a full reward be given thee of the Lord God of Israel, under whose wings thou art come to trust ’’ The same things influenced Moses, it seems, to refuse a crown. It has been thought that, in virtue of his adoption, he might have been king of Egypt; but that throne not only, like other thrones, exposed him that sat thereon to numberless snares, but probably was inaccessible to any but those who would continue the system of idolatry and oppression. In that case Moses, in order to become king of Egypt, must have sacrificed a good conscience, despised a crown of glory that fadeth not away, and united in per- secuting his own and the Lord’s people. Moses seems fully to have weighed this matter. The result was, he “re- fused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season ; esteeming even the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt.” He, therefore, freely leaves the life of a courtier; avows himself the friend of the poor despised captives; and dares to retire into Midian, to lead the life of an ob- scure shepherd. I say, he dared to retire ; for it required a greater degree of courage thus to deny himself, than to stand in the forefront of a battle, or to face the mouth of a cannon But “by faith he forsook Egypt, and went and lived a stranger in a strange land ; for he endured as see- ing him who is invisible; ” yes, “he had respect unto the recompence of reward.” In short, through this, the holy tribes of martyrs, in all ages, loved not their lives unto the death. By faith in in- visible realities, as the apostle to the Hebrews largely proves, they bore all manner of cruelties, not accepting deliverance itself upon dishonourable conditions; suffered all kinds of deaths with unremitting fortitude, and, in some sort, like their glorious Leader, triumphed over principalities and powers when they fell. Indeed, every man in the world may be said to walk either by faith or by sight. There is not only a giving up sensible for invisible enjoyments, by actually parting with them, but by not setting our hearts upon them, as our chief good. This may be done where there is no call actually to give them up, and is done by all real Christians in the world. Men whose chief good consists in the profits, pleasures, or honours of this life live by sight; they de- rive their life from objects before their eyes, having neither patience nor inclination to wait for a portion in the world to come. But good men, as well the rich as the poor, de- rive their life from above, and so live by faith ; their “ life is hid with Christ in God.” Perhaps here, as much as any where, is required the peculiar exercise of faith. For one actually divested of earthly good to look upward, and set his heart on things above, is faith ; but for one still possessed of this—one on whom Providence smiles, prospering him in all he sets his hand to, blessing him with wife and children, houses and lands, in abundance—for him to exercise such a degree of indifference to all these as to derive his chief happiness from invisible realities, this is faith indeed . This seems to have been exemplified in Abraham, and other patriarchs. Of him it is said, “By faith he sojourned in the Land of Promise, as in a strange country.” How is this? We do not wonder that when he and Sarah went into Egypt, on account of a famine, he should consider himself a sojourner there ; but how is it that he should do so in Canaan, the Land of Promise, his own estate, as it were 3 The next yerse informs us ; “for he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.” So Jacob, when before Pharaoh, called his whole life a pilgrimage, though the far greater part of it was spent in the Land of Promise; and “they that say such things,” adds the apostle, “declare plainly that they seek a country.” Though God had given them the good land, they would not make it their chief good. They could not be contented with this Canaan, but longed for another. Noble souls . bid them lift up their eyes eastward, and westward, and northward, and southward, and tell them all they can see is their own; still they will not live by sight, but by faith; “they will desire a better country, that is, a heavenly.” 4. There are many low and distressing seasons to which the church of God is subject, in which there is little or no visible ground of encouragement, scarcely any but what 544 SERMONS AND SEETCHES. arises from the promise of God. The whole church of God, as individuals, has, in all ages, had its day of adversity set over against the day of prosperity. Israel, after their de- liverance from Egypt and settlement in Canaan, enjoyed pretty much prosperity, especially in the days of David and Solomon. But afterwards, by a series of provocations, they procured to themselves the Babylonish captivity. At that melancholy period, those amongst them that feared the Lord must be supposed to be all in darkness. Jeru- salem laid waste ; the temple burnt with fire; Judah carried captive ; ah, what becomes of God’s interest in the world ! The “foundations” of his visible kingdom seemed to be “lard in the holy mountains” round about Jerusalem ; if these are destroyed, what can the righteous do? They had long sighed and cried for the idolatrous abominations of their countrymen, and prayed and hoped that mercy might be lengthened out; but now all seems over. For their idolatry, they must go, and have enough of idolaters: they that feared the Lord must also go with them. By the rivers of Babylon they must go, and sit down. Those that had been used to sound the high praises of God in Zion must now hang their harps upon the willows, as having no use for them | Nor is this the worst; they must be taunted, and their GoD derided, by their insulting lords: “Come,” said they, “sing us one of the songs of Zion ;” as if they had said, Now see what your religion has availed you ! This was your favourite employ, and these were the songs wherewith you addressed your Deity, in whom you confided to deliver you out of our hands; what think you now 3 Poor Zion! “She spreadeth forth her hands, but there is none to comfort her. The Lord hath commanded that her adversaries should be round about her :” her captive sons can only remember Jerusalem and weep 1 Alas, “how can they sing the Lord’s song in a strange land . " But is there no help from above 3 Is there no phy- sician there 2 Yes, the God whom Babel derides, but Judah adores, looks down, and sees their affliction. To his disheartened friends, in this situation, he addresses himself, saying, “Who is among you that feareth the Lord, that obeyeth the voice of his servant, that walketh in dark- ness, and hath no light? let him trust in the name of the Lord, and stay upon his God.” As if he should say, For a season you must walk by faith, and not by sight; but, trust me, that season shall soon be over. Seventy years, and Babylon shall fall, and Judah return By these de- clarations the church was encouraged in her captivity, and furnished with an answer to her insulting foes; yea, and, what is wonderful, breaks forth into one of the Lord’s songs in a strange land ' (Hearken, O Babel, to “one of the songs of Zion!”). “Rejoice not against me, O mine enemy; when I fall, I shall arise; when I sit in darkness, the Lord shall be a light unto me. I will bear the indigna- tion of the Lord, because I have sinned against him, until he plead my cause, and execute judgment for me; he will bring me forth to the light, and I shall behold his right- eousness. Then she that is mine enemy shall see it, and shame shall cover her which said unto me, Where is the Lord thy God?” This is encouraging to us as churches and as ministers. We have, in many cases, to walk in darkness, and have no light, and to go on in our ministrations, in a great degree, like the prophet Isaiah, lamenting that there are so few who have believed our report, so few to whom the arm of the Lord has been revealed. When death removes Worthy characters, we must sometimes live, and lament to see their places unoccupied by others of the like character; and, what is worse, instead of increase by Christ's con- quests, We must sometimes live to see a decrease by the conquests of the evil one Many a faithful minister has had to preach, year after year, till, either by public scandals or private disgusts, many of his people have gone off, and walked no more with him. But let him then remember the testimony of God: “Him that honoureth me I will honour.” Let him go on, and faithfully discharge his duty, whether they will hear or whether they will forbear; let him, and those that are with him, walk by faith, and not by sight. It often proves that, after such a night of weeping, comes a morning of rejoicing. Let us not be discouraged; better breath than ours has been spent ap- parently in vain. Our Lord himself seemed to labour in vain, and to spend his strength for nought; but he com- forted himself in this, (herein leaving us an example,) “Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and my God shall be my strength.” This may encourage and direct us in larger concerns; concerns which respect the whole interest of Christ in the world. If we compare the present state of things, or even the past, with the glorious prophecies of the word of God, we cannot think, surely, that all is yet accomplished. By these prophecies the Christian church is encouraged to look for great things at some period or other of her ex- istence. She is taught to look for a time when “the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea ; ” when “a nation shall be born at once ;” when “the kingdoms of this world shall become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ ;” and he “shall reign from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth.” But surely, for the present, though great things, upon the whole, have been done in the world, yet nothing like this has ever come to pass. In- stead of the world being conquered, what a great part yet continues to stand out against him Heathenism, Ma- homedism, popery, and infidelity, how extensive still their influence 1. In all probability not a single country, city, town, village, or congregation has ever yet been brought wholly to submit to Christ : Nay, is it not very rare to find, in any one of these, so many real friends as to make even a majority in his favour 3 May not the Christian church then, for the present, adopt that lan- guage, “We have been with child, we have as it were brought forth wind, we have not wrought any deliverance in the earth, neither have the inhabitants of the world fallen?” What then, shall we despair? God forbid! “The vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie : though it tarry, wait for it, because it will surely come, it will not tarry;” and, meanwhile, “the just shall live by faith.” - Let us take encouragement, in the present day of small things, by looking forward, and hoping for better days. Let this be attended with earnest and united prayer to him by whom Jacob must arise. A life of faith will ever be a life of prayer. Obrethren, let us pray much for an out- pouring of God’s Spirit upon our ministers and churches, and not upon those only of our own connexion and de- nomination, but upon “all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours!” Our hope of a better state, when this is over, is built on faith in God’s testimony. We have no sort of evidence but this that any such state exists. We cannot see any thing of the kind, or aught from which we can infer it. We cannot learn it from any of our senses. Reason itself could never have found it out. Reason might have taught us the idea of a future state, but not of a future state of bliss. Though much might be argued from the fitness of things, to prove that man is not made barely for the pre- sent life, yet nothing could thence be drawn to prove that rebels against the Supreme Being should live in a state of eternal felicity; no, for this we are wholly indebted to the word of promise. Hence faith is said to be “the sub- stance, ground, or foundation of things hoped for.” Sup- ported by that, we sustain our heaviest losses; and, at- tracted by these, we come up out of great tribulations, following the Lamb whithersoever he goeth, till we shall overcome, and “sit down with him in his throne, as he also hath overcome, and is set down with his Father in his throne.” II. We will now add a few words on the IMPORTANCE of such a life. If, all things considered, it would have been best for us to have always seen our way before us, to have been guided, so to speak, with our own eyes, and not to have implicitly followed the directions of God, no doubt so it would have been ordered. But he who per- fectly, and at once, saw the beginning and end of all things, judged otherwise. With the highest wisdom, no doubt, he formed the resolution, “the just shall live by faith.” It may be impossible for us, in the present state, to find out all the reasons for this resolution ; but two or three seem to present themselves to our view. 1. Such a life brings great glory to God, Confidence is WALKING BY FAITH. 545 universally a medium of honour. To confide in a fellow creature puts honour upon him in the account of others, and affords a pleasure to himself; especially if he be a wise and upright character, as it gives him an opportunity of proving his wisdom and fidelity. Though the great God cannot be made more honourable than he is, by any thing we can do, yet his honour may, by this, be made more apparent. We honour him, so far as we form just conceptions of him in our own minds, and act so as to give just representations of him to others. God is gra- ciously pleased to declare that “he takes pleasure in those that hope in his mercy; ” and why 3 surely, among other things, because it gives him occasion to display the glory of his grace. And as he takes pleasure in those that hope in his mercy and rely upon it, so he takes pleasure in ordering things so that we may be put to the trial, whe- ther we will rely on him or not. It was this which in- duced him to lead Israel through the wiłderness, rather than by the ready road to Canaan. He knew they would be, in fact, dependent upon him, let them be where they would ; but they would not be sensible of that dependence, nor have so much opportunity of entirely trusting him, in any way as in this ; and so it would not be so much for the glory of his great name. He therefore would lead a nation, with all their little ones, into an inhospitable desert, where was scarcely a morsel of meat to eat, and, in many places, not a drop of water to drink; “a land of deserts and of pits, of scorpions and fiery flying serpents:” here, if any where, they must be sensibly dependent on God. They must be fed and preserved immediately from heaven itself, and that by miracle, or all perish in a few days : Here God must appear to be what he was—here mercy and truth must appear to go with them indeed : . What an opportunity was afforded them to have walked these forty years by faith ! what grounds for an entire confidence 1 but, alas, their faithless hearts perverted their way, and, in the end, proved their ruin! Ten times they tempted God in the desert, till at length he swore, con- cerning that generation, that, for their unbelief, they should die in the wilderness, and never enter his rest. Few, if any, besides Joshua and Caleb, would dare to trust him, notwithstanding all his wonders and all his mercies : they, however, for their part, took hold of his strength, and thought themselves able, having God on their side, to encounter any thing ! Their spirit was to walk by faith, and not by sight; and herein it is easy to see how they glorified God. O brethren, let the glory of God lie near our hearts : Let it be dearer to us than our dearest delights Herein consists the criterion of true love to him. Let us, after the noble example of Joshua and Caleb, “follow the Lord fully.” Let us approve of every thing that tends to glo- rify him. Let us be reconciled to his conduct, who “suf- fers us to hunger, that we may know that man lives not by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” If he should bring us into hard and difficult situations, situations to an eye of sense impossi- ble to be endured, let us remember that it is that he may give us an opportunity of glorifying him, by trusting him in the dark. The more difficult the trial, the more glory to him that bears us through, and the greater opportunity is afforded us for proving that we can indeed trust him with all our concerns—that we can trust him when we cannot see the end of his present dispensations. Those very much dishonour God who profess to trust him for another world, but in the common difficulties of this are perpetually murmuring, peevish, and distrustful. How different was it with Abraham, in offering up his son Isaac. What, offer up Isaac my son, my only son of promise ! Why, is not the Messiah to spring out of his loins ? What are to become of all the nations of the earth, who are to be blessed in him " How natural and excusa. ble might such questions have seemed ! much more so than most of our objections to the Divine conduct. Sense, in this case, had it been consulted, must have en- tered a thousand protests. But the father of the faithful consulted not with flesh and blood, not doubting but God knew what he was about, if he himself did not. (Oh that We may prove ourselves the children of faithful Abraham 1) 49ainst hope, in appearance, he believed in hope of Divine affords. : death, nothing can cheer and fortify the mind like this. By faith in an unseen world we can endure injuries with- all-sufficiency; fully persuaded that what God had pro- mised he was able to perform, he stretched forth his obe- dient arm ; nor had he recalled it, had not Heaven inter- posed : he was “strong in faith, giving glory to God.” 2. It is productive of great good to us. The glory of God and the good of those that love him (thanks be to his name !) always go together. It is equally to their benefit as to his honour, for instance, to lie low before him, and to feel their entire dependence upon him. It is essential to the real happiness of an intelligent creature to be in its proper place, and to take a complacency in being so. But nothing tends more to cultivate these dispositions than God’s determining that, at present, we should walk by faith, and not by sight. Faith, in the whole of it, tends more than a little to abase the fallen creature ; and to walk by faith (which is as much as to acknowledge that we are blind, and must see with the eyes of another) is very humbling. The objects of our desire being frequently for a time withheld, and our being at such times reduced to situations wherein we can see no help, and thus obliged to repose our trust in God, contri- bute more than a little to make us feel our dependence upon him. Agur saw that a constant fulness of this world was unfriendly to a spirit of entire dependence upon God ; therefore he prayed, “Give me not riches; lest I be full, and deny thee.” Whatever tends to humble and try us tends to “do us good in the latter end.” Great and wonderful is the consolation that such a life In all the vicissitudes of life and horrors of out revenge, afflictions without fainting, and losses with- out despair. Let the nations of the earth dash, like pot- sherds, one against another; yea, let nature herself approach towards her final dissolution; let her groan as being ready to expire, and sink into her primitive nothing; still the believer lives | His all is not on board that vessel ! His chief inheritance lies in another soil | “His hand the good man fastens on the skies, And bids earth roll, nor feels her idle whirl! ” 3. It will make vision the sweeter. It affords a great pleasure, when we make a venture of any kind, to find ourselves at last not disappointed. If a considerate man embark his all on board a vessel, and himself with it, he may have a thousand fears, before he reaches the end of his voyage ; yet should he, after numberless dangers, safely arrive, and find it not only answer, but far exceed his expectations, his joy will then be greater than if he had run no hazard at all. What he has gained will seem much sweeter than if it had fallen to him in a way that had cost him nothing. Thus believers venture their all in the hands of Christ, persuaded that he is able to keep that which they have committed to him against that day. To find at last that they have not confided in him in vain —yea, that their expectations are not only answered, but infinitely outdone—will surely enhance the bliss of hea- ven. The remembrance of our dangers, fears, and sorrows will enable us to enjoy the heavenly state with a degree of happiness impossible to have been felt, if those dangers, fears, and sorrows had never existed. My hearers! we all of us live either by faith or by sight; either upon things heavenly or things earthly. If on the former, let us go on, upon the word of God; ever- lasting glory is before us! But if on the latter, alas, our store will be soon exhausted . All these dear delights are but the brood of time, a brood that will soon take to themselves wings, and, with her that cherished them, fly away. O my hearers , is it not common for many of you to suppose that those who live by faith in the enjoy- ments of a world to come live upon mere imaginations ? But are ye not mistaken 3 It is your enjoyments, and not theirs, that are imaginary. Pleasures, profits, honours, what are they? The whole form only a kind of ideal world, a sort of splendid show, like that in a dream, which, when you wake, all is gone ! At most it is a fashion, and a fashion that passeth away. To grasp it is to grasp a shadow ; and to feed upon it is to feed upon the wind, Oh that you may turn away your eyes from be- holding these vanities, and look to the Lord Jesus Christ, 2 N 546 SERMONS AND SKETCHES. and the substantial realities beyond the grave, for your never-failing portion : But if not, if you still prefer this world, with its enjoy- ments, to those which are heavenly, how just will it be for the Lord Jesus to say to you, at the last great day, Depart 1 Depart, you have had your reward you have had your choice; what would you have? You never chose me for your portion : you, in effect, said, of me and my interest, “We will have no part in David, nor in- heritance in the son of Jesse: see to thyself, David.” Ah, now, see to thyself, sinner Christians, ministers, brethren, all of us ! let us realize the subject. Let us pray, and preach, and hear, and do every thing we do with etermity in view , Let us deal much with Christ and invisible realities. Let us, when- ever called, freely deny ourselves for his sake, and trust him to make up the loss. Let us not faint under present difficulties, but consider them as opportunities afforded us to glorify God. Let us be ashamed that we derive our happiness so much from things below, and so little from things above. In one word, let us fight the good fight of faith, and lay hold on eternal life : SERMON II. [To the Rev. Robert Fawkner, at his ordination, at Thorn, Bedford- shire, Oct. 31, 1787.] THE QUALIFICATIONS AND ENCOURAGEMENT OF A FAITH- FUL MINISTER, ILLUSTRATED BY THE CHARACTER AND SUCCESS OF BARNABAS. “He was a good man, and full of the Holy Spirit, and of faith; and much people was added to the Lord.”—Acts xi. 24. MY DEAR BROTHER, IT is a very important work to which you are this day set apart. I feel the difficulty of your situation. You need both counsel and encouragement; I wish I were better able to administer both. In what I may offer, I am persuaded you will allow me to be free ; and under- stand me, not as assuming any authority or superiority over you, but only as saying that to you which I wish to consider as equally addressed to myself. Qut of a variety of topics that might afford a lesson for a Christian minister, my thoughts have turned, on this 9ccasion, upon that of evample. Example has a great influence upon the human mind: examples from scrip- ture especially, wherein characters the most illustrious in -their day, for gifts, grace, and usefulness, are drawn with the pencil of inspiration, have an assimilating tendency. Viewing these, under a Divine blessing, we form some just conceptions of the nature and importance of our work, are led to reflect upon our own defects, and feel the fire of holy emulation kindling in our bosoms. The particular example, my brother, which I wish to recommend to your attention is that of Barnabas, that excellent servant of Christ and companion of the apostle Paul. You will find his character particularly given in the words I have just read. Were we to examine the life of this great and good man, as related in other parts of Scripture, we should find the character here given him abundantly confirmed. He seems to have been one of that great company who, through the preaching of Peter and the other apostles, submitted to Christ soon after his ascension; and he gave early proof of his love to him, by selling his possessions, and laying the price at the feet of the apostles for the support of his infant cause. As he loved Christ, so he loved his people. He appears to have possessed much of the tender and affectionate, on account of which he was called “Barnabas—a son of consolation.” Assiduous in discovering and encouraging the first dawnings of God's work, he was the first person that introduced Saul into the company of the disciples. The next news that we hear of him is in the passage which I have selected. Tidings came to the ears of the church at Jerusalem of the word of the Lord being prosperous at Antioch, in Syria. The church at Jerusalem was the mother church, and felt a concern for others, like that of a tender mother towards her infant offspring. The young converts at Antioch wanted a nursing father; and who so proper to be sent as Barnabas? He goes ; and, far from envying the success of others, who had laboured before him, he “ was glad to see the grace of God” so evidently appear; “ and exhorted them all that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord.” As a preacher, he does not seem to have been equal to the apostle Paul; yet so far was he from caring about being eclipsed by Paul’s superior abilities, that he went in search of him, and brought him to Antioch, to assist him in the work of the Lord. It may well be said of such a character, that he was a “good man, and full of the Holy Spirit, and of faith.” Oh that we had more such ministers in the church at this day ! Oh that we ourselves were like him | Might we not hope, if that were the case, that, according to God’s usual manner of working, more people would be added to the Lord 3 There are three things, we see, which are said of Bar- nabas in a way of commendation : he was “a good man, full of the Holy Spirit, and of faith.” Thus far he is held up for our example: a fourth is added, concerning the effects which followed: “ and much people was added unto the Lord.” This seems to be held up for our en- couragement. Permit me, my dear brother, to request your candid attention, while I attempt to review these great qualities in Barnabas, and by every motive to en- force them upon you. I. HE was A GooD MAN. It were easy to prove the necessity of a person being a good man, in order to his properly engaging in the work of the ministry: Christ would not commit his sheep but to one that loved him. But on this remark I shall not enlarge. I have no reason to doubt, my brother, but that God has given you an un- derstanding to know him that is true, and a heart to love him in sincerity ; I trust, therefore, such an attempt, on this occasion, is needless. Nor does it appear to me to be the meaning of the evangelist. It is not barely meant of Barnabas that he was a regenerate man, though that is implied ; but it denotes that he was eminently good. We use the word so in common conversation. If we would describe one that more than ordinarily shines in piety, meekness, and kindness, we know not how to speak of him better than to say, with a degree of emphasis, He is a good man. After this eminence in goodness, brother, may it be your concern, and mine, daily to aspire Perhaps, indeed, we may have sometimes heard this epithet used with a sneer. Persons who take pleasure in treating others with contempt will frequently, with a kind of proud pity, speak in this manner: Aye, such a one is a good man ; leaving it implied that goodness is but an indifferent qualification, unless it be accompanied with greatness. But these things ought not to be. The apostle Paul did not value himself upon those things wherein he differed from other Christians; but upon that which he possessed in common with them—charity, or Christian love. “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge ; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity; I am nothing.” My dear brother, value the character of a good man in all the parts of your employment; and, above all, in those things which the world counts great and estimable. More particularly, - - 1. Value it at home in your family. If you walk not closely with God there, you will be ill able to work for him elsewhere. You have lately become the head of a family. Whatever charge it shall please God, in the course of your life, to place under your care, I trust it will be your concern to recommend Christ and the gospel to them, walk circumspectly before them, constantly worship God With them, offer up secret prayer for them, and exercise a proper authority over them. There is a sort of religious gossiping which some ministers have indulged to their CHARACTER AND SUCCESS OF A FAITH FUL MINISTER. 547 hurt; loitering about perpetually at the houses of their friends, and taking no delight in their own. Such con- duct, in a minister and master of a family, must, of neces- sity, root out all family order, and, to a great degree, family worship ; and, instead of endearing him to his friends, it only exposes him to their just censure. Per- haps they know not how to be so plain as to tell him of it at their own houses; but they will think the more, and speak of it, it is likely, to each other, when he is gone. I trust, my brother, that none of your domestic connexions will have to say when you are gone, He was loose and careless in his conduct, or sour and churlish in his tem- per; but rather, He was a good man. 2. Value this character in your private retirements. Give yourself up to “the word of God, and to prayer.” The apostle charged Timothy, saying, “Meditate on these things, give thyself wholly to them ;” or, “be thou in them.” But this will never be, without a considerable share of the good man. Your heart can never be in those things which are foreign to its prevailing temper; and if your heart is not in your work, it will be a poor lifeless business indeed. We need not fear exhausting the Bible, or dread a scarcity of Divine subjects. If our hearts are but kept in unison with the spirit in which the Bible was written, every thing we meet with there will be interest- ing. The more we read, the more interesting it will ap- pear; and the more we know, the more we shall perceive there is to be known. Beware also, brother, of neglecting secret prayer. The fire of devotion will go out if it be not kept alive by an habitual dealing with Christ. Con- versing with men and things may brighten our gifts and parts; but it is conversing with God that must brighten our graces. Whatever ardour we may feel in our public Work, if this is wanting, things cannot be right, nor can they in such a train come to a good issue. 2. Value it in your public exercises. It is hard going on in the work of the ministry, without a good degree of spirituality; and yet, considering the present state of hu- man nature, we are in the greatest danger of the contrary. Allow me, brother, to mention two things in particular, each of which is directly opposite to that spirit which I am attempting to recommend. One is, an assumed earnestness, or forced zeal, in the pulpit, which many weak hearers may mistake for the enjoyment of God. But though we may put on violent emotions—may smite with the hand, and stamp with the foot—if we are destitute of a genuine feeling sense of what we deliver, it will be discerned by judicious hearers, as well as by the Searcher of hearts, and will not fail to create disgust. If, on the contrary, we feel and realize the sentiments we deliver, emotions and actions Will be the natural expressions of the heart; and this will give weight to the doctrines, exhortations, or reproofs which We inculcate; what we say will come with a kind of Di- Vine authority to the consciences, if not to the hearts of the hearers. The other is, being under the influence of low and selfish motives in the exercise of our work. This is a temptation against which we have especial reason to Watch and pray. It is right, my brother, for you to be diligent in your public work ; to be instant in season and Sut of season; to preach the gospel not only at Thorn, but in the surrounding villages, wherever a door is opened for you : but while you are thus engaged, let it not be from motives of policy, merely to increase your auditory, but from love to Christ and the souls of your fellow sin- ners. It is this only that will endure reflection in a dying hour. The apostle Paul was charged by some of the Co- rinthian teachers with being crafty, and with having caught the Corinthians with guile; but he could say, in reply to all such insinuations, in behalf of himself and his fºllow- labourers, “Our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the World.” 4. Value it in the general tenor of your behaviour. Cul- tivate a meek, modest, peaceful, and friendly temper. Be generous and humane. Prove by your spirit and conduct that you are a lover of all mankind. To men in general, but especially to the poor and the afflicted, be pitiful, be courteous. It is this, my brother, that will recommend the gospel you proclaim. - 2 N 2 Without this, could you preach with the eloquence of an angel, you may expect that no good end will be answered. 5. Prize the character of the good man above worldly greatness. It is not sinful for a minister, any more than another man, to possess property; but to aspire after it is unworthy of his sacred character. Greatness, unaccompa- nied with goodness, is valued as nothing by the great God. Rings and emperors, where that is wanting, are but great “beasts, horned beasts,” pushing one at another. When Sennacherib vaunted against the church of God, that he would “ enter the forest of her Carmel, and cut down her tall cedars,” the daughter of Zion is commanded to despise him. God speaks of him as we should speak of a buffalo, or even of an ass: “I will put my hook in thy nose, and my bridle in thy lips, and I will turn thee back by the way by which thou camest.” Outward greatness, when accompanied with goodness, may be a great blessing; yet, even then, it is the latter, and not the former, that denomi- nates the true worth of a character. Once more, L- 5. Walue it above mental greatness, or greatness in gifts and parts. It is not wrong to cultivate gifts; on the con- trary, it is our duty so to do. But, desirable as these are, they are not to be compared with goodness. “Covet earnestly the best gifts,” says the apostle, “ and yet show I unto you a more excellent way;” viz. charity, or love. If we improve in gifts and not in grace, to say the least, it will be useless, and perhaps dangerous, both to ourselves and others. To improve in gifts, that we may be the better able to discharge our work, is laudable ; but if it be for the sake of popular applause, we may expect a blast. Hundreds of ministers have been ruined by indulging a thirst for the character of the great man, while they have neglected the far superior character of the good man. Another part of the character of Barnabas was that, II. HE was FULL OF THE Holy SPIRIT. The Holy Spirit sometimes denotes his extraordinary gifts, as in Acts xix., where the apostle Paul put the question to some be- lievers in Christ whether they had received the Holy Spi- rit; but here it signifies his indwelling and ordinary opera- tions, or what is elsewhere called “an unction from the Holy One.” This, though more common than the other, is far more excellent. Its fruits, though less brilliant, are abundantly the most valuable. To be able to surmount a difficulty by Christian patience is a greater thing in the sight of God than to remove a mountain. Every work of God bears some mark of Godhead, even a thistle, or a nettle ; but there are some of his works which bear a peculiar likeness to his holy moral character : such were the minds of men and angels in their original state. This will serve to illustrate the subject in hand. The extraor- dinary gifts of the Holy Spirit are a communication of his power; but in his dwelling in the saints, and the ordinary operations of his grace, he communicates his own holy mature ; and this it was of which Barnabas was full. To be full of the Holy Spirit is to be full of the dove, as I may say ; or full of those fruits of the Spirit mentioned by the apostle to the Galatians; namely, “love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness.” To be sure, the term full is not here to be understood in an unlimited sense ; not in so ample a sense as when it is applied to Christ. He was filled with the Spirit without measure, but we ??? measure. The word is doubt- less to be understood in a comparative sense, and denotes as much as that he was habitually under his holy influence. A person that is greatly under the influence of the love of this world is said to be drunken with its cares or plea- sures. In allusion to something like this, the apostle ex- horts that we “be not drunken with wine, wherein is excess; but filled with the Spirit.” The word “filled,” here, is very expressive ; it denotes, I apprehend, being overcome, as it were, with the holy influences and fruits of the blessed Spirit. How necessary is all this, my brother, in your work! Oh how necessary is “an unction from the Holy One l’” 1. It is this that will enable you to enter into the spirit of the gospel, and preserve you from destructive errors con- cerning it. Those who have an unction from the Holy One are said to “know all things; and the anointing which they have received abideth in them, and they need not that any man teach them, but as the same anointing 548 SERMONS AND SRETCHES. teacheth them all things, and is truth, and is no lie.” We shall naturally fall in with the dictates of that spirit of which we are full. It is for want of this, in a great measure, that the Scriptures appear strange, and foreign, and difficult to be understood. He that is full of the Holy Spirit has the contents of the Bible written, as I may say, upon his heart ; and thus its sacred pages are easy to be understood, as “wisdom is easy to him that understandeth.” It is no breach of charity to say, that if the professors of Christianity had more of the Holy Spirit of God in their hearts, there would be a greater harmony among them respecting the great truths which he has revealed. The rejection of such doctrines as the exceeding sinfulness of sin, the total depravity of mankind, the proper Deity and atonement of Christ, justification by faith in his name, the freeness and sovereignty of grace, and the agency of the Holy Spirit, may easily be accounted for upon this principle. If we are destitute of the Holy Spirit, we are blind to the loveliness of the Divine cha- racter, and destitute of any true love to God in our hearts; and if destitute of this, we shall not be able to see the reasonableness of that law which requires love to him with all the heart; and then, of course, we shall think lightly of the nature of those offences committed against him ; we shall be naturally disposed to palliate and excuse our want of love to him, yea, and even our positive viola- tions of his law ; it will seem hard, very hard indeed, for such little things as these to be punished with everlasting destruction. And now, all this admitted, we shall na- turally be blind to the necessity and glory of salvation by Jesus Christ. If sin is so trifling an affair, it will seem a strange and incredible thing that God should become in- carnate to atone for it ; and hence we shall be very easily persuaded to consider Christ as only a good man, who came into the world to set us a good example; or, at least, that he is not equal with the Father. The freeness and sovereignty of grace also, together with justification by imputed righteousness, will be a very strange sound in our ears. Like the Jews, we shall “go about to establish our own righteousness, and shall not submit to the right- eousness of God.” It will seem equally strange and in- credible to be told that we are by nature utterly unfit for the kingdom of God; that, therefore, we must be born again ; that we are so bad that we cannot even come to Christ for life, except the Father draw us; yea, and that our best doings, after all, are unworthy of God’s notice. It will be no wonder if, instead of receiving these unwel- Come and humiliating doctrines, we should coincide with those writers and preachers who think more favourably of our condition, and the condition of the world at large ; who either deny eternal punishment to exist, or represent men in general as being in little or no danger of it. And having avowed these sentiments, it will then become ne- cessary to compliment their abettors (including ourselves in the number) as persons of a more rational and liberal way of thinking than other people. My dear brother, of all things, be this your prayer, º Take not thy Holy Spirit from me !” If once we sink into such a way of performing our public work as not to depend on his enlightening and enlivening influences, we nºy go on, and probably shall go on, from one degree of evil to another. Knowing how to account for the oper- ations of our own minds, without imputing them to a Divine agency, we shall be inclined, in this manner, to account for the operations in the mind of others ; and so, with numbers in the present age, may soon call in question even “whether there be any Holy Spirit.” 2. Being full of the Holy Spirit will give a holy tincture to your meditation and preaching. There is such a thing as the mind being habitually under the influence of Divine things, and retaining so much of a savour of Christ as that Divine truths shall be viewed and expressed, as I may say, in their own language. Spiritual things will be spiritually discerned, and if spiritually discerned, will be spiritually communicated. There is more in our manner of thinking and speaking upon Divine truth than perhaps, at first sight, we are aware of. A great part of the phrase- ology of Scripture is by some accounted unfit to be ad- dressed to a modern ear; and is, on this account, to a conversation in your visits to your friends. great degree laid aside, even by those who profess to be satisfied with the sentiments. Whatever may be said in defence of this practice, in a very few instances, such as those where words in a translation are become obsolete, or convey a different idea from what they did at the time of being translated, I am satisfied the practice in general is very pernicious. There are many sermons, that cannot fairly be charged with untruth, which yet have a tendency to lead off the mind from the simplicity of the gospel. If such Scripture terms, for instance, as “holiness, godliness, grace, believers, saints, communion with God,” &c., should be thrown aside as savouring too much of cant and enthu- siasm, and such terms as morality, virtue, religion, good men, happiness of mind, &c., substituted in their room, it will have an amazing effect upon the hearers. If such preaching is the gospel, it is the gospel heathenized, and will tend to heathenize the minds of those who deal in it. I do not mean to object to the use of these latter terms, in their place ; they are some of them Scriptural terms: what I object to is putting them in the place of others, when discoursing upon evangelical subjects. To be sure, there is a way of handling Divine subjects after this sort that is very clever and very ingenious ; and a minister of such a stamp may commend himself, by his ingenuity, to many hearers : but, after all, God’s truths are never so acceptable and savoury to a gracious heart as when clothed in their own native phraseology. The more you are filled, my brother, with an unction from the Holy One, the greater relish you will possess for that savoury manner of conveying truth which is so plentifully exemplified in the Holy Scriptures. Further, 3. It is this that will make the doctrines you preach, and the duties you inculcate, seem fitted in your lips. I allude to a saying of the wise man : “The words of the wise are pleasant, if thou keep them within thee; they shall withal be fitted in thy lips.” It is expected that there should be an agreement between the character of the speaker and the things which are spoken. “Excellent speech becometh not a fool.” Exhortations to holiness come with an ill grace from the lips of one who indulges himself in iniquity. The opposite of this is what I mean by the doctrines and duties of religion being fitted in your lips. It is this that will make your face shine, when you come forth in your public labours, like the face of Moses when he had been conversing with God in the holy mount. 4. It is this that will give a spiritual savour to your Though re- ligious visits may be abused ; yet you know, brother, the necessity there is for them, if you would ascertain the spiritual condition of those to whom you preach. There are many faults also that you may discover in indi- viduals which it would be unhandsome, as well as un- friendly, to expose in a pointed manner in the pulpit, which nevertheless ought not to be passed by unnoticed. Here is work for your private visits; and, in proportion as you are filled with the Holy Spirit, you will possess a spirit of love and faithfulness, which is absolutely neces- sary to successful reproof. It is in our private visits also that we can be free with our people, and they with us. Questions may be asked and answered, difficulties solved, and the concerns of the soul discussed. Paul taught the Ephesians, not only publicly, but “from house to house.” Now it is being full of the Holy Spirit that will give a spiritual savour to all this conversation. It will be as the holy anointing oil on Aaron’s garments, which diffused a savour on all around him. 5. This will also teach you how you ought to behave gyourself in every department you are called to occupy. It will serve instead of ten thousand rules; and all rules without it will be of no account. This it is that will teach you to be of a meek, mild, peaceful, humble spirit. It will make such a spirit be natural to you. “As touching brotherly love,” said the apostle to the Thessalonians, “ye need not that I write unto you, for ye yourselves are taught of God to love one another.” 6. In short, it is this that will denominate you the man of God. Such was Barnabas, and such, my brother, was your predecessor, whose memory is dear to many of us;* * The Rev. David Evans. CHARACTER AND SUCCESS OF A FAITHFUL MINISTER. 549 and such, according to all that I have heard, was his pre- decessor, whose memory is equally dear to many here present.* Each, in his day, was a burning and shining light; but they shine here no more. May you, my bro- ther, and each of us, be followers of them, as they also were of Christ || Another part of the character of Barnabas is, III. HE was FULL of FAITH. It may be difficult to ascertain with precision the real meaning and extent of this term ; but, I should think, in this connexion it in- cludes, at least, the three following ideas :—having the mind occupied with Divine sentiment; being rooted and grounded in the truth of the gospel, and daily living upon it. The first of these ideas distinguished him from those characters whose minds are void of principle; the next, from such as are always hovering upon the borders of scepticism ; and the last, from those who, though they have no manner of doubts about the truth of the doctrines of the gospel, yet scarcely ever, if at all, feel their vital influence upon their hearts and lives. Let us review each of these a little more particularly. 1. His mind was well occupied, or stored, with Divine sentiment. How necessary is this to a gospel minister! It is to be feared that many young men have rushed into the work of the Lord without any decided principles of their own ; yea, and have not only begun in such a state of mind, but have continued so all through their lives. Alas! what can the churches expect from such characters? What can such a void produce 3 How can we feed others with knowledge and understanding if we ourselves are destitute of them To say the least, such ministers will be but “unprofitable servants.” But this is not all ; a minister that is not inured to think for himself is con- stantly exposed to every false sentiment, or system, that happens to be presented to him. We sometimes hear of a person changing his sentiments; and, doubtless, in many cases it is just and right he should change them: but there are cases in which that mode of speaking is very improper; for, in reality, some persons have no sentiments of their own to chânge; they have only changed the sentiments of some one great man for those of another. 2. He had a firm persuasion of the truth of that gospel which he preached to others. He was rooted and ground- ed in the gospel. The great controversy of that day was whether the gospel was true; whether Jesus was the Messiah ; whether he, who so lately expired on the cross, was the Son of God; and whether his death was the way to obtain eternal life. There were great temptations for a person who should view things through a medium of sense to think otherwise. The popular opinion went against it. To the Jews it was a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness. Those who adhered to the gospel, thereby exposed themselves to cruel persecutions. But Barnabas “was full of faith;” he was decidedly on the Lord’s side; he “believed on the Son of God,” and had the “witness” of the truth of his gospel “within himself.” Preaching the gospel is bearing a testimony for God; but we shall never be able to do this to any good purpose, if we be always hesitating and indulging a sceptical dis- position. There is no need of a dogmatical, overbearing temper; but there is need of being rooted and grounded in the truths of God. “Be not carried about,” said the apostle to the Hebrews, “with strange doctrines: it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace.” But he elsewhere condemns the character of those who are “ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” 3. That gospel, which he preached to others he himself lived upon. “The word preached,” we are told, “ did not profit some, because it was not mixed with faith in them that heard it.” This will equally hold good in the case of the preacher as of the hearer. If we mix not faith with the doctrine we deliver, it will not profit us. What- ever abilities we may possess, and of whatever use we may be made to others, unless we can say, in some sort, with the apostle John, “That which we have seen with our eves, and looked upon, and our hands have handled of * The Rev. William Butfield. that “much people is added unto the Lord.” • ** * * - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~...~~ the word of life—that declare we unto you,” our own souls may, notwithstanding, everlastingly perish . This is a very serious matter, and well deserves our attention as ministers. Professors in the age of Barnabas might be under greater temptations than we are to question whe- ther Jesus was the true Messiah; but we are under greater temptations than they were of resting in a mere implicit assent to the Christian religon, without realizing and living upon its important truths. The studying of Divine truth as preachers rather than as Christians, or, in other words, studying it for the sake of finding out something to say to others, without so much as thinking of profiting our own souls, is a temptation to which we are more than ordinarily exposed. If we studied Divine truths as Christians, our being constantly engaged in the service of God would be friendly to our growth in grace. We should be “like trees planted by the rivers of waters, that bring forth fruit in their season,” and all that we did would be likely to “prosper.” But if we study it only as preachers, it will be the reverse. Our being conversant with the Bible will be like surgeons and sol- diers being conversant with the shedding of human blood, till they lose all sensibility concerning it. I believe it is a fact that, where a preacher is wicked, he is generally the most hardened against conviction of any character whatever. Happy will it be for us if, like Barnabas, we are “full of faith ” in that Saviour whom we recommend —in that gospel which it is our employment to proclaim. IV. We now come to the last part of the subject, which is held up by way of encouragement: AND MUCH PEOPLE wAs ADDED UNTo THE LORD. When our ministry is blessed to the conversion of sinners, to the bringing them off from their connexion with sin and self to a vital union with Christ; when our congregations are filled, not merely with professors of religion, but with sound believers; when such believers come forward and offer themselves willingly for communion, saying, “We will go with you, for we have heard that God is with you ;” then it may be said The con- nexion between such additions, and eminency in grace and holiness in a minister, deserves our serious attention. I think it may be laid down as a rule, which both Scrip- ture and experience will confirm, that eminent spirituality in a minister is usually attended with eminent usefulness. I do not mean to say our usefulness depends upon our spirituality, as an effect depends upon its cause ; nor yet that it is always in proportion to it. God is a Sovereign; and frequently sees proper to convince us of it, in va- riously bestowing his blessing on the means of grace. But yet he is not wanting in giving encouragement to what he approves, wherever it is found. Our want of usefulness is often to be ascribed to our want of spiritu- ality, much oftener than to our want of talents. God has frequently been known to succeed men of inferior abilities, when they have been eminent for holiness, while he has blasted others of much superior talents, when that quality has been wanting. Hundreds of ministers, who, on account of their gifts, have promised to be shining characters, have proved the reverse; and all owing to such things as pride, unwatchfulness, carnality, and levity. Bminency in grace, my brother, will contribute to your success in three ways:— 1. It will fire your soul with holy love to Christ and the souls of men ; and such a spirit is usually attended with success. I believe you will find that, in almost all the great works which God has wrought, in any period of time, he has honoured men of this character, by making them his instruments. In the midst of a sore calamity upon the murmuring Israelites, when God was inclined to show mercy, it was by the means of his servant Aaron running with a censer of fire in his hand, and standing between the living and the dead! The great reformation that was brought about in the days of Hezekiah was by the instru- mentality of a man “who wrought that which was good and right and truth before the Lord his God;” and then it follows, “and in every work that he began in the service of the house of God, and in the law, and in the command- ments, to seek his God, he did it with all his heart, and prospered.” There was another great reformation in the Jewish 550 SERMONS AND SIKETCHES. church, about the time of their return from Babylon. One of the chief instruments in this work was Ezra, “a ready scribe in the law of his God”—a man who had “prepared his heart to seek the law of the Lord, and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and judgments’’—a man who “fasted and prayed at the river Ahava,” pre- viously to his great undertaking—a man who was after- wards “sorely astonished, and in heaviness, and would eat no meat, nor drink water, but fell upon his knees, and spread out his hands unto the Lord his God, on account of the transgressions of the people.” Another great instru- ment in this work was Nehemiah, a man that devoted himself wholly to the service of God and his people, la- bouring night and day, and was not to be seduced by the intrigues of God’s adversaries, nor yet intimidated by their threatenings; but persevered in his work till it was finished, closing his labours with this solemn prayer and appeal, “Think upon me, O my God, for good, according to all that I have done for this people.” . Time would fail me to speak of all the great souls, both inspired and uninspired, whom the King of kings has de- lighted to honour: of Paul, and Peter, and their com- panions; of Wickliff, and Luther, and Calvin, and many others at the Reformation; of Elliot, and Edwards, and Brainerd, and Whitefield, and hundreds more whose names are held in deserved esteem in the church of God. These were men of God; men who had great grace, as well as gifts; whose hearts burned in love to Christ and the souls of men. They looked upon their hearers as their Lord had done upon Jerusalem, and wept over them. In this manner they delivered their messages; “and much people were added unto the Lord.” 2. Eminency in grace will direct your ends to the glory of God, and the welfare of men’s souls ; and where this is the case, it is usually attended with a blessing. These are ends which God himself pursues; and if we pursue the same, we are “labourers together with God,” and may hope for his blessing to attend our labours; but if we pur- sue separate and selfish ends, we walk contrary to God, and may expect God to walk contrary to us. Whatever apparent success may attend the labours of a man whose ends are evil, all is to be suspected ; either the success is not genuine, or, if it be, it is not in a way of blessing upon him, nor shall it turn out, at last, to his account. It must be an inexpressible satisfaction, brother, to be able to say as the primitive ministers and apostles did : “James, a servant of God—Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ—We seek not yours, but you.” 3. Eminency in grace will enable you to bear prosperity $n your ministry without being lifted up with it ; and so con- tribute towards it. It is written of Christ, in prophecy, “He shall build the temple of the Lord, and shall bear the glory.” He does bear it indeed ; but to bear glory with- out being elated is no easy thing for us. I am often afraid lest this should be one considerable reason why most of us have no more real success in our work than we have ; per- haps it is not safe for us to be much owned of God; per- haps we have not grace enough to bear prosperity. My dear brother, permit me to conclude with a word or two of serious advice. First, “Watch over your own soul, as well as the souls of your people.” Do not forget that ministers are peculiarly liable, while they keep the vine- yard of others, to neglect their own. Further, “Know your own weakness, and depend upon Christ's all-suffi- ciency.” Your work is great, your trials may be many; but let not your heart be discouraged. Remember what was said to the apostle Paul, “My grace is sufficient for thee, my strength is made perfect in weakness; ” and the reflection which he makes upon it, “When I am weak, then am I strong.” Ayour course, and viewing yourself as giving an account of vour stewardship. We must all appear before the judg- ment-seat of Christ, and give account of the deeds done in the body. Perhaps there is no thought more solemn than this, more suitable to be kept in view in all our under- takings, more awakening in a thoughtless hour, or more cheering to an upright heart. I have only to request, my dear brother, that you will excuse the freedom of this plain address. I have not spoken so much to instruct you in things which you know Finally, Be often looking to the end of not, as to remind and impress you with things which you already know. The Lord bless you, and grant that the solemnities of this day may ever be remembered with sa- tisfaction, both by you and your people ! SERMON III. [Preached at a Ministers' Meeting, held at Clipstone, April 27, 1791.] THE INSTANCEs, THE Evil, NATURE, AND THE DANGEROUS TENDENCY OF DELAY, IN THE CONCERNS OF RELIGION. “Thus speaketh the Lord of hosts, saying, This people say, The time is º come, the time that the Lord’s house should be built.”— Hag. i. 2. WHEN the children of Judah were delivered from their captivity, and allowed, by the proclamation of Cyrus, to return to their own land, one of the principal things which attracted their attention was the rebuilding of the house of God, which had been destroyed by the Babylonians. This was a work which Cyrus himself enjoined, and upon which the hearts of the people were fixed. It was not, however, to be accomplished at once ; and as the worship of God was a matter of immediate and indispensable concern, they set up an altar, on which to offer sacrifices and offerings, till such time as the temple should be built. In the second year after their return, the foundation of the Lord’s house was laid ; but opposition being made to it, by the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin, the work ceased all the days of Cyrus, until the reign of Darius, commonly distinguished by the name of Darius Hystaspes. During this period, which seems to have been about four- teen years, the people sunk into a spirit of indifference. At first they desisted from necessity; but afterwards, their attention being turned to the building and ornamenting of houses for themselves, they seemed very well contented that the house of the Lord should lie waste. For this their temper and conduct the land was smitten with barrenness;. so that both the vintage and the harvest failed them. God also raised up Haggai and Zechariah to go and remonstrate against their supineness; and the efforts of these two prophets were the means of stirring up the people to re- sume the work. The argument which the people used against building the house of God was that the time was not come. It is possible they waited for a counter-order from the Persian court; if so, they might have waited long enough. A work of that nature ought to have been prosecuted of their own accord ; at least they should have tried. It did not follow, because they were hindered once, that therefore they should never succeed. Or perhaps they meant to plead their present weakness and poverty. Something like this seems to be implied in the 4th verse, where they are re- minded that they had strength enough to build and orna- ment houses for themselves. It looks as if they wished to build, and lay by fortunes for themselves and their families, and then, at some future time, they might contribute for the building of the house of God. There is something of this procrastinating spirit that runs through a great part of our life, and is of great detri- ment to us in the work of God. We know of many things that should be done, and cannot in conscience directly oppose them; but still we find excuses for our inactivity. While we admit that many things should be done which are not done, we are apt to quiet ourselves with the thought that they need not be done just now : “The time is not come, the time that the Lord’s house should be built.” * In discoursing to you upon the subject, brethren, I shall take notice of a few of the most remarkable cases in which this spirit is discovered; and then endeavour to show its evil nature and dangerous tendency. I, IN RESPECT TO THE CASES, OR INSTANCES, IN WHICH IT Is Discovered. A small degree of observation on mankind, and of reflection upon the workings of our own hearts, will furnish us with many of these ; and convince ON DELAY IN RELIGIOUS CONCERNS. 551 us of its great influence on every description of men, in almost all their religious concerns. 1. It is by this plea that a great part of mankind are constantly deceiving themselves in respect to a serious at- tention to the concerns of their souls. These are, doubt- less, of the last importance; and there are times in which most men not only acknowledge this truth, but, in some sort, feel the force of it. This is the case, especially, with those who have had a religious education, and have been used to attend upon the preaching of the gospel. They hear from the pulpit that men must be born again, must be converted, and become as little children, or never enter into the kingdom of God. Or the same things are im- pressed upon them by some threatening affliction or alarming providence. They feel themselves at those times very unhappy; and it is not unusual for them to resolve upon a sacrifice of their former sins, and a serious and close attention in future to the affairs of their souls. They think, while under these impressions, they will con- sider their ways, they will enter their closets, and shut to the door, and pray, to the Lord that he would have mercy upon them ; but, alas ! no sooner do they retire from the house of God, or recover from their affliction, than the impression begins to subside, and then matters of this sort become less welcome to the mind. They must not be utterly rejected ; but are let alone for the present. As conscience becomes less alarmed, and danger is viewed at a greater distance, the sinner, by degrees, recovers him- self from his fright, and dismisses his religious concern, in some such manner as Felix did his reprover, “Go thy way for this time, when I have a convenient season I will call for thee.” x It is thus with the ardent youth ; in the hour of serious reflection, he feels that religion is of importance; but his heart, still averse from what his conscience recommends, rises against the thought of sacrificing the prime of life to the gloomy duties of prayer and self-denial. He does not resolve never to attend to these things; but the time does not seem to be come. He hopes that the Almighty will excuse him a few years, at least, and impute his excesses to youthful folly and imbecility. It is thus with the man of business; there are times in which he is obliged to re- tire from the hurry of life ; and, at those times, thoughts of another life may arrest his attention. Conscience at those intervals may smite him for his living without prayer, without reflection, without God in all his thoughts; and what is his remedy ? Does he lament his sin, and im- plore mercy through our Lord Jesus Christ 3 No, nor so much as promise to forsake it immediately ; but this he promises, that when this busy time is over, and that favourite point is gained, and those intricate affairs are terminated, then it shall be otherwise. It is thus with persons in single life: they will be better when they get settled in the world. It is thus with the encumbered pa. went : she looks forward to the time when her family shall get off her hands. It is thus with the drunkard and the debauchee : wearied in their own way, they intend to lead a new life as soon as they can but shake off their old con- nexions. In short, it is thus with great numbers in all our towns, and villages, and congregations: they put off the great concern to another time, and think they may Venture at least a little longer, till all is over with them, and a dying hour just awakens them, like the virgins in the parable, to bitter reflection on their own fatal folly. 2. This plea not only affects the unconverted, but pre- vents us all from undertaking any great or good work for the cause of Christ, or the good of mankind. We see many things that should be done; but there are difficul- ties in the way, and we wait for the removal of these dif- ficulties. . We are very apt to indulge a kind of prudent caution, (as we call it,) which foresees and magnifies dif- ficulties beyond what they really are. It is granted there may be such things in the way of an undertaking as may render it impracticable ; and, in that case, it is our duty for the present to stand still ; but it becomes us to beware lest we account that impracticable which only requires such a degree of exertion as we are not inclined to give it. Perhaps the work requires ea pense; and Covetousness says, Wait a little longer, till I have gained so and so in trade, till I have rendered my circumstances respectable, and settled my children comfortably in the world. But is not this like ceiling our own houses, while the house of God lies waste? Perhaps it requires concurrence; and we wait for every body to be of a mind, which is never to be expected. He who through a dread of opposition and reproach desists from known duty is in danger of being found among the “fearful, the unbelieving, and the abom- inable.” Had Luther and his contemporaries acted upon this prin- ciple, they had never gone about the glorious work of the Reformation. When he saw the abominations of popery, he might have said, These things ought not to be ; but what can I do 2 If the chief priests and rulers in different nations would but unite, something might be effected ; but what can I do, an individual, and a poor man 3 I may render myself an object of persecution, or, which is worse, of universal contempt; and what good end will be answered by it 3 Had Luther reasoned thus—had he fan- cied that, because princes and prelates were not the first to engage in the good work, therefore the time was not come to build the house of the Lord—the house of the Lord, for any thing he had done, might have lain waste to this day. Instead of waiting for the removal of difficulties, we ought, in many cases, to consider them as purposely laid in our way, in order to try the sincerity of our religion. He who had all power in heaven and earth could not only have sent forth his apostles into all the world, but have so ordered it that all the world should treat them with kind— ness, and aid them in their mission ; but, instead of that, he told them to lay their accounts with persecution and the loss of all things. This was no doubt to try their sin- cerity ; and the difficulties laid in our way are equally designed to try ours. Let it be considered whether it is not owing to this principle that so few and so feeble efforts have been made for the propagation of the gospel in the world. When the Lord Jesus commissioned his apostles, he commanded them to go and teach “all nations,” to preach the gospel to “every creature; ” and that notwithstanding the diffi- culties and oppositions that would lie in the way. The apostles executed their commission with assiduity and fidelity; but, since their days, we seem to sit down half contented that the greater part of the world should still remain in ignorance and idolatry. Some noble efforts have indeed been made ; but they are small in number, when compared with the magnitude of the object. And why is it so 3 Are the souls of men of less value than heretofore ? No. Is Christianity less true or less import- ant than in former ages 2 This will not be pretended. Are there no opportunities for societies, or individuals, in Christian nations, to convey the gospel to the heathens? This cannot be pleaded so long as opportunities are found to trade with them, yea, and (what is a disgrace to the name of Christians) to buy them, and sell them, and treat them with worse than savage barbarity . We have opportunities in abundance : the improvement of naviga- tion, and the maritime and commercial turn of this coun- try, furnish us with these ; and it deserves to be consi- dered whether this is not a circumstance that renders it a duty peculiarly binding on us. . The truth is, if I am not mistaken, we wait for we know not what ; we seem to think “ the time is not come, the time for the Spirit to be poured down from on high.” We pray for the conversion and salvation of the world, and yet neglect the ordinary means by which those ends have been used to be accomplished. It pleased God, heretofore, by the foolishness of preaching, to save them that believed; and there is reason to think it will still please God to work by that distinguished means. Ought we not then at least to try by some means to convey more of the good news of salvation to the world around us than has hitherto been conveyed 3 The encouragement to the heathen is still in force, “ Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved : but how shall they call on him in whom they have not believed ? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? and how shall they preach except they be sent # ** Let it be further considered whether it is not owing to 552. , is SERMONS AND SKETCHES. this principle that so few and so feeble efforts are made for the propagation of the gospel in places within our reach. There are many dark places in our own land—places where priests and people, it is to be feared, are alike destitute of true religion, “all looking to their own way, every one for his gain from his quarter.” Were every friend of Jesus Christ to avail himself of that liberty which the laws of his country allow him, and embrace every opportunity for the dissemination of evangelical principles, what effects might we hope to see : Were every true minister of the gospel to make a point of preaching as often as possible in the villages within his reach ; and did those private Christians who are situated in such villages open their doors for preaching, and recommend the gospel by a holy and affec- tionate behaviour, might we not hope to see the wilder- ness become as a fruitful field 3 Surely, in these matters, we are too negligent. And when we do preach to the unconverted, we do not feel as if we were to do any good. We are as if we knew not how to get at the hearts and consciences of people. We cast the net, without so much as expecting a draught. We are as those who cannot find their hands in the day of battle, who go forth not like men accustomed to conquest, but rather like those inured to defeat. Whence arises all this? Is it not owing, at least a considerable degree of it, to a notion we have that the time is not come for any thing considerable to be effected? 3. It is this plea that keeps many from a public profes- sion of religion by a practical acknowledgment of Christ. Christ requires of his followers that they confess his name before men; that they be baptized, and commemorate his dying love in the ordinance of the supper. Yet there are many who consider themselves as Christians, and are con- sidered so by others, who still live in the neglect of these ordinances. I speak not now of those who consider them- selves as having been baptized in their infancy, but of such as admit the immersion of believers to be the only true baptism, and yet do not practise it, nor hold communion with any particular church of Christ. It is painful to think there should be a description of professed Christians who live in the neglect of Christ's commands. What can be the motives of such neglect 7 Probably they are va- rious : there is one, however, that must have fallen under your observation; that is, the want of some powerful im- pression wbon the mind, impelling them, as it were, to a compliance. Many persons wait for something of this sort; and because they go from year to year without it, conclude that the time is not come ; or that it is not the mind of God that they should comply with those ordi- namees; at least, that they should comply with them at present. Impressions, it is allowed, are desirable, provided it be truth or duty that is impressed; otherwise they de- serve no regard : but be they as desirable as they may, the want of them can never justify our living in the neglect of known duty. Nor are they at all adapted to show us what is duty, but merely to excite to the performance of that which may be proved to be duty without them. We might as well wait for impressions, and conclude, from the want of them, that the time is not come for the perform- ance of other duties as those of baptism and the Lord's supper. Some are kept from a public profession of Christ's name by mere mercenary motives. They have relations and friends that would be offended. The fear of being disin- herited, or injured, in some sort, as to worldly circum- stances, has made many a person keep his principles to himself, till such time as the party whose displeasure he fears shall be removed out of the way. This is wicked; as it amounts to a denial of Christ before men, and will, no doubt, expose the party, if he die without repentance for it, to be denied by Christ before his Father at the last day. “Lord,” said one, “I will follow thee, but let me first go and bury my father”—“Let me first go and bid them farewell who are at home,” says another : “Jesus answered, Let the dead bury their dead, follow thou me.” —“No man having put his hand to the plough, and look- ing back, is fit for the kingdom of God.” 4. It is this plea that keeps us from a thorough self-ea:- amination and self-denial. The importance of being right in the sight of God, and our liability to err, even in the "reatest of all concerns, render a close and frequent inquiry into our spiritual state absolutely necessary. It is a dan- gerous, as well as an uncomfortable life, to be always in suspense ; not knowing what nor where we are, nor whither we are going. There are seasons, too, in which we feel the importance of such an inquiry, and think we will go about it, we will search and try our ways, and turn from our sins, and walk more closely with God. Such thoughts will occur when we hear matters urged home upon us from the pulpit, or when some affecting event draws off our attention from the present world, and causes us to reflect upon ourselves for our inordinate anxiety after it. We think of living otherwise than we have done ; but when we come to put our thoughts into execution, we find a number of difficulties in the way, which too often deter us, at least for the present.—Here is an undertaking that must first be accomplished, before I can have time ; here is also a troublesome affair that I must get through, before I can be composed; and then here are such temptations that I know not how to get over just now : if I wait a little longer, perhaps they may be removed.—Alas! alas ! thus we befool ourselves; thus we defer, it to another time, till the impressions on our minds are effaced, and then we are less able to attend to those things than we were at first. As one who puts off the examination of his ac- counts, and the retrenchment of his expenses, till, all on a sudden, he is involved in a bankruptcy; so do multitudes, in the religious world, neglect a close inspection into the concerns of their souls, till, at length, either a departure from some of the great principles of the gospel, or some foul and open fall, is the consequence. 5. It is this principle that keeps us from preparedness for death, and thus being ready when our Lord shall come. There is nothing that Christ has more forcibly enjoined than this duty : “Be ye also ready, for at such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.”—“What I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.” Why do we not imme- diately feel the force of these charges, and betake ourselves to habitual watchfulness, and prayer, and self-denial, and walking with God? Why are we not as men who wait for the coming of their Lord 3 Is it not from a secret thought that the time is not come 2 We know we must die, but we consider it as something at a distance ; and thus, imagining that our Lord delayeth his coming, we delay to prepare to meet him, so that when he cometh he findeth us in confusion. Instead of our loins being girt, and our lights burning, we are engaged in a number of plans and pursuits, to the neglect of those things which, notwithstanding the necessary avocations of life, ought always to engross our supreme attention. Let us next proceed to consider, II. THE Evi L. NATURE AND DANGEROUs TENDENCY OF THIS PROCRASTINATING TE MIPER. I need not say much to prove to you that it is a sin. The conscience of every one of you will assist me in that part of the work. It is proper, however, in order that you may feel it the more forcibly, that you should consider wherein its evil nature consists. 1. It is contrary to the tenor of all God’s commandments. All through the Scriptures we are required to attend to Divine things immediately, and without delay. “Work while it is called to-day; the night cometh when no man can work.”—“To-day, if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.”—“While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light.”—“Whatso- ever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might ; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.” God not only requires us, in general, to do what we do quickly, but calls us to serve him particularly under those temptations or afflictions which we find placed in our way. The terms of discipleship are, “Deny thyself; take up thy cross, and follow me.” He does not call upon us to fol- low him barely when there are no troubles nor difficulties to encounter, nor allow us, when those difficulties occur, to wait a fairer opportunity; but to take our cross, as it were, upon our shoulders, and so follow him. It would be of use for us to consider every situation as a post in which God has placed us, and in which he calls upon us to serve and glorify him. If we are poor, we are required to glorify God by contentment; if afflicted. h" natience : ON DELAY IN RELIGIOUS CONCERN.S. 553 if bereaved, by submission; if persecuted, by firmness; if injured, by forgiveness; or if tempted, by denying ourselves for his sake. Nor can these duties be performed at other times; to put them off, therefore, to another op- portunity, is the same thing, in effect, as refusing to com- ply with them at all. 2. To put off things to another time implies a lurking dislike to the things themselves. We do not ordinarily do so, except in things wherein we have no delight. What- ever our hearts are set upon, we are for losing no time till it is accomplished. If the people of Judah had “had a mind to work,” as is said of them on another occasion, they would not have pleaded that the time was not come. Sinful delay, therefore, arises from alienation of heart from God; than which nothing can be more offensive in his sight. But, further, it is not only a sin, but a sin of dangerous tendency. This is manifest by the effects it produces. Precious time is thereby murdered, and valuable opportu- nities lost, and lost beyond recall ! That there are opportunities possessed, both by saints and sinners, is plain from the Scriptures. The former might do abundantly more for God than they do, and might enjoy much more of God and heaven than they act- ually enjoy ; and no doubt it would be so, were it not for that idle, delaying temper, of which we have spoken. Like the Israelites, we are slothful to go up to possess the good land. Many are the opportunities, both of doing and enjoying good, that have already passed by. Oh what Christians might we have been before now, had we but availed ourselves of all those advantages which the gospel dispensation and the free exercise of our religion afford us! Sinners also, as long as life lasts, have opportunity of escaping from the wrath to come. Hence they are ex- horted to “seek the Lord while he may be found,” and to “call upon him while he is near.” Hence, also, there is a “door” represented as being, at present, “open ; ” which “the master of the house will,” one day, “rise up and shut.” The “fountain” is described as being, at present, “open for sin and for uncleanness;” but there is a period approaching when it shall be said, “He that is filthy, let him be filthy still 1* It seems scarcely in the power of language to express the danger of delay in terms more forcible and impressive than those which are used in the above passages. Nor is there any thing in the idea that clashes with the Scripture doctrine of decrees. All allow that men have opportunity, in natural things, to do what they do not, and to obtain what they obtain not; and if this can be made to consist with a universal provi- dence, which “performeth the things that are appointed for us,” why should not the other be allowed to consist with the purposes of Him who does nothing without a plan, but “worketh all things after the counsel of his own will ?” A price is in the hands of those who have no heart to get wisdom. O thoughtless sinner! trifle no longer with the murder of time, so short and uncertain in its duration ; the morn- ing of your existence; the mould in which you receive an impression for eternity; the only period in which the Son of man has power to forgive sins ! Should the remaining part of your life pass away in the same careless manner as that has which has already elapsed, what bitter reflection must needs follow ! How cutting it must be to look back on all the means of salvation as gone for ever; the harvest past, the summer ended, and you not saved : Suppose a company, at the time of low water, should take an excursion upon the sands near the sea-shore: sup- pose yourself of the company : suppose that, on a pre- sumption of the tide's not returning at present, you should all fall asleep : suppose all the company, except yourself, to awake out of their sleep, and, finding their danger, endeavour to awake you, and to persuade you to flee with them for your life ; but you, like the sluggard, are for “a little more sleep, and a little more slumber :” the conse- quence is, your companions escape, but you are left behind to perish in the waters, which, regardless of all your cries, rise and overwhelm you ! What a situation would this be How would you curse that love of sleep that made you refuse to be awaked—that delaying temper that wanted to indulge a little longer! But what is this situation com- pared with that of a lost soul? There will come a period | when the bottom of the ocean would be deemed a refuge; when, to be crushed under falling rocks and mountains, instead of being viewed with terror as heretofore, will be earnestly desired Yes, desired, but desired in vain . The sinner who has “neglected the great salvation ” will not be able to “escape,” nor hide himself “from the face of him that sitteth upon the throne,” nor from “the wrath of the Lamb : ” My dear hearers consider your condition without de- lay. God says to you, To-day, if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. To-day may be the only day you have to live. Go home, enter the closet, and shut to the door; confess your sins; implore mercy through our Lord Jesus Christ; “Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him ''' SERMON IV. [Preached at Kettering, at the funeral of Mr. Beeby Wallis, April, 1792.] THE BLESSEDNESS OF THE DEAD WHO DIE IN THE LORD. “And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead who die in the Ilord from henceforth : Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them.”—Rev. xiv. 13. It is usual with us, on the death of our friends, to improve the mournful event by a sermon on the occasion. I feel a difficulty, in the present instance, on account of my near and intimate connexion wiith the deceased. However, as well as I can, I will endeavour to comply with the general expectation. Our dear deceased friend made no mention of any par- ticular part of Scripture which he would wish to have im- proved ; I have, therefore, selected the above, as being the most suitable to the present occasion of any that has oc- . curred to my thoughts. The original design of the passage seems to have been to support the afflicted followers of Christ in times of persecution. Nothing could be better adapted to arm the holy martyrs against the terrors of death than the sentiment here exhibited. It does not seem, however, to be applicable to martyrs only ; but is rather to be considered as a general truth, which, though applied to a particular case, is not to be confined to that case, but extended to every other particular comprehended within the general design. A few introductory observations may throw some light upon the text, and lead us on to the principal subjects on which I mean to discourse. First, Let us observe the character described—those “who die in the Lord.” The Scriptures make frequent mention of believers, as being united to Christ, or one with him. If we be true believers in Christ, we shall feel a union of heart with him ; our principles, affections, and pursuits will, in a measure, be the same as his ; his cause will be our cause, his people our people, his service our delight, and the gospel of salvation through his death our daily bread. The union between Christ and his people is frequently compared to the marriage union ; as they who were twain become “one flesh, so they who are joined to the Lord are one spirit; ” and as in that case there is not only a mental, but a legal union, each becoming in- terested in the persons and possessions of the other, so in this we, with all we have, are Christ's, and Christ, with all he has, is ours. Hence the language of the apostle : “Of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and re- demption.” Hence, also, arises the desirableness of being “found in him, not having our own righteousness, which is of the law ; but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.” A union like this will render us blessed even in death ; death itself shall not be able to dissolve it, but shall rather introduce us to the full enjoyment of him whom our soul loveth. º It is further supposed, of those who die in the Lord, 554 SERMONS ANI) SRETCHES. hat they have abounded in good works ; for it could not otherwise have been said that they should follow them. Those whose only hope and reliance for acceptance with God have been upon Jesus Christ, and who have, there- fore, disclaimed all dependence upon their own works, have often been charged with being enemies to morality; or, at least, it has been said that their principles, if pur- sued to their just consequences, would render them so : but I trust the practice of these persons, in all ages, has not been such as to justify the charge. Perhaps, on the contrary, if we could survey the spirit and manners of mankind with an impartial eye, we might find that they who thus believed in Jesus were the most careful to maintain good works. Yea, and if we would search the Scriptures with an unprejudiced mind, we should find that, without a union with Christ, it were a vain thing to expect good works (truly so called)—as vain as to expect fruit from a branch that should be separate from the W]]] e. Secondly, The blessedness of the dead who die in the Lord was declared by a voice from heaven. If the apostle had hearkened to the general voice of mankind, he would have heard a very different sound. The world reckons him blessed that liveth—that liveth in prosperity. So natural is this to man, that we all feel a kind of pity for our departed friends; but surely pity is never more unne- cessary : the voice from heaven, whatever be the voice from earth, pronounces, “Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord.” Thirdly, The apostle was commanded to write it. A mere voice passeth away, but a writing endureth. In this we see God’s tender regard for his faithful servants, not merely in that age, but for ages to come. Fourthly, Their blessedness is declared to be from henceforth. I do not see how this can be understood as referring to the time of the Spirit's speaking; for that would imply that, before that time, those who died in the Lord were not blessed. It seems, I think, plainly to refer to the time of their departure from the body, and is one of the many passages of Scripture in which we are taught the doctrine of a separate state. - Lastly, The blessedness which awaits those who die in the Lord consists partly in a rest from their labours, and partly in a glorious reward, expressed by their works fol- lowing them. - It is on this last observation I shall principally enlarge, in this discourse, as the most important ideas of the text seem to be here included. Let us first take a view of the heavenly state under the ideas here given, and then con- sider the uses that such a prospect is adapted to promote. I. LET Us VIEw THE HEAVENLY STATE UNDER THE IDEAS OF A REST FROM LABOUR AND A REWARD FOR IT, The term labour does not convey the idea of simple ex- ercise; for we shall never cease from that, but rather in- crease it. The inhabitants of heaven are more active than ever they were upon earth. They are represented as “ serving God day and might in his temple;” yea, and as though all our services in this world were unworthy of the name, it is said, “There his servants shall serve him.” Nor ls the rest here spoken of to be understood of a mere cessation from exercise in the grave; for that would afford no blessedness. The term labour conveys the idea of painful evergise, weariness, or fatigue. The same word is used in 2 Cor: xi. 27, where the apostle speaks of being in weariness and painfulness. A great part of the Christian life consists in an opposi- tion. He that would gain the heavenly prize must op- pose “the course of this world,”—must strive against the stream of false principles and wicked practices, against the evil customs and manners of the age and place in which he lives. It has been observed that mankind go through the world in a body; that they draw one another on, in their principles and manners; that, like the drops of water which compose a tide, they acquire strength and influence by their numbers; and that whatever general direction they take, that is, for the time being, “ the course of this world.” Like the tide, it is ever rolling, though not in the same direction. In former ages, it was a course of pagan idolatry; in later ages, of popish superstition and cruelty; and, in the present age, it is a course of infidelity and profaneness. To oppose this cur- rent is labour. It was no small matter for the glorious tribes of mar- tyrs, in every age, to hold fast the faith of the gospel. They had not only to encounter their adversaries, but their own natural feelings. They were men, and men of like passions with ourselves. They had wives, and chil- dren, and friends, and the various endearing ties of human nature; each of which would cry in their ears, Spare thyself / Think, brethren, what labour it must have been for them to encounter the hardships and cruelties to which a faithful adherence to God exposed them | Nor is it any small matter to set ourselves against the tempta- tions of the world. There is a fashion in every thing, even in religion ; and it requires fortitude of mind to withstand its influence, and to adhere to the dictates of Scripture, let them be stigmatized as they may. Nor does it require less fortitude to withstand the current of evil customs, by which we may be certain, in many cases, to expose ourselves to scorn and contempt. These things, I say, are labour; labour from which those who die in the Lord are at rest. The course of this world has no longer any influence on them ; they are arrived in the desired haven, where neither tide nor tempest can affect them. Again, Our services for God, in the present state, may very properly be called labour, on account of the natural infirmities and afflictions which here attend us, especially ân the last stages of life. The most active Christian, whose delight in his Lord’s work has been such as to render it its own reward, will soon find the years draw nigh in which he shall say, I have no pleasure in them. It is then that the strength is labour and sorrow. It is then that the spirit is often willing when the flesh is weak. Our dear deceased friend experienced much of this, during the last few years of life. Reading and prayer, and every other religious duty, was a labour; but the tabernacle in which he groaned is now dissolved—he is now at rest from his labours. Once more, The greatest and most grievous struggle of all is owing to our own native depravity. It is this that forms the most dangerous stream against which we have to strive. We may withdraw ourselves from the world, but not from this ; this will accompany us in all our re- tirements, and in all our efforts. He that is contented to serve the Lord with mere bodily exercise may feel no manner of difficulty from this quarter ; but he that would worship God in spirit and in truth, that would meditate, pray, praise, preach, or hear, as he ought, will find it the great burden of his life. A mind prone to forget God, and wander in forbidden paths; a heart unaffected with the great things of God, flying off from him, and fixing upon things that do not profit; these are matters which made an apostle exclaim, “O wretched man that I am : * It is these which render our life a labour. To be at rest from these is heaven indeed . But another idea afforded us of the heavenly state is that of a reward. Those who die in the Lord, not only rest from their labours, but “their works do follow them.” It has been a common observation on this passage, and for aught I know a just one, that their works are not said to go before them as a ground of justification, but to follow them as witnesses in their favour. I apprehend, however, they will not only follow them as witnesses, but will have place among the intermediate causes of their felicity. It is true, they will constitute no part of our title to eternal life; that is the “free gift of God, through Jesus Christ our Lord ; ” but a title to admission being thus conferred, they will contribute to augment our bliss. The Scriptures every where teach us that the services and sufferings of the faithful shall meet with a Divine reward, which though not of debt, but of grace, is nevertheless a reward; which it could not be if what was enjoyed in the life to come had no relation to what was done in the present life. God will reward his servants, at the last day, with his public approbation before an assembled world. “The King shall say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye BLESSEDNESS OF THE DEAD WHO DIE IN THE LORD. 555 gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in ; naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.” Nor shall their works stop here, but shall follow them into the heavenly state itself, and furnish matter of joyful recollection for ever, affording a kind of measure according to which their reward in heaven will be conferred. The whole current of Scripture appears to me to teach us that there will be de- grees of happiness, as well as of misery, in the future state; and that those who have served the Lord with the great- est fidelity and zeal in this world will enjoy the greatest portion of mental bliss in the world to come. If the la- bours which we here endure have a tendency to meeten us for the heavenly rest—if present bitters will render future sweet the sweeter—and if it is thus that our “light afflic- tion, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory”—it must then fol- low that there will be some proportion between our pre- sent labours and our future enjoyments. I mean, it can- not be supposed that those who have laboured but little for God will enjoy an equal portion of felicity with those who have laboured much. Upon no other principle, that I can see, can we under- stand those passages of Scripture which exhort us to “lay up treasure in heaven ;” to “lay up in store for ourselves a good foundation against the time to come ; ” which en- courage us under reproaches and persecutions for the name of Christ, saying, “Great is your reward in heaven ; ” and which warm us, saying, “Be not deceived, God is not mocked : for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption : but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.”—“ He that soweth spar- ingly shall reap sparingly; but he that soweth bountifully shall reap bountifully. For we must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.” We see, here, that laying out ourselves for God is laying up treasure in heaven, and that everlasting life is a harvest that will grow out of the seed sown to the Spirit. Some serious people have demurred upon this subject, lest it should affect the doctrine of salvation by grace, and encourage boasting. Indeed, if those works which follow us into the heavenly state were to be ascribed to us as their first cause, and were considered as the proper meritorious ground of our reward, there would be weight in the objec- tion; but if it be the Lord who has wrought all our works &n ws, and if the reward with which he is pleased to crown them be a matter of grace and not of debt, where then is boasting 3 It is only God's graciously rewarding his own work. If ten thousand crowns were placed upon the Christian's head, he would cast them immediately at his Redeemer's feet, saying, “Not unto us, not unto us, but to thy name give glory !” It is through the intimate union between Christ and be- lievers that they are not only accepted in him, but what they do for Christ is accepted also, and rewarded for his sake, “The Lord had respect unto Abel, and to his offer- &ng.” We are not only “accepted in the Beloved,” but our “sacrifices” become “acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” As there is no sin so great but God, for Christ's sake, can forgive it; no blessing so great but he can be- stow it; so there is no service so small, if dome from love to him, but he will reward it. “A cup of cold water, given to a disciple,” because he belongs to him, will insure “a disciple’s reward.” God’s graciously connecting blessings with the obedi- ence of his people serves to show, not only his love to his Son, and to them, but also his love to holiness and right- eousness. A father may design to give an inheritance to his child, and various other accommodations; he may de- sign also to fit him, as much as may be, for the enjoyment of what he has to bestow upon him. On this principle, he will connect almost every gift or favour that he confers with some act of filial duty. It is easy to see, in this case, that the father does not consider these things as the child’s due upon the footing of merit ; for all that he did was simply his duty: but love to his child induced him to give ; and love to diligence, obedience, and good order induced denying ourselves in that instance for his sake. him to give it in such a manner. It is thus that God gives grace and glory. It is thus that, in this life, finding is con- nected with seeking, forgiveness with confession, and 3al- vation with believing ; and in the life to come, eternal glory with suffering, warring, and overcoming. It is thus that God displays, at the same time, the freeness of his grace and his love of righteousness and good order. Grace reigns in a way of righteousness through the whole system of salvation. Those that are saved shall be sufficiently con- vinced that it is all of grace; while, on the other hand, all shall see the equity and fitness of the Divine proceedings, in judging every man according to his works. But I proceed to consider, II. THE USES THAT THIS TwoFold IDEA OF THE HEA- ven LY STATE Is ADAPTED To PROMOTE. All Divine truth has a tendency to do us good, and the sentiments taught us in this passage are adapted to our present situation. 1. A rest for those who die in the Lord may reconcile us to the loss of our dearest Christian friends, seeing they are gone to the possession of it, and are henceforth blessed. When our Lord Jesus was about to leave the world, and his disciples were overmuch dejected at the thought of his going, he told them, “If ye loved me, ye would rejoice e- cause I said I go to the Father, for my Father is greater than I; ” which is as if he had said, The glory and happiness which my Father possesses, and which I go to possess with him, is greater than any thing I can here enjoy; if, there- fore, ye loved me in a proper manner, instead of weeping at my departure, surely ye would rejoice at it. If the love that we bear to our Christian friends were but properly directed, if our minds were but capacious enough to take all things into consideration, we should mingle joy with all our mourning on their account. 2. A rest before us may reconcile us who are left behind to all the labours and pains and weariness of life. We need not tire or want to sit down here ; there will be time enough to rest us by and by. Nor need we be discouraged with all the trials of the present state. What though it were “in weariness and painfulness, in hunger and thirst, in cold and nakedness,” that we had to pass the remainder of our days? What though bonds and afflictions should abide us? The sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be re- vealed in us. The rest that remains will make us, like Joseph, “forget all our toil, and all our father's house ;” so forget it, at least, as never to think of it any more but with joy and thankfulness. 3. The glorious reward before us may stimulate ws to work for God with all our might achile life continues. It is affecting to consider what we are doing in this life as the seed of an eternal harvest. Let us keep this thought ha- bitually in view. There is a way of turning the ills of life into good, yea, an everlasting good. Every tempta- tion to evil that accosts us is a price put into our hands; it affords us an opportunity of proving our love to God, by The same may be said of afflictions; they afford us an opportunity for the exercise of patience and acquiescence in the will of God; and what a harvest of joy such things may issue in it is beyond our capacity to conceive. Perhaps it was under some such views as these that the primitive Chris- tians were used to “rejoice in tribulation,” and were ex- horted to “count it all joy, when they fell into divers temptations.” 4. If our works will follow us, we have reason to trem- ble as well as rejoice. The works of those who die out of Christ, as well as the others, will follow them. Their life is a seed-time, and they also will receive a harvest. All men have their opportunities, their temptations, and their afflictions; and they will work in some way, either as a savour of life unto life, or of death unto death; either as an eternal weight of glory, or of infamy and misery. But what shall I say in immediate reference to the pre- sent melancholy occasion ? I wish I could say something that might have a tendency to comfort those that mourn. We have all sustained a heavy loss. The town has lost one that sought its welfare; the poor have lost a bene- factor; the church of which he was a member and an officer has lost one the study of whose life it was to pro- mote its prosperity; those who had the pleasure of an 556 - SERMONS AND SEETCHES. * ~ *, * * *-*. . . . intimate acquaintance with him have lost a steady, faith- ful, and judicious friend ; and you, my friend, the partner of his life, you have sustained a heavier loss than any of us. But let us try and consider that the loss is not so great but it might have been greater. We have not to sorrow as those that have mo hope. Our grief is confined to ourselves. We have no cause to weep on his account. This is a thought which, though frequently mentioned on such occasions as these, yet can never be sufficiently realized. To bury a Christian friend is nothing in com- parison of burying those relations of whose piety we have no well-grounded satisfaction. Add to this, the mercy of God in not taking him away in the prime of life, and health, and usefulness. Had he been removed ten or twelve, or even five or six years ago, the stroke had been much more felt by all his connexions than it is now. I have often admired the wisdom and mercy of God in these things. We see the threatening hand of God laid upon one of our dearest friends and relatives ; at first we think we can never endure the loss; but the affliction continues; meanwhile, the weight which he sustained in society is gradually removed, and falls by degrees upon his friends about him ; life becomes a burden to himself; at length, the very same principle that made it appear im- possible for us to endure a separation renders us incapable of praying or even wishing for his continuance; and thus the burden, that we could scarcely have known how to bear, becomes tolerable, by being gradually let down as it were upon our shoulders. Our dear friend has left many relations behind him ; most of whom I suppose may at this time be present. My dear friends, I have often heard him express his anxiety for several of you, both as to your temporal and spiritual welfare. Some of you may have been apt to consider him as an enviable character on account of his wealth ; but, be assured, he was much more enviable on account of his piety; you need not wish so much to live like him as a gentleman as to live and die like him as a Christian. But, I suppose, it will be expected that I should say something more particularly of the deceased himself. I have commonly declined saying much on this head; and I still think that, generally speaking, it is right to do so, because the generality of characters, even of good men, have nothing in them very remarkable or worthy of being held up for our imitation. But, for this very reason, I think in some cases it would be wrong to omit it. Per- haps no human writings have had a better effect than the Žives of eminently holy men. When, therefore, any such characters appear among us, I think it is right to collect as much information respecting them as we can, that the remembrance of them may be of general use. So far as education and parental example could in- fluence, our deceased friend might be said to have known the Holy Scriptures from a child. His family, for genera- tions past, have walked in the ways of piety. His great- grandfather, Mr. William Wallis, was the founder and first minister of the church of which you and I are mem- bers. He founded it in 1696. His grandfather, Mr. Thomas Wallis, succeeded in the same office. It was in his time that the late Dr. Gill, and the late Mr. Brine, Were both called to the ministry. He died in 1726, and his funeral sermon is said, as in the present instance, to have been preached in this place, * on account of the number of people who attended it. His father, Mr. William Wallis, though not a minister as his predecessors had been, was a very respectable member of the same community. , When he died, which was in 1757, his son, our deceased friend, was but twenty-two years of age. From his earliest years he was under strong convictions of the truth and importance of religion; but the most re- markable impression of this sort was made at the death of his father. It was then, as he said, that he went and prayed to God, and thought within himself—Oh that I had but an interest in Christ; and felt all the world, and all its enjoyments, to be mere vanity without it ! At the time of his father's death, he had a brother, Mr. Joseph Wallis, about twelve years of age. The amiable : The Independent meeting-house, kindly granted on this occasion. - Jº, J). piety of that young man is said to have appeared at an early period; but, to the great grief of his friends, espe- cially of his brother, he was removed by the small-pox, in the nineteenth year of his age. In the year 1763, at the age of twenty-eight, Mr. Wallis became a member of the same Christian community in which his predecessors had lived and died. About five years after, he was chosen to the office of a deacon ; an office which he has filled with honour and satisfaction for twenty-four years. It was a great blessing to the church, especially when for the space of five years they were destitute of a minister, that he was invested with this office, and was then in the prime of life and usefulness. It will long be remembered with what meekness of wis- dom he presided in the church, during that uncomfortable interval; and how, notwithstanding all the disadvantages of such a situation, they were not only preserved in peace, but gradually increased till a minister was settled among them. God endued him with a sound understanding and a solid judgment. His knowledge was extensive, and his observations on men and things, ripened by long ex- perience, were just and accurate. He had a quick sense of right and wrong, of propriety and impropriety, which rendered his counsel of great esteem in cases of difficulty. To this was added a spirit of activity. Though, during the greater part of his life, he was out of trade, yet his head and hands were always full with the concerns of others, either those of private individuals, with which he was intrusted, or matters of public utility. He would rise by five in the morning, in summer, and be as diligent all the day as if he had had to obtain his bread by the sweat of the brow. But, perhaps, one of the most prominent features of his character was sincerity, or integrity of heart. This was a temper of mind that ran through all his concerns. In a cause of righteousness, he possessed a severity which ren- dered it almost impossible for treachery to stand before him. He was prudent, but his prudence never degener- ated into low policy, or any thing that deserved the name of subtlety. If motives of mere prudence were proposed to him, he would hesitate, nor would he accede till he had thought whether the measure was right. If he could but satisfy himself on that head, he would be regardless of consequences, or of popular opinion. Even in his con- tributions, one might perceive his love of righteousness. Though an economist from principle, he had nothing of the niggard ; only convince him that a cause was right, (and that was easily done, if it was so,) and he would engage in it with all his heart, nor think much of any expense. “I wish to do what is right,” he would say, “and leave consequences.” He was a standing example of the falsehood of that system which teaches that “flat- tery is essential to politeness.” If to behave in such a manner as to gain the esteem of all descriptions of men be politeness, he was polite; yet he hated flattery. He would neither flatter nor be flattered by others. The true secret by which he obtained esteem was an unaf- fected modesty, mingled with kindness and goodness. He possessed a peculiar decision of character. His judgment was generally formed with slow deliberation ; but having once made up his mind, it was not easily altered. He was decisive in the principles he embraced. He held nothing with a loose hand. He observed to me, a few weeks before he died, when mentioning what he conceived to have been his great defect in religion, that it was not a wavering disposition. “I have not,” said he, “ been tossed about with every wind of doctrine.” He has sometimes ingenuously confessed that he thought him- self more in danger of erring by a prejudiced attachment to received principles than by the contrary. He was equally decisive in matters of practice. He scarcely ever engaged in any thing with indifference. What his hand found him to do, he did it with his might. Having formed his judgment that such a matter was right, he would pur- sue it with indefatigable industry, patience, and persever- ance ; he would wade through difficulties that would have discouraged most men; nor was he ever satisfied till he had accomplished his end. There are few men that have possessed a greater degree ON A DEEP AND INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE OF DIVINE TRUTH. 557 of genuine humility. It is often seen, where persons of affluence unite with a Christian community, they consider themselves as doing great honour to it, and expect great homage in return. But this every one that knew him can bear witness was not his spirit. It was not natural to him to assume the airs of a Diotrephes, or to avail himself of the influence which his circumstances and situation afford- ed him to lord it over God’s heritage. He was sometimes warm and sanguine; but that was not frequent, and never but when he considered himself as engaged in the cause of truth and righteousness. To this may be added, there was a vein of serious godli- ºness that ran through his life. It is true, he was often dejected in his own mind, lest he should be found wanting at last ; so much so as to give considerable pain to his friends. “There is something in religion,” he would say, “with which I fear I have been all my life unacquainted.” This dejection I attribute, in a great degree, to constitu- tion. There are few characters that have discovered a greater fear of God, a greater acquiescence in the way of salvation through a crucified Saviour, or a greater concern to spend his life in doing good. That which would have hurt the pride of many a rich man, namely, to unite with the poor and the illiterate as his brethren, was no mortifi- cation to him ; on the contrary, he lately said, “I reckon it the greatest honour of my life to have been employed in promoting the interest of Christ.” ." There is one circumstance more which I cannot omit. About a week before he died, he requested that a few of his Christian friends might come and see him, and pray with him. Five of us went. When there, he told us he did not wish us to pray for his life; he considered it as the will of God that he should die ; and he added, “His will be done ! But pray,” said he, “that if there are any sins of which I have been guilty, and have not yet repented, any sins for which God has any controversy with me, that he would give me a proper sense of them before I die. Or if not, that I might enjoy the light of his countenance in death.” We were all exceedingly affected. After pray- ing with him about an hour, he gathered up what little strength he had, and addressed himself to us with a kind of solemn farewell. He reminded us of the difficulties we had been brought through as a church, expressed his satis- faction in leaving us in so comfortable a situation, recom- mended us to love one another, and solemnly commended us to the blessing of God! Surely I shall never forget this tender parting ! But I have done. He would have invited others of his friends, whom he equally loved, but his strength began to fail him ; and in a few days, after a long series of afflictions, which he bore with great patience, calmness, and resignation to God, he fell asleep. SERMON W. [Preached before the Baptist Association at St. Albans, June 1, 1796.] T HE NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF A DEEP AND INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE OF DIVINE TRUTH, “For When for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteous- nºsi, for he is a babe... But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.”—Heb. v. 12-14, THERE is nothing in which the kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of Satan are more opposed than that the one is characterized by light and the other by darkness. The cause of falsehood is itself a dark cause, and requires dark- ness to cover it; but truth is light, and cometh to the light, that it may be made manifest. Knowledge is every where encouraged in the Bible; our best interests are in- terwoven with it; and the spirituality of our minds, and the real enjoyment of our lives, depend upon its increase. “Grace and peace are multiplied through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.” Nor is it necessary for our own sakes only, but for the sake of others. It is a great encouragement to Christian ministers when those whom they teach possess a good understanding in the things of God. Indeed, none but those who are engaged in the work of teaching can tell how much the ardour of the mind is damped by the contrary. The truth of this remark is exemplified in the writer of this Epistle. In the verses immediately preceding the text, you perceive him highly interested in his subject, and proceeding in a glo- rious career of reasoning ; when, all on a sudden, he is stopped. He had many things to say of his Lord and Master; but which were “hard to be understood,” seeing those to whom he wrote were “dull of hearing.” It is on this occasion that he introduces the passage now before us, in which his object is to shame and provoke them, by comparing them with those who as to years were men, but as to knowledge children; and who, instead of having made advances in science, needed to be taught the alpha- bet over again. There are some things supposed and in- cluded in the passage which require a little previous attention. First, It is here supposed that all Divine knowledge is to be derived from the oracles of God. It is a proper term by which the sacred Scriptures are here denominated, strongly expressive of their Divine inspiration and infallibility: in them God speaks; and to them it becomes us to hearken. We may learn other things from other quarters; and things, too, that may subserve the knowledge of God; but the knowledge of God itself must here be sought, for here only it can be found. - Much has been said on faith and reason, and the ques- tion has often been agitated whether the one, in any in- stance, can be contrary to the other. In the solution of this question, it is necessary, in the first place, to deter- mine what is meant by reason. There is a great difference between reason and reasoning. Nothing which God re- veals can contradict the former; but this is more than can be said of the latter. It is impossible for God to reveal any thing repugnant to what is fit and right; but that which is fit and right in one man’s estimation is prepos- terous and absurd in the esteem of another, which clearly proves that reason, as it exists in depraved creatures, is not a proper standard of truth; and hence arises the necessity of another and a better standard, “ the oracles of God.” By studying these, a good man will gain more understand- ing than his teachers, if they live in the neglect of them. Secondly, It is supposed that the oracles of God include a system of Divine truth. They contain the first principles, or rudiments of religion—the simple truths of the gospel, which require little or no investigation in order to their being understood; these are called “milk.” They also contain the “deep things of God,” things beyond the reach of a slight and cursory observation, and which require, if we would properly enter into them, close and repeated attention : this is “strong meat.” Those doctrines which the apostle enumerates in the following chapter, as things which he should “ leave, and go on unto perfection,” have been thought to refer to the leading principles of Judaism: and it may be so ; for Judaism itself contained the first principles of Christianity : it was introductory to it; or, as it is elsewhere expressed, it was “our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ.” Thirdly, It is intimated that Christians show.ld not rest satisfied in having attained to a knowledge of the first prin- ciples of the doctrine of Christ, but should go on writo per- jection ; not only so as to obtain satisfaction for themselves, but that they may be able to teach others. It is true all are not to be teachers by office ; but, in one form or other, all should aspire to communicate the knowledge of Christ. Every Christian is required to be ready to give a reason of the hope that is in him, with meekness and fear; and if all the members of our churches did but possess this readiness, besides the advantages that would accrue to themselves and others, there would be less scarcity than there is of able and evangelical ministers. The leading sentiment which runs through the passage, and comprises the whole, is THE IMPortANce of A Deer AND INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE OF DIVINE TRUTH. To this subject, brethren, permit me to call your attention. In 558 SERMONS AND SRETCHES. discoursing upon it, I shall first inquire wherein it con- sists, and then endeavour to show the importance of it. I. Let us inquire whAT A DEEP AND INTIMATE KNow- LEDGE OF DIVINE TRUTH INCLUDEs. That the oracles of God contain deep things requires but little proof. The character of God, our own depravity, and that great mys- tery of godliness, God manifest in the flesh, &c., are deep and interesting subjects. The prophets had to search into the meaning of their own prophecies. The riches of Christ, with which the apostles were intrusted, were de- nominated “unsearchable ; ” and even the highest orders of created intelligences are described as “looking” into these things for their further improvement. It may seem presuming for any person, in the present imperfect state, to determine on subjects of such magni- tude; or to talk of a deep and intimate knowledge of things which surpass the comprehension of the most ex- lated creatures. And if these terms were used either Jabsolutely, to express the real conformity of our ideas of |Divine things to the full extent of the things themselves, }or even comparatively, if the comparison respected saints on earth and saints in heaven, it would be presumption. ‘. But it is only in reference to one another in the present 5 state that these terms are intended to apply. Compared \ with heavenly inhabitants, all of us are babes ; even an inspired apostle was no more. “When I was a child,” said he, “I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child : but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass darkly ; but then face to face : now I know in part, but then shall I know even as also I am known.” There are such degrees, however, among good men in this life as that, compared with each other, some may be said to pos- sess only a superficial knowledge of Divine truth, and others a more deep and intimate acquaintance with it. It is the importance of the latter of these that I wish to have impressed upon your minds. To attain it, the following, among other things, require our attention :- 1. Though we must not stop at first principles, yet we must be well grounded in them. No person can drink deeply into any science without being well acquainted with its rudiments; these are the foundation on which the whole structure rests. The first principles of the oracles of God, as specified by our apostle, are “repentance from dead works, faith toward God, the doctrine of bap- tisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.” Whatever may be meant by some of these terms, whether they refer to things peculiar to Judaism, or to the early times of Christianity, it is clear, from Scripture and the nature of things, that others of them are expressive of principles which, in every age, are of the first importance. Though the apostle speaks of leaving them, yet he does not mean that we should give them up, or treat them with indifference, but go on unto perfection ; as a builder leaves his foundation when he raises his walls, and advances toward the completion of his building. Repentance was the first lesson inculcated by John the Baptist, and Christ, and the apostles; and that not merely on profligate sinners, but on scribes and Pharisees. All that they had hitherto learned required, as it were, to be unlearned ; and all that they had done to be undone, and utterly relinquished. The knowledge which carnal men acquire of Divine things puffs them up ; and while they think they under- stand great things, they know nothing as they ought to know it. All the works, too, which have been wrought during a state of unregeneracy are “dead works;” and instead of being, in any degree, pleasing to God, require to be lamented with shame and self-abhorrence. Repent- ance is a kind of self-emptying work ; it includes a re- nunciation, not only of those things for which our own consciences at the time condemned us, but of what we have been in the habit of reckoning wisdom and right- eousness. Hence the propriety of the order in which the Scriptures place it with regard to faith—“Repent, and believe the gospel.” Renounce your own ways, and em- and glory of the Divine character, is reckoned almost among the first principles of the doctrines of Christ. If we have just ideas of this very important subject, we have the key to the whole system of gospel truth. He who beholds the glory of the Divine holiness will, in that glass, perceive his own polluted and perishing condition ; and, when properly impressed with a sense of these things, he will naturally embrace the doctrine of a Saviour, yea, and of a great one. Salvation by mere grace, through the atonement of Jesus, will appear the very object of his soul's desire. And, with these principles in his heart, other Scripture doctrines will appear true, interesting, and harmonious. There are but few erroneous sentiments in the Christian world which may not be traced to a spirit of self-admiration, (which is the opposite of repentance,) or to false conceptions of the Divine character. To these the apostle adds, “the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment; ” or the doctrine of a future state of rewards and punishments of endless duration. These are principles which, indeed, occupy almost an ultimate place in the sacred system ; yet, as every other important truth respecting man proceeds upon the supposition of their reality, they may properly enough be reckoned among the first principles of the oracles of God. If these prin- ciples were given up to the infidel, the spirit of whose creed amounts to this, “Let us eat and drink, for to-mor- row we die ; ” or if the latter of them were given up to the universalist, who, though he admits of a judgment to come, yet not of an eternal one, we should soon find the whole fabric of truth falling to the ground. 2. We must not content ourselves with knowing what is truth, but must be acquainted with the evidence on which it rests. Christians are required to be always ready to give a reason for the hope that is in them, with meekness and fear; and this supposes, not only that every part of re- ‘ligion admits of a rational defence, but that it is necessary for Christians to study, that they may be able to defend it; or, at least, to feel the ground on which they rest their hope. - The truths contained in the oracles of God may be dis- tinguished into two kinds : those which approve them- selves to our ideas of wisdom or fitness ; and those which utterly surpass our understanding, but which require to be believed as matters of pure revelation. The former chiefly respect the counsels and works of God, which are exhibited to our understanding, that God in them may be made manifest: the latter more commonly respect the being and inconceivable glories of the Godhead, the reality of which we are concerned to know, but on their mode or manner are forbidden to gaze. - It is exceedingly desirable to trace the wisdom and har- mony of evangelical truth: it is a source of enjoyment, superior perhaps to any thing with which we are ac- quainted. All the “works of God are honourable and glorious, and sought out by all them that have pleasure therein;” but redemption is his great work, wherein ap- pears “glory to himself in the highest, and on earth peace, and good-will to men :” here, therefore, must needs be the highest enjoyment. Prior to the revelation of redemption, the holy angels shouted for joy over the works of nature ; but having witnessed the incarnation, life, death, resurrec- tion, and ascension of Jesus, they “desired to look into. (other) things.” Nothing tends more to establish the mind, and to interest the heart in any truth, than a percep- tion that it is adapted at once to express the glory of the Divine character and to meet the necessities of guilty crea- tures. The more we think of truth, therefore, in this way, the more we shall be “rooted and grounded ” in it. But what reason have we to give for embracing those doctrines which we consider as above reason, of the fitness of which we consequently pretend to have no ideas $ We answer, they are contained in the oracles of God. Nothing is more reasonable than to give implicit credit to Him who cannot lie. On this ground, we believe that “there are three who bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and that these three are one.” If God had revealed nothing but what would have come brace his. “He that will be wise must first become a fool, within the limits of our understanding, he must have told Ş that he may be wise.” “Faith toward God,” or a believing view of the being us little or nothing at all of his self-existence, eternity, and . infinity; for we have no positive ideas of any of these , ON A DEEP AND INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE OF DIVINE TRUTH, 559 things. Yet the revelation of such truths may be as ne- cessary as those which approach nearer to our comprehen- sion. The latter afford food for knowledge ; the former teach us humility, and furnish matter for faith. 3. We must learn truth immediately from the oracles of God. Many religious people appear to be contented with seeing truth in the light in which some great and good man has placed it; but if ever we enter into the gospel to purpose, it must be by reading the word of God for our- selves, and by praying and meditating upon its sacred con- tents. It is “in God’s light that we must see light.” By conversing with the sacred writers, we shall gradually im- bibe their sentiments, and be insensibly assimilated into the same spirit. The writings of great and good men are not to be de- spised, any more than their preaching; only let them not be treated as oracular. The best of men, in this imperfect state, view things partially; and therefore are in danger of laying an improper stress upon some parts of Scripture, to the neglect of other parts of equal, and sometimes of su- perior importance. Now, where this is the case, imitation becomes dangerous. It is rarely known but that an original suffers in the hands of a copyist; if, therefore, the former be imperfect, what may be expected of the latter ? We all come far short of truth and righteousness, let our model be ever so perfect; but if this be imperfect, we shall possess not only our own faults, but those of another. If, as ministers, we go about to depict either the character of a bad man or of a good man, a state of unregeneracy or a work of grace, and, instead of drawing from real life, only copy from some accounts which we have read or heard of these matters, we shall neither convince the sinner nor meet the case of the believer; all, to say the least, will be foreign and uninteresting. If we adopt the principles of fallible men, without search- ing the Scriptures for ourselves, and inquiring whether or not these things be so, they will not, even allowing them to be on the side of truth, avail us, as if we had learned them from a higher authority. Our faith, in this case, will stand in the wisdom of man, and not in the power of God. There is a savour in truth, when drawn from the words which the Holy Spirit teaches, which is lost, or at least diminished, if it pass under the conceptions and ex- pressions of men. Nor will it avail us when most needed ; for he who receives his creed from men may deliver it up to men again. Truth learned only at second-hand will be to us what Saul’s armour was to David; we shall be at a loss how to use it in the day of trial. . 4. If we would possess a deep and intimate acquaint- ance with Divine truth, we must view it in its various con- neatons in the great system of redemption. Systematic di- Yinity, or the studying of truth in a systematic form, has been of late years much decried. It has become almost general to consider it as the mark of a contracted mind, and the grand obstruction to free inquiry. If we imbibe a false system, indeed, there is no doubt but it will prove injurious; if it be true in part, but very defective, it may impede our progress in Divine knowledge; or if, in order to retain a system, we torture the Scriptures to make them accord with it, we shall pervert the truth instead of pre- selying it. These are things which make against false, defective, and antiscriptural systems of faith ; but not in the least against system itself. The best criterion of a good system is its agreement with the Holy Scriptures. That yiew of things, whether we have any of us fully attained it or not, which admits the most natural meaning to be put upon every part of God's word, is the right system of religious truth. And he whose belief consists of a number of positions arranged in such a connexion as to constitute a consistent whole, but who from a sense of his imperfec- tions, and a remembrance of past errors, holds himself ready to add or retrench, as evidence shall require, is in a far more advantageous track for the attainment of truth, and a real enlargement of mind, than he who thinks with. out a system. To be without system is nearly the same thing as to be without principle. Whatever principles we may have, while they continue in this disorganized state, they will answer but little purpose in the religious life. Like a tu- multuous assembly in the day of battle, they may exist, but it will be without order, energy, or end. - No man could decry systematic knowledge in any thing but religion, without subjecting himself to the ridicule of thinking men. A philosopher, for instance, would expose himself to contempt, who instead of improving facts which had fallen under his observation, that he might discover the general laws by which they are governed—and instead of tracing things to their first principles, and pursuing them to their just consequences—should inveigh against all general laws, all system, all connexion and dependence, and all uniform design in the variety of creation. What should we say of a husbandman who refused to arrange his observations under the respective branches of business to which they naturally belonged; who had no general scheme or plan of proceeding, but left the work of every day to the day itself, without forethought, contrivance, or design 7 Or what opinion should we form of a merchant or a tradesman who should exclude systematic knowledge from his affairs? He is constantly employed in buying and selling; but he must have no general system whereby to conduct either the one or the other; none for the regulation of his books; none for the assortment of his articles: all must be free, lest he sink into formality, and, by being in the habit of doing things in order, should contract a narrowness of mind - But is the Bible written upon systematic principles; does it contain a system, or does it encourage us to form one 7 By the Bible being written on systematic prin- ciples, I suppose, is meant a systematic arrangement of its contents; and there is no doubt but the contrary of this is true. But then the same might be said of the book of na- ture. Though the different species of animals, vegetables, minerals, &c. are capable of being arranged under their respective genera, and so reduced to a system ; yet in their actual position in creation they assume no such appear- ance. It is wisely contrived, both in nature and Scripture, that the objects of each should be scattered in lovely va- riety; but amidst all this variety, an observant eye will perceive unity, order, arrangement, and fulness of design. God, in all his works, has proceeded on system ; there is a beautiful connexion and harmony in every thing which he has wrought. We sometimes speak of a system of nature, a system of providence, and a system of redemp- tion; and as smaller systems are often included in greater, the language is not improper: in reality, however, they are all but one system ; one grand piece of machinery, each part of which has a dependence on the other, and all together form one glorious whole. Now if God proceeds on system, it may be expected that the Scriptures, being a transcript of his mind, should contain a system ; and if we would study them to purpose, it must be so as to discover what that system is. I never recollect to have heard any objection to system- atic divinity with regard to practice. Let a Christian, utterly unacquainted with human writings, take his Bible, with a view to learn the mind of God upon any given sub- ject, suppose it be the duty of parents, he will naturally collect all the passages in the sacred writings which relate to that subject, arrange them in order, and from the whole, thus taken together, regulate his conduct. For this no one will think of blaming him ; yet this would be acting systematically. Let him do the same with respect to every other duty, and he will be in possession of a body, or system, of practical divinity. And why should he stop here? why not col- lect the mind of God, from the whole of Scripture taken together, upon things to be believed, as well as things to be performed ? - If the apostles had not considered Divine truth in a systematic form, how came the writer of this Epistle to speak of the “first principles” of the oracles of God 3 This language supposes, as before observed, a scheme or system of faith; and if such a form of considering truth were disadvantageous to Christians, how came he to cen- sure the Hebrews for their want of progress in it 3. In his Epistle to the Romans, also, we read of the proportion, or analogy, of faith; which certainly supposes that the gos- pel is one proportionate or consistent whole. Could a system of divinity be written, in which every 560 SERMONS AND SKETCHES. sacred truth or duty should have a place assigned it, and such a place, both as to order and importance, as properly belonged to it, not invading the province of other truths or duties, but, on the contrary, subserving them, and itself appearing to the greatest advantage among them,--such a performance would answer to what the apostle means by “the proportion of faith.” But can we expect a work answering to this description from an uninspired pen 3 Perhaps not. The materials for such a model exist, how- ever, in the Holy Scriptures; and though we cannot collect and arrange them to perfection, let us, as in all other things, “press towards the mark.” Let that system of religion which we embrace be but in the main the right one, and so far from contracting the mind, it is easy to perceive that it will abundantly en- large it. For example, let the fact of Joseph’s being sold into Egypt be viewed without its connexion with God’s designs, and it will appear a melancholy instance of human depra- vity : we shall see nothing very remarkable in it ; and it will seem calculated only to afford a disgusting picture of family jealousies and intrigues, enough to break the heart of an aged parent. But let the same fact be viewed sys- tematically, as a link in a chain, or as a part of a whole, and it will assume a very different appearance. Thus viewed, it is an event pregnant- with glory. He must needs go down into Egypt, that much people might be preserved alive ; that Jacob's family might follow him ; that they might there be preserved for a season, till, in due time, having become a great nation, they should be led forth with a high hand; that they might be placed in Canaan, and might set up the worship of the true God ; that the Messiah might be born among them ; and that his kingdom might be extended over the whole earth. Without a system, the patriarch reflected, “All these things are against me; ” but with a system, or rather with only the discovery of a very small part of it, he ex- claimed, “It is enough : Joseph my son is yet alive : I will go down, and see him before I die.” In addition to this event in providence, let us offer a few examples in matters of doctrine. Would you contemplate the great evil of sin, you must view it in its connexions, tendencies, and consequences. For a poor finite creature, whose life is but a vapour, to gratify a vicious inclination may appear a trifle; but when its tendencies and mischievous consequences are taken into the account, it wears a different aspect. Jero- boam “ said in his heart, If this people go up to sacrifice at Jerusalem, then shall the kingdom return unto David.” Hence he set up idolatry; and hence the nation was cor- rupted more and more, till at length it was given up to utter destruction. Considering ourselves as links in the great chain of moral government, every transgression is of vast importance, because it affects the whole system. If the government of God be once violated, an example is set, which, if followed, would ruin the universe. Further, If we contemplate the death of Christ without any relation to system, we shall only see a suffering person at Jerusalem, and feel that pity and disgust which is ordi- narily excited by injustice and cruelty. But let us view it as connected with the moral government of God—as a glorious expedient to secure its honours—“a propitiation” wherein “God declared his righteousness for the remission of sin”—and we shall have a new set of feelings. While the apostles continued to view this event unconnectedly, their minds were contracted, and sorrow filled their hearts ; but when their eyes were opened to see it in its con- nexions and consequences, their sorrow was turned into joy. Those very persons who, but a few weeks before, could not bear to think of their Lord’s departure, after they had witnessed his ascension to glory, “returned to Jerusalem with great joy, and continued daily in the temple, praising and blessing God.” Once more, If we view the doctrine of election as un- connected with other things, it may appear to us to be a kind of fondness without reason or wisdom. A charge of caprice would, hereby, be brought against the Almighty; and professors, like the carnal Jews, on account of the distinguishing favours conferred on their nation, would be fostered in self-conceit. But if it be considered in con- nexion with the great system of religious truth, it will appear in a very different light. It will represent the Divine Being in his true character; not as acting with- out design, and subjecting himself to endless disappoint- ments; but as accomplishing all his works in pursuance of an eternal purpose. And as salvation, from first to last, is of mere grace, and every son and daughter of Adam is absolutely at the Divine discretion, it tends powerfully to impress this idea both upon saints and sinners. While it leads the former to acknowledge that by the grace of God they are what they are, it teaches the latter to relinquish their vain hopes, and to fall into the arms of sovereign mercy. As the righteousness of God’s elect is not the ground of their election, so neither is their felicity its ultimate end. God righteously hides the things of the gospel from the wise and prudent, and reveals them unto babes, because “so it seemeth good in his sight:” it tends most to dis- play the glory of his character, and to promote the general good of creation. These things, if properly considered, are of a humbling tendency. - If the Jews had considered that they were not chosen, or put in possession of the good land, “for their righteous- ness, or for the uprightness of their hearts; ” and that though it was an instance of great love to them, yet it was not ultimately for their sake, or to accomplish their hap- piness, but that God “might fulfil his covenant with Abra- ham, Isaac, and Jacob,” in whom, and in whose seed, “all the nations of the earth were to be blessed; ” and if they had considered the salvation of the world as the end of their national existence, and themselves as God’s wit- nesses till the times of reformation; instead of valuing themselves and despising others, they would have reckoned themselves “their servants for (Jehovah's) sake.” In short, by considering principles in their various con- nexions, far greater advances will be made in Divine know- ledge than by any other means. The discovery of one im- portant truth will lead on to a hundred more. Let a Christian but realize, for example, the glory of the Divine character as the moral Governor of the world; and he will at once perceive the equity and goodness of the moral law, which requires us to love him with all the heart. In this glass he will see his own depravity; and, possessed of these views, the grace of the gospel will appear to him to be grace indeed. Every blessing it contains will be en- dearing, and the medium through which all is conveyed superlatively precious. A train of thought like this has frequently proved more interesting than the labours of those who, having discovered a vein of silver or gold, dig deeply into the bowels of the enriching mine. Having considered a few of the means necessary for the attainment of a deep and intimate knowledge of truth, I shall, II. Attempt to establish THE IMPORTANCE OF SUCH A KNOWLEDGE, As the powers of created beings are limited, and no one can expect to understand every thing, it is the province of wisdom to select those kinds of knowledge, as the ob- jects of our pursuit, which are most valuable and of the greatest utility. There are some depths, of which it is our honour and felicity to be ignorant ; and even in things which are lawful, we may, in numberless instances, very well be excused, if not in wholly neglecting, yet in possessing only a general acquaintance with them. But Divine truth requires not only to be known, but well known ; it is not only necessary that we have sentiments, and right sentiments, but that we enter deeply into them. Every thing pertaining to God is great, and requires all our powers. In whatever we indulge indifference, there is no room for it here ; God requires not only all our “heart,” but all our “mind and strength.” The importance of a deep and intimate acquaintance with Divine truth will more particularly appear from the following considerations:— 1. A neglect of God’s word is represented as a heinous sin. But we shall not be able to escape this sin, if we content ourselves with a superficial acquaintance with truth. Revelation, in every stage, demands our serious attention; but the revelation of eternal life through Jesus Christ requires attention in the highest degree. This is ON A DEEP AND INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE OF DIVINE TRUTH. 561 that great salvation which we are charged not to negleet. The dignity of its author, its sublime and interesting na- ture, with the aecumulated evidence which God has con- descended to afford us of its Divine original, combine to require of us the most careful and cordial examination into its contents. A neglect of this is either total or par- tial : the former would denominate us unbelievers, and expose us to utter destruction ; the latter, though it may exist in sincere Christians, is nevertheless a sin, and a sin more than a little offensive to the God of all truth. To be contented with a superficial acquaintance with Divine things implies disrespect to Him who has revealed them. A letter from a distant friend, to whom we are cordially attached, is viewed and reviewed, and every sentence of it carefully inspected, and on many occasions committed to memory. Why should not the word of God be productive of the same effects? Indeed it is ; for in proportion as we love God, his word will dwell richly in us. It will be our bosom companion, to which we shall have recourse on every occasion; especially in seasons of leisure, when the mind, like a spring from which a pressure is removed, rises to its natural position. Hence the following language: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might: and these words which I command thee this day shall be in thine heart, and thou shalt teach them diligently to thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.” To be contented with a superficial acquaintance with Divine things implies also a want of affection to the things themselves. A will, or testament, in which we were deeply interested, would be procured with eagerness, and read with avidity; and if any difficulty remained as to the meaning of a particular passage, we should have no rest till, by some means or other, we had obtained a solution of it. I need not apply this remark. Nothing is more evident than that whatever is uppermost in our affections will form the grand current of our thoughts. And where our thoughts are directed to a subject with in- tenseness and perseverance, it will become familiar to us; and, unless it be owing to the want of natural capacity or any other necessary means, we shall of course enter deeply into it. I have been much struck with the ardent affection which David discovered to the Holy Scriptures, and every part of their sacred contents. The whole 119th Psalm is a continued encomium upon them. There we have such language as the following: “O how I love thy law I My soul breaketh for the longing that it hath unto thy judg- ments tº all times. ... Thy statutes have been my song in the house of my pilgrimage. The law of thy mouth is better to me than thousands of gold and silver.” Now, all the Scriptures which were then extant amounted to little more than the writings of Moses. What additions have we since enjoyed Besides the Book of Psalms, and the prophecies which followed, we have the whole New Testament, “full of grace and truth,” wherein the invisible God has, as it were, rendered himself visible. “Him whom no man had seen at any time, the only be- gotten Son, who dwelt in his bosom, hath declared.” How is, it that such a price should be in our hands to #. wisdom, and yet that we should have so little heart Or it 2. The Word of God is represented as a means of sanc- tification. But no effect of this kind can be produced beyond the degree in which we imbibe it. One great ob- ject of our Lord’s intercession with the Father, on our behalf, was, “that we might be sanctified through the truth, even by his word, which is truth.” The gospel is continually held up, not only as a “ doctrine according to godliness,” but as having a powerful influence in pro- ducing it. “It teacheth us that, denying ungodliness and Worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world.” It “worketh effectually in those who believe.” It was by the doctrine of the §ross that the world became crucified to the apostle, and he unto the world. So universal and so manifest were the effects of Divine truth upon the practice of the primi- tive Christians, that the sacred writers could appeal to faet, on their behalf, that they, and they only, were suc- cessful combatants against the world’s temptations : “Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that be- lieveth that Jesus is the Son of God 3’’ Now, in order that the gospel may be productive of these effects, it is necessary that it be understood. With- out this, how should it interest or affect the heart? We must believe the truth ere it will work effectually : we must know it, or it will not make us free. That we may serve God acceptably, and with godly fear, we must have grace; and grace is multiplied “through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord.” Rnowledge and affection have a mutual influence on each other. That the love of truth will prompt us to labour after a more perfect acquaintance with its contents has been already observed; and that such an acquaintance will promote an increasing love of truth, in return, is equally evident. We cannot love an unknown gospel, any more than an unknown God. Affection is fed by knowledge, being thereby furnished with grounds, or reasons, for its operations. By the expansion of the mind the heart is supplied with objects which fill it with de- light. It is thus that it becomes enlarged, and that we feel ourselves sweetly induced to “run in the way of the Divine commandments.” How was it that the apostle became dead to the world by the cross of Christ 3 I suppose, on much the same principle that the light of the stars is eclipsed by that of the sun; or that a man, having drunk old wine, ceases to desire new, for he saith the old is better. It is by drink- ing deeply into religion that we become disaffected to carnal objects. 3. The word of God is represented as the great source of Christian enjoyment. But no effect of this kind can be pro- duced, any further than we imbibe the truth. The same way in which Divine truth operates as a medium of sanc- tification, it becomes a source of enjoyment; namely, by interesting and affecting the heart. That which, by its superior lustre, eclipses the pleasures of sense, and cru- cifies us to the world, at the same time kindles a joy in the heart which is unspeakable and full of glory. The habitual joy which was possessed by the apostles and primitive Christians chiefly arose from a knowledge and belief of the gospel. It was “the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus his Lord” that induced the apostle to “count all things but loss.” Those in whom “the word of Christ dwelt richly, in all wisdom,” were supposed to be so enlivened by it, that it became natural to them to “teach and admonish one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in their hearts to the Lord.” The object for which the apostle “bowed his knees to the Father of glory,” in be- half of the Ephesians, was, that, by means of a compre- hensive knowledge of the “breadth, and length, and depth, and height of the redeeming “love of Christ, they might be filled with all the fulness of God.” The wells of salvation are deep; and he that lacketh knowledge is as one that has nothing to draw with. The prejudice of many Christians against doctrinal preaching, as being, in their esteem, dry and wninteresting, —and the preference given to that which is more descrip- tive of their feelings, and therefore termed experimental,— is worthy of attention. If the doctrine which we preach be not the unadulterated gospel of Christ, it will indeed be dry; or if, instead of entering into the spirit of truth, we are employed in a fruitless discussion of terms, or things on which the Scriptures forbear to decide, it must needs be uninteresting and even disgusting to a holy mind. But if the pure gospel of Jesus, well understood by the preacher, and communicated from the fulness of his heart, do not interest us, there must be some lamentable disorder in the state of our minds. If the manna that comes down from heaven be loathed, it is a sign that things are not with us as they ought to be. The doctrine of Moses, and surely much more that of Jesus, “dropped as the rain, and dis- tilled as the dew upon the tender herb.” Christian experience (or what is generally understood by that term, the painful and pleasurable feelings of good men) will be found, if genuine, to arise from the influence 2 O 562 SERMONS AND SKETCHES. of truth upon the mind. If we be strangers to the glory of God’s moral character, and the great evil of sin, we shall be strangers to all the feelings of godly sorrow on account of it. And what ground is there for joy and peace but in believing 2 Take away the Deity and atonement of Christ, and they are annihilated. To this may be added, Give up the doctrines of the resurrection and a future life, and what becomes of hope 3 From these instances, out of many others, you will easily perceive that doctrinal and experi- mental preaching are not so remote from each other as some persons have imagined; and that to extol the latter, at the expense of the former, is to act like him who wishes the fountain to be destroyed, because he prefers the Stream. 4. It is a great object in the Christian life, according to our capacities and opportunities, to diffuse the light of the gospel around us. But we cannot communicate any thing beyond the degree in which we possess it. The commu- nication of gospel truth is not confined to ministers. Every Christian moves in a sphere of some extent; and is expected so to occupy it as to embrace every occasion which may offer to make known the way of eternal life to those about him. The primitive churches were schools of hea- venly instruction, as the words of the text, to go no fur- ther, plainly intimate ; and the apostle reproves some of their members for having made no greater proficiency. Though it would be in vain for every one to aspire at be- ing a public teacher of Christianity, yet, as has been already observed, every one should be concerned that he may be able to “give a reason for the hope that is in him,” and to teach the good and the right way to those with whom he is immediately connected. The duties of a parent and a master include in them the instruction of those who are committed to their care. Many opportuni- ties arise in which Christians might communicate the knowledge of Christ to their neighbours; those in a state of servitude, to their fellow servants; and provided it were done on proper occasions, and according to the apos- tolic rule, “in meekness and fear,” persons in inferior stations might, suggest a useful hint even to their su- periors. When the family of Elimelech went to sojourn in Moab, they carried their religion with them ; so recommending the God of Israel to those with whom they formed con- nexions, that one of them was induced to leave her country, her kindred, and her gods, and to put her trust under the shadow of his wings. And even a “little maid” of the land of Israel, who had been carried captive into Syria, by speaking to her mistress, on a favourable opportunity, was instrumental in her master's being healed of his leprosy, and in his being brought to acknowledge and adore the true God. Such cases are recorded to encourage us to communicate the good knowledge of God on all proper occasions; but, in order to do this, we must first possess it, and that in a greater degree than is sufficient barely to denominate us Christians. Perhaps one of the most favourable opportunities for Christians to suggest important truth to their neighbours and connexions is when any of them are under a threat- ening affliction. To visit them at such a time would be kindly taken : even the worst of characters are commonly accessible when they apprehend eternity to be drawing nigh. You may then freely converse and pray with them; and if your circumstances will admit, and theirs require it, a communication of your worldly substance would con- vince them of your good-will, give weight to your instruc- tions, and correspond with the conduct of him who went about doing good to the bodies and souls of men. But such a practice requires an intimate acquaintance with Divine truth. It is an important matter to converse with men who are just on the borders of an eternal world : it requires not only tenderness, faithfulness, and prudence ; but an ability to expose those false refuges, and detect those delusive hopes, to which, at such seasons, they are generally disposed to fly; and to direct them to the “only name under heaven, given among men, whereby they must be saved.” 5. In times of apostacy from the truth, Christians are echorted to be stedfast. But a stedfast adherence to truth requires that we be rooted and grounded in it. The wisdom of God sees meet, in order to prove mankind, and especially his professing people, to suffer other gospels, besides the true one, to obtain footing among us. I am aware that it is become customary, in these times, to make a jest of heresy, and to deride, as illiberal, narrow-minded bigots, all those who consider any religious sentiments as endangering the salvation of men. But I hope we shall not, on this account, be deterred from such an attachment to truth as the Scriptures encourage. It is granted that the term heresy has been wretchedly abused, and that it becomes Christians to beware of applying it to every de- parture from even truth itself; yet there is such a thing in being. There were heresies in the apostles' times; and it was predicted that there should, in after-times, be persons who would bring in even “damnable heresies.” Let no one be startled at the use of these terms: I did not coin them, and am not accountable for them; but seeing they occupy a place in the Holy Scriptures, I think myself con- cerned to understand them. Whatever difficulty there may be in ascertaining their precise object, they, undoubt- edly, teach us that men’s souls may be destroyed by men- tal as well as by sensual lusts, even the souls of professing Christians; for the words are not intended to describe open infidels, but such as should bear the Christian name, yea, and who should be teachers of Christianity. The circulation of doctrines pleasing to corrupt nature will prove men to be what they are. They are the fan in Christ's hand, by which he will thoroughly purge his floor. That light-minded professors of religion should be carried away with them is no more a matter of surprise than that chaff should be carried away by the wind ; but how is it that those of whom we would hope better things are often shaken 3 If a minister, in almost any congregation, should relin- quish truth, and fall into the grossest errors, unless he had so conducted himself as to have gained little or no esteem among the people, he is seldom known to go off alone : sometimes half a congregation, and sometimes more, have been known to follow him, or, at least, to be greatly un- hinged for a considerable time. If a writer start up, in almost any connexion, let his performance be ever so weak or extravagant, yet, if he possess but a sufficient quantity of overbearing assurance, he will have his admirers; and some serious people, too, will be in danger of being turned aside. How are these things to be accounted for ? I con- ceive the principal reason is, that Christians content them- selves with a superficial knowledge of Divine things. Great numbers, from a dislike to controversy, will never take any pains to understand the difference between one set of religious principles and another. They have no desire to enable themselves to distinguish between true and false reasonings. They are too apt to take it for granted that what they have imbibed is truth, and that nothing can be advanced, with the least colour of reason, for the contrary : when, therefore, an argument appears with a little plausibility on its face, it has only to obtain a reading or a hearing, and their assent is gained. Bre- thren, let shame, if nothing else, provoke us, that we “henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine.” Let us be concerned, not obsti- nately to adhere to our present sentiments, be they what they may, but to know the mind of God in his word; and, knowing it, let us stedfastly adhere to it. The present age seems to be an age of trial. Not only is the gospel corrupted by those who bear the Christian name, but, of late, you well know, it has been openly assailed. The most direct and daring opposition has been made to the very name of Christianity. I am not going to alarm you with any idea that the church is in danger; no, my brethren ; the church of which we, I trust, are members, and of which Christ, and Christ alone, is the Head, is not in danger; it is built upon a rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Neither are my apprehensions excited concerning those who are true mem- bers of the church : these trying blasts, though they may affect them for a season, will ultimately cause them to take deeper root. Nevertheless, it becomes us to feel for the souls of men, especially for the rising generation; and to warn even good men that they be not unarmed in the evil day. ON A DEEP AND INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE OF DIVINE TRUTH. 563 The human heart has ever been averse from the gospel of Christ, but the turn or temper of the present age is peculiarly in favour of infidelity. In much the same manner as in former ages men were violently attached to a persecuting superstition, they are now verging to the opposite extreme, and are in danger of throwing off all religion. Our temptations, and those which will attend our posterity after us, are likely, therefore, to be widely different from what they have hitherto been. Hitherto nominal Christianity has been no reproach ; but reproach has attached itself to the other side. The case, in this respect, may soon be altered. Men grow bold in avowing their contempt of Christianity; and many among the dis- sipated part of the youth are following their example. Now if characters of this description should spring up in sufficient numbers, not only to keep each other in coun- tenance, but to turn the tide of reproach against Christians, as a company of wrong-headed enthusiasts, we shall soon see which side the mass of mankind will take. Their characters being loose and profligate, they have long felt themselves condemned by the gospel; and this is a matter that does not sit very easy upon them. Nothing has kept them from rejecting it before but the disgrace that would follow upon their becoming open infidels ; whenever, therefore, this disgrace shall be removed, we may expect them to go off in great companies. The slightest observa- tion of human nature must convince us that the greater part of mankind, even in religious matters, are governed by fashion; they go with “the course of this world.” So great an influence has the tide of public opinion upon them, that even where it is not altogether agreeable to their own views and inclinations, they are, nevertheless, frequently carried away by it ; but if it be thus where public opinion and private inclination are at variance, it must, of course, be much more so in those cases wherein they are agreed. This will be like a union of the wind and tide; and the vessel which is carried along by such a joint influence can scarcely have any thing left to impede its progress. The great influence which a certain popular pamphlet has had upon men's minds, is not so much owing to the work itself (though it possesses all the agreeableness to a depraved heart which wit and malignity can give it) as to the bias of the present generation in favour of the prin- ciples which it contains. Of this the author himself seems to have been sufficiently aware, by the title which he has thought proper to give his performance,—The Age of Reason. It is not unlikely that almost all our religious con- troversies will soon be reduced to one, upon which the great body of men will divide. Is Christianity true or false ? Is there a God? Is there a heaven and a hell? or is it all a fiction? Agitated by these important ques- tions, the greater part of the inhabitants of Europe, and perhaps of America, including our own posterity, may rank either as real Christians or as open infidels. What shall we say to these things? Ought they to de- Press us? We ought, undoubtedly, to feel for the welfare of men's souls, and cannot but feel for those who are more intimately connected with us; but upon any other prin- ciple I know not that they ought to have any such effect upon us, God is upon his throne; his church is upon a rock: whatever “hour of temptation may be coming upon the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth, those who hold fast the word of his patience will be kept through it.”—“All things work together for good to them that love God.” With these views Christians may rejoice, and rejoice always. While we rejoice, however, we must rejoice with trem- bling; and while we confide in God, must be diffident of ourselves. Let us not presume on our own firmness, but “ put on the whole armour of God, that we may with- stand in the evil day.” The first thing required in this Divine accoutrement is, that “our loins be girt about with truth;” but truth will not prove as a girdle to our loins in the day of battle, except we be deeply and in- timately acquainted with it. o ye sons and daughters of carelessness, who are called Christians, but have no root in yourselves, what aspect do these things wear towards you? The time seems drawing 2 O 2 ... • nigh that will prove you to be what you are : Hitherto there has been “an outer court” for you, and you have worshipped in it. You have long had a form of godliness, but have been without the power. You have ranked with the friends of truth, but have never received it in love, that you might be saved. You have kept up the profession of something that has been called Christianity, without feeling yourselves under any necessity to proceed further; but now your outer court will, probably, be taken away, and you will feel yourselves impelled, as it were, either to come in, and be Christians in reality, or to go out, and take your portion with the unbelieving and the abominable. SERMON VI. [Preached at the Circus, Edinburgh, Oct. 13, 1799.] THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF REWARDS. “Be not deceived; God is not mocked : for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.”—Gal. vi. 7, 8. CoMMON subjects, my brethren, are the most important, and need to be most inculcated. We are apt to think we have heard enough of them, and can expect but little, if any, further improvement from them. But such imagina- tions are founded in mistake. Though, generally speaking, we assent to the important truth which is here suggested, yet there are but few of us who feel its force, or properly act under its influence. The solemn warning here given is not unnecessary. Perhaps there is nothing to which depraved creatures are more addicted, though nothing be more dangerous, than self-deception. It is from this predilection in favour of something that shall prophesy good concerning them that the truth is disrelished, and those doctrines and systems of religion which flatter their pride and cherish their se- curity are so eagerly imbibed. The human heart love to be soothed. The pleasing sounds, Peace, peace, though there be no peace, will be gratefully received. But let us not be our own enemies. To impose upon ourselves is all that we can do : “God is not mocked.” When all is said and done, “whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” Some men venture to hope that there is no hereafter, no harvest to follow ; or that, though they persist in sowing to the flesh, yet they shall not of the flesh reap corruption; but this is a most forlorn hope. Unhappy men . Every thing around you proves that there is a God; and something within you, in spite of all your efforts to stifle its remonstrances, tells you that you are accountable to him, and must give an account before him. To you the words that I have read are particularly ad- dressed ; “Be not deceived; God is not mocked : what- soever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” Others, who admit a future state, yet hope to escape the just reward of their evil deeds, from an idea which they entertain of the general mercy of God. It is true, God is merciful; but his mercy is not connivance. He is merci- ful; but it is only through a Mediator : while, therefore, you neglect his salvation, there is no mercy for you. You confess not your iniquity upon the head of the Substitute; therefore it will be found upon your own head. Your religion is no better than that of Cain, who brought an offering without a sacrifice; the Lord will not accept it. He is merciful ; but it is to men of a broken and a con- trite spirit. Of others, he says, “He that made them will not have mercy upon them ; and he that formed them will show them no favour.” O ye formalists : ye heathens under a Christian name ! the passage that I have read looks hard at you : “Be not deceived; God is not mock- ed: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” Others have derived a hope from the performance of certain superstitious rites, or from the bestowment of a por- tion of their wealth on some religious object. Much of this kind of delusion has been practised in popish countries. 564 SERMONS AND SKETCHES. Men who have lived a life of injustice, or debauchery, or both, have hoped to balance accounts with the Almighty by performing a journey to the tomb of some departed saint, by building a church, or by endowing an hospital. It were well if this kind of self-deception were confined to popish countries; but, alas ! it is natural to unrenewed minds, of all nations and religions, to substitute ceremony in the place of judgment, mercy, and the love of God; and to hope to escape the Divine displeasure by the works of their own hands. Are there any of this description here ? We shall have a collection, this evening, for the printing of the New Testament in the Bengalee language. If I only wished for your money, I might say, Give, whatever be your motive 1 No; I am not so concerned for the sal- vation of the heathen as to be regardless of that of my own countrymen I ask not a penny from such a mo- tive : and, moreover, I solemnly warn you, that if you give all your substance in this way, it will avail you nothing. “Be not deceived ; God is not mocked : for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” Finally, Others flatter themselves that their iniquity will not find them out, seeing “Christ has died.” And true it is with regard to all who believe in him, and who “ sow to the Spirit,” that they will not be dealt with according to their deserts, but according to the merits of him in whom they have believed. . Of this we shall have occasion to speak more particularly hereafter. At present, let it suffice to observe that unbelievers, who continue to “sow to the flesh,” have no interest in his mercy. There might as well have been no Saviour, may, better, so far as their fu- ture happiness is concerned, than a Saviour not believed in, loved, nor obeyed. Iniquity, unlamented, will in- evitably be our ruin. It is as true as though Christ had never died, that “whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” It is a very serious and impressive truth which is here held up, THAT ALL which Is DoNE IN THIS LIFE IS PRE- PARATORY TO ANOTHER ; or THAT THE SORROWS AND Joys OF A FUTURE WORLD BEAR A RELATION TO WPHAT IS WROUGHT IN THIS, SIMILAR TO THAT WHICH THE HARVEST BEARS To THE SEED sown. This is the subject to which I wish to call your serious attention, and surely I may presume that such an attention will not be withheld. I. Let us begin on the subject of sowing To THE FLESH, and observe the relation which the future punishment of the wicked will bear to it. - The fruit which arises from sowing to the flesh is termed “corruption.” It does not tonsist in the destruction of being, but of well-being ; in the blasting of peace, joy, and hope ; and consequently in the enduring of tribula- tion, anguish, and everlasting despair. This dreadful harvest will all originate in the sin which has been committed in the present life. Even here we see enough to convince us of its destructive tendency. We see intemperance followed with disease, idleness with rags, pride with scorn, and indifference to evangelical truth with the belief of a lie. We see nations desolated by wars, neighbourhoods and families rendered miserable by con- tentions, and the minds of individuals sinking under the various loads of guilt, remorse, and despair. Great is the misery of man upon him. Yet this is but the “blade’’ proceeding from this deadly seed; or at most the “ear :” the “full corn in the ear” is reserved for another state. The Scriptural representations of the wrath to come con- vey the idea, not of torture inflicted by mere power, nor of punishment without respect to desert, but of bitter “weepings and wailings,” in reflecting on the deeds done in the body. The punishment of the adulterer is described as a “bed,”—a bed of devouring fire ; the deceiver will find himself deceived : he that loved cursing, it shall come upon him, as oil into his bones; and they who continued to say unto God, “Depart from us, we desire not the knowledge of thy ways,” God will say unto them, “De- part from me, ye workers of iniquity: I never knew ou.” y Future misery will greatly consist in reflection. Abra- ham said to the rich man, “Son, remember 1’” If the memory could be obliterated, there is reason to think hell would be extinguished; but it must remain. There are four things in particular pertaining to sin which will continue to be the objects of reflection, and which therefore must prove the seeds of future misery, 1. The character of the Being against whom it has been committed. If God had been wanting in justice or good- ness; if his law had been, what some have profanely said of it, a taskmaster, requiring brick without straw ; if compliance with his will had been inconsistent with real happiness; if his invitations had been insincere; or if his promises had in any instance been broken ; if his threat- enings had borne no proportion to the evil of the offence; or if in condemning the sinner he had availed himself of being stronger than he ; his wrath might possibly have been endured. We can bear an unjust punishment better than a just one. The displeasure of a malignant being, however it may injure us, does not bereave us of inward peace; it is the frown of goodness that is intolerable. To have incurred the displeasure of a God whose nature is LovE must furnish reflections which cannot be endured. 2. The folly of it. There are few things in the present state which sting the mind with keener sensations than the recollection that we have ruined ourselves by our own foolishness. If we see a man eager in pursuing trifles, while he neg- lects things of the greatest importance ; anxious to shun imaginary evils, and heedlessly plunging himself into real ones; all attention to present indulgences, but regardless of his future interests; averse from what is his duty, and busying himself in things for which he is utterly incom- petent, and which, therefore, he should commit to another; in fine, studying to displease his best friend, and to gratify his worst enemy; we should without hesitation pronounce him a foolish man, and foretell his ruin. Yet all this is the constant practice of every unconverted sinner; and if he persist in his folly, the recollection of it in a future state must overwhelm him with “shame and everlasting con- tempt.” 3. The aggravating circumstances which attend it. The same actions committed in different circumstances possess very different degrees of guilt. The heathens in pursuing their immoralities are without excuse ; but those who are guilty of the same things amidst the blaze of gospel light are much more so. The profligate conduct of those young people whose parents have set them the example is heinous; but what is it in comparison of that which is against example, and in spite of all the tears, prayers, and remonstrances of their godly relations? And what is that rejection of the gospel in the most ignorant part of the community, in comparison of that which is accompanied with much hearing, reading, and reflection ? O my hearers a large proportion of the sin committed among us is of this description ; it is against light, and against love. Wisdom crieth in our streets, and under- standing putteth forth her voice. The melting invitations and solemn warnings of God are frequently sounded in our ears. If we should perish, therefore, ours will not be the lot of common sinners; our reflections will be similar to those of Chorazin and Bethsaida, whose inhabitants are repre- sented as more guilty than those of Sodom and Gomorrah. To reject the gospel, whether it be by a preference of gross indulgences, a fondness for refined speculations, or an attachment to our own righteousness, is to incur “the wrath of the Lamb,” which is held up to us as the most dreadful of all wrath—as that from which unbelievers would be glad to be hid, though it were by being crushed beneath falling rocks, or buried in oblivion at the bottom of the mountains. 4. That in sin which will furnish matter for still further reflection will be its effects on others connected with us. It is a very affecting consideration, that we are so linked together in society that we almost necessarily communicate our dispositions one to another. We draw, and are drawn, in both good and evil. If we go to heaven, we are com- monly instrumental in drawing some others along with us; and it is the same if we go to hell. If a sinner, when he has destroyed his own soul, could say, I have injured myself only, his reflections would be very different from what they will be. - The influence of an evil word or action, in a way of example, may surpass all calculation. It may occupy the attention of the sinner only for the moment; but being THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF REWARDS. .565 communicated to another, it may take root in him and bring forth fruit a hundredfold. He also may communi- cate it to his connexions, and they to theirs; and thus it may go on to increase from generation to generation. In this world no competent idea can be formed of these ef- fects; but they will be manifest in the next, and must needs prove a source of bitter reflection. What sensations must arise in the minds of those whose lives have been spent in practising the abominable arts of seduction; whose words, looks, and gestures, like a pesti- lence that walketh in darkness, conveyed the poison of their hearts, and spread wide-wasting ruin among the un- guarded youth. There they will be “cast into a bed, and those who have committed adultery with them l’” See there too the ungodly parent, compassed about and loaded with execrations by his ungodly offspring, whom he has led on by his foul example, till both are fallen into perdition 1 - Nor is this all : there also will be seen the “blind leader of the blind, both fallen into the ditch; ” the deluded preacher with his deluded hearers; each of whom, during life, were employed in deceiving the other. The mask is now stripped off. Now it appears to what issue all his soothing flatteries led ; and what was his real character at the time, notwithstanding the decency of his outward demeanour. Now it is manifest that he who led not the sheep of Christ into the true pasture “entered not in by the door himself.” Ah! now the blood of souls crieth for vengeance Methinks I see the profligate part of his auditory, who died before him, surprised at his approach. That we, say they, who have lived in pleasure, and in wantonness, should come to this place, is no wonder ; but . . . . “art thou also become like one of us 3" I proceed, II. To offer some remarks on sowing To THE SPIRIT ; or to point out the relation that subsists between what is done for Christ in this life and the joys of the life to come. Before I attempt to establish this part of the subject, it will be proper to form a clear and Scriptural idea of it. The relation between sowing to the Spirit and everlast- ing life is as real as that between sowing to the flesh and everlasting death : it does not follow, however, that it is in all respects the same. The one is a relation of due desert ; but the other is not so. The Scriptures, while they represent death as the proper “wages” of sin, have decided that eternal life is “the gift of God, through Jesus Christ our Lord.” The leading principles necessary to a clear understand- ing of this subject may be stated under the following particulars :— - 1. Nothing performed by a creature, however pure, can properly merit everlasting life. To merit at the hand of God would be to lay him under an obligation; and this would be the same thing as becoming profitable to him : but we are taught, when we have done all, to acknowledge that we are “unprofitable servants, having done no more than was our duty to do.” 2. God may freely lay himself under an obligation to *eward the obedience of a holy creature with everlasting life; and his so doing may be fit and worthy of him. This fitness, however, arises not from the proportion between the service and the reward, but from such a conduct being adapted to express to creation in general the love which the Creator bears to righteousness, and to give encourage- ment to the performance of it. Such was the promise made to our first parents ; which, had they continued obedient, would have entitled them to the reward. 3. Man having s????ed, the promised good is forfeited ; and death becomes the only reward of which he is worthy. “All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” The law is become “weak through the flesh,” like a just judge, who is incapable of acquitting a criminal, or of awarding life to a character who deserves to die. 4. God having designs of mercy, notwithstanding, to- wards rebellious creatures, sent forth his Son to obey and suffer in their place ; resolving to bestow eternal life on all that believe in him, as the reward of his wrºdertaking. So well-pleased was the Father with the obedience and sacri- fice of Christ, that he not only set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, and made him Head over all principalities and powers, and every name that is named ; but gave him the full desire of his heart, the salvation of his people. Hence all spiritual blessings are said to be given us “in him,” “through him,” or “for his sake.” “By means of his death” we receive the promise of “eternal inheritance ; ” and our salvation is considered as “the travail of his soul,” which it was promised him he should “see, and be satisfied.” Mercy shown to a sinner in this way is, in effect, saying, Not for your sakes do I this, be it known unto you ! (be ashamed and confounded, O apostate creatures () but to do honour to the interpo- sition of my Son. Him will I hear ! 5. God not only accepts of all who believe in his Son, for his sake, but their services also become acceptable and rewardable, through the same medium. If our works, while unbelievers, had any thing truly good in them, which they have not, still it were impossible that they should be ac- ceptable to God. “It does not consist with the honour of the majesty of the King of heaven and earth,” as a great writer expresses it, “to accept of any thing from a condemned malefactor, condemned by the justice of his own holy law, till that condemnation be removed.” + But being “accepted in the Beloved,” our works are ac- cepted likewise. “The Lord had respect unto Abel, and to his offering.”—“He worketh in us that which is well- pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ.”—“Ye are a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.” Being “accepted in the Beloved,” our services become impregnated, as it were, with his worthiness; our petitions are offered up with the “much incense” of his interces- sion; and both are treated, in a sort, as though they were his. God, in blessing and rewarding Abraham’s posterity, is represented as blessing and rewarding him. “By my- self have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, that in blessing I will bless thee—and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies.”—Accordingly, though it be said of Caleb, “ because he followed the Lord fully, him will I bring into the land whereinto he went, and his seed shall possess it ; ” yet it was no less a fulfilment of the promise to Abraham than of that to him. In like manner, in approving the services of believers, God approves of the obedience and sacrifice of his Son, of which they are the fruits; and, in rewarding them, continues to reward him, or to express his well-pleasedness in his mediation. This, brethren, I take to be, for substance, the Christian doctrine of rewards. I am persuaded it excludes boasting, and at the same time affords the greatest possible encou- ragement to be “constant, unmovable, and always abound- ing in the work of the Lord.” On this ground I proceed to establish the position with which I set out, That the joys of futurity will bear a re- lation to what is done for Christ in the present life similar to that between the seed and the harvest. The same peace and joy in God which primarily arises from the mediation of Christ may arise, in a secondary sense, from the fruits of it in our own souls. We know by experience, as well as by Scripture testimony, that it is thus in the present world ; hence that “great peace” which they enjoy who love the Divine law ; and that “satisfaction” which a good man is said to possess “from himself; ” and what good reason can be given why that which has been a source of peace and satisfaction here should not be the same hereafter ? If future rewards inter- fered with the grace of God, or the merit of Christ, present ones must do the same ; for a difference in place or condi- tion makes no difference as to the nature of things. Be- sides this, the Scriptures expressly teach us that the hea- venly inheritance is “treasure laid up on earth,” the “crown" of the faithful, and the “reward” of those who have been hated, persecuted, and falsely accused for their Redeemer’s sake. The same apostle who teaches that salvation is of “grace,” and “not of works,” and that we are “accepted in the Beloved,” assures us that he “la- boured,—that he might be accepted of the Lord ; ” for, he adds, “We must all appear before the judgment-seat of * President Edwards’s “Sermons on Justification.” 566 SERMONS AND SRETCIHES. Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether good or bad.” The addresses to the seven Asiatic churches abound with the same sentiments. Eternal life, under various forms of expression, is there promised as the re- ward of those who should overcome. This doctrine will receive further confirmation if we consider wherein the nature of heavenly felicity consists. There can be no doubt but that an essential part of it will consist in the Divine approbation ; and this not merely on account of what we shall then be, but of what we have been and done in the present world. So far as we have sown to the Spirit, so far we shall reap the approbation of God ; and this will be a harvest that will infinitely ex- ceed all our toils. We are assured that for those who fear the Lord, and are concerned for his name.in times of general declension, “a book of remembrance is written ;” and, from the account given us by our Lord, it appears that its contents will be published in the presence of an assembled world. “The King will say unto those at his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father.”—“I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink : I was a stranger, and ye took me in ; naked, and ye clothed me : I was sick, and ye visited me : I was in prison, and ye came unto me.” Another essential part of the heavenly felicity will con- sist in “ascribing glory to God and the Lamb.” It will be a source of joy unspeakable to perceive the abundance of glory which will redound to the best of beings from all the works of his hands. But if we rejoice that God is glorified, we cannot but rejoice in the recollection that we have been instrumental in glorifying him. It belongs to the nature of love to rejoice in an opportunity of express- ing itself; and when those opportunities have occurred, to rejoice in recollection of them. We are told that when David was anointed king in Hebron “there was joy in Israel.” Undoubtedly it must have afforded pleasure to all who had believed that God had appointed him to that office, and had felt interested for him during his affliction, to see him crowned by the unanimous consent of the tribes, whoever were the instruments of raising him to the throne; but it must give peculiar joy to those worthies who, at an early period, had cast in their lot with him, and fought by his side through all his difficulties. And as they would feel a special interest in his exaltation, so special honours were conferred on them under his govern- ment. It is, I apprehend, in allusion to this piece of sa- cred story, that our Lord speaks in the manner he does to his apostles: “Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations, and I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” The satisfaction of the apostle Paul, in having “fought the good fight, finished his course, and kept the faith,” did not consist in a Pharisaical self-complacency; but in a consciousness of having, in some good measure, lived to his glory who died for him, and rose again; and the same consciousness that rendered him happy, while in the pros- pect of his crown, must render him still more so in the possession of it. * It has been noticed that one great source of future misery to the sinner will be the effects which his sin has produced upon others ; and much the same may be observed con- cerning the righteous. We already perceive the tendency which a holy, upright, and benevolent conduct has to work conviction in the minds of men; but in the world to come the seed will have actually produced its fruits; and, God being thereby glorified, the hearts of those who have contributed towards it must be filled with grateful satisfaction. We can form no competent ideas, at present, of the ef- fects of good, any more than of evil. What we do of either is merely the kindling of a fire; how far it may burn we cannot tell, and, generally speaking, our minds are but little occupied about it. Who can calculate the effects of a modest testimony borne to truth ; of an im- portunate prayer for its success ; of a disinterested act of self-denial ; of a willing contribution ; of a seasonable re- proof; of a wholesome counsel ; of even a sigh of pity, or a tear of sympathy 3 Each or any of these exercises may be the means, in the Lord’s hand, of producing that in the bosoms of individuals which may be communicated to their connexions, and from them to theirs, to the end of time. The gospel dispensation also is accompanied with pecu- liar encouragements for such exercises; it is that period in which the Messiah receives of “the travail of his soul ; ” and, consequently, that in which his servants may war- rantably hope for the greatest success. Under his reign, we have the promise of the Spirit being “poured upon us from on high,” and of various other blessings resulting from it; particularly, that “the wilderness shall become a fruitful field ; ” that it shall be so fertile, that what has been before reckoned a “fruitful field” shall, in compari- son with it, “be counted for a forest; ” that “the work of righteousness shall be peace, and the effect of righteous- ness quietness, and assurance for ever; ” and, finally, that the labours of the Lord’s servants, during these happy times, shall be like that of the husbandman who “ sows beside all waters,” or who cultivates a rich and well-wa- tered soil. It is also during the Messiah’s reign that we are warranted to expect great things to arise from small beginnings. “There shall be a handful of corn in the earth, upon the top of the mountains, the fruit whereof shall shake like Lebanon.” The influence of these effects on our present and future happiness is clearly intimated by our Lord, where he represents the prophets as “sowing,” and the apostles as “reaping,” or “entering into their labours.”—“He that reapeth receiveth wages, and gathereth fruit unto life eter- nal; that both he that soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together.” The reapers in Christ's harvest receive wages in the enjoyments which accompany their toils in the present life; they “gather fruit unto life eternal” in the effects of them contributing to enhance the blessed- ness of heaven ; and this blessedness is not confined to those who have been the most successful in their day, but extends to others, who have prepared the way before them. According to this representation, Isaiah and Jeremiah, who sowed in tears, will reap in joy; “rejoicing together ” with Peter and Paul and John, and all the New Testa- ment ministers ; viewing, in their successes, the happy fruits of their own disregarded labours. In this view, the labours of Paul and his companions must be considered as extending, in their effects, to the very end of time. All the true religion that has blessed the different parts of the earth, within the last seventeen hundred years, has arisen from their labours; and all the souls which have ascended to glory, or shall yet ascend, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation, shall bless the Lord of the harvest for sending them. When we see these heroic worthies sowing the seed of life, reproached in one city, imprisoned in another, and stoned in another, we think it discouraging work. All that they could accomplish was but little, in comparison of the multitudes of men who inhabited the earth ; and that little must be at great expense. It was a handful of corn cast upon the top of a mountain—a most unpro- mising soil. They, indeed, saw that the hand of the Lord was with them ; but, probably, they had no conception of the extent to which the effects of their labours would reach. If Paul and Silas rejoiced and sang praises in the prison of Philippi, what would have been their joy could they have foreseen that myriads of myriads in this Euro- pean quarter of the world would receive the testimony which they should leave behind them, and follow them to glory? But all these effects are manifest to them in the heaven- ly world. There they see the harvest which had arisen from the handful of corn, waving before the wind, like the trees of the vast and conspicuous forest of Mount Libanus. Every hour, if I may so speak, souls are arriv- ing at those happy regions, who hail them as their spi- ritual fathers, and who shall be their crown of rejoicing in the day of the Lord. The joy of the apostles will not prevent later labourers from possessing the immediate fruit of their toils, any more than that of the prophets will prevent them from possessing theirs: “both they that sow and they that reap will rejoice together.” THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF REWARDS. • 567 Nor is this encouraging truth to be confined to the apostles, or to men of eminence. . He who received but two talents had the approbation of his Lord, equally with him who had received five. The reward, as promised in the gospel, will not be so much according to the talents we possess as the use we make of them ; nor so much in respect of our success as of our fidelity. Many a servant of Christ has spent the greater part of his life with but little apparent success. His charge, it may be, was small at the beginning, and he has not been able to enlarge it. He has witnessed but few appearances of a Divine change in his congregation; and some of those who, for a time, afforded him hope, have turned back. Under such cir- cumstances, his heart has often sunk within him ; often has he sighed in secret, and thought within himself, I am a vessel in which the Lord taketh no pleasure | But if, under all this, he be faithful to his trust, and preserve a single eye to the glory of God, his labours will not be lost. The seed which he has sown may spring up after his decease; or he may have prepared the way for an- other more successful; and when all shall meet in a future state, he that soweth and he that reapeth shall re- joice together. Neither is this subject to be confined to ministers. As in Christ's harvest there is employment for every descrip- tion of labourers, so there is reason to believe that every thing done for him is productive of some good effect; and will, in some way, glorify his name, which cannot but yield a joyful satisfaction to those who love him. How grateful are the recollections of a godly parent, when, upon his dying bed, he is able to say to his children,_I have taught you the good and the right way; the things which you have heard and seen in me do ; and the God of peace shall be with you !—And though he may not in this world witness those effects which would have rejoiced his heart, yet his labour will not be lost. He may, at the last, be able to present them, saying, “Here am I, and the children which the Lord hath given me.” Or if some should not be gathered, yet his judgment is with the Lord, and his work with his God. What a satisfaction must be enjoyed by those who have willingly contributed, in any form, to so glorious a cause as that of Christ—a cause which he founded by the shed- ding of his blood—a cause to which all the tribes of mar- tyrs cheerfully sacrificed their lives—a cause, in fine, by the prevalence of which the name of God is glorified, and the salvation of our fellow sinners accomplished : I close with a few reflections. 1. We learn, from this subject, how to estimate the im- portance of our present conduct. We are fearfully made, but still more fearfully situated. Every thing we do is a seed of futurity, and is daily ripening into heaven or hell. It is here we receive the stamp or impression for the whole of our existence. Is it possible that, with a proper sense of this truth, we should trifle with time, or lavish its pre- cious moments in idleness or folly? 2. By this also we may estimate the folly of hypocrisy. All the labour of a man to appear what he is not is making preparation for his own confusion. What should we think of a husbandman who sows cockle instead of barley; and who having, by early rising and performing his labour in the dark, deceived his neighbours, should congratulate himself on his ingenuity ? Foolish man we should say, of what account is it to his neighbour, in comparison of what it is to himself? It will soon appear what he has been doing ! 3. Let us never forget that, whatever encouragements are afforded us, they are altogether of grace, and through a Mediator. There is no room for Pharisaical pride; and if such a spirit be at the root of our labours, it will prove “as rottenness, and the blossom shall go up as dust.” Do any inquire what they must do, that they may work the works of God? The answer is, “ This is the work of God, that ye believe in him whom he hath sent.” This is the first and chief concern, without which all others will be of no account. While you either openly reject Christianity, or imbibe another gospel, which is not the gospel of Christ, the curse of the Almighty is upon your head, and all your works are no other than “sow- ing to the flesh.” Come off without further delay; come off from that fatal ground. Renounce thy self-depend- ences, and submit to the righteousness of God; then every thing will be in its proper place. The curse shall, no longer be upon thee, nor upon any thing which thou doest. The Lord will rejoice over thee to do thee good. Thou mayest “eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart; for God now accepteth thy works.” SERMON VII. [Preached at the Annual Meeting of the Bedford Union, May 6, 1801.] GOD’S APPROBATION OF OUR LABOURS NECESSARY TO THE HOPE OF SUCCESS. ty “If the Lord delight in us, then he will bring us into this land, and give it us.”—Numb. xiv. 8. YoU recollect, my brethren, that when the children of Israel were going up to possess the land which the Lord their God had promised them, they were directed to send spies before them, who should search out the land, and report whether it was good or bad, and whether the in- habitants were strong or weak, few or many. The greater part of these spies proved unfaithful. They brought an evil report of the good land; depreciating its value, mag- nifying the difficulties of obtaining it, and thus spreading despondency over the hearts of the people. The effect was, that instead of persevering in the undertaking, they were for returning to Egypt. There were two out of the number, however, who were of another spirit, and whose report was different from that of their companions. “The land,” said they, “which we passed through to search it, is an exceedingly good land, which floweth with milk and honey. Only rebel not ye against the Lord, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us : their defence is departed from them : fear them not.” These worthies stood alone in their testimony, and the people had well nigh stoned them for it; but the Lord honoured them : for, of all the generations which came out of Egypt, they only inherited the promise. Considering the object of the present meeting, you will probably suppose that my thoughts have been employed in drawing a parallel between the undertaking of Israel to subdue the Canaanites and take possession of their land in the name of Jehovah, and our undertakings to subdue to the obedience of Christ the hearts of his enemies, both at home and abroad, and in this manner take possession of the world for our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. It is true they have ; and in discoursing upon the subject, I shall first attempt to justify the application by tracing the analogy between the two cases, and then consider the proviso on which we are given to expect success. I. I shall attempt to justify the application of the sub- ject, by tracing the ANALOGY BETWEEN THE UNDERTAKING OF IsrAEL AND THE EFFORTS OF CHRISTIANs To DissEMI- NATE THE GOSPEL, It is allowed that the imagination, unaccompanied with judgment, will often find resemblances which the sacred writers would have disavowed, as beneath them ; and far be it from me to imitate so puerile and unwarrantable a method of treating the oracles of God: but it appears to me that the gift of the Holy Land to Abraham and his pos- terity was really designed to prefigure the gift of all na- tions to the Messiah for his inheritance, and that thus it is represented in the Scriptures. It is said, in the seventy- second Psalm, “Pſe shall have dominion from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth.” This pro- mise, I suppose, had immediate reference to the kingdom of Solomon, and signified that, during his reign, the whole extent of country included in the original promise to Abraham should be actually possessed; but, in a more re- mote sense, it refers to a greater Son of David than Solo- mon. This is manifest from several passages in the Psalm, which are inapplicable to any one but the Messiah. It is 568 SERMONS AND SRETCHES. his kingdom only which shall “continue as long as the sun and the moon endure, throughout all generations;” him shall “all nations serve,” and to him shall “all kings bow down ; men shall be blessed in him ; all nations shall call him blessed.” Now, considering the promise before men- tioned in this light, it signifies that, like as Israel, during the reign of Solomon, inherited the utmost extent of country promised to them, so the church, during the reign of the Messiah, should possess the utmost extent of coun- try promised to him, which is the whole world, or “the uttermost parts of the earth.” In the joyful prospect of these times, the Psalm concludes: “Blessed be the Lord God, the God of Israel, who only doeth wondrous things; and blessed be his glorious name for ever, AND LET THE whole EARTH BE FILLED WITH HIS GLORY. AMEN, AND AMEN | ?” The taking possession of Canaan, and the setting up of the true worship of God in it, not only prefigured the kingdom of the Messiah, but were preparatory to it—the foundation of the gospel structure. The carnal Jews, at the coming of our Saviour, it is true, did not enter into these views ; and even his own disciples were much in the dark ; but the ancient Israelites understood and felt them. “God be merciful unto us,” said they, “and bless us, and cause his face to shine upon us.”—Wherefore ? That they might be a holy and happy people?... Doubtless this was a part of their desire; but not the whole. They prayed to be blessed, that they might be blessings to the world ; that “God’s way might be known,” through them, “upon earth, and his saving health among all nations ; ” that “the people might praise him,” yea, that “all the people might praise him, and all the ends of the earth fear before him.” Canaan was a country situated in the centre of the world, and therefore adapted to be the spot on which Jehovah should set up his standard for the subjugation of the world to himself. Hence the little leaven should diffuse its in- fluence through the earth, till the whole were leavened. Such appears to have been the design of God in bestowing it upon the posterity of Abraham, and such are the effects which have been actually, though gradually, produced. “Out of Zion” has gone forth “the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.” There are several points of dissimilarity, I allow, be- tween the undertaking of the Israelites and that of Chris- tians to disseminate the gospel; but whatever differences there are, they are altogether in our favour. They went forth armed with the temporal sword ; we with the sword of the Spirit: their commission was to destroy men's lives; ours to save their souls: cities, and fields, and vineyards, and olive-yards were their reward; our hope, and joy, and crown are sinners rescued from destruction, standing in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming. Finally, The people whom they encountered were appoint- ed by the Lord of the universe to utter destruction, as the just demerit of their crimes ; and though some submitted and were spared, yet the invaders were not given to hope, or directed to wait, for a change of this kind in the body of the people; but were commanded to drive them out, and take their place. It is not so with us; we live under a dispensation of mercy; go where we will, we have glad tidings of great joy to communicate. They, having no hopes of the people, might have said, We seek not you, but yours; but our hopes terminate on the people; we there- fore can say, “We seek not yours, but you.” There are several important points, however, in which the undertakings are similar. The following have occurred to me as the most remarkable : 1. The ultimate object of the one was to overturn the kingdom of Satan, and to establish the knowledge and worship of the true God; and the same is true of the other. The world, at that time, not a nation exempted, was under the dominion of Satan, enveloped in idolatry, and the abominations which always accompany it; so that if God had not selected a people for himself, and after having taught them to fear and obey him, given them a possession among the nations, he had had no people, nor name, nor worship, upon the face of the earth. And what is the state of mankind at present 3 Not altogether so de- plorable; but whatever difference there may be, it is owing to that Divine revelation which God communicated to Israel, and by them to the Gentile nations. In heathen countries the god of this world reigns uncontrolled. The children of men, from generation to generation, are led captive by him at his will. Much the same may be said of those countries which are overspread by Mahomedism. Nor is it materially otherwise where the corruptions of popery maintain their sway. And even in our own coun- try, where the Scriptures are read in the native language, there are but few who pay any serious attention to them. Is it not evident, to an impartial spectator, that the great body of the people are practical atheists, living without hope, and without God in the world ! The number of worshippers, including even the laxest and most inatten- tive, in all our cities, and I fear in most of our towns and villages, is few, when compared with those who attend upon no worship at all. In the earlier times of the Re- formation, whatever defects might exist with respect to church government and discipline, the doctrine of salva- tion by the cross of Christ was much more generally preach- ed and believed than at present. Since the great prin- ciples of evangelical truth (alike clearly stated in the Articles of the Established Church and in the catechisms and confessions of Dissenters) have been relinquished, and a species of heathen morality substituted in their place, the nation has been almost heathenized. If the Lord had not left us a seed of faithful men, some in the establish- ment and some out of it, whose object it has been to pro- pagate the common salvation, and to inculcate the holy practice which becomes it, surely we had, ere now, been as Sodom. Or if, like a certain great nation near home, we had revoked the laws in favour of religious liberty, and massacred, silenced, or banished the faithful witnesses of Christ, surely, like them, we had been lost in the gulf of infidelity. 2. In invading the country of the Canaanites, Israel went forth by Divine authority; and the same authority attends our invasion of the empire of sin and Satan. No- thing short of an express commandment could have justi- fied a people in destroying or subjugating another people, whatever might be their moral character; but the Creator of the world had an indisputable right to dispose of any part of it, and to punish transgressors in what manner he pleased. And though the gospel is far from being injuri- ous to the temporal interests of mankind, yet the oppo- sition to it has been as fierce and as decided as if it had been aimed to rob them of every thing necessary to their happiness. The servants of Christ have been taught to expect opposition, and all the evils which a world lying in wickedness, and hating to have their repose disturbed, can inflict upon them. And though, by the kind hand of God, whose influence governs all human counsels, they have had their seasons of peace and rest, yet the enmity has been much the same. The truly zealous and faithful labourers in Christ's harvest have generally, even in the most favour- able periods, had to encounter a large portion of reproach and misrepresentation. And what but the authority of IHeaven should induce us to expose ourselves to such in- conveniences? We have our feelings as well as other mem; and it would doubtless be agreeable to us to possess the good opinion of all about us. We have no ill-will to those who preach even what we account “ another gospel, and not the gospel of Christ,” whether in or out of the establishment; and if we had, we have so much good-will to ourselves, that if, consistently with the love of Christ and the souls of men, we could hold our peace, we should probably be inclined to do so, and employ ourselves in something less offensive, and more adapted to promote our temporal interests. But the command of Christ is not to be trifled with. He to whom we must shortly give ac- count of the use we have made of every talent committed to us has said, “Go, TEACH ALL NATIONs—PREACH THE Gospel. To EveRY CREATURE l’” If we have any authority from Christ to preach at all, (which I shall not here in- quire,) we are, doubtless, warranted and obliged, by this commission, to embrace any opening, in any part of the earth, within our reach, for the imparting of the word of life to them that are without it. The primitive ministers went every where preaching the gospel, and gave no less offence to its enemies, even among the established teachers of religion, than we give; and were by them reproached GOD'S APPROBATION NECESSARY TO SUCCESS. 569 as ignorant men no less than we are. Yet they persevered in their work, and endured the consequences. If we be ministers of Jesus Christ, we ought to follow their example. It is true, there are some things of an extraordinary kind in which we cannot follow them ; but the work of spread- ing the gospel is ordinary, and not confined to a single age. Had not Christ's commission been binding to the latest posterity, it would not have been added, “Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world !” 3. The Israelites went forth, not only by Divine au- thority, but under a Divine promise; and the same is true of Christian ministers. God spoke unto Abraham, saying, “I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession ; and I will be their God.” This, in substance, was often repeated to the patriarchs; so often that the country was thence denominated the Land of Promise. This it was that supported the faith of Caleb and Joshua. It was not in a dependence on their num- bers, or their prowess, that they said, “We are well able;” but on the arm of Him who had spoken in his holiness. Nor do those who labour in the Lord’s service, in the pre- sent times, whether at home or abroad, (for I consider the work as one,) go forth with less encouragement. The Father has promised his Son that “he shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied ;” that he will “divide him a portion with the great;” and that “he shall divide the spoil with the strong.” Travail, in a figurative sense, commonly signifies grievous affliction issuing in a great and important good. Such was the suffering of our Lord, and such must be the effect arising out of it. A portion with the great may refer to the territories of the great ones of this world; such as the Alexanders and the Caesars, who, in their day, grasped a large extent of em- pire : but the kingdom of Christ shall be greater than the greatest of them. The division of the spoil implies a vic- tory, and denotes, in this place, that Christ shall triumph over all the false religion and irreligion in the world. And as the Father's word is given to his Son, so the word of the Son is given unto us. He that said, “Go, teach all nations,” added, “Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” These declarations afford equal ground for confidence with those which supported a Caleb and a Joshua. 4. The promise to Israel was gradually fulfilled ; and the same is observable of that which is made to Christ and his people. It was almost five hundred years, from the time that God entered into covenant with Abraham, before his posterity were permitted to set foot upon the land, as pos- sessors of it; and nearly five hundred years more elapsed before their possession was completed. And, in establish- ing the kingdom of his Son, God has proceeded in a similar manner. The accession of the Gentiles was promised to Noah, under the form of Japheth being persuaded to dwell in the tents of Shem ; but more than two thousand years roll on before any thing very considerable is accomplished. At length, the Messiah comes; and, like Joshua by Ca- naan, takes possession of the heathen world. At first, it seems to have bowed before his word ; and, as we should have thought, promised fair to be subdued in a little time. But every new generation that was born, being corrupt from their birth, furnished a body of new recruits to Sa- tan’s army : and as the Canaanites, after the first onset in the times of Joshua, gathered strength, and struggled suc- cessfully against that generation of Israelites which suc- ceeded him and forsook the God of their fathers; so, as the church degenerated, the world despised it. Its doc- trine, worship, and spirit being corrupted, from being a formidable enemy, the greater part of it becomes a con- venient ally, and is employed in subduing the other part, who hold fast the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. Thus the war is lengthened out; and now, after a lapse of eighteen hundred years, we see not all things yet put under him. On the contrary, when reviewing our labours, it often seems to us that “we have wrought no deliverance in the earth, neither have the inhabitants of the world fallen.” But let us not despair: we see Jesus upon his throne; and as the Canaanites were ultimately driven out, and the kingdom of Israel extended from sea to sea, so assuredly it shall be with the kingdom of Christ. The great Disposer of events has, for wise ends, so or- dered it that the progress of things shall be gradual. He designs by this, among other things, to try the faith and patience of sincere people, and to manifest the hypocrisy of others. Hereby scope is afforded both for faith and unbe- lief. If, like Caleb and Joshua, we be for going forward, we shall not want encouragement; but if, like the others, we be weary of waiting, and our hearts turn back again, we shall not want a handle, or plea, by which to excuse ourselves. God loves that both persons and things should appear to be what they are. 5. The promise was not accomplished, at last, but by means of ardent, deadly, and persevering struggles ; and such must be the efforts of the church of Christ, ere she will gain the victory over the spiritual wickedness with which she has to contend. The Canaanites would not give up any thing but at the point of the sword. Hence the faint-hearted, the indolent, and the weak in faith were for compromising matters with them. The same spirit which magnified difficulties at a distance, which spoke of cities as “great, and walled up to heaven,” and of “the sons of Anak being there,” was for stopping short when they had gained footing in the land, and for “making leagues” with the residue of the people. Thus it has long been in the Christian church : the gospel having obtained a footing in the western nations, we have acted as though we were willing that Satan should enjoy the other parts without molestation. Every heathen and Mahomedan country has seemed to be a city walled up to heaven, and the inhabitants terrible to us as the sons of Anak. And even in our native country, an evangelical ministry having obtained a kind of establishment in some places, we have long acted as if we thought the rest were to be given up by consent, and left to perish without any means being used for their salvation . If God means to save any of them, it seems, he must bring them under the gospel, or the gospel, in some miraculous manner, to them ; whereas the command of the Saviour is that we go, and preach it to every creature. All that Israel gained was by dint of sword. It was at the expense of many lives, yea, many thousands of lives, that they at last came to the full pos- session of the land, and that the promises of God were fulfilled towards them. The same may be said of the establishment of Christ's kingdom. It was by ardent and persevering struggles that the gospel was introduced into the various nations, cities, and towns where it now is ; and, in many instances, at the expense of life. Thou- sands of lives were sacrificed to this great object in the times of the apostles, and were I to say millions in suc- ceeding ages, I should probably be within the compass of truth. But we have been so long inured to act under the shadow of civil protection, and without any serious in- convenience to our temporal interests, that we are startled at difficulties which the ancient Christians would have met with fortitude. They put their lives in their hands, “standing in jeopardy every hour;” and though we can- not be sufficiently thankful, both to God and the legislature of our country, for the protection we enjoy, yet we must not make this the condition of our activity for Christ. “He that observeth the wind shall not sow ; and he that regardeth the clouds shall not reap.” If ever God prosper us in any great degree, it will be in the exercise of that spirit by which the martyrs obtained a good report. The above particulars may suffice to show the analogy between the two cases : the object aimed at, the authority acted upon, the promise confided in, its gradual accom- plishment, and the means by which this accomplishment is effected, are the same in both : I hope, therefore, the application of the one to the other may be considered as justified. II. Let us consider THE PROVISO on WHICH WE ARE war RANTED To HoPE FOR SUCCEss. “If the Lord delight &n ws, then he will bring us into the land, and give it us.” The term delight does not express that Divine love to our souls which is the source of our salvation, but a com- placency in our character and labours. Thus it is to be understood in the speech of David, when fleeing from the conspiracy of Absalom : “If he say, I have no delight in thee, here I am : let him do with me as seemeth him good!” He could not mean by this, If God have no love 570 SERMONS AND SRETCHES. to my soul, I submit to be for ever separated from him ; for such submission is not required of any who live under a dispensation of mercy : but, If he approve not of me as the head of his people, here I am ; let him take my life away as it pleaseth him. The amount is, that if we would hope to succeed in God’s work, our character and under- takings must be such as he approves. 1. The object which we pursue must be simply the cause of God, unmixed with worldly, policy, or party interest. It has been insinuated that, under the colour of dissemin- ating evangelical doctrine, we seek to gain over the com- mon people, and so to obtain, it should seem, an ascend- ency in government.* If it be so, we may be assured the Lord will take no delight in us. The work, in this case, must be altogether of man, and will come to nothing; yea, and to nothing let it come. The desire and prayer of my heart is, that all such undertakings, if such there be, may perish : The kingdom of Christ will never prosper in those hands which make it only the secondary object of their pursuit, even though the first were lawful; and much less when it is made to subserve that which is itself sinful. But if the Divine glory be the object of our labours, the work is of God ; God himself will delight in us, and every attempt to oppose it will be found to be fighting against God. There is another way in which, I apprehend, we are in much more danger of erring; I mean, by an improper attachment to party interest. I am far from thinking it a sin to be of a party. Every good man ought to rank with that denomination which, in his judgment, approaches nearest to the mind of Christ; but this is very different from having our labours directed to the promotion of a party, as such. If so, we shall see little or no excellence in whatever is done by others, and feel little or no pleasure in the success which God is pleased to give them ; but while this is our spirit, whatever be our zeal, we are serv- ing ourselves rather than Christ, and may be certain the Lord will not delight in us to do us good. The only spirit in which the Lord takes pleasure is that which induces us to labour to promote his cause, and to rejoice in the pros- perity of all denominations so far as they promote it. 2. The doctrine we teach must be that of Jesus Christ and him crucified. The person and work of Christ have ever been the corner-stone of the Christian fabric : take away his Divinity and atonement, and all will go to ruins. This is the doctrine taught by the apostles, and which God, in all ages, has delighted to honour. It would be found, I believe, on inquiry, that in those times wherein this doctrine has been most cordially embraced the church has been most prosperous, and that almost every declension has been accompanied by a neglect of it. This was the doctrine by which the Reformation was effected ; and to * To this effect were the insinuations of Professor Robison, con- cerning the efforts of Mr. Robert Haldane and his friends, in a pro- posed mission to Hindoostan. The modest and dignified manner in which that gentleman repelled the accusation, and even forced his accuser to retract it, may be seen in his late excellent pamphlet on that subject. The bishop of Rochester, in a late address to his clergy after representing the Socinians as aiming at this object, adds as fi! lows: “Still the operations of the enemy are going on—still going on by stratagem—the stratagem still a pretence of reformation ; but the reformation the very reverse of what was before attempted. Instead of divesting religion of its mysteries, and reducing it to a mere phi- losophy in speculation and to a mere morality in practice, the plan is now to affect great zeal for orthodoxy; to make great pretensions to an extraordinary measure of the Holy Spirit's influence; to alienate the minds of the people from the established clergy, by representing them as sordid worldlings, without any concern about the souls of men, indifferent to the religion which they ought to teach, and to which the laity are attached, and destitute of the Spirit of God. In many parts of the kingdom new conventicles have been opened, in great number; and congregations formed of one knows not what denomination.” " If the religion of Jesus must be reproached, it is best that it should be done in some such manner as this. Had the bishop of Rochester preserved any regard to candour or moderation, he might have been believed; as it is, it may be presumed there can be but little danger of it... None, except, those who are as deeply prejudiced as himself, can, for a moment, imagine that the late attempts for disseminating evangelical doctrine are the operations of a political scheme, carried on by infidels in disguise. A very small acquaintance with men and things must convince any one, that the persons concerned in this work are not the same as those who affected to reform the church by re- ducing the mysteries of the gospel to “a mere philosophy in specu- lation, and to a mere morality in practice.” Men of that description were never possessed of zeal enough for such kind of work. We might as soon expect to see Bishop Horsley himself turn village- areacher as them. what is the Reformation come in those communities where it is rejected ? This was the leading theme of the puritans and nonconformists ; and what are their descendants be- come who have renounced it 3 Many of them rank with infidels, and many who retain the form of Christianity deny the power thereof. If it be alleged that the Church of Rome retains this doctrine amidst its greatest apostacy, and some protestant churches do the same, which, notwithstanding, have ex- ceedingly degenerated; I answer, it is one thing for a community to retain doctrines in its decrees and articles, and another for ministers to preach them with faith and love in their ordinary labours. Divine truth requires to be written, not merely with ink and paper, but by the Spirit of God, upon the fleshy tables of the heart. If the church of Rome had retained the doctrine of Christ’s Di- vinity to any purpose, its members would have worshipped him, and not have turned aside to the adoration of saints and relics; and if his atoning blood and only mediation between God and man had been properly regarded, we had never heard of mediators, pardons, and penances of another kind. - Christ crucified is the central point, in which all the lines of evangelical truth meet and are united. There is not a doctrine in the Scriptures but what bears an import- ant relation to it. Would we understand the glory of the Divine character and government? It is seen in per- fection in the face of Jesus Christ. Would we learn the evil of sin, and our perishing condition as sinners? Each is manifested in his sufferings. All the blessings of grace and glory are given us in him, and for his sake. Practical religion finds its most powerful motives in his dying love. That doctrine of which Christ is not the sum and substance is not the gospel; and that morality which has no relation to him, and which is not enforced on evangelical prin- ciples, is not Christian, but heathen. I do not mean to be the apologist for that fastidious disposition apparent in some hearers, who require that every sermon shall have Christ for its immediate theme, and denominate every thing else legal preaching. His sacred name ought not to be unnaturally forced into our discourses, nor the Holy Scriptures turned into allegory for the sake of introducing it ; but, in order to preach Christ, there is no need of this. If all Scripture doc- trines and duties bear a relation to him, we have only to keep that relation in view, and to urge practical religion upon those principles. If I leave out Christ in a sermon, and allege that the subject did not admit of his being in- troduced, I fear it will only prove that my thoughts have not been cast in an evangelical mould. I might as well say there is a village which has no road to the metropolis, as that there is a Scripture doctrine or duty which has no In repelling such language as the above, it is difficult to keep clear of the acrimony by which it is dictated. Suffice it to say, I am con- scious that no such plan or design ever occupied my mind for a mo ment; nor am I acquainted with any person of whom I have ground to suspect any such thing. I know persons who are, as I believe, sinfully prejudiced against government, and of whose spirit and con- versation I seldom fail to express my dislike ; but I know not an in- dividual whom I have any reason to think engages in village-preaching with so mean and base an end as that which is suggested by this relate. p The picture which is drawn of the clergy is, doubtless, unpleasant; and, if applied to the serious part of them, far from just ; whence it was taken is best known to the writer. I am inclined to think, how- ever, that though he has represented it as the language of village- preachers, he would be unable to prove such charges against them. There may be violent individuals engaged in village-preaching, who may take pleasure in exposing the immoralities of the clergy; and if they have half the bitterness on the one side which this writer dis- covers on the other, they are unworthy of being so employed. What- ever grounds there may be for such charges against numbers of the clergy, the body of those who have been employed in preaching or reading printed sermons in the villages have never thought of prefer- ring them, but have confined their attention to the preaching of Jesus Christ. I have no scruple, however, in saying, if reducing, religion to “a mere philosophy in speculation, and a mere morality in practice,” be subverting it, it is subverted by great numbers in the Church of Eng- land, as well as out of it. And where this is the case, it is the bounden duty of the friends of evangelical truth to labour to introduce it, re- gardless of the wrath of its adversaries. The suppression of “conventicles,” I doubt not, would be very agreeable to some men; but I have too much confidence in the good sense of the legislature to suppose that it will suffer its counsels to be swayed by a few violent churchmen. GOD’S APPROBATION NECESSARY TO SUCCESS. 57.1 relation to the person and work of Christ. Neither can I justly allege that such a way of preaching would cramp the powers of my soul, and confine me to four or five points in divinity: we may give the utmost scope to our minds, and yet, like the apostle, determine to know no- thing but Jesus Christ and him crucified. There is breadth, and length, and depth, and height sufficient in his love to occupy our powers, even though they were ten thousand times larger than they are. In all our labours, brethren, in the church or in the world, in our native country or among the heathen, be this our principal theme. In this case, and not otherwise, the Lord will delight in us, will bring us into the land, and give it us for a possession. 3. The motive of our undertakings must be pure. God cannot possibly take pleasure in the labours of the sordid or the vain. Indeed, I do not perceive how, in the greater part of our labours, we can suspect ourselves, or be sus- pected, of acting from a regard to our worldly advantage. In attempting to carry the gospel among the heathen we certainly can have no such motive, as every part of the work requires the sacrifice of interest, and that without the most distant prospect of its being restored. And even in carrying what we believe to be evangelical doctrine into the villages of our native country, it is commonly at the expense of both ease and interest. In those labours, how- ever, that are within the vicinity of our respective con- gregations, in which success may contribute to our tem- poral advantage, it becomes us to watch over our own hearts. If such a motive should lie concealed among the springs of action, it may procure a blast upon our under- takings. The Lord will have no delight in such preach- ing; and without him we can do nothing. Or if avarice have no place in us, yet, should we be stimulated by the desire of applause, it will be equally offensive to a holy God. The idea of being a missionary, abroad or at home, may feed the vanity of some minds; and, indeed, there is no man that is proof against such temptations. We have all reason to watch and pray. There is a “woe” hanging over the “idol shepherd; the sword will be upon his arm, and upon his right eye!” I have no suspicion of any one, but merely wish every one to suspect himself. If we se- cretly wish to appear great among our brethren, to mag- nify ourselves or our party, or to figure away in the re- ligious world, as persons of extraordinary zeal, all is naked to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do, and, depend upon it, he will have no delight in us. But if our eye be single, our whole body shall be full of light. Those that honour God shall be honoured of him ; and however he may prove them for a time, they shall find, in the end, that their labour has not been in vain in the Lord. 4. We must go forth in all our labours as little children, Sensible of our own insufficiency, and depending only upon God. The first city which Israel besieged, on their pass- ing over Jordan, was won without striking a single blow, but merely walking round it, and sounding their trumpets, according to the command of the Lord. This was doubt- less meant to teach them a lesson, at the outset of the War, not to lean upon their strength, or numbers, or Valour; but upon the arm of Jehovah. This lesson was ordinarily repeated throughout their generations, when- ever led to battle by godly men; instead of filling them with ideas of their own sufficiency, (which is the universal practice of worldly men who have had the command of armies,) they taught them to distrust themselves, and to rely upon their God. This is the spirit by which true religion is distinguished; and in this spirit we must go forth to subdue the hearts of sinners, or the Lord will have no delight in us, but leave us to fight our battles alone. Thus that eminent man of God, from whose pul- pit, I now address you, represents the four captains, and their ten thousands, after besieging Mansoul without effect, as presenting their petition to Shaddai for assistance. The more self-annihilation we possess, the more likely we are to be useful to the souls of men. God has “respect unto the lowly; but the proud he knoweth afar off.” 5. We must persevere in the work of the Lord to the end. When Israel came out of Egypt, I suppose, they all intended to go forward, and to possess the land ; but When difficulties arose, the great body of them fainted, and were for going back. When an undertaking is new and plausible, many come forward to engage in it; but a time comes when the first flush of spirits subsides, when great and seemingly insurmountable difficulties present them- selves, and when success appears to be much further off than at the beginning : this is the time for the trial of faith. A few such seasons will commonly thin the ranks of Christian professors; but blessed are they that endure temptation. Those who “followed the Lord fully” were brought into the land. It is possible that our motives may be pure at the onset, and yet, through the strength of temptation, we may be turned aside. The Lord speaks well of the church of Ephesus, as having, for a time, “borne, and had patience, and for his name’s sake had laboured and not fainted;” yet it follows, “Nevertheless, I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.” This is an example for us to shun. Another follows, namely, the church at Thyatira, for our imitation: “I know thy works, and thy charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works, and the last to be more than the first.” 6. We must exercise a lively faith in the power and promise of God. I reserve this remark to the last, be- cause it contains the spirit of the passage, and is a matter of the highest importance. It was owing to unbelief that the body of the people drew back, and to faith that Joshua and Caleb were for pressing forward. Nor is there any thing of greater importance to the Christian ministry, especially to those engaged in extraordinary labours. He that endeavours to extend the limits of Christ's kingdom resembles a navigator who engages in a voyage of discovery ; he is exposed to ills and dangers which cannot be foreseen nor provided against. Carrying a doctrine to which all his hearers have a natural and deep-rooted aversion, the difficulties he has to encounter are as islands of ice near the poles, or as rocks in unknown seas; but faith in the power and promise of God is suf- ficient for all his wants. Confidence is agreeable to a generous character, while suspicion thrusts a sword into his heart. The former is honourable to him, affording him opportunity of carrying his kind intentions into execution ; the latter dishonours him, and lays him under a sort of incapacity of doing good to the party. A generous character will feel im- pelled by a principle of honour to keep pace with the ex- pectations of those who confide in his goodness and veracity. Nor is this confined to the concerns of men. There is something greatly resembling it in the dealings of God with us. The Lord has magnified his word more than all his name ; and as faith corresponds with the word, he has bestowed greater honour upon this grace than upon any other. Hence we find such language as the following:—“Oh how great is thy goodness which thou hast wrought for them that trust in thee before the sons of men —Believe in the Lord your God, so shall ye be established : believe his prophets, so shall ye prosper. —The Lord taketh pleasure in them that hope in his mercy.” Under the New Testament still more is said of this important principle. In almost all the miracles of our Saviour, he made a point of answering to the faith of the parties, or of those that brought them ; and where this was wanting, he is represented as under a kind of incapacity to help them. “If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.-According to your faith be it unto you.-Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.—He could there do no mighty works—because of their unbelief.” Nor was this principle honoured merely in miraculous cases: our Saviour taught his dis- ciples to cherish high expectations from the Divine mercy and faithfulness in their ordinary approaches to a throne of grace: “Whatsoever things ye desire when ye pray, be- lieve that ye shall receive them, and ye shall have them.” In recommending a strong and lively faith, I do not mean to encourage that species of confidence which has mo foundation in the Divine promise. This is not faith but fancy, or the mere workings of the imagination. Those who, many ages since, engaged in what were called the holy wars, desirous of driving out the Turks from Jeru- salem, were not wanting in confidence; but the promise of God was not the ground on which it rested. It was 572 SERMONS AND SIXETCHES. not faith, therefore, but presumption. It was not thus with Israel in going up against the Canaanites; nor is it thus with those who labour to extend the spiritual king- dom of Christ. The promise of God is here fully en- gaged. “He hath sworn by himself, the word is gone out of his mouth in righteousness, and shall not return.” Many passages might be produced in proof that, before the end of time, the kingdom of the Messiah shall be uni- versal. I shall select a few :—“The stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.—I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve him. —And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all domi- nions shall serve and obey him.—Whereunto shall I liken the kingdom of God? It is like a little leaven which a Woman took and hid in three measures of meal till the whole was leavened.—The seventh angel sounded, and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign for ever and ever.” These are the true sayings of God. Surely they afford ground for a strong and lively faith in every effort to disseminate the gospel. - God has not only dealt largely in promises, but has given us abundance of examples of their fulfilment. A large part of Scripture prophecy has already been con- verted into history, “Unto us a child is actually born ; unto us a son is given ; the government is upon his shoulder; his name is called Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of peace.” But the same authority which foretold this has added, “Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end.” There is also a peculiar pledge given for its fulfilment: “The zeal of the Lord of hosts,” it is declared, “shall perform this ''” Zeal is a fervid affection of the mind, that prompts us to pursue an ob- ject with earnestness and perseverance, and to encounter every difficulty that may stand in the way of its accom- plishment. From such a spirit, even in men, much is to be expected. Yet what is the zeal of creatures? Always feeble, often misguided, disproportionate, or declining. But conceive of it as possessing the heart of the omni- potent God. What an overwhelming thought ! The establishment of Christ's kingdom deeply interests him : his thoughts are upon it; all his plans include it; and all that is going on in the world, from generation to genera- tion, is made to subserve it. We draw some encourage- ment from the zeal of creatures in God’s cause. When his servants take pleasure in the stones of Zion, and favour the dust thereof, we consider it a hopeful symptom that the Lord is about to arise and have mercy upon it. The importunity and liberality of Christians, the diligence of ministers, and the cries of the souls from under the altar for the fall of Babylon, may, severally, have their influence ; but the zeal of the Lord of hosts surpasses all. Here is solid rock for faith to rest upon. Unbelievers may deride every attempt to turn sinners from the errors of their way; and even believers, while Yiewing things through sensible mediums, may discover insurmountable difficulties.—The people will not believe us, nor hearken to our voice: the prejudices of men are almost insuperable in our native country; and if we go abroad, they are worse: these castes, this voluptuousness, this savage ferocity, this treachery of character . . . . How can we hope to overcome such obstacles as these ?–But all this is only a repetition of the objections of the un- believing Israelites: “The people be strong that dwell in the land, and the cities are great, and walled up to heaven : and moreover we saw the children of Anak there !”. If we can believe . . . . “all things are possible to him that believeth.” - Past instances of mercy furnished the church with mat- ter of prayer: “Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the Lord! Awake as in the ancient days, in the gener- ations of old? Art thou not it that hath cut Rahab, and wounded the dragon ?” And why should we not apply the past operations of grace to a similar purpose ? That arm is not grown weary which subdued Jewish malignity in the days of Pentecost, and overturned heathen idolatry by the doctrine of the cross. I think I may add, there is reason to hope that the time when these things shall be accomplished cannot be far off. I have no desire to deal in uncertain conjectures. The prophecies were not designed to make us prophets, nor to gratify an idle curiosity. They contain enough, however, to strengthen our faith, and invigorate our zeal. If we carefully examine the Scriptures, though we may not be able to fix times with any certainty, yet we may obtain satisfaction that the day is not very distant when the kingdom of Christ shall be universal. The New Tes- tament writers, in their times, made use of language which strongly indicates that time itself was far advanced. “The coming of the Lord draweth nigh.-Behold, the Judge standeth at the door.—The end of all things is at hand.— He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly l’” These, and such-like passages, I should think, cannot mean less than that in those days they had passed the meridian of time, and entered, as it were, into the afternoon of the world. And now, after a lapse of eighteen hundred years, what else can be expected but that things are fast approaching to their final issue 3 But it is not merely on general grounds that the conclusion rests. The prophet Daniel, in his seventh chapter, de- scribes the successive establishment and overthrow of four great governments, which should each, in its day, rule the greater part of the world. He also speaks of the last of these governments as issuing in ten branches, and describes another, which he calls “a little horn,” as rising from among them. The dominion of this last government was to continue “until a time, times, and the dividing of time.” After this “the judgment should set, and they should take away its dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.” And then it immediately follows, “And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High.” There are many things in the prophecies which are hard to be under- stood ; but this seems to be very clear. There can be mo doubt of the four great governments being the Babylonian, the Persian, the Grecian, and the Roman. Now these have successively appeared upon the stage, and are gone into perdition. The division of the Roman empire into a number of smaller governments, such as continue in Eu- rope to this day, and, among them, exercise a dominion over the rest of the world equal to what was formerly ex- ercised by the Romans, is doubtless signified by the “ten horns” of the fourth beast. Nor can we be at a loss to know what that government is which is signified by a “little horn,” which rose up from among the ten horns, which speaketh “great words against the Most High, and weareth out the saints of the Most High.” We have seen its rise, felt its reign, and in part rejoiced in its overthrow. The period alluded to, as the term of its existence, is mani- festly the same as that which John, in the Revelation, calls “forty and two months, or one thousand two hundred and sixty days,” during which “the holy city should be trod- den under foot, the witnesses prophesy in sackcloth,” and the true church have her abode “in the wilderness,” in a manner resembling the state of things in Jerusalem in the times of Antiochus. More than a thousand of these pro- phetic days, or years, must have already elapsed. The period itself must be drawing towards a close ; and when this is closed, there is an end to every species of Satamic government. That which follows is given to the Son of man, and to the people of the saints of the Most High. The amount is, We are under the last form of the reign of darkness, and that form is fast dissolving. Surely, the day of the church’s redemption draweth nigh! And while these views afford a joyful prospect to the church of Christ, there is nothing in them which can fur- nish any just ground of alarm to civil government. There is no reason to imagine that the church of Christ will ever become a political community, exercising dominion over others; but that Christian principles will pervade and rule OBEDIENCE OF CHURCHES TO THEIR PASTORS. 573 the governments of the earth. However God may over- rule the tumultuous revolutions of these times, to the making way for his kingdom, his kingdom itself will be entirely different; the wind, the earthquake, and the fire may go before it, but the thing itself will be as a still small voice. It will not come with observation, or outward show. The banners that will be displayed will not be those of sedition and tumult, but of truth and peace. It will be a renovation in the hearts of men; a revolution in both rulers and subjects, from the slavery of sin to the love of both God and man : and this, as it must produce the establishment of peace and good order, cannot be an object of dread to any who are well disposed. It is not impossible that we may live to see things of which at pre- sent we have scarcely any conception ; but whether we do or not, Jesus lives, and his kingdom must increase. And what if, while we are scaling the walls of the enemy, we should a few of us lose our lives? We must die in some way; and can we desire to die in a better cause 3 Pro- bably many of the Israelites who went up to possess the land with Joshua perished in the attempt ; yet this was no objection to a perseverance in the cause. In carrying the glad tidings of eternal life to Jews and Gentiles, Stephen and James, with many others, fell sacrifices at an early period; yet no one was discouraged on this account, but rather stimulated to follow their example. I close with a few words by way of reflection. It be- comes us to inquire, each one seriously for himself, whether the little success which we have already experienced may not be owing to this cause—There may be something about us on account of which God does not delight in us. I mean no reflection upon any ; but let each one examine himself—What is the secret spring of my zeal 2 Is the doctrine I preach truly evangelical ? Let me not take this matter for granted; but examine whether it quadrates with the Scriptures. If half my time be taken up in beat- ing off the rough edges of certain passages, to make them square with my principles, I am not in the gospel scheme. If one part of Scripture requires to be passed over, lest I should appear inconsistent, I am not sound in the faith, in God’s account, but have imbibed some false system instead of the gospel; and while this is the case, I have no reason to expect that he will delight in me, so as to make me ablessing. Finally, Whether we possess the land or not, it will be possessed. Though some of the Israelites perished in the wilderness, that did not overturn the counsels of God; the next generation entered into his rest. And though there should be so much selfishness, false doctrine, unbe- lief, or inactivity about us, as that God should take no delight in us, and refuse to give us the land, yet our chil- dren may possess it. God's word will be accomplished. Deliverance will arise to the church of God, whether we do ourselves the honour of serving it or not. But why do I thus speak? Surely it is the desire of many in this country, and of many in this assembly, to be active, and so to act as to be approved of God. SERMON VIII. [To the Baptist Church at Cannon Street, Birmingham, at the ordin- lº," Rev. Thomas Morgan to the Pastoral Office. June 23, THE OBEDIENCE OF CHURCHES TO THEIR PASTORS EXPLAINED AND EN FORCED. “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.”—Heb. xiii. 17. It is not usual, I believe, for ministers in their ordinary labours to dwell upon the obligations of the people of their charge towards them. They feel, probably, that on such a subject they might be suspected of partiality to them- selves; and if such a suspicion were indulged, however just and proper their admonitions might be, they would be but of little use, and might operate to their disadvantage. Nor is it a subject that a humble and holy man would ordinarily choose, even though there were no danger of misconstruction; he had rather inspire in his people the love of Christ and of one another, hoping that if this pre- vailed, it would constrain them to whatever was proper towards himself. It does not follow, however, that this species of Christian duty ought never to be insisted on : the glory of God, the success of the church, and the spiritual advantage of individuals will be found to be in- volved in it. No man could more strenuously renounce an undue assumption of power than the apostle Paul ; in many instances, he forbore to insist upon the authority that Christ had given him ; yet, when addressing the churches in the behalf of others, he uniformly insists upon the treatment which private members owe to their pastors, as well as upon other relative duties. To this I may add, if there be any one time in which an exhortation on this subject is peculiarly seasonable, it is when the relation be- tween pastor and people is publicly solemnized. I shall, therefore, proceed to explain and enforce the exhortation which I have read to you. I. Let us endeavour to ascertain whereIN consists THAT OBEDIENCE AND SUBMISSION WHICH IS REQUIRED OF A PEOPLE TOWARDS THEIR PASTOR. The very terms rule, obey, and submit may be grating in the ears of some ; and true it is that there have been great abuses of these things; a great deal of priestly domination has been exercised in the name of Christ. Yet there must be rule in the church of Christ as well as in other societies. Without this, it would not be a body, growing up unto him in all things which is the Head, even Christ; but a number of scattered bones. Or, if all aspired to rule and guidance, the ques- tion of the apostle would here be applicable—“If the whole were an eye, where were the hearing 3 But now hath God set the members, every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.” Christian ministers are called overseers, as having the oversight of the flock, and the principal direction of its concerns. The church of Christ, however, is not subject to a despotic government. Ministers are forbidden to “lord it over God’s heritage.” The power that was given them, and all other officers, ordinary or extraordinary, was for edification, and not for destruction. There are three things which are necessary in order that the authority of a pastor be legitimate and unobjectionable; namely, that he be freely chosen by the church ; that the standard by which he rules be not his own will, but the will of Christ; and that the things which he urges on others be equally binding on himself. First, It is necessary that your pastor be freely chosen by you to his sacred office. If he had been imposed upon you by any human authority, against or without your own consent, I should not be able to prove, from the Scriptures, that you were bound to obey or submit to him. Should it be alleged that pastors are represented as the “gifts of God,” and such as the “Holy Spirit hath made overseers;” I should answer, True; but the Holy Spirit performs this work, not immediately, but mediately, by inclining the hearts of his people to choose them. No one, indeed, pretends that it is done immediately. Hu- man choice is, in all cases, concerned; and the only ques- tion is, whether it be by that of the people, or of some one, or more, that shall choose on their behalf. The primitive churches elected their own officers. The apostles ordained them; but it was by the suffrage of the people. The power of election was with them ; and with them it continued during the purest ages of the church. If the primitive pastors had been chosen by the apostles, it had also been their province to have rejected or silenced them, as occasion should require; but when false teachers arose among the Corinthians and the Galatians, we do not find these churches, not even the purest part of them, applying to the apostle, but the apostle to them, for their removal. The false teachers of the primitive times ingratiated them- selves with the people, and despised the apostles; an in- contestable proof this, to every one acquainted with hu- man nature, where the powers of election and rejection lay. If your pastor, I say again, had been imposed upon you by any human authority, against or without your own consent, I should not be able to prove, from the Scrip- 574 SERMONS AND SIXETCHES. tures, that you were bound to obey, or submit to him. But it is not so. You have heard him and known him ; and from an observation of his spirit and conduct, and an experience of the advantages of his ministry, you have chosen him to watch over you in the Lord. Secondly, The rule to which you are required to yield obedience and subjection is not his will, but the will of Christ. Pastors are that to a church which the executive powers, or magistrates, of a free country are to the state— the organs of the law. Submission to them is submission to the law. If your pastor teach any other doctrine, or inculcate any other duties, than what Christ has left on record, obey him not ; but while urging these, it is at your peril to resist him; for, resisting him, you resist him that sent him. It is in this view, as teaching Divine truth and enforcing Divine commands, that the servants of God, in all ages, have been invested with Divine authority. Of the sons of Levi, it was said, they shall teach Jacob “thy judgments,” and Israel “thy law;” and, upon this ground, it was added, “Bless, Lord, his substance, and accept the work of his hands; smite through the loins of them that rise against him, and of them that hate him, that they rise not again.” Here lay the sin of Korah and his company, of Elymas the sorcerer, and of Alexander the coppersmith: they each, by resisting the servants of God in the proper execution of their work, resisted God, and brought upon themselves the sorest of judgments. Thirdly, The things which he urges upon you are equally binding upon himself. When he exhibits to you the only name given under heaven, among men, by which you can be saved, and charges you, on pain of etermal damnation, not to neglect it, remember his own soul also is at stake. And, when he exhorts and warns you, if he himself should privately pursue a contrary course, he seals his own de- struction. There are, it is true, those who lade men with heavy burdens, grievous to be borne, to which they themselves will not put one of their fingers; these, however, are not the commands of Christ. Instead of being the commands of Christ, which are not grievous, except to unholy men, these are merely human traditions; but though they were allowed to be otherwise, the inconsistent conduct of mi- nisters would not exempt either them or you from obliga- tion. Should we enforce the will of Christ upon you, while living in the neglect of it ourselves, woe be unto us ! Yet this will fall upon our own heads. If we be wicked, de- pose us from our office; but while we are in it, let not the word of the Lord be disregarded on our account. Let me point out a few particulars, brethren, in which it is your duty and interest to obey him whom you have chosen to have the rule over you, and to submit yourselves. 1. With respect to his public ministry. Do not fly in the face of plain-dealing from the pulpit. Good sense, as well as the fear of God, will, I trust, preserve your pastor from dealing in personal reflections, or any thing designed to offend; but do not be unwilling that he should come close to cases and consciences. You may as well have no minister, as one that never makes you feel. I hope the house of God will continue to be to you what it has been—a rest in times of trouble, a house of con- solation ; but do not go with a desire merely to be com- forted. Go, as well, to learn your failings and defects, and in the hope of having them corrected. It is not the mere hearer, but the doer of the word, that is blessed in his work. I hope you will always exercise your judg- ments as to what you hear, and compare it with the oracles of God; but if you attend preaching merely as judges of its orthodoxy, you will derive no advantage to yourselves, and may do much harm to others. It is the humble Christian, who hears that he may be instructed, corrected, and quickened in the ways of God, who will obtain that consolation which the gospel affords. * 2. With respect to his private visits. You do not ex- pect him to visit you in the character of a saunterer, but of a pastor; and if so, it becomes you to be open to a free. exchange of sentiments on your best interests. No minister is always alike prepared for profitable conversation, and some much less so than others; but if he perceive in you a desire after it, it will be much more easily introduced. Be free to communicate your cases to him. It will assist him in his preaching more than a library of expositors; and if, while you are conversing with him, he should be directed to impart to you the mind of Christ, as suited to your particular case, do not treat it lightly, but submit yourselves to it. r - 3. In presiding in your occasional assemblies. When you meet together as a Christian church, for the adjust- ment of your concerns, he is entitled to your respect. Every society places so much authority in its president as shall be necessary to check disorderly individuals, and to preserve a proper decorum. It will doubtless become him, especially while he is a young man, to be gentle and temperate in the exercise of authority ; and it will no less become you to submit to it. When churches enter into disputes with heat and bitterness—when all are speakers, and respect is paid to no one more than to another—they debase themselves below the character even of civilized societies. 4. In the private reproofs which he may have occasion to administer. You do not, wish that your pastor should deal in personal reflections from the pulpit; yet there are cases in which reproof requires to be personal ; he must, therefore, if he discharge his duty, be free and faithful in telling you of what he sees amiss in you. It has long ap- peared to me that there are some species of faults in in- dividual members which are not proper objects of church censure, but of pastoral admonition; such as spiritual declensions, hesitating on important truths, neglect of religious duties, worldly anxiety, and the early approaches to any evil course. A faithful pastor, with an eye of watchful tenderness, will perceive the first symptoms of spiritual disorder, and, by a timely hint, will counteract its operations; whereas if nothing be said or done till the case requires the censure of the church, the party may be excluded, but is seldom recovered. You may easily suppose this to be a self-denying work for your pastor; he had much rather visit you with a smile of affectionate congratulation ; yet it may be of the first importance to you and to the church. Do not render this disagreeable part of his work more disagreeable by an irritable and re- sentful disposition ; but receive reproofs with candour. “Correction may be grievous to him that forsaketh the way; but he that hateth reproof shall die.” II. Let us observe THE IMPORTANT conside RATIONS BY WHICH THIS OBE DIENCE AND SUBMISSION ARE EN FORCED. These you will perceive are partly taken from the regard you bear to yourselves—“ they watch for your souls;” partly from your sympathy with them—“ that they may do it with joy, and not with grief;” and even that part which seems to respect their comfort ultimately concerns your own; for if they discharge their work with grief, “that will be unprofitable for you.” Give us your serious and candid attention, brethren, while we review these important motives. 1. Your pastor “watches for your souls.” Your salva- tion, let me presume, will be his great concern; and, while pursuing this, you may well be expected to concur with him, and submit yourselves to him in the Lord. You would submit to a surgeon who was performing an opera- tion to save your life; or to a counsellor who should offer you his advice for the security of your property; or to a commander who should lead you forth to save your country: but these are inferior objects, when compared with your soul. Observe the force of every term. They “watch.” The word literally signifies to keep awake. Here it denotes vigilance. Ministers are as watchmen on the walls or in the streets of a city, by whose care and fidelity the inhabitants enjoy security. Their work is to rise early, to sit up late, and to eat the bread of care; for so it is that God giveth his beloved sleep. Aware of your temptations and dangers, he must be con- tinually on the watch, that he may be ready to give the alarm. He may be thinking, and caring, and praying for you, when you think but little of him, and perhaps, in some instances, when you think but little of yourselves. Do not hinder him, but help him in his work. They watch for you. Recollect that you are watched on all sides, but not in this manner. Satan watches you ; but it is that he may seize his opportunity to destroy you. He watches you as a wolf does a sheep-fold; but your OBEDIENCE OF CHURCHES TO THEIR PASTORS. 575 pastor, as a faithful shepherd, to protect and save you. The world also will watch you, and that with the eye of an enemy, waiting for your halting; but he with the ten- der solicitude of a father, to do you good. Do not oppose him in this his important work. They watch for your souls. If your pastor were sta- tioned to watch over your health, property, or life, and should discharge his trust with skill and fidelity, you would think him worthy of your esteem; but it is not for these things that he is principally concerned. He would doubtless be happy to do you good in any way; but neither of these employments is his peculiar province. You em- ploy other persons to watch for you in such matters. No- thing less than your immortal interests must engage his attention. He watches for that compared with which kingdoms and empires are but trifles; for that which if gained, all is gained ; and which if lost, all is lost, and lost for ever. Do not resist him in his work, but concur with him. They watch as those that must give account. How im- portant a station . There is an account for every one to give of himself; but a pastor has not only to do this in common with his people, but must also give account of them. At his hands the chief Shepherd will require it. And what will be the account of your pastor? Will he be able to say, concerning you, “Here I am, and the children whom the Lord hath given me?” Oh that he might! But it is much to be feared that some of you who are this day committed to his charge will in that day be missing ! And what account will he then have to give 3 Will he not have to say, Lord, some of them have neg- lected thy word; some have resisted it; some have re- proached me for preaching it; some have deserted it and turned aside after lying vanities; some, who have con- tinued, have not received the love of the truth, that they might be saved: hearing, they have heard, and not under- stood; seeing, they have seen, and not perceived ; their heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed ? And what if, when in- terrogated, he should not be able to acquit himself? What if it should prove that he did not warn you, nor seek after you, nor care for you? Ah, then you will perish, and your blood will be required at his hand ' Who, alas ! who is sufficient for these things? At all events, for your own sake, and for his sake, do not hinder him in his work. Woe unto him if he preach not the gospel ! and woe unto you if you oppose him in it! Do not object to his dealing faithfully, both in and out of the pulpit, so that it be aimed for your good. Do not hinder him in the work of reproof, by siding with transgressors. In short, if you have any regard to your own souls, or the souls of others, obey the counsels of Heaven, which are communicated to you through his ministry, and submit yourselves. 2. The discharge of this his work will be either joy or grief according to the spirit of the people among whom he labours. You do not wish, I dare say, to grieve and distress a servant of Christ. Better would it be never to have chosen him than to break his heart; yet such things tal’e If, in his public preaching, he have a zealous, modest, attentive, wise, and affectionate people, constant and early II]. attending, candid and tender-hearted in hearing, and desirous of obtaining some spiritual advantage from all they hear, you cannot conceive what joy it will afford him. He will pray for you, and preach to you, with abundantly the more interest. And this being the case, it may con- tribute not a little to the success of his labours; for God works not only by the word preached, but by the effects of it in the spirit of believers. The apostle supposes that Some, on whom the word itself had no influence, might yet be won by the chaste conversation of the godly females. But if he have a slothful, selfish, cold-hearted, cavilling, conceited, and contentious audience, what a source of grief must it be to him The meekest of men was overcome by such a people, and tempted to wish that God would kill him out of hand, rather than continue to cause him thus to see his wretchedness. * , If, in adjusting the concerns of the church, every indi- Vidual consider that others have understanding as well as himself, and have the same right to be heard and regard- ed; if all strive to act in concert, and never oppose a measure from humour, but merely from conscience, or a persuasion that it is wrong ; such things to a pastor must needs be a source of joy. But if pride and self-will pre- vail, they will produce confusion and every evil work; and this, if he have any regard to religion or to you, will be the grief of his soul. - If the deacons whom you have chosen to be helpers in the truth be wise, faithful, active, and tender-hearted, ready to stand by their pastor in every right cause, willing to impart the counsel of maturer years, and careful to pre- serve the purity and peace of the church, his duties will be discharged with joy. But if they mind earthly things, and leave all to him, or though they should be active, yet if it be with the spirit of a Diotrephes, instead of diminish- ing his load, they will increase it, and render his work a daily grief. If, in the exercise of discipline, there be a unity of heart, a willingness to follow God’s word, whoever may be affected by it—if, like the tribe of Levi, you in such mat- ters “know not your father, nor your mother, nor acknow- ledge your brethren, nor know your own children ; but observe God's word, and keep his covenant”—this, to an upright man, will be a source of joy and solid satisfaction. But if, whenever a censure requires to be inflicted, no unanimity can be obtained—if regard be had to friends and family connexions, to the setting aside of Christ's re- vealed will—nothing will be done with effect. The zeal of a few will be attributed to prejudice ; and the person concerned, instead of being convinced and humbled, will be hardened in his sin. Thus the work of the ministry will be a burden of grief. Finally, If you be a spiritual, affectionate, and peace- able people, your pastor will perform his work with joy; but if you be carnal and contentious—if there be whis- perings, swellings, tumults, party attachments, jealousies, antipathies, scandals—alas ! he may sow, but it will be among thorns; he may preach, but it will be with a heavy heart. 3. You cannot cause the work of your pastor to be grievous but at your own expense : it will be “unprofitable for you.” It is to no purpose that you have a pastor or- dained over you in the Lord, unless his ministry be profit- able to you. Every thing, therefore, which promotes this end should be carefully cherished ; and every thing that hinders it, as carefully avoided. But profit under a minis- try greatly depends, under God, upon mutual attachment. I do not mean to commend that fondness and partiality that would render you the devotees of a man, or incapaci- tate you for hearing any other preaching than his. They that cannot edify save under one minister give sufficient proof that they do not truly edify under him. But there is an attachment between a pastor and a people that is highly necessary; as, without it, attendance on public worship would, in a great measure, cease to be an enjoy- ment. This attachment, my brethren, should begin with you, and be cherished by a course of kind and faithful treatment; delicately meeting his wants, gradually inspir- ing his confidence, tenderly participating in his afflictions, and I may add, if occasion require it, affectionately sug- gesting to him his faults and defects. By these means, he will insensibly be attached to you, in return ; and will prefer preaching at home to all his occasional labours in other places. By an acquaintance with your cases, his preaching will be seasonable and savoury, proceeding from the fulness of his heart. Of such words it may well be said, How good they are / But I need not enlarge upon these things to you. Never, perhaps, were they more fully exemplified, than in the person of your late affection- ate and beloved pastor. You loved him for the truth’s sake that dwelt in him ; and he, on the other hand, was not only willing to impart unto you the gospel of God, but his own soul also, because ye were dear unto him. May the same spirit be cherished between you and your present pastor | Love is the grand secret to make you all happy. Love, however, is a tender plant; a slight blast of unkindness will greatly injure it. If you grieve him through inadver- tency, come to an early explanation. If unkindness be repeated, his attachment to you will be weakened, and 576 , SERMONS AND SIKETCHES. then yours to him will be the same. This will be followed by various misunderstandings, slights, distances, and of- fences, the issue of which may be a rooted antipathy; and when this enters, all profit under a ministry is at an end. If he could preach like an angel, all were in vain, so far as relates to your advantage. From these remarks, you see and feel, my brethren, that if your pastor perform his work with grief, it will be at your expense; or that every kind of treatment that wounds his spirit undermines your own welfare. Study, there- fore, by all means, to render it his joy, which will turn to your account : study, by a constant discharge of kind offices, to endear yourselves and your families to him ; by an inviting intimacy in spiritual things, to know and be known by him ; and by a holy, humble, and uniform con- duct in the world and in the church, to enable him to look the enemies of religion in the face, while he proclaims its holy efficacy. The reward of a true pastor is in the people of his charge, in their sanctification and salvation. What else is his hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing 3 Do not withhold from the labourer his hire | You may be his hope, without being his joy; and his hope and joy for a season, without being his crown of rejoicing in the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ, at his coming: but need I say that this will be unprofitable for you? If he have a full reward of his labour, you must be his hope, and joy, and crown. Brethren, consider what I have said, and the Lord give you understanding in all things. SERMON IX. [Delivered at Kettering, in 1803, at a time of threatened invasion.] CHRISTIAN PATRIOTISM ; OR THE DUTY of RELIGIOUS PEOPLE TOWARDS THEIR COUNTRY. “And seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captives, and pray unto the Lord for it; for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace.” —Jer. xxix. 7. IN the course of human events, cases may be expected to occur in which a serious mind may be at a loss with re- spect to the path of duty. Presuming, my brethren, that such may be the situation of some of you, at this moment- ous crisis—a crisis in which your country, menaced by an unprincipled, powerful, and malignant foe, calls upon you to arm in its defence—I take the liberty of freely imparting to you my sentiments on the subject. When a part of the Jewish people were carried captives to Babylon, ten years, or thereabouts, before the entire ruin of the city and temple, they must have felt much at a lºss in determining upon what was duty. Though Jeco- niah, their king, was carried captive with them, yet the government was still continued under Zedekiah ; and there were not wanting prophets, such as they were, who encouraged in them the hopes of a speedy return. To settle their minds on this subject, Jeremiah, the prophet, addressed the following letter to them, in the name of the Lord –“ Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, unto all that are carried away captives, whom I have caused to be carried away from Jerusalem unto Babylon; Build ye houses, and dwell in them ; and plant gardens, and eat the fruit of them ; take ye wives, and beget sons and daughters; and take wives for your sons, and give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear sons and daughters ; that ye may be increased there, and not di- minished : and seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captives, and pray unto the Lord for it ; for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace.” I do not suppose that the case of these people corre- sponds exactly with ours; but the difference is of such a nature as to heighten our obligations. They were in a foreign land; a land where there was nothing to excite their attachment, but every thing to provoke their dislike. They had enjoyed all the advantages of freedom and inde- pendence, but were now reduced to a state of slavery. Nor were they enslaved only : to injury was added insult. They that led them captive required of them mirth, say- ing, “Sing us one of the songs of Zion : " Revenge, in such circumstances, must have seemed natural ; and if a foreign invader, like Cyrus, had placed an army before their walls, it had been excusable, one would have thought, not only to have wished him success, but if an opportunity had offered, to have joined an insurrection in aid of him : yet nothing like this is allowed. When Cyrus actually took this great city, it does not appear that the Jews did any thing to assist him. Their duty was to seek the wel- fare of the city, and to pray to the Lord for it, leaving it to the great Disposer of all events to deliver them in his own time ; and this not merely as being right, but wise : “In their peace ye shall have peace.” Now if such was the duty of men in their circum- stances, can there be any doubt with respect to ours ? Ought we not to seek the good of our native land; the land of our fathers’ sepulchres; a land where we are pro- tected by mild and wholesome laws, administered under a paternal prince ; a land where civil and religious freedom are enjoyed in a higher degree than in any other country in Europe; a land where God has been known for many centuries as a refuge ; a land, in fine, where there are greater opportunites for propagating the gospel, both at home and abroad, than in any other nation under heaven? Need I add to this that the invader was to them a deliverer; but to us, beyond all doubt, would be a destroyer ? Our object, this evening, will be partly to inquire into the duty of religious people towards their country, and partly to consider the motive by which it is enforced. I. Inquire into THE DUTY OF RELIGIOUS PEOPLE To- wARDS THEIR count RY. Though, as Christians, we are not of the world, and ought not to be conformed to it; yet, being in it, we are under various obligations to those about us. As husbands, wives, parents, children, masters, servants, &c., we cannot be insensible that others have a claim upon us, as well as we upon them ; and it is the same as members of a community united under one civil government. If we were rulers, our country would have a serious claim upon us as rulers; and, as we are subjects, it has a serious claim upon us as subjects. The manner in which we discharge these relative duties contributes not a little to the formation of our character, both in the sight of God and man. The directions given to the Jewish captives were com- prised in two things; “seeking the peace of the city,” and “praying to the Lord for it.” These directions are very comprehensive; and apply to us, as we have seen, much more forcibly than they did to the people to whom they were immediately addressed. Let us inquire, more particularly, what is included in them. Seek the peace of the city. The term here rendered peace (Dºw) signifies not merely an exemption from wars and insurrections, but prosperity in general. It amounts, therefore, to saying, Seek the good or welfare of the city. Such, brethren, is the conduct required of us, as men and as Christians. We ought to be patriots, or lovers of our country. To prevent mistakes, however, it is proper to observe that the patriotism required of us is not that love of our country which clashes with universal benevolence, or which seeks its prosperity at the expense of the general happiness of mankind. Such was the patriotism of Greece and Rome; and such is that of all others where Christian principle is not allowed to direct it. Such, I am ashamed to say, is that with which some have advocated the cause of negro slavery. It is necessary, forsooth, to the wealth of this country? No; if my country cannot prosper but at the expense of justice, humanity, and the happiness of mankind, let it be unprosperous ! But this is not the case. Righteousness will be found to exalt a nation, and so tº be true wisdom. The prosperity which we are directed to seek in behalf of our country involves no ill to any one, except to those who shall attempt its overthrow. Let those who fear not God, nor regard man, engage in schemes of aggrandizement, and let sordid parasites pray for their success. Our concern is to cultivate that patriotism which harmonizes with good-will to men, Q my coun: try, I will lament thy faults Yet, with all thy faults, I CHRISTIAN PATRIOTISM. 577 will seek thy good; not only as a Briton, but as a Chris- tian: “ for my brethren and companions' sakes, I will say, Peace be within thee; because of the house of the Lord my God, I will seek thy good 1" If we seek the good of our country, we shall certainly do nothing, and join in nothing, that tends to disturb its peace, or hinder its welfare. Whoever engages in plots and conspiracies to overturm its constitution, we shall not. Whoever deals in inflammatory speeches, or in any man- ner sows the seeds of discontent and disaffection, we shall not. Whoever labours to depreciate its governors, su- preme or subordinate, in a manner, tending to bring government itself into contempt, we shall not. Even in cases wherein we may be compelled to disapprove of mea- sures, we shall either be silent, or express our disapproba- tion with respect and with regret. A dutiful son may see a fault in a father ; but he will not take pleasure in exposing him. He that can employ his wit in degrading magistrates is not their friend, but their enemy; and he that is an enemy to magistrates is not far from being an enemy to magistracy, and, of course, to his country. A good man may be aggrieved ; and, being so, may complain. Paul did so at Philippi. But the character of a complainer belongs only to those who walk after their own lusts. If we seek the good of our country, we shall do every thing in our power to promote its welfare. We shall not think it sufficient that we do it no harm, or that we stand still as neutrals, in its difficulties. If, indeed, our spirits be tainted with disaffection, we shall be apt to think we do great things by standing aloof from conspiracies, and refraining from inflammatory speeches; but this is no more than may be accomplished by the greatest traitor in the land, merely as a matter of prudence. It becomes Christians to bear positive good-will to their country, and to its government, considered as government, irrespec- tive of the political party which may have the ascendency. We may have our preferences, and that without blame; but they ought never to prevent a cheerful obedience to the laws, a respectful demeanour towards those who frame and those who execute them, or a ready co-opera- tion in every measure which the being or well-being of the nation may require. The civil power, whatever poli- tical party is uppermost, while it maintains the great ends of government, ought, at all times, to be able to reckon upon religious people as its cordial friends; and if such we be, we shall be willing, in times of difficulty, to sacri- fice private interest to public good; shall contribute of our substance without murmuring ; and, in cases of im- minent danger, shall be willing to expose even our lives in its defence. As the last of these particulars is a subject which deep- ly interests us at the present juncture, I shall be excused if I endeavour to establish the grounds on which I con- ceive its obligation to rest. We know that the father of the faithful, who was only a sojourner in the land of Canaan, when his kinsman Lot With his family were taken captives by a body of plunder- §rs, armed his trained servants, pursued the victors, and bravely recovered the spoil. It was on this occasion that Melchizedek blessed him, saying, “Blessed be Abraham 9; the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth ; and blessed be the most high God, who hath delivered thine enemies into thine hand 1’’ Perhaps it will be said, This was antecedent to the times of the New Testament; Jesus taught his disciples not to resist evil; and when Peter drew his sword, he ºrdered him to put it up again; saying, “All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” - You know, my brethren, I have always deprecated war, * one of the greatest calamities; but it does not follow, hence, that I must consider it in all cases unlawful. Christianity, I allow, is a religion of peace; and whenever it universally prevails, in the spirit and power of it, wars will be unknown. But so will every other *Pecies of injustice; yet, while the world is as it is, some *d of resistance to injustice is necessary, though it may * Some future time become unnecessary. If our Saviour's °9′mmand that we resist not evil be taken literally and *niversally, it must have been wrong for Paul to have re- *nstrated against the magistrates at Philippi; and he himself would not have reproved the person who smote him at the judgment-seat. I allow that the sword is the last weapon to which we should have recourse. As individuals, it may be lawful, by this instrument, to defend ourselves or our families against the attacks of an assassin ; but, perhaps, this is the only case in which it is so ; and even there, if it were possible to disarm and confine the party, it were much rather to be chosan than in that manner to take away his life. Christianity does not allow us, in any case, to retaliate from a principle of revenge. In ordinary injuries it teaches patience and forbearance. If an adversary “smite us on the one cheek,” we had better “turn to him the other also,” than go about to avenge our own wrongs. The laws of honour, as acted upon in high life, are cer- tainly in direct opposition to the laws of Christ ; and various retaliating maxims, ordinarily practised among men, will no doubt be found among the works of the flesh. And if, as nations, we were to act on Christian princi- ples, we should never engage in war but for our own de- fence; nor for that, till every method of avoiding it had been tried in vain. Once more, It is allowed that Christians, as such, are not permitted to have recourse to the sword, for the pur- pose of defending themselves against persecution for the gospel’s sake. No weapon is admissible in this warfare but truth, whatever be the consequence. We may remon- strate, as Paul did at Philippi, and our Lord himself, when unjustly smitten ; but it appears to me that this is all. When Peter drew his sword, it was with a desire to rescue his Master from the persecuting hands of his enemies, in the same spirit as when he opposed his going up to Jerusalem ; in both which instances he was in the wrong : and the saying of our Saviour, that “all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword,” has com- monly been verified, in this sense of it. I believe it will be found, that when Christians have resorted to the sword in order to resist persecution for the gospel’s sake, as did the Albigenses, the Bohemians, the French protestants, and some others, within the last six hundred years, the issue has commonly been, that they have perished by it; that is, they have been overcome by their enemies, and exterminated : whereas, in cases where their only weapons have been “the blood of the Lamb, and the word of their testimony, loving not their lives unto death,” they have overcome. Like Israel in Egypt, the more they have been afflicted, the more they have increased. But none of these things prove it unlawful to take up arms as members of civil society, when called upon to do so jor the defence of our country. The ground on which our Saviour refused to let his servants fight for him, that he should not be delivered into the hands of the Jews, was, that his was a kingdom “not of this world;” plainly inti- mating that if his kingdom had been of this world, a con- trary line of conduct had been proper. Now this is what every other kingdom is : it is right, therefore, according to our Lord's reasoning, that the subjects of all civil states should, as such, when required, fight in defence of them. Has not Christianity, I ask, in the most decided manner recognised civil government, by requiring Christians to be subject to it? Has it not expressly authorized the legal use of the sword? Christians are warned that the magis- trate “beareth not the sword in vain ; ” and that he is “the minister of God, a revenger, to execute wrath upon him that doeth, evil.” But if it be right for the magis- trate to bear the sword, and to use it upon evil-doers within the realm, it cannot be wrong to use it in repelling invaders from without ; and if it be right on the part of the magistrate, it is right that the subject should assist him in it; for otherwise, his power would be merely nominal, and he would indeed “bear the sword in vain.” We have not been used, in things of a civil and moral nature, to consider one law as made for the religious part of a nation, and another for the irreligious. Whatever is the duty of one, allowing for different talents and situa- tions in life, is the duty of all. If, therefore, it be not binding upon the former to unite in every necessary mea- sure for the support of civil government, neither is it upon the latter; and if it be binding upon neither, it must fol- 2 P 578 SERMONS AND SKETCHES. low that civil government itself ought not to be supported, and that the whole world should be left to become a prey to anarchy or despotism. Further, If the use of arms were, of itself, and in all cases, inconsistent with Christianity, it were a sin to be a soldier: but nothing like this is held out to us in the New Testament. On the contrary, we there read of two be- lieving centurions ; and neither of them was reproved on account of his office, or required to relinquish it. We also read of publicans and soldiers who came to John to be baptized, each asking, “What shall we do?” The answer to both proceeds on the same principle : they are warmed against the abuses of their respective employments ; but the employments themselves are tacitly allowed to be law- ful. To the one he said, “Exact no more than that which is appointed you;” to the other, “Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely, and be content with your wages.” If either of these occupations had been in itself sinful, or inconsistent with that kingdom which it was John’s grand object to announce, and into the faith of which his disciples were baptized, he ought, on this occa- sion, to have said so, or, at least, not to have said that which implies the contrary. If it be objected that the sinfulness of war would not lie so much at the door of the centurions and soldiers as of the government by whose authority it was proclaimed and executed, I allow there is considerable force in this ; but yet, if the thing itself were necessarily, and in all cases, sinful, every party voluntarily concerned in it must have been a partaker of the guilt, though it were in different degrees. - But granting, it may be said, that war is not, in itself, necessarily sinful; yet it becomes so by the injustice with which it is commonly undertaken and conducted. It is no part of my design to become the apologist of injustice, on whatever scale it may be practised. But if wars be allow- ed to be generally undertaken and conducted without a re- gard to justice, it does not follow that they are always so ; and still less that war itself is sinful. In ascertaining the justice or injustice of war, we have nothing to do with the ºmotives of those who engage in it. The question is, Whether it be in itself unjust 2 If it appeared so to me, I should think it my duty to stand aloof from it as far as possible. There is one thing, however, that requires to be noticed. Before we condemn any measure as unjust, we ought to be in possession of the means of forming a just judgment concerning it. If a difference arise only between two families, or two individuals, though every person in the neighbourhood may be talking and giving his opinion upon it; yet it is easy to perceive that no one of them is competent to pro- nounce upon the justice or injustice of either side, till he has acquainted himself with all the circumstances of the Case, by patiently hearing it on both sides. How much less, then, are we able to judge of the differences of na- tions, which are generally not a little complex, both in their origin and bearings; and of which we know but little, but through the channel of newspapers and vague reports', . It is disgusting to hear people, whom no one would think of employing to decide upon a common differ- €InCC between two neighbours, take upon them to pro- nounce, with the utmost freedom, upon the justice or injus- tice of national differences. Where those who are constitu- * tionally appointed to judge in such matters have decided in favour of war, however painful it may be to my feelings, as a friend of mankind, I consider it my duty to submit, and to think well of their decision, till, by a careful and impartial examination of the grounds of the contest, I am compelled to think otherwise, After all, there may be cases in which injustice may wear so prominent a feature, that every thinking and im- partial mind shall be capable of perceiving it; and where it does so, the public sense of it will and ought to be ex- pressed. In the present instance, however, there seems to be no ground of hesitation. In arming to resist a threatened invasion, we merely act on the defensive ; and not to re- sist an enemy, whose ambition, under the pretence of liber- ating mankind, has carried desolation wherever he has gone, were to prove ourselves unworthy of the blessings we enjoy. Without taking upon me to decide on the original grounds of the difference, the question at issue with us is, Is it right that any one nation should seek abso- lutely to ruin another, and that other not be warranted, and even obliged, to resist it 2 That such is the object of the enemy, at this time, cannot be reasonably doubted. If my country were engaged in an attempt to ruin France, as a nation, it would be a wicked undertaking; and if I were fully convinced of it, I should both hope and pray that they might be disappointed. Surely, them, I may be equally interested in behalf of my native land , But there is another duty which we owe to our coun- try; which is, That we pray to the Lord for it. It is sup- posed that religious people are a praying people. The godly Israelites, when carried into Babylon, were banished from temple-worship ; but they still had access to their God. The devotional practice of Daniel was well known among the great men of that city, and proved the occasion of a conspiracy against his life. King Darius knew so much of the character of the Jews as to request an interest in their prayers, in behalf of himself and his sons. My brethren, your country claims an interest in yours; and I trust that, if no such claim were preferred, you would, of your own accord, remember it. You are aware that all our dependence, as a nation, is wpon God; and, therefore, should importune his assistance. After all the struggles for power, you know that in his sight all the inhabitants of the world are reputed as no- thing : he doth according to his will in the army of hea- ven, and among the inhabitants of the earth ; and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou ? Indeed this has been acknowledged, and at times sensibly felt, by irreligious characters; but in general the great body of a nation, it is to be feared, think but little about it. Their dependence is upon an arm of flesh. It may be said, without uncharitableness, of many of our com- manders, both by sea and land, as was said of Cyrus, God hath girded them, though they have not known him. But by how much you perceive a want of prayer and depend- ence on God in your countrymen, by so much more should you be concerned, as much as in you lies, to supply the defect. “The prayer of a righteous man availeth much.” You are also aware, in some measure, of the load of guilt that lies upon your country; and should therefore suppli- cate mercy on its behalf. I acknowledge myself to have much greater fear from this quarter than from the boasting menaces of a vain man. If our iniquities provoke not the Lord to deliver us into his hand, his schemes and devices will come to nothing. When I think, among other things, of the detestable traffic before alluded to, in which we have taken so conspicuous a part, and have shed so much innocent blood, I tremble ! When we have fasted and prayed, I have seemed to hear the voice of God, saying unto us, “Loose the bands of wickedness, undo the heavy burdens, let the oppressed go free, and break every yoke l’’ Yet, peradventure, for his own name’s sake, or from a re- gard to his own cause, which is here singularly protected, the Lord may hearken to our prayers, and save us from deserved ruin. We know that Sodom itself would have been spared if ten righteous men could have been found in her. I proceed to consider, * * * II. THE MOTIVE BY WHICH THESE DUTIES ARE EN- Forced : “In the peace thereof shall ye have peace.” The Lord hath so wisely and mercifully interwoven the interests of mankind as to furnish motives to innumerable acts of justice and kindness. We cannot injure others, nor even refraim from doing them good, without injuring ourselves. The interests of individuals and families are closely con- nected with those of a country. If the latter prosper, generally speaking, so do the former; and if the one be ruined, so must the other. It is impossible to describe, or to conceive beforehand, with any degree of accuracy, the miseries which the success of a foreign enemy, such as We have to deal with, must occasion to private families. To say nothing of the loss of property among the higher and middle classes of people, (which must be severely felt, as plunder will, undoubtedly, be the grand stimulus of an invading army,) who can calculate the loss of lives? Who | can contemplate, without horror, the indecent excesses of l JESUS THE TRUE MESSIAH. 579 a victorious, unprincipled, and brutal soldiery Let not the poorest man say, I have nothing to lose. Yes, if men of opulence lose their property, you will lose your employ- ment. You have also a cottage, and perhaps a wife and family, with whom, amidst all your hardships, you live in love ; and would it be nothing to you to see your wife and daughters abused, and you yourself unable to protect them, or even to remonstrate, but at the hazard of being thrust through with the bayonet 3 If no other considerations will induce us to protect our country, and pray to the Lord for it, our own individual and domestic comfort might suffice. To this may be added, our interests as Christians, no less than as men and as families, are interwoven with the well-being of our country. If Christians, while they are in the world, are, as has been already noticed, under va- rious relative obligations, it is not without their receiving, in return, various relative advantages. What those advan- tages are we should know to our grief, were we once to lose them. So long have we enjoyed religious liberty in this country, that I fear we are become too insensible of its value. At present we worship God without interrup- tion. What we might be permitted to do under a govern- ment which manifestly hates Christianity, and tolerates it even at home only as a matter of policy, we know not. This, however, is well known, that a large proportion of those unprincipled men, in our own country, who have been labouring to overturn its constitution, have a deep- rooted enmity to the religion of Jesus. May the Lord preserve us, and every part of the united kingdom, from their machinations ! Some among us, to whatever extremities we may be re- duced, will be incapable of bearing arms; but they may assist by their property, and in various other ways: even the hands of the aged poor, like those of Moses, may be lifted up in prayer; while their countrymen, and it may be their own children, are occupying the post of danger. I know it is the intention of several whom I now address freely to offer their services at this important period. Should you, dear young people, be called forth in the arduous contest, you will expect an interest in our prayers. Yes, and you will have it. Every one of us, every parent, wife, or Christian friend, if they can pray for any thing, will importune the Lord of hosts to cover your heads in the day of battle ! Finally, It affords satisfaction to my mind to be per- suaded that you will avail yourselves of the liberty granted to you of declining to learn your exercise on the Lord's day. Were you called to resist the landing of the enemy on that day, or any other work of necessity, you would not object to it; but, in other cases, I trust, you will. “ Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.” SERMON X. [Delivered in the Jews’ chapel, ºth Street, Spitalfields, Nov. 19, ..] JESUS THE TRUE MESSIAH. “Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened : burnt-offering and sin-offering hast thou not required. Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, i delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.”— Psal. xl. 6–8. THOUGH I have preached the gospel between thirty and forty years, yet I do not recollect to have ever entered a pulpit with such feelings as at present. In respect of the subject, I feel it an honour to plead the cause of my Lord and Saviour; but I am not without apprehensions lest it should suffer through my manner of pleading it. I must therefore entreat, that if any thing which may be delivered should be found to be improper, you would impute it, not to the cause, but to the imperfection of the advocate. I have also some peculiar feelings on account of the audience, Part of which, I am given to understand, are of the house of Israel. I cannot help recalling to mind the debt we owe to that distinguished people. They have been treated with both cruelty and contempt by men professing Chris- tianity; but surely not by Christians ! To them, under God, we are indebted for a Bible, for a Saviour, and for all that we know of the one living and true God. Who, then, will not join me in the language of the apostle— “Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that thoy may be saved 3° The passage on which I shall found what I have to offer is in the 40th Psalm, the 6th, 7th, and 8th verses:— “Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened : burnt-offering and sin-offering hast thou not required. Then said I, Lo, I come : in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God : yea, thy law is within my heart.” No Christian can doubt whether the passage relates to the Messiah, seeing it is expressly applied to him in the New Testament; and if a Jew should raise an objection, he will find it difficult, if not impossible, to give a fair ex- position of it on any other principle. Who else, with propriety, could use the language here used ? Certainly David could not. Whether the Messiah, therefore, be already come, as we believe, or be yet to come, as the body of the Jewish nation believes, it must be of his coming that the prophet speaks. The question at issue between them and us is, not whether the Scriptures predict and characterize the Messiah, but whether these predictions and characters be fulfilled in Jesus. That we may be able to judge of this question, let it be observed, that there are three characters held up in the passage I have read, as distinguishing the Messiah’s com- ing : viz. That the sacrifices and ceremonies of the Mosaic law would thence be superseded; that the great body of Scripture prophecy would be accomplished ; and that the will of God would be perfectly fulfilled. Let us calmly and candidly try the question at issue by these characters. I. It is intimated, that whenever the Messiah should come, THE SACRIFICEs AND CEREMONIES OF THE Mosaic LAw were to BE superse DED BY HIM. “Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire :—then said I, Lo, I come.” I am aware that modern Jewish writers contend for the perpetuity of the ceremonial as well as of the moral law; but in this they are opposed both by Scripture and by fact. As to Scripture, it is not confined to the passage I have read, nor to a few others; it is common for the sacred writers of the Old Testament to speak of sacrifices and ceremonies in a depreciating strain, such as would not, I presume, have been used had they been regarded for their own sake, or designed to continue always. Such is the language of the following passages: “Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord 3 Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.—Hear, O my people, and I will speak; O Israel, and I will testify against thee: I am God, even thy God. I will not re- prove thee for thy sacrifices or thy burnt-offerings: they have been continually before me. I will take no bullock out of thy house, nor he-goats out of thy folds ; for every beast of the field is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. I know all the fowls of the mountains ; and the wild beasts of the field are mine. If I were hungry, I would not tell thee; for the world is mine, and the fulness thereof. Will I eat the flesh of bulls, and drink the blood of goats? Offer unto God thanksgiving, and pay thy vows unto the Most High : and call upon me in the day of trouble; I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me.— Thou desirest not sacrifice, else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt-offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.—To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord : I am full of the burnt-offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats. When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts 7– Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; Ye heap up your burnt-offerings with your sacrifices, and eat the flesh. But when I brought your fathers out of Egypt, I 2 P 2 5S0 • *** - -> * • *-* * SERMONS AND SIXETCHES. spake not unto them of burnt-offerings. and sacrifices; but this I commanded them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people.—And in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.” Such, O ye children of Israel, is the language of your own Scriptures. The covenant that was made with your fathers at Mount Sinai was never designed to be perpetual, but to be abolished at the coming of Messiah, as is mani- fest from the words of the prophet: “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah : not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; (which my covenant they brake, although I was a husband unto them, saith the Lord ;) but this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord ; for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord : for I will for- give their iniquities, and will remember their sins no more.” From this passage, a New Testament writer argues, (and do you answer it if you can,) “In that he saith a new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.” And, respecting their sins and iniquities being “remembered no more,” “Where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.” Is it not then in perfect harmony with the tenor of your Scriptures that Messiah, when described as coming into the world, should say, “Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire : mine ears hast thou opened : burnt-offering and sin-offering hast thou not required : then said I, Lo, I come :” plainly intimating that he would come to ac- complish that which could not be accomplished by sacrifice and offerings; and that, as these were but the scaffolding of his temple, when that should be reared, these should of course be taken down. But I have asserted that, in maintaining the perpetuity of the sacrifices and ceremonies of the Mosaic law, your writers are not only opposed by Scripture, but by fact. Whether Messiah the Prince be come or not, sacrifice and oblation have ceased. We believe they virtually ceased when Jesus offered himself a sacrifice, and in a few years after they actually ceased. Those of your nation who believed in. Jesus voluntarily, though gradually, ceased to offer them ; and those who did not believe in him were compelled to desist, by the destruction of their city and temple. You may adhere to a few of your ancient cere- monies; but it can only be like gathering round the ashes of the system : the substance of it is consumed. “The sacrifices of the holy temple,” as one of your writers ac- knowledges, “have ceased.” The amount is, Whether Jesus be the Messiah, or not, his appearance in the world had this character pertaining to it, that it was the period in which the sacrifice and the oblation actually ceased. And it is worthy of your serious inquiry whether these things can be accomplished in any other than Jesus. Should Messiah the Prince come at some future period, as your nation expects, how are the sacrifice and the oblation to cease on his appearance, when they have already ceased nearly eighteen hundred years ? If therefore he be not come, he can never come so as to answer this part of the Scripture account of him. II. It is suggested that, whenever Messiah should come, THE GREAT BODY OF SCRIPTURE PROPHEcy should BE Ac- com PLIs HED IN HIM : “In the volume of the book it is written of me.” That the prophetic writings abound in predictions of the Messiah, no Jew will deny : the only question is, Are they fulfilled in Jesus? You know (I speak to them who read the Bible) that “the seed of the woman was to bruise the head of the serpent.” You know that God promised Abraham, saying, In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. You know that Jacob, when blessing the tribe of Judah, predicted the coming of Shiloh, unto whom the gathering of the people should be. You know that Moses spoke of a Pro- phet whom the Lord your God should raise up from the midst of you, like unto him, to whom you were to hearken, on pain of incurring the Divine displeasure. You know that the Messiah is prophetically described in the Psalms, and the prophets, under a great variety of forms; particu- larly as the Anointed of the Lord—the King—the Lord of David, to whom Jehovah spoke—the “child born,” whose name should be called “the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of peace"—the “Rod out of the stem of Jesse”—“God’s servant, whom he upholds ; his elect, in whom his soul delighteth *-* him whom man despiseth, and whom the nation abhorreth’”—“a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief?”—“the Lord our righteous- ness”—“ Messiah the Prince ’”—“the Branch *-** the Messenger of the covenant,” &c. Thus it was that in the volume of the book it was written of him. Whoever proves to be the Messiah, your fathers rejoiced in the faith of him. In trying the question, whether the prophecies be ful- filled in Jesus, it will be necessary, for the sake of per- spicuity, to class them under different heads, such as time, place, family, &c. 1. The time when Messiah should come is clearly marked out in prophecy. It was said by Jacob, when blessing the tribes, “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a law-giver from between his feet, writil Shiloh come ; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.” All this was true in respect of Jesus. Till he came, though the ten tribes were scattered, Judah continued a people, and retained the government; but, soon after his death, they were dispersed among the nations, and have been so ever since. “ICings and princes,” says one of your own writers, “we have none.” If, therefore, Shiloh be not come, he can never come within the limits of time marked out by this prophecy. Again, It is clearly intimated, in the prophecy of Hag- gai, for the encouragement of the builders of the second temple, that the Messiah should come during the standing of that temple, and that the honour that should be done it by his presence would more than balance its inferiority, in other respects, to the first. “For thus saith the Lord of hosts; Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land; and I will shake all nations; and the desire of all nations shall come; and I will fill this house with glory, saith the Lord of hosts. The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith the Lord of hosts. The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former, saith the Lord of hosts.” All this was literally fulfilled in Jesus. But soon after his death the second temple was reduced to ashes; if, therefore, Jesus was not the Messiah, it is impossible that this pro- phecy should ever be accomplished. Again, The prophet Daniel was informed by the angel Gabriel as follows: “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the trans- gression, and to make an end of sins, and to make recon- ciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting right- eousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy. Know, therefore, and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall con- firm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst (or half part) of the week he shall cause the sacri- fice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.” That there should be some difficulty in fixing the dates and other minute particulars, in this prophecy, is no more than may be said of many others, which yet, upon the whole, are clear and decisive. The prediction of the seventy years' captivity was not understood by Daniel till JESUS THE TRUE MESSIAH. 581 he had studied the subject with attention; and, though he made out the number of the years, and concluded that they were about fulfilled, yet he does not appear to have discovered the exact time of their being so. Nevertheless, the prophecy of seventy years was undoubtedly fulfilled in the Babylonish captivity; and this of seventy weeks of years is as certainly fulfilled in the appearance and death of Jesus. Whether or not Christian writers agree as to the exact time when these seventy sabbatical weeks, or four hundred and ninety years, began, thus much is cer- tain, that they must have been fulfilled about the time that Jesus appeared and suffered, or they never can be fulfilled. Such was the effect of this and other prophecies upon the minds of the Jewish nation, that about that time there was a general expectation of the Messiah’s appearance. Hence, though your fathers rejected Jesus, yet they soon after be- lieved in Barchocab, and crowned him as their Messiah ; which involved them in a war with the Romans, wherein they are said to have had a thousand cities and fortresses destroyed, and to have lost more than five hundred and eighty thousand men / The predicted events which were to be accomplished at the close of these weeks, namely, “finishing transgression, making an end of sins, making reconciliation for iniquity, bringing in everlasting right- eousness, sealing up the vision and prophecy, and anoint- ing the Most Holy,” are in perfect harmony with the New Testament history of Jesus; and though unbelief may blind the minds of your nation to some of them, yet the sealing up of the vision and prophecy is a matter so no- torious that one would think it were impossible to deny it. Jesus foretold the destruction of your city and temple by the Romans; and his apostles foretold things relating to the Christian church ; but from that time your mation has been, not only “without a king, without a prince, and without a sacrifice,” but without a prophet. Moreover, it is predicted by Daniel, that, shortly after the Messiah should be cut off, the people of “the prince that should come would destroy the city and the sanctuary, and that the end thereof should be desolation. And is it not fact, that, about forty years after the death of Jesus, both your city and sanctuary were destroyed by the Ro- mans; and that such a flood of desolation and misery attended it as was unexampled in your history, or that of any other nation. Taking the whole together, it behoves you to consider whether, if this prophecy be not fulfilled in Jesus, it can ever be fulfilled ; and whether it be possible to ascertain the fulfilment of any prophecy. 2. The place where Messiah should be born, and where he should principally impart his doctrine, is determined. “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” Speaking of Galilee of the nations, in connexion with the birth of the child whose name should be called “the mighty God,” it is said, “The people that walked in dark- ness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined.” These prophecies were literally and manifestly fulfilled in Jesus; and it is scarcely credible that they can be fulfilled in any other. 3. The house, or family, from whom Messiah should descend, is clearly ascertained. So much is said of his descending from David that I need not refer to particular proofs; and the rather as no Jew will deny it. The ge- nealogies of Matthew and Luke, whatever varieties there are between them, agree in tracing his pedigree to David. And though in both it is traced in the name of Joseph, yet this appears to be only in conformity to the Jewish custom of tracing no pedigree in the name of a female. The father of Joseph, as mentioned by Luke, seems to have been his father by marriage only ; so that it was, in reality, Mary's pedigree that is traced by Luke, though under her husband’s name ; and this being the natural line of descent, and that of Matthew the legal one, by which as a king he would have inherited the crown, there is no inconsistency between them. But, whatever supposed difficulties may at this distance of time attend the genealogies, it is remarkable that no objection appears to have been made to them in the early ages of Christianity; when, had they been incorrect, they might easily have been disproved by the public registries which were then in being. Could the Jews in the time of Jesus have disproved his being of the seed of David, his Messiahship would at once have fallen to the ground ; and for this they could not be wanting in inclination. Had there, moreover, been any doubt on this subject, the emperor Domitian, in searching after those who were of the seed of David, would not have ordered the relations of Jesus before him, who, when interrogated, did not deny but that they were descended from him.* Finally, If the genealogy of Jesus be called in question by the modern Jews, how are they to prove the Messiah, whenever he shall come, to have descended from David ; since, if I am not mistaken, they have now no certain genealogies left among them 3 4. The kind of miracles that Messiah should perform is specified. Isaiah, speaking of the coming of God to save his people, says, “Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. Then shall the lame leap as a hart, and the tongue of the dumb shall sing ; for in the wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert.” That such miracles were per- formed by Jesus, his enemies themselves bore witness, in that they ascribed them to his connexion with Beelzebub. When his Messiahship was questioned, he could say in the presence of many witnesses, “The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk; the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear ; the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached unto them.” The miracles of Jesus were distinguished by their benevolence. They were all works of mercy, as well as of power; and this accorded with the character given of the Messiah in the seventy- second Psalm, that he “should deliver the needy when he cried ; the poor also, and him that had no helper.” Hence, the blind cried out, “Son of David, have MERCY on us.” 5. It was predicted of the Messiah that he should, as a king, be distinguished by his Low LINEss, entering into Jerusalem, not in a chariot of state, but upon an ass, and a colt, the foal of an ass. “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion ; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem : behold, thy King cometh unto thee : he is just, and having salvation ; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt, the foal of an ass.” To fulfil this prophecy, it was necessary that the Messiah should descend from parents in low circumstances, and that the leading people of the land should not accom- pany him. Had they believed in him, and introduced him as a king, it must have been in another fashion. But it was reserved for the common people and the children to fulfil the prophet's words, by shouting, “Hosanna to the Son of David ; blessed be he that cometh in the name of the Lord l’” 6. It is predicted of the Messiah that he should suffer and die by the hands of wicked men. “Thus saith the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth.- As many were astonished at thee, (his face was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men,) so shall he sprinkle many nations.—He is despised, and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and we hid as it were our faces from him ; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his stripes we are healed.—The Lord hath laid on him the iniquities of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth : he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter; and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. He was taken from prison, and from judgment, and who shall declare his generation ? for he was cut off out of the land of the living ; for the transgression of my people was he stricken. It pleased the Lord to bruise him : he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering * Euseb. IIist. b. 3. ch. 20. 582 SERMONS, AND SRETCHES. for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied.— The Messiah shall be cut off; but not for himself.” The attempts that have been made to explain away these prophecies, especially the fifty-third of Isaiah, and to make it apply to Israel as a nation, are marks of a desperate cause.* Is it not marvellous that the enemies of Jesus should so exactly fulfil the Scriptures in reproaching and crucifying him; using the very speeches, and inflicting the very cruelties, which it was foretold they would 3 “He trusted in the Lord that he would deliver him ; let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.—They parted my gar- ments, and for my vesture they did cast lots.-They gave me gall to eat, and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.-They pierced my hands and my feet.” These things were not true of the writers; but they were true of Jesus: in him, therefore, they were fulfilled. 7. It was foretold that the Messiah, after being cut off out of the land of the living and laid in the grave, show.ld rise from the dead. Nothing less can be implied by all the promises made to him as the reward of his sufferings; for if he had continued under the power of death, how should he have seen his seed, or prolonged his days 3 If his kingdom had been that of a mortal man, how could it continue as long as the sum and moon " How was he to see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied, unless he sur- vived that travail? But more than this, it is foretold that he should rise from the dead at so early a period as not to “see corruption.” The argument of Peter from this pas- sage has never been answered. David said, “Thou wilt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption; ” but David did see corruption ; he refers to him, therefore, of whom it is witnessed that he saw no corruption. Lastly, It was foretold that the great body of the Jewish nation would not believe in him ; and that he would set up his kingdom among the Gentiles. Such is evidently the meaning of the prophet's complaint, “Who hath believed our report 3’’ and of the Messiah’s words, in another part of the same prophecies—“Then I said, I have laboured in vain ; I have spent my strength for nought, and in vain ; yet surely my judgment is with the Lord, and my work with my God. And now, saith the Lord that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him ; Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and my God shall be my strength. And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the ends of the earth.” Your writers complain of ours for interpreting the pro- mises to Israel Spiritually, and the threatenings literally ; and tell us that they are not greatly obliged to us for it. But this is misrepresentation. Our writers neither inter- pret all the promises to Israel spiritually, nor all the threat- enings literally. They expect your return, and that at no very distant period, to your own land; for besides many Old Testament prophecies to this effect, he that said con- cerning the inhabitants of Judea and Jerusalem, “They shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations, and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles,” added, “until the times of the Gen- tiles be fulfilled.” heaviest of them all is that which is expressed by Isaiah, (chap. vi. 9–12,) “Go, tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not ; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed. Then said I, Lord, how long? And he answered, Until the cities be wasted with- out inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate.” This awful judgment was indeed to issue in temporal • If, as Mr. D. Levi would have it, the sufferer be Israel personified, and this nation, on account of its injuries, may be said to have borne the iniquities of the whole world, how comes it to be said– for the transgressions of My People was he stricken?” Does the character And in regard of the threatenings, the . calamities; but the judgment itself is spiritual ; a judg- ment, the nature of which prevents your feeling it, but which is a greater evil than all your other punishments put together. Such are some of the evidences from which we conclude that Jesus is the true Messiah. Time, place, family, mira- cles, character, sufferings, resurrection, and rejection by his own countrymen—all are fulfilled in him. Never was such a body of prophecy given and accomplished in any If you still shut your eyes upon the light, you must abide the consequence ; for our parts, we feel the ground upon which we stand, when we say, “We know that the Son of God is come.” III. It is declared, that when the Messiah should come, THE WILL OF GoD would BE PERFECTLY FULFILLED BY HIM—“I delight to do thy will, O my God : yea, thy law is within my heart.” Agreeably to this, the Messiah is denominated God’s servant, whom he would uphold—in. whom he would be glorified—and who should bring Jacob again to him. The will of God sometimes denotes what he approves, and sometimes what he appoints. The former is the rule of our conduct, the latter of his own; and both we affirm to have been fulfilled by Jesus. In respect of the Divine precepts, his whole life was in perfect conformity to them. All his actions were governed by love. Your fathers were challenged to convince him of sin; and you are challenged to do the same. Yet your nation reckons him an impostor! Was there ever such an impostor? Nay, was there ever such a character seen among men 3 Should the account given of him by the evangelists be objected to, we might answer from Rous- SEAU,-‘‘The Jewish authors were incapable of the dic- tion, and strangers to the morality, contained in the Gospels, the marks of whose truth are so striking and invincible, that the inventor would be a more astonishing character than the hero. ” F When a sinful creature is said to have the law of God in his heart, it is said to be written there, or put in him by the Spirit of God; but of the Messiah it is said to be within him. His heart never existed without the impres- sion, and therefore needed not to have it put in him. Such was Jesus, and such the spirit that he manifested throughout his life. Let the character, besides him, be named, who dares to rest the truth of his pretensions on his being found to be “holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners.” But it was not merely to fulfil the Divine precepts that the Messiah was to come, but to execute his purpose in saving lost sinners. Even his obedience to the law was subservient to this, or he could not have been “the Lord our righteousness.” He was God’s servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, to give light to the Gentiles, and to be his salvation to the ends of the earth. In accomplish- ing this, it behoved him to endure the penalty, as well as obey the precepts, of the law. His soul must be “made an offering for sin;” he must be “cut off out of the land of the living—cut off, but not for himself; ” and this that he might “make reconciliation for iniquity, and bring in everlasting righteousness.” - Such was the doctrine of the ancient Israelites, and such is that of the New Testament. If it be true, let me entreat you to consider the consequences. While you hold fast the traditions of later ages, you have renounced the religion and the God of your ancient fathers; and, in doing this, have rejected the only way of salvation. If the things which I have attempted to establish be true, your fathers crucified the Lord of glory; and you, by approv- ing the deed, make it your own. Moreover, if they be true, Jesus Christ will one day come in the clouds of hea- ven, and every eye shall see him ; and they also who pierced him shall wail because of him Consider of it, take advice, and speak your minds. We doubt not but the time will come when your nation shall look on him whom their fathers pierced, and shall mourn as one that mourneth for an only son ; but other case. of my people belong to the world, as distinguished from Israel? or is the sufferer and the people for whom he, suffered the same? + Works, Vol. W. pp. 215–218. ** JESUS THE TRUE MESSIAH. 583 if it be not so with you, it is the more affecting. To see, at the last judgment, not only Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, but millions of your own unborn posterity, sitting down in the kingdom of God, and ye yourselves cast out, is inexpressibly affecting ! I have lately looked into some of the modern Jewish writings. It would be going beyond my limits to attempt an answer to many of their objections to the gospel; but I will touch upon a few, which struck me in the course of reading. They find many things spoken in prophecy of the reign of the Messiah, which are not as yet fulfilled in Jesus ; such as the cessation of wars, the restoration of the Jew- ish nation, &c., &c., and argue hence that Jesus is not the Messiah. But it is not said that these effects should im- mediately follow on his appearing. On the contrary, there was to be an increase of his government; yea, a continued increase. Jesus may be the Messiah, and his reign may be begun; while yet, seeing it is not ended, there may be many things at present unfulfilled. The kingdom of the Messiah was to continue as long as the sun and the moon. It was to be set up during the reign of the fourth monarchy; but was itself to survive it, and to stand for ever. But they object that the doctrine taught by Jesus was was not of a pacific tendency—that, on the contrary, it it was, by his own confession, adapted to produce division and discord—“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth, but a sword ; for I am come to set a man at variance with his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in- law; and a man’s foes shall be they of his own house- hold.” These words, however, (as a child in just rea- soning would perceive,) do not express what the gospel is in its own nature; but what it would occasion, through the hatred of its enemies. They describe not the bitter- ness of believers against unbelievers, but of unbelievers against believers, for the gospel’s sake. The good works of Abel excited the hatred of Cain; but ought Abel to be reproached on this account 3 The message of peace sent by Hezekiah to the remnant of the ten tribes, inviting them to come up to the passover at Jerusalem, occasioned the same bitter contempt among the idolaters as the gos- pel does among the unbelievers of your nation ; yet surely it was a pacific message notwithstanding, and ought to have been differently received. We might as well reproach the God of Israel for his messages to Pharaoh having hardened his heart; yea, for his laws given at Sinai having been the occasion of all the wickedness of your fathers; for if he had given them no laws, they had not been guilty of transgressing them : They further object, with their fathers, that Jesus pre- tended to be the Son of God, and so was guilty of blas- phemy. But if he were the Messiah, he was the Son of God. Did not God, in the second Psalm, address him as his Son? and are not the kings and judges of the earth admonished to submit to him under that character 3 Much has been said of your believing in one God; and who requires you to believe in more than one? If you in- fer hence that there can be no plurality of persons in the Godhead, you contradict your own Scriptures as well as ours. Who made the heavens and the earth 2 Did not Elohim # And did he not say, “Let us make man,” &c. 3 Who Wrestled with Jacob 3 And who appeared to Moses in the bush 4 Was it not Jehovah 2 Yet he is represented in both cases as the Angel or “ Messenger of Jehovah.” Some of the precepts of Jesus are objected to as being impracticable, and Christians accused of hypocrisy for pretending to respect them, while none of them act up to them ; that is, “when they are smitten on one cheek, they do not offer the other.”* But this is perverseness. Jesus did not mean, it literally ; nor did he so exemplify it when smitten before Pilate. Nor do the Jews so un- derstand their own commandments. If they do, however, it will follow that they break the sixth commandment in every malefactor whose execution they promote, and even in the killing of animals for food. The manifest design of the precept is to prohibit all private retaliation and re- venge ; and to teach us that we ought rather to suffer insult than to render evil for evil. This may be a hard lesson for a proud spirit; but it is a true exposition of that law which requires us to love our neighbour as ourselves ; which is inconsistent with every feeling of malice, whatever provocations may have been received. But this is not all ; the very agony of Jesus in the garden provokes the malignity of these writers. The anguish of his soul on that occasion is ascribed to pusil- łanimity / Have they a right then, when judging of his conduct, to take it for granted that he was not the Mes- siah, and that his death was like that of another man 7 Certainly they have not. The objection, if it has any force, is this—His want of fortitude is inconsistent with his being the Messiah. To this we answer, supposing him to be the Messiah, there was nothing inconsistent in any of those fears and sorrows which he expressed. For if he were the Messiah, he must, according to prophecy, have suffered immediately from the hand of God, as well as from man. “The chastisement of our peace was upon him—It pleased the Lord to bruise him ; he hath put him to grief.” But if the agony in the garden was of this de- scription, there was no want of fortitude in it. So far as the wrath of man was concerned, Jesus feared it not. He endured the cross, and even despised the shame; but, under the hand of God, he both feared and felt : and I never understood before that it was pusillanimous to fear or feel under the hand of the Almighty . But we need not marvel ; for he who, in the language of prophecy, com- plained of having gall given him for meat, and vinegar for drink, added, “ They persecute him whom thou hast smit- te?. ** - All these objections prove the truth of what was said to Nicodemus, “Except a man be born again, (or, to speak in Jewish language, except he be circumcised in heart,) he cannot see the kingdom of God.” The gospel is a system that cannot be received by a mind blinded by pre- judice, or a heart hardened in sin. He that receives it must repent, as well as believe. It is in hope that God, peradventure, may give some of you repentance to the ac- knowledging of the truth, that these addresses are made to you. And though some may make light of them, and even mock, as the idolaters did at Hezekiah’s messengers, yet we will deliver our messages, that if you perish, your blood may not be required at our hands. O ye children of Israel, our hearts' desire, and prayer to God for you, is, that you may be saved Consider, we entreat you, whether you have not forsaken the religion of your forefathers; whether the Psalms of David express the feelings of your hearts; whether, if you really loved the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, you would not believe in Jesus; whether, if you had just views of your own law, you would not despair of being accepted of God by the works of it; whether your rejection of Jesus be not owing to your insensibility as to your need of a Saviour; whether, if you really believed the Old Testa- ment, you would not believe the New ; finally, whether the bitter malignity, which is so frequently discovered against Jesus and his followers, be consistent with true religion. But I shall conclude with a few words to professing Christians. I can perceive, by what I have seen of the Jewish writings, how much they avail themselves of our disorders and divisions, to justify their unbelief. Let those who name the name of Christ depart from iniquity. Let us beware of valuing ourselves on the name, while we are destitute of the thing. We may yield a sort of assent to the doctrine just delivered, while yet it brings forth no good fruit in us. These are the things that rivet Jews in their unbelief. They have no right, indeed, to intrench themselves in prejudice against the Lord Jesus on account of our disorders: he is not more accountable for them than the God of Israel was for the disorders of their fore- fathers. But though it be wrong in them, it is more so in those who furnish them with occasion of offence. There is a woe upon the world because of offences, seeing they stumble and fall over them ; but there is a heavier woe on them through whom they come. “He that winneth souls is wise.” I hope all the measures that are taken for the conversion of the Jews * R. Tobias Goodman's Address to the Committee of the London Society, p. 25. ^ | will be of a winning nature. If they be malignant and ‘584 *** SERMONS AND SEETCHES. abusive, they must not be opposed by the same weapons. “The servants of the Lord must not strive, as for mastery; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose the m- selves, if God, peradventure, will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.” Whatever is done, for children or adults, I trust it will be in an open, can- did way, like that of our Saviour, who did good to the bodies of men, as a means of attracting their attention, and conciliating their affection to the word of everlasting life. SERMON XI. [Delivered on a Lord’s-day Evening, in a Country Village.] solitARY REFLECTION ; OR THE SINNER DIRECTED TO LOOK INTO HIMSE LF FOR CONVICTION, “Commune with your own heart upon your bed, and be still.”— Psal. iv. 4. You are assembled together, my dear hearers, that you may learn something concerning your everlasting welfare. I am glad to meet you ; and shall be happy to communi- cate any thing that I understand on this important sub- ject. I pray God to bless it for your good | You have heard many sermons preached, and yet, perhaps, have been but little profited ; and you may hear many more to as little purpose. Religion consists not merely in hear- ing sermons; nor in going away, and talking how you like or dislike the preacher. Religion is not found among noise, and clamour, and dispute. It does not consist in either applauding or censuring men. If ever' you hear to any purpose, it will make you forget the preacher, and think only of yourselves. You will be like a smitten deer, which, unable to keep pace with the herd, retires to the thicket and bleeds alone. This is the effect that I long to see produced in you. It is for the purpose of impressing this upon your minds that I have read the above passage, and wish to discourse to you upon it. In doing this, all I shall attempt will be to ſeaplain and en- force the admonition. Let us attempt, I. To EXPLAIN THE MEANING of IT. The persons ad- monished in this Psalm were men who set themselves against David, and persecuted him without a cause; ac- cusing him, perhaps, to king Saul : and, what greatly aggravates their guilt, they are said to have turned his glory into shame ; that is, they reproached him on ac- count of his religion, which was his highest honour. There are such scoffers in the world now ; and as these wicked men opposed David, so they oppose our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of David according to the flesh. And by how much Christ is superior to David, by so much greater is the wickedness of those who mock at his gospel and people than the other. They were, many of them, men of property; their corn and their wine, it seems, increased ; and it is likely that some of them were people in high life, who had access even to the king. But all this would not screen them from the displeasure of God. Even kings and judges themselves must submit to the Son, or perish from the way. And if riches will not profit in the day of wrath, neither will poverty. It is true, the Scriptures wear a favourable aspect towards the poor. Jesus preached the gospel to them ; and God is often represented as threaten- ing and punishing those that oppress them : but if a man be wicked as well as poor, (as it is well known great numbers are,) his poverty will excite no pity; he must bear his iniquity. Presumptuous and thoughtless sinners are admonished to “stand in awe, and sin mot; to commune with their own hearts upon their bed, and be still.” Bold as any of you may be in sin, there is one above you, who will call you to an account : pause, therefore, and think what you are about. To commune with our hearts means much the same as to ponder the matter over with ourselves. It is said of the adulteress, that, “lest thou shouldest ponder , the path of life, her ways are movable, that thou canst not know them.” She leads on her thoughtless admirers, from one degree of sin to another, in quick succession; just as a person who should wish to lose you in a wood, and there murder you, would lead you on, under some fair pretence, from path to path, through one winding direction after another, never suffering you to stand still and pause, lest you should turn back and effect your escape. Thus it is with sinners; they are hurried on, by delusion, from sim to sin, from company to company, and from one course of evil to another, while the enemy of their souls is doing every thing in his power to secure his dominion over them. That which the adulteress most dreaded was thought, close and serious thought ; and this it is which the enemy of your souls most dreads. It it is by pondering the path of life, if at all, that you must escape the snare. If sin- ners are saved, it is from their sins. Their souls must be converted to the love of Christ; and the ordinary way that God takes to convert them is, by convincing them of sin, which is never effected but by their being brought to close and serious thought. It was by “thinking of his ways” that David “turned his feet to God’s testimonies.” The place and time particularly recommended for this exercise is, upon your bed, at night. If there be any time more favourable to reflection than others, it must be that in which you are free from all intruding company, and interruptions from without. Then, when you have re- tired from the world, and the world from you ; when the hurry of business is withdrawn ; when the tumult of the soul subsides, and is succeeded by a solemn stillness; when the darkness which surrounds you prevents the in- terference of sensible objects, and invites the mental eye to look inward ; then commune with your own heart; take a reckoning with your soul; inquire what course you are in, and whither it will lead you ! It might be well to examine the actions of your life; but as the heart is the spring-head of action, the state of your heart must be the chief object of your inquiry. As to actions, they are neither good nor evil, but as they are the expressions of the heart. Were you to kill a fellow creature, you know, there would be no evil in it provided it was by mere accident, and not from any malicious design, criminal passion, or careless neglect; and if you did ever so much good to your neighbour, yet if it were by acci- dent, and not from design, there would be no goodness in it. It is the disposition of our hearts that denominates our characters in the sight of God. In all your communings, therefore, commune with your hearts. Perhaps you will say, I find great difficulty in collecting my thoughts, and fixing them upon those things which are of the greatest importance; when I would think, I scarcely know what to think about. Well; give me leave, then, to suggest a few plain questions, which I would earnestly recommend you to put home to your own soul. First, Does my heart choose and follow after those things which my conscience tells me are right 2 I can assure you that with many this is not the case. Their consciences tell them that they ought to fear God, to keep holy the sabbath day, to read and hear the word of God, and to perform various other duties; but their hearts are at vari- ance with all these things. Their consciences tell them that they ought not to swear, lie, steal, get intoxicated, cheat their creditors, and ruin their families ; but their hearts, nevertheless, are set upon these and many other such wicked courses; and they will pursue them, at all events. Is this the case with any of you ! It is a miser- able life to have the heart and conscience at variance. You are sensible it is so ; and therefore, if any of you are of this description, you labour, I dare say, to lull conscience asleep, that you may enjoy the desires of your heart with- out interruption from its remonstrances. But this is a desperate way of going on. Conscience will not always sleep ; and when it does awake, which perhaps may be upon a death-bed, its voice will be more terrible than thunder, and its accusations more painful than the sting of a scorpion. Did you never see a wicked man upon a dy- ing bed ? Perhaps not : possibly you cannot bear such sights, and therefore shun them. There are persons, how- ever, who have ; and, witnessing his agony, have longed to SOLITARY REFLECTION. 585 alleviate it. The guilt, the fear, and the horror which have appeared in his eyes; the bitter regret that has preyed upon his dying heart; and the forebodings of everlasting misery that seemed to have seized his soul; have wrung their hearts with anguish : but all they could do was to drop an unavailing tear. Given up to the hardness of his heart, even the doctrine of salvation by the blood of the Lamb has had no effect upon him, and he has died in all the misery of despair. Oh that this may not be your end Yet if such be your life, and you persist in it, there is no reason to expect but that it will. But it is possible that you may not sustain this character. Your heart and conscience may not be at such variance as to give you any considerable pain. If so, let me recom- mend a second question : Is my conscience instructed and formed by the word of God? Though you may be certain that you are in a wrong course if you live in the violation of conscience, yet you cannot always conclude that you are in a right one when you do not violate it, because con- science itself may err. Saul was conscientious in perse- cuting the followers of Christ; yet he was one of the chief 3. sinners for so doing. You may ask, What can a man o but follow that which he thinks to be right 3 True ; but it becomes him to compare his thoughts with the word of God; for we are easily persuaded to think favourably of that conduct which suits our inclinations ; and where this is the case, the error of the conscience, instead of ex- cusing the evil conduct, becomes itself an evil. The consciences of many people tell them; that if they take care of their families, pay every man his due, and at- tend public worship once or twice a week, this is all that can reasonably be expected at their hands. And I have heard this Scripture passage brought in proof it, “What doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” But (to say nothing of the love of mercy towards our fellow creatures) to walk humbly with God is a very different thing from the above exercises. A man’s conscience may be easy, and he may persuade himself that he is in the way to life, while, in fact, he is as far from it as the old Pharisees, against whom the heaviest woes of damnation were denounced. The case of such people seems to be worse, on some accounts, than that of the openly profane : these acting in opposition to their own consciences, as well as to God, a faithful warn- ing sometimes takes hold of their fears; but those, de- luded by vain hope, consider all such warnings as inappli- cable to them. Both are steering the same course; but the one is impeded by wind and tide, while the other is aided by the current of a perverted conscience. Do not forget to inquire, Is my conscience instructed and formed by the word of God? Perhaps you have not been in the habit of reading that sacred book, or of having it read to you. The neglect of it may occasion your eternal over- throw. But let me recommend a third question: Have any or all my pursuits, whether after natural or sinful enjoyments, ever yet afforded me satisfaction ? The answer to this question is of importance; because if they never have, there is no reason to conclude they ever will ; and if so, what have you been pursuing all this time ! You have spent thirty, forty, fifty, or more years in the world, and, by a thousand different methods, have been seeking satis- faction; yet you have not found it. You thought, when you were young, to have found it in forbidden pleasures, and perhaps you gave a loose to appetite and desire ; but you were disappointed. Guilt, infamy, and misery were the fruits of those excesses. Your own heart will tell you this, if you ask it. Since that time, having felt the effects of your former folly, it may be, you have turned your at- tention to other things : you have settled ; and now your object has been to raise yourself in the world. Saving money has seemed the one thing needful to render you happy. Perhaps you have saved a little of this article; and are you happy? Ask your own heart, and it will tell you. No, you want to save a little more. Poor man : you are unhappy; and unhappy in this course you will be. Can you tell the reason ? You have been trying to satisfy yourself with that which is not bread. Do you not know that God has created you with desires which it is not in the power of the whole creation to satisfy Alexander and Caesar, those mighty monarchs, who each in his day conquered the world, were as far off from happiness as you are. The one is said to have wept because there was not another world to conquer; and the other to have exclaim- ed, when in the full possession of empire, “Is this all 3 '' If you inquire wherefore has God planted desires in your natures that it is not in the power of creation to satisfy, I answer, that you might be led to seek satisfaction where it is to be found. There is much meaning, and merciful meaning too, in those Divine expostulations: “Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money, and without price. Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread, and your labour for that which satisfieth not ?' Hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness. Incline your ear, and come unto me : hear, and your soul shall live, and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David.” Again, “In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink!” ... And again, “Thou say- est, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked. I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich ; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not ap- pear; and anoint thine eyes with eye-salve, that thou mayest see.” A fourth question I would recommend is this: Will the course I am in do to die with ? If it will, pursue it with all your might; but first be well satisfied that it will. There is no way of answering this question but by comparing your character with the word of God. There you will find our Lord declaring to his disciples, “Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.-Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven.” And again, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Do you understand these things by experience 3 Did you ever seriously think about them They are subjects of no little importance. Some men, and even some preachers, may tell you that all this signifies nothing more than your being baptized, or, at most, living a sober, regular life; but it is at your peril to believe them against the solemn declarations of Christ. Nicodemus, a master in Israel, was ignorant of these things. Other teachers now may be the same ; and if blind themselves, no wonder that they lead others equally blind till both fall into the ditch. But as you value your souls, remember who it is that has said, “Ye must be born again.” If you have never experienced this change, you are at present strangers to yourselves, to God, to Christ, and to the way of life ; exposed to the curse of Almighty God; and, dying in your present state, must perish for ever. One question more let me recommend, and I will con- clude this part of the subject : If I should die in an un- converted state, and perish for ever, can I endure the wrath of an offended God? If you can, why then let every man help his neighbour, and every one say to his brother, Be of good courage, laugh at death, set judgment at defiance, and make a jest of an hereafter . . . . . but if not, pause and think. . . . . Who can forbear remarking the cowardice of wicked men 3 how, even in this world, these bold spirits are cut down with a little affliction | Those who trifle most with hell, and whose lips are so full of damnation that it be- comes in their mouths a mere matter of bravado, how do they sink under the first touch of God’s indignation , Gaal and his company could eat and drink and curse Abimelech at a distance; but when Abimelech draws near, lo! they are covered with dismay. O profane character can thine hands be strong, and thine heart endure, in the day that he shall deal with thee? If you cannot tell how to endure the sufferings of life, what will you do in the hour of death? How, especially, will you grapple with the bitter pains of eternal death ; “If thou hast run with the footmen, and they have wearied 586 SERMONS AND SIKETCHES. * thee, how wilt thou contend with horses 3 and if in the land of peace wherein thou trustedst they wearied thee, how wilt thou do in the swellings of Jordan 3” Such, or nearly such, my hearers, will be your own reflections, if upon your bed you commune with your own hearts to any good purpose. But I proceed, II. To EN FORCE THE SUBJECT BY CONSIDERING THE GREAT IMPORTANCE OF A SERIOUS COMPLIANCE WITH IT, There is nothing more dreaded by unconverted sinners than solitary reflection, and, therefore, nothing more ne- cessary. They are like a person whose affairs are going to ruin, and who feels a strong reluctance to enter into a thorough examination of his accounts. And wherefore ? Because such an examination would destroy his present peace, and he would be under the necessity of making a full stop. To avoid this, he puts far from him the evil day, and cherishes a vain hope that things are not so bad as they appear. But as in this case the longer a thorough examination is deferred, the deeper he sinks, so it is in the other. Let me request your attention to a few observ- ations on this part of the subject. 1. There are things that you have doubted, or acted as if you doubted, which, if you would but retire and con- verse with your own heart, you would find to be true. You have acted but in too many instances as though you doubted whether you were accountable and immortal creatures, and as though an agreeable subsistence in the present world were the only thing that should concern you. But if you be not accountable to Him that made you, how is it that sin, which is unknown to every crea- ture but yourself, should nevertheless be accompanied with remorse ? Is there not a tribunal erected within your own bosom that forebodes a judgment to come 2 If there were no hereafter, why that dread of death, and that fear- ful looking-for of judgment, in the hour of threatening affliction ? O sinner you shall not be able to plead ig- norance at the bar of heaven : your own heart, depraved as it is, will bear witness against you. 2. There are things to which you are apt to object in God’s dealings with you, which, were you to commune with your own hearts, would be found to be unobjection- able. If you are told of the strictness of God's holy law, and that nothing short of “truth in the inward parts” can answer to its requirements, you think it hard, and feel disposed to complain of the grievousness of his yoke: but ask your own hearts, would you be contented with any thing less from a fellow creature ? - Perhaps you are a parent or a master; and what if your children or servants were, through fear, ever so assiduous, if you knew they had no love for you, would you be satis. fied 4.9r perhaps you are a husband. If the partner of your life were alienated from you, and attached to another, though through fear of your displeasure she were studious to the utmost to oblige you in her outward deportment, would this satisfy you ? Would you not disdain to accept of her services unless you could have her heart with them? You must know that this is the truth. Out of your own mouth, therefore, will the Lord judge you. © Again, . If you are told of God’s awful threatenings against sin, your spirit rises against him, and you are ready to accuse him of cruelty; but ask your own heart if you would spare one that had treated you as you have treated him. If you had a son, and, with all the tender- ness of a father, nursed him, fed him, clothed him, and instructed him ; and if, when he arrived at years of ma- turity, instead of behaving towards you with filial obedi- ence and gratitude, he should prove undutiful, malignant, false, and do all he could to ruin you and your family, would you not give him up to his evil course, and let him take the consequences of his behaviour Or should you from paternal pity be disposed to pass over his transgres- sions; and should a common friend, with your approba- tion, intercede on his behalf, entreating him to beg your pardon, assuring him of your readiness to forgive the past; if, in addition to his former crimes, he continued to despise the overtures of mercy, what would you do with him $ Or should he, when overwhelmed with troubles of his own procuring, affect to be sorry for what he had done, and write to you in the strain of humble confession, pray- ing you to deliver him this once, and vowing how different his conduct should be towards you in future ; if, as soon as his troubles had subsided, he were to return again to his former courses, what would you do with him 3 Alas, all this, and a thousand times more, have you done against the best of fathers, the God “ in whose hands your breath is, and whose are all your ways!” “Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel, Is not my way equal 3 are not your ways unequal 4’’ 3. One reason of your knowing so little of your heart sins is your communing so little with your hearts. You go on in a hurry of business, and the state and temper of your heart is overlooked ; and being naturally disposed to flatter yourself, you imagine it to be much better than it is. You may be governed by the love of this world, yea, and be very covetous ; so much so, that all who know you may perceive it ; and yet you do not perceive it your- self, but are ready to be offended with any person who tells you of it. You think yourself as good as your neigh- bours, and flatter yourself that your sin is not so very great. It is true, say you, I have my failings, as all men have, but, thank God, I never was guilty of such things as many are. So said the Pharisee in the parable, “God, I thank thee that I am not as other men ; ” and so said the wicked priests, in the days of Malachi, “What have we spoken so much against thee ?” O my hearers, com- mune with your hearts, and you will find them to be very different from your present thoughts of them. There is one thing in particular which perhaps never struck your attention—your total want of love to God. This is the sin of your nature, and the fruitful parent of all other sins. God requires the whole heart ; as indeed he justly may, for he is worthy of it; but you have no heart to give him. It is preoccupied, and that with such things as are contrary to God. All your actual sins are but little, compared with this. They have been committed only at different times; but this is a tide, deep and large, that flows without cessation or interruption. Those are the fruits; but this is the poisonous root from which they spring. If you loved God, you could not love the world, and the things of the world, as you do. You could not blaspheme his name, neglect his worship, or trample on his laws; and all with unconcern. Neither could you feel towards your neighbour as you do in many instances. All bitterness, and wrath, and malice, and evil speaking ; all envy towards them that are above you, and pride, oppres- sion, and unfeeling treatment towards them that are be- meath you ; all arise from a want of the love of God: for he that loveth God will love his brother also. - All unconverted sinners, I believe, retain a good opinion of their hearts, however they may differ in expressing it, which is evidently owing to their ignorance of its deceit- fulness and desperate wickedness. Some make no secret of it. It is true, say they, I now and then swear, when in a passion, and get too much liquor once in a while ; but I mean no evil: my heart is good. Others, who have been brought up under evangelical preaching, are ashamed of this language, and would despise the ignorance of the person who should use it. They will not deny in words that their hearts are bad ; howbeit they mean not so. By heart they understand they know not what, something dis- tinct from intention, disposition, or desire. Therefore they are sometimes heard to say, It is true, I am not converted; but I desire to be so. I cannot say, I love Christ; but I wish I did. This is the same thing as saying, My heart is good. If I be not a converted man, it is not my fault. I am willing at any time, if God would but convert me.— But all this is false and delusive. If you were willing to return to God, by Jesus Christ, there is nothing in heaven or earth that stands in your way. The truth is, you love your sins too well to part with them for Christ or heaven ; and have no desires after conversion for its own sake, but merely as a something which, at times, you think you could submit to, rather than suffer eternal damnation. Whoever neglects to commune with his own heart, it is necessary for you, that you may know your true character; of which, with all your advantages, you are hitherto totally ignorant. Even in the concerns of men with men, there is much blindness to their own motives, and deception in forming ADWICE TO THE DEJECTED. 587 a judgment of their own conduct, which is owing to a want of looking into themselves. A thousand things are defended by persons in company, which, were they to re- tire alone and commune with their own hearts, they would be obliged to condemn. In how many instances have con- tentions been cherished, and half a neighbourhood either brought in as witnesses, or in some way implicated in the contest, which might all have been decided in a quarter of an hour, if the party had only retired alone, and asked himself this question: Have I done to my neighbour what I should have wished him, in like circumstances, to have dome to me? 4. There are things on account of which you may value $yourselves, and of which you may make a righteousness, that, if you were to retire alone, would be found of a very opposite nature. It is possible, you may have been in the habit of reading a chapter in the Bible once a week, or oftener, in your family; of frequenting public worship; of giving away something to people who are poorer than yourself; and of shunning public houses and riotous assemblies. It is possible, likewise, that you may consider this as the way to heaven, and hence lay your account with being happy in the world to come. But if you look into your heart, you may find that the motives which have in- fluenced you have been such as God can never approve ; and if so, instead of justifying, they will serve only to condemn you. If you have read the Scriptures, or gone to a place of worship, merely from custom, and not from any love you had to these things; if you have relieved the poor out of pride, rather than pure compassion ; and if that which has preserved you from the grossest vices has been rather a regard to your interest, health, or character, than any concern for the honour of God; can such things be acceptable in his sight? But if your motives were ever so pure, and your good deeds ever so many, yet having broken the holy, just, and good law of God, you cannot be justified by any thing which you can do. If you commune with your heart to any good purpose, you will never think of being saved by the works of your own hands; but feel the necessity of a Saviour, and of a great one. The doctrine of salvation by the death of Jesus will be glad tidings to your soul. Fi- nally, you will, as you are exhorted in the verse following the text, “offer the sacrifices of righteousness, and put your trust in the Lord.” In other words, with a broken and a contrite spirit, you will approach the God against whom you have sinned ; mourn over your unprovoked offences, as one mourneth for an only son ; and be in bit- terness as one that is in bitterness for his first-born ; and this without thinking of either your prayers or tears as be- ing any thing, or of any account; but placing all your hope and help in him who, “when we were without strength, in due time died for the ungodly.” To him be glory for ever ! Amen. SERMON XII. ADVICE TO THE DEJECTED ; or THE SOUL DIRECTED TO LOOK OUT OF ITSELF FOR CONSOLATION. “How long shall I take counsel in my soul, having sorrow in my heart daily?”—Psal. viii. 2. y Soul, Sºo y We have, in a former discourse, considered the importance of looking into our own hearts; but that counsel is not applicable in all cases. There is such a thing as to pore on our guilt and wretchedness, to the overlooking of our highest mercies. Though it be proper to know our own hearts, for the purpose of conviction, yet if we expect con- solation from this quarter, we shall find ourselves sadly disappointed. Such, for a time, appears to have been the case of David. He seems to have been in great distress; and, as is com- $non in such cases, his thoughts turned inward, casting in his mind what he should do, and what would be the end of things. While thus exercised, he had “sorrow in his heart daily:” but, betaking himself to God for relief, he succeeded; trusting in his mercy, his heart rejoiced in his salvation.” There are many persons who, when in trouble, imitate David in the former part of this experience : I wish we may imitate him in the latter. In discoursing on the sub- ject, I shall first notice the disconsolate situation of the psalmist, with the remedy to which he repaired under it; and then inquire to what cases it is applicable among us, and whether the same remedy be not equally adapted to our relief as to his. I. Let us notice THE DISCONSOLATE SITUATION OF THE PsALMIST, witH THE REMEDY To which HE REPAIRED UNDER IT. The Psalm is probably one of those mournful songs which he composed during his persecution by Saul; but, like most others, though it begins in complaint, it ends in triumph. We may be certain he was pressed with great difficulties ; for we do not take counsel with our- selves or others, but in such cases. The particulars of his situation may be collected from the different parts of the Psalm. 1. He was sorely persecuted. This was a mysterious providence. God had anointed him to the throne, and brought him into public life; it might have been expected, therefore, that he would have made his way plain before him : yet, in following what must to him manifestly appear the leading of the Divine guide, he brings upon himself a flood of evils. Though nothing was further from his in- tention than to use any means to dethrone his sovereign ; yet Saul is jealous, and his dependants are stirred up, by envy and malice, to compass the ruin of the innocent. Let not those who are candidates for an immortal crown be surprised, if their path to glory be covered with snares and pits: it is through much tribulation we must enter the kingdom. 2. The Lord seemed to prosper his persecutors, and not him ; his enemy was eacalted over him. This seems more mysterious still. Is the God of Israel then a man, that he should lie ; or the son of man, that he should repent 7 Does he use lightness : Or the things which he purposes, does he purpose according to the flesh ; that with him there should be yea, yea, and nay, may ? Far be it from him. Yet if we were to judge by appearances, we might, at times, be tempted to draw such conclusions. 3. His most intimate acquaintance seem to have forsaken him. In cases of difficulty, we usually advise with our friends, if we have any. If we are driven to take counsel with ourselves, therefore, it may be presumed that we are bereft of that consolation. A sympathizing, wise, and faithful friend, in a time of difficulty, is a great blessing. In times of prosperity, many will profess a regard to us; but if persecution for Christ’s sake should overtake us, we may expect some to stand aloof, who now court our acquaintance. This has been the lot of men of whom the world was not worthy; and it was no small part of their affliction that they had to suffer by themselves. Let us not complain of such things, however. Our Lord himself was forsaken by lover and friend. He took three of his most beloved disciples to accompany him in the hour of his sufferings; but they fell asleep, and left him to agonize alone. 4. To these temporal distresses were added others of a spiritual nature; the Lord hid his face from him ; and, to him, it appeared as though he had forgotten him. If under his outward troubles he could have enjoyed inward peace; if he could have poured out his heart with freedom in secret ; if though banished from the sanctuary, yet look- ing towards that house, and calling upon the Lord, he had heard him from heaven his dwelling-place, his load had been supportable; but to have to say with Job, “Behold, I go forward, but he is not there; and backward, but I cannot perceive him ; on the left hand where he doth work, but I cannot behold him ; he hideth himself on the right hand, that I cannot see him l’” this gives a double weight to the affliction. But here also we have no rea- son to complain. David has been before us; and, what is more, David’s Lord. Jesus was persecuted; his ene- mies were exalted over him ; his friends were scattered from him ; and, to fill up the bitter cup, his God forsook him. This was the sorrow of sorrows. He speaks as one 588 SERMONS AND SKETCHES. that could have borne any thing else: “My God, my God, . . . . why hast thow forsaken me?” 5. All this was not for a few days only; but for a long time. “How long wilt thou forget me? How long wilt thou hide thy face from me? How long shall I take counsel in my soul?” The intenseness of the affliction renders it trying to our fortitude ; but it is by the con- tinuance of it that patience is put to the test. It is not under the sharpest, but the longest trials, that we are most in danger of fainting. In the former case, the soul collects all its strength, and feels in earnest to call in help from above; but in the latter, the mind relaxes and sinks into despondency. When Job was accosted with evil tidings, in quick succession, he bore it with becoming fortitude ; but when he could see no end to his troubles, he sunk under them. These were some of the particulars which made up the load of David ; and under which he is said to have taken counsel in his soul. The phrase seems to be expressive of great restlessness of spirit, a poring over his misery, a casting in his mind what he should do, and what would be the end of these things. Perhaps, if we had been secreted near him, we should have seen him walking by himself, now looking upwards, then downwards, weeping as he went, or sighing under a load that would not suffer him to weep ; sometimes sinking into torpid silence, and sometimes interrogating himself on his future conduct:— What shall I do? Which way shall I take º Shall I go backward, or forward; or shall I stand still? Shall I try any other means; or shall I despair 3 From this tumult of the mind, we are certain he ob- tained relief; for, towards the close of the Psalm, he deals in the language of triumph : “I will sing unto the Lord, because he hath dealt bountifully with me.” Nor are we left to guess in what manner his soul was delivered from this state of dejection: “I have trusted,” says he, “ in thy mercy ; my heart shall rejoice in thy salvation.” Hence we may gather that the way in which he obtained relief was by ceasing to take counsel in his soul, and by looking out of himself, and trusting in the mercy of God. This remedy was competent to the removal of all his complaints. What is it that mercy, Divine mercy, mercy through a Mediator, mercy connected with omnipotence and veracity, cannot effect? Was he persecuted 3 By trusting in this, he would cease to fear what man could do unto him. Was the hand of Providence apparently against him " That might be, and yet all in the end work together for good. Did his friends forsake him 3 The compassion of his best Friend would more than make up this loss. But did he also hide his face from him Q Still he could do no better than apply to the mercy-seat, and supplicate his return. Finally, was all this complicated load of trials of long continuance? After waiting patiently for the Lord, he would hear him, would bring him out of the horrible pit, set his feet upon a rock, establish his goings, and put a new song into his mouth. Such, in- deed, was the issue of his present trials, which is recorded for the encouragement of others, who shall be in like cir- cumstan CeS. II. Let us inquire To whAT CASEs THE SUBJECT Is AP- PLICABLE AMONG US, AND WHETHER THE SAME REMEDY BE NOT EQUALLY ADAPTED TO OUR RELIEF AS TO THAT OF DAVID. The Holy Spirit has drawn the likeness of man in all situations, that we might find our case, and learn instruction. If we barely read the Scriptures as a de- scription of the concerns of persons who lived a long time ago, and make no application of them to ourselves, we shall miss the great end for which they were given us. The case of the psalmist appears to me to correspond with that of three descriptions of people. 1. Persons who sink into despondency under the adverse providences of God. God has poured a portion of sorrow into the cup of human life. Property, connexions, friends, children, and every other avenue of natural enjoyment, become, at one time or other, inlets to grief; and if, in these seasons of adversity, the attention be turned inward, rather than directed to the Father of mercies, we shall be in danger of sinking under them. We have seen men who, under the smiles of providence, have been cheerful and amiable, when disappointments and losses have overtaken them, sink into sullen dejection, and never more lift up their heads. In some instances, it has issued in suicide. It is a dangerous thing to take counsel in our souls, to the neglect of the counsel of God. We have seen others wretched beyond expression, owing to unhappy connexions. In the formation of them, re- ligion has been overlooked, and even genuine affection, for the sake of advantages of a worldly nature. The con- sequence has been, on the one side, neglect, dislike, strife, cruelty, and infidelity; on the other, disappointment, jealousy, unavailing reflection, a broken spirit, a fixed melancholy, and every thing but absolute despair. Oh with what desire could I draw off the attention of such broken hearts from things below to things above; from taking counsel in their souls, to trusting in the mercy of God, in Christ Jesus ! Many a wounded spirit has, by this means, been healed, and rendered happy for life; be- sides being prevented from plunging, in the agony of desperation, into the gulf of eternal ruin. We have seen even religious characters inordinately depressed with troubles. The loss of some darling ob- ject, the confounding of some favourite scheme, or the rising of some apparently insurmountable difficulty, has overwhelmed the heart. In such circumstances the mind is apt to nurse its melancholy, trying to live, as it were, on dying elements ; but it is not thus that we shall either glorify God or gain relief. Jesus hath said, “Let not your heart be troubled; ye believe in God, believe also in me.” From troubles of some kind there is no exemption in the present state ; but it does not become the followers of Christ to indulge in heart troubles fol little things; and such are all our worldly sorrows, “ligh, afflictions which are but for a moment.” The true Christian life is, to be inordinately “careful for nothing ; but in every thing, by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving, let our requests be made known unto God.” It is thus that “the peace of God, which passeth all un . derstanding, shall keep our hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.” It is by ceasing to take counsel in our souls, and trusting in God’s mercy, that our sorrow, like that of David, will be turned into joy and triumph. Our way may be covered with darkness, so much so that we cannot see where the next step will place us; but we have a Leader who sees through all, and who has pro- mised to guide us with his eye. Things may so work as to confound our calculations ; but if all work together for good, this is sufficient. What are our afflictions, tºo, in comparison of the glory that awaits us? Paul had lis afflictions, as well as we, far greater indeed than ours have been ; and he also took counsel under them ; but lºot. with himself: he took into his account the hope that was set before him : “I reckon,” says he, “that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed in us.” It is while we thus “look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen,” that our “afflictions” appear “light” and “ momentary,” and “ work for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory.” 2. The case of the psalmist corresponds with that of persons who, at the outset of their religious concern, an e encompassed with darkness and long-continued dejection. There are some who are no sooner brought to entertain a just sense of the nature and demerits of sin than they ale led to embrace the gospel way of salvation, and find test to their souls; but it is not so with all. Some are knºw n to continue, for a long time, in a state of dark suspense. They have too deep a sense of sim to be able to enjoy the pleasures of this world ; and are too much in the lak concerning its forgiveness to be able to imbibe the joys of another. Hence their days are spent in solitude and dejection : they search for peace, but it is far from them : they take counsel in their soul, and have sorrow in their hearts daily. Various things contribute to promote this state of mind. In some it may be owing to circumstances wiſh- out them. Perhaps, like David, they had no friend to whom they could open their minds; or if they had, it might have been to persons who were either total straligers to these things, or who were unskilful in the word of righteousness. Such also may have been the kind of ADVICE TO THE DEJECTED. 589 preaching they have heard that nothing suitable to their case has been ordinarly, if ever, delivered. If the preacher be of such a description as to content himself with moral harangues; if, instead of exhibiting the Saviour of sin- ners, he have nothing to say to a wounded spirit, unless it be to advise him to forsake his vices, and be better; or if his object be rather to improve the manners of men, and render them decent members of society, than to re- new their hearts; the tendency of his preaching will be either to establish the hearer in Pharisaical presumption, or sink him into despondency. - Or should the preacher be of another description— should he hold forth a kind of Mahometan predestina- tion, be averse from the free invitations of the gospel to sinners as sinners, and employ himself in persuading his hearers that no one has any warrant to come to Jesus for eternal life but the regenerate—the effects will be much the same. The awakened sinner will either take up with some enthusiastic impression, imagine himself a favourite of Heaven, trusting that he is righteous, and despising others ; or, having no consciousness that he is regenerate, be deterred from approaching the Saviour, and so sink into despondency. Could I gain access to such a character, I would pro- claim in his ear the MERCY of God to sinners, the all- sufficiency and willingness of Jesus to save all that are willing to be saved by him, and the free invitations of the gospel, as a sufficient warrant for him, or any other sinner, to trust his immortal interests in his hands. O ye that labour and are heavy laden, come to Jesus, “and ye shall find rest unto your souls: " Do not dream of first ascertaining your election, or regeneration, and of approaching the Saviour as a favourite of Heaven ; it is only by believing in him, as a perishing sinner, that you can obtain an evidence of these things. It is by the gos- pel coming to us, not in word only, but in power, that our election of God is known, and our regeneration ascertained. In others, such dejection may be owing to some- thing within them. It may arise from a kind of pro- pensity to think on things which are against them, rather than on those which are in their favour; viewing only the dark side of the cloud; dwelling on the magnitude of their guilt, their unworthiness of mercy, and the little success they have had in praying and striving to enter in. This propensity is often fed by an idea that it would be presumption, in such sinners as they are, to admit the consolation of the gospel; and that it is abundantly more becoming them to stand aloof in darkness and misery. But this is not Christian humility. It is a spurious kind of modesty, the principle of which is nearly akin to that voluntary humility and self-denial that induces men to abstain from that which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving. Notwithstanding the modest and humble appearance which these objections assume, they will be found to be no better than a species of self-right- 60's pride, opposed to the humiliating gospel of Christ. When you object, for instance, that you are unworthy of such great and unspeakable blessings as the gospel re- veals, and, therefore, that it would be presumption in you to accept of them; what is this but saying that, before you can have any warrant to receive these blessings, you must be worthy of them, at least somewhat more so than you are at present? . And, probably, you hope in time to become so. But this is the very essence of self-righteous- mess, and directly opposite to the gospel of Christ. Christ came into the world to seek and save them that are lost. He came into the world to save sinners, even the chief of sinners. He has no mercy to bestow on sinners, but as undeserving. If any man think himself deserving of his grace, his answer is, “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” The very meaning of the word grace, of which the Scriptures speak so largely, is FREE FAvour. To THE UN wort HY: unworthiness, there- fore, can be no ground of objection. If there be any bar in your way, it is your conceit of some kind of worthiness being necessary to recommend you to the grace of the Saviour; and take heed lest you perish under this delu- Sion, after the example of apostate Israel, “who followed after the law of righteousness, but never attained it; and wherefore ? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law : for they stumbled at that stumbling-stone.” If such should not be the end of things with you, yet, to say the least, so long as this self-righteous spirit pos- sesses you, you will be a miserable creature, and never be able to find rest unto your soul; and it certainly be- hoves you to take heed lest this should not be the worst. The question is not whether the blessings of pardon, justification, and eternal life be too great for our de- serts. Are they beyond our wants? Can we do with less? If they are not too great for our necessities, nor too great for the ever-blessed God, through the mediation of his Son, to bestow, who are we that we should hesitate to accept of them 2 If he present to us the cup of salva- tion, shall we not drink it 3 True humility, instead of making objections, would answer, “Be it unto thy serv- ant according to thy word.” We are assured, by him that cannot lie, that if we “in- quire for the good old way,” the way in which all the faithful have gone from age to age, “and walk in it, we shall find rest unto our souls.” We know, also, who it was that applied the walking in this good old way to faith in his name, obedience to his authority, and conformity to his example; saying, “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me ; for I am meek and lowly in heart, and you shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” Hence we may certainly conclude, that if we do not find rest unto our souls, it must be owing to our not coming to him as a Saviour, or not yielding to his authority as a Ring, or not learning to copy after his example ; and if we comply not with the first, in vain do we flatter our- selves with conformity to the last. We shall never “work the works of God,” till we “believe in him whom he hath sent.” An unwillingness to be saved, ruled, and modelled ac- cording to the mind of Christ, is generally the last thing of which sinners are apt to suspect themselves. They think they are willing and even desirous to be saved in his way, and to become his people; and that the only question is, whether Christ be willing to save them ; whereas all such thoughts are founded in error. “We are not straitened in him, but in our own bowels.” If we can so believe in him as to relinquish every false sys- tem of religion, and every false ground of hope, falling into the arms of free mercy, as the chief of sinners; and if we can so yield ourselves up to him as to be willing to have our ear bored as it were to the door-posts of his house, and to serve him for ever; there is no obstruction in heaven or in earth to our salvation. O disconsolate and desponding sinner thou hast been reading, thinking, hearing, praying, striving, and yet thou art never the nearer; no peace, no rest to thy soul, nor ascendency over thy sins. Like the beast in the mire, all thy striving serves but to sink thee deeper. Let me ask thee a few questions: Understandest thou what thou readest ? The disciples were as dark and as sorrowful as thou art till they understood the Scriptures. Do thy thoughts accord with God's thoughts as they are revealed in the Scriptures 3 God’s thoughts are as much above those of man as the heavens are higher than the earth. Let me entreat thee particularly to consider whether thy prayers have been offered up in the name of Jesus, or with an eye to his mediation ? Perhaps hitherto thou hast “ asked nothing in his name ; ask, and thou shalt receive, that thy joy may be full.” Remember this, too, it is he himself who invites thee to do so. “The captive exile hasteneth that he may be loosed, and that he should not die in the pit; ” follow his example. Here, in the gospel of free grace, in exchange for thy horrible situation, is a 'rock for thy feet, and a new song for thy mouth. It is vain for thee to think of overcoming thy sins, any more than of obtaining forgiveness in any other way. “Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?” Cease then from taking counsel in thy soul, trust in the mercy of God through a Mediator, and thy heart shall rejoice in his salvation. 3. The case of the psalmist is applicable to persons who 590 SERMONS AND SIXETCHES. during the greater part of their religious profession live under habitual fear lest they show.ld not at last prove real Christians. This description of professing Christians, of which there is a considerable number among us, seems to have been scarcely known in the primitive ages. In those times they appear to have been generally conscious of be- ing what they professed to be—believers in the Son of God ; and knowing that such had the promise of eternal life, they did not ordinarily doubt upon the subject. It was possible, however, at that time as well as this, for the mind to be in doubt of its own sincerity. They had hypo- crites and self-deceivers as well as we ; hence, in describ- ing the graces of the Spirit, the sacred writer speaks of “faith unfeigned,” and of “love without dissimulation.” And as the denouncing of a hypocrite among the apostles caused each one to inquire, “Lord, is it I ?” so, doubt- less, the most upright character would be subject to occasional fears, lest he should be found deceiving his soul. This seems to be the kind of fear which the apostle describes as cast out by perfect love ; and as the love of the primitive Christians greatly abounded, their fears and doubts with regard to their own sincerity were conse- quently but few. One great cause, I apprehend, of the prevalence of such fears in sincere people of the present age, is the great de- gree in which the attention is turned inward, and the small degree in which it is directed to the things of God as revealed in the Scriptures; or, to use the language of the text, the taking counsel in their souls. I do not mean to discourage all remembrance of past experiences. The members of the church of Sardis are admonished to remember “how they had received and heard ;” and David, under great dejection of mind, re- solved to “remember the Lord from the land of Jordan, and of the Hermonites from the hill Mizar.” Much less do I mean to countenance the notions of such writers and preachers as cry down all evidences of grace, all marks and signs of internal Christianity, taken from the work of Sanctification in the soul. Far be this from me. I am persuaded that, for any man to reject evidences of personal religion drawn from this quarter, he must fall very little short of rejecting his Bible.* But though sanctification is the evidence of an interest in spiritual blessings, yet it is not so much by remembering our past religious experi- ence that we shall obtain satisfaction as by renewed exer- cises of grace. The apostle in the forecited passages, when describing the means by which we are to come at the knowledge of our personal religion, makes no mention of things past, but of things present, of which the mind is supposed to be conscious at the time. “Hereby,” saith he, “we do know that we know him, if we keep his com- mandments.”—“Whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected : hereby know we that we are in him.”—“We know that we have passed from death unto life,” not because we have loved, but “because we love the brethren.” And if satisfaction be attainable only by the renewed exercises of grace, our object is to ascer. tain the method best adapted to promote such exercises, which I am persuaded will be found to be a looking out of ourselves to the truths and consolations revealed in the Scriptures. To attempt to ascertain the reality of our religion by a remembrance of past experiences of grace, is attempting what in most cases must needs be, to say the least, ex- tremely difficult, and, if accomplished, would be of no use. The mind is not formed for such a remembrance of its own ideas and sensations as this would require. It is true those impressions which are singularly striking will often be remembered at a distant period, but not in that clear and lively manner in which they are felt at the time. It is only a general recollection of things that is ordinarily retained ; to be employed, therefore, in raking over our past feelings, in order to discover whether we be real Christians, is almost a hopeless undertaking. If it were otherwise, and we could clearly gain the object of our re- search, still it has no tendency to glorify God. The way to glorify him is to “bring forth much fruit,” and not merely to remember that we did bring forth fruit some • See especially I John ii. 3, 5; iii. 14, 18–21, 24. ation, all are yours. your desires, they are all your own. twenty or thirty years ago. Those examples which the Scriptures afford of persons recurring to past experiences were not for the purpose of ascertaining their own sincerity, but for the regaining of those sensations which at former periods they had possessed. The reason why the churches of Ephesus and Sardis were admonished to remember their first love was that they might recover it; and the object of David, in his recollection of past times, was not so much that he might determine what was the nature of his experiences at those times, as that he might regain his confidence in God. “I will remember thee,” saith he, “from the land of Jordan, and of the Hermonites from the hill Mizar.” God was the object he sought ; and the remembrance of what he had formerly experienced of his goodness and faithfulness was the means he used to find him. Allowing, therefore, that the remembrance of past sensations may afford us satisfaction as to the reality of our personal religion, yet it is no otherwise than as re- viving those sensations, by which they become renewed exercises of grace. If we can recollect those things which at a former period endeared the Lord Jesus Christ and his religion to us, and so recover our affection towards them, such a recollection will be profitable, and will serve to strengthen our evidences of interest in them. But if we think of gaining satisfaction on this subject by a mere re- membrance of past affections, without any consciousness of present ones, we shall be disappointed, or, which is worse, if we imagine that we have gained our object, it will prove in the end that “a. deceived heart hath turned us aside.” If we would wish to discover whether there were any particles of steel in a large quantity of rubbish, it would not be the wisest way to search for them, and especially in the dark, but to hold a large and efficacious magnet over it. And this, if it be there, is the way to discover true religion in our souls. The truths and promises of God are to a principle of religion in the mind that which the magnet is to the steel; if there be any in us, the pro- per exhibition of the gospel will ordinarily draw it forth. If it be a matter of doubt with you whether you be truly converted, far be it from me to endeavour to persuade you that you are so. Your doubts may be well-founded, for aught I can tell; and, supposing they should be so, the door of mercy is still open. If you have obtained mercy, the same way is open for your obtaining it again ; and if not, there is no reason why you should not obtain it now. The consolations I have to recommend are ad- dressed to you, not as converted, nor as unconverted; not as elect, nor as non-elect; but as sinners : and this cha- racter, I suppose, you have no doubt of sustaining. All the blessings of the gospel are freely presented for accept- ance to sinners. Sinners, whatever may have been their character, have a complete warrant to receive them ; yea, it is their duty to do so, and their great sin if they do not. Nothing but ignorance, unbelief, self-righteous pride, or some such evil state of mind, prevents it. The gospel supper is provided ; all things are ready ; and the king's servants are commissioned to persuade, and, as it were, compel them to come in. If you accept this invit- I ask not whether you be willing to be saved in God’s way, in order to determine your right to accept spiritual blessings—the message sent you in the gospel determines this—but in order to ascertain If you cordially believe the gospel, If its blessings suit If, for example, it does not offend you, but accords with your very heart, to your interest in them. you have the promise of eternal life. sue for mercy as the chief of sinners; if you be willing to occupy that place which the gospel assigns you, which is the dust ; and to ascribe to Jesus that which God has assigned to him, “power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing ; ” if you can unreluctantly give up all claim to life on the footing of your own worthiness, and desire nothing so much as to be found in Christ, not having your own righteousness ; if the salvation you seek be a deliverance from the dominion of sin, as well as from its damning power; finally, if the heaven you desire be that which the Scriptures reveal, a state of pure and holy enjoyment; there can be no just cause to doubt of your interest in these things. To imagine THE PRAYER OF FAITH. 591 that you believe all that God has revealed concerning his Son, and that “with all your heart, receiving the love of the truth that you may be saved,” and yet that something else is wanting to denominate you believers, is to imagine that believing is not believing. Read the Holy Scriptures, pray to the Fountain of light for understanding, attend the preaching of the word ; and all this not with the immediate view of determining what you are, but what Christ is ; and if you find in him that in which your whole soul acquiesces, this, without your searching after it, will determine the question as to your personal interest in him. SERMON XIII. THE PRAYER of FAITH, EXEMPLIFIED IN THE WOMAN OF CANAAN . “Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. And behold a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me! But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs. And she said, Truth, Lord; yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their master's table. Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman great is thy faith; be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.” —Matt, xv. 21–28. WHEN John the Baptist sent a message to Jesus, saying, “Art thou he that should come, or do we look for an- other,” Jesus gave an indirect answer, an answer contain- ing a reproof. Whether John himself retaining, like the apostles, the notion of a temporal kingdom, and therefore expecting on his being put in prison that a great revolution would follow in favour of the Messiah, and hearing of nothing but companies of poor people repairing to him to be healed of their infirmities, began to hesitate whether he might not have been mistaken; or whether he only personated some of his disciples; somebody appears to have been stumbled at the simplicity of Christ's appear- ance. Hence the indirect answer of Jesus : “Go and show John again those things which ye do hear and see: the blind receive their sight, and the lame walk; the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear; the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.—And blessed is he whosoever shall not be offended in me.” To be encompassed by crowds of afflicted people supplicating for mercy, and employed in relieving them, was sustaining a character, though far from what the world calls splendid, yet truly great, and worthy of the Messiah. The short account of this poor woman is more profitable to be read than a long and minute history of military exploits. In endeavouring to improve this brief story, we will notice who the petitioner was—what was her errand—and the repeated applications which were made, with the re- peated repulses, but ultimate success, that she met with. I. Let us observe who THE PETITIONER was. She is Said to be “a woman of Canaan.” Mark says she was “a Greek;” but the term, in this and some other con- nexions, seems to denote only that she was a Gentile, and not that she came from the country called Greece; for, in the same passage, she is said to have been “a Syrophe- nician by nation.” She was a Gentile; one of the first-fruits of that harvest of Gentiles that was shortly to be gathered in. Our Lord, though he was sent, as he said, “to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” yet extended his mercy to individuals of other nations; and it is worthy of notice, that those few Who were gathered at this early period are highly com- mended for the eminence of their faith. Like the first- fruits of the earth, they were the best. It might still be said, on a review of things among us, that such faith as that of the woman of Canaan and the Roman centurion ls rarely to be found in Israel. Further, She was not only a Gentile, but one of those Gentiles who were under a peculiar curse. She appears to have been one of the descendants of the ancient Canaanites; many of whom, when driven from their own country, settled on the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. We know the curse to which that people were devoted, even from the days of their ancestor Canaan, the son of Ham. We know also that Joshua was commanded not to spare them, and that Israel was forbidden to make leagues with them. This curse, however, came upon them for their being an exceedingly wicked people. The abominations of which they were guilty, and which were nursed by their idolatry as by a parent sin, are given as the reason why the land vomited out its inhabitants, and why Israel must form no alliances with them, lest they should learn their ways. There was no time in which the God of Israel refused even a Canaanite who repented and embraced his word. Of this, Rahab the harlot, Uriah the Hittite, Ornan the Jebusite, and others, were examples. The door of mercy has ever been open to faith ; and though it seemed, in this instance, to be shut, it was only to prove the party, and to induce her to plead with greater impor- tunity. II. Let us notice HER ERRAND. It was not her own case, but a case which she had made her own ; that of her young daughter. She pleaded it, however, as if it were her own—“Have mercy on me !—Lord, help me !” From this part of the subject we may learn, 1. That, in our approaches to Christ, it becomes us to go not for ourselves only, but for others around us, and to make their cases ours. He to whom the application was made could not but approve of this principle ; for it was that on which he himself was acting at the time. He took the cause of perishing sinners, and made it his own. “He bore our griefs, and carried our sorrows.” A spirit of sympathy is the very spirit of Christ, which they that are joined to him must needs possess. 2. That it behoves ws, more especially, to carry the cases of our children to the Lord, and to make them our own. It may be, they are too young to understand or feel their own malady, or to know where help is to be had ; in this case, surely, it is our proper business to personate them before the Lord : or, it may be, their minds are blinded, and their hearts hardened by the deceitfulness of sin, so as to have no desire to pray for themselves; and then we can do no less than carry their case to him who alone is able to help. What less, and in many instances what more, can an afflicted parent do for an ungodly child? It is true we have no ground to expect the salvation of our children, while they continue hardened ; but Jesus is “exalted to give repentance and remission of sins; ” and while we present our supplication in a way of submission to his will, he will not be offended with us. It was the practice of holy Job to offer sacrifices for his children; and it seems to be a part of God’s plan frequently to bless the children at the intercession of the parent, and thus to express his approbation of something which they have done for him. “The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus,” said Paul, “for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain.” III. Let us remark TiHE REPEATED APPLICATIONS, THE REPEATED REPULSEs, AND THE ULTIMATE SUCCESS WHICH cRow NED THE whole. Here were no fewer than four ap- plications; three of which were made by the woman her- self, and one by the disciples, on her behalf. Three out of the four failed; but the fourth succeeded. Let us examine them, and the success they met with, distinctly. The first was made by the woman, and is described as follows:– “She cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David ; my daughter is griev- ously vexed with a devil.” We might remark the brevity, the fulness, and the earnestness of this petition ; but there is one thing which our Lord himself afterwards noticed, and which therefore is particularly deserving of our atten- tion : it was the prayer of faith. She believed, and con- fessed him to be the Messiah. Her addressing him under the character of “Lord,” and as “the Son of David,” amounted to this. It was a principle universally acknow- ledged among the Jews, that the Lord, or King Messiah, should be of the seed of David. To address him, there- fore, under this character, was confessing him to be the 592 SERMONS AND SKETCHES. Christ. This was the appellation under which he was more than once invoked by certain blind men; and in every instance the same idea was meant to be conveyed. These poor people did not address our Saviour in a way of unmeaning complaisance ; they understood that the Mes- siah, “the Son of David,” was to be distinguished by the exercise of mercy; hence they continually associated these ideas. “Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David " —Jesus, thou Son of David, have mercy on us!” And this is the very character given to the Messiah in the Old Testament, especially in the seventy-second Psalm : “He shall deliver the needy when he crieth ; the poor also, and him that hath no helper.” Thus they had heard, thus they believed, and thus their faith wrought in a way of effectual prayer. But whence had this woman, an alien from the com- monwealth of Israel, a stranger to the covenants of pro- mise, this wisdom ? Providence had placed her on the borders of the Holy Land, and she appears to have profited by it. The true religion contained in the oracles of God had its influence not only on Israel, but on many indi- viduals in the neighbouring nations. It was foretold that they who dwelt under his shadow should return ; and here we see it accomplished. Probably this poor Canaanite had often gone into the Jewish synagogue to hear the reading of the law and the prophets; and while many of those who read them gained only a superficial acquaintance with them, she understood them to purpose. One would almost think she must lately have heard the seventy-second Psalm read at one of these assemblies, and have made up her petition out of the passage forecited. “He shall deliver the needy when he crieth ; the poor also, and him that hath no helper; ”—then why not me ! I will go, and turn this prophecy into a prayer: “Have mercy upon me, O Lord, thou Son of David : " It is good to have our residence near to the means of grace, and to have a heart to make use of them. It is good to grow upon the banks of this river of the water of life. It is pleasant, also, to think of the good effects of the true religion among the posterity of Abraham. It is thus we see the fulfilment of the promise to that faithful man, “I will bless thee, and thou shalt be a blessing.” But while these things afford pleasure to us, they must, methinks, have been very provoking to the Jews; and happy had it been for them if they had been pro- voked to a godly jealousy. Many among them were far behind these strangers in knowledge and in faith, though they enjoyed very superior advantages. The Sa- viour was continually among them, crying, and calling at their gates, and at the entering in of their cities; yet they generally disregarded him : whereas, in this case, he only took an occasional journey, and that in secret (for when he entered into a house, “he would have no man know it"); yet here this poor woman found him out, and pre- sented her supplication. How true is that saying of our Lord, “The last shall be first, and the first last?” and how often do we still see persons of inferior advantages enter into the kingdom of God before others who have possessed the greatest abundance of means ! But what treatment did she receive from our Saviour on this her first application ? “He answered her not a word.” Who would have expected this? Does it accord with his usual conduct 3 In what instance had he been known to refuse such an application ? It was very mysterious, and very discouraging. Is his ear heavy, then, that it cannot hear? or his arm shortened, that it cannot save?—“Answered her not a word l’” Who could understand this as any other than a repulse ? If the faith of the petitioner had been weak, she might have concluded that he would not answer her because he could not help her. If her heart had been cold, she might have gone away, as many do after having said their prayers, contented without the blessing. If her spirit had been haughty, she must and would have resented it, and have asked no more. In short, had she been any thing but what she was—great in faith, in love, and in humility—she would have turned away. And here we may see the wisdom of our Saviour's conduct :, had he im- mediately granted her request, we had seen little or no- thing of the exercise of these graces. But let us proceed. Here is a second application made on her behalf; and this is by the disciples; they “came and besought him to send her away. I hope they meant that he would grant her petition. One might have expected something con- siderable from the intercession of the twelve apostles. He had consented to go and heal the centurion’s servant at the request of the Jewish elders; and surely his own dis- ciples must have an interest with him equal to theirs. If the poor woman knew of their becoming her advocates, it is natural to suppose her expectations must have been raised : and this it is likely she did ; for while they were speaking, she seems to have held her peace. Neither need they have been at a loss for a precedent; for though she was a heathen, yet they had lately witnessed his kind at- tention to a Roman centurion ; and had they pleaded this, he might have shown mercy at their request. But to what does their intercession amount 3 Alas, it is mean and pitiful; it does not appear to have a spice of benevolence in it, but to have been merely the effect of self-love : “Send her away,” said they, “for she crieth after us.” O disciples 1 and does the voice of prayer trouble you ? How little at present do you resemble your Master . We never read of his being troubled with the cry of the poor and needy. And this is all you have to urge, is it? Your charity amounts to just so much as that of some wealthy persons, who give a poor man a penny, not out of com- passion, but in order to get rid of him What is the answer to this miserable petition ? Our Lord takes no notice of the mercenary nature of the plea ; and this was like himself: amidst the numerous faults of his disciples, he often exercised a dignified forbearance to- wards them. But what answer did he make 3 “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” It was true that his commission was especially directed to Israel; and, previously to his resurrection, he even forbade his disciples to go “in the way of the Gentiles: ” nor is it any wonder that he should avail himself of this general truth still to withhold his favour, rather than grant it at such a request as this. The motive which they had urged was not likely to work upon him. But think how it must affect the poor petitioner. Si- lence was discouraging; but this must have been more so. That might be imputed to other causes: she might suppose he was considering of her request; and theugh he had said nothing in her favour, yet he had said nothing against her : this, however, is not only giving her a denial, but giving the reason of it; which would seem to render it irrevo- cable. To an eye of sense, it would now seem to be a lost case. It is not so, however, to an eye of faith. Let us proceed to the third application. The disciples had been poor advocates. Make way for her, and let her plead her own cause: she can do it best. It is not one, nor two repulses, that will silence the prayer of faith ; nor will aught else, so long as Jesus lives, and the invitations and promises of his word continue unrevoked. It was written, “ He shall deliver the needy when he crieth ; the poor also, and him that hath no helper;” and the efficacy of this declaration must be tried again. “ Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me!” Observe, she prefaces her petition with an act of worship. She had before acknowledged him as David's Son; now she approaches him as his Lord. Prostrate at his feet, she adores him, and renews her supplication. It is short, yet very full. It has only three words, but more than three ideas, and these full of importance. She here, in effect, tells him that her case is urgent; that she is truly help- less ; that no help is to be expected from any other quarter; that she is persuaded of his being able to save to the uttermost ; and that it belongs to his character, as Messiah, to help those that have no helper. Though a Canaanite, assuredly she possesses the spirit of an Israel- ite: “I will not let thee go, except thou bless me.” If there be such a thing as holy violence, or taking the kingdom of heaven, as it were, by force, surely this is it and knowing the character of Christ, we should have con- cluded that this petition must be successful. But “Jesus answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.” What imperfect judges are we of times and seasons !. Just now we should have Sup- posed her cause was gained, and yet it was not so ; and now we should have been ready enough to conclude it was THE PRAYER OF FAITH. 593 lost, and yet it is not so. Let us learn to wait patiently for the Lord, and neither conchude, when we enjoy great fervour and freedom in our approaches" to him, that our prayers must be answered immediately or not at all; nor || I recollect only two instances in which he speaks of it as when thrown back into darkness and discouragement, that now there is no hope. Had this poor woman rested her expectation on her own feelings, or on any thing short of the Lord’s own word, she had fainted in this trying mo- ment. What a crowd of thoughts might she at this time have cherished ; hard thoughts, proud thoughts, and de- spairing thoughts —And is this the Messiah, of whom such glorious things are spoken 3 Is this the compassion that he is to exercise “to the poor, and to them that have no helper ?” No mercy, no help for a stranger, even though prostrate at his feet; and, as if it were not enough to refuse his assistance, he must call me a dog i I will ask no more : whatever be my lot, I will bear it !—Such might have been her reflections, and such her conduct; but she was a believer, and faith operates in a different way. Yet what could our Saviour mean by such language 3 Did he really intend to countenance that contemptuous spirit with which the carnal Jews treated the Gentiles 2 Surely not. Did he feel towards this poor stranger as his words would seem to indicate 3 No : his roughness, like that of Joseph towards his brethren, was assumed for the purpose of trying her; and she endures the trial with sin- gular perseverance. She neither resents being called a dog, nor despairs on account of it; but is resolved still to follow up her suit. Yet what new plea can she find to offer. Let us hear the fourth and last application : “Truth, Lord ; yet the dogs eat of the crumbs that fall from their master's table.” Most admirable ! Such an instance of spiritual ingenuity, of holy and humble acumen, was per- haps never known before, nor since. Now the conflict is at an end; the victory is gained; the kingdom of heaven is taken by the prayer of faith. Jesus, like Joseph, can restrain himself no longer, but appears in his true charac- ter: “O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt!” Let us review this charming crisis, and mark the ground from which this last and successful plea proceeded. It was the ground on which the Lord had placed her. He intimated that she was a dog, unworthy of the children's bread ; she readily admitted it, and as a dog presented her petition. Here, then, is the grand secret how to succeed in our approaches for mercy. We must stand upon that ground where the Scripture places us, and thence present our petition. Does the Lord tell us in his word that we are guilty, unworthy, ungodly, de- serving of eternal death On this ground we must take our stand, and plead for that mercy which is provided for characters of this description. All applications for mercy, on any other ground, will be unsuccessful. The last answer of Jesus, as well as the last prayer of the woman, is worthy of special notice. There are three things remarkable in it; the recommendation of her faith, the granting of her desire, and the affectionate manner in which both were addressed to her. “Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith !”. This accords with his general practice. The blessings of healing, as well as those of a more spiritual nature, were ordinarily suspended on believing, and, when obtained, were ascribed to it. Hence such language as this : “If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.-Thy faith hath saved thee.—Thy faith hath made thee whole.” Did our Lord, by this language, mean to give away the honour of salvation from himself? No : it is not used for the purpose of transferring honour to us, but for giving encouragement to faith. Neither is there any opposition of interests between Christ and faith: those who are saved by faith are saved by Christ; for it is of the nature of faith to go out of itself, and draw all from him. Christ's power and grace operate as the cause of our || as have the promise of everlasting life. Salvation; faith as the means of it; yet, being a means absolutely necessary for the bringing of Christ and the soul | by one who sought for a temporal blessing, much more will he accept of those who come to him for such as are together, as well as for the promotion of all other graces, it is constantly held up as the one thing needful. Perhaps, if we had commended the Canaanitish woman, We should have admired her great importunity and great humility; but our Lord passes over these, taking notice the world whose desires are satisfied. we may be certain he felt. | exercise of them so grateful to him. only of her faith : and wherefore ? Because faith was the root, or principle, from which the others sprang, and by which they were kept alive. Our Lord often commended the faith of believers; but being great; and they are both of them Gentiles: one is the Roman centurion ; and the other the woman of whom we are discoursing. There doubtless was an eminency, or peculiar strength, in the faith of each of them ; but that which more than any thing rendered it great in our Lord’s account was its being exercised under such great disadvan- tages. To Israel pertained the promises. If Gentiles par- took of the root and fatness of the olive tree, it was by being grafted into it, contrary to nature. Yet, amidst these disadvantages, they abounded in faith, which, for the degree of it, was not to be found in Israel. Thus we are often provoked to jealousy. Persons whose religious advantages have been small, compared with ours, are nevertheless before us in faith, and love, and heavenly- mindedness. Thus it is that the pride of man is stained, and no flesh suffered to glory in the Divine presence. Having commended her faith, our Saviour proceeds to i grant her desire : “Be it unto thee even as thou wilt.” The Lord does not excite a willing mind, with a view finally to cross it; or an earnestness of desire, in order to disappoint it; such willingness and such desire, therefore, are indicative of his designs. Christ only can satisfy the desires of the mind ; and Christians are the only men in Caesar, in the full possession of empire, is said to have exclaimed, “Is this all ?” And such is the disappointment that every sinner will meet with who sets his heart on any thing but Christ. It is not in the power of the whole creation to say to an immortal, guilty creature, “Be it unto thee even as thou wilt;” but Jesus hath the words of eternal life. The tender and affectionate manner in which our Saviour commended the faith, and fulfilled the desire, of the poor petitioner, is deserving also of remark. It is introduced with an interjection, O woman / In the lips of a speaker abounding in affectation, such words signify but little ; but Jesus never affected to feel when he did not. When- ever, therefore, an interjection is seen in his speeches, He felt compassion towards her, on account of her affliction ; but chiefly admiration and delight, on witnessing the peculiar energy of her faith. Thus he marvelled at the Roman centurion. The genuine, and especially the eminent, exercises of grace are, more than any thing, the delight of Christ's heart. In looking at the poor and contrite spirit, he overlooks heaven and earth. It may be rather surprising to us that our Saviour should hold this poor woman so long in suspense; but if he had not, her graces would not have been so apparent, and the And thus we may account for many of the afflictions through which the Lord brings his servants. If tribulation work patience, and patience experience, and experience hope ; and if, in his esteem, the exercise of these graces be of greater ac- count than our present ease, it is not surprising that he should prefer the former to the latter; and this considera- tion should reconcile us, to those providences which, for a time, hold us in painful suspense. From the whole we may remark that genuine, yea, great grace, may be eacercised in respect of temporal mercies. It was not for the salvation of her soul, or the soul of her daughter, that this poor woman was so importunate; but for the removal of an affliction. Yet such was the grace which was exercised in it, that there is no doubt of her being eternally saved. The exercise of spirituality is not confined to the seeking of spiritual blessings. We may serve the Lord in our daily avocations ; and it is essential to true religion that we do so. Such prayer may be offer- ed, and such faith exercised, in respect of our daily bread, Finally, If our Saviour suffered himself to be overcome spiritual and eternal. His promises are much stronger in the one case than in the other. Though there were several general intimations that the Messiah would ex- 2 Q 594 SERMONS AND SECETCHES. ercise compassion towards the bodies as well as the souls of men ; and the numerous miracles which he wrought afforded full proof of his readiness to do good in every way; yet he no where bound himself, that I recollect, to heal all that came to him. I believe he never sent away an individual without a cure ; but still he seems to have reserved to himself a kind of discretionary power to do so. But, in matters of everlasting moment, the word is gone out of his lips, “Him that cometh unto me, I will in no wise cast out.” Here, every one that seeketh findeth, and to him that knocketh, we are assured by the Keeper of . the gate, it shall be opened. If any man, therefore, be hereafter shut out of the kingdom of heaven, it will appear, in the end, that he sought not after it in the present life ; or, at least, that he sought it not by faith. We shall all be importunate, sooner or later; but im- portunity will one day be unavailing ! seek to enter in, and shall not be able. Many will then Yea, they will cry earnestly, saying, “Lord, Lord, open unto us.-We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets. But he shall say,+Depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity.” agonize to enter in at the strait gate. All the zeal and earnestness which we may feel in other things is spending our money for that which is not bread, and our labour for that which satisfieth not. unto Him; hear, and your souls shall live; and he will make an everlasting coyenant with you, even the sure mercies of David. SERMON XIV. O my hearers : let us Incline your ear, and come º THE FUTURE PERFECTION OF THE CHURCH CONTRASTED WITH ITS PRESENT IMPERFECTIONS. “Christ—loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word; that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.” —Eph. v. 25–27. IT is a distinguishing feature in the apostolic writings, that motives to the most ordinary duties are derived from the doctrine of the cross. Who but an apostle would have thought of enforcing affection in a husband to a wife from the love of Christ to his church We are, undoubtedly, hereby taught to act, in the common affairs of life, from Christian principle; and I am inclined to think that our personal Christianity is more manifested in this way than in any other. It is not by a holiness put on on religious occasions, as we put on our Lord’s-day dress, that we shall . prove ourselves to be Christians; but by that which is habitual, and which, without our so much as designing it, Will spontaneously appear in our language and behaviºur. If the apostle's heart had not been full of Christ, he would have thought of other motives than this; but this, being Appermºst, presented itself on all occasions. We may be thankful that it was so on this, especially ; for we are hereby furnished with a most interesting and affecting view of the Salyation of sinners—a salvation originating in the love of Christ, and terminating in their being presented to him without spot, and blameless. Three things require our attention : namely, the cha- racter of the church, when the designs of mercy shall be fulfilled upon her—the causes to which it is ascribed—and the honour for which it is intended to prepare her, I. THE CHARACTER of THE CHURCH, when THE DE- SIGNS OF MERCY SHALL BE FULFILLED Upon HER - “A glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but holy and without blemish.” We are at no loss to perceive the meaning of the term church, in this connexion. It manifestly expresses the whole assembly of the saved, elsewhere called “the church of the first. born, whose names are written in heaven.” It is de- nominated glorious, through the glory which Christ shall have put upon it; and which, it is intimated, will consist in a freedom from every imperfection, and the consumma- tion of purity, or holy beauty. | polluted. The same may be said of imperfections. In the description here given the apostle has, no doubt, an eye to the church in its different states, as fallen, as Tenewed, and as perfected. In the first it is supposed to have been defiled, so as to need sanctifying and cleansing : and even in the second, to have many things which di- minish its beauty; such as spots and wrinkles ; but, in the last, it shall be a “glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing ;” or, speaking more liter- ally, “holy and without blemish.” Our ideas of a state of perfection are very defective. An apostle acknowledged, “We know not what we shall be.” Indeed it is, at present, but very partially revealed; and if it were otherwise, our minds, naturally weak and greatly enfeebled by the remains of indwelling sin, would be unable to sustain a direct view of it. We can better conceive what it is not than what it is. The apostle him- self writes as if he could not fully conceive of the im- maculate state of the church; but he could say what it would not be, or that it would be without those spots and wrinkles which at present attended it, and greatly im- paired its beauty . As this, then, was the apostle's man- ner of contemplating the future glory of the church, let it be ours. I shall not attempt to compare the church perfected with what it was antecedently to its being sanctified and cleansed, in wirtue of Christ's having given himself for it (for in that view it admits of no comparison); but with what it is at present, notwithstanding; that is, the subject of many imperfections. Spots suppose a loveliness of character upon the whole, though in themselves they are unlovely. They could not, with propriety, have been attributed to the church, while she remained unsanctified; for then she was altogether It is improper to attribute them to unconverted sinners. Such characters will often acknowledge themselves to have their | imperfections; but in truth, they thereby pay themselves a compliment which does not belong to them. Imper- fection supposes the mind to be engaged in the pursuit of perfection, though it has not, as yet, attained it. Spots and imperfections, then, are properly attributed to the church in its present state ; indicating a general loveliness of character, though they are in themselves unlovely. Whatever has tended to deface it, or to detract from its holy beauty, that is to be reckoned among its spots. How much, them, in the first place, has the beauty of Christ's church been defaced by false doctrines, and by the strifes and divisions which have followed upon them. While we are of the apostle's mind, determined to know nothing but Christ and him crucified, we shall not be in danger of deviating very widely from the truth, in any of its branches; but if we lose sight of this pole-star, we shall soon fall upon the rocks of error. Paul and his fellow apostles, inspired as they were, could not maintain the purity of all the churches. The number of worldly men who obtrude themselves upon the church, some in the character of members, and others in that of ministers, to- gether with the tendency to err which is found even in believers themselves, too easily accounts for the same things in that and every succeeding age. When the gospel was addressed to the Jews, many of them believed; but among their leaders, there were men whose minds were not sub- dued to the obedience of Christ. Christianity, said they, is very good, so far as it goes; but it is defective. It grates with our feelings, who have been used to so much religious pomp. Circumcision, and a few of our decent ceremonies, would complete it. So also, when the gospel was addressed to the learned Greeks, some of them be- lieved; but among them were men who wanted to supply some of its supposed defects. Christianity, said they, is good, so far as it goes ; but it wants a little philosophy to be added to it, and the whole to be cast into a philosophical mould ; and then it will be respectable, and worthy of being the religion of the whole human race. But what said the apostle to the churches in respect of these proposals 3 Hear him : “As ye have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him; rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after CHRIST’S LOVE TO THE CHURCH. - 595 the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ; for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power; in whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the cir- cumcision of Christ; buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the opera- tion of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; blotting out the hand-writing of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; and having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days; which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. Let no man beguile you of your reward, in a vo- luntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind; and not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment º and knit together, increaseth with the increase Of God.” Had the church of Christ adhered to this counsel, it had been free from many spots which have since defaced it; but it has not. In every age there have been men of corrupt minds, who have followed the example of these Judaizing and philosophizing teachers, in their attempts to render the doctrine of Christ more complete, that is, more congenial to the wishes of their own hearts; and the church has, in too many instances, been carried away by them. Some have degraded the dignity of Christ, and thereby undermined his sacrifice; others have disowned the freeness of his grace ; and others have turned it into licentiousness. Behold, how, at this day, the beauty of the church is marred by these antichristian principles, and the strifes which ensue upon them . One denomination, or society, sees the spots upon the face of another, and is employed in exposing them, instead of removing those upon its own; while the impartial eye must perceive that deviations from the simplicity of the gospel are, in differ- ent degrees, to be found in all. Blessed be God, who hath given us to expect a day when the church shall be freed from all this deformity; when the watchmen shall see eye to eye; when the people of God, now divided into parties, shall be of one heart and of one soul; when neither discordance nor defect shall attend their researches; and when we shall all come, in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ! How much also has the beauty of Christ's church been defaced by superstitious and unscriptural worship. The method of completing Christianity, by the addition of a number of decent ceremonies, first practised by the Juda- 1%ing teachers, has been acted over and over again. The introduction of such things in the first three centuries made Way for the grand papal apostacy; and spots of this kind remain upon the faces of many protestant communities to this day. The nearer we approach to the simplicity of Primitive worship the better. The meretricious orna- ºments of man's invention may adorn the mother of harlots, but they are blemishes to the bride of Christ. They are the wood, hay, and stubble of the building, which later builders have laid upon the foundation of the apostles and Prophets, and which, when the day shall come that shall declare every man's work, of what sort it is, will be burnt up. Finally, The beauty of Christ's church has been greatly defaced by the impure lives of great numbers of its mem. bers. I do not now refer to the immoral practices of all that have been called Christians; as a large proportion of them cannot be said to have deserved the name. I refer to those only who have either been Christians indeed, or, at least, received and treated as such by those who were so. he evils which have prevailed among them have been Breat, and still furnish matter of shame and grief in all the churches. The primitive churches themselves, some more especially, had many spots of this description. And it is worthy of notice, that those who most departed from the doctrine of Christ, such as the Corinthians, the Gaia- tians, and the Hebrews, were most faulty in matters of practice. The evil communications of some of their teach- ers tended to corrupt good manners. The same causes continue also to produce the same effects. Those con- gregations where the pure doctrine of the cross is relin- quished, whether it be in favour of what is called morality on the one hand, or high notions of orthodoxy on the other, are commonly distinguished by the laxity of their conduct. Many of the former, by a conformity to the genteel vices of the world, have nearly lost all pretensions to Christianity; and many of the latter, by their opposi- tion to practical preaching, and neglect of Christian disci- pline, have been offensive to common decency. Nor is this all ; even the purest communities have their spots. Indi- viduals are chargeable with things for which the good ways of God are evil spoken of; and they that have been enabled to maintain a fair character in the eyes of men, have, nevertheless, much alienation of heart, and many faults to acknowledge and bewail before God. We are given, however, to believe that it will not be thus always. The church will not only see better days, before the end of time, but, ere she is presented to her Lord, shall be entirely purified: “The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his king- dom all things which offend, and them which do iniquity: then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the king- dom of their Father.” Another term by which the present imperfections of the church are expressed is that of wrinkles. These, as well as spots, are inconsistent with perfect beauty. They are signs of the decay of life, and health, and vigour: hence they are the ordinary symptoms of old age, or of an en- feebled constitution. Surely a more appropriate term could not have been chosen for expressing those spiritual declensions to which the church, in its present state, is con- tinually subject. The church at Ephesus, during her first love, resembled a virgin in the bloom of youthful beauty ; but when she left it, and with it her first works, she be- came as a woman bowed down by age, and covered with wrinkles. In this church we see what the church in general is, compared with what it was in the primitive ages; what protestants are, compared with what they were at the Reformation ; what Protestant Dissenters are, com- pared with the puritans and nonconformists; and what many congregational churches are, compared with what they have been at certain periods. I need not enlarge on these particulars: your own reflections are sufficient to convince you that great numbers of each description are in a wrinkled or decayed state. There is indeed, in us, a strong and perpetual tendency to declension. Things which have formerly been interesting and impressive will, if we do not habitually walk with God, lose their influence. We shall read of the zeal of the apostles, of the martyrs, and of other Christian worthies; but we shall not feel it. On the contrary, we shall seem to be reading of men whom we cannot but admire, but whom we know not how to imitate. How cheering is the thought that the time is coming when these spots and wrinkles will be no more ; but the church, and every individual member of it, shall be “holy and without blemish ” Holy beauty, in every stage and degree of it, is lovely. The character given to that generation of the Israelites which grew up in the wilderness, and which, warned by the crimes and punishments of its predecessors, clave in | great numbers to the Lord, is charming: “Thus saith the Lord, I remember thee, the kindness of thy youth, the love of thine espousals, when thou wentest after me in the wil- derness, in a land that was not sown. Israel was holiness unto the Lord, and the first-fruits of his increase : all that devour him shall offend ; evil shall come upon them, said the Lord.” It was then that Balaam endeavoured in vain to curse them ; and that, instead of cursing, he was con- strained to bless them. Like an old debauchee, awed by the dignity of virtue, he was compelled to desist, and even to admire the object which he could not imitate : “How 2 Q 2 596 SERMONS AND SKETCHES. $ ſ goodly are thy tents, O Jacob, and thy tabernacles, O Is- rael !—Let me die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like his l’” Such, I may say, was the youthful beauty of the Jewish church ; and that of the Christian church was still greater. To read the Acts of the Apos- tles, and to see the faith, the love, the zeal, the disinterest- edness, the diligence, and the patience of the first disciples, is very affecting. It was then that they continued sted- fastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers; that great grace was upon them all ; and that, having believed in Jesus, they rejoiced in being thought worthy to suffer for his name. But, lovely as both the Jewish and Christian churches were, neither of them could vie with the church made perfect. The disparity between the highest degrees of holiness and a state of sinless perfection is inconceivable. The deliverance of the captives from mere temporal thral- dom, and which was only the effect of sin, was so over- coming, that they were like those that dream, scarcely be- lieving themselves to be what and where they were ; but for the church of God, in full remembrance of its foul re- volts, to feel itself holy, and without blemish, is an idea too great for sinful creatures to comprehend. If any imagine that this language is too strong, and that sinless perfection, or what is near to it, has been attained by many in the present life, I would recommend them to consider that to be holy, and without blemish, is different according to the different kinds and degrees of light in which it is viewed. A vessel may be clean if viewed in a dim light, and very foul if viewed in a clear one. Thus a character may be holy, and without blemish, if viewed only in the light of selfish partiality, or even by the partiality of friendship; nay, if he be a recluse, the prejudice of an enemy may not be able to detect his faults; but place him before the tribunal of God, set his secret sins in the light of his countenance, and the decision will be different. To be presented holy, and without blemish, is to be so in His sight. Such is the idea conveyed by the words of Jude : “Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory, with exceeding joy.” To be faultless in the presence of an earthly judge, especially of one distinguished by his penetration and impartiality, is no small matter; but to be so in the presence of him to whom all things are known, implies a change far surpassing every thing experienced among mortals. The low ideas which some persons entertain of sinless Perfection may be "owing, in part, to their considering it chiefly in a negative point of view. Feeling, it may be, very little positive desire after their evil courses, they begin to think they have not sinned for such a length of time, and consequently are now nearly, if not altogether, perfect. But perfection does not consist merely in a cessation from evil, (which is no more than may be ascribed to animals,) but in the love of God with all the heart, and Soul, and mind, and strength, and of our neighbours as ourselves. The state to which the church shall be brought, before she is presented to her Lord, is that of being not only “with- out blemish,” but “holy and without blemish.” In that perfect state, we shall be unreservedly devoted to the Lord. No more shall the mind be betrayed, by the illusive reasonings of men, to listem to God-dishonouring principles; no more shall it lose sight of Christ, in the maze of its own researches. The blandishments of the world shall no more seduce the heart; nor hope, nor fear, nor shame divert the feet from the path of rectitude. No more shall slothfulness, or any kind of sinful indulgence, unnerve the soul in its labours for God. No more shali the flesh lust against the Spirit, nor the Spirit have to struggle with the flesh. No more shall our half-hearted services render it doubtful, to ourselves or others, on whose side we are. In a word,—there the Lord's “servants shal, serve him.” The multitude, in that perfect state, will also, in respect of each other, be of one heart and of one soul. No dis- cordant sentiments divide them ; no unkindnesses grieve them ; no bitter strifes interrupt their harmony; no slights, misunderstandings, misconstructions, hard thoughts, or cutting words, have place among them ; no giving or tak- ing offence; no opposition of interests; no selfishness; no envies, jealousies, backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tu- mults: all is sweet peace and love. Bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil-speaking, with all malice, are for ever put away from among them. In him that loved and gave himself for them, all hearts are one. This leads us to consider, II. THE CAUSEs To WHICH ALL THIS IS ASCRIBED : Christ “loved the church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word.” I think it not improbable that the apostle may allude to the parable concerning the Jewish church, in the sixteenth chapter of Ezekiel. The substance of it is this: —A female infant, the fruit, perhaps, of an illicit connexion, (whose wretched parent, in order to hide her shame, had left it in the fields,) was discovered by a humane prince, who happened to be passing that way at the time. He looked at the perishing babe, and pitied it. I will save thy life, said he ; and as thou art fatherless and mother- less, I will be both father and mother to thee, and thou shalt be mine.—He then washed and clothed her; and taking her to his palace, gave her an education suited to his intentions, which in fact were, at a proper time, to marry her. On her arriving at years of maturity, he car- ried his design into execution; she became his wife, and the crown royal was placed upon her head. Look at this representation, and at his conduct who “loved the church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrimkle, or any such thing ; but that it should be holy and without blemish.” Look, I say, at both these representations, and judge if the one has not some reference to the other. There are three things to which the salvation of the church is here ascribed; namely, the love of Christ—the sacrifice of Christ—and the word of Christ. 1. For the accomplishment of so great a deliverance, it was necessary that Christ should Love the church. The thought of this is overwhelming. His wisdom, and power, and majesty may induce us to admire and adore him ; but to think of his loving sinful men excites amazement. There are several properties pertaining to the love of Christ which require to be taken into the account, if we would form any thing like a just view of it. Love may be founded upon character, Christ himself speaks of loving his disciples on this account : “If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love ; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.” But that of which we are discoursing could not be founded upon any thing of this kind; for its object is supposed to be altogether polluted. He loved his church, and gave himself for it, not because it was sanctified and cleansed, or in view of its being so; but “that he might sanctify and cleanse it.” Again, love towards an unworthy object is, commonly, no other than general benevolence. Such was that compassion which our Saviour felt when he wept over Jerusalem ; and such that good-will towards men of which his being born into the world was an expression. God’s giving his only-begotten Son to be made a sacrifice, and declaring that “whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life,” was a great expression of Divine goodness towards sinners, whether they believe and be saved or not. But the love which Christ is said to have borne to the church was discriminating and effectual to its salvation. The church is supposed to have been given him of the Father, to be unto him as a bride to a husband, and, ultimately, the reward of his undertaking. The love of Christ, therefore, in this connexion, can be no other than electing love; and the passage may be con- sidered as parallel with that at the beginning of the Epistle, “He hath chosen us in him, before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love.” 2. For the accomplishment of the church’s redemption, it was necessary that Christ should give himself a sacrifice. In this way his love must operate, or be ineffectual. We are now, my brethren, upon the most interesting part of the most interesting subject that was ever presented to men or angels. It was this on which Paul wrote so feelingly : “The life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith CHRIST'S LOVE TO THE CHURCH. 597 of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” It was this that furnished John with his affecting doxology: “ Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.” It is this that furnishes the church in heaven with its “new song :” “Thou art worthy—for thow wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.” But wherefore must our Redeemer give himself for us? Would nothing short of life suffice 3 - Nothing. We, as transgressors, being justly exposed to eternal death, must have borne our iniquity, had he not offered himself as a substitute in our place, life for life. Some who profess to believe in the atonement have hesitated, from I know not what kind of modesty, to maintain the necessity of it in order to forgiveness; alleging that it does not become us to say what God could or could not have done. But does it become us, when he has, in effect, declared anything to be inconsistent with his perfections, to question whether it might not, nevertheless, be admissible % Why did not the cup pass from him, when, with strong crying and tears to God, he besought that, IF IT were PossIBLE, it might do so It is true, “it pleased the Lord to bruise him ;” but, surely, not without a necessity for it ! If mercy could have been manifested consistently with justice, without his suffering, surely the cup would have passed from him : Whoever had been given up to be made a curse, God would have spared his own Son! But “it became him for whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through suffer- ings.” To give up the necessity of atonement is half giving up the thing itself; and the half which remains will have but little effect on our hearts, or on the tenor of our labours. The connexion in which the death of Christ is here in- troduced, namely, as being for his church, or, which is the same thing, for his elect people, teaches us that all which he did and suffered was with a view to their salvation. The invitations of the gospel, it is true, are addressed to sinners, as sinners; and I believe it to be equally true that such invitations are founded on the sufficiency of Christ's atonement for the pardon of all the sins of the whole world, were they to believe in him ; but if we will allow the Scriptures to speak out on all occasions, and form our prin- ciples by them, taken as a whole, we must conclude that it was his intention, design, or purpose to save those, and only those, by it, who were given to him of the Father. In other words, it never was his intention to impart faith, and other succeeding benefits, to any other than his elect: “Whom he did predestinate them he also called.” We are saved and called, “not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus, before the world began.” I am aware that many objections might here be raised ; but I am also aware that they all rest upon the principle that Divine predestination and human agency cannot be con- sistent, whless they appear to ws to be so. This I do not believe. It did not belong to Moses to explain how the messages of peace to Pharaoh and Sihon were consistent with the purpose of God to destroy them ; but I suppose he believed they were so, because the same Being (who could not do wrong) ordered the former and declared the latter. Neither does it belong to me to show how, with respect to the persons who shall be ultimately benefited by the death of Christ, a limitation of design is consistent with universal invitations; but I believe it to be so, be- cause he that has ordered the one has, in effect, declared the other. Vain men may ask, “Why then doth he yet find fault; for who hath resisted his will?” But if, instead of “replying against God,” they were to throw themselves at the feet of sovereign mercy, and seek forgiveness in the name of Jesus, it would turn to a better account. 3. For the accomplishment of the church's salvation it requires that it should be sanctified and cleansed by faith in the word of God. The latter of these terms frequently denotes the removal of sin, as to its condemning as well as its defiling influence. The blood of Christ operates in both ways; and the faith of him, in different respects, both justifies and sanctifies. As the process, however, seems principally to refer to the meetening of the church, by a gradual increase of holy beauty, the terms sanctify and cleanse may, in this place, convey much the same idea. It never was the Lord’s design to save his people in their sins, but from them. Sanctification, therefore, is an essential branch of salvation. The word, especially the word of the gospel, truly believed, is the laver in which the sinner is washed from his uncleanness. He may have, heretofore, yielded a traditional assent to it, and remained a slave to his lusts notwithstanding ; but when, being convinced of sin by a view of the Divine law, he receives it not as the word of men, but (as it is in truth) the word of God, it worketh effectually in him. He may have made many attempts at cleansing himself while under the power of unbelief; but every thing of this kind was ineffectual, and left him fouler in the sight of God than it found him. And well it might; for it was going, as it were, to Abana and Pharpar, in contempt of the waters of Jordan. Till, therefore, the sinner, renewed in the spirit of his mind, is brought to relinquish all confidence, except in Christ, his attempts at holiness are but wearying himself with very vanity. There is, it is observable, a marked connearion in this as well as in many other passages between the sacrifice of Christ and the sanctification of his people. He “gave himself for the church, that he might sanctify and cleanse it.” Had not Christ laid down his life, there had been no holiness among the fallen sons of Adam, no gospel laver in which to wash, nor any such thing as sanctifica- tion of the Spirit; all had continued in their uncleanness. It had been as inconsistent with the perfections of God to have given his Holy Spirit to a sinner as to have par- doned his sins, or bestowed upon him any other spiritual blessing. But having sacrificed his life, and that under a promise, the effectual grace of God not only may be imparted consistently with justice, but the communica- tion of it is rendered certain, inasmuch as it is a part of the promised reward. Hence it is represented as the Jruit, or éðect, of his death. Believers are the seed which he was to see; the travail of his soul, which should yield him a satisfaction, like that of a mother who “remember- eth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the World !” It is on this principle that our Lord, in view of the un- belief of the Jewish nation, thus speaks in prophecy: “I said, I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought and in vain ; yet surely my judgment is with Jehovah, and my work with my God.” As if he should say, Whether Israel be gathered or not, I shall be reward- ed. My work is before God, the Judge of all, who will not suffer it to fall to the ground. If Israel be lost, their loss will be to themselves; it shall be more than made up to me from among the Gentiles. To render manifest this conneacion, it was ordered, in the Divine counsels, that an extraordinary measure of the Holy Spirit should be poured out immediately after the sacrifice was offered ; and, lest the cause of it should be overlooked, our Saviour expressly declared, that if he went not away, the Comforter would not come; but that if he went, he would send him ; and that he should con- vince the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment. This was the appointed time for great numbers of the Jews to be convinced of their unbelief, as well as for the Gentiles to be converted, and given to Christ, as the re- ward of his death. Things were thus connected in order of time, that they might appear to be connected in order of nature; or that one might appear to be, what it actually was, the effect of the other. Add to this, The death of Christ is not only a procuring cause of sanctification, but, as a doctrine, it operates to the producing of it. Hence, the same effects are ascribed to the washing of water by the word, and to the blood of the Lamb. The atonement offered was that in virtue of which we are sanctified ; and the atonement preached and believed is the means of its accomplishment: “We are sanctified by faith that is in him,” I proceed to notice, III. THE HONOUR FOR WHICH THIS GRACE TowARDs THE CHURCH IS INTENDED TO PREPARE IT : “ That he might present it to himself.” There is no doubt but the term here alludes to the presenting an espoused virgin to 598 SERMONS AND SKETCHES. her husband. Under this imagery, the Scriptures are wont to represent the different joyful advances of the church towards perfection. As the destruction of Jeru- salem, and the overthrow of the heathen empire of Rome, are described in language applicable to the last judgment, intimating that they would be, to the parties concerned, days of judgment in miniature; so the different advances of the church towards perfection are described in language applicable to a state of perfection itself. Thus the con- version of sinners is represented as an espousal of them to one husband, that they might be presented as a chaste virgin to Christ. The conversion of the Gentiles to Christ is also thus described: “Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear; forget also thine own people and thy father's house. So shall the king greatly desire thy beauty: for he is thy Lord, and worship thou him.—The king's daughter is all glorious within ; her clothing is of wrought gold. She shall be brought unto the king in raiment of needle-work: the virgins her com- panions that follow her shall be brought unto thee. With gladness and rejoicing shall they be brought : they shall enter into the king's palace.” Under the same imagery seem to be represented the great conversions to Christ in the latter day. Immediately after the fall of Babylon, the voice of a great multitude is heard in heaven, saying, “ Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reign- eth. Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him : for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white : for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints. And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage-supper of the Lamb.-These are the true sayings of God.” On each of these occasions there is a partial presenta- tion of the church to Christ; and all are preparatory to that universal and perfect one which shall take place at the end of time. But there seems to be something singular in the idea of Christ’s presenting the church to himself. The office of presenting the bride, we should suppose, properly be- longs to her parent. But how if she had no parent, and, like the orphan before described, was cast out, without an eye to pity or a hand to help her ? In this case the bridegroom must himself be her father, and perform the office of a father throughout, even to the presenting of her to himself. If such be the allusion, it represents in an affecting light our forlorn condition as under the fall; and teaches us that in every stage of our salvation we must remember it, in order to heighten our love to Christ. The perfection of bliss that will succeed to this pre- sentation is beyond all our present conceptions. Suffice it to say that Christ will be the sum and substance of it. We have already noticed the glory of the church as being freed from her spots and blemishes; but this, though a great blessing, is chiefly negative. Besides this, there is a positive source of enjoyment in an uninterrupted and endless communion with her Lord and Saviour. To be able to comprehend the breadth, and length, and depth, and height of the love of Christ, and so to be filled with all the fulness of God, is the mark on which saints on earth are directed to keep their eye; but to attain it is reserved for saints in heaven. Nor shall they so com- prehend it as to leave no room for continued researches; for how shall they perfectly know that which “passeth knowledge?” Finally, It is observable, that under the figure of being admitted to a marriage-feast, or excluded from it, we see what will shortly be the test of us all : “At midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh, go ye out to meet him.—And they that were ready went in with him to the marriage, and the door was shut.” If there be any thing of importance in this world, it is to be zeady when the Lord cometh; not by such preparations as those to which sinners are apt to flee when their fears are alarmed, but by believing in the Son of God, and keeping his commandments. “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.” Look off from every other dependence, and put your trust, in him. “ He that be- lieveth on the Son hath everlasting life : and he that be- lieveth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.—Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning; and ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their Lord.—Blessed are those servants whom the Lord, when he cometh, shall find watching !” SERMON XV. THE GOSPEL THE ONLY EFFECTUAL MEANS OF PRODUCING UNIVERSAL PEACE AMONG MANKINID. “Behold, I will send you Blijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.”—Mal. iv. 5, 6. MALACHI, the last of the Old Testament prophets, lived in an age of great degeneracy, and much of his prophecy is taken up in bearing testimony against it. The last two chapters, however, inform us of a remnant who feared the Lord and thought upon his name. Partly for their en- couragement, and partly for the awakening of the careless, he introduces the coming of the Messiah, and intimates that the very next prophet who should be sent would be his harbinger. That we may understand the passage first read, I shall offer a few observations upon it. 1. John the Baptist is here called “Elijah the prophet” because he would be as it were another Elijah ; resembling him not only in his austerity and general appearance, but in the spirit and power with which he preached : “And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” 2. The coming of Christ is called “that great and terri- ble day of the Lord.” This may seem to disagree with the general current of prophecy. It is common for the prophets to represent this great event as a source of un- usual joy, and to call not men only, but the very inanimate creation, to join in it. The truth is, the same event which afforded joy to those who received him brought desolation and destruction to those who received him not. It is in this light that the prophet represents it in chap. iii. 2, “Who may abide the day of his coming 3 and who shall stand when he appeareth ?” And the fact was, that for the rejection of him such tribulations came upon the Jewish nation as were not since the beginning of the world to that time, and would never be again. This was the “day” referred to in ver. 1, which should “burn as an oven;” when all the proud, and all that should do wick- edly, would be stubble; the day that should burn them up, and leave them neither root nor branch. 3. It is intimated that previously to the ministry of John there would be great dissensions and bitter animosi- ties among the Jewish people ; parents at variance with their children, and children with their parents: altogether producing such a state of society, that if there had been no change for the better, the land might have been smit- ten with a curse sooner than it was. Subjugated by the Romans, one part of the nation, for the sake of private interest, sided with them, and accepted places under them, by which they became odious in the eyes of the other. Some became soldiers under the Roman standard, and treated their brethren with violence; others became pub- licans, or farmers of the public taxes, entering deeply into a system of oppression. A spirit of selfishness pervaded all ranks and orders of men, prompting those on one side to deeds of oppression, and those on the other to discom- tent and bitter antipathies. Besides this, they were di- vided into a number of religious sects, which bore the most inveterate hatred to each other, and were all far off from truth and godliness. 4. It is predicted that John’s ministry should have a con- ciliating influence, turning men’s hearts one to another, and so tending to avert the curse which hung over them. Such were actually the effects of it, Nor were they ac- PEACEFUL TENDENCY OF THE GOSPEL. 599 complished by a mere interference between the parties, or by labouring to produce a mere outward reformation ; but by first turning them to God, through Jesus Christ. Hence Luke, in quoting the words of Malachi, connects the turning of the hearts of the fathers to the children with the turning of the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, and the making ready a people prepared for the Lord. John's errand was to call sinners to repentance, adding, withal, that they should believe in him that should come after him. And wherever this effect was produced, a new bond of union existed, and former antipathies were forgotten. The exhortations also which he gave to those who repented and applied for baptism were such as struck at every species of selfishness, and tended to promote peace and unanimity among men. He called for “fruits meet for repentance.”—“The people asked him, saying, What shall we do then? He answereth and saith unto tions, wrath, strife,” &c., and to be told that “the them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none ; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise. Then came also publicans to be baptized, and said unto him, Master, what shall we do 3 And he said unto them, Exact no more than that which is appointed you. And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do 3 And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely, and be content with your wages.”. Such repentance, and such fruits, so far as they prevailed, must produce the most happy effect upon the country, and tend to avert the curse. Those who believed through the ministry of John, of Christ, or of the apostles, were as the salt of the land; and it might be for their sakes that its punishment was deferred till forty years after they had crucified the Lord of glory. When God had gathered a people from among them, the remnant grew worse and worse, till, in the end, the curse over- took them. Previously to that “great and terrible day of the Lord,” it was predicted that to all their other crimes they would add that of the most bitter persecution of Christ’s servants. “The brother,” said our Lord, “shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child; and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.” Such was the fact. Having “killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets,” they persecuted his followers, and that with a rage which not only displeased God, but rendered them odious to men. In short, we see that so far as the gospel was received it tended to heal the country and to retard the day of evil. It is easy to perceive that the same causes, if applied to the world in general, would be productive of the same effects; or that the gospel is the only effectual means of healing the divisions among mankind, and so of turning the curse which hangs over us into a blessing. That we may see the evidence and importance of this truth, it will be proper to take a view of the divisions which have obtained among men, with their causes and tendency ; of the inefficacy of all human means for re- moving them; and of the efficacy of the gospel for this great purpose. I. Let us take a view of THE DIssENSIONs which HAVE OBTAINED AMONG MEN, WITH THEIR CAUSES AND TENDENCY. The state of the Jewish people in the times of John was but an epitome of human nature, as sunk into a gulf of depravity. From the fall of man to this day the earth has been a scene of discord. Jealousies and antipathies rendered the first-born child of Adam a mur- derer; and, prior to the flood, “the earth was corrupt before God, and—filled with violence.” Whether war was then reduced to a system, as it has been since, we are not told 3 but if not, it might be owing to the world not being yet divided into nations. The springs of do- mestic and social life were poisoned; the tender ties of blood and affinity violated; and quarrels, intrigues, op- pressions, robberies, and murders pervaded the abodes of man. When that generation was swept away, and a new World arose from the family of Noah, it might have been expected that the example which had been so recently ex- hibited would have had some effect; but in a little time the same things were acted over again. The story of Nimrod, though brief, affords a specimen of what has been indeed, that the world cannot live in peace. i particular cases occur, and the general good is thought to : clash with private interest, all these reasonings evaporate fellow men. going on in the world ever since. What is the history of nations, but an account of a succession of mighty hunters and their adherents, each of whom, in his day, caused ter- ror in the land of the living 3 The earth has been a kind of theatre, in which one part of mankind, being trained and furnished with weapons, have been employed to de- stroy another; and this, in a great measure, for the grati- fication of the spectators | - Nor is this spirit of discord confined to nations. It pervades, in different degrees, every department of society, civil or religious. If the heavenly plant decay in any connexion, or among any people, this weed will pre- sently spring up in its place. No sooner did the church at Corinth become degenerate in their principles and con- duct, than there were divisions among them. And when the Galatians had corrupted the doctrine of Christ, they required to be warned against “ hatred, variance, emula- which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” Whence is it that this evil spirit proceeds 3 Doomed as men are to innumerable evils during their short re- sidenee upon earth, and to death as the issue, one would think it might excite a sympathy towards each other as fellow sufferers, and a concern to mitigate, rather than to increase, the miseries of their situation. And when such things are viewed generally and abstractedly, there are few men who would not admit so much as this, and wonder, But when like smoke, and the lusts which war in the members bear down every thing before them. The root of the evil lies in our having forsaken God, and become alienated from him. It was the law of our creation, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and soul, and mind, and strength, and thy neighbour as thyself;” and there is a closer connexion between these different branches of the law than we are apt to suppose. If we love God, we shall love our brother also. For a man to fear God was suf- ficient to insure a just, kind, and humane treatment of his But if we cease to love him, we shall not be able to love one another, unless it be for our own sake. It is the love of ourselves only that, in this case, governs us; and this is a principle which, not being subordinate to the love of God, is, of the essence of sin, and tends, in its own nature, to fill, the world with discord. Men form connexions, some on a small, and some on a larger scale; but where self-love is the motive, every thing is expected to be done for their own honour, interest, or happiness; and the same thing being expected on the other side, there is no place for concord. If two persons bear an affectionate good-will to each other as children of the same family, and each seek the good of the other from the pleasure of doing him good, and without so much as thinking that it is to issue in his own advantage, it will issue in his own advantage; and that to a far greater degree than if he had directly sought it ; for God has so constituted things that in seeking an- other’s good we shall find our own. If parents and chil- dren, husbands and wives, feel only for themselves, they will resemble men in a famine, in which “no man spareth his brother;” one snatches on the right hand, and is hun- gry; another eats on the left hand, and is not satisfied. But if they feel one for another—if, like the widow of Zarephath by Elijah, each one be willing to divide his morsel, that morsel becomes seven times more sweet, and God often blesses and increases it till the return of plenty. These remarks are equally applicable to nations as to individuals and families. It is owing to self-love having taken place of the love of God, that treaties of alliance and commerce are so frequently broken. While each party seeks nothing but its own interest, and requires that of the other to give place to it, it is impossible that con- cord should be of any continuance. If such leagues be not at once dissolved, it is merely in consideration of the one party hoping to gain, notwithstanding the selfish- ness of the other, or fearing that greater evils will result from the breach than from the fulfilment of the treaty. 600 SERMONS AND SIKETCHES. But unions on so frigid a principle are unworthy of the Ila.II) e. It is not difficult to perceive what must be-the tendency of such a state of things. Nothing can better express it than the words of the Lord by the prophet, “Lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.” Where the love of God has no place, and self-love is the ruling principle in every department of society, every thing is ripening for destruction. would be as the barren fig tree, and Heaven would say, “Cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?” It were better that there should be no world than such a world as this. II. Consider THE IN EFFICACY OF ALL HUMAN MEANS For THE REMovAL of THESE Evils. The miseries pro- duced in the earth by discord are so serious, that it is be- come the necessary study of the thinking part of mankind to counteract them. Had the love of God ruled in the heart, this had been the cement of the world. been ten thousand times more numerous than they are, this would have bound them all together: but, this prin- ciple being extinct, others of a very inferior nature must be substituted in its place. It is partly by softening the asperities of human nature, and partly by cultivating its most pacific principles, that any thing is effected ; but though these means may diminish the evil, yet they can- not produce any thing like a radical cure. Let us instance in a few particulars :— First, Great things have been done by education. By a course of discipline in early life mankind are taught to avoid all rude and provoking language, and to carry it courteously and respectfully to all about them. Even harsh things, if expressed in soft and gentle terms, will, in a good degree, lose their harshness, and tend to disarm the party of resentment. “A soft answer turneth away wrath, while grievous words stir up anger.” Herein con- sists the difference between barbarous and civilized so- ciety; a difference for which there is great cause for thank- fulness. But, after all, the change which is hereby effected is nearly confined to the surface of things; the real temper of the heart is much the same. The grand study in this science is appearance. speeches are uttered without shame by those who reckon themselves gentlemen; and murder itself is patronized by the laws of honour. It were a difficult question to deter- mine which would be the least friendly to human happi- ness, for the whole world to be sunk into the lowest state of barbarism or raised to these haughty and atheistical motions of honour. Assuredly, this is not the way in which universal peace will be produced on earth. Another principle to which great things also are ascribed is a union of interests. It is an undoubted fact that God, in his providence, has so interwoven the in- terests of mankind that they cannot subsist without each other. We talk proudly of independence; but we are all dependent, both upon God and one another. What would any individual be, if left alone 3. What would a family be, if separated from all other families 3 What would cities be without the country, or the country without cities? Nay, what would nations be, if shut out from all inter- course with other nations? These considerations ought, no doubt, to induce mankind, of all ranks, degrees, and situations, to study the things which make for peace; and to say that they actually have no influence in promoting concord would be saying what is manifestly untrue. To this principle we are indebted for the stifling of thousands of quarrels, which would otherwise burst forth, and render . society intolerable. To this also we are indebted for the suppression of a very large portion of religious hatred. Considering the enmity of wicked men against serious Christians, instead of being surprised at its breaking out so much as it does, we have more reason to be surprised that it breaks out no more. Had not God so bound man- kind together that they cannot obtain their own ends without being civil and kind to others, where there is one instance of bitter persecution, we might expect a hundred; and the same may be said of every other species of mal. levolence. But though such a constitution of things furnishes matter for thankfulness, yet it is utterly inadequate to the If the whole earth were in this state, it Had men . The most bitter and malignant producing of peace on earth, and good-will to men. Stifled animosity is very different from love; the good understanding which arises from it is not peace, but the mere suspension of hostilities for the sake of convenience. It has been said that the only thing necessary to produce universal peace is that mankind be enlightened to know their true interests. Certain it is, that if our true in- terests were known and pursued, we should seek the good of mankind in all that we have to do with them ; but sin, operating in a way of selfishness, blinds the mind, and prompts men to seek their own interest, in opposition to that of others. Such also is the strength of corrupt pro- pensity in men, that in many cases, which must appear to be injurious to themselves as well as others, they will fre- quently give way to it, whatever be the consequence, and even ruin themselves for the sake of ruining their neigh- bours. It is not, therefore, on this ground that we can rationally build our hope of any essential amelioration of the state of mankind. Let us examine a third principle ; namely, government. This is, doubtless, an important blessing to mankind. It is among the means by which God, in his providence, preserves the world in some degree of order. The peace of the governed, so far as it respects one another, is hereby in a measure secured. If a nation were, for one week, or half that time, without law, they would learn, by woeful experience, the value of living under it. The most oppres- sive governments are preferable to a state of anarchy. It may be on this account that even that of Nero afforded no exception to the general doctrine of government being or- dained of God for good. But though order may be pro- duced by human laws and regulations, yet it is chiefly confined to the exterior of human action. And, with re- spect to that, it extends only to a single territory: between one country and another there is no paramount authority to settle their differences. What are termed the laws of na- tions have but little influence when one nation possesses the means of setting them at defiance. It is in vain to deny that the most effective law in the world is power; and as power is constantly varying, the world in one part or other is constantly in a state of warfare. Great con- querors call themselves “benefactors,” and require to be called so, even by the conquered ; and, what is worse, are admired and praised for their exploits in the page of history. But the hopes” which have been entertained of peace pervading the earth by means of government have arisen, not from the thing itself, but from certain forms of it. There is, no doubt, a difference as to these. That form of go- vernment, be it what it may, which contributes most to the administration of substantial justice in a country, and cuts off the motives to war in respect of other countries, is the best : but while men are corrupt, selfish, and ambitious, and possess the means of extending their power, they will never be in want of a plea for disturbing the repose of mankind. To expect them, under such circumstances, to be restrained by forms of their own creating, is expecting too much, and indicates but a slender acquaintance with human nature. A form that should leave no scope for the propensities of a people would be borne away before them in a little time. To banish wars from the earth, there- fore, it is necessary to banish selfishness, ambition, and other corrupt affections, which produce them. Even allowing a nation and its government to be, upon the whole, justly and peaceably disposed ; yet as cases will be always occurring in which its interests will clash with those of other nations, and in which amicable discussion, through the partiality which each side feels for its own cause, fails to produce mutual satisfaction, the consequence will often be a recourse to arms. The principles on which wars are undertaken are, in many instances, the same as those by which two individuals are prompted to fight a duel. They may have no desire to fight, nor to kill each other ; but the laws of honour require them to act as they do | So long, therefore, as these laws, to the exclusion of the laws of God, continue to rule the higher orders of mankind, it is impossible but that wars and fightings will COIn e. But if education, interest, and government fail to pro- duce the desired effect; yet is there no other principle, whose influence shall extend more to the heart, by which PEACEFUL TENDENCY OF THE GOSPEL. 601 it may be accomplished ? If there be, it must be kindred, or relationship. This, I acknowledge, has done great things. By the tender and endearing ties of blood and affinity the asperities of human nature are greatly softened, and God has, in a manner, bound us together. Hence, perhaps, arise the practicability of mankind dwelling to- gether in families. By alliances of this sort, a good understanding is frequently kept up in neighbourhoods, and sometimes between great nations. Though a natural affection is in itself mere animal attachment, and has no- thing morally good in it, yet to be without it argues the perfection of depravity. Nothing short of an habitually wicked heart can extinguish it. If this principle be over- come, there seems to be nothing left in human nature that can withstand the tide of corruption. It is, therefore, with peculiar force and propriety that God, by the prophet, re- presents the depravity of the Jewish nation as having set the hearts of the fathers against their children, and the hearts of the children against their fathers; and, having reached this height, as being incurable by any thing short of a Divine interposition. Strong as are the ties of blood and affinity, yet there are two reasons why universal peace can never be expected to proceed from them. . One is, their influence extends only to a small part of mankind. It is true, we are all akin as creatures, and as having sprung from one common ancestor : this, however, is a consideration that has but little weight among the bulk of mankind. It is only to- wards near relations that the attachment in question is felt. The other is, that, even with respect to that part of man- kind who are nearly related to each other, there is in general no such attachment as to overbalance the selfish affections. The sum is, there is not a principle in human nature from which any rational expectation can be formed of the world ever becoming materially different from what it is. It may be more enlightened; but this will present no sufficient barrier against the tide of corrupt passions, which bears along its stream the educated part of mankind, no less than the uneducated. Man may shift and change into a thousand forms, and may promise himself peace in each of them; but he will not find it. He may attribute his misery to circumstances, and flatter himself that if they were different, all would be well ; the cause, however, is in himself, and is, therefore, sure to accompany him in every situation and condition. He may “change the place, but will keep the pain.” If there were no hope from a higher quarter, the world would be shut up under sin, and have nothing to expect, but to be smitten with the curse. III. Consider THE EFFICACY OF THE Gosper, FoR THE DIFFUSION OF UNIVERSAL PEACE. That which was wrought among the Jews by the preaching of John furnished a specimen of what should be wrought in the world at large by the same means. They who had been disobedient were turned to the wisdom of the just. Repenting of their sins, they believed in the Messiah as at hand; and being thus reconciled to God, they became reconciled to one another; loving and being loved, forgiving and being forgiven. In ascribing these effects to the gospel, we only ascribe to it that which, in its own nature, it is evidently adapted to produce—that which it actually has produced, so far as it has been cordially received—and that which the tenor of Scripture prophecy gives us to expect. 1. The gospel is, in its own nature, evidently adapted to Aroduce peace on earth, and good-will to men. It may, in- deed, be the occasion of contention and bitterness, in unbe- lievers; but this is not its proper effect; it is accidental to it, and reflects no more dishonour upon it than the good works of its Author, which occasioned his being stoned by the Jews, reflected upon him. We have seen already that the root of all the discord in the world is found in mankind having forsaken God: that, therefore, which is the means of bringing them back to God, and that only, will restore concord. It is thus that the root of bitterness is plucked up, and love, the plant of paradise, substituted in its place. We have seen that “wars and fightings” proceed from the “lusts” which War in our members; that, therefore, which teaches us to mortify these lusts removes the causes, and, by so doing, removes the effects. Pride, self-will, and the love of money, are the great sources of those calamities which, in all ages, have deluged the world with misery; but if we believe the gospel, they will be in a good measure dried up, and then the current which has been fed by them must cease to flow. “The work of righteousness shall be peace, and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance for ever.” The gospel is a system in direct opposition to selfishness. It not only enforces a benevolent disposition, but is fraught with principles adapted to promote it. It furnishes the mind with a new set of views and feelings, both toward God and toward man. It tells us of one who, when all other means failed, said, “Lo, I come—to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law is within my heart; ” of one who laid down his life for us, even when we were yet enemies. Now, to imbibe this doctrine, is to become, in a measure, of the same mind. He that is born of God possesses the spirit of little child. “Old things are passed away, and all things are become new.” Laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil-speakings, as a new-born babe he desireth the sincere milk of the word, that he may grow thereby. The gospel also furnishes us with a centre, or bond of wnion. Devoid of this, men are like grains of sand, with- out any principle of adhesion, and must therefore, of ne- cessity, be divided and scattered. The physical strength of a nation is of small account in a time of danger, if they have no standard to repair to, and no leader and com- mander in whom they can place confidence. But a wise and patriotic prince will hold a people together, and in- duce them to love their country and one another the bet- ter for his sake. Such is our Redeemer, and such the love of one another which love to him inspires. Yea, more, it teaches us to love all mankind, from a hope that they may become his friends. Now if such sentiments and feelings were universal, or if only the greater part of mankind possessed them, the world, from being a wilderness, would become a paradise. “Instead of the thorn ?? would come up “the fir tree; and instead of the brier the myrtle tree ; and it would be to the Lord for a name, for an everlasting sign that should not be cut off.” 2. The gospel, so far as it has been cordially received, has actually produced these effects. Isay, cordially received; for it has met with a kind of reception that is not cordial, and to call which believing we must understand the term in a very restricted and partial sense. We have been asked, by unbelievers, “How is it, if Christianity be that pacific system which it professes to be, that Christian nations do not live in peace 3’” We answer, 1. Because a very large proportion of the people who inhabit those nations are Christians only in name. When any question arises be- tween serious Christians and avowed unbelievers, persons of this description commonly prove themselves to be one in heart with the latter, and ought therefore to be classed with them. 2. Because those who believe the doctrine which they profess, and are real Christians, yet do not al- ways act consistently with their profession. These things certainly furnish occasion for the unbelieving part of the world, who seek occasion to stumble at the gospel ; hence a woe is pronounced on the world because of offences, or stumbling-blocks, and a still heavier one on those by whom the offence cometh. Yet, notwithstanding these deductions, Christianity has wrought enough to estab- lish its pacific character. We could tell of myriads who, from being persecutors and injurious, like Saul of Tar- sus, no sooner embraced the gospel than they became other men ; seeking the good of all around them, even of their worst enemies. We could appeal to the pacific spirit and conduct of thousands in our own times, who, in- fluenced by the same principles, seek, by every means in their power, to heal the divisions and alleviate the mise- ries of mankind. If the Christians scattered over bleeding Europe could have healed her, she would have been healed before now. They, as well as other men, may have been engaged in the wars ; and, when called for in defence of their coun- try, it may have been their duty so to do : but they have surely hailed the return of peace; and that not for their own sakes only, but from good-will to men. 602 SERMONS AND SEETCHES. Why should unbelievers load Christianity with the per- secutions, intrigues, and unjust wars which have been carried on in Christendom ; when, if they were disposed to judge righteously, they must allow, not only that the same things existed, and were accompanied with much more ferocity, under the heathen governments; but that what has existed since is not to be ascribed to Christianity, but to the want of it? It was not till the gospel was cor- rupted, and in a manner lost, among those who called themselves the church, that such things occurred. Instead, therefore, of their proving any thing against the pure and peaceful nature of genuine Christianity, they furnish an argument in its favour. The immoralities in the churches at Corinth and in Galatia, when they had corrupted the gospel, were a proof of its moral, rather than of its immoral, tendency. Is it to Christ or to antichrist that the blood which has been shed for the last twelve hundred years, on account of religion, ought to be imputed ? Have the atro- cities committed by Europeans on the shores of Africa, and in other parts of the world, been owing to Christianity, or to the want of it? Let truth and conscience give the anSWer. 3. The tenor of Scripture prophecy gives us to expect far greater effects than those which have yet been produced. The world, like an abandoned sinner, may go on till it is “wearied in the greatness of its way;” but if we believe in God and his prophets, we must conclude that it will not be so always. It was one great end of Christ's coming into the world, to “set judgment in the earth;” and though he have to encounter great opposition, yet shall he “not fail nor be discouraged ” till it be accomplished. The present disorders of the world will assuredly issue in a peaceful and happy state of things. Of this the following, .# many other passages, it is presumed, afford ample proof :— “And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots.—And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithful- ness the girdle of his reins. The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid ; and the calf, and the young lion, and the fatling to- gether ; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain : for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea. And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an en- sign of the people ; to it shall the Gentiles seek, and his rest shall be glorious-The jealousy also of Ephraim shall depart, and the enmity of Judah shall be no more : Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim.—The greaves of the armed warrior in conflict, and the garment rolled in much blood, shall be for a burning, even fuel for the fire.*—For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called . . . . The Prince of peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever: the zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.—In his days shall the righteous flourish ; and abundance of peace so long as the moon endureth.-God be merciful unto us, and bless us ; and cause his face to shine upon us. That thy way may be known upon earth, thy saving health among all nations. Let the people praise thee, O God, let all the people praise thee. Q let the mations be glad and sing for joy: for thou shalt judge the people righteously, and govern the nations upon earth.-And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob ; and he will teach us of his * Lowth's Isaiah. worldly kingdom | ways, and we will walk in his paths; for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plough-shares, and their spears into pruning-hooks: na- tion shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.—As the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater; so shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth : it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. For ye shall go out with joy, and shall be led forth with peace: the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands. Instead of the thorn shall come up the fir tree, and instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle tree; and it shall be to the Lord for a name, for an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off.” There are some who, by refining on the spirituality of Christ’s kingdom, have concluded that things will always continue much the same as they are now ; and that to un- derstand these prophecies as denoting a general spread of the gospel over the various nations of the earth, would be holding with national establishments of religion, and symbolizing with the Jews in their expectation of a If these persons be capable of deriv- ing happiness from such opinions, we need not envy them, nor can we be surprised at their feeling no more inter- est in the conversion of sinners, and taking no more pains to accomplish it, than they have hitherto done. If there be any symbolizing with the carnal Jews on either side, it would seem to consist in that selfish spirit which would confine the gospel to those who already possess it, “forbidding us,” in a manner, “to speak to the Gentiles, that they may be saved.” I have no wish to decide how far the mind of a Christian may be perverted by the in- fatuating influence of hypothesis, nor how far he may be suffered to pervert the word of God in supporting it; but of this I am satisfied, that such notions are in their very essence antichristian. Taking the foregoing passages in their simple and ob- vious meaning, they manifestly predict things which hitherto have had no accomplishment, or at most only a partial one. The earth has not yet been “full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.” God’s “ saving health’” has not yet been so “known among all nations,” as for all the people to form a kind of chorus in his praise. It is not as yet that Christ, as the Head of a spiritual kingdom, “judges” and “governs the nations upon earth.” The time is not yet arrived for “swords to be beaten into plough-shares, and spears into pruning-hooks.” “The garment rolled in blood” has not yet become “a burning, even fuel for the fire.” Christ's reign seems not as yet to have assumed the character of a glorious rest: hitherto, it has borne a greater resemblance to that of David, who was engaged in con- tinual wars, than to that of Solomon, to whom the Lord gave rest on every side, and who was therefore employed in building a temple for his name. It is said of the pro- mises made to Abraham and his posterity, that “the Lord gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers: and they possessed it, and dwelt therein : and that “the Lord gave them rest round about, according unto all that he sware unto their fathers.”— “There failed not aught of any good thing which the Lord had spoken unto the house of Israel: all came to pass.” But if things continue much the same as they now are to the end of time, I do not perceive how this language could apply to the promises made to Christ and the church. In this case, the prophets must have dealt largely in hyperbole, and their words, when reduced to meaning, amount to little in comparison of what they would seem to convey. It is further observable from the foregoing prophecies, that whatever evils may precede the triumph of the gos- pel, yet the thing itself will take place without bloodshed, treachery, intrigue, tumult, or parade. The overturning of those governments which set themselves against the PEACEFUL TENDENCY OF THE GOSPEL. 603 preaching of it may be necessary to prepare the way; and this may be accomplished by wicked men and wicked means : but this will be only as the wind, the earthquake, and the fire, to the still small voice. The noise of ham- mers and axes, though necessary in preparing for the temple, was not to be heard in the building of it. The kingdoms of this world are commonly founded either in violence or in deceit, and often in both ; but that of “the Prince of peace” will correspond with his character: justice and judgment will be the basis of his throne. He himself hath “done no violence,” neither was “any de- ceit in his mouth;” and however he may turn such measures in his enemies to the advantage of his cause, he will never allow his servants to have recourse to them. The peace produced by other conquerors is merely the effect of fear; it is the stillness of the oppressed, who dare not complain, lest their oppression should be in- creased : but the peace promised under the reign of Christ is ascribed to the earth being “filled with the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.” His conquests are those of the heart. His subjects will be such from conviction and choice. The kingdoms of this world are introduced and sup- ported by parade; but it will not be so with the kingdom of Christ. This, as he told the Pharisees, came “not by observation,” or outward show ; neither should they say, “Lo, here, or, Lo, there;” for it was already among them. And thus we may conclude it will come, when it shall fill the whole earth. Men shall not be able to point to this place or that and say, Lo, it is here, or, Lo, it is there; for before they are aware it shall be among them. World- ly men may at the time be pursuing their schemes with such earnestness as to think no more of it than Festus did “ of one Jesus, who was dead, and whom Paul affirm- ed to be alive;” but while they are pursuing their schemes, God will have so pursued his as that they shall find themselves surrounded by it in every direction, and as unable to stop its progress as the Jewish rulers were, when they complained of the apostles for having “filled Jerusalem with their doctrine.” In this silent and im- perceptible way the gospel continued to operate in the early ages, when it was left to its own evidence and the power of the Holy Spirit to recommend it. In the days of Tertullian, that is, in less than two hundred years after the death of Christ, that apologist could tell the Roman senate that it had overspread their empire. “ Your cities, islands, forts, towns, and assemblies; your very camps, wards, companies, palace, senate, forum, all,” said he, “swarm with Christians.” Yet all appears to have been conducted without violence or tumult, save that which was found among unbelievers. We read of the stone cut out of the mountain breaking in pieces the great monarchies of the earth; of the king- doms of this world becoming the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ; of his judging the people righteously, and governing the nations upon earth; and of the king- dom under the whole heaven being given to the people of the saints of the Most High. But it does not follow that governments will be destroyed as governments, but merely as idolatrous or antichristian governments. We have no reason to think that Christ will abolish civil authorities, and set up a government of his own in their stead. His kingdom never was and never will be of this world. If the government of nations, as well as that of lesser societies, be conDUCTED on CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLEs, then will Christ reign; then will the kingdoms of the world become the kingdoms of the Lord and of his Christ; and then may the nations be glad and sing for joy. These principles existing in the hearts of governors and governed, would shortly burst the bands of oppression, still the tumults of the people, and cause wars to cease wnto the ends of the earth; The demon of discord might then be addressed in the language of the psalmist: & O thou enemy destructions are come to a perpetual end ; and thou hast destroyed cities; their memorial is perished with them. But the Lord shall endure for ever; he hath prepared his throne for judgment.” . And now, things being reduced to this peaceful state, instead of the earth being smitten with a curse, we are given to expect that it will be loaded with blessings: “Then shall the earth yield her increase, and God, even our own God, shall bless us.”—“And all the ends of the earth shall fear him.” Nor do I see any objection to the “increase” here predicted being literally understood. It is a fact that, from the day that man departed from God, the earth was cursed with barrenness, in comparison of what it was before; and it is not unnatural to suppose that, when the greater part of men shall have returned to him, this curse may be in a manner removed. At present the system of depravity which prevails among men ren- ders it unnecessary. Sin counteracts the tendency to “increase and multiply” with which we were created. The world is in a manner depopulated by selfishness, in- temperance, and war; and a great part of it inhabited by wild beasts and other noxious creatures. But when men shall know the Lord, and these wide-wasting evils shall subside, population will increase; and he that sends men will amply provide for them : “In that day will I make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven, and with the creeping things of the ground ; and I will break the bow, and the sword, and the battle, out of the earth, and will make them to lie down safely. And I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in loving-kindness, and in mercies: I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness, and thou shalt know the Lord.—And it shall come to pass in that day, I will hear, saith the Lord, I will hear the heavens, and they shall hear the earth, and the earth shall hear the corn, and the wine, and the oil ; and they shall hear Jezreel.” Moreover, at present, the system of depravity which prevails among men would render any considerable in- crease of earthly fulness exceedingly dangerous. There appears to be as much wisdom and goodness as there is justice in the sentence passed on men, to eat bread by the sweat of their faces. Were there no necessity for hard la- bour, every day might be taken up in riot and debauchery. The deeds of the people of Sodom and of the Canaanites might be reacted. The bacchanalian revels which are seen at some of our contested elections (where men can indulge free of expense) afford a specimen of what might be expected, if God, while men are what they are, were to cause the earth to yield her increase. It would be nothing less than furnishing them with the means of being seven times more wicked. But when men shall know the Lord, the danger will have subsided ; and then he will take plea- sure in pouring forth his blessings upon them ; and then, instead of those blessings being abused, as heretofore, they shall tend to recommend the gospel: “God, even our own God, shall bless us. God shall bless us, and all the ends of the earth shall fear him.” Once more, As peace among men will be followed with a blessing on the earth, so peace among Christians will be followed with a blessing on the means of grace. The de- pravity which has hitherto prevailed in the world has, in too great a measure, extended to the church, and wrought much in a way of destroying its fruitfulness. Corruptions have produced divisions, envies, jealousies, and almost every evil work. Hence the blessing of God has been, in a great measure, withheld. We read of great things among the apostles and primitive Christians, and now and then hear of a minister and a people, who, approaching some- what near to their doctrine and spirit, are honoured with a portion of their success; but, in general, we are as “when they have gathered the summer fruits, as the grape- gleanings of the vintage; there is no cluster to eat,” though our souls desire the first-ripe fruit. Now as the carnal notions, envies, and petty discords of the apostles ceased from the time of their Lord’s resurrection, and as “the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul,” so will it be with the whole church of Christ when the Spirit shall be poured out from on high. And then “the earth shall yield her increase,” in a still higher sense. Not only every nation and city, but every town, if not every village, will furnish a church of Christ, “walk- ing in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit.” Then will God, even their own God, bless them, and all the ends of the earth shall fear him. The people of God will be of good comfort, will be of one mind, will live in peace, and the God of love and peace shall be with them! 604 SERMONS AND SKETCHES. From the whole, we may conclude, 1. It becomes Christians to set their hearts much on the spread of the gospel; to pray for it, labour for it, con- tribute of their substance for it; and to rest all their hopes of the amelioration of the state of mankind upon it. Po- litical men may place their hopes on political changes ; but Christians should always remember that “peace on earth and good-will to men’’ connect with “glory to God in the highest ;” and that they are reserved to grace the triumphs of the Prince of peace. 2. It is of infinite importance for us to repent and be- lieve the gospel. So long as any of us are unbelievers, we are under the curse ; and the whole career of our life tends to draw down the curse of Heaven upon us, and upon the earth on which we dwell. We have heard much of the conversion of the Jews and heathens ; but of what account will either be to us, if we ourselves be not converted 3 All the great and good things which the Lord has promised, either in this world or that which is to come, will, if we be unbelievers, only aggravate our misery. . 3. Sinners, even the greatest of sinners, have every en- couragement to repent and believe in Jesus. The invita- tion of Moses to Hobab is the same, for substance, as Christ's servants are now warranted to address to every one they meet : “We are journeying to the place of which the Lord said, I will give it you : come thou with us, and we will do thee good; for the Lord hath spoken good con- cerning Israel.” SERMON XVI. THE RECEPTION OF CHRIST THE TURNING POINT OF SALVATION. “He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.”— John i. 10–12. AMONG the numerous self-deceiving notions which are cherished in the minds of men, is that of their being will- ing to return to God at any time, provided they had op- portunity and the means of doing so. In accounting for their own impenitence and perseverance in sin, they will impute it to their situation, their temptations, their call- ings, their connexions, or to any thing but their evil hearts. Some have even learned to speak evil of their hearts, while it is manifest that they mean to include, under that term, nothing pertaining to intention, desire, or design, but something that exists and operates in them against their inclination. Hence, you will often hear them acknow- ledge themselves to be unconverted, and at the same time express how willing, and desirous they are of being con- yerted, if it would but please God to put forth his power in their favour. The word of God, however, speaks a different language ; while it ascribes all that is good to grace only, it lays the evil at the sinner's own door. A great number of instances might be alleged from the Scriptures in proof of this truth ; but the greatest proof of all is the manner in which Christ himself was treated, when he appeared upon earth. The evangelist, having introduced him to his reader in all the glory of Divinity, describes in plaintive language the neglect and contempt he met with, both from the world in general, and from his own nation in particular. Let us examine these com- plaints. “He was in the world.” It has often been objected, If the religion of Christ has a claim on the world, why has not the world had more of an opportunity to hear it? It might be the design of the evangelist to obviate this objec- tion. His being “in the world” does not seem to refer so much to his personal presence among men, in the days of his flesh, as to those manifestations of him which, from the beginning of the world, had furnished them with the means of knowing him, and which, therefore, rendered their ignorance inexcusable. He had been revealed, at the outset of the world, as the woman’s Seed, who should bruise the head of the serpent. Sacrifices were appointed to prefigure his atonement; which, though perverted, were never discontinued, even among the heathen. The selec- tion of the seed of Abraham, and their miraculous settle- ment in Canaan, must have attracted universal attention ; and as the Messiah was a prominent feature of their re- ligion, he was, in a manner, proclaimed through every na- tion. The effect produced on the mariners, when Jonah told them that he was a Hebrew, and feared JEHow AH, the God of heaven, who made the sea and the dry land, shows very plainly that the displays of omnipotence, in behalf of Israel, were not unknown to the surrounding nations. That, also, which was soon after produced on the Nine- vites, when they learned that he was a Hebrew prophet, sent of God, evinces the same thing. And if they were not ignorant of God’s judgments, they were not destitute of the means of inquiring after the true religion. Nay, more, the expectation of the promised Messiah was, for a long time before he appeared, very general among the na- tions. Had they, therefore, possessed any portion of a right spirit, or any desire after the true God, they would have been as inquisitive as were the wise men of the east, and as desirous as they were of paying him homage. Not only was he in the world, so as to render their ig- norance of him inexcusable, but “the world” itself “was made by him.” . Though, as to the state of their minds, they were far from him, yet he was not far from every one of them ; for in him they lived, and moved, and had their being. When he became incarnate, it was nothing less than their Creator in very deed dwelling with them upon the earth. Such an event ought to have excited universal inquiry, and to have induced all men every where to repent. But though he was in the world, and the world was made by him, yet “the world knew him not tº Full of their own schemes and pursuits, they thought nothing of him. The Roman governors, in hearing the accusations of the Jews against Paul, and his defences, had great op- portunities of knowing the truth; but the ignorance and contempt expressed by Festus, in his report of the matter to Agrippa, show the inefficacy of all means, unless ac- companied with the mighty power of God. The Jews “brought none accusation of such things as he supposed ; but had certain questions against him of their own super- stition, and of one Jesus, which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive ” But this is not the heaviest complaint: “He came unto his own, and his own received him not.” How appropriate are the terms here used . He was in the world, and there- fore within the reach of inquiry. But to the seed of Abra- ham he came, knocking, as it were, at their door for ad- mission ; but “they received him not.” The world are accused of ignorance, but they of unbelief; for receiving him not, though a merely negative form of speech, yet is expressive of a positive refusal of him. Instead of wel- coming the heavenly visitant, they drove him from their door, and even banished him from the earth. Who would have supposed that a people whose believing ancestors had been earnestly expecting the Messiah for a succession of ages would have rejected him when he came among them 3 Yet so it was: and if Jews or deists of the present day ask, “How could these things be 3’’ we answer, It was foretold by their own prophets that he should possess neither form nor comeliness in their eyes, and that when they should see him, there would be no beauty that they should desire him. The consideration of their being his own people, the children of Abraham his friend, added to their sin, and to his affliction. It was this which he so pathetically la- mented, when he “beheld the city, and wept over it, say- ing, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace . But now they are hid from thine eyes.” Grievous, however, as this treatment was to our blessed Lord, he was not utterly disregarded. Though the world in general knew him not, and though the great body of his own nation rejected him ; yet there was “a remnant according to the election of grace,” partly Jews and partly Gentiles, who received him: and whether they had been RECEPTION OF CHRIST THE TURNING POINT OF SALWATION. 605 previously distinguished by their sobriety, or by their pro- fligacy; whether they came in companies, as under Peter's sermon, or as individuals, like her who wept and washed his feet, or him who sought mercy when expiring by his side on the cross; all were received by him, and raised to the highest dignity: “To as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them || that believe on his name.” And thus, though Israel was not gathered, yet Christ was glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and had a people given him from among the heathen. I need not say that the treatment which our Saviour received is the same, for substance, in all ages. There is a world that still knows him not, and many who, though possessed of the means of grace, yet receive him not ; and, blessed be God! there are also many, both Jews and Gen- tiles, who still receive him, and are still blessed with the privilege of being adopted into his heavenly family. That we may understand and feel the importance of the subject, I shall first inquire, What is supposed and included in receiving Christ? Secondly, Consider the great privi- lege annexed to it. And lastly, Observe the wisdom of God in rendering the reception of Christ the great turning point of salvation. I. Let us inquire, WHAT IS suppose D AND INCLUDED IN RECEIVING CHRIST : The phrase is supposed to be equiva- lent with “believing on his name.” To receive Christ is to believe in him ; and to believe in Christ is to receive him. There are some slight shades of difference between these and some other terms which are used to express faith in Christ; such as believing, trusting, receiving, &c., but they must be the same in substance, or they would not be used in the New Testament as convertible terms. Be- lieving seems to respect Christ as exhibited in the gospel testimony ; trusting, as revealed with promise ; and receiv- ing supposes him to be God’s free gift, presented to us for acceptance in the invitations of the gospel; but, as I said, all come to the same issue. He that believeth the testi- mony, trusteth the promise and receiveth the gift ; and the whole is necessary to an interest in his benefits, whether pardon, justification, adoption, or any other spirit- ual blessing. If we were inquiring into the nature of believing, it might be necessary to examine the testimony; if of trust- ing, we must ascertain wherein consists the promise ; and so, if we would form just conceptions of receiving Christ, we must observe what is said of the gift of him ; for each is the standard of the other, and will be found to correspond with it: “So we preached, and so ye be- lieved.” Considering Christ, then, as the gift of God, it is ne- cessary to observe that he is the first and chief of all his gifts, and that for his sake all others are bestowed : “ He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him freely give us all things 3" Other gifts may be so great that nothing in this world can be compared with them ; this, however, is the greatest. It is great for God to forbear with us; greater to forgive us; and greater still to accept and crown us with eternal life : but all this is supposed to be small, in comparison of the gift of his own Son; and therefore it is argued that, hav- ing bestowed the greater, we may trust him for the less. But if God first give Christ, and with him all things freely, we must first receive Christ, and with him all things freely. The first exercise of faith, therefore, does not consist in receiving the benefits resulting from his death, or in a per- suasion of our sins being forgiven, but in receiving Christ; and having received him, we with him receive an interest in those benefits. Hence the propriety of such language as this : “He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.” It is on this principle that union with Christ is repre- sented as the foundation of an interest in his benefits, as it is in the following passages: “Of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteous- ness, and sanctification, and redemption.—There is there- fore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus. —That I may be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.” It is thus in the marriage union, to which that of believers with Christ is compared. As she that is joined to a husband becomes interested in all that he possesses, so they that are joined to Christ are, by the gracious con- stitution of the gospel, interested in all that he possesses. He is heir of all things, and they are joint-heirs with him. The sum is, that receiving Christ is the great turning point of salvation, or that by which we obtain a revealed interest in all the blessings of the gospel. But, more particularly, To receive Christ presupposes a sense of sin, and of our exposedness to the just displeasure of God. It is a great error to hold up a sense of sin as a qualification which gives us a warrant to receive the Sa- viour, and so to consider the invitations of the gospel as addressed to sensible sinners only, as this must neces- sarily teach men to reckon themselves the favourites of God while yet they are in a state of unbelief. But it is no less an error to suppose that any sinner will receive the Saviour without perceiving and feeling his need of him. It is one thing to require a sense of sin as a qualification that gives a warrant to receive the Saviour, and another to plead for it as necessary, in the nature of things, to a compliance with that warrant. What is the reason that Christ is rejected, and the gospel made light of, by the great body of mankind? Is it not, as the Scriptures re- present it, because they are whole in their own eyes, and therefore think they need no physician 3 While men are righteous in their own esteem, the gospel must appear to be a strange doctrine, and the dwelling so much upon Christ, in the ministry of the word, a strange conduct. How is it that the doctrine of salvation by grace, through the atonement of the Son of God, should be so generally opposed, even by nominal Christians?, The reason is the same. Sin is considered as a light thing, a mere frailty or imperfection, unfortunately attached to human nature; and while this is the case, there appears to be no need of a mediator, or at least not of one that is Divine, and who, to atone for sin, should be required to assume humanity and render his life a sacrifice. Hence it is necessary to be convinced of sin in order to receive the Saviour. Much of this conviction may respect only our guilt and danger, and so have nothing spiritually good in it; but in those who, in the end, receive the Saviour, it is not wholly so. There is such a thing as spiritual conviction, or conviction which involves in it an abhorrence of sin, and of ourselves on account of it. Such is that sense of its intrinsically evil mature, or, as the Scriptures speak, of its eacceeding sinfulness, which is produced by a just view of the spirituality and equity of the Divine law. And such is that repentance towards God which is represented as necessary to faith in Christ, and as included in it. We may be convinced of our guilt and danger by an enlightened conscience only, and may be very sorry for our sin, in re- ference to its consequences; but this, though it may be used to prepare the way of the Lord, yet will neither divest the sinner of his self-righteous spirit, nor render him willing to come to Christ, that he may have life; and, instead of issuing in his receiving him, may end in his destruction. A sense of the exceeding sinfulness of sin, on the other hand, tends, in its own nature, to kill a self- righteous spirit, and to induce the sinner to embrace the gospel. It is impossible to have a just sense of the evil of sin, and, at the same time, to object to the way of sal- vation by grace, through a mediator. Again, To receive Christ implies the renunciation of every thing which stands in opposition to him, or comes in competition with him. Viewing Christ as a guest, he stands at the door, and knocks; and why is it kept barred against him Because the sinner has a variety of other guests already in his house, and is aware that, if he enter, they must be dismissed ; and, being reluctant to part with them, he cannot find in his heart, at least for the present, to welcome the heavenly visitant. These guests are not only darling sins, but corrupt principles, flesh-pleasing schemes, and a spirit of self-righteous pride. With these Christ cannot associate. If we receive him, we must reject them; and that not as being forced to it for the sake of escaping the wrath of God, but with all our hearts. Many, considering the necessity of the thing, would will- ingly receive Christ, so that they might retain what is most dear to them; but this being inadmissible, they, 606 SERMONS AND SEETCHES. like him who was nearest of kin to Ruth, decline it, lest they should mar their own inheritance. It was not so with Moses. He had to refuse as well as choose ; and, for the sake of Christ, yea, for the reproach of Christ, he did refuse even the prospect of a crown. Paul had great advantages by birth, and had acquired many more by application ; but when they came in com- petition with Christ, all this gain was counted loss. Nor did he ever repent the sacrifice, but, towards the close of life, declared, saying, “Yea, doubtless, and I count all things but loss, for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord ; for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, and be found in him.” Moreover, To receive Christ is expressive of the exercise, not of one faculty only, but of all the powers of the soul. If it were merely an exercise of the understanding, as dis- tinguished from the will and affections, it would not be properly opposed to a rejection of him, which is manifestly the idea suggested by the term “received him not.” As unbelief includes more than an error in judgment, even an aversion of the heart from Christ and the way of salvation by his death; so faith includes more than an accurate notion of things, even a cordial acceptance of him and the way of salvation by him. Nothing short of this can, with any propriety, be considered as receiving him, or as having the promise of eternal life. Finally, To receive Christ requires not only to be by all in us, but to have respect to all in him. If we receive Christ as the gift of God, we must receive him for all the purposes for which he is given. These purposes may be distinguished, and one may come in order after another ; but they must not be separated. Were it possible to re- ceive him as an atoning sacrifice without yielding ourselves up to his authority, or to yield ourselves up to fils au- thority without relying on his sacrifice, each would be vain; and could both of them be united without sitting at his feet as little children, to be instructed in his will, it were still in vain. The invitation of our Lord, in the eleventh chapter of Matthew, shows both the order and connexion of these things: “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart; and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” The first concern of a sinner is to come to Christ as the Saviour of the lost; but, at what time he does this, he must also take his yoke upon him as his Lord and Lawgiver. Nor is this all; he must take him for his example; learning his spirit, and following his steps. II. Consider THE PRIVILEGE ANNEXED To RECEIVING CHRIST : “To as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God.” The relation of sons seems to be ascribed to believers, in the text and context, on two accounts, viz. their regeneration and their adop- tion. The one is expressed in verse 13, “Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” This consists in a reim- pression of the Divine image, and is introduced to account for some having received Čhrist, while others received him not. The other is denominated a “power,” or privilege, and belongs to our restoration to the Divine favour. It was a high honour, conferred on our species from the beginning, for God to call himself their Father ; an honour extended, as it would seem, to no other part of the lower creation. “His tender mercies,” indeed, “ are over all his works;”, but man was created in his image: “ In the image of God created he him.” Men, therefore, are ranked among the children of the Most High. Nor was it a mere name ; the love of the Creator was truly that of a father. We see this expressed in the strongest manner even in the punishment of the wicked; as though it were against the grain of his native goodness, and as though nothing but a conduct exceedingly offensive could have induced him to do what he did. Such are the ideas in the following passages: “And the Lord said, I will destroy man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth.”—“ He that made them will not have mercy on them, and he that formed them will show them no favour.” And though it sometimes appears as if sin had, in a manner, extinguished his paternal goodness, yet, in exercising mercy through his Son, he still calls to remembrance the original relation : “I will not contend for ever, neither will I be always wroth ; for the spirit should fail before me, and the souls which I have made.” What an evil and bitter thing, then, must sin be, to have induced so good a God to disown us as aliens, and to require that if we be again admitted into his family, it shall be by adoption—a proceeding to which men have recourse when they wish to favour children that are not their own : The kindness of God toward Israel is described as an adoption. Their deplorable condition in Egypt is repre- sented by that of a helpless infant, left to perish in the open field in the day that it was born ; and the favour con- ferred upon them, by the kindness of a benevolent stranger, who, passing at the time, had compassion on it, and adopted it as his own. This, however, though an act of grace, and through a mediator, yet was only a shadow of that blessing which is bestowed on them who believe in Jesus Christ. It separated them from other nations, and conferred on them distinguished privileges, but it ascer- tained no inheritance beyond the grave. This, on the contrary, not only puts us among the children, but gives us “an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away.” The depth of alienation and disgrace from which it takes us, with the height of glory to which it raises us, accounts for that strong language which is more than once used in describing it : “But I said, How shall I put thee among the children —Behold, what man- ner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God . " The adoption of children is reckoned among those spi- ritual blessings wherewith the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ hath blessed them that believe in him, having predestinated them to it by Jesus Christ unto him- self, according to the good pleasure of his will. With all other spiritual blessings, its bestowment is in consequence of our having been predestinated to it; but the thing itself, like justification, is a blessing of time, and follows on be- lieving. It were absurd to speak of our being predesti- nated to that which was, in itself, eternal. The privilege itself is held up as an inducement to forsake the family of Satan, and be separated from them : “Come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,-and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.” But the connexion between receiving Christ and having power to become the sons of God is designed to mark not only the order of time, but that of nature; or to show the influence of the one upon the other : we “are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” This is exactly the same language as is used of our justification : and the blessing is obtained in the same way ; not in reward of the act of believing, but out of respect to him in whom we believe. He that believeth on the Son is joined or united to him, and, as such, by the constitution of the covenant of grace, becomes interested in all its benefits. It is thus that we are justified by faith, and it is thus that we are adopted. Christ, in reward of his obedience unto death, is appointed “heir of all things;” and we, receiv- ing him, are received into God’s family for his sake, and become “joint-heirs” with him. Such is the delightful harmony of the gospel, and such the way in which “the adoption of children” is “ by Jesus Christ to himself,”— “...to the praise of the glory of his grace.” Regeneration gives us a new nature; and adoption adds to it a new name, even that of sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty. Nor is it a mere name ; for the richest blessings both in this world and that which is to come are attached to it. Of these we may reckon the following as the principal:— 1. Access to God as our own God and Father. During our unbelief, whatever were our necessities or troubles, we had no access to God. Though under the pangs of woe we might cry for mercy, yet it was unavailing. How should it be otherwise, when we set at nought the only name by which a sinner can be introduced, and his cause obtain a hearing 3 But, believing in Jesus, we draw near to God, and God to us. The term 'trowgatywyn, ren- dered access, in Eph. iii. 12, signifies as much as introduc- t RECEPTION OF CHRIST THE TURNING POINT OF SALVATION. 607 tion, manuduction, or a being taken by the hand, as one who is introduced to the king by a third person ; teaching us that we cannot be admitted to the Divine presence by ourselves. While obedient we had free access to our Creator; but, having sinned, the door is shut upon us, and not a child of Adam can see his face, but as introduced by the Mediator. As Job's friends, whose folly had of- fended the Divine Majesty, were required to bring their offerings to Job, that he as a mediator might present them and pray for the offenders, so it is with us in drawing near to God. All our offerings must be presented by the great and gracious Intercessor. Him will God accept. Coming in his name, we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him. The spirit which is congenial with the gospel dispensation is not that of bondage, that we should be held in slavish fear, but that of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father; and if we do not actually possess it, it is because we are wanting to ourselves. A promise is left us of entering into rest, of which if we seem to come short, it is owing to unbelief. Did we but act up to our privileges, guilt would not lie rankling on our con- sciences in the manner it often does, nor would care cor- rode our peace, nor morbid melancholy eat up our enjoy- ments. Having God for our Father, we should confess our sins to him, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son would cleanse us from all sin; we should cast all our care on him who careth for us; we should be inordinately “care- ful for nothing, but in every thing, by prayer and suppli- cation with thanksgiving, let our requests be made known unto God; ” and the effect would be, that “the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, would keep our hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.” 2. Access to all the ordinances of God's house, and to the fellowship of his people. From being “strangers and foreigners,” we become “fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God.” The church of God is here described as a city and as a household. As a city, God is a wall of fire round about her, and the glory in the midst of her, blessing her provision, and satisfying her poor with bread. To be made free of this city is no small favour. As a household, God is the Father of it ; and as many as receive Christ receive power to become its mem- bers, and to share in all the privileges of the family. There are believers, no doubt, whose situation does not admit of these social advantages, and others who are pre- vented by something amiss in the state of their own minds from embracing them ; but such do not excel in spiritu- ality or in usefulness. It is as being planted in the house of the Lord that we may hope to flourish in the courts of our God. 3. A part in the first resurrection. The resurrection of the saints is called “the manifestation of the sons of God; ” “the glorious liberty of the children of God;” “the adop- tion ;” “the redemption of our body.” It is the grand jubilee of the church, and even of the creation. Till then the former as well as the latter will be held under a degree of bondage, as being yet subject to the effects of sin: but then Christ's promise shall be fulfilled, “I will raise them up at the last day;” and the deliverance of the saints will be the signal for that of the creation, which during the apostacy has been unwillingly compelled to sub- serve its Creator's enemies, and which is therefore repre- sented as waiting for and earnestly expecting the moment of deliverance. The last enemy being then destroyed, the war will be ended : death will be swallowed up in victory. 4. An interest in the eternal inheritance. The natural inference from this Divine relation is this : “If children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glori- fied together.” With such thoughts our minds are over- whelmed, and no wonder ; for an inspired apostle had no adequate conception of it: “Beloved,” says he, “now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that when he shall appear we shall be like him ; for we shall see him as he is.” Such are the leading privileges included in the power of becoming the sons of God, which are sufficient to show, that though many reject the Saviour, yet it is not for want of kindness on his part towards those who accept of him. III. Let us observe THE wisDom of GoD IN RENDER- ING THE RECEPTION OF CHRIST THE TURNING PoinT of SALVATION. When a person who neither understands nor believes the gospel way of salvation thinks on the subject, it must appear to him a strange thing that so much should be made of Christ in the New Testament, and of faith in him. He has no conception of it, or of the reason why it should be so. It was thus that the gospel was “unto the Jews a stumbling-block and unto the Greeks foolish- ness; to them that believed, however, it was “the power of God, and the wisdom of God.” There are three things in particular in which the wisdom of God appears in this adjustment of things. 1. It accords with the leading design of God in the gospel; namely, to glorify his character and government in the salvation of sinners. Receiving Christ, as we have seen already, is the corresponding idea to his being given, and that which answers to it, as the loops and taches of the tabernacle answered to each other. If the gift of Christ, on God’s part, was necessary to secure the honour of his character and government in showing mercy, the receiving of him, on our part, must also be necessary, as belonging to the same proceeding. Without this, the gift would not answer its end. Hence, though God, through the propi- tiation of his Son, is just and a justifier; yet it is of him only that believeth in Jesus. If, instead of receiving Christ as God’s free gift, and eternal life with him, we had received favour irrespective of him, God, so far as we can conceive, must have com- promised his honour. To show favour to a sinner in the way he wishes, that is, in reward of what he calls his good works, would be consenting to vacate his throne at the desire of a rebel. It would be agreeing not only to pass over his past disobedience, and so to render null and void his own precepts, warnings, and threatenings, but to ac- cept, in future, of just such obedience, and such a degree of it, as it suited his inclination to yield : “Offer it now unto thy governor, will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person 4 saith the Lord of hosts.” But, in receiving Christ, we acquiesce in the whole sys- tem of salvation by his death, as glorifying the character and government of God; we subscribe to the great evil of sin, and to the justice of our condemnation on account of it; we become of the same mind with Christ, and, in our measure, stand affected as he does toward God and man, and sin and righteousness. That law which was within his heart is written in ours. Thus it is that God and his government are glorified, not only by the gift of Christ to be a sacrifice, but in the reception of him, as such, by the believing sinner. 2. It secures the honours of grace. If, instead of re- ceiving Christ as God's free gift, and eternal life through him, we had received favour irrespective of him, we should have considered ourselves as having whereof to glory. It would have appeared to us, as it does and must appear to every one that hopes to be saved without an atonement, that the Almighty has no right to expect perfect obedi- ence from imperfect creatures ; that there is no such great evil in sin as that it should deserve everlasting punish- ment; that if God were to be strict to mark iniquity, ac- cording to the threatenings of the Bible, he would be un- just ; and, therefore, that in showing mercy he only makes just allowance for the frailties of his creatures, and acts as a good being must needs act. Thus it is that the very idea of grace is excluded, and the sinner feels himself on terms with his Creator. But in receiving Christ, and sal- vation through his death, these imaginations are cast down, and all such high thoughts subdued to the obedience of Christ. He that has been disputing with his Maker for a number of years, at once finds the ground sink under him, all his arguments answered, and himself reduced to the character of a supplicant at the feet of his offended Sovereign. It is as hard a thing for a proud and carnal heart to re- ceive Christ, and salvation by grace through him, as it is to keep the whole law. If, therefore, we expect the good news of the gospel to consist in something more suited to the inclinations, and not merely to the condition of sin- ners, we shall be disappointed. It is said of a certain character, who some years since was banished from this 608 SERMONS AND SKETCHES. country for attempting to revolutionize it after the exam- ple of France, that he was offered a free pardon if he would only acknowledge his fault and petition the throne; but he could not do it ! Such is the inability of men to re- ceive the Saviour; and herein consists the damming sin of unbelief. If our spirit were brought down to our situation, as sinners, the most humiliating truths of the gospel, instead of offending us, would appear to be right, and wise, and glorious. We should feel that the dust was our proper place; or rather, if we had our deserts, the pit of perdi- tion. We should consider ourselves as lying at the abso- lute discretion of God : instead of being stumbled at such an assertion of the Divine sovereignty as that addressed to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compas- sion,” we should cordially subscribe it, and supplicate mercy only on that principle. And when we had obtained it, we should never think of having made ourselves to dif- fer, but freely acknowledge that it is by the grace of God that we are what we are. Our minds would be in per- fect unison with the language of the apostle to Timothy : “Who hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own pur- pose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus, before the world began.” 3. It provides for the interests of holiness. In receiving Christ, and salvation through him, we receive a doctrine that strikes at the very root of depravity. “The Son of God was manifested that he might destroy the works of the devil; ” he, therefore, that receives him must thence- forth be at variance with them. We are not only justi- fied, but sanctified, by the faith that is in him. The doc- trine of the cross, while.it gives peace to the conscience, purifies the heart. There is not a principle in it but what, if felt and acted upon, would cause the world to be dead to Us, and us unto the world. The objections, there- fore, that are made to this doctrine, as being unfriendly to holiness, have no foundation in the doctrine itself, whatever may be seen in the lives of some that profess it. From the whole, The first concern of a sinner is to receive the Saviour. It ought to be no question whether he may receive him, since the gospel is addressed to every creature, and its invitations to the “stout-hearted and far from righteousness.” The only question is whether he be willing to receive him. To a spectator, unacquainted with the depravity of human nature, it must be beyond measure surprising that this should be a question ; and, indeed, few men can be convinced that it is ; yet if it were not, there would be no difficulty in receiving him. “Why do ye not understand my speech 3 Because ye can- not hear my word;” that is, because ye are averse from it. But no man will be able to excuse this his aversion, which is itself sin. The Judge of all the earth makes no allowance for it, nor for its not having been removed by Divine grace. Grace is never represented in the Scrip- tures as necessary to our accountableness; but as a free gift, which God might justly withhold. It is deemed suf- ficient to justify the condemnation of sinners, that they were averse from the gospel and government of Christ: “Take these mine enemies, that would not that I should reign over them, and slay them before me.” Should it be objected that these principles must tend to drive a sinner to despair; I answer by asking, What sin- ner 3 Not him whose desires are toward the Saviour; not him whose prayer is, “Turn thou me, and I shall be turned :” if any, it must be him who has no desire after God ; and, even in his case, the despair is not absolute, but merely on supposition of his continuing in that state of mind. But this, to him, is most necessary; for, till a sinner despair of obtaining mercy in the way he is in, he will never fall at the feet of sovereign grace, and so will never be saved. As he that would be wise must first be- come a fool that he may be wise ; so he that layeth hold of the hope set before him in the gospel must first relin- quish his hopes from every other quarter. SERMON XVII. ON JUSTIFICATION, “Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.”—Rom, iii. 24. THE doctrine expressed in this passage runs through the Epistle, and constitutes the scope of it. It is taught in many other parts of Scripture, but here it is established by a connected body of evidence. Both heathens and Jews are proved to be under sin, and, consequently, in- capable of being justified, by a righteous God, on the ground of their own obedience. As to the former, they were wicked in the extreme. If any thing could have been alleged in excuse of them, it had been their ignor- ance; but even this failed. They had means of knowledge sufficient to render them “without excuse;” but having neglected them, and cast off God, God gave them up to their own corrupt affections and propensities; so that even the philosophic Greeks and Romans were “full of all ungodliness and unrighteousness, holding,” or rather' withholding, “the truth,” which they understood above the common people, “ in unrighteousness.” But if heathens could not be justified, yet did not they who had the oracles of God stand on higher ground ! Not so ; for those very oracles describe men as “all gone out of the way,” as having become “unprofitable,” as none of them “doing good, no, not one ;” and what revelation says it says of them who were under the light of it. Israel, therefore, was a part of the corrupt mass. The sum is, “Every mouth is stopped, and all the world become guilty before God.—By the deeds of the law no flesh living can be justified in his sight.” These sentiments, contained in the first three chapters of the Epistle, make way for the following interesting statement: “But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that be- lieve ; for there is no difference : for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God: being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the for- bearance of God; to declare, I say, at this time his right- eousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him who believeth in Jesus.” I call this an interesting statement ; for, of all the questions that can occupy the human mind, there is none of greater importance than that which relates to the way of acceptance with God. We learn from our own con- sciences, as well as from the Scriptures, that we are ac- countable creatures; but how we shall stand before the holy Lord God is a question that overwhelms us. If there were no hope from the gospel, we must despair. We must appear before the judgment-seat, but it would be only to be convicted and condemned. The doctrine, therefore, that shows a way in which God can be just, and yet a justifier, must be interesting beyond expres- sion. This is, in substance, the good news to be pro- claimed to every creature. Justification by grace has been thought by some to be inconsistent with justification through the atonement and righteousness of Christ. Yet it is here expressly said to be of grace; and, as though that were not enough, freely by grace : nor is the sacred writer less express concern- ing its meritorious cause than concerning its source or origin: it was not only of free grace, but “through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus.” In every kind of justification in which justice is regard- ed there is some ground, or reason, for the proceeding. In ordinary cases, among men, this ground, or reason, is found in the character of the prisoner. He is considered as innocent, and therefore is acquitted. In the justifica- tion of a sinner by the Judge of all, it is “ the redemp- tion which is in Christ Jesus.” That which innocence is to the one, the redemption of Christ is to the other: it ON JUSTIFICATION. 609 is his righteousness, or that in consideration of which, being imputed to him, he is justified. In discoursing upon this great subject, I shall endeavour to ascertain the meaning of the term—to give proof of the doctrine—and to show the consistency of its being of free grace, and yet through the redemption of Jesus Christ. I. LET Us ENDEAvour. To AscERTAIN THE MEANING of THE TERM JUSTIFICATION. Many errors on this import- ant subject may be expected to have arisen from the want of a clear view of the thing itself. Till we understand what justification is, we cannot affirm or deny any thing concerning it, but with great uncertainty. It is not the making a person righteous by an inherent change from sin to righteousness, this is sanctification ; which, though no less necessary than the other, yet is distinguished from it: Christ “is made unto us righteous- ness and sanctification.” The term is forensic, referring to the proceedings in a court of judicature, and stands opposed to condemnation. This is evident from many passages of Scripture, particularly the following: “He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord.-The judgment was by one to condemnation ; but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.—There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.-- It is God that justifieth : who is he that condemneth ?— He that believeth on him that sent me hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation ; but is passed from death unto life.” If a prisoner who stands charged with a crime be convicted of it, he is condemned; if other- wise, he is acquitted, or justified. But though it be true that the term is forensic, and stands opposed to condemnation, yet, as in most other in- stances in which the proceedings of God allude to those of men, they are not in all respects alike. He that is justified in an earthly court (unless it be for want of evidence, which cannot possibly apply in this case) is con- sidered as being really innocent; and his justification is no other than an act of justice done to him. He is acquit- ted, because he appears to deserve acquittal. This, how- ever, is not the justification of the gospel, which is “ of grace, through the redemption of Jesus Christ.” Justifi- cation, in the former case, in proportion as it confers honour on the justified, reflects dishonour on his ac- cusers; while, in the latter, the justice of every charge is admitted, and no dishonour reflected on any party except himself. Justification among men is opposed not only to condemnation, but even to pardon ; for, in order to this, the prisoner must be found guilty, whereas, in justifica- tion, he is acquitted as innocent. But gospel justifica- tion, though distinguishable from pardon, yet is not op- posed to it. On the contrary, pardon is an essential branch of it. Pardon, it is true, only removes the curse due to sin, while justification confers the blessing of eter- nal life; but, without the former, we could not possess the latter. He that is justified requires to be pardoned, and he that is pardoned is also justified. Hence a blessing is pronounced on him whose iniquities are forgiven ; hence also the apostle argues from the non-imputation of sin to the imputation of righteousness; considering the blessedness of him to whom God imputeth not sin as a description of the blessedness of him to whom he imputeth righteousness without works. Finally, justification, at a human bar, prevents condemnation; but gospel justifica- tion finds the sinner under condemnation, and delivers i. from it. It is described as a “passing from death to ife.” From these dissimilarities, and others which I doubt not might be pointed out, it must be evident, to every thinking mind, that though there are certain points of likeness, sufficient to account for the use of the term, yet we are not to learn the Scripture doctrine of justification from what is so called in the judicial proceedings of human courts, and, in various particulars, cannot safely reason from one to the other. The principal points of likeness respect not the grounds of the proceeding, but the effects of it. Believing in Jesus, we are united to him; and, being so, are treated by the Judge of all as one with him ; his obedience unto death is imputed to us, or reckoned as ours; and we, for his sake, are delivered from condemnation as though we had been innocent, and entitled to eternal life as though we had been perfectly obedient. But let us further inquire, What is gospel justification ? Alluding to justification in a court of judicature, it has been common to speak of it as a sentence. This sentence has been considered, by some divines, as passing—first, in the mind of God from eternity; secondly, on Christ and the elect considered in him when he rose from the dead; thirdly, in the conscience of a sinner on his believing. Justification by faith, in the view of these divines, denotes either justification by Christ the object of faith, or the manifestation to the soul of what previously existed in the mind of God. Others, who have been far from holding with justifica- tion as a decree in the Divine mind, have yet seemed to consider it as a manifestation, impression, or persuasion in the human mind. They have spoken of themselves and others as being justified under such a sermon, or at such an hour; when all that they appear to mean is, that at such a time they had a strong impression, or persuasion, that they were justified. In respect of the first of these statements, it is true that justification, and every other spiritual blessing, was in- cluded in that purpose and grace which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began ; but as the actual bestowment of other blessings supposes the existence of the party, so does justification. Christ was “raised again for our jus- tification,” in the same sense as he died for the pardon of our sins. Pardon and justification were virtually obtained by his death and resurrection; and to this may be added, our glorification was obtained by his ascension; for we were not only “quickened together with him,” and “raised up together,” but “made to sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” But as this does not prove that we were, thenceforth, actually glorified, neither does the other prove that we were actually pardoned or justified. Whatever justification be, the Scriptures represent it as taking place on our believing in Christ. It is not any thing that belongs to predestination, but something that inter- venes between that and glorification. “Whom he did predestimate, them he also called ; and whom he called, them he also justifted; and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” That which the Scriptures call justification is by faith in Jesus Christ ; and is sometimes spoken of as future, which it could not be if it were before our actual existence. For example: “Seeing it is one God who shall justify the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith.-Now it was not written for Abraham's sake alone, that it was imputed to him ; but for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead.—The Scripture fore- seeing that God would justify the heathen through faith,” &c. If justification were God’s decree finally to acquit, condemnation must be his decree finally to condemn. But every unbeliever, whether elect or non-elect, is under condemnation, as the Scriptures abundantly teach ; con- demnation, therefore, cannot be God's decree finally to condemn. Saul of Tarsus, while an unbeliever, was under condemnation, yet God had “not appointed him to wrath, but to obtain salvation by Jesus Christ.” The sum is, that neither condemnation nor justification consists in the secret purpose of God, but in his will as revealed, or de- clared, as by a sentence in open court. And as justification is not a purpose in the Divine mind, neither is it a manifestation to, an impression on, or a per- swasion of the human mind. That there are manifestations to believers is admitted. God manifests himself unto them as he does not unto the world. The things of God, which are hidden from the wise and prudent, are revealed to them. But these are not things which were previously locked up in the Divine purposes, but things which were already revealed in the Scriptures, and which were pre- viously hidden from them, as they still are from unbe- lievers, by their own criminal blindness. God does not reveal his secret counsels to men, otherwise than by ful- filling them. To pretend to a revelation, or manifestation, of that which is not contained in the Scriptures, is pre- tending to be inspired in the same extraordinary manner as were the prophets and apostles. 2 R 610 SERMONS AND SEETCHES. If justification consist in a manifestation, impression, or persuasion that we are justified, condemnation must be a like impression, or persuasion, that we are condemned ; but this is not true. The Jews who opposed Christ were under condemnation; yet so far from being impressed, or persuaded, of any such thing, they had no doubt but God was their Father. Believers in Jesus, on the other hand, may, at times, be impressed with strong apprehensions of Divine wrath, while yet they are not exposed to it. Neither jus- tification, therefore, nor condemnation, consists in a per- suasion of the mind that we are under the one or the other. Besides, to make a thing consist in a persuasion of the truth of that thing is a palpable absurdity. There can be no well- grounded persuasion of the truth of any thing, unless it be true and evident antecedently to our being persuaded of it. Justification is a relative change, not in, or “pon, but concerning us. It relates to our standing with respect to God, the Lawgiver and Judge of all. It is “passing from death to life,” in respect of the law ; as when the sentence against a malefactor is not only remitted, but he is, withal, raised to honour and dignity. It is our standing acquitted by the revealed will of God declared in the gospel. As “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven” in the curses of his law, so “the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith,” in the declarations of the gospel. this revelation of the mind of God in his word, I conceive, that the sentence both of condemnation and justification consists. He whom the Scriptures bless is blessed ; and he whom they curse is cursed. As transgressors of the holy, just, and good law of God, we are all, by nature, children of wrath. All the threat- enings of God are in full force against us, and, were we to die in that condition, we must perish everlastingly. This is to be under condemnation. But condemnation, awful as it is, is not damnation. The sentence is not executed, nor is it irrevocable : “God-so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” Hence, the sinner stands in a new relation to God as a Lawgiver. He is no longer “under the law, with respect to its condemn- ing power, but “under grace.” As the manslayer, on having entered the city of refuge, was, by a special con- stitution of mercy, secure from the avenger of blood; so the sinner, having “fled for refuge to lay hold on the hope set before him,” is, by the gracious constitution of the gospel, secured from the curse. All those threatenings which belonged to him heretofore no longer stand against him ; but are reckoned, by the Judge of all, as having been executed on Jesus his substitute, who was “made a curse for us.” On the other hand, all the blessings and promises in the book of God belong to him, and, die when he may, eternal life is his portion. This is that state into which every believer is translated, on his becoming a believer; and herein, I conceive, consists the blessing of justification. There are a few points pertaining to the subject which Yet require illustration; namely, 'What it is, in the re- demption of Christ, to which the Scriptures ascribe its €fficacy—What is the concern of faith in justification, and why it is ascribed to this grace, rather than to any other— Finally, Whether justification includes the pardon of our Sins, past, present, and to come. 1. Let us inquire, What it is, in the redemption of Christ, to which the Scriptures ascribe its EFFICAcy. Justifica- tion is ascribed to his blood, and to his obedience. By the blood of Christ is meant the shedding of his blood, or the laying down of his life ; and by his obedience, all that conformity to the will of God which led to this great crisis. He was “obedient unto death.” By the death of Christ sin is said to be “purged,” or expiated; and sinners to be “redeemed,” “reconciled,” and “cleansed from all sin;” and by his obedience many are said to be “made right- cous.” This his obedience unto death was more than the means of Salvation ; it was the procuring cause of it. Sal- vation was the effect of the “travail of his soul.” Wé may be instruments in saving one another; but Christ was “the author of eternal salvation.” “ The principle of substitution, or of one standing in the place of others, * The redemption of Christ may, indeed, be considered as a means, or medium, in respect of the first cause. Thus, in the text, it stands distinguished from grace: that is the source whence it sprang; this It is in being admitted by the Sovereign of the universe, he en- ‘dured that which in its effect on the Divine government was equivalent to the everlasting punishment of a world, and did that which it was worthy of God to reward with eternal glory, not only on himself, but on all those on whose behalf he should intercede. What is there, then, in this his obe dience unto death, that should render it capable of pro- ducing such important effects 3 To this question the Scriptures make answer, as follows: We are “redeemed— with the precious blood of Christ.—The blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanseth us from all sin.-Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his per- son, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself” expiated “our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.” If there be any meaning in language, the efficacy of the sufferings and work of Christ is here ascribed to the dignity of his per- son ; and that dignity amounts to nothing short of his proper Deity. The Scriptures often ascribe the miracles of Christ, the strength by which he was borne up in his sufferings, and his resurrection from the dead, to the power of the Father; for, being “in the form of a servant,” it was fit that he should be supplied, and supported, and vindicated by HIM whose servant he was ; but when the value, or virtue, of his interposition is spoken of, it is ascribed to the intrinsic glory of his person, as the Son of God. We inquire, 2. What is the concern of FAITH in justification, and why it is ascribed to this grace, rather than to any other. Were we to conceive of the gospel as a new “remedial law,” and of faith as the first principle of obedience con- stituting the condition of it, or that which God graciously consented to accept as the term of justification, instead of a perfect conformity to the old law, we should be greatly beside the gospel plan. The gospel plan of justification excludes boasting, and that is excluding works ; but jus- tification, on this principle, excludes not works, but merely works of a certain description. There is, on this principle, a law that can, give life; and righteousness, after all, is by law. If we are justified by any doings of our own, whatever they are, we have whereof to glory. Whether we call them legal or evangelical, if they be the considera- tion on which we are forgiven and accepted, we are not justified freely by grace, and boasting is not excluded. It is said to be “ of faith that it might be by grace.” There must, therefore, be something in the nature of faith which peculiarly corresponds with the free grace of the gospel; something which looks out of self, and receives the free gifts of Heaven as being what they are—pure un- deserved favour. We need not reduce it to a mere exer- cise of the intellectual faculty, in which there is nothing holy; but whatever holiness there is in it, it is not this, but the obedience of Christ, that constitutes our justifying righteousness. Whatever other properties the magnet may possess, it is as pointing invariably to the north that it guides the mariner; and whatever other properties faith may possess, it is as receiving Christ, and bringing us into union with him, that it justifies. In order to be interested in justification, and other blessings arising from the obedience and death of Christ, we must first be interested in Christ himself; for it is as Having the Son that we “have everlasting life.” The benefits of Christ’s obedience unto death require to be received in the same order as that in which they are given. As God first gives HIM, so we must first receive HIM, and with him all things freely. Many would wish for the benefits of Christ's death, who yet have no desire after Christ. Like him that was nearest of kin to the family of Elimelech, they would, on various accounts, be pleased with the inheritance ; but when it is understood that, in order to possess it, they must take him with all that per- tains to him, and that this would mar their present in- heritance, they give it up. - - Thus it is that justification is ascribed to faith, because it is by faith that we receive Christ; and thus it is by faith only, and not by any other grace. Faith is peculiarly a receiving grace, which none other is. Were we said to the medium through which it flows. The redemption of Christ is not the cause of the Father's grace; but that in consideration of which it is exercised, ; ON JUSTIFICATION. 6II be justified by repentance, by love, or by any other grace, it would convey to us the idea of something good in us being the consideration on which the blessing was be- stowed; but justification by faith conveys no such idea. On the contrary, it leads the mind directly to Christ, in the same manner as saying of a person that he lives by begging, leads to the idea of his living on what he freely receives. It is thus that justification stands connected, in the Scriptures, with union with Christ: “Of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us—righteousness.” —“There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.”—“That I may be found in him, not having mine own righteousness which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.” From these and other passages, we perceive that faith justifies, not in a way of merit, not on account of any thing in itself, be it what it may, but as uniting us to Christ. It is that which the act of mar- riage is on the part of a female ; by it she becomes one with her husband, and (whatever might be her former poverty) legally interested in all that he possesses. Having him, she has all that is his. God,” not in their own right, but as “joint-heirs with him.” And as, in a marriage union, the wealth which an indigent female might derive from the opulence of her husband would not be in reward of her having received him, so neither is justification the reward of faith, but of the righteousness which is of God by faith. Great things are ascribed to faith, in a way of healing. Many of the miraculous cures performed by our Lord are ascribed to the faith of the parties. The virtue, however, proceeded not from faith, but from him. It is the same in justification. By faith we receive the benefit; but the benefit arises not from faith, but from Christ. Hence the same thing which is ascribed in some places to faith is in others ascribed to the obedience, death, and resurrection of Christ. 3. We inquire, Whether justification includes the pardon of our sins, past, present, and to come. That it includes the pardon of sin has been proved already from Rom. iv. 6, 7 ; and seeing it is promised of him that believeth that he “shall not come into condemnation,” it must, in some way, secure the pardon of all his sins, and the possession of eternal life. Yet, to speak of sins as being pardoned before they are repented of, or even committed, is not only to maintain that on which the Scriptures are silent, but to contradict the current language of their testimony. If all our sins, past, present, and to come, were actually forgiven, either when Christ laid down his life, or even on our first believing, why did David speak of “confessing his transgression,” and of God “forgiving his iniquity?” Why did Solomon teach us that “he that confesseth and forsaketh his sin shall find mercy?” Why did our Lord direct us, in our daily prayers, to say, “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors?” and why add, “If ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your hea- Yenly Father forgive your trespasses?” Finally, why did the apostle John teach us that “if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness º' Nor is it sufficient to understand this language of mani- Jestation of forgiveness to the mind. Forgiveness is not opposed to merely withholding the comforts of religion, but to laying our sins to our charge. The parable of the servant who took his fellow servant by the throat, and was delivered by his lord to the tormentors, is thus applied by our Lord, “So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.” This, undoubtedly, means more than withholding a sense of forgiveness in the present life. Nor is there any thing in all this inconsistent with the certain perseverance of true believers, or with the promise that they “shall not come into condemnation.” The truth taught us in this promise is not that if, after be- lieving in Christ, we live in sin and die without repent- ance, we shall, nevertheless, escape condemnation; but that provision is made, on behalf of believers, that they shall not live in sin; and when they sin, that they shall 2 R 2 - Thus it is that, Christ being || “heir of all things,” believers in him become “heirs of | not die without repentance, but return to God, and so obtain forgiveness. The promise of non-condemnation includes that of repentance and perseverance : “I will put my law in their hearts, and they shall not depart from me.” We may think that if the Lord has appointed us to ob- tain salvation by Jesus Christ, whatever be our conduct, he will never threaten us with any thing beyond a severe chastisement; but Christ did not act in this manner to- wards his disciples. He not only gave the unforgiving to expect no forgiveness at the hand of God, but enforced the giving up of that which “caused them to offend,” though it were as dear as a right hand or a right eye, on pain of being “cast into hell-fire : " He allowed no one, while in an evil course, to take it for granted that he was, nevertheless, a good man ; but pointed him to the end whither that course, if persisted in, would lead him. Warnings are as necessary, in some circumstances, as en- couragements are in others; and their being enforced on pain of eternal destruction may be the appointed means of saving us from it. SERMON XVIII. ON J USTIFICATION, “Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.”—Rom. iii. 24. HAVING shown what I conceive to be meant by justifica- tion, I proceed to the next head of discourse; namely, II. To OFFER. Evid ENCE. IN SUPPORT of T.H.E. DocTRINE ; OR TO PROVE THAT WE ARE NOT JUSTIFIED BY ANY WORKS OF OUR OWN, BUT OF FREE GRACE, THROUGH THE REDEMP- TION OF JESUS CHRIST. There are but two ways in which creatures can be justified before God: one is by works, the other by grace. If we had been obedient to the holy, just, and good Iaw of our Creator, that obedience would have been our righteousness, and we should have been justified on the ground of it; for “the man that doeth these things shall live by them.” But having all sinned, we have come short of the glory of God. Instead of gaining his favour, we stand exposed to his righteous curse; for thus it is written, “ Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law, to do them.” We need not, on this subject, inquire into the degrees of evil, or whether we have gone greater lengths in sin than other men; for if we had only broken one of God’s right- eous commandments, that were an everlasting bar to our justification. As well might a murderer plead in arrest of judgment that he had killed only one man. The number of our sins will, doubtless, heighten the degrees of punish- ment; but it is the nature of them that insures condemna- tion. Nor does this disprove the equity of the law ; for we cannot break a single precept without contemning the Divine authority, which at once destroys the principle of obedience to every other. We may not actually go into all other sins: but it is not the love of God that restrains us; it is interest, or fear, or regard to our own reputation that holds us back. On this principle, he who offendeth but in one point is said to be guilty of all: “ For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet, if thou kill, thou art be- come a transgressor of the law.” But if a single offence be an everlasting bar to justification by our own works, what ground can there be to hope for it, when our whole lives have been one continued series of revolt 3 We are all transgressors, and, as such, under the curse. Here, too, we might have been left to perish. God was not obliged, in justice or in honour, to interpose in behalf of a seed of evil-doers. The law by which we stand con- demned, being holy, just, and good, might have been exe- cuted, and no reproach would have attached to the Divine character. Having sided with Satan against God, we might justly have had our portion with him and his angels. All who were not themselves implicated, and disaffected to the Divine government, would have said, “ True and 612 SERMONS AND SKETCHES. righteous are thy judgments, O Lord.” And we ourselves, at the last judgment, should not have been able to open our mouths against it. And now that “God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins,” has interposed and revealed a way in which he can be “just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus,” shall it be objected to by us? Shall man, lying as he does under the dominion of sin, and the righteous condemnation of Heaven on account of it—shall man take state to him- self, and be ever aspiring to be justified on the ground of at least his comparative righteousness? Such, however, is the fact. When the first-born son of fallen Adam brought his offering, he came as though he had never sinned ; bringing no sacrifice, and yet entertaining high expectations of success. Hence, when the signal of acceptance was withheld, his countenance fell. Thus it is that millions are bringing their offerings to this day, overlooking “ the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world.” All the false religions that have existed, or do now exist, in the world are so many modifications of a self-righteous spirit, so many devices to appease the conscience and propitiate the Deity. Nor is it confined to heathens, Mahomedans, and Jews; there are professing Christians who are very explicit in avowing their dependence upon their own works. * Where the Divinity and atonement of Christ are disavowed, this is no more than may be expected. But neither is it con- fined to such. Many who profess to believe these doc- trines, yet seem to consider the grand object of the death of Christ to have been that he might obtain for us that re- pentance, faith, and sincere obedience should be accepted as the ground of justification, instead of sinless perfection.f. Many, who in consequence of being educated under a gospel ministry disavow in words all dependence on their own works, are nevertheless manifestly under the influence of a self-righteous spirit. They do not confess their faults one to another, but justify themselves as far as possible, and, wherein they fail in this, will invent so many pleas and excuses as shall extenuate the sin to little or nothing. They are not self-diffident nor humble, but the contrary, trusting in themselves that they are righteous, and despis- ing others, just as the Pharisee did the publican. They “ thank God” for being what they are ; and so did the Pharisee : but as words in the one case signified nothing, neither do they in the other. To this may be added, it is not an unusual thing for those who have been awakened to a serious concern about salvation to overlook the Saviour, and to build their hopes on the consideration of the tears they have shed, the prayers they have offered, and the pains they have taken in religion. But if it should prove that all confidences of this sort are only a refined species of self-righteous hope, and that the first substantial relief of a sinner arises from a belief of the gospel way of salvation, the consequences may be no less fatal than if they had never wept nor prayed, nor taken 2ny pains in religion. - One thing is certain : we must be justified wholly of grace, or wholly of works; for there is no medium : “If by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But it,” on the other hand, “ it be of works, then is it no more of grace : otherwise work is no more work.” Taking it for granted that what God has revealed in his word is the only sure ground on which to rest a matter of such high importance, I shall state what appears to me the Scripture evidence for the first of these methods of justification under the following particulars:— 1. The righteousness of God does not admit of a sinner's being justifted on the ground of his own doings. It belongs to the righteousness or justice of God to do justice to his own character. . But to pardon and accept of sinners, on account of any thing done by them, were to fly in the face of his own law and government; and if any thing could cause both them and him. to be treated with contempt, this proceeding must do it. “It became him for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the Captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.--Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his ºrighteousness for the remission of sins.—For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.” If these passages do not convey the idea of its being inconsistent with the righteous character of God to pardon and accept of sinners in consideration of their own doings, I can con- ceive of no determinate idea conveyed by them. If it was becoming the Divine perfections to bring sinners to glory through a suffering Saviour, it would have been un- becoming those perfections to have brought them to glory in virtue of their own doings. If Christ were set forth to be a propitiation that God might declare his righteous- ness for the remission of sins, his righteousness would not have been declared in the remission of sins without it. Finally, If ignorance of God's righteousness were the reason of the non-submission of the Jews to the gospel way of justification, there must have been in that truth something directly opposed to justification in any other way, and which, had it been properly understood, would have cut up all hopes from every other quarter. It was in this way that Paul, when the righteous law of God appeared to him in its true light, “ died” as to all hopes of being accepted of God by the works of it. It was “through the law” that he became “dead to the law,” that he might live unto God. 2. The Scriptures in a great variety of language eacclude all works performed by sinful creatures as the ground of acceptance with God. In proof of this, the following passages are very express : “Moses describeth the right- eousness which is of the law, That the man that doeth those things shall live by them. But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise,_If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.—By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight.—Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law 3 of works? Nay; but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.—If Abra- ham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory.— Now to him that worketh is the reward reckoned not of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but be- lieveth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works. – Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore ? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law : for they stumbled at that stumbling-stone. —Knowing * “When will Christians permit themselves to believe that the same conduct which gains them the approbation of good men here will se- cure the favour of Heaven hereafter 7 °—M Rs. BARBAULD. “Repentance and a good life are of themselves sufficient to recom- mend us to the Divine favour.”—DR. PRIESTLEY. “The practice of virtue is always represented as the only means of attaining happiness, both here and hereafter.”—MR, BBLs HAM. + This seems to be the idea of Bishop BUTLER. “The doctrine of the gospel,” he says, “appears to be, not only that Christ taught the that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law : for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.—As many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.— But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God it is evident: for the just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith : but the man that doeth them shall live in them.—Christ is become of no effect unto you : whosoever of you are justified by the law, ye are fallen from grace.—Not of works, lest any man should boast.— efficacy of repentance, but rendered it of the efficacy which it is, by what he did and suffered for us ; that he obtained for us the benefit of having our repentance accepted unto eternal life: not only that he revealed to sinners that they were in a capacity of salvation, and how they might obtain it; but, moreover, that he put them into this ca- pacity of salvation, by what he did and suffered for them; put us into a capacity of escaping future punishment, and obtaining future hap- piness.”—Mnalogy, Part II. Chap. 5, p. 305.-Christ, it seems, was no otherwise our Saviour than as enabling us to Save ourselves | ON JUSTIFICATION. 613 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved-us, that, being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.” Distinctions have been made on this subject between the works of the ceremonial and those of the moral law ; also between the works of the law and those of the gos- pel; as though it were not the design of the Scriptures to exclude moral duties from being grounds of justification, but merely those which are ceremonial; or if it were, yet not the evangelical duties of repentance, faith, and sin- cere obedience. But whatever differences there may be between these things, they are all works ; and all works of man are excluded from justification. If the foregoing passages be considered in their connexions, they will be found to respect all obedience, of every kind, which is performed by men, be it ceremonial or moral, or what it may. They teach a justification by a righteousness re- ceived, in opposition to a righteousness done, or perform- cd, and which leaves no room for boasting. If we were justified by faith itself, considered as a duty of ours, or if the Lawgiver had respect to any conformity to God in us, as the cause, or reason, of the sentence, there would be no meaning in such language as this: “To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the un- godly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” The language of the apostle to the Galatians goes not only to exclude obedience to the ceremonial and the moral law, but obedience to law in general, as the ground of justification. The reason given why the law is not against the promises, or why it cannot furnish an objection to the free grace of the gospel, is this: “If there had been a daw which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.” This is equal to saying, the patient was given up as incurable by law, before the promised grace of the gospel took him in hand: what- ever, therefore, is done by the latter cannot be objected to by the former. The terms vóuos and £r vöuov, law and by the law, in Gal. iii. 21, as observed by Dr. Guyse, show it, according to Mr. Locke's rule of interpretation, to relate to law in general, or to any or every law. But if the works of every law be excluded, all distinc- tions between ceremonial and moral, or between moral and evangelical, are of no account. 3. Being justified freely by grace is itself directly op- posed to being justified by works. The term grace denotes free favour to the unworthy. If God had been obliged, in justice or in honour, to have done what he has done—if the law by which we were condemned were too strict, or the penalty annexed to it too severe—if Christ, and the offer of salvation through him, were a compensation given us on account of the injury we received from our con- nexion with our first parents—that which is called grace would not be grace, but debt. There is just so much grace in the gospel as there is justice in the law, and no more. The opposition between grace and works, in this important concern, is so clear in itself, and so plainly marked by the apostle, that one can scarcely conceive how it can be honestly mistaken : “If it be by grace, then it is no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace.” But, strong as the term grace is, the apostle adds to its force. As though it were not enough for him to affirm that we are justified by grace, he says we are justified Jreely by his grace. There is, doubtless, a redundancy in the expression ; but the design of it is to strengthen the thought. Thus, when he would forcibly express his idea of future, glory, he uses a kind of tautology for the pur- pose, calling it a “far more eacceeding and eternal weight of glory.” We are not only justified without any desert on our part, but contrary to it. As high as the heavens are above the earth, so are his thoughts, in the forgiveness of sin, higher than our thoughts, and his ways than our ways. They who are justified are said to receive abund- ance of grace, or grace abounding over all the abound. ings of sin. Sin reigns over our species, subjugating them all to death; but grace conquers the conqueror, reigning through righteousness to eternal life, by Jesus Christ our Lord. - 4. The terms used relative to gospel justification render it evident that it is not our own righteousness that is im- puted to us, but the righteousness of another. “Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteous- ness.”—“Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But he that believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”—“David also describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness with- out works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.” The terms im- puted and counted, in this connexion, are manifestly used to express, not that just reckoning of righteousness to the righteous which gives to every man his due, but the gracious reckoning of righteousness to the unrighteous, as though he were righteous. When the uncircumcised Gentile kept the law, his uncircumcision was counted for circumcision; not that it really was such, but it was gra- ciously reckoned, in the Divine administration, as if it were. When Paul, writing to Philemon concerning Onesimus, says, “If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee aught, put that on mine account,” he did not mean that he should treat him according to his deserts, but that he should forgive and accept him, for his sake. When faith is said to be counted for righteousness, it is as relating to Christ. The faith by which Abraham was justified had immediate relation to him as the promised seed; and it is easy to perceive, in the New Testament accounts of justifying faith, a marked attention to the same thing. “Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him ; but for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; who was deli- vered for our offences, and raised again for our justifica- tion.”—“By him all that believe are justified from all things.”—“That God might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.” “It is evident,” says Pre- sident Edwards,” “that the subject of justification is looked upon as destitute of any righteousness in himself, by that expression, ‘It is counted, or imputed, to him for righteousness.’ The phrase, as the apostle uses it here (Rom. iv. 5) and in the context, manifestly imports that God, of his sovereign grace, is pleased, in his dealings with the sinner, to take and regard that which indeed is not righteousness, and in one that has no righteousness, so that the consequence shall be the same as if he had righteousness ; and which may be from the respect that it bears to something which is indeed righteous. It is as if he had said, As to him that works, there is no need of any gracious reckoning, or counting it for righteousness, and causing the reward to follow as if it were a righteousness; for if he has works, he has that which is a righteousness in itself, to which the reward properly belongs.” 5. The rewards promised in the Scriptures to good works suppose the parties to be believers in Christ; and so, being accepted in him, their works also are accepted, and rewarded jor his sake. That good works have the promise of salva- tion is beyond dispute. Nothing that God approves shall go unrewarded. The least expression of faith and love, even the giving of a cup of cold water to a disciple of Christ because he belongs to him, will insure everlasting life. But neither this nor any other good work can be a ground of justification, inasmuch as it is subsequent to it. For works to have any influence on this blessing, they require to precede it; but works before faith are never acknow- ledged by the Scriptures to be good. It was testified of Enoch that he pleased God; whence the apostle to the Hebrews infers that he was a believer, inasmuch as “with- out faith it is impossible to please God.” “It does not consist with the honour of the majesty of the King of heaven and earth to accept of any thing from a condemned malefactor, condemned by the justice of his own holy law, till that condemnation be removed.”f The Lord had re- spect “first to Abel,” and “then to his offering.” Even those works which are the expressions of faith and love have so much sinful imperfection attached to them that * Sermon on Justification, p. 9. t President Edwards's Sermon on Justification. 614 SERMONS AND SIKETCHES. they require to be presented by an intercessor on our be- half. The most spiritual sacrifices are no otherwise ac- ceptable to God than by Jesus Christ. Perhaps I ought not to conclude this part of the subject without noticing the apparent opposition between Paul and James : the one teaching that “we are justified by faith, without the deeds of the law; ” the other that “by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” The words are, doubtless, apparently opposite ; and so are those of Solomon, when he directs us, in one proverb, ºvot to answer, and, in the next, to answer a fool according to his folly. In reconciling these apparently opposite coun- sels, we are led, by the reasons given for each, to under- stand the terms as used in different senses ; the former, as directing us not to answer a fool in a foolish manner, for this would make us like unto him ; the latter, to answer him in a way suited to expose his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. In like manner the terms faith and jus- tification were used by Paul and James in a different sense. By faith, Paul meant that which worketh by love, and is productive of good fruits; but James speaks of a faith which is dead, being alone. By justification, Paul means the acceptance of a sinner before God ; but James refers to his being approved of God as a true Christian. “Both these apostles bring the case of Abraham in illus- tration of their principles; but then, it is to be observed, they refer to different periods and circumstances in the life of that patriarch. Paul, in the first instance, says of Abra- ham, that he was justified by faith, while yet uncircumcised: this was his justification in the sight of God, and was without any consideration of his works. James refers to a period some years subsequent to this, when, in the offer- ing up of his son, he was justified by works also ; that is, his faith was shown to be genuine by its fruits. Paul therefore refers to the acceptance of a sinner; James to the approbation of a saint.”* Supported by this body of Scripture evidence, as well as by the experience we have had of the holy and happy influence of the doctrine, I trust we shall continue un- moved in our adherence to it. Let others boast of the efficacy of their own virtues, we, with the apostle, will “count all things but loss for the excellency of the know- ledge of Christ Jesus our Lord ; ” will “count all things but dung, that we may win Christ, and be found in him, not having our own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the right- eousness which is of God by faith.” SERMON XIX. ON JUSTITICATION, “Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.”—Rom. iii. 24. HAVING endeavoured to explain and establish the doctrine of justification, it remains for me, III. To SHOW THE consistENCY OF ITS BEING OF FREE GRACE, AND YET THROUGH THE REDEMIPTION OF JESUS CHRIST. This is a subject of the last importance. Al- most every thing pertaining to the way of salvation is af- fected by it. The principal reason alleged by those who reject the doctrine of atonement is its inconsistency with grace. God needed nothing, they say, but his own good- ness, to induce him to show mercy; or, if he did, it is not of grace, seeing a price is paid to obtain it. The question, however, does not respect the first moving cause of mercy, but the manner of showing it. the doctrine of atonement allow that the sacrifice of Christ was not the cause, but the effect, of the Father's love, They do not scruple to admit that his love was sufficient to have pardoned sinners without an atonement, provided it had been consistent with the righteousness of his charac- ter and government. “It is not the sentiment, but the ex- pression of love,” that requires an atonement. David was • The word “justification” is used in this sense Matt. xii. 37; 1 Cor. iv. 4. See Williams's Vindication against Bcleham, pp. 145, 146. The friends of | not wanting in love to his son Absalom ; for his soul longed to go forth to him ; but he felt for his honour, as the head of a family and of a nation, which, had he admitted him immediately into his presence, would have been compro- mised, and the crime of murder connived at. Hence, for a time, he must be kept at a distance, and, when intro- duced, it must be by a mediator. This statement, which has been made, in substance, by our writers repeatedly, has seldom, if ever, been fairly met by writers on the other side. I never recollect, at least, to have seen or heard any thing like a fair answer to it. . It is remarkable, too, that those who make this objection never appear to regard the doctrine of grace, but for the purpose of making void the atonement. On all other ac- casions grace is virtually disowned, and works are every thing ; but here it is magnified, in much the same man- ner as the Father is honoured, as the object of worship, to the exclusion of the Son. Cases may be supposed, I acknowledge, in which the ideas of grace and atonement would be inconsistent. First, If the atonement were made by the offender himself enduring the full penalty of the law, his deliverance would be a mat- ter of right, and there would be no grace in it. But, as in a case of murder, it is not in the sinner's power to make atonement for himself, so as to survive his punishment. The punishment threatened against sin is everlasting, which admits of no period when the penalty shall have been endured. No man, therefore, can, by any length of suffering, redeem his own soul. Secondly, If the sufferings of another could avail for the offender, and he himself were to provide the substitute, his deliverance might be a matter of right, and there might be no grace in it. But neither of these suppositions can exist in the case before us. Strict distributive justice could not admit of the innocent suffering for the guilty, even though the innocent were willing. Its language is, Whosoever hath sinned against mo, him will I blot out of my book. But if it could, the guilty party could not find a substitute either able or willing to stand in his place. Thirdly, If God himself should both consent to accept of a substitute, and actually provide one, yet if the acts and deeds of sinners be considered as literally becoming his, and his theirs, whatever grace there might be in the acceptance and provision of the substitute, there would be no place for the Forgiveness of the sinner, and justification would be merely an act of justice. If Christ, in having our sins imputed to him, became a sinner, and, as some have said, the greatest of all sinners, then, in his sufferings, he was only treated according to his desert; and that desert, belonging to him, could no longer belong to us; so that had we been in ex- istence, and known of it, we might, from that moment, have claimed our deliverance as a matter of right. And if we, in having the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, become that which he was, namely, meritorious, or deserv- ing of eternal life, then might we disown the character of supplicants, and approach the Judge of all in language suited to those who had always pleased him. But neither can this be. The acts and deeds of one may affect others, but can, in no case, become actually theirs, or be so trans- ferred as to render that justice which would otherwise have been of grace. The imputation of our sins to Christ, and of his righteousness to us, does not consist in a trans- fer of either the one or the other, except in their effects. Christ suffered, not because he was, but merely as if he had been, the sinner : notwithstanding the imputation of sin to him, he died “the just for the unjust.” On the other hand, we are justified, not because we are, but as though we were righteous ; for the worthiness belongs to him, and not to us. Finally, If justification through the redemption of Christ were considered as not only consistENT witH justice, but REQUIRED BY it, it must, I think, be allowed that every idea of grace is eaccluded. That favour toward creatures which justice requires must needs be their due, which leaves no room for grace. It is only of God's essential justice, how- ever, that this is true, and not of his covenant righteous- ness, which relates to his own free engagements. God having pledged his word, would be “unrighteous to forget the work and labour of love of his believing people ; and thus it is that, “if we confess our sins, he is faithful and ON JUSTIFICATION. 615 just to forgive us our sins.” . The righteous fulfilment of engagements, made in a way of grace, is not opposed to it; but that which is required by essential justice is. This representation of things cannot, in any wise, de- preciate the merit of Christ; for be this what it may, it is not ours, and cannot, therefore, constitute any claim on our behalf, but in virtue of God’s free promises, which, being made in grace, continue such in all their fulfilments. It is enough if the justification of sinners be consistent with justice; and this renders the whole in harmony with grace. Such was the value of Christ's blood-shedding, as, in regard of its effects on the Divine government, to be equivalent to our being everlastingly punished; and such the merit of his obedience, as to be worthy of all that God has bestowed on us in reward of it; yet as there is no transfer but of the effects, it does not, in the least, inter- fere with grace. If the principles on which the doctrine of atonement proceeds be carefully considered, they will not only be found consistent with grace, but will rank among the strongest evidences in favour of it. In proof of this, let the following observations be duly considered :- 1. It is common among men, in showing kindness to the wnworthy, to do it out of regard to one that is worthy ; which Åindness is nevertheless considered as a matter of free fa- vour. You had a friend whom you loved as your own soul. He died, and left an only son. The son proves a dissolute, worthless character, and reduces himself to beg- gary. Still he is the son of your friend, and you wish to show him kindness. If your kindness be unaccompanied with an explanation of your motives, he may think you have no dislike to his vices.—Young man, say you, there- fore, I am sorry it is not in my power to be your friend from a respect to your own character; but I knew and loved your father, and what I do for you is for his sake 1– Here is an exercise of both justice and grace; justice to the memory of the worthy, and grace in the relief of the unworthy. The worthiness of the father is imputed to the son, inasmuch as, in consequence of it, he is treated as though he were himself worthy; but it makes no differ- ence as to his real character or deserts, nor in any wise renders what is done to him less a matter of grace than if it had not been done in consideration of his father's worthi- ness. If Onesimus were forgiven by Philemon, at the in- tercession of Paul, (as there is no reason to doubt that he was,) he would not, on that account, think of its being less an act of grace. - 2. God, in his dealings with mankind, has frequently pro- ceeded upon the same principle, bestowing blessings on the wnworthy, out of respect to one that was worthy; which blessings, nevertheless, have been of pure grace. God pro- mised the posterity of Noah exemption from a future flood; but knowing that they would utterly corrupt themselves, his covenant was primarily made with him. It was thus in the blessings promised to the posterity of Abraham. The Lord, knowing that they would be very corrupt, spoke thus to Abraham himself: “As for me, behold, my cove- vant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many na- tions.” Hence, in a great number of instances wherein mercy was shown to the rebellious Israelites, they were reminded that it was “not for their sakes,” but on account of the covenant made with their father Abraham, and re- newed with Isaac and Jacob. Thus, also, in the covenant made with David, God blessed his posterity for his sake, saying, “My covenant shall stand fast with him.” And When the heart of Solomon was turned away from the Lord God of Israel, he was told, that if the Lord did not rend the kingdom utterly from him, it would not be for his sake, but for David his servant's sake, and for Jerusa- lem's sake, which he had chosen. In these instances, there was a display of both justice and grace, and the righteous- ness of the fathers was, as I may say, imputed to the chil- dren, inasmuch as, in consequence of it, they were treated as if they themselves were righteous ; but it makes no difference as to their deserts, nor in any wise renders what was done to them less a matter of grace than if it had proceeded merely from the Divine goodness, and without any consideration of the righteousness of their fathers. So far from this, the very language, “Not for your sakes do I this, be it known unto you, but for my holy name's sake, -and for the covenant that I made with your fathers,” would tend, more than any thing, to humble them, and to impress them with the idea that what they had was alto- gether of grace. If it be objected that in these cases, though the blessing was of grace to the party receiving it, yet it was in reward of the party for whose sake it was given; I answer, It is in respect of the party receiving, and him only, that it is called grace ; and this is sufficient for its being so denominated. It is of what justification is to us, and not what it is to Christ, that the apostle speaks. It is enough if it be of grace to us, and if God’s bestowing it upon us out of re- spect to the worthiness of his Son do not diminish that grace, but, on the contrary, augment it. But it may be said that, in these cases, there was no example of the innocent suffering for the guilty; no atone- ment; no redemption of the parties by a sacrifice offered in their stead. We therefore proceed to observe, 3. God, in the appointment of animal sacrifices, (though they were only shadows of good things to come, ) sanctifted the principle of sin being expiated by the sufferings of a substitute, and yet represented the sinner as FREELY FoR- GIVEN. The process of the burnt-offering is thus describ- ed: “If his offering be a burnt-sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish : he shall offer it of his own voluntary will” (or, as Ainsworth renders it, for acceptance) “at the door of the tabernable of the congre- gation before the Lord. And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt-offering : and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him,” &c. The current language concerning these sacrifices is, “And the priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin that he hath committed, and it shall be forgiven him. In all these transactions there was justice and grace ; justice in requiring a sacrifice, and grace in forgiving the trans- gressor. There was also imputation: the sin of the party was imputed to the appointed victim, which was reckoned as though it were the sinner, and treated as such in the Divine administration. The atonement made by the sacri- fice was, on the other hand, imputed to him that offered it; that is, it was reckoned to his account, and he was treated accordingly. This is clear from what is said of one the flesh of whose offering was neglected to be eaten before the third day, according to appointment: “It shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed unto him that offereth it: it shall be an abomination, and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity;” implying that, if offered according to the Divine appointment, it was ac- cepted for him, and imputed to him, and he should not bear his iniquity. In all these substitutional sacrifices, atonement did not operate to the diminution of grace ; they were not such a payment of the sinner’s debt as that he should be entitled to deliverance as a matter of claim ; since the issue of all was, “And his sins shall be forgiven him.” On the con- trary, everything was calculated to magnify the grace of God, and to humble the sinner in the dust before him. Of this tendency, particularly, was his having to lay his hand upon the head of the sacrifice, confessing his sin, and acknow- ledging, in effect, that if he had been treated according to his deserts, he himself must have been the victim. The doctrine of sacrifices receives an interesting illus- tration from the case of Job and his three friends: “And it was so, that, after the Lord had spoken these words unto Job, the Lord said to Eliphaz, the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends; for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my serv- ant Job hath. Therefore take unto you now seven bul- locks and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt-offering; and my servant Job shall pray for you, for him will I accept; lest I deal with you after your folly.” We see here that the three friends could not be justified on the ground of their own conduct. They must either be accepted through a sacrifice and intercessor, or be dealt with according to their folly. And this sacrifice and in- tercession, instead of making void the grace of the trans- action, goes to establish it. It must have been not a little humiliating to Eliphaz and his companions to be given to 616 SERMONS AND SKETCHES. understand that all their zeal for God had been folly, and required an atonement; that the Lord would not receive a petition at their hands; that the sacrifices must be brought to Job, and offered up in his presence; and that, after all their contumelious language to him, they must owe their acceptance to his intercession. Had they been forgiven without this process, their sin must have appeared light, and the grace of God in its forgiveness have been diminished, in their apprehension, in comparison of what it was. 4. The New Testament, while it represents the interpo- sition of Christ as necessary for the consistent exercise of mercy, ascribes the whole of our salvation, nevertheless, to the free grace of God. I need not prove this position by a number of references. The doctrine of the New Tes- tament on this subject is summarily comprehended in the verses following the text, which contain the apostle's ex- planation of his own words. Having stated that we are “justified freely by grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,” he adds, “whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare I say at this time his righteousness, that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.” “Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation.” We see here in what “the redemption of Christ,” by which we are justified, consisted. He himself was made an ex- piatory sacrifice, through which God might be propitious to sinners, without any dishonour attaching to his character. “Through faith in his blood.” In order to an Israelite being benefited by the appointed sacrifices, it was neces- sary for him, or for the priest on his behalf, to put his hands upon the head of the animal, and there to make confession of sins, Hence the offerers of sacrifices are denominated “the comers thereunto.” And thus it is necessary to our deriving benefit from the propitiation of Christ, that we should believe in him. “To declare his righteousness for the remission of sins.” The first thing necessary in our justification is the remis- sion of sin. The grand impediment to this was, that it would reflect upon the “righteousness” of God; repre- senting either his precepts and threatenings as too rigid to be put in execution, or his mercy as being mere conniv- ance. Hence, when a great act of mercy was to be shown, it became necessary to preface it by a declaration or de- monstration of righteousness. God, by making his be- loved Son a sacrifice, practically declared or demonstrated, in the presence of the universe, his determination to maintain the honour of his government, and his utter abhorrence of sin. Having done this he can now forgive the believing sinner, without any suspicion of connivance attaching to his charactér. “Sins that are past, through the forbearance of God.” The propitiation of Christ was not only necessary in be- half of believers under the times of the gospel, but of those in former ages. Those who had offered sacrifices were not forgiven in virtue of them, but of this. On the ground of Christ’s undertaking to become a propitiation in the fulmiès of time, the “forbearance of God” was exercised tâwºrds them. And now that his righteousness is declared; he can be “just, and the justifier of him which believeth itſ Jesus.” * * Supposing the foregoing comments to be the substance of the apostle's meaning, what is there in any part of it which renders void, or in any wise diminishes, the free grace of God 3 IDoes the declaration or demonstration of his righteousness “for the remission of sins” render it no remission ? Would it have been more of a favour for God to have pardoned sin without any regard to righteousness than with it? Is there any thing in the whole proceeding that puts the sinner in possession of a claim on the ground * The words of our Lord in John xvii. 24, “Father, I will,” &c., have been thought to convey a different idea :- “With cries and tears he offered up His humble suit below ; But with authority he asks, Enthroned in glory now. For all that come to God by him, Salvation he demands ; of essential justice, or which warrants him to hope for an interest in its blessed results, without coming to the Saviour as guilty and unworthy 3 There is nothing in the New Testament which repre- sents the death of Christ as superseding the necessity of repentance, confession, and humble supplication, or as in- vesting the believer with any other claim of spiritual bless- ings than that which arises from the free promise of God through his dear Son. We never read there of “suing out our right,” nor of mercy being a matter of demand since Christ has paid the debt. All is in the language of sup- plication in the name of Christ. The intercession of Christ himself on our behalf pro- ceeds upon the same principle. It would not otherwise be intercession. “Grace,” as Dr. Goodwin observes, “re- quires to be applied for in a way of entreaty and inter- cession.” + Those who plead for the intercession of Christ in a way of awthority, or demand, ground it on his sacrifice and merits; which, being of infinite worth, must, they sup- pose, entitle him to ask favours for his people in this man- ner. That God in love to his dear Son should reward this voluntary obedience unto death with the bestowment of eternal salvation on them that believe in him, and even lay himself under obligation to do so, is perfectly consist- ent with its being of grace; but obligation of this kind furnishes no ground for demand, nor does it appear from the Scriptures that the Majesty of heaven and earth was ever so approached. In the gospel way of salvation, grace and justice meet or are combined in the same thing. Grace, through the righteousness of Jesus, “reigns” not in one or two stages, but in every stage, “unto eternal life; ” but on the principle of salvation being an object of de- mand, it must, in some stages of it, become a matter of mere justice; it might be grace to provide the deliverer, but there would be none in the deliverance itself. However worthy Christ was to receive power, and wis- dom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing, yet, when pleading for sinners, it required to be in the language of intercession. His worthiness is that indeed on account of which we are treated as if we were worthy, but it does not render us meritorious. The righteousness of Christ is imputed to us; but it is only in its effects that it is transferred, or, indeed, transferrable. The sum is, there is nothing in the atonement or justifying righteous- ness of Christ that in any wise supersedes the necessity of our being freely forgiven, or freely blessed. I conclude with a few reflections on the whole sub- ject :— First, If the doctrine here stated and defended be true, there is in the nature of sin something much more offensive to God than is generally supposed, Is it conceivable that God, whose nature is love, would have cursed the work of his hands for a matter of small account 3 He does not delight in cursing ; he afflicts not willingly, nor grieves the children of men. Yet every transgressor of his law is declared to be accursed. All the curses in the book of God stand against him : in his basket, and in his store; in the city, and in the field; in his going out, and in his coming in; and in all that he setteth his hand unto. Nor is it confined to the present life, but includes everlasting punishment. Is it conceivable that God would have made his Son a sacrifice, or that the Lord of glory would have come into the world for this purpose, if sin had not been an evil and a bitter thing 3 If it were no more than men in general conceive it to be, assuredly so much would not have been made of it. It is upon light thoughts of sin that a disbelief of justification through the blood-shedding of Christ is grafted ; but let us think of it as lightly as we may, if God thinks otherwise we shall be in the wrong; for “the judgment of God is according to truth.” Secondly, If this doctrine be true, the danger of our Points to their names upon his breast, And spreads his wounded hands.”—TOPLADY. This petition, however, was offered up when our Lord was, upon earth; and his intercession in heaven is called prayer : “I will pra the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter”. “The ver! rendered will,” says Dr. Campbell, “is the same which in Matt. xii. 38, and Mark x, 35, is rendered would, and ought to have been so rendered here, as it implies request, not command.” ON JUSTIFICATION. 617 being lost arises, not from the magnitude of our sin, be it what it may, but from a self-righteous rejection of the only way of acceptance with God. Let the nature or degrees of sin be what they may, there is no reason on that account to despair of salvation. On the contrary, there is the ut- most encouragement for the most guilty and unworthy to return to God by Jesus Christ. Every bar in the way of acceptance which respected the government of God is re- moved. God can be just, and yet the justifier of the be- liever in Jesus. More glory redounds to him, even to his justice, from salvation than from damnation. Nor is there any cause to doubt the willingness of God to show mercy. He is, indeed, unwilling to show mercy to those who seek it in any other way than Christ, or rather, is determined they shall not find it; but every one that seeketh in his name findeth. There is one great and overwhelming fact that answers all objections: “He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things 2 * The pardon of sin and acceptance with God are blessings of such magnitude that nothing in this world is to be compared with them ; yet these are less than what has been given already ; for the argument of the apostle is from the greater to the less. If we be willing to receive Christ, and with him all things freely, there is nothing to hinder it. If the door of mercy be shut upon us, it is a self-righteous spirit that shuts it. Look at a self-justifying spirit in respect of faults committed between man and man. Persons of very ordinary capacity in other things will here be ingenious to admiration in framing excuses. They who seem scarcely able to speak on other subjects will be quite eloquent in defending themselves ; dwelling on circumstances that make in their favour, keeping out of sight what makes against them, alleging their good intentions, even in things which in themselves cannot be justified ; and shunning, as one would shun the road to death, a frank acknowledg- ment of their sin, and a humble petition for mercy. Of the same nature is a self-righteous spirit in respect of sin committed against God; and this it is that shuts the door of mercy. If a convict, under a just sentence of death, be assured from authority, that if he confess his guilt and pe- tition for mercy, he will be forgiven; and if, instead of making such confession and supplication, he either pleads not guilty, or at least insists upon his comparative inno- cence, or upon some circumstance which may entitle him to mercy, should we not say of such a man, He shuts the door of mercy on himself? He dies not on account of the magnitude of his crime, but of his pride and obstinacy. His original crime is still indeed the formal cause of his punishment, but it is owing to his self-justifying spirit that it was finally laid to his charge. And thus it is that the Scriptures ascribe the loss of the soul to unbelief: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life, and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.—Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteous- ness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law; for they stumbled at that stumbling-stone.” - It is remarkable that, in drawing a conclusion from the doctrine of absolute sovereignty, in which the apostle had taught that God had “mercy on whom he would have mercy,” he ascribes the failure of the Jews, not to their non-election, but to their unbelief. Finally, Though justification be of “grace, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus,” yet without good works we can give no proof of our being justified. The whole argument of the apostle, in the sixth chapter of this Epistle, teaches that believers cannot live in sin, being dead to it, and alive to God. Those who are in Christ Jesus, to whom there is now no condemnation, are said to “walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” We need not wish for stronger evidence in favour of the doctrine of free justification than that which is furnished by the ob- jections which are answered by the apostle. No other no- tion of justification than that which is of grace, through Christ, would admit of such objections as he encounters; no other doctrine, therefore, can justly pretend to be apostolical. It follows, however, that while we contend for the doc- trine, it concerns us so to walk as not to furnish its adversa- ries with a handle for reproaching it as unfriendly to a life holiness. The law of God, though not the medium of life, is nevertheless the rule of conduct; and though we are justified by faith alone, yet good works are necessary to prove it to be genuine. Thus it is that faith is shown and made perfect by works. All who profess to believe the doctrine do not live under its influence, and they who do are exposed to other influences. Whatever peace of mind, therefore, it may be adapted to produce, it furnishes no ground for carnal or presumptuous security. SERMON XX. THE BELIEVER'S REVIEW OF HIS PAST AND PRESENT STATE. “But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.”—Eph. ii. 13. IT is common to speak of our country, in respect of its high state of civilization and cultivation, as a garden. But to know what civilization and cultivation have done for us, we must know what we were in former ages, when the island was little better than a wilderness, and its inhabit- ants a race of barbarians. Thus, if we would understand what Christianity has done for us, we must acquaint ourselves with the condition in which we were, while subject to pagan darkness and superstition. It is thus that the apostle, in writing to the Ephesians, teaches them the value of the blessings and privileges of the gospel, by directing their attention to the state in which they were before it reached them. At the beginning of the chapter, they are reminded of their state as sinners in common with other sinners : “And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience : among whom also we all (Jews as well as Gentiles) had our conversation in times past, in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath even as others.” But, in addition to this, the apostle reminds them of their peculiar condition as heathems : “Remember that ye, being in time past Gentiles in the flesh,_that at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world.” This being, in some respects, the greatest re- move from God at which men could place themselves, they are emphatically said to have been “far off.” Sinners, among the Jews, were subjectively distant from God; but they were so both subjectively and objectively, as being destitute of the most important means of knowing him. In discoursing upon the subject, we shall first observe that state of distance which is peculiar to heathens; secondly, that which is common to heathens and all other sinners; and, thirdly, the way in which they are recovered, and brought nigh. I. Let us observe THAT STATE of DISTANCE which Is PECULIAR TO HEATHENS. This is far from being an unin- teresting subject to us. At the time this Epistle was writ- ten, our fathers were in this very state ; and had not the gospel been brought to us by those who had heard and believed it, we had been in the same state at this day. Instead of being met together, as we now are, to worship the living God through the mediation of his Son, we had been assembled to adore stocks and stones; instead of singing the high praises of Jehovah, nothing had been heard in our cities, towns, and villages but the vocifera- tions of idolatry; instead of the gratifying sights arising from the institutions of humanity and benevolence, we should have been witnesses, and perhaps more than wit- nesses, of the offering up of human sacrifices ! The description given of this state by the apostle, in verses 11, 12, is very affecting : “At that time ye were without Christ.” The only way in which Christ could be known was by revelation ; and the only people to whom a 6 iS SERMONS AND SKETCHES. revelation was made was Israel. To them pertained the oracles of God, and the covenants of promise. Being, therefore, aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, they must needs be strangers from the covenants of promise, and so, of course, be without Christ. Christ, they had no hope, either of their sins being forgiven, or of a blessed hereafter. And though they daily partook of the bounties of Providence, yet, being without Christ, and without hope, they were without God in the world ! Such was the state of the heathen world at the coming of Christ. The science of Egypt, Chaldea, Greece, and Rome had discovered much, as to things pertaining to the present life; but, in respect of an hereafter, all was enve- loped in gross darkness. The far greater part did not think of it, and they that did knew but just enough to make them miserable. They were aware that, like all others, they must die; and knowing that they had not lived and acted, even to each other, as they ought, their consciences foreboded a state in which they would be called to account ; but what it would be they knew not. The following lines might be written by a pensive in- fidel of modern times; but they would have fitted the lips of a pagan : “Distrust and darkness of a future state Make poor mankind so fearful of his fate: Death of itself is nothing; but we fear To be we know not what, we know not where.” Such, or nearly such, must have been the reflections of the most serious among the heathen ; and as to the rest, they were buried in all manner of wickedness. It is of the nature of idolatry to efface and obliterate from the mind all just thoughts of God and true religion, and to substitute in their place vain imaginations and vile affec- tions. Instead of a holy, just, and good Being presiding over the universe, imaginary deities are set up, whose office it is to preside over particular countries and con- cerns; and this in a manner suited to the inclinations of their worshippers, entering into all their prejudices, and patronizing their most favourite vices. There is a marked connexion between impiety and ob- scenity, or the casting off of the knowledge and worship of God and being given up to the basest practices towards one another. “God is jealous, and the Lord revengeth !” If they dishonour him by transferring his glory to an idol, he will give them up in turn to dishonour their own bodies. If they change the truth of God the Creator, who is blessed for ever, into the practical lie of worshipping that as God which is not God, for this cause they shall be given up to vile affections. As they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a mind void of judgment, and to the practice of every thing ob- scene, unnatural, unjust, malignant, false, and cruel; not only to wallow like filthy beasts in the mire, but to prefer the society of such as their friends and companions ! If any doubt whether this picture be not overcharged, let faithful witnesses be heard, and they will report the same things of heathen countries at this day. We hear, from men calling themselves Christians, but who in fact are infidels, flattering accounts of heathen vir- tue, and laboured attempts, to prove the virtuous tendency of the system. Idols, instead of being competitors with the true God, are represented as connected with him ; as though it were a matter of indifference to whom the wor- ship is presented, Jehovah, Jove, or Baal ; all is received as a tribute paid to the common Father of all. Such are the sentiments taught by one of our poets; and such are the principles of so large a part of our countrymen, that if Britons do not Christianize India, India may be expected soon to heathenize Britain Shall we, in complaisance to infidels, throw away our Bibles, and listen to their pleas for the most sottish stupidity that ever disgraced human nature? The voice of reason, and (thank God!) the voice of Britain, answer, No | We ourselves were sometimes darkness; but if we have been made light in the Lord, let us walk as children of the light. We proceed to observe, II. THAT STATE of DISTANCE WHICH IS common To HEATHENS AND ALL OTHER SINNERS. We have seen al- ready that there is a state, described at the beginning of And being without the chapter, which refers not to what the Ephesians were by education, by custom, or by any other circumstances attending their former life, but to what they were by nature. It was in respect of this that the apostle reckoned himself and his countrymen, notwithstanding their living under the light of revelation, among them ; and in this respect we also, notwithstanding our living under the light of the gospel, must be reckoned with them : “Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past, in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.” The apostle does not tell the Ephesians from whom, or from what, they were “far off,” the reason of which might be that there was no one word that would convey the ful- ness of the sentiment. He might have said, Ye were far off from happiness; this had been true: or far off from peace ; this had been true : or far off from righteousness; this had been true: or far off from hope ; this also had been true : he might mean to comprehend them all, and therefore made use of general terms. If any word, more comprehensive than the rest, had been used, it must have been, far off from God. This is the last term, in the pre- ceding description, to which the words “far off” refer : “without Christ—having no hope; and without God in the World !” There is a natural distance from God which necessarily belongs to us, and to the loftiest archangel, as creatures. But this distance is not removed by the blood of Christ. The enjoyments of heaven itself will not remove or di- minish it. It is not of this, therefore, that the apostle writes; but of that moral distance from God which be- longs to us as sinners. There is nothing sinful in being far off from God in the former sense ; but to be far off in our thoughts of him, affections towards him, and desires after him, is of the essence of sin. This is alienation of heart, which stamps the character; for what a man's heart is, that is he. If a subject be so full of disaffection to his rightful prince that he has no feeling of respect towards him, no mind to please him, nor to think, or read, or hear anything in his praise, this were alienation of heart; and if all this were without cause, we should say, of such a man, that he did not deserve to live under a government to which he was so wickedly disaffected. Yet this is the state of mind of sinners toward the blessed God. They call not upon his name; but rise in the morning, and re- tire at evening, as if there were no God, and no hereafter ; as if they had no soul to be saved or lost; but, like the animals that surround them, were made to eat, drink, and sleep, for a few years, and then to die, and be no more The things of God do not occupy their minds; and, un- less they conceive of his character as very different from what the Scriptures represent it, they do not like to think of him, nor to speak of him, nor to hear others speak of him, or of any thing pertaining to him as revealed in the Bible. The serious mention of his name strikes a damp upon their spirits, and often puts an end to a conversation. They have no delight in reading his word, and never make it their study to do any thing because he requires it. What is all this but practically saying to God, “Depart from us ; we desire not the knowledge of thy ways 4’” We have not to go into the heathen world in search of such characters as these ; they are found in all our cities, towns, villages, and congregations, and in almost all our families. We may call ourselves Christians, and yet be without Christ; and we may declaim against atheism, and yet live without God in the world. But though all sinners are far off from God, yet some are farther off than others. Every sinner has gone so far from God that he will never return of his own accord. The ways of sin are our own ways; we find them without any difficulty, but never return till the good Shepherd finds us, and brings us home. But some are farther off than others. As sin obtains in different degrees, so does the distance at which it places us from God. The Scrip- tures represent some persons as in a more hopeless state than others; and the same person is farther off at one period of life than at another. Sin being progressive, the ionger any one lives in it without repentance, the farther off he necessarily is from God. Every sinner going on A STATE OF NATURE AND OF GRACE. 619 still in his trespasses is getting more and more hardened, and farther from the hearing of the calls of conscience and of God. Shall I mention a few cases of persons whom the Scrip- tures represent as farthest from God? You may expect me to name the praftigate, who is at open war with God; who breaks the sabbath, wallows in intemperance and debauchery, and laughs at all serious religion. And true it is that such characters are at an awful distance from God; yet many who have been thus far off have been made nigh by the blood of Christ. Such were some of the Corinthians, and such have been some of us. There is a case more hopeless than this, namely, that of the self-righteous. Of the Pharisees, who were righteous in their own eyes, and despised others, it is said that “publicans and harlots entered into the kingdom of hea- ven before them.” When some of them came to John, he called them “a generation of vipers,” and asked, with surprise, “Who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come 3’ Our Lord asked them, “How can ye escape the damnation of hell ?” as though they were so fast bound by the chains of spiritual pride as to render their deliver- ance next to impossible. Reprove a drunkard or a de- bauchee, and you will have his conscience on your side. Converse with him seriously on temperance, righteousness, and judgment to come, and he will tremble. But he that is pure in his own eyes, and yet not cleansed from his filthiness, his very mind and conscience are defiled. Think- ing highly of himself, and of his doings, he will resent every thing said to him which calls in question the good- ness of his state. He flatters himself that he is at peace with God, and does not choose to be disturbed in his re- pose. Talk to him of Christ Jesus having come into the world to save sinners, even the chief of sinners, and it will either appear to him a strange doctrine, or, if he com- prehend your design, it is likely he will feel himself in- sulted. He says, in his heart, Am I, after all the pains that I have taken, to be placed on a footing with the worst of characters? If so, where is the justice of God?—Thus the gospel seems a hard saying, and he cannot hear it. A sinner, in such a state of mind, is farther from God, and more hopeless, than the profligate whom he despises : “The Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteous- ness. Wherefore ? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law; for they stumbled at that stumbling-stone.” Yet, even from this distance, some have been made nigh by the blood of Christ. Of this the apostle himself was an example, as were also the #. company of the priests, who were obedient to the aith. . But, there is another case which may be reckoned still more hopeless, and the party still farther off from God. This is where a person has sat under the preaching of the gospel for a number of years, but who, living still in his sins, at length becomes past feeling. Such characters, I fear, are not very uncommon in our congregations. Should there be one such present at this time, let me reason with him :—Thirty or forty years ago, it may be, you heard the gospel, and felt, and wept under it. Some of your fellow worshippers, observing the tears which fell from your eyes, conceived a hope that the heart of stone was taken away, and a heart of flesh imparted. But these convictions Wore off; and, by degrees, the most pungent things might be delivered in your hearing without leaving any impression on your mind. The case was this: Under your convictions, you desisted from your evil courses; but, as the former subsided, you returned to the latter. At * Some have thought that the death threatened in Gen. ii. 17 was - Imerely corporal, and that if it had been executed, man would have been immediately struck out of existence. But the death there threat. ened, whatever it was, “passed upon all men,” which implies the ex- istence of all men, and which would have been prevented if Adam had at that time been reduced to a state of non-existence, or had even been banished from the worki. The original constitution of things must, therefore, have provided for the existence of every individual that has since been born into the world; and this whether man should stand first you indulged in lesser sins; then in greater; till, at length, your whole study was, not how you should avoid sin, but how you should indulge in it and yet conceal it : and, it may be, you have succeeded in both, to a great degree; living in uncleanness, or drunkenness, or in some other sin, and yet concealing it from the world, and filling up your place in the house of God. And now you can hear the most awful threatenings, and the most melting expostulations, unmoved. Your heart is become callous and insensible. Conscience itself is seared, as with a hot iron. In a word, you are past feeling. Many have perished in this state, and many, doubtless, will perish; yet, even from this state of distance, some have been made nigh by the blood of Christ: “If from thence thou shalt seek the Lord thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart, and with all thy soul.-For the Lord thy God is a merciful God.” Thus far we have considered the distance of sinners from God merely in respect of their alienation of heart from him ; but we must not confine it to this : as men have wickedly departed from God, God has righteously withdrawn from them ; and thus the distance, being mutual, is increased. While man continued obedient, his Creator admitted him to near communion with him, as is intimated by his walking in the garden in the cool of the day; but when he transgressed his commandment, he withdrew his favour, thrust him out of Paradise, and placed a guard about the tree of life, rendering it inac- cessible. Had there been no provision of mercy through the pro- mised Seed, there could have been no more communion between God and man, any more than between God and the fallen angels. Men might have dragged out a guilty and miserable existence in the world, but they must have lived and died under the curse.* Whatever had been bestowed upon them, it would have been in wrath, in like manner as riches are given some men to their hurt. What- ever had been their troubles, they would have had no God to repair to under them ; and, whatever their prospects, the hope of a blessed hereafter would have made no part of them. This awful state of distance from God is still the con- dition of the unbelieving and the ungodly. The interpo- sition of Christ avails not in behalf of them. “ He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life ; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” Being without Christ, they are without hope, and without God in the world. Every thing they do is evil ; every thing they possess is cursed ; and every hour they live in that state of mind adds to their guilt and misery. As “all things work together for good to them that love God, so all things work together for evil to them that love him not. Under all their calamities and troubles, they have no God on whom to cast their cares, and, in death, have nothing but a fearful looking for of judgment. The very messengers of mercy are charged, on their peril, to say to the wicked, “It shall be ill with him.” How tremendously awful, then, is the condition of the unbelieving and the ungodly There is one way of escape, and but one : and is it possible that this can be disregarded ; and that men can live easy and unconcerned, with the curse of God over their heads? Surely this must be owing to a disbelief of the Divine threatenings, as well as of the doctrine of the gospel. But take heed “lest there should be among you a root that beareth gall and wormwood; and it come to pass when he heareth the words of this curse, that he bless himself in his heart, saying, I shall have peace, though I walk in the imagination of mine heart, to add drunkenness to thirst : the Lord will not spare him, but then the anger of the Lord and his jealousy or fall. The death here threatened, doubtless, included that of the body, and which God might execute at pleasure; the day he should eat he would be dead in law; but it also included the loss of the Divine favour, and an exposedness to his wrath. If it were not so, the re- demption of Christ would not be properly opposed to it, which it fre- quently is, Rom. v. 12–21. It must be to this sentence that the apostle refers in Heb. ix. 27, “It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment;” or Christ’s being “once offered to bear the sins of mamy,” and his “coming a second time without sin unto sal- Yation,” would not have been introduced as antidotes to the evils; but if, the sentence included both death and judgment, it must be more than corporal death. 620 SERMONS AND SIKETCHES. shall smoke against that man, and all the curses that are written in this book shall lie upon him, and the Lord shall blot out his name from under heaven l’” In this terrible condition the gospel finds us. To this door of hope we shall now direct your attention, by considering, III. THE WAY IN witHCII SINNERS ARE RECOVERED AND BROUGHT NIGH To GoD. It is “in Christ Jesus,” and “by the blood of Christ.” In Christ we possess all. It is as being “in Christ Jesus” that we possess all spiritual bless- ings; and by the shedding of his blood they were obtained. The blood of Christ may be considered in three views: as shed upon the cross—as proclaimed by the preaching of the gospel—and as believed in for salvation by the perishing sinner. These, being united, bring near those who were once far off. 1. By the blood of Christ, as shed upon the cross, atone- ment was made, sin was expiated, and a way opened for God to draw near to the sinner, and the sinner to God. In punishing transgressors, displeasure is expressed against transgression. In substitutionary sacrifices, displeasure was expressed against transgression; but, withal, mercy to the transgressor : the former, as signifying that thus the offerer deserved to have been treated ; the latter, as ac- cepting a substitute in his stead. In the sacrifice of Christ, both these sentiments were expressed in the highest de- gree : “God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin (or by a sacrifice for sin) condemned sin in the flesh.”—“He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?” In proportion as God’s own Son was dear to him, and, as possessed of Divine dignity, estimable by him, such were the hatred of sin and the love to sinners manifested in Smiting him. If mercy had been exercised to men without such an expression of displeasure against their sin, it must have appeared to the creation to be connivance, and the cha- racter of God must have sunk in their estimation. He must have appeared to be very strict indeed in his pre- cepts, and severe in his threatenings; but as lax in en- forcing them as though he had known from the beginning that they would not bear to be acted upon. The fallen angels, in particular, must have felt that it could not be justice that consigned them to hopeless perdition ; for jus- tice is impartial. If the Creator could connive at sin in one instance, he could in another. Thus the bands of moral government had been broken, and the cords which held creation together cast away. But, by the atonement of Christ, a way is opened for the consistent exercise of mercy. There was a kind of atomement made by the vengeance taken on the old world; also by that on the Benjamites, as recorded in the last chapters of Judges. Each of these events served to ex- press the Divine displeasure against sin, and each made way for the exercise of mercy; the one toward Noah and his posterity, and the other toward the remnant that had taken refuge in the rock Rimmon. Thus, in the death of Christ, though he died “the just for the unjust,” yet God herein expressed his displeasure against sin, and, having done this, could be “just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.” There is now no bar, in respect of the government of God, why any sinner should not, on returning to him in the name of his Son, find mercy. On this ground, sinners, without distinction, are actually in- vited to come unto him and be saved. The only bar that remains is a spirit of pride and unbelief. If they can believe in Jesus, receiving salvation as God’s free gift through him, “all things are possible to him that believeth.” When, on visiting a dying man, I hear him talk of hav- ing made his peace with God, I tremble for him. If our peace be made with God, it is by the blood of the cross. What are our confessions, or prayers, or tears? Can they heal the awful breach 4 If so, God would have spared his own Son, and not have delivered him up to be made a sacrifice. It had then been possible for the cup to pass from him, and it would, no doubt, have passed from him. If without the shedding of blood there be no remission, and if it were impossible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take away sin, the consequence is, that either Christ must be the sacrifice, or we must die in our sins and perish. He hath made peace by the blood of his cross: it is not for us to assume to be peace-makers, but to accept of his mediation. 2. The blood of Christ, as proclaimed in the preaching of the gospel, is the appointed means of bringing sinners near to God. . It is the doctrine of salvation through the blood of Christ that is, by way of eminency, called the gospel. It was this doctrine which Christ commissioned his disciples to preach to every creature: “Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, begin- ning at Jerusalem I ?” This doctrine is good news to every creature ; and that whether it be received or rejected. It is good news that a way is opened, by the death of Christ, for any sinner to return to God and be saved; and that, if any sinner walk therein, he shall be saved. It is the ministry of reconciliation, in which the servants of Christ, as though God did beseech by them, pray men in Christ's stead, saying, “Be ye reconciled to God.” Its being made light of by the greater part of men does not alter its nature ; and this they shall know another day. God brings near his righteousness, even to them that are stout-hearted and far from righteousness. “Into whatsoever city ye enter,” said our Lord, “and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you ; and heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say, Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you : notwithstand- ing, be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh wnto you. But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom than for that city.” 3. By the doctrine of salvation through the blood of Christ we are actually brought nigh. As the prodigal was brought home to his father's house and family, so we are brought home to God. It is thus that we become actually reconciled to God. “If when we were enemies,” says the apostle, “we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son ; much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.” The term reconciled is, here, manifestly used in different senses. In the former instance, it refers to the making of atonement; in the latter, to our believing acquiescence in it; or, as it is expressed in the following verse, to our “receiving the atonement.” It is in this way that our sins are forgiven; that we are justified, or accepted, in the Beloved; that we are invested with the privilege of being the sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty; that God is our God, and we his people, by a new and better covenant ; that we have access to him as our heavenly Father, and to all the ordinances and privi- leges of his house: finally, it is as believing in him that died and rose again that we live in hope of eternal life. There is a term used by the apostle, in Eph. iii. 12, which conveys a very expressive idea, not only of the nearness to which believers are admitted by the faith , of Christ, and which is denoted by the term “access,” but of their being introduced by him, as by one taking them by the hand, and presenting them to the King.” We could not be admitted into the Divine presence by our- selves; but our Mediator, taking us as it were by the hand, presents us to God. It is thus that we are “accepted in the Beloved ” on our first believing, and, in all our ap- proaches to the throne of grace, have access to God. To conclude: If we have been made nigh, it becomes us, not only to be thankful for so great a favour, but to feel a deep and anxious concern for others who at present are far off. Whether we consider the state of heathens, of Mahomedans, or of our own unbelieving countrymen, they have each a claim on our compassion. And if Christ withheld not his blood to bring us nigh, it surely is not for us to withhold any labour or expense in carrying his gracious designs into execution. * IIpogayaºi, introduction, manuduction, or being led by the hand, t ON LOVE TO GOD. 621 SERMON XXI. THE NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF LOVE TO GOD. “Take good heed therefore unto yourselves, that ye love the Lord your God.”—Josh. xxiii. 11. IT is an interesting account that we have of the last days of Joshua. He is very anxious that, when he should cease to be their leader, Israel should cleave unto the Lord. To make as deep an impression upon their minds as possible, he first called for the elders and leading men among them, and delivered a serious charge to them ; after this, he gathered all the tribes together before the Lord in Shechem, where he solemnly rehearsed the deal- ings of the Lord with them, and bound them, by every consideration that he could suggest, not to forsake him, and go after the idols of the heathen. It is in this connexion that he introduces the words of the text, “Take good heed therefore unto yourselves, that ye love the Lord your God; ” intimating that in order to be obedient to the Lord, and secure against idolatrous departures from him, it was necessary, not merely to own him as their God, but to be cordially attached to his name and government. The word rendered “yourselves” in the text, is, in the margin, rendered your souls ; denoting that it is not a su- perficial inspection of the conduct that is meant, but a looking to our inmost motives, seeing to it that we love the Lord from our very hearts. This is a charge that would well befit the lips of any servant of God before he leaves the world, and be well suited to the conduct of any people. If our hearts be right with God, all is right; if not, all is wrong. In discoursing upon the subject, we shall offer a few remarks on the nature of love, and of love to God in par- ticular—consider the importance of it in characterizing the whole of our religion—the danger of declining from it— and the means to be used in promoting it. I. Let us offer a few remarks on THE NATURE OF LOVE, AND of Love To GoD IN PARTICULAR. That we may per- ceive the extent of the precept, it is necessary that we understand a few of the different ways in which love operates. 1. Observe, then, in the first place, that love operates differently according to the condition of its object. If di- rected to one that is miserable, it works in a way of pity and sympathy; if to one that is in necessity, it will impart to his relief; but if to one greatly our superior, as to a kind and benevolent sovereign, for instance, then it will operate in the way of honour, complacency, gratitude, and obedi- ence. I need not say that God is not subject to either misery or want, and, therefore, that our love to him cam- not operate in the way of pity towards him, or by com- municating to his necessities. The ways in which love to God operates are those of honour, complacency, gratitude, and obedience. 2. Love operates differently according to the condition of the subject of it. If no offence has existed between the parties, it is peace and amity; but if otherwise, it will operate in the way of regret, repentance, and a desire of reconciliation. Man, in his original state, was admitted to commune with his Creator; and love, during his con- tinuance in that state, operated in a way of grateful adora- tion. But if a spark of love be kindled in the breast of a fallen creature, it will work in a way of sorrow for sin, and a desire to return to God, as the prodigal did to his father. Moreover, in an innocent creature, love to God would operate in a way of delight and praise; but in a fallen creature, under the preaching of the gospel, it will induce him to embrace the way of salvation by Jesus Christ. Hence the want of faith in Christ is alleged in proof of the want of love to God: “I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you ; I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not.” 3. A complacency in the Divine character still enters into the essence of love. There may be affections where this is not ; but there can be no true love to God. We may be greatly affected by an apprehension that our sins are forgiven us; and this merely from self-love ; but such affections will not abide. Many who joined in singing praise to the Lord, on their deliverance at the Red Sea, soon forgot his works; for their hearts were not right with God. Genuine love to God has respect not merely to his benefits, but to his name, nature, or character, as revealed in the Scriptures. As he that hateth not sin, as sin has no real hatred to it; so he that loveth not God as God has no real love to him. True love to God, for the gift of his Son and salvation through his death, does not merely respect the benefits we receive, but the holy, just, and honourable way in which those benefits are conferred. He that is affected only by the consideration of his own safety, regardless of the way in which it is obtained, cannot be said to love God. Whether God be just or unjust is, to such a person, a matter of indifference, so that he justi- fies him. The love of God will lead us to prize that way of salvation which, in making provision for our necessities, secures the Divine glory. II. Let us observe THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS PRINCIPLE As CHARACTERIZING THE whole of OUR RELIGION. Love is not so much a particular grace as a property pertaining to all the graces. " It is to our graces that which the holi- ness of God is to his moral attributes, pervading and cha- racterizing the whole. Indeed, it is holiness itself; if the law be the standard of holiness, that which is the fulfilling of the law, which love is said to be, must comprehend the whole of it. Observe particularly— 1. It is the love of God which distinguishes true religion from all counterfeits, and from the effects of merely natural principles. It is this that distinguishes repentance from repentance, faith from faith, and fear from fear. Each of these graces has its counterfeit. Wherein consisted the difference between the repentance of Judas and that of Peter 3 The one was mere remorse of conscience ; the other proceeded from love to him whom he had denied. Wherein consisted the difference between the belief of those rulers who, because of the Pharisees, did not confess the Saviour, lest they should be put out of the synagogue, and that which was to the saving of the soul ? The one was a conviction which forced itself upon them, while their hearts were averse from it ; the other was “receiving the love of the truth, that they might be saved.” And wherein consists the difference between the fear that has torment and godly fear 3 Is it not that the one is void of love, and the other is not so? Perfect love casteth out the former, but promoteth the latter. So much as we have of the love of God, so much we have of true religion, and no more. The love that we bear to our fellow Christians, to the law, to the gospel, and even to Christ himself, is the love of God. We see in our brethren the image of God, and love it; in the law of God, a glorious transcript of his mind, and love it ; in the gospel, a more glorious transcript of his mind, and love it more; and in the person and work of Christ, the very image of the invisible God, and our hearts are united to him. In loving each of these objects, we love God. 2. It is the love of God that keeps every thing in a state of moral order. Under its influence, every thing will be done in subserviency to his glory, and every thing taken well at his hand. If God be loved first, he will be sought first. We shall not think of excusing ourselves in the neglect of our duty, by alleging that we could not find time for it : we commonly find time for things on which our hearts are fixed. It is by the love of God that all our actions are directed to his glory. Unbelievers cannot understand how this is. Whether they eat or drink, or whatsoever they do, it is merely for their own gratifica- tion, and they cannot conceive of any other end to be answered. Yet it is easy to perceive how men can make every thing subservient to that which their hearts are set upon, whether it be their interest, or the gratification of their desires. Love to a fellow creature will render every thing we do subservient to the object. All the labours and journeys of a loving head of a family are directed to their comfort ; and all the busy cares of an affectionate wife to the honour and happiness of her husband. If then God be the supreme object of our love, whether we eat or drink, or whatsoever we do, we shall do all to his glory. It is thus that the common concerns of life are con- 622 SERMONS AND SRETCHES. verted into religion, and that we shall serve the Lord even in our worldly avocations: “ Not slothful in busi- ness; fervent in spirit, serving the Lord.” It is in abusing the world, by giving it that place in our hearts which belongs to God, that it retards us in our progress to heaven. If, instead of this, we could use it, it would be useful to us even for another life, furnishing us with matter for daily prayer and praise, and thus assisting us in our progress. If we love God, we shall take every thing well at his hand, and so be reconciled to all his dispensations towards us, whether they be good or evil. We can bear almost any thing from one whom we love; especially when we know that it is accompanied with wisdom, and directed by goodness. When, in the day of Israel’s calamity, their enemies asked, “Where is now their God?” it was suf- ficient to answer, “Our God is in the heavens; he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.” It was love that dic- tated those memorable sayings of Job, during the early part of his trials : “The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Jord!—Shall we receive good at the hand of the Lord, and shall we not receive evil?” It was this that reconciled David, when driven from his throne by the rebellion of his own son : “. Here am I, let him do to me as seemeth good unto him.” And, when cursed by an enemy, viewing it as the Lord’s hand stretched out against him, he submitted: “The Lord hath said unto him, Curse David . " 3. It is the love of God that is the great preservative Jrom error. If, indeed, the truth of God were a matter of mere speculation, and we might take for granted the sincerity and impartiality of our inquiries, error would then be innocent, and the love of God would be no more of a preservative from it than it is from a mistake in reckoning a sum in arithmetic. But if Divine truth be of a practical nature, and be so clearly revealed that no unprejudiced mind can materially misunderstand, and still less disbelieve it, error is not innocent, and the great preservative from falling into it is the love of God. Such is manifestly the import of the following passages: “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God.-Why do ye not understand my speech 3 even because ye cannot hear my word.—If I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.—We are of God : he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.” If it be objected that good men err; that to ascribe their errors to prejudice, and the want of love to God, is uncandid; we answer, No good man is free from prejudice, nor does he love God as he ought. To ascribe the errors of others to the same causes to which we ascribe our own, supposing us to be in error, cannot be uncandid. If we loved God as we ought, there would be no pre- judice hanging about our minds, and we should imbibe the truth, as angels imbibe it, desiring above all things to look into it. And if we loved him more than we do, we should be more secure than we are from the seducing influence of error. Hence it is that the anointing of the Holy Spirit is represented as teaching us all things, and causing us to abide in the truth. Hence, also, those who have apostatized from the truth are described as not hav- ing cordially believed it, but as taking pleasure in un- righteousness. 4. It is the love of God which is the grand spring of evangelical obedience. Respect to ourselves, and regard to our present interests, will produce a correctness of conduct sufficient to excite the respect of those around us; but this is not religion. There is no true religion without, the love of God; and if, as has been already stated, the love of the law, of the gospel, of our fellow creatures and fellow Christians, and even of Christ him- self, be only the love of God ramified, it must follow that without this we shall not be able to exercise the others, but be merely lovers of our own selves. If we take heed to this, we shall have but little else to take heed to, as every duty will become our delight, and be cheerfully dis- charged as a matter of course. Hence we see the force of the wise man’s precept, “Keep thy heart with all dili- gence; for out of it are the issues of life.” Look well to the fountain, or the streams will in vain be expected to be pure. To watch our words and actions to the neglect of our hearts will be unavailing, III. Let us consider THE DANGER we ARE IN of DE- cLINING FROM THE LOVE OF GOD. The serious tone of caution with which the precept is delivered is expressive of this sentiment: it is only in cases of great danger that we are charged to take good heed. The love of God is a plant of heavenly extraction ; but, being planted in an unfriendly soil, it requires to be well guarded and watered. We are not only surrounded with objects which attract our affections, and operate as rivals to the blessed God, but have a propensity to depart from him. Whether we consider ourselves as individuals or as societies, this will be found to be the case. In the early stages of the Christian life, love is frequent- ly ardent. The first believing views of the grace of the gospel furnish matter of joyful surprise; and a flow of grateful affection is the natural consequence: “I love the Lord because he hath heard my voice and my sup- plications. Because he hath inclined his ear unto me, therefore will I call upon him as long as I live.” At this season we can scarcely conceive it possible to forget him who hath done such great things for us; but if twenty years of cares and temptations pass over us without pro- ducing this effect, it will be happy for us. In declining from our first love we are seldom sensible of it till some of its effects appear, as neglecting the more spiritual exercises of religion, or contenting ourselves with attending to them as a matter of form without enjoy- ing God in them, or trifling with those sins from which we should heretofore have started back with horror. Our friends often perceive it, and feel concerned on account of it, before we are aware of it ourselves; and happy is it for us if by their timely admonitions, or by any other means, we are awakened from our lethargy and saved from some greater fall, to the dishonour of God and the wounding of our future peace. I have heard this departure from our first love spoken of as a matter of course, or as that which must be expect- ed. Nay, I have heard it compared to the time when Isaac was weaned, at which Abraham made a feast ! Some old religious professors, who have become sufficient- ly cold and carnal themselves, will thus endeavour to re- concile young Christians to the same state of mind; tell- ing them, with a cunning sort of smile, that they are at present on the mount of enjoyment, but must expect to come down. And true it is that love, though it may become deeper and better grounded, may not always operate with such tenderness of feeling as it did at first. A change in the constitution from an advance in years will account for this. Many things relating to the present world which in our youth will produce tears will not have this effect as we advance in life, though they may still lie with weight upon our minds. But to confound this with re- ligious declension, coldness, and carnality, and to endea- vour to reconcile young Christians to it, is erroneous and mischievous. So did not the apostles in their intercourse with young Christians. When Barnabas visited the young Christians at Antioch, he “saw the grace of God, and was glad ; ” and instead of leading them to expect a state of declension to follow this their first love, he “exhorted them all that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord.” The great Head of the church had somewhat against the Ephesians, because they had left their first love. - There is no necessity in the nature of things for the abatement of our love, or zeal, or joy. The considerations which formerly excited these feelings have not lost their force. It is as true and as important as ever that “Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners,” and that he is “able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him;” and, excepting what the first impression de- rived from its novelty, would, if we had not declined in love, be as interesting to us. So far from our regard for these and other truths being diminished, there is ground for its being increased. Our first views of Christ and his gospel were very defective; if we follow on to know the Lord, we shall know him in a much greater degree. “The ON LOVE TO GOD. 623 path of the just,” if Scripturally pursued, will be “as the shining light, shining more and more unto the perfect day.” This was the course which the apostles pursued toward the Christians of their times: “And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge, and in all judgment.—We are bound to thank God always for you, brethren, as it is meet, because your faith groweth exceedingly, and the charity of every one of you all toward each other aboundeth.—Beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.” The apostle himself did not relax as he drew toward the end of his course, but forgetting the things that were behind, and reaching forth unto those that were be- fore, he pressed toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. To decline in our love is practically saying that we were once more spiritually-minded, more tender in conscience, and more devoted to God, than was necessary; that we have not found the religion of Jesus so interesting as we expected, and, therefore, have been obliged to have recourse for happiness to our former pursuits; and that what our old companions told us at the outset, that our zeal would soon abate, and that we should return again to them, was true. “O my people, what have I done unto thee, and wherein have I wearied thee 3 testify against me!” If we be in danger of declining as individuals, we are not less so as societies. Societies being composed of in- dividuals, a number of backsliding individuals will soon diffuse their spirit and produce a backsliding people. It was to a people that the words of Joshua were addressed. That generation of Israelites who went up with him into Canaan were distinguished by their love to God. They had seen his judgments upon their unbelieving fathers, whose carcasses fell in the wilderness, and had learned wisdom. • It was of them that the Lord spoke by Jere- miah, saying, “I remember thee, the kindness of thy youth, the love of thine espousals, when thou wentest after me in the wilderness, in a land that was not sown. Israel was holiness unto the Lord, and the first-fruits of his in- crease.” But the very next generation relapsed into idolatry: “Israel served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that overlived Joshua, and which had known all the works of the Lord that he had done for Israel.” But when they were gathered to their fathers, “there arose another generation after them which knew not the Lord, nor yet the works which he had done for Israel.” Even before the death of their venerable leader, the young people had begun to tamper with idol- atry. It was on this account that he assembled the tribes in Shechem, and so solemnly put it to them to choose on that day whom they would serve ; and that when they answered, “God forbid that we should forsake the Lord to serve other gods,” he added, “Ye cannot serve the Lord; for he is a holy God: he is a jealous God, he will not for- give your transgressions nor your sins.” This was telling them that they could not serve the Lord and Baalim. Stung with this suggestion, they answered, “Nay, but we will serve the Lord.” Then said Joshua, “Put away the strange gods which are among you, and incline your heart unto the Lord God of Israel !” This interesting account furnishes a picture of human nature. The same things have been acted over again in the world. Religion has rarely been preserved in its purity for many generations. Such is the tendency to degener- ate, that the greatest and most important reformations have commonly begun to decline, when they who have been principally engaged in them have been gathered to their fathers. Even the apostles themselves, inspired as they were, could not preserve the churches which they had raised from de- generacy. The Lord had many things against those seven in Asia to which the Apocalypse was addressed. We know also that the great body of professing Christians in a few centuries were carried away by the antichristian apos- tacy; that the descendants of the reformers have mostly renounced their principles; and that the same is true of the descendants of the puritans and non-conformists. Each of these cases furnishes a loud call to us to take good heed unto ourselves that we love the Lord our God. IV. Let us conclude with A Few DIRECTIONs As To THE MEANs of PROMOTING THE LOVE OF GOD. It has been observed already that love is a tender plant, requiring to be both guarded and watered. It will not thrive among the weeds of worldly lusts. We cannot serve the Lord in this way; if we would serve him, we must put away our idols and incline our hearts unto the Lord God of Israel. Beware of the love of the world. He that loveth the world, the love of God is not in him. Beware of living in the indulgence of any sin : any habitual sin is inconsistent with the love of God. It was on this principle that holy David, after declaring the omniscience and omnipresence of God, invoked his scrutiny: “Search me, O God, and know my heart; try me, and know my thoughts; and see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.” Wicked actions have been found in good men, who have lamented them, and been forgiven ; but a wicked way is inconsistent with a state of grace, vitiating the very principle of religion, and turning the whole into hypocrisy. Transgression of this nature must lead to per- dition. It is an affecting consideration, how many pro- fessors of religion have been found, either before or soon after they have left the world, to have lived in private drunkenness, concealed lewdness, or undetected fraud! But it is not merely by avoiding those things which are inconsistent with the love of God that we shall promote it ; we must also attend to those that cherish it. It is by being conversant with the mind of God, as revealed in his word ; by drawing near to him in private prayer; by associ- ating with the most spiritual of his people; by thinking upon his name, especially as displayed in the person and work of Christ; that the love of God will be cherished. As our minds are insensibly assimilated by the books we read and the company we keep, so will it be in reading the book of God and associating with his people; and as the glory of God is manifested in the highest degree in the face of Jesus Christ, this is the principal theme for our meditation. It is by our repairing to the cross that the love of God will be kept alive, and renewed when ready to expire. SERMON XXII. CONFORMITY TO THE DEATH OF CRITIST, “Being made conformable unto his death.”—Phil. iii. 10. THE death of Christ is a subject of so much importance in Christianity as to be essential to it. Without this, the sacrifices and prophecies of the Old Testament would be nearly void of meaning, and the other great facts recorded in the New Testament divested of importance. It is not so much a member of the body of Christian doctrine as the life-blood that runs through the whole of it. The doc- trine of the cross is the Christian doctrine. In determin- ing “not to know any thing—save Jesus Christ, and him crucified,” the apostle did not mean to contract his re- searches, or to confine his ministry to a monotonous repe- tition of a favourite point, to the neglect of other things; on the contrary, he shunned not to declare “the whole counsel of God.” The doctrine of “Christ, and him cru- cified,” comprehended this: it contained a scope which, inspired as he was, surpassed his powers; and well it might, for angels could not comprehend it, but are de- scribed as merely desiring to look into it. There is not an important truth, but what is presupposed by it, in- cluded in it, or arises out of it; nor any part of practical religion but what hangs upon it. It was from this doctrine that the New Testament writers fetched their most powerful motives. Do they re- commend humility? It is thus: “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death 624 SERMONS AND SKETCHES. of the 'cross.” Do they enforce an unreserved devotedness to God?. It is thus: “Ye are not your own ; for ye are bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.” If they would provoke Christians to brotherly love, it is from the same consideration: “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.” Do they urge a for- giving spirit # It is thus: “Be ye kind one to another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you.” Do they recommend benevolence to the poor It is from this : “For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.--Thanks be to God for his un- speakable gift l’’ Finally, The common duties of domestic life are enforced from this principle : “ Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it.” It is an immediate relation to this great principle that both the ordinances of baptism and the supper appear to have been instituted. As many as were baptized, were baptized into Christ's death ; and, in eating the bread and drinking the wine, they were directed to do it in remem- brance of him. It was a wonderful instance of conde- scending love in the Lord Jesus to desire to be remembered by us. Had we requested in the language of the converted thief to be remembered by him, there had been nothing surprising in it; but it is of the nature of dying love to desire to live in the remembrañce of those who are dear to us. It was not, however, on his own account, but on ours, that he left this dying request. He knew that to remember him would answer every case that could occur. If afflicted, this would be our solace; if persecuted, the consideration of him that had endured such contradiction of sinners would prevent our being weary and faint in our minds; if guilty, this would point out the way of forgive- ness; or if tempted to turn aside, this would bind us to his name and cause. It was by a believing view of this great subject that the apostle, at the first, counted all his former privileges and attainments loss; and though, in consequence of re- nouncing Judaism, he had exchanged all his earthly pros- pects for hunger, and thirst, and nakedness, and perils, and bitter persecutions, yet, after thirty years’ experience, he does not repent, but, in a tone of heavenly triumph, adds, “Yea, doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord ; for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, and be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith !” A mind thus imbued with the sacred theme, we should think, must have known much of Christ already, and, compared with us, he must ; yet, after all that he had thought, and preached, and written, he makes nothing of his attainments, but adopts the language of one that had, in a manner, every thing to learn : “That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death.” The last of these vehement desires seems to be ex- planatory of some, if not all, that precede it. That is, he would know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, as “being made con- formable unto his death.” The sentiment here conveyed appears to be, That the death of Christ is a model to which Christians must aspire to be conformed. This sentiment we shall endeavour to illustrate and confirm. There are other models beside the death of Christ; but they are included in this. The law of God is that to which we must be conformed. If we be born from above, it is “written in our hearts.” But as one great end of Christ's death was to honour the Divine law, not only in its precept, but its penalty, a conformity to the one must include a conformity to the other. The character of God also is represented as a model to which believers are con- formed. The new man is created “after God, in right- eousness and true holiness;” but as in the death of Christ God was glorified in the highest, a conformity to this must be a conformity to the Divine character. The lives of holy men are also held up for our imitation; but as this is only in proportion as they are followers of Christ, a conformity to him includes all that is required of us re- specting them. We shall consider the death of Christ in four views: namely, in respect of the principles on which it proceeded —the motives by which it was induced—the spirit with which it was endured—and the ends which it accomplished. Under each of these views we shall find things to which we must be conformed. Observe— I. THE PRINCIPLES ON which THE DEATH of CHRIST PROCEEDED. In them we shall find a standard by which to form our principles, and shall be able to judge whether they be of God. . 1. The death of Christ presupposes that we deserved to die. A sense of this truth is at the foundation of all true religion ; it requires, therefore, that we be made con- formable to it. God, in the gift of his Son to die, judged us to have been worthy of death; Christ, in giving him- self to die, evinced himself to be of the same mind; and such must be our mind, or we can have no interest in the glorious results. Until we see and feel that God is in the right, that we are in the wrong, and that if he had cast us off for ever it had been no more than we deserved, we shall be strangers to repentance, and as incapable of believing in Christ for salvation as he that is whole is of appreciating the value of a physician. 2. The death of Christ presupposes that sin is eacceed- ingly sinful. If it were a matter of small account, it may be presumed that the Father would not have made so much of it as to give his Son to be made a sacrifice to atone for it; and that the Son of God would not have laid down his life for that purpose. The curses of the law, and the judgments inflicted at different times on sinners, furnished strong proof of the malignant nature of sin; especially when the native goodness of God is taken into consideration ; but the blood of the cross furnishes much stronger. It was a great thing for the Creator to destroy the work of his hands, and it is so represented : “The Lord said, I will destroy man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth.” But to smite his beloved Son was greater. To be made conformable to this principle, we must not conceive of sin as the weakness, or frailty, of human nature, a mere imperfection which a good God must needs overlook. Neither must we give heed to those systems of religion which are founded upon these depre- ciating notions, which, however they may flatter us for the present, will, in the end, assuredly deceive us. 3. The death of Christ presupposes that there was no- thing, in all our doings or sufferings, that could furnish a ground of salvation, or a single consideration for which we might be forgiven. Had it been otherwise, Christ would not have died. Men have ever been busily employed in endeavours to propitiate the Deity; some by ceremonial observances, and some by moral; but instead of accom- plishing the object, they have only made the case worse. Even those services which were of Divine appointment became, in their hands, offensive; God was weary of their offerings. Christ is represented as taking the work out of their hands: “Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire ; mine ears hast thou opened : burnt-offering and sin-offering hast thou not required. Then said I, Lo, I come !” They were, indeed, required as duties for the time, but not for the purpose of making atonement. Not tears, nor prayers, nor alms, nor any other of our doings, will avail as terms of acceptance with God. If we are conformed to the death of Christ, we shall know and feel this to be the case, and shall seek salvation by grace only, through the Mediator. If we are not conformed to the death of Christ in this respect, we have no reason to ex- pect any interest in it. 4. The death of Christ presupposes that, for mercy to be exercised in a way consistent with the honour of God, it re- quired to be through a sacrifice of infinite value. When the apostle declares that “it was not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins,” he plainly intimates that the inherent value of the sacrifice was of CONFORMITY TO THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 625 essential importance as to its effect. If it were impossible for animal sacrifices to atone for sin, it must be on account of their insufficiency to demonstrate either the hatred of God to sin or his love to sinners ; but the same reason would apply to the sacrifice of Christ, if he were merely a creature. Hence those who deny his Divinity, with per- fect consistency deny also his atonement. But, on the principles of his Divinity, his sufferings were of infinite value; and to this the Scriptures ascribe their efficacy. A careful reader of the New Testament will perceive that, in exhibiting the value and efficacy of his death, it connects it with the inherent dignity of his person : “Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.”—“We have a great High Priest that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God.”—“The blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanseth us from all sin.” - The result is, that, to be made conformable to the death of Christ, we must think highly of it, and not reduce it to the death of a mere martyr. It is a serious thing to make light of the Saviour, and of the work of salvation : “He that despised Moses's law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment, sup- pose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy (or common) thing, and hath dome despite unto the Spirit of grace 3 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance be- longeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God!” Let us observe, II. THE MOTIVES BY which THE DEATH of CHRIST was INDUCED. In these we shall find a blessed example to imitate. They may all be summed up in love ; love to God and men; love, great, disinterested, and unparalleled. There never was such an example of the “love of God” as that which is furnished by the obedience and death of Christ. It was his meat and drink to do the will of his Father. He did not know his nearest relations, but as doing his Father's will. When the bitter cup was pre- sented to him, he said, “Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. Father, glorify thy name.” What was this but exposing his breast, as we should say, to the sword of justice; consenting to be made a sacrifice, that God might be glorified in the salvation of sinners ? It was love, working in a way of grief, that caused that affecting exclamation, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” He could endure the cross, and even despise the shame; he could bear to be betrayed, denied, and forsaken by his own disciples: but to be for- saken of God wounded him beyond any thing. Oh to be made conformable to his death in these things; to love God, so as to account it our meat and drink to do his will; so as to reckon his friends our friends, and his cause our cause ; to be willing to do any thing, or suffer any thing, for his name's sake; and to feel the withholding of his favour our severest loss | As there never was such love to God as that which was manifested by Christ, so neither was there ever such love to men: “He loved us, and gave himself for us—loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood.” The love of creatures is ordinarily founded on something lovely in the object ; but Christ died for us while we were yet enemies. To be made conformable to his death in this is to bear good-will to men, to seek their present and ever- lasting welfare in every way that is within our power; and this notwithstanding the unloveliness of their charac. ter and conduct: “Love them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you, and persecute you.” Un- believers, who know no principle superior to self-love, have represented this precept of our Lord as unnatural and extravagant. Yet they themselves are daily partaking of his bounty, who causeth his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and his rain to descend on the just and on the unjust. If they were the children of that Being whom they acknowledge, they would, in some degree, resemble him. Such was the example of Jesus, and such must be ours, if we be made conformable to him. Let us observe, III. THE SPIRIT witH which THE SUFFERINGS AND DEATH of CHRIST were ENDURED. In this we shall find a model for our spirit. The Lord Jesus was possessed of all the original passions of human nature; as love, joy, sorrow, grief, anger, indignation, &c. When reproached and injured, he felt it; his “enduring the cross, and de- spising the shame,” was not owing to his being insensible to either, but to “the joy set before him.” The purity of his nature did not extinguish its passions, but rendered them subordinate to the will of his Father. With the greatest sensibility to reproach and injury, he was meek and lowly of heart. Under all the reproaches and false accusations that were preferred against him on his trial, he preserved a dignified silence; not a word was uttered tending to save his life: but, when questioned on the truth of his Messiahship, he, with equal dignity and firm- ness, avowed it, though he knew the avowal would cost him his life. Nor did the contradiction and abuse which he received from his executioners extinguish his compas- sion toward them : while they were nailing him to the cross he prayed, saying, “Father, forgive them : for they know not what they do.” If we observe the spirit of the apostles, we shall find them to have made him their pattern : “Being reviled, we bless ; being persecuted, we suffer it; being defamed, we entreat : we are made as the filth of the world, and the off- scouring of all things, unto this day.” There appears to have been a holy emulation in the apostle Paul to be a follower of his Lord, even unto death. In all that befell him, he kept his eye on Christ: “If we suffer, we shall also reign with him.”—“We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed ; perplexed, but not in despair; perse- cuted, but not forsaken ; cast down, but not destroyed, always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. For we which live are always delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh.” Such was that con- formity to the death of Christ, after which he panted with the most vehement desire. Nothing was further from his thoughts than partaking with him in the work of redemp- tion ; but so far as fellowship in his sufferings was ad- missible, it was the object of his most ardent desire. Oh to be thus made like him and like his faithful followers We proceed to observe, IV. THE ENDs wiłICH THE DEATH OF CHRIST Accom- PLISHED. In them, though there is much which is pecu- liar to himself, yet there is also much in which we are made conformable to him. Did he satisfy Divine justice, and thereby open the way of salvation ? Certainly, it is not for us to attempt any thing like this; but, by believing in him, we acquiesce in what he has done and suffered, and so are made conform- able to it. Nor is this confined to our first believing : the more we know of Christ, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, the more we are, in this way, made conformable to his death. The death of Christ will give the impression to the very enjoyment of heaven. “ The Lamb that was slain” will be the theme of the song for ever. . Was he “manifested to destroy the works of the devil?” If we be made conformable to his death, we also shall wage war with them. If we live in sin, we are of the devil, and must needs be at variance with the death of Christ; sparing that which he was manifested in human nature to destroy. The finished work of Christ upon the cross did not supersede the necessity of our being active in overcoming evil. We must set our feet upon the necks of these spiritual enemies, taking a part in their destruc- tion. Neither did it supersede the necessity of our active perseverance in the use of all means by which we may dis- engage our souls from the entanglements of sin, praying and struggling from under its dominion, perfecting holi- ness in the fear of God. It is thus that we have to “work out our own salvation with fear and trembling,” which, instead of superseding the death of Christ, is being made conformable to it. From his having died for sin, we are 2 S 626 SERMONS AND SKETCHES. exhorted to die to it, and to live unto God. We cannot enter into the end of Christ’s death, which was to make an end of sin, unless we become dead to sin ; nor into his resurrection, without rising with him into newness of life. In waging war with sin, it is necessary to begin with ourselves, but not to end there. If we be made conform- able to the death of Christ, we shall be adverse to sin wherever we find it; avoiding all participation in it through complaisance or worldly interest, and uniting to promote sobriety, righteousness, and godliness in its place. Finally, Christ died “to save sinners;” and if we be made conformable to his death, we also shall seek their salvation. Some of the first thoughts which occur to a believer's mind, on having found rest for his own soul, respect the salvation of his kindred and acquaintance ; and the direction given to one who had obtained mercy gives countenance to such thoughts and desires: “Go home to thy friends, and tell them how great things the Lord hath done for thee, and hath had compassion on thee.” It is not for ministers only to take an interest in the salvation of men; the army of the Lamb is composed of the whole body of Christians. Every disciple of Jesus should consider himself as a missionary. All, indeed, are not apostles, nor evangelists, nor preachers ; but all must be engaged in serving the Lord : some by preaching, some by contributing of their substance, and all by prayer and recommending the Saviour by a holy conversation. The death of Christ stands connected, in the Divine promise, with the salvation of sinners. This is “the travail of his soul,” which he was to see, and be satisfied ; the “joy set before him,” in view of which he endured the cross, and despised the shame. unto his death, therefore, we must combine that which God has combined with it. It is a high honour conferred Ön us to be instruments in thus saving our fellow sinners, and in thus crowning our Redeemer; nor will it be less advantageous to us, since he has said, “To him that over- cometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.” SERMON XXIII. THE LIFE OF CHRIST THE SECURITY AND FELICITY OF THIS CHURCHI, - “I am he that liveth;and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen ; and have the keys of hell and of death.”—Rev. i. 18. SOME of the most important writings in the church of Christ have been occasioned by the persecutions of its énemies. The Psalms of David, in which a good man will find all the devout feelings of his heart portrayed, were mostly occasioned by the oppositions of the wicked. Many of Paul's Epistles were written from prison ; and this book, which contains a system of prophecy from the ascension of Christ to the end of time, was communicated to the beloved disciple when in a state of banishment. Thus it is that the wrath of man is made to praise God : so much of it as would not answer this end is restrained. Some of the most distinguished prophets under the Old Testament were introduced to their work by an extraor- dinary and impressive vision. It was thus with Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel ; and thus it was with the writer of this book. They beheld the glory of Jehovah in a manner suitable to the dispensation under which they lived : he, being under a new dispensation, of which Christ was exalted to be the Head, saw his glory both Divine and human ; as the Alpha and Omega, the first and last, and as the Son of man walking in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks. On seeing him, the apostle fell at his feet as dead. He on whose bosom he could formerly lean with all the fa- miliarity of a friend, is now possessed of a glory too great to be sustained by a mortal man. But yet how sweetly is this awful grandeur tompered with gentleness and good- ness : “He laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, To be made conformable : Fear not, I am the first and the last ; I am he that liveth, and was dead ; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen ; and have the keys of hell and of death.” The force and beauty of the passage will appear to ad- vantage, if we observe the circumstances of the church and of the apostle at the time. It is supposed to be about the year 95, under the persecution of Domitian. The church, at that time, was under a dark cloud. Great numbers of the first Christians and the first ministers would now have finished their course ; many would be cut off by the persecution; all the apostles were dead, except- ing John, and he was banished. To an eye of sense it would appear as if the cause must be crushed. How cheering, in such circumstances, must it have been to be told, “I am he that liveth !” The Assyrian invasion, in the time of Hezekiah, filled the breadth of Immanuel's land ; but, while Jerusalem was preserved, the head was above water, and the body politic, though overflowed even to the neck, would yet live. Much more would the church in the midst of persecution. While Christ her Head lived, she could not die. It was on the Lord's day that the apostle was favoured with this extraordinary vision, the day in which he had risen from the dead; which circumstance would add force to what he said of himself as having been dead, but as being now alive. It was the day also in which, as far as their persecuted state would admit, the churches were as- sembled for Christian worship ; and while they, doubtless, remembered the venerable apostle in their prayers, the Lord, by him, remembered and provided for them. There is a charming circumlocution in the passage, which surprises and overwhelms the mind. The Lord might have said, as on a former occasion, “Be not afraid, it is I; ” but he describes himself in language full of the richest consolation : “I am he that liveth, and was dead ; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, and have the keys of hell and of death !” Let us observe the characters which our Lord assumes— consider them as a ground of security to the church—and conclude with a few reflections. I. Let us observe THE CHARACTERS WHICH OUR LORD AssumEs. The words contain four positions : viz. that he liveth—that he liveth who was dead—that he liveth for evermore—and that he has the keys of hell and of death. 1. He saith, “I am he that liveth.” It is a truth that Christ liveth, and always did and will live as “the first and the last ; ” but the life here spoken of, being that which succeeded to his death, was possessed in the same nature as that in which he died. It was the life which commenced at his resurrection; when, “being raised from the dead, he dieth no more : death hath no more dominion over him.” It consists, not merely in existence, but in that “blessing, and honour, and glory” which he received as the reward of his humiliation. It is the possession of that “joy that was set before him,” in the prospect of which “he endured the cross, and despised the shame.” There appears to be something more in the words, “I am he that liveth,” than if it had been said, I live ; for this had been true of millions as well as of Christ, whereas that which is spoken is something peculiar to him. Paul says of himself, “I live ;” but when he had said it, he, in a manner, recalled his words, adding, “yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.” Christ is not only possessed of life himself, but communicates it to others : his life involves that of the church, and of every individual believer in him. In his life they live, and will live for evermore. In the life of Christ we trace the execution of the great designs of his death. It is as living that he intercedes “for us at the right hand of God.” “If,” says the apostle Paul, “when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son ; much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.” We see here three distinct stages in the work of Christ. First, By his death he made atonement for us: this is expressed by his having “reconciled us to God,” or restored us to his favour as the Lawgiver and Judge of the world. Secondly, By his word and Spirit we are subdued to the obedience of faith, so as, of enemies, to become friends: this is expressed by our “being reconciled,” or brought into a state of actual peace and friendship with God. Thirdly, By his “life” THE LIFE OF CHRIST THE CHURCH'S SUPPORT. 627 he saves us: this is that branch of salvation which is ef- fected by his intercession, and which is denominated saving us “ to the uttermost.” From the first two, the apostle argues the last, as from what Christ did for us when ene- mies to what he will do for us now that we are friends, and from his having begun the work to his carrying it on to perfection. In the life of Christ we trace all the important blessings of his reign. The promise of the “sure mercies of David” is alleged by the apostle as a proof of the resurrection of Christ. But how does this appear ! By “the sure mer- cies of David,” as promised in the 55th of Isaiah, there is doubtless a reference to the covenant made with David, “ ordered in all things and sure,” and which contained all his salvation, and all his desire. But this covenant was to be fulfilled in the everlasting kingdom of Christ. “The sure mercies of David,” therefore, are the blessings of the Messiah's kingdom, the bestowment of which implies his resurrection ; for if death had continued to have dominion over him, no such kingdom could have existed. The sum is, that, in saying to his servant John, “I am he that liveth,” he furnished one of the richest sources of consolation to the church in its state of tribulation. 2. He speaks of his life as succeeding to his death: “I am he that liveth, and was dead.” This part of the de- scription would remove all doubts, if any existed, as to who he was. The disparity between his present appear- ance, and what he was when the apostle saw and conversed with him in the flesh, must be exceedingly great, and might tend to stagger his belief in his being the same person ; but this speech, whatever doubts he felt, would at once remove them. Yes; it is my Lord himself, and not an- other. It is he whom I saw expire upon the cross | The connexion between the death of Christ on earth and his succeeding life in glory renders each of them more in- teresting. There is great joy derived from the consider- ation of salvation through the death of Christ. It is the burden of the heavenly song. But this would be no joy, were it not for the consideration of his life. What if we could all have obtained salvation ; yet if it must have been at the expense of the everlasting blessedness of our De- liverer, who could have enjoyed it? What would the feast be, if the Lord of the feast were not there ? Though, in enduring the death of the cross, he had “spoiled princi- palities and powers,” and “made a show of them openly;” yet if he had not lived to enjoy his triumphs, what would they have been to the redeemed, and even to the angelic world ! If the King's Son had been lost, the victory of that day would have been turned into mourning. If it had been possible for him to be holden of death, the loss to the moral empire of God must have exceeded the gain, and the saved themselves must have been ashamed to ap- pear in heaven at the expense of the general good . But we are not called to so painful a trial. Our salvation, expensive as it was, was not at this expense. He was dead, but he liveth ! our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead l’” And as the life of Christ adds to the joy arising from his death, so the death of Christ adds to the joy arising from his life. There is great joy, as we have seen, derived from his life ; but it would not be what it is if this his life had not succeeded his death. The life of Isaac was dear to Abraham before he attempted to offer him up a sacrifice; but it would be much more so when he had received him as from the dead. The life of Joseph was dear to Jacob when he dwelt with him in the vale of Hebron; but it would be much more so after his having in a manner buried him. If Christ had never divested himself of the glory which he had with the Father before the world was, it would not have been to us that which it will be. The very angels, though he died not for them, nor for any of their species, yet honour him as “the Lamb that was slain.” And as to the redeemed themselves, their song is sweeter still: “Thou art worthy,” say they, “for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; and hast made us unto our God kings and priests; and we shall reign on the earth.” 3. He describes himself not only as “he that liveth, and “Blessed be the God and Father of was dead,” but as being “alive for evermore.” He was raised, not only to life, but to an immortal life. “He dieth no more : death hath no more dominion over him.” This cheering truth arises from the perfection of his sacri- fice. The sacrifices under the law could not take away sin, but were mere shadows of good things to come, and therefore required to be often repeated ; but the sacrifice of Christ was “once for all.” The Scriptures lay great stress upon the term once, as applied to the sacrifice of Christ : it is used no less than six times in this connexion : “Christ being raised from the dead,” saith the apostle, “ dieth no more: death hath no more dominion over him ;” and thus he accounts for it,-‘‘For in that he died, he died unto sin once; but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.” A transient suffering in so Divine a person was sufficient to expiate that which would have subjected us to everlasting punishment, and to lay the foundation of a permanent life with God, both for himself and for all those who believe in him. Such was the value of his sacrifice, that its influence will continue for ever. Even when the work of mediation shall be perfected, and the kingdom as mediatorial be “delivered up to the Father, that God may be all in all,” Christ will live, and be the life of the church for ever. In that state where “there will be no temple,” “the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb '' are said to be “the temple thereof;” and the reason given for there being no need of the sun, nor of the moon, is, that “the glory of God will lighten it, and the Lamb will be the light thereof.” The “Amen” which follows this part of the description seems to be added by the apostle, and designed to express the satisfaction that he felt in the life of Christ. The words, “O king, live for ever,” as addressed to an Asiatic sovereign, could only express the wish of the party that his life might be continued ; and that in most cases was mere flattery; but here is neither flattery nor hyperbole. The Lord declares that he lives for ever, and the apostle adds to it his cordial “Amen ” 4. He declares the authority with which he is invested : “And have the keys of hell and of death.” By “hell and death,” I understand the powers of the invisible world, which, in reward of his humiliation and death, were put under his control. “God raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come ; and hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the Head over all things to the church.-Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels, and authorities, and powers being made subject unto him.” Hell, with all its machin- ations, can do no more than he permits ; and death, with all its terrors, comes and goes at his bidding. But why are hell and death only mentioned as subjected to Christ? Does not his empire extend to the church as well as to the world, and to the visible as well as to the invisible powers? Certainly it does; all power in heaven and earth is given to him : but there was a fitness in his here mentioning that part only of his empire which was hostile to the church, and that kind of hostility which at the time threatened to destroy it. Persecution is the storming work of hell and of death on the strong holds of Zion. Hell furnishes the plan, and death carries it into execution. Men, indeed, have a concern in what is done against the church ; but it is as agents of the wicked one : the visible world, therefore, may be overlooked as being influenced by the invisible. To control an army it is sufficient to con- trol those that influence its movements. II. LET US CONSIDER THESE INTERESTING CHARACTERS AS A SOURCE OF SECURITY AND FELICITY TO THE CHURCHI. The existence of the church in this depraved world is one of the wonders of Providence. It is a vessel living in a tempestuous sea; a bush on fire, yet not consumed. If we reflect on the enmity of the wicked against the right- eous, their great superiority over them, the attempts that have been made to exterminate them, the frequent dimi- nution of their number by defection and death, their ex- istence, and especially their increase, must be wonderful, and can no otherwise be accounted for but that Christ liveth. 2 S 2 628 SERMONS AND SEETCHES. When they were few in number, and wandered as strangers from one nation to another, he suffered no man to hurt them ; “he reproved kings for their sakes ; saying, Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm.” In Egypt he saw their affliction, and came down to deliver them. Of Jerusalem the enemy said, “Raze it, raze it to the foundation ; ” but the Lord remembered it, and de- stroyed its destroyer. Under the Persian dominion, the captives were restored to their own land; yet even then the enemy intrigued against them ; so that for one-and- twenty years the building of the temple was hindered, and the prayers of the prophet Daniel were unanswered. Thus it was, I conceive, that “the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood” the angel for “one-and-twenty days;” but, lo, Michael the chief prince stood with him and helped him. * Under the gospel dispensation, as the church became more spiritual, the hatred increased ; and as religion was henceforth more of a personal than a national concern, such was the opposition directed against it. But still the great Head of the church lived. The persecution which raged at the time of this prophecy was the second of ten cruel persecutions from the heathen emperors; and though, after this, the government became professedly Christian, yet such were the corruptions which entered in at this door, that in a little time that which was called the Christian church became an antichristian harlot, perse- cuting the servants of Jesus with a cruelty equal, if not superior, to that of heathens. These floods filled the breadth of Immanuel's land, reaching even to the neck; but, the church’s Head being above water, she has sur- vived them all. Often have we seen, in our smaller circles, the cause of God reduced to a low condition; sometimes by the falling away of characters who seemed to be pillars, and some- times by the removal of great and good men by death. But under all this it is our comfort, the Lord liveth—the government is on his shoulder. Finally, The life of Christ involves not only the se- curity of the church on earth, but its felicity in heaven. The members being united with the Head, their life is bound up with his life. Even in the present world, if one says, “I live,” he must recollect himself, with the apostle, and add, “Yet not I, but Christ liveth in me; ” but if it be so in respect of spiritual life in this world, it will be so as to eternal life in the world to come. Every thing which our Lord did and suffered was for us; and every degree of glory that he possesses in reward of it is for us : for us he became incarnate, died, rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, and liveth at the right hand of God. “Your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also ap- pear him in glory.” From the whole we see, First, That the way to everlast- ing life is to believe in Jesus. The way of life, according to the tenor of the first covenant, was, “The man which doeth these things shall live by them; ” but the way of life to a sinner is, “If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” It is as believing in the Sön of God that we are interested in him, and, having him, have everlasting life. We have, in the life of Christ, the greatest possible encouragement to believe in him and be saved; for it is as ever living to make intercession for us that he is able to save to the ut- termost all those that come unto God by him. Q my hearers this is the hinge on which our salvation or damnation turns. To refuse him in favour of your own righteousness, or of any other idol, is to refuse iife; and to hate him is to love death. The question put to the * Dan, x. 13, 21; , Prideaux reckons, from the first interruption of the Jews in rebuilding the temple to the last sentence of Darius in their favour, only twenty years; namely, from the third year of Cyrus to the eighth of Darius Hystaspes; but from Dan. x. 1–4, it appears, that though the opposition openly commenced in the third year, yet it had been at work in the second. It was within three days of the be- ginning of the third year, that the prophet began to mourn; if one cause of this mourning, therefore, was the obstruction to the work of God at Jerusalem, it must have begun in the second year; which makes it twenty-one years, corresponding with the three full weeks of the prophet's mourning, and with the one-and-twenty days of the house of Israel is no less applicable to you than it was to them, “Why will ye die?” Those who believe not in him are as unwilling to come to him that they may have life as the house of Israel were to cast away their trans- gressions. God has no more pleasure in the death of him that dieth eternally than he had in the death of those who perished under some temporal calamity; nor is the one any more at variance with the doctrine of election than the other was with the doctrine of decrees in general, or of God’s doing all things after the counsel of his own will.i. Secondly, The same truth, like the cloud in the wilder- ness, wears a bright side to believers, and a dark side to unbelievers. The life of Christ will be the death of his enemies. To behold him coming in the clouds of heaven, invested with the keys of hell and of death, must fill their hearts with dismay. The same power that has so often shut the door of destruction against his servants, so as to forbid their entrance, will shut it upon his enemies, so as to leave no hope of escape. * SERMON XXIV. CHRISTIANITY THE ANTIDOTE To PRESUMPTION AND DES PAIRs “My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And, if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.”—l John ii. 1. WHEN our Saviour ascended up on high, his disciples, who were looking stedfastly toward heaven after him, were thus accosted by the angels, “Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven 7 This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like man- ner as ye have seen him go into heaven.” It might seem, by this language, that whatever our Lord might do for us in the intermediate period, it was not for us to be made acquainted with it. And it has been suggested that we are ignorant not only of “the place where he resides, but of the occupations in which he is engaged.”: These is, indeed, nothing revealed on these subjects to gratify curi- osity ; but much to satisfy faith. If we know not God, we may be expected to think lightly of sin, and meanly of the Saviour ; and if, in consequence of this, we disown his atonement, and perceive no need of his intercession and advocateship with the Father, there will be nothing surprising in it. With such a state of mind we might have lived at the time when “God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory,” and have been no more interested by any of these events than were the unbelieving part of the Jewish na- tion. But if we entertain just sentiments of the moral character and government of God, we shall perceive the evil of sin and the need of a Divine Saviour, shall con- sider his atonement as the only ground of a sinner's hope, and his intercession and advocateship with the Father as necessary to our being saved to the uttermost. To satisfy ourselves that such were the sentiments of the apostles, it is sufficient candidly to read their writings. If their authority be rejected, so it must be; but it is vain to attempt to disguise their meaning. And, before we re- ject their authority, it will be well to consider the force of their testimony concerning themselves and their doc- trine : “We are of God : he that knoweth God, heareth us; he that is not of God, heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.” They were either what they professed to be, or presump- *. detention, according to the usual prophetic reckoning, a day Or a year. + T. doctrine of free will, as opposed to that of free grace, is not that, in doing good, we act according to our choice, and require to be exhorted to it, and warned against the contrary; this is manifestly Scriptural and proper: but that it is owing to our free will that we are disposed to choose the good and refuse the evil; if not to the exclu- sion of Divine grace, yet to the rendering it effectual by properly im- proving it, and so to making ourselves to differ. # Mr. Belsham's Review of Mr. Wilberforce's Treatise, p. 85. THE ANTIDOTE TO PRESUMPTION AND DESPAIR. 629 tuous impostors; and what they said of hearing their doc- trine as a test of being of God was either true, or they were false witnesses of God; and, as all that we know of Christ is from their writings and those of the evangelists, if theirs be false witness, Christianity itself has nothing to authenticate it. “ My little children,” said the venerable apostle, “ these things write I unto you, that ye sin not.” This is the bearing of all my writings, as well as of all my other labours. Yet, while I warn you against sin, knowing that there is not a just man upon earth that doeth good, and sinneth not, let me remind you that “we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” Such is the doctrine of the apostle, an antidote both to presumption and despair. He that hath an ear to hear, iet him hear it. Let us observe, I. THE GENERAL CHARGE WHICH CHRISTIANITY GIVES To Its ADHERENTs : “These things write I unto you, that ye sin not.” This is to repress presumption. This is the bearing not only of the writings of John, but of the whole Scriptures: this is the object at which every doc- trine and every precept aims. It may be thought, and has sometimes been said, that “all religions tend to make men better,” and, therefore, that this property of the apostle's doctrine has nothing peculiar in it. But this is a gratuitous assumption. All religions do not tend to make men better; but, many of them, much worse. Nay, so far is this assumption from being true, that Christianity is the only religion that, strictly speaking, is opposed to sin. That men of all re- ligions have paid some attention to morals is true; but, in doing so, they have not been influenced so much by their religion as by the necessity which all men feel of maintaining somewhat of a correct conduct towards one another. As to sin against God, there is no religion but that of the Bible that pays any regard to it. And even Christianity itself, in so far as it is corrupted, loses this property. Every system of religion may be known by this whether it be of God or not. If it delight in calling sin by extenuating names—or represent repentance and good works as sufficient to atone for it—or prescribe ceremonial remedies for allaying the remorse which it produces—it makes light of sin, and is not of God. Every doctrine and precept in the Bible makes much of sin; and this is as much a distinguishing peculiarity of the true religion as any principle that can be named. Some doctrines are directly of a warning nature. Are we taught, for instance, the omniscience and omnipre- sence of God?—What can be more pungent than such sentiments as these ? “O Lord, thou hast searched me, and known me. Thou knowest my down-sitting and mine up-rising ; thou understandest my thought afar off. Thou compassest my path, and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O Lord, thou knowest it altogether. Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me.”—“Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there;—if I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.” Every sentiment here saith to us, “ Sin not.” Are we taught the holiness of God?—It is that we may be holy: “Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the gods? Who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?”—“Ye cannot serve the Lord : for he is a holy God; he is a jealous God; he will not for- give your transgressions nor your sins.” Such is the ob- ject of all the Divine precepts and threatenings. Let us seriously read the twenty-eighth chapter of Deuteronomy, and ask ourselves, What could induce the kindest and best of beings thus strictly to enjoin his will, and thus to scatter his curses against the breach of it? Finally, Such is the object of all the accounts of justice and judg- ºnents as executed on transgressors. The histories of the flood, of the burning of Sodom and Gomorrah, of the plagues of Egypt and the destruction of the Egyptians in the Red Sea, of the punishments on the rebellious Israel- ites in the wilderness, of the destruction of the city and temple of Jerusalem, first by the Chaldeans, and after- wards by the Romans, all speak one language; all are written to us that we “sin not.” There is another set of Scripture truths which are of a consolatory nature ; yet they are aimed at the same thing. For what purpose was the Son of God manifested in human nature ? Was it not that he might “destroy the works of the devil?” To what are we elected? That we should “be holy, and without blame before him in love.” To what are we predestinated ? That we might “be conformed to the image of his Son.” Why did he give himself for us, but that he “might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works º' Why are we called out of a “state of darkness into his marvellous light, but that we might walk as children of light?” Of what use are the “exceeding great and precious promises” of the Scrip- tures? Is it not that, having them, we should “cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, per- fecting holiness in the fear of God?” That is not Chris- tianity that does not operate in this way. He that sin- neth habitually is of the devil, and hath not seen or known God. Wicked men seek a system of religion which may consist with their lusts; and God, in right- eous judgment, often suffers them to find it; but it is not the gospel: the language of the gospel is, “ These things are written to you, that ye sin not ” The Scriptures guard the doctrine of grace, not indeed by limiting its operations to lesser sinners, but by insist- ing on its mortifying and sanctifying effects. The apostle Paul, notwithstanding all that he had written on justifica- tion by faith, exempts none from condemnation, but those that were “ in Christ Jesus;” and admits none to be “in Christ Jesus,” but those who “walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” He still declared, “If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die.” There is a universality pertaining to true holiness which distinguishes it from all that is spurious. We must be “holy in all manner of conversation,” or there is no real holiness in us. A single “wicked way” will lead to destruction. The cer- tain perseverance of the saints is not that a person, having once believed, whether he depart from God or not, shall be finally saved; but that, God having put his fear in his heart, he shall not be suffered wholly to depart from him. If any man, therefore, depart utterly from God, he ought to conclude that the fear of God was not in him. If the blossom go up as the dust, the root was rottenness. If, in times of temptation, we fall away, it is because we have “no root in ourselves.” “If,” says the apostle John, “ they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us : but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” Even our partial departures from God must render our state doubtful. When the Galatians doubted the gospel, the apostle stood in doubt of them ; declaring he was afraid of them, lest he had “bestowed upon them labour in vain.” And had they judged according to evidence, as he did, they must have stood in doubt of themselves. To represent, as some do, that doubts and fears of this kind are the temptations of Satan, or the workings of un- belief, and require to be resisted, as that which is dis- honourable to God, is to promote the most dangerous delusion, and to bring the blood of souls upon their own heads. The things which they call the temptations of Satan, may be found to be the dictates of an awakened conscience, which they endeavour to lull asleep. Doubts of the goodness or veracity of God, or of the all-suffi- ciency or willingness of the Saviour to receive those that come to him, are, indeed, dishonourable to God; but doubts of our own sincerity, founded upon our departures in heart and conduct from him, are so far from being sinful that they are necessary to awaken us to self-examination. Thus the Corinthians, who had sunk into many and great evils, were called upon, not to hold fast the persuasion that, notwithstanding this, their state was safe; but to “examine themselves whether they were in the faith, and to prove their own selves;” and assured that, except in- deed they were reprobates, or disapproved of God, Jesus Christ was in them—that is, by his word and Spirit, bringing forth fruit. 630 SERMONS AND SIXETCHES. $ We proceed to observe, II. THE SPECIFIC PROVISION FOR THEIR FAULTS AND FAILINGs :—“And if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” This is to prevent despair. It is here supposed, that though it is the habitual aim of true Christians not to sin, yet, in this world, they are not free from it. Some have fallen into grievous sins, as we too well know, from Scripture, observation, and, in many instances, from painful experience. Others, who have not fallen so as either to disgrace themselves or the name of Christ, yet have much sin wherewith to reproach themselves, in deeds, or words, or unlawful desires. The petition in the Lord’s prayer, “Forgive us our trespasses,” shows that we sin, and need forgiveness, as often as we need our daily bread. If any man imagine himself to have arrived to sinless perfection, he must be woefully blind to the spirituality of the Divine law, and to the extent of his obligations. , “If we say that we have no sin, we de- ceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” Further, It is here suggested that, whatever be our sin, yet if we confess it with a contrite heart, and believe in Jesus who died for sinners, and rose from the dead, and ascended to the Father, he will be our Advocate, and our sins shall be forgiven for his sake. It was in this way that David was forgiven. It is true, Christ had not then died, nor risen, nor ascended to be the Advocate with the Father; but his penitential prayer shows that he believed in him according to the light that he possessed, which might be much greater than we imagine. His prayer to be purged with hyssop, doubtless, alluded to the purgations under the law, by dipping a bunch of hyssop in blood, and sprinkling it upon the unclean ; but as none of these cere- monial cleansings were admissible in cases of adultery or murder, he cannot be understood as speaking literally. He must, therefore, have believed in a purgation of which this was only a shadow. It was in this way that the Israelites were forgiven, when praying with their hands spread towards the temple. It was not to the building that they directed their prayer, but to Him who dwelt therein, between the cherubim, upon the mercy-seat. It was to the Lord God of Israel, as thus dwelling upon the mercy-seat, that Jonah, at the last extremity, looked and lived : “Then I said, I am cast out of thy sight; yet I will look again toward thy holy temple.” : In this way, whatever sins we have committed, we must seek for mercy; and for our encouragement, we are as- sured of an “Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” . But here we must be a little more particular. Here are three parties concerned ; the Father, the criminal who has sinned against him, and the Advocate who undertakes his cause. The Father, in this case, sustains the character of a Judge : “God the Judge of all.” The criminal is sup- posed to stand before the judgment-seat ; not, however, in an impenitent state of mind, but like Job when he said, “Behold, I am vile ; what shall I answer thee ? lay mine hand upon my mouth. Once have I spoken, but I will not answer; yea, twice, but I will proceed no fur- ther.—I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes 1” Or like David when he said, “I acknowledge my transgres- sions ; and my sin is ever before me. Against Thee, Thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight; that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and clear when thou judgest ” Here comes in the Advocate. The sinner could not be heard for himself, nor pardoned in his own name; but believing in Christ, he undertakes to plead his cause. He had said himself, in effect, Do not condemn me !—To this the Advocate adds, Do not condemn him On this part of the subject, we must be still more par- ticular. An advocate, especially one that undertakes the cause of sinners, requires to have an interest with the Judge; to be interested for the sinner; while pleading for him, not to palliate, but condemn his sin; to be fully acquainted with his case; and to have something to plead that shall effectually overbalance his unworthiness. Let us inquire, whether all these qualifications be not found in our “Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” I will 1. He has the highest interest in the favour of the Judge. For why? He is his only begotten Son, who dwelleth in his bosom, and who never offended him at any time, but always did that which was pleasing in his sight. So well | pleased was the Father with his obedience unto death, that he highly exalted him, giving him “a name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things in earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”—“The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.” Well might he say, when on earth, “I knew that thou hearest me always; ” for he had, in prophecy, invited him to pre- fer his request: “Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.” Who can doubt the success of a cause in the hands of such an Advocate 3 2. He is deeply interested in favour of the sinner. If we had to be tried before an earthly tribunal, and wished to engage an advocate, we should certainly prefer one that would so identify himself with us as to be deeply interest- ed in the issue. When, at Horeb, Moses pleaded for Israel to be forgiven, he requested to die rather than not succeed : “Oh,” said he, “this people have sinned a great sin,_yet now, if thou wilt, forgive their sin; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written , ” This was the true spirit of an advocate ; and he succeeded. But our Advocate has gone further than requesting to die; he actually died for us; and his death “is the propitiation for our sins,” on which his advocateship is founded. 3. While pleading for sinners, he does not palliate, but condemns their sin. If Moses had attempted to apologize for Israel’s idolatry, his interposition must have been re- jected. And if it had been possible for Christ himself to have been an Advocate for sin, he could not have been heard. But he was no less averse from sin than the Judge | himself. If he was made “in the likeness” of sinful flesh, yet was there no participation of it. Though he descend- ed, and lived among sinners, yet, in respect of character, he was “holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate ” from them. While advocating their cause, it was in his own proper character of “Jesus Christ the righteous.” It was because of his proceeding on these just and honourable principles that the Father approved and honoured him : “Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest iniquity; therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” 4. He is perfectly acquainted with the case of those whose cause he wºndertakes. There are cases which, if the advo- cate had known all, he would not have undertaken ; and which, for want of his being in possession of the whole truth, fail in his hands. But our Advocate knows the worst of us. He needs not that any should testify of man; for he knows what is in man. When Simon the Pharisee saw a woman that was a sinner standing at the feet of Jesus, washing them with her tears, wiping them with the hairs of her head, kissing them, and anointing them with ointment, and all this without receiving any repulse from him, he suspected that he was deceived, and concluded in his own mind that he could not be that prophet that should come into the world. Had he known her true character, he supposed, he would not have permitted her to touch him . To convince Simon that he was not ignorant of her character, he, by answering his private thoughts, proved himself to be fully acquainted with his ; and proceeded to plead the cause of the penitent sinner, though her sins were many, and to justify himself in receiving and forgiv- ing her. Our Advocate not only knows all our sins, but all our wants ; and therefore knows how to provide for them. If previous to the prayer for Peter, it had been referred to him what should be asked on his behalf, having no sus- picion of any peculiar temptation being at hand, he might not have been able to say what it was that he most need- ed. But his Advocate, knowing the temptation that awaited him, framed his plea on his behalf accordingly : “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not.” 5. Though he finds no worthiness in the sinner, on which to ground his pleas, but the greatest wrºvoorthiness, yet he has that to plead which effectually overbalances it. It is THE SORROW ATTENDING WISDOM AND KNOWLEDGE. 631 remarkable that, in that admirable speech of Judah on behalf of Benjamin, he did not fetch his pleas from the innocence of the young man, nor from the possibility of the cup being in his sack without his knowledge, nor from the smallness of his offence ; but from his father's love to him, and his own engagement to bring him back, and set him before him . I need not say that on this principle our Advocate has proceeded. The charges against Benjamin were mysterious and doubtful, yet as Judah could not prove his innocence, he admitted his guilt. But our guilt is beyond doubt; in pleading our cause, the Advocate is supposed to rest it on the propitia- tion in consideration of which our unworthiness is passed over, and our sins are forgiven. The connexion of things is often signified by the order of time in which they occur. Thus the outpouring of the Spirit, that it might appear to be what it was, a fruit of the death of Christ, followed immediately after it; and thus, on his having died, and risen from the dead, his followers are directed to pray in Jis name. His directing us to pray in his name conveys the same idea, as to the meritorious cause of forgiveness, as his being our Advocate with the Father on the ground of his propitiation. From the whole, We are directed to commit our cause to Christ. We have a cause pending, which, if lost, all is lost with us, and that for ever. We shall not be able to plead it ourselves; for every mouth will be stopped, and all the world become guilty before God. Nor can any one in heaven or earth, besides the Saviour, be heard on our behalf. If we believe in him, we have everlasting life; but if not, we shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on us. We are also directed, by this subject, how to obtain relief wnder the distress to which our numerous sins subject us as we pass through life. We all have recourse to some expe- dient or other to relieve our consciences, when oppressed with guilt. Some endeavour to lose the recollection of it among the cares, company, or amusements of the world; others have recourse to ceremonial observances, and are very strict in some things, hoping thereby to obtain for- giveness for others ; on some the death and advocateship of Christ have the effect to render them unconcerned, and even to imbolden them in their sins. Painful as our bur- dens are, we had better retain them than get relief in any of these methods. The only way is to come unto God in the spirit of Job, or of David, before referred to, seeking mercy through the propitiation. Thus, while we plead, Do not condemn me, our Advocate will take it up, and add, Do not condemn him : Finally, From the all-sufficiency of the propitiation there is no room for despair. When Jonah was cast into the sea, and swallowed by the fish, still retaining his con- sciousness, he concluded that all was over with him : “I said I am cast out of thy sight; yet,” even in this condi- tion the thought occurred, “I will look again toward thy holy temple.” His body was confined, but his mind could glance a thought toward the mercy-seat, whence he had heretofore received relief. He looked and lived. Let this be our determination, whatever be our circumstances or condition. Jesus is “able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.” - SERMON XXV. • THE SORROW ATTENDING WISDOMI AND KNOWLEDGE. *. “And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit. For in much wisdom is much grief; and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.”—Eccles. i. 17, 18. WE have in this book an estimate of human life. Most of the things that are seen under the sun here pass under review ; and each, as it passes, is inscribed with vanity. It may be thought, from the pensive strain of the writer, to be an effusion of melancholy, rather than the result of man, must needs be a source of sorrow. means wish to cherish a spirit of misanthropy. mature reflection; but it should be considered that no. man had greater capacity and opportunity for forming a just judgment; that the book was written at the most mature period of life; and, what is more, that it was writ- ten under Divine inspiration. As wisdom and knowledge, in the writings of Solomon,. commonly include true religion, so madness and folly seem, here to be used for irreligion. He studied the nature and effects of both good and evil. In ascribing “vanity and vexation of spirit” to almost every thing that passed before him, he does not mean that they were in themselves evil, or of little or no value ; but that every good had its alloy, or something attached to it which subtracted from it. Thus it was even with wisdom. and knowledge. It is because these were not only good in themselves, but ranked high in the scale of what is esti- mable, that they are introduced. If the best things per- taining to human life have their alloy, the same must be said of the rest. In discoursing on the subject, we shall endeavour to show the justness of the remark, and to draw some conclu- sions from it. I. LET Us ENDEAVOUR To SHOW THE JUSTNESS OF THE REMARK, OR ITS AGREEMENT WITH UNIVERSAL EXPERIENCE. Knowledge may be distinguished, by its objects, into three parts, or branches : the knowledge of men and things about us—the knowledge of ourselves—and the knowledge of God. Each of these is good, and the practical use of it is wisdom ; but each has its alloy, subtracting from the enjoyment which it would otherwise afford. First, Let us try the justness of the remark in respect of the knowledge of men and things about us. None can deny that the thing itself is good and valuable, and the want of it to be regretted as an evil: “That the soul be without knowledge it is not good.” It is this which dis- tinguishes men from brutes, and raises some men much higher in the scale of being than others. Minds thus qualified are susceptible of much greater enjoyments than others, and are able to do much more good in their ge- neration than others. have been done in the world have been done, in general, not by the ignorant, but by men of understanding. Yet, The greatest and best things that with all its advantages, there is that attached to it which increaseth sorrow. 1. He that knows the most of mankind will see the : most of their faults and defects, and so be compelled, upon the whole, to think the worst of them ; and this, to a good I would by no I remem- ber, in a speech delivered in a very respectable assembly, meeting with this sentiment: “I think well of man, but ill of men.” On the contrary, I should say, I think ill of man, but well of men, till I see cause to think otherwise. Scripture, observation, and experience concur to justify me in thinking ill of human nature; but as, in our world, there is, through the grace and goodness of God, a good number of upright and benevolent characters, it becomes me to hope the best of every man I meet, till I am obliged, by his conduct or conversation, to form a different judg- ment ; and this I feel to be a principle at a much greater remove from misanthropy than the other. There are cases in which the more we know of men, the more we shall see reason to esteem them ; but this is not true of mankind in general. The longer we live, and the more we are acquainted with them, the more evil we shall see in them. The characters of the greater part of men will not bear scrutinizing. If we look but a little below the surface, whether it be in high life or low life, or even in middle life, we shall see enough to sicken our hearts. Many a favourable opinion, formed under the philanthro- pic feelings of youth, has been obliged to give way to ob- servation and experience; and many a pleasing dream, into which we have fallen from reading books, has disap- peared when we came to read men. 2. He that knows the most of mankind will know most of their miseries; and if he be a man of feeling, this must be another source of sorrow. Who can make himself ac- quainted with the privations and hardships of the afflicted poor without participating of their sorrows 3 This may be a reason why some who are in opulent circumstances 632 SERMONS AND SKETCHES. decline visiting them. They seem to count the cost, not merely what it will require to supply their pecuniary wants, but what they shall lose by a diminution of their pleasure. If, in addition to the state of the afflicted poor of our own country, we knew the miseries of slavery, would it not increase our sorrow % Who, that has only acquainted himself with the facts which have been established during the late parliamentary discussions on the African slave trade, can forbear weeping over the miseries which the avarice of one part of mankind brings upon another ? And if, in addition to this, we knew the miseries of war, must it not still more increase our sorrow % We hear of great battles, on which depend the fate of kingdoms, and rejoice or are sorrowful as they affect the interests of our country; but did we know all the individual misery pro- duced by the most glorious victory, how different would be our feelings | Did we hear the cries of the wounded, and the groans of the dying; could we know the state of mind in which they died; were we acquainted with the near relations of the dead, the widows and orphans that they have left behind them ; alas, were we in the midst of them, we might be reduced to the necessity of trying to get away, and to forget them If, leaving these scenes of woe, we turn our eyes to the abodes of ease and opulence, we shall not find things as we might expect. How often are men envied, when, if we knew all, we should pity them : We form our es- timates of human happiness more by appearances than by realities. We little think how many things are necessary to make us happy, any one of which, if wanting, will render all the rest of little or no account. What are riches, and honours, and amusements to one whose life hangs in doubt, from some threatening disorder which he feels to be preying upon his vitals ; or to a mind smitten with melancholy, or' corroded with remorse; or to one whose peace is destroyed by domestic feuds, jealousies, or intrigues? 3. He that knows most of the sentiments of mankind on everlasting subjects will, if he be a believer in Divine revelation, know most of their devious and destructive tendency; and this must be a source of sorrow. There is what is called charity that excites no sorrow on this ac- count; but viewing all religions as nearly alike, all leading to one happy end, it renders the subjects of it quite easy and unconcerned. But Christian charity is another thing. It bears good-will to all mankind, but does not think lightly of their alienation from God. He that should doubt whether the sentence passed against a number of traitors was ever designed to be executed, and should per- suade them into his way of thinking, might call himself a charitable man ; might boast of his own happiness, and the happiness he produced in others; and insist upon it that, by entertaining such views, he did more honour to the government than they who yielded to the gloomy ap- prehensions of an execution ; but if, after all, his opinions should prove false, and be found to have originated in his own disloyalty, would not his charity be considered as cruel, deceitful, and destructive 3 The only difference between this and the charity in question is, that the one goes to destroy men’s lives, and the other their souls 1 Genuine charity would have endeavoured to convince them of their guilt, and to persuade them to sue for mercy to their justly offended sovereign. He that can view whole nations of men, who, from time immemorial, have lived “without Christ, having no hope, and without God in the world,” and not feel a wish to burst their chains, of whatever religion he may profess to be, must himself be in the same state. t To read the controversies of former ages, and those of the present age, even in the Christian world, must be de- pressing to a serious mind. He is either perplexed, and tempted to indulge in scepticism, or, if he feels his own ground, still he must perceive great numbers wandering in the paths of error ; and who, unless God give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth, will con- tinue to wander, notwithstanding all that can be said or written to reclaim them. They that have done the most towards bending the mind of man to that of Christ, and inculcating just sentiments of religion, will find, after all their labour, much remaining undone ; so much, both of the devious and the defective, that he may retire with the words of the wise man, “That which is crooked cannot be made straight, and that which is wanting cannot be numebred l’’ 4. He that knows most of the religious world will see the most of its faults and imperfections; and this is an- other source of sorrow. Among his friends, he will find some will prove false, and others fickle ; and, what is worse, many turning their back on Christ, and “walking no more with him.” The longer we live in Christian society, and the closer we are connected with it, the more jealousies, envies, evil surmisings, whisperings, and back- bitings we shall discover. Those Christians who have to travel to hear the gospel, and only see their fellow Chris- tians once in a week, are apt to consider themselves as . under great disadvantages; and, in some respects, they certainly are so ; but, in others, the advantage may be on their side. They do not hear so many sermons, but, having to travel, they may be more likely to profit by those which they do hear. They miss much social inter- course ; but they also stand aloof from the evils which frequently attend it. On looking round the place on a Lord's day, they see their Christian friends, as we say, in their best dress; knowing just enough to love them and pray for them, and to part with them with affectionate regret; while those who are acquainted with their faults, as well as their excellences, know to the increase of their SOrr OW, Once more, He that knows most of the things of this world will feel the greatest portion of disappointment from them ; and this will be a source of sorrow. Riches, honours, and pleasures promise much, and, while inex- perienced, we may hope much ; but a thorough trial will convince us that happiness is not in them. Even know- ledge itself, the treasure of the mind, is not only attained with great labour, but is attended with much painful dis- . appointment. He that makes the greatest researches, as Mr. Poole observes, often finds himself deceived with knowledge falsely so called ; often mistakes error for truth, and is perplexed with manifold doubts, from which ignorant men are free. Secondly, Let us try the justness of the remark in re- spect of the knowledge of ourselves. Self-knowledge is, doubtless, good and of great importance. Without it, whatever else we know, it will turn to but little account; yet this also is accompanied with sorrow. He that knows the most of himself sees most of his own faults and de- fects. It was by comparing his own mind with the word of God that David exclaimed, “Who can understand his errors 3 cleanse thou me from secret faults. Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins.” The more we know of ourselves, the worse we shall think of ourselves. We know but little of ourselves at the outset of the Chris- tian life. We see evils in others, and are shocked at them, and are ready to suppose ourselves incapable of any such things; but as the Lord led Israel through the wilderness to humble them, and to prove them, and to know what was in their heart, so he deals with us. We have seen rich men high-minded, and may have thought, if God should give us wealth, how humble and generous we would be with it; we have seen poor men full of envy and discontent, and may have thought, were we in their situation, we would not repine; we have seen men fall in the hour of temptation, and may have joined in heaping censures upon them. If it please God to try us in these ways, it may be to humble us ; and the knowledge that we gain may be accompanied with not a little sorrow. Thirdly, Let us try the justness of the remark in re- spect of the knowledge of God. No one can suppose but this, in itself, is good, and a source of the highest enjoy- ment; yet it is no less true that he that increaseth in it increaseth in sorrow. The more we know of God, the more we shall perceive our contrariety to him. If, like Joshua the high priest, we were clothed with filthy garments, yet, while sur- rounded with darkness, and in company with others like ourselves, we should be, in a mammer, insensible of it; but if brought to the light, and introduced to one who was clothed in white raiment, we should feel the disparity. It is thus that not only those who are strangers to Divine THE SORROW ATTENDING WISDOM AND KNOWLEDGE. 633 revelation, but those who read it without believing it, have no just sense of sin. It was thus that sin, “by the commandment,” became to the apostle Paul exceedingly sinful; and that the prophet Isaiah, on beholding the glory of God, exclaimed, “Woe is me ! for I am undone, be- cause I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the Ring, the Lord of hosts 1'.' Beside this, the knowledge of God draws upon us the Jatred, and frequently the persecutions, of wicked men ; which, though we may be supported under them, yet, in themselves, must needs be sources of sorrow : “I have given them thy word,” said our Lord, in committing his disciples to the Father, “and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.” I add, The knowledge of God will, in some cases, draw upon us the envy of false brethren. If a good man engage in the work of God from the purest principles, and, by the Divine blessing on his diligence and perseverance, make such progress in useful knowledge as to draw upon himself a portion of public admiration, he may be expected soon to become an object of envy. Men shall rise up who will do their utmost to depreciate and eclipse him. “I considered all travail, and every right work, that for this a man is envied of his neighbour. This is also vanity and vexation of spirit.” - II. LET Us DRAW some concLUSIONS FROM THE SUB- JECT. If things be so, some may think we had better be without knowledge, and be contented to live and die in ignorance. This is not the consequence, however, which the Writer wished to have drawn from what he wrote. He says, “That the soul be without knowledge it is not good ;” and “wisdom excelleth folly as far as light ex- celleth darkness.” He must, therefore, have judged that, whatever disadvantages attended wisdom and knowledge, the advantages arising from them were far greater. Much of the sorrow arising from a knowledge of ourselves and of God is to be desired, rather than dreaded ; and as to that which arises from a knowledge of the evils of the world, and even of the church, it is best to know the truth, though it may give us pain. That exemption from sorrow which arises from ignorance is seldom enviable. To know the evils that are to be found among men is necessary, not only to enable us to guard against them, but to know how to deal with them in religious concerns. If we be ignorant of their faults and defects, we shall be at a loss to carry conviction to their minds, and so to make them feel the need of forgiveness through Jesus Christ. So, to be ignorant of the faults and defects of men pro- fessing religion, must be injurious both to them and to ourselves. Without knowing the truth concerning them, we cannot reprove them, and so cannot reclaim them. If those of the house of Chloe had not written to Paul on the state of things at Corinth, it would have saved him much sorrow, but then what had been the state of the Corinthians? To all appearance they were in the way to ruin ; and so a tribe, as it were, would soon have been lacking in Israel. And as to ourselves, by knowing in a certain degree the evils that are to be found, even in the church of Christ, we are better prepared to meet them, and less in danger of being stumbled, or tempted to think the worse of religion, on account of them. By knowing things, in some good degree, as they are, we are enabled to make up our minds. Thus it is that the falls, and even the falling away of some, while it causes much pain, yet does not shake our faith. We learn to think well of re- ligion, let those who profess it prove what they may : “Let God be true, and every man a liar!” And, in know- ing the faults and defects even of sincere Christians, we are not led to think ill of them as Christians, or lightly of Christian communion. If a true friend of his country could say, “England, with all thy faults, I love thee still l’” much more will a true friend of the church of Christ con- sider Christians, with all their faults, as the excellent of the earth; better than the best of worldly men And if we love them, it will be in our hearts to live and die with them | Nor is it unnecessary that we should be acquainted with the miseries of mankind, whatever sorrow they may occasion : otherwise we cannot sympathize with them, nor relieve them, nor pray for them, nor feel so great an anx- iety for the coming of that kingdom whose healing influ- ence shall remove their sorrows. Three things, however, are taught us by this subject:— First, To be moderate in our expectations, as to things pertaining to this life. If “vexation of spirit” be attached to wisdom and knowledge, what can be expected from less valuable objects? We need but little, nor that little long. The trial made by the wise man, of mirth and pleasure, of building and planting, of the gathering together of silver and gold, &c., is doubtless recorded to teach us that substantial good is not to be found in them. The conse- quence drawn by the apostle from the brevity of life is designed to moderate both our attachments and our sor- rows: “The time is short: it remaineth that both they that have wives be as though they had none ; and they that weep as though they wept not ; and they that rejoice as though they rejoiced not ; and they that buy as though they possessed not; and they that use this world as not abusing it; for the fashion (or scenery) of this world passeth away.” It may seem, to some, that if we were to feel and act up to this precept it would deprive us of half our enjoyments; but this is a mistake. To be moderate in our expectations is to increase our enjoyment, while the contrary diminishes it. Expectation, raised beyond what truth will support, must be disappointed ; and disappointment will imbitter that which, if enjoyed in moderation, would have been sweet : “Better is little with the fear of the Lord, than great treasure, and trouble therewith.” Secondly, We are taught hereby to seek the favour of God as the crowning blessing to all our enjoyments. The vexation of spirit which belongs to the portion of a good man is not as that which attends the wicked. The one is accompanied with a blessing, the other with a curse: “God giveth to a man that is good in his sight wisdom, and knowledge, and joy: but to the sinner he giveth travail, to gather, and to heap up, that he may give to him that is good before God.” After all the particulars enumerated in the blessing of Joseph, as the precious things of heaven, the dew, and the deep that coucheth beneath, the precious fruits brought forth by the sun, and the precious things put forth by the moon, the chief things of the ancient moun- tains, the precious things of the lasting hills, the precious things of the earth, and the fulness thereof, the crowning blessing follows—“ and the good-will of him that dwelt in the bush!” If this be wanting, all the rest will be unsatis- fying. If this be on our heads, our sorrows, whatever they be, will be turned into joy. Thirdly, We are taught hereby to aspire after a state in which good will be enjoyed without any mixture of evil as a subtraction from it. If our wisdom be that of which the fear of the Lord is the beginning, and the object of our knowledge be the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent, we shall soon reach that state of holi- ness and blessedness that is without alloy. “Wisdom, and knowledge, and joy” will then be given us, and all the sources of sorrow which have been enumerated will be dried up. The more we know of the inhabitants of that world, the better we shall think of them, and the more we shall love them. Among all the nations of the saved we shall not find one whose character will not bear scrutinizing. If every heart were as naked to us as ours now are to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do, we should find nothing in them but love. No hypocrisies will be there, nor envies, nor jealousies, nor hard thoughts, nor evil surmisings, to imbitter the cup of joy. No sur- rounding miseries shall damp our bliss ; no error shall throw a mist over our minds, or lead us aside from God. And, what is still more, no imperfections shall mar our services, nor indwelling sins pollute our souls. To this blessed state may we, by all the sorrows of the present life, be led unremittingly to bend our course 634 SERMONS AND SRETCHES. SERMON XXVI. THE MAGNITUDE OF THE HEAVENLY IN HERITANCE, “Tor I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. I'or the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not Willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now ; and not only they, but ourselves also, which have the first-fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, Y.; § the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.”—Rom. viii. 18–23. - * THERE is, in this part of the Epistle, a richness of senti- ment and a vast compass of thought. The apostle, having established the great doctrine of justification by faith, dwells here on things connected with it ; some of which are designed to guard it against abuse, and others to show its great importance. “There is, therefore, now no con- demnation,” says he, “to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.—If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die; but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.-- As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” Having thus entered on the privileges of believers, the sacred writer is borne away, as by a mighty tide, with the greatness of his theme. “Heirs of God!” what an inheritance | Such is the tenor of the covenant of | grace: “I will be their God, and they shall be my peo- ple.”—“Joint-heirs with Christ : '' what a title ! We possess the inheritance not in our own right, but in that of Christ ; who, being “heir of all things,” looketh down on his conflicting servants, and saith, “To him that over- cometh will I grant to sit down with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.” It is true, we must suffer awhile ; but if it be “with him,” we shall be glorified together. By “the glory to be revealed in us” is meant, not that glory which we shall receive at death, but the consumma- tion of it at the resurrection. It is the same as that which, in the following verses, is called “the manifestation of the sons of God”—“the glorious liberty of the children of God”—“the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.” It is “ that blessed hope, and the glorious ap- pearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ,” | therefore have sorrow ; but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man taketh from you.” for which Christians are taught to look; that grace in pursuit of which we are exhorted to “gird up the loins of our minds, to be sober, and hope to the end,” and which is to be “brought unto us at the revelation of Je- sus Christ.” - On this great inheritance, to which the sons of God are heirs, the apostle enlarges in the words of the text. It is an object of such magnitude, says he, that all the suffer- ings of the present life are not worthy to be compared with it; of such magnitude as to interest the whole crea- tion ; and, finally, of such magnitude that our highest en- joyments do not satisfy us, but we groan earnestly after the full possession of it. To review these three great points is all that I shall attempt. I. SUCH IS THE MAGNITUDE of THE GLORY TO BE RE- VEALED IN US, THAT TIIE SUFFERINGS OF THE PRESENT TIME ARE NOT WORTHY TO BE COMPARED WITH IT. In speaking of these opposites, the apostle, as by a kind of spiritual arithmetic, seems to place them in opposite columns. The amount of the column of sufferings, if viewed by itself, would appear great. Much evil attends us, both as men and as good men. The misery of man is great upon him ; and great are the afflictions which have been endured by the faithful for Christ's sake. For his sake they have been “killed all the day long,” and “accounted as sheep for the slaughter.” He who en- tered on this reckoning could not have made light of the sufferings of this present time, for want of an experiment- al acquaintance with them. In answer to those who de- preciated his ministry, he could say, “Are they ministers of Christ 3—I speak as a fool—I more ; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more fre- quent, in deaths oft. Of the Jews five times received I f of all the churches. be revealed in us. forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep ; in journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren ; in weariness and painful- ness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness. Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care Who is weak, and I am not weak 3 Who is offended, and I burn not ?" Yet the same person assures us that he reckons the sufferings of this present time not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall They may be heavy and tedious, when viewed by themselves; but weighed against a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory, they are light and momentary. It is thus that, in the subject before us, he considers our sufferings as confined to “this present time.” The short duration of suffering ordinarily renders it tolerable, even though, for a time, it may be acute; and if succeed- ed by lasting enjoyment, we consider it unmanly to make much of it; and if it be in the service of a beloved sove- reign, and in support of a cause of a great importance, and which lies near the heart, it is usually treated as a matter of still less account. Thus it was that the apostle reckoned his sufferings not worthy to be compared with the glory to be revealed in us. To say of two things that one of them is not to be com- pared with the other, is a strong mode of expression. It is in this way that the great God expresses his infinite superiority to the most exalted creatures : “Who in the heavens can be compared unto the Lord 3 who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto Jehovah 3’” So, when two things of an opposite nature come in succession, and the latter so entirely prevails over the former as to obliterate it, or in a manner to efface the remembrance of it, it may be said of the one that it is not to be compared with the other. Thus the joy that followed the resurrec- tion of Christ was to the sorrow that preceded it : “Ye shall weep and lament, but the world shall rejoice : and ye shall be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be turned into joy. A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, | because her hour is come; but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world. And ye now Such also will be the joy of the heavenly inheritance, that it will efface from our remembrance the few years of sor- row which have preceded it ; so efface them, at least, that we shall never think of them with regret, but as a foil to heighten our bliss. II. SUCH IS THE MAGNITUDE OF THE GLORY TO BE RE- VEALED IN US AT THE RESURRECTION, THAT ITS INFLU- ENCE Extends To THE WHOLE CREATION. This I take to be generally expressed in the 19th verse : “For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the mani- festation of the sons of God.” That which follows, in verses 20–22, explaims and accounts for it, by showing how the creatures were brought into a state of bondage by the sin of man, and how they shall be liberated from it when he is liberated : “For the creature was made sub- ject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corrup- tion into the glorious liberty of the children of God. Tor we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.” The “creature *—the “whole création ”—and “every creature,” are the same thing, and denote, I apprehend, not man, but every creature around him which has been brought under the influence of his revolt. As when Achan sinned, all that pertained to him suffered; so when our first parents sinned, the whole creation, in so far as it was connected with man, partook of the effects. This appears to be meant by the creatures being “made subject to vanity,” and coming under “the bondage of corruption.” THE MAGNITUDE OF THE HEAVENLY IN HERITANCE. 635 The creation was brought into this state of bondage, “ not willingly,” as was the case with man, but by the sovereign will of the Creator. He could have stopped the machinery of the material world, and at once have put an end to the rebellion; but he thought fit to order the laws of nature to keep their course ; and as to the abuse that man would make of them, he should be called to account for that another day. The bondage of the creatures, however, was not to be perpetual : he who subjected them to it subjected them * in hope, because the creature itself also,” as well as the sons of God, shall be delivered from its thraldom, and, as it were, participate with them in their glorious liberty. The redemption of our bodies will be the signal of its emancipation from under the effects of sin, and the birth- day, as it were, of a new creation. As by man's apostacy every thing connected with him became, in some way, subservient to evil; so, by the deliverance of the sons of God at the resurrection, they shall be delivered from this servitude, and the whole creation, according to the matural order of things, shall serve and praise the Lord. But we must inquire more particularly into this “bondage” of the creatures, and into their deliverance from it. It is true that the ground was literally cursed for man’s sake, so as spontaneously to bring forth briers and thorns, rather than fruits; the animals also have literally been subjected to great misery and cruelty; but it is not of a literal bondage, I conceive, that the apostle speaks; nor of a literal deliverance, as some have imagined, by the re- surrection of animals; nor of a literal groaning after it. The whole appears to be what rhetoricians call a proso- popoeia, or a figure of speech in which sentiments and language are given to things as though they were persons. Thus, on the invasion of Sennacherib, the earth is said to mourn and Lebanon to be ashamed ; and thus, at the coming of the Messiah, the heavens are called upon to rejoice, and the earth to be glad, the sea to roar, the floods to clap their hands, and the trees of the wood to rejoice. When God created the heavens and the earth, every thing was made according to its nature and capacity to show forth his glory. Thus “the heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handy work. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard.” Thus also heaven and earth are called upon to praise their Maker: “Praise ye him, sun and moon : praise him, all ye stars of light. Praise him, ye heaven of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens.—Praise the Lord from the earth, ye dragons and all deeps: fire and hail; snow and vapour; stormy wind fulfilling his word ; mountains, and all hills; fruitful trees, and all cedars ; beasts, and all cattle ; creeping things, and flying fowl.” Such was the natural order of things established by the Creator: every thing, consciously or unconscious- ly, furnished its tribute of praise to Him who is over all blessed for ever. But, by the entrance of sin into the world, the creatures became subservient to it; as, when a rebellion breaks out in an empire, the resources of the country being seized by the rebels are turned to the support of their cause, and against their rightful owner; so every thing which God had created for the accommodation of man, or in any way rendered subservient to his comfort, was turned aside from its original, design, and perverted to the purposes of cor- ruption. The Lord complains of the corn, and wine, and oil, and flax, and wool, which he had given to Israel, being prostituted to Baal ; and threatens to recover them. Who can count the sacrifices and offerings which have been made of God’s creatures to Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Bacchus, and other abominations of the West; or to Bramah, Vishnu, Seeb, Dhoorga, Juggernaut, and other abominations of the East 7 And though gross idolatry has in many nations been dispelled by the light of the gospel, yet still the bounties of Providence furnished for the accommodation of man are made to serve his lusts. The sun cannot emit his illuminating and fructifying beams but to furnish food for the corrupt propensities of man. The clouds cannot pour down their showers, but the effects of them are made subservient to sin. Rich soils and fruitful seasons become the hot-beds of vice, on which, as in Sodom, men become ripe for destruction at an earlier period than ordinary. The creatures have not only been subjected to the vanity of serving the idols and lusts of men, but have themselves been turned into gods, and worshipped to the exclusion of the Creator, who is blessed for ever ! There is scarcely a creature in heaven or on earth but what has been thus drawn into the service of corruption. Not only the sun, and moon, and stars; but gold, and silver, and brass, and wood, and stone, and birds, and four- footed beasts, and creeping things | And though the light of the gospel has driven this species of stupidity out of Europe, (which the science of Greece and Rome did not so much as diminish,) yet it is in no want of advocates among her degenerate sons. And they that would be ashamed to plead the cause of gross idolatry, yet in a manner idolize the works of God, by opposing them to his word. The sweet singer of Israel, after celebrating the former, held up the latter as greatly exceeding them. With him the light of nature and that of revelation were in harmony; but unbelievers place them at variance. Nature with them occupies the place of God, and the light imparted by it is admired at the expense of his word. They have no objection to acknowledge a Su- preme Being as the author of the machinery of nature, provided he would give up his moral government over them ; but the Scriptures are full of hard sayings which they cannot hear ! The works of God are silent preach- ers: in their mouth there is no reproof but what a hard heart can misconstrue into the approbation of the Creator, understanding his bounties as rewards conferred on his virtuous creatures : this, therefore, is the only preaching which many will hear. In these and a thousand other ways the creatures of God have been subjected to vanity. Had they been pos- sessed of intelligence, they would from the first have risen up against us, rather than have submitted to such bondage. Yes; rather than have been thus forced into the service of sin by the rebel man, they would have con- spired together to destroy him from the face of the earth. The sun would have scorched him ; the moon with her sickly rays would have smitten him ; the stars in their courses would have fought against him ; air, earth, fire, water, birds, beasts, and even the stones, would have con- spired to rid creation of the being, who, by rebelling against the Creator, had filled it with disorder and misery. And though the creatures are not possessed of intelli- gence, yet, from a kind of instinctive tendency to vindi- cate the cause of God and righteousness, they are naturally at war with rebellious man. Were it not so, there would be no need of a covenant to be made on our behalf with the beasts of the field, the fowls of heaven, the creeping things of the ground, and even with the stones. - God in his infinite wisdom saw fit to subject the creatures to this vanity for a season, contrary as it was to their nature; but it is only for a season, and therefore is said to be in hope ; in the end they that have abused them will, except they repent, be punished, and they them- selves be liberated from their hateful yoke. Thus for a season he subjected the seed of Abraham his own servants to serve the Egyptians; but “that nation,” says he, “whom they shall serve will I judge; and afterward shall they come out with great substance.” The time fixed for the deliverance of the creatures from the bondage of corruption is that of “the manifestation of the sons of God.” Hence they are in a manner iden- tified with them : “The earnest expectation of the crea- ture waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God; ” looking for it as for their own deliverance. The redemp- tion of our bodies from the grave will be the destruction of the last enemy, or, in respect of believers, the termina- tion of the effects of sin ; and as the thraldom of the creatures commenced with the commencement of sin, it is fit that it should terminate with its termination. Thus our resurrection will be the signal of emancipation to the creatures, and their emancipation will magnify the glory that shall be revealed in us. Heaven, earth, and seas, and all that in them is, will no longer be worshipped in the place of God, nor compelled to minister to his ene- 636 SERMONS AND SRETCHES. mies; but in that renovated state, “ wherein dwelleth righteousness,” shall exist but to praise and glorify their Creator. The terms used to express the tendency of the creatures towards this great crisis are very strong. Nature is per- sonified and represented as upon the utmost stretch of expectation; as groaning and travailing in pain to be de- livered. Assuredly that must be a most important object, the accomplishment of which thus interests the whole creation. This object is “ the glory that shall be revealed in us—the manifestation of the sons of God—the glorious liberty of the children of God;” and thus it is that the apostle establishes his position—That such is the mag- nitude of the inheritance of believers, that the sufferings of the present time are not worthy to be compared with it. But we must not dismiss this part of the subject with- out noticing more particularly these descriptions of the heavenly inheritance—“the glory to be revealed in us— the manifestation of the sons of God”—and “the glorious liberty of the children of God.” They all refer to the perfecting of salvation through the death of Christ, which is the greatest display of the glory of God that ever has or will be made. This is the last of that series of events which have been carrying on from the beginning of the world, and to the accomplishment of which they have all been subordinate. “The glory that shall be revealed in us.”—There will, doubtless, be a flood of light and joy that will then open to our admiring minds; but the words seem rather to de- note the manifestation of the Divine glory in our salvation than barely its being revealed to us. Thus the Lord Jesus will “come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe.” The great Physician will ap- pear with his recovered millions, and, in the presence of an assembled universe, will present them to the Father. Thus the glory of God will be revealed to the universe IN our salvation. All his glorious perfections will be mani- fested in such a light as they never were by any other of his works, nor by this till it was completed. And that which is revealed to the universe IN us will not be less, but more, of an enjoyment to us, than if it had been re- vealed To us only. The joy of the returned captives was not diminished, but increased, by the surrounding nations saying, “The Lord hath done great things for them l’” “The manifestation of the sons of God.”—The foregoing description of the heavenly inheritance had respect to God’s manifesting his glory; this to his manifesting ours. We have been familiar with the terms “ sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty;” but who has been able to com- prehend the magnitude of the blessing? Even an inspired apostle was overwhelmed in thinking of it, and confessed his ignorance: “Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.—Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be : but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him ; for we shall see him as he is 1” Then the importance of being “heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ,” will be apparent. * The sons of God have here been but little known. Not being distinguished by any thing pertaining to circum- stances, or outward condition, and that which has dis- tinguished them being of a still and unostentatious nature, they have generally passed through the world without at- tracting much of its notice, unless it were to despise and persecute them. If they have been acknowledged as pious men, and have escaped the persecutions and reproaches of the wicked, yet, being mostly poor; and undistinguished by brilliancy of talent, they have ordinarily been con- sidered as beneath attention. But, at that day, the Judge of heaven, and earth will distinguish them as the sheep that he will place at his right hand, and as the blessed of his Father, whom he will welcome to the kingdom pre- pared for them from the foundation of the world; while those who have despised and persecuted them shall be sentenced to everlasting punishment. “The glorious liberty of the children of God.”—The children of God have possessed a glorious liberty from their first believing in Christ. The Son then made them free, and they were free indeed . And when the earthly house of their tabernacle is dissolved, and they are re- ceived among “the spirits of just men made perfect,” this is a liberty more 'glorious. But while their bodies are imprisoned in the grave, the deliverance is not complete. They are, as yet, under thraldom. The promise of Christ to raise us up at the last day is yet unfulfilled. They have been delivered from the dominion of sin, and from the existence of it in their minds; but not from its effects. It is reserved for the second coming of Christ, when he will come “without sin unto salvation,” to accomplish this. This is the destruction of the last enemy; this, therefore, puts an end to the war. In the account of Christ's second coming, there appears to be an allusion to the blowing of the trumpet of jubilee, and the liberation of the captives: “The Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first ; then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air; and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” The resurrection, then, will be to believers a jubilee, a day of deliverance. The account of it by the same apostle, in the 15th chapter of his First Epistle to the Corinthians, gives us the triumphant song which believers shall sing, standing over the graves in which they have been so long imprisoned : “O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory 4 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ '' This is the glorious liberty of the children of God, in which the whole creation shall participate. III. SUCH IS THE MAGNITUDE OF THE GLORY TO BE RE- VEALED IN Us AT THE RESURRECTION, THAT THOSE CHRIS- TIANS WHO HAVE POSSESSED THE HIGHEST ENJOYMENTS IN THIS world weRE NOT satisfied witH THEM, BUT GROANED WITHIN THEMSELVES, WAITING FOR THE POS- session of IT. “And not only they, (the creatures,) but ourselves also,-even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.” By “we ourselves” I understand the apostle to mean, not believers in general, but those believers in his own times, who, with himself, possessed so large a measure of grace and peace as habitually to rejoice in the Lord. If we read the first chapters of the Acts of the Apostles, we shall perceive a mighty tide of joy in the minds of these Christians: “And they continued daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, praising God, and having favour with all the people.” They did not merely rejoice notwithstanding the persecu- tions which they met with, but in them : “They departed from the presence of the council (where they had been beaten) rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name.” These good men seem to have found heaven upon earth. They had “the first-fruits of the Spirit,” or those rich communications of the Holy Spirit which, as the first-fruits under the law were the best of the kind, showed what might be expected under the gospel dispensation. The Holy Spirit was imparted to them, not only in a greater degree than usual, but under the peculiar character of the “Spirit of adoption,” by which they were admitted to near communion with God, as children with a father. Nor was this confined to the day of Pentecost, and the times immediately succeed- ing: forty years after this, Peter could say of the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, “Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet, believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory;” and this, too, at a time when the fiery trial of persecution was coming or come upon them. But, notwithstanding the spiritual enjoyment possessed by these Christians, they looked forward with earnest de- sire for the coming of the day of God; not only as those who hasted towards it, but by their hopes and prayers would seem to hasten its approach. Such are the accounts given of them in the New Testament; “Ye turned to God from idols, to serve the living and true God ; and to THE MAGNITUDE OF THE HEAVENLY INHERITANCE. 637 wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.”—“He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly; Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.” The enjoyments of the first Christians, instead of abating their desire for the coming of their Lord, appear to have heightened it. The more they possessed of the first-fruits, the more they desired the lump. The fruits of Canaan, brought into the wilderness, were not designed to satisfy Israel, but rather to excite them to go up and possess the land. It is this ardent desire that is expressed by the terms “groaning within ourselves.” The groaning of the crea- tion was in a figure, but this is real. These are those “groanings which cannot be uttered,” (verse 26,) and which the Spirit of God excited in the way of hope, and patience, and prayer. The terms by which the resurrection of believers is ex- pressed, namely, “the adoption,” and “the redemption of our body,” serve to heighten our ideas of the glorious event. It is observable that the apostle, throughout this description, makes use of what may be called old terms in a new sense. “The glorious liberty of the children of God” was, as we have seen, enjoyed by them, in one sense, from the day that they believed in Jesus; but, in de- scribing this event, a new sense is put upon the same words. The idea of adoption also had long been familiar- ized to Christians by the apostolic writings; but, as used here, it has a new meaning attached to it. From the day they received the Saviour, they received power to become the sons of God; the Lord Almighty, as by a judicial act and deed, put them among his children; but still, the body being doomed to die because of sin, till this dishonour is wiped away there is something wanting to complete the execution of the deed. Our vile body must be changed, and fashioned like unto Christ's glorious body, ere we can be actually and fully introduced into the heavenly family. We must put on immortality, before we shall be fit com- pany for immortals. We must be made equal to the angels, ere we can associate with angels. Finally, To be completely “the children of God,” we must be “the chil- dren of the resurrection.” The disparity between Old and New Testament be- \ievers was such, that the former were represented as chil- dren in a state of minority, kept under tutors and governors till the time appointed of the Father; while the latter are supposed to be come to the possession of their inheritance (Gal. iv. 1–6): how much greater, then, must be the disparity between believers in a mortal and in an immor- tal state both are adopted into the family of God; but the one in a much higher sense than the other. Similar observations might be made on the term redemp- tion, as here applied to the resurrection of the body. This term was familiarized to Christians by the apostolic writ- ings. They had “redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins;” but here the word is used in a new sense, denoting the last act of deliverance, even that of the body, from under the thraldom of death and the imprison- ment of the grave. It is in reference to this last act of deliverance that Christ is said to be “made unto us—re- demption.” The redemption of our souls by his blood pre- ceded his being made unto us wisdom, or righteousness, or sanctification ; but the redemption of our body, as being the last act of deliverance, succeeds them. The body is a part of Christ's purchase as really as the soul. It is on this principle that the Corinthians were dissuaded from polluting it by for- nication: “Ye are not your own, but bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.” The resurrection of the body, there- fore, is the recovery of the last part of the Redeemer's purchase, signified by that expressive sentence, so often repeated, “I will raise it up at the last day.” This is the glory that shall be revealed in us, with which the sufferings of the present time are not worthy to be compared : this is the great crisis of creation, to which all that precedes it tends, as to its last end ; and the result to which believers, who have possessed the richest communi- cations of grace in this life, look with earnest expectation. To conclude, We see here what a glorious hope the gos- pel sets before us. In point of magnitude, crowns and kingdoms are but baubles when compared with it; yet it is not for crowns and kingdoms that the bulk of mankind set at nought the heavenly prize, but for things of still less account. Thirty pieces of silver were, in one case, reckon- ed of more account than Christ; and in another, a mess of pottage “If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affections on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.” Further, We here see what encouragement there is to pray and labour for the promotion of Christ's spiritual king- dom in the world. The glory to be revealed at the resur- rection is not to be considered as a solitary event; but rather as the consummation of a series of events which shall have preceded it. Christ, we are told, “must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.” The reign of Christ, therefore, is now making progress towards this great crisis; and as it proceeds, it produces, in a degree, the same effects as it will when perfected. As, in proportion to the prevalence of the cause of corruption, the creatures of God are subjected to the vanity of supporting it; so, in proportion as the gospel prevails, and men are freed from the dominion of sin by believing in Christ, the creatures also are emancipated with them ; from that time they are used to the glory of God, and not abused to support the cause of his enemies. Thus, in promoting the cause of Christ, we contribute to the deliverance of the creation. Finally, We must not forget that the possession of all this glory stands connected with justification by faith in Je- sus Christ. The whole is an inference arising from this doctrine. Whom he thus “justified, them he also glorified.” It is a very serious question, on what ground we rest our acceptance with God. It was at this doctrine that the Jewish nation stumbled and fell. Let their fall be our warning. “The Gentiles, which followed not after right- eousness, have attained to righteousness, even the right- eousness which is of faith. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore ? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law; for they stumbled at that stumbling-stone.” SERMON XXVII. [Delivered at the funeral of the Rev. J. Sutcliff, of Olney, June 28, 1814.] THE PRINCIPLES AND PROSPECTS OF A SERVANT OF CHRIST. “But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.”—Jude 20, 21. I FEEL a difficulty in speaking on this occasion. A long and intimate friendship, cemented by a similarity of views and a co-operation in ministerial and missionary labours, produces a feeling somewhat resembling that of a near re- lation, who, on such an occasion, instead of speaking, must wish to be indulged in silent grief. But the request of my deceased brother cannot be refused. In selecting a passage for so solemn an occasion, it was natural for our dear friend to fix on one that should ex- press his last sentiments and his future prospects. He wished, no doubt, to leave a testimony of his firm persua- sion of the truth of those principles which he had believed and taught, and to the hope which they inspired in the prospect of eternity. The occasion on which the passage is introduced is de- serving of our notice. Certain men, of pernicious prin- ciples, had crept unawares into the churches, so as to render it necessary for the apostle to write even on “the common salvation,” and to exhort the brethren earnestly to “contend for the faith once delivered to the saints.” Nor was it confined to principles: those who had departed from the faith had also gone far into impure and dissolute conduct; “turning the grace of God into lasciviousness, 638 SERMONS AND SIZETCHES. defiling the flesh, despising dominion, and speaking evil of dignities.” It is no new thing for deviations in Chris- tian doctrine to be followed by those in practice. As truth sanctifies the mind, so error pollutes it. It was to turn the apostacy of these ungodly men to the advantage of the faithful that the apostle addressed them as he did : “But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.” Having exposed the wicked ways into which these men had turned aside, he points out the good and the right way, and holds up the end to which it leads. In discoursing on the subject, we shall notice the prin- ciples which we have suggested to us, and the prospects which they furnish in respect of a blessed hereafter. I. Let us offer a few remarks on THE PRINCIPLES WHICHI ARE HERE SUGGESTED TO US, AS CONSTITUTING TRUE RE- LIGION. Whatever ideas we have entertained of truth and true religion, it is necessary to bring them to the Scriptures, as to the standard. 1. True evangelical religion is here represented as a building, the foundation of which is laid in the faith of Christ :-“Building up yourselves on your most holy faith.” Whether it relate to personal or to social religion, this must be the foundation of the fabric, or the whole will fall. Many persons are awakened to some serious concern about futurity, and excited to inquire what they | must do to be saved ; and, in that state of mind, it is not unusual for them to have recourse to reading and prayer, as a preparation for death. Many preachers, too, will think it sufficient to direct them to the use of these means. But if the death and mediation of Christ be overlooked, it is not reading, or prayer, or any other religious exercise, that will avail us. Why did John the Baptist, Christ, and his apostles lay the foundation of the gospel kingdom by calling on sinners to “repent and believe the gospel ?” Was it not because all other duties, prior to these, were of no account 7 When some, who followed Christ for loaves, inquired what they must do to work the works of God, his answer was, “This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent;” plainly intimating that no work, prior to this, could be pleasing to God. The Scrip- tures direct men to pray, but it is in faith. To the ques- tion, “What must I do to be saved?” there is but one answer—“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” Christ is the door; by him if any man enter in he shall be saved. To direct inquirers to any thing short of this is to direct them to that which, if com- plied with, will leave them short of salvation. This the Scriptures never do : there is not a direction in the oracles of God but, if truly followed, will lead to everlasting life. One lays the foundation of his religion in what he calls reason; but which in fact is his own reasoning. The same inspired writer who in one sentence commends un- derstanding, in the next warns us against leaning to our own understanding. To strengthen ourselves and one another in this way, is to build up ourselves on our own conceits. Another founds his religion on his good deeds. Good deeds undoubtedly form a part of the building, but the foundation is not the place for them. They are not the cause, but the effects of faith. They prepare us for heaven, as meetening us for it, but not as rendering us deserving of it. A third builds his religion on impres- sions. It is not from the death of Christ for sinners or any other gospel truth that he derives his comfort, but from an impulse on his mind that his sins are forgiven, and that he is a favourite of God, which is certainly no where revealed in the Scriptures. We may build ourselves up in this way, but the building will fall. A fourth founds his religion on faith, but it is not a holy faith, either in respect of its nature or its effects. It is dead, being alone, or without fruit. The faith on which the first Christians built up themselves included repentance for sin. As when forgiveness is promised to repentance, faith in Christ is supposed ; so when justification is promised to believ- ing, repentance is supposed. However distinct they are, as to their nature and objects, they have no separate ex- istence. Hence, in the preaching of John, Christ, and the apostles they are united ; and hence the faith of Christ, supposing a renunciation of every thing opposed to it, and including a cordial acquiescence in the gospel way of sal- vation through his death, is most holy. - These principles your dear deceased pastor has long believed and taught. May you long continue to exemplify their holy influence. - 2. That religion which has its foundation in the faith of Christ will increase by “praying in the Holy Spirit.” As there is no true practical religion without faith in Christ, so there is no true prayer but “in the Holy Spirit.” It is true “that men ought always to pray, and not to faint; ” but it is no less true that we know not what to pray for as we ought, but as the Spirit helpeth our in- firmities: clear proof this, by the way, that that may be man's duty which yet, owing to his depravity, cannot be performed but by Divine grace; and that the Holy Spirit works that in us which God as the Governor of the world requires of us; writing his law upon our hearts, or work- ing in us that which is pleasing in his sight. The assistance of the Holy Spirit, however, is not that of which we are always sensible. We must not live in the neglect of prayer at any time because we are uncon- scious of being under Divine influence, but rather, as our Lord directs, pray for his Holy Spirit. It is in prayer that the Spirit of God ordinarily assists us. Prayers begun in dejection have often ended in joy and praise : of this many of the Psalms of David furnish us with examples. One of the sentences uttered by your deceased pastor, when drawing near his end, was, “I wish I HAD PRAYED MoRE.” This was one of those weighty sayings which are not unfrequently uttered in view of the solemn realities of eternity. This wish has often recurred to me since his departure, as equally applicable to myself, and with it the resolution of that holy man, President Edwards, “so to live as he would wish he had when he came to die.” In reviewing my own life, I wished I had prayed more than I have for the success of the gospel. I have seen enough to furnish me with matter of thankfulness, but, had I prayed more, I might have seen more. I wish I had prayed more than I have for the salvation of those about me, and who are given me in charge. When the father of the lunatic doubted whether Jesus could do any thing for him, he was told in answer, that, if he could believe, all things were possible. On hearing this he, burst into tears, saying, “Lord, I believe ; help thou mine unbelief 1?” He seems to have understood our Lord as suggesting that, if the child was not healed, it would not be owing to any want of power in him, but to his own unbelief. This might well cause him to weep and exclaim as he did. The thought of his unbelief causing the death of his child was distressing. The same thought has occurred to me as applicable to the neglect of the prayer of faith. Have I not by this guilty negligence been accessory to the destruc- tion of some that are dear to me? And were I equally concerned for the souls of my connexions as he was for the life of his child, should I not weep with him $ I wish I had prayed more than I have for my own soul: I might then have enjoyed much more communion with God. The gospel affords the same ground for spiritual enjoy- ment as it did to the first Christians. I wish I had prayed more than I have in all my undertakings : I might then have had my steps more directed by God, and attended with fewer deviations from his will. There is no inter- course with God without prayer. It is thus that we walk with God, and have our conversation in heaven. 3. We are given to understand, that by means of build- ing on our most holy faith, and praying in the Holy Spirit, we “keep owrselves in the love of God.” The love of God here is to be understood not of his love to us, but of ours to him ; as when our Lord told the unbelieving Jews that they had not “the love of God” in them. To keep alive this sacred flame amidst the temptations of the world is in a manner the sum of the Christian life. If this be pre- served, every other grace will thrive, and we shall prosper in all that we set our hands to in the service of God. Not only must natural affection to our dearest friends and re- lations give place to the love of God, but even the love of our Christian brethren must be on account of their obedi- ence to him : “Who is my mother ? and who are my bre- thren?—Whosoever shall do the will of my Father which PRINCIPLES AND PROSPECTS OF A SERVANT OF CHRIST. 639 is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.” This is a subject into which your dear pastor entered with deep interest, considering it as essential to true re- ligion. He dwelt much in his preaching on the glory of the Divine character and government, as displayed in the law and the gospel, and scrupled not to declare his firm persuasion that all religious affections which disregarded this were spurious, and would prove of no account at the great day. He was persuaded that as sin must be hated as sin, or it is not hated at all; so God must be loved as God, or he is not loved at all. But to love God as God is to love him for what he is, as well as for what he has dome for us. He had, indeed, no such notion of loving God for his own excellency as should render us indifferent to our own salvation. On the contrary, he considered it as essential to the love of God to desire his favour as our chief good. ' But we can no more desire this, irrespective of what he is, than we can desire any other object without considering it as in itself desirable. Unless we love God in respect of his character, his favour would be no enjoy- ment to us. - In these views I am persuaded that our brother was in the right, and that, instead of their being mere metaphy- sical subtilties, they enter into the essence of true religion. The glory of the gospel consists in an exhibition of the glory of the Divine character. Had it been possible for sin to have been forgiven, and sinners accepted, in a way inconsistent with righteousness, however agreeable it might have been, as furnishing us with the means of escape from wrath, there had been no glory in it, and, had we truly loved God, no satisfaction to our minds. In judging of what is true or false, right or wrong, the love of God is that to the mind which an ear for music is to harmony, or which a delicate sense of fitness is to our speaking and acting with propriety. It is thus that the apostle represents it in his Epistle to the Philippians: “And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment; that ye may approve things that are excellent;” or—in all sense ; that 3ye may try things that differ. In short, there is no calcu- lating the bearings of this principle : it is the life-blood that flows through all the veins of true religion. Hence the prayer of the apostle : “The Lord direct your hearts into the love of God.” It is by building up ourselves on our most holy faith, and praying in the Holy Spirit, that we are supposed to keep alive this heavenly flame. These are the means adapted to that important end; they are to the love of God that which oil is to the fire, tending to feed and to enliven it. It is by a growing acquaintance with the word of God, accompanied with habitual prayer, that the love of God increases and abounds more and more. There are things which are inconsistent with the love of God, such as the love of the world and the indulgence of its lusts: “If any man love the world, the love of the Father | is not in him.” But a life of faith and prayer will subdue these weeds, no less than they, when indulged, are known to choke the word of God, and to render it unfruitful. Let the field be but well occupied with good seed, and there will be no room for the weeds: “Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh.” 4. We are taught that, when we have done all, in look- ing for eternal life, we must keep our eye singly and solely on the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ. It was this part of the subject that our dear brother particularly repeated, as expressive, I doubt not, of both the ground and object of his hope. Every one who knew him can bear testi- mony that he was a just and holy man, and that it was his great concern, in every station he filled, to maintain good works; but his dependence for acceptance with God was not on them. . He looked for eternal life through “ the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The best characters have always been the most sensible of their own unworthi- ness, and the furthest from self-righteous boasting. After all their labours in the cause of God, they feel to have been unprofitable servants, as having done only what was their duty to do, and that with so much imperfection as to furnish matter of humiliation and self-abasement. It is true that a servant of God may enjoy a portion of solid satisfaction in reviewing those things which, by the grace of God, he has been enabled to accomplish, and this with- out any mixture of self-righteous boasting. This was the case with the apostle of the Gentiles. He could say, on the approach of death, “I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith : henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of right- eousness, which the Lord the righteous Judge shall give me at that day; and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.” But if Paul himself had been speaking of the consideration on which he hoped to be accepted and saved, he would, like Jude, have resolved it into “the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ.” You know, brethren, that this is the doctrine which your pastor has preached among you for nearly forty years. It is true he did not so represent the grace of God as to che- rish a spirit of slothfulness or wantonness, but, in all his labours, it was his uniform design to direct his hearers, whether they would hear or whether they would forbear, to the only way of salvation marked out in the Holy Scrip- tures: “By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God.” He preached the doctrine of sovereign grace in such a manner as to warm every man against trusting to his own righteousness, and teach every man in what way he must be saved, if saved at all, as well as to lead those who had believed in Jesus to ascribe it to the grace of God that they were what they were. And now, having, as I said, for nearly forty years, pointed you to the good and the right way, he has himself walked in it; leaving you and all the world with this sentiment upon his lips—“Looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life l’’ Let us now proceed to the latter part of the subject ; namely, II. THE PROSPECTs which THESE PRINCIPLES FURNISH As To A BLESSED HEREAFTER : “Looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.” By “the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ” I understand that which is communicated through his death, and with the dispensation of which he is invested, both now and at the day of judgment: “Of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.—The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day.” We have already received much of the mercy of Christ. It was mercy that induced him to assume our nature, and undertake our salvation; to give himself an offering and a sacrifice to God for us; to send his Holy Spirit to renew us, when we were dead in sin ; to intercede for us at the right hand of God; and to be with us in all our labours and sufferings for his name’s sake : but in respect of actual enjoyment, there is much more yet to be expected. The mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ is communicated in greater and greater degrees, till, like rivers terminating in the ocean, it issues in etermal life. The first exercise of mercy which the Scriptures direct us to look for, on our leaving the body, is an immediate reception into the presence of Christ, and the society of the spirits of just men made perfect. “The beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom.—Lord y sº 3. remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise.—Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.—We are confident and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.—I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ, which is far better.—And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth : Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours ; and their works do fol- low them.” What this overwhelming tide of mercy will prove we have yet to learn. When the Lord turned again the captivity of Judah, they were like those that dream ; the deliverance seemed too great to be real. And thus it may be with believers on their departing from the body, and entering into the joy of their Lord. But of this our dear brother knows more, since his taking leave of us, than we should be able to discover in a series of years on earth, even though we should make it our constant study. If an inspired apostle could say, “We know not what we shall 640 SERMONS AND SKETCHES. be,” it is vain for us to think of forming an adequate con- ception of it. I do not know whether I ought not to reckon under this particular the glorious progress of Christ's kingdom in this world. Why should we suspect whether our brethren who rest from their labours be from hence interested in this object? If there be joy in heaven among the angels over one sinner that repenteth, why not among the glorified saints 3 And if over one sinner, much more over the mul- titudes that shall be gathered in the latter days from every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.* There is a sense in which the dead know not anything : “Their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished, neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sum.” All this is true, as to the things of this world ; but it does not follow that those who die in the Lord have no more a portion in his spiritual kingdom. As well might we infer that their love of him and hatred of evil shall perish. But I ask leave, on this subject, to re- fer to A Meditation on the nature and progressiveness of the heavenly glory, contained in a small volume of “Dialogues, Letters, and Essays,” published in 1806. Another stream of mercy for which we are directed to look will attend the second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consist in the dead being raised, and the living changed. “The Lord himself shall descend from heaven, —with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God : and the dead in Christ shall rise first ; then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air ; and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” It has been usual for nations to reserve the most notable acts of grace to the appearance or coronation of their kings, as tending to honour their entrance on the government. And thus both the first and second appearing of Christ are periods which God has distinguished by the most glorious displays of mercy. The former was a jubilee to the Gentile world; and the latter will be the same to the whole creation. As, on the sounding of the jubilee trumpet, the captives were liberated ; so, when the trump of God shall sound, the righteous dead shall be raised, and their resurrection will be to the creatures of God the signal of emancipation from under the effects of sin. View the grave as a long, dark, and comfortless abode, and it is sufficient to appal the stoutest spirit; but take into consideration that here the Lord lay—that he was raised from the dead, that he might be the first-fruits of them that slept—and that of all that the Father gave him he will lose nothing, but will raise it up at the last day— and it will wear a different aspect. Job, when contem- plating the grave as a long and dreary habitation, describes it in the most plaintive language: “Man lieth down, and riseth not till the heavens be no more l’” But when his views are fixed on the deliverance which he should obtain at that great and glorious day, his complaints are exchanged for triumphs. It is delightful to observe the erection of soul which a believing prospect of the resurrection gave him, after all his depression : “Oh that my words were now written oh that they were printed in a book that they were graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock for ever ! For I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth; and though, after my skin, worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God; whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.” In a strain very similar to this, the apostle Paul, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, describes the victory over death and the grave, representing believ- ers as actually raised from the dead, and as standing upon their graves, looking the conquered enemy in the face, and exclaiming, “O death, where is thy sting 3 O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.” By looking for this part of the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, we shall be reconciled to death, even before we meet it. But there is another stream of mercy beyond this, to * Such, we know, were the ideas of our dear departed brother; which, as some may remember, he enlarged upon at the Thursday- morning meeting of the Association, held at Kettering, in 1813. which we are directed to look, and which pertains to the last judgment. We have an impressive idea given us of this in Paul’s prayer for Onesiphorus: “The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain; but when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me. The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day.” We have needed mercy on many days, and have found it; but that is a day in which we shall need it more than ever. It is a fond notion, entertained by some, that the sins of believers will not be brought into judgment. We are assured, however, that we must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ; that every one of us shall give an account of himself to God; and that of every idle word that men shall speak they shall give account thereof at the day of judgment. The mercy of the Lord in that day will not consist in connivance ; but, as in all other instances, be exercised consistently with righteousness. In our present state of mind, we may wish to have it otherwise. David might wish that the evil he had wrought in secret should be kept secret; but the Lord determined to expose it be- fore the sun. It does not comport with the character of God to conceal the truth, but to make it manifest. If the sins of believers were not brought into judgment, there would be no occasion for the exercise of forgiving mercy. It is from the strictness of the trial, and the awfulness of the sentence to which, if dealt with according to their de- serts, they would be exposed in that day, that mercy will be needed. The world shall know their guilt, and their repentance, and the way in which they are forgiven ; so as to glorify God, though it be unwillingly, and to feel the justice of their own condemnation. In this view of the last judgment, the manifestation of guilt, and wrath, and mercy will each surpass all our present conceptions. It is commonly represented, in the Scriptures, that every man will be judged “according to his works;” and true it is, that all our actions and words, and even thoughts, will undergo an impartial scrutiny, and be considered as the test of character. They, for example, who have minis- tered to Christ's members in their necessities, will be treated as having ministered unto him ; and they that have disregarded them, as having disregarded him : but if, by being judged according to our works, were meant that God will proceed with us on the principles of mere justice, giv- ing to every one his due, we should all be condemned: “If thou, Lord, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand 3 But there is forgiveness with thee, that thou may- est be feared.” Nor will the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, in that day, be confined to the forgiveness of sin : even the rewards of that day, though expressive of righteousness and faith- fulness, yet have their origin in mercy. The crown of righteousness, which the Lord the righteous Judge shall give in that day to all who love his appearing, will not be a reward of debt, but of grace. But for grace, we should have had no good deeds to be rewarded ; or if we had, they could no more be named in that day than the good behaviour of a murderer will bear to be alleged as a balance against his crimes. But being accepted in Christ, what is done for him is rewarded for his sake. Hence the crown of glory that shall be bestowed on his appearing is deno- minated, “the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.” After this, nothing remains but that etermal life into which, as into an ocean, all these streams of mercy flow : “Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” Such was the object of your dear pastor's hope. May such be yours and mine : let our last end be like his The separation of a pastor and a people is a serious event. He is gone to give account of his ministry, and his account will include many things pertaining to the people of his charge. Some of them, I trust, will be found to have received the love of the truth, and will be his joy and crown of rejoicing. Could he have uttered his heart to you, his children, it would have been to press upon you a perseverance in the things that you have re- ceived and learned. Nay, he did so far utter his heart as to say, to those about him, “If any thing be said as from t PRINCIPLES AND PROSPECTs OF A SERVANT OF CHRIST. 641 me, let the last word be, “As I have loved you, see that ye love one another.’” I doubt not but it has been his en- deavour that, after his decease, you might have these things always in your remembrance; and that he was less anxious that you should remember him than them : but I trust you will remember both. Others, I fear, will be found to have sat under his ministry in vain. The word preached has not profited them, not being mixed with faith. It is an affecting case to perish from under a faithful minister; for if he be pure from your blood, on whose head must it be found, but on your own 3 Let us hope that, if the warning voice of your minister has not been heard before, it may be heard now. His last end furnishes a lesson of instruction, by which he being dead yet speaketh. You see here, that if a man keep Christ's saying, he will never see death. Death to him is not death, but the introduc- tion to everlasting life. But know also, that he that be- lieveth not the Son will never see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him. - I shall conclude with a brief account of our deceased brother ; which I give partly from my own knowledge, and partly from the communications of others. I am aware that some great and good men have imposed silence on these occasions. Without impeaching their motives, I take the liberty to differ from them. It is true that for sinful creatures, as we all are, to heap encomiums on one another, is vain and sinful; yet we may err, on the other hand, by concealing what the grace of God has done for us. In this view one may, on occasion, speak of himself, as did the apostle Paul; and if so, why not of another ? David did not withhold a tribute of affection to the memory of his brother Jonathan. Nor did Luke conceal the fruits of faith and love which had appeared in Dorcas. She might have left an injunction, that at her decease nothing should be said of her; but the widows must weep, and show the garments which she had made for the poor in her lifetime. It is not for us to suppress the feelings of nature, and still less those of grace. Our deceased brother was born near Halifax, in York- shire, on the 9th of August, 1752, O. S. His parents were both of them pious characters, and remarkable for their strict attention to the instruction and government of their children. Of course he would be taught the good and the right way from his childhood. It does not appear, however, that he was inade wise unto salvation, through faith in Christ Jesus, till about the sixteenth or seventeenth year of his age. This was under the ministry of his re- vered friend and father Mr. John Fawcett, pastor of the church meeting at Hepden Bridge. Of this church he became a member, on May 28, 1769. Being of a serious and studious turn of mind, he appeared to his friends to possess gifts suited to the ministry, which was proposed to his consideration. The proposal met with his own wishes, and, being desirous of obtaining all the instruction he could, he went, in January, 1772, to the Bristol Academy, them under the care of Messrs. Hugh and Caleb Evans. Of his conduct in this situation, it is sufficient to say that it procured him the esteem of his tutors to the end of their lives. - In 1774 he left the academy, and, after stopping a short time at different places, in July, 1775, he came to Olney. It was in the spring of the following year, when the As- sociation was held at Olney, that my acquaintance with him commenced ; and, from that day to this, all that I have known of him has tended to endear him to me. I cannot say when it was that he first became acquainted with the writings of President Edwards, and other New England divines; but, having read them, he drank deeply into them : particularly into the harmony between the law and the gospel—between the obligations of men to love God with all their hearts and their actual enmity against him—and between the duty of ministers to call on sinners to repent and believe in Christ for salvation, and * His views of the gospel may be seen by a small piece, first pub- lished in 1783, entitled, The First Principles of the Öracies of God, *epresented in a Plain and Familiar Catechism for the Use of Chii. dren. It has gone through several editions. + If he published any other sermons, on any thing else, besides his Catechism, and the Introductory Discourse at the Ördination of Mr. JMorgan of Birmingham, it has escaped my recollection. He, how- ever, wrote several of the Circular Letters of the Northamptonshire the necessity of omnipotent grace to render the call effect- ual. The consequence was, that while he increased in his attachment to the Calvinistic doctrines of human de- pravity, and of salvation by sovereign and efficacious grace, he rejected, as unscriptural, the high, or rather hyper, Calvinistic notions of the gospel, which went to set aside the obligations of sinners to every thing spiritually good, and the invitations of the gospel as being addressed to them.* Hence it was that his preaching was disap- proved by a part of his hearers, and that, in the early part of his ministry at Olney, he had to encounter a consider- able portion of individual opposition. “By patience, calmness, and prudent perseverance, however,” says one of his friends, “he lived to subdue prejudice; and though his beginning was very unpropitious, from a small and not united interest, he raised it to a large body of people, and a congregation most affectionately attached to him.” He had a largeness of heart that led him to expect much from the promises of God to the church in the latter days. It was on his motion, I believe, that the Association at Nottingham, in the spring of 1784, agreed to set apart an hour on the evening of the first Monday in every month for social prayer for the success of the gospel, and to in- vite Christians of other denominations to unite with them in it. It must have been about this time that he became ac- quainted with Mr. Carey, who then resided at Hackleton. Mr. C. had been baptized by Mr. (now Dr.) Ryland, at Northampton, on the 5th of October, 1783, and, after a while, joined the church at Olney, by whom he was sent into the ministry. Without reading any thing material on Christian doctrine, besides the Scripture, he had formed his own system ; and, on comparison, he found it to be so near to that of several of the ministers in his neighbour- hood as to lay the foundation of a close and lasting friendship between them. But to return to our deceased brother— In all the conversations between the years 1787 and 1792, which led on to the formation of the Baptist Mis- sionary Society, and in all the meetings for fasting and prayer, both before and after it was formed, he bore a part. In 1789 he republished President Edwards's “ Humble Attempt to promote Explicit Agreement and Visible Union of God’s People in Extraordinary Prayer for the Revival of Religion.” How much this publication contributed to that tone of feeling which, in the end, determined five or six individuals to venture, though with many fears and misgivings, on an undertaking of such magnitude, I can- not say ; but it doubtless had a very considerable influ- ence on it. In April, 1791, there was a double lecture at Clipstone, and both the sermons, one of which was delivered by brother Sutcliff, bore upon the meditated mission to the heathen. His subject was Jealousy for God, from I Kings xix. 10. After public worship, Mr. Carey, perceiving the impression that the sermons had made, entreated that something might be resolved on before we parted. No- thing, however, was done but to request brother Carey to revise and print his “Inquiry into the Obligations of Christians to use Means for the Conversion of the Hea- then.” The sermons also were printed at the request of those who heard them.f. From the formation of the Society, in the autumn of 1792, to the day of his death, our brother's heart and hands have been in the work. On all occasions, and in every way, he was ready to assist to the utmost of his power. In 1796 he married Miss Jane Johnstone, who was pre- viously a member of his church. This connexion appears to have added much to his comfort. For eighteen years they lived together, as fellow helpers to each other in the ways of God; and their separation has been but short. The tomb that received his remains has since been opened Association; namely, that of 1799, Om Proridence; of 1786, On the 4uthority and Sanctification of the Lord's Day; of 1797, Qn the Divinity of the Christian Religion ; of 1800, Öm the Qualification jor Church Fellowship; of 1803, On the Lord's Supper; of 1805, Qn the manner of attending to Divine Ordinances ; of 1808, Qn Obedience to Positive Institutions; and of 1813, On Reading the Word of God, 2 T 642 SERMONS AND SRETCHES. to receive hers. the 3d of September following, possessing the same good hope, through grace, which supported him. A sermon was preached at her interment, by Mr. Geard of Hitchen, from Rom. v. 2, “By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.” - Mr. Sutcliff had been in a declining state of health for several years past. On the 3d of March, 1814, being on a visit at London, he was seized, about the middle of the night, with a violent pain across his breast and arms, at- tended with great difficulty of breathing. This was suc- ceeded by a dropsy, which, in about three months, issued in his death. Two or three times, during his affliction, I rode over to see him. The first time he had thoughts of recovering; but, whatever were his thoughts as to this, it seemed to make no difference as to his peace of mind. The last time I visited him was on my way to the annual meeting in London, on the 19th of June. Expecting to see his face no more, I said, on taking leave, “I wish you, my dear brother, an abundant entrance into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ l’’ At this he hesitated; not as doubting his entrance into the kingdom, but as questioning whether the term abundant were applicable to him. “That,” said he, “is more than I expect. I think I understand the connexion and import of those words—“Add to your faith virtue—give diligence to make your calling and election sure—for so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly.' I think the idea is that of a ship coming into harbour with a fair gale and a full tide. If I may but reach the heavenly shore, though it be on a board or broken piece of the ship, I shall be satisfied.” The following letter received from his brother, Mr. Daniel Sutcliff, who was with him the last month, will furnish a more particular account of the state of his mind than I am able to give from my own knowledge. “From the commencement of his illness I found, by his letters,” that his mind was in general calm and peace- ful. “All,” said he, “is in the hands of a wise and gracious God. We are the Lord's servants, and he has a right to dispose of us as he pleases, and to lay us aside at any time.” Nearly a month before his end I went to see him —to see the chamber where the good man dies. “His mind was generally calm and happy; though, as to strong consolation, he said he had it not. When some- thing was mentioned of what he had done, in promoting the cause of Christ, he replied, with emotion, “I look upon it all as nothing; I must enter heaven on the same footing as the converted thief, and shall be glad to take a seat by his side.” - “His evidences for heaven, he said, were a consci- ousness that he had come to Jesus; and that he felt a union of heart with him, his people, and his cause ; and Jesus had said, ‘Where I am, there shall my friends be.” The heaven that he hoped for, and which he had in no small degree anticipated, was union and communion with Christ and his people. He said, ‘The idea of being for ever separated from him appears to me more dreadful than being plunged into non-existence, or than the greatest possible torture.” “He often intimated that his views of Divine things were far more vivid and impressive than they had ever been before. He had a greater sense of the depravity of the human heart, and of the exceeding sinfulness of sin, as consisting in disaffection to the character and govern- ment of God, than at any former period of his life. He had, he said, an inexpressibly greater sense of the import- ance of ministers having correct views of the import of the gospel message, and of their stating and urging the same on their hearers, than he had ever had before. He was ready to think, if he could communicate his present views and feelings, they must produce a much greater effect than his preaching had ordinarily done. “If I were able to preach again,’ said he, “I should say things which I never said before : but God has no need of me; he can raise up men to say them better than I could say them.” He * They had been used to correspond in short-hand. He died on the 22d of June, and she on would sometimes say, ‘Ministers will never do much good till they begin to pull sinners out of the fire 2' “To Mrs. Sutcliff he said, “My love, I commit you to Jesus. I can trust you with him. Our separation will not be long; and I think I shall often be with you. Read frequently the Book of Psalms, and be much in prayer. I am sorry I have not spent more time in prayer.” At another time he said, ‘I wish I had conversed more with the Divine promises: I believe I should have found the advantage of it now.” Others of his expressions were, “Flesh and heart fail.—All the powers of body and mind are going to pieces.—Shortly this prison of my clay must be dissolved and fall. — Why is his chariot so long a coming 3 I go to Jesus; let me go—depart in peace—I have seen thy salvation.” - * “A day or two before he died, he said, “If anything be said of me, let the last word be, As I have loved you, see that ye love one another.’ . “On the 22d of June, about five in the afternoon, an alteration took place; he began to throw up blood. On perceiving this, he said, ‘It is all over ; this cannot be borne long.” Mr. Welsh of Newbury being present, said, ‘You are prepared for the issue.” He replied, ‘I think I am : go and pray for me.’ About half an hour before his departure, he said, ‘Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.—It is come—perhaps a few minutes more—heart and flesh fail —but God—That God is the strength of his people is a truth that I now see as I never saw it in my life.” These were the last words he could be heard to speak. & & & Life, take thy chance; but oh for such an end l’” Mr. Daniel Sutcliff adds the following lines, as having been frequently repeated in his illness: “We walk a narrow path, and rough, And we are tired and weak; But soon we shall have rest enough In those blest courts we seek. Soon in the chariot of a cloud, By flaming angels borne, I shall mount up the milky way, And back to God return. I once have tasted Canaan’s grapes, And now I long to go To where my Lord his vineyard keeps, And where the clusters grow !”. In saying a few things relative to his character, talents, temper, &c., I would not knowingly deviate in the smallest degree from truth. He possessed the three cardinal vir- tues, integrity, benevolence, and prudence, in no ordinary degree. To state this is proof sufficient to every one who knew him. He was economical, for the sake of enabling himself to give to them that needed. The cause of God lay near his heart: he denied himself of many things that he might contribute toward promoting it. It was from a willingness to instruct his younger brethren whose minds were toward the mission, that, at the request of the Society, he took several of them under his care; and, in all that he has done for them and others, I am persuaded he saved nothing; but gave his time and talents for the public good. I have heard him sigh under troubles ; but never re- member to have seen him weep but from joy, or from sympathy. On his reading or hearing the communications from the East, containing accounts of the success of the gospel, the tears would flow freely from his eyes. His talents were less splendid than useful. He had not much brilliancy of imagination, but considerable strength of mind, with a judgment greatly improved by application. It was once remarked of him, in my hearing, by a person who had known him from his youth, to this effect—That man is an example of what may be accom- plished by diligence and perseverance. When young he was no more than the rest of us; but by reading and thinking he has accumulated a stock of mental riches which few of us possess.-He would not very frequently surprise us with new or original thoughts; but neither would he shock us with anything devious from truth or good sense. Good Mr. Hall of Arnsby, having heard him soon after his coming to Olney, said familiarly to me, “ Brother Sutcliff is a safe man : you never need fear that he will say or do an improper thing.” PRINCIPLES AND PROSPECTS OF A SERVANT OF CHRIST. 643 He particularly excelled in practical judgment. When a question of this nature came before him, he would take a comprehensive view of its bearings, and form his opinion with so much precision as seldom to have occasion to change it. His thoughts on these occasions were prompt, but he was slow in uttering them. He generally took time to turn the subject over, and to digest his answer. If he saw others too hasty for coming to a decision, he would pleasantly say, “Let us consult the town-clerk of Ephesus, and do nothing rashly.” I have thought for many years that, among our ministers, Abraham Booth was the first counsellor, and John Sutcliff the second. His advice in conducting the mission was of great import- ance, and the loss of it must be seriously felt. It has been said that his temper was naturally irritable, and that he with difficulty bore opposition ; yet that such was the overbearing influence of religion in his heart that few were aware of it. If it were so, he must have fur- nished a rare example of the truth of the wise man’s re- mark, “Better is he that ruleth his spirit than he that taketh a city.” Whatever might have been his natural temper, it is certain that mildness, and patience, and gentle- mess were prominent features in his character. One of the students who was with him said he never saw him lose his temper but once, and then he immediately retired into his study. It was observed by one of his brethren in the ministry, at an Association, that the promise of Christ, that they who learned of him, who was “meek and lowly in heart, should find rest unto their souls,” was more ex- tensively fulfilled in Mr. Sutcliff than in most Christians. He was “swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath.” Thus it was that he exemplified the exhortation of the apostle, “Giving no offence, that the ministry be not blamed.” There was a gentleness in his reproofs that distinguished them. He would rather put the question for considera- tion than make a direct attack upon a principle or practice. I have heard him repeat Mr. Henry's note, on Prov. xxv. 15, with approbation; “We say, Hard words break no bones; but it seems that soft ones do.” A flint may be broken on a cushion, when no impression could be made on it upon an unyielding substance. A young man, who came to be under his care, discovering a considerable por- tion of self-sufficiency, he gave him a book to read on self-knowledge. He is said never to have hastily formed his friendships and acquaintances, and, therefore, rarely had reason to re- pent of his connexions; while every year's continued in- timacy drew them nearer to him ; so that he seldom lost his friends : but his friends have lost him : He had a great thirst for reading, which not only led him to accumulate one of the best libraries in this part of the country,” but to endeavour to draw his people into a habit of reading. Allowing for a partiality common to men, his judgment of characters was generally correct. Nor was it less can- did than correct; he appreciated the good, and if required to speak of the evil, it was with reluctance. His eye was a faithful index to his mind; penetrating, but benignant. His character had much of the decisive, without any thing conceited or overbearing. In his person he was above the ordinary stature, being nearly six feet high. In the earlier stages of life he was thin ; but during the last twenty years he gathered flesh, though never so much as to feel it any inconvenience to him. His countenance was grave, but cheerful; and his company always interesting. I shall conclude with a few extracts of letters concern- ing him, which I have received since his decease from those who knew him intimately. “His zeal for the cause of Christ,” says one of his con- gregation, “ was uniform and increasingly ardent to the end of his life. One of the last conversations that he had with me, he concluded in these words :- Farewell I Do your utmost for the cause of Christ. I have done a little, and am ashamed that I have done no more. I have such views of its importance, that, had I ability, I would spread * This library is left, by his will, to the Bradford Baptist Academy, 2nly on condition of the trustees paying £100 to his relations ; a Sūn). far short of its value. an event may well do so. the gospel through the world.’ His knowledge of books was very extensive : he appeared to have a facility in ex- tracting the substance of them in a short time, as a bee extracts the honey from the expanded flower. He pos- sessed an equal facility in knowing men, more especially ministers, and that not confined to his own denomination ; so that in a few minutes he could give you an account who they were, what places they had occupied, and what was their general reputation. From this he was many times able to give seasonable advice.” “I believe,” says a minister who had been one of his pupils, “I was the first young man placed under the care of our dear deceased father Sutcliff. From my first ac- quaintance with Divine things, on seeing and hearing him occasionally in my native village, I formed a very high opinion of the general excellence of his character; and the intimate knowledge I had of him, from residing in his family, so far from diminishing my esteem and veneration for him, greatly increased them. His piety was not merely official and public, but personal and habitual. The spirit of devotion rested on him. He was the man of God in all his intercourse. He conducted the worship of his family with singular seriousness, ardour, and constancy, never allowing anything to interfere with it, except great indisposition. He manifested a parental tenderness and solicitude for the welfare of his pupils, and took a lively interest in their joys or sorrows. I have seen him shed the sympathizing tear over them in the hour of affliction. Such was the kindness and gentleness of his deportment, that they could freely impart their minds to him ; but while his affectionate spirit invited their confidence, the gravity of his manner and the commanding influence of his general character effectually prevented any improper freedoms being taken with him. Such, too, were the sentiments with which he was regarded among his people ; they loved and venerated him. He heard the sermons of his younger brethren with great candour, and if he saw them timid and embarrassed on public occasions, would take an opportunity of speaking a kind and encouraging word to them, and aim to inspire them with a proper de- gree of confidence. He was singularly regular and punc- tual in fulfilling his engagements, whether in preaching or visiting, not only in attending, but in being there at the . time ; and earnestly inculcated it on his pupils, if they wished to command respect. He endeavoured to preserve and promote the order and regularity of Christian families where he visited. I never saw him out of temper but once, and that was produced by want of punctuality in another person. I often regret that I did not profit more by his instructions and example. He has many times, by his judicious counsel, been ‘the guide of my youth.’ His name and his memory will ever be dear to me. My father my father . '" “I have just heard,” says another who had some years since been his pupil, “ of the death of Mr. Sutcliff. It has returned upon me, whether alone or in company. Such In him I saw bright lines of resemblance to our Lord and Master, such as are seldom, very seldom, to be met with in poor mortals. Such ami- ableness of manners, so much of the meekness and gentle- ness of Christ, of sound judgment and of warm affection, we seldom see united. While memory holds her place, his name and manner will be cherished by me with pleasing melancholy, not without anticipations of meeting him in another and better world.” “The memory of Mr. Sutcliff,” says another, who had been his pupil, and who was present at his death, “will live in my warmest affections while I possess the powers of recollection. It seems impossible that I should ever forget such a friend, or speak of him without blessing God that I ever knew him. I am grieved that he is gone, yet grateful that he was continued with us long enough for me to receive his instructions, and to witness his example. You have heard some of his dying sentiments. As his address to me may be considered as his dying advice to the young men who were under his tuition, I communicate it, leaving it to your discretion what use to make of it. About three in the morning of the day on which he died, like Israel, he strengthened himself, and sat up on his bed. Calling me to him, he, in the most affectionate manner, 2 T 2 644 SERMONS AND SRETCHES. took hold of my hand, and expressed himself as follows:– * Preach as you will wish you had when you come to die. It is one thing to preach, and another to do it as a dying man. I am glad you are settled where you are. I think you may say, I dwell among my own people. I am glad we ever knew one another. Spiritual unions are sweet. I have fled to Jesus: to his cross I am united. The Lord bless you, and make you a blessing !” XXVIII.—PAUL’S PRAYER FOR THE PHILIP- PIANS. - [Sketch of a Sermon preached at Maze Pond, June 29th, 1800.] “And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment; that ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ; being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God.”—Phil. i. 9—ll. IT is pleasant to review the history of the first plantation of this church, and compare it with its state at the time this Epistle was written. You recollect Paul's journey to Philippi in company with Silas. You recollect how he first preached the gospel by the river-side, and how the Lord opened the heart of Lydia, and she attended unto the things which Paul spoke. You recollect what an up- roar was raised in the city, and how all were stirred up to persecute them. The mob did their part, the magistrates did their part, and God did his part. The apostles being thrown into prison, in the midst of pain and affliction, burst forth into a song of praise at midnight. You recol- lect the sequel of the story: how the jailer and his house- hold were by these means effectually converted, brought to embrace the gospel of Jesus, and were baptized in his name. We hear no more of them in the history of the New Testament; but by this Epistle we see this small family of the jailer—(for as to Lydia, probably she, and her household likewise, being natives of Thyatira, had left the city); but this single family of Christians had by this time so increased, that a Christian church was planted, properly organized with her bishops and deacons; and such was their progress in Christianity, that the apostle tells us, that always in every prayer of his he made request for them with joy, which shows that true religion so operated at Philippi as to give joy to the apostle's heart, and we know how that must be. The apostles rejoiced, as John says, when their children walked in the truth, and we may thence infer that the Christians at Philippi were eminent for their walk in the truth. Eminent, however, as they were—(and there is not, that I recollect, a single reflection on them in all this Epistle, which is very singular, and very different from those at Corinth, and Galatia, and several other places)— eminent, however, as they were, Paul did not consider them as having reached the mark. “This I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more.” The best and most amiable societies of individuals in this world are holy but in part ; they need stirring up, and provoking yet more and more. I think I need say nothing to prove that the prayer of the apostle on behalf of the believers at Philippi is appli- cable to other churches, and other congregations. You all know that what was written to them was addressed to the church in all succeeding ages. I shall, therefore, drop the character of the Philippians, and let me suppose that this prayer is applicable to the church meeting in this place— to all the believers in Jesus Christ who assemble here. “And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment; that ye may ap- prove things that are excellent;” or, as the margin renders it, that ye may try things that differ; “that ye may be sin- cere and without offence till the day of Christ; being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, unto the praise and glory of God.” Brethren, I am sure that there is no prayer that I or any other could offer up on your behalf that would be better and more desirable. In attempting to illustrate the subject, we shall notice particularly three things :-The objects for which the apostle prays—the medium through which all these excel- lences are to be communicated, namely, by Jesus Christ— and the end to which they were directed ; “to the praise and glory of God.” Let us notice, in the first place, the objects for which the apostle prays for these primitive Christians: “And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment,” and so on. In general, it may be proper to remark, that some of the things for which the apostle prays are the root, and others the branches. He prays that your love may abound, that it may abound in knowledge, that it may abound in all judg- ment, that ye may approve things that are excellent. I apprehend the abounding, and that in knowledge and in all judgment, is the root; and that the approving of things that are excellent, and the being sincere and without offence till the day of Christ, and filled with the fruits of righteousness, are all the branches. But, more particularly, the first thing that the apostle holds up as an object of desire is the abounding of love. Love is one of the first principles of all religion ; shall I say it is the essence of all true religion ? It is the cement of the moral world. It is that by which God proposes to govern all holy intelligences. It is, as our expositor, Mr. Henry, remarks, “ the law of Christ's kingdom, the lesson of his school, and the livery of his family.” It is the law of Christ's kingdom ; for “this command I give unto you, that ye love one another.” It is the lesson of his school; for “ye are taught of God to love one another.” It is the livery of his family; for “by this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” Love, however, as here spoken of, is not to be taken for every thing that may bear that name. Natural affection may be denominated love ; but this is not it. Party attachment may be called love; but this is not it. Christian love, how shakl I distinguish it? By what medium shall I distinguish Christian love from every thing else that bears the name 3 I know of no better criterion than this : The object of it is holy; for it is the love of that in the Divine character, or in the human character, or in things, which is holy. It is the love of the holy God—it is the love of holy ways—it is the love of holy mem—it is the love of a holy gospel—it is the love of a holy religion—it is that distinguishing quality in all objects, persons, or things which attracts ; and it is this which distinguishes Christian love from all other; and it is this which the apostle prays the Philip- pians might abound in yet more and more. He takes it for granted that they possessed love, and he only prays that they might abound in it. And may I take it for granted on behalf of you, my hearers, this morning, that you love the Lord, that you love the Saviour, that you love the gospel, that you love your fellow Christians? If I take it for granted, I do not wish or recommend that you should. It may be proper for you to examine yourselves on this head; but, however, taking it for granted that love exists in your hearts towards these objects, still there is reason to pray that this love may abound yet more and more. There are none of us so abounding in love, but that there is great reason for increase. Your affection to- wards God, towards Christians, and towards all men, is faint in comparison of what it is fit and proper it should be. But notice, secondly, he prays not only that love might abound, but that it might abound in knowledge. Know- ledge is a necessary accompaniment of love, and that for two reasons; to feed it and to regulate it. It is by the knowledge of God, it is by the knowledge of Divine truth, it is by drinking deeply into the gospel of Jesus Christ, that love is fed. The knowledge of Divine truth is that to the mind which food is to the body; it nourishes it and keeps it alive. We cannot love an unknown being ; we cannot love an unknown gospel; we cannot so much as love one another to any effect, but in proportion as we know one another. It is necessary, therefore, that we read and pray, and hear and labour, to cultivate the knowledge of God. Grace and peace are multiplied by the knowledge of God, and of Jesus Christ our Lord. If we love the Lord Jesus Christ in any degree, the more we know him, the better we shall love him; and consequently our love will be per- fected in glory, because there we shall see him as he is, PAUL’S PRAYER FOR THE PHILIPPIANS. 645 and then we shall be like him. The more our minds are expanded, and we drink deeply into evangelical truth, the more our hearts will burn with holy affections towards him. “I pray, therefore,” says the apostle, “that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment.” Christian love is not a blind attachment ; it is not that commotion of the affections which tumultu- ates towards some object, we know not why or wherefore : but solid Christian love is accompanied with knowledge ; it has reason for its governor; it is truly rational in all its operations. The Christian, therefore, is enabled to give a reason of the love that is in him, as well as the hope that is in him, with meekness and fear. But this is not all; knowledge is a necessary companion of love, to regulate it, as well as to feed and inspire it. Love without know- ledge is not good ; it is in danger of running into innu- merable improprieties and irregularities: it was this kind of love which made Peter declare that his Master should never die. There was love; but it was without know- ledge, and the Lord Jesus rebuked him for it. It was this species of love, without knowledge, that made the disci- ples so extremely unwilling for him to go without them. Says our Saviour, “If ye loved me,” he means, if ye loved me with a wise love, “ye would rejoice that I go to my Father, for my Father is greater than I; ” that is, the glory that I shall possess with my Father is greater than the glory I possess in this present state of humiliation ; so that it was like one Christian saying to another—like a dying Christian saying to a surviving friend—“Why weep ye at my departure ? if ye loved me properly, ye would rejoice that I go to my Father; for the glory that I am going to possess is far greater than the glory I at present share.— The love of the disciples, therefore, was a sort of inter- preted hatred, (not intentional certainly,) and our Lord would not own it for love. Let your love, therefore, abound with knowledge. We might apply it to many more things; to the love which you bear one towards another in church fellowship, or to the love you bear one towards another in your fami- lies. If your love be without knowledge, it will operate in a way of screening one another from faithful discipline, in a way of blinding you to each other's faults; but if your love be accompanied with knowledge, it will operate aright: it will seek the good of the person, while it abhors his evil conduct. The love of a parent that is unaccompanied with knowledge degenerates into foolish fondness, and is in danger of ruining the object of it. “This, therefore, I pray, that your love,” whether it be to God or to one another, or to those with whom you are connected, “may abound in knowledge.” But, to go on a step further, the apostle prays not only that it may abound in knowledge, but “in all judgment.” This is still more. There is a difference between know- ledge and judgment; knowledge is more of the specula- tive, judgment more of the practical. Judgment is know- ledge ripened into maturity; knowledge, as I may say, collects the evidences, and judgment sums them up and passes a decision. A man may possess much knowledge, but little judgment. We have known characters who have been very learned, have read many books, have seen many things, have had large acquaintance, and yet had no talents at associating the particulars, so as to form a solid and practical judgment of things. This I speak even of tem- poral, and natural things. That which the apostle here calls judgment is in the margin called sense; that ye may abound in all sense ; and wherefore ? Because the judg- ment of which he speaks is that which arises very much from a holy sense of right and wrong; it is a compound of the feelings of the heart. That which is here called judgment, or sense, is that to a Christian which a delicate sense of propriety is to a well-educated mind. You know what this is ; it is something different from mere learning; it is different from mere knowledge; it is that quick sen. sibility which promptly, and, as I may say, instinctively, determines the right from the wrong, the good from the evil; it dictates the path of propriety in the twinkling of an eye. This is what we call a delicate sense of propriety in common life ; and that which this is to a natural man, such is a holy tenderness of heart, such is a holy tender- ness of conscience, to a good man. This is what he means in the next phrase, “That ye may approve things that are excellent,” or, as the margin renders it, that ye may try things that differ. As a delicate sense of propriety enables a man in the common concerns of life to try things that differ; that is, he judges of propriety and impropriety by an immediate instinct, as I may say ; so he that possesses a holy tenderness of heart, and a holy tenderness of con- science, tries instinctively those things which differ; chooses the good and rejects the evil. Perhaps you may ask, what things are they that differ, to which the apostle may here refer, and which such a holy judgment tends to distinguish 4 I answer, things earthly, and things hea- venly ; things true, and things false; things good, and things evil. Now all these things are continually passing before us, perpetually presenting themselves to our choice, to our practical judgment, as I may say, and we must de- cide upon them every day and every hour. Every hour you must decide either in favour of things heavenly or things earthly. Oh that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment, that you may try things that differ, and prefer the excellent Choose heavenly things in preference to earthly, as your portion. Things true and things false are continually presenting themselves before your eyes or your ears : false doctrine as well as true doctrine is continually soliciting your atten- tion. In books, in sermons, in company, and in convers- ation, you are continually hearing of false doctrine ; athe- istical, or some corruption of the pure doctrine of the text. Here is the beauty of things—to have such a holy sense maintained in our souls as in a moment to see which is false that you may reject it, and the truth that you may imbibe it. Things good and things evil are also continu- ally passing before your eyes; the temptations and Snares of the world are continually soliciting you ; gold sparkles in your eyes, sensual pleasure is continually presenting it- self and soliciting your affection, and God himself deigns to stoop and ask your heart, and he says, “Set your affec- tions on things which are above, and not on things below.” How happy you and I, if we possess that spiritual judg- ment, that Divine sense, to abhor the one, and embrace the other This is that holy judgment which the apostle prays for on behalf of the primitive Christians, and which is accompanied with nearness of communion with God. I must pass on : I see here are several other things which the apostle supposes will be the fruit of this, and which he also specifies and prays for—“that ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ.” Sin- cerity is one of the prominent features of genuine Chris- tianity. That holy love, that heavenly knowledge, that spiritual judgment, of which we have been speaking, will give you a single eye, and you will be a sincere Christian. You will have one object in view through life. You will leave others to deal in dark intrigue, duplicity, and under- hand practices, and you will have one object through life, to glorify him in body and in spirit whose you are. . Sin- cerity particularly respects our approaches to God, our professions before men, and our dealings with the world. Oh that we may be all sincere in these ! In your ap- proaches before God, dread the thought of disguising or appearing under a mask in his house. Study to approach God with your hearts; for nothing but truth will stand before him. Let us be equally so in our professions when we converse with one another. Do not let us be anxious to be thought highly of one by another. Beware of that spirit which aspires only to retain a character among men —a name in the church of God ; but rather be concerned to be sincere, “an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile.” If you look round the world, you will see that the great concern of mankind is to appear to be ; but make it your concern to be. There is a great difference between a good man and a mere professor. The one is concerned to be what he professes, the other only to appear to be. What an awful difference And, I may add, let sincerity distin- guish us in all our worldly dealings. Religion is not a matter to be cooped up in a closet, nor yet in a place of worship. It must be carried out into the world—into our dealings. The object of the apostle's prayer is, that we may be men of honour, and that we may be sincere in all our dealings. Oh what a blessed world would it be if every man acted on this principle in all his dealings with 646 SERMONS AND SRETCHES. men : “And without offence,” says he, “until the day of Christ.” I think this means that we should cultivate an inoffensive spirit, that is, the spirit of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ, we all know, was not of a turbulent, discontented spirit: he did not deal in such sort of censures as were only adapted to provoke. He dealt in censures, but they were aimed at the good of the party, whatever his con- dition. The apostles and the primitive Christians studied an inoffensive conduct. They endeavoured to live peace- ably with all men, and they submitted to many injuries rather than give offence, rather than throw a stumbling- block in the way of unbelievers. Christians, be it your care to study an inoffensive life. There is a great deal of what is called faithfulness by many people that is very far from deserving that name, and is the mere exercise of cor- rupt passion. Under what passes by the name of an honest bluntness, some persons will be always giving of- fence—unnecessary offence, and thereby cause the name of Jesus Christ to be evil spoken of. Give no offence to Jew or Gentile, nor to the church of the living God. Finally, He prays that this may not merely be the exercise of a day, a week, a month, a year, but “till the day of Christ.” A thought has occurred to me that has pained me upon this clause. We have seen characters who have promised fair, who have been affectionate, who have been shining characters, and yet have not continued without offence “till the day of Christ.” Towards the latter period of life, if they have not turned back and walked no more with him, still they have given offence; their misconduct has undone all the little good that they have done in the former part of their lives. These things ought to make us fear and tremble, and pray not only that we may be without offence, but that we may be without offence “till the day of Christ,” till the Lord and Bride- groom shall call us to himself. But I proposed just to notice, and it must be briefly, the medium through which all these excellences are communi- cated, and this is by Jesus Christ. Methinks all holiness is communicated through Jesus Christ in two ways. Jesus Christ is the medium through which the Holy Spirit is given; for God would never have sent his Holy Spirit, any more than he would have given us any other spiritual blessings, but out of regard to Jesus Christ, who is the medium through whom all are communicated. But this is not all–Jesus Christ is the medium of all holiness as revealed in the gospel. It is by a knowledge of and faith in him that we come to the excellences here described. It is by preaching Jesus Christ that these fruits are culti- vated, and it is by being acquainted with Jesus Christ—it is by our learning and drinking into the doctrine of Jesus Christ as revealed in the Scriptures—that all these fruits will abound in you. Read, therefore, learn, and be con- cerned to drink deeply into the system of the gospel of Jesus Christ, into the doctrine of the text. It is not only proper that ministers should resolve to “know nothing but Jesus Christ and him crucified ; ” but, private Chris- tians, also make this the grand central point of all your conduct and all your pursuit; that “you may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death.” This is the only stock upon which this sort of fruit will grow. You cannot graft holiness upon any other stock than that of faith in Jesus Christ. All the labour and all the toil that may be bestowed by education, example, or any other means you can use, will amount to nothing as to the production of these fruits, unless it be by faith in Jesus Christ, and intimate acquaintance with him. Lastly, Notice the end to which all is to be directed : “To the glory and praise of God.” This is carrying up the subject where it should be carried—to the throne of God himself. This is the great end to which all things are di- rected by God himself, and should be directed by us, “to the glory and praise of God.” The glory of God, let me notice, is either essential or manifestative. The essential glory of God respects what God is in himself, and which he is irrespective of what we think of him, or what we do. All that you or I can do, all that angels in heaven can do, all that the church in glory in connexion with them can do to all etermity, cannot add one gleam of glory to his essential character; and all the iniquity of man upon earth, and all the ferocity, enmity, and duplicity of man, cannot diminish it in the least degree. It is irre- spective and independent of what any creature can think or can do. But it is not thus with respect to the glory of God manifestatively. No : in that respect we may dis- honour God, or we may honour God; that is, in other words, we may raise him in the esteem of others. God should be raised in the esteem of those around us, or in our own esteem, and this is the way in which creatures are said to honour God, by raising him or giving him the just glory due to his name in all our own thoughts, and communicating such sentiments of him to those around us. Keep this end in view. Glorify Him to whom glory is due. Glorify Him to whom be glory for evermore. Amen. XXIX. —THE PEACE OF GOD. [Sketch of a Sermon preached at the Baptist meeting, Devonshire Square, London, June 26, 1796.] “And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Jesus Christ.”—Phil. iv. 7. READ this passage in connexion with the three foregoing verses: “Rejoice in the Lord always: and again I say, Rejoice. Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand. Be careful for nothing ; but in every thing by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known unto God. And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.” Peace, it will be allowed, is an inestimable jewel. No man that has been at all acquainted with the calamities of war, the distresses of domestic confusion, or the hor- rors of a guilty conscience, can dissent from this propo- sition. Under such circumstances, how often has the heart yielded a sigh on the desirableness of the blessing of peace! But if peace, in the general, be so desirable, what must be said of the peace of God, which passeth all understand- ing ! Peace among men is very desirable : it is healing to the human heart—it is transporting to the human breast —to see the bloody sword sheathed in its scabbard. It is pleasing to see amity and concord prevail, and old friends meet that have been separated, perhaps by jealousy and misunderstanding; but all this is only between man and man. The peace of God exceeds every thing of this sort as much as God’s ways are above our ways, and his thoughts above our thoughts. As much as the heavens are above the earth, so much is peace with him greater than peace with each other. It is on this subject that we shall now discourse. Could the apostle have pointed to a blessing of greater value than this : “The peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Jesus Christ 3’’ In discoursing on this subject, we shall, First, Ask in what this peace consists—Secondly, Endeavour to justify the apostle's encomium on it—Thirdly, Consider its great use in the Christian life—Lastly, Inquire by what means it is to be attained. I. LET Us TRY To AscERTAIN what IT Is—What is this invaluable jewel ? What is this peace of God? Depend upon it, it is something valuable, or rather something in- valuable, or our Lord Jesus Christ would not have singled it out as his last bequest, at the time he was about to leave his disconsolate disciples, and when his heart was overflowing with tenderness for them. He left them one great blessing. What was it 3 Not crowns—not king- doms—No. It was something far superior to these : “My peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your hearts be troubled.” The word which is here rendered “ the peace of God” signifies oneness—union—being gathered into one—re- conciliation. It is the blessedness of being in a state of reconciliation with God. I should supoose it may include the following ideas:— 1. That sweet tranquillity of soul which arises from a THE PEACE OF GOT). 647 well-grounded persuasion of being accepted by God. This is what the apostle means when he says, “Being justified by faith, we have peace with God.”—Being ac- cepted through the righteousness of the Redeemer, we have peace with God. I need not inform you that, in our native state, we are all at war with God, and God with us. Sin is the great enemy. It has separated great friends. God and man, you know, were once great friends; but sin separated those chief friends, and drew a veil of separation between them. Man became an enemy to God, and God to man. God in the character of a righteous Governor was required—his own rectitude re- quired him—to be an enemy to man. For he hateth all the workers of iniquity: but, through the mediation of the Son of God, atonement is made—the blood of the cross heals the breach, and opens the way of communion. God declares himself well pleased with his dear Son ; and every poor sinner who sues for mercy in his name finds relief. The past is forgiven—is forgotten; the soul is justified through the redemption of Jesus Christ.—The effect of all this is sweet peace. Who can estimate the sweetness of that enjoyment which arises from a well-grounded persuasion that God is my Father ? To be permitted to say, I am an heir of blessing: I am no longer under the law, but under grace : I am no longer an alien, but a son or daughter: the bless- ings of the gospel are to be made my own.—Where such are the persuasions, there is the peace of God. 2. The peace of God, I should think, includes that Sweet satisfaction which possesses the mind from a view of God sitting at the helm of the universe, and having the management of all our concerns. We are like people who are sailing on the ocean in a storm. This troubled ocean casts up mire and dirt, and we are continually subject to tempests; and were it not for the consideration that we have a pilot at the helm—a God who has the turbulent ocean under his control—were it not for the consider- ation that the cares of the world were under his direction, what peace could we enjoy 7 Let me ask you, thinking Christians, when you consider the temper of the world— when you see man hating his fellow man, and see them combining against one another by thousands—when you see the enmity of the heart to be such that there is hardly any rational hope of peace under the sun, what would quiet your heart but the consideration that God reigns, and “that the inhabitants of the earth are but as grasshoppers”—that he “maketh the wrath of man to praise him, and the remainder thereof he doth restrain 3” The thought that Jesus Christ is Head over all things to his church, and that all shall contribute to the spread of the gospel, begets that peace in the mind that enabled the psalmist to sing, in the midst of tumult and confusion, “Though the mountains be cast into the depths of the sea, there is a river the streams whereof shall make glad the city of God.” There is a source of consolation to the children of God to which others are strangers. God will help his people, and that right early. 3. It is necessary that we should feel some degree of peace in our own consciences. We cannot experience the peace of God, and joy in the Holy Ghost, unless we have the testimony of our own consciences that in sim- plicity and godly sincerity we have had our conversation in the world. Enoch had the peace of God, when he had this testimony—that he pleased God. By the history which we have of him, which is very short, it appears that he pleased very few people. He was a thundering preacher in his day—the object of the ill-will of his hearers; but he had the testimony that he had pleased his God. That Christian, or that minister, who enjoys a solid, well-grounded persuasion that he possesses the favour of Jesus Christ, whose confidence is in him who sits at the helm of the universe, who walks with God and has the ºnomy of a good conscience, possesses the peace of od. II. We proceed to JUSTIFY THE APOSTLE's ENcom IUM. He tells us that “it passeth knowledge.” It is a very strong expression ; but I apprehend it is literally true— it is no hyperbole. Some have interpreted it, that it pass- eth the understanding of carnal men. That is very true; but that is not a thousandth part of the truth. It is of such value that the understandings of neither men nor angels are capable of appreciating its worth ; the peace of God none can fully estimate. None but God himself can know its real worth. We estimate most things by con- trast : so the worth of national peace is best known by those who see the effects of war; so the worth of domes- tic peace is best known by those who suffer by domestic feuds ; so the value of peace with God cannot be known in any tolerable degree but by those who experience the horrors of a guilty conscience. Go, then, if you would know the value of the peace of God, look at the case of a man who is borne down by worldſy sorrow, and who is a stranger to God. Go, visit a poor man, on whom the Lord hath poured out much trouble and distress, under which he almost sinks, and yet he is a stranger to God. He has no refuge to which he can flee in the hour of distress. From this you will judge, in some degree, what a blessed thing it is to have the peace of God. This it was which made our Lord say, “I send you forth like sheep among wolves ; ” but I give you that which shall be a balance to every load: “into whatsoever house ye enter, say, Peace be to this house.” Would you know some- thing of the value of this blessing?—go to the room of a poor sinner whose eyes are opened, whose conscience is awake, but who is without God, in a dying hour. Did you never visit a dying sinner, and take notice of him when he did not expect that he had an hour to live 2 Did you never see with what a frighted countenance he views you? Oh! that pale face that frighted countenance —that mind that looks upon the past with bitter regret, as gone for ever, that looks on that which is to come with horror and dismay ! Did you never know such a case ? You might know many such cases—they are not rare. There you might learn something of the value of the peace of God; there a man would give a thousand worlds, if they were all his own, for a well-grounded hope that his sins were forgiven; there he that once despised religion, the man that has joked and derided serious people, is alarmed, and wishes that those very people whom he once derided would come and pray with him. Who can estimate the value of the peace of God 3 If you can tell the worth of the salva- tion of a soul—if you can estimate the pains of the damned in hell—if you can reckon the loss of an immortal creature —then can you tell the value of the peace of God. If you can calculate the worth of celestial enjoyments—all the pleasures resulting from God's favour—then you may cal- culate the value of the peace of God. That which endears this blessing to us is not only the importance of it, but the medium through which it comes. The text says—“through Christ Jesus.” Do not you think, for example, that the parcel of ground which Jacob gave to Joseph his son was endeared to Joseph because it was the dying bequest of his beloved father? No doubt it was ; that was the singular portion he gave to his son Joseph : and what made it still more valuable was that his father had wrested it from the Amorites: “Which I took out of the hand of the Amorites with my sword and with my bow.”—And the peace of God must be endeared, because it was obtained by the shedding of Christ's blood. How it will enhance its value to the people of God that it was the price of blood—the blood of the Lamb : Heaven itself would not be a thousandth part so pleasant to us if it had not been obtained in this way. It was obtained by the shedding of Christ's blood | But we pass on to con- sider, III. THE GREAT USE OF PEACE IN THE CHRISTIAN con- FLICT : “The peace of God, which passeth all understand- ing, shall keep your hearts and minds.”—The word here translated “keep” is very expressive: it is a military term, and alludes to soldiers that are in a besieged town ; or rather to soldiers that come in aid of others that are be- sieged. So the peace of God is that to a believer’s heart and mind which a relieving army is to those who are be- sieged. The heart and mind are supposed to be besieged by the temptations of the present world, and in danger of being taken ; and the peace of God, like a reinforcement thrown in, affords relief, and prevents their being obliged to give up the contest. This word might perhaps be ex- pressed by the term fortifted,—“ the peace of God, which 648 SERMONS AND SKETCHES. passeth all understanding, shall fortify your hearts and minds.” The terms heart and mind comprehend the whole soul; the one is put for the affections, the other for the judgment—the peace of God serves as a relief, a forti- fication, for both. Let us here be a little more particular. There is one set of temptations which assail the heart, another the mind; and the peace of God serves to fortify our souls against them both. 1. Let us inquire what are those temptations which assail the heart? In times of persecution, the wrath, enmity, and outrage of a wicked world were such as assailed the heart. It must have been trying to the feelings of the primitive Christians, and all others who have lived in times of persecution. As for our parts, we have so long enjoyed religious peace that we can scarcely realize the scene. But only consider that those who were persecuted were men like you and me, and their property was, perhaps, obtained by the sweat of their brow—and it was hard to have that wrested from them by fines and imprisonment. They had families. It was hard to be torn flesh from flesh—bone from bone. Perhaps the tears of the wizes and children might say, “Spare him for our sakes 1’’ It was cruel—it must needs come close to the heart—they had the feelings of men. Nothing but the peace of God could fortify them. “Behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves.” If they throw you into dungeons—if they deprive you of the honest fruits of your industry — of your friends—your liberty—if they deprive you of all these, they shall not deprive you of one thing—the peace of God! This you shall be able to carry with you into the darkest dungeons, and it shall cause you to sing praises to God at midnight. There is another set of temptations which assail the heart—these are the allurements of the world. The former were in the days of yore principally—these in our times. The world seems to be friendly to us; its pleasures melt resistance. It sometimes captivates the heart ; and I know not but enemies of this description are more dan- gerous to Christians than the others. Many have stood in the hour of persecution—they could fight like Samson against thousands when the Philistines set on them ; but when the smiles of a Delilah come upon them, they, like him, would fall. There is nothing so good an antidote to this as the peace of God in the heart. But peace in the heart does not include carnal ease. I grant that this is no friend, but an enemy. Peace and union with God are the best fortification of the heart against the allurements of sense. Not all the terrors of Sinai, nor the curses of the law, are so good a preservative as the peace of God in the heart—and why so It affords superior pleasure to that of the world. It rises infinitely above it. You know very well that when a superior light shines forth it eclipses an inferior one ; so, when the sun shines forth, the smaller lights, the moon and stars, hide their heads—they are lost. The peace of God affords a so much superior pleasure in the soul as to overcome flesh and sense. Thus it is that faith overcomes. You have often read that expressive pas- sage—“Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus Christ is the Son of God 3 '' Faith penetrates futurity ; it rends the veil and pierces into an unknown world ; it ſixes its eye on eternity, and these little worlds disappear—the heart becomes dead to the pleasures of sense. It was thus that Moses, “seeing him that was invisible,” became dead to the pleasures of the Egyptian court. It is not, them, very difficult to perceive how the peace of God—a solid, well-grounded peace, com- munion with God through our Lord Jesus Christ—tends to make a man dead to the world through the cross of Christ. Again, There is a third temptation with which the heart is assailed, and this is, The sorrows of the world. The losses, the bereaving losses, trials, and disappointments, which befall the children of God, which on some occasions are so complicated, so heavy, and so lasting, that the heart is in danger of yielding to despondency. “Oh that my grief were thoroughly weighed, and my calamity laid in the balances together | For now it would be heavier than the sand of the sea; therefore my words are swallowed up ;” that is, I want words to express my grief—to express that intolerable grief that rankles in my bosom.—My heart is in danger of yielding to despondency. Nothing but the peace of God can now preserve it. The thought that God rules and overrules all—that whatever befalls us is under his appointment—that every evil is overruled by him for our good. Such thoughts as these, which constitute the peace of God, bear up the soul, and keep it from sinking under all the loads of distress by which it is burdened. Once more, There is another temptation ; and that is, despair under a load of guilt. I do not know but this may be the heaviest of all. When guilt is fixed on the con- science, and fixed with such strong chains that it becomes impossible for us to break them, the temptation to sink into despair becomes very great. Oh how many wretched souls, under a consciousness of guilt, are swallowed up in desperation . It was thus that Cain was swallowed up— “My punishment is greater than I can bear.” It was thus that Judas was swallowed up—“I have sinned in that I have betrayed innocent blood;” and, in his despair, he went and hanged himself. Such a load of guilt as this is greater than a poor sinner can bear. But there is that which will bear us up—the peace of God will keep, will sustain, will fortify the heart, even under this load. Here is the difference between a good man, when he falls into sin, and a bad man. When Saul rebelled against God, and God expressed his displeasure against him, he sunk into despair! When David sinned against God, and God by Nathan had reproved him for his sin, he flew into the arms of Divine Mercy.—“Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy loving-kindness, according to the mul- titude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.” A view of the Divine goodness bore him up. Though at a great distance from God, yet some faint gleam of the mercy of God preserved him from despair. It is true the waves of sin rolled over him; but the mercy of God was like a rope held out to him, by the laying hold on which he was saved. “Out of the depths have I cried unto thee, O Lord ; Lord, hear my voice. Let thine ears be attentive to the voice of my supplications. If thou, Lord, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand? But there is forgiveness with thee that thou mayest be feared.” What phrase, what terms, could the apostle have used that could be more expressive 4–" The peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds”—shall support you under afflictions, and af- ford relief under the impressions of a guilty conscience. But we pass on. • 2. The mind also is assailed by various temptations and difficulties. The peace of God is a fortification to the mind as well as the heart. The mind is expressive of the intellectual part of man. The temptations to which the mind is exposed are, chiefly, permicious principles and distracting cares. The permicious principles that are circulated in the world are like so many poisoned arrows aimed at the heart, and we need to be as much fortified against these as against any others which I have mentioned. God has thought fit to try his people by suffering them to go forth. It must needs be that there must be scoffers walking after their own ungodly lusts.-There must be infidels who should ridicule the Bible and those that profess its doctrines. These are so many fans by which God thoroughly purges his floor, which is composed, methinks, of grain and chaff. There are many professors who are merely chaff; and these pernicious principles—these scoffs—these jeers, that are uttered against the gospel, are like so many blasts of wind by which the chaff is blown away, while the grain shall stand and withstand. God permits pernicious principles, under the name of Christianity, to go forth. There must needs be heresies among you—these are poisoned arrows that are aimed at the mind, the judgment, and, if they stick, the poison of them very soon infects the whole frame; for that which once fixes on the judgment presently affects the whole soul—the whole man. Here we need, therefore, to be particularly fortified—we need the arm of God to keep us. One of the seven churches is commended because it had kept the faith; and therefore God says, “I also will keep you in the hour of temptation.” Keep right with God— keep close to God—keep conversant with the gospel of SOUL PROSPERITY. 649 peace—walk close to the God of peace, and these arrows shall not touch you. You shall be secure from every fiery dart. - To these I would add distracting cares. For as the mind is in danger of being pierced and tainted with per- nicious principles, it is equally liable to be hurt and in- terrupted by distracting cares. The mind, or the judg- ment, is in man like one who sits at the helm of a ship— it is that superior thing which governs and controls all other things. The mind has the reins of the soul in its hand, and the apostle says, “In patience possess ye your souls.” But when distracting cares come upon us, the mind is in danger of being swept away from the helm— the mind, if once confounded, is in great danger. But I may say, as I said before, the peace of God—that sweet peace which arises from communion with God—is the best preservative. Let that once get possession, and you will ride out the storm, and enjoy serenity amidst all the tu- multuous scenes which are passing before your eyes. III. THE MEANS BY WHICH THIS INESTIMABLE BLESSING Is To BE obTAINED. You have only to look at the pre- ceding context. You may observe there are three things pointed out by which it is to be obtained. One is, that we should feel an habitual joy in God: “Rejoice in the Lord always ; and again I say, Rejoice.” Oh what a blessed art is this, to be able to rejoice in God, come what will ! The primitive Christians had learned this heavenly art of not being moved by any of the vicissitudes of for- tune: “They rejoiced always.” If persecutions broke out against them, they rejoiced that they were thought worthy to suffer—so, come what will, they would rejoice. They were like the industrious bee, who extracts honey from every opening flower. Be it to others sweet or bitter, it is all alike to him. Such is Christianity; and if we entered into it, it would teach us to rejoice in God, what- ever befalls us; though there should be no fruit on our vine, or no flock in our folds, yet we should rejoice in God. Cultivate this spirit, and then the peace of God shall keep your hearts and minds. You will be armed with this armour of God, and will be able successfully to defend yourself against any enemy. The thing next recommended is “moderation.” Do not be concerned at either the smiles or the frowns of this world. If providence smile upon you, do not be elated: be moderate in your attachments. Or if she frown upon you, do not be immoderately cast down. It is not the smiles of providence that can make you, nor her frowns that can unmake you. Your possessions are in another state. You have not hazarded all your substance in one vessel, I hope. The man of the world may be greatly interested, because, if one vessel sink, all his treasures are lost; but your chief treasures are embarked on board another vessel—one that cannot sink. You may cultivate a noble independence. “The Lord is at hand.” Time is passing away, and then all those little things which now distract men's minds will distract them no longer. The Lord is about to descend from heaven, and all these little things will disappear. Let your mo- deration be seen by all about you. If this spirit be cul- tivated by you, you will be fortified against every evil. You will have a better armour than Ahab had in the day of battle—nothing can pierce it.—But, Lastly, We are here recommended to cultivate a noble indifference respecting things in this state, and to commit them to God. “Be careful for nothing.” The apostle does not here mean that we are to care for nothing—that We are not to be contriving schemes, but that we are to divest ourselves of that kind of distracting care which unfits us for religion. Be careful in this way for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanks. giving, let your requests be made known unto God, with resignation to his will, and the peace of God will most assuredly keep your hearts and minds in the knowledge of Christ Jesus. Amen. XXX. —SOUL PROSPERITY. [Sketch of a Sermon delivered at the Old Jewry Chapel, London, Dec. 27, 1797.] “Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.”—3 John 2. THERE are two or three characters mentioned in the New Testament of the name of Gaius. I shall not now inquire to which of them this Epistle was directed, but it is suf- ficiently evident that, whoever it might be, he was an eminently pious and godly man. Gaius seems, by this Epistle, to have been a man of an afflicted body, and, per- haps, in embarrassed circumstances; but however this was, his soul prospered, and it was the desire and prayer of the apostle John that he might be as prosperous in his outward as he was in his inner man. The prayer in the text is something that strikes con- viction, at least to my mind. Here is a prayer for a man that God would prosper him in his outward affairs in pro- portion as his soul prospered. Now if this were made the rule of all our prayers for temporal blessings, if we never were to pray for prosperity to attend ourselves be- yond the degree of soul prosperity which we possessed, I am afraid that very few of us would pray for much more than we have, if any; and if we made this the rule of our prayers for one another, (and why should we not ?) I am afraid that we could pray for the outward prosperity of but very few. If our soul prosperity were made the rule by which to pray or wish for worldly prosperity, which is the case here with Gaius, we should very few of us be found qualified so much as to desire it. In discoursing on this subject we will first consider a few of the leading qualities of soul prosperity as exemplified in the beloved Gaius—and then consider this soul pros- perity as the standard by which it is safe to pray for pros- perity of other kinds. A thriving soul! This is a matter of serious import, my brethren. A plant is said to thrive and prosper when it brings forth fruit—a field when it abounds with grain—a human body when it is healthy, vigorous, and active. It is to the last of these that the apostle makes an allusion. When he speaks of Gaius's soul as prospering, he opposes it to his body. You, my friend, as if he had said, you have a weak and sickly body, but you have a prosperous soul, and I pray that your bodily health and your circum- stances may be as thriving and as prosperous as your soul is. This was not the language of compliment; neither need I say that it was not the practice of the apostle to deal in unmeaning compliments. The tree was known by its fruits, and Gaius was known by his conduct to have a prosperous soul. I. WHAT THEN ARE THOSE MARKS OF A PROSPEROUs soul. which IT BEHow Es Us To Asp1RE AFTER § I would men- tion four or five, each of which will be found to be exem- plified in the beloved Gaius. 1. A prosperous soul is one in whom the truth dwells, and dwells richly. You must have remarked, in reading the first eight verses, how much the apostle Paul makes of truth. He describes Gaius as having the truth dwelling in him, as walking in the truth, as beloved for the truth’s sake, and as being a fellow helper of the truth. All these ex- pressions are found in those verses. It seems then to enter into the very essence of a prosperous soul, that the truth dwelt in him, and that it dwelt richly in him. Truly, my brethren, gospel truth is that to the soul which wholesome food is to the body, and wholesome words and sound doc- trine have an effect on the soul similar to that which whole- some food has on the body ; they render it strong, vigor- ous, and active. Thus the great principles of evangelical truth being imbibed by Gaius, afforded a constant spring of activity. He was a lively, active, generous man. It is of great importance what principles we acquire. Princi- ples will be active—will be influential. Indeed this is the very reason why Divine truths are called principles. We read of the first principles of the doctrines of Christ, and principles you know signify the first moving causes which lie at the foundation and source of action. Merely specu- 650 SERMONS AND SRETCHES. lative notions or speculative ideas, that have no influence on a man’s heart, are not principles; they may be called more properly opinions: but if the truths of God are im- bibed as a thirsty man would drink in water from a foun- tain, they become in him a well of living water springing up in the disposition to do good, and terminating in ever- lasting glory. Principles, whether good or evil, will be influential if they are thoroughly imbibed. Hence we read of false doctrines having a fatal influence. The Scripture speaks of God giving men up to strong delusion, or to the energy or efficacy of deception or error. All principles, if they deserve the name of principles, lie at the bottom and source of affections and actions. If they be genuine, evangelical, and true, they are the spring of a holy life, and lie at the bottom of evangelical obedience ; but if they be false principles, they lie at the bottom of a course of alienation and apostacy from God. Indeed, as right principles stimulate to right actions, so where a per- son imbibes wrong principles, or is indifferent to right, it enervates right actions: even good men, who have swerved in a greater or less degree from the truth, have sunk into a spirit of indifference with regard to evangelical principles— it has had the effect of stagnating their souls in Divine actions. 2. The prosperous soul is a soul where the doctrinal and the practical parts of religion bear lovely proportion and are wnited. We may often observe with regard to the healthi- ness or unhealthiness of the body two opposite extremes. We see some who are epicures, and they are of no use in society. They live to themselves, and glut themselves in sordid and sensual enjoyments. We see others pining away who are mere slaves. There is a great resemblance in these two characters to different species of professors. There is a kind of religious epicures—men, I mean, who are all clamorous for doctrinal truth, but have no regard to the practical part of godliness; whose whole object is to en- ioy the comforts of religion, to be soothed with its pro- mises, to be flattered with its privileges, to be comforted in the prospect of something great and glorious hereafter. Their whole attention, their whole object, is to grasp as much of this as possible, and they are regardless of every thing of a practical nature. On the other hand, there are some who, at the expense of truth, are constantly crying up morality and practical religion. My brethren, these things ought not to be divided ; doctrinal and practical re- ligion should be united. To attempt to cultivate the former at the expense of the latter is to constitute an epi- curism—to reverse it is to have a body of slaves whipped to duty, without a motive. It is the great concern of the Scriptures to furnish men with the most constraining and evangelical principles, that should render practical godli- ness pleasurable. . The true Christian is like the husband- man, who labours that he may enjoy his food with an appe- tite, that he may be strengthened to future labour, and thus, with a happy mixture of enjoyments and labour, becomes a happy man in himself and a blessing to those about him. 3. The prosperous soul is a soul in which is ºwnited a happy mixture of the retired and the active—a happy at- tention to the duties of retirement mingled with an equal attention to the duties of active life. Great have been the extremes of men in these cases; some have pleaded for a religion that should make men hermits, and shut them up in a cell secluded from the society of man. As to others again, their religion is always in public; they scarcely ever retire to converse with their own souls. No man can en- joy pleasure in his soul without uniting these. It is not to be always plunged in an active course of life, nor to be shut up always in the closet. Christians must be the salt of the earth, and in order to this they must be spread in every circle of society. They must mingle amongst man- kind. It is not improper to mingle in every kind of so- ciety where duty calls. But they must retire alone fre- quently, or they will not carry a savour of God and religion with them. They must be spread like salt, but it will be salt without the savour if they do not retire. It is by re- tiring to our closets, reading the word of God in private, thinking and praying over it; by conversing with our own souls in secret, by dwelling on divine things, by giving such a tone to the soul that it falls naturally and easily into divine things; it is in these holy exercises that we may expect to meet a Divine blessing, and to acquire such a savour of spirit, that when we go out into the world we shall carry the savour of Christ with us. This is a pros- perous and thriving state of soul. 4. The prosperous soul may be known by this, that it is accompanied by a good degree of public spirit, and largeness of heart. A man that is concerned principally about him- self can never have a prosperous soul. Such was not Gaius—he was a fellow labourer and helper of the truth. He was habitually concerned in promoting the cause of God and religion in the world by every means in his power. A man that takes up six days out of seven, and thinks himself warranted to pursue nothing else but the acquiring of a fortune, and thinks it quite sufficient if he serves God one day out of the week, cannot be a Christian at all. He has not the first principles of religion in him. I grant that one day in seven ought to be devoted especially to the service of God, but the true Christian's aim is to serve God in the whole course of his life; whatever he may do, whether he eat or drink, buy or sell,—to do all to the glory of God. What a contrast to him is the man whose sole or main object is to get a fortune, to accumu- late a few thousand pounds, and who says to himself. After a few more prosperous years in trade, I hope to take a country seat and enjoy myself; to attain this object I must save all I can, now and then giving a guinea to some pious object | Such a man may pass through life as a respectable member of society, but a Christian he cannot be. He whose main object is to amass a fortune—he whose main object is to live to himself—lives not to Christ. Christianity cultivates a public spirit, a largeness of heart —not that narrowness of mind by which we consecrate all that we have and are to ourselves. - I may mention, besides this, a sort of religious narrow- ness of mind in that person whose chief concern it is to get comfort to his own mind—whose chief and almost sole concern it is that he may obtain a good ground to hope for everlasting life in the world to come—who cares little or nothing about the interest of Christ on the earth, the cause of God, the cause of righteousness, truth, and hu- manity—who does not grasp within the circle of his prayers his fellow men, his fellow Christians—he whose religion centres principally in himself. Alas! it is doubtful whe- ther that man can be a Christian : at any rate he cannot have a prosperous soul; and I have generally remarked that those religious people who are continually poring over their own case, who are only anxious to discover evi- dences of their Christianity, who are perpetually poring over past experience to spell out whether they were truly converted or not, who hear sermons and read the Scrip- tures only to find out whether they can come in for any thing to comfort them—I say I have found that those who spend their whole time in this are, generally, disappointed. You, selfish soul, that care little for the souls of others, take a course directly opposed to your own interest. Seek to bring peace to the souls of others; that will be the way to find comfort for yourself. Seek the good of the poor and the afflicted, and in seeking that you will find your own. By seeking the public good we should find a private good. I never knew a man of a large heart— whose soul grasped the well-being of others, who laid out his time and property for the good of others—greatly troubled about his own interest in Christ. It is in seek- ing the good of God’s cause in the world, and promoting the good of our fellow creatures, that God will give us the earnest of eternal life. A public spirit is the spirit of the gospel, and largeness of heart is the mark of a pros- perous soul. 5. One remark more, and I have done on this part of the subject: The prosperous soul is dispossessed of an am- bitious spirit—it is meek and lowly. If a man were ever so public-spirited and active, but withal ambitious, vain- glorious, and noisy, I should say of that man, whether he be a Christian at all is at least doubtful, but he cannot be a thriving one, he cannot be possessed of a healthful soul. A haughty, self-sufficient, self-important, clamorous, os- tentatious professor is a very doubtful character. High minds, like high hills, are blasted and barren. It is the lowly mind which, like a well-watered valley, is productive: SOUL PROSPERITY. 651 God’s promises are made to such. It is asserted that the Lord is nigh to them that are of a lowly spirit and a con- trite heart; and we are told elsewhere that God “giveth grace to the humble, but the proud he knoweth afar off.” In proportion, therefore, as we entertain such a spirit, we shall be far from God, and God from us, and we shall be possessed of a soul far from prosperous. II. Having enumerated a few marks of soul prosperity, I proceed to observe THE STANDARD which PROSPERITY OF SOUL AFFORDS TO OUR SAFETY IN PROSPERITY OF OTHER KINDs. John prays for prosperity for Gaius ; and where- fore ? Because his soul prospers. Prosperity of soul is that which renders prosperity of body an object of desire, for two reasons:—One is, that prosperity of soul makes pros- perity of other kinds safe—we can bear it, which we can- not without. There are few men capable of bearing out- ward prosperity, but almost every man is vain enough to think that he could. . There are very few of us that are not so blinded as to think that we could bear a little more than we have. We flatter ourselves that if God would but give us plenty, we should do good with it. One says, If I had but such a one’s riches, what good should I do Alas! this evinces an ignorance of your own hearts. Is your soul so well that you are in no danger of being self- ish 3 You cannot but have remarked that prosperity in worldly circumstances elates men. You may have seen some persons who were very sober, modest, useful, generous people, to all appearance, when in a mediocrity of circum- stances; but when providence has smiled upon them, and improved their circumstances, their hearts have been lifted up in proportion. You must have observed that worldly pleasure and worldly prosperity have had a similar effect on a man : each has detached the heart from God. It is an old saying, that an additional weight put into a bag draws the strings the closer; but you think there is no danger of your being so affected, and therefore you wish, above all things, that your circumstances may improve. And is your soul so prosperous that there is no danger of your becoming forgetful of the poor and needy ? Alas ! there is nothing but prosperity of soul will enable us to bear worldly prosperity. Blessed be God, we have seen a few to whom it has presented no temptation. I have heard of a good man whose soul prospered alike in tem- poral prosperity and adversity. He had an intimate friend who used to make free with him, and, observing his pros- perity, he one day thus addressed him : “Do not you find the smiles of this world, my friend, to be a snare unto you ?” He paused, and said, “I am not conscious that I do ; for though I enjoy much of this world, yet I think I enjoy God in all things.” By and by providence turned another way; he lost all his property; he sunk into indi- gence; he had scarcely a competency to support him. His old friend thus addressed him, “Well, my friend, how is it with you now? do not you find your heart dejected in these circumstances !” “I am not conscious,” said he, “that I do ; as before I enjoyed God in all things, now I enjoy all things in God. I find God to supply all my Wants, and a little, with his blessing, is enough.” This, my friends, was a prosperous soul. A soul of this descrip- tion might well bear prosperity, and his friend might well follow the example of John with respect to Gaius, and say, “Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.” But the second reason which renders prosperity of soul a proper standard for that of our bodies and circumstances is, that thus the general good is promoted. If we retain prosperity of soul under temporal prosperity, then for God to bless us is to bless all around us. A man with a truly prosperous soul will not eat his morsel alone—will not keep it to himself; the poor, the fatherless, the widow, will participate the kindness of God to him; so that for Providence to bless him is to bless the neighbourhood, and to bestow a public blessing. Wherever you see a man of that character the whole neighbourhood will concur with the apostle, and say, “May the Lord prosper thee,” or with Boaz's reapers, “The Lord bless thee,” and I dare say Boaz himself was such a character, or they would not have said, “The Lord bless thee.”—“The Lord be with you,” said the master.—“The Lord bless thee,” said the servants, for we know that in this blessing we all shall be blessed; the town will be blessed, the whole neighbour- hood will be blessed, the fatherless will be blessed, the widow will be blessed ; every one shall share, and there- fore we wish that thou mayst prosper, for thy soul pros- pereth. These few remarks I submit to your serious attention. I leave them with you, my brethren : they may lead you to consider whether there be not many who have prosper- ous circumstances, but not prosperous souls; on whom the world smiles and loads them with its benefits, but from whom scarcely any one receives good ; whether there be not many such in all places, even in this city, this ópu- lent city I grant that I think there is a greater propor- tion of generous characters in this city than perhaps in any other in the world : this I am inclined, without flat- tery, to say. But I am sure that there are great numbers who live wholly to themselves; and there are some who profess a regard to religion, and lay their account for eter- nal life, but who never live to others. Let such consider whether their Christianity be not exceedingly doubtful ; or, if it must be admitted that they have the root of the matter in them, still is it not clear that they have unpros- perous souls 3 I bless God, however, that there are many who have prosperous souls, and that over and above their circumstances. Generosity is not confined to the rich, my brethren: a poor man may feel as much as another; and he who does but little by his substance may do it in other ways. If we are poor in circumstances, yet, if our hearts be tender, we may relieve the poor by our visits, our con- versations, and our prayers. I grant that this would not be sufficient without money. He who has money, and who would wish to save his money and give his prayers, will not be received—his very prayers will be an offence ; but for the man who has no money, but who has this compassionate and kind disposition, who will not unite with the apostle in interceding, “I pray above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, as thy soul prospereth 3’’ - Such, my brethren, is my wish and prayer for you ; such is my wish particularly for those institutions in this city which are now, I bless God, pretty numerous, for the visiting and relieving the afflicted poor. * I have said, and still say, that of all the benevolent institutions which adorn this metropolis, I know of none which excel in their principle and their effects institutions of this kind, espe- cially in such times as these, when the poor are suffer- ing privations and afflictions perhaps unknown but to those who visit them and search out afflicted cases. True charity does not consist in merely giving a penny to a beggar to get rid of his solicitations, or in giving a guinea to a public charity. Many of these things may be done by persons who have very little genuine benevolence about them ; but that is genuine charity which leads us to search out the abodes of the wretched, and to make ourselves acquainted with their wretchedness in order to relieve them. I do not say that every one can give his time to these engagements, but he may assist those whose professed object it is to do so. To this I may add, that the relieving of men's bodies to get access to their minds is a primitive and an excellent practice. The Son of God himself—and who can doubt that he had access wherever he pleased ?—has set us the example ; he went among the poor, the blind, the lame, the diseased. He mingled him- self with them, and healed their bodies, that he might find access to their souls. The Almighty God, in human na- ture, would not overturn the laws of humanity; his desire was to establish and and sanctify them. Let us operate by a system he himself has established, and do good to the bodies of men with a view to obtain access to their minds, thus relieving the temporal wants of the afflicted poor, and administering the balm of consolation unto the wounded spirit. * This sermon, it appears, was preached on behalf of “a society to relieve the sick and distressed.” SERMONS AND SRETCHES. XXXI.—THE COMMON SALVATION. [Sketch of a Sermon delivered at the Association of Baptist Ministers and Churches at Oakham, June 3, 1801.] “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the com- mon salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort You, that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”—Jude 3. THE writer of this Epistle is, in the Gospel of John, called “Judas not Iscariot.” The Epistle itself is called “ge- neral,” not being addressed to any particular person or people ; and may, therefore, be of more common concern. In the passage which I have now read we may notice, First, The occasion there was for writing; “it was need. ful.” The apostle did not write for writing's sake; but to guard them against “certain men” who had crept into the churches “unawares”—“turning the grace of God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ,” ver, 4. Secondly, The earnest- ºness with which he engaged in it; he “gave all diligence.” The word signifies haste, forwardness, diligent care ; somewhat like that which a person would feel in pulling a child out of the fire, ver, 23. Thirdly, The subject on which he wrote ; “the common salvation.” This fur- nishes a reason for his being so much in earnest.—The very vitals of Christianity were struck at. Had not this been the case, it may be, they would not have heard from him. When Haman had conspired against the Jews, you may recollect the petition of Esther, and the manner in which it was addressed to the king. After having invited him to her banquet, and postponed the matter until she had whetted his desire to the uttermost, she at length ut- tered her request: “If I have found favour in thy sight, O king, and if it please the king, let my life be given mé at my petition, and my people at my request For we are sold, I and my people, to be destroyed, to be slain, and to perish : but if we had been sold for bond-men and bond- women, I had held my peace, although the enemy could not countervail the king's damage : " Something like this seems to be the spirit of this passage. It is as if the writer had said, If the enemy had levelled his weapon against any thing but the very heart of the gospel, I might have held my peace. The amount is, THE common poc- TRINES OF THE GOSPEL ARE OF THE FIRST IMPORTANCE TO BE TAUGHT BY US AS MINISTERs, AND RETAINED BY Us As CHRISTIANs. In discoursing on the subject, I shall endeavour to as- certain wherein the common salvation consists—inquire Why it is so called—and show the importance of its being made the grand theme of our ministrations, and the first object of our attachment. I. Let us endeavour to ascertain whereIN THE com- MON SALVATION CONSISTS. There can be no doubt, I think, that by this phrase is meant the gospel salvation. It is the same thing as “the faith once delivered to the saints;” the “common faith,” after, which Titus is said to have been begotten. In a word, it is that which in the New Testament is peculiarly denominated “the gospel.” But the question returns, What is the gospel? Great diversity of opinion prevails on this subject. One deno- mination of professing Christians tell you it is one thing, and another, another; and how shall we judge amidst such discordant accounts : If I were to tell you that such and such doctrines constitute the gospel, you might answer, This is only your opinion, which is subject to error, equally with that of other people. For this reason I shall not attempt to specify particulars, but mention certain Scriptural mediums by which you yourselves may judge of it. 1. We may form a judgment wherein the gospel con- sists by the brief descriptions which are given of it.—The New Testament abounds with these descriptions; it de- lights in epitome. For example : “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth, in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” . This is the common salvation; and surely I need not ask whether the doctrine which denies the perishing condition of sinners by nature, and supposes the unspeak- able gift of Heaven to be a mere fellow creature, sent only to instruct us, and to set us a good example, can comport with this representation. Again, “The Jews require a sign,” or miracle, “and the Greeks seek after wisdom ; but we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling- block, and to the Greeks foolishness ; but unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.” This is the common sal- vation. We hear of preachers knowing their auditors, and preaching accordingly : but Paul went straightforward, regardless of the desires of men. Again, “I determined not to know any thing among you but Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” In each of these passages the gospel is supposed to be summarily comprehended in what relates to the person and work of Christ. This is the foundation which God has laid in Zion ; this is the common salvation. Again, “I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand, by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory,” or hold fast, “what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you, first of all, that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures.” Here also we see what is the gospel, and what that is on which the present standing and final salva- tion of Christians depends; and I appeal to every thing that is candid and impartial in my hearers, whether such importance can be attached to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ upon any other principle than that of his dying in our stead, and rising again as our forerun- mer? Finally, “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.” This language sup- poses that, in coming into the world, our Lord was volun- tary, or that it was with design, which supposes his pre- existence ; and that this design was to save sinners, the chief of sinners. In calling it a faithful or true “saying,” it is intimated that it was so much the theme of the apos- tle’s ministry, and so well known amongst Christians, as to become proverbial. A saying grown into credit by ea:- perience of its truth, is the definition which has been given of a proverb; and such was the true saying of Paul. This, therefore, must be the gospel—“the common salvation.” 2. We may judge wherein the “common salvation” consists by the brief descriptions which are given of the faith of primitive Christians.—This, as well as the gospel, is frequently epitomized in the New Testament; and it may be expected that the one will agree with the other. “So we preach, and so ye believed.” The creed of the first believers, it has often been remarked, was very simple. “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”—“Who- soever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.” —“ Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that be- lieveth that Jesus is the Son of God 3’” Believing is called “receiving the witness,” or record, “ of God. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and that this life is in his Son.” There are many other important truths, no doubt, the belief of which is neces- sary to salvation; such as the being and perfections of God, the evil of sin, &c.; but they are all involved in the doctrine of “Christ and him crucified.” This all-import- ant principle is a golden link which, if laid hold of, draws with it the whole chain of evangelical truth. Let a man cordially embrace this, and you may trust him for the rest. There are, I conceive, four things which essentially be- long to the “common salvation ;” its necessity, its vicari- ows medium, its freeness to the chief of sinners, and its holy efficacy. If we doubt whether we stand in need of salvation, or overlook the atonement, or hope for an inter- est in it any otherwise than as unworthy, or rest in a mere speculative opinion, which has no effectual influence on our spirit and conduct, we are at present unbelievers, and have every thing to learn. II. Let us inquire wherEFORE IT IS CALLED THE comf- MON SALVATION. Three reasons may, perhaps, be assigned for this. • 1. It is that in which all the sacred writers, notwithstand- ing their diversity of ages and gifts, are agreed in teaching. —The Old Testament writers understood it much less than ! THE COMMON SALWATION. 653 the New ; but they all died in the faith of it. They “tes- tified of the sufferings of Christ, and of the glory that should follow.”—“To him gave all the prophets witness.” The New Testament writers differed widely as to talents. Paul reasoned ; but Christ and him crucified was his theme. John had more of the affectionate : he was bap- tized, as it were, in love; but the Lamb that was slain was the great object of it. “There is no other name,” said Peter, “given under heaven, or among men, whereby we must be saved ;” and John stood by his side and as- sented. If any of the New Testament writers could be supposed to dissent, it would be James, who wrote fully upon the necessity of good works; but he was of the same faith, and only pleaded for showing it by his works. 2. It is that which is addressed to sinners in common, without distinction of character or nation. The messages of grace under the Old Testament were principally ad- dressed to a single nation; but under the gospel they are addressed to all nations, to every creature. The promises of the gospel are indeed made only to believers; but its invitations are addressed to sinners. The gospel feast is spread, and all are pressed to partake of it, whatever has been their previous character. 3. It is that in which all believers, notwithstanding their different attainments and advantages, are in substance agreed. —It is fitly compared to milk, which is the natural food of children. There may be great darkness, imperfection, and error; and many prejudices for and against distinctive names: but let the doctrine of the cross be stated simply, and it must approve itself to a renewed heart. A real Christian cannot object to any of those four things which were considered as belonging to the common salvation :- to the necessity of it, the vicarious medium of it, the free- ness of it, or its holy efficacy. III. Let us show THE IMPORTANCE OF ITS BEING THE GRAND THEME OF OUR MINISTRATIONs, AND THE FIRST ob- JECT OF OUR ATTACHMENT. It is that which God has ever blessed to the salvation of sinners, and the edification of believers. The primitive Christians lived upon it. Times of great revival in the church have always been distinguished by a warm adhe- rence to it. In the dark ages of popery, the schoolmen, as they are called, employed themselves in deciding curious points ; but, at the time of the Reformation, the common salvation was the leading theme. Those ministers whose labours have been more abundantly owned for the promo- tion of true religion, have been distinguished by their at- tachment to the common truth; and those churches which have abounded the most in vital and practical godliness, are such as have not descended to curious researches, nor confined their approbation to elegant preaching; but have loved and lived upon the truth, from whomsoever it has proceeded. There are three things, in particular, from which we are in danger of neglecting the common salva- tion, both as preachers and as hearers — 1. A pretended regard to moral and practical preaching, to the disregard of evangelical principle. All preaching, no doubt, ought to be practical; and there are no greater enemies to the cross of Christ than men who can bear no- thing but what soothes and comforts them; but this is not the only extreme. Almost all the adversaries of evan- gelical truth endeavour to cover their dislike to it under **PParent zeal for “morality, the Christian temper, and Christian Practice.” If we neglect the common salvation in Qur ordinary labours, morality will freeze upon our lips, and neither the preacher nor the hearer will be much in clined to practise it. To lose a relish for the common sai- Vation is the first step towards giving it up; and the effects of this we are warned against from the example of “ the angels who kept not their first estate.” 2. The love of novelty. Both preachers and hearers are in danger of making light of common truths, and of in- dulging in a spirit of curious speculation. This will render preaching rather an entertainment than a benefit to the soul. We are commanded to feed the church of God—not their fancies or imaginations; nor merely their under- standings ; but their renewed minds. It indicates a vicious taste, and affords a manifest proof of degeneracy, where the common salvation is slighted, and matters of refinement eagerly pursued. The doctrine of Christ cru- cified is full of the wisdom of God, and will furnish mate- rials for the strongest powers; and here we may dig deep in our researches. But if this subject has no charms for us, what are we to do in heaven, where it is the darling theme 3 3. A partial attachment to one or two particular truths, to the neglect of the great body of truth. It has frequently been the case, that some one particular topic has formed the character of an age or generation of men; and this topic has been hackneyed in almost every place, till the public mind has become weary of it; while other things of equal importance have been overlooked. Beauty con- sists of lovely proportion ; and herein consists the holy beauty of religion. When every part of truth has its due regard, and every part of holiness its share in our affec- tions, then will the “beauty of Jehovah, our God, be upon us,” and then will he “ establish the work of our hands.” Finally, The common salvation, though it affords grounds for a universal application for mercy, yet will be of no essential benefit to us, unless it be especially embraced. Notwithstanding the indefiniteness of gospel invitations, it is nevertheless true, that “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned.” XXXII.—THE GOOD MAN'S DESIRE FOR THE SUCCESS OF GOD’S CAUSE. [Sketch of a Sermon delivered at the opening of a new Baptist Meet- ing-house, at Boston, Lincolnshire, June 25, 1801. “Let thy work appear unto thy servants, and thy glory unto their children. And let the beauty of the Lord our God be upon us : and establish thou the work of our hands upon us; yea, the work of our hands establish thou it.”—Psal. xc. 16, 17. IN every undertaking we have an end or ends to answer, to which all our labours are directed. It is no less so in religious undertakings than in others; and as these are pure and worthy of pursuit, such is the good or evil of our exertions. What are, or at least should be, the great ends of a Christian congregation in rearing a place for Divine worship 2 What are the main desires of serious people among you now it is reared ? If I mistake not, they are depicted in the passage I have read :-That God’s work may appear among you in your own time—that it may be continued to posterity—that God would beautify you with salvation——and prosper the work of your hands. The Psalm was written by Moses, probably on occasion of the sentence of mortality passed upon the generation of Israelites which came out of Egypt, on account of their unbelief, as recorded in the fourteenth chapter of Num- bers. It was a heavy sentence, and very affectingly la- mented by the holy man ; but he discovers a greater con- cern for the cause of God than for the loss of temporal comfort. He prays that they may be taught to make such a use of this awful providence as to apply their hearts wºnto wisdom ; and that however God might afflict them, during forty years’ wandering in the wilderness, he would bless them with spiritual prosperity. This prayer was answered. That generation which was trained in the wilderness was, perhaps, the best that Israel exhibited during their existence as a nation. It was of them that the Lord himself spoke, saying, “I remember thee, the kindness of thy youth, the love of thine espousals, when thou wentest after me in the wilderness, in a land that was not sown. Israel then was holiness to the Lord.” May our prayer for the prosperity of God's cause among us be thus answered. All I shall attempt will be to review the objects desired, and show the desirableness of them. The objects desired, though expressed by the Jewish lawgiver, have nothing in them peculiar to that dispensa- tion; but are equally suited to our times as to others. They prove that the cause of God is one, through every dispensation, and is directed to one great end—the estab- lishment of truth and righteousness in the earth The first branch of this comprehensive petition is that God’s work might appear wmto his servants. All God’s 654 SERMONS AND SRETCHES. works are great. Creation is full of his glory; providence is no less so ; and each is sought out by them that have pleasure therein. But it is evident that by the work of God, in this connexion, is meant the operation of his grace. When the Almighty took Israel to be his people, he be- stowed blessings upon them of two kinds—temporal and spiritual. He gave them the promise of a good land, and of great prosperity, in case of their obedience to his will. But this was not all; he set up his cause among them. They were his visible people, by whom true religion was practised, and its interests promoted. It is the carrying on of this cause that is here intended. It was begun from the time when God made promise to Abraham their grand progenitor, and was carried on during the lives of the pa- triarchs. When they were brought out of Egypt with a high hand, and formed into a people for himself, it became more apparent, and wore a more promising aspect ; but when they were doomed to die in the wilderness, it seem- ed as if it must sink. Hence Moses, who was tenderly affected with what concerned the honour of God, pleads as he does. Thus he pleaded his great name on a former occasion: and thus the prophet Habakkuk pleaded when Judah was going into captivity, and the cause of God was likely to be ruined : “O Lord, revive thy work in the midst of the years; in the midst of the years make known : in wrath remember mercy.” The work of God may be said to appear among we when sinners are converted to himself. Conversion is not con- fined to Jews and heathens; but extends to sinners of all ages and nations. It is not enough that we are born and educated under the light of revelation, nor that we yield a traditional assent to it. Nicodemus could boast of all this, and more ; yet he was told by the faithful and true Witness, that, “except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of heaven.” Conversion work is peculiarly the work of God. Ministers and parents may be the in- struments, but God is the proper cause of it. None but he who made the heart of man can turn it from its rooted aversion to the love of himself. Ministers and parents know this by painful experience; and therefore can each adopt the prayer here presented as their own. Wherever this work is, it will appear by its holy and happy effects. The drunkard will become sober, the churl liberal, the un- clean chaste, and the malignant persecutor of Christ's people a humble sufferer for his name’s sake. The work of God will also appear among us if Christians grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Sa- viour Jesus Christ. The power of Divine grace is no less apparent in the carrying on of God’s work, than in the be- ginning of it. Nothing short of an almighty arm can pre- serve creatures, so prone to fall away, from falling, and present those who are so faulty “faultless before the pre- sence of his glory.” And where this part of the work is, it will appear also by its holy and happy effects. Such Chris- tians bear the most impressive testimony to the world of the reality and importance of religion. A second branch of the petition is, that God’s work might so appear as that there might be an illustrious display of his glory. All God’s ‘works display his glory; but the work of grace in the salvation of sinners most of all. Other things manifest his wisdom and power; but this his holy nature. The carrying on of his cause in the world, by the conversion and sanctification of sinners, gives a kind of visibility to the Divine character. It is seen, and even felt, by the most abandoned of men. God is said to have appeared in his glory in building up Zion, after it had been broken down by the Chaldeans. Even the heathem, when they saw what he had wrought, could not forbear to ac- knowledge, “The Lord hath dome great things for them l’’ But the building up of the gospel church, by turning the captivity of those who were the slaves of Satan, is still more glorious. The Lord could accomplish the former merely by his providence; but the latter is the effect of the travail of his soul. It is requested, thirdly, that God would impart to them his beauty: “Let the beauty of the Lord our God be upon us !”—All God’s works are beautiful ; but saints, who are his workmanship, are the subjects of a holy beauty, or of the beauty of holiness. They are comely through the comeliness which he puts upon them. Conceive of the camp of Israel after they had been humbled, and taught to fear the Lord their God. Two or three hundred thousand godly young people, following him implicitly in the wilder- ness, and trembling at the idea of repeating the iniquities of their fathers . This was a sight at which even a wicked prophet was struck with awe, and could not forbear ex- claiming, “How goodly are thy tents, O Jacob, and thy tabernacles, O Israel!” Powerful are the charms of genuine piety. There is something in it that disarms ma- lignity itself, and extorts admiration even from those who hate it. Milton represents the devil himself, on his ap- proaching Paradise, as awed by innocence, as staggered, as half inclined to desist from his purpose, and feeling a kind of perturbation within him, composed of malignity and pity. Something like this existed, methinks, in Balaam. He wanders from hill to mountain, seeking for curses, but scattering blessings; sometimes half inclined to unite with God, and concluding with a vain desire to die the death of the righteous. Powerful, I repeat it, are the charms of genuine piety. Conceive of a society of Christians drink- ing into the spirit of Christ, and walking according to his commandments : What an amiable, sight ! “Beautiful as Tirzah, comely as Jerusalem, and terrible as an army with banners : " So much as we possess of the spirit of true religion, so near as we approach its original simplicity, so far as our doctrine is incorrupt, our discipline pure and im- partial, and our conversation as becometh the gospel, so much of “the beauty of the Lord our God” is upon us. A fourth branch of the petition is, that God would set his seal to their undertakings, and establish the work of their hands. “Bstablish thou the work of our hands upon us; yea, the work of our hands establish thou it.” . It was the work of Moses and Joshua, and the rest of God’s serv- ants, to mould and form the people, especially the rising generation; to instruct them in the words of the Lord, and impress their hearts with the vast importance of obeying them. And this has been the work of God's servants in every age. This is our object in our stated and occasional labours, in village-preaching, and in foreign missions; this is the object in the present undertaking: but all is nothing, unless God establish the work of our hands. “Except the Lord build the house, the builders labour in vain.” As we must never confide in God to the neglect of means; so we must never engage in the use of means without a sense of our dependence on God. It is requested, finally, that these blessings might both appear in their own times, and be continued to their posterity: “Let thy work appear unto thy servants” who are now alive, “ and thy glory unto their children,” when they are no more. It is desirable that true religion should be promoted in our time. This, indeed, should be our first and chief concern. Worldly men may care nothing about this. If they gain but the corn, the wine, and the oil, it is enough for them; but God’s servants cannot be happy with mere temporal prosperity; if the interest of Christ do not prosper. Nehemiah might have lived in affluence at the court of Persia ; but he could not enjoy it while the city of his God was going to ruins. The true labourers in God’s husbandry long to see it abound in fruits : the builders of his temple desire to see it rise.—And though our times lie nearest us, yet our prayers and efforts must not be confined to them, but ex- tend to posterity. The succeeding generation should lie near our hearts. In them we hope for materials for God’s building. The prayer of David would fit the lips of every godly man, and especially of every godly parent ; “That our sons may be as olive-plants, grown up in their youth; and our daughters as corner-stones, polished after the similitude of a palace l’” Such were the particular objects desired: I shall only add a few words on their desirableness. We have seen already that the manifestation of the glory of God depends on the progress of his work : by how much, therefore, we are concerned for the one, by so much shall we be importunate for the other. . It is for the glory of God that Satan's kingdom should be overturned, and the kingdom of his Son established on its ruins. This work is the harvest of all God's other works of glory. It was glorious in him to promise to give his Som the heathen for his inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth PRAYER OF DAVID IN THE DECLINE OF LIFE. 655 for his possession: but the glory of this also depends upon its being performed. It was glorious for Christ to die, that he might purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works; but it is by the actual accom- plishment of this object that his glory is perfected. It was glorious for God in his providence to drive out pagan- ism and popery from this kingdom ; but if it stop here, what are we the better? The cutting down of weeds will be of but little use, if the pure seed be not sown, and spring up, and bring forth fruit in their place. The progress of God's work in heathen countries has a close connexion also with our spiritual prosperity at home. There is much beauty and propriety in the petitions offered up in the sixty-seventh Psalm : “God be merciful, unto us . . . . that thy way may be known upon earth, thy saving health among all nations !” God blesses the world by blessing the church, and making it a blessing. A statesman would wish for an increase in population, that the army and navy, and every other department of society, might be filled ; and shall not we pray for the prosperity of the church of God, that faithful ministers, missionaries, and every other description of Christians, may not be wanting 3 Finally, The regard we bear to the souls of men, espe- cially to the rising generation, must render these bless- ings desirable. It is not yours, but you, that we seek. Our hearts’ desire, and prayer to God for you, is, that you may be saved. If we recommend you to attend the gos- pel and embrace it, is it because we want to enlist you under the banner of a party God knoweth ! Yet we shall say to you, and especially to the rising generation, as Moses said to Hobab, “Come with us, and we will do you good ; for the Lord,” we trust, “ hath spoken good concerning” us . . . “And it shall come to pass, that whatsoever good thing the Lord shall do unto us, that will we do unto you.” e XXXIII.—PRAYER OF DAVID IN THE DECLINE OF •LIFE. [Sketch of a Sermon to the Aged.] “Cast me not off in the time of old age, forsake me not when my strength faileth.”—Psal. lxxi, 9. THIS Psalm is supposed to have been written about the time of Absalom's conspiracy. God had cast off his pre- decessor Saul, and things looked as if he now meant to cast him off. . His people also seemed disposed, by their joining with Absalom, to cast him off: hence the force of the petition. - Old men do not always put up this petition. If the desires of many of them were put into words, their re- quest would be that they might save money, retain power, and many other things. Covetousness is particularly the sin of old age. The reason may be, that in early life cor- ruption has a number of channels in which it flows; but in old age these are stopped up, or nearly so, by the de- “ay of natural powers and passions; and hence the whole flows in one or two channels. But these things will soon forsake us, or we must forsake them. The favour and presence of God should be the object, the supreme object, of our desire. I. THERE ARE soME PECULIAR cIRCUMSTANCEs or old AGE WHICH RENDER THIS BLEssING NECEss ARy, 1. Old age is a time of but little natural enjoyment, as Barzillai acknowledged, 2 Sam. xix. 35. There is the more need, therefore, for other enjoyments. It is a soil on which that kind of pleasure.will not grow; but the joys of religion will, and there may be fruit in old age. Be this, therefore, our object: Psal. xcii. 14; Isa. xl. 30, 31. 2. It is a time in which the troubles of life are often known to increase. Many are poor and can struggle no longer, and so sink under their hardships. Others have families, and live to see their children's miseries; or what, if we fear God, will grieve us more, their evil courses. How fit then is the prayer of David to the lips of those whose grey hairs are going down with sorrow to the grave l—Others lose their friends by death. Youth is the time for forming connexions, which is a source of pleasure; , and age, of those connexions being dissolved, which is a source of pain. How many poor widows may hear this address, who are left in a world of care and sorrow, to serve alone : Does not this prayer fit your lips ?—At this period we often have to reap the bitter fruits of the sins of earlier years. Disobedience to parents is often followed by disobedience in children; neglect of family government by family ruin, as in the case of Eli; and criminal indul- gences in youth by similar practices among our children. David had his troubles in his younger days, but they were light compared with those which respected Amnon, Ta- mar, and Absalom. Here impurity and blood reappeared, and wounded his heart. 3. Old age is a time in which the troubles of life not only increase, but become less tolerable. Young people will weather the storm, but it is not so with the aged. Pains of mind resemble pains of body ; young people will work them off, but in old people they remain, and are carried to the grave. Jacob had hardships at Padan-aram, the heat by day, and the frost by night; but he forgot them in a little time; not so after having lost his beloved Rachel. A garment was brought to him covered with blood Is this, or any thing like it, your condition ? So much the more necessary the petition. 4. Old age is a time that ought to command respect, and does so among dutiful children, and all serious Chris- tians; but it is often known to be attended with neglect. This is the case especially where they are poor and de- pendent. It has been the case where public characters have lost their youthful vivacity, and the brilliancy of their talents. In these cases, also, how fit is the petition, “Cast me not off in the time of old age, forsake me not when my strength faileth !” 5. It is a period bordering on death and eternity. The enjoyments of life are more than half gone, and the re- mainder hangs upon a thread more than half broken. But it may be worth while to inquire, II. IN WILAT CASES THERE ARE GROUNDs To HoPE THE BLESSING will, BE GRANTED. Not all old men enjoy God’s favour and presence. There are some tottering on the grave who are yet wicked; yea, ripe in wickedness— mercenary, deceitful, crafty, and oppressive. Even those sins which they can no longer act, through a failure in their natural powers, they will recall in their defiled imaginations, and repeat in conversation, to the corrupting of youth. Ah, wicked old man : God will cast you off. Age itself entitles you to no respect from man, nor will you find mercy from God. Think particularly of two passages. “The sinner, a hundred years old, shall be accursed—God shall wound the hairy scalp of him who goeth on still in his trespasses,” Isa. lxv. 20; Psal. lxviii. 21. Who then shall be found sharers in this blessing? 1. It is certain that, if we have been God’s servants from our youth, he will not cast us off in old age. David pleaded this, in the fifth and seventeenth verses of this Psalm : “O God, thou hast taught me from my youth ; and hitherto have I declared thy wondrous works.” How was this truth also verified in the old age and death of Jacob, Moses, Daniel, Paul, and others : 2. Though we should not have been his servants in our youth, yet in old age, even from thence, if we seek him with all our hearts, he will be found of us. He will not reject us even at the eleventh hour. 3. Though you should never have been his servant to this day, but have grown grey under Satan’s yoke, and are now a poor miserable creature, just ready to fall into hell; yet if from hence thou shalt seek the Lord thy God, with all thy heart and with all thy soul, he will be found of thee; for the Lord our God is a merciful God ; and through the death of Christ he can save thee to the utter- most. If with all your heart you only put up this prayer, “Cast me not off in the time of old age, forsake me not when my strength faileth ;” he will not cast you off, but stand your friend when forsaken by the whole world, Deut. iv. 29–31; Heb. vii. 25. 656 SERMONS AND SKETCHES. XXXIV.—ADVANTAGES OF EARLY PIETY. [Sketch of a Sermon to Young People.] “O satisfy us early with thy mercy, that we may rejoice and be glad all our days.”—Psal. Xc. 14. THE season is returned, my dear young people, in which you expect I should address you on your etermal interests. I hope what I have heretofore said to you, not only on these occasions, but in the ordinary course of my labours, has not been altogether in vain. Some of you, I hope, have already set your faces Zionward. , Happy should I be to see many more follow their example! The words which I have read to you express the desire of Moses, the man of God, in behalf of Israel, and espe- cially of the rising generation. The generation of men which came out of Egypt with Moses were most of them very wicked. Though God divided the sea to save them, and caused manna to fall from heaven to feed them, with many other wonderful works; yet they did little else than provoke him by their repeated transgressions. Ten times they tempted him in the wilderness; and, to complete their crimes, they despised the good land, and disbelieved His promises who had engaged to put them in possession of it. The consequence was, Jehovah swore in his wrath, “They shall not enter into my rest.” So they were all, except Joshua and Caleb, doomed to die in the wilderness. On occasion of this melancholy sentence, (the account of which you will find in the fourteenth chapter of Numbers,) it is supposed that Moses, the man of God, wrote this plaintive Psalm ; in which he laments over the mortality of man, and supplicates Divine mercy to mitigate the doom ; and the doom as it respected Israel was mitigated, or at least mingled with much mercy. Though the fa- thers were sentenced to perish in the wilderness, yet the promise was accomplished in the rising generation. “Your little ones,” said the Lord, “which ye said should be a prey, them will I bring in, and they shall know the land which ye have despised.” This younger generation, from that time, became the grand object of hope to Moses and his companions. Their great business in the wilderness, for thirty-eight years, was to teach them the good know- ledge of God, and to form their spirit and manners for his service. How earnestly did Moses pray for the Lord’s blessing upon these their labours, towards the close of this Psalm “Let thy work appear unto thy servants, and thy glory unto their children; and let the beauty of Je- hovah our God be upon us; and establish thou the work of our hands upon us; yea, the work of our hands estab- lish thou it.” To the same purpose is the petition which I first read: “O satisfy us early with thy mercy, that we may rejoice and be glad all our days.” These petitions, too, were graciously answered. God’s work did appear to Moses and his associates, and his glory to their children, and that at an early period. His spirit was richly poured forth upon the Israelitish youth. The beauty of the Lord their God was upon them, and the work of their hands was established. It was this amiable generation that ex- torted the admiration of Balaam himself: “How goodly are thy tents, O Jacob, and thy tabernacles, O Israel!” It was of them that the Lord declared, that “Israel then was holiness to the Lord, and the first-fruits of his in- crease.” - I hope I need not say that this prayer of Moses, on be- half of the Israelitish youth, is expressive of the desires of your minister and of your parents : you know it is so. Oh that it may also express your own There are two things pertaining to this subject which require particular notice; namely, the object desired, which is an early participation of Divine mercy; and the influence of such a participation of mercy on the happi- ness of future life. º, I. Let us notice THE objecT DESIRED.—This is mercy, a being satisfied with mercy, and a being early satisfied with mercy. Pay attention, young people, to each of these particulars. 1. The grand object that you need is mercy, the mercy of God against whom you have sinned.—Holy angels wor- chiefly, that are here desired. ship God; but this prayer would not fit their lips. They are guilty and undone sinners to whom the voice of mercy is addressed ; and such are you, and therefore it becomes you to sue for this all-important good. Mercy is of two kinds, common and special. Every good we enjoy is mercy ; but they are not common mercies only, nor They would not have sa- tisfied Moses, nor will they satisfy us. That which he sought on behalf of the Israelitish youth, and which we seek on behalf of you, is saving mercy, renewing mercy, forgiving mercy; that which Saul the persecutor obtained, having sinned in ignorance and unbelief. 2. The blessing here sought is not only mercy, but a being satisfied with mercy.—If the rising generation among the Israelites obtained mercy, Moses and Aaron, and all their godly associates, would feel satisfied on a review of their labours; and if you, young people, obtain a similar blessing, we shall feel the same. Nor shall we be satis- fied with any thing short of it. We are glad to see you sober, intelligent, ingenious, and industrious; we rejoice in your temporal prosperity ; but this will not satisfy us. How should it? To care for the less, and not for the greater, were cruel beyond expression. Nor will any thing short of saving mercy satisfy you. You may think that pleasure will, but it will not ; nor fame, nor riches, nor aught else under the sun. Immortal minds can be satisfied with nothing short of an immortal good. Read, and carefully consider, the first three verses of the fifty- fifth chapter of Isaiah. But, in order to be satisfied with mercy, you must possess a thirst after it. Nothing satis- fies but that which corresponds with our desires. Have you such desire 3 Do you call upon the Lord for mercy? and that with your whole heart? How many heathens are there in a Christian country who live without prayer! and how many who pray in form, without any earnest or sincere desire after those things for which they pray ! Such will never be satisfied. But if mercy be the one thing desired, you need not doubt being satisfied with it; for there is enough in God, enough in Christ, to assuage all your thirst. “With the Lord there is mercy, and with him is plenteous redemption.”—“Open your mouth wide, and he will fill it.”—“The Spirit,” in the invitations of the word, “ says, Come; the bride,” or church of Christ, “says, Come; and whosoever will, let him come, and take of the water of life freely.” 3. The blessing to be sought is, not only a being satis- fied, but satisfied early with Divine mercy.—Moses desired that his prayer might be speedily answered ; and if genu- ine piety appeared in the young people at an early period of life, this his desire would be accomplished. Piety is a beautiful flower at any age, but most so in early life. How amiable did it appear in these young people ! It is called “ the love of their espousals,” which the Lord after- wards remembered for the sake of their posterity. How amiable did it appear in Isaac, in Joseph, in Samuel, in David, in Abijah, in Josiah, and in many others | But let us proceed to observe— II. THE INFLUENCE which A PARTICIPATION OF DIVINE MERCY, AND Especial,LY AN EARLY ONE, WILL HAVE ON THE HAPPINEss of YoUR FUTURE LIFE. This good ob- tained, you will rejoice and be glad all your days.-It is a notion imbibed by many who are strangers to true religion, that it makes people melancholy and miserable. But this is false. The contrary is the truth. Every one that has known it has spoken well of it. The reproaches of those who know it not are unworthy of motice. . To render this evident, let me request your attention to a few remarks. 1. To have participated of mercy is to have all your sins forgiven ; and is not this a source of joy and gladness? You may think but little of these things in the hour of health and thoughtless dissipation ; but whenever you reflect, whether it be under a sermom, or on a bed of afflic- tion, or on any other occasion, you will feel the force of such truths as these : “Blessed is the man whose trans- gressions are forgiven, and whose sin is covered P-‘Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee!” I cannot perceive what grounds there can be for joy or gladness while your sins are unforgiven. To rise every morning, and to retire every evening, with the curse of the Almighty on your heads, must needs be a dreadful thing ; and, if | ADWANTAGES OF EARLY PIETY. 657 you be not shockingly hardened in unbelief and stupidity, it must render your life far from happy. You may rejoice and be glad in many things, but it is only while you forget your true condition. One thought on this subject dissolves the charm, and sinks you in melancholy. O my dear young people, drink but at this fountain, and it will prove the water of life . It will banish suspense and dread; and will take away all that is terrible from these most terrible of all words—DeATH, JUDGMENT, and ETERNITY. 2. The partaking of Divine mercy will furnish you with great sources of enjoyment in the study of truth.-While blinded by your own carnality, the things of God will ap- pear uninteresting, if not foolishness; but, having known the gift of God, you will ask, and he will give you more and more of this living water. Knowledge of any kind is food to an ingenious mind; but mere science has not that rich and interesting quality which attends evangelical truth. Astronomy may amuse you, and even delight you, by showing you the wonderful works of God ; but the gospel gives you an interest in all. If you are Christians, whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come, all are yours. The study of nature is a source of pleasure; but the gospel, of joy. It has with great propriety been called “the wisdom that speaks to the heart.” Such was the decision of the earl of Rochester in his wisest days. Joy, and especially the joy of the gospel, possesses much of that charming perturbation of spirit which is not excited but by great, interesting, and transporting objects. Hap- piness may cause a smile, but joy will add to that smile a tear, and perhaps a flood of tears. What a delicious en- joyment Thus may you rejoice and be glad all your days / 3. By a participation of Divine merey, all your duties will be converted into pleasures.—Without this, every duty will be a task : praying, reading and hearing, sabbaths and all other religious opportunities, will either be disre- garded, or if through custom you attend to them, yet your heart will not be in them. They will appear as lost time; and such, indeed, they will prove. Time so spent will to you be lost, and worse than lost. But true religion will inspire your hearts with love ; and this will render every religious duty a delight. 4. A participation of the mercy or grace of God will shed a lustre on all your natural enjoyments.—To have only natural enjoyments is to have a slender, short-lived, and uncertain portion. To have to reflect, in the midst of your pleasures, Now I am receiving my good things, and these, for aught that appears, are to be my all, is suf- ficient to spread a damp over every thing ; but to have earthly good with a blessing, with the good-will of Him that dwelt in the bush, must give it a tenfold sweetness. Art thou but a Christian, “Eat thy bread with gladness, and drink thy wine with a cheerful heart; for God now accepteth thy labour.” 5. A participation of Divine mercy will support your hearts under the heaviest afflictions, and enable you to re- joice and be glad, while others are sinking wnder their bur- dens.—You are young, but you must lay your accounts with those ills which are common to men. Some of you who may be engaged in trade may sustain heavy losses; but this will bear you up. If you have Christ, you will never have lost your all. When poor Moab was wasted, she had nothing left. Well, therefore, might Jeremiah bewail her condition, chap. xlviii. 36. But when Judah was gone into captivity, she could yet say, “The Lord is my portion, saith my soul, therefore will I hope in him.” Others of you may pass through life in poverty. Hardly bestead and hwngry, you have little to lose; and, if desti- tute of religion, may be tempted to “curse your King and your God, and look upward.” But the hope of the gospel will cause you to rejoice, even in this situation. Though no fruit appear on your vine, nor flock in your fold, nor herd in your stall; yet you will rejoice in the Lord, and be glad in the God of your salvation. 6. A participation of God’s special mercy affords an assurance that all the blessings before mentioned are but the beginnings of joy, the earnest of everlasting bliss. Here We are at a loss. “Now are we the sons of God, but it doth not yet appear what we shall be ; but this we know, that we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.” O happy people ! Well are they exhorted to “rejoice al- ways, and again to rejoice”—“to sing aloud upon their beds”—“to count it all joy, even when they fall into divers trials, knowing that these light afflictions, which are but for a moment, work for them a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory.” To all this may be added, the earlier you obtain these blessings, the greater will be your enjoyments.-Early piety will save you from much wickedness. The conversion of a soul, especially at this period, hides a multitude of sins; and renders life much more happy as well as useful. Evil habits are broken with difficulty. Those who return to God in old age seldom do much for him, or enjoy much from him. Manasseh, though he obtained mercy, yet did but little towards undoing the mischief which he had wrought in Israel. He could lead his people and his family into wickedness while he was wicked; but he could not lead them back again when he returned. Amon, his successor, imitated Manasseh the idolater, not Manasseh the penitent. And as to himself, though he cast the idols out of the temple, and out of the city, yet the far greater part of the work of reformation was left for his grandson Josiah. That amiable young prince began, in the sixteenth year of his age, to seek after the Lord God of his fathers; and in the twentieth he set about a thorough work of reformation ; “and God was with him, and blessed him, and he,” like his ancestor Abraham, “became a blessing.” O young people, a thousand arguments and examples might be adduced to show the force and propriety of the petition . If you have a spark of ingenuousness towards God in your hearts, you would not desire to put him off with the refuse of a life spent in the service of sin. You would offer him the first-fruits of your days; the best of your time, strength, talents, and influence. And this is not all. Time flies. Years roll over in quick succession. Death sweeps away the young as well as the aged. Of the burials that we have had this year in our congregation five out of six have been young people;. some of them under twenty years of age, and others of them but little past that period. None of them seem to have thought much of dying, yet they are gone from the land of the living ! Hark! from their tombs I hear the language of warning and solemn counsel ! “Whatsoever thy hand findeth thee to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge in the grave, whither thou goest.” Join with your pastor, join with your parents, join with all that seek your welfare, in praying, “O satisfy us early with thy mercy, that we may rejoice and be glad all our days.” What shall I say more ? Will you, my dear young people, will you drink and be satisfied at the fountain of mercy; a fountain that is wide open, and flows freely through our Lord Jesus Christ 3 You cannot plead the want of sufficient inducements. Ministers, parents, Chris- tians, angels, the faultering voice of death, the solemn assurance of a judgment to come, and, above all, the sounding of the bowels of Jesus Christ, all say, Come. *~ But if, like those who refused the waters of Siloah, you prefer the follies and pursuits of the present life to the joys of immortality, our souls shall weep in secret places for you. Tribulation and anguish will overtake you even in this life ; and under it, instead of the consolations and hopes of the gospel, you will have to reflect, This I have brought upon myself; and these are but the beginnings of sorrows : XXXV.—THE CHOICE OF MOSES. “By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in #. for he had respect unto the recompence of reward.”—Heb. xi. 24–2 CoMMON history generally overlooks the servants of God as unworthy of its notice. The world has thought it worth while to hate and persecute them in all ages, but not to record either their lives or deaths. Statesmen, 2 U 658 SERMONS AND SIKETCHES. warriors, philosophers, poets, and the like, are held up to view, while they and their memorial are consigned to ob- livion. It is not so however in God’s history. The world loves its own, and God loves his own. God’s history takes as little notice of the sons of the mighty as man's history does of the sons of the holy, exhibiting them as a succes- sion of wild beasts, who have rendered themselves con- spicuous only by their rapacity; while it holds up the characters whom they have traduced as men “ of whom the world was not worthy.” What a catalogue is given us in this chapter . To have a name in such a record is true honour. Among these worthies stands the name of Moses. From his early childhood he was an object of the special care of Heaven; and when arrived to years of maturity, he was a believer, and an eminent servant of God. It is pleasing to observe how the apostle finds an evan- gelical spirit in Old Testament saints. Moses was distin- guished as the lawgiver of Israel, and he venerated the law which he had the honour to dispense. He did not, how- ever, trust in his obedience to it for acceptance with God, but in Christ, in whom he believed. Yes, the religion of Moses was an attachment to Christ, though at that time he was known only by promise. Moses had also an expect- ation of the earthly. Canaan, of that goodly mountain and Lebanon, though for his sin in a single instance he was deprived of it; but his principal “respect” did not ter- minate here, but on a “recompence of reward” beyond the grave, even in that better country in the faith of which the patriarchs lived and died. To illustrate and vindicate the choice of Moses, which is here celebrated, is all I shall attempt. There are three remarks which offer concerning it. 1. The choice of Moses is ascribed to faith.-He be- lieved in the Messiah who was promised covertly to Adam, and to Noah, and more explicitly to Abraham, as the Seed in whom all the nations of the earth should be blessed. He also believed in the invisible realities of a future state. And thus his faith determined him to em- brace even the reproach of Christ, and to relinquish every thing which stood in the way of the heavenly prize. The choice of Moses was free ; yet it was not the effect of free will, but of faith in Christ, and which was the gift of God. And if we make the same choice, it will be owing to the SalT162 CallSe, 2. It was made under the strongest temptations.—The refusing to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter was in effect refusing a crown ; for she is supposed to have been the only daughter of the king of Egypt, and to have had no children of her own. Moses therefore appears to have been designed for a successor to the throne. For this also he seems to have received a suitable education, being “learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians.” All things conspired to tempt him. Fortune, with her flattering Smiles, invited him to her banqueting-house, and to think no more of his abject relations. Forget also thine own people, and thy father's house, was her language. Apis must be thy god, and worship thou him. We who are stationed in the common ranks of life may think but little of such a temptation. A crown never hav- ing been within the reach of our expectations, it may pos- sess but few charms for us. We cannot be ignorant, how- ever, that for such stations men in high life have frequently sacrificed every thing. Poor Henry IV., king of France, about two hundred years ago, though a protestant in prin- ciple, and a truly great man, yet, rather than relinquish a crown, abjured his religion. It is true our James II. lost his throne through his attachment to popery; but he meant not so, and even his friends ridiculed him for it. “There is a certain good man,” said they, “lately come to Rome, who has resigned three crowns for a crucifix . .” There is no principle that is equal to the choice which Moses made but faith. Nothing else can find an object that will outweigh it. “Who is he that overcometh the world, but he who believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?” 3. In making such a choice, the best of this world was weighed against the worst of religion, “the reproaches of Christ ; ” and yet the latter was preferred.—If the best on Christ's side had been weighed against the worst on the side of the world, or even the best on both sides against each other, the triumph had been less glorious. But here we see in one scale the pleasures of sin, and the treasures of a mighty empire; objects for which men are continually sacrificing their health, peace, conscience, character, lives, and souls; in the other, Christ and religion, with the greatest outward disadvantages; yet the latter preponder- ates. An attachment to the cause of the Messiah would at any time excite the reproaches of proud men; but at this time more especially, when his kingdom seemed so unlikely to prevail that his subjects were actually in a state of slavery. “The people of God’’ are at all times, more or less, in an afflicted state ; but now waters of a full cup were wrung out to them ; yet with all these disadvantages, faith obtains the victory. Many are daily choosing the world, with not a thousandth part of this to choose ; and setting light by Christ and his people, with not a thou- sandth part of this to refuse. To a mind blinded by carnality, the choice of Moses will appear fanatical and foolish ; but it was not so. Faith and right reason are not at variance. His decision was as wise as it was just. He did not choose afflictions and re- proaches for their own sake ; for he had all the feelings of a man as well as we. His choice terminated on “the re- compence of reward,” which, like the joy that was set before the great Object of his faith, enabled him to endure the cross, and despise the shame.—More particularly, 1. The things which he refused would last only for a season ; but the things which he chose were of everlasting duration. We measure periods in all other estimations; and why should we not in this ? Who would give so much for a short lease, or rather an uncertain tenure, as for a full purchase, and a lasting possession ? 2. The society of the people of God, though afflicted, reproached, and persecuted, exceeds all the pleasures of sin while they do last. It is delightful to cast in our lot with them; for the bond of their union is holy love, which is the sweetest of all sweets to a holy mind. If we have once tasted of this, every thing else will become compara- tively insipid. How sweet a bond of union is the love of Christ —how sweet is the fellowship of saints | Even when borne down with reproaches and afflictions, how sweet are the tears of sympathy | What are the country and the gods of Moab to Ruth, after having lived in a re- ligious family, and become acquainted with the true and living God? And what are the discouragements which Naomi presented, on the ground of future poverty and neglect? “Entreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee,” was her answer: “for whither thou goest I will go, and where thou lodgest I will lodge ; thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God. Where thou diest will I die, and there will I be buried. Jehovah do so to me, and more also, if aught but death part thee and me !”—The Lord, moreover, hath spoken good concerning his people, and he delights to do them good. This motive was held up by Moses to Hobab, to induce him to cast in his lot with them ; and, in persuad- ing his friend, he doubtless made use of the same consider- ations which had prevailed on himself. 2. The very reproaches of Christ contain greater riches than , all the treasures of this world. They carry with them, not only the testimony of a good conscience, but the approbation of God; and these are substantial riches. They are accompanied with the fellowship of Christ; for in suffering for him, we suffer “with him;” and these also are substantial riches. Nor is it a small thing to be counted worthy to suffer for his name’s sake. It becomes the servants of Christ to consider the reproach of his ene- mies as their honour, and to bind it to them as a crown. Let us then inquire what is our choice. We may not have the offer of a crown; or, if we had, it might have but little influence upon us. The desires of man are mostly confined to things a little above his present situation, or which are next within his reach. A good estate, or a well- watered plain, might weigh more with many of us than a kingdom. Nor may the people of God in our day lie under such reproaches and afflictions as in the time of Moses. But this only proves that our temptations are not so strong as his ; and, consequently, that if the world conquer us, we shall be the less excusable. But the world and Christ are in competition for our choice, and we are required to give PAUL’S PRAYER FOR THE EPHESIANS. 659 a decisive and immediate answer. Choose ye this day whom ye will serve. There are many who can and do say as Joshua did, “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” His people shall be our people, and his cause our cause. If any refuse, and prefer the present world before him, be it known to them that, as is their choice in this world, such will be their portion in that which is to COIſle, XXXVI.—PAUL’S PRAYER FOR THE EPHESIANS. “For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Ilord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, that he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strength- ened with might by his Spirit in the inner man.”—Eph. iii. 14—16. THE writing and preaching of the apostles had two dis- tinct objects in view. They preached to make men Chris- tians; to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God. They wrote to make them eminent Christians; to quicken believers in their heavenly race, to promote in them a growth in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Such was the zeal of Paul, in endeavouring to accomplish the former, that he counted not his life dear to him, but was willing to die for the name of the Lord Jesus. Nor was he less desirous of the latter, making it the leading object in all his Epistles, and the matter of his prayer day and night. In the apostle's words there are three things which re- quire our notice—the object desired—its importance—and the encouragement we have to seek it. I. THE OBJECT IN which THE APOSTLE was so MUCH INTERESTED ox BEHALF OF THE EPHESIANs : “That he would grant you to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man.” Nothing good is found in fallen man : nothing grows spontaneously in that soil but what is evil. If any thing holy be found there, it must be produced by the Spirit of God, who worketh in us to will and to do of his good pleasure. Nor is Divine influence less necessary in carrying on the good work after it is begun. Such is our proneness to relax, to grow weary and faint in our course, that we need to be con- tinually “strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man,” The object prayed for is not bodily strength. That is of but little account in the sight of God, though in many cases it becomes the matter of human boasting. Samson was possessed of might in the outward man to a high de- gree, and a poor use he made of it. Perhaps a more feeble character is not to be met with among those whom the Scriptures mention as good men : with all his wonderful exploits, he weakly yielded to the tempter, and became an easy prey to his enemies. Nor is it mere mental ability that is here intended ; that was the strength of Solomon. Paul did not pray that We might be made great men, but good men; not that we might be poets or philosophers, but Christians; not that We might excel in genius or learning, but in grace and goodness; that our souls may prosper and be in health, and that we may be strengthened with might in the inner IIlºlſl. This part of the subject will be better understood by considering some of the symptoms of spiritual might:— 1. The manner in which we perform Teligious duties may serve as a criterion by which to judge of our strength and weakness.-If we be Christians, we shall worship God in our families, and in secret; we shall search the Scriptures frequent the house of God, and aim to discharge the variº ous duties which pertain to our stations in life. These things we shall feel it incumbent upon us habitually to regard : but the question is how, and in what manner, do We perform these exercises? If our souls be in a lan- guishing state, they will become a task, and not a pleasure to us; we shall be weary of the Lord's service, feel his yoke to be grievous, and, while we keep up a round of duty, our devotions will be cold, feeble, and unprofitable. - 2 U 2 But if we be “strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might,” we shall count of the return of sacred oppor- tunities, and find that Wisdom's ways are ways of pleasant- ness, and that all her paths are peace. When David longed for water of the well of Bethlehem, three mighty men broke through the host of the Philistines to obtain it, hazarding their lives for his sake; while men of weaker attachment would have murmured at the severity of such an enterprise. If we possess a warm heart for Christ, we shall not think much of the time, the talents, the property, or the influence which we may devote to his service ; nor count our lives dear to us, if we may but promote his kingdom and glory in the world. “This is the love of God, that we keep his commandments ; and his com- mandments are not grievous.” Nor will this pleasure be confined to the public exercises of religion, but will ex- tend to those of a more personal and private nature. It is possible we may feel much animation, and possess much enjoyment, in the outward means, while we are cold and lifeless in the duties of retirement; and this will be the case where the religion of the heart is not cultivated, nor close walking with God carefully maintained. But if we be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man, communion with God will be earnestly sought after, pri- vate duties will be vigorously attended to, and the closet will yield us pleasure, as well as the tabernacles of the Lord of hosts. There are but few of whom it may be said, as of Caleb and Joshua, that they “follow the Lord fully.” Multitudes of professors appear to be but half-hearted in religion; they neither wholly relinquish it, nor take it up in earnest : but are desirous of following the Lord so far as is consistent with their carmal ease, their worldly in- terest, or their sinful passions, and no further. But if the object of the apostle's prayer be accomplished in us, we shall be decided for God, and prompt in our manner of serving him ; not consulting with flesh and blood, not attempting to accommodate our principles and practice to those of the generality, nor wishing to do as little as pos- sible for God, consistently with our own safety ; but, de- lighting to do all his will, we shall run in the way of his commandments. 2. The degree of our spiritual strength may be deter- mined by the manner in which we resist temptations.—All men are tempted, but all do not resist temptation ; this is peculiar to the Christian character. Mere worldly men go with the stream ; they walk according to the course of this world, and are hurried along with the impetuous tor- rent. But if we be Christians, we are not of the world, and are in the habit of resisting temptations. Yet if our resistance be feeble and indeterminate—if we hesitate where we ought to be decided—if we look back on Sodom, like Lot's wife, with a lingering desire after those sinful pleasures which we profess to have given up, and regret the loss of sensual gratifications—are we not carnal, and walk as men? He who is strengthened with might in the inner man will not pause when temptations meet him, nor parley with the tempter; but will readily answer, “Thus it is written.” It will be sufficient for him to know that God has forbidden this or that. Like a dutiful child, the will of his Father is the guide of his conduct, and that alone will furnish sufficient motives for obedience. “ Thus it is written.” 3. The spirit in which we endure affliction will tend to discover the degree of religion we possess.-Affliction is the lot of man, as well as temptation ; and we must all get through our difficulties in some way or other; but the manner in which we get through them will show whether we be strengthened with might in the inner man or not. If we faint in the day of adversity, our strength is small. If we be fretful, and murmur at the hand of God—if we sink under the burden, and wish in ourselves to die—we either have no religion at all, or possess it only in a small degree. Great grace would enable us to bear affliction with submission, and even to rejoice in tribulation. Pri- mitive Christians were destitute, afflicted, tormented; and yet how happy were they with their lot! They took joy- fully the spoiling of their goods, rejoiced that they were counted worthy to suffer for Christ's sake, and counted it all joy when they fell into divers temptations. Out of weakness they were made strong, and waxed valiant in 660 SERMONS AND SIKETCHES. fight; thus they were more than conquerors through him that loved them. 4. The sense we entertain of our own weakness is also a criterion of our being strengthened in the inner man.— An apostle could say, “When I am weak, then am I strong.” To a worldly mind this may appear highly pa- radoxical, but a babe in Christ can understand it. When We have the greatest sense of our own insufficiency for what is good, and feel that we are nothing, and without Christ can do nothing; then are we “strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.” But if we feel self-suf- ficient, confident, and disposed to lean to our own under- standing, then are we weak indeed, and become an easy prey to the enemy. Peter was never so weak as when he thought there was no danger of falling, and boldly said, “Though all men should forsake thee, yet will not I.” Paul was never so strong as when he felt himself to be “nothing.” When most sensible of our own insufficiency, We shall pray most for strength from heaven, and watch most against temptation; and by this means we shall be strengthened with strength in our souls. II. THE IMPORTANCE AND DESIRABLENEss of THE BLESSING PRAYED Fort. Paul would not have been so importunate in his request, if it had not been of the great- est importance that we should not only be Christians in- deed, but grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. But there are other rea- sons which might be offered. 1. The Scriptures lay much stress on this as tending to glorify God.—“Herein is my Father glorified,” says our Lord, “that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my dis- ciples.” . Every field will bear some fruit in the ordinary course of things; but it is to the more abundant honour of the husbandman when his field brings forth thirty, sixty, or a hundredfold. So it is not merely by our being Christians that God is glorified, but by our being eminent Christians. Nor is this all; if we are desirous only of so much grace as may carry us safely to heaven, it is doubtful whether we shall ever arrive there at last. Abounding in the fruits of righteousness is considered by our Lord as essential to the very existence of true religion; for, says he, “so shall ye be my disciples.” Christ himself brought forth much fruit, and it is necessary that we resemble him. 2. Our usefulness depends much on our being strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.—If our souls be in a languishing state, what good can we do in the world? “Ye are the salt of the earth ; but if the salt have lost its savour, wherewith shall it be salted ? It is thenceforth good for nothing.” What good can we do in society, amongst our immediate connexions, or in our families, but as we diffuse a savour of Christ? And how can this be done, if we ourselves have lost that savour, and are become lifeless and unfruitful in the ways of God? At the close of every day it becomes us to inquire, Has any one been improved by our conversation ? Will any one think the better of Christ from what they have heard or seen in us? Or have we been amongst men merely as men of the world; and might they not say of us, What do you more than others? He who possesses much re- ligion will impart more or less of it to those about him ; he will not make a show of it, yet it must be seen. There is that in the outward mien, the inward temper, and daily conversation of a man of genuine piety, which indicates that he has been with Jesus. The modesty of his coun- tenance, the meekness and cheerfulness of his disposition, the sweet familiarity and seriousness of his intercourse with men, enliven the circle in which he moves, and re- commend the religion which he professes. III. THE ENCOURAGEMENT we HAVE To PRAY. THAT we MAY BE STRENGTHENED WITH MIGHT BY HIS SPIRIT IN THE INNER MAN is intimated by the phrase, that the Lord would grant it “according to the riches of his glory.” When men are both rich and generous, and willing to give to the necessitous according to their ability, it suggests a very powerful motive to solicit their assistance. But who can estimate the riches of God’s goodness and the boundless extent of his grace? And if he gives “ac- cording to the riches of his glory,” what encouragement is here for prayer “Open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it, saith the Lord.”—“Ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full.” Let us ask much, and we shall have much : “The Lord taketh pleasure in them that fear him, in them that hope in his mercy.” He who had but one talent, and went and hid it in the earth, lost it ; but he who had five talents, and went and traded with the same, gained five other talents. Men who live to God, and whose whole concern it is to promote his glory, shall find their sphere of usefulness enlarging with their activity, and that God is girding them with strength proportionate to their labours. Like their Divine Master, their reward is with them, and their work before them. “To him that hath shall be given, and he shall have more abundantly ; but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.” XXXVII.—INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIAL RELIGION. [Sketch of an Address delivered on laying the Foundation of a New Chapel.] “To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God and precious, ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sa- crifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.”—l Pet. ii. 4, 5. HAVING been requested to say a few words on this occa- sion, I wish, my friends, to direct your attention, not so much to the place about to be erected, as to the use to which, I trust, it will be appropriated. Under the gospel it is not place, but the worshipping of God in spirit and in truth, that is of account. Much of the religion of the Old Testament consisted in the building and worship of the temple; when therefore the New Testament was introduced, it was usual to speak of its religion under this imagery. Thus the passage which I have read alludes partly to the building and partly to the worship of the temple. As the stones were laid on their foundation, so, believing in Jesus, we “come to him as unto a living stone,” and are “built up a spiritual house ;” and as the priests offered up their sacrifices, so believers are “a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacri- fices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.” Yet there are great disparities between the Jewish and Christian temple. The stones of the former, being mere unconscious matter, were brought; here, being conscious and voluntary agents, they “come:” the foundation there also was mere matter, but here it is “a living stone :” that was literally a house; this is “a spiritual house:” priesthood was there distin- guished by descent; here by character : their sacrifices were taken from the herd or the flock ; ours from the heart—the offering of prayer and praise, presented in the name of Jesus Christ. But, laying aside the imagery, we may consider the whole as furnishing a description of individual and social religion. Social religion begins with individual, and in- dividual religion with “coming ” to Christ. I. With respect to PERSONAL RELIGION, the Scriptures make much of our coming to Christ. However correct we may be in our deportment, and devout at the stated seasons of worship, if Christ be “disallowed,” all is no- thing. Election itself no otherwise secures our salvation than as it secures our coming to Christ for it : “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me.” The atonement of Christ does not avail us but as coming to him. It was thus in the atonements under the law ; in some cases sins were confessed by the party laying their hands on the head of the victim, and in others by the priest on their behalf; but in no case could they derive benefit but as “comers thereunto.” The first operations of true religion in the mind are in this way. - Christ may not be the first object to which a sinner's thoughts are turned ; this may be his sin and ex- posedness to the wrath of God; but let our thoughts of sin and misery be as pungent as they may, if º lead us not to Christ for salvation, there is no true religion in them. He is “the way” to God : “no man cometh unto the Father but by him.” We may be burdened under INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIAL RELIGION. 661 guilt and fear; but, till we come to him with our burden, there will be no gospel rest for our souls. The promise is not made to us as burdened, but as coming to Christ with our burdens, Matt. xi. 28. Nor is it confined to the time of our first believing ; the Christian life consists in coming habitually to Jesus. “I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me; and the life that I now live in the flesh is by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” That which food is to the body, the doctrine of Christ crucified is to the mind. “Except we eat his flesh, and drink his blood, we have no life in us.” Our estimation of other objects is often governed by public opinion, but we must appreciate Christ not by what men think of him, but by what he is in the account of God. He may be “disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God and precious;” and if we are of God, we shall be of God’s mind; he that is precious to God will be so to us. May there be many characters of this description, my friends, among you. You will then have materials for building up the spiritual temple, and for the offering up of spiritual sa- crifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. II. Add a few remarks on social RELIGION, under the same idea of a temple ; particularly on the materials with which it must be built—the important character it sustains —the employment of its priesthood—and the medium through which all their sacrifices must be accepted. 1. The proper materials for the Christian temple are “lively stones;” else they will not fit a living foundation, nor unite with other living stones in the building. Beware that the desire of being a large and opulent people may never induce you to overlook this. If it ever come to this, that your members are admitted on any principle short of faith in a living Redeemer, Ichabod will be written upon your doors. 2. The important character you sustain is that of a tem- ple for God to dwell in. If the word of truth be preached among you, the worship of God preserved in its purity, and the ordinances of Christ observed according to their pri- mitive simplicity, God will dwell in you, and walk in you, and ye shall be his people, and he will be your God. He makes great account of Christian churches, as being the appointed means of establishing his kingdom among men. With what complacency did he speak of ancient Zion 1 “This is my rest for ever, here will I dwell, for I have de- sired it.”—“The Lord loveth the gates of Zion, more than all the dwellings of Jacob.” What a high degree of inter- est is Christ described as taking in the concerns of the seven churches in Asia! The same idea is conveyed by the judg- ments denounced against those who have persecuted or corrupted them. “If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy.” It was this that opened the gates and broke down the walls of old Babylon; and it is on ac- count of this that another Babylon, the antichristian church, shall come down even to the ground. “They have shed the blood of Saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink, for they are worthy.” 3. As to your employment as a holy priesthood, this is to offer up “spiritual sacrifices.” We have heard much of the Christian priesthood, as applied to ministers; but Christianity knows of no priesthood, except what is com- mon to all believers. It knows of pastors, bishops, and elders; but it is a misnomer to call them priests. It is for you all as Christians to offer up prayer and praise, both for yourselves and others; and may you continue on this spot to offer them : 4. Be not forgetful of the medium through which all your offerings become acceptable—“Jesus Christ.” We must not carry our offerings in our hand, like Cain, pre- suming to be accepted on account of them. The order of the Divine proceedings is the reverse of this. The Lord had respect, not to the offering of Abel, and so to him, but to Abel, and so to his offering. The good works of sinful creatures, even those which are most “spiritual,” are no otherwise acceptable to God than by “Jesus Christ.” The case of Job and his three friends serves to illustrate this principle. The Lord was so displeased with them, that he refused to accept even a petition at their hands. “ My Wrath,” saith he, “is kindled against you. Take your of ferings, and go to my servant Job: he shall pray for you, and him will I accept, lest Ideal with you after your foily.” Such is our case, and such the intercession of our Redeemer. Him God accepts, and through him our prayers and praises become acceptable to God. XXXVIII.— ON THE WANITY OF THE HUMAN IMIND. “The Lord knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity.”— Psal. xciv. 11. SURELY it is the design of God in all his dispensations, and by all the discoveries of his word, to stain the pride of all flesh. The dust is the proper place for a creature, and that place we must occupy. What a humbling thought is here suggested to us! Let us examine it. 1. If vanity had been ascribed to the meaner parts of the creation—if all inanimate and irrational beings, whose days are as a shadow, and who know not whence they came nor whither they go, had thus been characterized— it had little more than accorded with our own ideas. But the humiliating truth belongs to man, the lord of the lower creation—to man, that distinguished link in the chain of being which unites in his person mortality and immortality, heaven and earth. The “Lord knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity.” 2. Had vanity been ascribed only to the exercises of our sensual or mortal part, or of that which we possess in common with other animals, it had been less humiliating. But the charge is pointed at that which is the peculiar glory of man, the intellectual part, his thoughts. It is here, if any where, that we excel the creatures which are placed around us. We can contemplate our own existence, dive into the past and the future, and understand whence we came and whi- ther we go. Yet in this tender part are we touched. Even the thoughts of man are vanity. 3. If vanity had been ascribed merely to those loose and trifling excursions of the imagination which fall not under the influence of choice, a kind of comers and goers, which are ever floating in the mind, like insects in the air on a summer's evening, it had been less affecting. The soul of man seems to be necessarily active. Every thing we see, hear, taste, feel, or perceive has some influence upon thought, which is moved by it as the leaves on the trees are moved by every breeze of wind. But “thoughts” here include those exercises of the mind in which it is volun- tarily or intensely engaged, and in which we are in earn- est; even all our schemes, contrivances, and purposes. One would think, if there were any thing in man to be accounted of, it should be those exercises in which his in- tellectual faculty is seriously and intensely employed. Yet the Lord knoweth that even these are vanity. 4. If, during our state of childhood and youth only, va- nity had been ascribed to our thoughts, it would have been less surprising. This is a truth of which numberless pa- rents have painful proof; yea, and of which children them- selves, as they grow up to maturity, are generally conscious. Vanity at this period however admits of some apology. The obstinacy and folly of some young people, while they pro- voke disgust, often excite a tear of pity. But the charge is exhibited against man. “ Man at his best estate is alto- gether vanity.” 5. The decision proceeds from a quarter from which there can be no appeal: “The Lord knoweth’’ it. Opi- nions dishonourable to our species may sometimes arise from ignorance, sometimes from spleen and disappointment, and sometimes from a gloomy turn of mind, which views mankind through a distorted medium. But the judgment given in this passage is the decision of Him who cannot err; a decision therefore to which, if we had no other proof, it becomes us to accede. Put that which is here declared as the result of Divine omniscience, is abundantly confirmed by observation and experience. Let us take a brief view of the thoughts of man as exercised on two general topics—the world that now is, and that which is to come. I. WITH RESPECT TO THE PRESENT worlD, CONSIDER WHAT MULTITUDES OF THOUGHTS ARE EMPLOYED IN WA IN . 662 SERMONS AND SKETCHES. 1. In seeking satisfaction where it is not to be found.— . Most of the schemes and devices of depraved man go to the indulging of his appetite, his avarice, his pride, his revenge, or in some form or other to the gratifying of himself. Look at the thoughts of such a man as Nabal : “Shall I then take my bread and my water, and my flesh, that I have killed for my shearers, and give to I know not whom ?” Or of such a man as Haman: now aspiring to be the man whom the king delighteth to honour; now contriving the death of a whole people, in revenge of the supposed crime of an individual, Esth. iii. Such, alas ! is a great part of the world to this day. What desolations have come upon the earth through the resentments of a few individuals | And those whose situation has afforded them the greatest scope for self-gratification in all its forms are generally the furthest off from satisfaction. 2. In poring on events which cannot be recalled.—Grief, under the bereaving strokes of providence, to a certain degree, is natural, it is true, and allowable; but when carried to excess, and accompanied with despondency, and unthankfulness for continued mercies, it is a great evil. I knew a parent who lost an only child, and who never after appeared to enjoy life. It seemed to me, that if his spirit had been expressed in words, they would have been to this effect: Lord, I cannot be reconciled to thee for having taken away the darling of my heart, which thou gavest me !—All such thoughts are as vain as they are sin- ful, seeing none can make straight what God hath made crooked. 3. In anticipating evils which never befall us.—Such is our folly, that, as though the evils which necessarily at- tend the present state were not enough for us to carry, we must let loose our imaginations, and send them into the wilderness of futurity in search of ideal burdens to make up the load. This also is vanity. 4. To these may be added the valuing of ourselves on things of little or no account.—If Providence has given one a little more wealth than another—if he lives in a better house, eats better food, and wears better apparel—what a multitude of self-important thoughts do such trifles breed in the mind! But all is vanity, and rejoicing in a thing of nought. 5. In laying plans which must be disconcerted.—The infinitely wise God has laid one great plan, which com- prehends all things. If ours accord with his, they suc- ceed; if not, they are overturned, and it is fit they should. Men, in their schemes, commonly consult their own pri- vate interest; and as others are carrying on similar de- signs for themselves, they meet, and clash, and overturn one another. Thus men, partly by their plans being at variance with that of God, and partly with those of their fellow creatures, are ever exposed to disappointment and chagrin. Their lives are wholly occupied in building Babels, having them thrown down, and fretting against God and their neighbours on account of their disappoint- ImentS. In looking at the struggles of different parties for power, whether in a monarchy, and aristocracy, or a de- mocracy, one sees a dangerous rock, which multitudes are climbing at the uthiost hazard, and from which great numbers fall and perish ; and the same spirit operates through all degrees of men, according to the opportunities which they enjoy. II. LET Us see what ARE MAN's THoughTs witH REGARD TO RELIGION, AND THE CONCERNS OF A FUTURE LIFE. It might be expected that if in any thing they be other than vanity, it is in this. The thoughts of a rational and immortal creature upon its eternal interests, one would think, must be serious and solemn. When the objects of thought are—God—our accountableness to him —our sin against him—our salvation from it, or condemn- ation for it—surely we shall not trifle and deceive our- selves | Yet, alas ! so far is man from excelling in this solemn department, that there is nothing on which he thinks to so little purpose. The truth of this remark will appear from the following questions : — 1. What are the thoughts of the heathen world about re- ligion ?—In them we see what the thoughts of man, left to himself, amount to. To call them vanity is to call them by a tender name, I speak not merely of the com- mon people, who are enveloped in ignorance and super- stition, but of their wisest philosophers. To what do all their inquiries about God, the chief good, amount ? To nothing at all. All is vanity . A babe in the Christian religion, with a page of God’s word in his hand, knows more than they have been able to discover in the space of three thousand years. 2. What are all the thoughts of the Christian world, where God’s thoughts are neglected 3–Men who have the Bible in their hands, but who, instead of learning the mind of God in it, and there resting contented, are ever bent on curious speculations, prying into things beyond their reach, vainly puffed up with a fleshly mind; to what do their thoughts amount? Nothing ! They may presently lose themselves, and perplex others; they may obtain the flattery of unbelievers, and compliment one another with the epithets of candid and liberal ; they may comfort themselves in the idea of being moderate men, and not like those bigots who refuse to yield or make any conces- sions to the objections of unbelievers; but all that they gain is the friendship of the world, which is enmity to God. Were a monument erected to the memory of all those who have perished by falling from the precipice of unscriptural speculation, it could not have a more appro- priate motto than this: “Vain man would be wise.” 3. What is all that practical atheism which induces mul- titudes to act as if there were no God?—Great numbers of people in every part of the world, whatever they may call themselves, are practical atheists. They “work ini- quity in the dark, and say in their hearts, The Lord seeth us not ; the Lord has forsaken the earth.” The Lord, they think, takes no cognizance of the world now, what- ever he may have done formerly; but leaves us to shift for ourselves, and do as well as we can.—Such characters there were in the times of David ; and their presumptuous folly seems to have given occasion for the words on which these reflections are founded. They are denominated “proud; ” described as “triumphing and boasting ” in their wickedness, as “uttering hard things,” as “break- ing in pieces God’s people and afflicting his heritage,” as “slaying the widow and the stranger, and murdering the fatherless ; ” yet as saying, “The Lord shall not see, neither shall the God of Jacob regard.” Well did the psalmist admonish them, saying, “Understand, ye brutish among the people ; and ye fools, when will ye be wise ? He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? He that formed the eye, shall he not see ? He that chastiseth the heathen,” (who are without the light of revelation,) “shall not he correct ’’ those who possess and despise it? “The Lord knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity.” 4. What are all the unbelieving, self-flattering imagina- tions of wicked men, as though God were not in earnest in his declarations and threatenings —Nothing is more so- lemnly declared than that “except we be converted, and be- come as little children, we cannot enter the kingdom of God”—that “whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap”—that “neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God”—and that “without faith it is impossible to please God.” Yet the bulk of mankind do not seem to believe these things, but flatter themselves that they shall have peace, though they add drunkenness to thirst ; that to talk of a man, born in a Christian land, requiring to be born again, is enthusiastical ; that God is merciful, and will not be strict to mark iniquity ; and that if we do as well as we can—that is, as well as we can find in our hearts to do—the Almighty will desire no more. The vanity of these thoughts, prevalent as they are in the world, will appear, if not before, when God shall judge the world in righteousness by Jesus Christ. . 5. What are the conceits of the self-righteous, by which they buoy up their minds with vain hopes, and refuse to submit to the righteousness of God —Of the two first-born sons of man who presented their offerings to God, one came without a sacrifice; and the greater part of professed worshippers in all ages, it is to be feared, have followed his example. It is deeply rooted in every human heart, that if the displeasure of God be appeased towards us, or if he f * SENTENCE OF THOSE WHO LOVE NOT CHRIST. show us any favour, it must be on account of some wor- thiness found in us. To go to God as utterly unworthy, pleading the worthiness of a Mediator, and building all our hope of acceptance on his obedience and sacrifice, is a hard lesson for a proud spirit. Yet, till we learn this, we in effect learn nothing; nor will God accept our offering, any more than he accepted the offering of Cain. . . Such is the vanity of man's thoughts, in things of ever- lasting moment. But, it may be asked, are all the thoughts of men of this description ? No: the charge is directed against men as depraved, and not as renewed; for though there be much vanity in the thoughts of the best of men, yet they are not mainly so. There are thoughts which, though we are not sufficient of ourselves to obtain them, yet, being imparted to us by Him in whom is all our suf- ficiency, are not vanity. If we think of God with appro- bation, of sin with contrition, of ourselves as nothing, of Christ as all, of earth as the house of our pilgrimage, and heaven as our home ; this is thinking justly, as we ought to think. . Such thoughts also are an earnest of that state where themes of unutterable glory shall for ever present themselves; and where all our powers, being corrected and sanctified, shall ever be employed in exploring the wonders of grace. XXXIX.—EQUITY OF THE SENTENCE RECORD- ED AGAINST THOSE WHO LOVE NOT THE LORD JESUS CHRIST. “If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maran-atha.”—l Cor. xvi. 22. A SENSE of the excellence of Christ, or of his worthiness of being loved, is of great importance in religion. With- out this we can never truly love him, nor prize any thing which pertains to him. Destitute of this, we shall see his name degraded without indignation, and hear it exalted without delight. Without this, we shall esteem his salva- tion itself no otherwise than a happy expedient to escape eternal misery. In short, without this, we shall be mere statues in Christianity, bring no glory to its Author, and enjoy none of its refined pleasures. A spirit very different from this possessed the great apos- tle, when he uttered the above passage. Twenty years ago, if a soldier, who had fought under the late Marquis of Granby, had heard the language of detraction against his noble commander, deeply impressed with a sense of the hero's worth, he would have been ready to exclaim, If any man love not the Marquis of Granby, let him be banished the British dominions ! Probably, some such feelings might possess the heart of Paul, who had long served under the Lord Jesus Christ, and was deeply impressed with an idea of his innate worth. Indeed the sentence is awful. “Let him be accursed When the Lord cometh !” It probably alludes to the Jew- ish excommunications, which they tell us were of three sorts, or degrees. In the first, the offender was put out of the synagogue, or merely excommunicated; in the second, he was not only excommunicated, but anathematized, or cursed 3 in the third, (which was only for the worst, and most incorrigible,) he was not only anathematized, but con- signed over to the judgment of the great day ! The meaning of the word here seems to be, Let him be excommunicated from the presence of God and all holy beings; and as he did not love the Lord Jesus Christ as a Saviour, let him fall before him as a Judge | This sentence, however awful, is strictly equitable. The truth of this will appear by the joint consideration of three things. I. He that loves not the Lord Jesus Christ must be an ENE MY TO GOD, TO WIRTUE, AND TO ALL MORAL ExCEL- LENCE.-Such a oneness is there between God as a Law- giver and Christ as a Saviour, that what is done to the one is done to the other. The Jews, in our Saviour's time, wished to be thought friends to God, while they were ene- mies to Christ; but, “If God were your Father,” saith he, “ye would love me.” And again, “I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you. I am come in my Fa- 663 ther's name, and ye receive me not.” The same thing is observable now, among the deists, who would be thought friends to the one Supreme Being, but enemies to Chris- tianity. And indeed this deistical spirit seems greatly to prevail in multitudes that are not professed deists, espe- cially among some in the higher ranks, who, though they can now and then assume so much fortitude as to speak re- spectfully of the Supreme Being, yet would be ashamed that a word should be heard from their lips in defence of Christ or Christianity. It were to be wished, too, that none of those who sustain the character of Christian minis- ters had ever discovered the same spirit. This is very awful! But whatever we may think here, and whatever character we may sustain, it will be found at last that “whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father 1’’ 1. If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, he can have no regard to the authority of God as a Lawgiver, see- ing it was this that he came into the world to maintain. When devils had cast off God’s yoke as grievous, and prac- tically declared him a tyrant; and men had followed their example, judging it too mean a thing, it seems, for ever to be so kept under rule; then the Son of God came down, and, in the presence of these revolters, was subject to the very law which they had discarded. Though he was under no natural obligation to come under the law, yet, that he might show how worthy he thought it of being obeyed, and thus wipe off the foul reproach, “he learned obedience.” Yea, that it might be seen how “easy” a yoke it was, and thence the unreasonableness and wickedness of their re- volt, he declared, whatever others might think, it was his “meat to do the will of his Father l’” If any man, there- fore, love not the Lord Jesus Christ, he cannot love the law of God, but must be of Satan’s mind, accounting it a severe law, and obedience to it slavery ; and thus he must be an enemy to God. 2. If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, he can have no regard to the honour of God’s justice being secured. If we had a proper regard to the justice of God, we could not bear the thought of salvation itself being erected upon its ruins. To desire such a thing would be nothing less than desiring to depose the King of the universe; for justice and judgment are the basis of his throne. If a fallen creature loved God, and could see no way for his own salvation but what must be at the expense of truth and equity, his soul must be filled with inexpressible distress. If the way of salvation by Jesus Christ were then to be preached to him —a way wherein, through his glorious sacrifice, God could be just, and the justifier of him that believed in Jesus—how would his spirit revive within him : With what joy of heart would he acquiesce in a plan wherein mercy and truth could meet together . The more he loved God, the more he would love Him who out of love to equity invited the sword of vengeance to plunge itself in his heart, say- ing, “Father, glorify thy name 1” But if Christ and his way of salvation have no charms in our eyes—if we would barely like to be justified, (that is, freed from condemna- tion,) but care not how ; and think, as to God being just therein, he must see to that—is it not evident that we have no love to God, truth, or righteousness? 3. If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, he gives proof that God’s grand enemy being defeated, and all his counsels turned into foolishness, affords him no pleasure; and consequently he can be no friend of God, but an enemy. If we love our prince, we shall rejoice at his enemies being overthrown, and admire that noble commander who, by hazarding his life in the high places of the field, should put them to confusion. If any monster had been so unfeeling, in the day when David slew Goliath and saved Israel, as to have had no love to the young hero, would he not have been deemed an enemy to his king and country, and suspected of being on the side of the Philistines? Now, as the Lord Jesus Christ entered the field, and with his own arm spoiled principalities and powers, broke the serpent’s head, routed his forces, and ruined his scheme, if we love not him, whatever we may pretend, we must be enemies to God, and on the side of Satan. 4. In short, if any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, he must be an enemy to all moral excellence; for of this he was a perfect model, both living and dying. God himself 664 SERMONS AND SEETCHES. hath borne witness of him that “ he loved righteousness, and hated iniquity.” He lived to set forth the amiable- ness of the one, and died that God in him might show his abhorrence of the other. He lived and died that God’s character in saving sinners might be untainted with moral turpitude. It may well therefore be said of him—“The wpright love thee!” Christ is the sum and centre of all excellence. Perhaps we cannot form a better idea of him than as an assemblage of all goodness, a Being in whom all excellences meet. To have no love to him, then, is to have no love to moral excellence, and so to be an enemy to all good. Such a character surely deserves to be anathematized from God and all holy beings | II. He that loves not the Lord Jesus Christ must be AN ENE MY TO MANKIND. Perhaps it might be asked, Cannot people be possessed of humanity without being the sub- jects of Christianity? It is answered, No, not in the full extent of that term. It is not denied but that people may wish well to one another's temporal interests—may wish to promote their health, and wealth, and reputation—may live in friendship with mankind, and be of a compassionate spirit to the poor—and may have no design in what they do to destroy their souls. But all this is no more than an over-indulgent parent may feel, who yet interpretatively, by sparing the rod, is said to hate his son ; and it is com- mon to say, in such cases, the parent was the child’s enemy. Yea, it is very little, if any thing, more than thieves and robbers may exercise towards their comrades. Here is one of that character, for instance, draws a young man into his practices : he has no intention to bring him to the gal- lows, or himself either; and he may wish his health and prosperity, and pity and relieve him in distress. All this is good ; but could it appear from this that he was not his enemy in setting him against his own interests, and se- ducing him away from his best friends? Is he not his enemy? But to come nearer to the point— The Lord Jesus Christ is the best Friend to mankind that ever existed : if therefore any man bear true love to the souls of men, and seek their real welfare, it is impos- sible but that he should love the Lord Jesus Christ. We should deem him an enemy to mankind, who, if a skilful and generous physician came into our parts and healed all gratis who applied to him, should endeavour to prejudice the minds of people against him. An enemy to Joseph, who was the saviour of Egypt and the adjacent countries, would have been deemed an enemy to mankind. But what were these ? Christ has healed the tremendous breach between God and man, has rescued millions and millions from eternal ruin, and is still “able and willing to save to the uttermost all them that come unto God by him.” If any man therefore love not the Lord Jesus Christ, surely he deserves, as an enemy to the public good, to be excommunicated from the society of the blessed. But may there not be a newtrality exercised in this affair 2 If some do not love Christ, does it follow that such are his enemies 2 Yes, it does. This is a cause wherein the idea of neutrality is inadmissible and impos- sible. They that are not with him are declared to be against him. III. He that loves not the Lord Jesus Christ must be AN ENE MY TO HIMSELF.—To be an enemy to Christ is to be guilty of the most awful kind of suicide. “All they that hate him” are said to “ love death.”. Christ is the only door of hope for any lost sinner: to hate him, there- fore, is to hate ourselves. Had Naaman continued to de- spise the waters of Jordan, people would have thought that he had had no love for himself. If a company of wretches who had escaped a shipwreck were in an open boat at sea, and if, on the appearance of a friendly vessel bearing down upon them, they were so infatuated that, instead of implor- ing assistance, they should treat it with every mark of in- dignity and contempt, we should say, they love death—they deserve to perish. If the power of Christ's anger be con- sidered, it will amount to the same thing. For a man to rouse a lion would seem as if he were weary of his life; much more to provoke the Lion of the tribe of Judah. Of him it may well be said, “Who shall rouse him up 3’’ If a person then be an enemy to God, to mankind, and to himself, surely it is but right and fit he should be ex- communicated from the society of God, and all holy beings, as an enemy to being in general. Surely he that loves not God ought to be accursed from God; he that loves not mankind ought to be banished, to take his lot among devils, as we should banish a murderer from the society of men ; and he that loves not himself, but seeks his own ruin, ought to find it. Upon the whole, if the foregoing thoughts be just, then that distinction has been made without ground, that sin- ners will not be punished for their not loving the Lord Jesus Christ, but only for the breach of God’s law ; as if the want of love to Christ were not a breach of the law. So far from this, it is such a breach of it as perhaps cannot be equalled by any other case whatever. It is at once a breach of the whole law, and that in the highest degree. What doth the law require, but love to God, love to our neighbour, and love to ourselves 2 These are the whole of what is included in that summary given of it by our Lord ; and these we have seen are all broken, and that in the highest degree, in the want of love to Christ. Oh how is it that we are not all excommunicated and accursed of God? Afe we better than others? No, in nowise. God might justly have banished us from the abodes of the blessed. It is all of grace, free, sovereign, and great grace, if we are brought to love him, and so escape the awful curse; and for this we can never be suf- ficiently thankful. xL-FELLOWSHIP OF GOD's PEOPLE IN EVIL TIMES. “Then they that feared the Lord spoke often one to another: and the Lord hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon his name. And they shall be mine, saith the Lord of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels: and I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him.”—Mal. iii. 16, 17. WE often hear people complain of the times, and of the low state of religion; but good men will be good men in the worst of times, and that which others make an excuse will to them furnish a motive to speak often one to an- other. In the Jewish worship, all who were of Abraham's seed mingled together; yet even then the godly found one another out: “I am a companion of all those that fear God.” I. NoTICE THE CHARACTER OF THESE TIMEs. The pro- phet Malachi lived some time after Nehemiah, when the Jews were become very degenerate. 1. Great degeneracy among the priests—sordid despisers of religion. God speaks of what a true priest should be, but charges, them with the reverse, chap. ii. 5–8. The consequence was, as might be expected, they were despised by the people. 2. Great degeneracy among the common people—profane towards God, and treacherous towards one another—fre- quent divorces for trivial causes, yet full of excuses. 3. Even the professed worshippers of God had a great deal of hypocrisy. 4. All these things put together proved a stumbling-block to people in general. Wicked men were reckoned happy and promoted, and providence seemed to favour them ; hence infidelity and atheism abounded : yet even “THEN they that feared the Lord spoke often one to another.” II. OBSERVE THE CHARACTER AND CONDUCT OF THE GoDLY IN THESE TIMEs. 1. They are characterized as fearing the Lord. The phrase may be more expressive of the Old Testament than the New ; but it is characteristic of good men under any dispensation. It denotes that filial reverence of God’s name, and fear of offending or dishon- ouring him, which a truly good man possesses. 2. They are described as keeping up a close communion with one another. The world was alive, and they were alive. The seed of the serpent leagued, and the seed of the woman communed together. You may be sure their conversation was edifying, or it would not have been recorded. They might have occasion to reprove, to admonish, to counsel, to exhort, to encourage, to instruct. Such a state of things is necessary, especially in evil times. The more wicked the world, the more need of Christian fellowship. 3. Their PUBLIC WORSHIP. 665 doing this is called thinking upon God's name. Thinking here is not opposed to speaking, (for they that speak are the same persons as those who think,) but to forgettººg. While others cared not for God's name, their thoughts were occupied about it. God’s interest lay near their hearts; they grieved for its dishonour, and concerted plans for its promotion. If we love his name, it will occupy our thoughts. III. THE FAVOURABLE NOTICE TAKEN OF THIS CONDUCT. It seems they were retired from the notice of the multi- tude; perhaps like the disciples, for fear of the Jews. They might be apprehensive-lest any should hearken and hear them. One, however, did so, and took down their conversation too, not literally, for God needs no book but his own mind. This will be brought out at judgment, Matt. xxv. They that think of him here will be remem- bered by him there, and when they have forgotten it. “They shall be mine in that day.” That day shall be a day of general destruction, like that of a tempest to ship- ping, and then nothing is spared but the most valuable things or persons, as jewels. Cities, nations, sea, land, heaven, earth, all will be one general wreck ; or, lest this should not be sufficiently strong, he will spare them as a man spareth his son—as his own son, whose life is bound up with his own. Which of these characters is ours? Will our conversation bear writing in a book? XLI. PUBLIC WORSHIP. “Bless ye God in the congregations, even the Lord, from the foun- tain of Israel. There is little Benjamin with their ruler, the princes of Judah and their council, the princes of Zebulun, and the princes of Naphtali. Thy God hath commanded thy strength : strengthen, O God, that which thou hast wrought for us.”—Psal. lxviii. 26–28. THIS Psalm was sung, it is probable, on the removal of the ark into the city of David, Numb. x. It was now that the ark had rest, and the tribes assembled three times a year at Jerusalem, the place that God had chosen. The text is a lively description of their worship. I. OFFER A Few REMARKS BY way of ExPoUNDING THE PASSAGE. 1. Israel had their lesser congregations in ordi- nary every sabbath day, and their national ones three times a year. Their business in all was to bless God. 2. This business was to be carried on by all Israel, beginning at the fountain-head, and proceeding through all its streams. God had blessed Israel ; let Israel bless God. 3. All the tribes are supposed to be present; four are mentioned in the name of the whole as inhabiting the confines of the land. Their union was a source of joy; they had been divided by civil wars, but now they are met together. 4. Those tribes which are named had each something par- ticular attending it. Little Benjamin (see Judg. xxi.) had nearly been a tribe lacking in Israel, but now appears With its ruler. Judah had been at war with Benjamin : Saul was a Benjamite; David was of Judah : yet they happily lost their antipathies in the worship of God. Ze- bulun and Naphtali were distant tribes, yet they were there dark too—yet there. 5. The princes and the peo- ple were all together. 6. They were supposed to be strong, but were reminded that what they had of strength was of God’s commanding. Their union and Success, as well as that degree of righteousness among them which exalted the nation, was of God. 7. They are not so strong but that they need strengthening, and are directed to pray as well as praise. “Strengthen, O God, that which thou hast wrought for us.” . II. APPLY THE SUBJECT. Two things are here exem- plified, mamely, diligence and brotherly union; and three things recommended, namely, united praise—united ac- knowledgment that, for what they are, they are indebted to God—and united prayer for future mercies. Each of these affords a rule for us. 1. The worship of God must be attended with diligence. There are the princes of Zebulun and Naphtali. They had to travel above 200 miles three times a year, thither and back again, that is, 1200 in a year, twenty-four miles a week. Those who neglect the worship of God for little difficulties show that their heart is not in it; and when they do attend, cannot expect to profit: “they have snuffed at it.” Those whose hearts are in it often reap great ad- vantage. God blessed the Israelites in their journeys, as well as when there, Psal. lxxxiv. 6, “the rain filleth the pools;” and so Christians. There is a peculiar promise to those that seek him early. - 2. The worship of God must be attended to with bro- therly love. All the tribes must go up together. It is a kind law that enjoins social worship ; we need each other to stimulate. “O magnify the Lord with me, and let us exalt his name together.” God has made us so that we shall be greatly influenced by each other, both to good and evil. It greatly concerns us to cultivate such a spirit; to this end we must cherish an affectionate behaviour in our common intercourse—bear, forbear, and forgive ; and what- ever differences we may have, not suffer them to hinder our worship. The tribes, as we have seen, had their differ- ences, yet they were there. When all Israel met at Hebron to anoint David king, what should we have said if some had kept away because others went? 3. Our business, when assembled, must be to bless God in our congregations; and a pleasant work this is. Israel had reasons, and great reasons—and Christians more. Thank him for his unspeakable gift—bless him for the means of grace and the hopes of glory. Bless him—he “healeth all thy diseases,” &c., Psal. ciii. This is an em- ployment that fits for heaven. The tears of a mourner in God’s house were supposed to defile his altar. We may mourn for sin ; but a fretful, discontented, and unthank- ful spirit defiles God’s altar still. 4. Another part of our business is to unite in acknow- ledging that, whatever we are, we owe it to God alone : “Thy God hath commanded thy strength.” We possess a degree of strength both individually and socially. Art thou strong in faith, in hope, in zeal 4 It is in Him thou art strong. Are we strong as a society ? It is God that increased us with men like a flock; it is he that keeps us in union, gives us success, &c. 5. Another part of our business must be to unite in prayer for future mercies. We are not so strong, either as individuals or societies, but that there is room for increase, and this is the proper object of prayer. God has wrought a great work for us in regeneration. God has wrought much for us as a church in giving us increase, respect, and room in the earth. Pray that each may be increased ; or, in the words of the text, “Strengthen, O God, that which thou hast wrought for us.” Are there none who are strangers to all this? XLII.-GREAT SINNERS ENCOURAGED TO RETURN TO GOD. “But if from thence thou shalt seek the Lord thy God, thou shalt find him, * thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul.”— Deut. iv. 29. THERE is a mixture of mercy and judgment in all the sacred writings. The New Testament contains some awful threat- enings. “He that believeth not shall be damned.”—“If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Ana- thema Maran-atha.” On the other hand, the law of Moses is interspersed with mercy. As the whole passage has im- mediate respect to Israel, it doubtless refers to their sins, their captivity and troubles, and to God’s great mercy to them in remembrance of the covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And as mention is made of “the latter days,” it seems to be not merely an encouragement to them to return, but a prophecy which has yet to be accom- plished. Yes, when the Spirit of grace and supplication is poured out upon them, it shall be fulfilled. But though it may specially refer to Israel, it is no less applicable to us Gentiles. We are sinners, and have brought innumerable miseries on ourselves, and there is but one refuge for us to seek to—and if we seek him with all our heart and soul, we shall find mercy; for the Lord our God is a merciful God. 666 SERMONS AND SKETCHES. I. NoTICE A Few CASEs To wiricit THIS LANGUAGE AP- PLIES.—The description given of an impenitent people is— “No man spoke aright, saying, What have I done 3’” Were we to institute such an inquiry, and answer accord- ing to truth, what would the answer be? 1. One would say, I have gone great lengths in sin : I lived without restraint ; I was a drunkard, a blasphemer, an injurious person to all I had to do with ; and now God has brought me into troubles—I am hated and despised by my relations and neighbours—I cannot live long, and yet fear to die. Yet, “if from thence thou shalt seek the Lord thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul.” 2. Another says, I was born of religious parents; I was long weary of religion and wished to be free. At length my father died, and I gave myself up to evil; and now my troubles are come upon me, no one respects me, nor careth for my soul; I was undutiful to my parents, and now my children are so to me. But, “if from thence,” &c. 3. Another may say, My conduct has been correct and orderly, so as to obtain the approbation of those about me; but I have valued myself upon it, have lived with- out God, and never sought mercy as a guilty creature; I have lived a Pharisee; and now I feel the want of some- thing in which to appear before God. Well, “if from thence,” &c. 4. Another—I have made a profession of religion and thought well of my state, and talked to others, and was thought well of by others; but I indulged first in little and secret sins, and after this they became greater and more exposed; and now I am an outcast—every one shuns me. Yet, “if from thence,” &c. 5. Though I have not lost my character, yet I have lost my peace of mind ; I have not walked with God, and God seems to have departed from me; I cannot pray, nor read, nor hear to profit ; I can enjoy no pleasure in the world nor in religion; I feel myself a backslider in heart, and God has filled me with my own ways. But, “if from thence thou shalt seek the Lord thy God, thou shalt find . if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul.” II. OBSERVE THE GROUNDs on which THE ENcourAGE- MENT REST.S. 1. The merciful character of God. Isa. lv. 7, “Let the wicked forsake his ways,” &c. No sins are so great or numerous but that he can forgive them : “if with all thy heart,” &c. 2. The covenant which God made with the fathers, and much more with his Son. There is this difference be- tween uncovenanted and covenanted mercy; the one has no promises, the other has many. God has pledged his perfections, that whosoever believeth in him shall be saved. No ground therefore to despair; whatever thy condition, how far soever from God, return to him through his dear Son, and you will obtain mercy. XLIII.-CONSOLATION TO THE AFFLICTED. “I go to prepare a place for you"; and if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself, that where I am, there ye may be also. And whither I go we k d y know.”—John xiv. 2–4. go ye know, and the way ye IF our Saviour had been going to some unknown place, where we must not follow him, we might well be unhappy; but “whither I go ye know.” It is true we know no. thing of an hereafter beyond what God in his word hath told us; but those lively oracles are a light in a dark place, whose cheering beams pierce the otherwise impervious gloom of futurity. When a dying heathem was asked Whither he was going, he replied, O my friends, we know nothing of an hereafter | Such also must have been our answer, but for the glorious gospel of the blessed God. As it is, we know whither our Redeemer is gone. He is gone to his Father, and to our Father; to his God, and to our God. He is gone to Mount Zion, the city of the living God, to the innumerable company of angels, to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to God the Judge of all. Whither he is gone we know, for we have had a fore- taste of the bliss. As believers we also are already come to Mount Zion. The church below and the church above are only different branches of the same family, so that he who is come to one is come to the other. But how are we to follow him, unless we “know the way ?” If he “come and receive us,” he will be our guide. And this is not all : “the way we know.” Thomas thought he knew not whither his Lord was going, nor the way that led to him ; yet he knew his Lord, and believed in him as the Son of God and the Saviour of sinners. Jesus therefore answered him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life;” knowing me, you know the way to the heavenly world. Yes, we not only know whither our Saviour is gone, but the way that leads to him. The doctrine of the cross, as dear Pearce observed, is the only religion for a dying sinner. If an affectionate father had resolved to remove to a distant country, he might not take his family with him in the first instance, but might choose to go by himself, to encounter and remove the chief difficulties in the way, and make ready a habitation to receive them. Such in effect was the conduct of our Saviour. “I go to prepare a place for you ; and if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you unto myself, that where I am, there ye may be also.” His passage through the territories of death was attended with the most dreadful of all conflicts; but, having overcome, it renders ours an easy one. Death to us is Jesus “coming to receive us to himself.” 1. The presence of a beloved object is the grand pre- parative of any place, and that which gives it its principal charm. Such is the preparation of a place in the future world for us. Jesus is there, and that is quite enough. If any thing will operate as a magnet to attract us from earth to heaven, it is the consideration of being “where Jesus sitteth at the right hand of God.” Think what an accession of joy his triumphant entrance must have occa- sioned through all the heavenly regions, and what a source of uninterrupted bliss his presence affords. What would some societies be without certain interesting characters, which are in effect the life of them 3 And what would heaven be without Christ? The zest of all its bliss con- sists in his being there, and this is urged as the grand motive to “setting our affections on things above,” Col. iii. 1, 2. 2. There also he will gather together the whole family of heaven and earth. His redemption brings multitudes to glory, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; and every one that enters adds to the enjoy- ment. In order to connect us together in the closest bonds of affection, God has so ordained, that both in this world and that which is to come our blessedness should be bound up with that of each other; in seeing the good of his chosen, rejoicing in the gladness of his nation, and glorying with his inheritance. Hence it follows that every accession to the heavenly world affords an influx to the enjoyment of its inhabitants. Every one that goes before may be said to contribute to the preparing of the place for them which follow after. The pure river of the water of life has its origin in the throne of God and of the Lamb ; but in its progress it passes through various me- diums, which swell its streams, and render it more and more delectable. From the entrance of righteous Abel into the new Jerusalem, to this day, it has been rising higher and higher, and will continue to do so till all the nations of the saved are gathered together. 3. Christ prepares a place for us, in superintending the concerns of the universe, and causing all events to work together and produce the highest ultimate good. Glory awaits the righteous immediately upon their departure from the body, but a much greater glory is in reserve. Innumerable events in the system of providence must re- main inexplicable, till the mystery of God be finished. It is impossible for spectators to comprehend the use of all the parts of a complicate machine, till it is constructed and put into motion. And as our Forerunner is now pre- paring the scenery of this grand exhibition, and hastening ON COWETOUSNESS. 667 'it to its desired issue, it is thus that he is preparing a place for us. Hence we are encouraged to be looking for, and hasting unto, the coming of the day of God, and directed to con- sider it as the period when we shall be fully “satisfied.” How solemn, and yet how sweet, is the description of it! “The Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and the trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first.” A “shout” perhaps denotes the universal joy of heaven, for the arrival of the day when the war is terminated in victory, and the last enemy is destroyed. The blowing of a “trumpet” may probably allude to that of the jubilee, on which the prison doors were thrown open, and the captives set at liberty. Such were the consolations presented to the Thessalonians, on the death of their Christian friends. Our Lord did not absolutely forbid his apostles to weep at his departure; he himself wept at the grave of Laza- rus; but he dissuaded them from eaccessive grief. “Let not your heart be troubled.” I think I never felt what may be called heart trouble, or deep distress, for the loss of any person, however near to me, whose death I con- sidered merely as a removal to the church above. The words of our Saviour are here applicable : “If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I go to the Father; for my Father is greater than I.” That is, the glory I go to possess with my Father is greater than any thing I could inherit upon earth; and therefore, if ye loved me, and your love operated in a proper way, you would rather be glad for my sake than sorry for your own. XLIV.—ON COVETOUSINESS. “And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness; for a man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.”—Luke xii. 15. WHEN our Lord was preaching on subjects of eternal im- portance, a certain young man interrupted him, requesting him to speak to his brother to divide the inheritance with him. It seems as if his father had lately died, and that his brother could not be induced to do him justice in the division of the estate. He might possibly have heard of some such case as that of Zaccheus; in which Jesus, by a few words speaking, had rendered a selfish man both just and generous. Jesus, however, instead of complying with his wishes, disclaims having any thing to do in such matters; and warns others, from his example, to “take heed and beware of covetousness.” Allowing the propriety of our Lord’s declining to be a judge in such matters, as not comporting with the spirit- ual nature of his kingdom, yet how was it that he should take occasion hence to warn his followers against the sin of covetousness 3 There is nothing in the story that gives us to suppose that the young man coveted what was not his own. Wherein then consisted his sin 3 Let us sup- pose a person under a mortal disease, who, seeing an eminent physician passing by him, instead of telling him his case, should request him to settle a dispute in his fa- mily What should we say? If any thing, it would be to this effect:—Settle those matters as you can ; in apply- ing to the physician, treat him in character, and have re- gard to your life.—For a sinner to come to the Saviour on a mere secular business, and this while his soul was in a perishing condition, must prove his heart to be set supremely on this world, and his regard to Christ to be only a wish to render him subservient to his temporal interest. Here then we perceive the species of covetousness that our Lord meant to censure. It is not that which breaks out in acts of robbery, theft, or oppression—not that which withholds the hire of the labourer, or studies the arts of fraud—it is not any thing, in short, which respects the conduct of man to man; but that which immediately relates to God, withholding the heart from him, and giv- ing it to the world. Such is the idea conveyed by the parable of the rich fool, which is here introduced by our Lord in illustration of the subject. He is not accused of any thing injurious to those about him ; his “grounds brought forth plenti- fully;” and who can blame him for this All that he proposed was, by the bounty of Providence on his labours, to accumulate a fortune, and then to spend it on himself. And what harm (most men will ask) was there in this? Truly, it is the general opinion of mankind that this is all fair and right. If a man regard not God, but himself only, so long as he acts well towards them, he will not only be acquitted, but applauded at their tribunal : “Men will praise thee when thou doest well to thyself.” Howbeit, this is not the doctrine of Christ. In his ac- count, it is not the miser only that is covetous, but he who sets his heart upon the world, rather than God, even though he lays out a part of his substance in building and other accommodations; and proposes, when he has got things a little in order, to “eat, drink, and be merry” with the surplus. In the case of the young man who came to Christ on a secular errand, we see that things in themselves lawful, by being pursued out of place and out of season, may become sinful. It is lawful at proper seasons and in subordination to higher objects to follow our worldly affairs; but if we go to the house of God with this end in view, it is pro- faning it. The same is true if while we are there our thoughts are employed in forming plans and schemes for the week, by which we may promote our temporal interest. Such things are: nor is it confined to the house of God. Even when upon our knees, the busy mind will wander after this and that pursuit, till we have in a manner for- gotten where we are Nor does the evil of such things consist merely in a few volatile wandering thoughts, but in that of which they are an indication ; namely, a mind cleaving to the earth instead of ascending to God. In the case of this young man, we may also see the danger of regarding Christ and religion in only a secondary or sub- ordinate manner, while the world is treated as supreme. Religion may have changed a bad husband into a good one, or induced a customer to leave off his expensive ha- bits, and to pay his bills with punctuality and promptitude, and as such you may respect it ; but such respect will not be approved of Christ. If we have any thing to do with him, it must be in his proper character of Lord and Saviour. To attempt to render his religion subservient to worldly interest, is to lean upon him while you are worshipping in the temple of mammon. It was not without cause that our Saviour said, on this occasion, “Take heed, and beware of covetousness : ” Truly, this is a sin which presents itself under so many specious forms and names, which so insensibly insinuates itself on almost all occasions, and which may be indulged with so little danger of losing our good name among men, that without much prayer and watchfulness against it, and much communion with Christ, there is no hope of overcoming it. In observing my own mind, and the behaviour of my acquaintance, I see matter for both pleasure and pain. I see a goodly number of professing Christians who appear to me to live “not unto themselves, but unto him that died for them and rose again.” I see some of this de- scription into whose hands God is pouring plenty, and who, though continually imparting, still increase. The poor people of Glasgow used to say of a late great and good man in that city, “David Dale gives his money by sho’elsful, and God Almighty sho’els it back again.” Characters like-minded still live; and long may they live and be blessings to the world ! They afford a striking con- trast to those described by David : “Let them be as grass upon the housetop, which withereth before it groweth up ; where with the mower filleth not his hand, nor he that bindeth sheaves his bosom ; neither do they that go by say, The blessing of the Lord be upon you !—we bless you in the name of the Lord ' '’ Nor is it in men of opulence only that this grace shines : I see men who have learned to be economical in order to be generous; men whose deep poverty abounds to the riches of their liberality / This is to “cast our bread upon the waters; ” and this may be more in the esteem of Christ than the most splendid donations of those who, in giving, exercise no self-denial. 668 SERMONS AND SKETCHES. But I see, on the other hand, not only sordid misers, but men who profess godliness, and who would be thought liberal, full of anxiety about appearance. They must dress, visit, and show away in their circle. The conse- quence is, they have nothing to spare in the way of doing good ; or if they give a little, it is chiefly to save appear- ances. It may be thought this belongs to vanity rather than covetousness ; it is, however, living to ourselves ra- ther than God; and this is the covetousness against which our Saviour warns us. - There are three descriptions of men, each of which, if I mistake not, has some peculiar temptations to this sin ; and who, if destitute of grace, are likely to be carried away by it; these are the prosperous, the aged, and the professor of religion. With respect to the prosperous, it is a fact which falls under common observation, that men who while possessing little were compassionate and willing to communicate, when they come to rise in the world, are hard-hearted, and part with their money with great reluctance. . This is not difficult to be accounted for. While necessity calls for nearly the whole of what is received, there is no room for a plan of accumulation; but when money flows in, and rises beyond the mark of immediate want, and the advan- tages of it begin to be felt, a saving system is adopted, and the mind is employed in calculating the number of years necessary to the arrival at such and such a point; and when this comes to be the case, every application for be- nevolence strikes a damp upon the spirits, as interfering with the system, and lengthening the time ere it will reach the proposed point. Hence arises the force of the caution, “If riches increase, set not your heart upon them.” Hence also we perceive the folly and self-deception of thinking—If we had such a one's estate, what great things we should do or if we should live to possess so and so, then how charitable we will be . All such thoughts are framed to excuse the neglect of present duty, and are as if a person engaged in a race should desire, in order to make Swifter progress, to have his feet laden with thick clay. With respect to the aged, it is a fact which also falls under common observation, that persons as they get older get more covetous. This observation, however, is not universally true. There is a goodly number of men who bring forth other “fruits in old age;” or who, as they draw nearer to heaven, become more heavenly-minded. The truth seems to be, that as every principle tends to maturity, those who have been covetous in their younger years, provided there be no change of heart, will be more covetous in old age. The stream of depravity in early life had several channels, such as the lust of the flesh and the pride of life, and these would of course diminish the strength of avarice; but in the last stages of life those channels are in a manner stopped by the decay of the natural powers, and the whole current flows in one direc- tion. Hence we perceive many an old wealthy churl living to himself, and repelling every application for a Di- vine or benevolent object: “Who is David 3 and who is the son of Jesse? There be many servants now-a-days that break away every man from his master. Shall I then take my bread, and my water, and my flesh that I have killed for my shearers, and give it unto men whom I know not whence they be 3’’ When I see such a spirit in aged people, recollecting that every principle, as was said, tends to maturity, I cannot help considering it as a strong indication that they have all their lives been under the dominion of this vice, only that it has been checked by a regard to appearances, and it may be by other vices; and that they are now fast ripen- ing for destruction. But in what way, it will be asked, are the third class, namely, professors of religion, subject to this sin, more than other men 3. As a fact, it has long impressed my mind, and I conceive it is not difficult to be accounted for. Supposing a person to be merely a professor, whatever im- pedes his evil propensity in all directions but one, will be certain to strengthen it in respect of that one. This is exactly the case as to a profession of religion. If you would be thought a Christian, you must not be a drunkard, nor a debauchee, nor a gamester, nor a liar, nor a blas- phemer, nor an injurious person; but you may love the world more than God ; for this, being confined to things between God and your own conscience, does not fall un- der human cognizance; or though it may affect your liber- ality to men, yet, as the discipline of the New Testament leaves every man to judge of his own ability, and to give what he gives not as it were of necessity, but willingly, you may here live undetected, and with a little management unsuspected, by your brethren. Of this the case of Judas Iscariot will furnish you with a notable example ! In this view, perhaps, Dissenters from the Established Church may be more in danger of indulging in covetous- ness than in most other evils. They are shut out from things which are principally adapted to feed other disposi- tions as well as this ; such as promotion in the church, in the army, and in the navy. The chief openings for them are found in manufactures, trade, and husbandry; open- ings which it is certainly very lawful for them to embrace, but which, in case of success attending them, are often great temptations to covetousness. I close with two remarks:–First, That the danger of falling into covetousness is not confined to the mere pro- fessor: a Christian may be greatly impeded by it in his way to heaven, and like Lot, whose heart was seduced by the well-watered plains of Sodom, may die under a cloud. Lastly, That the most effectual preservative from this sin, as well as others, is believingly to converse with the doc- trine of the cross. By this the world was crucified to the apostle, and he unto the world. XLV.—MYSTERIOUS NATURE OF MAN. “I am fearfully and wonderfully made.”—Psal. cxxxix. 14. THE term “fearful” is sometimes to be taken subjectively, for our being possessed of fear. In this sense it signifies the same as timid. Thus the prophet was directed to say to them that were of a “fearful heart, Be strong.” At other times it is taken objectively, for that property in an object the contemplation of which excites fear in the be- holder. Thus it is said of God that he is “fearful in praises,” and that it is a “fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” In this sense it is manifestly to be understood in the passage now under consideration. The human frame is so admirably constructed, so deli- cately combined, and so much in danger of being dissolved by innumerable causes, that the more we think of it, the more we tremble, and wonder at our own continued ex- istence. “How poor, how rich, how abject, how august, How complicate, how wonderful is man How passing wonder He who made him such, Who mingled in our make such strange extremes Of different natures, marvellously mixed Helpless immortal, insect infinite, A worm, a god—I tremble at myself!” To do justice to the subject, it would be necessary to be well acquainted with anatomy. I have no doubt that a thorough examination of that “substance which God hath curiously wrought,” ver, 15, would furnish abundant evi- dence of the justness of the psalmist's words; and even those things which are manifest to common observation may be sufficient for this purpose. In general, it is ob- servable that the human frame abounds with avenues at which enter every thing conducive to preservation and comfort, and every thing that can excite alarm. Perhaps there is not one of these avenues but what may become an inlet to death, nor one of the blessings of life but what may be the means of accomplishing it. We live by inha- lation, but we also die by it. Diseases and death, in in- numerable forms, are conveyed by the very air we breathe. God hath given us a relish for divers aliments, and ren- dered them necessary to our subsistence ; yet, from the abuse of them, what a train of disorders and premature deaths are found amongst men . And where there is no abuse, a single delicious morsel may, by the evil design of another, or even by mere accident, convey poison through all our veins, and in one hour reduce the most athletic frame to a corpse. MYSTERIOUS NATURE OF MAN. 669 The elements of fire and water, without which we could not subsist, contain properties which in a few moments would be able to destroy us; nor can the utmost cir- cumspection at all times preserve us from their destructive power. A single stroke on the head may divest us of reason or of life. A wound or a bruise of the spine may instantly deprive the lower extremities of all sensation. If the vital parts be injured, so as to suspend the perform- ance of their mysterious functions, how soon is the consti- tution broken up ! By means of the circulation of the blood, how easily and suddenly are deadly substances dif- fused throughout the frame ! Through this fearful medium, not only the taint of vice rankles in the veins of the de- bauchee, but virtue itself may destroy us. The putridity of a morbid subject has been imparted to the very hand stretched out to save it. The poisoned arrow, the enven- omed dart, the hydrophobic saliva, derive from hence their fearful efficacy. Even the pores of the skin, necessary as they are to life, may be the means of death. Not only are poisonous substances hereby admitted, but, when ob- structed by surrounding damps, the noxious humours of the body, instead of being emitted, are retained in the sys- tem, and become productive of numerous diseases, always afflictive, and often fatal to life. From these few instances we may learn our absolute de- pendence upon Divine preservation. So numerous are the avenues at which death may enter, that no human foresight can possibly render us secure for a single moment: and even those dangers which may in a measure be avoided require for this purpose the regular exercise of reason ; but reason itself depends upon a variety of minute causes, over which we have no control. Instead of wondering at the number of premature deaths that are constantly wit- nessed, there is far greater reason to wonder that there are no more, and that any of us survive to seventy or eighty years of age. “Our life contains a thousand springs, And dies if one be gone : Strange that a harp of thousand strings Should keep in tune so long.” Assuredly, it can be ascribed to nothing short of the mighty power and all-pervading providence of God. A proper sense of this truth, while it would prevent us from presumptuously exposing ourselves to unnecessary injury, would induce us to commit ourselves to the Divine protec- tion in every danger which duty calls us to encounter. Nor is this all. If we are “fearfully made ’’ as to our animal frame, it will be found that we are much more so considered as moral and accountable beings. In what re- lates to our animal nature, we are in most instances con- structed like other animals; but in what relates to us as moral agents, we stand distinguished from all the lower creation. We are made for eternity. The present life is only the introductory part of our existence. It is that however which stamps a character on all that follows. How fearful is our situation : What innumerable influ- ences is the mind exposed to from the temptations which surround us! Not more dangerous to the body is the pes- tilence that walketh in darkness than these are to the soul. Such is the construction of our nature, that the very word of life, if heard without regard, becomes a savour of death unto death. What consequences hang upon the small and apparently trifling beginnings of evil! A wicked thought may issue in a wicked purpose, this purpose in a wicked action, this action in a course of conduct, this course may draw into its vortex millions of our fellow creatures, and terminate in perdition, both to ourselves and them. The whole of this process was exemplified in the case of Jero- boam the son of Nebat. When placed over the ten tribes, he first said in his heart, “If this people go up to sacrifice at Jerusalem, their hearts will return to Rehoboam ; and thus shall the kingdom return to the house of David,” 1 Kings xii. 26–30. On this he took counsel, and made the calves of Dan and Beth-el. This engaged him in a course of wickedness from which no remonstrances could reclaim him. Nor was it confined to himself; for he “made all Israel to sin.” The issue was, not only their destruction as a nation, but, to all appearance, the eternal ruin of himself, and great numbers of his followers. Such were the fruits of an evil thought ! O my soul, tremble at thyself ; Tremble at the fear- fulness of thy situation; and commit thine immortal all into His hands “who is able to keep thee from falling, and to present thee faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy.” XLVI.-LIFE AND DEATH, OR THE BROAD AND THE NARROW WAY. “Enter ye in at the strait gate; for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in there- at: because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”—Matt. vii. 13, 14. THE whole world are travellers : there is no rest for the sole of man’s foot : the ways in which they walk are ex- tremely various, yet all reducible to two:-‘‘To heaven or hell we daily bend our course.” These two are here de- scribed by their properties and end. The one is attended with things which are smooth and agreeable to the flesh ; but the end is destruction : the other with things which are hard and disagreeable ; but the end is everlasting life. I. If you incline to the former of these ways, it has many things, it must be owned, to recommend it; particularly, 1. You have no difficulty in your entrance wpon it : it is a wide gate; it just suits your depraved inclinations. As soon as the powers of your souls begin to act, they will in- cline that way: so of every particular evil course that you may take—it is easy to get into it: the gate of temptation is wide, and is set wide open to invite you ; you are in ere you are aware. Evil habits are readily contracted; the transition from occasional to habitual indulgence is very short, and that of which you are scarcely sensible at the time. 2. You have also full scope for your inclination in your progress : “ Broad is the way.” Though there is but one way to heaven, and that a strait one ; yet there are many ways to hell, out of which you may take your choice. The broad way admits of many divisions, and subdivisions. You may walk in the path of gross immorality; may swear and lie, or drink and commit lewdness ; or, if you covet a degree of reputation which does not comport with such a life, you may pursue a much more decent course in the indulgence of avarice or pride. You may be a mean sycophant, cringing to the great; or a haughty, overbearing oppressor to those who are beneath you ; nay, you may be both these at the same time. You may revel with the vul- gar, or banquet with the genteel, as circumstances and in- clination may lead you. You may scoff at all religion; or, if that does not suit, you may be religious yourself. You may be righteous in your own eyes; or, if that does not accord with your creed, you may be an advocate for grace, and turn it, when you have done, into lasciviousness. 3. Moreover, you will be in no want of company; for many go there. Rich and poor, rude and learned : it is impossible you should be at a loss for agreeable society. You will have the majority on your side, and that with many is a great matter; yea, the majority in all the nations, cities, towns, and villages in the world. You will hardly go into any company or place but you will find fellow tra- vellers to keep you in countenance . . . . “but the end thereof is destruction . . .” II. If, on the other hand, you incline to the latter of these ways, I must direct you to count the cost : be as- sured it will be hard and disagreeable to the flesh. The difficulties which attend it are given as the reason why it is so little occupied. 1. If you incline to this way, there may be great diff- culties attending your entrance ; for “strait is the gate.” While you are under convictions, and your hearts are not subdued to the obedience of Christ, these difficulties will appear insurmountable. To escape the wrath to come, it will appear absolutely necessary that you should enter in : yet to forego all hope of mercy on the ground of your good deeds, or even of your prayers and penitential tears, and to sue for pardon as one of the chief of sinners, wholly for the sake of Jesus Christ, is hard work for a proud heart. If 670 SERMONS AND SKETCHES. you enter in, it is also necessary that you give up all your former idols without a single reserve ; but this also is hard work to a corrupt heart : these are things which make many people hesitate about religion for a long time, la- bouring under darkness of mind, and unable to find rest for their souls.-But, let me add, these difficulties exist only in your own mind: “ye are not straitened in God, but in your own bowels.” If you can be contented to ac- cept of mercy as one of the chief of sinners, all will be easy. Come to Jesus as such, and you will find rest unto your soul ; and if his name be precious unto you, his yoke also will be easy, and his burden light. Denying self, taking up the cross, and following him, will then be no hard ser- Yice, but your very meat and drink. The way of salvation through his atoning blood will also be a source of joy un- speakable, and of peace which passeth all understanding; and you will be amazed at your former ignorance and a VCFS1On. 2. There may be hard struggles attending your progress; for “narrow is the way.” You may meet with contempt from the world, persecution from your connexions, and, if you be faithful, with many a hard speech, and hard measure, from loose professors; you may be annoyed by temptations from without, and confounded by strong strug- gles from within ; old companions may invite you to turn back; the allurements of the world may be placed on the right hand and on the left, to induce you to turn aside ; and, through the remaining corruption of your nature, you may be too apt at times to listen to their counsels: you may also expect to meet with things that will make your heart sink within you ; despondency may lay fast hold of you ; and the very hand of God be stretched out against you. Let me add, however, that this way is infinitely less rugged than that in which Jesus walked to accomplish your salvation; and if your heart be with his heart, I need not add more to reconcile you to it. 3. In pursuing the narrow way, you may have but little company; for “few there be that find it.” Compared with the ungodly, religious people are but as the gleanings of the vintage; and your lot may be cast in a part of the world where few of those few are to be found. You may reside in a village where no one cares for Christ, or in a family that calls not upon his name. In such circumstances you may be the object of derision, a man wondered at, and persecuted; and even hated by your nearest relations! But be of good cheer; though there be but few who will accompany you, yet those few are the excellent of the earth. You will also hold society with an invisible host of heavenly spirits that watch over you ; a host so mumer- ous, that more are they that are with you than they that are with your adversaries; and, what is more than all, the narrow way “leadeth unto life.” Thus life and death are set before thee; which wilt thou choose 3 Recollect that the destruction which awaits the ungodly is not a loss of being, but of well-being; it is the loss of all that is desirable, and an exposedness to all that is dreadful; the weeping of desolation, the wailing of despair, and the gnashing of teeth which attends the most intolerable anguish. Consider also that the life which awaits the godly is not mere being, but well-being ; it is an entire freedom from evil and an eternal enjoyment of bliss, “which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, and which hath not entered into the heart of man to conceive.” It will also be heightened by the trials through which we pass to the possession of it. * If you enter the strait gate, and walk in the narrow Way, an abundant entrance will be ministered unto you, into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ; but if found pursuing the broad way, you shall hereafter strive to enter into that kingdom, and shall not be able. XLVII.—HOPE IN THE LAST EXTREMITY. “Then I said, I am cast out of º sight; yet I will look again to- ward thy holy temple.”—Jonah ii. 4. THE greater part of the writings of the prophets contain little history; but this book is an exception. It is a history of a prophecy against a city which at that time was the metropolis of the world. It affords a singular example of the influence which the true religion, as presented among the Israelites, had upon the surrounding nations. When we read of the idolatrous Gentiles, we are apt to think they were altogether sunk in ignorance, and without any means of knowing better except what were afforded by the light of nature. But in those early times God had a people, as he has now, who were witnesses for him, and whose testimony left a strong impression on the minds of mankind about them. If Jonah, when overtaken by the tempest, had been a heathen, and had committed a crime, the mariners might have been alarmed, concluding, from their general notions of an unseen providence, that venge- ance had overtaken him; but when they were told that he was a Hebrew,-and feared Jehovah, the God of heaven, who made the sea and the dry land, but had fled from his presence,—then they were “exceedingly afraid.” They had heard, no doubt, of this God of gods, who was worshipped by the Hebrews, and trembled at his judg- ments. So when Jonah entered into Nineveh, and threat- ened its overthrow, if he had been a heathen soothsayer, his message might have influenced a few ; but government would doubtless have apprehended him, and either have: punished him as a disturber of the public peace, or con- fined him as a madman; but finding him to be a prophet sent by Jehovah, the God of Israel, whose judgments upon Egypt and other nations had rung through the world, they were struck with amazement. The king rises from his throne, lays aside his robe, covers himself with sackcloth, sits in ashes, and causes a fast to be proclaimed, accom- panied with an admonition for every one to turn from his evil way, saying, “Who can tell if God will repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not ?” Great is the force of truth and true religion upon the con- science 1 - But let us observe more particularly the history of Jonah, in which we see an affecting example of human depravity, and of the mystery of Providence. God commands him to go and prophesy against Nineveh, a great city, north of Judea. He dislikes the errand; and, in downright re- bellion, takes a ship for Tarshish, a sea-port of the Medi- terranean, in nearly a southern direction. But whither can he flee from God’s presence 3 Though suffered to take his course for a while, he is soon pursued. A tempest overtakes him. One would have thought his restless mind must have anticipated it, and been the first to interpret it; but, instead of this, all parties are alarmed before him ;- he is asleep at the bottom of the ship. A guilty mind cannot be always on the rack of reflection ; yet its repose is not peace, but the stupidity of horror and wretchedness. The rebuke of the ship-master seems scarcely to have awakened him. At length, however, the lot of God falls upon his guilty head; and now we have to witness a most humiliating sight—a prophet of the most high God ar- raigned at the bar of a company of heathen sailors . We should have said, Let it not be known unto the heathen —He, if he could have prayed at all, would have said, Make me not a reproach to the foolish.-But God says, It shall be known. . He knows how to vindicate the honour of his name, without having recourse to the little arts of concealment of which creatures commonly avail themselves. The whole must come out—his country, his religion, his character, his sin! And do the heathens reproach him # If they had, we could not have wondered ; but it operates in a different way. God knows how to soften the hearts of men by that which we might expect would harden them ; and things which appear to us injurious to his cause shall tend to establish it. They inquire of him what they shall do ; and he pronounces his own doom. Humanity, not- withstanding, and the fear perhaps of incurring the dis- pleasure of his God, struggle hard for his deliverance; but struggle in vain. He must be cast away, or they must all perish. No time is to be lost; they must come to a decision. Lifting up their eyes to heaven, they appeal to God for the painful necessity under which they acted ; and then, taking up the unhappy man, they cast him into the sea Reader, had you and I been spectators of this affecting scene, and in possession of our present views, we should probably have not only dropped a tear over the HOPE IN THE LAST EXTREMITY. 67I watery tomb of the prophet, but have exclaimed, “How unsearchable are God’s judgments, and his ways past find- ing out !” Viewing the effect of all upon the mariners, we should have seen men, who till now were strangers to Jehovah, calling upon his name ; we should have seen, perhaps, the hopeful conversion of some, and rejoiced in the “sacrifices and vows?” which on this mysterious occa- sion were offered : but, what would have been a damp to our pleasure, we should have seen Jonah himself committed to the deep, prayerless, and, to all appearance, without a ray of hope . But “O the depth of the riches of the wis- dom and knowledge of God!” When the closing waves had parted him from human observation, Divine Provi- dence still follows him. He is swallowed by a “great fish,” probably a shark.” In this perilous situation his life and consciousness are preserved ; and here he is brought to his right mind. Hence he who could not offer one petition while in the presence of the mariners “prays unto Jehovah his God.” What were his prayers, and the Workings of his mind, he recorded after his deliverance. A part of this record is contained in the sentence on which this address is founded : “Then I said, I am cast out of thy sight; yet I will look again toward thy holy temple.” It describes the crisis of his distress the moment he was sunk to the greatest despondency, bordering on utter despair; out of which he is recovered by the hope of Di- vine mercy. “I said, I am cast out of thy sight.” Did he mean that he was now beyond the reach of God's omniscience? No; though mortal eyes could follow him no further, he was well aware of his being naked to the eyes of Him with whom he had to do. His meaning was, I suppose, that he was cast out of God’s favour; alluding to the practice of princes and great men, who admit their friends into their presence, but banish those who have offended them out of their sight. Thus the Divinely favoured Land of Promise is described as that on which “the eyes of the Lord were set, from the beginning of the year to the end of the year;” and thus the children of Israel, when they had for a long time offended God, are said to be removed by captivity out of his sight. Now Jonah had been favour- ed of God in several ways: As an Israelite, he had long enjoyed the means of grace, of which those of other na- tions had been destitute ; but now he is deprived of them. No more shall I peruse the lively oracles of Jehovah . No more frequent his temple, in company with his people : No more join in the melody of Zion I Far from the holy abodes of hope and peace, I die alone ! No fellow serv. ant of God to attend me in my last hours! no eye to pity me, nor hand to help me ! I die an outcast, an outcast of the heathen –He had also been highly honoured in being made a prophet. The Lord had employed him as an am- bassador extraordinary; but having offended him, he ap- pears now to be cast off. God, as if he should say, will employ me no more. In this shameful and painful man- ner ends my stewardship.–Finally, As a religious man, he had enjoyed communion with God, and cherished hopes of everlasting life; but now what can he think of himself, and of his prospects for eternity ? If by this lan- guage he meant that all was over with him, for this world and that to come, it is no more than might be expected. Sim must needs cloud our evidences for heaven, and render our state doubtful. “They that observe lying vanities forsake their own mercies.” There is something in this language peculiarly awful. Of all the ills that can befall us, being cast out of God's sight is the most to be dreaded, because this is the source and sum of evil. As God’s presence is heaven, to be cast out of it is hell. Deprived of his favour, what is life, even though we were possessed of every earthly comfort, and could insure it for a long series of years? What then must it be to one in the very article of dissolution ? To live without the Divine favour is dreadful; but to die without it is much more so | It is also observable how the punishment corresponds with the nature of the offence ; and this we shall find to be a general character of the Divine administration. They that receive not the love of the truth are given up to be- * See Parkhurst's Greek Lexicon, on knitor. lieve a lie ; deceivers are deceived; adulterers are cast into a bed, and those who have committed adultery with them ; and they that have loved cursing, the curse shall come upon them, as oil into their bones. Thus Jonah fled from the presence of the Lord ; and now his conscience forebodes the issue—“I am cast out of thy sight.” There are two other remarks which present themselves from this desponding sentence, of a more pleasing com- plexion. One is, that, happily for him, it was only he that said it. It was the punishment awarded by conscience at the time ; but the awards of conscience are not final. They respect what ought to be, if we had our desert; but not always what shall be. Sovereign mercy reserves to itself the right of revising and reversing these decisions. If the Lord had said Amen, all had been over with Jonah ; but “his thoughts are not as our thoughts, nor his ways as our ways; as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are his thoughts higher than our thoughts, and his ways than our ways.”—“Zion said, The Lord hath forsaken me ; ” but the Lord her God did not say so too ! The other remark which offers is, the piety or godliness which appears even in the despondency of this good man. How different is the spirit of it from that of Cain Future punishment is sometimes distinguished into a punishment of loss and a punishment of sense. The latter is the dread of the wicked. Could they but be exempted from positive misery, they would not be much concerned for the loss of God’s favour; nor indeed at all, but as depriving them of natural enjoyment. But it is not thus with a good man. The loss of God’s favour is, to him, the heaviest of all punishments. This was the distress of Jonah. One sees in him also, in his darkest state, a tenderness of sinning against God by being any otherwise accessory to his own death, than as owning what was his desert. Some men, if they had felt half his burden, would have plunged themselves into the sea ; but he, humiliating as it must be, pronounces his own doom, and submits to be cast away by their hands ! But we have now arrived at the period of his dejection. Lo, when he was just giving up all for lost; nay, when he had actually pronounced his doom ; when death had laid hold upon him, and he seemed already in his grave; a thought glances across his mind; a gleam of hope accom- panies it : yet, before I die, “I will look again toward thy holy temple !” The thought proves a resurrection to his soul. But let us observe what it was on which his hope at this affecting crisis caught hold. Was it the temple, the ma- terial building, to which he looked for relief? Surely not. An Israelite in name only might have indulged a super- stitious confidence in the place; but Jonah looked further. It was to the temple with respect to Him that dwelt therein, and the manner in which he dwelt therein, namely, upon the mercy-seat, or propitiatory, that he looked. If ex- pressed in New Testament language, it would be looking to God through a Mediator, who is our Advocate with the Father, and whose advocacy is founded on his having been made a propitiation. The encouragement which the prophet felt to look toward the temple for relief appears to have arisen from two sources, namely, Scripture and eaſperience. The prayer of Solomon at the dedication was recorded in the Scrip- tures, and must have been familiar to every godly Israel- ite. After having enumerated divers particular cases, he adds, “What prayer and supplication soever be made by any man, or by all thy people Israel, who shall know every man the plague of his own heart, and shall spread forth his hands toward this house, then hear thou in heaven thy dwelling-place, and forgive, and do, and give.” This was doubtless a directory for Jonah, when other help failed ; and the answer given to Solomon, “I have heard thy prayer, and thy supplication that thou hast made before me,” turned all his petitions into promises. Here, there- fore, was rest for the soul of every distressed Israelite, throughout all their generations; and for Jonah, though in the most deplorable state. “I will look,” saith he, “toward thy holy temple ; and hear thou in heaven thy dwelling-place ; and forgive, and do, and give.” To Scrip- ture direction was added former experience. The lan- guage implies that this was not the first time that Jonah 672 SERMONS AND SEETCHES. had looked to the temple for relief. He had looked be- fore, and would now look again. It had long, no doubt, been his practice, under every load of guilt or sorrow of any kind, to repair to the mercy-seat, where Jehovah had promised to commune with his people. This, to Old Testa- ment believers, was as common as coming “ to the throne of grace that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help us in time of need,” is to believers under the New Testa- ment ; and having formerly found relief in looking, they would be encouraged to look again. It is a good use to make of past experiences, to take encouragement from them to make renewed applications for mercy. They are not designed for a pillow of repose under the load of a guilty conscience; nor the source from which our comfort is to be derived; but a directory to point us to the Saviour, and an encouragement that we shall not apply to him in Vall] . From the whole, we learn the following important in- structions:--First, The great evil of departing from God, and of flying in the face of his commands. The story of Jonah leaves an impression behind it of the justness of his own reflection, “They that observe lying vanities forsake their own mercies.” What are all the reasonings of the flesh against God’s revealed will? Vanities, lying vani- ties; the end of which, if grace prevent mot, will be death. Secondly, Yet if any one have sinned, let him not despair. While there is a propitiation, an Advocate with the Father, to despair were to add sin to sin. Thirdly, If, through sin, we have lost the light of God's countenance, and would recover it, it must be sought in the same way as that in which we first obtained it. If ever we regain rest to our souls, after having backslidden and lost it, it must be by applying to him, as guilty, unworthy, and perishing sinners, entreating to be forgiven through the blood-shed- ding of the Saviour. This was the manner in which we first looked; and in this manner we must look again. Fourthly, Draw no positive conclusions of the state of the dead from what we see in the last hours of life. There may be no ground to conclude any thing in their favour; yet the case of Jonah is sufficient to deter us from con- cluding that they are lost. Had we been present when he was convicted and cast away, and seen the manner in which he went down to the watery grave, we might have drawn an unfavourable conclusion of him. All that took place of a favourable kind was after every human eye had left him. Such a case proves the possibility of a penitent and believing look to the mercy-seat, when the party is removed beyond the ken of human observation; and this is sufficient to teach us our own ignorance, and our incom- petency to judge of the future state of any individual. XLVIII.-PAST TRIALS A PLEA FOR FUTURE MERCIES. “ Make us glad according to the days wherein thou hast afflicted us, and the years wherein we have seen evil.”—Psal. xc. 15. THIS “prayer of Moses the man of God,” as it is entitled, is thought to have been occasioned by the sentence de- nounced against that generation of Israelites which came out of Egypt, viz. that they should perish in the wilder- ness. In it we see much of the plaintive, and yet much of the man of God, cleaving to God under his judgments, and hoping in his covenant mercy and truth. Forbidden to enter their promised dwelling-place, they are directed to make up their loss in God, ver. 1, 2. Cut short as to the number of their days, to apply their hearts to wisdom, ver, 12. And though they, and himself with them, were doomed to die, they are taught to pray that the cause of God may live, ver. 16, 17. The language of the text implies that it is usual for God, in dealing with his people in this world, to balance evil with good, and good with evil. He neither exempts them from chastisement, nor contends with them for ever. If he had dealt with us on the mere footing of justice, we had had a cup of wrath only; but through his dear Son it is mixed with mercy. The alternate changes of night and day, winter and summer, are not more fixed in the course of nature, than the mixture of judgment and mercy in the present state. The children of Israel were long afflicted in Egypt, and when delivered from that grievous yoke, their numerous sins against God brought on them numerous evils in the wilderness, till at length it issued in the dismal sentence which is supposed to have occasioned this plaintive song. Yet this dark night was preparatory to a morning of hope and joy. The people that were left of the sword found grace in the wilderness. The judgments upon the first generation proved a source of wholesome discipline to the second, who appear to have been the best of all the gener- ations of Israel. It was of them that God spoke in such high terms by Jeremiah :—“I remember thee, the kind- ness of thy youth, the love of thine espousals, when thou wentest after me in the wilderness, in a land not sown. Israel was holiness unto the Lord, and the first-fruits of his increase.” All that God had done for them till then was but ploughing up the fallow ground; but now he be- gan to reap the fruits of his work. Now Balaam, instead of being able to curse them, is compelled to bless and envy them. And now the prayer of the man of God is answer- ed. They are made glad according to the days in which they were afflicted, and the years in which they had seen evil. God’s work appeared to his servants, and his glory unto their children. His beauty was upon them, and he prospered the work of their hands. We might refer to numerous instances in the Scriptures in which the same truth is exemplified. In the first hun- dred and thirty years of Adam’s life, he drank deeply of the bitter effects of his fall. He had a son ; but after high hopes had been entertained of him, he proved wicked. He had another son, but him his brother murdered ; and as the murderer was spared and his family increased, it would seem as if the world was to be peopled by a race of wicked men. But it did not end thus: God gave Adam another seed, instead of Abel whom Cain slew ; and soon after this men began to call upon the name of the Lord. It must have been very afflictive for Noah to have been “a preacher of righteousness” century after century, and at last, instead of seeing his hearers converted to God, to see them all swept away by the deluge. But as the waters were assuaged when they had risen to their height, so the wrath of Heaven issued in mercy. God accepted the sacri- fice of his servant, and made a covenant of peace with him and his posterity. Similar remarks might be made from the histories of Jacob, and Joseph, and David, and many others: these were made glad according to the days wherein they had been afflicted, and the years wherein they had seen evil. Nor is it confined to individuals. When idolatrous Israel drew down the Divine displeasure in Hazael's wars, Jehu's revolution, and Elisha's prophecies, it was very afflictive. Yet when Jehoahaz besought the Lord, the Lord hearken- ed unto him, and was gracious to his people, in respect of the covenant which he had made with their fathers, 2 Kings xiii. 3—5. 23. Thus the wind, the earthquake, and the fire were succeeded by the still small voice, 1 Kings xix. 11, 12. Finally, the great afflictions of the church during the successive overturnings of the mon- archies issued, according to Ezekiel’s prophecy, (chap. xxi. xxvii.,) in Christ's coming and kingdom. It is not difficult to perceive the wisdom and goodness of God in thus causing evil to precede good, and good to follow evil. If the whole of our days were covered with darkness, there would be but little of the exercise of love, and joy, and praise ; our spirits would contract a habit of gloominess and despondency; and religion itself would be reproached, as rendering us miserable. If, on the other hand, we had uninterrupted prosperity, we should not en- joy it. What is rest to him that is never weary, or peace to one that is a stranger to trouble 3 Heaven itself would not be that to us which it will be, if we came not out of great tribulation to the possession of it. Evil and good being thus connected together, the one furnishes a plea for the other. Moses pleaded it, and so may we. We may have seen days of affliction, and years of evil, both as individuals and families. Borne down, it may be, with poverty and disappointment, our spirits are | THE CHANGES OF TIME. 673 ** , broken. Or if circumstances have been favourable, yet some deep-rooted disease preys upon our constitution, and passes a sentence of death within us long before it comes. Or if neither of these evils has befallen us, yet relative troubles may eat up all the enjoyment of life. A cruel and faithless husband, a peevish and unamiable wife, or a disobedient child, may cause us to say with Rebecca, What good does my life do me? Or if none of these evils afflict us, yet if the peace of God rule not in our hearts, all the blessings of life will be bestowed upon us in vain. It may be owing to the want of just views of the gospel, or to some iniquity regarded in our heart, that we spend days and years with but little communion with God. Finally, If, as in some cases, a number of these evils should be combined, this will make the load still heavier. But whatever be our afflictions, and however complicated, we may carry them to the Lord, and then turn them into a plea for mercy. Though the thorn should not be im- mediately extracted, yet if God cause his grace to be suf- ficient for us, we shall have reason to be glad. We have also seen days of affliction and years of evil as a nation. It is true we have less cause to apply this lan- guage to ourselves than most other nations at the present time; yet to a feeling heart there is matter for grief. What numbers of widows and fatherless children have been left even among us, within the last sixteen years : Let the faithful of the land turn it into a prayer, not only in behalf of our country, but of a bleeding world. Many of our churches, too, have experienced days and years of evil. The loss of faithful and useful pastors, dis- orders, scandals, strifes, divisions, the consequent with- drawment of the Holy Spirit, are evils which many have to bewail. Let the faithful remnant in every place carry these things to the throne of grace, and there plead with the God of mercy and truth, by whom alone Jacob can arise ; and though weeping may continue for a night, joy will come in the morning. • The whole church of God has seen much evil hitherto. Its numbers have been few and despised. It has often been under persecution. Compared with what might have been expected, in almost six thousand years, “we have wrought no deliverance in the earth, neither have the inhabitants of the world fallen.” But all these things furnish a plea for better times. Even the wickedness of the wicked may enable us to plead with the psalmist, “It is time for thee, O Lord, to work, for they have made void thy law.” We may urge the prayer of faith too on this subject, since glorious things are spoken of the city of God. Both the world and the church have their best days to come. It is necessary, however, to recollect that the happy issue of all our troubles depends upon our union with Christ. If unbelievers, our troubles are but the beginning of sorrows. . It is a fatal error in many, that great af. flictions in this life indicate that we have had our evil things here. Few men have been more miserable than Saul was in his latter days. But if, renouncing every other ground of hope, we believe in Jesus the crucified, whatever our sorrows may be in this life, they will be turned into joy. XLIX-THE CHANGES OF TIME. Sketch of a Sermon delivered at the commencement of a New Pear.] “The acts of David, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, with all his reign and his might, and the times that went over him, and over Israel’and over all the kingdoms of the countries.”—l Chron. xxix. 29, 30. THERE is something in the manner of the sacred writers peculiar to themselves. A common historian might have glanced at the reign of David, and referred to other books in which it was described; but viewing the events of it only with the eye of a politician, his diction, though ele- gant and instructive, would leave no impression upon the heart. The sacred historians felt what they wrote. Eye- ing the hand of God in all things, they conceive of them, º 2 x - they represent them, in an affecting light. There is some- thing in the phraseology of this passage which is singularly impressive. It opens at once to our contemplation the constant vicissitudes of human affairs. We see and feel, as in a moment, that the same affecting scenes which are passing over the world in our times have passed over it in former ages. Society may assume different shapes and forms; but it is essentially the same. “The things that are, are the things that have been ; and there is no new thing under the sun.” We are also led to view the great current of human af. fairs as moving on without our consent, and without being subject to our control. We bear a part in them, but it is like the fishes playing in the stream ; which passes over them independent of their will, and returns no more. What an idea does it give of our insignificance and entire dependence upon God . But though our influence in counteracting the great events of time be very small, yet their influence upon us is great. They bear a relation to us, as they formerly did to David and Israel, and the king- doms of the countries, and leave an important impression upon us. We are either the better or the worse for the times that have gone over us, and may be so to etermity. The vicissitudes that pass over us during a single human life, and the impressions which they leave behind them, are subjects which, if realized, would overwhelm the mind. There is a current of national changes which is passing continually. What times have passed over the nations of Europe within our remembrance | Some have risen, some have fallen, some enlarged, and some contracted. What multitudes of lives have been lost ! How much of human nature has been developed ' What evidence has been afforded of the enmity of man's heart against the gospel, and the insufficiency of all human devices to give happi- ness to the world without it ! What seeds have been sown for future change, the fruits of which may be seen to the end of time ! And while the page of history records the acts of the great, whether good or bad, there are others which it overlooks, but which are no less interesting, on account of the near relation they bear to us. There is a current of changes within the circle of our immediate acquaintance. What a number of deaths, of new faces, and of new circumstances ! Property, power, and influence have changed hands; those whose fathers were abject are raised on high ; while others, who have been delicately educated, are sunk into wretchedness. Nor do these changes extend merely to our acquaintance, but to ourselves. There are few of us but have had our times of sickness and of health, of prosperity and of adversity, of joy and sorrow. Times when unions were formed, and times when they have been dissolved ; times when children have been born, and times when they have died; times when we have been so happy that we have thought nothing could make us miserable, and times when we have been so miserable as to despair of ever again being happy. But these are things mostly of a civil nature. There is also a current of changes continually passing over us of a religious kind. The cause and kingdom of Christ while in this world is subject to constant vicissitude. In some places it prospers, in others it declines. Upon the whole, however, it is going on, and it becomes us to mark its progress. . It was in one life that Israel forsook Egypt, and was planted in Canaan; in one life they were carried into captivity; and in one life brought back again: in one life the Son of God became incarnate, and accom- plished our redemption ; in one life the gospel was preached almost over the whole earth; in one life the Reformation was effected ; and it may be in one life that antichrist may come to his end, and the kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ. Our life has been cast in an eventful period, and that of our children may be more so. But if, as has been remarked, the events of time bear a relation to us, and leave an impression upon us, it becomes us to inquire what impression those times which have passed over us have left upon our minds:— Great numbers of them are disregarded, and they can leave no good impression. All that was wrought in Judea, in the times of Augustus and Tiberius, was overlooked 674 SERMONS AND SIKETCHES. by the great mass of mankind. It filled some few with joy unspeakable ; but the world in general took but little notice of it. The Greeks, Romans, and other nations went on just as we do ; scheming, intriguing, buying, sell- ing, amassing fortunes, spending them, waging wars, and struggling for the highest posts of honour. Many never heard of it, and most that did cared for none of these things. With what contempt did Festus speak of a cause which came before him, relative to faith in Christ!—“Cer- tain questions of Jewish superstition, and of one Jesus, who was dead, and whom Paul affirmed to be alive l’’ Many of those who beheld the miracles of Christ, and heard the preaching of the gospel, wondered and perished. Thus things of the greatest moment may pass over us dis- regarded, and consequently can leave no good impression. It was the same at the Reformation from popery. God wrought a great work in that day ; but the mass of man- kind saw it not. They were each pursuing their schemes of ambition, or covetousness, or sensuality; and so did not profit by it: and thus it is at this day. The principal actors upon the theatre of human affairs have their respect- ive objects in view ; but they see not God’s hand. Nor is it much otherwise with the spectators : some admire, others fear, and others are filled with abhorrence ; but few regard the works of the Lord, or discern the operation of his hands. In others, the things which have passed over them may have made some degree of impression upon them, and get the issue of it may be doubtful. Under threatening providences, or close preaching, they have been affected not a little—have heard the word gladly, and done many things—have been greatly moved, and reformed in their behaviour; but, after all, it is doubtful whether their hearts be divorced from their idols. On some, however, the things which have passed over us have had a good effect, and require to be recollected with thankfulness. One can remember a providence which brought him under the word, or into a praying family or religious connexion ; another, a conversation, a sermon, or a solitary walk, in which he saw and felt the light of life, and from which period his feet were turned from the ways of death. Finally, A recollection of the times which have passed over us, over Israel, and over the nations, will furnish matter for much humility and trembling, even though we should have profited by them ; and if we have not, it is a subject the realizing of which would overwhelm us. What opportunities have we had of glorifying God, which have passed by unnoticed what instructive lessons, under which we have been dull of learning ! what rebukes, without being effectually corrected 1 and what narrow escapes from temptation, the falling into which had been worse than death ! Neither have we sufficiently regarded the operations of God’s hand upon the world and the church, so as to be properly affected by them. And if such reflections be furnished in regard of good men, what must be the retrospection of the wicked | Youth has passed over them, and left only the impression of guilt, shame, and remorse ; or, what is worse, a gust to react its follies, even when they have lost the capacity. Prosperity has made them proud, and adversity filled them with hardness and rebellion of heart. They have been afflicted, and have not called upon God; or if they have, no sooner has it subsided than they have ceased. Death has ap- proached them, and in their fright they have entered into solemn vows ; but all have quickly been forgotten. How many slighted opportunities, solemn warnings, tender ser- mons, and powerful convictions will come into the account at the last day ! L.—ON TRUE WISDOM. “The wisdom of the prudent is to understand his way; but the folly of fools is deceit.”—Prov. xiv. 8. THIS proverb teaches us that true wisdom is of a useful or practical nature. There is a great difference between the wisdom of some worldly men and that of others. Some deal in mere speculation; their discoveries are of no use either to themselves or mankind. Others, who are of a more prudent turn, bend their talents to useful purposes. The philosophy of a Lunardi exhibits an air balloom—that of a Franklin is applied to objects of real utility. But Solomon seldom, if ever, writes of mere natural wisdom. That on which he chiefly dwells has its origin in “the fear of the Lord,” chap. i. 7. The passage may, therefore, be considered as giving the character of holy wisdom, as distinguished from the wisdom of this world ; it directs to the understanding of our way, in matters of the highest importance. And this is the proper opposite of the folly described in the last clause, which is said to be deceit. Wicked men are the greatest fools in God’s account; and their folly consists in self-deception. While the wisdom of the truly wise turns to a good account, the folly of the wicked puts a cheat upon their souls. The wisdom of some men is to understand things which cannot be understood.—When David appealed to God, say- ing, “Lord, my heart is not haughty, nor mine eyes lofty; neither do I exercise myself in great matters, or in things too high for me.”—“My soul is as a weaned child”—it implies that there were men who did, and so there are still. “Man,” says Locke, “should know the length of his tether.” What a deluge of abstract speculations has been poured upon the world in all ages, especially since the invention of printing ! There is no end to questions upon such subjects. Instead of finding out truth, we presently lose ourselves. Ask, What is a spirit What is eternity ? What is immensity ? How came a pure crea- ture to become sinful? Why did God create man, seeing what part he would act 3 All these, and a thousand more questions of the kind, belong to the wisdom of the im- prudent. It does not lead us a step towards heaven, but in a contrary direction. - Again, The wisdom of others is to pry into things which, if understood, are of little or no use.—Long and elaborate treatises have been written on the question, What is space? But cut bono 2 Even those things which are of use, (as- tronomy, for instance,) if pursued to the neglect of our way, are folly, and will deceive the expectation. We should blame any man, and count him a fool, notwith- standing his learning, if he employed himself in studying the distances of the stars while his family were pining for want, and his affairs going to ruin ; and why not if in the same pursuits he neglects the salvation of his soul? Further, The wisdom of some is to understand the way of other men.—We meet with many who are exceedingly censorious on public measures. For their part, they are wise ; and happy would it be for the world if it were under their direction but whether it be that the affairs of religious and domestic duty are too little for their expanded minds, or whatever be the reason, so it is, that their own concerns are generally neglected. We meet with others who understand all the private concerns of a neighbour- hood, and can point out the faults and defects of every one about them, but forget their own. We have even met with professors of religion, who understand the faults, defects, and errors of almost all the religious world, and, whenever they meet together, these are the topics of con- versation by which they edify one another. Surely this is not “the wisdom of the prudent l’” But, it will be asked, what is “the wisdom of the pru- dent?” And I may answer, It is that which leads to the understanding of our way through life, and to the heavenly home. Particularly, It will lead us above all things to see that our way be right. There are many by-ways, and many who are walking in them ; but true wisdom will not rest till it find out the road that leads to everlasting life. It will know whom it trusts, and whether he be able to keep that which is committed to him. It will lead us also to attend diligently to the directions of the way. We shall read the oracles of God: the doctrines for belief, and the precepts for practice; and shall thus learn to cleanse our way by taking heed thereto, according to God's word. It will moreover induce us to guard against the dangers of the way. We shall not be ignorant of Satan's devices, IRREMEDIABLE EVILS. 675 nor of the numerous temptations to which our age, times, circumstances, and propensities expose us. It will influ- ence us to keep our eye upon the end of the way. A foolish man will go that way in which he finds most com- pany, or can go most at his ease ; but wisdom will ask, “What shall I do in the end thereof 3 '' To understand the end of the wrong way will deter; but to keep our eye upon that of the right will attract. Christ himself kept sight of the joy that was set before him. Finally, as holy wisdom possesses the soul with a sense of propriety at all times, and upon all occasions, it is therefore our highest interest to obtain this wisdom, and to cultivate it by reading, meditation, prayer, and every appointed means. “My son, if thou wilt receive my words, and hide my commandments with thee, so that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to under- standing ; yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding ; if thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; then shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God. For the Lord giveth wisdom; out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding. He layeth up sound wisdom for the righteous; he is a buckler to them that walk uprightly.” LI.—IRREMEDIABLE EVILS. “That which is crooked cannot be made straight, and that which is Wanting cannot be numbered.”—Eccles. i. 15. THE wise man inquires, “What is that good for the sons of men which they should do all the days of their life?” At the close of his inquiries he answers, “Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole of man.” But before he comes to this conclusion of the matter, as he calls it, he takes a large survey of human affairs, the re- sult of every inquiry concerning which is, “All is vanity and vexation of spirit.” Every thing that passed under his review was either void of substantial good, or connected with some evil which imbittered it. Two of the marks of vanity inscribed on earthly things are, that a great number of them are inveterately crooked, or devious from the line of what is good for the sons of men ; and that a still greater number are wanting, or de- fective, so that though there were nothing in them repug- nant to what is good, yet they are insufficient to satisfy the mind. That devious and defective things should be found in the world is not surprising; but they are found also in the church, and our endeavours to rectify and supply them are often ineffectual. It is too much to infer from this that we are to sit down in despair and attempt nothing; but it will be profitable to know the limited extent of our powers, so as not to waste our time and energies on that which will answer no good end. Many have been employed during the greater part of their lives in striving to correct the errors and disorders of the church, and to supply its defects. This has cer- tainly been a good work. What else were the labours of the Reformers, of the puritans, of the nonconformists, and indeed of all the servants of God in every age, but so many attempts to bend the minds of men to the mind of Christ? Nor have they laboured without effect. When we compare the present state of things with what we wish, we seem indeed to have done nothing; but when with the state of things in times past, we may say, “What hath God wrought!” Paganism has been excluded from Europe; popery has been so diminished as to have lost its wonted energies; and Christianity, cherished under the wing of religious freedom, has of late taken a notable flight, alight- ing in the very heart of the pagan world. But with all this there are many crooked things among us, and things which by human hands cannot be made straight. The spirit of infidelity has pervaded the minds of millions in Europe whose fathers were once the decided friends of the Reformation. The system of many who would be thought to be Christians are so tinged with it as to be- come antichristian. And, among those who profess to believe the doctrines of the Reformation, many content themselves with the name of orthodoxy, without the thing. There is a tendency in the human mind to deviate from Divine truth. Had it not been for the illuminating in- fluence of the Spirit of God, we should never have under- stood it; not because of its abstruseness, but on account of the uncongeniality of our minds; and when we do un- derstand and believe it, there is a continual tendency in us to get wrong. It might seem that when a person has once obtained a just view of the gospel, there is no dan- ger of his losing it; but it is not so. There is a partiality in all our views, and while we guard against error in one direction, we are in equal danger from a contrary extreme. Many, in shunning the snare of self-righteous pride, have fallen into the pit of Antinomian presumption ; and many, in guarding what they consider as the interests of practi- cal religion, have ceased to teach and preach those princi- ples from which alone it can proceed. Besides this, there are many ways by which a minister may get beside the gospel without falling into any palpable errors. There may be nothing crooked, yet much wanting. We may deliver an ingenious discourse, containing nothing incon- sistent with truth, and yet not preach that truth “in which believers stand, and by which they are saved.” We may preach about the gospel, and yet not preach the gospel, so as to “show unto men the way of salvation.” And if we get into a vain, carnal, and worldly frame of mind, this is almost certain to be the case. It is no breach of cha- rity to say, of hundreds of sermons that are ordinarily de- livered by those who are reputedly orthodox, that they are not the gospel which Jesus commissioned his servants to preach ; and if it be thus among preachers, is it mar- wellous that a large proportion of religious people are not strictly evangelical, but imbibe another spirit 3 And if the doctrine of Christ be neglected, (not to say corrupted,) the effects will appear in a neglect of faithful discipline, in a worldly spirit, and in a gradual disregard of a watch- ful, circumspect, and holy individual conduct. It is no breach of charity to suppose that many who profess evangelical principles are Christians only in name, and that these principles are professed merely on account of their popularity in the circles in which they move. The ways of such must be crooked. Like Saul, they know not how to go about obedience to God, but are always stumbling, or turning aside in pursuit of some carnal object. There are few things more spoken against in the pre- sent times than party zeal ; but there are few things more common. To unite with those whom we consider on mature examination as being nearest the mind of Christ, and having done so to act up to our principles, is our duty ; but few things are further from the mind of the partizan than this. Having enlisted in the cause of a party, he sees no good but that which is within its pale, and will say and do almost anything to keep up its reputation. “Many things have I seen in the days of my vanity.” There is a man whose heart unites with every one who loves our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, and who rejoices in the work of God wherever he sees it ; but not being of the right party, he is of little or no ac- count : and there is a man who gives no other proof of his liberality than that of boasting of it; yet, being of the right party, he is liberal. Genuine candour and liberality are not to be looked for in parties, but in individuals of various parties. There are men who, while seeking the good of their im- mediate connexions, consider them not so much as their party as an integral part of the kingdom of Christ, and who know how to rejoice in the success of truth and true religion wherever it is found : but is it thus with the bulk of any denomination, established or unestablished 3 I fear not. He that has lived thirty or forty years in religious society, and has not met with things that must needs have shaken his confidence in professions, must either be a very happy man, or very unobservant of what has passed before him. What shall we say then 3 Shall we sigh, and say, “That which is crooked cannot be made straight 3’” Be it so ; let us distinguish between Chris- tianity and the conduct of its professors; so that while we are grieved at the latter, we may not think the worse of the former. “Let God be true, and every man a liar!” 2 X 2 676 SERMONS AND SIKETCHES. Let us also examine our own hearts, and pray that we may have grace at least to correct the deviations, and supply the defects, that are to be found in ourselves; in which case, whatever may befall others, we shall find rest for our souls. I shall conclude with a few remarks on misrepresenta- tion. Some men in the course of their lives are exposed to a large portion of this, accompanied, it may be, with much foul abuse, the correction of which often becomes an object of despair. “He that is first in his own cause,” says the wise man, “seemeth just, but his neighbour com- eth and searcheth him.” But how if a man should be so deluged with misrepresentations, and his hands so occu- pied with more important concerns, as to have neither time nor inclination to refute them 3 There are two ways left him. First, He may safely treat the foulest and most un- worthy of his opponents with neglect. Their calumnies will not do him much injury ; and if he attempt to answer them, he may be in danger of imbibing a portion of their spirit. This seems to be the fool that should not be an- swered according to his folly, lest we be like unto him. Secondly, He may give a brief statement of the truth, and leave the misrepresentation and abuse to fall of its own accord. When the Jews, after their return from Babylon, began building the temple, it caused a great sensation among their adversaries. They first offered to join them in the work, thinking, no doubt, to come in for a share, and perhaps the chief share, of the glory; and when their offer was refused, they accused them to the Persian government, so that the work for a time was stopped. We may wonder that the Jews did not by a counter-statement correct these vile misrepresentations, and expose the insincerity of their accusers; yet they did not ; but, as appears from the history, held their peace. When the storm had blown over, encouraged by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, they renewed the work; and when interrogated anew by their adversaries, contented them- selves with a simple statement of the truth. The substance of it was this : We are the servants of the God of heaven and earth. We are engaged in rebuilding the house that was built many years ago by a great king of Israel. Our fathers sinned against God, and he gave them into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar, who destroyed this house, and carried the people away into Babylon. But in the first year of Cyrus there was a decree to rebuild it, and its fur- niture was at the same time restored to Sheshbazzar, whom he appointed our governor. The same Sheshbazzar began this work, which is not yet finished.—This simple state- ment of truth, which leaves out all reflections on their adversaries, would bear to be repeated even by them, in their letter to Darius, and in that form was repeated, and ultimately prevailed, Ezra iv.–vi. The crooked things were let alone, and the straight rule exhibited, and thus the end was answered. LII,_IMPORTANCE OF UNION OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INTERESTS IN THE SERVICE OF . GOD. \, [Sketch of a Sermon delivered º Broad Street Chapel, July 1, 1800.] “From above the horse gate repaired the priests, every one over against his house. After them repaired Zadok the son of Immer over against his house. After him repaired also Shemaiah the son of Shechaniah, the keeper of the east gate. After him repaired Hana- niah the son of Shelemiah, and Hanun the sixth son of Zalaph, an- other piece. After him repaired Meshullam the son of Berechiah over against his chamber.”—Neh. iii. 28–30. I HAVE no desire, my friends, to amuse you with curious speculations on a difficult passage; but you will readily admit that all Scripture is profitable, and is designed to convey some important instruction to us. The zeal and diligence of these good people, in rearing the walls of Je- rusalem, are far from being uninteresting. Were you to read the whole book, you would find your hearts warmed . with a view of the ardour with which they undertook and finished it. Sixty or seventy years before this, the cap- tives had returned from Babylon, and had rebuilt the city, and after that the temple ; but still there was a wall wanting, and the city and temple were exposed to the de- predation of enemies. Nehemiah, a godly Jew, at that time resident at the court of Persia, hearing how Jerusa- lem was circumstanced, was in great affliction that the gates thereof were burned, that the walls thereof were broken down, and the city under great reproach. He wept, he fasted, and went in unto the king, and obtained a commission to go and rear these broken and desolated walls. He met with great impediments : there were deep-rooted enmities amongst some of the Samaritans, especially Sanballat the Horonite, and Tobiah the Am- monite ; and some of his companions did all in their power to hinder the good work; but Nehemiah had his heart right, and was continually offering up his prayer, “Think upon me, O my God, for good;’ and having his heart in the work, he communicated his design to his friends and brethren, and they set to work and wrought mightily with a sword in one hand and a trowel in the other, and they laboured from the dawn of day till the stars appeared—in short, the wall was begun, and the wall was finished ; for “the people had a mind to work.” I think, in this ardour, this zeal on the part both of Nehemiah and of the people, there was not only an amiable patriotism, but a portion of real piety. It was not merely the city of their fathers—it was not merely their own city—the walls of which they were thus zealous to repair; it was the city of God, the city of Zion. It was for the protection of the worship of God: and here lay the piety of this zeal. I cannot now go over the chapter—you may read it at your leisure. It gives an account of the various persons and families who were engaged in this work of building the wall. I will only offer a few remarks. Observe, in the first place, how the work was divided amongst them. You will read all along that every man and body of men, or family of men, had all separate work appointed them. All were set at work ; one built this part, and one that, and thus, by every one taking his proper part, the whole was reared—by union the whole was ac- complished. By a number of individuals setting their hands to the same work, uniting in it with all their heart, the work will rise, the wall shall not only be begun, but completed. A second remark that offers itself, from this history, is, that though their work was separate, yet they had not separate interests. The place on which each laboured was separate—each had his own peculiar spot appointed him to labour on ; but the object in which all were engaged was the same. Every man by rearing a part of the wałl contributed to the finishing of the whole. It was one city, one wall, one great object, and, by every one accomplish- ing a part, the whole was completed. This teaches us that there is in the service of God a union of private and public interest, and that, while we each separately attend to our specific duty, we all contribute to that great object, the glory of God, the good of his church, and the good of mankind. - Once more, It is worthy of notice, and indeed this is the thought for which I read this passage, that things were so contrived that each man and body of men should, as far as possible, build over against his own dwelling. Nay, we are told in the thirtieth verse of one man who was only a lodger, that is, he inhabited a chamber ; and we are in- formed “ that he built the wall over against his own chamber ; ” so that the smallest apartment served as a ground to excite all to unite in the general work of rear- ing the wall. I think, without any forced interpretation, this teaches us the importance of union of public and pri- vate interests in the service of God. Things are so de- vised, that, by thus acting in our own particular charge, we contribute to the general work; by building the wall, so to speak, against our own houses or our own chambers, we help to rear the wall around the city of God—we con- tribute to the building of the church, to the building of society, to the good of mankind, to the glory of God. You see, by this time, the sentiment on which I mean to en- large. - UNION OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INTERESTS IN GOD'S SERVICE. 677 I need not say, my brethren, that we are all engaged in a work analogous to that of the Jews. It is our business to build God’s house: it is our highest honour to build up society, to be blessings in our generation; and what we are here directed to, as a means, is to attend immediately to those things which are our especial charge—to build, as it were, over against our own houses. God requires that we be of a large heart. We are en- joined to cherish largeness of heart, to seek the good of mankind, to embrace within our affections, and good wishes, and efforts, and prayers the well-being of the whole human race. Undoubtedly this is the case ; yet the whole human race do not come within our province. We may pray for them, we may wish them well, we may long for their salvation, we may do something perhaps to- wards it ; but the main part of our labour lies within our reach—it is over against our own apartments. I. Let us inquire, then, what ARE THose ExeRTIONs WHICH MAY BEAR AN AN ALOGY TO WHAT IS HERE RECOMI- MENDED–building the wall over against our own apart- ments 3 and I answer in a few of the following particulars: —By an attention, in the first place, to our own souls; in the next place, to our religious connexions; and in the last place, to our neighbours, to the poor, to those who are within our reach. I apprehend a proper attention to these different objects will be found to be analogous to building the wall over against our own apartments, and will con- tribute to raise the wall of Jerusalem, to promote the cause of God and the good of mankind. 1. I would observe that a proper attention to our own souls is of the first importance.—I do not mean by this to deny that there is a duty owing to our bodily welfare, to our temporal interests, and that this is a part of building the wall over against our own houses too. Doubtless, if every one of us, by paying a proper attention to our tem- poral concerns, by industry, economy, and the like, pro- viding things honest in the sight of the Lord, and in the sight of all men, that we may have to give to him that needeth—if every one were to build in this way against his own house, we should hear of but few failures, we should hear of but few bankruptcies, of few that would be incapable of paying their just debts; undoubtedly this may be included; but I speak of the chief thing—the soul, and its most important interests. This is the main thing to which our attention should be directed. My dear hearers, you have heard much of the gospel. You have been in the habit, I presume, of hearing the gospel. You have heard much said, and have thought much perhaps, about spreading the gospel. You have heard animating dis- courses, and read animating writings, about missionary la- bours and efforts to spread the gospel of the Lord Jesus amongst the heathen. You have heard many an animating discourse, perhaps, in favour of efforts to spread the gospel in the towns and villages of your own country; but do not forget one thing : do not let your attention be so taken up about building the wall around the city as to forget to ask, How goes on the building against my own house 3 How go on matters as to my own soul? Am I a Chris- tian 3 Do I repent of my sins? Do I believe in the Son of God for the salvation of my soul?—Of what account will it be to me that the wall is built all round Jerusalem, if it be down against my door? Here is the point. Un- doubtedly it behoves us to be attentive to the public cause of God and the public interests of man, but not so as to neglect our own souls. On the contrary, it is by attending first, and principally, to our own good, that we contribute to the general good. Or let me take it for granted that your soul is in a state of salvation—let me take it for granted that you are converted, that you are in the road to heaven and to God—yet this is not enough. Is your soul in a thriving, prosperous state, or do its concerns lie in ruins? It is possible you may be thriving in your busi- ness : it may be your fortune may be accumulating : it is possible you may have built yourselves a habitation in the country as well as in the city: but is the wall repaired in a spiritual sense ? Is thy soul prosperous, and art thou in health 3 Perhaps I ought to ask myself this question. I am sure I need it equally with you, and the Lord knows that, while preaching to you in this manner, I do not mean to overlook myself. I often fear lest, while watching the vineyards of others, my own should be neglected ; and it is one of the snares and temptations that is peculiar to ministers, that while they are attentive to Divine things, and studying them in reference to their hearers, they should neglect to deal in them for their own souls. I fear it is no unusual thing for a minister to be employed in building up the wall against his hearers' habitations, while it is all in ruins against his own. Let each of us, espe- cially those who are engaged in the sacred work of the ministry, say, O my soul, how is it with thee ? It was not without cause that the apostle said to young Timothy and Titus respectively, “Take heed to thyself and to the doc- trine.” No, it was not without cause that he charged each of them saying, “Keep thyself pure.” And it is by an attention, both as ministers and people, to our own souls’ best interests that we rear the wall of Zion—that we promote the glory of God and the good of those around us. Nor can we be useful without it to any considerable degree. No one of us can communicate what he does not possess. He, therefore, who sinks into carnality and earthly-mindedness in his own soul, will not be able to communicate spirituality to others. How can we commu- nicate what we do not feel? The Lord may in some in- stances make us of use, and bless that truth which does not proceed from our hearts ; but, ordinarily speaking, it is the spiritually-minded minister, and the spiritually- minded Christian, whom the Lord blesses in making the means of diffusing the savour of Christ. It is those that have salt in themselves that are the savour of Christ to those about them. Thus by building the wall, as I may say, against our own houses, we contribute to the well- being of the city of God. 2. Perhaps the next subject that demands our attention, or the object that calls for our solicitude next to our own souls, is the spiritual welfare of our families. They are our charge. God has given us them as a solemn charge to rear for him. Our children, our servants, all our domestics, are in a sort our solemn charge, and so answer to the wall, or that part of the wall over against our own apartments. The godly parent has a very solemn and important charge, and he feels it to be such. It has been remarked more than once, where a child has been born and added to a family, “Now we have not only another body to provide for, but another soul to pray for.” A parent has seemed sometimes like the commander of a convoy, having a num- ber of ships under his charge, to conduct through the boisterous sea of life, and to see them safely brought unto the desired harbour, Alas ! how painful must be the thought, if one, or two, or more of those thus committed to our charge, be wrecked and lost How interesting it must be to a serious mind to be able to say, at the last day, “Here am I, and the children which thou hast given me!” It is true that the parent is not accountable for the conversion of his children. He cannot change their hearts. He only that made the human mind can change it; but the means are his, the blessing is the Lord's. It is of im- portance that we carefully walk before our children, setting them a holy example, walking before our families and all our domestics in such a way as that we can recommend them to follow us. Oh for the parent to be able to say, on his dying bed, “Be ye followers of me as I also have been of Christ!” Oh for the parent to be able to say to his family, when taking leave of life, “The things that you have heard and seen of me do ; and the God of peace be with you !” This, my brethren, wherever it exists, is building over against our own apartment; this is building the wall of Zion; this is glorifying God. And it is worthy of notice that the church of God is thereby raised ; for what is the church—what is any Christian church—but a number of Christian families associated together ? A Christian family is the first nursery for the church of God. It is there that the seed of truth is ordinarily sown. It is there that the first principles of true religion are often in- stilled. The prayers, the tears, the cautions, and the ex- ample of a godly parent, who walks in the fear of God before his family, will leave effects on the mind. I have seldom known persons converted who were brought up in religious families, but they have dated their first im- pressions from something which took place in the family. They have dated their early convictions to what has passed 678 SERMONS AND SKETCHES. in family worship, perhaps, or in the counsel and example of their friends. Thus is the church of God supplied from Christian families—thus are the lively stones furnished, by which the spiritual house is reared. Let this be an encour- agement to us to build over against our own apartments. 3. Next to our families, perhaps, I may mention our Teligious conneacions. I may suppose that Christians are in the habit of forming themselves into Christian societies, according to the Christian rule; and if you are a member of a Christian church, undoubtedly it becomes your im- mediate charge to labour to build up those particular so- cieties. I do not mean to the exclusion of others. Chris- tians should cherish a largeness of heart, as I have said before, and should pray for all who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. Yet each has a special duty towards those peculiar connexions to which he stands related. I think, as a Christian, it behoves me to reprove a fault in any Christian man, whether immediately connected with me or not; but I am under special obligations to watch over those with whom I have entered into a solemn cove- nant so to do. Over those we are bound to watch with tender solicitude, with brotherly love, and to consider that as a part of our charge. With them we are bound more especially to unite in worship; and it is our interest as well as our duty so to do. It is an idle motion which I apprehend many people in this city entertain—I say in this city, owing to the great number of places of worship, and the great variety of preachers—it is an idle notion that people entertain, that, being members of a church, it is an abridgement of their liberty to be obliged to at- tend there. In fact, your soul will never prosper if you are constantly wandering hither and thither. It is he that is planted in the house of the Lord, and he only, that shall flourish in the courts of our God; therefore, while you bear good-will to all the churches of God, to all who love our Lord Jesus Christ, of every denomination, yet do not forget building up that part of the wall that stands over against your own dwelling. Fulfil your special ob- ligations; hereby it is that the building will rise. 4. Next to an attention to our religious connexions, follows an attention to those who are round about us—our neighbours, particularly the poor. God has placed us, some in one situation, some in another; but all of us see those round about us that stand in need of our help. “The poor ye have always with you.” God has wisely ordained that we should thus be linked together. The rich could not do without the poor, any more than the poor without the rich. Instead of cherishing animosity one against another—instead of the poor envying the rich, and the rich despising the poor—be as one. You might as well set at variance the eye against the hand, or the head against the feet; they are different members of the same body—they all contribute to the well-being of the whole—and, provided we cherish this spirit, we shall live as brethren, and feel ourselves to be one family; and it behoves those who are possessed, not only of opulence, but of a competency of worldly good, to study the well- being of those about them. Self-interest, or a selfish spirit, that lives only to itself, and cares for none but it- self, has, I was going to say, all its enjoyments to itself; but I can scarcely say it has any enjoyments. It is in doing good to those around us that we derive good. It is by mingling souls, by feeling for the miseries of others —it is by visiting the fatherless and widows in their af. fiction, as well as by keeping ourselves unspotted from the world—it is by dropping the tear of sympathy, with a sorrowing heart—it is by lending a hand to the children of the poor, to assist in doing that which their parents may not be able to do for them—it is by helping those around us, in things essential to their present and future happiness, that we become blessings to society and enjoy blessings ourselves. I apprehend that if we kept the spiritual good of man- kind more in view, we might be much more useful, espe- cially in the way of visiting the afflicted poor. It is in a time of affliction, when the hand of God is heavy on a man, when death appears full in his view, that the mind is opened to serious conversation. It is then that a little temporal relief will be acceptable, and that will be the time for serious advice and expostulation. If Christians were more disposed to water those who are round about them—to visit the poor, to avail themselves of every op- portunity of suggesting to their minds the principles of the gospel—who can tell what good would be done? And this is a way of doing good without any noise. It is a still, silent mode, and therefore corresponds with the re- presentation of the kingdom of God, that cometh without noise or observation. It is thus that we are called upon to build the wall over against our own apartments. But, II. I close the whole with A REFLECTION OR Two. 1. If that part of the wall which stood over against any one’s apartment was not built, you know the whole city was earposed to danger: if but one place remained un- reared, the enemy might get in there.'. Apply this thought —whatever good may be done in the world, whatever good may be done in the church, however zealous our ministers may be, however zealous our fellow Christians, however holy and circumspect they may all be, yet if one be neg- ligent, if you be loose, if you be worldly, sensual, and devilish, the wall is down over against your own apart- ment, the enemy will come in, and the whole city will be exposed, owing to your misconduct. Think then of what consequence the ill conduct of an individual may be. It was on this account that David lamented, in the fifty-first Psalm, after his awful conduct in the affair of Uriah and Bathsheba. He had, if I may so say, beaten down the walls of Jerusalem, and the enemy came in ; and, in this Psalm, one part of his prayer is, “Build thou the walls of Jerusalem ;” as if he had said, Lord, I have been the means of pulling them down—the enemy has hereby re- proached thy name—the heathen have scoffed at the God of Israel—the walls of Zion lie desolate, through my mis- conduct : O Lord, heal the breaches which my sins have caused. Think, O my brethren, of the great evil to the church of God, and to society, which the wicked conduct of an individual may occasion. 2. While attentive to your own soul’s concerns, to your own families, and to your neighbours, cherish a public spirit—keep in view the whole interest of Christ, cherish a largeness of heart; for while every man was to build the wall over against his own house, the end of it was the repairing of the whole wall—the security of the whole city was to be kept in view ; and hence you will find that there was so much public spirit that some built who had no houses against which to build. We read in the second verse that some men of Jericho builded. Now as they did not live in Jerusalem, the only end they could have in view was the public good—the general good ; and so we read of several others who were not inhabitants of Je- rusalem ; and, what is worthy of notice, some of those who had a part of the wall allotted to them were so la- borious as to get this part finished first, and then to help their neighbours. They did not stand idle when they had done their share. You will read in the twenty-fourth verse, and several parts of the chapter, that they rebuilt another piece. This should teach us, while we attend to our own personal interests, and the personal interests of those immediately connected with us, to cherish enlarged- ness of heart. Let no time be lost in idleness; that which can be spared from our own concerns, let us apply to the well-being of the world at large. Seek the good of all mankind. Labour all that in you lies to send the gospel throughout the whole land—yea, the whole world. Let your prayers and your efforts grasp nothing less than the world itself. It is in this way that we shall glorify God and be useful in our generations. LIII. —CHRIST OUR SUBSTITUTE IN DEATH AND JUDGMENT. - [Sketch of a Funeral Sermon, delivered Feb. 28th, 1790.] “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judg- ment: so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.”—Heb. ix. 27, 28. THE truths here taught us are the most serious and inter- esting. None doubt the reality of death, and few that of CHRIST OUR SUBSTITUTE IN DEATH AND JUDGMENT. 679 judgment; but many live as if they credited neither. The sum of the text is, Christ is our substitute, both in death and judgment; and yet we die and must appear at judg- ment. To make this plain, observe, we are appointed to death and judgment in two ways:–First, By our sub- jection to corruption, or corporeal death, and to an ap- pearance before God in judgment. . In this view the ap- pointment takes place upon mankind in general, good and bad, and that notwithstanding the death and mediation of Christ. Secondly, By the sentence of God as a Law- giver. It was the sentence against man : “In the day thou eatest,” &c. In this view death includes more than a subjection to corruption ; it includes its sting: and judg- ment includes more than appearing ; it includes our final condemnation. This last is the meaning of the text. It speaks not of what actually takes place, but of what must have taken place had not the mediation of Christ inter- posed. The text speaks of the penal sentence of the Lawgiver, and then of our deliverance from that sentence through Christ, our substitute ; so that though in some sense it is still appointed for men to die, and to appear before God in judgment, yet not in the sense of the text. Believers will find death divested of its sting, and judg- ment of its terror, ver. 28. . From the text thus explained we may make a few re- marks :- 1. That the sentence which all mankind lie under, as sinners, is no less than a subjection to everlasting ruin. Some have supposed that the threatening, “In the day thou eatest thou shalt die,” meant no more than corporeal death, or subjection to bodily corruption; but if so, the mediation of Christ does not deliver us from any part of the sentence of the law, (for we are still subject to this,) which the apostle supposes here it does. 2. That the judgment here referred to is the judgment at the end of the world. Some have supposed it to refer to that which follows death immediately; but the whole text shows the contrary: it speaks of what we are subject to in death and judgment, and of Christ as our substitute in both. Two things require our consideration : I. THE Doomſ THAT LIES ON MEN As BREAKERS OF GOD’s LAw.—The sentence is awful. We may judge what death and judgment would have been to us all, by what it is to those who die out of Christ. Think what death was to the old world, Sodom and Gomorrah, Korah and his company, Saul, Belshazzar, the rich fool, Judas, and others. This for substance was the doom upon us all. Two cir- cumstances in particular in these deaths rendered them awful. 1. They were attended with the loss of all their enjoy- 'ments. Their all being in this world, 'tis gone, and gone for ever ! None of this beyond the grave, nor the hope of it, or of any enjoyment whatever: even wicked enjoy- ment is gone. 2. They had a load of guilt upon them when they left the world, which would sink them lower than the grave. This is the sting of death ! “I said therefore unto you, That ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.” And this is an essen- tial part of that death to which the sentence of the law subjected us. It was usual, under the law, to transfer guilt by confessing it upon the head of the sacrifice, teach- ing us that, if our guilt was not transferred to Christ our sacrifice, it must lie upon our heads when we come to die and appear before God. Oh what a thing it is to go down to the grave with our blood upon our head Could we leave this load behind, death would be divested of its chief terror. But this is not all : the sentence exposes us to a judgment hereafter. Death is not a going out of existence. We are accountable creatures, and must be accountable for all we do, and must have stood to the issue but for Christ, and must, after all, if we die out of Christ. O my hearers, this is true ! Do think what judgment will be to those that die enemies to Christ, and thence learn what it would have been to us all but for him. Three things in particular here deserve notice:—(1.) It is a judgment that takes cognizance of the heart.—Allim- positions are at an end. How different will characters then appear to what they have here ! God is not mocked : (2.) The character of the Judge.—God is Judge himself! His eyes are flames of fire. He cannot be deceived. A God of impartial justice, he cannot be prepossessed or bribed. A God of almighty power, Rev. xviii. 8. (3.) The importance of the decision.—It is final and decisive; no appeal from it ! This will be the case of sinners, on whom the sentence of the law is executed, and must have been the case of all but for what follows, ver. 28. This leads us to consider, II. THE DELIVERANCE which BELIEVERS OBTAIN FROM THAT DOOM THROUGH THE SACRIFICE AND SECOND COMING of CHRIST.-Not from subjection to corruption, nor yet from appearing before God in judgment. In this respect the text is true of all, though that is not the meaning of it. Good and bad, young and old, healthy and afflicted, wise and foolish ; all must die.—We must shortly, without distinction, part with all our earthly enjoyments, friends, property, &c., and all our religious opportunities will soon be over. Our bodies will be reduced to dust, and our souls appear before God. All this we must pass through, whatever we are, and notwithstanding the mediation of Christ; but yet we are delivered by him from every thing in death or judgment that can render it truly terrible. If we inquire how, we have an answer in the text. 1. It is through his having died for us, “To bear the sin of many.” Observe, it is sin that is the sting of death; and Christ, by his death, has removed this sting away in behalf of all that believe in him ; as the sacrifices bore the sins of Israel, and bore them away, so Christ by his death “hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows.”— “He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him ; and with his stripes we are healed.” He bore the wrath due to our sin. The shaft of vengeance spent itself in his heart! Hence death becomes a sleep, sleeping in Je- sus—a putting off this tabernacle—a departure. Hence Christians have met death with pleasure, though in him- self the king of terrors. Death was originally under the power of Satan; but Christ by death has destroyed that power of Satan over death, and death now becomes Christ's servant and theirs: “Death is yours.” 2. As our deliverance from the sting of death is through Christ's death, so our deliverance from the terror of judg- ment will be owing to Christ’s standing our friend in that day. The terror of judgment is condemnation for sin, but Christ will be our Advocate. Observe, (1.) He came before to bear sin, but now without sin. (2.) He comes to salva- tion ; to save our bodies from the grave, and body and soul from condemnation ; to give the final blow. “Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect 4" (3.) This is to them, and them only, that look for him, that love his appearing, 2 Pet. iii. 12; 2 Tim. iv. 8. As to the deceased, we most of us knew little or nothing of him. I only knew that he was not destitute of an expectation of being “for ever with the Lord,” and I hope that expectation was not in vain. And you, my friend, who are now deprived of your only remaining relative, you are left, it is true, in a world of temptation and afflic- tion; yet you have, I trust, a Friend and a Brother who yet liveth, and one who is said to have loved his own that were in the world, and to love them to the end. A word to the congregation.—You have got to die, and it is a very serious matter whether this sentence be exe- cuted upon you in its terror: it must—it will—if out of Christ. Death will then have its sting, and Christ will come to your confusion. To the church.-We are about to commemorate his death. He hath wrought so great a deliverance—hath borne our sins. Look for him. Be disengaged. Have your work forward. “The Lord is at hand.” LIV.—PASTOR'S REQUIRED TO FEED THE FLOCK OF CHRIST. “Feed my sheep.”—John xxi. 16. THE conversation which passed between our Lord and Peter, of which the text forms a part, was designed to ad- 6SO SERMONS AND SRETCHES. •x minister reproof, and to communicate forgiveness. The cutting question was calculated to wound him to the quick ; the kind direction amounted to a full forgiveness. He might expect he had lost his office—but no–he shall be restored—“Feed my sheep.” There are a few things suggested by these words which have of late made some impression on my mind; particu- larly, the love of Christ to his people—my own duty as a pastor—and the character necessary for you to sustain, if you would thrive under the word. Let me notice, I. THE LovE of CHRIST To His PEOPLE, discovered in this charge to Peter.—You are to view him as a shepherd —the good Shepherd of the sheep—the chief Shepherd. The time also is worthy of notice; he had just laid down his life for the sheep; nay more, he had taken it again (Heb. xiii. 20); and being now about to leave his flock in the world, as sheep among wolves, he commits them to his under-shepherd. There is a close connexion between his having died for them and his desire to have them fed ; which is afterward recognised by the apostle Paul, in his farewell address to the elders of the church at Ephesus: “Feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” Observe three things in particular:- 1. The interest he claims in them :—“My sheep”—“my lambs.” They are his as given him by the Father, John x. 29. They are his as having purchased them with his blood, Acts xx. 28. And they are his as being the travail of his soul, the reward of his death, which “satisfied” him. 2. The qualification he requires in their shepherd— Love . He would not trust them with one who did not love him. One who did not love him, a hireling, would starve them, or poison them, and flee in a time of danger, John x. 12. Give him the fleece, the flock may care for themselves. But if we love Christ, we shall love his peo- ple for his sake. We shall feel a subordinate interest in them. It is by this a good shepherd is distinguished from a hireling, John x. 11. Love will inspire vigilance and boldness in feeding the flock, and defending them from danger. David was a genuine shepherd, when he risked his life to save a lamb. 3. The provision he has made for their being fed.—Under- shepherds cannot furnish the pasture; the utmost we can do is to lead you into it. But Christ does more. He not only provides shepherds, but pasture—the gospel, of which he is the subject. II. THE DUTY of A MINISTER. To His PEOPLE.—It is to “feed ” them. The word here rendered “feed” signifies the whole duty of a shepherd, and not merely to supply them with food—to govern them, protect them, to care for them ; or (as Peter himself expresses it) “to take the over- sight of them.” To discharge this duty as it demands is a great matter. 1. It requires that we be divested of a selfish spirit.— The description of an idol shepherd, by Zechariah, (xi. 16, 17,) has of late been much on my mind. Two evils hang over him who is his own idol, or who wishes to be idol- ized by his people—a blast on his labours, and a mind void of judgment. 2. It requires that we be conversant with the gospel.— How else can we lead others into it? If we be worldly- minded, we shall feed your evil principles and propensi- ties, but not your graces; at best, only your mental faculties. Many are thus fed by ingenious, speculative preachers. But we must feed your best principles—your faith, hope, and love. Lord! who is sufficient for these things III. THE CHARACTER NecessARY For You To sustAIN IN ORDER TO THRIVE UNDER THE word.—You must be Christ’s sheep, or you will not know his voice, the gospel will not be the food you will relish. If you are his sheep, you will enter in at the door. Christ is the door. You will know his voice, and follow him. You will enter his fold, uniting yourself to his people; and you will go in and out, and find pasture. You will enter into the spirit of the church, as described by Solomon : “Tell me, O thou whom my soul loveth, where thou feedest ; where thou makest thy flock to rest at noon,” &c. Sustaining this character, you will not famish for want of food. The gospel is rich pasture. Having led you into it on earth, may I be able at last to give an account, both of you and myself, with joy, and not with grief! LV.—SPIRITUAL KNOWLEDGE AND HOLY LOWE NECESSARY FOR THE GOSPEL MINISTRY. [Sketch of a Charge delivered to a young Minister at his Ordination.”] “He was a burning and a shining light.”—John v. 35. IN addressing you, my dear brother, on this solemn occa- sion, I shall not undertake so much to communicate any thing new as to remind you of what you know, and have felt already. You are aware that there are two main ob- jects to be attained in the work of the Christian ministry— enlightening the minds and affecting the hearts of the peo- ple. These are the usual means by which the work of God is accomplished. Allow me to remind you that, in order to the attainment of these objects, you yourself must be under their influence. If you would enlighten others, you must be “a shining light” yourself. And if you would affect others, you yourself must feel ; your own heart must “burn " with holy ardour. You must be “a burning and a shining light.” It is not enough that you should be what is called a popular preacher. A man may have gifts, so as to shine in the eyes of the multitude, almost as bright as he does in his own eyes; and yet possess little or nothing of spirit- wal light—light, the tendency of which is to transform the heart. So also a man may burn with zeal, as Jehu did, and yet have little or no true love to God, or affection for the souls of men. Spiritual light and holy love are the qualities which Christ here commends. You will give your candid attention, my dear brother, while I endeavour to remind you of the necessity of each of these, in the different parts of your important work:- in the great work of preaching the gospel—in presiding in the church—in visiting your people—and in your whole demeanour through life. I. In the great work of PREACHING THE GOSPEL.—O my brother, in this department we had need resemble the living creatures mentioned by Ezekiel, (chap. i. 18,) “full of eyes.” We had almost need, in one view, to be made up of pure intellect—to be all light. I shall not attempt to decide how much knowledge is necessary, of men and things, of past and present times, of the church and the world; but shall confine myself to two or three particu- lars, as specimens. 1. How necessary is it to understand in some good de- gree the holy character of God!—It is this to which you will find that men in general are blind. They conceive of God as if he were such a one as themselves . . . . And hence they fancy they are not enemies to him. You will have to point out the true character of God, that the sinner may see his own deformity, and not have the enmity of his heart concealed from his eyes. A just view of the holy character of God will also be one of the best preservatives against error in other respects. Almost all the errors in the world proceed from ignorance of the true character of God. To what else can be attributed the errors of So- cinianism, Arianism, and Antinomianism 7 From de- graded views of God’s character arise diminutive notions of the evil of sin—of its just demerit—of our lost con- dition—of our need of a great Saviour—and of the work of the Spirit. O my brother, may you shed abroad this light with unsullied lustre And, in order to this, com- mune much with God in private ; since there is no way of knowing the true character of another so well as by personal, private intercourse. 2. A knowledge of Christ, as the Mediator between God and man, is necessary.—“This is life eternal, to know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” Here, also, men are greatly ignorant. He is in the world, and the world knows him not. It must be our concern, as ministers, to know him ; and, comparatively speaking, “to know nothing else” . . . . and this that we may diffuse the knowledge of him to others. The glory of Christ's character is such that if he were but viewed in a true light, and not through the false mediums of prejudice and the love of sin, but through • The ten which follow this were also delivered on similar occasions. KNOWLEDGE AND LOWE ESSENTIAL TO THE MINISTRY. 681 the mirror of the gospel, he must be loved, John iv. 29. 39–42. Here, my brother, we need to be intimately ac- quainted with Christ, that we may be able on all occasions to give him a just character—that we may be able to tell of his dignity, his love, the generous principles of his undertaking, and how nobly he executed the arduous enterprise. 3. A knowledge of human nature as created is necessary. —We shall be unskilful workmen, unless we are acquainted with the materials on which we have to work. It is not more necessary for a surgeon or a physician to understand the anatomy of the human body, than it is for ministers to understand what may be called the anatomy of the soul. We had need enter into all the springs of action. In particular, we must be very careful to distinguish between primary and criminal passions. God habitually addresses the former, and so should we, but not the latter; the latter being only the abuse of the principles implanted in our nature. To be more explicit, God has created us with the love of possession, but the excess of this love be- comes covetousness and idolatry. God has implanted within us a principle of emulation; but the abuse of this is pride and ambition. God has created us with the love of pleasure; but this indulged to excess becomes sen- suality. Now the gospel never addresses itself to our corrupt passions ; but the word of God is full of appeals to those principles of our nature with which we are cre- ated. For example: in his word, God addresses himself to our love of possession; and points to “an inheritance, incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadeth not away”—to the principle of emulation; and presents to our view “a crown"—to our love of pleasure ; and informs us that “in his presence there is fulness of joy, and at his right hand are pleasures for evermore.” And, in short, in the same way, he addresses the principles of zeal, love, hatred, shame, fear, revenge, &c. And so must we. 4. A knowledge of human nature as depraved is neces- sary.—Without this knowledge, we shall be unable to trace and detect the workings of a wicked heart. Sin is a deceitful thing, and we are apt to be imposed upon by its specious names. Parsimoniousness is called frugality; prodigality, generosity; bitterness of spirit in reproving, fidelity; and resentment, a becoming spirit. We need therefore to know the root of the disease, and the various ways in which it operates. In order to effect a cure, the knowledge of the disease is indispensable ; and in order to attain to this knowledge, we must study the various symptoms by which the disorder may be distinguished. 5. A knowledge of human nature as sanctified by the Spirit is necessary.—Without this, we shall be unable to trace the work of God in the soul; and unable to fan the gentle flame of Divine love in the genuine Christian, and to detect and expose the various counterfeits. You will need also, my brother, a heart warmed with Divine things, or you will never be “a burning and a shining light.” When we are thinking or preaching, we need to burn, as well as shine. When we study, we may rack our brains, and form plans ; but unless “our hearts burn within us,” all will be a mere skeleton—our thoughts mere bones; whatever be their number, they will be all dry—very dry ; and if we do not feel what we say, our preaching will be poor dead work. Affected zeal will not do. A gilded fire may shine, but it will not warm. We may smite with the hand, and stamp with the foot, and throw ourselves into violent agitations; but if we feel not, it is not likely the people will—unless, indeed, it be a feeling of disgust. . But suppose there be no affectation, nor any deficiency of good and sound doctrine; yet if in our work we feel no inward satisfaction, we shall resem- ble a mill-stone—preparing food for others, the value of which we are unable to appreciate ourselves. Indeed, without feeling, we shall be incapable of preaching any truth or of inculcating any duty aright. How can we display the evil of sin, the love of Christ, or any other important truth, unless we feel it? How can we preach against sin, without feeling a holy indignation against it? It is this that will cause us, while we denounce sin, to weep over the sinner. Otherwise, we may deal in flings and personalities; but these will only irritate; they will never reclaim. O ! if ever we do any good in our work, it must be the effect of love to God and love to men— love to the souls of men, while we detest, and expose, and denounce their sins. How could Paul have pursued his work with the ardour and intenseness which he manifested, if his heart had not burned with holy love? II. Spiritual light and holy love are equally necessary in PRESIDING IN THE CHURCH OF GoD. Wisdom and love are necessary, calmly to lay down rules of discipline—to solve difficult questions—to pre- pare and digest, in concurrence with the deacons, such matters as require to be laid before the church—to nip little differences in the bud—to mediate between contend- ing parties, &c. My brother, think of the example of the Lord Jesus, who, in his intercourse with his disciples, saluted them with this benediction—“Peace be with you!” The great art of presiding in a church, so as to promote its welfare, is to be neutral between the members, always on the side of God and righteousness, and to let them see that, whatever your opinion may be, you really love them. III. These qualities are necessary in the more private duty of visiTING THE PEOPLE. A considerable part of the pastoral office consists in visiting the people, especially the afflicted. Paul could appeal to the elders of the church at Ephesus, that he had tasught them publicly and “from house to house.” It is of great consequence that, in your pastoral visits, you should preserve the character of “a burning and a shining light.” Pastoral visits should not degenerate into reli- gious gossiping—a practice in which some have indulged to the disgrace of religion. Unused to habits of reflection, they feel no relish for solitude; and therefore, to employ the time which hangs so heavy on their hands, they saun- ter about to see their friends, and to ask them how they are. Nor is this the worst. Satan promptly furnishes a subject where there is such a dearth; and hence gossiping has generally produced tales of slander, and practices which have proved a scandal to the Christian name ! I trust, my brother, you know the preciousness of time too well to squander it away in idle visits. And yet visiting is an essential part of your work, that you may become acquainted with the circumstances, the spiritual necessities of your people. They will be able to impart their feel- ings freely and unreservedly ; and you will be able to ad- minister the appropriate counsel to much better purpose than you possibly can from the pulpit, and with greater particularity than would be becoming in a public address. Only let us burn while we shine. Let a savour of Christ accompany all our instructions. A minister who main- tains an upright, affectionate conduct, may say almost any thing, in a way of just reproof, without giving offence. IV. Spiritual light and holy love are necessary in You R who LEDEMEANOUR THROUGH LIFE. May you, my brother, shine in holy wisdom, and burn with ardent love. You will need them, wherever you go—in whatever you en- gage—that you may walk as one of the children of light. Allow me to point out a few things which I have found of use, to conduce to these ends : — 1. Read the lives of good men—the lives of such men as God has distinguished for gifts, and graces, and useful- ness. Example has a great influence. The Scriptures abound with such examples. And, blessed be God, we have some now. -ºf 2. Study the word of God, above all other books, and pray over it.—It is this will set our hearts on fire. There are no such motives exhibited any where as there—no such exhibitions of wisdom and love. 3. Read men, as well as books, and your own heart, in order that you may read others.-Copyists, you know, are generally bunglers. There is nothing that equals what is taken immediately from the life. We need always be making our observations, wherever we are, or wherever we go. If we get a system of human nature, or experience, or any thing else, from books, rather than from our own knowledge, it will be liable to two disadvantages. First, It is not likely to be so near the truth; for systems which go through several hands are like successive copies of a painting, every copy of the preceding one is more unlike the original—or like the telling of a tale, the circumstances of which you do not know of your own personal know- ledge : every time it is repeated there is some variation, 682 SERMONS AND SRETCHES. and thus it becomes further removed from the truth. Thus Agrippa showed his wisdom, when, instead of depending on the testimony of others, he determined to hear Paul himself. Secondly, If it be correct, still it will not be so serviceable to you as if it were a system of your own working. Saul’s armour might be better than David's sling ; but not to him, seeing he had not proved it. 4. Live the life of a Christian, as well as of a minister. —Read as one, preach as one, converse as one—to be profited, as well as to profit others. One of the greatest temptations of a ministerial life is to handle Divine truth as ministers, rather than , as Christians—for others, rather than for ourselves. But the word will not profit them that preach it, any more than it will them that hear it, unless it be “mixed with faith.” If we study the Scriptures as Christians, the more familiar we are with them, the more we shall feel their importance; but if our object be only to find out something to say to others, our familiarity with them will prove a snare. It will resemble that of soldiers, and doctors, and undertakers with death ; the more fa- miliar we are with them, the less we shall feel their im- portance. See Prov. xxii. 17, 18; Psal. i. 2, 3. • , 5. Commune with God in private.—Walking with God in the closet is a grand means, with his blessing, of il- luminating our minds and warming our hearts. When Moses came down from the mount, his face shone bright, and his heart burned with zeal for the honour of God and the good of his people. Alas! alas ! for want of this . . . . See Jer. x. 21. 6. Hold forth the word of life, not only by precept, but by a holy practice.—“Let your light so shine before men, that they, seeing your good works, may glorify your Fa- ther who is in heaven.” Without this, in vain will be all our pretensions to being “burning and shining lights.” My dear brother, allow me to conclude with an earnest prayer, that you may long continue a “burning and a shining light” to this church; and that, after having “turned many to righteousness,” you may shine as a dis- tinguished star in the firmament for ever and ever ! LVI.-ON AN INTIMATE AND PRACTICAL AC- QUAINTANCE WITH THE WORD OF GOD. “Ezra had prepared his heart to seek the law of the Lord, and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and judgments.”—Ezra vii. 10. My dear brother, the long and intimate friendship which has subsisted between us will, I hope, render any apology unnecessary for my occupying this situation upon this solemn occasion. I should certainly have felt a pleasure in hearing some senior minister; but with your desire, on the ground of intimate friendship, I feel disposed to comply. I feel a peculiar pleasure in addressing you ; for I can speak to you as a friend—a brother—an equal—an acquaintance, with whom I have often taken sweet coun- sel, and walked to the house of God. You will not, I am sure, misinterpret my freedom, or suppose that I wish to assume any superiority over you, or to dictate to you. You expect me to insist upon the importance of the work in which you are engaged; and for this purpose I have directed my attention to the passage I have read, and would recommend to you the example of Ezra. Example has a strong tendency to excite us to emula- tion ; and in Ezra the scribe you have the character of an eminent servant of the most high God held up to your admiration and imitation. Ministers in the New Testa- ment are called “scribes, instructed unto the kingdom of heaven ;” and in Ezra you have the character of “a ready scribe.” There are four things in his character upon which I shall discourse, and which I would recommend to you. I. SEEK THE LAw, or will, of God.—I need not inform you, my brother, that the law, in the Old Testament especially, is commonly to be understood as synonymous with the Scriptures, the word, or the revealed will of God. The Scriptures were then as commonly called “the law of the Lord” as they are now called “the word of God.” So the term is to be understood here. To “seek the law of the Lord” is the same as to ascertain his mind and will in his sacred word. , You are to “feed the people with knowledge and un- derstanding;” but you cannot do this without under- standing yourself. Your lips are to “keep knowledge,” and the people are to “seek the law at your mouth ;” but, in order to communicate it to them, you must seek it at the mouth of God. ~ 1. Seek it, my brother.—It will never be found with- out. It is a mine, in which you will have to dig. And it is a precious mine, which will well repay all your labour. 2. Seek it at the fountain-head.—You feel, I doubt not, a great esteem for many of your brethren now living, and admire the writings of some who are now no more; and you will read their productions with attention and plea- sure. But whatever excellence your brethren possess, it is all borrowed ; and it is mingled with error. Learn. your religion from the Bible. Let that be your decisive rule. Adopt not a body of sentiments, or even a single sentiment, solely on the authority of any man—however great, however respected. Dare to think for yourself. Human compositions are fallible. But the Scriptures were written by men who wrote as they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Human writings on religion resemble preaching—they are useful only so far as they illustrate the Scriptures, and induce us to search them for ourselves. 3. Seek the will of God in every part of the Bible.—It is very true that some parts of the Bible are more interest- ing than others. But “all Scripture is profitable” and necessary. Do not take this part and leave that. Some people foolishly talk of Arminian texts, and Calvinistic texts, as if Scripture were repugnant to itself! That system, whatever it be called, cannot be the right one, that rejects any one part of Scripture whatever. 4. Seek it perseveringly.—Do not reckon yourself so to have found it as to be self-sufficient. Be open to con- viction from every quarter. Seek it by reading, by medi- tation, by prayer, by conversation—by all the means that offer. Do not reject information from an inferior, or even an enemy. In the study of the Scriptures you will al- ways be a learner. II. PREPARE You R HEART to seek the law of the Lord. —There is a preparation of heart in which we are wholly passive, which is, in the strictest sense, the work of God; and, without this, woe be to any of us that should dare to set up for teachers of his law and gospel !—But there is also a preparation of heart in which we are active ; and this is the preparedness intended in the text. In this, even, God is the cause: he actuates; but them we act. Of this preparation we have to speak; and it consists in prayer, and self-examination, and meditation. Your work is a course, and for this you must prepare by “girding up the loins of your mind”—a fight, and you must “put on the whole armour of God.” The work of God should not be entered upon rashly. God frequently brings his servants through a train of instructions and trials, that they may be fitted for it. Moses was forty years at court, and forty years a shepherd. These were his days of pre- paration. Christ prepared his disciples by his instruc- tions during his life, and previous to their great work they prepared themselves, Acts i. Such preparation of heart is not only necessary for your entrance into the pastoral office, but also for your continu- ance in it. You will find that every exercise requires it. You do not need being guarded against that erroneous notion of so trusting to the Spirit as to neglect personal preparation for your public labours. But this prepared- ness is not only requisite for speaking the truth in public, but as well for seeking it in private. Let all your private meditations be mingled with prayer. You will study your Bible to wonderful advantage, if you go to it spiritually- minded. It is this which causes us to see the beauty and to feel the force of many parts of Scripture, to which, in a carnal state of mind, we are blind and stupid. If we go to the study of the Bible wise in our own conceits, and self-sufficient, we shall get no good. When we would be taught from God's word, we must learn as little children. Again, If we go to the Bible merely, or chiefly, to find MINISTERIAL ATTENTION TO THE SCRIPTURES. 683 something to say to the people, without respect to our own souls, we shall make but poor progress. My brother, study Divine truth as a Christian, and not merely as a minister. Consider your own soul as deeply interested ; and dread the thought of cultivating others, while you suffer your own heart to remain uncultivated. If you study Divine truth as a Christian, your being constantly engaged in the study will promote your growth in grace ; you will be like “a tree planted by rivers of water;” you will not only bring forth fruit for the people, but your leaf shall not wither, and whatever you do shall prosper. But if merely as a minister, the reverse. I believe it is a fact, that where a minister is wicked, he is the most hard- ened against conviction of any character. III. KEEP THE LAw.—“Do it.” The apostle Paul, in writing to Timothy, is very particular as to personal re- ligion, in a bishop, or pastor. “Take heed to thyself, and to the doctrine.”—“Keep thyself pure.”—“Be thou an eacample of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.” Observe, too, the connexion in which this exhortation stands—“Let no man despise thy youth; ” plainly intimating that a holy example will render even youth respectable. Your Lord and Master both did and taught the will of God. 1. Dread nothing more than recommending that to your people to which you do not attend yourself.—You may preach with the fervour of an angel ; but if your practice, your habitual deportment, be inconsistent, all you do will be in vain. 2. More is expected from you than from others.—A wicked preacher is of all characters the most contemptible. Even the profane despise him. 3. You will attend to practical preaching.—But how can you either exhort or reprove, if your people should ever have it in their power to say, “Physician, heal thyself?” —“Thou that teachest another, teachest thou not thyself?” 4. Attend not only to such duties as fall under the eye of man, but walk with God—in your family, and in your closet. It will require all your wisdom to bring up your children “in the nurture and admonition of the Lord ; ” and if you rule not well in your own house, you cannot expect to maintain a proper influence in the church of God. Beware also of omitting secret devotions. Con- versing with men and things may brighten your gifts; but communion with God is necessary to improve your graces. IV. TEACH in Israel the statutes and judgments of God.—It is not for me to dictate to you what doctrines you are to teach, or what precepts you should enforce. But I hope you will evince your sincerity by preaching in the main such things as, in your confession of faith, you have just avowed; not however to the neglect of other points, which could scarcely be expected to be introduced in such a document. The more you are acquainted with the word of God, the more you will find it abounds with truths, reviving truths too, which seldom or never have a place in confessions of faith. But, passing this, allow me to give you a few general hints on the subject of teaching. 1. Let Christ and his apostles be your examples.—Teach as they taught. It would be worth while to read over the Gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles, if it were only to discover their manner of teaching. Dare to avow every truth which they avowed ; and address your audience in such language as they addressed to theirs, and that with- out softening it down, or explaining it away. 2. Give every part of the truth its due proportion.— Preach every truth in the proportion in which it is intro- duced by God in his word. You will find some people attached to one class of truths, and others to another class; but be you attached to all. If you are habitually dwelling upon one truth, it must be to the neglect of others; and it is at your peril to keep back any part of the counsel of God! If you preach not the great doctrines of the gospel, such as the entire depravity of our nature, the atonement of Christ, the work of the Spirit, &c., the people of God will be famished. If you preach these doctrines, to the neglect of close practical addresses, they will be in danger of a religious surfeit. If you preach doctrinally, some may call you an Antinomian ; if you preach practically, others may call you a legalist. But go on, my brother: this is a kind of dirt that won't stick. Preach the law evangelically, and the gospel practically; and God will bless you, and make you a blessing. - 3. Dare to teach unwelcome truths.—The Christian ministry must be exercised with affection and fidelity. Study not to offend any man; yet keep not back important truth, even if it do offend. You must not enter the pulpit to indulge your own temper; but neither are you at liberty to indulge the humour of others. Be more con- cerned to commend yourself to the consciences of your people than to their good opinion. 4. Give Scriptural proof of what you teach.--Do not imagine that mere assertion will do. Evidence ought to form the body of your discourses. Such expressions as “I say,” uttered in the most magisterial tone, will, after all, prove nothing—except the unwarrantable confidence of the preacher. 5. Consider yourself as standing engaged to teach all that hear you—rich and poor, young and old, godly and ungodly—“warning the wicked, lest his blood be required at your hands.” Seek the salvation of every man’s soul. This was the apostolic method ; “warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom.” Whether every indi- vidual of your congregation will accept your message is another question. Your concern should be, not to inter- meddle with what is not revealed, but to “preach the gospel to every creature;” and to pray for all, as Paul did for Agrippa and his court, without distinction : “I would that—all that hear me this day were—altogether such as I am.” - 6. Teach privately as well as publicly.—Make your visits among your people subservient to instruction and edification. Take the example of Paul, Acts xx. 20. Let a savour of Christ accompany you in your intercourse with your flock. This will greatly contribute to your public usefulness. My brother, seek the law of God—seek it with a pre- pared heart—reduce it to practice—and teach it diligently; and you will be, not only, like Ezra, a “ready” scribe ; but “a scribe well-instructed in the kingdom of God.” LVII.— MINISTERS ARE APPOINTED TO ROOT OUT EVIL, AND TO CULTIVATE THAT WHICH IS GOOD. “I have this day set thee over the nations, and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, and to build, and to plant.”—Jer. i. 10. THIS language, my brother, is not in every sense applicable to the present occasion. The prophet’s was an extraordi- nary, yours is an ordinary office. His was to be exer- cised over nations and kingdoms, yours over a church and congregation. Yet, even in his case, there was no civil power—he was no pope—nor was he invested with the authority of a modern bishop. All the power he had per- tained to his office as a prophet: he had no secular au- thority: he pulled down and built up prophetically. And though you have no such power as this, by extraordinary inspiration, yet, in a way of declaring the truths of God's word, “whosesoever sins you remit, they are remitted, and whosesoever sins you retain, they are retained.” Your labour is less than the prophet's was, but the na- ture of your work is much the same ; and the same spirit of faithfulness is required over a few things as over many things. Your work is divided into two parts. One is, to dis- courage evil: “to root out, to pull down, to destroy, and to throw down.” The other is, to encourage good : “to build, and to plant.” §: The imagery, you perceive, is of two kinds—that of a house, and that of a garden. The church is God’s house, God’s building ; and you are appointed to be a labourer “ together with God,” to pull down, and destroy, and throw down the rubbish, and then to build upon a new and good foundation. The church is also God’s garden ; and you are appointed 684 SERMONS AND SKETCHES. to work in it, and keep it in order, to root out the weeds, and to plant and cultivate the goodly fruit. Give me your attention, my dear brother, while I inquire what are the evils you are to oppose, and the good you are to encourage, and the methods to be adopted in pursuing these objects. Let us, I. Inquire what ARE THE Evils AGAINST which YoU MUST CONTEND, AND THE METHODS YOU ARE TO ADOPT IN THIS OPPOSITION. 1. By your public ministry root out errors in doctrine.— Overturn them—not by empty declamation, but by solid Scriptural evidence—not by the wild fury of a bigot, but with the pure love of the Christian pastor, whose care it should be to preserve his charge from things that tend to the ruin of their souls.-Particularly, if you love God, you will be concerned to root up every thing that opposes the glory of his character and moral government. Windicate the ways of God to men against all their hard thoughts and speeches. Vindicate his law both in its precepts and pe- nalty. You have observed, I doubt not, that this is the foundation for the grace of the gospel.—If you love Christ, you will root up those principles which degrade his dignity and set aside his atonement.—If you love your people, you will root up those principles which endanger the salvation of their souls; such as self-righteousness and presumptuous hope. There is plenty of work to remove the covering and to pull down the vain expectations of sinners . . . . You have seen, and will see, many whose habitual deportment proves them enemies to the cross, who yet entertain hopes of heaven : try and find out the delusive ground of their hope, and expose it ; only be careful to avoid personalities, which will irritate rather than convince. . 2. By leading the church, in the exercise of faithful dis- cipline, root out evil-doers.-Churches which in former years have been respectable and prosperous are fast falling into decay for want of discipline. Some have pleaded the parable of the wheat and tares as an excuse for negligence in discipline ; but this is a perversion. The field is the world, not the church. The application of the principle to the church would render all the rules of the gospel superfluous. 3. By rendering your occasional visits subservient to the purposes of conviction and correction.—You may in this way root up many evils which you cannot by either of the other means. There are cases which you cannot touch in the pulpit, on account of their singularity and minuteness, without being personal, which, as I just said, will irritate rather than reclaim. There are also cases which do not fall under church censure, which yet should come within the cognizance of a faithful pastor. This, I confess, is a difficult part of your work; and some, for fear of giving offence, have declined it : but suppose offence were given, if you are in the path of duty, what have you to fear? Some will say, “If such and such persons are offended, the cause will sink.” Then let it sink. You may safely leave that, however, to Christ: if it should therefore sink, he will not blame you. But what cause must that be that is upheld by such unworthy means ? After all, however, there is a way of managing these things by which offence is sel- dom or ever given. The great secret is to mingle love with your fidelity. This was Paul’s method with the Corinthi- ans. Consider the peculiar temptations and constitutional or educational tendencies of the party, and mingle counsel and encouragement with censure. We proceed to inquire, II. WHAT IS THAT GooD which YoU ARE To ENcourAGE, or what is the work denoted by building and planting 3– This is a much more agreeable part of the subject than the other, though not more necessary. In general, encourage and impart just sentiments. The truth has ever been God's honoured instrument in doing good.—Encourage and cultivate holy tempers and disposi- tions. I abour to build up your people in these things. That is not always the best ministry that draws the most followers, but that which does the most good. When I see a company of modest, humble, upright, lovely, diligent, holy people, I see the best evidence of a good minister. But let me be a little more particular. First, As A BUILDER— 1. Be sure that you lay a right foundation.—Christ is the foundation of God’s laying, the foundation of the apos- tles and prophets; and you must lay him, as the founda- | faith in Christ. tion of faith and holiness. All true holiness is built upon Many preachers who profess to entertain a great regard for a holy life, and deal much in moral de- clamations, omit this part of their work. 2. See that your materials be fitly framed together, Eph. ii. 21. Three things belong to this ; (1.) That the materials be hewed and squared.—What would a company of proud, self-willed, prejudiced professors do together with the godly'. These sins must be cut off. They ought to be like the stones of the temple before you lay them in the house of God. (2.) That they be formed by the same rule. —The stones must not only be cut even, but so as to fit the foundation and each other, or they cannot be fitly framed. Whatever variety there may be in some respects, there must be uniformity in others. No society can exist without similarity of views. Our hearts must be renewed after the image of Christ; and if they fit and fall in with his gos- pel and government, they will fit one another. But all attempts to build men into religious society without this will be vain. “For what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness 3 and what communion hath light with darkness 2'' &c.—See 2 Cor. vi. 14–18. “How can two walk together except they be agreed ?” (3.) That, in being placed in the building, every one be put in that situation for which he is formed.—Some have splendid gifts, and are like stones in the front of the building, for ornament and strength. Others have more private excellences; but, though less conspicuous, they may not be less useful. Some are like Barnabas, affectionate ; and excel in seeking out obscure humble inquirers, Acts ix. 27. Others are wise in counsel and grave in deportment. Every gift should be so disposed of as that it shall be of the greatest use to the whole, otherwise the building will not be fitly framed together. Where offices are filled with men be- cause they are men of property, it is often otherwise. 3. So frame the whole as that it may be a fit habitation for God.—It must be God’s house, not yours. Beware that you go not about it as Nebuchadnezzar went about Babylon—“This is the house which I have built ’’—this is my house ! I trust you have no greater desire than that God would take up his abode with you. Well—build you but upon his foundation, and by his rule, and he will dwell with you. All buildings are with a view to habitation. Secondly, As A PLANTER, prepare the soil by searching and convincing doctrine.—Sow “wholly a right seed.” When you see the plants growing up, give attention to them. Cultivate them by every means, and pray that they may be watered by the Holy Spirit. Allow me a word or two, my brother, particularly ap- plicable to yourself individually. 1. While you root out and pull down, and build and plant, in God's house and vineyard, do not overlook your own. Personal religion is of the utmost importance to a minister. 2. Take into consideration that you are “a labourer together with God.”—He that employs you will reward you. Look, my brother, beyond the grave for your re- ward. We have but little here ; but if we had much, it would be an awful thing to receive that for our reward : LVIII.—MINISTERS SHOULD BIE CONCERNED |NOT TO BE DESPISED, * Let no man despise thee.”—Titus ii. 15. My brother, I feel a pleasure in the work of this day, partly from the love I bear to you, and partly from the love I feel towards the church. I trust you will receive a word of advice on this solemn occasion with candour and attention. You will observe the passage is not an address to the people, not to despise their minister; but to the minister, not to be despised by the people. If you ask how you are to prevent this, I answer, Contempt is not a voluntary feeling. It is not in the power of men to despise some characters. They may dislike them ; they may affect to ridicule them ; but they cannot in their hearts despise MINISTERS SHOULD BE CONCERNED NOT TO BE DESPISED. 685 them. If a minister conducts himself in character, no man will be able to despise him. This, then, is the senti- ment which I wish to impress upon you. Your work as a pastor may be distinguished into three departments—the pulpit, the church, and the worldſ—in each of which I hope you will so conduct yourself as that no man shall be able to despise you. Let me offer to your consideration a few particulars under each. I. What concerns you IN THE PULPIT, or in the work of preaching the gospel. 1. Avoid all affectation in your manner.—Do not affect the man of learning by useless criticisms: many do this, only to display their knowledge.—Nor yet the orator, by high-sounding words, or airs, or gestures. Useful learn- ing and an impressive delivery should by no means be slighted ; but they must not be affected, or men will be sure to despise you. 2. Avoid self-seeking in your ends.-Preach not yourself, but Christ Jesus. Seek not the approbation of men for yourself, but for your doctrine. Study to commend the gospel to the consciences of your hearers, rather than your own orthodoxy, or ingenuity, or zeal, to their admiration. If, instead of endeavouring to secure their reception of the gospel message, you are concerned to recommend yourself to their applause, you will be sure to be despised. 3. Avoid vulgarity and low wit.—Though the pulpit is not the place for affected pomposity, neither is it the place for mean and low language. Few men are more con- temptible than those who study to intreduce vulgar non- sense and jocose anecdotes, to make people laugh. Sound speech, sound sense, and the greatest seriousness, adorn the pulpit. Without these, you will be despised. 4. Do not advance sentiments without being able to sup- port them by Scripture evidence.—Many content themselves with assertions without proof, and make vehemence supply the place of evidence. But this will cause you to be de- spised by men of understanding. 5. Beware that you do not preach an unfelt gospel.—If you do, it will be seen, and you will be despised. It will be seen that, though you affect to be in earnest, you do not feel; and that you scarcely believe your own doctrine. We may get into a habit of talking for the truth, and pleading for holiness, and yet be dead ourselves; and if so, we shall be sure to be despised. 6. Let not the fear of man deter you from declaring the whole counsel of God.—Insist on every Divine truth and duty. Where interest or friendship stand in the way, it may be trying ; but if you yield, the very parties to whom you yield will despise you. Speak but the truth in love, and speak the whole truth, and you will commend your- self to every man’s conscience, when you can do no more. 7. Never degrade the pulpit by indulging in personalities. —These are for private admonition. “Rebuke with all authority;” but let your personal rebukes be in private. To introduce them in the pulpit is unmanly, and would render you despicable. Let us apply the language, II. To your behaviour IN THE CHURCH, and AMONG Your FELLOW CHRISTIANs. 1. Do not lord it over God’s heritage.—You will have to preside in the church, and direct its measures; but never assume the lordly priest. Expect your judgment, in some cases, to be overruled, and learn to yield with cheerfulness when the measures you wish to introduce appear to be opposed to the opinion and desires of the majority of your brethren. It is not with a minister of the gospel as with a minister of state—that he must have a majority, or he cannot stand his ground. If we “ look on the things of others,” we may, in non-essentials, after speaking our minds, yield and be happy. But if we are determined to carry every point which appears to us desirable, in spite of the opinion of our brethren, though we may not always succeed, we shall invariably be despised for the attempt. 2. Yet have a judgment of your own.—This will become you on every subject ; and where it is of importance you ought to be firm and resolute. A minister must not be borne down by the capriciousness of a few. He who is easily turned aside from a good object, and will bear insult without a proper manifestation of his displeasure, will be despised as much as a lordly high priest. If a minister be not firm, discipline will, in many cases, be neglected. People have their friends, and relatives, and favourites; and very few, though the operation be bloodless, have suf- ficient regard for rectitude to act upon the principle of the sons of Levi.-See Exod. xxxii. 17–29. But you must, or you will be despised. 3. Do not affect the gentleman in your visits.--Do not assume airs of consequence, and take liberties in families, as if, because you are a minister, you are therefore superior as a man. I do not say, do not be a gentleman ; but do not affect the great man. Real gentility, and urbanity, and politeness are no mean or despicable attainments. There was much Christian politeness in the apostle Paul. But the affectation of the fine gentleman is great folly; and no men are more despised than those who strut about with lordly dignity, and give themselves consequential airs. You had much better feel yourself a Christian, and con- sider that you are associating with your fellow Christians, or with those who expect you to exhibit a pattern for their imitation. 4. Yet preserve a dignity of manner and demeanour.— There is no occasion for you, in order to avoid the affect- ation of gentility, to sink into low buffoonery, vulgarity, or drollery. My brother, the fear of God, and a deep sense of religion, will effectually preserve you from these extremes, and render you respectable, instead of contempt- ible. 5. Beware of being a loiterer.—Do not acquire a habit of wandering about and doing nothing. Visit, and visit “from house to house.” But look well to your visits : “preach from house to house.” There is work enough in a congregation for a minister to do ; but nothing renders him more contemptible and despised than a habit of re- ligious gossiping. Let us apply the text, III. To your general deportment IN THE world. 1. Let your conduct correspond with your preaching.— Men will watch you. You may put off the preacher in mixed company; but you must never put off the man of God—the Christian. Whatever you may be in the pulpit, if in the world you be frothy, vain, contentious, captious, unfeeling, unjust, or make engagements you cannot fulfil, you will be despised. On the contrary, consistency of character will wear, and live down opposition. 2. Never be ashamed of religion in any company.—There is no need to introduce it on all occasions, and in all com- panies. This would render you despised one way. But be not the subject of cowardly timidity. That would render you equally, if not more, despicable. There is nothing in true religion but what admits of a rational de- fence. There wants nothing to defend religion but firm- ness of mind. But if you are ashamed of the cause you have espoused, its opponents will heartily despise you. To concLUDE.—If the contempt of men be such a mat- ter of dread, how much more the contempt of God / Then so conduct yourself that you may not be ashamed, and not be despised, at his coming ! LIX.—MINISTERS ARE FELLOW LABOURIERS WITH GOD. “We are labourers together with God.”—l Cor. iii. 9. My dear brother, in every address of this kind I wish to be understood as assuming no kind of authority whatever; but simply as concurring in the work of the day, and as presenting to the consideration of my brother in the mi- mistry a few observations suited to the occasion. The words we have selected afford us an important view of the Christian ministry—co-operators with God . Not, indeed, as co-ordinate, but as subordinate. We labour under him. It is not our husbandry, nor our building, but God’s ; and the design of the apostle was to cut off the vain-glorying in men to which the Corinthians were so addicted, saying, I am of Paul, or I am of Apollos, or I am of Cephas. Yet it affords a most honourable and animating view of the Christian ministry—fellow labourers with God . I shall consider the passage in two views; 686 SERMONS AND SEETCHES. viz. as affording us a directory as to the nature of our work, and an encouragement in our performance of it. I. As affording us A DIRECTORY As To THE NATURE OF OUR WORK. Our work is a labour.—If any man enter upon the ministry from a desire to live an easy, idle life, he is under a great mistake. He may make such a life of it, but he will not fulfil his work. And let him take heed lest he be rejected at the last : “Cast ye out the unprofitable servant into outer darkness.” A proper discharge of the Christian ministry must be a labour. This will appear if we consider a few of the principal parts of which it is composed. 1. A leading part of this work consists in our becoming acquainted with the mind of God in his word.—We must “ labour in word and doctrine.” We cannot “feed the people with knowledge and with understanding,” unless we possess them. Truth is a well—full of water, but deep. A mine—rich, but requiring much labour to dig up the precious ore. Such a depth is there in the word of God, that inspiration itself does not supersede the me- cessity of close application, Psal. xxvii. 4. We must be perpetually inquiring and searching, 1 Pet. i. 10–12. We must “give ourselves * to the word of God and prayer. The very angels are perpetually gospel students, “ desiring to look into " the things that are revealed. Unless we labour in this way, there can be no proper food or variety in our preaching. “Meditate on these things: give thyself wholly to them.” The truths of God’s word are worthy of being our meat and drink . . . . Digging in these mines is very pleasant work when we can enter into them. But there are seasons when it is otherwise ; and yet we must go on, though we scarcely know how ; this is labour. 2. Another part is communicating the mind of God so as to apply it to the cases of the people.—It belongs to the work of the ministry to apply truth to the circumstances and consciences of the hearers, as well as to teach it; and, in order to this, we must study men as well as things. We must trace the workings of a depraved heart, in order to detect its shiftings and subterfuges—the doubts and difficulties of a desponding heart, in order to remove them, and to point out the way of life—and the general opera- tions of a gracious heart, in order to distinguish between genuine and spurious religion, lest, while we comfort the real Christian, we should soothe the hypocrite. For these important purposes, it is necessary that we should avail ourselves of two grand sources of information —experience and observation. That which is derived from these sources is taken from life, and is generally more profitable than that which is copied from even the most judicious writings of men, at second-hand. But all this requires labour. I may add, much of the labour that attends this part of our work arises from the state of those with whom we have to deal, and our want of success.- In preaching to sinners, we have to attack the strong holds of Satan-ignorance, prejudice, pride, self-right- eousness, hardness of heart, unbelief, and aversion from God. Our work here is like having to dig through a rock of flint—we have much labour, and make slow progress. Sometimes we espy a downcast look and a falling tear, and this inspires courage; but these hopeful appearances often subside. Many a character, of whom we have hoped well for years, is still hanging between God and the world, and we know not what will be the issue. These are the things which occasion those pains of labour of which the apostle speaks : “My little children, of whom I travail in birth, until Christ be formed in you.” 3. Another part of our ministry consists in following up the work of preaching, by close conversation in our private visits.-Paul taught at Ephesus “from house to house.” It is painful and laborious to a feeling mind to tell persons of their faults, and yet we cannot fulfil our duty without. To introduce personal reflections in public, where no answer can be made, and where the tendency is to expose rather than to reclaim, is mean and unmanly; but it is not so in private; there we must be faithful, and, in order to be faithful, we must be personal. But this is hard work. Ministers, as well as other men, have their feelings. They love peace, and they wish to retain the friendship of their people. But if a minister tell the truth, there is great danger of his being counted an enemy, and treated as such. Faithful reproof, therefore, must be self-denying work. The grand secret, I think, to render this part of our work as easy as possible, is to love the souls of the people, and to do every thing from pure good- will, and with a view to their advantage—“speaking the truth in love.” The man that can be offended by such treatment, and leave his place in the house of God, can be no loss to a minister or to a congregation. 4. Another part of our work is, presiding in the church in the character of a pastor.—And this is labour, Those who preside in a large community find it very difficult to manage amidst such a variety of spirits and tempers; and those who preside in a small one may find it still more difficult, where individuals are of more consequence, and therefore, perhaps, more assuming and litigious. A large church is like a large family, in which there is a necessity for constant labour and continual attention, to keep things in proper order. But a small church may be compared to a little boat, floating on the waters—a single wrong movement may overset it. In either case we had need be emdued with righteousness, godliness, faith, love, meek- ness, patience, and forbearance. The less we have of self-importance and of tenaciousness in carrying a point, and the more of respect and disinterested regard for our brethren, the less labour will it be to us. Having considered the Christian ministry under the idea of a labour, I may observe that we are further directed as to its nature, by considering ourselves as “labourers together with God.” By this we are taught to labour in the same cause and to the same ends as God. God, in all his operations, keeps certain important ends in view, and we must join with him : for example—to glorify his Son . . . . to abase the sinner . . . . to alarm the wicked . . . . to comfort the believer . . . . and we must unite with God in all this. We must habitually exalt the Saviour and humble the pride of man. Our constant message must be—it shall be well with the righteous, but it shall be ill with the wicked. We must never comfort those whom God would alarm. When God brings a sinner under concern, it is our business to forward the work. If a man tell me he is a great sinner, it is not for me to soothe him, and to persuade him that he sees things in too strong a light; but rather to convince him that he is a much greater sin- ner than he conceives, and that the heart of man is “de- ceitful above all things, and desperately wicked.” The only comfort I am authorized to offer him is, by pointing him to a great Saviour—one who is able to save to the uttermost all that come unto God by him, and who will never cast out any that apply to him for mercy. It is dangerous, as soon as we perceive concern, to smile and tell the party that this is a good sign, and all will soon be well. It is a good symptom, if it be genuine; but if, be- fore we can ascertain the reality of the repentance, we begin to soothe and console the sinner, we shall be in danger of causing him to be satisfied, instead of urging him to an application where alone he ought to take up his rest; and, instead of being labourers together with God, we shall be found to be labouring against him. God calls him to mourning, and weeping, and lamentation; and it is at our peril to comfort him by any thing short of an exhibition of the free grace of the gospel. We proceed, II. To consider the passage as affording us, not only a directory as to the nature of our work, but AN ENcourAge- MENT IN THE DISCHARGE OF IT.-And this is derivable from the latter clause—“labourers together with God.” If we be with God, God is with us; and that is the great- est encouragement we can have. “Loſ I am with you always, to the end of the world.” 1. If we be with God, God will be with us to assist ºs in our private labours.—There is much in the prayer of the apostle Paul on behalf of Timothy—“The Lord Jesus Christ be with thy spirit.” It is this that will sweeten our labour. Solomon speaks of a joy in labour, and certainly, of all labour, none is so productive of joy as digging in the mines of everlasting truth—especially when the Lord Jesus is with our spirit. 2. God will be with us in blessing our public labours.--> MANNER IN WEHICH THE GOSPEL SHOULD BE PREACHED. 687 Had Moses gone to the rock without God, he might have spoken, and have smitten it, but it would not have cleaved asunder: the rock would have broken the rod, rather than the rod the rock. The same may be said of our labours on the hearts of men. But with God we shall “ do valiant- ly.” “The weapons of our warfare are mighty through God.” God, we may be certain, will not labour in vain; and if we labour with him, neither shall we. “Thanks be to God, who always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and always maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us.” My brother, if we be faithful labourers, we shall in no wise lose our reward. LX.—THE NATURE OF THE GOSPEL, AND THE MANNER IN WEHICH IT OUGHT TO BE PREACHED. “Praying for us, that God would open unto us a door of utterance, to speak the mystery of Christ,--that I may make it manifest, as I ought to speak.”—Col. iv. 3, 4. My dear brother, I have chosen this passage, on the pre- sent occasion, as expressing not the whole of your work, but an important part of it—preaching the gospel. For the discharge of this, an apostle besought the prayers of his brethren, and so should we. - The words imply that, to do justice to the gospel, or to preach it as it ought to be preached, we need a special Divine tºfluence, and consequently the prayers of our brethren. I wish at this time to call your attention to the work itself— the manner in which the gospel ought to be preached; and then to offer a few motives to your consideration. I. I shall call your attention to THE MANNER IN which THE GOSPE L OUGHT TO BE PREACHED, It is not my wish to dismay your spirit, but yet I desire to impress you with a sense of the importance of the work of the ministry, that, like the apostle, you may cry to Him who alone can give you strength to discharge it. That we may form some idea of the manner in which the gospel ought to be preached, it is necessary to consider some of its leading properties. We may mention four or five :— 1. The gospel is a message which implies a disagreeable and heavy charge against those to whom it is addressed, and therefore requires great faithfulness.--It supposes that all mankind are the enemies of God, and exposed to his righteous displeasure. You will have to do with the wicked as well as with the righteous, and you must not flatter them. It is at your peril to say any thing soothing to the wicked. It will be very painful to keep them at a distance, and to exhibit to them the threatenings of God’s word against them. They will be trying to shift the blame, and to invent excuses ; but you must follow up your charges. Their hearts may rise against you, and they may be displeased with your preaching; but you must not desist. If we could go with a message of approbation and ap- plause—if we could tell our auditory that they are amia- ble, and virtuous beings, with only a few imperfections, which God will doubtless overlook—it might be much more pleasing and agreeable to ourselves as men. We can feel no pleasure in accusing our species. But woe unto us if we speak not the truth ! The wicked will perish, and their blood will be required at our hand Ezek. iii. 16–21. Then beware of softening matters, either with the unconverted or the backslider. Beware of giving up the authority of God over the heart, and of allowing either that the heartless services of the unconverted are pleasing to him, or if not, that the fault is not in them. Beware of countenancing their own views of themselves, that they are poor pitiable creatures instead of sinners. The wound must be probed, or your patient will be lost : O ! if we preach the gospel as we ought to preach it, what fidelity is here required You must, my brother, side with God against an ungodly world. You must follow the windings of their evil hearts; you must detect them in all their re- fuges of lies, that they may flee to the only refuge set be- fore them in the gospel. However it may pain you, or offend your hearers, if you would preach the gospel as you ought to preach it—you must be faithful. 2. The gospel is a message in which we have truth and justice on our side ; and therefore we ought to be fºrm and fearless of consequences.—Speak boldly, Eph. vi. 19, 20. If a man's cause be bad, it must render him timid ; but to be timid in the cause of God and truth is unworthy. When, however, I recommend boldness, I do not mean that which is opposed to modesty and respectful feeling, nor yet that dogmatical rant which deals in assertion with- out evidence; but that which is opposed to mercenary fear and cowardice. You must not calculate consequences as they respect this life. If you would preach the gospel as you ought to preach it, the approbation of God must be your main object. What if you were to lose your friends and diminish your income ; nay, what if you lose your liberty, or even your life—what would this all be, compared with the loss of the favour and friendship of God? Woe unto us, if we shun to declare any part of the counsel of God! He that is afraid or ashamed to preach the whole of the gospel, in all its implications and bearings, let him stand aside ; he is utterly unworthy of being a soldier of Jesus Christ. Sometimes, if you would speak the whole truth, you may be reproached as unsound and heterodox. But you must not yield to popular clamour. If you have truth on your side, stand firm against all opposition. 3. The gospel is a message full of importance, and therefore you must be in earnest.—If your message respect- ed the health of your hearers, or their temporal interest, or . their reputation, it would be thought important. But what are these compared with the salvation of their souls : Salvation by Jesus Christ is God’s last remedy—his ulti- matum with a lost world, Mark xvi. 16; Acts iv. 12. There remaineth no other sacrifice for sins. Then do not trifle on such subjects as these, lest you lose your own soul. What can be thought of you if you employ your time in making pretty speeches, and turning elegant periods, in- stead of endeavouring to “save yourself and them that hear you !” What if, instead of beseeching sinners to be reconciled to God, you should crack jokes before them, to excite a laugh What can be thought of you if you trifle with principles, and join the sneer of the poet, when he says, “’Bout modes of faith let graceless zealots fight: He can’t be wrong whose life is in the right!” Your hearers will doubtless conceive that you are insin- cere, and that you do not believe the message you are ap- pointed to deliver. 4. The gospel is a message that abounds with deep wisdom, and therefore we ought to possess a deep insight into it, and to cultivate great plainness of speech.-The gospel is “a mystery,” and a mystery that requires to be made mani- fest. A mystery is something hidden, or secret. Such are the great things of God. They are “hid from the wise and the prudent, and revealed unto babes.”—“Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God.” Much of it, indeed, was hidden from Old Testa- ment believers, Eph. iii. 5. Nor is it known even to New Testament believers but by the Spirit, 1 Cor. ii. 7. Nor is it fully comprehensible to any ; for it is called “un- searchable riches.” “Great is the mystery of godliness.” Even angels make it their study. Then to make these things manifest must require great insight into them, and great plainness of speech. Do not be content with super- ficial views of the gospel. Read and think for yourself on every subject. Read the Bible, not merely for texts, but for Scriptural knowledge. Truth attained in this way is like property—it will wear the better for having been ac- quired by dint of industry. To preach the gospel as we ought to preach it requires, not the subtilty of the meta- physician, but the simplicity of the Christian. 5. The gospel is a message of love, and therefore it ought to be preached with great affection.—Never were such mes- sages of love announced to the world before. “God so loved the world,” &c. “Come ye out from them, be ye separate,” &c. This is fitly called “the glorious gospel of the blessed God.” It is an overflow of his blessedness. To preach these things with an unfeeling heart is not to preach | “ as we ought” to preach. Cultivate the affectionate. 688 SERMONS AND SKETCHES. Not indeed an affectation of feeling, but genuine feeling. Christ wept over sinners, and so must we. If we trifle with men, or be careless about their salvation, or deal forth damnation with an unfeeling heart, we do not preach “as we ought.” II. Let me offer A FEw MoTIves to this duty of preach- ing the gospel as it ought to be preached. 1. Consider the examples held up for your imitation.— You have Peter . . . . Paul . . . . John . . . . in each of whom these things are exemplified. Nay, more—you have Christ. Nor have you examples in distant ages only ; but you have seen some, even among you . . . . Pearcel 2. Consider the eacamples exhibited for your warning.— Some have sunk into indolence and self-indulgence ; saun- tering about and gossiping, instead of preaching, from house to house; and there has been an end of them. Some have risen into pride and priestly insolence, and there has been an end of them. Some have trifled with the truth, and God has given them up to destructive error. Others have plunged into political speculations, which have eaten up all their religion : aiming to govern the world, they have lost the government of their own souls, and of their peculiar charge. - 3. Consider the effects that may follow.—If you were deputed to negociate a peace between the contending powers of Europe, you would tremble lest the curses of many should fall upon you. My brother, be faithful, and you shall receive a crown. If you be not, the eternal curse of God awaits you ! LXI.—THE WORK AND ENCOURAGEMENTS OF THE CHRISTIAN MINISTER. “His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things : enter thou into the joy of thy lord.”—Matt. xxv. 21. SUCH is the solemn and important charge, my brother, al- lotted you, that if you were to contemplate it merely as it relates to its difficulties, you might shrink at the thought of it; but I rejoice to say you enter upon your pastoral work under favourable auspices. You have the hearts of your people ; and that point gained is more than a thou- sand. You could never expect to do them good, unless you were interested in their affections. I feel a pleasure in complying with your desire that I should address you on the present interesting occasion, and shall request your candid attention to a few observations founded on a part of the parable of the talents. It is worthy of notice, that, as our Lord approached the close of his ministry, his preaching partook of an increasing solemnity. This chapter concludes his ministerial dis- courses, and is all upon the subject of the last judgment. The parable of the virgins, and that of the talents, both lead to the same point. And these are followed by a so- lemn representation of the final judgment. The world is convened, and the Son of God distributes everlasting sal- vation to his people, and everlasting destruction to his €In eII) 108. * Such was the close of our Saviour’s ministry; and from one of these representations I shall address you, that you also may be prepared for his second coming. The occasion of the parable of the talents is given by Luke. He tells us, that when our Saviour came near to Jerusalem, many thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear. But it was a temporal kingdom that occupied their minds ; and, in order to destroy their vain conceits, our Lord described himself under the parabolical form of a certain nobleman, who went into a distant coun- | an important charge; but are required to discharge that try to receive a kingdom, and delivered his goods to his servants in trust, of which trust, or of the manner in which they had fulfilled it, they were each one to give an account. This was, in effect, saying to his disciples, “It is true, I am going to receive a kingdom, but not here ; and you shall partake of that kingdom, but not yet.” Thus he led them to expect that until his second coming their business was not to amuse or agitate themselves about what post of honour they should occupy, but to bend their attention to a solemn and important trust committed to them. We may remark here, (1.) The talents do not mean grace, but gifts, or things to be improved. Grace is that by which we improve them. One man had a talent, and yet turned out an unprofitable servant. He never had the grace of God in truth, but had a gift or trust imparted to him, for the abuse of which he was finally condemned. (2.) These talents are dispensed in different degrees—some have five, some two, and some one. (3.) Every man is called to occupy what he has—and must give an account of it—and no more. He that had two talents received the approbation of his lord, just as he who had five. We may collect, from the whole, the important work of the Christian ministry, and the encouraging motives to a faithful discharge of it. I. We have an interesting view of THE work of A CHRISTIAN MINISTER. You are here represented as a servant—you are required to be a good and faithful serv- ant—and you must not make light of your charge, though it extend only to a few things. 1. You are a servant of God.—You are intrusted with a portion of his property, of the use or abuse of which, an- other day, you will have to render an account. God has put a talent into your hands, and says, “Occupy till I come.” Many things might be mentioned as included in the ta- lents intrusted to you, as time, property, knowledge, influ- ence, opportunity : for all these you must give an account. But we pass over these as eommon to you and others, and shall confine our attention to those which are peculiar to us as ministers. There are two in particular which con- stitute our ministerial trust—the gospel of Christ, and the souls of the people. The gospel of Christ.—This is impressively recommended by Paul to Timothy, in the close of his First Epistle : “O Timothy —(and Paul never deakt in interjections without feeling his subject to be one of vast importance)— O Timothy keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called.” The gospel is a most sacred trust, and you must keep it. Not keep it back, but keep it safe ; hold it fast in your mind and your ministry. The best way to hold fast the truth as a minister is to live upon it as a Christian. Attempt to keep it any where but in your heart, and it will go. If it be merely in the memory, it is not safe. He that is reasoned into the truth may be reasoned out of it. It is living upon the truth as a Christian that will cause the heart to be established with grace. The souls of the people.—These also are a part of the property committed to your trust, of which you must give an account. You may say, perhaps, There's such a one, and such a one—they have attended my ministry; but I have never been able to discover any thing in them friendly to the cause of Christ.—But the question which may be addressed to you is, Did you warn them 3 Did you deal faithfully with them In a word, Did you discharge your , trust?—If you have, your soul shall be delivered, and their blood shall be on their own heads. But if not, though they perish in their iniquity, their blood will be required at your hands. My brother, you must “watch for souls as those that must give an account.”—You may have to allege, with regard to others, They would not receive the doctrine I taught; they were always opposing it, always ! cavilling at it, and have often caused my heart to ache.— But the question for your consideration is, Did you teach them in love Did you bear and forbear with them 3 If they have gone astray like lost sheep, have you searehed after them with a desire to restore them 1 Did you preach “ publicly, and from house to house?”—My brother, let it be your concern to give your account “with joy, and not with grief.” 2. You are not only a servant of Christ, intrusted with trust as a “good and faithful servant.” The term “good” stands opposed to “unprofitable.” A good and faithful servant is a profitable servant. True, we cannot profit Christ absolutely, but we may relatively : he has an inter- terest in the world, and we may profit that—a people, and we may profit them : and he will consider every thing done to them for his sake as done to him; and thus you WORK AND ENCOURAGEMENTS OF THE CHRISTIAN MINISTER. 689 may be a profitable servant. It is not enough that you do no harm. It is true, many are injurious ; but others, who are not injurious, are “cumberers of the ground,” and as such are unprofitable, and as such will be cast out. The servant in the parable is not cast out for what he did, but for not doing what he ought to have done.—You are to be a “faithful” servant. Faithfulness is absolutely required of a servant of Christ. You are not required to be successful : your Lord and Master was not very suc- cessful ; but he was faithful, and so must you be. There is great need of faithfulness. People love that their ministers should “prophesy smooth things.” They love a flesh-pleasing, flattering doctrine. This may not be true of all, but it is of many. They love preaching that soothes, and that cherishes hope and comfort, and ease and peace, whatever be their character and their state : hence multitudes will tell you that they cannot profit under a preacher, when the whole secret is that they can- not be comforted in their sins. Probably, if the preacher were to comfort them, it must be at the expense of the gospel; he must preach false doctrine, and cry, Peace, when there is no ground for peace. So do not you. They may complain that you do not feed them : well, nor should you : you are not required to feed men’s lusts, but their graces. Be faithful. - Still your faithfulness must be tempered with love. There is such a thing as unfeeling fidelity—and preaching at people rather than to them. Our Lord himself, who is a perfect pattern of faithfulness, and was particularly severe against the hypocritical Pharisees, yet wept over sinners, even while denouncing judgments against them. “Speak the truth in love.” - 3. You must not think it beneath you, though your lot should be to take the charge of “a few things.”—I have often thought of this passage in reference to a small people, and these perhaps chiefly poor. I am aware that it is flattering to human vanity to have large congregations, and on some accounts it is also desirable; but should it be otherwise with you,-if yours should be only a small congregation, consisting of a few people, and these chiefly poor, and this for many years to come, what then 7 . . . . Just think of the commendation of your Lord, “Well done, good and faithful servant; forasmuch as thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy Lord.” Is not this enough 3 And ought we not, as ministers, to be more concerned to execute well that trust which we have than to be always seeking after a larger ? I abhor the spirit that shall send for an orator, merely for the purpose of gathering a respectable congregation. A faith- ful discharge of the trust which God gives us is the way to have that trust increased. Instead of being anxious for a large charge, we have reason to tremble lest we should be found unfaithful in that which we have. There are times in which the spirits of a minister will flag, on ac- count of the fewness of his hearers. The sight of empty pews must prey on his peace and comfort. But be not discouraged; remember that the thinnest assembly is made up of immortal beings, and chiefly perhaps of those who are yet in their sins ; and you have an object of greater magnitude within the possibility of your compass than was ever presented to the grasp of an Alexander, a Caesar, or a Buonaparte. The salvation of one soul is of more worth than the temporal salvation of a world—a soul, purchased by the Son of God himself. Think of this, my brother, and be not discouraged, even though you should have comparatively few to hear, unless, indeed, the cause exist in your own deficiency. Be “faithful over a few things,” and you shall eventually be “ruler over many things.” I proceed to consider, II. THE IMPORTANT MOTIVEs which are here presented to us for the discharge of our trust. 1. You will receive the approbation of your Lord. Place yourself in idea, my brother, before your Lord and Master, at the last day, and anticipate the joy of receiving his approbation. This is heaven. We should not study to please men so much as to please God. If we please him, we shall please all who love him, and, as to others, they are not on any account worthy of being pleased at the expense of displeasing God. It is doubtless gratifying to receive the “Well done " of a creature ; but this in some cases may arise from ignorance, in others from private friendship; and in some cases men may say, “Well done,” when, in the sight of Him who judges the heart, and recognises the springs of action, our work may be ill done. And even if we have done comparatively well, we must not rest satisfied with the approbation of our friends. Many have sat down contented with the plaudits of their hearers, spoiled and ruined. It is the “Well done” at the last day which we should seek, and with which only we should be satisfied. There have been young ministers, of very promising talents, who have been absolutely nursed to death with human applause, and the hopes they inspired blighted and blasted by the flattery of the weak and in- considerate. The sound of “Well done?’ has been reiter- ated in their ears so often, that at last (poor little minds !) they have thought, Surely it was well done; they have inhaled the delicious draught, they have sat down to enjoy it, they have relaxed their efforts, and, after their little hour of popular applause, they have retired behind the . scenes, and become of little or no account in the Christian world ; and, what is worse, their spirituality has declined, and they have sunk down into a state of desertion, dis- piritedness, and inactivity, as regards this world, and of uncertainty, if not of fearful forebodings, as to another . . . . My brother, you may sit down when God says, “Well done l’” for then your trust will be discharged ; but it is at your peril that you rest satisfied with any thing short of this. Keep that reward in view, and you will not, I trust, be unfaithful in the service of your Lord. 2. Your honour and happiness in the world to come shall be greatly enlarged.—If you have been “a good and faith- ful servant” here, you shall “rule” there; and if here you have been faithful over “a few things,” there you shall be a ruler over “many things.” There will be a glorious augmentation of honour and blessedness. The language is figurative. The idea may be expressed by an allusion to David's worthies, who followed him in his trials, and whom he promoted when he came to the throne: those who, to procure him a little water, fought their way through the opposing army, were highly rewarded. And so Jesus assured his apostles, “Ye which have followed me in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” Of course we are not to understand this literally ; but the idea conveyed appears to be this—That a faithful dis- charge of the trust committed to us in this world will contribute to our honour and blessedness in the world to come. In fact, if this idea is not conveyed, it will be dif- ficult to determine what is. * Nevertheless, the best services we can render are mingled with sin, and therefore, instead of deserving a reward, need forgiveness. The reward we shall receive will be a reward of grace, not of debt. Were it not for the sake of Christ, nothing we do could be accepted, there being so much sin cleaving even to our best services. The Lord accepted Abel and his offering. First he accepts our persons for the sake of Christ, and then our services. And our services, being accepted, become also rewardable for his sake : our future honours are a part of Christ’s reward. If you are instrumental in saving a soul, it will be impos- sible for you to meet that soul in heaven, and not rejoice over it; it will, in fact, be your crown of rejoicing. So your honour and blessedness will form a part of Christ’s reward. It is an unscriptural and irrational notion, that all will have an equal degree of happiness in heaven. All will be perfectly happy, but some will not have so large a ca- pacity for happiness as others. Every vessel will be full, but some vessels will contain more than others. “One star differeth from another star in glory.” The apostle Paul must enjoy more in heaven than a soul caught up from infancy; since part of the happiness of heaven will con- sist of remembrance of the past . . . . But the diversity most important for our consideration is that which will arise from the manner in which we have performed our trust. In proportion to the degree of fidelity with which we have discharged the trust committed to us in this 2 Y 690 SERMONS AND SKETCHES. world will be the honour and happiness conferred upon us in the next. 3. You will participate in that joy of which your Lord partakes:—“Enter thou into the joy of thy Lord.” You will “sit down with him on his throne.” Whatever the joy is that was “set before him,” and for which he “endured the cross, despising the shame,” in that joy, if you have “run with patience the race which is set before you, looking unto him,” you shall partake. That which rejoices Christ's heart will rejoice yours—the glory of God in the salvation of sinners. He will not rejoice alone; but admit to his joy all those who have had any share in the great work to accomplish which he humbled himself unto death. My brother, let this thought encourage you amidst all your trials—that you are to enter into the joy of your Lord. “To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.” LXII.-ON PREACHING CHRIST, Etc. “We preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.”—2 Cor. iv. 5. A REMARK which I once heard from the lips of that great and good man, the late Mr. Abraham Booth, has often re- curred to my recollection. “I fear,” said he, “there will be found a larger proportion of wicked ministers than of any other order of professing Christians !” It did not appear to me at the time, nor has it ever appeared since, that this remark proceeded from a want of charity, but rather from a deep knowledge of the nature of Christianity, and an impartial observation of men and things. It be- hoves us, not only as professing Christians, but as minis- ters, to “examine ourselves, whether we be in the faith.” It certainly is possible, after we have preached to others, that we ourselves should be cast away ! I believe it is very common for the personal religion of a minister to be taken for granted ; and this may prove a temptation to him to take it for granted too. Ministers, being wholly devoted to the service of God, are supposed to have con- siderable advantages for spiritual improvement. These they certainly have ; and if their minds be spiritual, they may be expected to make greater proficiency in the T)ivine life than their brethren. But it should be remem- bered, that if they are not spiritual, those things which would otherwise be a help would prove a hinderance. If we study Divine subjects merely as ministers, they will produce no salutary effect. We may converse with the most impressive truths, as soldiers and surgeons do with blood, till they cease to make any impression upon us. We must meditate on these things as Christians, first feed- ing our own souls upon them, and then imparting that which we have believed and felt to others; or, whatever good we may do to them, we shall receive none ourselves. Unless we mix faith with what we preach, as well as with what we hear, the word will not profit us. It may be on these accounts that ministers, while employed in watching over others, are so solemnly warned against neglecting themselves : “Take heed unto yourselves and to all the flock,” &c.—“Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine ; continue in them; for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee.” Preaching the gospel is not the only work of a Chris- tian minister; but it is a very important part of his duty, and that which, if rightly attended to, will be followed by other things. To this, therefore, I shall request your attention. You cannot have a better model than that which is here held up to you. The example of the apostles and primitive ministers is for our imitation. Three things are here presented to our notice; what they did not preach—what they did preach—and what they considered themselves. I. WHAT THE APOSTLES DID NoT PREACH :—“We reach not ourselves.” It might be thought that this legative was almost unnecessary; for, except a few gross impostors, who would ever think of holding up themselves as saviours, instead of Christ “Was Paul crucified for you ? or were ye baptized into the name of Paul ?” Very true, in this gross sense, few men in the present day will be found to preach themselves. But self may be an object of preaching without being expressly avowed, and even while with the tongue Christ is recommended. And there is little doubt that self is the great end of numbers who engage in the Christian ministry . . . . For ex- ample :- 1. If worldly advantage be our object, we preach our- selves.—It is true there is but little food for this appetite in our congregations. Yet there are cases where it is otherwise. Men have made their fortunes by preaching. And if this have been their object, they have had their reward. If this had not been a possible case, Paul would not have disavowed it as he does :-" Not for a cloak of covetousness, God is witness.” 2. If we make the ministry subservient to a life of ease and indolence, we preach ourselves rather than Christ. We may get but little for our labour, and yet, being fond of a life of sloth, (if a life it can be called,) it may be more agreeable to us than any other pursuit. It is from this disposition that many ministers have got into the habit of spending a large part of every week in gossiping from house to house ; not promoting the spiritual good of the people, but merely indulging themselves in idle talk. I might add, it is from this disposition and practice that a large proportion of the scandals among ministers have arisen. Had there been no danger from these quarters, we should not have met with another of Paul’s solemn disavowals:—“Our exhortation was not of uncleanness.” Such a declaration as this was not without meaning. It describes the false teachers of those times, and of all times. 3. If the applause of our hearers be the governing principle of our discourses, we preach ourselves, and motº Christ. To be acceptable is necessary to being useful, and an attention to manner with this end in view is very proper; but if the love of fame be our governing princi- ple, our whole ministry will be tainted by it. This sub- tle poison will penetrate and pervade our exercises, till every one perceives it, and is sickened by it, except our- selves. It will inflate our composition in the study, ani- mate our delivery in the pulpit, and condescend to fish for applause when we have retired. It will even induce us to deal in flattering doctrine, dwelling on what are known to be favourite topics, and avoiding those which, are otherwise. It is a great matter to be able to join with the apostle in another of his solemn disavowals :— “For neither at any time used we flattering words, as ye know, nor of men sought we glory.” 4. If our aim be to make proselytes to ourselves, or to our party, rather than converts to Christ, we shall be found to have preached ourselves, and not him. We cer- tainly have seen much of this species of zeal in our times —“Men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” Nor do I refer merely to men who would be thought singularly evangelical, and even inspired of God—who are continually holding up themselves as the favourites of Heaven and the darlings of Providence, and denouncing judgments on all who oppose them ; and the tenor of whose preaching is to persuade their admirers to consider themselves as the dear children of God, and all who disapprove of them as poor blind creatures, knowing nothing of the gospel. Of them and their followers I can only say, “If any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.” But men who have paid great attention to the Scriptures, and who have preached and written many things on the side of truth, have nevertheless given but too evident proof that the tenor of their labours has been to make proselytes to themselves, or to their party, rather than converts to Christ. II. WHAT THE Apost Les DID PREACH :—We preach “ Christ Jesus the Lord.” This is the grand theme of the Christian ministry. But many have so little of the Chris- tian minister about them, that their sermons have scarcely any thing to do with Christ. They are mere moral ha- rangues. And these, forsooth, would fain be thought ex- clusively the friends of morality and good works . But they know not what good works are, nor do they go the ON PREACHING CHRIST, ETC. 69 | way to promote them. “ This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.” . . . . Preach Christ, or you had better be any thing than a preacher. The necessity laid on Paul was not barely to preach, but to preach Christ. “Woe unto me if I preach not the gospel !” . . . . Some are employed in depreciating Christ. But do you honour him. Some who talk much about him, yet do not preach him, and by their habitual deport- ment prove themselves enemies to his cross. . . . . If you preach Christ, you need not fear for want of matter. His person and work are rich in fulness. Every Divine attri- bute is seen in him. All the types prefigure him. The prophecies point to him. Every truth bears relation to him. The law itself must be so explained and enforced as to lead to him . . . . Particularly, 1. Eachibit his Divinity and glorious character.—The New Testament dwells much on his being the Son of God —equal with God. It was this that heightened the gift of him, John iii. 16. Hence the efficacy of his blood, 1 John i. 7. Hence the condescension of his obedience, and the dignity of his priesthood, Heb. iv. 14—16. Hence the greatness of the sin of rejecting him, John iii. 18; and of apostacy, Heb. x. 29. 2. Hold up his atonement and mediation as the only ground of a sinner's hope.—It is the work of a Christian minister to beat off self-righteous hope, which is natural to depraved man, and to direct his hearers to the only hope set before them in the gospel. Be not concerned merely to form the manners of your congregation, but bring them to Christ. That will best form their manners. The apos- tles had no directions short of this: “Repent, and believe the gospel.” They never employed themselves in lopping off the branches of sin; but laid the axe to the root. Your business with the sins of mankind is, to make use of them to convince your hearers of the corruption of their nature, and their need of a radical cure. 3. Hold wo the blessings of his salvation for acceptance, even to the chief of sinners.-‘‘This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.” The gospel is a feast, and you are to invite guests. You may have many excuses and refusals. But be you concerned to do as your Lord commands. And when you have done your utmost, there will still be room. Dwell on the free- mess, and fulness, and all-sufficiency of his grace, and how welcome even the worst of sinners are, who, renouncing all other refuges, flee to him. 4. Preach him as “ the Lord,” or Lawgiver, of his church, no less than as a Saviour.—Christ's offices must not be divided. Taking his yoke, and learning his spirit, are connected with coming to him. Believers are “not without law unto God, but under the law to Christ.” The preaching of Christ will answer every end of preach- ing. This is the doctrine which God owns to conversion, to the leading of awakened sinners to peace, and to the comfort of true Christians. no comfort to us, it is a sign we have no right to comfort. This doctrine is calculated to quicken the indolent, to draw forth every Christian grace, and to recover the backslider. This is the universal remedy for all the moral diseases of all mankind . . . . . We proceed to notice, - III. In what LIGHT THE ApostLEs considered THEM- SELVES :—“Your servants for Jesus' sake.” Ministers are not the servants of the people in such a sense as implies inferiority, or their having an authority over them. On the contrary, what authority there is is on the other side: “Obey them that have the rule over you.” Nor are ministers the servants of the people in such a sense as to be directed by them what to preach. In these respects one is their Master, even Christ. But ministers are the servants of their people, inasmuch as their whole time and powers require to be devoted to their spiritual advantage -to know them, caution, counsel, reprove, instruct, ex- hort, admonish, encourage, stimulate, pray, and preach. Study to promote their spiritual interests as individuals, and their prosperity as a people. Nor should ministers think it too much to lay them- selves out in this work. They do it “for Jesus' sake.” This was the motive addressed to Peter. “Lovest thou me?—Feed my sheep. Feed my lambs.”—“Feed the If the doctrine of the cross be church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” . . . . Let Christ be not only the theme of my re- maining ministry, but the exaltation of him and the en- largement of his kingdom the great end of my life If I forget THEE, O my Saviour, let my right hand forget; if I do not remember THEE, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth ! LXIII.—THE INFLUENCE OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST ON THE MIND AND WORK OF A MINISTER. “The Lord Jesus Christ be with thy spirit.”—2 Tim. iv. 22. IN addressing you, my brother, on this interesting portion of Scripture, I shall simply offer a few remarks on the blessing desired, and consider its influence on the dis- charge of the Christian ministry. I. Let us offer a few remarks on TIIE BLESSING DESIRED. —If we were addressing ourselves to persons who were strangers to experimental religion, we might despair of be- ing understood on this part of the subject; and even among Christians it is more easily felt than accurately de- scribed. We know nothing of Divine influence but by its effects. We know we are created, but we know nothing of creative power. We know we are supported, but we can only feel ourselves upheld. . We know Christ promised to be with his servants to the end of the world, and I hope we have felt the effects of it. We feel our wants hitherto supplied, our strength renewed, and our work in some measure succeeded ; and we are taught to what to ascribe it . . . . . But more particularly,– 1. The blessing here desired is something different from gifts.-God has favoured you with gifts; but so he did Judas. Many shine and figure away with these, with whose spirits the Lord Jesus Christ holds no communion. Gifts are the gold of the temple; but communion with Christ is that which sanctifieth the gold. Without this, gifts will be injurious both to you and to your people. 2. This blessing is more than grace itself, considered as &nherent.—I need not tell you that our graces have no separate subsistence. We are the branches living on the Wine. Paul said, “I live”—(and surely he had a right to say so, if any man had ')—and yet he checks himself, and adds,-‘‘ yet not I, but Christ liveth in me, and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God.” 3. It is a blessing which you shall enjoy in common with Ayour Christian brethren.—It is not peculiar to you as a minister, but common to all Christians. And is it the better (you may ask) for this 3 Yes, it is. The best bless- ings are those common to Christians, Psal. xxvii. 4; Phil. iii. 8. The Romish priests have contrived to secure the cup exclusively to themselves ; but it was not so from the beginning: “Drink ye all of it.” And not only the cup, but the thing signified, is common to all Christians. And the blessings which are common to Christians as such are of the greatest importance to us as ministers. If we study, and pray, and preach merely as ministers, we shall make poor work of it; but if as Christians, we shall pros- per . . . . We proceed, II. To consider THE INFLUENCE OF THIS BLEssING ON THE DISCHARGE OF THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. —Knowing that without him we could do nothing, our Lord has as- sured us, “Lo! I am with you alway, to the end of the world.” And now, by his strengthening us, we can do all things . . . . Observe, 1. It is this that will render the doctrine of Christ fa- miliar to us, and our favourite theme.—The Spirit of pro- phecy is called the Spirit of Christ, because it testified of his sufferings, 1 Pet. i. 11. And if Christ be with our spirit, though only in an ordinary way, it will lead us to delight in the doctrine of Christ, Eph. iii. 17, 18. When Christ dwells in the heart, see what follows . This is the unction by which we know all things. And this is the doctrine which God blesses to the building of his church. 2. It is that which gives a Divine energy to our preach- 2 Y 2 692 SERMONS AND SRETCHES. ing.—It imparts a much greater energy than the greatest eloquence, natural or artificial. And though it will not in itself convert sinners, yet God usually honours such preach- ing. And it is a means of conversion. The apostle “so spoke that a great multitude believed.” And where such preaching does not convert, it yet commends itself to the conscience. “They were not able to resist the wisdom and the Spirit by which he (Stephen) spoke.” Apollos, who was “fervent in the Spirit,” by his preaching “mighti- ly convinced the Jews.” The preaching of Paul was “not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in de- monstration of the Spirit, and of power.” 3. It is this that will render our visits profitable.—It is difficult to turn conversation into a savoury and useful channel. But if the Lord Jesus Christ be with our spirit, all difficulty will vanish. Without this every thing will be forced and constrained ; and we shall feel especially at a loss in our directions to inquirers. 4. It is this that will sustain your heart under trials.- You are aware you must expect these. You will see things in your people towards God that will grieve you. This will enable you to reprove them in love. You will see things in them toward each other that are decidedly wrong. This spirit will cause you to be a peace-maker. You will experience painful things towards yourself: some will not receive your doctrine; some will misconstrue your conduct, and pervert your statements: but if the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, you will not sink under the heaviest trials. You may have to lament your want of success. But go on, and be of good cheer. If the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, though Israel be not gathered, you shall not go unrewarded. LXIV.—HABITUAL DEVOTEDNIESS TO THE WORK OF THE MINISTRY. “Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all. Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thy- self, and them that hear thee.”—l Tim. iv. 15, 16. My dear brother, you will find many things in these Epis- tles worthy of your attention. With a view of showing the connexion of the text, let us notice what is said in the preceding verses. Ver. 12. Timothy was a young man, and was charged to let no man despise his youth. But how could he pre- vent that ? By being “an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.” Then, whoever might dislike him, no one could despise him. Ver. 13. It is supposed that Paul expected shortly to see Timothy, when he would have many things to say. Meanwhile he directed him how to spend his time to good purpose. In reading.—God knows all things; but we must receive ere we impart. Eachortation.—He was not to hide, but to communicate his knowledge of Divine things, as he received it : the reading of a minister should be for his people, that he may be furnished with senti- ments suited to their cases. Exhortation seems to be that kind of teaching which is from house to house, con- sisting of counsels, cautions, &c. Doctrine.—He was to dig in this mine, that he might enrich others. Ver. 14. He was supposed to have a gift, an extraordi- mary gift, foretold in prophecy, by some of the New Testa- ment prophets, and imparted by the laying on of hands. Yet even this was a talent to be improved, and not neg- lected. Then how much more ordinary gifts : Ver. 15. This verse expresses how his gift was to be im- proved. It is a shameful abuse of the doctrine of Divine influence to allege it as a reason for neglecting diligent study for the pulpit. Yet such things are ; and the advo- cates of this perversion can quote Scripture for it; as— “Take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, nei- ther premeditate; but whatsoever shall be given to you in that hour, that speak ye ; for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.” But this has no application to pulpit exercises, or ordinary ministrations. It was very suitable for the persecuted Christians; for how could they know what to answer, before they were questioned by their per- secutors: it was therefore greatly calculated to encourage them, and relieve them from all anxiety. But to apply this direction to our ordinary ministrations is a shameful perversion. See Eccles. xii. 9–11. Give me your attention, my dear brother, while I en- deavour to illustrate the different branches of the ex- hortation of the text, and consider the motives held up to enforce it. I. Let us endeavour to ILLUSTRATE THE EXHORTATION. The things on which you are called to meditate are what you “read,” the things to which you “exhort,” and the “doctrine” of Christ. Or on the Scriptures—on the precepts contained in them, and on the doctrines to be de- duced from them. “Meditate on these things.”—There is a depth in them that requires it. You may read the Scriptures a hundred times over, and yet be only on the surface, far from having fathomed them. They are able to make us wise, through faith ; but to believe without searching argues great in- difference, and is building without a foundation. The Scriptures were always considered a deep mine, even when they consisted of only the five Books of Moses. David meditated in the law of the Lord “day and night.” It was to his spiritual growth as water is to a tree. Do not imagine you understand enough of the Bible ; or because you have assented to a few truths, therefore you are in possession of all.—Paul desired to know yet more. Angels desire to look into the things revealed there. David intimates that the law contains “wondrous things,” and prays that his mind might be enlightened to comprehend them. A spiritual state of mind is the best expositor, and more is discovered with it, in a few verses, than in whole chapters without it. Do not be content with general truth.--Study the Scrip- tures minutely, and for yourself, and pray over your study. This will make it your own ; and it will be doubly inter- esting to yourself and your people, than if you adopt it at second hand.—Read and think, not merely as a minister, but as a Christian. * “Give yourself wholly to them.”—No man can excel in any art or science, but by giving himself wholly to it. Why is it one understands law 3 Because he gives him- self wholly to it. Why is it another understands physic 3 Because he gives himself wholly to it. Why do rulers un- derstand government 3 Because “they attend continually upon this very thing.” And though Divine knowledge differs in some things from that which is natural and worldly, yet not in this. It is by constant application and use that our senses discern truth from error, and good from evil, Heb. v. 14. And you must not only give your whole time to this study, but your whole heart. “Be thow in them.”—It is a shocking thing to be en- gaged in a work which is against the heart. It is not what we think officially, but spontaneously, that proves what we are: not what we do at certain appointed seasons ; but the bent of our minds in common, in our leisure hours, when we sit in the house, or walk by the way. Engaging in the work without the heart is the forerunner and cause of many scandals. Time hangs heavy on their hands—they saunter and gossip from place to place—scandalize and listen to scandal—and not seldom terminate their career by impurity. “ Take heed to thyself.”—It were an awful thing to guide others to the right way, and not walk in it ourselves. See that all is right between God and your own soul. Public religion, without that which is private and personal, is worse than no religion. We had better be any thing than preachers of the gospel, unless we be personally in- terested in it. “And to thy doctrine.”—There is great danger of going off from the gospel—perhaps in submission to great authori- ties, or to please the people. That minister who makes the taste of his hearers the standard of his preaching may go on, and succeed in pleasing them and himself; but, at the coming of his Lord, it will be said to him, Thou hast had thy reward . There is also danger of going off from the gospel by MINISTERIAL SOLICITUDE. , 693 leaning to our own understanding. Consult your own understanding; but remember you are liable to err; there- fore do not lean to it, in opposition to the Scriptures. Finally, “ Continue in these things.”—That only is true religion which endures to the end. II. Let us consider THE MOTIVES BY WHICH THE Ex- HORTATION IS EN FORCED. 1. Your growth in gifts and graces will be hereby ap- parent.—“That thy profiting may appear to all.” The meaning is much the same as the parable of the talents— five, by improvement, gaining other five. It holds true in temporal things even, Prov. xxii. 29. There is, how- ever, this difference between their pursuits and yours : they labour to obtain an earthly good; you a heavenly, spiritual, and eternal one. If worldly profit or honour were your object, you might study the embellishments of style, or the arts of the partizan ; but if you would be the servant of God, your heart must be in your work. A diligent minister will be a useful one. 2. Your own salvation is involved in it :—“Thou shalt save thyself.” This language does not denote that we are the cause of our own salvation any more than of the salvation of others. But as we may be instrumental in the latter, so we may be active in the former, Acts ii. 40. Take refuge in the Saviour you recommend to others. The expression may also have reference to that particular kind of salvation which consists in being delivered from the blood of souls. 3. The salvation of your people may be involved in it. —A spiritual, diligent minister is commonly a fruitful one, and a blessing to his people. Consider these exhort- ations, and the motives by which they are enforced, and may the Lord give you understanding in all things. Thus thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee. LXV. —AFFECTIONATE CONCERN OF A MI- NISTER FOR THE SALWATION OF HIS HEARER.S. “We were gentle among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her chil- dren: so, being affectionately desirous of you, we were willing to have imparted unto you, not the gospel of God only, but also our own souls, because ye were dear unto us.”—l Thess, ii. 7, 8. MY dear brother, you have requested me to address you on your appointment to the important office of pastor over this people ; and I know of nothing more impressive on the subject of the Christian ministry than this whole chap- ter, both as to what a minister should not be, and as to what he should be. Not of deceit, nor of uncleanness, nor in guile, nor as pleasing men; but gentle, affection- ate, laborious, disinterested, holy. Let us, however, con- fine ourselves to the words we have selected as a text, in which the apostle compares his own ministrations and those of his colleagues to the gentle solicitude of a nurse, whose concern is to impart warmth and strength to her children. “So we, being affectionately desirous,” &c. Three things here require your attention: the feeling of a true minister of Christ towards the people of his charge —the subject-matter of his ministry—and the manner in which he must dispense it. I. THE FEELING of A TRUE MINISTER of CHRIST To- WARDS THE PEOPLE OF HIS CHARGE.--This is an affection- ate concern after their salvation, one of the most import- ant qualifications for the ministry. True, it is not the only one. There are gifts, both natural and acquired, which are necessary, since, without them, we cannot be said to be “apt to teach.” But this qualification is that without which the greatest gifts, natural and acquired, are nothing as to real usefulness. , Genius may amuse, but “love edifieth.” A strong mind and a brilliant imagina- tion may excite their admiration, but this will attract the hearts of the people. Look at the men who have been the most honoured; and you will find that they are not the brightest geniuses, but the humble and affectionate. Look at the example of Paul.—Observe how he felt towards his poor, unbelieving countrymen, who sought his life: “Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they may be saved.” Even his zeal for the conversion of the Gentiles bore an aspect towards his brethren after the flesh: “I speak to you Gentiles, inas- much as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify my office ; if by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.” He speaks as a humane seaman would in a wreck; who, when he found he could not save all, would do what he could, plunging into the sea and saving at least some of them. Here, my brother, is an example for your imita- tion, towards the unbelieving part of your hearers. See also how he felt toward those Christians who had sinned.—Witness his Epistles to the Corinthians. How anxious he was to reclaim them how dissatisfied with any thing short of their restoration I looking upon them as lost children, 2 Cor. ii.; xiii. 2. Look at the example of John towards the rising gener- ation.—“I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy children walking in the truth.”—And look at the example of our apostle, in connexion with the text, towards all to whom he wrote. He could not be satisfied with any reward short of their eternal salvation. All other hope, all other joy connected with them, he considered as of small ac- count; and he looked forward to them as constituting the brightest jewels in his future crown. . Most of all, look at the example of your Lord and Sa- viour.—How did the kindness and love of God our Sa- viour appear ! What did he not forego, and do, and suffer May the love of Christ constrain you ! II. Consider THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF HIs MINISTRY :— “The gospel of God.” 1. It is a blessed errand to go on. Good news to a lost world. Angels were visited with wrath, but men with the cup of salvation. There is a pleasure in being an al- moner, even of earthly blessings: but you have the un- searchable riches of Christ to impart ; you are the herald of peace, and pardon, and reconciliation. How a man, bearing such tidings from an earthly sovereign, would be hailed by a number of convicts : 2. But what is the gospel ? It is not merely the privi- lege of believers; for then it would not be for every crea- ture. It is a declaration of what Christ has done and suffered, and of the effects; exhibiting a way in which God can be “just and the justifier of the ungodly.” It is not merely to convince of sin, but also to point to the remedy. 3. Make a point, then, of distinctly and habitually preaching the gospel. Do not suppose your people are so good, and so well informed, as not to need this. Visit the sick, and you will be astonished how little they know, compared with what it might reasonably be expected they should know. Many sermons are ingenious essays; but if they bear not on this great object, they are not the gospel. Woe unto you if you preach not the gospel ! Do not suppose I have any particular suspicion that you will not. But I feel the importance of the exhortation, “Preach the gospel.” Study the gospel—what it implies, what it includes, and what consequences it involves. I have heard complaints of some of our young ministers, that though they are not heterodox, yet they are not evan- getical ; that though they do not propagate error, yet the grand, essential, distinguishing truths of the gospel do not form the prevailing theme of their discourses. I love a sermon well laden with Christian doctrine. I love to find young ministers well learned in the Scriptures. Then their preaching will not be dry, but good news and glad tidings. Complaints have been made of some preaching as too doctrinal; and a preference has been manifested for experimental and practical preaching; but that doctrinal preaching which I would recommend should include both. The doctrines of the Scriptures, Scripturally stated, are calculated to interest the heart, and to produce genuine evangelical obedience. You need not fear that you shall be limited. You may take a wide range. There is a great variety of subjects which may be introduced; as—the purity and spirituality of the law, the evil of sin, the wrath of God against it, and many others : but then all these naturally lead to an explicit declaration of “the glorious gospel of the blessed God.” . III. Consider THE MANNER IN WHICII A MINISTER :694 SERMONS AND SRETCHES. s Hould DISPENSE THE Gospel, :—“Willingly;” and so as, while imparting the gospel, to impart their own souls with it. not the manner of preaching, that God blesses. But I see no ground for this distinction. I allow that the mat- ter is of the first importance ; but the manner is not of small account. For example: the apostle prays that he might make the gospel manifest, “as he ought to speak,” Col. iv. 4. And this relates to manner, not to matter. You may preach even the gospel dryly. It must be preached faithfully, firmly, earnestly, affectionately. The apostle so spoke that many believed. Manner is a means of conveying truth. A cold manner disgraces important truth. “Willingly.”—Where the ministration of the word is connected with external honours and great tem- poral advantage, there is no test of this ; but where it is attended with self-denial, there is. . . . “Our own souls.”—This is expressive of the deep interest the apostles and their colleagues took in the gospel, and their earnest desire that their hearers should embrace it. Hence we speak of pouring out our souls in prayer. How would you feel in throwing out a rope to a drowning man, or in lighting a fire in a wilderness to attract the attention of one who was dear to you, and who was lost? How did Aaron feel during the plague, when he stood between the dead and the living 4 O my brother, enter into these feelings. Realize them. Let them inspire you with holy, affectionate zeal. Souls are perishing around you ; and though you cannot “make an atonement for the people's sins,” yet you can publish one, made by our great High Priest; and, receiving and exhibiting this atonement, you may hope to save yourself and them that hear you. LXVI-THE NATURE AND ENCOURAGE- MENTS OF THE MISSIONARY WORK. [Substance of the Charge delivered to the first Missionaries of the Baptist Society at the parting Meeting at Leicester, 1793.] “Peace be unto you : as my Father sent me, so send I you.”— John xx. 21. MY very dear brethren, every part of the solemnities of this day must needs be affecting; but if there be one part which is more so than the rest, it is that which is allotted to me, delivering to you a solemn parting address. Never- theless, I must acknowledge that the hope of your under- taking being crowned with success swallows up all my sorrow. I could myself go without a tear, so at least I think, and leave all my friends and connexions, in such a glorious cause. Impressed, therefore, with these sen- timents, I can the more readily and cheerfully part with you. My dear brethren, let me address you in the words of our Lord Jesus to his disciples, “Peace be unto you : as my Father sent me, so send I you !” The whole of this language was sweet, especially considering the troubles of their hearts to whom it was primarily addressed.—The preface is sweet : “Peace be unto you "--as if he had said, All is well as to the past, and all shall be well as to the future.—The commission itself is sweet. Nothing could well be more grateful to those who loved Christ than to be employed by him on such an errand, and to have such an example to imitate. There is to be sure a great disparity between your mis- sion and that of Christ. He came to offer himself a sacri- fice for sin, and by his blood to obtain eternal salvation for poor lost sinners. Yet, notwithstanding this disparity, there are various points of likeness between your under. taking and that of your Lord and Master. I shall single out three or four, which I would wish to impress upon your minds. These are—the objects you must keep in view—the directions you must observe—the difficulties you must encounter—and the reward you may expect. First, There is an analogy between the objects of Christ's mission and those of yours. The great objects of his mission were to glorify God, and to seek and to save Some have supposed that it is the matter, and lost souls; and yours are the same. Men and devils have dishonoured God; they had virtually called him a hard master; had thrown off his yoke, and represented him, in the punishment of sin, as a Being whose ways were not equal, But Christ by his obedience and death rolled away these reproaches. By the former, that is, by making it his meat and drink to do the will of his Father, he proved in the face of a rebellious world that his yoke was easy and his burden light. By the latter, that is, by en- during the full penalty of the Divine law without a mur- muring thought, he manifested its equity, declaring in effect that God was in the right, and that man deserved to fall a sacrifice to his justice. You also, my brethren, have to glorify God, and that both by your cheerful obe- dience to his will, and by patiently enduring affliction. The heathen will judge of the character of your God, and of your religion, by what they see of your own character. Beware that you do not misrepresent your blessed Lord and his glorious gospel. It is a great encouragement to be engaged in the same cause with Christ himself. Does he ride forth as on a white horse, in righteousness judging and making war 3 Rev. xix. You are called, like the rest of the armies of heaven, to follow him on white horses, pursuing the same glorious object, that India may be con- quered by his truth. May you be able at the close of your lives to say, after the example of your Lord, “I have glorified thee on earth, I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.” Christ was sent of the Father, not only to glorify his name, but to seek and to save that which was lost; and such, my brethren, is your errand. Go then after your Saviour's example, go in pursuit of the lost sheep; follow after them, search and find them out, that they may be brought home to his fold, from the dark mountains whither they have wandered, and gathered from the dreary deserts whither they have been scattered in the dark and cloudy day; that they may be delivered from the errors and abominations of the heathen, and be brought to the knowledge and enjoyment of God. Secondly, Christ, in the execution of his mission, was UNDER THE DIRECTION OF HIM THAT SENT HIM, and you must be the same. As Mediator, he always acted as the Father's servant. Though a Son, and as such equal with God, yet in his official capacity he learned obedience. It is emphatically said of him, he both did and taught; and in both he inflexibly adhered to the directions of him that sent him. “I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him who sent me.”—“I have not spoken of myself, but the Father who sent me; he gave me commandment what I should say, and what I should speak.” Christ acted as the Father's servant ; and you are the servants of Christ. There is a woe upon any minister if he preach not the gospel of Christ, but especially upon those whose business it is to preach the gospel among the heathen. Among w8, if you do not preach the gospel of Christ, others will; but there all, under God, will depend upon you. When the Lord first planted the Israelites in Canaan, he planted them wholly a right seed. Be exceed- ingly careful to follow this example. See that the doc- trines you teach, and the duties you inculcate, be not yours, but his who sent you. A right seed is necessary to a profitable harvest. You must likewise do the will of Christ as well as teach it, and that after his example. He pleased not himself. Perhaps no men must expect to have their wills so often crossed, or to meet with so fre- quent calls for self-denial, as those who embark in such an undertaking as yours. This leads me to observe, Thirdly, Christ, in the execution of his mission, had GREAT DIFFICULTIES AND TRIALs to encounter, and you must expect the same. The trials of your Lord were partly from pain, and partly from contempt. Great were the hardships he had to undergo. Foxes had holes, and birds had nests, but he had not where to lay his head. And, notwithstanding all that your brethren can do to make you comfortable, you may expect to taste of the same cup. Your Lord was also exposed to contempt. He is mad, said they, why hear ye him " If these things were done to the green tree, what may be expected of the dry But Jesus “endured the cross, and despised the shame.” May you be enabled to follow his example. He met with THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY A GREAT work. 695 trials, not only from open enemies, but from pretended friends. Those who ate of his bread lifted up the heel against him. Betrayed, denied, and forsaken, he yet per- severed; nor did he desist till he could declare, “It is finished.” Then, when he could appeal to him who sent him, saying, “I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do,” then he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost! What an example for you to follow ! Fourthly, Christ was not sent forth in his undertaking without a PROMISE OF SUPPORT IN IT, AND A GLORIOUS REwARD FOR IT. It was predicted of him, “He shall not fail nor be discouraged till he have brought forth judg- ment unto victory.” This implied that he would meet with much to discourage him. If many waters could have quenched his love, it had been quenched; but Divine Omnipotence supported him. And as his Father sent him, so sends he you. Faithfully has he promised to be with you always to the end of the world. The Divine Father promised him souls for his hire; that he should see of the travail of his soul, and be satisfied. And herein, as the Father sent him, so sends he you. You also shall have your reward. The joy set before him encouraged him to endure the cross ; you also shall enter into the joy of the Lord. ICeep that joy in your view. For “it is a faithful saying, If we suffer with him, we shall also reign with him.” Hearken to the promise of your Lord and Master, for his sayings are very true, “To him that over- cometh will I grant to sit down with me in my throne, as I also have overcome, and am set down with my Father in his throne.” Go then, my dear brethren, stimulated by these pros- pects. We shall meet again. Crowns of glory await you and us. Each, I trust, will be addressed at the last day, by our great Redeemer, “Come, ye blessed of my Father; —these were hungry, and you fed them ; athirst, and you gave them drink; in prison, and you visited them;-Enter ye into the joy of your Lord.” Amen. LXVII.—THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY A. GREAT WORK. "Sketch of a Sermon addressed to two Missionaries and their Wives.] “I am doing a great work, so that I cannot come down: why should the work cease, whilst I leave it, and come down to you?”—Neh. vi. 3. My dear young friends, it would have been more agree- able to my feelings if this address had been delivered by one of our brethren in London. I submit, however, the more cheerfully, from the persuasion I have that you will receive what I say in love. I shall found a few observ. ations on the words I have read. Let us review the oc- casion of them. We may consider the chapter as a fulfilment of what Daniel had foretold about a hundred years before. “The street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.” It shows, in a striking light, how all great undertakings for the church of God are accompanied with difficulties and strong oppositions. When Judah returned, all their difficulties seemed at an end : they imagined, now they were liberated, they had only to go to work and rebuild the temple; but they soon discovered that they had new &I le Iſl 16S, The conduct of Sanballat and Geshem shows how the most iniquitous designs are concealed under friendly pre- tences. “Come, let us meet together in one of the villages —but they thought to do me mischief.” Sº The answer of Nehemiah discovers a union of wisdom and firmness. He saw through their designs, but did not reveal his suspicions. His answer would have been proper even had they meant as they said. But wherein was the greatness of the work of Nehe- miah 3 The building of a wall would not seem to be a mighty matter. But then it must not be considered in itself, but in its effects—it was to secure a city, where the worship and cause of God were to be carried on for ages; a candle which may burn for ages. and in this view it was a great work, and greatly interested the hearts of the godly. Hence the people had “a mind to work,” night and day, with a tool in one hand and a weapon in the other. In short, with respect to the prin- ciple, it was the same as that which has attracted the hearts of the godly in all ages—love to Zion, or the cause of God. It was that which dictated the 137th Psalm, when times went ill; and the 29th chapter of the Second Book of Chronicles, when things went well. Such was the public spirit of those times. But, passing the work of Nehemiah, I shall not be thought to misapply the subject if I apply it to the work in which you are engaged. You have a great work, and you may expect great difficulties and oppositions in its execution, and great encouragements. It is a work which will occupy your whole attention. * I. Let me remind you of a few things relative to THE GREATNEss of YoUR work.-Such a view of it may, in one sense, dismay you, and induce you to exclaim, “Who is sufficient for these things 3" But in another sense it is necessary; and remember, for your encouragement, that “they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength.” 1. It is the work of saving souls.—Light as this is made of by the world, it is great. The temporal salvation of an empire is great and interesting ; but the salvation of one soul exceeds all this; for the soul is capable of eternal happiness or misery. “What shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and lose his soul?” 2. It is the work of introducing the gospel where it has never been.—There is great importance attaching to this, whether in a country, city, town, or village. It is lighting When Paul and Silas first entered Europe, they might have no conception of the effects. But what they taught was a light that has never bean extinguished. 3. It is a work to which you may expect great opposition. —Satan will dispute every inch of ground with you, and his opposition will be varied. It is true, your brethren who have gone before you have had difficulties to encoun- ter which you will probably escape; but do not expect that all opposition has ceased. The more God blesses you, the more opposition you may expect, not from Brahmins only, and Hindoos, but from Europeans. Expectations of ease and honour are utterly unworthy of a Christian missionary. 4. It is a work that must occupy your whole attention.— Nehemiah could not be diverted from his work, nor must you. You must not go with a divided heart. You may wish to attend to other things; but every thing must be done in subserviency to your great work. Never lose sight of this. If politics or worldly speculations invite your attention, you must reply, “I am doing a great work : why should the work cease whilst I come down to you?” Always consider an attention to any thing that would divert you from the grand object you have in view as “going down ;” and say, I am doing a great work, and I cannot come down. II. But while yours is unquestionably a great work, it is also a work IN WIHICH THERE ARE GREAT ENCOURAGE- MENTs.-Under this head we may remark,- 1. It is a work the foundation of which has been laid at a great expense.—When God would save a nation, he sent Moses and Aaron : he gave Egypt for them. When he would restore them, he sacrificed Babylon. But to lay the foundation of this work he sacrificed his Son | 2. It is a work which occupies a first place in the designs of God.—All his other works are subservient to this. They were not only made by Christ, but for him. The revolutions of empires are permitted for the sake of the people of God. Babylon was raised up to chastise them, and destroyed to deliver them. The invasion of Britain and other nations was permitted for the gospel’s sake ; and who can tell but this may be the end which God intends to answer in permitting British armies to subdue India ; Even slavery itself may be permitted for the gospel's sake. 3. It is a work in which the hand and heart of God will be with you.-If ever you incline to despond, remember— “The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform it.” 4. It is a work which involves the happiness of your species.—Whence spring all the miseries of mankind 3 696 $. SERMONS AND SIXETCHES. “Whence come wars and fightings 3" From the state of their hearts. The gospel is the remedy, and the only re- medy, Psal. lxvii. III. Let me conclude with a few REMARKs:— 1. The greatest work requires attention to a multitude of little things.--It is composed of little things. Great works are not accomplished by a single exploit, but by a series of labours—by leaving no stone unturned. Look at Nehe- miah. He inquires, weeps alone, prays, speaks to the king, obtains favour and a commission; but still he re- turned to labour, even in the night, and took a calm and deliberate view of the work; and when he communicated his intentions, his friends joined him ; and thus, by a mul- titude of operations, the work is accomplished. He was laborious, firm, disinterested, patient, and persevering; and looked for his reward to God. 2. A great work may be hindered and stopped by little things.-Little follies will spoil the whole, Eccles. x. 1; such as the dispute of the disciples who should be the greatest ; and little discords; and self-will. A great cha- racter will imitate Him who “pleased not himself.” Abra- ham's condescension to Lot is a fine example. My dear sisters, yours is a great work. In the first ages, there were women who helped to advance the good cause; and we are indebted nearly as much, under God, to the services of your sex as to those of our own. It is for you to strengthen the hands of your companions, by a cheerful demeanour under their various discouragements, by con- versing with the native females, by keeping order in the family, by setting an example of modesty and affection, by economy and industry.—You may be of service on your voyage. It was remarked of one of our dear sisters, during her voyage, by an officer, that he never saw her equal in sweetness of disposition, calmness, kindness, and firmness in danger. This was a powerful recommendation of the gospel.—You may be members of a large family—conform to its rules; make yourselves useful; beware of jealousy, whisperings, envies.—You may be called to preside in a small station—conduct every thing in the fear of God. Bear and forbear, and forgive. Keep near to God. Seek your own happiness and interest in that of the whole. Dear brethren and sisters, we shall be with you in heart. We shall pray for you. And we trust we shall meet you in the world above. Meanwhile my brethren and com- panions, assembled to bid you farewell, will cordially unite with me in the fervent prayer—Remember them, O our God, for good —The Lord Jesus Christ be with their spirits LXVIII.-FAITH IN THE GOSPEL A. NECES- SARY PREREQUISITE TO PREACHING IT. [Sketch of a Sermon addressed to the Students of the Bristol Educa- tion Society.] “We believe, and therefore speak.”—2 Cor. iv. 13. THE words immediately preceding those on which I shall found a few observations on the important work of the ministry are a quotation from the 116th Psalm. David, under his troubles, believed in God, and therefore spoke. And the apostles, under persecutions and reproaches, be- lieved in the gospel, and therefore spoke. They spoke boldly in the name of Jesus, whatever might be the con- sequence. They might be slain, as Christ was. But then like him, too, they would be raised, ver. 14. If they suf- fered with him, they would also reign with him. I shall comprise what I have to offer under two heads of discourse—the subject-matter of the Christian ministry, and the necessity of believing it. 1. THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. —It is that which we have believed. It is of the first im- portance to a messenger to know his errand. Without this, whatever be our talents, natural or acquired, we are unqualified for the Christian ministry. Without this, the most fascinating eloquence is in danger of becoming an engine of mischief. The subject-matter of the apostle's preaching is variously described: it is called “the faith ” —“the truth *-* the truth as it is in Jesus ”—“ Christ crucified ”—“the gospel”—“the word of reconciliation,” &c. In these descriptions, we see our work. It does not follow that the dictates of reason and con- science are to be rejected or disused in preaching. The light of nature itself teaches some truth—such as the being of God, the accountableness of man, the fitness of doing to others as we would they should do to us, our being sin- ners, or what we ought not to be. These are truths which the gospel supposes, and which require to be enforced in subserviency to it. But several important particulars do follow ; as, 1. That we must not deal in curious speculations, which have no foundation in the Scriptures.—Some have been turned aside by such an indulgence to false hypotheses, and made shipwreck of faith and a good conscience. A large proportion of the objections to Divine truth are of this kind: “ How can a man be born when he is old 3’’ ‘‘ How are the dead raised, and with what body?” How can one be three, and three one 3 How could Christ be both God and man How can the certain efficaciousness of grace consist with free agency and the accountableness of man Paul would not answer such questions as these by opposing con- jecture to conjecture, but in the spirit of the text—“We believe, and therefore speak.” 2. That we must not deal in private impulses or impres- sions, which have no foundation in the Scriptures.—One founds a doctrine on his own experience; but experience ought to be judged by the Bible, not the Bible by experi- ence. “The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream ; and he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the Lord.”—Another swears that, as God liveth, such a thing is true ; but what does this prove, save the impudence and profanity of the preacher ? 3. That the person and work of Christ must be the lead- Čng theme of our ministry.—In this, if we be Christians, we have believed ; and this we must preach to others. For example: We must preach him as Divine. How else could we know whom we had believed ? We must preach him as having assumed our nature, and thereby qualified himself to be our Saviour, Heb. ii. 14, 15. We must preach him as dying for our sins, &c., 1 Cor. xv. 1–4. We must preach him as the Saviour of the lost, taking the place of the chief of sinners. We must preach him as the only way of acceptance with God. “Being justified freely by his grace, we have peace with God, through our Lord Je- sus Christ.” In short, he is suited to all our wants. To whom else shall we go? He hath the words of eternal life. So preach Christ. - Every sermon, more or less, should have some relation to Christ, and bear on his person or work. This is the life of all doctrine, and it will be our own fault if it is dry. Do not consider it as one subject among others, but as that which involves all others, and gives them an interest they could not otherwise possess. Preach not only the truth, but all truth, “as it is in Jesus.” However ingenious our sermons may be, unless they bear on Christ, and lead the mind to Christ, we do not preach the faith of the gospel. As all doctrinal religion meets here, so does all practical. —The Scriptures draw every thing from the dying love of Christ. “Feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.”—“Be ye kind one to another, tender- hearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.”—“Ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.”—“Let this mind be in you which was in our Lord Jesus Christ.”—“Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us ; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.”—“ Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church.” The same may be said of experience.—Christian experi- ence clings to Christ and his gospel. The religion of some, who talk of experience, goes to idolize their own feelings and admire their supposed graces. But true Christian experience thinks little of self, and much of Christ, John vi. 68. II. THE Necessity of BELIEVING THE GOSPEL before FAITH IN THE GOSPEL ESSENTIAL TO PREACHING IT. 697 we preach it:—“We believe, and therefore speak.” It does not follow that every believer should be a preacher; but every preacher ought to be a believer; for, 1. This is the only motive that will render preaching a delight.—How can we discourse on subjects which we do not believe? If we have not tasted the grace of God, we shall feel no pleasure in proclaiming it to others. Is it any wonder that faithless preachers call preaching “doing duty 3” or that they preach other men's sermons ? and that in delivering them they are uninterested by them 3 But if we speak because we believe, our preaching will be the utterance of a full heart, and our work its own reward. We must taste of truth as Christians, before we preach it. Studying it merely as ministers will never do. Believing belongs to us as Christians. 2. It affords ground to hope for usefulness to others.-- What effect will the sermons of those ministers have, who, by their frothy conversation, loose deportment, or ava- ricious spirit, are always counteracting them 3 The hear- ers will say, and say truly, He does not believe his own doctrine. He may talk of truth, or of holiness and prac- tical religion; but all is vain.-If, on the other hand, we feel and practise what we preach, this must at least recom- mend it to the conscience; and it often does more. The one, resembles a man persuading you to embark on board his vessel, assuring you it is safe, while he himself stands on the shore. The other has embarked himself and all he has ; and, like Moses to Hobab, invites you to accompany him. 3. It will render the work of the ministry compatible with common honesty.—The world has long accused ministers with being hypocrites. This is malicious enough ; but while men engage in this work from indolence, avarice, pride, or any other worldly motive, rather than from the principle expressed in the text, they are furnished with a pretext for such reproaches. If we believe not ere we speak, we only deceive, and the sooner we throw off the deception the better. 4. No other motive will bear the test.—What an account will faithless ministers have to give when asked, “What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth ?” One may have to answer, The vanity of my parents led them to educate me for the ministry, and when I grew up I was fit for nothing else.—Another may have to answer, My own vanity influenced me: having a taste for learning, and public speaking, and esteeming it a reputable and genteel mode of life, I took to it.—Another may have to say, It was my own conceit and arrogance : having a large portion of native effrontery, I made my way, and was caressed by the people.—Oh how different these from the apostles — “We have believed, and therefore speak.” But why do I thus speak? I am not addressing a society which pretends to train graceless characters for the minis- try, or to make men ministers by mere education. They are aware of the necessity of their pupils being believers; and if any of them prove otherwise, they have deceived their patrons. They do not so much as pretend to impart gifts; but merely to improve those which Christ appears to have imparted. They wish to enable the aged and expe- rienced part of our ministers, like Aquila and Priscilla, to expound to the younger brethren the way of the Lord more perfectly. And as to you, my young brethren, I have no particular jealousy of you ; only as we ought to be jealous with a godly jealousy, “ looking lest any one fail of the grace of God.” You are likely, another day, to occupy stations of much greater importance than if each were a minister of state. Our churches look to you. Many aged ministers are gone. Those that remain will soon follow. God has begun a great work in our day. May you take it up, and carry it on. It is but the other day since we were youths, looking up to those who are now no more. Now the load lies on us. Soon it must lie on you, or on some others. Should you prove yourselves unworthy, God will find others. Deliverance will arise from some other quarter. O men of God, “ Flee youthful lusts, and follow after righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart!” I ought not to conclude without recommending to the audience that Saviour whom we have believed. We have found rest for our souls. Come ye. Forsake the world and your own righteousness. We have worn his yoke, some of us for forty years, and it has never galled us. Take his yoke, and learn of him, and you shall find rest for your souls. His yoke is easy, and his burden is light. LXIX. THE YOUNG MINISTER EXHORTED TO MAKE FULL PRO OF OF HIS MINISTRY. [Sketch of a Sermon addressed to the Students of the Stepney Academical Institution.] “IBut watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry. For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand.”—2 Tim. iv. 5, 6. BEING requested to address a word of exhortation to my younger brethren, I doubt not but I shall be heard with candour and attention ; and that not only by those imme- diately addressed, but by all my younger brethren in the ministry. You will not suppose, then, that I mean to compare myself to an apostle, or you to evangelists; but the work is in substance the same, whether it be in the hands of extraordinary or ordinary men : and as Paul argued the importance of Timothy's work from his own approaching dissolution, I may be allowed to enforce it upon you from kindred considerations; namely, that many of your elder brethren are gone, and others are going the way of all the earth. You will not expect me, my dear young men, to dis- course to you on the advantages of literary acquirements. I might do so indeed, and that from experience. I know the value of such acquirements, both by what I have been enabled to attain, and by the want of that which I have not attained ; but it is more congenial with my feelings to speak of things of still greater importance. Three things in particular are suggested by the passage which I have read, and these I shall recommend to your serious atten- tion; namely, the work itself to which you are devoted— the duties inculcated as necessary to the discharge of it— and the considerations by which it is enforced. I. THE work ITSELF to which you are devoted.—It is called a “ministry.” The word signifies, as you are aware, service. The leading character of a minister is that of a servant. This is an idea that you must ever bear in mind. It is a service, however, of a special kind. Every Christian is a servant of Christ, but every Christian is not a minister of the gospel. A deacon is a servant, as the word also signifies ; but his service respects temporal things; yours is that on account of which the office of deacon was ap- pointed, that you should “give yourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.” It is that which Jethro assigned to Moses—“Be thou for the people to God-ward, that thou mayest bring the causes unto God.” Your living under the gospel dispensation renders this a pleasant work: it must, if you enter into the spirit of it, be pleasant to study and impart the gladdening doctrine of salvation. gº I have observed two extremes relative to this work ; one on the part of ministers themselves, and the other on the part of the people. That on the part of ministers has been an abuse of their office of ruling, a fondness for power, aspiring to the exercise of dominion over their brethren. It has always grated in my ears to hear such language as this :—My church, my deacons, &c., as if churches were made for them, rather than they for churches. Do not emulate this empty swell. True greatness will revolt at it. He that will be great, let him be the servant of all. Think of the woe denounced against the idol shepherd : “The sword shall be upon his arm, and his right eye shall be darkened.” Think especially of him who said, “I have been amongst you as one that serveth.” The extreme on the part of the people is this : from the idea of ministers being servants, some of them seem to have imagined that they are their masters. It is true they have a Master, and one to whom they must give account ; but it is not to the people of their charge. As Christians, 698 SERMONS AND SKETCHES. they are accountable to one another, the same as other Christians; but as ministers, to Christ only. In serving the church of God, you will act as a faithful steward to- wards his lord’s family; who renders service to them all, but is accountable to his lord only. Serve the church of , Christ for his sake. II. Let me direct your attention to THE DUTIES INCUL- CATED AS NECESSARY TO THE DISCHARGE OF THE MINISTRY. These will be found to consist in four things:— 1. Vigilance.—“Watch thou in all things.” This is a general quality that is required to run through all our work. If any of you enter the ministry as furnishing you with a genteel post in society, you will be at best a drone, and had better be any thing than a preacher. You are watchmen, and must be awake when others are asleep. 2. Patience.—“Endure afflictions.” If you cannot bear these, you had better let the ministry alone. If you be good ministers of Jesus Christ, you will not only be afflicted in common with others, but the afflictions of others will become yours. “Who is offended, and I burn not ?” You must care for all, and expect on some occa- sions, when you have done, to receive evil for good. 3. Activity in the great work of evangelizing men :- “Do the work of an evangelist.” Without considering you as evangelists in the full import of the term, there is a portion of the work pertaining to that office which is com- mon to us all as ministers. Wherever Providence may station you, my dear young men, be concerned to evangel- ize your neighbourhood. Look at the situations of a num- ber of the ejected ministers, and see if the effects of their evangelical labours do not remain to this day. Who can look over the churches in Cambridgeshire, without seeing in them the fruits of the labours of Oddy and Holcroft Who can review those of Bedfordshire, and not perceive in them the effects of the labours of Bunyan—labours for which he suffered twelve years' imprisonment 2 The same remarks might be made respecting other parts of the king- dom. Emulate these men of God in evangelizing your respective neighbourhoods. Fidelity in discharging your trust:—“Make full proof of thy ministry.” The word means thoroughly to accom- plish that which you have undertaken. Such is the im- port of Col. iv. 17, “Say to Archippus, Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfil it.” Were you to present a soldier with a sword, and bid him make full proof of it, he could not misunder- stand you. Would you see an example, look at that of the great apostle in the context: “I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith.” But here allow me to be a little more particular. If you would make full proof of your ministry, you must attend, (1.) To personal religion.—This is often inculcated by the apostle.—“Take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock.”—“Take heed to thyself and to thy doctrine,” &c. Many people will take our personal religion for granted ; as though a man who teaches others must needs be re- ligious himself: but woe unto us if we reason in this way ! Tremble at the idea of being a graceless minister— a character, it is to be feared, not very unfrequent . To what is it owing that some of our churches have been pre- judiced against an educated ministry? I may be told, to their ignorance ; and in part it is so ; but in part it is owing to other causes. The lightness, the vanity, the foppery, and the irreligion of some young men have produced not only this effect, but an abhorrence of the very worship of God, as by them administered. Who were ever known to be prejudiced against a Pearce, a Francis, or a Beddome, on account of their education ? If there were individuals of this description, let them be disregarded as ignorant, and let them be told that vicious characters are found among the uneducated as well as the educated. But be it your concern, my dear young men, to shun these evils. The instructions which you receive, if consecrated to Christ, will be a blessing to you ; but if your object be to shine before men, they will be a curse. (2.) Let the time allotted you for education be em- ployed in acquiring a habit of useful study.—To make full proof of your ministry, you must give yourselves continu- ally to prayer, and the ministry of the word. “Meditate on these things, and give yourselves wholly to them ;” and this to the end of your lives. Let no one imagine that he will leave his present situation fully qualified for the work. If, by prayer and a diligent application to study, you ac- quire such a habit of close thinking as that on entering the work it shall be your delight to prosecute it, this is all that will be expected of you. It is for the want of this habit of study that there are so many saunterers, and have been so many scandals amongst ministers. (3.) In every stage of literary improvement be concerned to have it sanctified and subordinated to God as you go on.— On this depends its utility. It were desirable that the study of languages and sciences should commence in early youth, and that religion should come after it to make the last impression, seeing it is this that ordinarily stamps the character. Coukd we be certain that the faith of Christ, and the gifts suited to the ministry, would follow an early education, this would be our course; but as this cannot be, our dread of an unconverted ministry makes us require religion as the first qualification. Only pursue learning that you may be better able to serve the Lord, and all will be well. It is thus that our brethren in India, though their attainments were not made in the earliest stages of life, have retained their spirituality and increased in usefulness. Let me conclude by noticing, III. THE considerATION witH which THESE EXHORT- ATIONS ARE ENForceD :—“For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand.” This language denotes an anxiety in the apostle that the work of God might go on when he should have fallen asleep ; and if we be worthy of the name of Christian ministers, we must feel a portion of the same. Dear young men, to you we look for successors in the work. It is not for me to say how long your elder brethren may continue ; but we have seen stars of no ordinary magnitude set within a few years It seems but yesterday since they were with us, and we were the juniors amongst them. Now we are obliged to take their place; and you, beloved youths, will soon have to take ours. We do not wish to hold ourselves up as your examples; but the cause in which we have been engaged, and in which the Lord has not frowned on our attempts, we do most earnestly recommend to your tender and solicitous regards. Your elder brethren may be spared a little longer, an? yet be able to do but little more. We feel the force of the wise man's counsel; may you feel it too—“Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them.” LXX. IMPORTANCE OF CHRISTIAN MINIS- TERS CONSIDERED AS THE GIFT OF CHRIST. [Skelch of a Sermon addressed to the Church at Moulton on the Ordi- nation of JMr. (now Dr.) Carey, August 1, 1787.] “Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the Lord God might dwell among them.”—Psal. lxviii. 18. SoME think it refers to God’s goings forth in behalf of his people Israel, leading them forth to victory, taking their enemies captive, and enriching them with the spoils. Suppose it be so, we are warranted to consider it as mainly referring to Christ, for so the apostle Paul has applied it, IEph. iv. 8. The apostle not only applies it to Christ, but proves it applicable. Thus he reasons, ver, 9, 10, “Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended,” &c. 3 The captivity which he led captive was our spiritual ene- mies who had led us captive—Satan, death. And, having obtained the victory, he proceeds to divide the spoils. Gifts to men.—As David made presents. And hence comes our ordinances, ministers, &c. There was a glori- ous fulfilment immediately after his ascension, in a rich profusion of gifts and graces to his church, like David’s presents. Here it is “received ; ” in Ephesians “gave.” * The mine which follow this were addressed to other churches on . the ordination of their respective pastors. - NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF CHRISTIAN LOWE. 699 He received that he might give, received the spoil that he might distribute it. But as I wish to appropriate the passage to the work allotted me, the whole of that to which I would at this time call your attention will be contained in two things :— I. THE GREAT BLEssING OF THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 1. Ministers are received for and are given to you by Christ.—As men, and as sinful men, ministers are as no- thing, and wish not to make any thing of themselves; but as the gifts of Christ it becomes you to make much of them. (1.) If you love Christ, you will make much of your minister, on account of his being his gift. A gift designed to supply Christ’s absence in a sort. He is gone, (“ascended,”) but he gives you his servants. By and by you hope to be with him, but as yet you are as sheep in the wilderness. He gives you a shepherd. (2.) If you fear God, you will be afraid of treating your pastor amiss, seeing he is the gift of Christ. God took it ill of Israel for despising Moses, Numb. xii. 8. He is my servant. 2. Ministers are not only given to but received for you of God the Father, as a covenant blessing, among the spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ. In this view consider that Christ received nothing at his Father's hand but what cost him dear—cost him his life. Or if the allusion be to the dividing of the spoils, suppose we say, He received them as a conqueror receives the spoils at the hand of the foe. Your minister was one of those who, like yourselves, were brands consuming in the fire. Christ took him from your enemies, and gives him to you. Make much of the gift on this account. “This I received of the Amorite.” 3. Consider your unworthiness of such a blessing. You are men, mere men, and, what is more, rebellious men, who had joined with Satan. And must you share the spoils? It is not usual to divide the spoils amongst rebels . . . . Men that put him to death had these gifts given to them. And we should all have done the same. Some of you, it is likely, have been vile and abandoned characters, and yet, &c. . . . . 4. The end of it:—“That the Lord God might dwell among them.” “But will God indeed dwell with men º’” God had not dwelt with the world, nor in it, while sin bore the rule ; but Christ's mediation was for the bring- ing it about. “Will God indeed dwell with men 2'' He will ; and how ! It is by the means of ordinances and ministers. A church of Christ is God’s house, and where any one builds a house it is a token that he means to dwell there. What a blessing to a village, a country, for God to build a house in it. It is by this that we may hope for a blessing upon the means to the conversion of our children and friends, and for the edification of believers. II. PoſNT OUT SOME CORRESPONDING DUTIES As AN- SWERING TO THESE YOUR PRIVILEGES. 1. Constant and diligent attendance at the house of God. If the house of God be God’s dwelling, let it be yours, your home. If God gives you a pastor, do you thankfully receive and prize him. He hath not dealt so with every village. 2. Cheerfully contribute to his support. Christ has given you freely, and you ought to give him freely. Con- sider it is not as a gift, but as a debt; and not as done to him, but to Christ. 3. Follow those things which make for peace, with which the presence and blessing of God are connected. 4. Shun those things that tend to provoke the Lord to withdraw his gifts, and to cease to dwell among you. LXXI.—NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF CHRISTIAN LOVE. “A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall ali men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.”— John xiii. 34, 3. THE counsels of a dying friend have peculiar weight; those especially which arise from love, and a regard to our well-being. Such was this. It was the counsel of the greatest and best Friend we have ; and the advice is calculated, more than any thing else, for our good. And what better than this can I advance on the present occa- sion ? To enter into all the particular duties of a people to a minister and to one another would be far too wide a field. If therefore I dwell on the principle, I hope it will suffice, and prove beneficial. If you ask, What are our duties to our minister ? I answer, Love him. If you ask, What are our duties to each other ? I answer, Love one another. Learn this lesson well, and every thing else will follow. We shall endeavour to ascertain where- in consists the nature of Christian love, and why it is called a new commandment—to consider its importance in Christian society—and to state a few means and motives to cherish it. I. Let us endeavour to ascertain THE NATURE OF CHRISTIAN LovE, AND why IT IS CALLED A NEW COM- MANDMENT.-We may remark, 1. It is not mere good neighbourhood, or civility be- tween man and man.—We may meet as neighbours, and practise the little civilities dictated by a sense of propriety, and regard each other indifferently; and yet be strangers to love. 2. It is not mere friendship.–This belongs to us as men. Heathens are capable of this. But there is no re- ligion in it. It is not Christian love. 3. It is not mere respect on account of religion.—I never remember being without that. That was found in Saul to David, and at times in Pharaoh to Moses, and in Balaam to Israel. But there was no religion in it—no !ove. 4. It is not mere party attachment.—A good man will, of course, unite himself with that denomination of Chris- tians whose sentiments he believes to be nearest the truth; but he will not limit his affection to a party, but love all who love Jesus Christ. A man may be a zealous partizan, and the party whose cause he espouses may be nearest the truth, but he, nevertheless, may be destitute of love. 5. It is not that eaccessive and mistaken attachment which shall lead us to idolize and flatter a minister, or to exempt each other from the exercise of faithful discipline. This, in fact, is hatred. “Thou shalt not hate thy bro- ther in thine heart; thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.” 6. It is not mere benevolence itself-There may be that without Christianity. There what is Christian love 3 - It is complacency in the Divine image.—It is a union of heart, like that of Ruth to her mother-in-law. Christian love is love for Christ’s sake. This last remark, I suppose, furnishes a clue for its be- ing called “a new commandment.” The old command- ment required benevolence, or lòve to our neighbour; but this is complacency in Christ's image, or the love of Christians as such. And being introductory to the New Testament or gospel dispensation, under which the church should be composed of believers only, it is suited to it. Personal religion is now to be the bond of union. This was inever so expressly required before. This is more than love to our neighbour, or benevolence ; this is bro- therly love, or complacency in each other as brethren in Christ, Rom. xii. 10; Heb. xiii. 1. This is genuine charity, 1 Cor. xiii. II. Let us consider THE IMPORTANCE of this principle in Christian society.—This new commandment is the most extensive of any that could be given. Love is a most comprehensive principle ; it is the fulfilling of the whole law ; it is the grand cement that unites the spirit- ual building. Without this, any wind will blow it down. More particularly, 1. With respect to the duties of social religion.—Only love your pastor, and every thing of consequence will fol- low. You will attend early and constantly on his ministry. You will pray for him. You will take well his brotherly admonitions. And if you see faults in him, you will not unnecessarily expose him ; but if the nature of the case allow, mention them to him alone. You will, in return for your spiritual privileges, cheerfully impart to him of your natural good things. You will, in a word, treat him | respectfully, tenderly, and with affectionate fidelity. Only 700 SERMONS AND STKETCHES. dove your brother, and you will cast in your lot with him, and the house of God will be sweet to you. You will consider yourselves as intimately united to Christians, and, after the interruptions of business or the world, you will rejoice, as did the primitive disciples, to return to “your own company.” The return of opportunities will be welcomed. You will have an interest in each other’s prayers. You will give and receive reproof. You will be kind to the poor, and particularly to those of “the household of faith.” You will sympathize with the af- flicted. You will “bear one another's burdens.” You will bear and forbear, and forgive. 2. With respect to its privileges and advantages.— 'These are nothing without love. To be “fellow citizens with the saints,” to unite at the Lord’s table, and a variety of other privileges, without love, will be privileges in name only. With love, the company, counsels, and prayers of Christian friends will be valued ; but not otherwise. III. Let us mention a few MEANS AND MOTIVEs to cherish this Divine principle.—As means, 1. Avoid those things which tend to damp it, as sar- castic speeches, and unkind reflections. 2. Be concerned to be spiritually-minded yourselves, or others cannot love you as Christians. If any err from this rule, let us beware that we do not make their conduct the rule of our own, returning evil for evil. Consider as motives, 1. The love of Christ.—“As I have loved you, so love ye one another.” Let your love be ardent and self- denying. 2. This may comfort you under the world's hatred.—If you be like Christ, the world will hate you, Johnxv. 17–19. Then when they hate you do not be without any source of comfort; but love one another. 3. Brotherly love is the grand recommendation of re- ligion.—Young beginners are drawn by it. But if they cannot perceive this, they will be damped and discouraged, and the Holy Spirit will be grieved. 4. All love to one another will turn to our own account. —While self-love defeats its own ends, this will be sure to benefit us. Seek another's good, and in it you shall find your own. “By this ye shall know that ye have passed from death unto life, because ye have love one to another.” LXXII. CHRISTIAN CHURCHES FELLOW HELPERS WITH THEIR PASTORS TO THE TRUTH. “We therefore ought to receive such, that we might be fellow helpers to the truth.”—3 John 8. THE ordination of elders over the churches was a practice among the primitive Christians, Acts xiv. 23. And I hope it will never be dispensed with in our churches. Besides being sanctioned by apostolical example, it is a guard against the introduction of improper characters, who, by getting an artificial majority in a church, may intrude themselves on a people to their great injury. Hence the exhortation, “Lay hands suddenly on no man.” It also furnishes an opportunity of solemnly addressing both parties on the intimate relation into which they have entered. In compliance with this custom, I would af. fectionately address the members of this church on the present interesting occasion. The language of the text, I allow, has respect to Chris- tian missionaries; but that which is said of them, and the treatment due to them, will in a great degree apply to settled pastors; for, - 1. They went forth, taking nothing of the Gentiles; and these give up all worldly prospects and pursuits for Christ's name’s sake, and to serve your spiritual interests. 2. They were engaged in a great work, even the evan- gelization of the world; and so are these. God promised Canaan to Abraham, but Israel must take it; and the world to Christ, but Christians must conquer it. “Go ye into all the world,” &c. Of this army, Christian mis- sionaries and ministers are the leaders. 3. They wanted help from their brethren, and it was to the honour of private Christians to help them; for in so doing they became fellow helpers, not to them only, but also “to the truth.” And so do these need help, and it is for you, by helping them, to be fellow helpers to the truth. To illustrate and enforce the duty which is here en- joined upon you, we shall take a view of the work of a pastor, and observe, as we go along, how you are to be fellow helpers in it. In general, it is spreading the truth.--This is a name by which the religion of the Bible is very properly de- signated, since it is not only true, but emphatically the truth ; being the only true doctrine ever given to the world under the name of religion. All that went before it were false, and tended to mislead and destroy the souls of men, on the true character of God and of men, and on the true way of salvation. The apostle spoke not the language of conjecture, but of assurance; as one having been in a mine, coming to the light of day : “We believe and are sure.” - It is the work of your pastor to spread the heavenly truth, and yours to be fellow helpers to the truth. Par- ticularly, I. It is his work to PREACH THE Gospel to you.-There are many ways in which you may be his fellow helpers. 1. In your prayers to God for him.—I have lately read of a man who despised the prayers of a people. But so did not Paul. “Brethren, pray for us.”—“Now I be- seech you, brethren, for the Ilord Jesus Christ's sake, and for the love of the Spirit, that ye strive together with me in your prayers to God for me.” Prepare the way to God’s house by prayer. Do not expect to profit else. It is a great mercy that God sends to us by men like our- selves; men whose everlasting interests are involved in their doctrine. But they are sinful creatures, subject to temptations in common with others, and to some peculiar to themselves; they therefore need your prayers. 2. By an early and constant attendance, and spiritual attentiveness to the word, you may be fellow helpers.-- What an effect do empty pews, and yawning, sleepy hearers, produce How delightful for a minister to enter his pulpit, as Paul speaks of coming to Rome, in the hope of being comforted by the faith of his hearers Rom. i. 12. Where faith is seem to glisten in the eyes of an attentive audience, it produces feelings and thoughts more interest- ing and affecting than could ever have been produced in the study ; while the contrary has a tendency to chill and freeze the feelings of the soul, and to reduce a minister to a situation resembling a ship locked in by islands of ice near the poles. 3. By rendering his circumstances as easy as possible, so that his mind may not be harassed by worldly cares, you may be fellow helpers.--I never felt it a hardship to be dependent on a people who loved me. I have thought it an honour to be so supported. The expressions of love are sweet. But if love be wanting, all goes wrong. Little is done, and that little is not done heartily. 4. By enabling him by your habitual deportment to speak strongly as to the holy effects of religion, you may be fel- low helpers.-He will wish to be able to point the world to the people of his charge, and say—There are my epistles of commendation, known and read of all men . And to ad- dress you boldly in their hearing, in the language of the apostle—“Such were some of you; but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.” But if your conduct does not answer the description, who will believe him 3 - II. Another part of your pastor’s work is visit ING His PEOPLE FROM Hous E To Hous E, AND ENCOURAGING HoPE- FUL CHARACTERS TO STAND FORWARD ON THE LORD’S SIDE.-And in this you may be fellow helpers. 1. By welcoming him, and teaching your children and servants to respect him.—-Much depends on this. They will form their opinion of him by the sentiments they hear you express towards him ; and if they do not think high- ly of him, it cannot be expected they should profit under his ministrations. On the contrary, if they witness in you a high esteem for his character and his talents, they CHRISTIAN STEDFASTNESS. 701 will attend his ministry greatly prepossessed in his favour, and with minds prepared to receive his instructions. 2. By noticing those in the congregation who are in- quiring after the way of salvation, and directing them to the good old way, you may be fellow helpers.--There are some who, like Barnabas with Saul, get acquainted with and assist converts in the Divine life, and introduce them to the church, Acts ix. 27. Such persons are great blessings in a church, and great helpers to the pastor. Be friendly with the poor; encourage the modest and timid ; visit the sick, and converse and pray with them. This will strengthen the hands and cheer the heart of your pastor, and greatly promote the interests of the truth. III. Another part of his duty is THE MAINTENANCE of A STRICT AND FAITH FUL DISCIPLINE. And in this you may be fellow helpers. He must reprove, and rebuke, and sometimes separate from the church some of whom he once thought well. This is a painful duty. But it is a duty, and it is your duty to stand by him. Say to him, as the people said to Ezra, “Arise; for this matter be- longeth unto thee: we also will be with thee: be of good courage, and do it.” Do not consult relationship, or worldly interests, or private friendships. Do not weaken his reproofs by siding with the sinner. Act in unison. “Have no fellowship with such a one, no, not to eat!” You especially who are deacons, you must be fellow helpers. You must be to your pastor as Aaron and Hur were to Moses. Encourage him to advise with you. It is customary in some of our churches, and I wish it were in all, for the pastor and deacons to meet and consult on the affairs of the church an hour or two, some evening im- mediately preceding the monthly meeting of the church. These meetings, in connexion with the stated meetings of the church, constitute a happy union of Christian wisdom with Christian liberty. Thus, my dear brethren, I have pointed out, very briefly and plainly, a few ways in which you and your pastor may be fellow helpers to the truth. Consider what I have said as dictated by love and a desire for your own welfare, and for the promotion of the cause of our common Lord ; and may the Lord give you understanding in all things. I, XXIII.—ON CHIRISTIAN STEDFASTNESS. “We live, if ye stand fast in the Lord.”—l Thess. iii. 8. IF I wished to be impressed with a pattern of a Christian minister, I would study the second chapter of this Epistle; and if I wished to see a pattern of a Christian people, I know not where I could look, better than to the church of the Thessalonians, chap. i. 5–10. They were a very amiable people, but greatly persecuted; and this excited the sentiments and conduct expressed in the third chapter. The amount of the text is, that stedfastness in a Chris- tian people is the life of a Christian minister. We shall notice, therefore, the nature of Christian stedfastness, and its influence on the happiness of a minister. I. Let us inquire wiłAT IS THAT spirit AND conDUCT IN A PEOPLE EXPRESSED BY “ STANDING FAST IN THE LoRD.” We may remark in general, (1.) The language supposes they are “in the Lord.”. It may be thought, perhaps, my hearers, that I should take this for granted of you. And I hope I may of some, and of many; but can I of all ? It will not be wise for you to take it for granted. It will be well if there be no profane person among you, as Esau. There is great force in that exhortation--(Heb. xii. 15)— “Looking diligently, lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled.” Beware therefore what members you receive. If the world be allowed to mingle with the church, it will soon become corrupt . . . . Rome . . . . National churches . . . . . . And even the best formed churches are liable to impositions, and in danger of imbibing a worldly spirit. (2.) The language itself is military. Its import is similar to the advice of the apostle to the Corinthians: “Watch you, stand fast in the faith, be thrown into disorder, it is defeated. quit you like men, be strong.” It supposes the army of the Lamb subject to many onsets from opposing forces, which tend to break their ranks and to put them to ſlight. This is the object of Satan, who knows that if an army The great onset of that day was persecution. We have of late years been exempted from this in public ; but still we may expect family and individual persecution. They that will live godly, and thus oppose the current of public opinion and public practice, must still expect to suffer persecution. But the chief things against which we are called to make a stand are the temptations of the world. Then let me be a little particular here, and apprize you of your danger in three quarters—in doctrine, discipline, and spirit. 1. Beware of being moved from the simplicity of Chris- tian doctrine.—Christian doctrine is the foundation on which the church is built. Christians feel it to be so, and therefore will follow it wherever it is preached. The church has been attacked by infidelity, by gross corruptions, by false candour, and spurious zeal. If we be rooted and grounded in Christian doctrine, we shall not be materially wrong in any thing. The doctrine of the cross involves and will draw after it all evangelical truth, and holy dis- cipline, and holy practice. But if that be given up, all will go to ruin. For example, If you give up the Divinity and atonement of Christ, the life-blood of Christianity is gone, and you become a dead, putrid mass. Or if, without openly rejecting these truths, you yet, under the specious pretences of candour, liberality, and charity, give up their importance, their effect will be the same. They that hold the truth with a loose hand will soon let it go ; and they that receive not the love of the truth will soon be given up to believe a lie.—Or if, under the pretence of being favourable to practical religion, you make light of its leading principles, the effect will be the same. This would be razing the foundation to rear the structure, or tearing up the root to produce the fruit.—Or if you in- troduce such motions of the gospel as are at variance with the holy government of God, you in fact introduce another gospel. Such are a kind of religious gluttons, with a large appetite, but no spiritual taste. They may call themselves orthodox, and count all those who differ from them enemies to the gospel, and stun you with their ef- frontery; but what saith Paul ?—“Many walk, of whom I tell you, even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ.”—Or if you reduce the doctrine of the gospel to mere speculation, you will become conceited and litigious, thinking you know something while you are deplorably ignorant ; and the effect will be the same. O my brethren, we beseech you by the love of Christ, and by the miseries and mischiefs occasioned by corrupt doc- trime in the churches, “ stand fast in the Lord : " Next to doctrine, 2. Beware of sinking into a relaved discipline.—As an army without good order and discipline cannot stand their ground, so neither can a Christian church. Great for- bearance should doubtless be exercised in small matters. There would be endless divisions if a uniformity of opinion were required in minor things. In such things we must bear and forbear. But we must be firm and resolute in opposition to much of the liberality and candour of the present age. The church at Ephesus is commended be- cause she “could not bear them which were evil.” There are not only wicked characters, but evils even in good men, from which the church is to be purged. There is plenty of work to be done by those who are spiritual. Many churches have sunk into ruin by slothfulness, and by worldly policy—retaining opulent sinners from a dread of losing their patronage, or from perverted notions of our Saviour's meaning when he told the Jews that they who were without sin should cast the first stone, or from false tenderness, and sometimes from a wish to be excused in their own turn ; thus agreeing together to tempt the Lord. My brethren, stand fast here. Whatever pleas may be urged, have no merely nominal members; but all effective men, whose hearts are with you, and whose prayers are with you. If any habitually absent themselves, try and restore them ; but if they will not return, dissolve the union. If any man set himself against discipline, such a man had better be out of the church than in it. If any 702 SERMONS AND SRETCHES. man forsake the gospel, restore him if you can ; but if you cannot, where the bond of union is broken the form is not worth preserving, nor ought it to be preserved. The can- dour of modern times has in it a large portion of indiffer- ence to truth and uprightness, and is in direct contradic- tion to the counsel given to the seven Asiatic churches. 3. Beware of sinking into a worldly spirit. This is a great temptation. In times of outward ease and affluence, many individuals have been carried away, and many churches melted down and lost in worldly conformity. The most dangerous feature of this evil is, that it may prevail in a person, and yet he shall maintain a respect- ability of character. Let a man fall into gross immorali- ties, and the world will soon let you know. But “men will praise thee when thou doest well for thyself.” And therefore many are entrenched in this evil, and yet fancy themselves good Christians all the while. This is one of the grand onsets of your mighty foe. My brethren, stand fast ! . . . . We proceed, II. To consider THE INFLUENCE OF CHRISTIAN STED- FASTN ESS ON THE MIND AND LABOURS OF A FAITH FUL MIN ISTER, - : There is something supposed in this as well as in the former part of the subject; viz. that the minister be a man of God ; otherwise, so long as you stand fast with him, he will be regardless whether or not you “stand fast in the Lord.” This is a good rule for trying the spirit. See that in all your stedfastness you have an eye to the Lord, and to his cause. Where a minister preaches himself, so long as a people stand fast with him, he will praise them, and they will be sure to be the people of God! But the life and joy of a true minister of Christ will be, that you “stand fast in the Lord.” If your minister be the friend of God, as I trust he is, he will join with me in charging you to stand fast with him no longer, and no further, than he stands fast “ in the Lord.” If he leave Christ, in doc- trine or in practice, it is at your peril to follow him . . . . We may notice the influence of Christian stedfastness on a minister, 1. In his manner of preaching. The effect on the mind is very great. If the people are often absent, late, inat- tentive, or sleepy, it is death to him. But if constant, early, attentive, affectionate, and spiritual, it is life. 2. In the matter of his preaching.—Christian stedfast- ness will enable your minister to state all the genuine effects of the gospel, and to point to you as exemplifica- tions without fear of contradiction. But except you “stand fast in the Lord,” in vain will your minister present to the attention of his hearers, for their admiration, the church as the building of God, Psal. cxxvii. 1. My brethren, enable your pastor to refer to you as his “ epistles,” his letters of recommendation, “known and read of all men.” 3. In the success of his ministry.--This greatly depends on the co-operation of his people, on their knowing one another, and provoking one another to love and good works, and on each one being willing to take some part in active service. This would be convincing to sinners, win- ning to inquirers, encouraging to your fellow Christians, and life to your minister. But if every thing be left to him, his heart will die, and his work will die in his hands. It is not difficult to account for this, for your sanctifica- tion and salvation are his reward. If we have not this, what have we ? After all, my brethren, this is of greater concern to you than to your minister. For if he be faithful, he shall have his reward, whatever become of you. Though Israel be not gathered, yet will he be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and his God shall be his strength. His loss may be made up, but yours will be irreparable. LXXIV.- CHURCHES WALKING IN THE TRUTH THE JOY OF MINISTERS. *e “I have no greaterjoy than to hear that my children walk in truth.” —3 John 4. THE connexion of pastor and people, in dissenting churches, is altogether voluntary. There are no bonds to bring them together, or to keep them together, but love. The great point, therefore, in this connexion, is the maintain- ing of brotherly love, and to render each other holy and happy. You wish to render your minister happy, or you can expect no religious happiness yourselves. I have se- lected the text as pointing out the course of conduct that will accomplish this end. “Walk in the truth.” I take it for granted that your minister can adopt the language of the text. If, indeed, he were a mercenary or an ambitious man, many other things would afford him much greater pleasure. But I trust, in this respect, his heart is one with the apostle's. In pursuing this subject, I shall, I. Offer som E observations on THE DUTY ITSELF OF wALKING IN THE TRUTH.–In order to this, we may ob- serve that the truth is of a practical nature; other truths may be speculative, but not this. But what is truth ? To this question I would reply generally and particularly. 1. In general—(1.) The truth is a system of love and goodness—an overflow of Divine blessedness. Then walk in love to the church, and bear good-will even to enemies. (2.) The truth is a system full of joy—“good news, and glad tidings of great joy.” Then be cheerful and happy, not morose and gloomy. (3.) The truth is a system of re- conciliation. Then let it be your concern to live peace- ably, and to exercise forgiveness. (4.) The truth is a system of amazing condescension. Then “let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus.” (5.) The truth is a system of purity—“a highway of holiness.” Then “be ye holy, in all manner of conversation.” (6.) The truth is a system full of importance. Then be you in earn- est. “Strive earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints.” - 2. More particularly—(1.) Divine truth includes the ea:- istence of God, as a Being of infinite excellence and glory; “holy, just, and good.” Then live in the love and fear of God. (2.) It includes the Divine authority of the Holy Scriptures. Then make them, and not interest, or inclina- tion, or fashion, the rule of your faith and practice. (3.) It includes the guilty and lost condition of men as sinners. Then, in all your dealings with God, approach him in that character—as ill and hell-deserving. (4.) It includes the doctrine of redemption by the blood of Christ. Then re- member that you are “not your own,” but his. (5.) Di- vine truth teaches us, that if we are saved, it is in conse- quence of sovereign and discriminating grace. It traces our salvation to electing love, and informs us that the great end that Christ had, in laying down his life, was “that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.” And to walk in this truth is to be such people, to be distinguished by zeal and uprightness. Let it never be asked concerning us, “What do ye more than others?” (6.) It includes the doctrine of efficacious grace—“My people shall be willing in the day of my power.” “The righteous shall hold on his way.”—Then to walk in this truth is to prove that grace is efficacious by a perseverance in all holy conversa- tion and godliness. (7.) It includes the doctrine of etermal life, as infinitely outweighing all the pleasures and all the ills of the present life.—“I reckon that the sufferings of this present life are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed.” Then be dead to the world, and alive to God. Look not at the things that are seen and are temporal ; but at those which are unseen and eternal. My brethren, if the truth thus dwell in you, and oper- ate, you will naturally be attentive to all relative duties; you will love your pastor, for the truth’s sake which he preaches; and if you love him, you will make a point of attending his ministry, of contributing to his support, and of consulting his peace and happiness in every possible way.—And if the truth dwell in you, you will also love one another, for the truth's sake. You will watch over one another in the Lord, and follow the things that make for peace. II. I proceed to notice THE con NEXION BETween such A COURSE OF CONDUCT IN A PEOPLE, AND THE Joy AND HATPPIN ESS OF A MINISTER. 1. If he be an upright man, it will be the great object of his life that the people of his charge should be conformed to Christ; and it must needs be a matter of joy to see CHURCHES SHOULD EXHIBIT THE LIGHT OF THE GOSPEL. 703 this great end answered. He must needs rejoice over the prosperity of those with whom he travailed in birth, till Christ was formed in them. 2. Such a course of conduct in a people would greatly assist a minister in his public work.-It recommends his preaching to the world. It speaks louder than language, when he can say of his people, “Ye are my epistles, known and read of all men.” It enables him to be bold in declaring the holy efficacy of truth ; and to answer the enemies in the gate, who would reproach the grace of God as tending to licentiousness. 3. Your sanctification and salvation are his great re- ward:—“For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of re- joicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ, at his coming 3’” As to any other reward, you well know that the prospects of Dissenting ministers, generally speaking, are any thing but inviting. And if his pecuniary reward were ten times greater, if he be a Christian, it would not satisfy him. It is not yours, but $you, that must make him happy. He will long to present you before the throne, and to be able to say, “Here, Lord, am I, and the children which thou hast given me.” Young people, your minister longs also for your salva- tion. He looks upon you as rising plants, destined, he hopes, to occupy the places of those who must soon die. You have no conception how much you can add to his joy.—He can have no greater joy than to see you walking in the truth. Then do not disappoint him. Remember that his joy and your joy are involved in the same course of conduct. Then, while others wander in the mazes of error, be it your concern to walk in the truth. LXXV.—CHURCHES SHOULD EXHIBIT THE LIGHT OF THE GOSPEL. “These things saith he . . . . who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks.”—Rev. ii. 1. MY dear brethren, that part of the solemn exercises of this day which you have allotted to me, is to give a word of advice to you, as a church of Christ. I confess it is with pleasure I accept of this service, partly because I see you once more happily united in the choice of a pastor, and partly because I believe you will receive the word of exhortation with candour and attention. The language of the text, though figurative, is sufficiently explained in the preceding verse : “The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven candle- sticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.” The allusion in the latter figure is doubtless to the candlestick in the Jewish tabernacle, which was made of solid gold, Exod. xxv. 31–37 ; Zech. iv. 2. It is described as a can- dlestick with a bowl, or fountain, from which oil was con- veyed, through pipes, to the several lamps which branched out from it. It is observable, that, under the Old Testament dispens- ation, the church is represented as one candlestick, though with divers branches; but under the New as seven distinct candlesticks : which may denote the different kinds of church government under the different dispensations. Under the first the church was national, and so was re- presented by one candlestick. Under the last the churches were congregational; and the seven churches are repre- sented by seven distinct candlesticks. The gospel is “a light shining in a dark place.” . . . . To view God as having lighted up a candle to a benighted World is a cheering thought; and to consider yourselves as instrumental in holding it forth—as being that to the gospel which a candlestick is to the candle—is as interest- ing as the other is cheering. You may consider yourselves, therefore, brethren, as INSTRUMENTS IN HOLDING FORTH THE LIGHT OF THE GOS- TEL. To A BENIGHTED world. This is the thought I pro- pose to dwell upon, and this only. The end of your existence, as a church of Christ, is to “hold forth the word of life.” There are two ways of doing this, to both which I hope you will religiously at- conduce to your own advantage. tend : First, By supporting the preaching of the gospel: and, secondly, By recommending it in your spirit and practice. I. BY SUPPORTING THE PREACHING OF THE GOSPEL.— I scarcely need inform you that to do this you must sup- port him that preaches it: and now give me your attention while I mention a few different ways in which it is your duty, interest, and honour to support your pastor:— 1. By a diligent and constant attendance on his ministry —if possible, at all the services of the sabbath, and in the week. And those who live in neighbouring places may support the cause essentially by receiving their minis- ter at their houses, for the purpose of village preaching. 2. By a free and affectionate carriage towards him.— Treat him as a friend and a brother. If in his preaching he should occasionally make a mistake, do not magnify it. Do not make him an offender for a word. You are as likely to mistake in judging as he is in advancing a senti- ment. If you perceive faults in his deportment, do not whisper them about, but kindly mention them to him. Do not give ear to every report concerning him. He has a right to expect this as a brother, but especially as an elder. “Rebuke not an elder, but entreat him as a father.” That is, an elder in office; and though your pastor may be your junior in years, he is your elder in office, and as such has an especial claim on your forbearance and pro- tection. Ministers are the objects of envy, and if every report against them were encouraged, they would be un- able to stand their ground.—Under trials and afflictions, especially, you should manifest great tenderness towards them. God often afflicts ministers for the good of the people—that they may be able to comfort those who are afflicted ; surely then it becomes the people to be very affectionate towards them under their trials. . . . . You that are officers in the church should especially be con- cerned to bear up his hands, as Aaron and Hur stayed the hands of Moses. 3. By treating him with becoming respect, and teaching your children and servants to do the same.—This will So long as he deserves your respect, you ought to show it ; and no longer ought he to continue to be your pastor. 4. By acknowledging his instrumentality in your ediff- cation.—There is great danger of extremes here. Some are always feeding a minister's vanity by telling him how well he preached at this time and that ; and, by the by, at the same time displaying their own vanity, by wishing him to consider what good judges they are of an ingenious discourse ! Others, to avoid this extreme, will never speak to him in the language of encouragement. Surely there is a way of acknowledging ourselves to have been edified and profited, which does not tend to feed a minister's vanity, but to encourage him in his work. - 5. By giving him a place in your prayers.--Think much on the greatness of his work. It is to enlighten a be- nighted world. Pray that he himself may be enlightened. It is to “feed you with knowledge and understanding.” Pray that he himself may be fed. It is to stand between God and men. Pray that he may be kept humble. It is to disturb the carnal security of men. Pray that he him- self may be kept awake. It is to break the hard heart. Pray that he may be tender-hearted. It is to rouse the listless soul to action. Pray that he may be alive himself. It is to trace the windings of the human heart, and to describe the genuine operations of grace in the true be- liever. Pray that he himself may increase in Christian experience. From what your pastor has this day heard, methinks I hear him sigh and say to himself—“Who is sufficient for these things?” Think of this, my brethren, and you will not forget him in your near addresses to God. 6. By not hindering, but helping him, in the eavercises of his pastoral office.—Be not of a touchy temper, so as to prevent him from freely giving you advice and caution, and even reproof. It would be to his dishonour to deal in personal reflections in the pulpit ; but out of it, it will be to your dishonour to be offended with plain and close dealing. If you are of such a temper that you cannot bear to be told of your faults, you will hinder him in the discharge of his office. Be at the same time also willing to take your share in the exercise of discipline. In cases 704 SERMONS AND SIKETCHES. of personal offence, it may be well for your pastor in some instances to be excused, lest the parties contract a prejudice against him, and so prevent the success of his ministrations. But where he cannot be excused, be you always ready to join him, to stand by him, to sanction and encourage him in the execution of the laws of Christ; even though the offenders be among your relatives and acquaintance. Let the deacons in particular stand by him ; and never let a church censure have so much as the appearance of being passed by the influence of the minis- ter. The address of the elders of Israel to Ezra, in a most painful case of discipline, will furnish you with a good example : “Arise, for this matter belongeth unto thee: we also will be with thee : be of good courage, and do it.” 7. By liberally contributing to the support of his family. —It is to the honour of Protestant Dissenters that what they contribute to their ministers they contribute freely, without constraint; but it is greater honour still, if they contribute liberally. Consider your minister's salary, not as a gift, but as a debt; and not as done to him, but to Christ. Give liberally, or you will lose the liberal reward. Give it as due to the cause of Christ, or Christ will take no favourable notice of it. A generous and punctilious regard to God's servants, even in their temporal character, was a feature of the great reformation in the days of Ne- hemiah, chap. xii. 43—47. II. We proceed to observe, that the end of your ex- istence, as a church of Christ, is to “hold forth the word of life” by REcoMMENDING IT IN You R SPIRIT AND PRAC- TICE.-‘‘Be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world; holding forth the word of life ; that I may rejoice in the day of Christ that I have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain.” This is a powerful way of preaching the gos- pel. It speaks louder than words—louder than thunder. Your ministers may assure those who are strangers to religion that religion is a matter of infinite importance, and you may say so too; but if they see you light and frothy in your conversation, indifferent and negligent in your duties, do you think they will believe you ? No, (say they,) they don’t believe it themselves | Again, you may tell them what an evil and bitter thing sin is ; but if they see you loose and vain in your deportment, you cannot expect them to believe you. You may dilate upon the vanity of the world ; but if you are covetous and oppres- sive, what will your servants and workmen say ? You may assure the gay and thoughtless that religion is the happiest life; but what can they think, if they see you melancholy in the service of God, and cheerful only when engaged in other pursuits? . . . . There are various Divine truths, besides the above, which you believe, and which you wish others to believe. For instance, justification by the im- puted righteousness of Christ ; then disprove the calumny that this doctrine leads to licentiousness, by letting them see that your personal righteousness exceed the right- eousness of the scribes and the Pharisees. The near rela- tion of Christians to God as their Father; then be of a child-like disposition. The work of the Holy Spirit; then bear its fruits. Efficacious grace; then prove it by your perseverance. . . . . There are three things I would here recommend as to your spirit, and then draw to a close. 1. Cultivate a humble, savoury spirit, rather than a cen- sorious or a curious one.—A curious and censorious tem- per is almost always the mark of a little mind, and has no tendency to recommend the gospel. A humble, savoury Christian will speak the loudest. 2. Cultivate a peaceful, sincere, affectionate spirit to each other.—“Be ye all of one mind.”—All of a piece, like the golden candlestick. If jarring, and strife, and contention be kindled among you, the scandal will not be confined to you, but will extend to the whole body, yea, to religion itself. It is in a time of peace that a peo- ple are prosperous. The heavenly Dove “flies from the abode of noise and strife.” Let me especially recom- mend you, 3. To cultivate godly sincerity.—If there is any one leading idea held forth in your being compared to a golden candlestick, it seems to be this. The candlestick was to be all gold—no washing, no deception ; yea, of beaten gold—that no part should be hollow. It was what it ap- peared to be—the same within as without. Let this be your character. The great art of church government is to love in sincerity. My brethren, Christ walketh among you ! This should —(1.) Impress you with fear.—His eye is upon you ! (2.) Inspire you with courage.—What could you do with- out him? (3.) Induce you to imbibe his spirit.—A meek and benevolent spirit to all mankind. LXXVI.—ON CULTIVATING A PEACEFUL DISPOSITION. “Let us, therefore, follow after the things which make for peace.”— Rom. xiv. 19. My dear brethren, in complying with your request to ad- dress you, on the present occasion, I shall study plainness of speech. I shall not divert your minds with curious speculations, or irrelevant remarks, but endeavour at least to recommend such things as I conceive your cir- cumstances immediately require; and for this purpose I have selected the text as the foundation of a few observa- tions: “Let us, therefore, follow after the things which make for peace.” There is scarcely any blessing more desirable than peace —true, well-grounded peace. It is so intimately con- nected with prosperity, that the Hebrew word which is commonly translated “peace” signifies also prosperity. “Peace be within thy walls, and prosperity within thy palaces.” The Hebrew word is the same in both instances. I am requested on the present occasion to give you a word of advice, as respects your deportment to your pas- tor and to one another. All I shall attempt will be to explain and to enforce the exhortation contained in the text; and if peace be with you, prosperity will follow as a matter of course. I. ExPLAIN THE EXHORTATION.—In general, I may observe, we do not wish you to be so fond of peace as to sacrifice truth to preserve it. If your pastor desert those grand essential truths which he has this day confessed, you ought to desert him, or rather to desire that he would leave you.-Nor do we mean that you are to maintain peace at the expense of righteousness—a peace consisting in the neglect of discipline, and the passing over of such evils as ought to be exposed and reproved. It is the glory of a man to pass over an injury done to himself, but not to be pliable in matters which relate to God’s glory. It is lamentable, however, to reflect that in general men are less severe against sin towards God than against an in- jury done to themselves. The rule of Scripture is this— “First pure, then peaceable.” Let this be your rule. Some of the observations I have to make will more im- mediately respect your conduct towards your pastor; and others your conduct towards one another. First, Endeavour by all means to preserve a good under- standing with YoUR PASTOR. His peace of mind is essen- tial for his happiness and your “ edification.” 1. Let your stated attendance on his ministry be constant and candid.—If you are negligent, or late, it will affect his peace of mind. He will think his labours are unac- ceptable. . . . . And if you should discover any mistakes in his preaching, consider human frailty. Do not talk of them to others, nor among yourselves; but to him, and that with modesty and tenderness. 2. Let the vigilance you eacercise over his conduct be characterized by the same tenderness and candour.—Ene- mies will watch him with a desire for his halting ; but do not you. Be not hasty in taking up or falling in with re- ports to his disadvantage. 3. Let your contributions for his support be distinguished, not only by their liberality, but also by the cheerfulness with which they are given.—Let it be a tribute of love . . . . Do not image that your contributions entitle you to scrutinize and dictate in his family arrangements . . . . His being a ON CULTIVATING A PEACEFUL DISPOSITION. 705 minister does not destroy his privilege as a man. Minis- ters also have peculiar feelings in reference to such sub- jects. If one of you were to intermeddle with the domes: tic arrangements of another, you would be told to mind your own concerns, and not to interfere with his, seeing he does not come to you for what he has. But your minister would feel a delicacy on this point, and a diffi- culty, which it should be your study to render unnecessary. And, after all, you have no more right to inspect his con- cerns than he yours. 4. Let your exercise of discipline be prompt, and such as shall preserve him from prejudice.—Always unite with him, that he may not have to endure all the prejudice and odium consequent on strict discipline. In many cases you may relieve him altogether from the painful duty, and thus pre- vent his ministrations from being rejected. Take as much of this from him as you can, “that the gospel of Christ be not hindered.” These are some of the things an attention to which would greatly contribute to his peace of mind and to your edification. - Secondly, Let me exhort you to endeavour, by all means, to preserve peace among on E ANOTHER. 1. Be careful to cultivate a spirit of love.—There is no- thing more conducive to peace than this. Provoke not one another to anger, but “to love and good works.” Be examples of love, striving who shall excel in acts of kind- ness and sympathy. “Be not overcome of evil, but over- come evil with good.” 2. Beware of sin.—There is nothing more opposed to Christian peace than this. Where this is nourished, peace will be banished; for though it be private, it will work, and work mischief. It will be a wedge, gradually widen- ing the breach between God and your souls, and between one another. 3. Beware of a disputatious temper.—Debates may be productive of good . . . . But they too often originate in captiousness and pride. Think of the account of them in God’s word. “A fool's lips enter into contention, and his mouth calleth for strokes.”—“If any man consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words; whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth. From such withdraw thyself.” 4. Avoid a spirit of groundless jealousy.—Godly jealousy is necessary, when we consider what we all are, and by what influences we are surrounded. But an ill opinion of others is the source of much mischief. From this sus- picious disposition, words are misconstrued, and actions imputed to wrong motives. If we indulge in this, we shall be unable to believe one another, or to place con- fidence in the most explicit declarations. “Jealousy is cruel as the gravel ” It devours the happiness of those who cherish it. How opposed to true charity Charity suspecteth no evil, hopeth the best, believeth the most fa- vourable representations . . . . In general, a spirit of jealousy would seem to indicate a dishonest heart. Its possessors seem to know themselves to be bad, and there- fore think none others can be good. Probably this made Satan so suspicious of Job's sincerity. Beware lest you imitate him —and lest your suspicions should originate in the same cause ! 5. Beware of a spirit of envy.—The members of a church are like the stars. One excelleth another. Then beware of envy. Saul, envied David for his superiority, when David “behaved himself wisely.” Some excel in gifts and graces, and consequently obtain a greater degree of esteem. Beware of envy. Some exceed others in worldly property, and consequently, though not always deservedly, receive greater respect. But beware of envy. Do not imagine that religion cancels the obligation to treat men according to their rank and station in society. Let not envy lead you to think much of every instance of respect shown to a superior, and to reflect, If I had been rich, he would have visited me ! Certainly, a minister should visit all his flock; but there may be reasons, apart from outward circum- stances, why one shall be visited more than another. “Charity envieth not.” 2 Z 6. Do not intermeddle with each other's temporal affairs. —What I just now said respecting your conduct towards your pastor, I would repeat concerning your conduct to- wards one another. Different people have different ways of managing their domestic affairs; and if your brethren do but act so as to be honourable in the world, what right have you to interfere? If indeed their deportment be in- consistent with their character as professed Christians, and in any sense involve the honour of God; if, for example, they be indolent, and disgrace the cause—or extravagant, and therefore become unable to pay their just debts—then, indeed, it will be right to interfere; but even then it is neither friendly nor wise to make their faults the topic of common conversation. 7. Guard against a towchy temper.—Charity is not soon angry. “For every trifle scorn to take offence; It either shows great pride or little sense.” 8. Repeat no grievances, especially when acknowledged. —“He that repeateth a matter separateth very friends.” 9. Strive to heal differences.—It is a great honour to be a peace-maker. True, it is often very difficult; for “a brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city: and their contentions are like the bars of a castle.” But by how much the more difficulty there is, by so much the more honour will there be. Do not abandon the attempt for a few hard sayings. Those who interfere in an affray commonly receive a few blows from both sides. But do not be discouraged. Pray, and try again. And let the saying of our Lord, “Blessed are the peace-makers, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven,” weigh more with you than a little temporary difficulty and discouragement. 10. Encourage no talebearers.-Persons that make it their business, and feel it their delight, to go about telling secrets to the disadvantage of their neighbours, deserve the deepest marks of censure. Are you at variance with a brother? Mark the man who by his insinuations and inuendoes would make the breach wider, and shun him. There are cases indeed, in which, in our own vindication, we are compelled to speak to the disadvantage of others; but to blacken the character of another unnecessarily, and intentionally to widen a breach existing between friends or neighbours, is infernal | If blessed are the peace- makers, cursed are these peace-breakers, and peace-pre- venters! One cannot always shut one’s doors against such characters, but we can and ought to shut our ears against them ; and if we do this, we shall deprive them of their excitement and their highest gratification. “Where no wood is, there the fire goeth out; so where there is no talebearer, the strife ceaseth.” . . . . And if you would not encourage talebearing in others, be sure you are not guilty of it yourselves. If you hear one speak ill of another, don't go and tell him, unless indeed it affect his moral character, and the cause of religion; and never assist in propagating evil reports. 11. Be ready to forgive.—Without this heavenly temper we cannot expect to live long in peace. There is a very mistaken notion of honour existing among men, as if it lay in not yielding, but in resenting an injury; whereas it is very plain that true honour consists in the very opposite. “The discretion of a man deferreth his anger; and it is his glory to pass over a transgression.” Our own interest should lead us to this ; for in some things we shall need the forgiveness of our brethren ; and, what is of greater consequence still, we all need the Divine forgiveness. But Christ assured his disciples, “If ye forgive mot men their trespasses, neither will your heavenly Father forgive your trespasses.” These, my brethren, are some of the dispositions, the cultivation of which will make for peace. Some of them may appear to you little; but great rivers flow from little springs. “How great a matter a little fire kindleth !” These things you are to “follow after.” Sometimes you may be inclined to despair of obtaining peace by any means. But be not discouraged—“follow after.” II. Having thus explained the exhortation of the apostle, I shall endeavour to EN FORCE IT. 1. Consider how invaluable a blessing peace is.—It is closely connected with church prosperity; for the hea- 706 SERMONS AND SKETCHES. venly Dove “flies from the abodes of noise and strife.” And to soul prosperity.—“Live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you.” See the blessedness of peace in those churches which have been careful to cul- tivate it . . . . and see the wretched state of those where peace has been infringed upon . . . . “Look upon Zion, the city of our solemnities: thine eyes shall see Jerusalem a quiet habitation, a tabernacle that shall not be taken down,” &c. 2. Consider what it cost our Lord Jesus Christ to obtain it.—Peace between us and God—between us and all holy intelligences—was brought about by Christ; and all our peace with one another is the price of his blood. “It pleased the Father, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself.” 3. Consider its influence on spectators.-Friends . . . . enemies . . . . other churches . . . . young converts | LXXVII.—CHRISTIAN CHURCHES ARE GOD’S BUILDING, “Ye are God's building.”—1 Cor. iii. 9. WHo can help admiring the disinterested spirit of the apostle Paul ? The Corinthians were divided into parties, at the head of each of which was some great man. Paul himself was one. But he disdained such a distinction. “Who is Paul ? or who is Apollos?” “Ye are God's building.” The emphasis of the text is here. “Ye are God’s husbandry, God’s building ; ” not ours. Then be not called after our name, but God’s. We are rather yours than you ours, ver, 22. The building here alluded to is that of the temple, ver, 16, 17. The apostle expatiates upon the same idea in Eph. ii. 20–22, which may be considered as the key to the text, and of which, in discoursing from it, I shall avail myself. “Ye are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ—himself being the chief corner-stone, in whom all the building, fitly framed together, groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord ; in whom ye also are builded together, for a habitation of God, through the Spirit.” This description will apply either to the Christian church at large, or to a particular church. There are four things observable in the apostle’s account of a build- ing, each of which is applicable to a Christian church : it must be reared on a good foundation—it must be fitly framed together—it is supposed at present to be incom- plete, but in a growing state—and the end for which it is §. is, that it may be a habitation of God, through the pirit. I. IT MUST BE REARED on A Good Found ATION.—On Jesus Christ, himself being the chief corner-stone. This is the foundation that God hath laid in Zion, Isa. xxviii. 16. And all after builders must follow his example. The Jews refused it. They went on to build; but they were no longer “God’s building.”—The doctrine of Christ cru- cified was the foundation of the apostolic churches, and continued so for ages. When this doctrine was deserted and corrupted, men might call themselves the church, and greatly increase; but they ceased to be “God’s building.” —This was the foundation laid at the Reformation; and while these continued, though accompanied with “wood, hay, and stubble,” God blessed the churches. But when these reformed churches went off into a mere heathen morality, God forsook them. They were no longer “God’s building.” Look at particular churches. It is this doctrine that God blesses for conversion. The build- ing will not rise without it. - Where Christ is left out as the foundation, he will say, as he did to the Jews of old, “As for your house, it is left unto you desolate.” I trust, my brethren, your minister will lay this foundation, and exalt the Saviour, and that you will encourage him in so doing. II. IT MUST BE FITLY FRAMED ToGETHER.—A building is not a mere assemblage of a heterogeneous mass of materials. This were a heap rather than a building. There are three things necessary to a building's being fitly framed :— 1. The materials must be prepared before they are laid in it. Such were the orders concerning Solomon’s temple. There was to be no noise there, 1 Kings vi. 7. You are few in number, my brethren; but do not be so anxious after increase as to lay improper materials. What if you could obtain hundreds of members, and they men of property; yet if they were haughty, self-willed, and worldly, how could they fit in with the humble, meek, and heavenly-minded ? 2. That they be formed by the same rule. It is not enough that the roughnesses and protuberances of their characters should be smoothed down and polished off; they must be made to fit the foundation and each other: if the members of churches fit in with the foundation—with Jesus Christ, in his gospel, government, and spirit—there would be little danger of disunion among themselves. The great means of promoting religious union among Christians is, not by dispensing with disagreeable truth, but by aspiring to a conformity to Christ. Religious uni- formity is like perfection in other things; we are not to expect it in this world; still it is our duty to aspire after it. There is no union any further than we agree ; and no Christian union any further than that in which we agree is the mind of Christ. It will be of no account to be of one mind, unless that mind be the mind of Christ. The way therefore to promote Christian union is for each to think more, to read more, to pray more, to converse more, on the principles of the doctrine and example of Christ. God builds by rule. He conforms to the image of his Son ; and so must you. The house must not be built according to your fancy, or your inclination, but accord- ing to the rules contained in the word of God. “See thou make all things according to the pattern.”—“ICeep the ordinances as they are delivered unto you.” A neg- lect of holy discipline is the bane of the present age; but you must exercise a holy vigilance here, or you will not be God’s building. 3. That each shall occupy his proper place in the build- ing. Some are formed to teach ; others to be taught : some to lead ; others to be led : some to counsel ; others to execute. See that each is in his place, the situation for which he is formed, or you will not be God’s building. III. It is supposed at present to be INcom PLETE, BUT ADVANCING :—“It groweth unto a holy temple.” This is applicable to the church at large : it resembles Solomon’s temple—widest at the upper end, 1 Kings vi. 6. The church has been widening from the commencement, and will still extend. And may we not hope that there will be some resemblance to this in particular churches 3 If you would answer to the spiritual model—be chaste, not admitting any rivals in your affections; zealous, spiritual, and faithful—and you will be God’s building, and you must increase. IV. THE END FoR which THE BUILDING IS REARED– “For a habitation of God.” When men build a house, it is that it may be inhabited. So it is with God. If you are God’s building, it is that you may be the habitation of God. This is a vast blessing. “Will God in very deed dwell with men 3" Yes. Christ “gave gifts to men, that the Lord might dwell among them.” He hath given you a pastor—that he might dwell among you. . . . LXXVIII. — THE SATISFACTION DERIVED FROM A CONSCIOUSINESS THAT OUR RE- LIGIOUS IEXERCISES HAVE BEEN CHARAC- TERIZED BY GODLY SIMPLICITY. “Our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in sim- plicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abund- antly to you-ward.”—2 Cor. i. 12. SUCH was the declaration of Paul, in behalf of himself and his brethren ; and a great thing it was to be able to say, especially when accused of being crafty and designing men. GODLY SIMPLICITY IN 707 RELIGIOUS EXERCISES. That they were so accused is evident from the twelfth chapter; and the declaration of the text nobly repels all such insinuations. I do not mean to assume this language in behalf of my- self or my brethren ; but would rather apply it in a way of self-examination. By “fleshly wisdom * is meant the wisdom of this world, worldly policy, that wisdom which has carnal and worldly ends in view, or is aimed and exer- cised for our own interest, honour, or gratification. By “ the grace of God” is meant that holy wisdom which is from above, or that line of conduct which the grace of God teaches—“simplicity and godly sincerity.” I. Let us state A FEW CASEs IN which THESE oppositE PRINCIPLES WILL, ONE OR THE OTHER OF THEM, INFLUENCE oUR ConDUCT-It may be too much to say that all men are governed by the one or the other. Some have neither. Their way is fleshly ; but it is fleshly folly. The princi- ples of the text, however, are very common. Particu- larly,– 1. In preaching the gospel.-We are mostly governed by one or other, as ministers. They give a character to the matter of our preaching.— If we are influenced by the former, our preaching will par- take of the wisdom of this world. It will savour of the flesh. There will be little or no spirituality in it. It will favour some other gospel. But if we are influenced by the latter, our preaching will savour of Christ and heaven. It will be wisdom, but not the wisdom of this world. The doctrine we preach will not be selected to please the tastes of our hearers, but drawn from the Holy Scriptures. We shall declare “the whole counsel of God.” These principles will also give a character to the manner of our preaching.—If we are influenced by the former, our preaching will be merely an art, with “enticing words of man’s wisdom.” But if by the latter, it will be character- ized by simplicity; not thinking of ourselves, but of Christ and the salvation of souls. . T'inally, These principles will give a character to our motives.—If we are influenced by the former, we shall study to be approved of men, and to have it understood that we are men of consequence. “Giving it out that he was some great one.” But if by the latter, we shall seek, “not yours, but you.” The love of God, of Christ, and of souls will constrain us. * 1. In reading the Scriptures, and hearing the gospel.— Here, also, we are for the most part governed by one or the other of these principles. There is the spirit of the world, and the Spirit which is of God. It is of great consequence with which spirit we take up our Bibles.—If with the former, it will be no won- der that we err, and stumble, and perish. “A scorner seeketh wisdom, and findeth it not.” Paine read the Scriptures to pervert and vilify them. We may be ac- quainted with the original languages, and be able to criti- cise texts; and yet not discern the mind of the Spirit. “Spiritual things must be spiritually discerned.” This will be especially the result, if we form a system of our own, and go to the Scriptures to have it confirmed, instead of deriving it in the first place from the unerring oracles.— But if we are influenced by the opposite principle, we shall pray, “Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.” And, coming with the simplicity of children, we shall have the mind of the Spirit revealed to us, Matt. xi. 25. So in hearing the gospel.—If we hear merely as critics on the preacher, full of conceit and fleshly wisdom, what- ever the preaching may be, it will do us no good.—But if we hear as Christians, in simplicity and godly sincerity, we shall hear the word to profit. Take heed how ye hear, lest by and by you become regardless of what you hear, or even prefer the flesh-pleasing doctrines which lead to per- dition, 2 Pet. ii. 1–3. 3. In church fellowship and discipline we are governed by one or other of these principles. Particularly, In receiving members.--If we are governed by the former, we shall catch at the rich, and covet respectability, and be more ambitious to increase in number than in conformity to Christ.—But if by the latter, we shall rejoice in the accession of the meanest Christian, and of Christian graces, though they shine in those whom the world despise. In choosing officers.-If we are governed by the former principle, ministers will be chosen on account of their po- pularity, and deacons on account of their opulence. But if by the latter, we shall fix our eye stedfastly on the qua- lifications required in Scripture ; and if we cannot find men who attain to the full standard, we shall be so much the more concerned to choose those who approach the nearest. In eacercising discipline.—If we be governed by the for- mer, we shall be concerned to be great and respectable. If by the latter, we shall strive after conformity to Christ. If by the former, our discipline will be partial, screening our favourites. But if by the latter, we shall be no re- specter of persons, but act with impartial fidelity, with a single eye to the glory of God. 4. In deciding in our various worldly concerns we are commonly influenced by one or other of these principles.— If by the former, the question will be, in all cases,—Is it wise? Is it politic 2 What will people say? But if by the latter, the question will be, Is it right? The former is the spirit of all worldly men, and all mere nominal Chris- tians; the latter, of the genuine Christian. If we are go- verned by the former, in forming our various connexions, the question will be, Will this promote my worldly in- terests? But if by the latter, the question will be, Will it contribute to the prosperity of my soul ? My friends, think of the fruits of Lot's well-watered plain ; and shud- der at the thought of choosing situations for yourselves or your children, without a supreme regard to the kingdom of God and his righteousness. II. Observe THE SATISFACTION ARISING FROM BEING ABLE To ADopT THE LANGUAGE OF THE APOSTLE.-He speaks of his consciousness of simplicity and godly sincerity, as a matter of rejoicing, yea, of singular rejoicing. Where- fore ?— 1. The testimony of a good conscience is sometimes the only testimony we have in our favour.—It was nearly so with the apostle at Corinth. The world may be offended, and bad men may influence even good men to join a wrong cause. This was the case at Corinth. Thus Judas led away the disciples with respect to Mary. But if we can say as Paul in the text, this will bear us up under all the misapprehensions and misconstructions of the world, or even of our brethren. Thus Enoch was supported. Doubtless he had to endure the world’s scorn ; but “he had this testimony—that he pleased God.” 2. The testimony of such a conscience is an echo to the voice of God.—“If our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence towards God.” 3. The testimony of a good conscience will support us in death.-But if we have not this, how shall we bear to die, and to appear in judgment ? My friends, if your minister can adopt the language of Paul, and feel a consciousness of being governed by the best of principles, still this will avail for himself only : it will not avail you. He may be pure of your blood; but are you ? If you perish, and your minister be guiltless, where will the guilt lie then ? LXXIX. —THE REWARD OF A FAITHFUL MINISTER. “For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing 7 Are not even re in th * f : Lord J Christ at hi in or ?”— ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming?”—l Thess, ii. 19. I Do not know any part of the Scriptures in which we have a more lovely picture of a true pastor and true Christians than is contained in this chapter. Though the picture is drawn by the apostle himself, he could appeal to God for its correctness. It exhibits him and his brethren as bold in proclaiming the gospel; sincere in their doctrine; act- ing as in the sight of God; faithful to their trust, and to the souls of their hearers; unostentatious ; gentle and affectionate ; disinterested ; and consistent in their deport- ment, not only among unbelievers, where even hypocrites will preserve appearances, but also among the people of 2 z 2 708 * SERMONS AND SKETCHES. their charge. themselves. We have also the character of primitive Christians. They received the gospel, not merely as the message of the apostles, but as “the word of God ;” it wrought in them effectually; and they were the determined followers of the very earliest Christians, though at the risk of persecution, and even of death. The apostle sums up all by a solemn appeal to them and to God, that if he and his brethren had any reward in their labours, it consisted in their sal- vation: “What is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing 3 Are not even ye? The import of this passage is, that the salvation of his hearers is the reward of a faithful minister. In discours- ing on this interesting subject, I shall endeavour to ex- plain it—account for it—and apply it. I. I shall endeavour to ExPLAIN THE OBJECT which EVERY FAITH FUL MINISTER ACCOUNTS HIS HOPE, AND JOY, AND CRowN. It is you, even you, in the presence of the Lord. There are two things designed by the apostle in this language :— 1. To disclaim all sordid and mercenary ends on his part. —It is “not yours, but you.” Of course we have a hope, and expect a reward of some kind. They that run must have a prize, a joy, a crown; but it is not any thing car- nal or worldly. Men may, indeed, engage in the minis- try with the desire of obtaining lucre or fame; or from the love of power, or the love of ease: but not so Paul; not so any true minister of Jesus Christ. As to Paul, he had voluntarily resigned every thing of this kind, for the sake of the gospel, as those to whom he wrote very well knew. The language; therefore, peculiarly became his lips. And no true minister of Christ, though supported by the people, (and it is fit that those who devote their lives to an object should be supported in it,) will enter on the work for the sake of this ; nor will he be satisfied with this alone, however liberal. 2. Another object of the apostle was to show the neces- sity of true religion, and a perseverance in it, in them.— There are some who are our hope, who are not our joy; and others who are our hope and joy too, for a time, who will never be our crown; who hold not out to the end, and therefore will never be our rejoicing in the presence of the Lord, at his coming. Some are under serious im- pressions, and excite a hope and joy, like that felt at the sight of blossoms in the spring, which yet are afterwards blighted. There are some that have even made a public profession, and yet, like the thorny and stony-ground hearers, produce no fruit. The object desired, therefore, is not only your setting out, but your holding on, walking in the truth, and holding fast your profession to the end. Then, indeed, you will not only be our hope and joy, but our crown of rejoicing. II. I shall endeavour to Account For ITS BEING so :— 1. If we are faithful ministers, we shall be of the same mind as Christ.—And this was the reward which satisfied him, Isa. liii. 11. He endured all things for the elect's sake; and so shall we, if we be of his mind. 2. If we are faithful ministers, our love to Christ will make us rejoice in every thing that honours him.—The highest honour to which John the Baptist aspired was to be the Bridegroom’s friend; and to see him increase was enough, though at the expense of his own popularity. This fulfilled his joy! What labour and pains will men take at an election to procure votes for the candidate to whom they are attached . And how grateful to him to see his friends, each on the day of election, bring with him a goodly number of votes! Much more we, if we be faithful ministers, shall, in the day of the Lord, be admired in all them that believe, and that love his appearing. 3. If we be true ministers of Christ, we shall love the souls of men as he loved them.—And this accounts also for the language of the text. All of you have souls of in- finite value. Some of you are the children of those whom we have loved, and with whom we have taken sweet counsel, and walked to the house of God in company, but who are now no more. And what is our hope now 7 Why, that you may follow in their steps. It is strange that we should long to present you with them before the throne? Some of you have professed to be the spiritual Let ministers look at this picture, and at children of your pastor; and you are his hope, and his joy too. See to it that you form a part of his crown. III. Allow me to APPLY THE SUBJECT.-You may think this subject mostly concerns ministers; but be assured you have a deep interest in it. “ 1. If it be our duty to obtain volunteers for Christ, it is vour duty to give us an answer.—God is saying, by us, “Choose ye, this day, whom ye will serve.” 2. If your salvation be our reward, still is it no concern of yours that we showld be rewarded ?–You would scorn to deprive your servants of their wages, or your minister of his salary; but this is not enough ; this will not satisfy us; you must not put us off with your money; for we seek not yours, but you. The salvation of your souls is the only reward which will satisfy a faithful servant of Jesus Christ. 3. The personal interest you have in this matter is far greater than ours.-If we be faithful, our loss will be made up in the approbation of God. Though you be not gather- ed, we shall not go unrewarded. But your loss will be irreparable. 4. You must be presented in some way,+if not as our joy and crown, as rebellious children, to be dealt with as such. We shall have to say of you, These our hearers were stubborn and rebellious, and would not listen to our message of love. They would not come to Christ that they might have life. LXXX. — MINISTERS AND CHURCHES EXHORT- ED TO SERVE ONE ANOTHER IN LOVE. [Sketch of an Ordination Sermon addressed to both Pastor and People."] “By love serve one another.”—Gal. v. 13. My brethren, having been requested on this solemn occa- sion to address a word of exhortation to both pastor and people, I have chosen a subject equally suitable for boun. I. I shall begin by addressing a few words to you, my brother, the PASTOR of this church. The text expresses your duty—to “serve ’’ the church ; and the manner in which it is to be performed—“ in love.” Do not imagine there is any thing degrading in the idea of being a servant. Though you are to serve them, and they you, yet neither of you are to be masters of the other. You are fellow servants, and have each “one Master, even Christ.” It is a service, not of constraint, but of love ; like that which your Lord and Master himself yielded. “I have been among you as one that serveth.” Let the com- mon name of minister remind you of this . . . . The au- thority you exercise must be invariably directed to the spiritual advantage of the church. You are invested with authority; you are to have the rule over them, in the Lord ; but not as a “lord over God’s heritage.” Nor are you invested with this authority to confer dignity on you, or that you may value yourself as a person of consequence ; but for the good of the church. This is the end of office : “Whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant. Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister.” . . . . But, more particularly, 1. You must serve the church of God, by feeding them with the word of life.—This is the leading duty of a minis- ter. “Preach the word ; be instant in season, and out of season.” This will be serving them, as it will promote their best interests. For this end you must be familiar with the word. “Meditate on these things : give thyself wholly to them.” It is considered a fine thing with some to have a black coat, to loiter about all the week, and to stand up to be looked at and admired on the sabbath. But truly this is not to serve the church of God. Be con- cerned to be “a scribe well instructed in the things of the kingdom.” Be concerned to have treasures, and to bring them forth. I would advise that one service of every * As were also the two which follow it. MINISTERIAL AND CHRISTIAN COMMUNION. 709 sabbath consist of a well-digested exposition, that your hearers may become Bible Christians. Be concerned to understand and to teach the doctrine of Christianity—“the truth as it is in Jesus.” Be careful, partieularly, to be con- versant with the doctrine of the cross; if you be right there, you can scarcely be essentially wrong any where. Cut off the reproach of dry doctrine, by preaching it feelingly; and of its being inimical to good works, by preaching it practically. And do all this in love.--Your love must be, first, to Christ, or you will not be fitted for your work of feeding the church, John xxi. 15— 17. Also to the truth, or your services will be mischievous, rather than useful. And to Christians, for Christ’s sake, Acts xx. 28. And to the souls of men, as fellow men and fellow sinners. If love be wanting, preaching will be in vain. 2. You must feed the church of God, by watching over them.—“Be instant in season, and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine.” Watch over them, not as a vulture, to destroy them ; but as a good shepherd, who careth for the sheep. If you are compelled to reprove, beware that your reproof be con- veyed, not in ill temper, but in love; not to gratify self, but to do your brother good. 3. You must serve them, by leading them on in all spiritual and holy eacercises.—Lead them by your example. “Be thou an example of the believers, in word, in con- versation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.” Visit them. You have as much need to pray with them and for them in private, as to preach to them in public. And you must do all this in love. An affectionate example and deportment will draw them on. II. Let me now address myself to THE CHURCH.-You also must serve your pastor, as well as he you, and this in love. You must seek his good, as well as he yours. 1. Be assiduous to make him happy in his mind.—If he discharge his work with grief, it will be unprofitable for you. If you be touchy, and soon offended, or cold and distant, it will destroy his happiness. Do not be content with a merely negative respect. Be free, open, kind, in- viting to friendly and Christian intercourse and conversa- tion; and be early and constant in your attendance on public worship. 2. Be concerned to render him as easy in his circum- stances as possible.—If he serve you in spiritual things, is it such a great thing that he partake of your carnal things? I hope he does not covet a haughty independence of you ; but neither let him sink into an abject dependence. Wor- ship not with—offer not to God—that which costs you nothing. It is the glory of Dissenting churches, if they voluntarily make sacrifices for the maintenance of the true religion among them. 3. If there be any thing apparently wrong in his con- duct or his preaching, do not spread it abroad, but tell him of it alone.—You may have mistaken him, and this will give him an opportunity of explaining, or, if he be in fault, this will give him an opportunity of correcting himself. And do every thing in love.—Love will dictate what is proper on most occasions. It will do more than a thou- sand rules; and all rules without it are nothing. To the deacons let me say, Be you helpers in every thing—whether agreeable or disagreeable. To the congregation generally, I would say, You also have an interest in the proceedings of this day. My brother considers you as part of his charge. His appoint- ment by the church is with your approbation. He will seek the good of you and your children. Then teach them to respect and love him. . . . . . . LXXI.—MINISTERIAL AND CHRISTIAN COMMUNION. “That I may be comforted with you by the mutual faith both of you and me.”—Rom. i. 12. THE communion of saints was thought of such importance among the early Christians as to become an article of faith; and where the spirit of it is preserved, it is a charming part of the Christian religion. The text gives us a brief description of it. Paul longed to see the Roman Chris- tians, of whom as yet he had only heard, that he might impart to them some spiritual gift, that they might be established. His faith would comfort them, and theirs would comfort him. We are here naturally led to inquire what there is in the faith of a minister to comfort Christians—what there is in the faith of private Christians to comfort ministers —and what there is in the common faith of both to com- fort each other. Let us then inquire, I. WHAT THERE IS IN THE FAITH OF MINISTERS TO comfort PRIvaTE CHRISTIANs. – For when Christians see their ministers, they naturally expect to hear some- thing concerning the faith; and Paul seems to take this for granted. There are three things in the faith of a minis- ter calculated to comfort private Christians :— 1. Its being Scriptural and decided.—If antiscriptural, we might comfort the sinner and the hypocrite; if specu- lative, we might amuse a few ingenious minds ; but we could not comfort the Christian. N or must we be un- decided. To see a minister who is decided, on Scriptural grounds, is to see a guide who is well acquainted with his map, and who knows his way; or a pilot well acquainted with his chart. The reverse will be stumbling and most distressing. If a guide now tells you this is the way, then that, and is at a loss which to choose, it must oc- casion fear and distrust, instead of comfort. 2. Its being considered, not for themselves only, but as a public trust to be imparted.—Paul considered himself a debtor to others; an almoner, possessing the unsearch- able riches; “as poor, yet making many rich.” In fact, the very afflictions of ministers, as well as their consola- tions, are sent to produce this effect, 2 Cor. i. 6. 3. Its being a living principle in their own souls, 1 Tim. iv. 6. Without this, whatever be our attainments, our ministrations will not ordinarily edify Christians. We must preach from the heart, or we shall seldom, if ever, produce any good in the hearts of our hearers. II. WHAT THERE IS IN THE FAIt H of PRIVATE CHRIS- TIANS To comfort MINISTERS.–Ministers must receive, as well as impart ; and should be concerned to do so, in every visit, and in all their intercourse with their people. Now the faith of Christians contributes to the comfort of ministers, in its being, its growth, and its fruits. 1. It furnishes them with sentiments and feelings in their preaching which nothing else will.—A believing, spiritual, attentive, affectionate audience, whose souls glisten in their eyes, will produce thoughts in the pulpit which would never have occurred in the study. On the other hand, if a minister perceive in his hearers, and especially in those of whom he should expect better things, unbelief, wordli- ness, carelessness, or conceit, he is like a ship locked up near the pole. 2. In the faith of Christians, ministers see the travail of the Redeemer's soul.—And this, if they love him, will be a high source of comfort to them. 3. In the faith of Christians, ministers often see the fruit of their own labours.-They often pray for their people, of whom they “travail in birth” until Christ be formed in them. Such fruit, therefore, of their anxiety and their labour, is very encouraging. 4. The faith of Christians is a pledge of their future salvation.—A Christian minister must love his people, and in proportion as he loves them he will feel concerned for their eternal happiness. Well, here is a pledge of it, and this cheers him. Your minister looks around, and feels tenderly attached to you as friends, and as the children of dear friends now with God; and sometimes he enters into the spirit of the apostle, who wished himself accursed, after the manner of Christ, for his brethren, his kinsmen after the flesh. Your faith therefore, as a pledge of eternal glory, must needs comfort him. III. WHAT THERE IS, IN THE COMMON FAITH OF BOTH, To comfort EACH or HER.—Common blessings are best. Let us not desire great things—the wreath of honour, or a crown. Amidst all this, the sweet singer of Israel desired and sought after “ one thing,” and that was a common 710 SERMONS AND SKETCHES. blessing, Psal. xxvii. 4. Extensive attainments, even mental acquisitions, are comparatively poor. An apostle would sacrifice them all for a common blessing—the know- ledge of Christ, Phil. iii. 8. These blessings are common to the meanest Christian. 1. Its wnity.—Those who have never seen each other, men of different nations and manners, when they come to converse on Christ and the gospel, presently feel their faith to be one, and love one another; and this is a source of great delight. As a Hindoo said of some of the mission- aries, newly arrived, “They cannot talk our language ; but we see all our hearts are one : we are united in the death of Christ.” 2. The interesting nature of the truths believed.—“Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners.”—“God manifest in the flesh.”—“There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.”—“ He that believeth on him is not condemned.” Christ is come ; atonement is made ; the way of access to God is opened; our sins are remembered no more ; we are no more strangers and foreigners; we live in hope of eternal life. These are things which, if we be in ignorance and unbelief, will have no effect upon us; or if we be in doubt and darkness, like the two disciples going to Emmaus, we shall commune and be sad ; but if our faith be in lively exercise, our hearts will burn within us, and time will glide sweetly on. LEARN, from the whole, 1. The necessity of faith to Christian communion.—Un- believers, or, which is the same thing, merely nominal Christians, are non-conductors. Neither ministers, nor others, can receive or impart without faith. 2. The necessity of the communication of faith to profit- able visits.—We may not always be able to maintain Christian conversation. We are men, and must sometimes converse as such. But Christian visits will be of this kind. It is delightful when they are of this description ; and, to promote this, we should avoid large, promiscuous parties. 3. What will heavenly communion be 1–No darkness— no discord—no carnality—no pride—no imperfection | LXXXII.—MINISTERS AND CHRISTIANS EX- HORTED TO HOLD FAST THE GOSPEL. “Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.”—2 Tim. i. 13. THIS Epistle was written on the near approach of death, and is very solemn. It is addressed to Timothy, and as such is doubtless especially applicable to ministers; but it is by no means exclusively so, since all Scripture is given for the sake of the church. I. Let us notice THE ExHortATION Its ELF.—“ Hold rast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me,” &c. The gospel is here denominated “sound words,”— and “a form of sound words;” and requires to be “ held fast in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.” 1. The gospel is called “sound words.”—Much has been said of sound words, and every one reckons his own creed to be such. I would only observe, that sound words must be true words, and words suited to convey the truth. All other systems are hollow. We must be more concerned about their being true, than fine or harmonious. We must beware of specious words, which are often vehicles of error. The words which the Holy Ghost teaches are the standard of soundness. So much regard as we pay to them, so far are we orthodox, and no further. 2. The gospel is called “a form of sound words.”—The word signifies a brief sketch, or first draft; such as artists sketch when they begin a painting. Paul intimates that he had given Timothy such a sketch—a compendium, or epitome. Whether he had given him any thing of the kind, different from what we have, we know not ; but what he wrote to him and others contains such a form, expressed in different ways. As—“This is a faithful say- ing, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.”—“Without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness: God manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”—We have one of the forms in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, chap. xv. 1–4. And a still more perfect one in his Epistle to the Romans, chap. iii. 24, 25. The term implies two things:–(1.) That what the apos- tles taught was a sure guide. We are quite safe here. Where will men go, if the apostles' doctrines are treated as mere opinions These are the genuine criterion of orthodoxy. ICeep within these lines, and you are safe. They are able, through faith, to make you “wise unto salvation.” By these, the man of God may be “perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”—(2.) It im- plies that what he taught, though it contained the outline of truth, and as much as was necessary for the present, yet is not the whole. It was only an outline, only a sketch, for Timothy and all other Christians to fill up, and to meditate upon. Paul did not know all. Angels do not. It will require eternity to reveal all. There is plenty of room for meditation ; only let us keep within the lines which the apostles have sketched out. 3. The gospel, as a form of sound words, must be “held fast.”—This supposes that we do, at least, hold the faith. Alas! many do not. Some have hold of a wholly false doctrine, and hold it fast too. Some are Gallios, perfectly indifferent, and hold fast the world, or any thing rather than the gospel. Nay more, it is to be feared that many who talk and profess much about doctrines, and Scripture doctrines too, yet do not hold them fast. We must find the gospel, as Philip and Nathanael found the Messias, and then we shall hold it fast. They sought out Jesus, and compared his character and pretensions with the de- scriptions of the Messiah in the prophecies; and were con- vinced from examination. If, instead of being convinced of the truth from actual personal research, we receive the notions of others, without examination, upon their repre- sentations, even if these notions should be correct, we shall be in danger of not holding them fast. Many will try to wrest the truth from us. Persecutions—temptations—and false doctrines, sanctioned by fashion and the appearance of learning, have occasionally made sad havoc with the truth, and forced many a one who held it loosely, many a one who received his faith at second-hand, instead of drawing directly from the fountain, and who therefore never fully comprehended it, to give it up. 4. The gospel must be held “in faith and love.”—There is such a thing as a bigoted and blind attachment to doc- trines, which will be of no use, even if they be true. The word does not profit, unless it be “mixed with faith.”— And there is such a thing as a sound creed, without charity, or love to God and men. But the gospel must be held in faith and love. The union of genuine orthodoxy and affection constitutes true religion. II. Let us ENFORCE THE EXHORTATION.— 1. Consider the inestimable value of these sound words. —They are the words of eternal life. There is nothing in this world equal to them. They are the pearl of great price. 2. They have been held in such esteem that many of the best of men have sacrificed their lives, rather than part with them.—And shall we cowardly desert the truth, or shun the avowal of it, merely lest the indifferent should call us bigots, or infidels, or enthusiasts? There is not a more dangerous foe to the truth than indifference. Then “hold fast” the form of sound words. 3. They are the only principles that can meet the exi- gences of perishing sinners.--All besides, however plaus- ible, will flatter, and allure, and deceive, and destroy the soul. 4. They are the only source of a holy life.—People fool- ishly discard doctrines under the pretence of exalting practice; but holy doctrine is the source and spring of a holy life. What has the church become where these doc- trimes are given up 3 And what have those Dissenters be- come who have embraced another gospel ? Mere men of the world. 5. They are the only source of real happiness.-They inspire a peace and joy in health, a cheerful acquiescence under affliction, and a hope in death and the prospect of futurity, to which all are strangers who are building on any other foundation than that laid in the Scriptures by CONVERSION OF THE WORLD TO GOD. 7] I the apostles, even Jesus Christ—himself being the chief Corner-Stone. LXXXIII.—NATURE OF TRUE CONVERSION, AND EXTENT OF IT UNIDER THE REIGN OF THE MESSIAH. [Sketch of a Sermon preached in the Circus, Edinburgh, Oct. 13, 1799.] “All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the Lord, *...* kindreds of the nations shall worship before him.”—Psa. XXli, Ž, 4. IT is worthy of notice, that the Spirit of inspiration in the prophets is called the Spirit of Christ, (1 Pet. i. 10,) be- cause Christ was so frequently the theme of it. The plaintive part of this Psalm is applied more than once to him. The explanation, (ver. 1,) “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring 3" he adopted as his own. The revilings in ver 8 were used, inadvertently no doubt, by his enemies: “He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him; let him deliver him, seeing he de- lighteth in him.” The kind of death which he endured was expressly pointed out in ver. 16, “They pierced my hands and my feet.” Even the circumstance of their casting lots for his garments is noticed in ver. 18, “They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my Vesture.” And as the sufferings of Christ were the theme of Old Testament prophecy, so also was the glory that followed them. His resurrection and exaltation at the right hand of God, with the glorious success of his gospel in the world, are hinted at from ver. 19 to the end of the Psalm. The passage first read is a prediction of the conversion of the Gentiles. It furnishes us with two interesting ideas; the nature of true conversion—and the extent of it under the reign of the Messiah. I. THE NATURE OF TRUE conversIon :-It is to remem- ber—to turn to the Lord—and to worship before him. This is a plain and simple process. Perhaps the first religious exercise of mind of which we are conscious is reflection. A state of unregeneracy is a state of forgetfulness. God is forgotten. Sinners have lost all just sense of his glory, authority, mercy, and judgment; living as if there were no God, or as if they thought there was none. And when God is forgotten, there is no proper remembrance of themselves. Their own evil ways attract little or no at- tention. They go on, adding sin to sin, and think scarcely any thing about them. Even if some threatening judg- ment should have affrighted them into vows and resolutions to amend their lives, no sooner is the cloud dissipated than all is forgotten. But if ever we are brought to be the subjects of true conversion, we shall be brought to remember these things. This Divine change is fitly expressed by the case of the prodigal, who is said to have come to himself, or to his right mind. If we thus come to ourselves, we shall think of the holiness, goodness, and forbearance of God, and be troubled. And if we think of God, we shall not forget our own evil ways. We shall remember, and be con- founded, and never open our lips any more. The Holy Spirit makes use of divers means in conver- sion; but they all operate to bring the sinner to reflection. Sometimes he works by adverse providences.—Thus it was with Joseph's brethren. They had sold their brother for a slave, and framed a lie to deceive their father; and more than twenty years had elapsed when they went down into Egypt to buy corn. There they were treated roughly, and put in ward as though they were spies. In this situation, they remembered and reflected upon their evil ways: “And they said one to another, We are verily guilty con- cerning our brother, in that we saw the anguish of his soul, when he besought us, and we would not hear; there- fore is this distress come upon us. And Reuben answered them, saying, Spake not I unto you, saying, Do not sin against the child; and ye would not hear ! therefore, be- hold, also his blood is required,” Gen. xlii. 21, 22. Thus, also, Manasseh king of Judah, after a long life of the most awful wickedness, was reclaimed by an adverse pro- vidence. In the thorns of affliction, he remembered the Lord God of his fathers, called upon his name, and ob- tained mercy. Frequently the Lord works by his word.— In reading or hearing it, something lays hold of the heart; and the effect is the same. Peter's hearers (Acts ii.) were brought to remember their evil doings, and to sue for mercy. We may read the Scriptures over and over, and hear hundreds of sermons, without any real profit, unless they operate in this way. If ever you hear to purpose, you will think but little of the preacher; your attention will be principally turned to yourselves. Sometimes, I believe, a sinner is converted without any apparent second cause. While sitting in his house, or walking by the way, his mind is insensibly drawn to think of its own evil courses: “I thought on my ways,” says David, “and turned my feet unto thy testimonies.” Whatever be the way in which we are brought, if it be by the word of God, we shall certainly be induced to remember those things which heretofore have been neglected and forgotten. If you be truly the subjects of God’s work, there will be many ways which will be brought to your remembrance, and which you will reflect upon with bitterness; ways of open immorality—ways in which you have thought there was little or no harm–ways that you have thought little about—and even ways which you have heretofore accounted good. 1. You will remember your ways of open immoral- ity, odious to both God and man, and which have required some pains to stifle convictions while you pursued them. Such were the objects of bitter recollection to the penitent publican, and to the returning prodigal. Those evil courses which have distinguished your character may be supposed to have most interested your hearts; and consequently will generally be the first which occur to your remem- brance. But these are not the only evils to be lamented. 2. You will remember things in which you have thought there was little or no harm.—Such are those pursuits which are common with the world. The principles, customs, and amusements of those people among whom you have lived, you accounted lawful; or if not quite lawful, yet nearly so. You have observed many to act upon this principle in trade, that we may get all we can ; and may have thought you might do the same : but if you are brought to a right mind, you will remember these pursuits as Zaccheus did, and, like him, your hands will not be able to hold the ill-acquired gain. You saw little or no harm, it may be, in cards, dice, and other amusements of the kind, being kept in countenance by the example of people of fashion; but if brought to a right mind, you will remember such things with shame, being conscious that in many instances the desire of your neighbour's pro- perty was your ruling motive : or if no property was at stake, it is an exercise on which you cannot ask for a Divine blessing before you engage, nor go with freedom upon your knees when you retire. 3. You will remember ways that you have thought nothing about.—This will be the case, especially, with respect to heart sins. Saul, the Pharisee, had no idea of God's law taking cognizance of his heart ; but when the commandment came in its spirit- uality, it opened to him an entirely new scene; it slew all his self-righteous hopes. Or if you should have had some convictions on account of secret sins, yet you were not aware of that awful load of negative sin of which you were continually guilty; I mean the want of love to God. But if you are brought to a right mind, you will remem- ber and be confounded at the idea that a God of so glori- ous a character, and whose goodness to you has never abated, should have had no place in your heart; that you have never regarded him in any thing; but lived in wicked aversion against him. Finally, You will remember, and that with contrition, even ways that you have counted good. Your very prayers, and tears, and alms, and the whole of your religion while unconverted, will appear odious to you. That of which you have made a righteous- ness, hoping at least that it would balance your evil deeds, will now appear as “filthy rags,” fit for nothing, unless it were to bind you hand and foot, in order to your being cast into utter darkness. Nor will these your views be at 712 SERMONS AND SKETCHES. all exaggerating ; for all this is but the truth. Gód re- quires the heart, the whole heart, and nothing but the heart. All those things which God requires as duties are but so many expressions of the heart ; whatever, therefore, we have done without the heart can have no goodness in it in his sight, who sees things as they are ; but must needs be evil. And that which is evil in the sight of God, if we become of God’s mind, will be evil in our sight. But further, True conversion consists not only in re- membering, but in “turning to the Lord.” This part of the passage is expressive of a cordial relinquishment of our idols, whatever they have been, and an acquiescence in the gospel way of salvation by Christ alone. Its im- portance will appear, if we consider, 1. That it is possi- ble to remember our evil ways without turning from them. There are few who attend a faithful ministry, but are compelled, at one time or other, to remember their ways, and that with pain, shame, and remorse; yet they con- tinue to pursue them. Their consciences are enlightened and awakened, but their hearts remain the same. There- fore they persist in evil, though the road is covered with briers and thorns. The guilt of such characters is greater by far than that of sinners in common. O ! dread the thought of remembering without turning. 2. It is possi- ble both to remember and turn, and yet not turn “to the Lord.” We may break off our open sins from merely selfish considerations, and not from the love of God. This is not breaking off our sins “by righteousness; ” but a mere exchange of vices. Shimei, when circumstances re- quired it, left off abusing and casting dust at David; but he was the same character notwithstanding. Neither God nor man can be satisfied with such turnings: “If ye will return, return to me, saith the Lord.” Once more, True conversion to Christ will be accom- panied with the worship of him. Worship, as a religious exercise, is the homage of the heart, presented to God ac- cording to his revealed will. This homage being paid to the Messiah affords a proof of his proper Deity. It was the practice of the primitive Christians, and that by which they are described, “to call upon the name of the Lord Jesus.” - Such is and will be the practice of all true Christians to the end of time. If we be truly converted to Christ, we shall worship him both privately and publicly. The wor- ship of the closet, of the family, and of the church, will be our delight. That which has heretofore been a task and an uneasiness will become our meat and drink. II. The EXTENT of conversion under the kingdom or reign of the Messiah : “All the ends of the world shall remember and turn to the Lord, all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before him.” It was fit that the accessions of the Gentiles should be reserved for the gospel day, that it might grace the tri- umph of Christ over his enemies, and appear to be what it is, “the travail of his soul.” It is becoming the coro- nation of a prince for liberty to be granted to the captives, that many hearts may unite in the public joy. Hence it might be that the Spirit was so copiously poured out upon the apostles, and that their preaching became so eminently successful. The coronation of Christ in heaven must be accompanied with the pardon of his murderers, and fol. lowed by the liberation of millions among the heathen who had hitherto been the willing captives of the prince of darkness. And this great and good work begun in the apostles' days must go on, and “must increase,” till “all the ends of the world shall remember and turn,” and “all the kin- dreds of the nations shall worship before him.” Conver- sion work, except for a few years in the early ages, has been individual ; God has gathered sinners one by one. Thus it is at present with us; but it will not be thus always. People will flock to Zion as doves to their windows. The church will be struck with joyful surprise, on viewing her own increase. Her heart shall fear and be enlarged, say- ; º Who hath begotten me these ?” These, whence are they Further, Conversion work has hitherto been circum- scribed within certain parts of the world. For many ages it was nearly confined to the posterity of Abraham. By means of the labours of the apostles, it was extended to or papal government, rise up amongst them. various parts of Asia, the borders of Africa and of Europe. Of late ages it has been nearly confined to Europe and America. But the time will come when “all the kindreds of the earth” shall worship. Ethiopia, and all the un- known regions of Africa, shall stretch out their hands to God. Arabia, and Persia, and Tartary, and India, and China, with the numerous islands in the Eastern and Southern Ocean, shall bring an offering before him. Mahomedans shall drop their delusion, papists their cruel superstition, Jews shall be ashamed of their obstimacy, deists of their enmity, and merely nominal Christians of their form of godliness without the power of it. These hopes are not the flight of an ardent imagination; they are founded on the true sayings of God. Nor can the time of their accomplishment be far distant. Daniel, in his seventh chapter, has given us a prophecy of all the principal events from his time to the universal spread of the Messiah’s kingdom. The whole is comprehended in the rising and falling of four great governments, with their branches and subdivisions. The world has seen the rise and fall of three out of the four. They have also seen the fourth divided into ten kingdoms, and the “little horn,” They have witnessed its rise, its reign, and in part its downfal. The last branch of the last of the four beasts is now in its dying agonies. No sooner will it be proclaimed, “Baby- lon is fallen " than the marriage of the Lamb will come. There are no more tyrannical or persecuting powers to succeed; but “the kingdom shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High.” All ranks of men, princes, nobles, and people, becoming real Christians, the government of the world will naturally be in their hands; and love, peace, and universal good shall conse- quently pervade the whole earth. Finally, While we are concerned for the world, let us not forget our own souls. If the whole world be saved and we lost, what will it avail us?—Perhaps we can scarcely conceive of any thing more dreadful than that of seeing multitudes from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, sitting down in the kingdom of God, while we, who thought ourselves the children of the kingdom, are thrust out ! LXXXIV.- BFFECT OF THINGS DIFFER AC- CORDING TO THE STATE OF THE MIND. “ Unto the pure all things are pure, but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.”—Tit. i. 15. THE apostle had lived to see many who had bid fair turn aside. Under the impression of these things he writes to Titus as he had done to Timothy, 2 Tim. ii. 21. The human mind is exposed to numerous influences— the world—the flesh—the devil; and according to the state of the mind, such is the influence exercised. The beams of the sun lighting on a garden of spices exhale the most pleasing odours, while they produce an opposite effect on a foul and unsavoury object. I. Let us endeavour to ascertain THE IMPORT of THE TERMS.–By the pure is not meant the sinless. No such characters are to be found. If any think so, the Scrip- tures are decisive on this point, 1 John i. 8, 10. But as a deftled mind is connected with unbelief, and is attributed (ver. 14) to those who “turn from the truth,” so a pure mind must be a believing one–one that receives the “truth in the love of it.” Evangelical purity is connected with faith—thus Peter, 1 Pet. i. 22; Acts xv. 9. The *mind and conscience are the governing powers of the soul. If they be polluted, all is so. If the judgment be cor- rupted, there is no pledge for our retaining one correct view of ourselves, or of God. If conscience, God’s wit- ness, be defiled, there is nothing to recall us. Faith is the principle that opposes these corruptions. II. ILLUSTRATE THE SENTIMENT by a review of the dif- ferent effects produced by the same things, according to the different state of the mind. 1. On a believing mind the EFFECT OF THINGS MODIFIED BY STATE OF MIND. 713 doctrines of Christ will have a sanctifying effect, and the contrary on an unbelieving. Some parts of Christian doctrine have a warning tendency, particularly the omni- presence, omnipotence, and holiness of God—these beget holy fear. Others are of an encouraging complexion, as redemption, pardon, reconciliation, eternal life. Even in those doctrines to which unbelievers are ever objecting— sovereign efficacious grace, personal election, &c.—the Christian finds the most powerful motive to purity. But on others they produce an ill effect, exciting dislike to re- ligion, causing to raise objections. You never hear of them but in ridicule. Some believe in them, and hail them as that which frees them from restraint. Thus they are either “stumbling at the word, being disobedient,” or “turning the grace of God into lasciviousness.” 2. On a believing mind precepts, and even threatenings, produce a salutary effect. Considering the Divine commands as their rule, they fear to deviate and are tender of con- science; but unbelievers dislike restraints, and there is a species of religion which proposes to leave them out. 3. Mercies and judgments humble, melt, and soften some, but harden others. Mercy, Eccles. viii. 11. Judgments soften transiently only : Pharaoh–Saul. David says, Psal. xviii. 5, 6. But another returns to his sin for relief, so the means of grace and salvation produce no good effect, Isa. xxvi. 10. 4. Evils which occur among men.—A pure mind gathers good from the wickedness that occurs around him —from the defection of apostates, (John vi. 68,) and from the falls of good men. But others are carried away before these things. 5. Treatment from men.—It may be unkind —unjust, but we shall view it as coming from God. David turned the reproaches of Shimei into reproofs from God; but the lawyer mentioned in the Gospels turned reproof into reproach; thus the most faithful preaching gives of fence. From the whole we see the vast importance of the mind being purified by faith. There are those in the world that are neither believers nor unbelievers; but none such are here. Every one who has heard, or who has had op- portunities of hearing, the gospel, is one of them. Some manifest their unbelief by making no pretension either to faith or purity, but ridicule both. Some pretend faith; but it does not purify the heart and life. O come to Jesus —purify your souls by obeying the truth! Wash in that laver. If found impure at the great day, all is over. No- thing unclean shall enter heaven, Rev. xxii. 11. CIRCULAR LIETTERS, ADDRESSED TO THE CHURCHES OF THE NORTHAMPTONSHIRE ASSOCIATION. 1782–1815. 1782. THE EXCELLENCY AND UTILITY OF THE GRACE OF HOPE. DEAR BRETHREN, ON this delightful subject, we feel great pleasure in ad- dressing you. We congratulate you, amidst all your sor- rows, on your possessing such a hope ; a hope which has foundations the most solid, and objects the most substan- tial. God has not put this jewel into your hands to be made light of. He would have you to understand it in order to prize it. His bestowing upon you a spiritual il- lumination is to this very end. He does not open your eyes to present you with mere spectacles of misery, nor call you by his grace as having nothing to bestow upon you : no, blessed be his name, “the eyes of your under- standings are enlightened that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints.” To assisting your meditations on this cheering subject, by showing its eaccellency and pointing out its great utility, we devote this epistle. We trust that what we have already communicated to you, on various important subjects, has not been received in vain. We would not wish to trifle with you, brethren, and we trust our letters to you have not been trifled with. Having therefore confidence in your readiness to examine and receive what we communicate, “we are willing to impart unto you, not the gospel of God only, but also our own souls, because ye are dear unto us!” HoPE, or an expectation of future good,” is of so exten- sive an influence, that whether true or false, well or ill founded, it is one of the principal springs that keep man- kind in motion. It is vigorous, bold, and enterprising. It causes men to encounter dangers, endure hardships, and surmount difficulties innumerable, in order to accom- plish the desired end. In religion it is of no less conse- quence. It is claimed by almost all ranks and parties of men. It makes a considerable part of the religion of those that truly fear God; for though in all true religion there is and must be a love to God and Divine things for their own excellency, yet God, who knows our frame, and draws us with the cords of a man, condescends also to excite us with the promise of gracious reward, and to allure us with the prospect of a crown of glory. ... – We wish you, brethren, seeing God has given you ever- lasting consolation and good hope through grace, to consider well the GooDNess or ExcELLENCY of that Divine gift. On this account it excels every other hope as much as a pearl excels a pebble. A great part of its excellency consists in its being so well-founded. Though our hope should aspire to the highest heavens, and could grasp in all the bliss of an eternal world, alas ! what would it avail us if ill-founded ? The hope that is ill-founded is said to make ashamed, and so terminates in disappointment. It is to be feared that many (oh that there may be none of us!) who are now towering high in expectation, will one day be “ashamed and confounded” because they thus had hoped. #. grand Found ATION of all good hope is the Lord Jesus Christ, God's revealed Mediator, embraced by faith. On this rock the people of God in all ages have built their hope, whatever other foundations sinners have devised. Of old God laid this in Zion. This was the subject of apostolic ministrations; they held forth none other than him “whom God had set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood.” That the mediation of Christ is the primary ground of all good hope will appear evident, if we do but recollect (and O let us never forget !) the hopeless condition in which sin involved us. By our breach of covenant with God, the very idea of future good for us was totally an- nihilated. Nothing but eternal tribulation and anguish, as the reward of evil-doers, was now to be expected. The image of God being totally effaced in us, his favour towards us was absolutely forfeited. Hence the least idea of hope from any other ground than the mediation of Christ, is not only declarative of opposition to God’s way of salva- tion, but is altogether a wild chimera. By the state of the fallen angels we may learn what ground is left for hope where no mediator is provided ; and what must have been our state had we been left in their condition. These, void of all hope whatever, “are reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.” We are not unacquainted with the many false grounds on which sinners rest their hopes, but we as well know who has said, “Other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” We doubt not, brethren, but you have perceived the vanity of a multitude of those things which buoy up the hopes of a great part of mankind. Yourselves, it may be, were once the sub- * Hope, as its objects are future, is distinguished from enjoyment. Herein the portion of the saints is unlike that of the worldling, and even that of saints in glory. Also from love, the objects of which are past and present as well as future, whereas hope is confined to the last. As they are good it is opposed to fear, which is the dread of evil. As they are both future and good, and merely so, it is distinct from faith. We may be said to believe things past, as that the worlds were made; and things evil, as the wrath to come; but cannot be said to hope in either. As it is an eacpectation, it is distinguished from desire. We may be said to desire what it is not possible we should ever enjoy; but we cannot hope unless there appear at least a possi- bility, and, generally speaking, some probability, of our possessing the object hoped for; and, in proportion as this probability appears to the mind great or small, hope or expectation is strong or weak. EXCELLENCY AND UTILITY OF HOPE. 715 jects of those delusory dreams whereof we trust ye are now ashamed. It yields us great pain to see such numbers of our fellow sinners standing on such slippery places ! The mere mercy of God, to the exclusion of Christ's mediation —not being so bad as some others—common honesty and civility between man and man—descent from pious pa- rents—a place and a name among the godly—suffering much affliction in this life—legal convictions—superior knowledge—superstitious zeal—these are some of the dangerous foundations on which vast numbers of deluded mortals build their eternal ALL! But ye, brethren, have not so learned Christ. Be it your and our resolution, with holy Paul, to “know nothing ” in this matter “but Christ and him crucified l’” You will remember, dear brethren, it was necessary that this glorious Mediator should be revealed ere he could be- come a ground of hope. The amazing design of mercy was first laid in the eternal council; hence the blood of Christ is termed the blood of the covenant, through which prisoners in the pit become prisoners of hope; but what- ever design of mercy might exist in the mind of God, that could not become a ground of hope till revealed by the word of God. Hence the promise of the woman’s Seed afforded the first and only dawn of hope to a lost world. Hence also the word of God is frequently represented in Scripture as that whereon our hope resteth. Equally necessary is it that the mediation of Christ should be embraced by faith. We trust you need not be told, that though this mediation be the sole meritorious ground of our hope, yet a special work of the Spirit of God must take place in us, before we can reasonably put in our claim for eternal bliss. The work of Christ gives to the elect sinner a title to its possession; the work of the Spirit gives a meetness for its enjoyment. If we ex- perience the latter, we may lay claim to a personal in- terest in the former. These God has joined together, and let no man dare to put them asunder. Christ must be in us, ere he can be to us the hope of glory. The hope that maketh not ashamed is wrought by ea perience. The graces of the Spirit, however, become a ground of hope, not through any inherent merit, but in virtue of the pro- mise of God ; or rather they are the evidence of our in- terest in the promise. In numerous passages of holy writ, God has promised eternal life to all such as bear certain characters; namely, to those that are of a broken and con- trite spirit, that mourn for sin, believe in Christ, love him in sincerity, deny themselves, take up their cross, follow him, &c. Hence all who through grace are the subjects of these spiritual dispositions enjoy a right, founded on such promises, to hope for eternal bliss ; and this is, an- other reason why the word of God is frequently represented in Scripture as that whereon our hope resteth. It is to be feared that many split upon this rock. We cautioned you against those who professedly build on other foundations than Jesus Christ; but these are not the only self-deceivers. There is a more refined sort, as to their professed principles, who build their hope on some- thing more specious in appearance, but not a whit better in reality. These, brethren, you have more reason to be guarded against, since they are more frequent in your as- semblies, and some of them less discernible, though not less dangerous, than the former. These will frequently abound with supercilious treatment towards those who profess to build upon their own works—will abundantly exclaim against legal books and legal preaching, which, by the way, is the name they give not only to those per- formances wherein men are taught to expect eternal life as the fruit of their own doings, but as well to all those wherein practical godliness is pressed home. These much value themselves for their supposed orthodoxy or sound- ness in the doctrines of grace; nay, so valiant are they, many of them, for the TRUTH, that they will contend för it even at the tavern or upon the ale-bench but they seem to have forgotten that part of sound doctrine, that “faith without works is dead, being alone.” # These talk loudly of building their hopes on Christ alone, but * Besides, it would be no great difficulty to prove that these people, with all their boasted soundness, are unbelievers in the very essentials of the gospel. That is an essential of the gospel, without which it would not be the gospel. Now what coastitutes it gospel is its being * forget that he must be, as one says, a Christ believed in, loved, and obeyed, and not merely a Christ talked of. These are frequently heard boasting how strong their hopes are of their being delivered from slavish fear, of their certainty of going to heaven, die when they may, with many such presumptuous things; but they forget surely what the Judge of all the earth has said, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven : but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven.” These, whatever their professions may be, build not upon the Rock of ages, but upon a concealed part of self. There is no such great difference between them and professed legalists, against whom they so bit- terly inveigh : those think to gain heaven by doing, and these by knowing, which they think to be believing. Their hope is but the hope of the hypocrite, which will in the end prove no better than the spider's web. Nor do they draw their evidences for glory from such things as the Scriptures speak of as characterizing the godly, but from their supposed orthodoxy or soundness in religious prin- ciples, with perhaps some texts of Scripture which may have occurred to their minds with a certain impulse, tending mightily to lift them up with joy, but not to fill them with holy mourning, or self-loathing, or with a de- sire and endeavour to walk humbly with their God. Real religion has no worse enemies than these. By approach- ing near unto it, and being accounted its votaries, they are capable of doing it much more injury than its pro- fessed foes. While, Joab-like, they embrace it with a dis- simulating kiss, by their works they stab it as under its fifth rib 1 We do not mean to suggest but that the Holy Scriptures are often of great consolation to the godly; nor yet to deny that some passages of it may be more consolatory to the godly than others, and the same passages at one time which are not at another: these are things which we freely acknowledge and happily experience. For the truth or duty contained in any passage of Scripture to be, by the Spirit of God, opened to the mind, and impressed upon the heart, and afford strong consolation to the person, is a part of experience which we can set seal to, as both rea- sonable and desirable. It is through patience and com- fort of the Scriptures that we have hope. But when im- pressions have no tendency to humble, sanctify, and lead the soul to God, we affirm, and are ready to give proof, that they are no better than “lying vanities,” though they lie at the bottom of some mighty fabrics. Our having cer- tain passages of Scripture impressed upon our minds is in itself no evidence for glory at all, either to ourselves or others; no, not though those passages should be promises of heaven itself: but if by this we are humbled and sanc- tified—if a spirit of holy mourning, self-loathing, watch- fulness, love to Christ and holiness, as well as joy, be hereby wrought in us, that is an evidence for glory. Many persons are the subjects of Scripture impressions, and, to the great scandal of religion, are hence supposed to have God’s good work begun in them, when it appears evident by their spirit and conduct that they are utter strangers to real Christianity. Balaam could have pro- duced plenty of such evidence as this. All those things of his speaking are recorded as a part, and an excellent part, of Holy Scripture, and were suggested to him even by God himself. “The Lord,” we are told, “put a word in Balaam’s mouth.” But as none of these things had any tendency to sanctify his heart, they left him but where they found him | Besides, we have no reason to think but that Satan can and does suggest many things in the words of Scripture. We know he did thus to Christ himself; and if to him, why not to us? He has ends to answer in so doing ; namely, to deceive poor souls with such airy dreams, to draw them away from resting their hopes on Scriptural grounds, and to substitute these illusory foundations in their room.—On the other hand, whatever be the means, whether hearing the word preach- ed, reading, conversation, prayer, or meditation ; and whe- ther, in so meditating, any part of the word be suddenly good news; but whatever faith such people may have in it as a piece of news, they have none in the goodness of it, which is a most essential thing in it, and without which it would not be the gospel. 71.6 CIRCULAR LETTERS. brought to our mind, and impressed upon our heart, or whether it be more gradually—whether we have never thought of the passage before, or whether we have read it a thousand times over—it matters not.* If it tend to produce a spirit of pure love to Christ, lowliness, and holiness, that affords us a ground for hope, and a reason for thankfulness. God has plentifully promised salvation to all who are the subjects of these spiritual dispositions. Should an enemy to your holy religion, after all, require of you a reason for the hope that is in you—should he de- mand what grounds you have to conclude that the things you hope for have a real eacistence—we trust you would not be at a loss for a reply. There is not one of all those solid arguments which prove the Divinity of the sacred oracles, (which, for brevity’s sake, we forbear to enumerate,) but would furnish you with sufficient reason to give an answer substantial in its nature, though in its manner “with meekness and fear,” The glorious op.JECTs with which your hope is con- versant next demand your attention, brethren ; as they much, very much, contribute to its excellency and your felicity.—You may be assured they are something good. Hope of every kind has to do with nothing but what in the view of the mind appears such ; and this hope has to do with nothing but what is really such. That which we hope for is not merely an apparent, but a real good ; and not only a good, but a substantial good ; and not only a substantial, but a suitable, a great, yea, an everlasting good | The hope of worldlings terminates on trifles; on things which, when enjoyed, do but cloy, and cannot satisfy.— Let a man in pursuit of happiness knock at the door of every created good, every created good must answer, “It is not in me!” Riches make themselves wings and fly away ; honour is empty as the wind; mirth, what is it but madness? Crowns of earthly glory commonly prove crowns of thorns to them that wear them ; all are lying vanities, promising what they cannot perform. O bre- thren, let the resolve of the church made wise by affliction be our resolve : “The Lord is my portion, saith my soul, therefore will I hope in him.” Here we find what the wisest of men well termed sub- stance.—Only a taste thereof affords substantial bliss. Oh to enjoy God! To enjoy God in Christ . To enjoy him with the society of the blessed To enjoy him with soul and body, the latter raised and reunited to the former '' To enjoy him to all eternity To enjoy him, and be changed into the same image . These, brethren, these are the things on which our hope centres; nor is it a matter of small consolation that God himself has pledged his faithfulness for their bestowment on all his faithful fol- lowers. However desirable these things might be, we should have little reason to rejoice therein, if he on whose word it rested were either false or fickle ; but, blessed be his name, we live “in hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began!” Nor let it seem the less glorious that it is a future good. —In the view of infinite wisdom, “it is good that a man should both hope and quietly wait for the salvation of the Lord.” It seems good to him to place the blessings he means to bestow upon us at a distance; so at a distance that they must be hoped in, and waited for, ere they are enjoyed. Doubtless, God could have bestowed all his blessings on us as quickly as he did paradise on the con- verted thief; but he has not seen fit in common so to do. Certainly by his suspending for a time our enjoyment of promised favours, and at length bestowing them, he glori- fies his faithfulness in the end, as well as that in the mean time he exercises our faithfulness, patience, and resigna- tion to his will. But this is not all; they are the more welcome when they do come. If the object hoped for prove less in value than we expected, then indeed its hav- ing been suspended only sinks it the more in our esteem ; but if it surpass all expectation, if it exceed desire itself when it makes its appearance, then its having been so long in coming only makes it the more welcome when come. “Hope deferred maketh the heart sick” for a time ; “but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life l’’ * See Help to Zion's Travellers, a piece published at the request of the Association by our brother Hall, pp. 139–141. Let us not think much at waiting a little while ; no, not though during that time exposed to great tribulations; since our dwelling before the throne will by this be ren- dered the more blissful, and our weight of glory by this increased. With what sacred pleasure did the patriarch Jacob resign his life, having waited for God’s salvation 1 With what unspeakable joy did good old Simeon embrace the long-looked for blessing ! With what raptures of bliss will the Lord again be welcomed on an approaching period, when all who love his appearing will unite, saying, “Lo, this is our God, we have waited for him l’’ Nay, it seems to be a glory in some sense peculiar to religion to reserve the best till the last.—That you may en- joy strong consolation, brethren, in your passage through life, God has placed his favours in a glorious ascending gradation. The inviting language of every one of them is, Press forward. The pleasures of the world and sin, if they speak truth, can afford no such encouragement to their admirers: no, Ezekiel's roll is descriptive of their utmost prospects; that roll which had written within and without “lamentations, mourning, and woe.” But religion presents a train of rising glories: he that enters it aright will find it like the waters of the sanctuary ; first to his ancles, then to his knees, then to his loins, and at last a river to swim in 1–The different stages of the church main- tain the same idea ; the Mosaic dispensation contained greater discoveries than the patriarchal ; the gospel con- tains greater than the Mosaic; latter-day glory will out- shine this ; and ultimate bliss will exceed them all. “Who is she that looketh forth as the morning, fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners?” Give us your attention, brethren, while we next attempt to point out the UTILITY of this heavenly grace throughout the Christian life.—Truly this is beyond expression. If hope in general is of so much use among men as to stimu- late them in all their labours, support them in their sor- rows, and extricate them from a thousand labyrinths in life—if by it they brave dangers, encounter hardships, and endure difficulties—if, in short, it be that by which, as a means, even God himself as it were bears up the pillars of the world—then what must be the use of that hope which, as we have already seen, so much surpasses this in excel- lence . As far as the objects of Christian hope exceed in value, and its grounds in solidity, those of natural hope, so far does the use of one exceed that of the other. Its spe- cial use will, however, be best ascertained by taking a view of some of those exercises, cases, and circumstances wherein you are concerned in your passage through life.— Particularly, You have known its value from the time when you were first converted unto God, when in that time of need it presented before you an all-sufficient refuge.—You remem- ber, dear brethren, it may be some of you particularly, “the wormwood and the gall” in that great work, which is commonly begun with a painful conviction of sin. You remember when a sense of the nature and demerit of sin, of your sin, was such that your souls had almost dwelt in silence Ah, you remember when the glorious character of God appeared, though excellent, yet terrible, approach- ing judgment unavoidable, and the Judge at the door And have you forgotten the “door of hope ’’ which then was opened to you? Have you forgotten the sound of the great trumpet which invited you to come when you were ready to perish 3 No, surely. While many, like Cain and Judas, despair of mercy, and so “die in the pit,” you have reason to bless God for having enabled you to “turn to the strong hold as prisoners of hope . .” Moreover, as servants of God, you have a great work to do.—Though the meritorious part of your salvation has been long since finished, yet there is a salvation for you still to work out. By prayer, by patience, by watchful- ness, and holy strife, you have to overcome the world, mortify sin, and run the race set before you. Hope is of excellent use in this great work. It is well denominated a “lively hope.” Its tendency is not to lull the soul asleep, but to rouse it to action. We trust, dear brethren, that the hope of which you are partakers will more and more animate your breasts with generous purposes, and prompt your souls to noble pursuits. For this you have the greatest encouragements surely that a God can give EXCELLENCY AND |UTILITY OF HOPE. 717 God will employ none in his service without making it their inestimable privilege. They that plough for him shall plough in hope. Mansions of bliss stand ready to receive you, and crowns of unfading glory to reward you ; therefore, beloved brethren, “be ye stedfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.” Again, You are attended with indwelling sin : a “body of sin,” which, in the account of every one that loves and longs for purity, is a body of death ; yea, worse than death itself!—You wish to think spiritually, pray fervently, hear profitably, and, in a word, grow in grace ; but this proves a dead weight to all : “the good that ye would, that ye do not l”—You wish to hate and avoid evil, and all its detestable appearances; but you find it in ten thousand forms haunting, surprising, and drawing you aside, so that too often “the evil that ye would not, that ye do , " We doubt not, dear brethren, but that in secret you frequently groan with the apostle, “O wretched man that I am who shall deliver me from the body of this death 3 '' Now we ask what can afford relief in this case, but a good hope through grace of being freed at the hour of death ? This proves a helmet in your spiritual warfare. This will in- spire you with courage in every conflict : nothing invigor- ates the soldier like the hope of conquering at last. With this you will tread down strength, and, in prospect of ap- proaching victory, sing with the apostle, “I thank God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” Again, You are subject to many fears and despondings of mind ere you reach your desired haven. Too often, through an unwatchful, unholy conduct, the Spirit of God is grieved. His presence once withdrawn, darkness will overspread the mind, and evidences for glory seem blotted out. Satan is often permitted at such seasons to stand as at your right hand, accusing you of your filthy garments; suggesting that such a one cannot be “a brand plucked out of the burning.” Under these exercises the mind is apt to be depressed beyond measure; the soul, afraid of acting presumptuously, in laying hold of consolation, is ready, strangely ready, to sink beneath the waves of dark despair. If any offer consolation, like Rachel on the loss of her children, he “refuseth to be comforted.” The spi- rit, at some such seasons, is so dejected, it is as if all must be given up. The painful language of the heart is, “The Lord hath forsaken me, and ” he whom I once thought “my God hath forgotten me !”—“My hope is dried up, and I am cut off for my part : ” Ah, farewell hope fare- well heaven farewell Christ!—No,-no, nor Christ, nor heaven, nor hope will suffer this Let deep call to deep, let waves, let billows overflow, deliverance shall arise, hope will not fail, but will afford relief. It will prove “an anchor to your soul, sure and stedfast.” Yes, it will cheer your heart, and enable you to sing, “Why art thou cast down, O my soul? and why art thou disquieted within me? hope thou in God, for I shall yet praise him, who is the health of my countenance, and my God : " Again, You are subject to various trying providences in your passage through life.—Enjoyments in this life are very pre- carious. While we are feathering our nests, and promising ourselves that we shall die therein unmolested, how soon are we disappointed yea, how many have been nearly stripped of their earthly all ! These, being deprived of al- most every comfort of this life, have then tasted the sweet- ness of hope in another. These look to their Maker, and their eyes have respect to the Holy ONE of Israel for the reparation of their losses. Thus sang the church in afflic- tion, stripped, and bound in Babel's yoke, “The Lord is my portion, saith my soul, therefore will I hope in him.” Some of you are poor in this world, and are subject to numerous hardships.-Yow are often entangled in mazes of difficulty ; you have a thousand fears that you shall never get honourably through life. Especially at times, God seems to have set you in “dark places; ” your hopes con- founded, your fears come upon you, and your prospects at an end | Yes, say you, “Surely against me is he turned; he turneth his hand against me all the day. He hath builded against me, and compassed me with gall and tra- vail. He hath enclosed my ways with hewn stone. He hath hedged me about that I cannot get out; he hath made my chain heavy 1 ° Poor people, we feel for you! where with shall we comfort you? Shall we recommend and exercise benevolence towards you in our respective churches 3 Shall we exhort you “to trust in the Lord, and do good ; ” and assure you, in God’s name, that “so shall ye dwell in the land, and verily ye shall be fed 4” Or shall we hold up before you a kingdom to which ye are heirs; a period when “every tear shall be wiped away?” O brethren, the hope of the gospel furnishes you with these strong consolations ! Again, You are members of Christian society; and though by your letters it appears you enjoy peace in general, yet you are not unacquainted with many things of a grieving ten- dency. In this state of imperfection offences will come. Unhappy feuds will sometimes arise, and grievous scandals will take place. When church members become self-suffi- cient, and cease to be afraid of entering into temptation— when carnal ease is substituted in the room of gospel peace —when love grows cold, and complaisance takes its place —when we are so watchful over one another as to forget ourselves—when godly jealousy is exchanged for an un- charitable temper, “more cruel than the grave ’’—when, instead of “submitting to one another in the fear of God,” each one becomes headstrong and resolved to have his own way—when superior gifts are envied, and inferior ones de- spised—when zeal for the truth degenerates into vain jangling—when we are very apt to take an offence, but not to forgive one—when talebearers are encouraged, and a spirit of animosity cherished—then, brethren, then expect “confusion, and every evil work.” We are happy that we can say (and blessed be God for it) that such a spirit is far from generally prevailing among you ; yet, so far as it does prevail, (which the all-seeing God knows is too far,) it dis- honours the great Head of the church, and wounds every upright member . However, this should be far from dis- couraging religious society itself; not to mention that these are things that must always be expected, more or less, in this state of trial, and that they always existed even in the purest ages; we can affirm, and ye are our witnesses, that it has pleasures which abundantly outweigh all these un- happinesses. Nor is this all : hope holds up a period, even within the limits of time, a heaven compared with the pre- sent state of things, when “holiness to the Lord shall be written as upon the bells of the horses, and Zion shall be- come a quiet habitation : " But this, say you, is a period that we have but little hope of living to see. Perhaps so : still you live in prospect of a better. Blessed society, where purity and amity for ever reign Yes, brethren, im- mediately on entering members of the church triumphant, you will “enter into peace,” and each one of you “walk.” for ever “in his uprightness!” Moreover, You are members of civil society.—You wish well to your country, and must have been the subjects of grief to see what you have of late years seen—its glory eclipsed by unhappy wars and dissensions ; to see it conspired against by surrounding nations and divided by domestic feuds, for- saken by its friends and derided by its enemies. It may be, at times, fear has been ready to seize you, and tempted you to ask, What will be the end of these things # The sounds of “Nineveh is fallen,” “Babylon is fallen,” yea, of “Judah is fallen,” has been long since heard in the world; and what, say you, are we better than they Under these exercises, brethren, we trust you have found, and will yet find, hope of excellent use to you. Great have been the deliverances your God has wrought in former ages, which afford a ground of hope to us. He can defend our coasts, and still preserve our country; yes, he can, and blessed be his name for any encouragement afforded us. Let us then hope and pray: “It may be the Lord God of hosts will be gracious to the remnant of his people.” Or should he refuse that, should a consumption be decreed to overflow, in righteousness, still he can preserve his faithful followers as he did Baruch, and those who “sighed and cried” in the day of Jerusalem's ruin. Nay, suppose him to refuse that ; suppose that not only your country must sink, but you must sink with it, and perish in the general wreck! Still all is not lost. Did your portion lie in this world, then, indeed, like the owner of a vessel whose all is on board, you might dread its sinking ; but seeing your inheritance is far beyond the reach of these vicissitudes, there is reason for you to mingle joy with trembling. Yes, 718 CIRCULAR LETTERS. brethren, we trust there is reason for you to unite with holy David, “God is our refuge and strength, a very pre- sent help in trouble—therefore will we not fear, though the earth be moved, and though the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea ” Once more, You and we all, by some means, must shortly die.—Be it so that no untimely end befall us, the hour cometh when we must bid farewell to every creature comfort; when every created union must be dissolved, and we appear before the judgment-seat of Christ : Oh, then to be without hope 1 better had we never been born | Let the reluctance and horror of those who are driven away in their wickedness teach us the value of a well-grounded hope in that awful hour. Verily, words cannot describe it, nor thoughts conceive it! Here is a rock when all beside sinks under us! With this, brethren, like the priests that bore the ark of God, your feet will stand firm amidst all the swellings of Jordan . With this you can behold the ghastly spectre, yea, the horrors of the grave itself, with a cheerful countenance, and sing with holy Job, “Although after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: whom I shall see for myself; mine eyes shall be- hold, and not another, though my reins be consumed within me!” Upon the whole, permit us to advise and exhort you, dear brethren, to a few things which become persons who have expectations like yours.--While you guard against presumption, beware of despair. The latter, as well as the former, is dangerous to men, and offensive to God. Despair is the death of action. To despair of mercy, and so never apply for it, is to act like the wicked and sloth- ful servant, than which nothing tends more to cast re- proach on the character of God. Even a man of honour cannot bear to be distrusted. While fear keeps you from presumption, let hope preserve you from despair. As condemned criminals in yourselves considered, cast your- selves on him for mercy; as servants, serve him cheerfully and rely on his bounty; and as suffering the loss of all things for him, trust him, like. Moses, to make up your losses. Remember, “the Lord taketh pleasure in them that fear him, in those that hope in his mercy.” Observe, also, he that has this hope must purify himself as Christ is pure.—He must take him for his example, and aim at no less than a complete conformity to his tem- per and spirit. That which true hope centres in is not only to see him as he is, but to be “like him.” Be con- stant, then, dear brethren, in holy exercises. We trust your hope is not of that kind which, in proportion as it increases, slackens the hand of diligence. Neglect neither public nor private duties; it is at the peril of your souls' welfare if you do | Shame may keep you to the one, but rather let the love of Christ constrain you to both. Think nothing too great to perform, too much to lose, or too hard to endure, that you may obtain so blessed a hope. O brethren, be it our daily concern and earnest endeavour to grow in every grace, to excel in every virtue. Remem- ber, he whose eyes are flames of fire surveys our heart and life: how transporting the thought, could we conceive him addressing each of us as he did the Thyatiran church, “I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first l” Finally, Use all means to cultivate this heavenly grace. —Remember sin is its worst enemy; beware of that. The Holy Spirit is its best friend; see that you grieve not him. Tribulations themselves, though they may seem to destroy it, in the end cherish it. They “work patience, and patience experience, and experience hope ;” there- fore be reconciled to them. Read the Holy Scriptures; pray in secret as well as openly ; though sojourners on earth, let your conversation be in heaven; learn to set light by this world ; court not its smiles, nor fear its frowns; live in daily expectation of dying, and die daily in humble expectation of living for evermore ; realize and anticipate those enjoyments and employments to which ye are hastening : in proportion to this, your desires will be strong and your hopes lively. Remember, hope is one of those graces which must do its all within the limits of time; “be sober,” therefore, “and hope to the end ; ” airn, like Enoch, to “walk with God.” till God shall take you ; “let your loins be girt, and your lights burning, and ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their Lord. Blessed are those servants whom the Lord when he cometh shall find so doing ! Verily, I say unto you,” said this blessed Lord of yours, (O hearken, and be aston- ished,) “Verily, I say unto you, that he shall gird him- self, and make them sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them ” Dearly beloved brethren, farewell “May our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, who hath loved us, and given us everlasting consolation, and good hope through grace, comfort your hearts, and stablish you in every good word and work!” 1785. CAUSES OF DECLENSION IN RELIGION, AND MEANS OF REVIVAL, DEARLY BELOVED BRETHREN, THROUGH the good hand of our God upon us we met together according to appointment, and enjoyed the plea- sure of an agreeable interview with several of our dear friends and brethren in the Lord. We trust also that our God was with us in the different stages of the opportunity. The letters from the several churches, which were attend- ed to the first evening of our meeting together, afforded us matter for pain and pleasure. Two of the associate churches continue destitute of the stated means of grace, others are tried with things of an uncomfortable nature, and most complain of the want of a spirit of fervour and constancy in the ways of God. Yet, on the other hand, we met with some things which afforded us pleasure. Many of our congregations are well attended; a spirit of desire after the word is, we think, upon the increase; nor are our labours, we hope, altogether in vain, as the work of the Lord, in a way of conversion, appears to be carry- ing on, though not in instances very remarkable. 'Tis true we have reason to bewail our own and others’ declensions, yet we are not, upon the whole, discouraged. It affords us no little satisfaction to hear in what manner the monthly prayer meetings which were proposed in our letter of last year have been carried on, and how God has been evidently present in those meetings, stirring up the hearts of his people to wrestle hard with him for the re- vival of his blessed cause. Though as to the number of members there is no increase this year, but something of the contrary; yet a spirit of prayer in some measure being poured out more than balances in our account for this de- fect. We cannot but hope, wherever we see a spirit of earnest prayer generally and perseveringly prevail, that God has some good in reserve, which in his own time he will graciously bestow. But while we rejoice to see such a spirit of united prayer, we must not stop here, brethren, lest in so doing we stop short. If we would hope for the blessing of God upon us, there must be added to this a spirit of earnest inquiry into the causes of our declensions, and a hearty de- sire and endeavour for their removal. When Israel could not go forward, but were smitten by the men of Ai, Joshua and the elders of the people prostrated themselves before the Lord. In this they did well; but this was not sufficient—“Get thee up,” said the Lord to his servant— “wherefore liest thou thus upon thy face 3 Israel hath sinned—Up, sanctify the people—and search for the ac- cursed thing !” This, it is apprehended, is the case with us, as well as it was with Israel ; and this must be our employment as well as theirs. With a view to assist you, brethren, and ourselves with you, in this very ne- cessary inquiry, we appropriate the present letter to THE POINTING OUT OF SOME OF THOSE EVILS WHICH WE AP- PREHEND TO BE CAUSES OF THAT DECLENSION OF WHICH so MANY CoMPLAIN, AND THE MEANS OF THEIR REMOVAL. The first thing that we shall request you to make in- quiry about is, whether there is not a great degree of con- tentedness with a mere superficial acquaintance with the RELIGIOUS DECLENSION. 719 gospel, without entering into its spirit and END ; and whether this be not one great cause of the declension com- plained of.-In the apostles' time, and in all times, grace and peace have ever been multiplied by the knowledge of God; and, in proportion as this has been neglected, those have always declined. If we are sanctified by the word of truth, then, as this word is received or disrelished, the work of sanctification must be supposed to rise or fall. We may give a sort of idle assent to the truths of God, which amounts to little more than taking it for granted that they are true, and thinking no more about them, un- less somebody opposes us; but this will not influence the heart and life, and yet it seems to be nearly the whole of what many attain to, or seek after. We maintain the doctrine of one infinitely glorious God; but do we realize the amiableness of his character? If we did, we could not avoid loving him with our heart, and soul, and mind, and strength.-We hold the doctrine of the universal depravity of mankind; but do we enter into its evil nature and awful tendency If we did the one, how much lower should we lie before God, and how much more should we be filled with a self-loathing spirit ! If the other, how should we feel for our fellow sinners! how earnest should we be to use all means, and have all means used, if it might please God thereby to pluck them as brands out of the burning !—We hold the doctrine of a trinity of Persons in the Godhead; but do we cordially enter into the glorious economy of redemption, wherein the conduct of the sacred Three is most glorious- ly displayed ? Surely if we did, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost would be with us more than it is.-We avow the doctrines of free, sovereign, and efficacious grace; but do we generally feel the grace therein discovered 3 If we did, how low should we lie how grateful should we be . We should seldom think of their sovereign and discriminating nature, without considering how justly God might have left us all to have had our own will, and followed our own ways; to have continued to increase our malady, and de- spise the only remedy I Did we properly enter into these subjects, we could not think of a great Saviour, and a great salvation, without loathing ourselves for being such great sinners; nor of what God had done for and given to us, without longing to give him our little all, and feeling an habitual desire to do something for him.—If we realized our redemption by the blood of Christ, it would be natural for us to consider ourselves as bought with a price, and therefore not our own ; “a price, all price beyond 1" O, could we enter into this, we should readily discern the force and propriety of our body and spirit being his ; his indeed dearly bought, and justly due !—Finally, we all profess to believe the vanity of this life and its enjoyments, and the infinitely superior value of that above; but do we indeed enter into these things? If we did, surely we should have more of heavenly-mindedness, and less of criminal attachment to the world. It is owing in a great degree to this contentment with a superficial knowledge of things, without entering into the spirit of them, that we so often hear the truths of the gos- pel, spoken of with a tone of disgust, calling them “dry doctrines '''. Whereas gospel truths, if preached in their native, simplicity, and received with understanding and cordiality, are the grand source of all well-grounded con- solation: We know of no consolation worth receiving but What arises from the influence of truth upon the mind. Christ's words are spirit and life to them who hunger and thirst after them, or have a heart to live upon them ; and could we but more thoroughly enter into this way of living, we should find the doctrines of the gospel, instead of being dry, to be what they were in the days of Moses, who de- clared. “My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew ; as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass,” Deut. xxxii. 2. O brethren, may it be our and your concern not to float upon the surface of Christianity, but to enter into the spirit of it! “For this cause” an apostle bowed his knees “ to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,” that we might “comprehend the breadth, and length, and depth, and height” of things; and for this cause we also wish to bow our knees, knowing that it is by this, if at all, that we are “filled with all the fulness of God,” Eph. iii. 14—19. Another thing which we apprehend to be a great cause of declension is, a contentedness with present attainments, without aspiring after EMINENCE in grace and holiness.-If we may judge of people's thoughts and aims by the general tenor of their conduct, there seems to be much of a con- tentment with about so much religion as is thought neces- sary to constitute them good men, and that will just suffice to carry them to heaven ; without aiming by a course of more than ordinary services to glorify God in their day and generation. We profess to do what we do with a view to glorify God, and not to be saved by it ; but is it so indeed ? Do these things look like it 3 How is it, too, that the positive institutions of Christ are treated with so little regard? Whence is it that we hear such language as this so often as we do—“Such a duty, and such an ordi- nance, is not essential to salvation—we may never be bap- tized in water, or become church members, and yet go to heaven as well as they that are 2 " . It is to be feared the old puritanical way of devoting ourselves wholly to be the Lord’s, resigning up our bodies, souls, gifts, time, property, with all we have and are to serve him, and frequently renewing these covenants before him, is now awfully neglected. This was to make a busi- ness of religion, a life's work, and not merely an accidental affair, occurring but now and then, and what must be at- tended to only when we can spare time from other en- gagements. Few seem to aim, pray, and strive after emi- ment love to God and one another. Many appear to be contented if they can but remember the time when they had such love in exercise, and then, tacking to it the no- tion of perseverance without the thing, they go on and on, satisfied, it seems, if they do but make shift just to get to heaven at last, without much caring how. If we were in a proper spirit, the question with us would not so much be, What must I do for God? as, What can I do for God? A servant that heartily loves his master counts it a privilege to be employed by him, yea, an honour to be intrusted with any of his concerns. If it is inquired, What then is to be done? wherein in particular can we glorify God more than we have dome 3 We answer by asking, Is there no room for amendment Have we been sufficiently earnest and constant in private prayer? Are there none of us that have opportunities to set apart particular times to pray for the effusion of the Holy Spirit 3 Can we do no more than we have done in instructing our families 3 Are there none of our depend- ants, workmen, or neighbours that we might speak to, at least so far as to ask them to go and hear the gospel 4 Can we rectify nothing in our tempers and behaviour in the world, so as better to recommend religion ? Cannot we watch more ? Cannot we save a little more of our sub- stance to give to the poor? In a word, is there no room or possibility left for our being more meek, loving, and re- sembling the blessed Jesus than we have been 3 To glorify God, and recommend by our example the re- ligion of the meek and lowly Jesus, are the chief ends for which it is worth while to live; but do we sufficiently pursue these ends 3 Even these chief ends of our exist- ence, are they in any good degree so much as kept in view 3 Ab, what have we done for God in the towns, villages, and families where we reside 3 Christians are said to be the light of the world, and the salt of the earth—do we answer these characters ? Is the world enlightened by us? Does a savour of Christ accompany our spirit and conversation ? Our business, as Christians, is practically to be holding forth the word of life. Have we, by our earnestness, sufficiently held forth its importance 2 or by our chaste conversation, coupled with fear, its holy tend- ency'ſ Have we all along, by a becoming firmness of spi- rit, made it evident that religion is no low, mean, or das- tardly business? Have we by a cheerful complacency in God's service, gospel, and providence sufficiently held forth the eaccellency of his government and the happy tend- ency of his holy religion ?—Doubtless, the most holy and upright Christians in these matters will find great cause for reflection, and room for amendment; but are there not many who scarcely ever think about them, or, if they do, it only amounts to this, to sigh, and go backward, resting 720 CIRCULAR LETTERS. satisfied with a few lifeless complaints, without any real and abiding efforts to have things otherwise? Another cause of declension, we apprehend, is making the religion of others our standard, instead of the word of God.-The word of God is the only safe rule we have to go by, either in judging what is real religion, or what ex- ertions and services for God are incumbent upon us. As it is unsafe to conclude ourselves real Christians because we may have such feelings as we have heard spoken of by some whom we account good men, so it is unjust to con- clude that we have religion enough because we may sup- pose ourselves to be equal to the generality of those that now bear that character. What if they be good men 3 they are not our standard—and what if their conversation in general be such as gives them a reputation in the re- ligious world? Christ did not say, Learn of them, but, Learn of me. Or if in a measure we are allowed to follow them who through faith and patience inherit the promises, still it is with this restriction, as far as they are followers of Christ. Alas, how much is the professing part of mankind go- verned by ill example | If the question turns upon re- ligious diligence, as, How often shall I attend at the house of God—once or twice on the Lord’s day? or how fre- quently shall I give my company at church meetings, opportunities for prayer, and such like 3 is not the answer commonly governed by what others do in these cases, rather than by what is right in itself?—So, if it turns on łęberality, the question is not, What am I able to spare in this case, consistent with all other obligations? but, What does Mr. such a one give 3 I shall do the same as he does. —Something of this kind may not be wrong, as a degree of proportion among friends is desirable ; but if carried to too great lengths, we must beware lest our attention to precedent should so far exclude principle in the affair as to render even what we do unacceptable in the sight of God.—So if the question turns on any particular piece of conduct, whether it be defensible or not, instead of search- ing the Bible, and praying to be led in the narrow way of truth and righteousness, how common is it to hear such language as this—Such and such good men do so; surely, therefore, there can be no great harm in it !—In short, great numbers appear to be quite satisfied if they are but about as strict and as holy as other people with whom they are connected. - Many ill effects appear evidently to arise from this quarter. Hence it is that, for the want of bringing our religion and religious life to the test of God’s holy word, we are in general so wretchedly deficient in a sense of our vast and constant defects, have no spirit to press forward, but go on and on, without repentance for them, or so much as a thought of doing otherwise.—Hence also there is so much vanity and spiritual pride among us. While we content ourselves with barely keeping pace with one an- other, we may all become wretched idlers, and loose walkers; and yet, as one is about as good as another, each may think highly of himself; whereas, bring him and his companions with him to the glass of God's holy word, and if they have any sensibility left, they must see their odious picture, abhor themselves, and feel their former conduct as but too much resembling that of a company of evil conspirators who kept each other in countenance.— Finally, To this it may be ascribed in part that so many are constantly waxing worse and worse, more and more loose and careless in their spirit and conduct.—For those who are contented not to do better than other people, generally allow themselves to do a little worse. An imi- tator is scarcely ever known to equal an original in the good, but generally exceeds him in the bad ; not only in imitating his feelings, but adding others to their number. If we would resemble any great and good man, we must do as he does, and that is, keep our eye upon the mark, and follow Christ as our model. It is by this means that he has attained to be what he is. Here we shall be in no danger of learning any thing amiss; and truly we have failings enow of our own, in not conforming to the model, without deriving any more from the imperfections of the model itself. Once more, — The want of considering THE consE- QUENCES OF OUR OWN GOOD AND EVIL CONDUCT is, we ap- prehend, another great cause of declension in many people, —It is common for people on many occasions to think within themselves in some such manner as this—“What signify my faults, or my efforts? They can weigh but little for or against the public good. What will my prayers avail? and what great loss will be sustained by an indi- vidual occasionally omitting the duty of prayer, or attend- ance on a church meeting, or it may be the public worship and ordinances of God? And what consequences will follow if one be a little now and then off one's watch— nobody is perfect,” &c. &c. This, and a great deal more such horrid atheism, it is to be feared, if a thorough search were made, would be found to lie at the bottom of our common departures from God. If, when an army goes forth to engage the enemy, every soldier were to reason with himself thus—Of what great consequence will my services be 3 it is but little execution that I can do ; it will make but very little difference, therefore, if I desert or stand neuter—there are enow to fight without me,”—what would be the consequence 2 Would such reasoning be admitted ? Was it admitted in the case of the Reubenites, who cowardly abode by their sheep-folds while their brethren jeoparded their lives upon the high places in the field 3 Was not Meroz cursed with a bitter curse because its inhabitants came not forth to the help of the Lord in the day of the mighty ? Judg. v. 15, 16, 23. If an army would hope to obtain the victory, every man should act as if the whole issue of the battle depended upon his conduct : so, if ever things go well in a religious view, it will be when every one is concerned to act as if he were the only one that remained on God’s side. We may think the efforts of an individual to be trifling; but, dear brethren, let not this atheistical spirit prevail over us. It is the same spawn with that cast forth in the days of Job, when they asked concerning the Almighty, “What profit shall we have if we pray unto him 3’’ At this rate Abraham might have forborne interceding for Sodom, and Daniel for his brethren of the captivity. James also must be mistaken in saying that the prayer of a single, individual righteous man availeth much. Ah, brethren, this spirit is not from above, but cometh of an evil heart of unbelief departing from the living God . Have done with that bastard humility, that teaches you such a sort of thinking low of your own prayers and exertions for God as to make you decline them, or at least to be slack or indifferent in them Great things frequently rise from small begin- nings. Some of the greatest good that has ever been done in the world has been set a going by the efforts of an in- dividual.—Witness the Christianizing of a great part of the heathen world by the labours of a Paul, and the glorious reformation from popery began by the struggles of a Luther. It is impossible to tell what good may result from one earnest wrestling with God, from one hearty exertion in his cause, or from one instance of a meek and lowly spirit, overcoming evil with good. Though there is nothing in our doings from which we could look for such great things, yet God is pleased frequently to crown our poor services with infinite reward. Such conduct may be, and often has been, the means of the conversion and eternal salva- tion of souls; and who that has any Christianity in him would not reckon this reward enough 3 A realizing sense of these things would stir us all up ; ministers to preach the gospel to every creature, private Christians, situated in this or that dark town or village, to use all means to have it preached, and both to recommend it to all around by a meek and unblemished conversation. Again, We may think the faults of an individual to be trifling, but they are not so. For the crime of Achan the army of Israel suffered a defeat, and the whole camp could not go forward. Let us tremble at the thought of being a dead weight to the society of which we are members — Besides, the awful tendency of such conduct is seen in its contagious influence. If people continue to be governed by example, as they certainly will in a great degree, then there is no knowing what the consequences will be, nor where they will end. A single defect or slip, of which we may think but little at the time, may be copied by our children, servants, neighbours, or friends, over and over again; yea, it may be transmitted to posterity, and pleaded RELIGIOUS DECLENSION. 72I as a precedent for evil when we are no more | Thus it may kindle a fire which, if we ourselves are saved from it, may nevertheless burn to the lowest hell, and aggravate the everlasting misery of many around us, who are “flesh of our flesh, and bone of our bone !” These, brethren, we apprehend, are some of the causes, among many others, which have produced those declen- sions which you and we lament. But what do we say? Do we indeed lament them 3 If we do, it will be natural for us to inquire, What shall we do? What means can be wsed towards their removal, and a happy revival 2 If this be now indeed the object of our inquiry, we cannot do better than to attend to the advice of the great Head of the church to a backsliding people—“Remember from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do thy first works.” —“Be watchful, and strengthen the things that remain that are ready to die.”—“Remember how thou hast re- ceived and heard, and hold fast, and repent l’’ Rev. ii. 5; iii. 2, 3. Particularly, First, Let us recollect the best periods of the Christian church, and compare them with the present ; and the best parts of our own life, if we know when they were, and com- pare them with what we now are.—A recollection of the disinterested zeal and godly simplicity of the primitive Christians, and their successors in after-ages, millions of whom, in Christ’s cause, loved not their lives unto death, would surely make us loathe ourselves for our detestable lukewarmness . As protestants, let us think of the fervent zeal and holy piety of our Reformers—think what objects they grasped, what difficulties they encountered, and what ends they obtained . As Protestant Dissenters, let us re- flect on the spirit and conduct of our puritan and non- conforming ancestors. Think how they served God at the expense of all that was dear to them in this world, and laid the foundation of our churches in woods, and dens, and caves of the earth ! Say, too, was their love to God more than need be 4 Is the importance of things abated since their death º Might not they have pleaded the danger and cruelty of the times in excuse for a non-appear- ance for God, with much more seeming plausibility than we can excuse our spirit of hateful indifference º O let us remember whence we are fallen, and repent : As to our own lives, if we are real Christians, probably we can remember times wherein the great concerns of sal- vation seemed to eclipse all other objects. We covenanted with God—we resigned over all to him—we loved to be his, wholly his, rather than our own—we were willing to do any thing, or become any thing, that should glorify his name. And is it so now * No 1 but why not ? what ini- quity have we found in him, that we are gone away back- ward 3 “O my people, saith the Lord, what have I done unto thee 3 wherein have I wearied thee ? Testify against me !” Have I been a hard master, or a churlish father, or a faithless friend? Have I not been patient enough with you, or generous enough towards you? Could I have done any thing more for you that I have not done 3 Was the covenant you made with me a hard bargain? Was it hard on your side for me to be made sin, who knew no sin, that you might be made the righteousness of God in me ! Were the rewards of my service such as you could not live upon ? Is it better with you now than then 3 O Christian reader pause awhile ; lay aside the paper, and retire be- fore God! reflect, and pour out thy soul before him.—Say unto him, “O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto thee, but unto us confusion of face : " Thus, thus, remember whence thou art fallen, and repent : But do not stop here—think it not sufficient that we lament and mourn over our departures from God; we must return to him with full purpose of heart—“Strength- en the things that remain which are ready to die.” Cher- ish a greater love to the truths of God—pay an invariable regard to the discipline of his house—cultivate love to one another—frequently mingle souls by frequently assembling yourselves together—encourage a meek, humble, and sa- voury spirit, rather than a curious one. These are some of the things among us that are “ready to die l’” To this it is added, “Do thy first works.”—Fill up your places in God's worship with that earnestness and constancy as when you were first seeking after the salvation of your souls—flee from those things which conscience, in its most tender and best informed state, durst not meddle with, though since perhaps they may have become trifling in your eyes—walk in your family, in the world, and in the church, with God always before you—live in love, meekness, and forbearance with one another—whatever your hands find you to do, “do it with all your might; ” seeking to promote, by all means, the present and eternal welfare of all around you. Finally, brethren, let us not forget to intermingle prayer with all we do.'s Our need of God’s Holy Spirit to enable us to do any thing, and every thing, truly good, should ex- cite us to this. Without his blessing all means are without efficacy, and every effort for revival will be in vain. Con- stantly and earnestly, therefore, let us approach his throne. Take all occasions especially for closet prayer ; here, if any where, we shall get fresh strength, and maintain a life of communion with God. Our Lord Jesus used frequently to retire into a mountain alone for prayer: he, therefore, that is a follower of Christ, must follow him in this important duty. Bian, beloved brethren, farewell! “ Unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy—to the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, do- minion and power, both now and ever. Amen.” I 795. WHY CHRISTIANS IN THE PRESENT DAY POS. SESS LESS JOY THAN THE PRIMITIVE DIS- CIPLES. DEAR BRETHREN, WHILE the judgments of God are abroad in the earth, and multitudes are trembling for the fate of nations, and dread- ing lest famine, or war, or pestilence, which have desolated other countries, should receive a commission to lay waste our own, we have reason to bless God that he has mani- fested his care of his churches, by continuing the gospel among us, and granting it to be attended with some in- creasing success. The wall of Jerusalem is built up even in troublous times; and we were not only permitted to assemble in peace, but received tidings from most of the churches of a peculiarly pleasing nature. In our letter of last year we addressed you on the nature and grounds of joy in God. In pursuance of the resolution of the last association, we shall in this attempt an answer to the following inquiry: WHY Is IT THAT CHRISTIANS IN THE PRESENT DAY COME SO FAR SHORT OF THE PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANS IN THE PossEssion of Joy 3 That the thing itself is a fact ean admit but little doubt. It is true, the joy of the primitive Christians was not al- ways the same : previous to the resurrection and ascension of Christ they appeared to possess it in a far less degree than afterwards; and in their brightest days they, no doubt, as well as we, occasionally experienced intervening clouds. The account, nevertheless, which is given of them, intimates that a vein of sacred enjoyment ram through their lives. No sooner had they beheld the Lord Jesus taken up into heaven than they returned “to Jerusalem with great joy, and were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. And after the day of Pentecost, and the addition of three thousand souls by the preaching of Peter, they are described as “continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and eating their meat with gladness and sin- gleness of heart.” Persecution itself did not destroy their happiness, but helped, on some considerations, to increase it. Having been summoned before the Jewish council for preaching Christ, they “departed, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name’s sake.” Co- vered with stripes, thrust into an inner prison, and with their feet made fast in the stocks, “at midnight Paul and Silas prayed, and sung praises to God!” Nor was this happy frame of mind confined to the apostles, or to the first few years after the introduction of Christianity: Peter could say of the generality of Christians at the time 3 A 722 LETTERS. CIRCULAR when he wrote his First Epistle, “Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet, be- lieving, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable, and full of glory.” Such accounts of the primitive disciples afford an affect- ing view of the great disparity between them and the generality of modern Christians. The following particu- lars, amongst others, must needs strike an attentive ob- server:—First, They rejoiced in all their labours, complying with the commands of Christ rather as an honour and a privilege than as mere matter of duty. The prompt and cheerful manner in which they attended to Divine institu- tions exhibits a lovely picture of genuine Christianity. “They that gladly received the word were baptized.—And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fel- lowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.” There is not a single instance in all the New Testament of an avowed Christian living in the neglect of the ordinances of Christ. Such an idea seems never to have entered into their minds; but it is unnecessary to say that with us it is a common case.—Secondly, They rejoiced, as we have seen, in tribulation, considering the reproaches of the world as an honour, and counting it all joy when they fell into divers temptations: but the highest exercises of grace that are common amongst us fall short in this particular ; instead of rejoicing in tribulation, we are ready to account it pretty much if we rejoice notwithstanding it.—Thirdly, They ex- perienced an habitual consciousness of their being the sub- jects of gracious dispositions, and consequently enjoyed a settled persuasion of their interest in Christ. In all the New Testament we have scarcely an instance of a Chris- tian being at a loss to perceive the evidence of his Chris- tianity. What are called doubts and fears amongst us, and which make up so large a proportion of our religious ex- periences, seem to have occupied scarcely any place amongst them. This fact, if there were no other, calls for serious inquiry into the cause or causes of it. The lan- guage that we are in the habit of using, when speaking of our love, or faith, or obedience, betrays a sad defect in the exercise of these heavenly graces. Instead of being able to say, “Lord, thou knowest all things, thou knowest that I love thee”—“I have believed, and therefore have I spoken”—“God, whom I serve in the gospel,”—and the like, we are ready to be startled at such professions, and feel ourselves under a kind of necessity to soften the lan- guage into a wish, a willingness, or a desire. I desire to love, I would believe, I wish to be obedient, are expres- sions which frequently occur in our prayers and hymns; but wishing to love, and desiring to obey, when substi- tuted in the place of love and obedience themselves, are inadmissible. Such language is unknown in the Scrip- tures, unless it be found in the character of the slothful, whose desire is said to kill him ; and indicates, to say the least, but a small degree of real religion. To account for this disparity is of importance, as by a knowledge of the causes of a malady we may be directed to the proper means of a cure. Peculiar dejection in in- dividuals may often be accounted for from the peculiarity of their habits, constitution, circumstances, opportunities, and connexions; but when it affects a body or generation of men, it must be traced to other causes. Why should not we go on our way rejoicing in the same manner, and to the same degree, as the primitive Christians? We have the same gospel, the same promises, and the same hopes. The joy and peace which they experienced was in believ- ing : the great, interesting, and transporting truths of the gospel were the source whence they derived their bliss. The Lord Messiah was come according to promise, and by laying down his life had delivered all who should be- lieve in him from the wrath to come.—Through his death also they were freed from the spirit of bondage attendant on the former dispensation, and received the Spirit of adoption, whereby they cried, Abba, Father.—The thun- ders of Sinai gave place to the blessings of Zion, the city of the living God; to the holy society of which, as to a kind of heaven upon earth, they were introduced.—Com- missioned to publish these glad tidings to every creature, and persuaded that the cause in which they had engaged would sooner or later universally prevail, they laboured with courage and unwearied assiduity, and the work of the Lord prospered in their hands.-Finally, in hope of eternal life, the joy set before them, like their Lord and Master, they endured the cross, despised the shame, and went and sat down with him on his throne, as he had overcome, and sat down with his Father on his throne. Now which of these sources of joy has been exhausted ? Are not Christ and the gospel, and its promises, the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever? Is not God as willing now that the heirs of promise should have strong consola- tion as he was formerly 3 Are not the great blessings of eternal life as real and as interesting in the present age as in any that have gone before ? and being promised to the smallest degree of real grace, even to the giving of a cup of cold water to a disciple of Jesus because he be- longs to him, can it, in ordinary cases, be a difficult matter for a decided friend of Christ to obtain a clear satisfaction of his interest in them ż Wherefore is it then, if the Son hath made us free, that we are not, in the most extensive meaning of the term, free indeed ? Some would probably attribute the whole to Divine sovereignty, alleging that the Holy Spirit divideth to every age and generation, as well as to every man, severally as he will. It is allowed that the Holy Spirit, in all his gifts and operations, acts in a way of sovereignty, since we have no claim upon him for any thing which he bestows; but it does not belong to the idea of sovereignty that there be no reason for it, or wisdom in it. The Holy Spirit divideth to every age and every man severally as he will, but he always willeth what is wise and good, or what is best upon the whole. The sovereignty of creatures may degenerate into caprice ; but this cannot be supposed of God. Now it belongs to the wisdom of God to bestow his favours in such a way as to encourage righteousness, and stamp an honour upon the means of his own appoint- ment; hence it is that the joys of salvation, though be- stowed in a way of sovereignty, are generally connected with a close walk with God, and communicated through means adapted to the end. It has been thought by others that the difference be- twixt us and the primitive Christians, in these things, may be accounted for, at least in some degree, by a dif- ference of circumstances. Life and immortality were brought to light, as the Scriptures express it, by the gos- pel. The wonderful transition therefore which they ex- perienced, some of them from the darkness of Judaism, and others from the still grosser darkness of paganism, together with the great success of their labours, must have forcibly impressed their minds with both surprise and joy. There is some truth, no doubt, in this observa- tion ; but it ought to be considered, on the other hand, that our circumstances are in some respects more favour- able to joy than theirs; sufficiently so perhaps to balance, if not overbalance, those in which theirs were superior to ours. Let the following things be considered in con- nexion with each other : First, Glorious things are spoken in prophecy of what shalſ be done for the church in the last periods of time. All the light and glory that have ever yet appeared will be eclipsed by what is to come. One peculiar characteristic of the kingdom of Christ is, that it is progressive. God is saying to his church under every new dispensation, or period of her existence, “Re- member not the former things, neither consider the things of old : behold, I do a new thing in the earth.”—As if he should say, You may forget the past, and yet have enough to fill you with joyful admiration. The Jewish dispensa- tion contained a greater display of God than had ever been made before; yet, compared with the dawn of gospel glory, it was but as the moon to the sun ; and glorious as this was, with regard to all that had gone before, it will bear no comparison to that which is to follow after. Not only shall “the moon be confounded,” but “the sun ashamed, when the Lord of hosts shall reign in Mount Zion, and before his ancients gloriously l’” Secondly, The time when things shall be accomplished cannot be very far off. The sacred writers of the New Testament fre- quently intimate that they had passed the meridian of time, and were entered, as it were, into the afternoon of the world. They speak of their times as the last days, and of themselves as those “on whom the ends of the world were come.” They declared that “the end of all things was at hand; ” that the Judge was “at the door;” WHY MODERN CHRISTIANS ARE DEFICIENT IN JOY. 723 and the concluding warning of the book of God is couched in this strong expression, “Surely I come quickly l’ But if the end of all things was then at hand, what must we think of it after a lapse of nearly 1800 years? Thirdly, It is highly probable, if not more than probable, that in the ages yet to come there may be much more effected than in all preceding ages put together. Some of the greatest events in prophecy we know remain to be accomplished ; particularly, the utter downfal of antichrist, the conversion of the Jews, and the universal spread of true religion : but if the end of all things be at hand, and such great events are first to be accomplished, we have every reason to expect great changes, in quick succession, and at no great distance of time. The convulsions of the present day may, for aught we know, be some of the throes of creation travailing in pain for the glorious liberty of the sons of God. At all events, the day of the church’s re- demption draweth nigh; it is time therefore to “lift up our heads,” and to go forth in prayer, and praise, and joy- ful exertion to meet the Bridegroom. Could the apostles and primitive Christians have been placed in our situation, they would have rejoiced with joy unspeakable and full of glory.—We must turn our attention then to some other objects besides the circumstances in which we are placed as the causes of our want of joy. We pass over the cases of such as indulge themselves in known sin, or live in the neglect of known duty, as cases easily accounted for, at one period of time as well as another; and confine our inquiry to those whose conver- sation is allowed in general to be regular and circumspect; so much so, at least, as to be equal to that of the body of professing Christians around them. In the first place, Let it be considered whether it does not arise from the want of a greater degree of religion in general.—Joy is a grace which cannot thrive by itself; it is a kind of appendage to the lively exercise of other graces. “With joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation.”—“Hitherto ye have asked nothing in my name; ask, and receive, that your joy may be full.”— “The kingdom of God is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.” From these passages, and many others which might be cited, it is apparent that holy joy stands connected with appropriating the great truths of the gos- pel to our particular cases—with importunate prayer in the name of Christ—and with the practice of righteousness and peace. The same persons who were daily employed in praising and blessing God have this testimony given of them, “and great grace was upon them all.” Secondly, Let it be considered whether another reason be not our neglect of a more frequent and intense applica- tion to those objects whence joy arises.—We have seen al- ready, that the sources from which the primitive Christians derived their joy were the great doctrines of the gospel; but it is a lamentable fact, that the generality of professing Christians amongst us content themselves with a very su- perficial knowledge of these things. There are but few even amongst the godly in our day, that so enter into the spirit and glory of the gospel as clearly to distinguish it from error speciously disguised. Hence, if a minister who is much respected by his people turn aside from even important truth, it is common for many of them to go off with him. If Christians were properly rooted and ground- ed in the gospel—if they understood not only what they believe, but wherefore they believe it—they would not be shaken with every wind of doctrine; nor would many of the principles which prevail in the present age excite even a momentary hesitation in their minds. But if we do not so understand the truth as clearly to distinguish it from error, it cannot be supposed that we should be greatly affected by it. It is by drawing waters from the wells of salvation that we have joy; but these wells are deep, and, in proportion as we are wanting in an understanding of Divine things, we may be said to have nothing to draw with. Thirdly, To this may be added the want of public spirit. —The primitive Christians were all intent on disseminat- ing the gospel through the world; and it was in the midst of this kind of employment, and the persecutions which attended it, that they are said to have been “filled with joy and the Holy Ghost,” Acts xiii. 52. Much of the joyful part of religion is lost by rendering it the immediate object of our pursuit. The chief end for which great num- bers read their Bibles, and hear the word, is that they may be comforted, and obtain some satisfaction of their being in a state of salvation; but this is not the way in which the comforts of the gospel are obtained. There are things which, if pursued as our chief end, will elude our grasp and vanish from our sight: such is reputation amongst men, and such is religious joy. If we pursue the public good, not for the sake of applause, but from a disinterested regard to the well-being of our species, reputation will follow us; and if the glory of God and the prosperity of his cause occupy the first place in our affection, we shall not in ordinary cases be wanting in peace and heavenly consolation. If a portion of that time which we spend in ransacking for evidence in the mass of past experiences, were employed in promoting the cause of God in the world, and seeking the welfare of the souls and bodies of men, it would turn to a better account. In seeking the salvation of others we should find our own. The love of Zion has the promise of personal prosperity. Ardently to promote the honour of God, and the good of mankind, is itself an evidence, and the highest evidence, of true re- ligion : while, therefore, we feel conscious of the purity of our present motives, we have less occasion for re- flections on the past. There is a much greater satisfac- tion too in this way of obtaining comfort than in the other; for however former exercises of grace might be strong and decisive at the time, yet it must be difficult to realize them merely by a distant recollection. It is much better also, and more for our profit, to live in the exercise of grace, than barely to remember that we did so at some former period of our lives. We appeal to your own hearts, brethren, with respect to your late disinterested exertions for carrying the gospel amongst the heathem,--we appeal to those of you especially who have had the undertaking most at heart, whether, since your own comfort has in a sort been overlooked, and swallowed up in concern for the salvation of others, you have not felt more of the joy- ful part of religion than you did before; yea, may we not add, more than at any former period in your remembrance? Fourthly, Much may be owing to our viewing the miaº- ture of evils which pervade creation on a contracted scale. —If the evils which befall creatures be considered merely as evils, and our minds are disposed to pore upon them, we must necessarily feel dejected; but if every partial evil contribute to the general good—if every adversity, whether it respect our persons, families, Christian con- nexions, country, or species, be but as a wheel acting upon other wheels, and all necessary to complete the vast but well-ordered machinery—the contemplation of evil itself in this view must raise the heart instead of depress- ing it. The miseries of the present and of the future life, if contemplated by a good man merely as evils, must over- whelm him and destroy his present peace. What can he do He cannot shun the abodes of the wretched in this world, and so put the thoughts of their miseries far from him, for that were inhumanity; neither can he allow him- self to doubt of the execution of Divine threatenings in the world to come, for that were to arraign the justice, goodness, wisdom, and veracity of God in denouncing them : but he may view things on an enlarged scale, and thus perceive that all is right and best upon the whole. This is to be of one mind with God, and so to be truly happy. It is in this way that we are reconciled to our own adversities: could Jacob have seen through the gra- cious designs of God with regard to his children, or, though he might be unable to do this, had he properly recollected the Divine promise, “I will surely do thee good,” he would not have concluded, as he did, that all these things were against him. It is thus that upon some occasions we are reconciled to the miseries of a public execution. Awful beyond con- ception it must be to the party who suffer; but justice may require the sacrifice. However natural affection, therefore, may for a moment revolt at the idea of inflict- ing death, all concern for a suffering individual is absorbed by the love of our species, and a regard for the general good. It is thus that the heavenly inhabitants are de- scribed as being not only reconciled to the overthrow of 3 A 2 724 CIRCULAR LETTERS. mystical Babylon, but as rejoicing in it. While the mer- chants who traded in her wares bitterly lament her fall, crying, “Alas! alas ! that great city . In one hour is she made desolate l’” the friends of God are called to a very different employment : “Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets, for God hath avenged you on her. - And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven saying, Hallelujah t—true and righteous are his judgments, for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand. And again they said, Hallelujah—and her smoke rose up for ever and ever !” Was there any malevolence or un- christian bitterness in all this ? No: it was only viewing things on a large scale; viewing them as God views them, and feeling accordingly. The primitive Christians were in the habit of consider- ing all things as working together for good, and so of de- riving joy from every occurrence. If the world smiled upon them, they rejoiced, and availed themselves of the opportunity for spreading the gospel; or if it frowned on them for their attachment to Christ, they rejoiced that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name’s sake. By thus converting every thing into food for joy, they answered to the exhortations of the apostles, “Let the brother of low degree rejoice that he is exalted; but the rich in that he is made low.”—“Beloved, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations.”—“Rejoice ever- more.—In every thing give thanks.” If we would feel like them, we must enter into their views; we must have less of the complaining patriarch, as well as of the whin- ing merchants; and more of that temper which prompted the holy inhabitants of heaven, on every new dispensation of providence, to cry, “Amen, Hallelujah!” Fifthly, Much is owing, no doubt, to a spirit of con- Jormity to the present world, by which many Christians, especially those in prosperous circumstances, are influenced. It was a complaint made by one of the fathers (Cyprian) in the middle of the third century, a time when the church had enjoyed a considerable respite from persecution, that “each one studied how to increase his patrimony, and, forgetting what the faithful had done in apostolic times, or what they ought always to do, their great passion was an insatiable desire of enlarging their fortunes.” This complaint, every one knows, is too applicable to our times. The primitive Christians were persecuted. The Waldenses, the Reformers, the puritans, and the non- conformists were the same ; and, having but little security for property, they had but little motive to increase it: being driven also from the society of their persecutors, they were under very little temptation to imitate their manners; their trials were great, but they were of a dif- ferent kind from ours. Having long enjoyed the bless- ings of religious liberty, we have relaxed in watchfulness, and the world has seemed in a measure to have lost its enmity, and to smile upon us. In consequence of this we have become upon more friendly terms with it; not merely by behaving courteously and affectionately to men in com- mon, which is our duty; but by imbibing their spirit, courting their company, and subjecting ourselves to a servile compliance with their customs. These things were extremely unfriendly to true religion. If the cares of this world be compared to thorns, which choke the word, the alluring pleasures of it are with no less propriety compared to the burning sun, through whose influence many a promising plant has withered away. Or, should the root of the matter be found in us, yet if our heads and hearts are occupied with appearance, dress, entertainments, and the like, there can be but little room for heaven or heavenly things; and consequently this joy- ful part of religion will be slighted and lost. Finally, It is not to be dissembled that much is to be traced to the manner in which the gospel is preached. The Holy Spirit ordinarily works by means of the word. It is the office of ministers to be “helpers of your joy;” but if they partake of the spirit common to the age in which they live, their preaching will partake of it too. If the great and interesting truths of the gospel are not tho- roughly understood, and felt, they cannot, in the ordinary course of things, be communicated in such a manner as greatly to interest the hearts of others. While, therefore, we recommend serious reflection to you, brethren, you also have a right to expect the same of us; and we trust we are willing to receive as well as to administer the word of exhortation. Dear brethren, farewell ! 1799. THE DISCIPLINE OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCHES ILLUS- TRATED AND ENFORCED. BELovED BRETHREN, WHEN the apostles, by the preaching of the word, had gathered in any place a sufficient number of individuals to the faith of Christ, it was their uniform practice, for the further promotion of his kingdom in that place, to proceed to the forming of them into a religious society, or Chris- tian church. Being thus associated, in the name of Christ, Divine worship was carried on, Christian ordinances ob- served, holy discipline maintained, and the word of life, as the light by the golden candlesticks, exhibited. Amongst them our Lord Jesus Christ, as the High Priest of our profession, is represented as walking ; observing the good, and applauding it; pointing out the evil, and censuring it ; and holding up life and immortality to those that should overcome the temptations of the present state. Let us suppose him to walk amongst our churches, and to address us in the manner he addressed the seven churches in Asia. We trust he would find some things to approve; but we are also apprehensive he would find many things to censure. Let us, brethren, look narrowly into the dis- cipline of the primitive churches, and compare our own With it. By discipline we do not mean to include the whole of the order of a Christian church. We have already touched on these subjects in the course of our annual address to you. The particular object to which we shall, at this time, request your attention, is that part of church go- vernment which consists in A MUTUAL WATCH OVER ONE ANOTHER, AND THE conDUCT we ARE DIRECTED TO PURsue IN CASEs OF DISORDER. A great part of our duty consists in cultivating what is lovely, but this is not the whole of it ; we must prune as well as plant, if we would bear much fruit, and be Christ's disciples. One of the things applauded in the church of Ephesus was, that they could not bear them that were evil. Yet we are not to suppose from hence that no irregular- ity or imperfection whatever is an object of forbearance. If uniformity be required in such a degree as that every difference in judgment or practice shall occasion a separ- ation, the churches may be always dividing into parties, which we are persuaded was never encouraged by the apostles of our Lord, and cannot be justified in trivial or ordinary cases. A contrary practice is expressly taught us in the Epistle to the Romans (chap. xiv.); and the cases in which it is to be exercised are there pointed out. An object of forbearance, however, must be one that may exist without being an occasion of dispute and wrangling in the church ; it must “not be to doubtful disputations,” ver. 1. It must also respect things which do not enter into the essence of God’s kingdom, the leading principles of which are “righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost,” ver. 16, 17. That which does not subvert the gospel of the kingdom, nor set aside the authority of the King, though it be an imperfection, is yet to be borne with. Finally, it must be something which does not “ destroy the work of God,” or which is not inconsistent with the progress of vital religion in the church, or in one’s own soul, ver. 20. In all such cases we are not to judge one another, but every man’s conscience is to be his judge, ver. 23. In attending to those things which are the proper objects of #. our first concern should be to see that all our measures are aimed at the good of the party, and the honour of God. Both these ends are pointed out in the DISCIPLINE OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCHES. 725 case of the Corinthian offender. All was to be done “that his spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord,” and to clear themselves as a church from being partakers of his sin. If these ends be kept in view, they will preserve us from much error; particularly from the two great evils into which churches are in danger of falling—false lenity, and unchristian severity. There is often a party found in a community, who, under the name of tenderness, are for neglecting all wholesome discipline ; or, if this cannot be accomplished, for delaying it to the utmost. Such persons are commonly the advocates for disorderly walkers, espe- cially if they be their particular friends or relations. Their language is, “He that is without sin, let him cast the first stone.” My brother hath fallen to-day, and I may fall to- morrow. This spirit, though it exists only in individuals, provided they be persons of any weight or influence, is fre- quently known to impede the dure execution of the laws of Christ; and if it pervade the community, it will soon reduce it to the lowest state of degeneracy. Such for a time was the spirit of the Corinthians; but when brought to a proper sense of things, “what carefulness it wrought in them, yea, what clearing of themselves, yea, what in- dignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge l’”—In opposing the extreme of false tenderness, others are in danger of falling into un- feeling severity. This spirit will make the worst of every thing, and lead men to convert the censures of the church into weapons of private revenge. Persons of this descrip- tion know not of what manner of spirit they are. They lose sight of the good of the offender. It is not love that operates in them ; for love worketh no evil. The true medium between these extremes is a union of mercy and truth. Genuine mercy is combined with faithfulness, and genuine faithfulness with mercy; and this is the only spirit that is likely to “purge iniquity,” Prov. xvi. 6. Connivance will produce indifference; and undue severity will arm the offender with prejudice, and so harden him in his sin: but the love of God and of our brother's soul is adapted to answer every good end. If we love God, like Levi, we shall know no man after the flesh, nor ac- knowledge our nearest kindred ; but shall observe his word, and keep his covenant. And if we love the soul of our brother, we shall say, He is fallen to-day, and I will reprove him for his good : I may fall to-morrow, and then let him deal the same with me. Love is the grand secret of church discipline, and will do more than all other things put together towards insuring success. In the exercise of discipline it is necessary to distinguish between faults which are the consequence of sudden temptation, and such as are the result of premeditation and habit. The former require a compassionate treat- ment, the latter a greater portion of severity. The sin of Peter in denying his Lord was great, and, if noticed by the enemies of Christ, might bring great reproach upon his cause ; yet, compared with the sin of Solomon, it was little. He first gave way to licentiousness, then to idolatry, and on finding that God, as a punishment for his sin, had given ten tribes to Jeroboam, he sought to kill him. Cases like this are imminently dangerous, and require a prompt and decided treatment, like that which we should use towards a child fallen into the fire; in which a mo- ment’s delay might be fatal, and in which hesitating ten- derness would be the height of cruelty. “Of some have compassion, making a difference: others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh,” Jude 22, 23. Šee also Gal. vi. 1. In all our admonitions regard should be had to the age and character of the party. An elder, as well as other men, may be in a fault, and a fault that may require to be noticed; but let him be told of it in a tender and respect- ful manner. While you expostulate with younger men on a footing of equality, pay a deference to age and office. “Rebuke not an elder, but entreat him as a father, and the younger men as brethren,” 1 Tim. v. 1. In the due execution of Christian discipline there are many things to be done by the members of churches indi- vidually ; and it is upon the proper discharge of these duties that much of the peace and purity of a church de- pends. If we be faithful to one another, there will be but few occasions for public censure. Various improprieties of conduct, neglects of duty, and declensions in the power of godliness, are the proper objects of pastoral admonition. It is one essential branch of this office to “rebuke, and exhort with all long-suffering,” 2 Tim. iv. 2. Nor is this work confined to pastors; Christians are directed to “ad- monish one another,” Rom. xv. 14. Indeed there are things which a wise and affectionate people will be con- cerned to take upon themselves, lest a prejudice should be contracted against the ministry, which may prevent its good effects. This is peculiarly necessary in the settling of differences in which whole families may be interested, and in which it is extremely difficult to avoid the suspicion of partiality. In all cases of personal offence the rule laid down by our Lord in the eighteenth chapter of Matthew ought to be attended to ; and no such offence ought to be admitted before a church till the precept of Christ has been first complied with by the party or parties concerned. In many cases where faults are not committed imme- diately against us, but which are unknown except to a few individuals, love will lead us to endeavour to reclaim the party, if possible, without any further exposure. A just man will not be willing unnecessarily to make his brother a public example. The Scriptures give peculiar encourage- ment to these personal and private attempts. “If any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him, let him know that he who converteth a sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and hide a multitude of sins,” James v. 19, 20. In cases of evil report, where things are said of a brother in our hearing which if true must affect his character, and the purity of the church, it cannot be right to go on to re- port it. Love will not lead to this. Many reports we know are unfounded ; or, if true in the main, they may have been aggravated ; or there may be circumstances at- tending the case which, if fully understood, would make things appear very different from the manner in which they have been represented. Now it is almost impossible that any one but the party himself should be acquainted with all these circumstances, or able to give a full account of them. No time therefore should be lost ere we inquire at the hand of our brother, or if on any consideration we feel that to be unsuitable, it would be proper to apply to an officer of the church, who may conduct it with greater propriety. There are also cases of a still more public nature, in which much of the peace and happiness of a church depends upon the conduct of its members in their individual ca- pacity. The charge given by the apostle to the Romans, (chap. xvi. 17, 18,) though applicable to a church, yet seems to be rather addressed to the individuals who com- pose it:—“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.” The characters to be avoided appear to be persons whose object it is to set up a party in the church, of which they may be the heads or leaders—a kind of re- ligious demagogues. Such men are found, at one time or other, in most societies; and in some cases the peace of the churches has been invaded by strangers, who are not of their own community. Let the “brethren” have their eye upon such men. “Mark them.” Trace their con- duct, and you will soon discover their motives. Stand aloof from them, and “ avoid” striking in with their di- viding measures. In case of their being members, the church collectively considered ought, no doubt, to put away from amongst them such wicked persons; but as every collective body is composed of individuals, if those individuals suffer themselves to be drawn away, the church is necessarily thrown into confusion, and rendered inca- pable of a prompt, unanimous, and decided conduct. Let members of churches therefore beware how they listen to the insinuations of those who would entice them to join their party. Men of this stamp are described by the apos- tle, and therefore may be known, particularly by three things:—First, By their doctrine : it is contrary to that which has been learned of Christ. Secondly, By their self- ish pursuits: “they serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but 726 CIRCULAR LETTERS. their own bellies.” Thirdly, By their insinuating whining pretences of affectionate regard towards their partizans : “ by good words and fair speeches they deceive the hearts of the simple.” To this may be added, there are duties incumbent on individuals in their behaviour towards persons who lie wnder the censure of the church. If they still continue in a state of impenitence, persist in their sin, or be unrecon- ciled to the church’s proceedings with them, it is of the utmost consequence that every member should act a uni- form part towards them. We may, it is true, continue our ordinary and necessary intercourse with them as men, in the concerns of this life ; but there must be no famili- arity, no social interchange, no visitings to them nor re- ceiving visits from them, nothing, in short, that is ex- pressive of connivance at their conduct. “If any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, we must not keep company with such a one, no, not to eat,” 1 Cor. v. 11. If individual members act contrary to this rule, and carry it freely towards an offender, as if nothing had taken place, it will render the censure of the church of none effect. Those persons also who behave in this manner will be considered by the party as his friends, and others who stand aloof as his enemies, or at least as being unreasonably severe ; which will work confusion, and render void the best and most wholesome discipline. We must act in concert, or we may as well do nothing. Members who violate this rule are partakers of other men's sins, and deserve the rebukes of the church for counteract- ing its measures. With respect to those things which fall under the cog- nizance of a church in its collective capacity, we earnestly recommend, in general, that every thing be done not only with a view to the honour of God and the good of the party, as before observed, but with a special regard to the revealed will of Christ. That some kind of order be pre- served in every community is necessary to its existence. Decency, reputation, and even worldly policy, will induce us to take some notice of gross immoralities; but this is not Christian discipline, nor will it be productive of its salutary effects. In the choice of officers few, if any, churches would elect a profligate ; but if opulence be al- lowed to supply the place of spirituality, or ambitious or litigious characters be preferred on the principle of ex- pediency, as a means of keeping them in better humour, is it not carnal 3 So in matters of discipline, few churches would suffer a grossly immoral or litigious character to continue amongst them unnoticed; but if, instead of a calm, impartial, and decided procedure, we enter into pu- sillanimous compromises with the offender, consenting that he should withdraw of his own accord—if the crimes of rich men be either entirely overlooked or but slightly touched, lest the cause should suffer from their being offended—or if the misconduct of poor men be disregarded on the ground of their being persons of little or no ac- count—“are we not carnal, and walk as men 3” Brethren, are there any such things amongst us? Search and con- sider. Such things ought not to be. The private with- drawment of an individual, if it be without good reasons, may justify a church in admonishing him, and, if he can- not be reclaimed, in excluding him.; but it cannot itself dissolve the relation. Till such exclusion has taken place he is a member, and his conduct affects their reputation as much as that of any other member. With regard to a neglect of discipline lest it should injure the cause, what cause must that be which requires to be thus supported ? Be it our concern to obey the laws of Christ, and leave him to support his own cause. If it sink by a fulfilment of his commandments, let it sink. He will not censure us for not supporting the ark with unhallowed hands. And if it be criminal to fear the rich, it cannot be less so to despise the poor. Let brotherly love abound towards both. Do all things without partiality and without hy- pocrisy. We cannot enumerate all the particular cases which fall under the cognizance of a Christian church, but shall mention a few which are recorded in the Scriptures for our imitation. A DEPARTURE FROM THE FAITH OF THE GOSPEL, OR ANY of ITs LEADING DocTRINEs, is an object of Christian dis- cipline. “I would they were even cut off that trouble you.”—“I have a few things against thee, because thou hast them who hold the doctrine of Balaam—so hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.”—“A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted and sinneth, being condemned of him- Self.” It is worthy of notice, that the only passage in the New Testament wherein heresy is introduced as an object of discipline makes no mention of any thing as composing it but what relates to the principles of the party. It may be supposed that those who were accounted heretics by the apostles were as impure in their lives as they were anti- christian in their doctrine, and that they were commonly disturbers of the peace and unity of the churches; but however this might be, neither of these evils is alleged as the ground for which the heretic was to be rejected. All that is mentioned is this: He is “subverted and sinneth, being condemned of himself.” He is “subverted ;” that is, his professed faith in the gospel is in effect overturned, or rendered void ; conse- quently he requires to be treated as an unbeliever. He is “condemned of himself; ” that is, the gospel being a con- sistent whole, he that rejects some of its leading principles, while he professes to retain others, is certain to fall into self-contradiction; which if clearly pointed out in “a first and second admonition,” he will be compelled, if he persist, obstinately to shut his eyes against the light, and thus sin against the dictates of his own conscience. It has been asked, by persons who disapprove of all church proceedings on account of difference in religious principles, who is to judge what is heresy % We answer, those who are to judge what is immorality in dealing with loose characters. To suppose it impossible to judge what heresy is, or to deny that the power of so deciding rests in a Christian church, is to charge the apostolic precept with impertinence. It is true the judgment of a church may be erroneous, as well as that of an individual ; and it becomes them in their decisions to consider that they will all be revised at the great day; but the same may be said of all human judgment, civil or judicial, to which no one is so void of reason as on this account to object. It has been further objected, that censuring a person on account of his religious sentiments invades the right of private judgment, is inconsistent with the liberty of the gospel, and contrary to the leading principles on which protestants have separated from the Church of Rome, and Protestant Dissenters from the Church of England. The right of private judgment, while we claim no connexion with others, is an undoubted right. We may be Chris- tians, infidels, or atheists, and none but God has any con- trol over us; but if we desire the friendship and esteem of good men notwithstanding, or claim admission to a Chris- tian church, or should we be in it already, and claim to continue our situation, surely they would not be obliged to comply. If so, our right of private judgment must in- terfere with that of others whose judgment tells them that there can be no fellowship between light and darkness, or communion between him that believeth and an infidel. If the liberty of the gospel consist in a right of fellowship with Christian churches whatever be our principles, it will follow not only that unbelievers may claim visible commu- nion with believers, but that no exclusions for immorality can be justified, provided the party insists that his senti- ments are in harmony with his practice. There is a great variety of opinion as to what is morality, as well as to what is truth. One loose character believes in polygamy, an- other in concubinage, and a third can see no harm in for- nication, nor even in adultery, provided it be undiscovered.* If the Churches of Rome and England had done nothing more than exclude from their society characters whom they considered as deviating from the first principles of the gospel, without subjecting them to civil penalties or disabilities, however we might have disputed the truth of their doctrine, we could not have justly objected to their discipline. And on the other hand, we should suppose * Such was the morality taught by Mr. Hume. DISCIPLINE OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCHES. 727 that the separation of protestants from the one, and of Pro- testant Dissenters from the other, was for the sake of en- joying a purer church state, wherein they might act up to the laws of Zion's King; and not that they might live as though there were no King in Israel, which is the case where every man does that which is right in his own eyes. In CASES OF NOTORIOUS AND COMPLICATED wick EDNEss it appears that in the primitive churches immediate ex- clusion was the consequence. In the case of the incestu- ous Corinthian, there are no directions given for his being admonished, and excluded only in case of his being in- corrigibly impenitent. The apostle determined what should be done—“In the name of the Lord Jesus, when ye are gathered together, to deliver such a one unto Sa- tan.” We cannot but consider it as an error in the disci- pline of some churches, where persons have been detected of gross and aggravated wickedness, that their exclusion has been suspended, and in many cases omitted, on the ground of their professed repentance. While the evil was a secret, it was persisted in, but, when exposed by a pub- lic detection, then repentance is brought forward, as it were, in arrest of judgment. But can that repentance be genuine that is pleaded for the purpose of warding off the censures of a Christian church? We are persuaded it can- not. The eye of a true penitent will be fixed upon the greatness of his sin, and he will be the last to discern or talk of his repentance for it. So far from pleading it in order to evade censure, he will censure himself, and de- sire nothing more than that testimony may be borne against his conduct for the honour of Christ. But, allowing that repentance in such cases is sincere, still it is not of such account as to set aside the necessity of exclusion. The end to be answered by this measure is not merely the good of the party, but the clearing of a Christian church from the very appearance of conniving at immorality, and which cannot be accomplished by re- pentance only. Though Miriam might be truly sorry for her sin in having spoken against Moses, and though she might be healed of her leprosy; yet “the Lord said unto Moses, If her father had but spit on her face, should she not be ashamed seven days 3 Let her be shut out from the camp seven days; and after that let her be received in again,” Numb. xii. 14. We do not suppose, however, that every notorious fault requires immediate exclusion. The general rule given is that NoToRIOUS Evils should MEET witH A PUBLIC RE- BUKE. “Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear,” 1 Tim. v. 20. But this proceeding does not appear to amount to exclusion; it is rather of the nature of a censure or reprimand, accompanying an admonition. To us it appears that the circumstances attending a sin ought to determine whether it require immediate ex- clusion or not. If these be highly aggravating—if there appear to have been premeditation, intention, and perse- verance in the crime—“put away from amongst your- selves that wicked person ;” but if circumstances ex- tenuate rather than heighten the evil, solemn admonition, accompanied with rebuke, ought to suffice, and no ex- clusion to follow but in case of incorrigible impenitence. There are also faults which do not come under the de- homination of notorious sins, wherein directions are given for recovering the offenders witHouT ANY MENTION BEING MADE OF EXCLUSION, EITHER IMMEDIATE OR ULTIMATE, There is perhaps in all the churches a description of men whose characters are far from being uniformly circum- spect, and yet not sufficiently irregular to warrant their being separated from communion. They are disorderly walkers; busybodies in other men's matters, while neg- ligent of their own; in a word, unamiable characters. Now those that are such we are directed to exhort, and charge that they conduct themselves as becometh Chris- tians. If after this they continue disorderly, observe a degree of distance in your conduct towards them; with- draw your intimacy; let them feel the frowns of their brethren: yet be not wholly reserved, but occasionally explain to them the reasons of your conduct, affectionate- ly admonishing them at the same time to repentance and amendment of life. “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which ye received of us.—For we hear that there are some who walk among you disorderly, working not all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command, and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work and eat their own bread. And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother,” 2. Thess. iii. 6—15. If churches were to consult only their own reputation, they would often discard such persons at an early period ; but where there is reason to hope that the heart is right in the main, great forbearance must be exercised, and long per- severance in endeavouring to recover. How many im- perfections were discovered in the conduct of the twelve apostles, while their Lord was with them, and what an example of forbearance has he left us! One character reclaimed is of greater account, and more to the honour of a Christian church, than many discarded. Finally, A watchful eye upon the state of the church, and of particular members, with a seasonable interposition, may do more towards the preservation of good order than all other things put together. Discourage whisperings, backbitings, and jealousies. Frown on talebearers, and give no ear to their tales. Nip contentions in the bud. Adjust differences in civil matters amongst yourselves. Bring together at an early period those in whom miscon- ception and distrust have begun to operate, ere ill opinion ripen into settled dislike. By a frank and timely explan- ation, in the presence of a common friend, that may be healed in an hour, which, if permitted to proceed, a series of years cannot eradicate. Be affectionately free with one another. Give tender and faithful hints where it ap- pears to you that one of your brethren is in danger of being drawn aside from the principles or spirit of the gospel. Let all be given, from their first entering into connexion with you, to expect them. If any one take offence at such treatment, give him to understand that he who cannot endure a caution, or a reproof, is unfit for Christian society, and is in the utmost danger of falling into mischief. Brethren, consider what we say, and the Lord give you understanding in all things . The free circulation of the blood, and the proper discharge of all the animal functions, are not more necessary to the health of the body, than good discipline is to the prosperity of a community. If it were duly considered how much the general in- terests of religion, and even the salvation of men, may be affected by the purity and harmony of Christian churches, we should tremble at the thought of their being interrupt- ed by us. The planting of a church in a neighbourhood, where the gospel is preached, and the ordinances of Christ administered in their purity, is a great blessing. It is a temple reared for God, in which he deigns to record his name, to meet with his humble worshippers, and to bless them. We have seen churchès of this description, in the midst of a career of spiritual prosperity, edifying one another in love, and gathering souls to the Redeemer’s standard, all in a little time blasted and ruined by some unhappy event that has thrown them into disorder. One of the members, it may be, has acted unworthily—he is reproved—his relations or particular acquaintances take on his side—discipline is interrupted—the church is di- vided into parties—hard things are said on both sides— the bond of love is broken—tender minds are grieved, and retire—worship is but thinly attended, and the enjoy- ment of it is vanished—God’s friends mourn in secret, and his enemies triumph, saying, “Aha! aha so would we have it !” O brethren, it is a serious thing to occasion the ruin of a church of Christ! “If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy '' Dearly beloved, farewell. Grace and peace be with you. 728 CIRCULAR LETTERS. 1802. THE PRACTICAL USES OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, DRAR BRETHREN, IN, connexion with our last general letter, and agree- ably to the appointment made at the yearly meeting, we now address you on a subject, not only of general interest, but which more immediately relates to that solemn pro- fession which you have made of Christianity; namely, THE PRACTICAL USES OF THE ORDIN ANCE OF BAPTISM, That Christian baptism is properly administered only by immersion, and to those who make a credible pro- fession of faith in Christ, it is no part of our present de- sign to prove. Addressing you, we shall take each of these particulars for granted. The only subject to which we now request your attention is the influence of this or- dinance, where it produces its proper effects, in promoting piety in individuals, and purity in the church. There is no part of true religion that is merely spe- culative; the whole is designed and adapted to sanctify the soul. We may presume, therefore, that if baptism be an ordinance of God, and of perpetual obligation in the church, it is of importance to Christian practice. But it is not on presumptive evidence that we wish to rest the improvement of this institution, any more than the institution itself; neither shall we go about to con- nect with it acknowledged duties by imaginary alliances; but shall confine ourselves to those uses of the ordinance which are actually made, or suggested, in the New Tes- tament. We could address many things to parents, and things of importance too, on bringing up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord: we could also urge it upon the children of believers that they were com- mitted to God from their earliest infancy; but as we find nothing of this kind in the Scriptures connected with bap- tism, however important these things would be in their place, they would be altogether irrelevant while treating on this ordinance. Baptism is a Divine institution, pertaining to the king- dom of the Messiah, or the gospel dispensation. John re- ceived it from heaven, and administered it to the Jews, who, on his proclaiming that the kingdom of heaven was at hand, confessed their sins. Jesus gave sanction to it by his example; and after his resurrection, when all power in heaven and earth was committed to him, he confirmed and extended it to believers of all nations. Whatever cir- cumstantial differences there might be, therefore, between the baptism of John and that of Christ, they were sub- stantially the same. There were things in former ages which bore a resemblance to it; as the salvation of Noah and his family in the ark, the passage of the Israelites through the sea, divers washings or bathings prescribed by the Mosaic ritual, &c.; but the thing itself existed mot, till it was revealed to the immediate forerunner of Christ. The principal design of it appears to be, A solemn and practical profession of the Christian religion. Such was the baptism of John, who “ said unto the people, that they should believe on him who should come after him ; that is, on Christ Jesus.” And such was that in the times of the apostles. Paul addressing himself to the churches in Galatia, who, after having professed to believe in Christ, cleaved to the Mosaic law as a medium of justification, thus speaks: “The law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith; but after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have PUT on CHRIST.” The allusion is to the putting on of apparel, as when one that enters into the service of a prince puts on his distinguishing attire ; and the design of the sacred writer is to remind those of them who had before professed the Jewish religion, that by a solemn act of their own they had, as it were, put off Moses, and put on Christ. There is a putting on of Christ which is in- ternal, and consists in relinquishing the former lusts, and being of the mind of Christ; but that which is here re- ferred to appears to be an open profession of his name, to the renouncing of every thing that stood in competition with him. . It was therefore true of as many as had been baptized, whether they abode in the truth or not. And even their being “the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus” seems to express what they were in profession, rather than what they were in fact. They had by their baptism disowned all dependence on the privileges of birth, and the adoption which pertained to them as the children of Abraham ; and declared their acquiescence in that power, or privilege, to become the sons of God, which the gospel imparts to them that believe. The mention of this was perfectly in point, as it greatly heightened the evil of their defection. The amount is, That as many as were baptized in the primitive ages were voluntary agents, and submitted to this ordinance for the purpose of making a solemn and practical profession of the Christian faith. It was their oath of allegiance to the King of Zion; that by which they avowed the Lord to be their God. Hence a rejection of it involved a rejection of the counsel of God. The sin of the Pharisees and lawyers consisted, not in their refusing to submit to baptism as unbelievers ; but in not embracing the Messiah, and so putting on the badge of his profession. Their rejection of the sign was justly construed as a rejection of the thing signified; as when a rebel refuses to take the oath of allegiance, it is con- strued as a refusal of submission and subjection to his rightful prince. Such, brethren, is the profession we have made. We have not only declared in words our repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ; but have said the same things by our baptism. We have solemnly surrendered ourselves up to Christ, taking him to be our Prophet, Priest, and King; engaging to receive his doc- trine, to rely on his atonement, and to obey his laws. The vows of God are upon us. We have even sworn to keep his righteous judgments; and, without violating the oath of God, we cannot go back. If it be a sin not to confess the Lord Jesus, through fear or shame, it is a still greater sin, after we have confessed him, to turn from the holy commandment. - The religion of Jesus consists partly of truths to be believed, and partly of precepts to be obeyed; and the ordinance of baptism furnishes motives for a faithful adherence to both. We have been baptized “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit;” and have thus practically avowed our belief in them. It was at Jordan that the Father bore witness to his well-beloved Son, and that the Holy Spirit descended upon him ; hither, there- fore, in the early ages, men were directed to repair, that they might learn the doctrine of the Trinity. If we re- linquish this doctrine, we virtually relinquish our baptism. Of this there need not be a more convincing proof, than the inclination which has been discovered by those who have renounced the doctrine to disuse the form of bap- tizing in the name of the Sacred Three. We have also professed by our baptism to embrace that great salvation which is accomplished by the united in- fluence of the Sacred Three. We have in effect declared our acquiescence in the freeness of the Father's grace, in the all-sufficient atonement of the Son, and in the sanc- tifying influence of the Holy Spirit; for these are the principal things by which, in the New Testament ac- count of the economy of grace, each is distinguished. Nor can we renounce them, without virtually renouncing our baptism. The immersion of the body in water, which is a purify- ing element, contains a profession of our faith in Christ, through the shedding of whose blood we are cleansed from all sin. Hence, baptism in the name of Christ is said to be for the remission of sins. Not that there is any such virtue in the element, whatever be the quantity ; mor in the ceremony, though of Divine appointment : but it contains a sign of the way in which we must be saved. Sin is washed away in baptism in the same sense as Christ's flesh is eaten, and his blood drank, in the Lord’s supper: the sign, when rightly used, leads to the thing signified. Remission of sins is ascribed by Peter not pro- perly to baptism, but to the name in which the parties PRACTICAL USES OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 729 were to be baptized. Thus also Saul was directed to WASH Away His sins, calling on THE NAME OF THE LORD. Nearly akin to this is the idea conveyed to us in the First Epistle of Peter: “The long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. The like figure where- unto baptism doth now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” The salvation of Noah and his family by the ark was a figure of our salvation by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The ark for a time was surrounded, as it were, with waters from above, and from beneath; but it sur- vived its trial, and those who were in it were at length brought safe to land. Christ, also, for a time sustained the deluge of wrath due to our sins; but survived the trial, rising triumphantly from the dead, and thereby saved us from everlasting death. Of this great transaction bap- tism is a like figure. It is another sign of the same thing. The resemblance of baptism by immersion to the death and resurrection of Christ, and the suitableness of the one to signify our faith in the other, are manifest. It is thus that baptism does now save us ; not as putting away the filth of the flesh, (for all the virtue contained in the ordi- nance itself is “ the answer of a good conscience toward God,”) but as affording a sign of our salvation by the vic- torious resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. And as we are taught by our baptism to adhere to the doctrine of God our Saviour, so we are furnished with motives to adorn it by a holy conversation. Thus it is in- troduced in the Epistles to the Romans and Colossians, as a sign of our being dead and buried to the principles and pursuits of the present world ; and, by faith in Christ, raised as into a new world. The death of Christ is em- phatically mentioned as that into which we are baptized —“Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death # Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death ; that like as Christ died, and was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” Christ's dying for sin afforded a most powerful motive for our dying to it; and the immersion of the body in bap- tism, being in the likeness of the former, furnishes an ad- ditional motive to the latter. The leading idea suggested by a death and burial seems to be that of separation from the world. There is no greater line of separation than that which is drawn be- tween the dead and the living. “The dead know not any thing ; and have no portion in all that is done under the sun.” Such is the line which is drawn by the faith of the operation of God between the world renewed and the world depraved, of which baptism is the appointed sign. If, after this, we are found among evil-doers, we may well be considered and shunned as a kind of apparitions, which have no proper concern in the affairs of mortals. The apostle applied this reasoning against a conformity to abrogated ceremonies. “If ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances?” The same reasoning is applicable to other things, If we be dead with Christ, why, as though living, are we subject to the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life, which are of the world? Why are any of us conformed to this world; and not rather transformed by the renewing of our minds? If we be dead, and our life be hid with Christ in God, why are not our affections set on things above, and not on things on the earth $ We cannot but express our concern that per- sons professing godliness should be carried away by the course of this world, as many are ; meanly imitating the ungodly, whose conduct they ought rather to reprove. Such imitation, so far as it operates, contains a virtual re- nunciation of our baptism. The ideas of baptism and a separation from the world, whether connected by us or not, are strongly associated in the minds of men in gene- ral. After this, we cannot unite with them in evil, with- out drawing upon ourselves their most pointed censures. They may labour to seduce us for the sake of comforting themselves; and while accomplishing their purpose may suppress their private thoughts of us, and even compliment us for our liberality; but if we comply, their pretended esteem will be turned into reproach. Nor ought we to consider this as an evil; but rather as a mercy. God has hereby set a hedge about us, which tends more than a little to preserve us from temptation. If any think other- wise, and feel uneasy that they cannot act like other men, without drawing upon themselves the censures of man- kind, it is a dark sign that their hearts are not right in the sight of God. Nor is this ordinance adapted merely to separate between believers and unbelievers individually considered; its de- sign is also to draw a line of distinction between the king- dom of Christ and the kingdom of Satan. Whatever may be said of baptism as it is now generally understood and practised, and of the personal religion of those who prac- tise it, it was originally appointed to be the boundary of visible Christianity. This is a principle which, if properly acted upon, would go far to prevent the confounding of the church and the world ; and which, consequently, tends more than any thing of the kind to counteract ecclesiastic- al degeneracy and corruption. Had the Christian church in all ages admitted none to baptism, from whomsoever descended, but those who professed to repent and believe the gospel, it is scarcely conceivable that any others would have been admitted to the Lord's supper ; and if so, a stream of corruption which has actually deluged it with antichristianism would have been diverted at the spring- head. The church might, indeed, have been corrupted from other causes, but these would have been merely accidental. Hypocrites and formalists might have imposed themselves upon it, as they did in some degree in the apostolic age; but they would have been intruders. What- ever of this kind might have existed, believers could not have been constitutionally yoked together with unbelievers. The carnal descendants of godly people could not have claimed a place in Christ's visible kingdom. The church could not have become national, embracing as its children all who are born in a Christianized country, without any profession of personal religion. Princes and nobles, if worthy, would have been received into its communion as brethren ; but not as rulers or patrons: and, if unworthy, refused ; even though an exposure to persecution had been the consequence. But if persons be admitted to baptism without any profession of personal religion, or upon the profession of others on their behalf, their admission to the Lord’s supper will in most cases follow as a matter of course. Indeed it ought to follow ; for though among evangelical Dissenters these things are separated, yet from the beginning it was not so. Neither Scripture nor the practice of the ancient churches affords a single example of a baptized person, unless his conduct was grossly im- moral, being ineligible to communion. And if all who are now baptized be admitted to the supper, the line of separation will be broken ; the church will be no longer a garden enclosed, but an open wildermess, where every beast of prey can range at pleasure. Thus, indeed, it was foretold it should be. The writer of the Apocalypse, de- scribing the corruptions which should prevail in the visible church during the twelve hundred and sixty years' reign of antichrist, represents it under the form of the outer court of the temple being left out of the measurement as profane, and given to the Gentiles to be trodden whder foot, in like manner as the holy place and holy city had been trodden down by the heathen, in the time of Antiochus. As the principle of believers’ baptism, properly acted upon, would prevent the admission of all unconverted characters, except hypocrites and self-deceivers, so it would have its influence in repelling them. The habits of some hypocritical characters, it is true, would render it an easy thing to overleap this boundary ; but it is equally true that to others it would be an effectual bar. There are not a few in the religious world who would like well to be members of a Christian church, especially where the pastor is a man of respectability, provided they could be admitted without drawing upon themselves the laugh of the irreligious. There is reason to believe that many per- sons of genteel connexions, who wish to be thought re- ligious, and whose consciences approve of believers’ bap- tism, are withheld by this kind of shame from offering themselves to our churches. An ordinance which thus operates possesses a mark of its pertaining to that king- 730 CIRCUILAR LETTERS, dom which is not of this world, and into which it is hard for a rich man to enter. As the leading idea suggested by a death and burial is that of separation from the world, so the principal thing denoted by a resurrection is an entrance into a new state of being. Such is that newness of life of which the emersion of the body from the waters of baptism is a sign, and to which it furnishes an important motive. The religion of Jesus does not consist in mere negatives. It is not enough that we be dead to the world ; we must be alive to God. With real Christians old things are passed away, and all things are become new. Unless our bap- tism, therefore, be merely a sign, or an unmeaning cere- mony, our hopes, fears, sorrows, joys, companions, prin- ciples, and pursuits are opposite to those of this world. Even a partial return to it is inconsistent with our bap- tismal vows. If those who profess to be dead to the world cannot walk in the course of it without being considered and shunned as a kind of apparitions, those who are alive from the dead cannot return without resembling a living character who should take up his abode in a sepulchre. A few general reflections will conclude this epistle. The baptism of a number of serious Christians is an interesting and impressive spectacle . Often on such solemn occasions have we witnessed the falling tear; not only from the parties baptized, and others immediately connected with them, but from indifferent spectators. We could ap- peal to the consciences of many serious Christians, whether they did not receive their first convictions of the reality of religion at such opportunities. We could appeal to all of you, who have been in the habit of attending the adminis- tration of this ordinance, whether it has not frequently furnished you with the most solemn and tender reflections. Has not the sight of a number of young Christians, offer- ing themselves willingly to the Lord, touched the secret springs of holy sensibility ? Yes; you have been remind- ed by it of your own solemn engagements, and led to in- quire in what manner they have been fulfilled. You have remembered the days of your espousals, when you first went after your Saviour as in the wilderness, and have been sweetly impelled to renew the solemn surrender. Nor have your reflections been confined to yourselves; you have considered these new accessions to the church of God as supplying the place of others that were taken away, and as fulfilling the promise, “Instead of thy fathers, shall be thy children.” When a number of dear friends and use- ful characters have, one after another, been removed by death, you have been ready to ask, Who shall fill up their place ; and by whom shall Jacob arise ? But when others of promising gifts and graces have come forward and yielded up themselves to the Lord in baptism, they have seemed in a manner to be “baptized for the dead.” Thus, when the ranks of an army in a besieged city are thinned by repeated engagements, and the hearts of survivors are ready to faint, a reinforcement arrives: a body of new companions throw themselves in to its relief, and inspire them with new vigour. Further, If the foregoing remarks be just, the importance of believers' baptism must appear in a very different light from that in which some have represented it. If the or- dinary acknowledgments of many who live in the neglect of this ordinance, and disapprove of the zeal of others who submit to it, may be considered as expressive of their principles, their conduct is not owing to a solid conviction, arising from impartial inquiry accompanied with prayer, that it is unscriptural, or that they have already been bap- tized according to the institution of Christ; but to a no- tion that it is of little or no account. If it be of little or no account to bind ourselves to the Lord in the way of his own prescribing—to confess his name before men—to avow our being dead to the world, and alive to him—to pre- serve the church from being constitutionally corrupted, and yoked together with unbelievers—to obey his command- ments who saith, “Repent, and be baptized every one of 3/ow ; ” and to follow his example who yielded obedience to this institute, saying, “Thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness”—then may this excuse be admitted. But if these things be important, then is believers’ baptism im- portant ; and all attempts to depreciate it are offensive in the sight of Him who is the Lord and Lawgiver of Zion. Finally, brethren, it becomes us to beware lest that which is good in itself should, through the corruption of our nature, become an occasion of evil. There is, perhaps, no temptation more common among religious people than to think too highly of themselves on account of their ad- vantages. Where such a spirit is cherished, baptism may become an idol, and the table of the Lord itself a snare. It is more than possible that some may so value themselves on account of their baptism, as to make it a substitute for a life of holiness and universal righteousness. It appears that some among the Corinthians approached too near, at least, to this spirit. They had been baptized . . . . they had eaten and drank at the table of the Lord . . . . yet they trifled with idolatry, and worldly lusts. “I would not that ye should be ignorant,” said Paul, “how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea ; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud, and in the sea ; and did all eat the same spiritual meat; and did all drink the same spiritual drink (for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ). But with many of them God was not well pleased; for they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these things were our examples.”—“Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall !” As if he had said, Are you members of a community which has the promised presence of Christ? Our fathers also were “under the cloud.” Has God interposed in your favour ! They “passed through the sea,” as on dry land. Have you been baptized? So were they. They “ descended ” in a body into the sea ; were “buried,” as it were, by the cloud above them and the waters on each hand of them; and afterwards “ascended ” on the other side. Have you been admitted to the holy supper ? They also ate of that food, and drank of that stream, the spirit- ual intent of which was much the same. Yet all this afforded them no security, when they provoked the Divine jealousy. Notwithstanding these privileges they fell, and were destroyed of the destroyer. These things are record- ed for our admonition.—Of what account then will our baptism be to us, if, instead of being dead to the world and alive to God, we be the reverse ? Will baptism save us? No: it will bear witness against us! And though we may not fall into so fatal an error as to substitute baptism in the place of holiness, righteousness, and godliness; yet if we cherish a fond conceit of ourselves, magnifying our advantages to the neglect of a spirit of humble watchfulness, our baptism, instead of aiding us, will become a snare. We do not always act up to our advantages. It is very possible that Christians who are behind us in this particular, may notwithstanding be be- fore us in their general character. It were vain and fool- ish to imagine that our possessing the truth in one in- stance will secure us from error in every other ; or that our fulfilling this command of Christ, however important, will insure a course of universal obedience. Let us never forget, that however adapted this or that ordinance, form, or mode of church government may be to promote our spiritual interests, yet if we rest in the means, they will deceive us; or rather we shall deceive ourselves. It is the presence of Christ only that can keep us alive, either as individuals or as churches. While, therefore, we recommend the means which he has pre- scribed, we devoutly add, with the apostle, “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the com- munion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all !” Amen. 1806. THE PASTOR'S ADDRESS TO HIS CHIRISTIAN HEARERS, ENTREATING THEIR ASSISTANCE IN PROMOTING THE INTEREST OF CHRIST. BELOVED BRETHREN, THE ministry to which God by your election has called us forms a distinguished part of the gospel dispensation. CHRISTIANS ENTREATED TO PROMOTE THE CAUSE OF CHRIST. 731 Divine instruction was communicated under the Old Testament, and an order of men appointed of God for the purpose ; but their work can scarcely be denominated preaching. They foretold the good news; but it is for us to proclaim it. The poor having the gospel preached to them is alleged in proof that the Messiah was come, and that they were not to look for another. The very existence of Christian churches is in subser- viency to the preaching of the gospel; or they would not have been described as “golden candlesticks,” the use of which is to impart light to those around them. We speak not thus, brethren, to magnify ourselves. There is an im- portant difference between Christian ministers and the Christian ministry. The former, we are ready to acknow- ledge, exist for your sakes. “Whether Paul, Apollos, or Cephas—all are yours; ” but the latter, as being the chosen means of extending the Redeemer's kingdom, is that for which both we and you exist. “Ye are Christ's, and Christ is God’s.” These considerations will enable us to account for the joy which the apostle expressed in “Christ's being preach- ed,” even though it were from “envy;” and may teach us to rejoice in the same thing, though it be in the most corrupt communities, or even from the most suspicious motives. But though God may cause his truth to triumph wherever and by whomsoever it is taught, yet it should be our concern to publish it willingly, and to the best advantage. The primitive churches were not mere assemblies of men who agreed to meet together once or twice a week, and to subscribe for the support of an accomplished man who should on those occasions deliver lectures on religion. They were men gathered out of the world by the preaching of the cross, and formed into society for the promotion of Christ's kingdom in their own souls and in the world around them. It was not the concern of the ministers or elders only; the body of the people were interested in all that was done, and, according to their several abilities and stations, took part in it. Neither were they assemblies of heady, high-minded, contentious people, meeting together to argue on points of doctrine or discipline, and converting the worship of God into scenes of strife. They spoke the truth ; but it was in love : they observed discipline; but, like an army of chosen men, it was that they might attack the kingdom of Satan to greater advantage. Happy were it for our churches if we could come to a closer imitation of this model ! We trust it is our sincere desire as ministers to be more intent upon our work; but allow us to ask for your As- SISTANCE. Nehemiah, zealous as he was, could not have built the wall if the people had not had a mind to work. Nor could Ezra have reformed the abuses among the peo- ple if nobody had stood with him. But in this case the elders, when convinced of the necessity of the measure, offered themselves willingly to assist him. “Arise,” said they, “for this matter belongeth unto thee: we also will be with thee: be of good courage, and do it.” Such is the assistance, brethren, which we solicit at your hands. We might enumerate the different ways in which your assistance in promoting the interest of Christ is needed. We might ask for your prayers, your early attendance, your counsels, your contributions, and your example; but what We have to offer will arise from a review of the different branches of our own labours. In the discharge of our work we have to do with four descriptions of people, and in dealing with each we stand in need of your assistance : namely, serious and humble Christians—disorderly walkers—persons under concern about salvation—and persons manifestly unconverted. First, It may be supposed that in every church of Christ there will be a considerable proportion of serious and hum- ble Christians.—Our work in respect of them is to feed them with the wholesome doctrine of the word, and to teach them the mind of Christ in all things. The assist- ance which we ask of you, brethren, in this part of our ministry, is, that you would not only pray for us, but be free to impart to us the state of your minds, and whether our labours be edifying to you or not. It is not so much by a systematical statement and defence of Christian doc- trines that believers are edified, as by those doctrines being applied to their respective cases. This is the way in which they are ordinarily introduced in the Scriptures, and in which they become “words in due season.” But we can- not well preach to the cases of people unless we know them. Add to this, the interest which you discover in the things of God has a more than ordinary influence on our minds in the delivery of them. You cannot conceive the difference between addressing a people full of tender and affectionate attention, whose souls appear in their eyes, and answer, as it were, to the word of God ; and preaching to those who are either half asleep, or their thoughts mani- festly occupied by other things. By looking at the one, our hearts have expanded like the flowers before the morning sun : thoughts have occurred, and sensations have been kindled, which the labours of the study could never have furnished. But, by observing the other, our spirits are contracted like the flowers by the damps of the even- ing, and thoughts which were interesting when alone have seemed to die as they proceeded from our lips. It will tend not a little to increase your interest in hear- ing, if you exercise yourselves on other occasions in read- ing and reflection. If you attend to the things of God only, or chiefly, while hearing us, we shall preach to you under great disadvantage. The apostle complained of many things being hard to be uttered, owing to the He- brews being dull of hearing ; and that, when for the time they ought to have been teachers, they had need that one should teach them again which were the first principles of the oracles of God. Thinking hearers give a facility to preaching, even upon the most difficult subjects; while those whose minds are seldom occupied at other times can scarcely understand the most easy and familiar truths. Secondly, In every church we must expect a greater or less proportion of disorderly walkers.-Our work, in re- spect of them, is to warn, admonish, and, if possible, to reclaim them ; or, if that cannot be, to separate them, lest the little leaven should leaven the whole lump. But in these cases, more than in many others, we stand in need of your assistance. It is not ministers only, but all “who are spiritual,” that the apostle addresses on this subject; and spiritual characters may always expect employment in re- storing others in the spirit of meekness. It is of great im- portance to the well-being of a church that men are not wanting who will watch over one another in love, observe and counteract the first symptoms of declension, heal dif- ferences at an early period, and nip disturbances in the bud. By such means there will be but few things of a disagreeable nature, which will require either the censures of the church or the interference of the pastor. There will be instances, however, in which both the pastor and the church must interfere; and here it is of the utmost consequence that they each preserve a right spirit, and act in concert. There are two errors in particular into which individuals have frequently fallen in these matters. One is a harsh and unfeeling conduct towards the offender, tending only to provoke his resentment, or to drive him to despair; the other is that of siding with him, apologizing for him, and carring it so familiarly towards him in private as to induce him to think others who reprove him his ene- mies. Beware, brethren, of both these extremes, which, instead of assisting us in our work, would be doing the utmost to counteract us. We may almost as well abandon discipline as not to act in concert. It was on this princi- ple that the apostle enjoined it on the Corinthians “not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a for- nicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunk- ard, or an extortioner; with such a one, no, not to eat.” Your assistance is particularly necessary to resist and overcome those unlovely partialities which are too often found in individuals towards their relations or favourites. We have seen and heard of disorderly walkers, whose con- nexions in a church have been so extensive, that, when they should have been censured or admonished, either a strong opposition was raised in their favour, or at least a considerable number have chosen to stand neuter, and so to leave the officers of the church to act in a manner alone. It is glorious to see a people in such cases acting in the spirit of Levi, who “ did not acknowledge his brethren, nor know his own children; but observed God’s word, and kept his covenant!” 732 CIRCULAR LETTERS. It is often extremely difficult for a pastor to go through with such matters without injury to his character and mi- nistry. He, being by his office obliged to take the lead, becomes the principal object of resentment; and every idle story is raked up by the party and their adherents which may wound his reputation, and impute his conduct to sus- picious motives. If, in such circumstances, his brethren stand by him, he will disregard the slander of his enemies; but if they be indifferent, it will be death to him. Should such a conduct issue in his removal, it is no more than might be expected. Thirdly, In every church of Christ we may hope to find some persons inquiring after the way of salvation.—This may be the case much more at some periods than at others; but we may presume, from the promise of God to be with his servants, that the word of truth shall not be any length of time without effect. Our work in this case is to cherish conviction, and to direct the mind to the gospel remedy. But if, when men are inquiring the way to Zion, there be none but the minister to give them information, things must be low indeed. It might be expected that there should be as many persons capable of giving direction on this subject as there are serious Christians; for who that has obtained mercy by believing in Jesus should be at a loss to recom- mend him to another? It is matter of fact, however, that though, as in cases of bodily disease, advisers are seldom wanting ; yet, either for want of being interested in the matter, or sufficiently skilful in the word of righteousness, there are but few, comparatively, whose advice is of any value ; and this we apprehend to be one great cause of declension in many churches. Were we writing on minis- terial defects, we should not scruple to acknowledge that much of the preaching of the present day is subject to the same censure ; but in the present instance we must be al- lowed to suppose ourselves employed in teaching the good and the right way, and to solicit your assistance in the work. When the apostle tells the Hebrews that, consider- ing the time, “they ought to have been teachers,” he does not mean that they ought all to have been ministers; but able to instruct any inquirer in the great principles of the gospel. It has been already intimated that, to give advice to a person under concern about salvation, it is necessary, in the first place, that we be interested on his behalf, and treat him in a free and affectionate manner. Some members of churches act as if they thought such things did not con- cern them, and as if their whole duty consisted in sending the party to the minister. A church composed of such characters may be opulent and respectable; but they pos- sess nothing inviting or winning to an awakened mind. To cherish conviction, and give a right direction to such a mind, we must be free and affectionate. When a sinner begins to think of his condition, such questions as the fol- lowing will often cross his mind:—Was there ever such a case as mine before ? Are there any people in the world who have been what I am, and who are now in the way to eternal life? If there be, who are they? Where are they But if, while he is thinking what he must do to be saved, he neither sees mor hears any thing among you which renders it probable that such was ever your concern—if, as soon as a sermon is ended, he sees merely an exchange of civilities, and, 'on leaving the place, observes that all the congregation immediately fall into conversation about Worldly things, what can he think? Either that there is nothing in religion, or, if there be, that he must seek else- where for it. The voice of a Christian church to those who attend upon their ministry should be that of Moses to Hobab : “We are journeying to the place of which the Lord hath said, I will give it you. Come thou with us, and we will do thee good : for the Lord hath spoken good concerning Israel.” It is of great consequence to the well-being of a church, that there be persons in particular in it who are accessible to characters of this description, and who would take a pleasure in introducing themselves to them. Barnabas, who, by a tender and affectionate spirit, was peculiarly fitted for this employment, was acquainted with Saul while the other disciples were afraid of him. It was he that in- troduced him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. Affection, however, is not the only qualification for this work: it requires that you be skilful in the word of right- eousness ; else you will administer false consolation, and may be instrumental in destroying, instead of saving souls. Not that it requires any extraordinary talents to give ad- vice in such cases; the danger arises principally from in- attention and erroneous views of the gospel. If, brethren, you would assist us in this delightful work, allow us to caution you against one prevailing error, and to recommend one important rule. The error to which we allude is, TAKING IT For GRANTED THAT THE PARTY HAS NO DOUBTS AS TO THE GOSPEL WAY OF SALVATION, AND No UN will.INGNEss To BE SAVED BY IT, PROVIDED GoD were BUT will ING TO SAVE HIM. Such are probably his thoughts of himself; and the only question with him is, whether he have an interest in Christ and spiritual bless- ings. Hence he is employed in searching for something in his religious experience which may amount to an evi- dence of his conversion ; and in talking with you he ex- pects you to assist him in the search. But do not take this account of things as being the true one : it is founded in self-deception. If he understood and believed the gos- pel way of salvation, he would know that God was willing to save any sinner who is willing to be saved by it. A willingness to relinquish every false confidence, every claim of preference before the most ungodly character, and every ground of hope save that which God has laid in the gospel, is all that is wanting. If he have this, there is nothing in heaven or earth in the way of his salvation. In conversing with such a character we should impress this truth upon him, assuring him that if he be straitened it is not of God, but in his own bowels—that the doubts which he enter- tains of the willingness of God, especially on account of his sinfulness and unworthiness, are no other than the workings of a self-righteous opposition to the gospel (as they imply an opinion, that if he were less sinful and more worthy, God might be induced to save him)—and that if he be not saved, it will be owing to his thus continuing to stumble at the stumbling-stone. Instead of allowing that he believes the gospel, and is willing to be saved in the gospel way, while yet his very moans betray the contrary, we should labour to persuade him that he does not yet understand the deceit of his own heart—that if he were willing to come to Christ for life, there is no doubt of his being accepted ; in short, that, whenever he is brought to be of this mind, he will not only ask after the good way, but walk in it, and will assuredly find rest unto his soul. The rule we recommend is this : PoinT THEM DIRECTLY To THE SAviour. It may be thought that no Christian can misunderstand or misapply this important direction, which is every where taught in the New Testament. Yet if you steer not clear of the above error, you will be un- able to keep to it. So long as you admit the obstruction to believing in Christ to consist in something distinct from disaffection to the gospel way of salvation, it will be next to impossible for you to exhort a sinner to it in the lan- guage of the New Testament. For how can you exhort a man to that which you think he desires with all his heart to comply with, but cannot? You must feel that such ex- hortations would be tantalizing and insulting him. You may, indeed, conceive of him as ignorant, and as such la- bour to instruct him ; but your feelings will not suffer you to exhort him to any thing in which he is involuntary. Hence, you will content yourselves with directing him to wait at the pool of ordinances, and it may be to pray for grace to enable him to repent and believe, encouraging him to hope for a happy issue in God’s due time. But this is not pointing the sinner directly to Christ. On the contrary, it is furnishing him with a resting-place short of him, and giving him to imagine that duties performed while in un- belief are pleasing to God. If you point the awakened sinner directly to the Saviour, after the manner of the New Testament, you will not be employed in assisting him to analyze the distresses of his mind, and administering consolation to him from the hope that they may contain some of the ingredients of true con- version, or at least the signs that he will be converted. . Neither will you consider distress as ascertaining a happy } CHRISTIANS ENTREATED TO PROMOTE THE CAUSE OF CHRIST. 733 issue, any otherwise than as it leads to Christ. If the question were, Do I believe in Jesus for salvation ? then, indeed, you must inquire what effects have been produced. But it is very different where the inquiry is, What shall we do º or, What shall I do to be saved ? The murderers of Christ were distressed ; but Peter did not attempt to comfort them by alleging that this was a hopeful sign of their conversion, or by any way directing their attention to what was within them. On the contrary, he exhibited the Saviour, and exhorted them to repent and be baptized in his name. The same may be said of the Philippian jailer. He was in great distress, yet no comfort was ad- ministered to him from this quarter, nor any other, except the salvation of Christ. Him Paul and Silas exhibited, and in him directly exhorted him to believe. The promise of rest is not made to the weary and heavy laden, but to those who come to Christ under their burdens. - Once more, If you keep this rule, though you will la- bour to make the sinner sensible of his sin, (as till this is the case he will never come to the Saviour,) yet you will be far from holding up this his sensibility as affording any warrant, qualification, or title to believe in him, which he did not possess before. The gospel itself is the warrant, and not any thing in the state of the mind; though, till the mind is made sensible of the evil of sin, it will never comply with the gospel. Fourthly, There is in all congregations and neighbour- hoods a considerable number of people who are living in their sins, and in a state of unconcernedness about salva- tion.—Our work in respect of them is, whether they will hear or whether they will forbear, to declare unto them their true character, to exhibit the Saviour as the only refuge, and to warn them to flee to him from the wrath to come. In this also there are various ways in which you may greatly assist us. ... If, as heads of families, you were to inquire of your children and servants what they have heard and noticed on the Lord's day, you would of. ten find occasion to second the impressions made by our labours. It is also of great consequence to be endued with that wisdom from above which dictates a word in season to men in our ordinary concerns with them. Far be it from us to recommend the fulsome practice of some professors, who are so full of what they call religion as to introduce it on all occasions, and that in a most offensive manner. Yet there is a way of dropping a hint to a good purpose. It is admirable to observe the easy and inoffen- sive manner in which a patriarch introduced some of the most important truths to a heathen prince, merely in answer to the question, How old art thou? “The days of the years of my pilgrimage,” said he, “are a hundred and thirty years; few and evil have the days of the years of my life been, and have not attained unto the days of the years of the life of my fathers, in the days of their pilgrim- age.” This was insinuating to Pharaoh that he and his fathers before him were strangers and pilgrims upon the earth—that their portion was not in this world, but in another—that the life of man, though it extended to a hundred and thirty years, was but a few days—and that those few days were mixed with evil—all which, if the king reflected on it, would teach him to set light by the earthly glory with which he was loaded, and to seek a crown which fadeth not away. You are acquainted with many who do not attend the Preaching of the word. If, by inviting them to go with you, an individual only should be caught, as we say, in the gospel.net, you would save a soul from death. Šuch examples have frequently occurred. It is an established law in the Divine administration, that men, both in good and evil, should in a very great degree draw and be drawn by each other. The ordinary way in which the knowledge of God is spread in the world is, by every man saying to his neighbour and to his brother, Know the Lord. i: is a character of gospel times, that “Many people shall go and say, Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob ; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths; for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.” Add to this, by visiting your neighbours un- der affliction you would be furnished with many an op- portunity of conversing with them to advantage. Men's consciences are commonly awake at such seasons, what- ever they have been at others. It is as the month to the wild ass, in which they that seek her may find her. Finally, Enable us to use strong language when recom- mending the gospel by its holy and happy effects.-Unbe- lievers constantly object to the doctrine of grace as licen. tious ; and if they can refer to your unworthy conduct, they will be confirmed, and we shall find it impossible to vindicate the truth of God without disowning such con- duct, and it may be you on account of it : but if we can appeal to the upright, the temperate, the peaceable, the benevolent, the holy lives of those among whom we la- bour, it will be of more weight than a volume of reason- ings, and have a greater influence on the consciences of men. A congregation composed of kind and generous masters, diligent and faithful servants, affectionate hus- bands, obedient wives, tender parents, dutiful children, and loyal subjects, will be to a minister what children of the youth are said to be to a parent : As arrows in the hand of a mighty man :-‘‘Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them : they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate.” These, brethren, are some of the principal ways in which we affectionately solicit your assistance in promot- ing the interest of Christ. In doing this, we virtually pledge ourselves to be ready on all occasions to engage in it. We feel the weight of this implication. Let each have the other's prayer, that we may both be assisted from above, without which all the assistance we can render each other will be unavailing. Should this address fall into the hands of one who is yet in his sins, let him con- sider that the object of it is his salvation ; let him reflect on the case of a man whom many are endeavouring to save, but he himself, with hardened unconcern, is press- ing forward to destruction ; and finally, should he bethink himself, and desire to escape the wrath to come, let him beware of false refuges, and flee to Jesus, the hope set before him in the gospel. 1807. ON MORAL AND POSITIVE OBEDIENCE. DEAR BRETHREN, IN addressing these our annual letters to you, it is our desire to lead you on in the Divine life, that, not contented with a superficial acquaintance with religion, you may clearly understand its most discriminating principles. The winds of doctrine which abound, by which many, like children, are tossed to and fro and carried away, re- quire that you grow up into Him in all things who is the Head, even Christ. Concerning the subject of our present address, namely, moral and positive obedience, suffice it to say, we think we perceive some serious evils growing up in certain parts of the Christian world for want of distinct ideas concerning it, and wish to arm your minds against them. All we shall attempt will be to give a clear statement of the dis- tinction, and to point out the use of it in the Christian religion. An unreserved obedience to the revealed will of God, in whatever form it is delivered, is the Scriptural test of faith and love. You have professed to believe in Christ for salvation, and have been baptized in his name; but this is not all ; the same commission which requires this directs also that the disciples should be instructed in the whole mind of Christ: “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” As the commandments of Christ, however, are not all of the same kind, so neither is our obedience required to be yielded in all respects on the same principles. The distinction of obedience into moral and positive is far from being novel. It has been made by the ablest writers, of various denominations, and must be made if we would understand the Scriptures. Without it, we should confound the eternal standard of right and wrong 734 CIRCULAR LETTERS. given to Israel at Sinai (the sum of which is love to God and our neighbour) with the body of “carnal ordinances imposed on them until the time of reformation.” We should also confound those precepts and examples of the New Testament which arise from the relations we stand in to God and to one another, with positive institutions which arise merely from the sovereign will of the Law- giver, and could never have been known had he not ex- pressly enjoined them. Concerning the former, an in- spired writer does not scruple to refer the primitive Chris- tians to that sense of right and wrong which is implanted in the minds of men in general ; saying, “Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report ; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.” But concerning the latter, he directs their whole attention to Christ, and to those who acted under his authority. “Be ye followers of me as I also am of Christ.”—“Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remem- ber me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I deliver- ed them to you.” The one is commanded because it is right; the other is right because it is commanded. The great principles of the former are of perpetual obligation, and know no other variety than that which arises from the varying of relations and conditions ; but those of the lat- ter may be binding at one period of time, and utterly abolished at another. We can clearly perceive that it were inconsistent with the perfections of God not to have required us to love him and one another, or to have allowed of the contrary. Children also must needs be required to “obey their parents; for this is right.” But it is not thus in positive institutions. Whatever wisdom there may be in them, and whatever discernment in us, we could not have known them had they not been expressly revealed; nor are they ever enforced as being right in themselves, but merely as being of Divine appointment. Of them we may say, Had it pleased God, he might in various instances have enjoined the opposites; but of the other we are not allowed to suppose it possible, or consistent with righteousness, to re- quire any thing different from that which is required. The design of moral obligation is to preserve order in the creation; that of positive institutions, among other things, to prove us, whether, like Abraham in offering up his son, we will yield implicit obedience to God’s com- mandments, or whether we will hesitate till we perceive the reason of them. The obligation of man to love and obey his Creator was coeval with his existence ; but it was not till God had planted a garden in Eden, and there put the man whom he had formed, and expressly prohibited the fruit of one of the trees on pain of death, that he came under a positive law. The former would approve itself to his conscience as according with the nature of things; the latter as being commanded by his Creator. Having briefly stated our views of the subject, we pro- cººd to point out the uses to which it is applicable in the exercise of Christian obedience. Far be it from us to amuse the churches we represent with useless distinctions, or speculations which apply not to the great purposes of practical godliness. If we mistake not, brethren, a clear view of the subject, as stated above, Will furnish you with much important instruction. ... We need only remind you of the use of this distinction in reducing to a narrow compass the baptismal controversy. Your ablest writers have shown from hence the fallacy of all reasonings in favour of infant baptism from the Abra- hamic covenant, from circumcision, or from any ground of mere analogy : and not your writers only; for the prin- ciple is conceded by a considerable number of our most learned opponents.” In instituted worship, we have only to understand the will of our Divine Lawgiver in relation to the subject in question, and to obey it. But this is not the sole, nor perhaps the principal use to be made of the distinction. We are not only taught by it to look for express precept or example, in things positive, but not to look for them in things moral. In obe- dience of the latter description there is not that need of * See Booth's Pardobaptism Examined, Vol. I, Chap. I. minute rules or examples as in the former ; but merely of general principles, which naturally lead to all the particu- lars comprehended in them. To require express precept or example, or to adhere in all cases to the literal sense of those precepts which are given us, in things of a moral nature, would lead to very injurious consequences. We may, by a disregard of that for which there is no express precept or precedent, omit what is manifestly right; and, by an adherence to the letter of Scriptural precepts, over- look the spirit of them, and do that which is manifestly wrong. If we do nothing without express precept or precedent, we must build no places for Christian worship, form no societies for visiting and relieving the afflicted poor, estab- lish no schools, endow no hospitals, nor contribute any thing towards them, nor any thing towards printing or circulating the Holy Scriptures. Whether any person pretending to serious religion would deny these things to be the duty of Christians, we cannot tell; some, how- ever, on no better ground, have thought themselves at liberty to lay aside family worship, and the sanctification of the Lord's day. There is no express precept or prece- dent for either, that we recollect, in the New Testament. But the worship of God, being of moral obligation, ex- In duties of this description, it is not God’s usual, at least not his universal method, to furnish us with minute pre- cepts, but rather with general principles which will na- turally lead us to the practice of them. We have no ac- count of any particular injunction given to Abraham respecting the order of his family. God had said to him in general, “Walk before me, and be thou perfect;” and this was sufficient. “I know Abraham, said the Lord, that he will command his children, and his household after him, that they shall keep the way of the Lord, and do justice and judgment.” And with respect to “the sanc- tification of the Lord's day,” so far as it relates to its being the day appointed for Christian worship, rather than the seventh—that is to say, so far as it is positive—though we have no express precept for it, yet there are not want- ing precedents, which amount to the same thing. As to the keeping of the day “ holy to the Lord,” this is moral, and not positive, and is therefore left to be inferred from general principles. If God be publicly worshipped, there must be a time for it ; and that time requires to be devoted to him. Whatever was moral in the setting apart of the seventh day for Divine worship (and that something was so may be presumed from its being one of the ten com- mandments) applies to any day that shall be appointed for the like purpose. Positive institutions have all some- thing moral pertaining to them, as it respects the holy manner in which they are to be observed. It was on this principle that Paul censured as immoral the manner in which the Corinthians attended to a positive institute. His reasoning on that subject applies to the Lord’s day. He argued from the ordinance of breaking bread being the Lord's supper that eating their own supper while at- tending to it was rendering it null and void. And, by a parity of reasoning, it follows, from the first day of the week being the Lord's day, that to do our own work, find our own pleasure, or speak our own words on that day, is to render it null and void. Of the former the apostle declared, “THIs Is Not To EAT THE LORD's supper ; ” and of the latter he would, on the same principle, have declared, THIs Is NoT To KEEP THE LORD’s DAY. After all, it is surprising if any who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity can feel this to be a burden. “Why, even of your own selves, judge ye not what is right 3’’ If, on the other hand, we do every thing according to the letter of moral precepts, we shall often overlook the true intent of them, and do that which is manifestly wrong. Our Lord's precepts, in his sermon on the mount, if so understood, would contain a prohibition of all public prayers, and public contributions, and require such an acquiescence in injuries as he himself, when smitten before Pilate, did not exemplify. The right hand, in certain cases, must be cut off, and the right eye plucked out. If God prosper our lawful undertakings, we must not only avoid all increase of property, but must retain no part of what we have. No beggar nor borrower that asks assist- tends to the various relations and situations in life. } MORAL AND POSITIVE OBEDIENCE. 4. 735 ance, whether he need it or not, must, on any consider- ation, be refused. We believe self-love will be a sufficient preservative against such expositions being reduced to practice; but if the principle be retained, it will be at work in some other form, diverting the attention from weightier matters, and reducing religion to ceremony and litigious trifling. It was not our Lord’s design, in these precepts, to regu- late external actions so much as motives. Many of his precepts, it is true, mention the act, and the act only ; but their aim is at the principle. It was the spirit of ostenta- tion in prayer and almsgiving, of selfish resentment in cases of injury, and of the love of the world in cases of accumu- lating and retaining property, that he meant to censure. Neither is it by attending to a ceremony which the country and climate ordinarily render unnecessary, that we comply with our Lord’s precept, “Ye ought to wash one another's feet;” but “by love serving one another.” We may wash the saints' feet, and neglect to dry their clothes, or administer necessary comfort to them when cold and weary. We may give a disciple a cup of cold water, and keep back what is more valuable for our own use. If we be taught of God to love one another, we shall find little difficulty in understanding and practising these precepts. By confounding moral and positive obedience, some have reasoned thus: “You agree to take your children to family and public worship, teach them to read the Bible with seriousness and attention, instruct them in cate- chisms, &c., and why do you not take them to the Lord's supper ?” We answer, The former are moral obligations; but the latter is not. These are binding on all mankind, and therefore ought to be inculcated from the earliest dawn of knowledge, even though we had never been told to “bring up our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord ;” but this is the immediate duty of believers only. Others, on the same principle, have argued thus, or to this effect: “You withhold the unconverted from join- ing at the Lord's table, and why not also from joining in Jamily and public prayer 2 ” Our answer is the same. The Lord's supper is the immediate duty of believers only; but prayer is binding on men in general, however far they may be from performing it in an acceptable manner. To join with unbelievers in what is not their immediate duty is to become partakers of their sin ; but to allow them to join with us in what is the duty of every one is not so. We ought to pray for such things as both we and they stand in need of, and if they unite with us in desire it is well for them ; if not, the guilt remains with themselves, and not with us. If we be not greatly mistaken, many disputes which have divided Christians on the form, order, and government of the church of Christ, might at least have been considerably diminished by a proper attention to this subject. While One party contends for an Erastian latitude, or that no Divine directions are left us on these subjects, and that the church must be modelled and governed according to Circumstances, the other seems to have considered the Whole as a system of positive institutions, requiring in all things the most literal and punctilious observance. The truth lies, we apprehend, between these extremes ; and the way to find it is to ascertain on what principles the apostles proceeded in forming and organizing Christian churches, PositryE or MoRAL. If the former, they must have been furnished with an exact model, or pattern, like that which was given to Moses in the mount, and have done all things according to it; but if the latter, they would only be furnished with general principles, comprehending, but not specifying, a great variety of particulars. That the framing of the tabernacle was positive there can be no doubt; and that a part of the religion of the New Testament is so is equally evident. Concerning this, the injunctions of the apostle are minute and very express. “Be ye followers (imitators) of me, as I also am of Christ.” -“In this I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you.”—“For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you.” But were we to attempt to draw up a formula of church government, worship, and discipline, which should include any thing more than ge- neral outlines, and to establish it upon express New Testa- ment authorities, we should attempt what is impracticable. We doubt not but the apostles acted under Divine di- rection ; but in things of a moral nature that direction consisted, not in providing them with a model, or pattern, in the manner of that given to Moses, but in furnishing them with general principles, and enduing them with holy wisdom to apply them as occasions required. We learn from the Acts and the Epistles that the first churches were congregations of faithful men, voluntarily united together for the stated ministration of the word, the administration of Christian ordinances, and the mutu- ally assisting each other in promoting the cause of Christ; that they were governed by bishops and deacons; that a bishop was an overseer, not of other ministers, but of the flock of God; that the government and discipline of each church was within itself; that the gifts of the different members were so employed as to conduce to the welfare of the body; and that, in cases of disorder, all proper means were used to vindicate the honour of Christ, and reclaim the party. These, and others which might be named, we call ge- neral principles. They are sometimes illustrated by the incidental occurrence of examples, and which, in all sim?- lar cases, are binding ; but it is not always so. That a variety of cases occur in our times, in which we have no- thing more than general principles to direct us, is mani- fest to every person of experience and reflection. We know that churches were formed, elders ordained, and prayer and praise conducted with “the understanding,” or so as to be understood by others; but in what particu- lar manner they proceeded in each we are not told. We have no account of the formation of a single church, no ordination service, nor any such thing as a formula of worship. If we look for express precept or example for the removal of a pastor from one situation to another, we shall find none. We are taught, however, that for the church to grow unto a holy temple in the Lord it requires to be “fitly framed together.” The want of “fitness” in a connexion, therefore, especially if it impede the growth of the spiritual temple, may justify a removal. Or if there be no want of fitness, yet, if the material be adapted to occupy a more important station, a removal of it may be very proper. Such a principle may be misapplied to am- bitious and interested purposes; but if the increase of the temple be kept in view, it is lawful, and in some cases at- tended with great and good effects. This instance may suffice instead of a hundred, and goes to show that the forms and orders of the New Testament church, much more than of the Old, are founded on the reason of things. They appear to be no more than what men who were possessed of the wisdom from above would, as it were instinctively, adopt, even though no specific di- rections should be given. But to place the matter beyond all doubt, let us refer to the professions and practices of the apostles themselves. The principles on which they professed to act, and which they inculcated on others, were these : “Let all things be done to edifying.”—“Let all things be done decently, and in order.” Whatever measures had a tendency to build up the church of God and individuals in their most holy faith, these they pursued. Whatever measures approved themselves to minds endued with holy wisdom as fit and lovely, and as tending, like good discipline in an army, to the enlargement of Christ's kingdom, these they followed, and inculcated on the churches. And however worldly minds may have abused the principle, by introducing vain customs under the pretence of decency, it is that which, understood in its simple and original sense, must still be the test of good order and Christian discipline. The way in which the apostles actually proceeded in the forming and organizing of churches corresponds with this statement of things. When a number of Christians were assembled together in the days of Pentecost, they were considered as a Christian church. But at first they had no deacons, and probably no pastors, except the apos- tles. And if the reason of things had not required it, they might have continued to have none. But in the course of things new service rose upon their hands, therefore they must have new servants to perform it ; for, said the apos- 736 CIRCULAR LETTERS. prophesy with their heads covered. tles, “It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost, and of wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.” In this process we perceive nothing of the air of a ceremony, nothing like that of punctilious attention to forms, which marks obedience to a positive institute ; but merely the conduct of men endued with the wisdom from above ; servants appointed when service required it, and the number of the one regulated by the quantity of the other. All things are done “decently and in order; ” all things are done “to edifying.” It is not difficult to perceive the wisdom of God in thus Varying the two dispensations. The Jewish church was an army of soldiers who had to go through a variety of forms in learning their discipline ; the Christian church is an army going forth to battle. The members of the former were taught punctilious obedience, and led with great formality through a variety of religious evolutions; but those of the latter (though they also must keep their ranks, and act in obedience to command whenever it is given) are not required to be so attentive to the mechanical as to the mental, not so much to the minute observance of forms as to the spirit and design of them. The order of the one would almost seem to have been appointed for order's sake; but in that of the other the utility of every thing is apparent. The obedience of the former was that of chil- dren; the latter that of sons arrived at maturer age. As our Saviour abolished the Jewish law of divorce, and reduced marriage to its original simplicity; so, hav- ing abolished the form and order of the church as ap- pointed by Moses, he reduced it to what, as to its first principles, it was from the beginning, and to what must have corresponded with the desires of believers in every age. It was natural for “the sons of God,” in the days of Seth, to assemble together, and to “call upon the name of the Lord ;” and their unnatural fellowship with unbe- lievers brought on the deluge. And even under the Jew- ish dispensation, wicked men, though descended from Abraham, were not considered as Israelites indeed, or true citizens of Zion. The friends of God were then “the companions of those that feared him.” They “ spoke often one to another,” and assembled for mutual edifica- tion. What then is gospel church fellowship, but godli- ness ramified, or the principle of holy love reduced to action ? ... There is scarcely a precept on the subject of church discipline, but what may, in substance, be found in the Proverbs of Solomon. Nor does it follow that all forms of worship and church government are indifferent, and left to be accommodated to times, places, and circumstances. The principles, or general outlines of things, are marked out, and we are not at liberty to deviate from them ; nor are they to be fill- ed up by worldly policy, but by a pure desire of carrying them into effect according to their true intent. It does follow, however, that Scripture precedent, im- portant as it is, is not binding on Christians in things of a moral nature, unless the reason of the thing be the same in the case to be proved as in the case adduced. The first Christians met in an “upper room;” for they had no proper places of worship. But it does not follow that we who have more convenient houses should do so. The first Christians were exhorted to “salute one another with a holy kiss.” The reason was, it was the custom in the East for men in general in this manner to express their affection; and all that the apostle did was to direct that this common mode of affectionate salutation should be used in a religious way. In places where it is a common practice, it may still be used to express the strength of Christian affection ; but in a country where the practice is nearly confined to the expression of affection between the sexes, it is certainly much more liable to misconstruc- tion and abuse. And as it was never a Divine institution, but merely a human custom applied to a religious use, where this custom has ceased, though the spirit of the precept remains, yet the form of it may lawfully be dis- pensed with, and Christian affection expressed in the or- dinary modes of salutation. Again, The Corinthian men were forbidden to pray or The reason was, the head being uncovered was then the sign of authority, and its being covered of subjection. But in our age and coun- try each is a sign of the contrary. If, therefore, we be obliged to wear any sign of the one or the other, in our religious assemblies, it requires to be reversed. It also follows that, in attending to positive institutions, neither express precept nor precedent is necessary in what respects the holy manner of performing them, nor binding in regard of mere accidental circumstances, which do not properly belong to them. It required neither express precept nor precedent to make it the duty of the Corin- thians, when they met to celebrate the Lord’s supper, to do it soberly and in the fear of God, nor to render the contrary a sin. There are also circumstances which may on some occasions accompany a positive institution, and not on others; and which, being therefore no part of it, are not binding. It is a fact that the Lord's supper was first celebrated with “unleavened bread ;” for no leaven was found at the time in all the Jewish habitations: but no mention being made of it, either in the institution or in the repetition of it by the apostle, we conclude it was a mere accidental circumstance, no more belonging to the ordinance than its having been in “a large upper room.” It is a fact, too, that our Lord and his disciples sat in a reclining posture at the supper, after the manner of sit- ting at their ordinary meals; yet mone imagine this to be binding upon us. It is also a fact, with regard to the time, that our Saviour first sat down with his disciples on the evening of the “fifth day” of the week, “the night in which he was betrayed;” but though that was a memor- able night, and worthy to be noticed as a circumstance tending to show the strength of his love, yet seeing the words of the institution decide not how often it shall be attended to, and no mention is made of its being after- wards a rule, but, on the contrary, of the church at Troas meeting for the purpose on another day, no one imagines it to be a rule of conduct to us. The same might be said of females being admitted to communion, a subject on which a great deal has been writ- ten of late years in the baptismal controversy. Whether there be express precept or precedent for it, or not, is of no consequence; for the distinction of sex is a mere cir- cumstance, in no wise affecting the qualifications required, and therefore not belonging to the institution. It is of just as much account as whether a believer be a Jew or a Greek, a slave or a free man; that is, it is of no account at all.—“ For there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female; but all are one in Christ Jesus.” Express precept or precedent might as well be demanded for the parties being tall or low, black or white, sickly or healthy, as for their being male or female. If the differ- ence between a professed believer and an unconscious in- fant, with respect to baptism, were no greater than this is with respect to the supper, we would allow it to be lawful to baptize the latter, though neither express precept nor precedent be found for the practice. It follows, lastly, that many disputes on which Chris- tians have divided and crumbled into parties might well have been spared, and that without any disadvantage to the cause of pure religion. Whatever necessity there may be for withdrawing from those who walk disorderly, we have no warrant to consider those things as the standard of order, and to censure our brethren for deviating from them, which belong not to the laws of Christ, but either to a mere difference of opinion respecting their applica- tion, or to some accidental circumstance which may or may not attend them. Finally, brethren, while you guard against the extremes of certain disciplinarians on the one hand, avoid those of anti-disciplinarians on the other. Allow us to repeat, what was observed at the beginning, that an unreserved obedience to the revealed will of God, in whatever form it is delivered, is the Scriptural test of faith and love. “Prove what that good, perfect, and acceptable will of the Lord is.” “Do all things without murmurings and disputings.” Remember that “the wisdom which is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.” Dearly beloved, farewell. The God of love and peace be with you, PROMISE OF THE SPIRIT. 737 1810. THE PROMISE of THE SPIRIT THE GRAND ENCOURAGEMENT IN PROMOTING THE GOSPEL. - DEAR BRETHREN, IN our last public letter, we addressed you on the work of the Holy Spirit; in this we would direct your attention to THE PROMISE of THE SPIRIT As THE GRAND ENCOURAGE- MENT IN PROMOTING THE SPREAD OF THE GOSPEL. We take for granted that the spread of the gospel is the great object of your desire. Without this it will be hard to prove that you are Christian churches. An agreement in a few favourite opinions, or on one side of a disputed subject, or even a disagreement with others, will often in- duce men to form themselves into religious societies, and to expend much zeal and much property in accomplishing their objects; but this is not Christianity. We may be of what is called a sect, but we must not be of a sectarian spirit, seeking only the promotion of a party. The true churches of Jesus Christ travail in birth for the salvation of men. They are the armies of the Lamb, the grand object of whose existence is to extend the Redeemer’s kingdom. About eighteen years ago God put it into the hearts of a number of your ministers and members to do something for his name among the heathen ; the effect of which has been to give an impulse to those labours for the attain- ment of the same object in our several stations at home. The success which has followed is sufficient to induce us to press forward in the work, and to search after every di- rection and every consideration that may aid our progress. The influence of the Holy Spirit is by some disowned, by others abused; and even those who are the subjects of it, from various causes, enjoy much less of it than might be expected. Those who disown it apply all that is said in the Scrip- tures on the subject to the communication of miraculous and extraordinary gifts, as though the Lord had long since forsaken the earth, and men were now to be converted by the mere influence of moral suasion. It is on this prin- ciple that writers, according to the leaning which they have felt towards the opinions of this or that political party, have represented the work of converting the heathen as either extremely easy or absolutely impossible. It is not for us to acquiesce in either; but, while we despair of success from mere human efforts, to trust in Him who, when sending forth his servants to teach all nations, pro- mised to be with them “to the end of the world.” There are those, on the other hand, who abuse the doc- trine, by converting it into an argument for sloth and avarice. God can convert sinners, say they, when he pleases, and without any exertions or contributions of ours.-Yes, he can ; and probably he will. Deliverance will arise from other quarters, and they who continue in this spirit will be destroyed Even those in whom the Spirit of God is enjoy much less of it than might be expected ; and this principally for want of the things which were stated in our letter of last year; namely, setting a proper value upon it, seeking it with fervent prayer; placing an entire dependence upon it, and maintaining a deportment suitable to it. In proving, therefore, that the promise of the Holy Spirit is the grand encouragement in promoting the spread of the gospel, we have not merely to oppose the adversaries of the doctrine, but to instruct and impress the minds of its friends. With these ends in view, let us recommend to your consideration the following remarks. First, The success of God’s cause under the Old Tes- tament was considered by believers in those days as de- pending entirely upon God.—God had a cause in the world from the earliest ages, and this it was which interested the hearts of his servants. It was for the setting up of his spiritual kingdom in the world that he blessed the seed of Abraham, and formed them into a people. This was the work that he carried on from generation to generation among them. When, therefore, sentence was passed on the people who came up out of Egypt, that they should die in the wilderness, Moses, who seems on that occasion to have written the 90th Psalm, was deeply concerned, lest, in addition to temporal judgments, the Lord should withdraw from them his Holy Spirit. “Let thy work,” said he, “appear unto thy servants, and thy glory unto their children; and let the beauty of Jehovah our God be upon us: and establish thou the work of our hands upon us; the work of our hands establish thou it.” It is worthy of notice that this prayer was answered. Though the first generation fell in the wilderness, yet the labours of Moses and his companions were blessed to the second. These were the most devoted to God of any generation that Is- rael ever saw. It was of them that the Lord said, “I re- member thee, the kindness of thy youth, the love of thine espousals, when thou wentest after me in the wilderness, in a land that was not sown. Israel was holiness unto the Lord, and the first-fruits of his increase.” It was then that Balaam could not curse, but, though desirous of the wages of unrighteousness, was compelled to forego them, and his curse was turned into a blessing. We are taught by this case, amidst temporal calamities and judg- ments, in which our earthly hopes may be in a manner extinguished, to seek to have the loss repaired by spiritual blessings. If God’s work does but appear to us, and our posterity after us, we need not be dismayed at the evils which afflict the earth. Similar remarks might be made on the state of the church at the captivity. When the temple was burnt, and the people reduced to slavery in a foreign land, it must seem as if the cause of God in the world would go to ruin. Hence the prayer of Habakkuk, “O Lord, I have heard thy speech, and was afraid. O Lord, revive (or preserve alive) thy work in the midst of the years: in the midst of the years make known ; in wrath remember mercy.” This prayer also was answered. The work of God did not suffer, but was promoted by the captivity. The church was purified, and the world, beholding the Divine interposition, acknowledged, “The Lord hath done great things for them.” After the return of the captives, they went about to re- build the temple; but they had many adversaries, and no military force to protect them. On this occasion the pro- phet Zechariah (who with Haggai stood to strengthen the builders) had a vision. He saw, and behold “a candle- stick, all of gold, with a bowl upon the top of it; and his seven lamps therein; and seven pipes to the seven lamps; and two olive trees on each side of the bowl, which, through the golden pipes, emptied the golden oil out of themselves.” On inquiry of the angel what these meant, he was an- swered, “This is the word of the Lord unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord of hosts.” As if he had said, This vision contains a message of encouragement to Zerubbabel, the purport of which is, Not by army or by power, &c. For, like as the candlestick is supplied without the hand of man, so God will prosper his cause, not by worldly power or armies, but by his gracious influence and superintend- ing providence. Here, also, a lesson is taught us, not to wait for legal protection, or even toleration, before we endeavour to introduce the gospel into a country; but to engage in the work, trusting in God, not only to succeed our labours, but, while acting on Christian principles, either to give us favour in the eyes of those with whom we have to do, or strength to endure the contrary. Further, The success of the gospel in the times of the apostles is ascribed to the influence of the Holy Spirit, as its first or primary cause. That the truth of the doctrine, and even the manner in which it was delivered, contri- buted as second causes to its success, is allowed. Such appears to be the meaning of Acts xiv. 1, “They so spake that a great multitude believed.” But if we look to either of these as the first cause, we shall be unable to account for the little success of our Lord’s preaching when compared with that of his apostles. He spoke as never man spoke ; yet compared with them he laboured in vain, and spent his strength for nought and in vain. It is the Holy Spirit to which the difference is ascribed. They did greater works than he, because, as he said, “I go to the Father.” - 3. 3 B 738 CIRCULAR LETTERS. In promising to “be with his disciples to the end of the world,” he could refer to no other than his spiritual pre- sence; to this, therefore, he taught them to look for en- couragement. To this cause the success of the apostles is uniformly ascribed. “The hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number believed, and turned to the Lord.—God always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.—The Lord opened the heart of Lydia, and she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.— The weapons of our warfare are mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds.” The great success which prophecy gives us to expect in the latter days is ascribed to the same cause. Upon the land of my people shall be thorns and briers—“ until the Spirit be poured upon us from on high.” Then the wil- derness would be a fruitful field, and that which had been hitherto considered as a fruitful field would be counted a forest. If the success of the gospel were owing to the pliability of the people, or to any preparedness, natural or acquired, for receiving it, we might have expected it to prevail most in those places which were the most distinguished by their morality, and most cultivated in their minds and manners. But the fact was, that in Corinth, a sink of debauchery, God had “much people;” whereas in Athens, the seat of polite literature, there were only a few individuals who embraced the truth. Nor was this the greatest display of the freeness of the Spirit : Jerusalem, which had not only withstood the preaching and miracles of the Lord, but had actually put him to death—Jerusalem bows at the pouring out of his Spirit; and not merely the common people, but t a great company of the priests, were obedient to the aith.” . To the above may be added, the ea:perience of those whose ministry has been most blessed to the turning of sinners to God.—Men of light and speculative minds, whose preaching produces scarcely any fruit, will go about to account for the renewal of the mind by the established laws of nature; but they who see most of this change among their hearers see most of God in it, and have been always ready to subscribe to the truth of our Lord’s words to Peter, “Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven.” To this brief statement of the evidence of the doctrine, we shall only add a few remarks to enforce “the prayer of faith” in your endeavours to propagate the gospel both at home and abroad.—This is the natural consequence of the doctrine. If all our help be in God, to him it becomes us to look for success. It was from a prayer-meeting, held in an upper room, that the first Christians descended, and commenced that notable attack on Satan's kingdom in which three thousand fell before them. When Peter was imprisoned, prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God for him. When liberated by the angel, in the dead of night, he found his brethren engaged in this exer- cise. It was in prayer that the late undertakings for spreading the gospel among the heathen originated. We have seen success enough attend them to encourage us to go forward; and probably if we had been more sensible of our dependence on the Holy Spirit, and more importunate in our prayers, we should have seen much more. The prayer of faith falls not to the ground. If “we have not,” it is “ because we ask not ;” or, if “we ask and receive not,” it is “ because we ask amiss.” Joash smote thrice upon the ground and stayed, by which he cut short his victories. Something analogous to this may be the cause of our having no more success than we have. Consider, brethren, the dispensation under which we live.—We are under the kingdom of the Messiah, fitly called “the ministration of the Spirit,” because the richest effusions of the Holy Spirit are reserved for his reign, and great accessions to the church from among the Gentiles ordained to grace his triumphs. It was fit that the death of Christ should be followed by the outpouring of the Spirit, that it might appear to be what it was, its proper cffect ; and that which was seen in the days of Pentecost was but an earnest of what is yet to come. To pray under such a dispensation is coming to God in a good time. In asking for the success of the gospel, we ask that of the Father of heaven and earth in which his soul delighteth, and to which he has pledged his every perfection; namely, to glorify his Son. Finally, Compare the current language of prophecy with the state of things in the world, and in the church.-In whatever obscurity the minutiae of future events may be involved, the events themselves are plainly revealed. We have seen the four monarchies, or preponderating powers, described by Daniel as successively ruling the world ; namely, the Babylonian, the Persian, the Macedonian, and the Roman. We have seen the last subdivided into ten kingdoms, and the little papal horn growing up among them. We have seen the saints of the Most High “worn out” for more than a thousand years by his persecutions. We have seen his rise, his reign, and, in a considerable de- gree, his downfal. “The judgment is set,” and they have begun to “take away his dominion;” and will go on “to consume and to destroy it unto the end.” And when this is accomplished, “the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, will be given to the people of the saints of the Most High.” It is not improbable that “the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound,” have already commenced; which voice, while it ushers in the vials or seven last plagues upon the antichristian powers, is to the church a signal of prosperity: for, the seventh angel having sounded, voices are heard in heaven, saying, “The king- doms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.” The glorious things spoken of the church are not all con- fined to the days of the millennium ; many of them will go before it, in like manner as the victorious days of David went before the rest, or pacific reign, of Solomon, and pre- pared its way. Previous to the fall of Babylon, an angel is seen flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to them that dwell on the earth ; and be- fore that terrible conflict in which the beast and the false prophet are taken, the Son of God is described as riding forth on a white horse, and the armies of heaven as fol- lowing him. The final ruin of the antichristian cause will be brought upon itself by its opposition to the progress of the gospel. The sum is, that the time for the promulgation of the gospel is come; and, if attended to in a full dependence on the promise of the Spirit, it will, no doubt, be successful. —The rough places in its way are smoothing, that all flesh may see the salvation of God. The greatest events per- taining to the kingdom of heaven have occurred in such a way as to escape the observation of the unbelieving world, and, it may be, of some believers. It was so at the coming of our Lord, and probably will be so in much that is before us. If we look at events only with respect to instruments, second causes, and political bearings, we shall be filled with vexation and disquietude, and shall come within the sweep of that awful threatening, “Because they regard not the works of the Lord, nor the operations of his hands, he will destroy them, and not build them up.” But if we keep our eye on the kingdom of God, whatever become of the kingdoms of this world, we shall reap advantage from every thing that passes before us. God in our times is shaking the heavens and the earth : but there are things which cannot be shaken. “Wherefore we, receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace whereby we may serve God acceptably, with reverence and godly fear.” 1815. THE SITUATION OF THE WIDOWS AND OR- PHANS OF CHRISTIAN MINISTERS, ETC. DEAR BRETHREN, THE subject to which we this year invite your attention, is THE SITUATION OF THE widows AND ORPHANs of CHRIS- TIAN MINISTERs, AND OF MINISTERS THEMSELVES WHO BY AGE, OR PERMANENT AFFLICTION, ARE LAID ASIDE FROM THEIR WORK, WIDOWS AND ORPHANS OF CHRISTIAN MINISTERS: 739 We have not been used to address you on subjects re- lating to our own temporal interests; nor is this the case at present; for the far greater part of those who have been most active in forming the institution for which we plead have no expectation of deriving any advantage from it, but, feeling for many of their brethren, they are desirous of alleviating their condition. - Mercy is a distinguishing character of the religion of the Bible, especially to the fatherless and the widow. The great God claims to be their Protector and Avenger. “A Father of the fatherless, and a Judge of the widow, is God in his holy habitation.”—“Ye shall not afflict any widow or fatherless child. If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry. And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword: and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless.” Mercy to the fatherless and the widow is in- troduced as a test of true religion. “Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this, To visit the fa- therless and widows in their affliction, and to-keep our- selves unspotted from the world.” The affliction of the fatherless and the widow is a subject taken for granted. From the day of their bereavement, dejection takes pos- session of their dwelling, and imprints its image on every object around them. And when to this is added, that from time to time their sources of the necessaries of life are in a great measure dried up, a full cup of affliction must needs be their portion. At first many feel for them, and weep with them : but time and a number of similar cases wear away these impressions; and, being unprotected, it is well if they be not exposed to oppression; and even where there is no particular want of kindness towards them, yet their cases, being but little known, are often but little regarded. The widow and fatherless children of ministers have pe- culiar claims on the benevolence of the churches. The ministerial profession, like that of arms, requires the sub- jects of it, if possible, not to “entangle themselves with the affairs of this life, that they may please him who has chosen them to be soldiers.” On this ground, a large pro- portion of ministers, living entirely on the contributions of their hearers, have no opportunity of providing for their families after their decease. You, brethren, by the bless- ing of God on your diligent attention to business, are gener- ally enabled to meet this difficulty. You have business in which to bring up your children from their early years; but they seldom have : and when you have taught them an honourable calling, you can spare something to set them up in trade ; but it is rarely so with them. Yet the post occupied by your ministers is honourable and important. Regardless of the sneers of the irreligious, they feel it to be so. To be chosen and approved by a Christian congregation, next to the choice and approbation of Christ, is their highest ambition. This honour, how- ever, involves them in circumstances which require your consideration. You expect them to maintain a respectable appearance, both in their persons and families; but to do this, and at the same time to pay every one his due, often renders it impossible to provide for futurity. Our churches, when in want of ministers, are solicitous to obtain men of talent. There may be an excess in this desire, especially where personal godliness is overlooked ; and it is certain that great talents are far from being com: mon. But view Christian ministers as a body, and we may appeal to you whether they be not possessed of talents, which, if employed in business, would with the blessing of God, ordinarily bestowed on honest industry, have ren- dered both them and their families equally comfortable with you and yours. And shall their having relinquished these temporal advantages to serve the cause of Christ, and to promote your spiritual welfare, be at the expense of the comfort of their widows and children when they have finished their course ? - In the persecuting times which preceded the revolution of 1688, our Protestant Dissenting forefathers had but lit- tle encouragement to provide for futurity, as the fruits of their industry were taken from them : but it is not so with us; our property is secure ; and we are therefore able to contribute to those benevolent objects which tend to the good of mankind. It was an object that attracted the attention of our fa- thers, early in the last century, to provide for the widows of their ministers; and a noble fund it is which was then established in London for the widows of the three denomi- nations. Besides this, a liberal plan has been pursued within the last two-and-twenty years to increase the sum, by an addition from the profits of a magazine. It is not to supersede these benevolent means of relief, but to add to them according to the exigences of the times, and to in- clude not only widows, but superannuated ministers and orphans, that societies like ours have of late been formed in various counties and religious connexions. The case of superannuated ministers, or ministers who by affliction are permanently laid aside from their work, has a serious influence on the well-being of the churches. Where no provision of this kind is made, every humane and Christian feeling revolts at the idea of dismissing an aged and honourable man, even though his work is done. Yet if the congregation continue to support him, they may be unable to support another. The consequence is, in a few years the congregation has dwindled almost to nothing. To meet these cases, along with those of the fatherless and the widow, is the object of this institution. Brethren, we feel it an honour to be supported by the free contributions of those whom we serve in the gospel of Christ. To receive our support as an expression of love ren- ders it doubly valuable. And if you view things in a right light, you will esteem it a privilege on your part. If your places of worship were ready built for you, your ministers supported, and their families provided for, would it be bet- ter? Would you feel equally interested in them 3 Would you not feel as David did when Araunah the Jebusite offered his thrashing-floor, his oxen, and his wood “Nay, but I will not offer burnt-offerings unto the Lord my God of that which doth cost me nothing !” - Should any object that ministers ought to set an exam- ple of trust in their heavenly Father, who knoweth what things they need, and of leaving their widows and father- less children with him ; we answer, when all is done that can be done to alleviate their wants, there will be abund- ant occasion for these graces. The trust that we are called to place in our heavenly Father does not however preclude the exercise of prudent foresight, either in ourselves, or in the friends of Christ towards us for his sake. It is one of the most lovely features of our mission in the East, that, while our brethren are disinterestedly giving up all their temporal acquirements to the cause in which they are engaged, they have provided an asylum for their widows and orphans; so that when a missionary dies, he has no painful anxiety what is to become of them. They have a home, which some have preferred to their native country. Is it any distrust of the Lord's goodness to be thus tender of those who are flesh of their flesh and bone of their bone, and who have helped to bear the burden of their cares? Say, rather, is it not a truly Christian conduct? But, if so, why should we not go and do likewise 3 It is one of the most endearing traits in the character of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, while the salvation of the world was pending, he did not neglect to provide for his aged mother. Joseph is thought to have been dead for some years, and Mary seems to have followed Jesus, who, while upon earth, discharged every branch of filial duty and affection towards her. But now that he is going to his Father, who shall provide for her? Looking down from the cross on her, and on his beloved disciple, he saith to the one, “Behold thy son 1 ° and to the other, “Behold thy mother l’” What exquisite sensibility do these words convey ! To her it was saying, Consider me as living in my beloved disciple ; and to him, Consider my mother as your own. It is no wonder that “from that time that disciple took her to his own home.” We live in times very eventful; and it cannot have escaped your observation that the success of the gospel has kept pace with the mighty changes which have agitated the world. Never, perhaps, were there such great calls on our liberality as of late years, and never were more honourable exertions made. Yet God, that giveth us all things richly to enjoy, has not suffered us to want, and has promised to supply all our need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus. 3 B 2 LETTERS ON S Y S T E M A TI C D I V IN IT Y. ADVERTISEMENT. 9. ABOUT the beginning of 1814, Mr. Fuller, in compliance with the request of Dr. Ryland, began a Series of Letters, in- tending to prepare one every month, till he had gone through a BoDY of DIVINITY. He was, however, prevented by ill health and his many pressing engagements from punctually fulfilling his design; and only the following NINE Letters had been completed when he was called to his reward. §. LETTER I. IMPORTANCE OF systEMATIC DIVINITY. MY DEAR BROTHER, RESPECTING your request of a monthly letter, I acknow- ledge I have wished for several years past to give, as far as I was able, a connected view of the gospel; but have hitherto wanted either sufficient leisure, or sufficient in- ducement, seriously to set about it. The difficulty of giving every part of Divine truth its due importance, and of placing it in the system where it will have the greatest effect, is such that I have no expectation of doing it to my own satisfaction; but I am willing to try. May the Holy Spirit of God preserve my heart and mind, that I may neither be misled, nor contribute to the misleading of others. Pray that this may be the case; and, as you re- ceive my letters, make free remarks upon them, and let me see them. Before I enter upon particulars, I wish to obviate some objections to the study of systematic divinity, and to show its importance to a just and enlarged view of the gospel. For this purpose, I must beg leave to introduce part of a sermon, which I printed nearly eighteen years ago, “On the Importance of a Deep and Intimate Acquaintance with Divine Truth.” # * LETTER II. IMPORTANCE OF A TRUE SYSTEM. IN my last I endeavoured to show the importance of Sys- tem: in this I shall attempt to show the importance of a true system; and to prove that truth itself, by being dis- placed from those connexions which it occupies in the Scriptures, may be perverted, and prove injurious to those that hold it. No system can be supposed to be wholly erroneous; but if a considerable part of it be false, the whole will be vitiated, and that which is true will be di- * In this edition it is not thought necessary to transcribe the pas- Bage, as it will be found in pages 559, 560, and comprises the fourth subdivision of the first part of the discourse referred to. vested of its salutary influence. “If ye be circumcised,” said the apostle to the Galatians, “ Christ shall profit you nothing.” As one truth, thoroughly imbibed, will lead to a hundred more, so will one error. False doctrine will eat as doth a gangrene, which, though it may seem to be confined to one part of the body, infects the whole mass, and, if not extracted, must issue in death. If one put on the profession of Christianity without cor- dially believing it, it will not sit easy upon him ; his heart will not be in it : and if, at the same time, he live in the indulgence of secret vice, he will soon feel it necessary to new-model his religious opinions. It degrades him, even in his own esteem, to be a hypocrite, avowing one thing and practising another. In order to be easy, therefore, it becomes necessary for him to have a new creed, that he may answer the reproaches of his conscience, and it may be those of his acquaintance, by the assumption that his ideas are changed. He begins by doubting ; and having by criminal indulgence effaced all sense of the holiness of God from his mind, he thinks of him only in respect of what he calls his goodness, which he hopes will induce him to connive at his frailties. With thoughts like these, of God and of sin, he will soon find himself in possession of a system. A new field of thought opens to his mind, in which he finds very little need of Christ, and becomes, in his own eyes, a being of consequence. Such, or nearly such, was the process of those who perished, “because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved. And for this cause God sent them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned, who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unright- eousness.” But, passing these delusive systems, truth itself, if viewed out of its Scriptural commezions, is vitiated and injurious. The members of our bodies are no other- wise beneficial than as they occupy the places in which the Creator has fixed them. If the foot were in the place of the hand, or the ear of the eye, instead of being useful, they would each be injurious; and the same is true of a preposterous view of Scripture doctrines. The Jews, in the time of our Saviour, professed the same creed, in the main, as their forefathers; they reckoned themselves to IMPORTANCE OF A TRUE SYSTEM. 741 believe Moses; but, holding with Moses to the exclusion of Christ, their faith was rendered void. “If ye believed Moses,” said our Lord, “ ye would believe me ; for he wrote of me.” Thus it is with us : if we hold the law of Moses to the exclusion of Christ, or any otherwise than as subservient to the gospel, or Christ and the gospel to the exclusion of the law of Moses, neither the one nor the other will profit us. To illustrate and confirm these observations, I shall select, for examples, three of the leading doctrines of the gospel; namely, election, the atonement, and the influence of the Holy Spirit. If the doctrine of election be viewed in those connexions in which it stands in the Scriptures, it will be of great importance in the Christian life. The whole difference between the saved and the lost being ascribed to sovereign grace, the pride of man is abased : the believer is taught to feel and acknowledge that by the grace of God he is what he is; and the sinner to apply for mercy, not as being on terms with his Maker, but absolutely at his dis- cretion. It is frequently the last point which a sinner yields to God. To relinquish every claim and ground of hope from his own good endeavours, and fall at the feet of sovereign mercy, requires that he be born of God. If we take our views of this great subject in its connexion with others, I need not say we shall not consider it as founded on any thing good foreseen in us, whether it be faith or good works: this were to exclude the idea of an election of grace ; and to admit, if not to establish, boasting. Neither shall we look at the end in such a way as to lose sight of the means. We shall consider it as we do other Divine appointments, not as revealed to us to be a rule of con- duct, but to teach us our entire dependence upon God. We are given to believe that, whatever good or evil befalls us, we are thereunto appointed, 1 Thess. iii. 3. The time of our continuance in the world is as much an object of Divine purpose as our etermal destiny: but we do not imagine, on this account, that we shall live though we neither eat nor drink; nor presume that though we leap headlong from a precipice no danger will befall us. Neither does it hinder us from exhorting or persuading others to pursue the way of safety, and to flee from danger. In these things we act the same as if there were no Divine appointments, or as if we believed nothing concerning them ; but when we have done all that can be done, the sentiment of an all-disposing Providence recurs to mind, and teaches us that we are still in the hands of God. Such were the views of good men, as recorded in Scripture. They believed the days of man to be appointed, and that he could not pass his bounds ; yet, in time of famine, the pa- triarch Jacob sent to Egypt to buy corn, “that they might live, and not die.” Elisha knew of a certainty that Ben- hadad would die; yet, speaking of him in respect of his disease, he did not scruple to say, “He may recover.” The Lord assured Paul, in his perilous voyage, that “there should be no loss of any man’s life; yet, when he saw the ship-men making their escape, he said to the centurion, “Except these abide in the ship, ye cannot be saved.” A fleshly mind may ask, “How can these things be?” How can Divine predestination accord with human agency and accountableness % But a truly humble Christian, find- ing both in his Bible, will believe both, though he may be unable fully to understand their consistency; and he will find in the one a motive to depend entirely on God, and in the other a caution against slothfulness and presump- tuous neglect of duty. And thus a Christian minister, if he view the doctrine in its proper connexions, will find nothing in it to hinder the free use of Warnings, invitations, and persuasions, either to the converted or the uncon. verted. Yet he will not ground his hopes of success on the pliability of the human mind, but on the promised grace of God, who (while he prophesies to the dry bones, as he ºmanº) is known to inspire them with the breath of life. - Thus it was that the apostle, while in the ninth, tenth, and eleventh chapters of his Epistle to the Romans, he traces the sovereignty of God in calling some from among the Jews, and leaving others to perish in unbelief, never thought of excusing that unbelief, nor felt any scruples in exhorting and warning the subjects of it, nor in praying for their salvation. Even in his preaching to the Gentiles, he kept his eye on them, if by any means he might pro- voke to emulation those who were his flesh, and might save some of them. But whatever this doctrine is in itself, yet if viewed out of its connexions, or in connexions which do not belong to it, it will become another thing. God’s election of the posterity of Abraham was of sovereign favour, and not on account of any excellence in them, natural or moral; in which view it was humbling, and no doubt had a good effect on the godly Israelites. But the Jews in our Sa- viour’s time turned this their national election into an- other kind of doctrine, full of flattery towards themselves, and of the most intolerable contempt and malignity to- wards others. And thus the doctrine of eternal and per- sonal election viewed in a similar light becomes a source of pride, bitterness, sloth, and presumption. Conceive of the love of God as capricious fondness—imagine, because it had no inducement from the goodness of the creature, that therefore it was without reason, only so it was and so it must be—view it, not as a means by which God would assert the sovereignty of his grace, but as an end to which every thing must become subservient—conceive of your- self as a darling of Heaven, a favourite of Providence, for whom Divine interpositions next to miracles are con- tinually occurring—and, instead of being humbled before God as a poor sinner, you will feel like a person who in a dream or a reverie imagines himself a king, takes state to himself, and treats every one about him with distant con- tempt. If the doctrine of atonement be viewed in the connexions in which it stands in the sacred Scriptures, it is the life- blood of the gospel system. Consider it as a method de- vised by the infinite wisdom of God, by which he might honour his own name by dispensing mercy to the unworthy in a way consistent with righteousness, and we shall be furnished with considerations at once the most humiliating and transporting that were ever presented to a creature's mind. But there are ways of viewing this doctrine which will render it void, and even worse than void. If, for instance, instead of connecting it with the Divinity of Christ, we ascribe its efficacy to Divine appointment, the name may remain, but that will be all. On this principle it was pos- sible that the blood of bulls and of goats should have taken away sin, and that the cup should have passed away from the Saviour without his drinking it. As there would on this principle be no necessity for the death of Christ, so neither could there be any great love displayed by it; and as to its constraining influence, we need not look for it. Or if the atonement be considered as a reparation to man for the injury done him by his being connected with his first parents, it is rendered void. Whatever evil we de- rive from our first parents, while we ourselves choose it, we are no more injured than if we derived it from our immediate parents; and it will no more bear to be pleaded at the last judgment, than it will bear to be alleged by a thief, at an earthly tribunal, that his father had been a thief before him. To argue, therefore, as some have done, that if Christ had not come into the world and given us grace, so as to remove the inability for doing good under which we lay as the descendants of Adam, we should not have been blameworthy for not doing it, is to render grace no more grace, and the atonement a satisfaction to man rather than to God. If man would not have been blame- worthy without the gift of Christ and a provision of grace, it would seem a pity that both had not been withheld, and that we had not been left to the justice of our Creator, who surely might be trusted not to punish for that in which we were not in fault. Or if the doctrine of atonement lead us to entertain de- grading motions of the law of God, or to plead an eacemp- tion from its preceptive authority, we may be sure it is not the Scripture doctrine of reconciliation. Atonement has re- spect to justice, and justice to the law, or the revealed will of the sovereign, which has been violated, and its very design is to repair its honour. If the law which has been transgressed were unjust, instead of an atonement being required for the breach of it, it ought to have been repealed, and the lawgiver have taken upon himself the disgrace of 742 SYSTEMATIC DIVINITY. having enacted it. Every instance of punishment among men is a sort of atonement to the justice of the country, the design of which is to restore the authority of good government, which transgression has impaired. But if the law itself is bad, or the penalty too severe, every sacrifice made to it must be an instance of cruelty. And should a prince of the blood royal, in compassion to the offenders, offer to suffer in their stead, for the purpose of atonement, whatever love it might discover on his part, it were still greater cruelty to accept the offer, even though he might survive his sufferings. The public voice would be, There is no need of any atonement; it will do no honour, but dishonour, to the legislature : and to call the liberation of the convicts an act of grace is to add insult to injury. The law ought not to have been enacted, and, now it is enacted, ought immediately to be repealed. It is easy to see from hence, that, in proportion as the law is depreci- ated, the gospel is undermined, and both grace and atone- ment rendered void. It is the law as abused, or as turned into a way of life in opposition to the gospel, (for which it was never given to a fallen creature,) that the sacred Scriptures depreciate it; and not as the revealed will of God, the immutable standard of right and wrong. In this view, the apostle delighted in it; and if we be Chris- tians, we shall delight in it too, and shall not object to be under it as a rule of duty ; for no man objects to be governed by laws which he loves. Finally, If the doctrine of Divine influence be considered in its Scriptural connexions, it will be of essential import- ance in the Christian life; but if these be lost sight of, it will become injurious. To say nothing of eactraordinary influence, I conceive there is what may be termed an indirect influence of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, having inspired the pro- phets and apostles, testified in and by them, and often without effect. “Many years didst thou forbear them, and testifiedst against them, by thy Spirit, in thy prophets, yet would they not give ear.” The messages of the pro- phets being dictated by the Holy Spirit, resistance of them was resistance of him. It was in this way, I conceive, that the Spirit of God strove with the antediluvians, and that unbelievers are said always to have resisted the Holy Spirit. But the Divine influence to which I refer is that by which sinners are renewed and sanctified ; concerning which two things require to be kept in view. First, It accords with the Scripture. Is it the work of the Holy Spirit, for example, to illuminate the mind, or to guide us into truth ? In order to try whether that which we account light be the effect of Divine teaching, or only a figment of our own imagination, we must bring it to the written word. “To the law and to the testi- mony : if they speak not according to this word, it is be- cause there is no light in them.” The Holy Spirit teaches nothing but what is true, and what was true an- tecedently to his teaching it, and would have been true though we had never been taught it. Such are the glory of the Divine character, the exceeding sinfulness of sin, our own guilty and lost condition as sinners, and the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. The test of Divine illumination, therefore, is whether that in which we con- ceive ourselves to be enlightened be a part of Divine truth as revealed in the Scriptures. Further, Is it the work of the Holy Spirit to lead us in the “paths of righteousness?” This also must be tried by the written word. The Holy Spirit leads us into nothing but what is right antecedently to our being led into it, and which would have been so though we had never been led into it. He that teacheth us to profit leadeth us “by the way that we should go.” The paths in which he leads us for his name’s sake are those of righteousness. Such are those of repentance for sin, faith in Christ, love to God and one another, and every species of Christian obedience. One test, therefore, of our being led by the Spirit of God, in any way wherein we walk, is, whether it be a part of the will of God as revealed in the Scriptures. As the Holy Spirit teaches us nothing but what was previously true, so he leads us into nothing but what was previously duty. Secondly, Divine influence not only accords with the sacred Scriptures, but requires to be introduced in those conneacions in which the Scriptures introduce it. We have heard it described as if it were a talent, the use or abuse of which would either issue in our salvation or heighten our guilt. This is true of opportunities and means of grace, or of what is above described as the indirect influ- ence of the Holy Spirit; but not of his special influence. The things done for the Lord's vineyard, concerning which he asks, “What more could I have dome 3’’ include the former, and not the latter. The mighty works done in Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, relate, not to the special influences of the Spirit on their minds, but to the miracles wrought before their eyes, accompanied as they were by the heavenly doctrine. I do not remember an instance in the sacred Scriptures in which the renew- ing and sanctifying influences of the Spirit are thus re- presented. Divine influence has been introduced as an excuse for sin committed previously to our being the sub- ject of it, as if, because it is necessary to any thing truly good being done by us, therefore it must be necessary to its being required of us. But if so, there would have been no complaints of Simon the Pharisee for his want of love to Christ; nor of unbelievers at the last judgment for the same thing ; nor would Paul have carried with him so humbling a sense of his sin in having persecuted the church of God, while in unbelief, as to reckon him- self the chief of sinners on account of it. The want of Divine influence has been introduced as an apology for negligence and slothfulness in the Christian life. What else do men mean when they speak of this and the other duty as “no further binding upon them than as the Lord shall enable them to discharge it If it be so, we have no sin to confess for “not doing that which we ought to have done ; ” for as far as the Lord enables us to discharge our obligations, we discharge them. The doctrine of Divine influence is introduced in the sacred Scriptures as a mo- tive to activity : “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God that worketh in you, both to will and to do of his own good pleasure.” Finally, We have often heard this doctrine introduced in the pulpit in such a way as to weaken the force of what has been previously said on behalf of God and right- eousness. When the sacred Scriptures speak of the cause of good, they ascribe every thing to God’s Holy Spirit. The writers seem to have no fear of going too far. And it is the same with them when they exhort, or warn, or ex- postulate ; they discover no apprehension of going so far as to render void the grace of God. In all their writings, the one never seems to stand in the way of the other; each is allowed its full scope, without any apparent sus- picion of inconsistency between them. But is it so with us? If one dares to exhort sinners in the words of Scrip- ture, to “repent and believe the gospel,” he presently feels himself upon tender ground; and if he does not re- cede, yet he must qualify his words, or he will be suspected of disbelieving the work of the Spirit ! To prevent this he must needs introduce it, though it be only to blunt the edge of his exhortation—“Repent and believe the gospel: I know, indeed, you cannot do this of yourselves; but you can pray for the Holy Spirit to enable you to do it.” It is right to pray for the Holy Spirit, as well as for every thing else that we need, and to exhort others to do so ; and it may be one of the first petitions of a mind re- turning to good, “Turn thou me, and I shall be turned : ” but to introduce it instead of repenting and believing, and as something which a sinner can do, though he cannot do the other, is erroneous and dangerous. LETTER III. PLAN PROPOSED TO BE PURSUED. I wish, in this letter, to state the principle and general outlines of what I shall attempt. In observing different systematic writers, I perceive they have taken different methods of arrangement. The greatest number proceed on the analytical plan, beginning with the being and attri- butes of God, the creation of the world, moral government, the fall of angels and man, and so proceed to redemption PLAN PROPOSED TO BE PURSUED. 743 by Jesus Christ, and the benefits and obligations result- ing from it. One eminent divine, you know, has treated the subject historically, tracing the gradual development of Divine truth as it actually took place in the order of time.* These different methods have each their advan- tages; but it has for some time appeared to me that the greater number of them have also their disadvantages; so much so as to render truth, in a systematic form, almost uninteresting. sº I do not know how it may prove on trial, but I wish to begin with the centre of Christianity—the doctrine of the cross, and to work round it ; or with what may be called the heart of Christianity, and to trace it through its prin- cipal veins or relations, both in doctrine and practice. If Christianity had not been comprehended in this doctrine, the apostle, who shunned not to declare the whole counsel of God, could not have determined to know nothing else in his ministry. The whole of the Christian system ap- pears to be presupposed by it, included in it, or to arise from it: if, therefore, I write any thing, it will be on this principle. In its favour, the following things may be al- leged :- “...i. It accords with truth. All things are said to have been created not only by Christ, but for him. All things in creation, therefore, are rendered subservient to his glory as Redeemer; and, being thus connected, they require to be viewed so, in order to be seen with advantage. Secondly, By viewing all Divine truths and duties as related to one great object, as so many lines meeting in a centre, a character of writy is imparted to the subject which it would not otherwise possess, and which seems properly to belong to the idea of a system. A system, if I under- stand it, is a whole, composed of a number of parts, so combined and arranged as to show their proper connexions and dependencies, and to exhibit every truth and every duty to the best advantage. The unity of a number in one great object, and so forming a whole, gives an interest to the subject which it would not otherwise possess. It is interesting, no doubt, to view the works of nature as revolving round the sun as their centre ; but to view nature and providence as centring in the glory of the Redeemer is much more interesting. Thirdly, The object in which all the parts of the system are united being CHRIST must tend to shed a sweet savour on the whole. We have often heard the epithet dry ap- plied to the doctrines of the gospel, especially when system- atically treated; but this must have arisen from the faults or defects of the system, or from the uninteresting manner of treating it, or from a defect in the hearer or reader. The doctrine of the gospel, if imparted in its genuine simplicity, and received in faith and love, “drops as the rain, and distils as the dew upon the tender herb.” I may not be able thus to impart it: but, whether I do or not, it may be done; and so far as I or any other may fail, let the fault be imputed to us, and not to the doctrine of God our Saviour. - Fourthly, There is a singular advantage attending the study of other truths through this medium. We might know something of God and of ourselves through the medium of the Divine law; and it is necessary for some purposes to understand this subject as distinct from the gospel. But a sense of the holiness and justice of God, contrasted with our depravity and guilt, might be more than we could bear. To view these great subjects, on the other hand, through the cross of Christ, is to view the malady through the medium of the remedy, and so never to want an antidote for despair. With the idea of all Divine truth bearing an intimate relation to Christ agrees that notable phrase in Eph. iv. 21, “The truth as it is in Jesus.” To believe the truth concerning Jesus is to believe the whole doctrine of the Scriptures. Hence it is that in all the brief summaries of Christian doctrine the person and work of Christ are pro- minent. Such are the following: “Brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also you have received, and wherein ye stand; by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached * President Edwards's History of Redemption. + Whether we read God, or the Son of God, or the Lord, or the h'ord, the idea is the same. There is no meaning in saying of any unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you, among the first principles, that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.—Great is the mystery of godliness, God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.—This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief-This is the record, that God hath given unto us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.—He that believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.—Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?” Fully aware that this golden link would draw along with it the whole chain of evangelical truth, the sacred writers seem careful for nothing in comparison of it. It is on this ground that faith in Christ is represented as essential to spiritual life : see John vi. 53–56, “Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.” We may be Christians by education, may be well versed in Christianity as a science, may be able to converse, and preach, and write, in defence of it; but if Christ crucified be not that to us which food is to the hungry, and drink to the thirsty, we are dead while we live. It is on this ground that error concerning the person and work of Christ is of such im- portance as frequently to become death to the party. We may err on other subjects and survive, though it be in a maimed state ; but to err in this is to contract a disease in the vitals, the ordinary effect of which is death. When Peter confessed him to be the Son of the living God, Jesus answered, “Upon this rock will I build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Upon this principle, as a foundation, Christianity rests; and it is remarkable that, to this day, deviation concerning the person and work of Christ is followed by a dereliction of almost every other evangelical doctrine, and of the spirit of Christianity. How should it be otherwise? If the foundation be removed, the building must fall. What is it that is denominated the great mystery of god- liness 2 Is it not that “God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory?” It is this that the apostle John introduces at the beginning of his gospel under the name of “the Word:” “The Word was with God, and was God; by whom all things were made, and who was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” + It is this upon which he dwells in the introduction of his First Epistle: “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the world of life; (for the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.” Christ is here described, 1. As to what he was in his pre-incarnate state ; namely, as that which was from the beginning, the word of life, and that eternal life which was with the Father. 2. As to what he became by his incarnation : he was so manifested that his disciples could see him, and look on him, and handle him ; and thus be qualified to bear witness of him, and to show unto others that eternal life that was with the Father. 3. As having opened a way in which those who believed in him were admitted to fellowship with God, and with him, and were commissioned to invite others to partake with them. I have long considered this passage as a decisive proof of the Divinity of Christ, and as a summary of the gospel. one who was not God, that he was manifest in the flesh, or that he was made flesh, &c. 744 SYSTEMATIC DIW INITY. LETTER IV. ON THE BEING OF GOD, HAviNG in the foregoing letters endeavoured to show the importance of system, and of that system being the true one, and proposed the plan of what I may communicate, I shall now proceed to execute it as well as I am able. In the last letter it was stated, concerning the doctrine of the cross, that every thing pertaining to Christianity was presupposed by it, included in it, or arose out of it. This threefold distribution will form the three parts into which what I write will be divided. Under the first, namely, principles presupposed by the doctrine of the cross, I begin with the being of God, to which fundamental principle this letter will be devoted. God is the first cause and last end of all things. “Of him, and through him, and to him are all things; to him be glory for ever. Amen.” To under- take to prove his existence seems to be almost as unneces- sary as to go about to prove our own. . The Scriptures at their outset take it for granted; and he that calls it in question is not so much to be reasoned with as to be re- proved. His error belongs to the heart rather than to the understanding. His doubts are either affected, or arise from a wish to free himself from the idea of accountable- ness. The things that are seen in the visible creation contain so clear a manifestation of the things that are not seen, even of his eternal power and Godhead, as to leave atheists and idolaters “without excuse,” Rom. i. 20. All reasoning must proceed upon some acknowledged principles; and what can deserve to be so considered more than our own existence, and that of the great First Cause 3 There are truths among men which it is indecorous to at- tempt to prove. To discuss the question whether a parent ought to be acknowledged and obeyed by his children, whatever proof might be alleged for it, would tend to agitate a subject which ought to be at rest. I question whether argumentation in favour of the existence of God has not made more sceptics than believers. An Orissa pundit, not being able to see God, required of a missionary a proof of his existence. He was asked, in answer, whe- ther he could see his own soul; and whether he had any doubts of his possessing one. “Certainly not,” said the pundit. “Such,” said the missionary, “is the living God; he is invisible to us, but he is every where present.” In the early ages of the world there appears to have been a much stronger persuasion of Divine interposition in human affairs than generally prevails in our times. I’ven heathens, whose gods were vanity, put their trust in them. In all their wars, they not only took counsel with their wise men, but consulted their oracles. Rollin, from Xenophon, holds it up as one of the great virtues of Cyrus that he respected the gods. “In the sight of all his army,” says he, “he makes mention of the gods, offers sacrifices and libations to them, addresses himself to them by prayer and invocation, and implores their succour and protection. What a shame, then, and a reproach, would it be to a Christian officer or general, if, on a day of battle, he should blush to appear as religious and devout as a pagan prince ; and if the Lord of hosts and God of armies, whom he acknowledges as such, should make a less impression on his mind than a respect for the false deities of paganism did upon the mind of Cyrus !” Yet this is the fact. Now and then, on an occasion of great success, God is acknowledged; but in general he is dis- regarded. How is this to be accounted for 3 Cyrus's gods were according to his mind; but, with the true God, the dispositions of the greater part of mankind are at per- fect variance. Real Christians still acknowledge him in all their ways, and he directs their paths; but merely nominal Christians, having a God who is not according to their minds, think but little of him, feel ashamed to own him, and thus sink into practical atheism. To know that there is a God is necessary, indeed, to true religion; but if we stop theré, it will be of no use. What is the Su- preme Being of modern unbelievers? and of what account is their knowledge of him 3 As the Author of the ma- chinery of the universe, he is admired, and magnified in such a way as to render it beneath him to interfere with the affairs of mortals, or to call them to account. The true knowledge of God is less speculative than practical. It is remarkable with what deep reverence the inspired writers speak of God. Moses, when relating his appearance at the bush, did not attempt to explain his name, but communicated it in the words which he heard. “And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you, and they will say unto me, What is his name 4 what shall I say unto them? And God said unto Moses, I am that I am : and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I am hath sent me unto you.” This sublime language suggests not only his self-existence, but his incomprehensibleness. It is beyond the powers of a creature even to be taught what he is. “As to the being of God,” says Dr. Owen, “we are so far from a knowledge of it, so as to be able to instruct one another therein by words and expressions of it, as that to frame any conceptions in our own mind, with such species and impressions of things as we receive the knowledge of all other things by, is to make an idol to ourselves, and so to worship a god of our own making, and not the God that made us. We may as well and as lawfully hew him out of wood and stone, as form him a being in our minds suited to our apprehensions. The utmost of the best of our thoughts of the being of God is, that we can have no thoughts of it. Our knowledge of a being is but low when it mounts no higher but only to know that we know it not.—There be some things of GoD which he himself hath taught us to speak of, and to regulate our expressions of them ; but when we have so done, we see not the things themselves, we know them not ; to believe and to admire is all that we can attain to. We profess, as we are taught, that God is infinite, omnipotent, eternal; and we know what disputes and notions there are about omnipresence, immensity, infinity, and eternity. We have, I say, words and notions about these things; but as to the things themselves, what do we know? what do we comprehend of them 3 Can the mind of man do any thing more but swallow itself up in an infinite abyss, which is as nothing? give itself up to what it cannot conceive, much less ex- press % Is not our understanding brutish in the con- templation of such things? and is as if it were not? Yea, the perfection of our understanding is, not to understand, and to rest there : they are but the back parts of etermity and infinity that we have a glimpse of. What shall I say of the Trinity, or the subsistence of distinct persons in the same individual essence ; a mystery by many denied, be- cause by none understood; a mystery whose very letter is mysterious.-‘How little a portion is heard of him l’” In the Epistles of Paul there are various instances in which, having mentioned the name of GoD, he stops to pay him adoration. Thus when describing the dishonour put upon him by worshipping and serving the creature more than the Creator, he pauses, and adds, “Who is blessed for ever. Amen l’” Thus also, speaking of Christ as having “given himself to deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father,” he adds, “To Him be glory for ever and ever. Amen l’’ And thus, when having spoken of the exceeding abundant grace shown to himself as the chief of sinners, he adds, “Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen l’” It is the name of God that gives authority, importance, and glory to every person or thing with which it stands connected. The glory of man, above the rest of the crea- tures, consisted in this: “God created man in his own image ; in the image of God created he him.” This, and not merely the well-being of man, is the reason given why murder should be punished with death. “He that shed- deth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God made he man.” This is the great sanc- tion to the precepts and threatenings of the law : “That thou mayest fear that fearful name, the Lord thy God.” Herein consists the great evil of sin; and of that sin especially which is committed immediately against God. “Know thou therefore, and see, that it is an evil thing, NECESSITY OF A DIVINE REVELATION. 745 and bitter, that thou hast forsaken the Lord thy God, and that my fear is not in thee, saith the Lord of hosts. If one man sin against another, the judge shall judge him; but if a man sin against the Lord, who shall entreat for him " The sin of the men of Sodom, though it had reached to heaven, yet was not completed till they per- severed in it, when smitten of God with blindness. Pha- raoh and the Egyptians had grievously oppressed Israel; but it was by persevering in their sins notwithstanding the judgments of God, and presuming to follow his peo- ple into the sea, that they brought upon themselves de- struction. Of this nature was the disobedience of Saul, the boasting of Sennacherib and Rabshakeh, the pride of Nebuchadnezzar, the profanation of the sacred vessels by Belshazzar, and the shutting up of John in prison by Herod. Each of these men had done much evil before; but, by setting themselves directly against GoD, they sealed their doom. It is on this principle that idolatry and blas- phemy were punished with death under the theocracy, and that, under the gospel, unbelief and apostacy are threaten- ed with damnation. GOD manifested himself in creation, in giving laws to his creatures, in the providential government of the world, and in other ways; but all these exhibited him only in part: it is in the gospel of salvation, through his dear Son, that his whole character appears; so that, from in- visible, he in a sense becomes visible. “No one had seen God at any time; but the only begotten Son, who dwelleth in the bosom of the Father, he declared him.” What is it that believers see in the gospel when their minds are spiritually enlightened ? It is “the glory of God, in the face of Jesus Christ.” Whatever is visible in an object is called its face. Thus we speak of the face of the heavens, of the earth, and of the sea; and in each of these the glory of God is to be seen ; but in the face of Jesus Christ, that is, in that which has been manifested to us by his incarnation, life, preaching, miracles, sufferings, resurrection, and ascension, the glory of God is seen in a degree that it has never been seen in before. The apostle, when speaking of God in relation to the gospel, uses the epithet “blessed” with singular propriety: “According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God.” The gospel is the grand emanation from the fountain of blessedness, an overflow of the Divine goodness. It is the infinitely happy God, pouring forth his happiness upon miserable sin- ners, through Jesus Christ. The result is, that, as God is the Great Supreme, he must in all things occupy the Supreme place. Thus we are required, by his law, to love him first, and then to love our neighbour as ourselves; and thus the coming of Christ is celebrated, first as giving “glory to God in the highest,” and then “peace on earth and good-will to men.” LETTER. W. ON THE NECESSITY OF A DIVINE REVELATION. IT would be improper, I conceive, to rest the being of God on Scripture testimony; seeing the whole weight of that testimony must depend upon the supposition that he is, and that the sacred Scriptures were written by holy men inspired by him. Hence the Scriptures, at their outset, take this principle for granted ; yet in the way that the works of nature imply a Divine First Cause, so does the work of revelation. Men were as morally unable to write such a book as they were naturally unable to create the heavens and the earth. In this way the sacred Scriptures prove the being of a God. I wish to offer a few remarks on the necessity of a Di- vine revelation—on the evidence of the Bible being writ- ten by inspiration of God, so as to answer this necessity —and on its uniform bearing on the doctrine of salvation through the cross of Christ; but as this is more than can be comprehended in a single letter, I must divide it into two or three. First, I shall offer a few remarks on the necessity of a revelatian from God. In establishing this principle, let it be observed, we are not required to depreciate the light of nature. The word of God is not to be exalted at the expense of his works. The evidence which is afforded of the being and perfections of God by the creation which surrounds us, and of which we ourselves are a part, is no more superseded by revelation than the law is rendered void by faith. All things which proceed from God are in harmony with each other. If all the evidence which the heathen have of the being and perfections of God consist of traditional accounts, derived originally from revelation, there must be great uncertainty in it, as in every thing else that comes through such an uncertain medium ; and if so, though they should disbelieve it, how are they with- out eaccuse ? and how are we to understand the reason- ings of the apostle on the subject? He appears to repre- sent the wrath of God as revealed from heaven against all ungodliness, “because that which may be known is mani- fest in them ; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him, that is, his eternal power and Godhead, are clearly seen from the creation of the world, being understood by the things that are made ; so that they are without eaccuse.” This is equal to saying, God is invisible, but his works are visible: his eternal power and Godhead are manifest from the things which he has created. All things which have a beginning must origin- ate in a cause without beginning; so that they are with- out excuse. Whether the heathen in any instance have, or have not, actually perceived the eternal power and God- head of the Creator, merely from the works of his hands, is a question that I shall not undertake to answer. If such a case never occurred, it is sufficient for my argument that it has not been for want of objective light, but of a state of mind to receive it. In pleading for the necessity of Divine revelation, as the means of enlightening and saving sinners, we should beware of imitating those who, in arguing for the necessity of Divine grace to renew and sanctify them, represent them as physically unable to do good without it, and so excuse them in their sins. “Every mouth will be stopped, and all the world,” what- ever advantages or disadvantages they may have possessed in these respects, “will be found guilty before God.” It is true that the guilt of those who have lived in sin without the light of revelation will be much less than theirs who have continued in their sins under it ; but all are without excuse before God. Divine revelation is ne- cessary to a competent knowledge of God, and of his will concerning us. This principle will be evident by a review of two others; namely, the insufficiency of human reason for these important purposes, and the connexion between revelation and faith. 1. Let us review the insufficiency of human reason to obtain from the mere light of nature a competent knowledge of God, and of his will concerning us. The light of na- ture furnishes us with little or no knowledge of the moral character and government of God. While man was in a state of innocence, indeed, he might, by reflecting on his own mind, understand something of the character of that Divine original after whose image he was created ; but, having sinned, this image is effaced. It is also true that the judgments of God against sinners are manifest in all the earth ; and every man’s conscience bears witness that what is wrong in another towards him must be wrong in him towards another; and that, having felt and acted con- trary to this equitable principle, in innumerable instances, he is a sinner; but as to the evil nature of sin as com- mitted against God, and his own lost condition, con- science itself can yield him little or no information. And as to an hereafter, whether there be any, and, if there be, what it will prove ; whether we shall have to give account of the deeds done in the body; whether there will be any hope of forgiveness ; and what we must do to be saved— all is darkness. The light of nature, though sufficient to : bear witness for God, and so to leave sinners without ex- cuse, was never designed in any state to furnish man with all he needed. Even in innocence man was governed by a revealed law. It does not appear that he was left to find out the character or will of his Creator by his reason, though reason, being under the influence of rectitude, Would lead him, as he understood the mind of God, to 746 SYSTEMATIC DIW INITY. | love and obey it. But if revelation was necessary in innocence, much more now man's foolish heart is darken- ed by sin. The state of the heathem, who are without Divine reve- lation, furnishes awful proof of its necessity. The gross- ness of their thoughts of God, and of an hereafter, is such, that those who have received the light of revelation can scarcely think it possible for rational beings to entertain them. To say nothing of the uncivilized heathen, even the polished sons of Greece and Rome, though prodigies in science, yet, in relation to these things, were the subjects of the most sottish stupidity. Well is it said, “The world by wisdom knew not God.” That small portion of real light which on these subjects appears in the writings of our modern deists, is borrowed from those very writings which they mean to depreciate. They live in the neigh- bourhood of revelation, and, whether they will own it or not, are enlightened by it. The speculations of those who have had only the light of nature to guide them are, in re- spect of God and religion, absurd in the extreme. Man is said to be wiser than the beasts of the field; but it is principally by means of instruction. We are born, it is true, with an immortal mind; but, uninformed, what is it 3 Knowledge chiefly enters in at the door of the senses. To what do we owe the gift of speech 3 It seems to be natural to us; but if we look at one who is born deaf, we shall find him dumb also ; and if to this be added blind- ness, there will be but little difference between him and the beasts of the field. But if we need human instruction for the attainment of knowledge in things of this life, is it surprising that we should need a Divine instructor for things heavenly and Divine It is true that God instructs us, as has been said, by his works; but they contain only a few of the rudiments of Divine knowledge; like the para- bles of our Saviour, they were not designed to furnish perfect information on the subject, but merely a general intimation, tending to excite humble inquiry for further instruction ; which, when asked, was readily granted, but, when set at nought, it was “seeing and not perceiving, hearing and not understanding ; lest they should be con- verted and healed.” The apostle, in his address to the Athenians, represents it as the design of God, in his works of creation and providence, to lead men to seek him ; but though he was not far from every one, seeing all live, and move, and have their being in him, yet the light of nature could only enable them “to feel after him, if haply they might find him.” Though “the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his handiwork; ” though “day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge,” and though their voice is heard in every language and in every clime, even to the end of the world ; yet it is not by them, but by the word of Je- hovah, that souls are converted, and the simple made wise. Some of the wisest among the old heathens felt and ac- knowledged the need there was of a revelation from hea- ven ; and heathens of the present day acknowledge the same thing. A Hindoo fakeer, who was a brahmin goroo, being lately asked by one of his disciples, who had heard a missionary at Balasore, whether he could make known to him the living and only God, answered, “We know there is one living God, besides Kreshnoo, Seeb, and Ram ; but we do not know his way.” The disciple re- plied, “Come to the Sahib, Fakeer; he will tell you of the God of heaven, whose way he knows.” 2. The necessity of Divine revelation will further appear, if we consider its relation to faith. Supposing mankind to be in a guilty and perishing con- dition, and that “God so loved the world as to give his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life,” a revelation from heaven was necessary as the ground of faith. “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God: ” without revelation, therefore, there would be no faith, and so no salvation. Both revelation and faith may, however, exist in widely different degrees. Revelation was first given in obscure intimations, afterwards in types and shadows, in promises and in prophecies; and under each it was the office of faith to keep pace with it. The faith of Abel and that of Paul, though as to their nature and object the same, yet, as to degree, must have been widely different, on account of the difference of the degrees of Divine revelation which each possessed. Revelation, like the shining light, shone “more and more unto the perfect day,” and such was the “path of the just,” which corresponded with it. From these remarks, we may see the force of such pas- sages as the following : “He showeth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation; and as to his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the Lord.”—“What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there in circumcision ? Much every way; chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.”—“At that time ye were without Christ, (being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise,) having no hope, and without God in the ...” but now, in Christ Jesus, ye who some time ago were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.” We may also learn, from these remarks, to make allow- ance for the small degrees of faith where the light of reve- lation has been but little known. It is not for us to say how small a portion of Divine truth may irradiate the mind, mor by what means the Holy Spirit may impart it. According to the ordinary way of the Divine proceeding under the gospel, it may be asked, “How shall they be- lieve in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? and how shall they preach except they be sent 3 '' But this has not been the uniform method of the Divine proceeding from the beginning. Previously to the time of Moses, there was no written revelation, and till the coming of Christ no ordinance for preaching the word. No missionaries till then were sent among the heathen. Good men under the Old Testament stood on much lower ground than those under the New Testament. Cornelius, the Roman centurion, being sta- tioned in Judea, learned enough of the God of Israel to be just and devout, giving much alms to the people, and pray- ing to God alway; and, before he had heard of Jesus being the Messiah, his prayers and his alms were approved of God. Yet the words spoken to him by Peter were those by which he was saved: a proof this, not of there being another way of acceptance with God than that which the gospel reveals, nor of its being possible without faith to please God; but that faith may exist while as yet there is no explicit revelation of the Saviour. Finally, It is not for us to say what may be effected in an extraordinary way upon the minds of men. A ray of Divine revelation shot athwart the darkness of paganism into the minds of the Eastern magi, and led them to worship the new-born Saviour. LETTER, WI. ON THE INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, IN my last, I endeavoured to show the necessity of a Di- vine revelation. In this, I shall offer evidence of the Bible being written by inspiration of God, so as to answer to this necessity. It is certain that those who wrote the books which compose the Old and New Testaments profess to have been Divinely inspired. “The Spirit of God spake by me, and his word was in my tongue : the God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me.—The Lord spake unto Moses, saying, &c.—Thus saith the Lord.—All Scrip- ture is given by inspiration of God.—Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.—The things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.” We must, therefore, either admit these writings to be the word of God, or consider them as mere imposture. To pretend to “venerate them as authentic records of the dis- pensation of God,” and yet deny their inspiration, is ab- surd ; it is believing the writers in what they say of other subjects, and disbelieving them in what they say of them- selves. If their writings be not what they profess them to be, they are imposture, and deserve to be rejected. There is no consistent medium between faith and unbelief. But though all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, ſ INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 747 it does not follow that it is so in the same sense and de- gree. It required one degree of inspiration to foretell fu- ture events, and another to narrate facts which fell under the writer's knowledge. The one required less exercise of his own judgment, the other more. Inspiration, in the latter case, might be little more than a Divine superin- tendence, preserving him from error, and from other de- fects and faults, to which ordinary historians are subject. Divine inspiration, of whatever kind or degree, must have carried in it its own evidence to the party, or he could not with propriety have declared, “Thus saith the Lord”— and, “The things that I write unto you are the command- ments of the Lord.” And it appears, in some cases, to have been equally evident to those who were present. Thus, when the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jahaziel, and he foretold the overthrow of the Moabites and Ammonites, Jehoshaphat and the people appear to have been as cer- tain that it was by inspiration of God as he himself was ; and therefore fell before the Lord, and worshipped, 2 Chron. xx. The only question is, whether that which was evident to them can be so to us, at this distance of time and place ; if not in the same degree, yet with sufficient certainty to war- ºrant our wmreserved dependence wpon it. Some of the prin- cipal grounds on which the affirmative may be maintained, I conceive to be the following: the truth of the things contained in the sacred writings, their consistency, their perfection, their pungency, and their utility. Let us re- view these particulars. 1. The truth of the things contained in the sacred writings. It requires that a book professing to be a reve- lation from God should contain truth, and nothing but truth : such particularly must be its history, its prophecies, its miracles, and its doctrines. Now, as the Scriptures abound with these, if they be untrue, it can be no difficult undertaking to prove them so. The facts being stated, With the evidence accompanying them, it lies upon those who disbelieve them to show cause. It certainly has not been for want of adversaries, nor of adversaries of talent, that this work has never been accomplished. How is it that, out of all those who have written against the Bible, not an individual has soberly and modestly undertaken to answer the evidence which has been adduced for the ve- racity of its history, the fulfilment of its prophecies, the reality of its miracles, and the purity and consistency of its doctrines? Instead of this, many of them have meanly pre- tended to believe the Bible, while yet they have been de- ceitfully undermining it; and those who have avowed their hostility have commonly dealt in ridicule, rather than in reason. Verily, it is to the honour of the Bible to have such men for its adversaries. 2. Their consistency. A book written by more than thirty men, of different talents and stations in life, living in different ages, the greater part of whom, therefore, could have no communication with each other, must, had it not been written under the inspiration of God, have been full of contradictions. Let any other production be named which has preserved a consistency under such circumstances. To suppose a succession of writings, the work of designing impostors, or at least of weak-headed fanatics, capable of maintaining that harmony which is apparent in the sacred Scriptures, is no less absurd than the notion of Epicurus, that the world was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, without a designing cause. Great as are the dif- ferences between Jews and Christians, there is none be- tween their sacred writings. The Old and New Testa- ments are dictated by one and the same Spirit. Paul was hated by his unbelieving countrymen, and treated as an apostate from the religion of his ancestors ; but he was not an apostate. “I thank God,” says he to Timothy, “whom I serve from my forefathers.” He Speaks also of the same jaith which was in Timothy as having dwelt first in his grandmother Lois, and then in his mother Eunice; the former of whom lived and died under the former dispensa- tion. The same God who, “at sundry times and in divers manners, spoke in time past unto the fathers by the pro- phets,” in the “last days spoke unto us by his Son.” Consistency, it is true, may not in every instance be a test of truth; since error and falsehood may, in some particu- lars, be made to agree : but, in a subject whose bearings are multifarious and minute, they cannot escape detection ; nothing but truth in such cases will be found consistent throughout. 3. Their perfection. If the Bible be of God, perfection must be one of its properties; for “He is a Rock, and his work is perfect.” This property, however, belongs to it, not as having been begun and ended at once. This the work of creation was not ; each day had its proper work ; which, on review, was pronounced very good, and all to- gether, when finished, formed a glorious whole. Such was the work of inspiration: the sacred Scriptures were up- wards of fifteen hundred years from their commencement to their completion ; but, being completed, they form a whole, and every part of them is very good. There is this peculiar property belonging to the sacred Scriptures, that if you are in possession of only a single book, you may generally learn from it the leading principles which run through all the rest. The strong language of David con- cerning the sacred Scriptures, such as their being “more to be desired than thousands of gold and silver, sweeter than honey and the honey-comb,” and the like, could have reference to little more than the Pentateuch of Moses. Even a leaf from the sacred oracles would, in innumerable instances, teach him that should find it, and read it with a humble mind, the way to everlasting life; and this not as possessing any thing like a charm, but as containing prin- ciples which, if understood and followed, will lead the in- quirer to God. 4. Their pungency. There is nothing in the sacred Scriptures to gratify an idle curiosity; but much that commends itself to the conscience, and that interests the heart. They are a mirror, into which he that seriously looks must, in a greater or less degree, see his own like- ness, and discover what kind of character he is. That which was said of Jesus by the Samaritan woman, might be said of them, in thousands of instances: “He told me all that ever I did.” They are “the words of the wise, which are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies.” They not only prick the sinner in his heart, but stick so fast that he is incapable of extracting them. It has been remarked, that they who heard the preaching of the apostles were generally moved by it, either to repent and be converted, or to oppose the truth with bitter re- sentment. Their doctrine was a savour of life unto life in them that believed, and of death unto death in them that resisted. Surely, if we preached more in the spirit and power of the apostles, the effects of our ministry would more resemble theirs, and our hearers would not be able to sit year after year easy in their sins. “The word of God is quick and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword; piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow ; and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” If our preaching be but little adapted to produce these effects, surely it con- tains but little of the word of God. 5. Their utility. There is much in the sacred Scrip- tures that is entertaining and pleasing to the ingenious, and more to console the sorrowful : it was not, however, to please, nor merely to comfort, but to profit us that they were written. That which is given by inspiration of God is “ profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” Un- believers may declaim against the Bible; but universal ex- perience proves that, in respect of the present life only, they who believe it and form their lives on its principles are, beyond all comparison, the best members of society; while they who disbelieve and traduce it are the worst. And if to this be added the life to come, it is no longer a subject of comparison, but of contrast; for the former or- dinarily die in peace and hope, the latter either blinded by insensibility, or, if awakened to reflection, in fearful fore- bodings of the wrath to come. I shall conclude this letter with a few remarks on the properties and tendencies ascribed to the sacred Scriptures in the nineteenth Psalm. Having declared the glory of God, as manifested by his works, the writer proceeds to exhibit another medium of the Divine glory, less magnifi- cent, but more suited to the cases of sinful men, namely, his word. The law, the testimony, the statutes, the com- 748 SYSTEMATIC DIVINITY. mandments, the fear, and the judgments of the Lord, are but different names given to the Scriptures. “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.” —The book of nature declares the “eternal power and Godhead” of the Creator; but that of Scripture repre- sents his whole character ; not only as the Creator, but as the moral Governor and Saviour of men. Hence it is “able to make us wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” “The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.”—The opinions of the greatest men, formed merely from the works of nature, are full of uncertainty, and but ill adapted to instruct the illiterate part of mankind in their best interests; but the sacred Scriptures contain the true sayings of God, which may be safely depended upon. “The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart.” —The principles inculcated in the sacred Scriptures ac- cord with the nature and fitness of things. That which they require approves itself to the conscience; and that which they teach, though foolishness in the account of unbelievers, is, to those who understand and believe it, the wisdom of God. This property gives joy to every up- right mind; for the friends of righteousness must needs rejoice in that which is right. “The commandments of the Lord are pure, enlighten- ing the eyes.”—Their freedom from every mixture of cor- ruption renders them fit to illuminate the mind and cheer the heart. Wearied with the discordant opinions of men, we turn to the Scriptures, and, like Jonathan on tasting the honey, our eyes are enlightened. “The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring for ever.”— The worship of God, as taught in the sacred Scriptures, is chaste and uncorrupt ; and therefore shall continue when idolatry, and every abomination which has passed under the name of religion, shall be no more. “The judgments of the Lord are true, and righteous altogether.”—The sacred Scriptures contain the decisions of the Judge of all, both as to things and characters, from which there is no appeal: nor is it fit there should be ; seeing they are not only formed in wisdom, but perfectly accord with truth and equity. “More to be desired are they than gold; yea, than much fine gold : sweeter also than honey, and the honey- comb.”—There is a rich, a valuable, I might say an in- valuable, quality in these writings, which is not to be found in any other; and which so interests the heart that the things most valued in the world lose all their attractions in comparison of it. “Moreover, by them is thy servant warned ; and in keeping of them there is great reward.”—They are adapted at the same time to preserve us from evil, and to lead us in the good and the right way; and, as we follow it, yield inexpressible satisfaction. If in reading these holy oracles we make the proper use of them, we shall, according to the remaining verses in the Psalm, perceive that our errors are innumerable ; shall feel the need of keeping grace to preserve us even from the worst of crimes; and shall aspire to a conformity in our words and thoughts to the will of God. May the blessing of God attend the various attempts to translate and circulate the sacred Scriptures. A few years ago, a certain infidel braggadocio pretended to have gone through the wood and cut down the trees, which the priests, he said, might stick in again, but they would not grow ! And have the sacred Scriptures been less in request since that time than they were before 3 Rather have they not been much more so? Infidelity, by overacting its part, has given itself a wound ; and its abettors, like Herod, have been eaten of worms, and have died. But the word of the Lord has grown and been multiplied. LETTER VII. ON THE UNIFORM BEARING OF THE SCRIPTURES ON THE PERSON AND WORK OF CIIRIST. IN the two preceding letters I have endeavoured to show the necessity of Divine revelation, and to give evidence of the Bible's being written by inspiration of God, so as to answer to that necessity; in this I shall add a few thoughts on its uniform bearing on the person and work of Christ. We need not follow those who drag in Christ on all oc- casions. To suppose, for instance, that all the Psalms of David refer to him, is to establish the gospel on the ruins of common sense. Still less need we see him prefigured by every thing in which a heated imagination may trace a resemblance. This were to go into a kind of spiritual Quixotism, finding a castle where others would only find a windmill. Nevertheless, the sacred Scriptures are full of Christ, and uniformly lead to him. The holy book begins with an account of the creation of the world : “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” But they elsewhere inform us that, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.” Yea more, that all things were made not only by him, as the first cause, but for him, as the last end. The creation seems to have been designed as a theatre on which he should display his glory, particularly in the work of redemption. Surely it was in this view that he “rejoiced in the habitable parts of the earth, and his delights were with the sons of men.” The history contained in the sacred Scriptures is that of the church or people of God: other nations are introduced only in an incidental manner, as being connected with them : and this people were formed for Christ. Him God appointed to be “heir of all things.” All that was done by the patriarchs and prophets, under the Old Testament, was preparatory to his kingdom. It was in his field that they laboured, and therefore his apostles “entered into their labours.” God’s calling Abraham, and blessing and increasing him, had all along a reference to the kingdom of his Son. He was the principal Seed in whom all the kindreds of the earth were to be blessed. Why did Mel- chizedek, on meeting Abraham, when he returned from the slaughter of the kings, bless him with so much heart 3 Was it not as knowing that he had the promises, especially that of the Messiah 3 Why is Esau’s despising his birth- right reckoned profaneness, but on account of its referring to something sacred? The promises made to Abraham's posterity chiefly related to things at a great distance ; but Esau longed for something nearer at hand, and therefore sold his birthright for a present enjoyment. Why is the reproach which Moses preferred to the treasures of Egypt called “the reproach of Christ,” but that Israel being in possession of the promise of Him, and Moses believing it, cast in his lot with them, though in a state of slavery 4 Were not these the “good things” to which he referred, in persuading Hobab to go with them 3 All that was done for Israel from their going down into Egypt to their settle- ment in Canaan, and from thence to the coming of Christ, was in reference to him. The conquest of the seven nations was authorized, and even commanded by JehovaEI, for the purpose of re-establishing his government in his own world, from which he had in a manner been driven by idolatry. It was setting up his standard with the de- sign of ultimately subduing the world to the obedience of faith. What but the promise of Christ, as including the covenant that God made with David, rendered it all his salvation and all his desire? It was owing to the bearing which the Old Testament history had on the person and work of Christ that Stephen and Paul, when preaching him to the Jews, made use of it to introduce their sub- ject, Acts vii., xiii. The body of the Jewish institutions was but a shadow of good things to come, of which Christ was the substance. Their priests, and prophets, and kings were typical of him. Their sacrifices pointed to him who “gave himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smell- ing savour.” The manna on which they fed in the wilder- ness referred to him, as the “bread of God that should come down from heaven.” The rock, from whence the water flowed that followed them in their journeys, is said to be Christ, as being typical of him. Their cities of refuge represent him, “as the hope set before us.” The whole dispensation served as a foil, to set off the superior glory of his kingdom. The temple was but as the scaffold- ing to that which he would build, and the glory of which THE PERFECTIONS OF GOD. 749 he would bear. The moral law exhibited right things, and the ceremonial law a shadow of good things; but “grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” The Christian dispensation is to that of the Old Testament as the jubilee to a state of captivity. It might be in reference to such things as these that the psalmist prayed, “Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wonderful things out of thy law , ” Of the prophecies with which the Scriptures abound, the person and work of Christ form the principal theme. “To him gave all the prophets witness,” either in what they wrote or spoke. “The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” From the first mention of the woman’s Seed, to his appearance in the flesh, the language of prophecy concerning him became more explicit and distinct. The blessing on Jehoſa H the God of Shem seems to intimate designs of mercy towards his descendants. The promise to Abraham and his seed is more express. Abraham, understanding it as including the Messiah, believed, and it was counted to him for righteousness. He earnestly desired to see his day; he saw it, and rejoiced. Jacob's prophecy is still more explicit and distinct. He foretells his being of the tribe of Judah, and that under his reign the Gentiles should be gathered. After this, the house of David is specified, as that from which the Messiah should spring. The Psalms abound in predictions concerning him. Isaiah tells of his being miraculously born of a vir- gin—of his humble and gentle character, “not breaking the bruised reed, nor quenching the smoking flax”—of his sufferings, death, and everlasting kingdom, which implied his resurrection, Acts xiii. 34. Micah named the town of Bethlehem as the place where he should be born. Zecha- riah mentioned the beasts on which he should make his public entry into Jerusalem. The Spirit of inspiration in the prophets is called “ the Spirit of Christ,” because it “ testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.” But if the Old Testament had a uniform bearing on the person and work of Christ, much more the New. This is properly entitled, “The New Tes- tament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.” The one abounds with prophecies; the other relates to their accom- plishment. The ordinances of the former were prefigura- tive; those of the latter are commemorative. But both point to the same object. Every Divine truth bears a re- lation to him : hence the doctrine of the gospel is called “ the truth as it is in Jesus.” In the face of Jesus Christ we see the glory of the Divine character in such a manner as we see it no where else. manifested in his cross, and the lost condition of sinners in the price at which our redemption was obtained. Grace, mercy, and peace are in him. The resurrection to eternal life is through his death. In him every precept finds its most powerful motive, and every promise its most perfect fulfilment. The Jews possessed the sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament, and searched them,” thinking that in them they had eternal life; but they would not come to him that they might have it. What a picture does this present to us of multitudes in our own times | We possess both the Old and the New Testament; and it is pleasing to see the zeal manifested of late in giving them circulation. All orders and degrees of men will unite in applauding them. But they overlook Christ, to whom they uniformly bear testimony; and, while thinking to obtain eternal life, will not come to him that they might have it. LETTER VIII. ON THE PERFECTIONS OF GOD. I NEED not say to you that just views of the Divine cha- racter lie at the foundation of all true religion. Without them, it is impossible, in the nature of things, to love God, or to perceive the fitness of our being required to love him, or the evil of not loving him, or the necessity of such a Saviour and such a salvation as the gospel reveals. We may be terrified by the fear of the wrath to come, and de- * See Dr. Campbell's translation of John v. 39, 40. The evil nature of sin is lighted with the hope of escaping it through Christ; but if this terror and this hope have no respect to the character of God, as holy, just, and good, there can be no hatred of sin as sin, nor love to God as God, and consequently no true religion. “ This is life eternal, to know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” God is a Spirit, and cannot be known by sense, nor by any means but those in which he has been pleased to manifest himself. These are his works and his word. Everything that meets our eyes, or accosts our ears, in heaven or in earth, is full of his glory. “The invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that were there no other revela- tion of himself, this were sufficient to leave sinners without eaccuse. But besides this silent mode of manifesting him- self, God has displayed himself by his word. Even in a state of innocence, man was governed by the revealed will of his Creator; and the revelation of God, from first to last, manifests the glory of his perfections. The perfections of God require to be distinguished into natural and moral: the former respect his greatness, the latter his goodness; or, more particularly, the one refers to his infinite understanding, his almighty power, his eternity, immensity, omnipresence, immutability, &c.; the other, to his purity, justice, faithfulness, goodness, or, in one word, to his holiness. The former are necessary to render him an object of respect, the latter of love, and both toge- ther of holy fear. The natural perfections of God are principally manifested in the creation and providential go- vernment of the world; his moral perfections in the crea- tion, moral government, and salvation of intelligent beings. The former are glorious as connected with the latter, but the latter are glorious in themselves. Power and know- ledge, and every other attribute belonging to the greatness of God, could they be separated from his righteousness and goodness, would render him an object of dread, and not of love ; but righteousness and goodness, whether connected with greatness or not, are lovely. Correspondent with this is what we are taught of the “image of God” in the soul of man; it is partly natural and partly moral. The moral image of God, consisting in “righteousness and true holiness,” was effaced by sin; but the natural image of God, consisting in his rational and immortal nature, was not. In this respect, man, though fallen, still retains his Creator's image, and there- fore cannot be murdered or cursed without incurring his high displeasure, Gen. ix. 6; James iii. 9. The same distinction is perceivable in the humiliation and exaltation of Christ. He emptied or disrobed himself; he laid aside his glory for a season: yet not his goodness, but his greatness : not his purity, justice, faithfulness, or holiness; but the display of his eternity, supremacy, im- mensity, wisdom, power, omniscience, and omnipresence: becoming a mortal man, subject to his parents, supported by the ordinary aliments of life, and ascribing his doctrine and miracles to the Father. It was thus that, “being rich, he became poor, that through his poverty we might be made rich.” And this it is that accounts for the ascriptions given him after his exaltation: “Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.” Each of these terms has respect to that glory of which he had disrobed himself, and with which he was therefore worthy now to be doubly invested. As it is not talent, but morality, that constitutes charac- ter among men, so it is not the natural, but the moral perfections of God, which properly constitute his charac- ter. Holiness is the glory of the Divine nature. Thus, when he would show Moses his glory, he said, “I will make all my goodness pass before thee.” Yet, as greatness illustrates goodness among men, so does the greatness of God illustrate his goodness. His being “the high and lofty One, that inhabiteth eternity,” illustrates the holi- ness of his name, and the unexampled condescension of his nature towards the poor and contrite. It is by the union of these Divine excellences that he stands opposed to all the deities of the heathen. His greatest enemies have often confessed him to be the “Most High '' and “Most Holy.” Hence Moses could say, “Their rock 750 SYSTEMATIC DIVINITY. is not as our Rock, our adversaries themselves being judges.” The precepts, prohibitions, and promises of the Divine law, are a mirror in which we may perceive the moral perfections of the Lawgiver. They each express his heart; or what he loves, and what he hates. They moreover show his goodness to his creatures, granting them every thing that would do them good, and withholding nothing but that which would prove their ruin. The sum of all his requirements was love to God and one another. And as his promises to the obedient would express his love of righteousness, so his threatenings against transgressors show his great abhorrence of sin. On no other principle can we account for such tremendous curses being de- nounced, by a Being full of goodness, against the work of his hands. Moreover, to show that these are not mere words given out to deter mankind, without any design of carrying them into execution, but that, in all his threaten- ings of future punishment to the ungodly, he means what he says, he inflicts numerous and sore judgments upon his enemies, even in this world. In one instance, he de- stroyed, with the exception of a single family, the whole race of man which he had created. In many others, by war, by famine, by pestilence, and other means, his dis- pleasure against sin has been expressed in almost every age. Yet has he never failed to maintain his character, as “the Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long- suffering, and abundant in goodness and in truth.” Of- ten has he pardoned those who have sought his mercy; and even when the parties have not sought it, he has wrought for his great name's sake. These are a few of the expressions of the Divine mind; but, as Job says, they are “but a part of his ways,” and exhibit only a part of his character. The only display of the Divine perfections which can be denominated perfect is in the salvation of sinners, through the obedience and death of his beloved Son. After all the preceding manifestations of his glory, it may be said, “No one hath seen God at any time ; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” In his undertaking, every Divine perfection meets and harmonizes. There were, in former ages, various displays of truth and righteousness on the one hand, and of mercy and peace on the other; but there does not appear to have been a point in which they could meet and be united. If one prevailed, the other receded, or gave place. It was thus at the flood, and at the de- struction of Sodom and Gomorrah ; truth and righteous- ness prevailed ; but mercy and peace retired, leaving the transgressors to suffer. And thus, when Israel was par- doned at the intercession of Moses, mercy and peace pre- Vailed ; but justice was suspended. It was reserved for the only begotten of the Father to unite them in the same instance. In him “mercy and truth are met together, righteousness and peace have kissed each other.” When the appointed time was come, justice awoke and smote the Shepherd, that mercy might turn its hand to- wards the little ones. It is thus that every perfection in the Divine nature, natural and moral, is declared ; wis- dom, and power, and faithfulness, and justice, and love, and mercy all meet and blend their rays. God is “just, and the justifier of them that believe in Jesus.” A greater honour is conferred on the Divine law, both as to its pre- cept and penalty, than is sufficient to counterbalance the utmost disgrace upon it, by man’s rebellion; and a greater display afforded of the Divine displeasure against sin than if the whole world had suffered the reward of their deeds. And now love to sinners, which wrought unsolicited in the gift of Christ, flows without any impediment towards all who come unto God by him. The struggles of justice and mercy, and the triumphs of the latter, are very affectingly represented in Jer. iii. 19, &c.; Hos. xi. 8: “But I said, How shall I put thee among the children, and give thee a pleasant land?”—“How shall I give thee up, Ephraim 3 shall I deliver thee, Israel? How shall I make thee as Admah 3 shall I set thee as Zeboim 3 My heart is turned within me, and my repent- ings are kindled together.” In the former of these pas- sages, it is intimated, that though God was disposed to show mercy, yet their conduct put his very perfections to the proof. In the latter, we must conceive an offended father as having hold of his son with one hand, and hold- ing up a rod in the other, making alternate appeals, first to his own compassion, then to the conscience of the offender. Justice requires him to be delivered over to punishment, to be made as Admah, and set for an ex- ample as Zeboim. But mercy pleads in arrest of judg- ment, and overcomes. To such a case as this the Divine conduct towards Israel might be compared; but all this mercy, and all that followed, and all that shall yet follow, is through the atonement of Christ. His sacrifice has fur- nished the answers to these hard questions. LETTER IX. on THE TRINITY—OR ON THE FATHER, son, AND Holy SPIRIT BEING ONE GOD, A subjecT so great and so much above our comprehen- sion as this is requires to be treated with trembling. Every thing that we can think or say, concerning the ever blessed God, requires the greatest modesty, fear, and reverence. Were I to hear two persons engaged in a warm contest upon the subject, I should fear for them both. One might in the main be in the right, and the other in the wrong; but if many words were used, they might both be expected to incur the reproof of the Al- mighty : “Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?” The people of Israel were forbidden to break through the bounds which were set for them, and to gaze on the visible glory of Jehovah. The Bethshemites, for looking into the ark, were smitten with death. Such judgments may not befall us in these days; but we may expect others, more to be dreaded. As the gospel is a spiritual dispens- ation, its judgments, as well as its blessings, are chiefly spiritual. Where men have employed themselves in curiously prying into things too high for them, they have ordinarily been smitten with a blast upon their minds and upon their ministry. - There is a greater importance in the doctrine of the Trinity than commonly appears on a superficial inspection of it; chiefly, perhaps, on account of its affecting our views of the doctrine of the person and work of Christ; which doctrine, being the foundation on which the church is built, cannot be removed without the utmost danger to the building. It is a subject of pure revelation. If the doctrine be not taught in the oracles of God, we have nothing to do with it; but if it be, whether we can comprehend it or not, we are required humbly to believe it, and to endea- vour to understand so much as God has revealed concerning it. We are not required to understand how three are one ; for this is not revealed. If we do not consider the Father, Son, and Spirit as being both three and one in the same sense, which certainly we do not, then we do not believe a contradiction. We may leave speculating minds to lose themselves and others in a labyrinth of conceits, while we learn what is revealed, and rest contented with it. In believing three Divine persons in one essence, I do not mean that the distinction between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is the same as that between three human persons: but neither is there any other term that answers to the Scriptural idea; and since Christ is said to be “the express image of his Father’s person,” I see nothing objectionable in using this. The doctrine was certainly less explicitly revealed in the Old Testament than it is in the New. When the Messiah came, it was expected that he would tell us all things. If the degree in which the doctrine was made known in the Old Testament bears a proportion to that of other important truths, it is sufficient. From the begin- ning of the creation the name of God is represented under a plural form ; with which agrees the moving of the Spirit of God upon the face of the waters; and all things being made by the Word, and without him nothing made that was made. The angel of the Lord which appeared to Abraham, Lot, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, &c., in the form of ON THE 751 TRINITY. man, was considered and treated by them as God, and re- ceived Divine worship at their hands. In reference to this, I conceive, it is said in the New Testament, that, “being in the form of God, he thought it no usurpation to be as God.” In the New Testament the doctrine is more explicitly revealed ; particularly in Christ's commission to his apos- tles to baptize in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. In the Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, he invokes the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit to he with them. And John, in his First Epistle, introduces the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, as bearing witness to the gospel; or that God had given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. If, in the first of these passages, the Son and Holy Spirit be considered as Divine persons, and as one with the Father, both in nature and in the economy of redemption, there is a fitness in our being baptized into this individual name; but to be bap- tized into the name of God, a creature, and an energy, must be the height of incongruity. The next passage shows the importance of the doctrine to the existence and progress of vital godliness. It is not a subject of mere speculation, but one on which depends all the communi- cations of grace and peace to sinful men; and it is remark- able that they who reject it are seldom known to acknow- ledge any spiritual communion with God, but treat it as fanaticism. The last of these passages has been strongly opposed as an interpolation. It is not for me to decide this question by a reference to ancient versions of the New Testament; but there are two or three considerations which, after all that I have seen on the other side, weigh with me in its favour. First, From the seventh verse being wanting in some copies and found in others, all that can be fairly inferred is, that there must have been either an interpolation by some copyist, or an omission by some other. The question is, Which is the most probable? If it is an omission in the copies where it is wanting, it might not have been from design, but from mere oversight, espe- cially as the eighth verse begins so much like the seventh ; whereas, if it be an interpolation, no oversight can account for it, but it must have arisen from wicked, wilful impos- ture. To which of these suppositions will candour give its vote % Secondly, Supposing the omission or interpola- tion, whichever it was, to have arisen from design; which is the most probable, and the least likely to have escap- ed detection—that the antitrinitarians should omit what was unfavourable to them, or that the trinitarians should introduce what was favourable? An omission would escape detection seven times where an interpolation would escape it once. Thirdly, The connexion of the passage is alto- gether in its favour. The phraseology is that of the apostle John ; so that if the words are not his, it must have been the most successful imitation of him that can be imagined. As it stands in our translation, there is evi- dently a gradation of ideas, forming a kind of climax of witnesses; namely, that of the Three in heaven, of the three on earth, and the testimony which a believer has within himself. To leave out the first were to weaken the passage and destroy its beauty. Besides, it is not the omission of the seventh verse only that is necessary, to make any thing like sense of the passage. The words on earth, in the eighth verse, must also be left out, if not the whole of the ninth verse, in which the witness of God is sup- posed to have been introduced; but which, if the seventh verse be left out, had not been introduced. Those who are now for new-modelling the passage leave out some of these, but not all; nor can they prove that those words which they do leave out were uniformly left out of even those copies in which the seventh verse is omitted. As the Father is allowed on all hands to be a Divine person, whatever proves the Divinity and personality of the son proves a plurality of Divine persons in the Godhead. I need not adduce the evidences of this truth; the sacred Scriptures are full of them. Divine perfections are ordinarily ascribed to him, and Divine worship is paid to him, both by angels and men. If Jesus Christ is not God, equal with the Father, Christianity must have tended to establish a sys- tem of idolatry, more dangerous, as being more plausible, than that which it came to destroy. The union of the Divine and human natures, in the person of Christ, is a subject on which the sacred writers delight to dwell ; and so should we, for herein is the glory of the gospel. “Unto us a child is born ; and his name shall be called—the mighty God.” He was born in Bethlehem ; yet his “go- ings forth were from of old, from everlasting.” He was made “ of the seed of David according to the flesh,” and “declared to be the Son of God with power.” “Of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.” In his original nature, he is de- scribed as incapable of death, and as taking flesh and blood upon him to qualify himself for enduring it, Heb. ii. 14. He was the “Son of God,” yet “touched with a feeling of our infirmities ; ”—“the root and the offspring of David.” The sacred Scriptures lay great stress on what Christ was antecedently to his assumption of human nature, and of the official character of a Mediator and Saviour. “The Word was with God, and the Word was God.—He who was rich for our sakes became poor, that we through his poverty might be made rich.-Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and uphold- ing all things by the word of his power, &c.—Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery,” or usurp- ation, “to be equal with God; but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.” If Divine personality be not essential to Deity, distinct from all office capacity, and antecedent to it, what meaning is there in this lan- guage 3 An economical trinity, or that which would not have been but for the economy of redemption, is not the trinity of the Scriptures. It is not a trinity of Divine persons, but merely of offices personified; whereas Christ is distinguished from the Father as the express image or character of his person, while yet in his pre-incarnate state. . The sacred Scriptures lay great stress on the character of Christ as “the Son of God.” It was this that formed the first link in the Christian profession, and was reckoned to draw after it the whole chain of evangelical truth. “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” From this rises the great love of God in the gift of him : “God so loved the world as to give his only begotten Son "-the condescension of his obedience: “Though he was a son yet learned he obedience”—the efficacy of his blood : “The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin’”—the dignity of his priesthood : “We have a great High Priest, Jesus the Son of God”—the greatness of the sin of unbelief: “He that believeth not is condemned al- ready, because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God”—the greatness of the sin of apostacy: “Who have trodden under foot the Son of God.” The incarnation, resurrection, and exaltation of Christ declared, but did not constitute, him the Son of God; nor did any of his offices, to all which his Sonship was antecedent. God sent his Son into the world. This implies that he was his Son antecedently to his being sent, as much as Christ’s sending his disciples implies that they were his disciples before he sent them. The same may be said of the Son of God being made of a woman, made under the law. These terms no more express that which rendered him a Son, than his being made flesh expresses that which rendered him the Word. The Son of God was manifested to destroy the works of the devil; he must therefore have been the Son of God antecedently to his being mani- fested in the flesh. I have heard it asserted that “Eter- nal generation is eternal nonsense.” But whence does this appear ! Does it follow that, because a son among men is inferior and posterior to his father, therefore it must be so with the Son of God? If so, why should his saying that God was his own Father be considered as making himself equal with God? Of the only begotten Son it is not said he was, or will be, but he is in the bosom of the Father; denoting the etermity and immuta- bility of his character. There never was a point in duration in which God was without his Son : he rejoiced always before him. Bold assertions are not to be placed in opposition to revealed truth. In Christ's being called the Son of God, there may be, for the assistance of our low conceptions, some reference to sonship among men ; but not sufficient to warrant us to reason from the one to the other. The sacred Scriptures often ascribe the miracles 752 THOUGHTS ON PREACHING. of Christ, his sustaining the load of his sufferings, and his resurrection from the dead, to the power of the Father, or of the Holy Spirit, rather than to his own Divinity. I have read in human writings, “But the Divinity within supported him to bear.” But I never met with such an idea in the sacred Scriptures. They represent the Father as woholding his servant, his elect in whom his soul de- lighted ; and as sending his angel to strengthen him in the conflict. While acting as the Father's servant, there was a fitness in his being supported by him, as well as his being in all things obedient to his will. But when the value, virtue, or efficacy of what he did and suffered are touched upon, they are never ascribed either to the Father or the Holy Spirit, but to himself. Such is the idea suggested by those forequoted passages. “Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and up- holding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.”—“Ye are not redeemed by corrupt- ible things, but by the precious blood of Christ.”—“The blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanseth us from all sin.” Much less is said in the sacred Scriptures on the Divinity and personality of the Holy Spirit, than on those of the Son. The Holy Spirit not having become incarnate, it might be less necessary to guard his honours, and to warn men against thinking meanly of him. All judgment was committed to the Son, because he was the Son of man. Yet there is enough said against grieving the Spirit, blas- phemy against him, lying against him, doing despite to him, and deftling his temple, to make us tremble. In the economy of redemption it is the office of the Holy Spirit, not to exhibit himself, but to “take of the things of Christ, and show them to us.” He is the great spring-head of all the good that is in the world ; but, in producing it, he himself appears not. We are no otherwise conscious of his in- fluences than by their effects. He is a wind which blow- eth where it listeth : we hear the sound, and feel the effects ; but know nothing more of it. The Holy Spirit is not the grand object of ministerial exhibition ; but Christ, in his person, work, and offices. When Philip went down to Samaria, it was not to preach God the Holy Spirit unto them, but to preach Christ unto them. While this was done, the Holy Spirit gave testi- mony to the word of his grace, and rendered it effectual. The more sensible we are, both as ministers and Christians, of our entire dependence on the Holy Spirit's influences, the better; but if we make them the grand theme of our ministry, we shall do that which he himself avoids, and so shall counteract his operations. The attempts to reduce the Holy Spirit to a mere property, or energy, of the Deity, arise from much the same source as the attempts to prove the inferiority and posteriority of Christ as the Son of God; namely, reasoning from things human to things Divine. The Spirit of God is compared to the spirit of man; and as the latter is not a person distinguishable from man, so, it has been said, the former cannot be a person distinguishable from God the Father. But the design of the apostle, in 1 Cor. ii. 11, was not to represent the Spirit of God as resembling the spirit of man in respect of his subsistence, but of his knowledge ; and it is pre- sumptuous to reason from it on a subject that we cannot understand. The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you, and your affectionate brother—A. F. THOUGHTS ON PREACHING, IN T. ETTERS TO A Y O U N G M IN IST ER, &c. &c. LETTER I. ON EXPOUNDING THE SCRIPTURES. *. “MY DEAR BROTHER, As you have expressed a wish for a few of my thoughts on your principal work as a Christian minister, I will en- deavour to comply with your request, persuaded that what I write will be read with candour and seriousness. The work in which you are engaged is of great import- ance. To declare the whole counsel of God in such a way as to save yourself and them that hear you—or, if they are not saved, to be pure from their blood—is no small matter. The character of the preaching in an age con- tributes, more than most other things, to give a character to the Christians of that age. A great and solemn trust, therefore, is reposed in us, of which we must shortly give an account. The work of a Christian minister, as it respects the pulpit, may be distinguished into two general branches; namely, expounding the Scriptures, and discoursing on Divine subjects. In this letter I shall offer a few remarks on the former. I have found it not a little useful, both to myself and to the people, to appropriate one part of every Lord's day to the earposition of a chapter, or part of a chapter, in the sacred writings. In this way, during the last eighteen years, I have gone over the greater part of the Old Tes- tament, and some books in the New. It is advantageous to a minister to feel himself necessitated, as it were, to understand every part of Scripture, in order to explain it to the people. It is also advantageous to a people that what they hear should come directly from the word of God, and that they should be led to see the scope and con: nexion of the sacred writers. For want of this, a great number of Scripture passages are misunderstood and mis- applied. In going over a book, I have frequently been struck with surprise in meeting with texts which, as they had always occurred to me, I had understood in a sense utterly foreign from what manifestly appeared to be their meaning when viewed in connewion with the context. The great thing necessary for expounding the Scriptures is to enter into their true meaning. We may read them, EXPOUNDING THE SCRIPTURES. 753 and talk about them, again and again, without imparting any light concerning them. If the hearer, when you have done, understand no more of that part of Scripture than he did before, your labour is lost. Yet this is commonly the case with those attempts at expounding which consist of little else than comparing parallel passages, or, by the help of a Concordance, tracing the use of the same word in other places, going from text to text till both the preacher and the people are wearied and lost. This is troubling the Scriptures rather than expounding them. If I were to open a chest of oranges among my friends, and, in order to ascertain their quality, were to hold up one, and lay it down ; then hold up another, and say, This is like the last; then a third, a fourth, a fifth, and so on, till I came to the bottom of the chest, saying of each, It is like the other ; of what account would it be The company would doubtless be weary, and had much rather have tasted two or three of them. The scope of the sacred writers is of greater importance in understanding the Scriptures than the most critical ex- amination of terms, or the most laborious comparison of the use of them in different places. For want of attend- ing to this, not only particular passages, but whole chapters, are frequently misunderstood. The reasonings of both Christ and his apostles frequently proceed, not upon what is true in fact, but merely in the estimation of the parties addressed; that is to say, they reason with them on their own principles. It was not true that Simon the Pharisee was a little sinner, nor a forgiven sinner, nor that he loved Christ a little ; but he thought thus of himself, and upon these principles Christ reasoned with him. It was not true that the Pharisees were just men, and needed no re- pentance; but such were their thoughts of themselves, and Christ suggested that therefore they had no need of him ; for that he came “not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” Finally, It was not true that the Pharisees who murmured at Christ's receiving publicans and sinners had never, like the ninety-nine sheep in the wilderness, gone astray; nor that, like the elder son, they had served God, and never at any time transgressed his commandment; nor that all which God had was theirs: but such were their own views, and Christ reasons with them accordingly. It is as if he had said, Be it so that you are righteous and happy; yet why should you mur- mur at the return of these poor sinners ? Now, to mis- take the principle on which such reasonings proceed, is to lose all the benefit of them, and to fall into many errors. Moreover, to enter into the true meaning of the Scrip- tures, it is absolutely necessary that we drink into the spirit of the writers. This is the greatest of all accom- plishments. I do not mean that you are to expect a spi- rit of extraordinary inspiration ; but that of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. It is impossible to enter into the sentiments of any great writer without a kindred mind. Who but a Pope, or a Cowper, could have trans- lated Homer ? and who can explain the oracles of God, but he who, in a measure, drinks into the same spirit 3 Every Christian knows by experience that, in a spiritual frame of mind, he can understand more of the Scriptures in an hour than he can at other times, with the utmost application, in a week. It is by an unction from the Holy One that we know all things. I may add, there are some things which, when known, wonderfully facilitate the knowledge of other things. It is thus that a view of the glory of the Divine character and government opens the door to the whole mystery of redemption. It is thus also that a lively faith in the suf- ferings of Christ, and the glory arising out of them, is a key which unlocks a large part of the sacred oracles. While the disciples remained ignorant of his death, they knew but little of the Scriptures; but, having learned the design of this great event, a flood of light poured in upon them, and the Old Testament became plain and deeply interesting. A humble sense of our own ignorance, and of our entire dependence upon God, has also a great influence on our coming at the true meaning of his word. There are few things which tend more to blind the mind than a con- ceit of our own powers. Hence we perceive the justness of such language as the following:-‘‘ Proud, knowing nothing.”—“He that thinketh he knoweth any thing, knoweth nothing as he ought to know.”—“If any man will be wise, let him first become a fool, that he may be Wise.” To understand the Scriptures in such a manner as pro- fitably to expound them, it is necessary to be conversant with them in private; and to mix, not only faith, but the prayer of faith, with what we read. There is a great dif- ference between reading the Scriptures as a student, in order to find something to say to the people, and reading them as a Christian, with a view to get good from them to one’s own soul. That which is gained in the latter of these ways is, beyond all comparison, of the greatest use, both to ourselves and others. That which we communi- cate will freeze upon our lips, unless we have first applied it to ourselves; or, to use the language of Scripture, “tasted, felt, and handled the word of life.” When I have read a psalm or chapter, which I mean to expound, and have endeavoured to understand it, I have commonly thought it right to consult the best expositors I could obtain, trying and comparing my ideas with theirs. Hereby I have generally obtained some interesting thought which had not occurred to me, and sometimes have seen reason to retract what before appeared to me to be the meaning. But to go first to expositors is to preclude the exercise of your own judgment; and, after all, that which is furnished by the labours of another, though equally good in itself, will be far less interesting to us than that which is the result of our own application. I will only add, that I have found it not a little useful to keep a book in which I write down all my expository notes, which, though illegible to others, yet answer two purposes to myself: first, by looking them over before I go into the pulpit, I have a clear understanding of every sentence; and, secondly, I can have recourse to them on future occasions. LETTER II. ON SERMONS, AND THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THEM. THOUGH expounding the Scriptures be an important part of the public work of a minister, yet it is not the whole of it. There is a great variety of subjects, both in doc- trinal and practical religion, which require to be illustrated, established, and improved; which cannot be done in an exposition. Discourses of this kind are properly called S67°772O72S, You request me to give you my thoughts on this part of your work somewhat more particularly. I will en- deavour to do so, by considering what must be the matter and the manner of preaching, if we wish to do good to the souls of men. Unless the subject-matter of your preaching be truly evangelical, you had better be any thing than a minister. When the apostle speaks of a necessity being laid upon him to preach the gospel, he might mean that he was not at liberty to relinquish his work in favour of ease, or honour, or any other worldly object; but he was not bound to preach merely, but to preach that doctrine which had been delivered unto him. The same may be said of us; woe unto us if we preach not the gospel ! It may seem to be a very easy thing, with the Bible in our hands, to learn the truth, clear of all impure mixtures, and to make it the subject of our ministry. But it is not so. We talk much of thinking and judging for ourselves; but who can justly pretend to be free from the influences which surround him, especially in early life? We are in- sensibly, and almost irresistibly, assimilated by the books we read, and the company with which we associate ; and the principles current in our age and connexions will or- dinarily influence our minds. Nor is the danger solely from without : we are “slow of heart” to believe in a doctrine so holy and divine, and prone to deviate at every point. If, therefore, we were wholly to think for our- selves, that were no security for our keeping to the mind of Christ. 3 C 754 THOUGHTS ON PREACHING. I mention these things, not to deter you from either reading or thinking for yourself; but rather to inculcate the necessity of prayer for Divine guidance, and a close adherence to the Scriptures. Though we must think for ourselves, we must not depend upon ourselves, but, as little children, learn at the feet of our Saviour. If you look over the New Testament, you will find the subject-matter of your preaching briefly yet fully express- ed in such language as the following: “Preach the word. —Preach the gospel.-Preach the gospel to every creature. —Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repent- ance and remission of sins should be preached in his name, among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem,--I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you, first of all, that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins accord- ing to the Scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.— We preach Christ crucified.—I am determined to know nothing among you but Jesus Christ and him crucified.— This is the record, that God hath given unto us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.—We are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech men by us, we pray them in Christ's stead, saying, Beye reconciled unto God. For he hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. —I have kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have showed you, and have taught you publicly, and from house to house, testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” . Such, my brother, is the concurrent language of the New Testament. Every one of the foregoing passages contains an epitome of the gospel ministry. You will not expect me to expatiate upon their various connexions: I may, however, notice three or four particulars, which follow from them. First, In every sermon we should have an errand ; and one of such importance that if it be received or complied with it will issue in eternal salvation.—I say nothing of those preachers who profess to go into the pulpit without an errand, and to depend upon the Holy Spirit to furnish them with one at the time. I write not for them, but for such as make a point of thinking before they attempt to preach. Even of these I have heard some who, in study- ing their texts, have appeared to me to have no other ob- ject in view than to find something to say, in order to fill up the time. This, however, is not preaching, but mere- ly talking about good things. Such ministers, though they think of something beforehand, yet appear to me to resemble Ahimaaz, who ran without tidings. I have also heard many an ingenious discourse, in which I could not but admire the talents of the preacher; but his only object appeared to be to correct the grosser vices, and to form the manners of his audience, so as to render them useful members of civil society. Such ministers have an errand; but not of such importance as to save those who receive it, which sufficiently proves that it is not the gospel. . In preparing for the pulpit, it would be well to reflect in some such manner as this :-I am expected to preach, it may be to some hundreds of people, some of whom may come several miles to hear; and what have I to say to them Is it for me to sit here studying a text merely to find something to say to fill up the hour? I may do this without imparting any useful instruction, without com- mending myself to any man’s conscience, and without winning, or even aiming to win, one soul to Christ. It is possible there may be in the audience a poor miserable creature, labouring under the load of a guilty conscience. If he depart without being told how to obtain rest for his soul, what may be the consequence 3 Or, it may be, some stranger may be there who has never heard the way of salvation in his life... If he should depart without hearing it now, and should die before another opportunity occurs, how shall I meet him at the bar of God?, Possibly some one of my constant hearers may die in the following week; and is there nothing I should wish to say to him before his departure? It may be that I myself may die before another Lord’s day: this may be the last time that I shall ascend the pulpit ; and have I no important testimony to leave with the people of my care 3 Secondly, Every sermon should contain a portion of the doctrine of salvation by the death of Christ.—If there be any meaning in the foregoing passages, this is emphatic- ally called THE Gospel. A sermon, therefore, in which this doctrine has not a place, and I might add a prominent place, cannot be a gospel sermon. It may be ingenious, it may be eloquent; but a want of the doctrine of the cross is a defect which no pulpit excellence can supply. Far be it from me to encourage that fastidious humour manifested by some hearers, who object to a sermon unless the cross of Christ be the immediate and direct topic of discourse. There is a rich variety in the sacred writings, and so there ought to be in our ministrations. There are various important truths supposed by this great doctrine, and these require to be illustrated and established. There are various branches pertaining to it, which require to be distinctly considered ; various consequences arising from it, which require to be pointed out ; various duties corre- sponding with it, which require to be inculcated; and various evils inimical to it, which may require to be ex- posed. All I mean to say is, that as there is a relation between these subjects and the doctrine of the cross, if we would introduce them in a truly evangelical manner, it requires to be in that relation. I may establish the moral character and government of God; the holiness, justice, goodness, and perpetual obligation of the law ; the evil of sin; and the exposedness of the sinner to endless punishment: but if I have any other end in view than, by convincing him of his lost condition, to make him feel the need of a Saviour, I cannot be said to have preached the gospel; nor is my reasoning, however forcible, likely to produce any good effect. I may be very pointed in pressing the practical parts of religion, and in reproving the sins of the times; but if I enforce the one, or inveigh against the other, on any other than evangelical principles, I, in so doing, preach not the gospel, All Scriptural preaching is practical ; but when practice is enforced in opposition to doctrine, or even to the neglect of it, it be- comes antiscriptural. The apostolic precept runs thus: “Preach the word; be instant in season, and out of sea- son ; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all long-suffering and doctrine.” Thirdly, In preaching the gospel, we must not imitate the ORATOR, whose attention is taken up with his perform- ance, but rather the HERALD, whose object is to publish, or proclaim, good tidings.-There is in the one an earnest- ness, a fulness of heart, a mind so interested in the sub- ject as to be inattentive to other things, which is not in the other. “We believe, and therefore speak.” The emphatical meaning of the terms kilovo’aw, ebayya)\tºw, to preach, and preach the gospel, is noticeable in the account given of the ministry of John the Baptist. “The law and the prophets were until John ; since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.” Moses and the prophets spoke of things at a distance; but John did more than prophesy: his was “the voice of one that cried ;” he announced the fulfilment of what had been foretold, proclaiming the Messiah as being among them, and his kingdom as at hand. He opened the door of salvation, and great numbers pressed in Fourthly, Though the doctrine of reconciliation by the blood of Christ forms the ground-work of the gospel embassy, get it belongs to the work of the ministry, not merely to de- clare that truth, but to accompany it with earnest calls, and pressing invitations, to sinners to receive it, together with the most solemn warnings and threatenings to unbelievers who shall continue to reject it.—The preaching of both John and Christ is, indeed, distinguished from the calls to re- pentance and faith which they addressed to their hearers, as being the ground on which they rested ; but the latter were no less essential to their work than the former. John came “preaching in the wilderness of Judea, and saying, Repent ye,” &c. After John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, “preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand—repent ye, and believe the gospel.” COMPOSITION 755 OF A SERMON. And thus the apostle explains the ministry of reconciliation as comprehending not only a declaration of the doctrine, but the persuading of men, “ beseeching” them to be “ reconciled to God,” 2 Cor. v. 18–20. e There is nothing in all this which clashes with the most entire dependence on the influence of the Holy Spirit to give success to our ministry. Though we invite men, yet it is not on their pliability that we must rest our hopes, but on the power and promise of God. These are a part of the weapons of our warfare ; but it is through God that they become mighty to the pulling down of strong holds. LETTER III. ON THE COMPOSITION OF A SERMON. You have requested my thoughts on the composition of a sermon. There are several publications on this subject well worthy of your notice. If what I may offer have any peculiar claim to your attention, it will be on account of its familiarity. The form or manner in which a sermon is composed and delivered is of some importance, inasmuch as it influences the attention, and renders the matter delivered more or less easy of being comprehended and retained. In general, I do not think a minister of Jesus Christ should aim at fine composition for the pulpit. We ought to use sound speech, and good sense ; but if we aspire after great elegance of expression, or become very exact in the formation of our periods, though we may amuse and please the ears of a few, we shall not profit the many, and consequently shall not answer the great end of our minis- try. Illiterate hearers may be very poor judges of preach- ing; yet the effect which it produces upon them is the best criterion of its real excellence. A considerable part of the ministerial gift consists in fruitfulness of invention; but that which greatly aids in the composition and delivery of a sermon is spirituality of mind. Without this we shall get no good ourselves, and be likely to do but little good to others. The first thing, therefore, before we sit down to study, should be to draw near to God in prayer. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. When a passage of Scripture is fixed on as the ground of a sermon, it is necessary to read it in connexion with the context, and endeavour by your own judgment to gain a clear idea of its genuine meaning. Having formed your own judgment, I would then advise you to consult exposi- tors, who may throw additional light upon it, or give a different sense to it; and if the sense which they give ap- pear to have evidence in its favour, you must relinquish your own. Be satisfied, at all events, that you have the mind of the Holy Spirit before you proceed. In the next place, having determined on the meaning of the text, it is necessary to examine the force of each word or term of importance in it. This may be done by examin- ing the use of the same terms in other places of Scripture by the help of a concordance; but here a good judgment of your own is required, that you may select a few out of the many parallel texts which really illustrate that on which you have fixed. Some of the worst sermons are made out of a concordance, being a mere collection of similar sounds which, instead of throwing light upon the subject only throw it into confusion. . , only The force of words or terms of importance may also be examined to great advantage by a judicious use of contrast, Place all the important terms of your text, one at a time in contrast with other things, or examine to what ideas they stand opposed. For example, let your text be Psal. cxlv. 16, “Thou openest thy hand, and satisfiest the desire of every living thing.” Begin with the term openesT. “Thou openest thy hand.” What an idea does this convey of the paternal goodness of the great Father of his creation: How opposite to the conduct of many of his creatures one to another, whose hands and hearts are shut! What an idea also does it convey of the ease with which the wants of the whole creation are supplied Let me pause a mo- ment and think of their wants. What a quantity of vege- table and animal food is daily consumed in one town what a quantity in a large city like London what a quantity in a nation; in the whole world ! But men do not compose a hundredth part of “every living thing !” Oh what innumerable wants throughout all animate na- ture; in the earth, in the air, in the waters! Whence comes their supply? “Thou openest thy hand,” and all are satisfied. And can all these wants be supplied by only the opening of his hand? What then must sin be, and salvation from it? That is a work of wonderful expense. God openeth his hand, and satisfieth all creation, but he must purchase the church with his blood / God is all-suf- ficient as to power in the one case as well as in the other; but there are things relative to his moral conduct which he cannot do: he cannot deny himself. Here lies the great difficulty of salvation. In what a variety of ways are our wants supplied The earth is fruitful, the air is full of life, the clouds empty themselves upon the earth, the sun pours forth its genial rays; but the operation of all these second causes is only the opening of his hand 1 Nay, further : look we to instruments as well as means ? Parents feed us in our childhood, and supply our youthful wants; ways are opened for our future subsistence ; connexions are formed, which prove sources of comfort; friends are kind in seasons of extremity ; supplies are presented from quarters that we never expected. What are all these but the opening of his hand? If his hand were shut, what a world would this be . The heavens brass, the earth iron ; famine, pestilence, and death must follow.—See Psal. civ. 27—29. Next take up the pronoun THOU. You will infer from this, If thou openest thy hand, should I shut mine against my poor brother ? This important sentiment will properly occupy the place of improvement towards the close of the discourse. Consider next the term HAND. between the hand and the heart. God opens his hand, in the way of providence, towards his worst enemies. He gave Nebuchadnezzar all the kingdoms of the earth. But he opens his heart in the gospel of his Son. This is the better portion of the two. While we are thankful for the one, let us not rest satisfied in it: it is merely a hand por- tion. Rather let us pray with Jabez to be blessed indeed; and that we might have a Joseph’s portion ; not only the precious things of the earth and the fulness thereof, but “ the good-will of Him that dwelt in the bush!” Proceed: “Thou satisfiest the desire,” &c. God, I see, does not give grudgingly. It seems to be a characteristic of the Divine nature, both in the natural and moral world, to raise desires, not with a view to disappoint, but to satisfy them. Oh what a consoling thought is this If there be any desires in us which are not satisfied, it is through their being self-created ones, which is our own fault; or through artificial scarcity arising from men's luxury, which is the fault of our species. God raises no desires as our Creator but he gives enough to satisfy them ; and nome as our Re- deemer and Sanctifier but what shall be actually satisfied. Oh the wonderful munificence of GOD ! “How great is his goodness, and how great is his beauty l’” Now, having examined the force of every term of import- ance, by contrasting it with the opposite idea or ideas, you will find yourself in possession of a number of interesting thoughts, which you may consider as so many recruits, and, having noted them down as they occurred, your next busi- ness is to arrange them in order, or to give each thought that place in your discourse which it will occupy to the greatest advantage. Many sermons are a mob of ideas : they contain very good sentiments, but they have no ob- ject in view; so that the hearer is continually answering the preacher, Very true, very true ; but what then? What is it you are aiming at 2 What is this to the purpose? A preacher, then, if he would interest a judicious hearer, must have an object at which he aims, and must never lose sight of it throughout his discourse. This is what writers on these subjects call a wnity of design ; and this is a mat- ter of far greater importance than studying well-turned periods, or forming pretty expressions. It is this that nails the attention of an audience. One thing at once is a maxim There is a difference in common life, by which the greatest men have made the 3 C 2 756 THOUGHTS ON PREACHING. greatest proficiency. Shun, therefore, a multitude of di- visions and subdivisions. He who aims to say every thing in a single discourse, in effect says nothing. Avoid making a head or particular of every thought. Unity of design may be preserved consistently with various methods of division ; but the thing itself is indispensable to good preaching. The following reasons have induced me to hold this opinion : 1. The human mind is so formed as to delight in unity. To divide the attention is to weaken, if not destroy it. PRESIDENT EDwARDs’s sermons, though in some re- spects not proper for imitation, yet, in this, are worthy of notice. They all hold up some one great leading truth ; and that truth is the spirit of his text, and serves for the title of his sermon. Look over the table of contents to his Thirty-three Sermons, and you will find the title of each sermon throw an amazing light upon the text. The senti- ment expressed in the title he calls the doctrine of the text; and all he says is to illustrate, establish, or improve it. It might be of use; if, in the composition of sermons, we were to oblige ourselves to give titles to them. Many of what are called sermons would be found to require three or four titles to answer to their contents; which at once proves that, properly speaking, they are not sermons. 2. It has been said, and I think justly, that evidence should constitute the body or substance of every doctrinal discourse. Evidence may be drawn from various sources; as Scripture testimony, example, the reason of things, &c.; but evidence always implies a leading truth to be proved. Where this is not the case, the preacher gives himself no opportunity of advancing evidence ; consequently his 'ser- mon, if it may be so called, will be without body, without substance, and will contain nothing that shall leave any strong impression upon a thinking mind. In opening a battery against a wall, you would not throw your balls at random, first at one place and then at another, but direct your whole force against a particular spot. In the one case your labour would be thrown away; in the other you are likely to make an effectual impression. 3. It is greatly assisting to memory, both with respect to the preacher and the hearer. Memory is exercised by the ºrelation of one thing to another. Were you to attempt to remember seven different objects which bore no manner of relation to each other, such as water, time, wisdom, fruit, contentment, fowls, and revenues, you would find it almost impossible; but take seven objects which, though different in nature, yet possess some point of unity which associates them in the mind, and the work is easy. Thus, sun, moon, stars, earth, air, fire, and water, are readily remembered, being so many principal parts of the one creation. 4. I cannot so well satisfy my conscience unless I have some interesting truth to communicate, or some important duty to enforce. When I have been thinking of the ap- proach of the Lord's day, the questions have occurred to my mind, What message have I to deliver to the people of my charge 3 What important doctrine to establish 2 What sin to expose ? What duty to inculcate? What case to meet? What acknowledged truth to improve 3 The method fre- quently used seems to afford an answer to none of these questions; but is rather saying, None at all, only I have a text of Scripture, on the different parts of which I may say something that will fill up the time. Divisions are either topical, teactual, or compound. The first, or topical method, is to collect all your remarks upon a text, and reduce them to a point, like so many rays of light in a focus. . In other words, ask yourself, What &m- portant truth is it that the teact contains, and which I feel impressed upon my own mind, and wish to impress upon that of the congregation ? And make this the topic of discourse. After going over the passage before mentioned, as above, you could be at no loss to determine that the leading sen- timent would be—The bounty of Providence. This is what the old divines called the doctrine of the text; and when they printed their discourses, this was the title of them. But, you may ask, what am I to do with this doctrine when I have found it? Am I to make no divisions, or sub- divisions? Of what is my discourse to be composed ? Yes, there must be divisions, and perhaps subdivisions; but let them not be so many distinct subjects, which have no re- lation to each other, but so many parts of a whole. When I have a subject before me, I sometimes ask myself three questions: What is it? On what evidence does it rest? And what does it concern me, or any of the people, if it be true? The division of many subjects will therefore be, I. Explain the doctrine. II. Establish it. III. Improve it. Let us try the above subject on this plan, and see whe- ther we cannot find a place, under one or other of these heads, for all the foregoing thoughts, which occurred spon- taneously on looking over the terms ; and perhaps, as we go along, others no less interesting may occur. INTRODUCTION.—However men have been in the dark respecting God, it has not been for want of evidence. He is not far from every one of us; for in him we live, and move, and have our being. Creation is full of God. There is something in this passage wonderfully sublime. It expresses a great truth in the most simple language. It represents the great Creator as the Father of his creation, encompassed round by an innumerable family, whose eyes all wait on him for daily food; while he, with paternal goodness, opens his bounteous hand, and satisfies their va- rious wants. The subject which invites our attention is—The bounty of Providence. In discoursing on it, I shall offer some re- marks by way of explanation—notice the evidence on which it rests—and then improve the subject. I. Offer some remarks upon the subject by way of Ex- PLANATION. There is much discontent among men. Many objections may arise in the mind to this doctrine, and but few feel themselves duly impressed with its reality. In order to obviate such objections, I would observe, 1. The desires which God satisfies are to be restricted to those of his own creating.—Men have a number of artificial, self-created, and sinful desires. . . . . These he does not engage to satisfy ; but merely those which are purely natural. - 2. Though God satisfies the desire of every living thing, yet not all in the same way, but of every creature accord- ing to its nature and circumstances. Many of the crea- tures, like the lily, neither toil nor spin, but receive the bounties of Providence ready prepared to their hand ; but this is not the case with all. It is not thus with man ; for though we are forbidden to be inordinately careful, yet we must commonly labour for what we have. It is a part of the load laid upon us, that by the sweat of the brow we shall eat bread. Nor do I know whether there be more of judgment than of mercy in this sentence. Idleness is cer- tainly a soil on which sin grows to its greatest perfection. Considering what man is, it is a mercy that we have em- ployment. It is among the rich who have nothing to do, and the very poor who will do but little, that wickedness is most prevalent. 3. The text expresses what God does ordinarily, not wniversally, or in all cases.—There are cases of famine ; seasons in which God as it were shuts his hand, on ac- count of the sins of men ; and if he shuts his hand, the heavens become brass, and the earth iron, and millions perish for want of bread. There are also cases more com- mon than famine; great numbers of mankind labour under the hardships of poverty, pine away, and are stricken through, for want of the fruits of the field. But this is one of those evils under which the world groans, owing to the sin of man. If there were no waste or intemperance among one part of mankind, there would be a sufficiency, and more than a sufficiency, for all. II. We proceed to notice a few of the EvilDENCES by which this important truth is supported. There are some subjects which are difficult to prove, not from a scarcity, but from a profusion of evidence. Where this is the case, the difficulty lies in selection : I shall con- tent myself with offering three things to your consideration. 1. The supplies we constantly receive cannot be ascribed to our own labour as their first cause.—The whole of hu- man labour is but a kind of manufactory of the materials with which God is pleased to furnish us. We make no- thing : we only change the forms of different productions, to suit our convenience. We are as really, though not as sensibly, dependent on God as Israel in the wilderness, who were fed with manna from heaven. To this may be added, when we have laboured to the utmost, it amounts to nothing without a Divine blessing upon it. All, there- COMPOSITION 757 OF A SERMON. fore, that we possess proceeds from the opening of his hand. 2. A consideration of the number and magnitude of the wants of creatures will convince us that nothing short of the all-sufficiency of God can supply them.—What a quan- tity of vegetable and animal food is required by a single town, for only one day ! more for a city; more for a na- tion ; more still for a world; and that for a succession of ages : And what are men, when compared with the whole animate creation ? All nature teems with life. The earth, the air, the sea, each swarms with being. Whence can all these be continually supplied, but by him that made them 3 “Thou openest thy hand, and satisfiest the desire of every living thing.” 3. If we consider the various ways and means by which our supplies reach us, we shall be convinced of the truth in question. God does not satisfy our desires immedi- ately, so much as through the medium of second causes; and though we may be too insensible of that hand which puts all in motion, yet it is no less engaged than if we were supplied by miracle. A concatenation, or chain of causes, is apparent in the works of God. Our food is prepared by a complicate but beautiful machinery. The heavens are made to hear the earth, the earth to hear the corn, the wine, and the oil, and the corn, the wine, and the oil to hear the people. What is that tendency of various parts of the creation to satisfy the desires of other parts, but the operation of his hand, who is concerned to uphold and render happy the creatures that he hath made 3 The earth abounds in fertility, and the air with salubrity; the clouds pour forth their waters on the earth, and the sun its genial rays. Fire and hail, snow, and winds, and seas contribute to our welfare. We inhale life with every breath we breathe. The elements are employed for our sustenance and happiness. Look we to instruments as well as means? Tender parents have supplied us during our childhood and youth ; Ways have been opened for our future subsistence; endear- ing connexions have been formed, which have proved a source of much enjoyment; in seasons of difficulty friends have kindly aided us; supplies have arisen from quarters that we never expected: what are these but the openings of his hand 3 III. IMPROVE the subject. There is no Divine truth but is of some account, and this will be found not a little fruitful. 1. If such be the bounty of Divine Providence, under what obligations do we lie / yet what actual returns have We made for all this goodness 2 All the return that God requires is a grateful heart : “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart.” But, alas! are there not many of you who are this day his enemies? The idea is shocking, that such a God should have an enemy; yet so it is. The worst thing that was said of one of the worst of men was, “He hath eaten at my table, and hath lifted up his heel against me !” God has been feeding a gener- ation of vipers; which, under the frost of childhood or ad- Versity, seemed to claim his pity: but which, under the sunshine of maturer years and prosperous circumstances, do not fail to hiss and spit their venom in his face. These things must all come into account. All God's goodness, and all our abuses of it, will be brought to light at the last day. ty 2. From this view of the Divine beneficence, what en- coºragement is there to trust in the Lord under all our Wants and difficulties . With what ease can he supply our wants In how many Ways, unknown to us, and unex- pected by us, can he give a favourable turn to our affairs : “Trust, in the Lord, and do good; so shalt thou dyei in the land, and verily thou shalt be fed.” “ Young lions do lack, and suffer hunger; but they that seek the Lord shall not want any good thing.” - - 3. If such be the bounty of providence, what is that of 9race? If this be the opening of his hand, that is the opening of his heart. . If he satisfies natural desires, much more those that are spiritual.-See ver. 19. That which is only done generally in the one case is done universally in the other. Not one soul shall perish through famine, or any kind of want, whose desires terminate on Christ. While therefore we cherish gratitude for temporal mer- -* cies, let us not rest satisfied in them. God gave Nebu- chadnezzar all the kingdoms of the earth. See how light he makes of worldly good, to bestow it on the basest of men ; to throw it away, as it were, on his worst enemies. Do not be content with Nebuchadnezzar's portion; but rather covet, with Jabez, to be blessed indeed. Worldly good, though a blessing in itself, is capable of being turned by sin into a curse. Covet the crowning point of Joseph's portion; not only the precious things of the earth, and the fulness thereof; but “the good-will of him that dwelt in the bush | ?” 4. If God be thus good, what must sin be, that can in- duce him to load this world with such a degree of misery : 5. If God can with such ease supply all creation, what a blessing must redemption be / For the one he has only to open his hand, and the work is done; the other must be accomplished by the purchase of his blood God was suf- ficient for the latter, as well as for the former, as to power; but there are things relative to his moral conduct which he cannot do—He cannot deny himself. Here lies the great difficulty of salvation. 6. What a motive is here to be kind to the poor and needy / If we be children of God, we must imitate him : “Thou shalt open thy hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy in thy land.” This may serve as an example of the topical method of preaching ; and where it can be accomplished, it is very interesting. But there are some texts which cannot be easily reduced to a single topic; and indeed it is better not to be confined to one method, but to indulge variety. Whatever method may be pursued consistent with a unity of design is very allowable. This object may be attained in what is called the teactual method of division, on which I shall next proceed to offer a few observations. [N. B. Mr. Fuller appears not to have fulfilled his intention of pro- ceeding with the subject, the foregoing letters being all that can be found of the series. The letter which follows was addressed to an- other of Mr. Fuller’s friends, and has been kindly handed to the editor of this edition of the works.] LETTER IV. ON THE COMPOSITION OF A SERMON. ENDEAVOUR to understand a subject before you speak of it. Do not overload your memory with words. Write down a few leading things for the sake of arrangement and as- sistance of memory; but not a great deal. Memory must not be overburdened. Never carry what you write into the pulpit. Avoid vulgar expressions: do not affect finical ones, nor words out of common use. As to division and arrangement, it barely respects the assortment of your materials. You must endeavour to understand and feel your subject, or the manner in which you divide it will signify but little. But if both these may be taken for granted, then I should say much depends, as to your being heard with pleasure and profit, on a proper discussion and management of the subject. At all events avoid a multi- plying of heads and particulars. A few well-chosen thoughts, matured, proved, and improved, are abundantly more acceptable than when the whole is chopped, as it were, into mince-meat. It is very common to divide in a textual way, i. e. to propose to discourse first upon one part or branch of it; secondly, upon another, &c. As, for example, “In thy light we shall see light,” Psal. xxxvi. 9. First, inquire what is meant by that light which is ascribed to God, “Thy light;” secondly, what is that light which we see in God’s light; thirdly, what is included in seeing this light. I cannot say I approve of this method. It is not, properly speaking, a sermon. A sermon is a discourse on some Divine subject, or a train of interesting thoughts on some sacred theme. The above process, I think, should be brought into the introduction and expli- cation of the text, and should be done in about five minutes. Then, having made the text plain by explaining the difficult parts of it, I should state the leading truth 758 THOUGHTS ON PREACHING. taught in the text as the subject or theme of the discourse. For example: - “In thy light we shall see light,” Psal. xxxvi. 9. There is a great boast of light in the world, and there is some ground for it in natural things; but, as of old the world by wisdom knew not God, so of late. If ever we know God, it must be through the medium of his word. This I take to be the meaning of the passage I have read. The term light in the last clause means the true knowledge of God ; and, in the first, the true medium of attaining it, viz. Divine revelation. The sum seems to amount to this : the word of God is the grand medium by which we can attain a true and saving knowledge of God. What the sun and stars are to the regions of matter, that revelation is to the mental region, Gen. i. 13. 17. I. Let us try to ILLUSTRATE THIS IMPORTANT TRUTH BY A FEW OBSERVATIONS, 1. The knowledge of God was objectively manifested by the light of nature, but through man’s depravity ren- dered inoperative. See Rom. i. 28. It is the revelation of the law of the Lord that converteth the soul, Psal. xix. 1—11. 2. The true knowledge of God was obtained under the patriarchal or Mosaic dispensation by great numbers, but it was through the medium of revelation. As revelation increased, the knowledge of God increased with it ; pro- phecies, promises, and precepts; types, and shadows. In this light they saw light, though not so clearly as in after- days. 3. The true knowledge of God has obtained still more ground under the gospel dispensation ; but it is still through the medium of revelation. Whenever the latter has gone among the Gentiles, the former has gone along with it; and as revelation is more perfect, God has the more honoured it. 4. The light of the gospel dispensation is not yet per- fect, Isa. xxx. 26 ; but whatever degree of brilliancy arises, it will be through this medium. We must not think we have exhausted Scripture knowledge : we know but little of it yet. A thousand promises and prophecies will appear in a glory, of which we have now but faint ideas. Let us now— II. ENDEAvour. To IMPROVE THIS SUBJECT. 1. Be thankful for the light of revelation. Regard not the ignis fatuus which wanders about under the name of reason in modern productions, 2 Pet. i. 19. 2. Walk in it particularly in finding your way to eternal life; for settling disputed principles, and regulating your lives. * 3. There are many things of which you may entertain no doubt, concerning which there may be no manner of dispute ; yet make a point of seeing them in God’s light. Many content themselves with seeing them in the light in which great and good men have placed them ; but, though angels, they are not the true light: they all view things partially. If what they say be true, yet, if we receive it merely on their representation, our faith will stand in the wisdom of men, and not in the power of God, 1 Cor. ii. 9. That knowledge or faith which has not God’s word for its ground will not stand the day of trial. 4. Endeavour to spread it in your connexions and in the world at large, &c. I do not pretend to say that sermons should be formed after this or any other mode. Every subject, in some de- gree, requires a mode of discussion for itself. There are, however, some general observations, that will ordinarily apply to most subjects. In doctrinal subjects, in which some great truth is taught, your business is to find out that truth, and state it in the introduction : if clearly stated, search for the evidences, and make it one head of the discourse to establish it. If it be a truth to be illus- trated, set it before the hearers in various points of light; and as no Divine truth is merely speculative, but some way or other concerns the hearers, the latter part of the subject should consist in improvement. I. To explain— II. To establish—III. To improve it. But in all cases the division must be governed by the materials you have to divide. It would be absurd to ex- plain a subject that was already as plain as you could make it, or in which there appeared no difficulties or liability to misunderstand. There are three questions I have often put to myself in thinking on a subject—What? Why? What them 2 In other words—What am I going to teach * Why? or on what ground do I advance it as a truth? And what does it concern any or all of my hearers if it be true 3 On practical subjects there is seldom much room for you to prove and improve. Not the former, since there is no truth to be established ; not the latter, because the whole sermon is an address upon those things of which no im- provement is made. I have generally found that exhort- ations include matter for a twofold division, and have very commonly proposed, first, to inquire into the meaning and extent of the exhortation ; secondly, to enforce it. Under the former there is room to expatiate upon every idea or branch of the duty. In the latter, to introduce any motive that serves either for that or other texts. If a text be partly doctrinal and partly practical, the practical part may often be introduced first : I think the doctrinal part will come as a motive to enforce it. [The subject of the following paper, which originally appeared in the Evangelical Magazine, will, it is presumed, sufficiently justify its insertion in this place.] ON THE ABUSE OF ALLEGORY IN PREACHING, AFTER what several able writers have produced of late years upon this practice, particularly the late Dr. Stennett on the Parable of the Sower, it might have been expected that this evil would at least have been considerably di- minished. But the misfortune is, those who are most ad- dicted to this way of preaching seem in general to have very little inclination to read. Whether they deem it unlawful, as involving them in the sin charged upon the prophets, of stealing every one from his neighbour—or whether they be so enamoured of their own thoughts as to set all others at defiance—I cannot decide ; but certain it is, that many preach as if they had never read or thought upon the subject. Very little observation will convince us that the preachers with whom this practice mostly prevails are of the lower sort with respect to seriousness and good sense, however high they may affect to soar in their notions. Of such characters I have but little hope. But as some godly men are, I believe, too much infected with this disease, if the editor will indulge me with two or three pages in the Magazine, I will expostulate with one of them on the causes and consequences of his conduct. Let me entreat you them, my friend, to consider, in the first place, whether, when you turn plain historical facts into allegory, you treat the word of God with becoming reverence. Can you seriously think the Scriptures to be a book of riddles and conundrums, and that a Christian minister is properly employed in giving scope to his fancy, in order to discover their solution ? I have been asked the meaning of certain passages of Scripture ; and when I have answered according to what appeared to be the scope of the sacred writer, it has been said, “Yes, that may be the literal meaning; but what is the spiritual meaning of it? as though every part of Scripture had a spiritual, that is, a hidden or allegorical meaning, besides its obvious one. . That some parts of Scripture are alle- gorical—that some prophecies have a double reference— and that the principle suggested by many a passage may be applied to other things besides what is immediately in- tended—there is no doubt; but this is very different from the practice to which I allude. All Scripture is profitable in some way; some for doctrine, some for reproof, some for correction, and some for instruction in righteousness ; but all is not to be turned into allegory. If we must play, let it be with things of less consequence than the word of the eternal God! Secondly, Consider whether the motive that stimulates you to such a manner of treating the sacred oracles be any other than vanity. If you preached to a people pos- sessed of any thing like good sense, they would consider it as perverting the whole word of God, and whipping it ABUSE OF ALLEGORY IN PREACHING. 759 into froth. Instead of applauding you, they would be unable to endure it. But if your people be ignorant, such things will please them; and they may gaze, and ad- mire, and smile, and say one to another, it may be in your hearing too, Well, what a man | Who would have thought that he would have found so much gospel in that text? Ah, very true: who indeed? But what would the apostle Paul say? “Are ye not carnal 3’ Is it for a man of God to “court a grin, when he should woo a soul?” For shame ! desist from such folly, or lay aside the Christian ministry ! You are commanded to “feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood;” but it is not every thing pleasing to a people that feeds them in the sense of the apostle. He did not mean to direct the Ephesian elders to feed men’s fancies, and still less their prejudices; but their spiritual desires: and this is accomplished only by administering to them the words of truth and soberness. If your preaching be such as God approves, and if you study to show yourself approved of him, it will lead the people to admire your Saviour rather than you, and render him the topic of their conversation. Thirdly, Consider whether both you and your people be not in danger of mistaking this spiritualizing passion for spirituality of mind and a being led into “the deep things of God.” There are few objects at a greater dis- tance than the effervescence of a vain imagination and that holy and humble spirit by which spiritual things are discerned ; yet the one is often mistaken for the other. The preacher dreams of deep discoveries; and the people wonder to hear them : but what saith the Scriptures 3 “The prophet that hath only a dream must tell his dream; but he that hath God’s word, let him speak it faithfully: for what is the chaff to the wheat?” Finally, Consider the consequences which must follow from this practice. If an unbeliever come into your as- sembly, and find you arraying Christianity in this fancy dress, is it likely he should be convinced of all—and, the se- crets of his heart being made manifest, fall down and wor- ship God, and report that God is among you, and that of a truth? If he hear you treat of the historical parts of Scripture as meaning something very different from what they appear to mean, will he not say you are mad, and be furnished with a handle for representing religion itself as void of truth and good sense? Or if he hear you inter- pret the miracles, which Christ wrought in proof of his Messiahship, of that change which is now wrought in the minds of sinners by the Spirit of God, will he not say that you yourselves appear to consider the whole as a string of fables, and are employed in finding out the morals of them - But perhaps you are seldom attended by men of this description. Be it so; what, think you, must be the ef- fect of such preaching on professing Christians, either nominal or real? The former will either fall asleep un- der it, as something which does not concern them ; or, if they attend to you, and understand your interpretations, they will think they are quite in the secret, and set them- selves down for deep Christians; when, in truth, they know nothing yet as they ought to know. And as to real Christians, their souls will either pine under your ministry, or, by contracting a false taste, will thirst after the froth of human fancy, to the neglect of the sincere milk of the word ; and instead of growing in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, will make no progress in either. It is an easy thing for a man of a luxuriant imagination, unencumbered by judgment, to make any thing he pleases of the Scriptures, as well as any other book; but in so doing he must destroy their simplicity, and of course their efficacy; which in fact is reducing them to nothing. If they be not applied to their appropriate uses, they are perverted; and a perverted good proves the greatest of evils. Thus it is that characters abound who are full of Scripture language, while yet they are awfully destitute of Scripture knowledge, or Scriptural religion. ME MOIRS OF T H E R. E. V. S. A. M U E L P E A. R. C. E. TO THE FAMILY AND FRIENDS OF MR. PEARCE, T H E S E M E M O IRS, COMPILED WITH THEIR APPROBATION AND FROM A TENDER REGARD TO HIS MEMORY, ARE AFFECTIONATELY AND RESPECTFULLY INSCRIBED BY THE COMPILER. INTRODUCTION. IT was observed by this excellent man, during his affliction, that he never till then gained any personal instruction from our Lord's telling Peter by what death he should glorify God. To die by a consumption had used to be an object of dread to him; but, “O my dear Lord,” said he, “if by this death I can most glorify thee, I prefer it to all others.” The lingering death of the cross, by which our Saviour himself expired, afforded him an opportunity of uttering some of the most affecting sentences which are left on sacred record; and to the lingering death of this his hon- oured servant we are indebted for a considerable part of the materials which appear in these Memoirs. Had he been taken away suddenly, there had been no opportunity for him to have expressed his sentiments and feelings in the manner he has now done in letters to his friends. While in health, his hands were full of labour, and conse- quently his letters were written mostly upon the spur of occasion; and related principally to business, or to things which would be less interesting to Christians in general. It is true, even in them it was his manner to drop a few sentiments, towards the close, of an experimental kind ; and many of these hints will be interspersed in this brief account of him ; but it was during his affliction, when being laid aside nearly a year, and obliged to desist from all public concerns, that he gave scope to all the feelings of his heart. Here, standing as on an eminence, he re- viewed his life, re-examined the ground of his hope, and anticipated the crown which awaited him, with a joy truly wnspeakable and full of glory. Like Elijah, he has left the “chariot of Israel,” and ascended as in a “chariot of fire;” but not without having first communicated of his eminently Christian spirit. Oh that a double portion of it may rest upon us! CHAPTER I. HIS PARENTAGE, CoNVERSION, CALL To THE MINISTRY, AND SETTLEMENT AT BIRMINGHAM. MR. SAMUEL PEARGE was born at Plymouth, on July 20th, 1766. His father, who survives him, is a respecta- ble silversmith, and has been many years a deacon of the Baptist church in that place. When a child, he lived with his grandfather, who was very fond of him, and endeavoured to impress his mind with the principles of religion. At about eight or nine years of age he came home to his father with a view of learning his business. As he advanced in life, his evil propensities, as he has said, began to ripen ; and forming connexions with several vicious schoolfellows, he became more and more corrupted. So greatly was his heart at this time set in him to do evil, that had it not been for the restraining goodness of God, which somehow, he knew not how, preserved him in most instances from car- rying his wicked inclinations into practice, he supposed he should have been utterly ruined. At times he was under strong convictions, which ren- dered him miserable; but at other times they subsided, and then he would return with eagerness to his sinful ſ SETTLEMENT AT BIRMINGHAM. 761 pursuits. When about fifteen years old he was sent by his father to inquire after the welfare of a person in the neighbourhood, in dying circumstances, who (though be- fore his departure he was in a happy state of mind) at that time was sinking into deep despair. While in the room of the dying man, he heard him cry out with inex- pressible agony of spirit, “I am damned for ever !” These awful words pierced his soul; and he felt a resolution at the time to serve the Lord ; but the impression soon wore off, and he again returned to folly. When about sixteen years of age, it pleased God effect- ually to turn him to himself. A sermon delivered by Mr. Birt, who was then co-pastor with Mr. Gibbs of the Bap- tist church at Plymouth, was the first means of impress- ing his heart with a sense of his lost condition, and of directing him to the gospel remedy. The change in him appears to have been sudden, but effectual; and though his vicious propensities were bitter to his recollection, yet, being now sensibly subdued, he was furnished with so much the clearer evidence that the work was of God. “I believe,” he says, “few conversions were more joyful. The change produced in my views, feelings, and conduct was so evident to myself, that I could no more doubt of its being from God than of my existence. I had the witness in myself, and was filled with peace and joy un- speakable.”. - His feelings being naturally strong, and receiving a new direction, he entered into religion with all his heart; but not having known the devices of Satan, his soul was injured by its own ardour, and he was thrown into great perplexity. Having read Doddridge’s “Rise and Pro- gress of Religion in the Soul,” he determined formally to dedicate himself to the Lord, in the manner recommended in the seventeenth chapter of that work. The form of a covenant, as there drawn up, he also adopted as his own ; and, that he might bind himself in the most solemn and affecting manner, signed it with his blood. But afterwards, failing in his engagements, he was plunged into great dis- tress, and almost into despair. On a review of his cove- nant, he seems to have accused himself of a Pharisaical reliance upon the strength of his own resolutions; and therefore, taking the paper to the top of his father’s house, he tore it into small pieces, and threw it from him to be scattered by the wind. He did not however consider his obligation to be the Lord’s as hereby nullified; but, feel- ing more suspicion of himself, he depended solely upon the blood of the cross. - - After this he was baptized, and became a member of the Baptist church at Plymouth, the ministers and mem- bers of which, in a few years, perceived in him talents for public work. Being solicited by both his pastors, he ex- ercised as a probationer; and receiving a unanimous call from the church, entered on the work of the ministry in November, 1786. Soon after this he went to the academy at Bristol, then under the superintendence of Dr. Caleb Evans. Mr. Birt, now pastor of the Baptist church, in the Square, Plymouth Dock, in a letter to the compiler of these Memoirs, thus speaks of him :—“ Though he was, so far as I know, the very first-fruits of my ministry on my coming hither, and though our friendship and affection for each other were great and constant, yet previously to his going to Bristol I had but few opportunities of con- Versing with him, or of making particular observations on him. All who best knew him, however, well remember and most tenderly speak of his loving deportment; and those who attended the conferences with him soon received the most impressive intimations of his future eminence as a minister of our Lord Jesus Christ.” * “Very few,” adds Mr. Birt, “ have entered upon and gone through their religious profession with more exalted piety or warmer, zeal than Samuel Pearce; and as few have exceeded him in the possession and display of that charity which ‘suffereth long, and is kind, that envieth not, that vaunteth not itself, and is not puffed up, that doth not behave itself unseemly, that seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, that beareth ali things, believeth all things, endureth all things.” But why should I say this to you? You know him yourself.” While at the academy he was much distinguished by the amiableness of his spirit and behaviour. It is some- times observable, that where the talents of a young man are admired by his friends, and his early efforts flattered by crowded auditories, effects have been produced which have proved fatal to his future respectability and useful- ness. But this was not the case with Mr. Pearce. Not- withstanding the popularity which even at that early period attended his ministerial exercises, his tutors have more than once remarked that he never appeared to them to be in the least elated, or to have neglected his proper studies; but was uniformly the serious, industrious, do- cile, modest, and unassuming young man. Towards the latter end of 1789, he came to the church in Cannon Street, Birmingham, to whom he was recom- mended by Mr. Hall, now of Cambridge, at that time one of his tutors. After preaching to them awhile on appro- bation he was chosen to be their pastor. His ordination was in August, 1790. Dr. Evans gave the charge, and the late venerable Mr. Hall, of Arnsby, delivered an address to the church on the occasion. - About two months after this he wrote to his friend Mr. Summers. Whether the sentiments contained in that letter arose from the recollection of his late solemn en- gagement is uncertain; but they were certainly very ap- propriate to the occasion. Requesting his friend to pray for him, he says, “Paul speaks of blessings received through the prayers of his fellow Christians; no wonder, therefore, he so often solicits their continuance. But if it be well to be interested in the prayers of fellow Chris- tians, how much more to believe the great High Priest of our profession, Jesus the Son of God, is gone into the holy of holies, with our names on his breastplate, ever to plead in the presence of God for us—for us ; O transport- ing thought ! Who can doubt of the success of such an Intercessor 3 - “I have of late had my mind very pleasantly, and I hope profitably, exercised on this subject, more than ever, and find increasing pleasure from a well-grounded faith in the Divinity of my incarnate Advocate. I see the glory of his office, arising from the infinite extent of his know- ledge, power, and love, as well as from the efficacy of his atoning sacrifice. I do not wonder at those men who deny the priestly office of Christ, when they have refused him the honours of Deity. I rejoice in that he who pleads for us knows our wants individually, as well as the neces- sities of the whole church collectively. Through his in- tercession alone I expect my sins to be pardoned, my services accepted, and my soul preserved, guided, and comforted ; and, with confidence in his intercession, I cannot doubt but I shall enjoy all. Oh how sweet is it, my dear friend, to exercise a lively faith in a living Saviour ! May you and I do this daily. Thus for us to live will be Christ, and to die gain; living or dying, we shall be the Lord’s.” In this early stage of his ministry, redemption by the blood of Christ appears to have been his chosen theme. Writing to the same friend as above, on Sept. 30, 1791, he says, “I have for my evening discourse the best subject in all the Bible—redemption, Eph. i. 7. How wel- come to the captive Forgiveness, how delightful to the guilty Grace, how pleasing to the heart of a saved sinner! O my dear friend, how much do we lose of gospel blessings for want of realizing our personal con- cern with them! Hence it is that we are no more humble, thankful, watchful, prayerful, joyful. We view the glories of the gospel at a distance ; and for want of that faith which is the substance of things hoped for, and evidence of things not seen, think too lightly of them. “ Lord, increase our faith !’” - In the year 1791 he married Miss Sarah Hopkins, daughter of Mr. Joshua Hopkins of Alcester—a con- nexion which appears to have been all along a source of great enjoyment to him. The following lines addressed to Mrs. Pearce when he was on a journey, a little more than a year after their marriage, seem to be mo more than a common letter; yet they show, not only the tenderness of his affection, but his heavenly-mindedness, his gentle manner of persuading, and how every argument was fetched from religion, and every incident improved for introducing it:— 762 MEMOIRS OF MR. PEARCE. “Chipping Norton, August 15, 1792, “I believe, on retrospection, that I have hitherto rather anticipated the proposed time of my return, than delayed the interview with my dear Sarah for an hour. But what shall I say, my love, now to reconcile you to my pro- crastinating my return for several days more ? Why I will say—It appears I am called of God ; and I trust the piety of both of us will submit and say, ‘Thy will be done.” “You have no doubt perused Mr. Ryland’s letter to me, wherein I find he solicits an exchange. The reason he assigns is so obviously important, that a much greater sacrifice than we are called to make should not be with- held to accomplish it. I therefore propose, God willing, to spend the next Lord’s day at Northampton. I thought of taking tea with you this evening : that would have been highly gratifying to us both ; but it must be our meat and drink to do and submit to the will of our heavenly Father. All is good that comes from him, and all is done right which is done in obedience to him. Oh to be perfectly resigned to his disposal—how good is it! May you, my dearest Sarah, and myself, daily prove the sweetness of this pious frame of soul : then all our duties will be sweet, all our trials will be light, all our pleasures will be pure, and all our hopes sanctified. “This evening I hope to be at Northampton. Let your prayers assist my efforts on the ensuing sabbath. You will, I trust, find in Mr. R. a ship richly laden with spiritual treasures. Oh for more supplies from the ex- haustless mines of grace . " The soul of Mr. Pearce was formed for friendship; it was natural therefore to suppose that, while engaging in the pursuit of his studies at the académy, he would con- tract religious intimacies with some of his brethren ; and it is worthy of notice, that the grand cement of his friend- ship was kindred piety. In the two following letters, addressed to his friend Mr. Steadman, the reader will per- ceive the justness of this remark, as well as the encou- raging prospects which soon attended his labours at Bir- mingham :— “MY VERY DEAR BROTHER, May, 9, 1792. “You live so remote that I can hear nothing of your prosperity at Broughton. I hope you are settled with a comfortable people, and that you enjoy much of your Master's presence, both in the study and in the pulpit. For my part, I have nothing to lament but an insensible, ungrateful heart, and that is sufficient cause for lamenta- tion. This, only this, bows me down ; and under this pressure I am ready to adopt the words I preached from last evening—“Oh that I had wings like a dove 1 for then would I fly away and be at rest.” “As a people we are generally united ; I believe more so than most churches of the same dimensions. Our num- ber of members is about 295, between forty and fifty of whom have joined us since I saw you, and most of them I have the happiness of considering as my children in the faith.-There is still a crying out amongst us after sal- vation ; and still, through much grace, it is my happiness to point them to ‘the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the world.” " “In preaching, I have often peculiar liberty; at other times barren. I suppose my experience is like that of most of my brethren ; but I am not weary of my work. I hope still that I am willing to spend and be spent, so that I may win souls to Christ, and finish my course with joy: but I want more heart religion; I want a more habitual sense of the Divine presence; I want to walk with God as Enoch walked. There is nothing that grieves me so much, or brings so much darkness on my soul, as my little spirituality, and frequent wanderings in secret prayer. I cannot neglect the duty; but it is seldom that I enjoy it. * Ye that love the Lord indeed, Tell me, is it so with you?” When I come to the house of God, I pray and preach with freedom. to weigh more with me than the presence of God, and deem myself a hypocrite, almost ready to leave my pulpit, for some more pious preacher. But the Lord does own doms. Then I think the presence of the people seems the word; and again I say, If I go to hell myself, I will do what I can to keep others from going thither; and so in the strength of the Lord I will. “An observation once made to me helps to support me above water:—“If you did not plough in your closet, you would not reap in the pulpit.” And again. I think, ‘the Lord dwelleth in Zion, and loveth it more than the dwell- ings of Jacob.’” - “Feb. 1, 1793. “The pleasure which your friendly epistle gave me rises beyond expression; and it is one of the first wishes of my heart ever to live in your valued friendship. Accept this, and my former letters, my dear brother, as sufficient evidences of my ardent wishes to preserve, by correspond- ence, that mutual remembrance of each other which on my part will ever be pleasurable, and on yours, I hope, never painful. “But, ah, how soon may we be rendered incapable of such an intercourse . When I left Bristol, I left it with regret. I was sorry to leave my studies to embark, inex- perienced as I am, on the tempestuous ocean of public life, where the high blowing winds, and rude noisy billows, must more or less inevitably annoy the trembling voyager. Nor did it make a small addition to my pain that I was to part with so many of my dear companions, with whom I had spent so many happy hours, either in furnishing or unburdening the mind. I need not say, amongst the first of these I considered Josiah Evans.” But ah, my friend, we shall see his face no more | Through Divine grace I hope we shall go to him ; but he will not return to us. ‘He wasted away, he gave up the ghost, and where is he?” I was prepared for the news because I expected it. The last time I heard directly from him was by a very serious and affectionate letter, which I received, I think, last Sep- tember. To it I replied; but received no answer. I con- jectured—I feared; and now my conjectures and fears are all realized. Dear departed youth ! Thy memory will ever be grateful to this affectionate breast. May thy amiable qualities live again in thy surviving friend, that, to the latest period of his life, he may thank God for the friend- ship of Josiah Evans ! “I assure you, my dear Steadman, I feel, keenly feel, the force of the sentiment which Blair thus elegantly expresses: “Of joys departed, ne’er to be recalled, How painful the remembrance l’ “But I sorrow not as one without hope. I have a two- fold hope ; I hope he is now among the spirits of the just made perfect, and that he will be of the blessed and holy number who have part in the first resurrection ; and I hope also, through the same rich, free, sovereign, almighty, matchless grace, to join the number too. Pleasing thought! Unite to divide no more : - “I preached last night from Rev. xxi. 6, ‘I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.’ I took occasion to expound the former part of the chapter, and found therein a pleasure inexpressible; espe- cially when speaking from the first verse—“ and there was no more sea.” The first idea that presented itself to me was this—There shall be no bar to intercourse. Whether the thought be just, or not, I leave with you and my hear- ers to determine; but I found happy liberty in illustrating it. What is it that separates one nation, and one part of the globe, from another ? Is it not the sea 3 Are not Chris- tians, though all of one family, the common Father of which is God, separated by this sea, or that river, or the other stream below * Yes; but they are one family still. There shall be none of these obstructions to communion, of these bars to intercourse; nothing to divide their af- fections or disunite their praise for ever.—Forgive my free- I am writing to a friend, to a brother.” There are few, if any, thinking men but who at some seasons have had their minds perplexed with regard to re- ligious principles, even those which are of the greatest im- portance. In the end, however, where the heart is right, such exercises commonly issue in a more decided attach- * See a brief account of him, giyºn in part by Mr. Pearce, in Dr. | Rippon’s Register, Vol. I, pp. 512-516. ! CORRESPONDENCE WITH MR. SUMMERS. 763 ment to the truth. Thus it was with Mr. Pearce; In an: other part of the above letter, he thus writes to his friend Steadman :-" I have, since I saw you, been much per- plexed about some doctrinal points, both Arminian and Socinian, I believe through reading very attentively, but without sufficient dependence on the Spirit of truth, seve- ral controversies on those subjects; particularly the writ- ings of Whitby, Priestley, and others. Indeed, had the state of mind I was in about ten weeks since continued, I should have been incapable of preaching with comfort at all. But in the mount of the Lord will he be seen. Just as I thought of giving up, He who hath the hearts of all men in his hand, and turneth them as the rivers of water are turned, was pleased, by a merciful though afflicting providence, to set me at a happy liberty. “I was violently seized with a disorder very rife here, and which carried off many, supposed to be an inflamma- tion in the bowels. One sabbath evening I felt such alarming symptoms that I did not expect to see the Mon- day morning. In these circumstances I realized the feel- ings of a dying man. My mind had been so accustomed to reflect on virtue and moral goodness, that the first thing I attempted was a survey of my own conduct; my dili- gence and faithfulness in the ministry, my unspotted life, &c. &c. But, ah, vain props these for dying men to rest on 1 Such heart sins, such corruptions, and evil propensi- ties, recurred to my mind, that if ever I knew the moment when I felt my own righteousness to be as loathsome and filthy rags, it was then. And where should I, where could I, where did I flee, but to Him whose glory and grace I had been of late degrading, at least in my thoughts 3 Yes, there I saw peace for guilty consciences was to be alone obtained through an almighty Saviour. And oh, wonder- ful to tell, I again came to him ; nor was I sent away with- out the blessing. I found him full of all compassion, ready to receive the most ungrateful of men. “Oh to grace how great a debtor Daily I’m constrained to be l’ Thus, my dear brother, was the snare broken, and thus I escaped. * A debtor to mercy alone, Of covenant mercy I sing.” Join with me in praising Him who remembered me in my low estate, because his mercy endureth for ever. Yet this is among the all things. I have found it has made me more spiritual in preaching. I have prized the gospel more than ever, and hope it will be the means of guarding me against future temptations.” From his first coming to Birmingham, his meekness and patience were put to the trial by an Antinomian spirit which infected many individuals, both in and out of his congre- gation. It is well known with what affection it was his practice to beseech sinners to be reconciled to God, and to exhort Christians to the exercise of practical godliness; but these were things which they could not endure. Soothing doctrine was all they desired. Therefore it was that his ministry was traduced by them as Arminian, and treated with neglect and contempt. . But, like his Divine Master, he bore the contradiction of sinners against himself, and this while he had the strongest satisfaction that, in those Very things to which they objected, he was pleasing God. And though he plainly perceived the pernicious influence of their principles upon their own minds, as well as the minds of others, yet he treated them with great gentleness and long forbearance; and when it became necessary to exclude such of this description as were in communion with him, it was with the greatest reluctance that he Carºle into that measure, and not without having first tried all other means in vain. He was not apt to deal in harsh language; yet, in one of his letters about that time, he speaks of the principles and spirit of these people as a “cursed leaven.” Among his numerous religious friendships, he seems to have formed one for the special purpose of spiritual ºn- provement. This was with Mr. Summers of London, who often accompanied him in his journeys; to whom, there- fore, it might be expected he would open his heart without reserve. Here, it is true, we sometimes see him, like his brethren, groaning under darkness, want of spirituality, and the remains of indwelling sin; but frequently rising above all, as into his native element, and pouring forth his ardent soul in expressions of joy and praise.—On Aug. 19, 1793, he writes thus:— “MY DEAR BROTHER, “When I take my pen to pursue my correspondence with you, I have no concern but to communicate something which may answer the same end we propose in our annual journeys, viz. Iending some assistance in the important object of getting and keeping nearer to God. This, I am persuaded, is the mark at which we should be continually aiming, nor rest satisfied until we attain that to which we aspire. I am really ashamed of myself, when, on the one hand, I review the time that has elapsed since I first as- sumed the Christian name, with the opportunities of im- provement in godliness which have crowded on my moments since that period ; and when, on the other, I feel the little advance I have made : More light, to be sure, I have ; but light without heat leaves the Christian half dissatisfied. Yesterday, I preached on the duty of engagedness in God's service, from Jer. xxx. 21, ‘Who is this that engaged his heart to approach unto me? saith the Lord’ (a text for which I am indebted to our last journey). While urging the necessity of heart religion, including sincerity and ar- dour, I found myself much assisted by reflecting on the ardour which our dear Redeemer discovered in the cause of sinners. “Ah,' I could not help saying, “if our Saviour had measured his intenseness in his engagements for us, by our fervency in fulfilling our engagements to him, we should have been now further from hope than we are from perfection.” * Dear Lord, the ardour of thy love Reproves my cold returns.” “Two things are causes of daily astonishment to me :— The readiness of Christ to come from earth to heaven for me ; and my backwardness to rise from earth to heaven with him. But, oh, how animating the prospect! A time approaches when we shall rise to sink no more ; to ‘be for ever with the Lord.” To be with the Lord for a week, for a day, for an hour; how sweetly must the moments pass : But to be for ever with the Lord, that enstamps salvation with perfection; that gives an energy to our hopes, and a dignity to our joy, so as to render it unspeakable and full of glory ! I have had a few realizing moments since we parted, and the effect has been, I trust, a broken heart. O my brother, it is desirable to have a broken heart, were it only for the sake of the pleasure it feels in being helped and healed by Jesus! Heart-affecting views of the cursed effects of sin are highly salutary to a Christian's growth in humility, confidence, and gratitude. At once how abasing and exalting is the comparison of our loathsome hearts with that of the lovely Saviour ! In HIM we see all that can charm an angel's heart; in ourselves all that can gratify a devil's. And yet we may rest perfectly assured that these nests of iniquity shall, ere long, be transformed into the temples of God; and these sighs of sorrow be exchanged for songs of praise. - “Last Lord’s day I spent the most profitable sabbath to myself that I ever remember since I have been in the mi- nistry; and to this hour I feel the sweet solemnities of that day delightfully protracted. Ah! my brother, were it not for past experience I should say, ‘My heart presumes I cannot lose The relish all my days.” But now I rejoice with trembling, desiring to ‘hold fast what I have, that no man take my crown.” Yet fearing that I shall find how, —‘Ere one fleeting hour is past, The flattering world employs Some sensual bait to seize my taste, And to pollute my joys.’” In April, 1794, dropping a few lines to the compiler of these Memoirs, on a Lord's day evening, he thus con- cludes:—“We have had a good day. I find, as a dear friend once said, it is pleasant speaking for God when we walk with him. Oh for much of Enoch’s spirit The Head of the church grant it to my dear brother, and his affection- ate friend—S. P.” 764 MEMOIRS OF MIR. PEAR CE. In another letter to Mr. Summers, dated June 24, 1794, he thus writes:—“We, my friend, have entered on a cor- respondence of heart with heart ; and must not lose sight of that avowed object. I thank you sincerely for continu- ing the remembrance of so unworthy a creature in your intercourse with Heaven ; and I thank that sacred Spirit whose quickening influences, you say, you enjoy in the exercise. Yes, my brother, I have reaped the fruits of your supplications. I have been indulged with some sea- sons of unusual joy, tranquil as solitude, and solid as the Rock on which our hopes are built. In public exercises, peculiar assistance has been afforded; especially in these three things:—The exaltation of the Redeemer’s glory— the detection of the crooked ways, false refuges, and self- delusions of the human heart—and the stirring up of the saints to press onward, making God’s cause their own, and considering themselves as living not for themselves, but for Höm alone. “Nor hath the word been without its effect: above fifty have been added to our church this year, most of whom I rejoice in as the seals of my ministry in the Lord. Indeed, I am surrounded with goodness; and scarcely a day passes over my head but I say, Were it not for an ungrateful heart, I should be the happiest man alive ; and that ex- cepted, I neither expect nor wish to be happier in this world. My wife, my children, and myself, are uninter- ruptedly healthy; my friends kind; my soul at rest; my labours successful, &c. Who should be content and thank- ful if I should not? O my brother, help me to praise !” In a letter to Mrs. Pearce, from Plymouth, dated Sept. 2, 1794, the dark side of the cloud seems towards him :— “I have felt much barrenness,” says he, “as to spiritual things, since I have been here, compared with my usual frame at home ; and it is a poor exchange to enjoy the creature at the expense of the Creator's presence . A few seasons of spirituality I have enjoyed; but my heart, my inconstant heart, is too prone to rove from its proper centre. Pray for me, my dear, my dearest friend : I do for you daily. O wrestle for me, that I may have more of Enoch’s spirit ! I am fully persuaded that a Christian is no longer really happy, and inwardly satisfied, than whilst he walks with God; and I would this moment rejoice to abandon every pleasure here for a closer walk with him. I cannot, amidst all the round of social pleasure, amidst the most inviting scenes of nature, feel that peace with God which passeth understanding. My thirst for preaching Christ, I fear, abates, and a detestable vanity for the reputation of a ‘good preacher” (as the world terms it) has already cost me many conflicts. Daily I feel convinced of the propriety of a remark which my friend Summers made on his journey to Wales, that ‘it is easier for a Christian to walk habit- ually near to God than to be irregular in our walk with him.’ But I want resolution; I want a contempt for the world; I want more heavenly-mindedness ; I want more humility; I want much, very much, of that which God alone can bestow. Lord, help the weakest lamb in all thy flock | “I preached this evening from Cant. ii. 3, ‘ I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste.” But how little love for my Saviour did I feel ! With what little affection and zeal did I speak I am by some praised. I am followed by many. I am re- spected by most of my acquaintance. But all this is no- thing, yea, less than nothing, compared with possessing this testimony, that I please GoD. O thou Friend of sinners, humble me by repentance, and melt me down with lovel “To-morrow morning I set off for Launceston. I write to-night, lest my stay in Cornwall might make my delay appear tedious to the dear and deserving object of my most undissembled love... O my Sarah, had I as much proof that I love Jesus Christ as I have of my love to you, I should prize it more than rubies! As often as you can find an hour for correspondence, think of your more than ever affectionate—S. P.” On the same subject, and the same occasion, about three weeks afterwards, (Sept. 23, 1794,) he wrote to Mr. Sum- mers. His dissatisfaction with himself while spending his time in visits, and his satisfaction when engaged in his proper work, are well worthy of attention. “I was pretty much engaged in preaching,” says he, “ and often felt en- larged in public work; but, in private, my almost daily cry was, ‘My leanness, my leanness : * Indeed it was a barren visit, as to the inward exercises of grace. Now and then I felt a brokenness of spirit, and a panting after God; but in general my mind was in a dissipated state. After so long an absence from so large an acquaintance, I was always crowded with company, some of whom, though amiable, were very gay. Their politeness and cheerfulness, joined with a high degree of indulgence, were too fascinat- ing for my volatile mind. I admired, and was too much conformed to their spirit. I did indeed often struggle with myself, and watched for occasions of dropping some im- proving hint; but, either through want of opportunity or of fortitude, the hint seldom produced a long conversation, or a permanent effect. New visits, or excursions, were every day proposed, and my heart was continually divided between painful recollection and flattering hopes. One lesson, indeed, I have thoroughly learned—that real, solid satisfaction is to be found in nothing but God. May I have grace to improve it throughout my future life. “The last week I have known more of the power of in- ward religion than all the four which I have spent from home. I devoted the week to my Lord’s service entirely, and I found in keeping his commandments great reward.” In another letter to Mr. Summers, dated Nov. 10, 1794, he says—“I suppose I shall visit London in the spring : prepare my way by communion both with God and man. I hope your soul prospers. I have enjoyed more of God within this month than ever since the day of my espousals with him. O my brother, help me to praise ! I cannot say that I am quite so exalted in my frame to-day; yet still I acknowledge what I have lived upon for weeks— that were there no being or thing in the universe beside God and me, I should be at no loss for happiness. Oh, ‘'Tis heaven to rest in his embrace, And no where else but there.’” CHAPTER II. HIS LABORIOUS EXERTIONS IN PROMOTING MISSIONS TO THE HEATHEN, AND HIs of FERING HIMSELF TO BECOME A MISSIONARY, MR. PEARCE was uniformly the spiritual and the active servant of Christ; but neither his spirituality nor his ac- tivity would have appeared in the manner they have, but for his engagement in the introduction of the gospel among the heathem. It was not long after his settlement at Birmingham that he became acquainted with Mr. CAREY, in whom he found a soul nearly akin to his own. When the brethren in the counties of Northampton and Leicester formed themselves into a missionary society at IKettering, in October, 1792, he was there, and entered into the business with all his heart. On his return to Birmingham, he communicated the subject to his congregation with so much effect, that, in addition to the small sum of £13 2s. 6d., with which the subscription was begun, £70 were collected, and transmit- ted to the treasurer; and the leading members of the church formed themselves into an assistant society. Early in the following spring, when it was resolved that our brethren, Thomas and Carey, should go on a mission to the Hindoos, and a considerable sum of money was wanted for the purpose, he laboured with increasing ardour in va- rious parts of the kingdom ; and when the object was ac- complished, he rejoiced in all his labour, smiling in every company, and blessing God. During his labours and journeys on this important object he wrote several letters to his friends, an extract or two from which will discover the state of his mind at this pe- riod, as well as the encouragements that he met with in his work at home :- To M.R. STEADMAN. “ MY VERY DEAR BROTHER, Birmingham, Feb. 8, 1793. “ Union of sentiment often creates friendship among | carnal men, and similarity of feeling never fails to produce SELF-DEVOTION TO THE MISSIONARY CAUSE. 765 affection among pious men, as far as that similarity is known. I have loved you ever since I knew you. We saw, we felt alike, in the interesting concerns of personal religion. We formed a reciprocal attachment. We ex- pressed it by words. We agreed to do so by correspond- ence ; and we have not altogether been wanting to our engagements. But our correspondence has been inter- rupted, not, I believe, through any diminution of regard on either side; I am persuaded not on mine. I rather condemn myself as the first aggressor ; but I excuse while I condemn, and so would you, did you know half the con- cerns which devolve upon me in my present situation. Birmingham is a central place; the inhabitants are numer- ous ; our members are between three and four hundred. The word preached has lately been remarkably blessed. In less than five months I baptized nearly forty persons, almost all newly awakened. Next Lord’s day week I ex- pect to add to their number. These persons came to my house to propose the most important of all inquiries— “What must we do to be saved ?? I have been thus en- gaged some weeks, during the greatest part of most days. This, with four sermons a week, will account for my neg- lect. But your letter, received this evening, calls forth every latent affection of my heart for you. We are, my dear brother, not only united in the common object of pursuit—salvation; not only rest our hopes on the same foundation—Jesus Christ; but we feel alike respecting the poor heathens. Oh how Christianity expands the mind What tenderness for our poor fellow sinners : What sympathy for their moral misery : What desires to do them everlasting good doth it provoke . How satisfy- ing to our judgments is this evidence of grace . How grati- fying to our present taste are these benevolent breathings: Oh how I love that man whose soul is deeply affected with the importance of the precious gospel to idolatrous heathens ! Excellently, my dear brother, you observe, that, great as its blessings are in the estimation of a sinner called in a Christian country, inexpressibly greater must they shine on the newly illuminated mind of a converted pagan. “We shall be glad of all your assistance in a pecuniary way, as the expense will be heavy. Dear brother Carey has paid us a visit of love this week. He preached ex- cellently to-night. I expect brother Thomas next week, or the week after. I wish you would meet him here. I have a house at your command, and a heart greatly at- tached to you.” To M.R. Full ER. “Feb. 23, 1793. “I am willing to go any where, and do any thing in my power, but I hope no plan will be suffered to interfere with the affecting—hoped for—dreaded day, March 13 (the day of our brethren Carey and Thomas's solemn designa- tion at Leicester). Oh how the anticipation of it at once rejoices and afflicts me! Our hearts need steeling to part with our much-loved brethren, who are about to venture their all for the name of the Lord Jesus. I feel my soul melting within me when I read the 20th chapter of the Acts, and especially verses 36–38. But why grieve We shall see them again. whom the Lord will give them;-we and the children whom the Lord hath given us. We shall meet again, not to Weep and pray, but to smile and praise.” From the day of the departure of the missionaries, no one Was more importunate in prayer than Mr. Pearce ; and on the news of their safe arrival, no one was more filled with joy and thankfulness. Hitherto we had witnessed his zeal in promoting this important undertaking at home; but this did not satisfy him. In October, 1794, we were given to understand that he had for some time had it in serious contemplation to go himself, and to cast in his lot with his brethren in India. When his designs were first discovered, his friends and connexions were much concerned, and endeavoured to persuade him that he was already in a sphere of usefulness too important to be relinquished. But his answer was, that they were too interested in the affair to be competent judges. And nothing would satisfy him short of his mak- ing a formal offer of his services to the committee: nor Oh yes; them and the children could he be happy for them to decide upon it without their appointing a day of solemn prayer for the purpose, and, when assembled, hearing an account of the principal ex- ercises of his mind upon the subject, with the reasons which induced him to make the proposal, as well as the reasons alleged by his connexions against it. On October 4, 1794, he wrote to an intimate friend, of whom he entertained a hope that he might accompany him, as follows:— “Last Wednesday I rode to Northampton, where a ministers’ meeting was held on the following day. We talked much about the mission. We read some fresh and very encouraging accounts. We lamented that we could obtain no suitable persons to send out to the assistance of our brethren. Now what do you think was said at this meeting 3 My dear brother, do not be surprised that all present united in opinion that in all our connexion there was no man known to us so suitable as you, provided you were disposed for it, and things could be brought to bear. I thought it right to mention this circumstance; and one thing more I cannot refrain from saying, that, were it mani- festly the will of God, I should call that the happiest hour of my life which witnessed our both embarking with our families on board one ship, as helpers of the servants of Jesus Christ already in Hindostan. Yes, I could unre- luctantly leave Europe and all its contents for the pleasures and perils of this glorious service. Often my heart in the sincerest ardours thus breathes forth its desires unto God, * Here am I, send me.” But I am ignorant whether you from experience can realize my feelings. Perhaps you have friendship enough for me to lay open your meditations on this subject in your next. If you have had half the exercises that I have, it will be a relief to your labouring mind; or if you think I have made too free with you, reprove me, and I will love you still. Oh if I could find a heart that had been tortured and ravished like my own in this re- spect, I should form a new kind of alliance, and feel a friendship of a novel species. With eagerness should I communicate all the vicissitudes of my sensations, and with eagerness listen to a recital of kindred feelings. With impatience I should seek, and with gratitude re- ceive, direction and support, and I hope feel a new occa- sion of thankfulness when I bow my knee to the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort. Whence is it that I thus write to you, as I have never written to any one be- fore ? Is there a fellowship of the spirit; or is it the con- fidence that I have in your friendship that thus directs my pen 3 Tell me, dear ! Tell me how you felt, and how you still feel, on this interesting subject, and do not long delay the gratification to your very affectionate friend and brother—S. P.” About a month preceding the decision of this affair, he drew up a narrative of his experience respecting it ; re- solving at the same time to set apart one day in every week for secret fasting and prayer to God for direction ; and to keep a diary of the exercises of his mind during the month. When the committee were met at Northampton, ac- cording to his desire, he presented to them the narrative, which was as follows:– “October 8, 1794. Having had some peculiar exer- cises of mind relative to my personally attempting to la- bour for the dear Redeemer amongst the heathem, and being at a loss to know what is the will of the Lord in this matter respecting me, I have thought that I might gain some satisfaction by adopting these two resolutions: —First, That I will, in the presence of God, faithfully en- deavour to recollect the various workings of my mind on this subject, from the first period of my feeling any desire of this nature until now, and commit them to writing ; together with what considerations do now, on the one hand, impel me to the work, and, on the other, what pre- vent me from immediately resolving to enter upon it. Secondly, That I will from this day keep a regular jour- nal, with special relation to this matter. “This account and journal will, I hope, furnish me with much assistance in forming a future opinion of the path of duty ; as well as help any friends whom I may here- after think proper to consult to give me suitable advice in the business. Lord, help me ! “It is very common for young converts to feel strong Y66 MEMOIRS OF MR. PEARCE. desires for the conversion of others. These desires imme- diately followed the evidences of my own religion; and I remember well they were particularly fixed upon the poor heathen. I believe the first week that I knew the grace of God in truth I put up many fervent cries to heaven in their behalf, and at the same time felt a strong desire to be employed in promoting their salvation. It was not long after that the first settlers sailed for Botany Bay. I longed to go with them, although in company with the convicts, in hopes of making known the blessings of the great sal- vation in New Zealand. I actually had thought of making an effort to go out unknown to my friends; but, ignorant how to proceed, I abandoned my purpose. Nevertheless I could not help talking about it; and at one time a report was circulated that I was really going, and a neighbour- ing minister very seriously conversed with me upon the subject. “While I was at the Bristol academy, the desire re- mained ; but not with that energy as at first, except on one or two occasions. Being sent by my tutor to preach two sabbaths at Coleford, I felt particular sweetness in devoting the evenings of the week to going from house to house among the colliers, who dwelt in the Forest of Dean, adjoining the town, conversing and praying with them, and preaching to them. In these exercises I found the most solid satisfaction that I have ever known in dis- charging the duties of my calling. In a poor hut, with a stone to stand upon, and a three-legged stool for my desk, surrounded with thirty or forty of the smutty neighbours, I have felt such an unction from above that my whole auditory have been melted into tears, whilst directed to “the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world; ” and I, weeping among them, could scarcely speak, or they hear, for interrupting sighs and sobs. Many a time did I then think, thus it was with the apostles of our Lord, when they went from house to house among the poor heathen. In work like this I could live and die. Indeed, had I at that time been at liberty to settle, I should have preferred that situation to any in the kingdom with which I was then acquainted. “But the Lord placed me in a situation very different. He brought me to Birmingham ; and here, amongst the novelties, cares, and duties of my station, I do not remem- ber any wish for foreign service, till, after a residence of some months, I heard Dr. Coke preach at one of Mr. Wes- ley's chapels, from Psal. lxviii. 31, ‘Ethiopia shall soon stretch out her hands unto God.” Then it was that, in Mr. Horne's phrase, “I felt a passion for missions.” I felt an interest in the state of the heathen world far more deep and permanent than before, and seriously thought how I could best promote their obtaining the knowledge of the crucified Jesus. - “As no way at that time was open, I cannot say that I thought of taking a part of the good work among the heathen abroad ; but resolved that I would render them all the assistance I could at home. My mind was employed during the residue of that week in meditating on Psal. lxvii. 3, ‘Glorious things are spoken of thee, O city of God '—and the next sabbath morning I spoke from those words, on the promised increase of the church of God. I had observed that our monthly meetings for prayer had been better attended than the other prayer-meetings, from the time that I first knew the people in Cannon Street; but I thought a more general attention to them was desir- able. ... I therefore preached on the sabbath day evening preceding the next monthly prayer-meeting from Matt. vi. 10—“Thy kingdom come ;’ and urged with ardour and affection a universal union of the serious part of the con- gregation in this exercise. It rejoiced me to see three times as many the next night as usual ; and, for some time after that, I had nearly equal cause for joy. “As to my own part, I continued to preach much upon the promises of God respecting the conversion of the heathen nations; and by so doing, and always communi- cating to my people every piece of information I could obtain respecting the present state of missions, they soon imbibed the same spirit; and from that time to this they have discovered so much concern for the more extensive spread of the gospel, that at our monthly prayer-meetings, both stated and occasional, I should be as much surprised Then at the case of the heathen being omitted in any prayer as at an omission of the name and merits of Jesus. “Indeed it has been a frequent means of enkindling my languid devotion, in my private, domestic, and public en- gagements in prayer. When I have been barren in pe- titioning for myself, and other things, often have I been sweetly enlarged when I came to notice the situation of those who were perishing for lack of knowledge. “Thus I went on praying and preaching, and conversing on the subject, till the time of brother Carey's ordination at Leicester, May 24, 1791. On the evening of that day he read to the ministers a great part of his manuscript, since published, entitled, “An Inquiry into the Obligations of Christians to use Means for the Conversion of the Heathen.” This added fresh fuel to my zeal. But to pray and preach on the subject was all I could then think of doing. But when I heard of a proposed meeting at ICettering, October 2, 1792, for the express purpose of considering our duty in regard to the heathen, I could not resist my inclination for going, although at that time I was not much acquainted with the ministers of the Northamptonshire association. There I got my judgment informed, and my heart increasingly interested. I returned home resolved to lay myself out in the cause. The public steps I have taken are too well known to need repeating; but my mind became now inclined to go among the heathen myself. Yet a consideration of my connexions with the dear people of God in Birmingham restrained my desires, and kept me from naming my wishes to any body, (as I remember,) except to brother Carey. With him I was pretty free. We had an interesting conversation about it just before he left Europe. I shall never forget the manner of his saying, ‘Well, you will come after us.’ My heart said, Amen and my eagerness for the work increased ; though I never talked freely about it, except to my wife, and we then both thought that my relation to the church in Cannon Street, and usefulness there, forbad any such an attempt. However, I have made it a constant matter of prayer, often begging of God, as I did when first I was disposed for the work of the ministry, either that he would take away the desire, or open a door for its fulfilment. And the result has uniformly been, that the more spiritual I have been in the frame of my mind, the more love I have felt for God; and the more communion I have enjoyed with him, so much the more disposed have I been to en- gage as a missionary among the heathem. “ Until the accounts came of our brethren’s entrance on the work in India, my connexions in Europe pretty nearly balanced my desire for going abroad ; and though I felt quite devoted to the Lord's will and work, yet I thought the scale rather preponderated on the side of my abiding in my present situation. * “But since our brethren's letters have informed us that there are such prospects of usefulness in Hindostan, and that preachers are a thousand times more wanted than people to preach to, my heart has been more deeply affected than ever with their condition ; and my desires for a par- ticipation of the toils and pleasures, crosses and comforts, of which they are the subjects, are advanced to an anxiety which nothing can remove, and time seems to increase. “It has pleased God also lately to teach me, more than ever, that HIMSELF is the fountain of happiness; that likeness to him, friendship for him, and communion with him, form the basis of all true enjoyment; and that this can be attained as well in an Eastern jungle, amongst Hindoos and Moors, as in the most polished parts of Europe. The very disposition which, blessed be my dear Redeemer 1 he has given me, to be anything, do any thing, or endure any thing, so that his name might be glorified, I say, the disposition itself is heaven begun below ! I do feel a daily panting after more devotedness to his service, and I can never think of my suffering Lord with- out dissolving into love—love which constrains me to glo- rify him with my body and spirit, which are his. . . . “I do often represent to myself all the possible hard- ships of a mission, arising from my own heart, the nature of the country, domestic connexioms, disappointment in my hopes, &c. &c.; and then I set over against them all these two thoughts, I am God's servant; and God is my friend. In this I anticipate happiness in the midst of suffering, DECISION OF THE COMMITTEE. 767 light in darkness, and life in death. Yea, I do not count my life dear unto myself, so that I may win some poor heathen unto Christ; and I am willing to be offered as a sacrifice on the service of the faith of the gospel. “Mr. Horne justly observes, ‘that, in order to justify a man's undertaking the work of a missionary, he should be qualified for it, disposed heartily to enter upon it, and free from such ties as exclude an engagement.”—As to the first, others must judge for me; but they must not be men who have an interest in keeping me at home. I shall re- joice in opportunities of attaining to an acquaintance with the ideas of judicious and impartial men in this matter, and with them I must leave it. A willingness to embark in this cause I do possess; and I can hardly persuade my- self that God has for ten years inclined my heart to this work without having any thing for me to do in it. But the third thing requires more consideration ; and here alone I hesitate.”—Here he goes on to state all the objections from this quarter, with his answers to them, leaving it with his brethren to decide, when they had heard the whole. The committee, after the most serious and mature de- liberation, though they were fully satisfied as to brother Pearce's qualifications, and greatly approved of his spirit, yet were unanimously of opinion that he ought not to go; and that not merely on account of his connexions at home, which might have been pleaded in the case of brother Carey, but on account of the mission itself, which re- quired his assistance in the station which he already oc- cupied. In this opinion brother Carey himself, with singular disinterestedness of mind, afterwards concurred ; and wrote to brother Pearce to the same effect.* On receiving the opinion of the committee, he immedi- ately wrote to Mrs. P. as follows:— “MY DEAR SARAH, JWorthampton, Nov. 13, 1794. “I am disappointed, but not dismayed. I ever wish to make my Saviour's will my own. I am more satisfied than ever I expected I should be with a negative upon my earnest desires, because the business has been so conducted that I think (if by any means such an issue could be in- sured) the mind of Christ has been obtained. My dear brethren here have treated the affair with as much seri- ousness and affection as I could possibly desire, and I think more than so insignificant a worm could expect. After we had spent the former part of this day in fasting and prayer, with conversation on the subject, till nearly two o'clock, brother Potts, King, and I retired. We prayed, while the committee consulted. The case seemed difficult, and I suppose they were nearly two hours in de- ciding it. At last, time forced them to a point, and their answer I enclose for your satisfaction. Pray take care of it ; it will serve for me to refer to when my mind may labour beneath a burden of guilt another day. I am my dear Sarah's own—S. P.” The decision of the committee, though it rendered him much more reconciled to abide in his native country than he could have been without it, yet did not in the least abate his zeal for the object. As he could not promote it abroad, he seemed resolved to lay himself out more for it at home. In March, 1795, after a dangerous illness, he says, in a letter to Mr. Fuller—“ Through mercy I am almost in a state of convalescence. May my spared life be Wholly devoted to the service of my dear Redeemer? I do not care where I am, whether in England or in India, so I am employed as he would have me; but surely we need pray hard that God would send some more help to Hindostan.” In January, 1796, when he was first informed by the secretary of a young man (Mr. Fountain) being desirous of going, of the character that was given of him by our friend Mr. Savage of London, and of a committee-meeting being in contemplation, he wrote thus in answer:—“Your letter, just arrived, put—I was going to say—another soul into my little body; at least it has added new life to the soul I have. I cannot be contented with the thought of * See Periodical Accounts, Vol. I. p. 374. * The 428th hymn of Dr. Rippon's Selection, frequently Sung at our committee-meetings. - being absent from your proposed meeting. No, no; I must be there, (for my own sake I mean,) and try to sing with you, ‘O'er the gloomy hills of darkness.’ ”, # In August, the same year, having received a letter from India, he wrote to Mr. Fuller as follows:– “ Brother Carey speaks in such a manner of the effects of the gospel in his neighbourhood as in my view promises a fair illus- tration of our Lord's parable, when he compared the kingdom of heaven to a little leaven, hid in three mea- sures of meal, which insinuated itself so effectually as to leaven the lump at last. Blessed be God, the leaven is already in the meal; the fermentation is begun; and my hopes were never half so strong as they are now that the whole shall be effectually leavened. OH THAT I were THERE TO WITNESS THE DELIGHTFUL PROCESS . But whither am I running 3 . . . . . . I LoNG To WRITE YOU FROM HINDOSTAN : ” On receiving other letters from India, in January, 1797, he thus writes:—“Perhaps you are now rejoicing in spirit with me over fresh intelligence from Bengal. This mo- ment have I concluded reading two letters from brother Thomas : one to the Society, and the other to myself.; He speaks of others from brother Carey. I hope they are already in your possession. If his correspondence has produced the same effects on your heart as brother Tho- mas's has on mine, you are filled with gladness and hope. I am grieved that I cannot convey them to you immedi- ately. I long to witness the pleasure their contents will impart to all whose hearts are with us. Oh that I were accounted worthy of the Lord to preach the gospel to the Booteas | * Being detained from one of our mission-meetings by preparing the Periodical Accounts for the press, he soon after wrote as follows: “We shall now get out No. IV. very soon. I hope it will go to the press in a very few days. Did you notice that the very day on which we in- vited all our friends to a day of prayer on behalf of the mission (December 28, 1796) was the same in which brother Carey sent his best and most interesting accounts to the Society 3 I hope you had solemn and sweet seasons at Northampton. On many accounts I should have re- joiced to have been with you ; yet I am satisfied that on the whole I was doing best at home.” It has been already observed, that, for a month preced- ing the decision of the committee, he resolved to devote one day in every week to secret prayer and fasting, and to keep a diary of the exercises of his mind during the whole of that period. This diary was not shown to the com- mittee at the time, but merely the preceding narrative. Since his death a few of them have perused it, and have been almost ready to think, that if they had seen it before, they would not have dared to oppose his going. But the Lord hath taken him to himself. It no longer remains a question now whether he shall labour in England, or in India. A few passages, however, from this transcript of his heart, while contemplating a great and disinterested undertaking, will furnish a better idea of his character than could be given by any other hand, and with these we shall close the present chapter. - “ Oct. 8, 1794.—Had some remarkāble freedom and affection this morning, both in family and secret prayer. With many tears I dedicated myself, body and soul, to the service of Jesus; and earnestly implored full satisfaction respecting the path of duty.—I feel an increasing deadness for all earthly comforts ; and derive my happiness imme- diately from God himself. May I still endure, as Moses did, by seeing him who is invisible. “10.—Enjoyed much freedom to-day in the family. Whilst noticing in prayer the state of the millions of hea- then who know not God, I felt the aggregate value of their immortal souls with peculiar energy. “Afterwards was much struck whilst (on my knees be- fore God in secret) I read the fourth chapter of Micah. The ninth verse I fancied very applicable to the church in Cannon Street; but what reason is there for such a cry about so insignificant a worm as I am 3 The third chapter of Habakkuk too well expresses that mixture of # See these Letters printed in Periodical Accounts, Vol. I. pp. 4 768 MEMOIRS OF MER. PEAR.C.E. solemnity and confidence with which I contemplate the work of the mission. “Whilst at prayer-meeting to-night, I learned more of the meaning of some passages of Scripture than ever be- fore. Suitable frames of soul are like good lights, in which a painting appears to its full advantage. I had often meditated on Phil. iii. 7, 8, and Gal. vi. 14, but never felt crucifixion to the world, and disesteem for all that it contains, as at that time. All prospects of pe- cuniary independence, and growing reputation, with which in unworthier moments I had amused myself, were now chased from my mind; and the desire of living wholly to Christ swallowed up every other thought. Frowns and smiles, fulness and want, honour and reproach, were now equally indifferent; and when I concluded the meeting, my whole soul felt, as it were, going after the lost sheep of Christ among the heathem. • “I do feel a growing satisfaction in the proposal of spending my, whole life in something nobler than the locality of this island will admit. I long to raise my Master's banner in climes where the sound of his fame hath but scarcely reached. He hath said, for my encou- ragement, that ‘ all mations shall flow unto it.’ “The conduct and success of Stach, Boonish, and other Moravian missionaries in Greenland, both confound and stimulate me. O Lord, forgive my past indolence in thy service, and help me to redeem the residue of my days for exertions more worthy a friend of mankind and a servant of God. “13.—Being taken up with visitors the former part of the day, I spent the after part in application to the Bengal language, and found the difficulties I apprehended vanish as fast as I encountered them. I read and prayed, prayed and read, and made no small advances. Blessed be God | “15.—There are in Birmingham 50,000 inhabitants; and, exclusive of the vicinity, ten ministers who preach the fundamental truths of the gospel. In Hindostan there are twice as many millions of inhabitants; and not so many gospel preachers. Now Jesus Christ hath com- manded his ministers to go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature : why should we be so dis- proportionate in our labours ? Peculiar circumstances must not be urged against positive commands: I am therefore bound, if others do not go, to make the means more proportionate to the multitude. “To-night, reading some letters from brother Carey, in which he speaks of his wife's illness when she first came into the country, I endeavoured to realize myself not only with a sick, but a dead wife. The thought was like a cold dagger to my heart at first; but on recollection I con- sidered the same God ruled in India as in Europe; and that he could either preserve her, or support me, as well there as here. My business is only to be where he would have me. Other things I leave to him. O Lord, though with timidity, yet I hope not without satisfaction, I look every possible evil in the face, and say, ‘Thy will be done!’ “17.—This is the first day I have set apart for ex- traordinary devotion in relation to my present exercise of mind. Rose earlier than usual, and began the day in prayer that God would be with me in every part of it, and grant the end I have in view may be clearly ascer- tained—the knowledge of his will. “Considering the importance of the work before me, I began at the foundation of all religion, and reviewed the grounds on which I stood, The being of a God, the re- lation of mankind to him, with the Divine inspiration of the Scriptures—and the review afforded me great satis- faction.* I also compared the different religions which claimed Divine origin, and found little difficulty in deter- mining which had most internal evidence of its Divinity. I attentively read and seriously considered Doddridge’s three excellent Sermons on the Evidences of the Christian Religión ; which was followed by such conviction that I * There is a wide difference between admitting these principles in theory, and making use of them. David might have worn Saul’s ac- coutrements at a parade; but, in meeting Goliath, he must go forth in an armour that had been tried. A mariner may sit in his cabin at his ease, while the ship is in harbour; but, ere he undertakes a voyage, he must examine its soundness, and inquire whether it will endure the storms which may overtake him. + Night studies, often continued till two or three o'clock in the had hardly patience to conclude the book before I fell on my knees before God, to bless him for such a religion, established on such a basis; and I have received more solid satisfaction this day upon the subject than ever I did before. “I also considered, since the gospel is true, since Christ is the Head of the church, and his will is the law of all his followers, what are the obligations of his servants in re- spect of the enlargement of his kingdom. I here referred to our Lord’s commission, which I could not but consider as universal in its object and permanent in its obligations. I read brother Carey’s remarks upon it; and as the com- mand has never been repealed—as there are millions of beings in the world on whom the command may be ex- ercised—as I can produce no counter-revelation—and as I lie under no natural impossibilities of performing it—I concluded that I, as a servant of Christ, was bound by this law. “I took the narrative of my experience, and statement of my views on this subject, in my hand, and, bowing down before God, I earnestly besought an impartial and enlightened spirit. I then perused that paper ; and can now say that I have (allowing for my own fallibility) not one doubt upon the subject. I therefore resolved to close this solemn season with reading a portion of both Tes- taments, and earnest prayer to God for my family, my people, the heathen world, the Society, and particularly for the success of our dear brethren Thomas and Carey, and his blessing, presence, and grace to be ever my guide and glory. Accordingly I read the forty-ninth chapter of Isaiah ; and with what sweetness I never read a chapter in private with such feeling since I have been in the mi- nistry. The eighth, ninth, tenth, twentieth, and twenty- first verses, I thought remarkably suitable. “Read also part of the Epistle to the Ephesians, and the first chapter to the Philippians. Oh that for me to live may be Christ alone ! Blessed be my dear Saviour ! in prayer I have had such fellowship with him as would warm me in Greenland, comfort me in New Zealand, and rejoice me in the valley of the shadow of death ! “18.—I dreamed that I saw one of the Christian Hin- doos. Oh how I loved him I long to realize my dream. How pleasant will it be to sit down at the Lord’s table with our swarthy brethren, and hear Jesus preached in their language Surely then will come to pass the saying that is written, In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free, all are ONE in him. “Have been happy to-day in completing the manuscript of Periodical Accounts, No. I. Any thing relative to the salvation of the heathen brings a certain pleasure with it. I find I cannot pray, nor converse, nor read, nor study, nor preach with satisfaction, without reference to this subject.” - - “20.—Was a little discouraged on reading Mr. Zeigen- bald’s conferences with the Malabarians, till I recollected, what ought to be ever present to my mind, in brother Carey's words,-‘ The work is God’s.’ “In the evening I found some little difficulty with the language; but, considering how merchants and captains overcome this difficulty for the sake of wealth, Isat confound- ed before the Lord that I should ever have indulged such a thought ; and, looking up to him, I set about it with cheerfulness, and found that I was making a sensible ad- vance, although I can never apply till eleven o’clock at night on account of my other duties.f . “Preached from 2 Kings iv. 26, “It is well' . . . . was much enlarged both in thought and expression. Whilst speaking of the satisfaction enjoyed by a truly pious mind when it feels itself in all circumstances and times in the hand of a good God, I felt that were the universe destroyed, and I the only being in it beside God, HE is fully adequate to my complete happiness; and had I been in an African wood, surrounded with venomous serpents, devouring morning, it is to be feared, were the first occasion of impairing Mr. Pearce’s health, and brought on that train of nervous sensations with which he was afterwards afflicted. Though not much accustomed to converse on the subject, he once acknowledged to a brother in the ministry, that, owing to his enervated state, he sometimes dreaded the approach of public services to such a degree that he would rather have submitted to stripes than engage in them; and that while in the pul- pit he was frequently distressed with the apprehension of falling over it. j EXTRACTS FROM HIS DIARY. 769 beasts, and savage men, in such a frame I should be the subject of perfect peace and exalted joy. Yes, O my God, thou hast taught me that THou ALONE art worthy of my confidence ; and, with this sentiment fixed in my heart, I am free from all solicitude about any temporal prospects or concerns. If thy presence be enjoyed, poverty shall be riches, darkness light, affliction prosperity, reproach my honour, and fatigue my rest; and thou hast said, ‘My presence shall go with thee.” Enough, Lord! I ask for nothing, nothing more. “But how sad the proofs of our depravity; and how insecure the best frames we enjoy! Returning home, a wicked expression from a person who passed me caught my ear, and recurred so often to my thoughts for some minutes as to bring guilt upon my mind, and overwhelm me with shame before God. But I appealed to God for my hatred of all such things, secretly confessed the sin of my heart, and again ventured to the mercy-seat. On such occasions how precious a Mediator is to the soul | “22.—I did not on the former part of the day feel my wonted ardour for the work of a missionary, but rather an inclination to consult flesh and blood, and look at the worst side of things. I did so ; but when on my knees before God in prayer about it, I first considered that my judgment was still equally satisfied, and my conscience so convinced that I durst not relinquish the work for a thou- sand worlds ! And then I thought that this dull frame had not been without its use, as I was now fully convinced that my desire to go did not arise from any fluctuation of inconstant passions, but the settled convictions of my judgment. I therefore renewed my vows unto the Lord, that, let what difficulties soever be in the way, I would, provided the Society approved, surmount them all. I felt a kind of unutterable satisfaction of mind in my resolu- tion of leaving the decision in the hands of my brethren. May God rightly dispose their hearts. I have no doubt but he will. “23.—Have found a little time to apply to the Bengal- lee language. How pleasant it is to work for God! Love transforms thorns to roses, and makes pain itself a plea- sure. I never sat down to any study with such peculiar and continued satisfaction. The thought of exalting the Redeemer in this language is a spur to my application paramount to every discouragement for want of a living tutor. I have passed this day with an abiding satisfaction respecting my present views. “24.—Oh for the enlightening, enlivening, and sanctify- ing presence of God to-day ! It is the second of those days of extraordinary devotion which I have set apart for seek- ing God in relation to the mission. How shal! I spend it I will devote the morning to prayer, reading, and meditation; and the afternoon to visiting the wretched, and relieving the needy. May God accept my services, guide me by his counsel, and employ me for his praise ! “Having besought the Lord that he would not suffer me to deceive myself in so important a matter as that which I had now retired to consider, and exercised some confidence that he would be the rewarder of those who diligently seek him, I read the 119th Psalm at the conclu- sion of my prayer, and felt and wondered at the congruity 9f so many of the verses to the breathings of my own heart. Often with holy admiration I paused, and read, and thought, and prayed over the verse again, especially verses 20, 31. 59, 60. Hiz. 145, 146. . My soul breaketh for the longing that it hath unto thy judgments at all times.”—“I have stuck unto thy testimonies: O Lord, put me not to shame.” - “Most of the morning I spent in seriously reading Mr. Horne’s ‘Letters on Missions, having first begged of the Lord to make the perusal profitable to my instruction in the path of duty. To the interrogation, “Which of you will forsake all, deny himself, take up his cross, and, if Öod pleases, die for his religion?' I replied spontaneously, Bless. ed be God, I am willing ! Lord, help me to accomplish it! “Closed this season with reading the 61st and 62nd chapters of Isaiah, and prayer for the church of God at large, my own congregation, the heathen, the Society, brethren Thomas and Carey, all missionaries whom God hath sent of every denomination, my own case, my wife and family, and for assistance in my work. “The after-part of this day has been gloomy indeed. All the painful circumstances which can attend my going have met upon my heart, and formed a load almost insup- portable. A number of things which have been some time accumulating have united their pressure, and made me groan being burdened. Whilst at a prayer-meeting I looked round on my Christian friends, and said to myself, A few months more, and probably I shall leave you all ! But in the deepest of my gloom I resolved, though faint, yet to pursue ; not doubting but my Lord would give me strength equal to the day. “I had scarcely formed this resolution before it occurred, my Lord and Master was a man of sorrows. Oppressed and covered with blood, he cried, “If it be possible, let this cup pass from me.” Yet in the depth of his agonies he added, “Thy will be done.” This thought was to me what the sight of the cross was to Bunyan’s pilgrim ; I lost my burden. Spent the remainder of the meeting in Sweet communion with God. “But, on coming home, the sight of Mrs. P. replaced my load. She had for some time been much discouraged at the thoughts of going. I therefore felt reluctant to say any thing on this subject, thinking it would be unplea- sant to her; but though I strove to conceal it, an invo- luntary sigh betrayed my uneasiness. She kindly required the cause. I avoided at first an explanation, till she, guessing the reason, said to this effect:—“I hope you will be no more uneasy on my account. For the last two or three days I have been more comfortable than ever in the thought of going. I have considered the steps you are pursuing to know the mind of God, and I think you can- not take more proper ones. When you consult the minis- ters, you should represent your obstacles as strongly as your inducements; and then, if they advise your going, though the parting from my friends will be almost insup- portable, yet I will make myself as happy as I can, and God can make me happy any where.” “Should this little diary fall into the hands of a man having the soul of a missionary, circumstanced as I am, he will be the only man capable of sharing my peace, my joy, my gratitude, my rapture of soul. Thus at evening tide it is light; thus God brings his people through fire and through water into a wealthy place; thus those who ask do receive, and their joy is full. ‘ O love the Lord, ye his saints : there is no want to them that fear him 1' 26. “Had much enlargement this morning whilst speak- ing on the nature, extent, and influence of Divine love; what designs it formed—with what energy it acted—with what perseverance it pursued its object—what obstacles it sur- mounted—what difficulties it conquered—and what sweet- ness it imparted under the heaviest loads and severest trials. Almost through the day I enjoyed a very desirable frame; and, on coming home, my wife and I had some conversa- tion on the subject of my going. She said, Though in general the thought was painful, yet there were some seasons when she had no preference, but felt herself dis- posed to go or stay, as the Lord should direct. “This day wrote to brother Fuller, briefly stating my desires, requesting his advice, and proposing a meeting of the committee on the business. I feel great satisfaction arising from my leaving the matter to the determination of my honoured brethren, and to God through them. “27.—To-day I sent a packet to our brethren in India. I could not forbear telling brother Carey all my feelings, views, and expectations; but without saying I should be entirely governed by the opinion of the Society. “28.—Still panting to preach Jesus among my fellow sinners to whom he is yet unknown. Wrote to Dr. Rogers of Philadelphia, to-day, upon the subject with freedom and warmth, and inquired whether, whilst the people of the United States were forming societies to en- courage arts, liberty, and emigration, there could not a few be found among them who would form a society for the transmission of the word of life to the benighted hea- then ; or, in case that could not be, whether they might not strengthen our hands in Europe, by some benevolent proof of concurring with us in a design which they speak of with such approbation. With this I sent Horne's Let- it. I will follow both with my prayers; and who can tell ? 3 D 770 MEMOIRS OF ME. PEAR CE. “29.—Looked over the Code of Hindoo Laws to-day. How much is there to admire in it, founded on the prin- ciples of justice | The most salutary regulations are adopt- ed in many circumstances. But what a pity that so much excellence should be debased by laws to establish or coun- tenance idolatry, magic, prostitution, prayers for the dead, false-witnessing, theft, and suicide. How perfect is the morality of the gospel of Jesus; and how desirable that they should embrace it ! Ought not means to be used ? Can we assist them too soon 3 There is reason to think that their shasters were penned about the beginning of the Kollee Jogue, which must be soon after the deluge : and are not 4000 years long enough for 100,000,000 of men to be under the empire of the devil? “31.—I am encouraged to enter upon this day (which I set apart for supplicating God) by a recollection of his promises to those who seek him. If the sacred word be true, the servants of God can never seek his face in vain; and as I am conscious of my sincerity and earnest desire only to know his pleasure that I may perform it, I find a degree of confidence that I shall realize the fulfil- ment of the word on which he causeth me to hope. “Began the day with solemn prayer for the assistance of the Holy Spirit in my present exercise, that so I might enjoy the spirit and power of prayer, and have my personal religion improved, as well as my public steps directed. In this duty I found a little quickening. “I then read over the narrative of my experience, and my journal. I find my views are still the same; but my heart is much more established than when I began to Write. “Was much struck in reading Paul’s words in 2 Cor. i. 17, when, after speaking of his purpose to travel for the preaching of the gospel, he saith, ‘Did I then use light- ness when I was thus minded? Or the things that I pur- pose, do I purpose according to the flesh, that with me there should be yea, yea, nay, may ?’ The piety of the apostle in not purposing after the flesh, the seriousness of spirit with which he formed his designs, and his stedfast adherence to them, were in my view worthy of the highest admiration and strictest imitation. “Thinking that I might get some assistance from Da- vid Brainerd’s experience, I read his life to the time of his being appointed a missionary among the Indians. The exalted devotion of that dear man almost made me ques- tion mine. Yet, at some seasons, he speaks of sinking as well as rising. His singular piety excepted, his feel- ings, prayers, desires, comforts, hopes, and sorrows are my own ; and if I could follow him in nothing else, I knew I had been enabled to say this with him, ‘ I feel exceed- ingly calm, and quite resigned to God respecting my fu- ture improvement (or station) when and where he pleased. My faith lifted me above the world, and removed all those mountains which I could not look over of late. I thought I wanted not the favour of man to lean upon ; for I knew God’s favour was infinitely better, and that it was no matter where, or when, or how Christ should send me, nor with what trials he should still exercise me, if I might be prepared for his work and will.” “Read the second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth chap- ters of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. kind of placidity, but not much joy. On beginning the concluding prayer I had no strength to wrestle, nor power with God at all. I seemed as one desolate and forsaken. I prayed for myself, the Society, the missionaries, the con- verted Hindoos, the church in Cannon Street, my family, and ministry; but yet all was dulness, and I feared'ſ had offended the Lord. I felt but little zeal for the mis- sion, and was about to conclude with a lamentation over the hardness of my heart, when on a sudden it pleased God to smite the rock with the rod of his Spirit, and im- mediately the waters began to flow. Oh what a heavenly, glorious, melting power was it! My eyes, almost closed with weeping, hardly suffer me to write. I feel it over again. Oh what a view of the love of a crucified Redeemer did I enjoy! the attractions of his cross how powerful! I was as a giant refreshed with new wine, as to my anima- tion: like Mary at the Master's feet, weeping for tender- ness of soul; like a little child, for submission to my heavenly Father's will; and like Paul, for a victory over |Felt a all self-love, and creature love, and fear of man, when these things stand in the way of my duty. The interest that Christ took in the redemption of the heathem, the situation of our brethren in Bengal, the worth of the soul, and the plain command of Jesus Christ, together with an irresistible drawing of soul, which by far exceeded any thing I ever felt before, and is impossible to be de- . scribed to or conceived of by those who have never ex- perienced it—all compelled me to vow that I would, by his leave, serve him among the heathen. The Bible lying open before me, (upon my knees,) many passages caught my eye, and confirmed the purposes of my heart. If ever in my life I knew any thing of the influence of the Holy Spirit, I did at this time. I was swallowed up in God. Hunger, fulness, cold, heat, friends, and enemies, all seemed nothing before God. I was in a new world. All was delightful; for Christ was all, and in all. Many times I concluded prayer, but, when rising from my knees, com- munion with God was so desirable that I was sweetly drawn to it again and again, till my animal strength was almost exhausted. Then I thought it would be pleasure to burn for God . “And now while I write such a heavenly sweetness fills my soul that no exterior circumstances can remove it ; and I do uniformly feel that the more I am thus, the more I pant for the service of my blessed Jesus among the heathen. Yes, my dear, my dying Lord, I am thine, thy servant ; and if I neglect the service of so good a Master, I may well expect a guilty conscience in life, and a death awful as that of Judas or of Spira! “This evening I had a meeting with my friends. Re- turned much dejected. Received a letter from brother Fuller, which, though he says he has many objections to my going, yet is so affectionately expressed as to yield me a gratification. “Nov. 3.−This evening received a letter from brother Ryland, containing many objections; but contradiction itself is pleasant when it is the voice of judgment mingled with affection. I wish to remember that I may be mis- taken, though I cannot say I am at present convinced that it is so. I am happy to find that brother Ryland approves of my referring it to the committee. I have much con- fidence in the judgment of my brethren, and hope I shall be perfectly satisfied with their advice. I do think, how- ever, if they knew how earnestly I pant for the work, it would be impossible for them to withhold their ready ac- quiescence. O Lord, thou knowest my sincerity; and that if I go not to the work, it will not be owing to any reluctance on my part . If I stay in England, I fear I shall be a poor useless drone; or if a sense of duty prompt me to activity, I doubt whether I shall ever know inward peace and joy again. O Lord, I am, thou knowest I am oppressed, undertake for me ! “5.—At times to-day I have been reconciled to the thought of staying, if my brethren should advise ; but at other times I seem to think I could not. I look at bro- ther Carey's portrait as it hangs in my study : I love him in the bowels of Jesus Christ, and long to join his labours : every look calls up a hundred thoughts, all of which in- flame my desire to be a fellow labourer with him in the work of the Lord. One thing, however, I have resolved upon, that, the Lord helping me, if I cannot go abroad, I will do all I can to serve the mission at home. “7.—This is the last day of peculiar devotion before the deciding meeting. May I have strength to wrestle with God to-day for his wisdom to preside in the com- mittee, and by faith to leave the issue to their determina- tion : “I did not enjoy much enlargement in prayer to-day. My mind seems at present incapable of those sensations of joy with which I have lately been much indulged, through its strugglings in relation to my going or staying; yet I have been enabled to commit the issue into the hands of God, as he may direct my brethren, hoping that their advice will be agreeable to his will.” The result of the committee-meeting has already been related ; together with the state of his mind, as far as could be collected from his letters, for some time after it. The termination of these tender and interesting exercises, and of all his other labours, in so speedy a removal from the ; RESIGNATION UNDER AFFLICTIVE PROVIDENCES. , 771 present scene of action, may teach us not to draw any cer- tain conclusion, as to the designs of God concerning our future labours, from the ardour or sincerity of our feelings. He may take it well that “it was in our hearts to build him a house,” though he should for wise reasons have de- termined not to gratify us. Suffice it that in matters of EveRLASTING MoMENT he has engaged to “perfect that which concerns us.” In this he hath condescended to bind himself, as by an oath, for our consolation ; here, therefore, we may safely consider our spiritual desires as indicative of his designs: but it is otherwise in various instances with regard to present duty. CHAPTER III. HIS EXERCISES AND LABOURS, FROM THE TIME OF HIS GIVING UP THE IDEA OF GOING ABROAD TO THE COM- MIENCE MENT OF HIS LAST AFFLICTION, HAD the multiplied labours of this excellent man permit- ted his keeping a regular diary, we may see, by the fore- going specimen of a single month, what a rich store of truly Christian experience would have pervaded these Me- moirs. We should then have been better able to trace the gradual openings of his holy mind, and the springs of that extraordinary unction of spirit, and energy of action, by which his life was distinguished. As it is, we can only collect the gleanings of the harvest, partly from memory, and partly from letters communicated by his friends. This chapter will include a period of about four years, during which he went twice to London, to collect for the Baptist Mission, and once he visited Dublin, at the invita- tion of the Evangelical Society in that city. There appears throughout the general tenor of his life a singular submissiveness to the will of God ; and, what is worthy of notice, this disposition was generally most con- spicuous when his own will was most counteracted. The justness of this remark is sufficiently apparent from his letter to Mrs. Pearce, of November 13, 1794, * after the decision of the committee; and the same spirit was carried into the common concerns of life. Thus, about a month afterwards, when his dear Louisa was ill of a fever, he thus writes from Northampton to Mrs. Pearce :- “MY DEAR SARAH, Northampton, Dec. 13, 1794, “I am just brought on the wings of celestial mercy safe to my sabbath's station. I am well; and my dear friends here seem healthy and happy : but I feel for you. I long to know how our dear Louisa's pulse beats: I fear still feverish. We must not, however, suffer ourselves to be infected with a mental fever on this account. Is she ill It is right. Is she very ill . . . . dying? It is still right. Is she gone to join the heavenly choristers ? It is all right, notwithstanding our repinings . . . . Repinings | No ; we will not repine. It is best she should go. It is best for her: this we must allow. It is best for us : Do we ex- pect it! Oh what poor, ungrateful, short-sighted worms are we? Let us submit, my Sarah, till we come to hea- ven : if we do not then see that it is best, let us then com- plain. But why do I attempt to console Perhaps an indulgent providence has ere now dissipated your fears: or if that same kind providence has removed our babe, you have consolation enough in Him who suffered more than we ; and more than enough to quiet all our passions in that astonishing consideration,-" God so loved the world that he spared not his own Son.” Did Gop cheerfully give the holy child Jesus for us; and shall we refuse our ; to hº . He #. his Son to suffer: he takes our Children to enjoy. Yes; to enjoy Himself. º the tenderest regard, S. P.” Joy ºf Yours with In June, 1795, he attended the association at Kettering partly on account of some missionary business there to §: transacted. That was a season of great joy to many, espe- cially the last forenoon previous to parting. Thence he wrote to Mrs. Pearce as follows:– * See p. 767. “From a pew in the house of God at Kettering, with my cup of joy running over, I address you by the hands of brother Simmons. Had it pleased Divine Providence to have permitted your accompanying me, my pleasures would have received no small addition, because I should have hoped that you would have been filled with similar consolation, and have received equal edification by the precious means of grace on which I have attended. In- deed, I never remember to have enjoyed a public meeting to such a high degree since I have been in the habit of at- tending upon them. Oh that I may return to you, and the dear church of God, in the fulness of the blessing of the gospel of Christ . I hope, my beloved, that you are not without the enjoyment of the sweetness and the supports of the blessed gospel. Oh that you may get and keep near to God, and in Hîm find infinitely more than you can pos- sibly lose by your husband’s absence “Mr. Hall preached, last evening, from 1 Pet. i. 8. A most evangelical and experimental season I was charmed and warmed. Oh that Jesus may go on to reveal himself to him as altogether lovely . I am unable to write more now. To-day I set off for Northampton, and preach there to-night. The Lord bless you !” In July, 1795, he received a pressing invitation from the General Evangelical Society in Dublin to pay them a visit, and to assist in diffusing the gospel of the grace of God in that kingdom. To this invitation he replied in the follow- ing letter, addressed to Dr. M'Dowal:— “ REv. AND DEAR SIR, Birmingham, Aug. 3, 1795. “I received your favour of the 22nd ult, and, for the interesting reason you assign, transmit a ‘speedy answer.’ The Society, on whose behalf you wrote, I have ever con- sidered with the respect due to the real friends of the best of causes—the cause of God and of his Christ—a cause which embraces the most important and durable interests of our fellow men ; and your name, dear sir, I have been taught to hold in more than common esteem by my dear brother and father, Messrs. Birt and Francis. The be- nevolent institution which you are engaged in supporting, I am persuaded, deserves more than the good wishes or prayers of your brethren in the kingdom and patience of Jesus, on this side the Channel; and it will yield me sub- stantial pleasure to afford personal assistance in your pious labours. But for the present, I am sorry to say, I must decline your proposal, being engaged to spend a month in London this autumn on the business of our mission society, of which you have probably heard. - “When I formed my present connexions with the church in Birmingham, I proposed an annual freedom for six weeks from my pastoral duties; and should the ‘Evan- gelical Society’ express a wish for my services the ensuing year, I am perfectly inclined, God willing, to spend that time beneath their direction, and at what part of the year they conceive a visit would be most serviceable to the good design. I only request that, should this be their desire, I may receive the information as soon as they can conveni- ently decide, that I may withhold myself from other en- gagements, which may interfere with the time they may appoint. I entreat you to make my Christian respects acceptable to the gentlemen who compose the Society; and assure yourself that I am, dear sir, respectfully and affec- tionately, your brother, in our Lord Jesus, S. P.” The invitation was repeated, and he complied with their request, engaging to go over in the month of June, 1796. A little before this journey, it occurred to Dr. Ryland that an itinerating mission into Cornwall might be of use to the cause of true religion, and that two acceptable ministers might be induced to undertake it ; and that, if executed during the vacation at the Bristol academy, two of the students might supply their place. He communicated his thoughts to Mr. Pearce, who wrote thus in answer:— “ MY VERY DEAR BROTHER, May 30, 1796. “I thank you a thousand times for your last letter. Blessed be God, who hath put it into your heart to propose such a plan for increasing the boundaries of Zion I have read your letter to our wisest friends here, and they heard it with great joy. The plan, the place, the mode, the per- 3 D 2 772 MR. PEARCE. MEMOIRS OF sons,—all, all meet our most affectionate wishes. How did such a scheme never enter our minds before ? Alas ! we have nothing in our hearts that is worth having, save what God puts there. Do write to me when at Dublin, and tell me whether it be resolved on, when they set out, &c. I hope, ere long, to hear that as many disciples are employed in Great Britain, as the Saviour employed in Judea. When he gives the word, great will be the com- pany of the preachers. “O my dear brother, let us go on still praying, con- triving, labouring, defending, until the little leaven leaven the whole lump, and the small stone from the mountain fill the whole earth. “What pleasures do those lose who have no interest in God’s gracious and holy cause ! How thankful should we be that we are not strangers to the joy which the friends of Zion feel, when the Lord turneth again Zion's captivity I am, beyond expression, your affectionate brother in Christ,--S. P.” On May 31 he set off for Dublin, and “the Lord pros- pered his way” so that he arrived at the time appointed; and from every account it appears that he was not only sent in the fulness of the blessing of the gospel of peace, but that the Lord himself went with him. His preaching was not only highly acceptable to every class of hearers, but the word came from him with power; and there is abundant reason to believe that many will, through eternity, praise God for sending his message to them by this dear ambassa- dor of Christ. His memory lives in their hearts, and they join with the other churches of Christ in deploring the loss they have sustained by his death. He was earnestly solicited by the Evangelical Society to renew his visit to that kingdom in 1798. Ready to em- brace every call of duty, he had signified his compliance; and the time was fixed : but the breaking out of the late rebellion prevented him from realizing his intention. This was a painful disappointment to many, who wished once more to see his face, and to have heard the glad tidings from his lips. Such is the brief account of his visit to Dublin given by Dr. M'Dowal. The following letter was written to Mrs. Pearce, when he had been there little more than a week – “MY DEAR SARAH, Dublin, June 30, 1796. “I long to know how you do, and you will be as much concerned to know how I go on at this distance from you. I haste to satisfy your inquiries. “I am in perfect health; am delightfully disappointed with the place and its inhabitants. I am very thankful that I came over. I have found much more religion here al- ready than I expected to meet with during the whole of my stay. The prospect of usefulness is flattering. I have already many more friends (I hope Christian friends) than I can gratify by visits. Many doors are open for preaching the gospel in the city; and my country excursions will probably be few. Thus much for outline. “But you will like to know how I spend my time, &c. Well, then, I am at the house of a Mr. Hutton, late high sheriff for the city, a gentleman of opulence, respectability, and evangelical piety. He is by profession a Calvinistic Presbyterian, an elder of Dr. M'Dowal's church ; has a most amiable wife, and four children. I am very thankful for being placed here during my stay. I am quite at home —I mean as to ease and familiarity; for as to style of living, I neither do nor desire to equal it. Yet, in my present situation, it is convenient. It would, however, be sickening and dull, had I not a GoD to go to, to converse with, to enjoy, and to call my own. Oh it is this, it is this, my dearest Sarah, which gives a point to every enjoyment, and sweetens all the cup of life. - “The Lord's day after I wrote to you last, I preached for Dr. M'Dowal in the morning, at half past eleven ; heard a Mr. Kilburne at five ; and preached again at Plunket Street at seven. On Tuesday evening I preached at an hospital; and on Thursday evening at Plunket Street again. Yesterday for the Baptists, in the morning; Dr. M“Dowal at five ; and at Plunket Street at seven. “The hours of worship will appear singular to you : they depend on the usual meal times. We breakfast at ten ; dine between four and five, sometimes between five and six; take tea from seven to nine ; and sup from ten to twelve. “I thank God that I possess an abiding determination to aim at the consciences of the people in every discourse. I have borne the most positive testimony against the pre- vailing evils of professors here ; as sensuality, gaiety, vain amusements, neglect of the sabbath, &c.; and last night told an immense crowd of professors of the first rank, ‘ that if they made custom and fashion their plea, they were aw- fully deluding their souls; for it had always been the fashion to insult God, to dissipate time, and to pursue the broad road to hell ; but it would not lessen their torments there that the way to damnation was the fashion.’ “I feared my faithfulness would have given them of. fence: but, I am persuaded, it was the way to please the Lord ; and those who I expected would be enemies are not only at peace with me, but even renounce their sensual in- dulgences to attend on my ministry. I do assuredly believe that God hath sent me hither for good. The five o’clock meetings are miserably attended in general. In a house that will hold one thousand five hundred or two thousand people, you will hardly see above fifty | Yesterday morn- ing I preached on the subject of public worship, from Psal. v. 7, and seriously warmed them against preferring their bellies to God, and their own houses to his. I was de- lighted and surprised, at the five o'clock meeting, to see the place nearly full. Surely this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in my eyes. Never, never did I more feel how weak I am in myself—a mere nothing; and how strong I am in the omnipotence of God, I feel a superi- ority to all fear, and possess a conscious dignity in being the ambassador of Christ. O help me to praise ! for it is he alone who teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight: and still pray for me; for if he withdraw for a mo- ment, I become as weak and unprofitable as the briers of the wilderness. - “You cannot think how much I am supported by the assurance that I have left a praying people at Birmingham ; and I believe that, in answer to their prayers, I have hi- therto been wonderfully assisted in the public work, as well as enjoyed much in private devotion. “I have formed a most pleasing acquaintance with seve- ral serious young men in the university here, and with two of the fellows of the college—most pious gentlemen indeed, who have undergone a world of reproach for Christ and his gospel, and have been forbidden to preach in the churches by the archbishop ; but God has raised another house for them here, where they preach with much success, and have begun a meeting in the college, which promises fresh pros- perity to the cause of Jesus.” The following particulars, in addition to the above, are taken partly from some notes in his own hand-writing, and partly from the account given by his friend Mr. Summers, who accompanied him during the latter part of his visits. At his first arrival, the congregations were but thinly at- tended, and the Baptist congregation in particular, amongst whom he delivered several discourses. It much affected him to see the whole city given to sensuality and worldly conformity; and especially to find those of his own deno- mination amongst the lowest and least affected with their condition. But the longer he continued, the more the congregations increased, and every opportunity became in- creasingly interesting, both to him and them. His faith- ful remonstrances, and earnest recommendations of prayer- meetings to his Baptist friends, though at first apparently ill received, were well taken in the end ; and he had the happiness to see in them some hopeful appearances of a return to God. On June the 20th he wrote to his friend Mr. Summers as follows:– “MY DEAR FRIEND, “If you mean to abide by my opinion, I say, Come to Dublin, and come directly I have been most delightfully disappointed. I expected darkness, and behold light ; sorrow, and I have had cause for abundant joy. I thank God that I came hither, and hope that many, as well as myself, will have cause to praise him. Never have I been more deeply taught my own nothingness—never hath the power of God more evidently rested upon me. The harvest f VISIT AT DUBLIN. 773 here is great indeed; and the Lord of the harvest hath enabled me to labour in it with delight. “I praise him for all that is past; I trust him for all that 's to come.’ “The Lord hath of late been doing great things for Dublin. Several of the young men in the college have been awakened ; and two of the fellows are sweet evan- gelical preachers. One of them is of a spirit serene as the summer's evening, and sweet as the breath of May. I am already intimate with them, and have spent several mornings in college with various students who bid fair to be faithful watchmen on Jerusalem's walls. But I hope you will come; and then you will see for yourself. If not, I will give you some pleasant details when we meet in England.” Mr. Summers complied with this invitation ; and of the last seven or eight days of Mr. Pearce's continuance at Dublin he himself thus writes:— “Monday, July 4.—At three in the afternoon I went with my friend, Mr. Summers, to Mr. K.'s. Spent a very agreeable day. Miss A. K. remarked two wonders in Dublin:—A praying society composed of students at col- lege, and another of lawyers.-The family were called together. We sung : I read, and expounded the twelfth chapter of Isaiah ; and prayed.—At seven we went to a prayer-meeting at Plunket Street—there was a very large attendance. Mr. R. and Mr. S. prayed; and I spoke from Rom. x. 12, 13, “There is no difference between the Jew and the Greek; for the same Lord over all is rich unto all who call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”—Many seemed affected.—After I had closed the opportunity, I told them some of my own experience, and requested that, if any present wished for conversation, they would come to me, either that evening or on Thursday evening, in the vestry. Five persons came in : one had been long impressed with religion, but could never summon courage enough to open her heart before. Another, a Miss W., attributed her first impressions, under God, to my ministry; and told me that her father had regularly attended of late, and that her mother was so much alarmed as to be almost in despair. Poor girl , she seemed truly in earnest about her own soul, and as much concerned for her parents.--The next had possessed a serious concern for some time, and of late had been much revived.—One young lady, a Miss H., staid in the meeting-house, exceedingly affected indeed. Mr. K. spoke to her.—She said she would speak to me on Thursday. “Tuesday, 5th.-Went to Leislip. At seven preached to a large and affected auditory. - “Wednesday, 6th.-Mr. H. and myself went to Mrs. M“G., to inquire about the young lady who was so much affected at the meeting. Mrs. M'G. said her mother and sister were pious; that she had been very giddy; but that last Lord's day she was seriously awakened to a sense of sin ; had expressed her delight in religion, and fled for refuge to the blood of Jesus. Her sister was introduced to me ; a sweetly pious lady.—I agreed to wait for an in- terview with the young lady at Mr. H.’s, in Eccles Street, to-morrow. “Thursday, 7th-Miss H., her sister, and Mrs. M.G. game to Eccles Street.—A most delightful interview. Seldom have I seen such proficiency in so short a time.— That day week, at Plunket Street, she received her first serious impressions. Her concern deepened at Mass Lane, on Lord's day morning—more so in the evening at Plunket Street—but, most of all on Monday night. I exhorted them to begin a prayer and experience meeting ; and they agreed. Blessed be God! this strengthens my hands greatly.—At seven o’clock preached at Plunket Street, from Jer, l. 4, 5, “Going and weeping—they shall ask the way to Zion with their faces thitherward.” A full house ; and an impressive season. Tarried after the public services were ended, to converse on religion. The most pleasing case was that of a young man of Mr. D.'s. “Saturday, 9th.-Went with my friend, Mr. S., to call on Miss H.-Found her at her mother's. We first passed the door.—She ran out after us.—Seemed happy; but agitated. Ran, and called her mother.—Soon we saw the door of the parlour open, and a majestic lady appeared; who, as she entered the room, thus accosted me :—“Who art thou, O blessed of the Lord 3 Welcome to the widow’s house ! Accept the widow’s thanks for coming after the child whom thou hast begotten in the gospel !’—I was too much overcome to do more than take by the hand the aged saint. A solemn silence ensued for a minute or two; when the old lady, recovering, expressed the fulness of her satisfaction respecting the reality of the change effected in her daughter, and her gratitude for great refreshment of her own soul, by means of my poor labours. She said she had known the Lord during forty years, being called under the ministry of John Fisher, in the open air, when on a visit to an officer, who was her brother-in-law. She told us much of her experience, and promised to encourage the prayer-meeting which I proposed to be held in her house every Lord’s day evening. They are to begin to- morrow, after preaching.—It was a pleasant meeting ; and we returned with pleasure to Eccles Street. After we rose up to come away, the old lady affectionately said, “May the good-will of Him who dwelt in the bush attend you wherever you go, for ever and ever.’” The young lady, some months after, wrote to Mr. S., and says, amongst other things, “I have great reason to be thankful for the many blessings the Lord has been pleased to bestow upon me, and in particular for his send- ing Mr. Pearce to this city; and that through his means I have been convinced of sin. I am happy to inform you that, through grace, I am enabled to walk in the narrow path. The Lord has taken away all desire for worldly company ; all my desires, now, are to attend on the means of grace. Blessed be his name ! I often find him present in them. My mother and I often remember the happy time we spent in your company at our house. She often speaks of it with great pleasure, and blesses the Lord for the change which grace has wrought in me.” “Lord's day, 10th (the last sabbath)—Preached in the morning at Mary’s Abbey, from Job xxxiii. 27, 28, He looketh upon men, and if any say, I have sinned, and perverted that which was right, and it profited me not, he will deliver his soul from going into the pit, and his life shall see the light.”—A happy season.—In the afternoon, having dined with Mr. W., he took me to Swift's Alley, the Baptist place of worship, where I gave an exhortation on brotherly love, and administered the Lord's supper. At Mr. W.’s motion, the church requested me to look out a suitable minister for them. In the evening I preached at Plunket Street, from 2 Tim. i. 18, “The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day !’ —A very solemn season. “Monday, 11th.—-Met the dear Christian friends, for the last time, at a prayer-meeting in Plunket Street.— The Lord was there !—Several friends spent the evening with us afterwards at Mr. H.’s. “Tuesday, 12th.-Went on board at four ; arrived at Liverpool on Thursday, and safely at home on Friday, July 15th, 1796. Blessed be the Preserver of men, the Saviour of sinners, and the help of his servants, for ever- more. Amen, amen.” Some time after, writing to his friend who accompanied him, he says, “I have received several letters from Dublin: two from Master B., one from Miss H., one from M., three or four from our Baptist friends, and some from others whom I cannot recollect.—Mr. K. lately called on me, in his way from Bath to Holyhead. We talked of you, and of our Lord, and did not part till we had pre- sented ourselves before the throne.” During his labours in Dublin, he was strongly solicited to settle in a very flattering situation in the neighbourhood; * and a very liberal salary was offered him. On his posi- tively declining it, mention was made of only six months of the year. When that was declined, three months were proposed ; and when he was about to answer this in the negative, the party refused to receive his answer, desiring him to take time to consider of it. He did so ; and though he entertained a very grateful sense of the kind- ness and generosity expressed by the proposal, yet, after the maturest deliberation, he thought it his duty to decline it. * At the Black Rock, the residence of some of the most genteel families in the vicinity of Dublin. 774 MEMOIRS OF MIR. PEARCE. Mr. Pearce's modesty prevented his talking on such a subject ; but it was known at the time by his friend who accompanied him, and, since his death, has been frequently mentioned as an instance of his disinterested spirit. His friends at Birmingham were ready to think it hard that he should be so willing to leave them to go on a ‘mission among the heathem ; but they could not well com- plain, and much less think ill of him, when they saw that such a willingness was more than could be effected by the most flattering prospects of a worldly nature, accompanied, too, with promising appearances of religious usefulness. About a month after his return from Dublin, Mr. Pearce addressed a letter to Mr. Carey, in which he gives some further account of Ireland, as well as of some other inter- esting matters :— Birmingham, .4wg. 12, 1796. “O my dear brother, did you but know with what feelings I resume my pen, freely to correspond with you after receiving your very affectionate letter to myself, and perusing that which you sent by the same conveyance to the Society, I am sure you would persuade yourself that I have no common friendship for you, and that your regards are at least returned with equal ardour. “I fear (I had almost said) that I shall never see your face in the flesh ; but if anything can add to the joy which the presence of Christ, and conformity, perfect conformity to him, will afford in heaven, surely the certain prospect of meeting with my dear brother Carey there is one of the greatest. Thrice happy should I be if the providence of God would open a way for my partaking of your labours, your sufferings, and your pleasures, on this side the eter- nal world ; but all my brethren here are of opinion that I shall be more useful at home than abroad; and I, though reluctantly, submit. Yet I am truly with you in spirit. My heart is at Mudnabatty, and at times I even hope to find my body there : but with the Lord I leave it; He knows my wishes, my motives, my regret; He knows all my soul; and, depraved as it is, I feel an inexpressible sa- tisfaction that he does know it. However, it is a humbling thought to me, that he sees I am unfit for such a station, and unworthy of such an honour as to bear his name among the heathen. But I must be thankful still, that though he appoints me not to a post in foreign service, he will allow me to stand sentinel at home. In this situation may I have grace to be faithful unto death ! “I hardly wonder at your being pained on account of the effects produced in the minds of your European friends, by the news of your engagement in the indigo business, because I imagine you are ignorant of the process of that matter amongst us. When I received the news, I glorified God in sincerity on account of it, and gave most hearty thanks to him for his most gracious appearance on your behalf: but at the same time I feared lest, through that undertaking, the work of the mission might in some way or other be impeded. The same impression was made on the minds of many others; yet no blame was attached, in our view, to you. Our minds were only alarmed for the future—not disposed to censure for the past. Had you seen a faithful copy of the prayers, the praises, and the conversation of the day in which your letters were read, I know you would not have entertained one unkind thought of the Society towards you. Oh, no, my dear brother, far be it from us to lay an atom upon your spirits of a painful nature. Need I say, we do love you, we do respect you, we do confide too much in you, to design the smallest oc- casion of distress to your heart. But I close this subject. In future we will atone for an expression that might bear a harsh construction. We will strengthen, we will sup- port, we will comfort, we will encourage you in your ardu- ous work; all, all shall be love and kindness; glory to God, and good-will to men. If I have done aught that is wrong, as an individual, pardon me ; if we have said aught amiss, as a society, pardon us. Let us forbear one another in love, ‘forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven us.” “By the time this reaches you, I hope you will have re- ceived Nos. I. and II. of Periodical Accounts. Should you find any thing in them which you think had better be omitted, pray be free in mentioning it, and in future your instructions shall be fully attended to. We have taken all the pains, and used all the caution, in our power to render them unexceptionable; but you can better judge in some respects than we. If you should not approve of all, (though we are not conscious of any thing that you will disap- prove,) you will not be offended, but believe we have done our best, and, with your remarks, hope to do better still. “With pleasure, approaching to rapture, I read the last accounts you sent us. I never expected immediate suc- cess; the prospect is truly greater than my most sanguine hopes. ‘The kingdom of heaven is like to a little leaven hid in three measures of meal, till the whole is leavened.” Blessed be God the leaven is in the meal, and its in- fluence is already discoverable. A great God is doing great things by you. Go on, my dearest brother, go on ; God will do greater things than these. Jesus is worthy of a world of praise : and shall Hindostan not praise him 3 Surely he shall see of the travail of his soul there, and the Sower and the reaper shall rejoice together. Already the empire of darkness totters, and soon it shall doubtless fall. Blessed be the labourers in this important work; and blessed be He who giveth them hearts and strength to labour, and promises that they shall not labour in vain : “Do not fear the want of money. God is for us, and the silver and the gold are his ; and so are the hearts of those who possess the most of it. I will travel from the Land’s End to the Orkneys but we will get money enough for all the demands of the mission. I have never had a fear on that head ; a little exertion will do wonders; and past experience justifies every confidence. Men we only want ; and God shall find them for us in due time. “Is brother Fountain arrived? We hope he will be an acceptable remittance, and, viva voce, compensate for the lack of epistolary communications. “I rejoice in contemplating a church of our Lord Jesus Christ in Bengal, formed upon his own plan. Why do not the Hindoo converts join it ! Lord, help their unbe- lief! But perhaps the drop is now withheld that you may by and by have the shower, and lift up your eyes and say, “These, whence came they 3 They fly as clouds, or as doves to their widows.” For three years, we read of few baptized by the first disciples of our Lord ; but, on the fourth, three thousand, and five thousand, openly avowed him. The Lord send you such another Pentecost “I intend to write my dear brother a long letter. It will prove my desire to gratify him, if it do no more. I wish that I knew in what communications your other cor- respondents will be most deficient; then I would try to supply their omissions. “I will begin with myself: but I have nothing good to say. I think I am the most vile, ungrateful servant that ever Jesus Christ employed in his church. At some times, I question whether I ever knew the grace of God in truth ; and at others I hesitate on the most important points of Christian faith. I have lately had peculiar struggles of this kind with my own heart, and have often half con- cluded to speak no more in the name of the Lord. When I am preparing for the pulpit, I fear I am going to avow fables for facts, and doctrines of men for the truths of God. In conversation I am obliged to be silent, lest my tongue should belie my heart. In prayer I know not what to say, and at times think prayer altogether useless. Yet I can- not wholly surrender my hope, or my profession.—Three things I find, above all others, tend to my preservation :- First, A recollection of a time when, at once, I was brought to abandon the practice of sins which the fear of damma- tion could never bring me to relinquish before. Surely, I say, this must be the finger of God, according to the Scrip- ture doctrine of regeneration :-Secondly, I feel such a consciousness of guilt, that nothing but the gospel scheme can satisfy my mind respecting the hope of salvation:- Thirdly, I see that what true devotion does appear in the world seems only to be found among those to whom Christ is precious. - - “But I frequently find a backwardness to secret prayer, and much deadness in it ; and it puzzles me to see how this can be consistent with a life of grace. However, I resolve, that, let what will become of me, I will do all I can for God while I live, and leave the rest to him ; and this I usually experience to be the best way to be at peace. EXTRACTS FROM CORRESPONDENCE. 775 “I believe, that if I were more fully given up to God, I should be free from these distressing workings of mind; and then I long to be a missionary, where I should have temptations to nothing but to abound in the work of the Lord, and lay myself entirely out for him. In such a situation, I think, pride would have but little food, and faith more occasion for exercise ; so that the spiritual life and inward religion would thrive better than they do now. “At times, indeed, I do feel, I trust, genuine contri- tion, and sincerely lament my short-comings before God. Oh the sweets that accompany true repentance | Yes, I love to be abased before God. “There it is I find my blessing.” May the Lord daily and hourly bring me low, and keep me so. “As to my public work, I find, whilst engaged in it, little cause to complain for want either of matter or words. My labours are acceptable and not altogether unprofitable to the hearers; but what is this to me, if my own soul starve whilst others are fed by me? O my brother, I need your prayers; and I feel a great satisfaction in the hope that you do not forget me. Oh that I may be kept faithful unto death ! Indeed, in the midst of my strug- glings, a gleam of hope that I shall at last awake in the likeness of God affords me greater joy than words can ex- press. To be with Christ is far better than to continue sinning here; but if the Lord hath any thing to do by me, His will be done. “I have never so fully opened my case to any one before. Your freedom on similar topics encourages me to make my complaint to you, and I think if you were near me I should feel great relief in revealing to you all my heart. But I shall fatigue you with my moanings, so I will have done on this subject. “It is not long since I returned from a kind of mission to Ireland. A. society is established in Dublin for the purpose of inviting from England ministers of various denominations to assist in promoting the interest of the kingdom of Christ there. Some of our Baptist brethren had been there before me, as Rippon, Langdon, Francis, and Birt; and I think the plan is calculated for useful- ness. I have, at Dr. Rippon's request, sent him some remarks on my visit for the Register, but as it is proba- ble you will receive this before that comes to hand, I will say something of my excursion here. “Having engaged to spend six Lord’s days in that kingdom, I arrived there the day before the first sabbath in June. I first made myself acquainted with the general state of religion in Dublin. I found there were four Presbyterian congregations ; two of these belong to the southern presbytery, and are Arians or Socinians; the other two are connected with the northern presbytery, and retain the Westminster confession of faith. One of these latter congregations is very small, and the minister, though orthodox, appears to have but little success. The other is large and flourishing; the place of worship is ninety feet by seventy, and in a morning well filled. Their times of public service are at half-past eleven and five. In the afternoon the stated congregations are small indeed ; for five o'clock is the usual dining-hour in Dub- lin, and few of the hearers would leave their dinners for the gospel. Dr. M'Dowal is the senior pastor of this church—a very affectionate, spiritual man. The junior is Mr. Horner. The Doctor is a warm friend to the Society at whose request I went over to Ireland. “There is one congregation of Burgher seceders, and another of Antiburghers. The latter will not hear any man who is not of their own cast; the former are much more liberal: , I preached for them once, and they affec- tionately solicited a repetition of my services. “Lady Huntingdon’s connexion has one society here the only one in the kingdom, perhaps, except at Sligo. where there is another. It is not large, and i fear rather declining. There is not one Independent church in the Whole kingdom. There were ten Baptist societies in Ireland; but they are now reduced to six; and are, I fear still on the decline. y “The inhabitants of Dublin seem to be chiefly composed of two classes; the one assumes the appearance of opu- lence, the other exhibits marks of the most abject poverty; and as there are no parishes in Ireland which provide for \ the poor, many die every year for want of the common necessaries of life. “Most of the rich are by profession protestants; the poor are nearly all papists, and strongly prejudiced against the Reformed religion. Their ignorance and superstition are scarcely inferior to your miserable Hindoos. On Midsummer day I had an affecting proof of the latter. On the public road, about a mile from Dublin, is a well, which was once included in the precincts of a priory dedi- cated to St. John of Jerusalem. This well is in high repute for curing a number of bodily complaints, and its virtues are said to be the most efficacious on the saint's own day. So from twelve o’clock at night, for twenty-four hours, it becomes the rendezvous for all the lame, blind, and other- wise diseased people, within a circuit of twenty miles. Here they brought old and young, and applied the ‘holy water’ both internally and externally ; some by pouring, some by immersion, and all by drinking : whilst, for the good of those who could not attend in person, their friends filled bottles with the efficacious water to use at home. Several I saw on their knees before the well at their de- votions, which were not unfrequently interrupted with a glass of whiskey. With this they were supplied from a number of dealers in that article, who kept standings all round the well. “Near to the spot was a church-yard, were great num- bers kneeled upon the tombs of their deceased relatives, and appeared earnestly engaged in praying for the repose of their souls. “It was truly a lamentable sight. My heart ached at their delusions, whilst I felt gratitude I hope unfeigned for an acquaintance with the ‘water of life, of which if a man drink he shall live for ever !” “There are few or none of the middle class to connect the rich and the poor, so that favourable access to them is far more difficult than to the lower orders of the people in England; and their priests hold them in such bondage, that if a catholic servant only attend on family-worship in a pro- testant house, penance must be performed for the offence.” Mention has already been made of his having “formed a pleasing acquaintance with several serious young gentle- men of the university of Dublin.”* The following letter was addressed to one of them, the Rev. Mr. Matthias, a few months after his return :— “DEAR BROTHER MATTHIAs, “I have been employed this whole day in writing let- ters to Dublin ; and it is the first day I have been able to redeem for that purpose. I will not consume a page in apology. Let it suffice to say that necessity, not disinclin- ation, has detained from my Irish friends those proofs of my gratitude and esteem which in other circumstances I ought to have presented three months ago. I thought this morning of answering all their demands before I slept ; but I have written so many sheets, and all full, that I find my eyes and my fingers both fail; and I be- lieve this must close my intercourse with Dublin this day. When I shall be able to complete my purpose I do not know. To form friendships with good men is pleasant ; but to maintain all that communion which friendship ex- pects is in some cases very difficult. Happy should I be could I meet my Irish friends in propria persona, instead of sitting in solitude, and maintaining, by the tedious medium of the pen, this distant intercourse. But “the Lord he shall choose our inheritance for us.” Were all the planets of our system embodied and placed in close association, the light would be greater and the object grander ; but then usefulness and systematic beauty con- sist in their dispersion ; and what are we, my brother, but so many satellites to Jesus, the great Sun of the Christian system 3 Some, indeed, like burning Mercu- ries, keep nearer the luminary, and receive more of its light and heat, whilst others, like the ringed planet, or the Georgium Sidus, preserve a greater distance, and re- flect a greater portion of his light; yet if, amidst all this diversity, they belong to the system, two things may be affirmed of all :-all keep true to one centre, and borrow * Page 772. 776 MEMOIRS OF MIR. PEAR CE. whatever light they have from one source. True it is, that the further they are from the sun, the longer are they in performing their revolutions: and is not this exemplified in us? The closer we keep to Jesus, the more brilliant are our graces; the more cheerful and active are our lives: but, alas ! we are all comets; we all move in eccentric or- bits: at one time glowing beneath the ray Divine, at an- other congealing and freezing into icicles. “Oh what a miracle to man is man ’ “Little did I think when I begun this letter that I should thus have indulged myself in allegory: but true friendship, I believe, always dictates extempore ; and my friends must never expect from me a studied epistle. They can meet with better thoughts than I can furnish them with, in any bookseller's shop. It is not the dish, however well it may be cooked, that gives the relish, but the sweet sauce of friendship ; and this I think sometimes makes even nonsense palatable. “But I have some questions to put to you :—first, how are all my college friends, Messrs. Walker, Maturin, Ha- milton, &c. 2 How is their health But, chiefly, how are the interests of religion among you ? Are there any pray- ing students added to your number 3 Do all those you thought well of continue to justify their profession ? You know what it is that interests me. Pray tell me all, whether it makes me weep or rejoice. “I hope Mr. H–’s ministry was blessed in Dublin. Do you know any instances of it? We must sow in hope, and I trust that we shall all gather fruit to eternal life, even where the buddings have never appeared to us in this world. How is it with your own soul? I thank God, I never, I think, rejoiced habitually so much in him as I have done of late. “God is love.” That makes me happy. I rejoice that God reigns; that he reigns over all ; that he reigns over me ; over my crosses, my comforts, my family, my friends, my senses, my mental powers, my designs, my words, my preaching, my conduct; that he is God over all, blessed for ever. I am willing to live, yet I long to die, to be freed from all error and all sin. I have nothing else to trouble me ; no other cross to carry. The sun shines without all day long ; but I am sensible of internal dark- ness. Well, through grace it shall be all light by and by. Yes, you and I shall be angels of light; all Mercuries then; all near the Sun; always in motion ; always glowing with zeal, and flaming with love. Oh for the new heavens and the new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness! “Oh what love and concord there, And what sweet harmony In heaven above, where happy souls Adore thy majesty I Qh how the heavenly choirs all sing To him who sits enthroned abovel What admiring ! And aspiring ! Still desiring : Oh how I long to taste this feast of love l’ “Will you tell brother M- that I wait an opportunity of sending a parcel to him $ In that I will enclose a let- ter. My very affectionate respects to him and Mr. H––, and all my college friends as though named. If you be not weary of such an eccentric correspondent, pray do not be long ere you write to your unworthy but affectionate brother in Christ,--S. P.” Awhile after this, he thus writes to his friend Mr. Sum- In erS :- “December, 1796. I rejoice that you have been sup- ported under and brought through your late trials. I do not wonder at it ; for it is no more than God has promised: and though we may well wonder that he promises any thing, yet his performance is no just ground of surprise : and when we find ourselves so employed, we had better turn our wonder to our own unbelief, that for one moment suspected God would not be as good as his word. “I have been lately more than ever delighted with the thought that God hath engaged to do any thing for such worms as we. I never studied the deistical controversy so much, nor ever rejoiced in revelation more. Alas! what should we know if God had not condescended to teach us? Paul very justly remarks, that no one knoweth any thing of God, but the Spirit of God, and he to whom the Spirit revealeth him. Now the Spirit hath revealed God in the Bible; but to an unbeliever the Bible is a sealed book. He can know nothing from a book that he looks upon as an imposture, and yet there is no other book in which God is revealed: so that to reject the Bible is to immerse our- selves in darkness, and, whilst professing to be wise, act- ually to become fools: whereas no sooner do we believe what the Spirit saith, than unto us is God revealed, and in his light do we see light.” To the above may be added a few extracts of letters which he addressed to his friends in 1797 and 1798. To DR. RYLAND. March, 1797. “During the last three weeks I have, at times, been very poorly, with colds, &c. Am better now, and have been all along assisted in going through ‘my public duties. Let us continue to pray for each other till death makes it a need- less service. How uncertain is life, and what a blessing is death to a saint ; I seem lately to feel a kind of affection for death. Methinks if it were visible I could embrace it. * Welcome herald, that bids the prisoner be free ; that an- nounces the dawn of everlasting day; that bids the re- deemed come to Zion with everlasting joy, to be beyond the reach of an erroneous judgment and a depraved heart.” To believe, to feel, to speak, to act exactly as God will have me; to be wholly absorbed and taken up with him ; this, nothing short of this, can make my bliss complete. But all this is mine. Oh the height, the depth, the length, the breadth of redeeming love! It conquers my heart, and constrains me to yield myself a living sacrifice, acceptable to God, through Jesus Christ.— My dear brother, we have had many happy meetings on earth : the best is in TeServe, *No heart upon earth can conceive The bliss that in heaven they share; Then who this dark world would not leave, And cheerfully die to be there 't' “Oh how full of love, and joy, and praise shall we be when that happy state is ours : Well, yet a little while, and He that shall come will come. Even so, come, Lord Jesus ! My dear brother, forgive the hasty effusions of a heart that loves you in the bowels of Jesus, and is always happy in testifying itself to be affectionately yours, S. P.” To M.R. CAVE, On the falling away of some who had promised fair in religion. , 1797. “I thank you, my dear brother, for the confidence you repose in me, the affection you have for me, and the free- dom with which you write to me. Assure yourself that I sincerely sympathize in the cutting events which you have lately experienced. Trying indeed Your heart must bleed. Yet be not discouraged in your work. The more Satan opposes Christ, the more let us oppose him. He comes with great violence because his time is short. His kingdom is on the decline; his strong holds are besieged, and he knows they must soon be taken. Whilst it lasts, he is making desperate sallies on the armies of the Lamb. It is no great wonder that he fights and wounds a raw re- cruit now and then, who strays from the camp, and, thoughtless of the danger, keeps not close by the Captain's tent. I hope our glorious Leader will heal the wounded, and rescue the captive. He is sure to make reprisals. Christ will have ten to one. You will yet see his arm made bare. He shall go forth like a man of war. The prisoners shall be redeemed, and the old tyrant shall be cast into the bottomless pit. Be of good cheer, my fellow soldier. The cause is not ours, but God’s. Let us endure hardness, and still fight the good fight of faith. At last we shall come off conquerors through him who hath loved us. “I hope you have some causes for joy as well as grief. I trust though one, or two, or three fall, the tens and the twenties stand their ground. Oh do what you can to cheer them under the common trial. Let them not see a faint heart in you. Fight manfully still. Tell them to watch the more ; to pray the harder; to walk the closer with God. So out of the eater shall come forth meat, and Sweetness out of the strong.” EXTRACTS FROM CORRESPONDENCE. 777 To M.R. BATES AND MRs. BARNES, Who had been burnt out of their residence. “The many expressions of Christian friendship which I received from you, and your affectionate families, during my late visit to London, will often excite grateful recol- lection in future, as they have almost daily since I parted from you; and though I do not write this avowedly as a mere letter of acknowledgment, yet I wish it to assure you that I am not forgetful of my friends, nor unthankful for their kindness. May all the favour you show to the servants of our common Lord, for his sake, be amply re- compensed in present peace, and future felicity, when the promise of Him who cannot lie shall be fulfilled,—‘A cup of cold water given to a disciple, in the name of a disciple, shall not lose its reward.” “But whilst you, my dear friends, live “in hope of the glory' that remains ‘to be revealed,” I am persuaded that you expect all as the fruit of sovereign mercy, which first forms us to the mind of Christ, then accepts, and then re- wards. Truly, if sinners be rewarded, it must be ‘of grace, and not of debt.” Yet it is a mercy of unspeakable magnitude that grace should establish a connexion be- tween obedience and enjoyment, such a connexion as at once insures joy to the believer, and glory to Christ. “Oh that our thoughts, our affections, our desires, may be much in heaven . Here, you have been taught, is ‘no continuing city,” no certain place of abode; and though you have been taught it awfully in flames, yet if you learn it effectually, the terror of the means will be conquered by the excellency and glory of the consequences. Yes, my friends, ‘in heaven we have a better and enduring sub- stance : " the apartments there are more spacious ; the society more sweet; the enjoyments more perfect; and all to last for ever. Well may Christians ‘rejoice in hope of the glory of God!’ To M.R. AND MRs. Bowy ER, PALL MALL. Nov. 17, 1797. “Blessed be “the Preserver of men’ for all his goodness to dear Mr. and Mrs. B . With theirs shall my gra- titude also ascend, whilst separated from their society; and with theirs shall it more warmly and permanently ascend, when we meet to form a part of the ‘general as- sembly, and church of the first-born.” “I do not return to London this autumn, but I mean to visit Portsmouth. I must be indebted to you for my directions. We shall be very happy to see you at Luke Street; but Wales I suppose will be the vortex that will swallow up much of your time. Well, so you are happy, we must be disinterested enough to be satisfied, although we be denied a personal participation. “Let us not forget that we are Christians; and Chris- tians profess a hope of a better country than Cambria contains. There we all belong. Already citizens by pri- vilege, we shall be so by possession soon. * Roll swifter round, ye wheels of time, And bring the welcome day l’ “In hope of greeting you both in that good land, I re- main most affectionately yours, S. P.” To DR. RYLAND. Nov. 17, 1797. “I feel much for you in relation both to the duties and trials of your present situation; at the same time I bless God who fixed you in it, because I am persuaded that it will be for his glory in the churches of Christ. And though none but those whose hands are full of religious concerns can guess at your difficulties, yet our blessed Redeemer knows them all. O my brother, you are tra- vailing for him who redeemed you by his blood, who sympathizes with you, and who will graciously crown you at last. Small as my trials are, I would turn Smith, and work at the anvil and the forge, rather than bear them for any other master than Christ. Yet, were they ten thousand times as many as they are, the thought of their being for Him, I trust, would sweeten them all. “I have reason to be very thankful for much pleasure of late, both as a Christian and a minister. I have never felt so deeply my need of a Divine Redeemer, and seldom possessed such solid confidence that he is mine. I want more and more to become a little child, to dwindle into nothing in my own esteem, to renounce my own wisdom, power, and goodness, and simply look to and live upon JESUs for all. I am ashamed that 1 have so much pride, so much self-will. O my Saviour ! make me ‘meek and lowly in heart;’ in this alone I find “rest to my soul.” “I could say much of what Immanuel has done for my soul; but I fear lest even this should savour of vanity. When shall I be like my Lord? Oh welcome death, when I have nothing more to do for Christ . To him, till then, may I live every day and every hour. Rather may I be annihilated than not live to him. “You will rejoice with me to hear that we have a pleasing prospect as a church. Several very hopeful and some very valuable characters are about to join us. Lord, carry on thy work 1" To MRs. PEARCE, On the dangerous illness of one of the children. “Portsmouth, Jan. 29, 1798. “Ignorant of the circumstances of our dear child, how shall I address myself to her dearer mother? With a fluttering heart, and a trembling hand, I, in this uncer- tainty, resume my pen. One consideration tranquillizes my mind,-I and mine are in the hands of God; the wise, the good, the indulgent Parent of mankind Whatever he does is best. I am prepared for all his will, and hope that I shall never have a feeling whose language is not, ‘Thy will be done.” “I am most kindly entertained here by Mr. and Mrs. Shoveller; and, except my dear Sarah’s presence, feel my- self at home. They have had greater trials than we can at present know. They have attended seven children to the gloomy tomb; they have been supported beneath their loss by Him who hath said, “As thy days, so shall thy strength be.’ Mrs. S. tells me she “blessed God for all.” May my dear Sarah be enabled to do the same, whatever the result may prove. To-morrow I expect another letter from you ; yet, lest you should too much feel my absence, I will not delay forwarding this a single post. Oh that it may prove in some degree a messenger of consolation : “Yesterday I preached three times: God was very good. I received your letter before the first service : you may be assured that I bore you on my heart in the presence of my Lord and yours ; nor shall I pray in vain : He will either restore the child, or support you under the loss of it. I dare not pray with importunity for any earthly good; for ‘who knoweth what is good for man in this life, all the days of his vain life, which he spendeth as a shadow 3’ But strength to bear the loss of earthly comforts he has promised: for that I importune ; and that, I doubt not, will be granted. “In a house directly opposite to the window before which I now write, a wife, a mother, is just departed : Why am I not a bereaved husband 3 Why are not my children motherless? When we compare our condition with our wishes, we often complain ; but if we compare it with that of many around us, our complaints will be ex- changed for gratitude and praise.” To R. Bowy ER, Esq. - “Feb. 14, 1798. “Not a day has hurried by, since I parted with my dear friends in Pall Mall, but they have been in my affectionate remembrance ; but, not being able to speak with any sa- tisfaction respecting our dear child, I have withheld my- self from imparting new anxieties to bosoms already alive to painful sensibility. “At length, however, a gracious God puts it in my power to say that there is hope. After languishing be- tween life and death for many days, she now seems to amend. We flatter ourselves that she has passed the crisis, and will yet be restored to our arms; but parental fears forbid too strong a confidence. It may be that our most merciful God saw that the shock of a sudden removal would be too strong for the tender feelings of a mother; 778 MEMOIRS OF MR. PEARCE. and so by degrees prepares for the stroke which must fall at last. However, she is in the best hands, and we are, I hope, preparing for submission to whatever may be the blessed will of God. “I was brought home in safety, and feel myself in much better health in consequence of my journey. Oh that it may be all consecrated to my Redeemer’s praise ! “Happy should I be if I could oftener enjoy your friendly society; but we must wait for the full accomplish- ment of our social wishes till we come to that better world for which Divine grace is preparing us.-There our best, our brightest hopes, and there our warmest affections must be found. Could we have all we want below, we should be reluctant to ascend, when Jesus calls us home. No, this is not our rest ; it is polluted with sin, and dashed with sorrow : but though our pains in themselves are evil, yet our God turns the curse into a blessing, and makes all that we meet with accomplish our good. “What better can I wish, my friends, than the humble place of Mary, or the happy rest of John Faith can enjoy them both, till actually we fall at the Saviour's feet, and lean upon his bosom, when we see him as he is. “Oh the delights, the heavenly joys, The glories of the place, Where Jesus sheds the brightest beams Of his o'erflowing grace l’” CHAPTER IV. AN ACCOUNT OF HIS LAST AFFLICTION, AND THE HOLY AND HAPPY EXERCISES OF HIS MIND UNDER IT. EARLY in October, 1798, Mr. Pearce attended at the Ket- tering ministers’ meeting, and preached from Psal. xc. 16, 17, “Let thy work appear unto thy servants, and thy glory unto their children. And let the beauty of the Lord our God be upon us: and establish thou the work of our hands upon us; yea, the work of our hands estab- lish thou it.” He was observed to be singularly solemn and affectionate in that discourse. If he had known it to be the last time that he should address his brethren in that part of the country, he could scarcely have felt or spoken in a more interesting manner. It was a discourse full of instruction, full of a holy unction, and that seemed to breathe an apostolical ardour. On his return, he preached at Market-Harborough ; and riding home the next day in company with his friend Mr. Summers, of London, they were overtaken with rain. Mr. Pearce was wet through his clothes, and towards evening complained of a chilliness. A slight hoarseness followed. He preached several times after this, which brought on an inflammation, and issued in a consumption. It is probable that if his constitution had not been previously impaired, such effects might not have followed in this instance. His own ideas on this subject are expressed in a letter to Dr. Ryland, dated Dec. 4, 1798; and in another to Mr. King, dated from Bristol, on his way to Plymouth, March 30, 1799. In the former, he says, “Ever since my Christmas journey last year to Sheepshead, Nottingham, and Leicester, on the mission business, I have found my constitution greatly debilitated, in consequence of a cold caught after the unusual exertions which circumstances then demanded : so that, from a frame that could endure any weather, I have since been too tender to encounter a single shower with- out danger; and the duties of the Lord's day, which, as far as bodily strength went, I could perform with little fatigue, have since frequently overcome me. But the severe cold I caught in my return from the last Kettering ministers’ meeting has affected me so much that I have sometimes concluded I must give up preaching entirely; for though my head and spirits are better than for two years past, yet my stomach is so very weak that I cannot pray in my family without frequent pauses for breath, and in the pulpit it is labour and agony which must be felt to be conceived of. I have however made shift to preach sometimes thrice, but mostly only twice on a Lord’s day, till the last, when the morning sermon only, though I delivered it with great pleasure of mind, and with as much caution as to my voice as possible, yet cost me so much labour as threw me into a fever till the next day, and prevented my sleeping all night.”—In the latter,-he thus writes:—“Should my life be spared, I and my family, and all my connexions, will stand indebted, under God, to you. Unsuspecting of danger myself, I believe I should have gone on with my exertions, till the grave had re- ceived me. Your attention sent Mr. B. (the apothecary) to me, and then I first learned what I have since been in- creasingly convinced of—that I was rapidly destroying the vital principle. And the kind interest you have taken in my welfare ever since has often drawn the grateful tear from my eye. May the God of heaven and earth reward your kindness to his unworthy servant, and save you from all the evils from which your distinguished friendship would have saved me !” Such were his ideas. His labours were certainly abund- ant; perhaps too great for his constitution : but it is probable that nothing was more injurious to his health than a frequent exposure to night air, and an inattention to the necessity of changing damp clothes. Hitherto we have seen in Mr. Pearce the active, assidu- ous, and laborious servant of Jesus Christ ; but now we see him laid aside from his work, wasting away by slow degrees, patiently enduring the will of God, and cheerfully waiting for his dissolution. And as here is but little to narrate, I shall content myself with copying his letters, or extracts from them, to his friends, in the order of time in which they were written, only now and then dropping a few hints to furnish the reader with the occasions of some of them. To DR. RYLAND. Birmingham, Oct. 8, 1798. “O my dear brother, your letter of the 5th, which I received this morning, has made me thankful for all my pulpit agonies, as they enable me to weep with a weeping brother. They have been of use to me in other respects; particularly in teaching me the importance of attaining and maintaining that spirituality and pious ardour in which I have found the most effectual relief; so that on the whole I must try to “glory in tribulations also.’ I trust 1 often can when the conflict is past ; but to glory “in” them, especially in mental distress—hic labor, hoc opus est. “But how often has it been found that when ministers have felt themselves most embarrassed the most effectual good has been done to the people ! Oh for hearts entirely resigned to the will of God | “How happy should I be could I always enjoy the sympathies of a brother who is tried in these points as I of late have been l’’ To M.R. FULLER. “Birmingham, Oct. 29, 1798. “I caught a violent cold in returning from our last committee-meeting, from which I have not yet recovered. A little thing now affects my constitution, which I once judged would be weather and labour proof for at least thirty years, if I lived so long. I thank God that I am not debilitated by iniquity. I have lately met with an occurrence which occasioned me much pain and perplex- ity . . . . Trials soften our hearts, and make us more fully prize the dear few into whose faithful, sympathizing bosoms we can with confidence pour our sorrows. I think I should bless God for my afflictions, if they produced no other fruit than these—the tenderness they inspire, and the friend- ships they capacitate us to enjoy. Pray, my dear brother, for yours affectionately,–S. P.” To a young man, who had applied to him for advice how he should best improve his time, previous to his going to the Bristol Academy :— “MY DEAR M., “Birmingham, Nov. 13, 1798. “I can only confess my regret at not replying to yours at a much earlier period, and assure you that the delay has been accidental, and not designed. I felt the importance of your request for advice—I was sensible it deserved j CORRESPONDENCE DURING LAST ILLNESS. 779 some consideration before it was answered.—I was full of business at the moment—I put it by, and it was forgot- ten ; and now it is too late. The time of your going to Bristol draws migh. If, instead of an opinion respecting the best way of occupying your time before you go, you will accept a little counsel during your continuance there, I shall be happy at any time to contribute such a mite as my experience and observation have put in my power. “At present, the following rules appear of so much moment, that, were I to resume a place in any literary establishment, I would religiously adopt them as the standard of my conduct :—First, I would cultivate a spirit of habitual devotion. Warm piety connected with my studies, especially at my entrance upon them, would not only assist me in forming a judgment on their respective importance, and secure the blessing of God upon them ; but would so cement the religious feeling with the literary pursuit, as that it might abide with me for life. The habit of uniting these, being once formed, would, I hope, be never lost; and I am sure that, without this, I shall both pursue trivial and unworthy objects, and those that are worthy I shall pursue for a wrong end.—Secondly, I would determine on a uniform submission to the instruc- tions of my preceptor, and study those things which would give him pleasure. If he be not wiser than I am, for what purpose do I come under his care? I accepted the pe- cuniary help of the Society on condition of conforming to its will; and it is the Society’s will that my tutor should govern me. My example will have influence: let me not, by a single act of disobedience, or by a word that impli- cates dissatisfaction, sow the seeds of discord in the bosoms of my companions.—Thirdly, I would pray and strive for the power of self-government, to form no plan, to utter not a word, to take no step, under the mere influence of passion. Let my judgment be often asked, and let me always give it time to answer. Let me always guard against a light or trifling spirit; and particularly as I shall be amongst a number of youths whose years will incline them all to the same frailty.—Fourthly, I would in all my weekly and daily pursuits observe the strictest order. Always let me act by a plan. Let every hour have its proper pursuit; from which let nothing but a settled con- viction that I can employ it to better advantage ever cause me to deviate. Let me have fixed time for prayer, medi- tation, reading, languages, correspondence, recreation, sleep, &c.—Fifthly, I would not only assign to every hour its proper pursuit; but what I did I would try to do with all my might. The hours at such a place are precious be- yond conception, till the student enters on life’s busy scenes. Let me set the best of my class ever before me, and strive to be better than they. In humility and dili- gence, let me aim to be the first.—Sixthly, I would par- ticularly avoid a versatile habit. In all things I would persevere. Without this, I may be a gaudy butterfly; but never, like the bee, will my hive bear examining. Whatever I take in hand, let me first be sure I understand it, then duly consider it, and, if it be good, let me adopt and use it. “To these, my dear brother, let me add three or four things more minute, but which, I am persuaded, will help you much-Guard against a large acquaintance while you are a student. Bristol friendship, while you sustain that character, will prove a vile thief, and rob you of many an invaluable hour.—Get two or three of the students, whose Piety you most approve, to meet for one hour in a week for experimental conversation and mutual prayer. I found this highly beneficial, though, strange to telí, by some we were persecuted for our practice — Reep a diary. Once a week at furthest call yourself to an account. What ad- vances you have made in your different studies ; in di- vinity, history, language, natural philosophy, style, arrange- ment; and, amidst all, do not forget to inquire, Am I more fit to serve and to enjoy God than I was last week?” On Dec. 2, 1798, he delivered his last sermon. The subject was taken from Dan. X. 19, “O man greatly be- loved, fear not; peace be unto thee, be strong, yea, be strong. And when he had spoken unto me, I was strengthened, and said, Let my lord speak; for thou hast strengthened me.” -“Amongst all the Old Testament saints,” said he, in his introduction to that discourse, “there is not one whose virtues were more, and whose imperfections were fewer, than those of Daniel. By the history given of him in this book, which yet seems not to be complete, he ap- pears to have excelled among the excellent.” Doubtless, no one was further from his thoughts than himself: seve- ral of his friends, however, could not help applying it to him, and that with a painful apprehension of what follow- ed soon after. To M.R. CAVE, LEICESTER. “Birmingham, Dec. 4, 1798. “. . . . . . Blessed be God, my mind is calm ; and though my body be weakness itself, my spirits are good, and I can write as well as ever, though I can hardly speak two sentences without a pause. All is well, brother all is well, for time and eternity. My soul rejoices in the everlasting covenant ordered in all things and sure. Peace from our dear Lord Jesus be with your spirit, as it is (yea, more also) with your affectionate brother—S. P.” To M.R. NICHOLs, NoTTINGHAM. “Birmingham, Dec. 10, 1798. “I am now quite laid by from preaching, and am so reduced in my internal strength that I can hardly con- verse with a friend for five minutes without losing my breath. Indeed, I have been so ill that I thought the next ascent would be, not to a pulpit, but to a throne— the throne of glory. Yes, indeed, my friend, the religion of Jesus will support when flesh and heart fail ; and, in my worst state of body, my soul was filled with joy. I am now getting a little better, though but very slowly. But fast or slow, or as it may, the Lord doth all things Well.” To R. Bow YER, Esq. G6 I have overdone myself in preaching. I am now ordered to lie by, and not even to converse, without great care; nor indeed, till to-day, have I for some time been able to utter a sentence without a painful effort. Blessed be God! I have been filled all through my afflic- tion with peace and joy in believing; and at one time, when I thought I was entering the valley of death, the prospect beyond was so full of glory, that, but for the sorrow it would have occasioned to some who would be left be- hind, I should have longed that moment to have mounted to the skies. O my friend, what a mercy that I am not receiving the wages of sin ; that my health has not been impaired by vice; but that, on the contrary, I am bearing in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus / To him be all the praise! Truly, I have proved that God is faithful ; and most cheerfully would I take double the affliction for one half of the joy and sweetness which have attended it. Accept a sermon which is this day published.” “ To M.R. BATES AND MIRs. BARNES, MINORIES. “Birmingham, Dec. 14, 1798. “. . . . . . . I could tell you much of the Lord’s good- ness during my affliction. Truly ‘ his right hand hath been under my head, and his left embraced me.’ And when I was at the worst, especially, and expected ere long to have done with time, even them, such holy joy, such in- effable sweetness filled my soul, that I would not have exchanged that situation for any besides heaven itself. “O my dear friends, let us live to Christ, and lay ourselves wholly out for him whilst we live ; and them, when health and life forsake us, he will be the strength of our heart, and our portion for ever.” About this time the congregation at Cannon Street was supplied for several months by Mr. Ward, who has since gone as a missionary to India. Here that amiable young man became intimately acquainted with Mr. Pearce, and conceived a most affectionate esteem for him. In a letter to a friend, dated Jan. 5, 1799, he writes as follows:– * The last but one he ever preached, entitled, MoTIVES TO GRATI- TUDE. It was delivered on the day of national thanksgiving, and print- ed at the request of his own congregation. 780 MEMOIRS OF MR. PEAR CE. “I am happy in the company of dear brother Pearce. I have seen more of God in him than in any other person I ever knew. Oh how happy should I be to live and die with him . When well, he preaches three times on a Lord’s day, and two or three times in the week besides. He instructs the young people in the principles of religion, natural philosophy, astronomy, &c. They have a benevo- lent society, from the funds of which they distribute forty or fifty pounds a year to the poor of the congregation. They have a sick society for visiting the afflicted in general; a book society at chapel; a Lord’s day school, at which more than two hundred children are instructed. Add to this, missionary business, visiting the people, an extensive correspondence, two volumes of mission history preparing for the press, &c.; and then you will see something of the soul of Pearce. He is every where venerated, though but a young man; and all the kind, tender, gentle affections make him as a little child at the feet of his Saviour.— W. W.” In February, he rode to the opening of a Baptist meet- ing-house at Bedworth ; but did not engage in any of the services. Here several of his brethren saw him for the last time. Soon afterwards, writing to the compiler of these Memoirs, he says, “The Lord's day after I came home I tried to speak a little after sermon. It inflamed my lungs afresh, produced phlegm, coughing, and spitting of blood. Perhaps I may never preach more. Well, the Lord’s will be done. I thank him that he ever took me into his service ; and now, if he see fit to give me a discharge, I submit.” During the above meeting a word was dropped by one of his brethren which he took as a reflection, though no- thing was further from the intention of the speaker. It wrought upon his mind; and in a few days he wrote as follows:—“Do you remember what passed at B º Had I not been accustomed to receive plain, friendly re- marks from you, I should have thought you meant to in- sinuate a reproof. If you did, tell me plainly. If you did not, it is all at an end. You will not take my naming it unkindly, although I should be mistaken ; such affection- ate explanations are necessary, when suspicions arise, to the preservation of friendship; and I need not say that I hold the preservation of your friendship in no small ac- count.” The above is copied, not only to set forth the spirit and conduct of Mr. Pearce in a case wherein he felt himself aggrieved, but to show in how easy and amiable a manner thousands of mistakes might be rectified, and differences prevented, by a frank and timely explanation. To M.R. CoMFIELD, NoFTHAMPTON. “Birmingham, March 4, 1799. “I could wish my sympathies to be as extensive as human—I was going to say (and why not ?) as animal misery. The very limited comprehension of the human intelligence forbids this indeed, and whilst I am attempt- ing to participate as far as the news of affliction reaches me, I find the same events do not often produce equal feel- ings. We measure our sympathies, not by the causes of sorrow, but by the sensibilities of the sorrowful; hence I abound in feeling on your account. The situation of your family must have given distress to a president of any cha- racter; but in you it must have produced agonies. I know the tenderness of your heart: your feelings are delicately strong. You must feel much, or nothing; and he that knows you, and does not feel much when you feel, must be a brute. “May the fountain of mercy supply you with the cheer- ing stream. May your sorrow be turned into joy. “I am sure that I ought to value more than ever your friendship for me. You have remembered me, not merely in my affliction, but in your own. Our friendship, our benevolence, must never be compared with that of Jesus; but it is truly delightful to see the disciple treading, though at a humble distance, in the footsteps of a Master, who, amidst the tortures of crucifixion, exercised forgiveness to his murderers, and the tenderness of filial piety to a dis- consolate mother . When we realize the scene, how much do our imaginations embrace—the persons—the circum- stances—the words—‘Woman, behold thy son ; John, behold thy mother l’” By the above letter, the reader will perceive that, while deeply afflicted himself, he felt in the tenderest manner for the afflictions of others. To M.R. FULLER. “JMarch 23, 1799.” He was now setting out for Plymouth; and after ob- serving the great danger he was supposed to be in, with respect to a consumption, he adds,-‘‘But thanks be to God, who giveth my heart the victory, let my poor body be consumed, or preserved. In the thought of leaving, I feel a momentary gloom ; but in the thought of going, a heavenly triumph. “Oh to grace how great a debtorſ’ “Praise God with me, and for me, my dear brother, and let us not mind dying any more than sleeping. No, no ; let every Christian sing the loudest as he gets the nearest to the presence of his God. Eternally yours in Him who hath washed us both in his blood, S. P.” To M.R. MEDLEY, LonDon. “March 23, 1799. “My affliction has been rendered sweet by the supports and smiles of Him whom I have served in the gospel of his Son. He hath delivered, he doth deliver, and I trust that he will yet deliver. Living or dying, all is well for ever. Oh waat shall I render to the Lord!” It seems that, in order to avoid wounding Mrs. P.’s feelings, he deferred the settlement of his affairs till he arrived at Bristol; whence he wrote to his friend, Mr. Ring, requesting him to become an executor. Receiving a favourable answer, he replied as follows:– “Bristol, April 6, 1799. “Your letter, just received, affected me too much, with feelings both of sympathy and gratitude, to remain un- answered a single post. Most heartily do I thank you for accepting a service which friendship alone can render agreeable in the most simple cases. Should that service demand your activities at an early period, may no unfore- seen occurrence increase the necessary care But may the Father of the fatherless, and Judge of the widows, send you a recompence into your own bosom, equal to all that friendship to which, under God, I have been so much in- debted in life, and reposing on whose bosom, even death itself loses a part of its gloom. In you, my children will find another father—in you, my wife another husband. Your tenderness will sympathize with the one, under the most distressing sensibilities; and your prudent counsels be a guide to the others, through the unknown mazes of inexperienced youth. Enough blessed God! my soul prostrates, and adores thee for such a friend.” To M.R. FullLER. “Plymouth, April 18, 1799. “The last time that I wrote to you was at the close of a letter sent to you by brother Ryland. I did not like that postscript form ; it looked so card-like as to make me fear that you would deem it unbrotherly. After all, perhaps, you thought nothing about it; and my anxieties might arise only from my weakness, which seems to be con- stantly increasing my sensibilities. If ever I felt love in its tenderness for my friends, it has been since my afflic- tion. This, in a great measure, is no more than the love of ‘publicans and harlots, who love those that love them.' I never conceived myself by a hundred degrees so interested in the regards of my friends, as this season of affliction has manifested I was ; and therefore, so far from claiming any ‘reward’ for loving them in return, I should account my- self a monster of ingratitude were it otherwise. Yet there is something in affliction itself, which, by increasing the delicacy of our feelings, and detaching our thoughts from CORRESPONDENCE DURING LAST II.LNESS. 781 the usual round of objects which present themselves to the mind when in a state of health, may be easily conceived to make us susceptible of stronger and more permanent im- pressions of an affectionate nature. “I heard at Bristol that you and your friends had re- membered me in your prayers, at Kettering. Whether the Lord whom we serve may see fit to answer your petitions on my account, or not, may they at least be returned into your own bosoms. - “For the sake of others I should be happy could I as- sure you that my health was improving. As to myself, I thank God that I am not without a desire to depart, and to be with Christ, which is far better. I find that neither in sickness, nor in health, I can be so much as I wish like Him whom I love. ‘To die is gain : * oh to gain that state, those feelings, that character, which perfectly accord with the mind of Christ, and are attended with the full persuasion of his complete and everlasting approbation I want no heaven but this ; and, to gain this, most gladly would I this moment expire. But if to abide in the flesh be more needful for an individual of my fellow men, Lord, let thy will be done; only let Christ be magnified by me, whether in life or death ! “The weather has been so wet and windy since I have been at Plymouth, that I could not reasonably expect to be much better; and I cannot say that I am much worse. All the future is uncertain. Professional men encourage me ; but frequent returns appear, and occasional discharges of blood check my expectations. If I speak but for two minutes, my breast feels as sore as though it were scraped with a rough-edged razor; so that I am mute all the day long, and have actually learned to converse with my sister by means of our fingers. “I thank you for yours of April 4th, which I did not receive till the 12th, the day that I arrived at Plymouth. On the 16th, a copy of yours to brother Ryland came to hand, to which I should have replied yesterday, but had not leisure. I am happy and thankful for your success. May the Lord himself pilot the ‘Criterion’ safely to Cal- cutta river. “ Unless the Lord work a miracle for me, I am sure that I shall not be able to attend the Olney meeting. It is to my feelings a severe anticipation ; but how can I be a Christian, and not submit to God?” To M.R. W.M. WARD. “Plymouth, April 22, 1799. “Most affectionately do I thank you for your letter, so full of information and of friendship. To our common Friend, who is gone into heaven, where he ever sitteth at the right hand of God for us, I commend you. Whether I die, or live, God will take care of you till he has ripened you for the common salvation. Then shall I meet my dear brother Ward again; and who can tell how much more interesting our intercourse in heaven will be made by the scenes that most distress our poor spirits here ? Oh, had I none to live for, I had rather die than live, that I may be at once like Him whom I love. But while he insures me grace, why should I regret the delay of glory? No: I will wait his will who performeth all things for me. “My dear brother, had I strength. I should rejoice to acquaint you with the wrestlings and the victories, the hopes and the fears, the pleasures and the pangs, which I have lately experienced. But I must forbear. All I can now say is that, God hath done me much good by all, and made me very thankful for all he has done. “Alas! I shall see you no more. I cannot be at Olney on the 7th of May. The journey would be my death. But the Lord whom you serve will be with you then, and for ever. My love to all the dear assembled Saints, who will give you their benedictions at that solemn season.” To DR. RYLAND. “WERY DEAR BROTHER, “Plymouth, April 24, 1799. “My health is in much the same state as when I wrote last, excepting that my muscular strength rather increases, and my powers of speaking seem less and less every week. I have, for the most part, spoken only in whispers for se- veral days past ; and even these seem too much for my ir- ritable lungs. My father asked me a question to-day ; he did not understand me when I whispered ; so I was obliged to utter one word, and one word only, a little louder, and that brought on a soreness, which I expect to feel till bed- time. “I am still looking out for fine weather; all here is cold and rainy. We have had but two or three fair and warm days since I have been here; then I felt better. I am per- fectly at a loss even to guess what the Lord means to do with me; but I desire to commit my ways to him, and be at peace. I am going to-day about five miles into the country, (to Tamerton,) where I shall await the will of God concerning me. “I knew not of any committee-meeting of our Society to be held respecting Mr. Marshman and his wife. I have therefore sent no vote, and, indeed, it is my happiness that I have full confidence in my brethren, at this important crisis, since close thinking, or much writing, always in- creases my fever, and promotes my complaint. “My dear brother, I hope you will correspond much with Kettering. I used to be a medium ; but God has put me out of the way. I could weep that I can serve him no more; and yet I fear some would be tears of pride. Oh for perfect likeness to my humble Lord!” To M.R. KING. “ Tamerton, May 2, 1799. “. . . . Give my love to all the dear people at Cannon Street. O pray that He who afflicts would give me pa- tience to endure. Indeed, the state of suspense in which I have been kept so long requires much of it; and I often exclaim, ere I am aware, O my dear people ! O my dear family when shall I be restored to you again 3 The Lord forgive all the sin of my desires . At times I feel a sweet and perfect calm, and wish ever to live under the in- fluence of a belief in the goodness of God, and of all his plans, and all his works.” The reader has seen how much he regretted being ab- sent from the solemn designation of the missionaries at Olney. He, however, addressed the following lines to Mr. Fuller, which were read at the close of that meeting, to the dissolving of nearly the whole assembly in tears :- “ Tamerton, May 2, 1799. “. . . . Oh that the Lord, who is unconfined by place or condition, may copiously pour out upon you all the rich effusions of his Holy Spirit on the approaching day ! My most hearty love to each missionary who may then encircle the throne of grace. Happy men Happy women You are going to be fellow labourers with Christ himself! I congratulate—I almost envy you ; yet I love you, and can scarcely now forbear dropping a tear of love as each of your names passes across my mind. Oh what promises are yours; and what a reward Surely heaven is filled with double joy, and resounds with unusual acclamations, at the arrival of each missionary there. O be faithful, my dear brethren, my dear sisters, be faithful unto death, and all this joy is yours! Long as I live, my imagination will be hovering over you in Bengal; and, should I die, if separate spirits be allowed a visit to the world they have left, me- thinks mine would soon be at Mudnabatty, watching your labours, your conflicts, and your pleasures, whilst you are always abounding in the work of the Lord.” To DR. RYLAND. “MY DEAR BROTHER, “Plymouth, May 14, 1799. “Yours of the 11th instant I have just received, and thank you for your continued concern for your poor um- worthy brother. “I have suffered much in my health since I wrote to you last, by the increase of my feverish complaint, which filled me with heat and horror all night, and in the day sometimes almost suffocated me with the violence of its paroxysms. I am extremely weak; and now that warm weather, which I came into Devon to seek, I dread as much as the cold, because it excites the fever. I am happy 782 MEMOIRS OF MIR. PEAR CE. however in the Lord. I have not a wish to live or die, but as he pleases. I truly enjoy the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, and would not be without his Divine atone- ment, whereon to rest my soul, for ten thousand worlds. I feel quite weaned from earth, and all things in it. Death has lost his sting, the grave its horrors, and the attractions of heaven, I had almost said, are sometimes violent. “Oh to grace how great a debtor l’ “But I am wearied. May all grace abound towards my dear brother, and his affectionate—S. P.” To THE CHURCH IN CANNoN STREET. “Plymouth, May 31, 1799. “To the dear people of my charge, the flock of Christ, assembling in Cannon Street, Birmingham, their afflicted but affectionate pastor, presents his love in Christ Jesus, the great Shepherd of the sheep. “MY DEAREST, DEAREST FRIENDS AND BRETHREN, “Separated as I have been a long time from you, and during that time of separation having suffered much both in body and mind, yet my heart has still been with you, participating in your sorrows, uniting in your prayers, and rejoicing with you in the hope of that glory to which Di- vine faithfulness has engaged to bring us, and for which our heavenly Father, by all his providences and by every operation of his Holy Spirit, is daily preparing us. “Never, my dear brethren, did I so much rejoice in our being made ‘partakers of the heavenly calling” as during my late afflictions. The sweet thoughts of glory, where I shall meet my dear Lord Jesus, with all his redeemed ones, perfectly freed from all that sin which now burdens us and makes us groan from day to day,+this transports my soul, Whilst out of weakness I am made strong, and at times am enabled to glory even in my bodily infirmities, that the power of Christ, in supporting when flesh and heart fail, may the more evidently rest upon me. O my dear bre- thren and sisters, let me, as one alive almost from the dead, let me exhort you to stand fast in that blessed gospel which for ten years I have now preached among you—the gospel of the grace of God; the gospel of God; the gospel of free, full, everlasting salvation, founded on the sufferings and death of God manifest in the flesh. Look much at this all-amazing scene ! ‘Behold ! a God descends and dies To save my soul from gaping hell;’ and then say, whether any poor broken-hearted sinner need be afraid to venture his hopes of salvation on such a sacrifice; especially since He who is thus : mighty to save’ hath said that ‘whosoever cometh to him he will in no wise cast out.’ You, beloved, who have found the peace- speaking virtue of this blood of atonement, must not be satisfied with what you have already known or enjoyed. The only way to be constantly happy, and constantly pre- Pºred for the most awful changes which we must all expe- rience, is, to be constantly looking and coming to a dying Saviour; renouncing all our own worthiness; cleaving to the loving Jesus as dur all in all; giving up every thing, however valuable to our worldly interests, that clashes with our fidelity to Christ; begging that of his fulness we may receive ‘grace upon grace,” whilst our faith actually relies on his power and faithfulness, for the full accomplishment of every promise in his word that we plead with him; and guarding against every thing that might for a moment bring distance and darkness between your souls and your precious Lord. If you thus live, (and oh that you may daily receive fresh life from Christ so to do ) the peace of God will keep your hearts and minds,’ and you will be filled with “joy unspeakable and full of glory.' “As a church, you cannot conceive what pleasure I have enjoyed in hearing that you are in peace, that you attend prayer-meetings, that you seem to be stirred up of late for the honour and prosperity of religion. Go on in these good ways, my beloved friends, and assuredly the God of peace will be with you. Yea, if after all I should be taken entirely from you, yet God will surely visit you, and never leave you, nor forsake you. “As to my health, I seem on the whole to be still mending, though but very slowly. The fever troubles me often, both by day and night, but my strength increases. I long to see your faces in the flesh; yea, when I thought myself near the gates of the grave, I wished, if it were the Lord’s will, to depart among those whom I so much loved. But I am in good hands, and all must be right. “I thank both you and the congregation most affection- ately for all the kindness you have shown respecting me and my family during my absence. The Lord return it a thousand-fold ! My love to every one, both old and young, rich and poor, as though named. The Lord bless to your edification the occasional ministry which you enjoy. I hope you regularly attend upon it, and keep together, as ‘the horses in Pharaoh’s chariot.’ I pray much for you; pray, still pray, for your very affectionate, though unworthy, pastor.” In a postscript to Mr. King, he says, “I have made an effort to write this letter: my affections would take no denial; but it has brought on the fever.” Towards the latter end of May, when Mr. Ward and his companions were just ready to set sail, a consultation con- cerning Mr. Pearce was held on board the Criterion, in which all the missionaries and some of the members of the Baptist Missionary Society were present. It was well known that he had for several years been engaged in pre- paring materials for a “History of Missions,” to be com- prised in two volumes octavo ; and as the sending of the gospel amongst the heathen had so deeply occupied his heart, considerable expectations had been formed by re- ligious people of his producing an interesting work on the subject. The question now was, Could not this perform- ance be finished by other hands, and the profits of it be appropriated to the benefit of Mr. Pearce's family 3 It was admitted by all that this work would, partly from its own merits, and partly from the great interest which the author justly possessed in the public esteem, be very pro- ductive ; and that it would be a delicate and proper method of enabling the religious public, by subscribing liberally to it, to afford substantial assistance to the family of this ex- cellent man. The result was, that one of the members of the Society addressed a letter to Mr. Pearce's relations at Plymouth, requesting them to consult him, as he should be able to bear it, respecting the state of his manuscripts, and to inquire whether they were in a condition to admit of being finished by another hand; desiring them also to assure him, for his present relief concerning his dear family, that whatever the hand of friendship could effect on their behalf should be accomplished. The answer, though it left no manner of hope as to the accomplishment of the object, yet is so expressive of the reigning dispositions of the writer’s heart, as an affectionate husband, a tender father, a grateful friend, and a sincere Christian, that it cannot be uninteresting to the reader :— “Tamerton, June 24, 1799. “To use the common introduction of “dear brother’ would fall so far short of my feelings towards a friend whose uniform conduct has ever laid so great a claim to my affection and gratitude, but whose recent kindness— kindness in adversity—kindness to my wife—kindness to my children—kindness that would go far to “smooth the bed of death,’ has overwhelmed my whole soul in tender thankfulness, and engaged my everlasting esteem. I know not how to begin . . . . Thought is poor, and poor expres- sion.” The only thing that lay heavy on my heart, when in the nearest prospect of eternity, was the future situation of my family. I had but a comparatively small portion to leave behind me, and yet that little was the all that an amiable woman,—delicately brought up,and, through mercy, for the most part comfortably provided for since she enter- ed on domestic life, with five babes to feed, clothe, and educate, had to subsist on. Ah, what a prospect ; Hard and long I strove to realize the promises made to the widows and the fatherless ; but these alone I could not fully rest on and enjoy. For my own part, God was in- deed very gracious. I was willing, I hope, to linger in suffering, if I might thereby most glorify him ; and death was an angel whom I longed to come and embrace me, “cold’ as his embraces are ; but how could I leave those CORRESPONDENCE DURING LAST ILLNESS. 783 who were dearest to my heart in the midst of a world in which although thousands now professed friendship for me, and, on my account, for mine; yet, after my decease, would, with few exceptions, soon forget my widow and my children, among the crowds of the needy, and dis- tressed.—It was at this moment of painful sensibility that gour heart meditated a plan to remove my anxieties—a plan too that would involve much personal labour before it could be accomplished. ‘Blessed be God who put it into thy heart, and blessed be thou.” May the blessing of the widow and the fatherless rest on you and yours for ever. Amen and amen “You will regret perhaps that I have taken up so much respecting yourself; but I have scarcely gratified the sha- dow of my wishes. Excuse then, on the one hand, that I have said so much ; and accept, on the other, what re- mains unexpressed. “My affections and desires are among my dear people at Birmingham; and, unless I find my strength increase here, I purpose to set out for that place in the course of a fortnight, or at most a month. The journey, performed by short stages, may do me good; if not, I expect when the winter comes to sleep in peace 1 and it will delight my soul to see them once more before I die. Besides, I have many little arrangements to make among my books and papers, to prevent confusion after my decease. Indeed, till I get home, I cannot fully answer your kind letter; but I fear that my materials consist so much in references which none but myself would understand, that a second person could not take it up and prosecute it. I am still equally indebted to you for a proposal so generous, so laborious. “Rejoice with me that the blessed gospel still “bears my spirits up.’ I am become familiar with the thoughts of dying. I have taken my leave often of the world, and, thanks be to God, I do it always with tranquillity, and often with rapture. Oh what grace, what grace it was that ever called me to be a Christian | What would have been my present feelings if I were going to meet God with all the filth and load of my sin about me ! But God in my nature hath put my sin away, taught me to love him, and long for his appearing. O my dear brother, how consonant is everlasting praise with such a great salvation | * After this, another letter was addressed to Mr. Pearce, informing him more particularly that the above proposal did not originate with an individual, but with several of the brethren who dearly loved him, and had consulted on the business ; and that it was no more than an act of justice to one who had spent his life in serving the public; also requesting him to give directions by which his manu- scripts might be found and examined, lest he should be taken away before his arrival at Birmingham. To this he answered as follows:– “Plymouth, July 6, 1799. “I need not repeat the growing sense I have of your kindness, and yet I know not how to forbear. “I cannot direct Mr. K. to all my papers, as many of them are in books from which I was making extracts; and if I could, I am persuaded that they are in a state too confused, incorrect, and unfinished, to suffer you or any other friend to realize your kind intentions. “I have possessed a tenacious memory. I have begun 9ne, part of the history; read the necessary books; re- flected ; arranged; written perhaps the introduction, and then trusting to my recollection, with a revisal of the books as I should want them, have employed myself in getting materials for another part, &c. Thus, till my illness, the Volumes existed in my head—my books were at hand, and I was on the eve of writing them out, when it pleased God to make me pause; and as close thinking has been strongly forbidden me, I dare say that were i again restored to health I should find it necessary to go over much of my former reading to refresh my memory. “It is now Saturday. On Monday next we purpose setting out on our return, May the Lord prosper our way ! Accept the sincere affection, and the ten thousand thanks, of your brother in the Lord, S. P.” As the manuscripts were found to be in such a state that no person, except the author himself, could finish them, the design was necessarily dropped. The public mind, however, was deeply impressed with Mr. Pearce’s worth; and that which the friendship of a few could not effect has since been amply accomplished by the liberal exertions of many. To M.R. BIRT. “Birmingham, July 26, 1799. “It is not with common feelings that I begin a letter to you. Your name brings so many interesting circum- stances of my life before me, in which your friendship has been so uniformly and eminently displayed, that now, amidst the imbecilities of sickness and the serious prospect of another world, my heart is overwhelmed with gratitude, whilst it glows with affection,--an affection which eternity shall not annihilate, but improve. “We reached Bristol on the Friday after we parted from you, having suited our progress to my strength and spirits. We staid with Bristol friends till Monday, when we pursued our journey, and went comfortably on till the uncommonly rough road from Tewkesbury to Evesham quite jaded me; and I have not yet recovered from the excessive fatigue of that miserable ride. At Alcester we rested a day and a half; and, through the abundant good- ness of God, we safely arrived at Birmingham on Friday evening, the 19th of July. “I feel an undisturbed tranquillity of soul, and am cheerfully waiting the will of God. My voice is gone, so that I cannot whisper without pain; and of this circum- stance I am at times most ready to complain. For, to see my dear and amiable Sarah look at me, and then at the children, and at length bathe her face in tears, with- out my being able to say one kind word of comfort, - Oh . . . . Yet the Lord supports me under this also ; and I trust will support me to the end.” To MR, ROCK. “July 28, 1799. “. . . . I am now to all appearance within a few steps of eternity. In Christ I am safe. In him I am happy. I trust we shall meet in heaven.” To R. Bowy ER, Esq. “Birmingham, Aug. 1, 1799. “Much disappointed that I am not released from this world of sin, and put in possession of the pleasures en- joyed by the spirits of just men made perfect, I once more address my dear fellow heirs of that glory which, ere long, shall be revealed to us all. “We returned from Devon last Friday week. I was exceedingly weak, and for several days afterwards got rapidly worse. My friends compelled me to try another physician. I am still told that I shall recover. Be that as it may, I wish to have my own will annihilated, that the will of the Lord may be done. Through his abundant grace, I have been, and still am, happy in my soul; and I trust my prevailing desire is that, living or dying, I may be the Lord’s.” To R. Bowy ER, Esq. On his having sent him a print of Mr. Schwartz, the missionary on the Malabar coast. * “Birmingham, Aug. 16, 1799. “On three accounts was your last parcel highly ac- ceptable. It represented a man whom I have long been in the habit of loving and revering ; and whose character and labours I intended, if the Lord had not laid his hand upon me by my present illness, to have presented to the public in Europe, as he himself presented them to the millions of Asia.--The execution, bearing so strong a like- ness to the original, heightened its value. And then the hand from whence it came, and the friendship it was in- tended to express, add to its worth.” To M.R. Full ER. “Birmingham, Aug. 19, 1799. “The doctor has been making me worse and weaker 784 MEMOIRS OF MR. PEARCE. for three weeks. In the middle of the last week he spoke confidently of my recovery ; but to-day he has seen fit to alter his plans; and if I do not find a speedy alteration for the better, I must have done with all physicians but Him who “ healeth the broken in heart.” “For some time after I came home, I was led to be- lieve my case to be consumptive ; and then, thinking my- self of a certainty near the kingdom of heaven, I rejoiced hourly in the delightful prospect. “Since then I have been told that I am not in a dan- gerous way; and though I give very little credit to such assertions in this case, yet I have found my mind so taken up with earth again, that I seem as though I had another soul. My spiritual pleasures are greatly interrupted, and some of the most plaintive parts of the most plaintive psalms seem the only true language of my heart. Yet, “Thy will be done,' I trust, prevails; and if it be the Lord's will that I linger long, and suffer much, O let him give me the patience of hope, and still, his will be done!—I can write no more. This is a whole day's work; for it is only after tea that, for a few minutes, I can sit up, and attend to any thing.” From the latter end of August, and all through the month of September, to the 10th of October, the day on which he died, he seems to have been unable to write. He did not, however, lose the exercise of his mental powers ; and though, in the last of the above letters, he complaims of darkness, it appears that he soon recovered that peace and joy in God by which his affliction, and even his life, were distinguished. A little before he died, he was visited by Mr. Medley, of London, with whom he had been particularly intimate on his first coming to Birmingham. Mr. Pearce was much affected at the sight of his friend, and continued silently weeping for nearly ten minutes, holding and press- ing his hand. After this, he spoke, or rather whispered, as follows:– “This sick bed is a Beth-el to me; it is none other than the house of God, and the gate of heaven. I can scarcely express the pleasures that I have enjoyed in this affliction. The nearer I draw to my dissolution, the happier I am. It scarcely can be called an affliction, it is so counterbalanced with joy. You have lost your pious father; tell me how it was.”—Here Mr. Medley informed him of particulars. He wept much at the recital, and especially at hearing of his last words, “Home, home!” Mr. Medley telling him of some temptations he had lately met with, he charged him to keep near to God. “Keep close to God,” said he, “and nothing will hurt Ou ! ” The following letters and narrative were read by Dr. Ryland at the close of his funeral sermon ; and being printed at the end of it, were omitted in some of the for- mer editions of the Memoirs. To DR. RYLAND. “Iłirmingham, Dec. 9, 1798. Jord’s-day Evening. “After a sabbath—such a one I never knew before— spent in an entire seclusion from the house and ordinances of my God, I seek Christian converse with you, in a way in which I am yet permitted to have intercourse with my brethren. The day after I wrote to you last, my medical attendant laid me under the strictest injunctions not to speak again in public for one month at least. He says that my stomach is become so irritable through repeated inflammations, that conversation, unless managed with great caution, would be dangerous ;-that he does not think my present condition alarming, provided I take rest; but, without that, he intimated my life was in great danger. He forbids my exposing myself to the evening air, on any account, and going out of doors, or to the door, unless when the air is dry and clear; so that I am, during the weather we now have in Birmingham, (very foggy,) a complete prisoner ; and the repeated cautions from my dear and affectionate friends, whose solicitude, I conceive, far exceeds the danger, compels me to a rigid observance of the doctor’s rules. “This morning brother Pope took my place ; and, in “MY DEAR BROTHER, the afternoon, Mr. Brewer (who has discovered uncommon tenderness and respect for me and the people, since he knew my state) preached a very affectionate sermon from 1 Sam. iii. 18—“It is the Lord, let him do what seemeth him good.” By what I hear, his sympathizing observa- tions, in relation to the event which occasioned his being then in my pulpit, drew more tears from the people’s eyes than a dozen such poor creatures as their pastor could deserve. But I have, . . . . blessed be God, long had the satisfaction of finding myself embosomed in friendship . . . . the friendship of the people of my charge ; though I lament their love should occasion them a pang . . . . but thus it is . . . . our heavenly Father sees that, for our mixed characters, a mixed state is best. “I anticipated a day of gloom ; but I had unexpected reason to rejoice, that the shadow of death was turned into the joy of the morning; and though I said, with per- haps before unequalled feeling, “How amiable are thy tabernacles yet I found the God of Zion does not neg- lect the dwellings of Jacob. My poor wife was much affected at so novel a thing as leaving me behind her, and so it was a dewy morning ; but the Sun of Righteousness soon arose, and shed such ineffable delight throughout my soul, that I could say, ‘It is good to be here.”—Motive to resignation and gratitude also crowded upon motive, till my judgment was convinced that I ought to rejoice in the Lord exceedingly, and so my whole soul took its fill of joy. May I, if it be my Saviour's will, feel as happy when I come to die. When my poor Sarah lay at the point of death, for some days after her first lying-in, toward the latter days, I enjoyed such support, and felt my will so entirely bowed down to that of God, that I said in my heart, “I shall never fear another trial . . . . He that sustained me amidst this flame will defend me from every spark ' And this confidence I long enjoyed. —But that was nearly six years ago, and I had almost forgotten the land of the Hermonites and the hill Mizar. But the Lord has prepared me to receive a fresh display of his fatherly care, and his (shall I call it 3) punctilious veracity. If I should be raised up again, I shall be able to preach on the faithfulness of God more experimentally than ever. Perhaps some trial is coming on, and I am to be instrumental in preparing them for it; or if not, if I am to depart hence to be no more seen, I know the Lord can carry on his work as well without me as with me. He who redeemed the sheep with his blood will never suffer them to perish for want of shepherding, especially since he himself is the chief Shepherd of souls. . But my family { Ah, there I find my faith but still imperfect. However, I do not think the Lord will ever take me away till he helps me to leave my fatherless children in his hands, and trust my widow also with him. “His love in times past,’ and I may add in times present too, ‘forbids me to think he will leave me at last in trouble to sink.” “Whilst my weakness was gaining ground, I used to ask myself how I could like to be laid by ? I have dreamed that this was the case ; and both awake and asleep I felt as though it were an evil that could not be borne :—but now I find the Lord can fit the back to the burden ; and though I think I love the thought of serving Christ at this moment better than ever, yet he has made me willing to be . . . . nothing, if he please to have it so ; and now my happy heart “could sing itself away to everlasting bliss.” “Oh what a mercy that I have not brought on my af. fliction by serving the devil / What a mercy that I have so many dear sympathizing friends ! What a mercy that I have so much dear domestic comfort | What a mercy that I am in no violent bodily pain What a mercy that I can read and write without doing myself an injury | What a mercy that my animal spirits have all the time this has been coming on (ever since the last Kettering meeting of ministers) been vigorous—free from dejection 1 And, which I reckon among the greatest of this day's privileges, what a mercy that I have been able to employ myself for Christ and his dear cause to-day ; as I have been almost wholly occupied in the concerns of the (I hope) reviving church at Broomsgrove, and the infant church at Cradley ! O my dear brother, it is all mercy; is it not ? O help me then in his praise, for he is good, for his mercy endureth for ever. CORRESPONDENCE DURING LAST ILLNESS. 785 “Ought I to apologize for this experimental chat with you, who have concerns to transact of so much more im: portance than any that are confined to an individual % Forgive me, if I have intruded too much on your time— but do not forget to praise on my behalf a faithful God. I shall now leave room against I have some business to write about—till then adieu-but let us not forget that • this God is our God for ever and ever, and will be our guide even until death.' Amen. Amen. We shall soon meet in heaven.” To M.R. KING. “Plymouth, April 23, 1799. “My DEAR FRIEND AND BROTHER, “I have the satisfaction to inform you that at length my complaint appears to be removed, and that I am by degrees returning to my usual diet, by which, with the Divine blessing, I hope to be again strengthened for the discharge of the duties and the enjoyment of the pleasures which await me among the dear people of my charge. “I am indeed informed, by a medical attendant here, that I shall never be equal to the labours of my past years, and that my return to moderate efforts must be made by slow degrees. As the path of duty, I desire to submit; but, after so long a suspension from serving the Redeemer in his church, my soul pants for usefulness more extensive than ever, and I long to become an apostle to the world. I do not think I ever prized the ministerial work so much as I now do. Two questions have been long before me. The first was, Shall I live or die 3 The second, If I live, how will my life be spent? With regard to the former, my heart answered, ‘It is no matter—all is well—for my own sake, I need not be taught that it is best to be with Christ; but, for the sake of others, it may be best to abide in the body—I am in the Lord’s hands, let him do by me as seemeth him best for me and mine, and for his cause and honour in the world!—But as to the second question, I could hardly reconcile myself to the thoughts of living, unless it were to promote the interest of my Lord ; and if my disorder should so far weaken me as to render me incapable of the ministry, nothing then appeared before me but gloom and darkness. However, I will hope in the Lord, that though he hath chastened me sorely, yet, since he hath not given me over unto death, sparing mercy will be followed with strength, that I may show forth his praise in the land of the living. “I am still exceedingly weak; more so than at any period before I left home, except the first week of my lying by ; but I am getting strength, though slowly. It is im- possible at present to fix any time for my return. It grieves me that the patience of the dear people should be so long tried; but the trial is as great on my part as it can be on theirs, and we must pity and pray for one another. It is now a task for me to write at all, or this should have been longer.” - To M.R. POPE. “Plymouth, May 24, 1799. “l cannot write much—this I believe is the only letter I have written (except to my wife) since I wrote to you last. My complaint has issued in a confirmed, slow, nervous fever; which has wasted my spirits and strength, and taken a great part of the little flesh I had, when in health, away from me. The symptoms have been very threatening, and I have repeatedly thought that, let the physician do what he will, he cannot keep me long from those heavenly joys for which, blessed be God, I have lately been much longing ; and were it not for my dear people and family, I should have earnestly prayed for leave to depart, and to be with Christ, which is so much better than to abide in this vain, suffering, sinning world. “The doctors however mow pronounce my case very hopeful—say there is little or no danger—but that all these complaints require a great deal of time to get rid of. I still feel myself on precarious ground, but quite resigned to the will of him, who, unworthy as I am, continues daily to “fill my soul with joy and peace in believing.” Yes, my dear friend, now my soul feels the value of a free, full, and everlasting salvation—and, what is more, I do enjoy that salvation ; while I rest all my hope on the SoN of GoD in human nature dying on the cross for me. To me now, health or sickness, pain or ease, life or death, are things indifferent. I feel so happy, in being in the hands of infinite love, that when the severest strokes are laid upon me, I receive them with pleasure, because they come from my heavenly Father's hands ! “Oh to grace how great a debtor l’ &c.” To DR. RYLAND. “My VERY DEAR BROTHER, “Birmingham, July 20, 1799. “Your friendly anxieties on my behalf demand the earliest satisfaction. We had a pleasant ride to Newport on the afternoon we left you, and the next day without much fatigue reached Tewkesbury; but the road was so rough from Tewkesbury to Evesham that it wearied and injured me more than all the jolting we had had before put together. However, we reached Alcester on Wednesday evening, stopped there a day to rest, and last night (Friday) were brought safely hither, blessed be God 1 “I find myself getting weaker and weaker, and so my Lord instructs me in his pleasure to remove me soon. You say well, my dear brother, that at such a prospect I ‘ cannot complain.” No, blessed be his dear name who shed his blood for me, he helps me to rejoice at times with joy unspeakable. Now I see the value of the religion of the cross. It is a religion for a dying sinner. It is all the most guilty, the most wretched, can desire. Yes, I taste its sweetness and enjoy its fulness with all the gloom of a dying bed before me. And far rather would I be the poor emaciated and emaciating creature that I am than be an emperor, with every earthly good about him—but without a God . “I was delighted the other day, in re-perusing the Pil- grim’s Progress, to observe that, when Christian came to the top of the hill Difficulty, he was put to sleep in a chamber called Peace. ‘Why how good is the Lord of the way to me !” said I. I have not reached the summit of the hill yet, but, notwithstanding, he puts me to sleep in the chamber of Peace every vight . . . . True, it is often a chamber of pain ; but, let pain be as formidable as it may, it has never yet been able to expel that peace which the great Guardian of Israel has appointed to keep my heart and mind through Christ Jesus. “I have been labouring lately to exercise most love to God when I have been suffering most severely :—but what shall I say? Alas ! too often the sense of pain absorbs every other thought. Yet there have been seasons when I have been affected with such a delightful sense of the loveliness of God as to ravish my soul, and give predomi- nance to the sacred passion.—It was never till to-day that I got any personal instruction from our Lord’s telling Peter by “what death he should glorify God. Oh what a satisfying thought it is that God appoints those means of dissolution whereby he gets most glory to himself. It was the very thing I needed ; for, of all the ways of dying, that which I most dreaded was by a consumption (in which it is now highly probable my disorder will issue). But, O my dear Lord, if by this death I can most glorify thee, I prefer it to all others, and thank thee that by this means thou art hastening my fuller enjoyment of thee in a purer world. “A sinless state ‘O 'tis a heaven worth dying for 1' I cannot realize any thing about heaven, but the presence of Christ and his people, and a perfect deliverance from sin —and I want no more—I am sick of simming—soon I shall be beyond its power. “O joyful hour ! O blest abode : I § be near and like my God l’ “I only thought of filling one side—and now have not left room to thank you and dear Mrs. Ryland for the minute, affectionate, and constant attentions you paid us in Bristol. May the Lord reward you. Our hearty love to all around, till we meet in heaven. Eternally yours in Christ,--S. P.” “Birmingham, Aug. 4, 1799. “MY VERY DEAR BROTHER, Lord’s-day Evening. “Still, I trust, hastening to the land ‘where there shall 3 E 786 MEMOIRS OF MIR. PEAR CE. be no more curse,' I take this opportunity of talking a lit- tle with you on the road, for we are fellow travellers; and a little conversation by the way will not lose me the privi- lege of getting first to the end of my journey. “It is seventeen years within about a week since I first actually set out on my pilgrimage; and when I review the many dangers to which during that time I have been ex- posed, I am filled with conviction that I have all along been the care of Omnipotent love. Ah, how many Pliables, and Timorouses, and Talkatives have I seen, while my quivering heart said, ‘Alas! I shall soon follow these sons of apostacy, prove a disgrace to religion, and have my por- tion with hypocrites at last.” “These fears may have had their uses—may have made me more cautious, more distrustful of myself, and kept me more dependent on the Lord. Thus— “All that I’ve met has worked for my good.’ “With what intricacy to our view, and yet with what actual skill and goodness, does the Lord draw his plans, and mark out our path ! Here we wonder and complain. —Soon we shall all agree that it was a right path to the city of habitation; and what we now most deeply regret shall become the subject of our warmest praises. “I am afraid to come back again to life. Oh how many dangers await me! Perhaps I may be overcome of some fleshly lust—perhaps I may get proud and indolent, and be more of the priest than of the evangelist—surely I re- joice in feeling my outward man decay, and having the sentence of death in myself. Oh what prospects are before me in the blessed world whither I am going ! To be holy as God is holy—to have nothing but holiness in my nature—to be assured, without a doubt, and eternally to carry about this assurance with me, that the pure God looks on me with constant complacency, for ever blesses me, and says, as at the first creation,-‘It is very good.’ I am happy now in hoping in the Divine purposes towards me ; but I know, and the thought is my constant burden, that the Being I love best always sees something in me which he infinitely hates. “O wretched, wretched man that I am l’ The thought even now makes me weep ; and who can help it that seriously reflects he never comes to God, to pray or praise, but he brings what his God detests along with him, carries it with him wherever he goes, and can never get rid of it as long as he lives 4 Come, my dear brother, will you not share my joy and help my praise, that soon I shall leave this body of sin and death behind, to enter on the perfection of my spiritual nature; and patiently to wait till this natural body shall become a spiritual body, and so be a fit vehicle for my immortal and happy spirit. “But I must forbear—I have been very unwell all day; but this evening God has kindly given me a respite—my fever is low and my spirits are cheerful, so I have indulged myself in unbosoming my feelings to my dear friend.” MEMORANDA. Taken down occasionally by Mrs. Pearce, within four or five weeks of * Mr. Pearce’s death. He once said, “I have been in darkness two or three days, crying, Oh when wilt thou comfort me? But last night the mist was taken from me, and the Lord shone in upon my soul. Oh that I could speak | I would tell a world to trust a faithful God. Sweet affliction, now it worketh glory, glory !” Mrs. P. having told him the various exercises of her mind, he replied,—“O trust the Lord: if he lifts up the light of his countenance upon you, as he has done upon me this day, all your mountains will become molehills. I feel your situation, I feel your sorrows; but he who takes care of sparrows will care for you and my dear children.” When scorching with burning fever, he said, “Hot and happy.”—One Lord’s-day morning he said, “ Cheer up, my dear, think how much will be said to-day of the faith- fulness of God. Though we are called to separate, he will never separate from you. I wish I could tell the world what a good and gracious God he is. Never need they who trust in him be afraid of trials. He has promised to ! give strength for the day; that is his promise. Oh what a lovely God! and he is my God and yours. He will never leave us nor forsake us, no never ! I have been thinking that this and that medicine will do me good, but what have I to do with it It is in my Jesus's hands ; he will do it all, and there I leave it. What a mercy is it I have a good bed to lie upon ; you, my dear Sarah, to wait upon me, and friends to pray for me! Oh how thankful should I be for all my pains ! I want for nothing ; all my wishes are anticipated. Oh I have felt the force of those words of David, “Unless thy law (my gracious God ) had been my delights, I should have perished in mine affliction.” Though I am too weak to read it, or hear it, I can think upon it, and oh how good it is . I am in the best hands I could be in ; in the hands of my dear Lord and Saviour, and he will do all things well. Yes, yes, he cannot do wrong.” One morning Mrs. P. asked him how he felt.—“Very ill, but unspeakably happy in the Lord, and my dear Lord Jesus.” Once beholding her grieving, he said, “O my dear Sarah, do not be so anxious, but leave me entirely in the hands of Jesus, and think, if you were as wise as he, you would do the same by me. If he takes me, I shall not be lost; I shall only go a little before : we shall meet again never to part.” After a violent fit of coughing he said, “It is all well. Oh what a good God is he It is done by him, and it must be well.—If I ever recover, I shall pity the sick more than ever; and if I do not, I shall go to sing delivering love; so you see it will be all well. Oh for more patience Well, my God is the God of patience, and he will give me all I need. I rejoice it is in my Jesus's hands to communicate, and it cannot be in better. It is my God who gives me patience to bear all his will.” When, after a restless night, Mrs. P. asked him what she should do for him,-‘‘You can do nothing but pray for me, that I may have patience to bear all my Lord’s will.”—After taking a medicine he said, “If it be the Lord’s will to bless it, for your sake, and for the sake of the dear children . . . . but the Lord’s will be done. Oh I fear I sin, I dishonour God by impatience; but I would not for a thousand worlds sin in a thought if I could avoid it.” Mrs. P. replied, she trusted the Lord would still keep him ; seeing he had brought him thus far, he would not desert him at last. “No, no,” he said, “I hope he will not. As a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear him. Why do I complain 3 My dear Jesus's sufferings were much sorer and more bitter than mine, “And did he thus suffer, and shall I repine 4” No ; I will cheerfully suffer my Father's will.” One morning, after being asked how he felt, he replied, “I have but one severe pain about me; what a mercy Oh how good a God to afford some intervals amidst so much pain . He is altogether good. Jesus lives, my dear, and that must be our consolation.” After taking a medicine which operated very powerfully, he said, “This will make me so much lower; well, let it be. Multiply my pains, thou good God; so thou art but glorified, I care not what I suffer: all is right.” Being asked how he felt after a restless night, he re- plied, “I have so much weakness and pain, I have not had much enjoyment; but I have a full persuasion that the Lord is doing all things well. If it were mot for strong confidence in a lovely God, I must sink; but all is well. O blessed God, I would not love thee less. O support a sinking worm ' 'Oh what a mercy to be assured that all things are working together for good l’’ Mrs. P. saying, If we must part, I trust the separation will not be for ever—“Oh no,” he replied, “we sorrow not as those who have no hope.” She said, Then you can leave me and your dear children with resignation, can you? He answered, “My heart was pierced through with many sorrows, before I could give you and the dear chil- dren up ; but the Lord has heard me say, Thy will be done ; and I now can say (blessed be his dear name !) I have none of my own.” His last day, October 10th, was very happy. repeated this verse, Mrs. P. “Since all that I meet shall work for my good, The bitter is sweet, the med'cine is food; Though painful at present, 'twill cease before long, And then oh how pleasant the conqueror's song !” GENERAL OUTLINES OF HIS CHARACTER. 787 He repeated, with an inexpressible smile, the last line, “The conqueror's song.” He said once, “O my dear! what shall I do? But why do I complain he makes all my bed in my sickness.” She then repeated those lines, “Jesus can make a dying bed Feel soft as downy pillows are.” “Yes,” he replied, “he can, he does, I feel it.” CHAPTER. W. GENERAL OUT LINES OF HIS CHARACTER. To develop the character of any person, it is necessary to determine what was his governing principle. If this can be clearly ascertained, we shall easily account for the tenor of his conduct. The governing principle in Mr. Pearce, beyond all doubt, was Holy LOVE. To mention this is sufficient to prove it to all who knew him. His friends have often compared him to “that dis- ciple whom Jesus loved.” His religion was that of the heart. Almost every thing he saw, or heard, or read, or studied, was converted to the feeding of this Divine flame. Every subject that passed through his hands seemed to have been cast into this mould. Things, that to a merely speculative mind would have furnished matter only for curiosity, to him afforded materials for devotion. His sermons were generally the effusions of his heart, and in- variably aimed at the hearts of his hearers. For the justness of the above remarks I might appeal, not only to the letters which he addressed to his friends, but to those which his friends_addressed to him. It is worthy of notice how much we are influenced in our cor- respondence by the turn of mind of the person we address. If we write to a humorous character, we shall generally find that what we write, perhaps without being conscious of it, will be interspersed with pleasantries; or if to one of a very serious cast, our letters will be more serious than usual. On this principle it has been thought we may form some judgment of our own spirit by the spirit in which our friends address us. These remarks will apply with singular propriety to the correspondence of Mr. Pearce. In looking over the first volume of “Periodical Accounts of the Baptist Mission,” the reader will easily perceive the most affectionate letters from the missionaries are those which are addressed to him. It is not enough to say, of this affectionate spirit, that it formed a prominent feature in his character; it was rather the life-blood that animated the whole system. He seemed, as one of his friends observed, to be baptized in it. It was holy love that gave the tone to his general deportment: as a son, a subject, a neighbour, a Christian, a minister, a pastor, a friend, a husband, and a father, he was manifestly governed by this principle; and this it was that produced in him that lovely uniformity of cha- racter which constitutes the true beauty of holiness. By the grace of God he was what he was ; and to the honour of grace, and not for the glory of a sinful worm, be it recorded. Like all other men, he was the subject of a depraved nature. . He felt it, and lamented it, and ſonged to depart that he might be freed from it; but certainly we have seldom seen a character, taking him altogether “whose excellences were so many and so uniform and whose imperfections were so few” we have seen’. rise high in contemplation, who have abounded but little in action:-We have seen zeal mingled with bitterness. and candour degenerate into indifference; experimental religion mixed with a large portion of enthusiasm; and what is called rational religion void of every thing that interests the heart of man,—We have seen splendid talents tarnished with insufferable pride; seriousness with II] e- lancholy; cheerfulness with levity; and great attainments in religion with uncharitable censoriousness towards men 9f low degree:–but we have not seen these things in our brother Pearce. There have been few men in whom has been united a greater portion of the contemplative and the active—holy zeal and genuine candour—spirituality and rationality— talents that attracted almost universal applause, and yet the most unaffected modesty—faithfulness in bearing tes- timony against evil, with the tenderest compassion to the soul of the evil-doer—fortitude that would encounter any difficulty in the way of duty, without anything boisterous, noisy, or overbearing—deep seriousness, with habitual cheerfulness—and a constant aim to promote the highest degrees of piety in himself and others, with a readiness to hope the best of the lowest; not “breaking the bruised reed,” nor “quenching the smoking flax.” He loved the Divine character as revealed in the Scrip- tures.—To adore God, to contemplate his glorious per- fections, to enjoy his favour, and to submit to his disposal, were his highest delight. “I felt,” says he, “when con- templating the hardships of a missionary life, that were the universe destroyed, and I the only being in it besides God, HE is fully adequate to my complete happiness; and had I been in an African wood, surrounded with venomous serpents, devouring beasts, and savage men, in such a frame, I should be the subject of perfect peace and ex- alted joy. Yes, O my God! thou hast taught me that THou ALONE art worthy of my confidence; and, with this sentiment fixed in my heart, I am freed from all solicitude about my temporal concerns. If thy presence be enjoyed, poverty shall be riches, darkness light, affliction pros- perity, reproach my honour, and fatigue my rest!” He loved the gospel.—The truths which he believed and taught dwelt richly in him, in all wisdom and spiritual understanding. The reader will recollect how he went over the great principles of Christianity, examining the grounds on which he rested, in the first of those days which he devoted to solemn fasting and prayer in reference to his becoming a missionary; * and with what ardent affection he set his seal anew to every part of Divine truth as he went along. If salvation had been of works, few men, according to our way of estimating characters, had a fairer claim ; but, as he himself has related, he could not meet the king of terrors in this armour.f. So far was he from placing any dependence on his own works, that the more he did for God, the less he thought of it in such a way. “All the satisfaction I wish for here,” says he, “is to be doing my heavenly Father’s will. I hope I have found it my meat and drink to do his work; and can set to my seal that the purest pleasures of human life spring from the humble obedience of faith. It is a good saying, “We cannot do “too much for God, nor trust in what we do too little.” I find a growing conviction of the necessity of a free sal- vation. The more I do for God, the less I think of it; and am progressively ashamed that I do no more.” Christ crucified was his darling theme, from first to last. This was the subject on which he dwelt at the outset of his ministry among the Coleford colliers, when “he could scarcely speak for weeping, nor they hear for interrupting sighs and sobs.” This was the burden of the song, when addressing the more polished and crowded audiences at Birmingham, London, and Dublin; this was the grand motive exhibited in sermons for the promotion of public charities ; and this was the rock on which he rested all his hopes, in the prospect of death. It is true, as we have seen, he was shaken for a time, by the writings of a Whitby, and of a Priestley; but this transient hesitation, by the overruling grace of God, tended only to establish him more firmly in the end. “Blessed be his dear name,” says he, under his last affliction, “who shed his blood for me. He helps me to rejoice at times with joy unspeakable. Now I see the value of the religion of the cross. It is a religion for a dying sinner. It is all the most guilty and the most wretched can desire. Yes, I taste its sweetness, and enjoy its fulness, with all the gloom of a dying bed before me ; and far rather would I be the poor emaciated and emaci- ating creature that I am, than be an emperor with every earthly good about him, but without a GoD.” Notwithstanding this, however, there were those in Bir- mingham, and other places, who would not allow that he * See chap. II. p. 768. + Chap. I. p. 763. 3 E 2 788 MEMOIRS OF MIR. PEAR CE. preached the gospel. And if by the gospel were meant the doctrine taught by Mr. Huntington, Mr. Bradford, and others who follow hard after them, it must be granted he did not. If the fall and depravity of man operate to destroy his accountableness to his Creator—if his inability to obey the law, or comply with the gospel, be of such a nature as to excuse him in the neglect of either—or, if not, yet if Christ's coming under the law frees believers from all ob- ligations to obey its precepts—if gospel invitations are ad- dressed only to the regenerate—if the illuminating influ- ences of the Holy Spirit consist in revealing to us the secret purposes of God concerning us, or impressing us with the idea that we are the favourites of Heaven—if believing such impressions be Christian faith, and doubting of their va- lidity unbelief—if there be no such thing as progressive sanctification, nor any sanctification inherent, except that of the illumination before described—if wicked men are not obliged to do any thing beyond what they can find in their hearts to do, nor good men to be holy beyond what they actually are—and if these things constitute the gospel, Mr. Pearce certainly did not preach it. But if a man, whatever be his depravity, be necessarily a free agent, and accountable for all his dispositions and actions—if gospel invitations be addressed to men, not as elect nor as non- elect, but as sinners exposed to the righteous displeasure of God—if Christ’s obedience and death rather increase than diminish our obligations to love God and one another—if faith in Christ be a falling in with God’s way of salvation, and unbelief a falling out with it—if sanctification be a progressive work, and so essential a branch of our salvation as that without it no man shall see the Lord—if the Holy Spirit instruct us in nothing by his illuminating influences but what was already revealed in the Scriptures, and which we should have perceived but for that we loved darkness rather than light—and if he incline us to nothing but what was antecedently right, or to such a spirit as every intelli- gent creature ought at all times to have possessed—then Mr. Pearce did preach the gospel; and that which his ac- cusers call by this name is another gospel, and not the gos- pel of Christ. Moreover, If the doctrine taught by Mr. Pearce be not the gospel of Christ, and that which is taught by the above writers and their adherents be, it may be expected that the effects produced will in some degree correspond with this representation. And is it evident to all men who are ac- quainted with both, and who judge impartially, that the doctrine taught by Mr. Pearce is productive of “ hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, railings, evil surmisings, and perverse disputings; ” that it renders those who em- brace it “lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, false accusers, fierce, despisers of those that are good;’ while that of his adversaries promotes “love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance 3’’. . . . . “why even of yourselves judge we not what is right 2 . . . . ye shall know them by their fruits.” w Mr. Pearce's ideas of preaching human obligation may be seen in the following extract from a letter addressed to a young minister who was sent out of the church of which he was pastor. “You request my thoughts how a minister should preach human obligation. I would reply, do it ex- tensively, do it constantly; but, withal, do it affectionately, and evangelically. I think, considering the general cha- racter of our hearers, and the state of their mental improve- ment, it would be time lost to argue much from the data of natural religion. The best way is perhaps to express duties in Scripture language, and enforce them by evan- gelical motives; as the example of Christ—the end of his sufferings and death—the consciousness of his approbation —the assistance he has promised—the influence of a holy conversation on God's people, and on the people of the world—the small returns we at best can make for the love of Jesus—and the hope of eternal holiness. These form a body of arguments which the most simple may understand, and the most dull may feel. Yet I would not neglect on some occasions to show the obligations of man to love his Creator—the reasonableness of the Divine law—and the natural tendency of its commands to promote our own comfort, the good of society, and the glory of God. These will serve to illuminate, but, after all, it is ‘the gospel of § the grace of God’ that will most effectually animate, and impel to action.” Mr. Pearce’s affection to the doctrine of the cross was not merely, nor principally, on account of its being a sys- tem which secured his own safety. Had this been the case, he might, like others whose religion originates and termi- nates in self-love, have been delighted with the idea of the grace of the Son; but it would have been at the expense of all complacency in the righteous government of the Fa- ther. He might have admired something which he ac- counted the gospel, as saving him from misery ; but he could have discerned no loveliness in the Divine law as being holy, just, and good, nor in the mediation of Christ as doing honour to it. That which in his view constituted the glory of the gospel was, that God is therein revealed as “the just God and the Saviour—just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.” He was a lover of good men.—He was never more in his element than when joining with them in spiritual con- versation, prayer, and praise. His heart was tenderly at- tached to the people of his charge ; and it was one of the bitterest ingredients in his cup during his long affliction to be cut off from their society. When in the neighbourhood of Plymouth, he thus writes to Mr. King, one of the dea- cons, “Give my love to all the dear people. O pray that He who afflicts would give me patience to endure. Indeed the state of suspense in which I have been kept so long requires much of it ; and I often exclaim, ere I am aware, O my dear people ! O my dear family, when shall I return to you again?” He conscientiously dissented from the Church of England, and from every other national estab- lishment of religion, as inconsistent with what he judged the Scriptural account of the nature of Christ's kingdom ; nor was he less conscientious in his rejection of infant bap- tism, considering it as having no foundation in the Holy Scriptures, and as tending to confound the church and the world : yet he embraced with brotherly affection great numbers of godly men both in and out of the establish- ment. His spirit was truly catholic : he loved all who loved our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. “Let us pray,” said he in a letter to a friend, “for the peace of Jerusalem : they shall prosper who love—not this part, or the other, but who love her—that is, the whole body of Christ.” He bore good-will to all mankind.—It was from this principle that he so ardently desired to go and preach the gospel among the heathem. And even under his long af- fliction, when at times he entertained hopes of recovery, he would say, “My soul pants for usefulness more ex- tensive than ever : I long to become an apostle to the world !” The errors and sins of men wrought much in him in a way of pity. He knew that they were culpable in the sight of God; but he knew also that he himself was a sinner, and felt that they were entitled to his compassion. His zeal for the Divinity and atonement of his Saviour never appeared to have operated in a way of unchristian bitterness against those who rejected these important doctrines; and though he was shamefully traduced by professors of another description as a mere legal preacher, and his ministry held up as affording no food for the souls of believers—and though he could not but feel the injury of such misrepresentations, yet he does not appear to have cherished unchristian resentment, but would at any time have laid himself out for the good of his worst enemies. It was his constant endeavour to promote as good an un- derstanding between the different congregations in the town as the nature of their different religious sentiments would admit. The cruel bitterness of many people against Dr. Priestley and his friends, at and after the Birmingham riots, was affecting to his mind. Such methods of op- posing error he abhorred. His regard to mankind made him lament the consequences of war; but while he wish- ed and prayed for peace to the nations, and especially to his native country, he had no idea of turbulently contend- ing for it. Though friendly to civil and religious liberty, he stood aloof from the fire of political contention. In an excellent Circular Letter to the churches of the mid- land association in 1794, of which he was the writer, he thus expresses himself:—“Have as little as possible to do with the world. Meddle not with political controversies. An inordinate pursuit of these, we are sorry to observe, y GENERAL OUTLINES OF HIS CHARACTER. 789 has been as a canker-worm at the root of vital piety; and caused the love of many, formerly zealous professors, to wax cold. ‘The Lord reigneth;’ it is our place to ‘re- joice in his government, and quietly wait for the salvation of God.” The establishment of his kingdom will be the ultimate end of all those national commotions which ter- rify the earth. ‘The wrath of man shall praise him; and the remainder of wrath he will restrain.’ ” From this time, more than ever, he turned his whole attention to the pro- moting of the kingdom of Christ, cherishing and recom- mending a spirit of contentment and gratitude for the civil and religious advantages that we enjoyed. Such were the sentiments inculcated in the last sermon that he printed, and the last but one that he preached. * His dear young friends who are gone to India will never for- get how earnestly he charged them by letter, when con- fined at Plymouth, to conduct themselves in all civil mat- ters as peaceable and obedient subjects to the government under which they lived, in whatever country it might be their lot to reside. It was love that tempered his faithfulness with so large a portion of tender concern for the good of those whose con- duct he was obliged to censure.—He could not bear them that were evil; but would set himself against them with the greatest firmness; yet it was easy to discover the pain of mind with which this necessary part of duty was discharged. It is well remembered how he conducted himself towards certain preachers in the neighbourhood, who, wandering from place to place, corrupted and em- broiled the churches; whose conduct he knew to be as dishonourable as their principles were loose and unscrip- tural ; and, when requested to recite particulars in his own defence, his fear and tenderness for character, his modest reluctance to accuse persons older than himself, and his deep concern that men engaged in the Christian ministry should render such accusations necessary, were each conspicuous, and proved to all present that the work of an accuser was to him a strange work. It was love that earpanded his heart, and prompted him to labour in season and out of season for the salvation of sinners.--This was the spring of that constant stream of activity by which his life was distinguished. His con- science would not suffer him to decline what appeared to be right. “I dare not refuse,” he would say, “lest I should shrink from duty. Unjustifiable ease is worse than the most difficult labours to which duty calls.” To persons who never entered into his views and feelings, some parts of his conduct, especially those which relate to his desire of quitting his country that he might preach the gospel to the heathen, will appear extravagant ; but no man could with greater propriety have adopted the lan- guage of the apostle, “Whether we be beside ourselves, it is to God; or whether we be sober, it is for your cause; for the love of Christ constraineth us.” He was frequently told that his exercises were too great for his strength; but such was the ardour of his heart, “He could not die in a better work.” When he Went up into the pulpit to deliver his last sermon, he thought he should not have been able to get through ; but when he got a little warm, he felt relieved, and forgot his indisposition, preaching with equal fervour and freedom as When in perfect health. While he was laid aside he could not forbear hoping that he should some time re- sume his delightful work; and, knowing the strength of his feelings to be such that it would be unsafe to trust himself, he proposed for a time to write his discourses, that his mind might not be at liberty to overdo his de- bilitated frame. 4?! his counsels, cautions, and reproofs appear to have been the éffect of love.—It was a rule dictated by his heart no less than by his judgment, to discourage all evil speak. ing; nor would he approve of just censure unless some good and necessary end were to be answered by it. Two of his distant friends being at his house together, one of them, during the absence of the other, suggested something tº his disadvantage. He put a stop to the conversatio. by answering, “He is here, take him aside, and tell him of it by himself: you may do him good.” If he perceived any of his acquaintance bewildered in * See p. 779. Note, fruitless speculations, he would in an affectionate manner endeavour to draw off their attention from these mazes of confusion to the simple doctrine of the cross. A specimen of this kind of treatment will be seen in the letter, No. I., towards the close of this chapter. He was affectionate to all, but especially towards the vising generation. The youth of his own congregation, of London, and of Dublin, have not forgot his melting discourses, which were particularly addressed to them. He took much delight in speaking to the children, and would adapt himself to their capacities, and expostulate with them on the things which belonged to their everlast- ing peace. While at Plymouth, he wrote thus to one of his friends, “Oh how should I rejoice, were there a speedy prospect of my returning to my great and little congregations !” Nor was it by preaching only that he sought their eternal welfare : several of his letters are ad- dressed to young persons.—See No. II. and III., towards the close of this chapter. With what joy did he congratulate one of his most in- timate friends, on hearing that three of the younger branches of his family had apparently been brought to take the Redeemer’s yoke upon them —“Thanks, thanks be to God,” said he, “for the enrapturing prospects be- fore you as a father, as a Christian father especially. What three of a family and these three at once : Oh the heights, and depths, and lengths, and breadths of his un- fathomable grace : My soul feels joy unspeakable at the blessed news. Three immortal souls secured for eternal life . Three rational spirits preparing to grace Immanuel's triumphs, and sing his praise | Three examples of virtue and goodness, exhibiting the genuine influence of the true religion of Jesus before the world !—Perhaps three mothers training up to lead three future families in the way to heaven. Oh what a train of blessings do I see in this event! Most sincerely do I participate with my dear friend in his pleasures, and in his gratitude.” Towards the close of life, writing to the same friend, he thus concludes his letter, “Present our love to dear Mrs. S , and the family, especially those whose hearts are engaged to seek the Lord and his goodness. O tell them they will find him good all their lives, supremely good on dying beds, but best of all in glory.” In his visits to the sick he was singularly useful. His sympathetic conversation, affectionate prayers, and endear- ing manner of recommending to them a compassionate Sa- viour, frequently operated as a cordial to their troubled hearts. A young man of his congregation was dangerously ill. His father living at a distance was anxious to hear from him ; and Mr. Pearce, in a letter to the minister on whose preaching the father attended, wrote as follows:– “I feel for the anxiety of Mr. V , and am happy in being at this time a Barnabas to him. I was not seriously alarmed for his son till last Tuesday, when I expected from every symptom, and the language of his apothecary, that he was nigh unto death. But, to our astonishment and joy, a surprising change has since taken place. I saw him yesterday apparently in a fair way of recovery. His mind for the first part of his illness was sometimes joyful, and almost constantly calm ; but, when at the worst, suspicions crowded his mind; he feared he had been a hypocrite. I talked, and prayed, and wept with him. One scene was very affecting : both he and his wife appeared like persons newly awakened. They never felt so strongly the import- ance of religion before. He conversed about the tender- mess of Jesus to broken-hearted sinners; and, whilst we spoke, it seemed as though he came and began to heal the wound. It did me good, and I trust was not unavailing to them. They have since been for the most part happy; and a very pleasant interview I had with them on the past day.” Every man must have his seasons of relaxation. In his earlier years he would take strong bodily exercise. Of late he occasionally employed himself with the microscope, and in making a few philosophical experiments. “We will amuse ourselves with philosophy, said he to a philosophical friend, but Jesus shall be our teacher.” In all these exer- cises he seems never to have lost sight of God; but would be discovering something in his works that should furnish matter for praise and admiration. His mind did not ap- 790 MEMOIRS OF MP, PEAR CE. pear to have been unfitted, but rather assisted by such pursuits, for the discharge of the more spiritual exercises, into which he would fall at a proper season, as into his native element. If in company with his friends, and the conversation turned upon the works of nature, or art, or any other subject of science, he would cheerfully take a part in it, and when occasion required, by some easy and pleasant transition, direct it into another channel. An ingenious friend once showed him a model of a machine which he thought of constructing, and by which he hoped to be able to produce a perpetual motion. Mr. Pearce, having patiently inspected it, discovered where the opera- tion would stop, and pointed it out. His friend was con- vinced, and felt, as may be supposed, rather unpleasant at his disappointment. He consoled him ; and, a prayer- meeting being at hand, said to this effect, “We may learn from hence our own insufficiency, and the glory of that Being who is “wonderful in counsel, and excellent in working :' let us go and worship Him.” IHis mild and gentle disposition, not apt to give or take offence, often won upon persons in matters wherein at first they have shown themselves averse. When collecting for the Baptist mission, a gentleman, who had no knowledge of him, or of the conductors of that undertaking, made some objections on the ground that the Baptists had little or nothing to say to the unconverted. This objection Mr. Pearce attempted to remove, by alleging that the parties concerned in this business were entirely of another mind. “I am glad to hear it,” said the gentleman; “but I have my fears.” “Then pray, sir,” said Mr. Pearce, “do not give till you are satisfied.” “Why, I assure you,” replied the other, “I think the Methodists more likely to succeed than you; and should feel more pleasure in giving them ten guineas, than you one.” “If you give them twenty guineas, sir,” said Mr. Pearce, “we shall rejoice in their success; and if you give us one, I hope it will not be mis- applied.” The gentleman smiled, and gave him four. His figure, to a superficial observer, would, at first sight, convey nothing very interesting; but, on close inspection, his countenance would be acknowledged to be a faithful index to his soul. Calm, placid, and, when in the pulpit especially, full of animation, his appearance was not a little expressive of the interest he felt in the eternal welfare of his audience; his eyes beaming benignity, and speaking in the most impressive language his willingness to impart not only the gospel of God, but his own soul also. His imagination was vivid, and his judgment clear. He relished the elegances of science, and felt alive to the most delicate and refined sentiments; yet these were things on account of which he does not appear to have valued himself. They were rather his amusements than his employment. His address was easy and insinuating; his voice pleasant, but sometimes overstrained in the course of his sermon ; his language chaste, flowing, and inclining to the florid : this last, however, abated as his judgment ripened. His delivery was rather slow than rapid ; his attitude graceful; and his countenance, in almost all his discourses, approach- ing to an affectionate smile. He never appears, however, to have studied what are called the graces of pulpit action; and whatever he had read concerning them, it was mani- fest that he thought nothing of them, or of any other of the ornaments of speech, at the time. Both his action and language were the genuine expressions of an ardent mind, affected, and sometimes deeply, with his subject. Being rather below the common stature, and disregarding, or rather, I might say, disapproving every thing pompous in his appearance, he has upon some occasions been pre-judg- ed to his disadvantage; but the song of the nightingale is not the less melodious for his not appearing in a gaudy plumage. His manner of preparing for the pulpit may be seen in a letter addressed to Mr. C , of L , who was sent out of his church, and which may be of use to others in a similar situation. See No. IV. towards the close of this chapter. His ministry was highly acceptable to persons of educa- tion; but he appears to have been most in his element when preaching to the poor. The feelings which he him- self expresses, when instructing the colliers, appear to have continued with him through life. It was his delight to carry the glad tidings of salvation into the villages wher- ever he could find access and opportunity. And as he sought the good of their souls, so he both laboured and suffered to relieve their temporal wants; living himself in a style of frugality and self-denial, that he might have whereof to give to them that needed. Finally, He possessed a large portion of real happiness.- There are few characters whose enjoyments, both natural and spiritual, have risen to so great a height. He dwelt in love ; and “ he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.” Such a life must needs be happy. If his religion had originated and terminated in self-love, as some contend the whole of religion does, his joys had been not only of a different nature, but far less extensive than they were. His interest was bound up with that of his Lord and Saviour. Its afflictions were his affliction, and its joys his joy. The grand object of his desire was to “see the good of God’s chosen, to rejoice in the gladness of his nation, and to glory with his inheritance.” “What pleasures do those lose,” says he, “who have no interest in God’s gracious and holy cause !”* If an object of joy presented itself to his mind, he would delight in multiplying it by its probable or possible conse- quences. Thus it was, as we have seen, in his congratu- lating his friend on the conversion of three of his children; and thus it was when speaking of a people who divided into two congregations, not from discord, but from an in- crease of numbers; and who generously united in erecting a new and additional place of worship :-‘‘ These liberal souls are subscribing,” said he, “in order to support a re- ligion which, as far as it truly prevails, will render others as liberal as themselves.” His heart was so much formed for social enjoyment, that he seems to have contemplated the heavenly state under this idea with peculiar advantage. This was the leading theme of a discourse from Rev. v. 9–12, which he de- livered at a meeting of ministers at Armsby, April 18, 1797; and of which his brethren retain a lively remem- brance. On this pleasing subject he dwells also in a letter to his dear friend Birt.—“I had much pleasure, a few days since, in meditating on the affectionate language of our Lord to his sorrowful disciples:—‘I go to prepare a place for you.’ What a plenitude of consolation do these words contain what a sweet view of heaven as a place of society / It is one place for us all ; that place where his glorified body is, there all his followers shall assemble, to part no more. Where he is, there we shall be also. O blessed anticipation . There shall be Abel, and all the martyrs; Abraham, and all the patriarchs; Isaiah, and all the prophets; Paul, and all the apostles; Gabriel, and all the angels; and, above all, JESUs, and all his ransomed people Oh to be amongst the number My dear bro- ther, let us be strong in the Lord. Let us realize the bliss before us. Let our faith bring heaven itself near, and feast, and live upon the scene. Oh what a commanding influence would it have upon our thoughts, passions, com- forts, sorrows, words, ministry, prayers, praises, and con- duct. What manner of persons should we be in all holy conversation and godliness ''' In many persons the pleasures imparted by religion are counteracted by a gloomy constitution ; but it was not so in him. In his disposition they met with a friendly soil. Cheerfulness was as natural to him as breathing ; and this spirit, sanctified by the grace of God, gave a tincture to all his thoughts, conversation, and preaching. He was seldom heard without tears; but they were frequently tears of pleasure. No levity, no attempts at wit, no aiming to ex- cite the risibility of an audience, ever disgraced his ser: mons. Religion in him was habitual seriousness, mingled with sacred pleasure, frequently rising into sublime de- light, and occasionally overflowing with transporting joy. LETTERS REFERRED TO IN THIS CHAPTER. No. I. To a young man whose mind he perceived was bewildered with fruit- less speculations. “The conversation we had on our way to so far interested me in your religious feelings, that I find it im- * See the Letter to Dr. Ryland, May 30, 1796, pp. 771, 772. j LETTERS BEFORE REFERRED TO. 791 possible to satisfy my mind till I have expressed my ardent wishes for the happy termination of your late exercises, and contributed my mite to the promotion of your joy in the Lord. A disposition more or less to scepticism,' I believe, is common to our nature, in proportion as opposite systems and jarring opinions, each supported by a plausi- bility of argument, are presented to our minds; and with some qualification I admit Robinson's remark, ‘That he who never doubted never believed.” While examining the grounds of persuasion, it is right for the mind to hesi- tate. Opinions ought not to be prejudged, any more than criminals. Every objection ought to have its weight ; and the more numerous and forcible objections are, the more cause shall we finally have for the triumph, “Magna est veritas et prevalebit; ” but there are two or three consider- ations which have no small weight with me in relation to religious controversies. “The first is, The importance of truth. . It would be endless to write on truth in general. I confine my views to what I deem the leading truth in the New Testament, —The atonement made on behalf of sinners by the Son of God; the doctrine of the cross ; Jesus Christ and him crucifted. It surely cannot be a matter of small concern whether the Creator of all things, out of mere love to re- bellious men, exchanged a throne for a cross, and thereby reconciled a ruined world to God. If this be not true, how can we respect the Bible as an inspired book, which so plainly attributes our salvation to the grace of God, ‘through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus?’ And if we discard the Bible, what can we do with prophecies, miracles, and all the power of evidence on which, as on adamantine pillars, its authority abides 3 Surely the in- fidel has more to reject than the believer to embrace. That book then which we receive, not as the word of man, but as the word of God, not as the religion of our ancestors, but on the invincible conviction which attends an impar- tial investigation of its evidences-—that book reveals a truth of the highest importance to man, consonant to the opinions of the earliest ages and the most enlightened na- tions, perfectly consistent with the Jewish economy as to its spirit and design, altogether adapted to unite the equi- table and merciful perfections of the Deity in the sinner's salvation, and above all things calculated to beget the most established peace, to inspire with the liveliest hope, and to engage the heart and life in habitual devotedness to the interest of morality and piety. Such a doctrine I cannot but venerate; and to the author of such a doctrine my whole soul labours to exhaust itself in praise. “Oh the sweet wonders of the cross, Where God my Saviour loved and died l’ Forgive, my friend, forgive the transport of a soul com- pelled to feel where it attempts only to explore. I cannot on this subject control my passions by the laws of logic. * God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of Christ Jesus my Lord ' ' - “Secondly, I consider man as a depraved creature, so depraved that his judgment is as dark as his appetites are sensual, wholly dependent on God, therefore, for religious light as Well as true devotion, yet such a dupe to pride as to reject every thing which the narrow limits of his com- Prehension cannot embrace, and such a slave to his pas- Sions as to admit no law but self-interest for his govern- ment. With these views of human nature I am persuaded We ought to suspect our own decisions, whenever they oppose truths too sublime for our understandings, or too pure for our lusts. To err on this side, indeed," is hu- man ; ' wherefore the wise man saith, “He that trusteth to his own heart is a fool.' Should therefore the evidence be only equal on the side of the gospel of Christ, I should think with this allowance we should do well to admit it. “Thirdly, If the gospel of Christ be true, it should be heartily embraced. We should yield ourselves to its influ. ence without reserve. ... We must come to a point, and re- solve to be either infidels or Christians. To know the power of the sun we should expose ourselves to his rays; to know the sweetness of honey we must bring it to out. Palates. Speculations will not do in either of these cases, ºugh less will it in matters of religion.— My son,’ saith God, give, me thine heart!’ “Fourthly, A humble admission of the light we already have is the most effectual way to a full conviction of the truth of the doctrine of Christ. ‘If any man will do his will, he shall know of his doctrine whether it be of God.” If we honour God as far as we know his will, he will hon- our us with further discoveries of it. Thus shall we know if we follow on to know the Lord; thus, thus shall you, my dear friend, become assured that there is salvation in no other name than that of Jesus Christ; and thus, from an inward experience of the quickening influences of his Holy Spirit, you will join the admiring church, and say of Jesus, ‘This is my Beloved, this is my Friend; he is the chiefest among ten thousand, he is altogether lovely.” Yes, I yet hope—I expect—to see you rejoicing in Christ Jesus; and appearing as a living witness that he is faithful who hath said—“Seek, and ye shall find; ask, and receive, that your joy may be full.’” In another letter to the same correspondent, after con- gratulating himself that he had discovered such a mode of killing noxious insects as should put them to the least pain, and which was characteristic of the tenderness of his heart, he proceeds as follows: “But enough of nature. How is my brother as a Christian 2 We have had some interest- ing moments in conversation on the methods of grace, that grace whose influence reaches to the day of adversity and the hour of death; seasons when of every thing else it may be said, Miserable comforters are they all ! My dear friend, we will amuse ourselves with philosophy, but Christ shall be our teacher; Christ shall be our glory; Christ shall be our portion. Oh that we may be enabled ‘to comprehend the heights, and depths, and lengths, and breadths, and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge l’” No. II. To a young gentleman of his acquaintance, who was then studying physic at Edinburgh. “Did my dear friend P− know with what sincere affection and serious concern I almost daily think of him, he would need no other evidence of the effect which his last visit and his subsequent letters have produced. Indeed there is not a young man in the world, in earlier life than myself, for whose universal prosperity I am so deeply in- terested. Many circumstances I can trace, on a review of the past fourteen years, which have contributed to beget and augment affection and esteem ; and I can assure you that every interview and every letter still tends to consoli- date my regard. - “Happy should I be if my ability to serve you at this important crisis of human life were equal to your wishes or my own. Your situation demands all the aids which the wisdom and prudence of your friends can afford, that you may be directed not only to the most worthy objects of pursuit, but also to the most effectual means for obtaining them. In your professional character it is impossible for me to give you any assistance. If any general observations I can make should prove at all useful, I shall be richly re- warded for the time I employ in their communication. “I thank you sincerely for the freedom wherewith you have disclosed the peculiarities of your situation, and the views and resolutions wherewith they have inspired you. I can recommend nothing better, my dear friend, than a determined adherence to the purposes you have already formed respecting the intimacies you contract and the as- sociates you choose. In such a place as Edinburgh, it may be supposed, no description of persons will be want- ing. Some so notoriously vicious that their atrocity of character will have no small tendency to confirm your morals, from the odious contrast which their practices pre- sent to your view. Against these therefore I need not caution you. You will flee them as so many serpents, in whose breath is venom and destruction. More danger may be apprehended from those mixed characters, who blend the profession of philosophical refinement with the secret indulgence of those sensual gratifications which at once exhaust the pocket, destroy the health, and debase the character. “That morality is friendly to individual happiness and to social order, no man who respects his own conscience 792 MEMOIRS OF MP. PEAR CE. or character will have the effrontery to deny. Its avenues cannot, therefore, be too sacredly guarded, nor those principles which support a virtuous practice be too seriously maintained. But morality derives, it is true, its best, its only support from the principles of religion. ‘The fear of the Lord,” said the wise man, “is to hate evil.” He therefore who endeavours to weaken the sanctions of re- ligion, to induce a sceptical habit, to detach my thoughts from an ever-present God, and my hopes from a futurity of holy enjoyment, HE is a worse enemy than the man who meets me with the pistol and the dagger. Should my dear friend then fall into the company of those whose friendship cannot be purchased but by the sacrifice of revelation, I hope he will ever think such a price too great for the good opinion of men who blaspheme piety and dishonour God. Deism is indeed the fashion of the day, and, to be in the mode, you must quit the good old path of devotion, as too antiquated for any but monks and hermits: so as you laugh at religion, that is enough to secure to you the company and the applause of the sons of politeness. Oh that God may be a buckler and a shield to defend you from their assaults | Let but their private morals be inquired into, and, if they may have a hearing, I dare engage they will not bear a favourable testimony to the good tendency of scepticism ; and it may be regarded as an indisputable axiom, that what is unfriendly to virtue is unfriendly to man. “Were I to argue a posteriori in favour of truth, I should contend that those principles must be true which, first, corresponded with general observation—secondly, tended to general happiness—thirdly, preserved a uniform connexion between cause and effect, evil and remedy, in all situations. “I would then apply these data to the principles held on the one side by the deists, and on the other by the be- lievers in revelation. In the application of the first, I would refer to the state of human nature. The deist con- tends for its purity and powers. Revelation declares its depravity and weakness. I compare these opposite declar- ations with the facts that fall under constant observation. Do I not see that there is a larger portion of vice in the World than of virtue; that no man needs solicitation to evil, but every man a guard against it ; and that thousands bewail their subjection to lusts which they have not power to subdue, whilst they live in moral slavery, and cannot burst the chain Which principle then shall I admit 3 Will observation countenance the deistical ? I am con- Vinced to the contrary, and must say, I cannot be a deist without becoming a fool ; and, to exalt my reason, I must deny my senses. “I take the second datum, and inquire which tends most to general happiness. To secure happiness, three things are necessary :—objects, means, and motives. The question is, which points out the true source of happiness, which directs to the best means for attaining it, and which fur- mishes me with the most powerful motives to induce my pursuit of it? If I take a deist for my tutor, he tells me that fame is the object, universal accommodation of man- ºvers to interest the means, and self-love the spring of action. Sordid teacher | From him I turn to Jesus. His better voice informs me that the source of felicity is the friend- ship of my God; that love to my Maker, and love to man, expressed in all the noble and amiable effusions of devotion and benevolence, are the means; and that the glory of God, and the happiness of the universe, must be my mo- tives. Blessed Instructor; thy dictates approve themselves to every illuminated conscience, to every pious heart! Do they not, my dear P , approve themselves to yours? “But I will not tire your patience by pursuing these remarks. Little did I think of such amplification when I first took up my pen. Oh that I may have the joy of find- ing that these (at least well meant) endeavours to estab- lish your piety have not been ungraciously received, nor wholly unprofitable to your mind I am encouraged to these effusions of friendship by that amiable self-distrust which your letter expresses,—a temper not only becoming the earlier stages of life, but graceful in all its advancing periods. • The compiler believes this was an answer to Mr. Peter Edwards's Candid Reasons, &c. He knows. Mr. Pearce did write an answer to that performance. By the imposing air of the writer he has acknow- “ Unspeakable satisfaction does it afford me to find that you are conscious of the necessity of ‘first’ seeking assist- ance from Heaven. Retain, my dear friend, this honour- able, this equitable sentiment. “In all thy ways acknow- ledge God, and he shall direct thy paths.” “I hope you will still be cautious in your intimacies. You will gain more by a half-hour's intercourse with God than the friendship of the whole college can impart. Too much acquaintance would be followed with a waste of that precious time on the present improvement of which your future usefulness and respectability in your profession de- pend. Like the bee, you may do best by sipping the sweets of every flower; but remember the sweetest blos- som is not the hive. “P. S. So many books have been published on the same subject as the manuscript which you helped me to copy, that I have not sent it to the press.” + No. III. To a young lady at school, Miss A. H., a daughter of one of the members of his church. “I cannot deny myself the pleasure which this oppor- tunity affords me of expressing the concern I feel for your happiness, arising from the sincerest friendship, a friend- ship which the many amiable qualities you possess, together with the innumerable opportunities I have had of seeing them displayed, have taught me to form and perpetuate. “It affords me inexpressible pleasure to hear that you are so happy in your present situation—a situation in which I rejoice to see you placed, because it is not merely calcu- lated to embellish the manners, but to profit the soul. I hope that my dear Ann, amidst the various pursuits of an ornamental or scientific nature which she may adopt, will not omit that first, that great concern, the dedication of her heart to God. To this, my dear girl, every thing in- vites you that is worthy of your attention. The dignity of a rational and immortal soul, the condition of human nature, the gracious truths and promises of God, the sweetness and usefulness of religion, the comfort it yields in affliction, the security it affords in temptation, the sup- ports it gives in death, and the prospects it opens of life everlasting ; all these considerations, backed with the un- certainty of life, the solemnity of judgment, the terrors of hell, and the calls of conscience and of God, all demand your heart for the blessed Jehovah. This, and nothing short of this, is true religion. You have often heard, and often written on religion : it is time you should FEEL it now. Oh what a blessedness will attend your hearty sur- render of yourself to the God and Father of men Me- thinks I see all the angels of God rejoicing at the sight : all the saints in heaven partaking of their joy; Jesus him- self, who died for sinners, gazing on you with delight : your own heart filled with peace and joy in believing ; and a thousand streams of goodness flowing from your reno- wated soul to refresh the aged saint, and to encourage your fellow youth to seek first the kingdom of heaven, and press on to God. But oh, should I be mistaken Alas, alas, I cannot bear the thought. O thou Saviour of sin- ners, and God of love, take captive the heart of my dear young friend, and make her truly willing to be wholly thine ! “If you can find freedom, do oblige me with a letter on the state of religion in your soul, and be assured of every sympathy or advice that I am capable of feeling or giving.” NO. IV. To a young Minister, Mr. C– of L–, on preparation for the pulpit. “MY DEAR BROTHER, “Your first letter gave me much pleasure. I hoped you would learn some useful lesson from the first sabbath disappointment. Every thing is good that leads us to depend more simply on the Lord. Could I choose my ledged he was at first a little stunned; but, upon examining his ar- guments, found it no very difficult undertaking to point out their fallacy. LETTERS BEFORE REFERRED TO. 793 frames, I would say respecting industry in preparation for public work, as is frequently said respecting Christian obedience—I would apply as close as though I expected no help from the Lord, whilst I would depend upon the Lord for assistance as though I had never made any preparation at all. “I rejoice much in everything that affords you ground for solid pleasure. The account of the affection borne you by the people of God was therefore a matter of joy to my heart, especially as I learnt from the person who brought your letter that the friendship seemed pretty general. “Your last has occasioned me some pain on your account, because it informs me that you have been ‘exceedingly tried in the pulpit: * but I receive satisfaction again from considering that the gloom of midnight precedes the rising day, not only in the natural world, but frequently also in the Christian minister's experience. Do not be dis- couraged, my dear brother; those whose labours God has been pleased most eminently to bless, have generally had their days of prosperity ushered in with clouds and storms. You are in the sieve ; but the sieve is in our Saviour’s hands; and he will not suffer any thing but the chaff to fall through, let him winnow us as often as he may. No one at times, I think I may say, has been worse tried than myself in the same manner as you express; though I must be thankful it has not been often. “You ask direction of me, my dear brother. I am too inexperienced myself to be capable of directing others; yet if the little time I have been employed for God has furnished me with any thing worthy of communication, it will be imparted to no one with more readiness than to you. “I should advise you, when you have been distressed by hesitation, to reflect whether it arose from an inability to recollect your ideas, or to obtain words suited to convey them.–If the former, I think these two directions may be serviceable : First, Endeavour to think in a train. Let one idea depend upon another in your discourses, as one link does upon another in a chain. For this end I have found it necessary to arrange my subjects in the order of time. Thus, for instance,—if speaking of the promises, I would begin with those which were suited to the earliest inquiries of a convinced soul; as pardon, assistance in prayer, wisdom, &c.; then go to those parts of Christian experience which are usually subsequent to the former ; as promises of support in afflictions, deliverance from temptations, and perseverance in grace; closing with a review of those which speak of support in death, and final glory. Then all the varieties of description respecting the glory of heaven will follow in natural order; as, the enlargement of the understanding, purification of the af- fections, intercourse with saints, angels, and even Christ himself, which will be eternal: thus beginning with the lowest marks of grace, and ascending step by step, you arrive at last in the fruition of faith. This mode is most natural, and most pleasing to the hearers, as well as assisting to the preacher; for one idea gives birth to an- . and he can hardly help going forward regularly and easily. “Secondly, Labour to render your ideas transparent to 90urself. Never offer to introduce a thought which you Cannot see through before you enter the pulpit.—You have read in Claude that the best preparative to preach from a subject is to understand it; and I think Bishop Burnet says, “No man properly understands any thing who cannot at any time represent it to others.” “If your hesitation proceeds from a want of words, I should advise you—1. To read good and easy authors; Dr. Watts especially.—To write a great part of your ser- *ons, and for a while get at least the leading ideas of every head of discourse by heart, enlarging only at the close of every thought.—3. Sometimes, as in the end of Sermons, or when you preach in villages, start off in Preaching beyond all you have premeditated. Fasten on Some leading ideas; as the solemnity of death, the awful- ness of judgment, the necessity of a change of heart, the Willingness of Christ to save, &c. Never mind how far you ramble from the point, so as you do not lose sight of it ; and if your heart be any way warm, you will find Some expressions then fall from your lips which your imagination could not produce in an age of studious ap- plication.—4. Divest yourself of all fear. If you should break the rules of grammar, or put in or leave out a word, and recollect at the end of the sentence the impropriety, unless it makes nonsense, or bad divinity, never try to mend it, but let it pass. If so, perhaps only a few would notice it ; but if you stammer in trying to mend it, you will expose yourself to all the congregation. “In addition to all I have said, you know where to look, and from whom to seek that wisdom and strength which only God can give. To him I recommend you, my dear brother, assuring you of my real esteem for you, and requesting you will not fail to pray for the least of Saints, but yours affectionately, S. P. CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS. THE great ends of Christian biography are instruction and example. By faithfully describing the lives of men eminent for godliness, we not only embalm their memory, but furnish ourselves with fresh materials and motives for a holy life. It is abundantly more impressive to view the religion of Jesus as operating in a living character than to contemplate it abstractedly. For this reason we may suppose the Lord the Spirit has condescended to exhibit, first and principally, the life of Christ; and, after his, that of many of his eminent followers. And for this reason he by his holy influences still furnishes the church with now and then a singular example of godliness, which it is our duty to notice and record. There can be no reason- able doubt that the life of Mr. Pearce ought to be consi- dered as one of these examples. May that same Divine Spirit who had manifestly so great a hand in forming his character teach us to derive from it both instruction and edification. First, In him we may see the holy efficacy, and by con- sequence the truth, of the Christian religion.—It was long since asked, “Who is he that overcometh the world, but he who believeth that Jesus is the Son of God 3 '' This question contained a challenge to men of all religions who were then upon the earth. Idolatry had a great diversity of species, every nation worshipping its own gods, and in modes peculiar to itself : philosophers also were divided into numerous sects, each flattering itself that it had found the truth : even the Jews had their divisions ; their Phari- sees, Sadducees, and Essenes : but, great as many of them were in deeds of divers kinds, an apostle could look them all in the face, and ask, “Who is he that overcometh the world?” The same question might be safely asked in every succeeding age. The various kinds of religion that still prevail, the pagan, Mahomedan, Jewish, papal, or protestant, may form the exteriors of man according to their respective models; but where is the man amongst them, save the true believer in Jesus, that overcometh the world? Men may cease from particular evils, and assume a very different character; may lay aside their drunken- ness, blasphemies, or debaucheries, and take up with a kind of momkish austerity, and yet all may amount to nothing more than an exchange of vices. The lusts of the flesh will on many occasions give place to those of the mind; but to overcome the world is another thing. By embracing the doctrine of the cross, to feel not merely a dread of the consequences of sin, but a holy abborrence of its nature—and, by conversing with invisible realities, to become regardless of the best, and fearless of the worst, that this world has to dispense—this is the effect of genuine Christianity, and this is a standing proof of its Divine original. Let the most inveterate enemy of revelation have witnessed the disinterested benevolence of a Paul, a Peter, or a John, and, whether he would own it or not, his conscience must have borne testimony that this is true re- ligion. The same may be said of Samuel Pearce: whether the doctrine he preached found a place in the hearts of his hearers, or not, his spirit and life must have approved themselves to their consciences. Secondly, In him we see how much may be dome for God £n a little time.—If his death had been foreknown by his 794 MEMOIRS OF MP, PEARCE. friends, some might have hesitated whether it was worth while for him to engage in the work of the ministry for so short a period; yet if we take a view of his labours, per- | haps there are few lives productive of a greater portion of good. That life is not always the longest which is spun out to the greatest extent of days. The best of all lives amounted but to thirty-three years; and the most import- ant works pertaining to that were wrought in the last three. There is undoubtedly a way of rendering a short life a long one, and a long life a short one, by filling or not filling it with proper materials. That time which is squandered away in sloth, or trifling pursuits, forms a kind of blank in human life : in looking it over there is nothing for the mind to rest upon ; and a whole life so spent, whatever number of years it may contain, must appear upon reflection short and vacant, in comparison of one filled up with valuable acquisitions and holy actions. It is like the space between us and the sun, which though immense- ly greater than that which is traversed in a profitable journey, yet, being all empty space, the mind gets over it in much less time, and without any satisfaction. If “that life be long which answers life’s great end,” Mr. Pearce may assuredly be said to have come to his grave in a good old age. And might we not all do much more than we do, if our hearts were more in our work 3 Where this is wanting, or operates but in a small degree, difficulties are magnified into impossibilities; a lion is in the way of ex- traordinary exertion ; or if we be induced to engage in something of this kind, it will be at the expense of a uni- form attention to ordinary duties. But some will ask, How are our hearts to be in our work? Mr. Pearce’s heart was habitually in his ; and that which kept alive the sacred flame in him appears to have been, the constant habit of conversing with Divine truth, and walking with God in private. Thirdly, In him we see, in clear and strong colours, to what a degree of solid peace and joy true religion will *aise us, even in the present world.—A little religion, it has been justly said, will make us miserable; but a great deal will make us happy. The one will do ſittle more than keep the conscience alive, while our numerous defects and inconsistencies are perpetually furnishing it with materials to scourge us ; the other keeps the heart alive, and leads us to drink deep at the fountain of joy. Hence it is, in a great degree, that so much of the spirit of bondage, and so little of the spirit of adoption, prevails among Christians. Religious enjoyments with us are rather occasional than habitual; or if in some instances it be otherwise, we are ready to suspect that it is supported in part by the strange fire of enthusiasm, and not by the pure flame of Scriptural devotion. But in Mr. Pearce, we saw a devotion ardent, steady, pure, and persevering : kindled, as we may say, at the altar of God, like the fire of the temple, it went not out by might nor by day. He seemed to have learnt that hea- Venly art, so conspicuous among the primitive Christians, of converting every thing he met with into materials for love, and joy, and praise. Hence he laboured, as he ex- presses it, “to exercise most love to God when suffering most severely ;” and hence he so affectingly encountered the billows that overwhelmed his feeble frame, crying, “ Sweet affliction sweet affliction Singing as I wade to heaven.” The constant happiness that he enjoyed in God was ap- parent in the effects of his sermons upon others. What- ever we feel ourselves we shall ordinarily communicate to our hearers; and it has been already noticed, that one of the most distinguishing properties of his discourses was— that they inspired the serious mind with the liveliest sens- ations of happiness. They descended upon the audience, not indeed like a transporting flood, but like a shower of dew, gently, insinuating itself into the heart, insensibly dissipating its gloom, and gradually drawing forth the graces of faith, hope, love, and joy; while the countenance was brightened almost into a smile, tears of pleasure would rise, and glisten, and fall from the admiring eye. What a practical confutation did his life afford of the slander so generally cast upon the religion of Jesus, that it fills the mind with gloom and misery l No: leaving fu- turity out of the question, the whole world of unbelievers might be challenged to produce a character from among them who possessed half his enjoyments. Fourthly, From his example we are furnished with the greatest encouragement, while pursuing the path of duty, to place our trust in God.—The situation in which he left his family, we have seen already, was not owing to an indif- ference to their interest, or an improvident disposition, or the want of opportunity to have provided for them ; but to a steady and determined obedience to do what he accounted the will of God. He felt deeply for them, and we all felt with him, and longed to be able to assure him before his departure that they would be amply provided for ; but, owing to circumstances which have already been mention- ed, this was more than we could do. This was a point in which he was called to die in faith; and indeed so he did. He appears to have had no idea of that flood of kindness which, immediately after his decease, flowed from the re- ligious public; but he believed in God, and cheerfully left all with him. “Oh that I could speak l’” said he to Mrs. Pearce a little before his death, “I would tell a world to trust a faithful God. Sweet affliction ; now it worketh glory, glory !” And when she told him the workings of her mind, he answered, “O trust the Lord ' If he lift up the light of his countenance upon you, as he has done upon me this day, all your mountains will become mole- hills. I feel your situation: I feel your sorrows : but he who takes care of sparrows will care for you and my dear children.” The liberal contributions which have since been made, though they do not warrant ministers in general to expect the same, and much less to neglect providing for their own families on such a presumption, yet they must needs be considered as a singular encouragement, when we are satisfied that we are in the path of duty, to be inordinately “ careful for nothing, but in every thing by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, to let our requests be made known unto God.” Finally, In him we see that the way to true eaccellence is not to affect eccentricity, nor to aspire after the performance of a few splendid actions; but to fill up our lives with a sober, modest, sincere, affectionate, assiduous, and wniform conduct.—Real greatness attaches to character; and cha : racter arises from a course of action. The solid reputation of a merchant arises not from his having made his fortune by a few successful adventures; but from a course of wise economy and honourable industry, which gradually accu- mulating advances by pence to shillings, and by shillings to pounds. The most excellent philosophers are not those who have dealt chiefly in splendid speculation, and looked down upon the ordinary concerns of men as things beneath their notice; but those who have felt their interests united with the interests of mankind, and bent their principal attention to things of real and public utility. It is much the same in religion. We do not esteem a man for one, or two, or three good deeds, any further than as these deeds are indications of the real state of his mind. We do not estimate the character of Christ himself so much from his having given sight to the blind, or restored Lazarus from the grave, as from his going about continually doing good. These single attempts at great things are frequently the efforts of a vain mind, which pants for fame and has not patience to wait for it, nor discernment to know the way in which it is obtained. One pursues the shade, and it flies from him ; while another turns his back upon it, and it follows him. The one aims to climb the rock, but falls ere he reaches the summit; the other, in pursuit of a dif- ferent object, ere he is aware, possesses it; seeking the approbation of his God, he finds with it that of his fellow Christians. * A HYMN IN A STORM. 735 [To the editions of the foregoing Memoirs published in a separate form are appended several poetic effusions by Mr. Pearce, which it is not deemed advisable to retain in an edition of Mr. Fuller's works. The following piece however is inserted as a specimen of the devotional spirit which they breathe.] A HYMN IN A STORM. In the floods of tribulation, While the billows o'er me roll, Jesus whispers consolation, And supports my sinking soul: Thus the lion yields me honey, From the eater food is given; Strengthened thus, I still press forward, Singing, as I wade to heaven, Sweet affliction : Sweet affliction : That brings Jesus to my soul! "Mid the gloom the vivid lightnings With increased brightness play; *Mid the thornbrake beauteous flowerets Look more beautiful and gay : So in darkest dispensations Tºoth my faithful Lord appear, With his richest consolations, To reanimate and cheer: Sweet affliction 1 Sweet affliction : Thus to bring my Saviour near ! Floods of tribulation heighten, Billows still around me roar; Those who know not CHRIST ye frighten, But my soul defies your power: In the sacred page recorded, Thus his word securely stands, “Fear not, I’m, in trouble, near thee, Nought shall pluck thee from my hands.” Sweet affliction | Sweet affliction 1 Every word my love demands. All I meet I find assists me In my path to heavenly joy, Where, though trials now attend me, Trials never more annoy : Wearing there a weight of glory, Still the path I’ll ne'er forget, But, reflecting how it led me To my blessed Saviour’s seat, Cry, Affliction : Sweet affliction 1 Haste : Bring more to Jesus' feet! A N A P O L O G Y FOR THE LATE C H R IS TI A N MISSIO N S TO IN DIA. IN THIREE PARTS. WITH AN APPEND IX. PART I. “There are no such things done as thou sayest; but thou feignest them out of thine own heart.”—NEHEMIAH. “And now, I say unto you, refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this counsel, or this work, be of men, it will come to nought; but if it be of GoD, ye cannot overthrow it, lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.”—GAMALIEL. SECTION I. AN ADDRESS TO EDWARD PARRY, Esq., CHAIRMAN OF THE EAST INDIA COMPANY. SIR, As in a letter lately addressed to you by Mr. Thomas Twining, on the danger of interfering in the religious opinions of the natives of India, there is a reference to the labours of the Baptist missionaries in that country, you Will not consider me, I hope, as obtruding myself on your attention while I offer a few remarks upon it, and upon the important subject which it embraces. e It is true, the principal part of Mr. Twining's pamphlet is directed against “The British and Foreign Bible So- ciety,” and that this has been sufficiently answered from another quarter; but though he affects “not to know these missionaries,” yet their undertaking, particularly in the Work of translating the Scriptures, has, no doubt, contributed to excite his alarm. If, by “interfering in the religious opinions of the natives of India,” Mr. Twining means nothing more than the dissemination of the Christian faith by the fair methods of Persuasion, the Baptist missionaries, and those of every other denomination, must be acknowledged to have inter- fered ; but if he include under that ter. violence, unfair influence, or *Y, measures subversive of free choice—or any addresses, either in speech or in writing, which have endangered the peace of Society—they have not interfered nor have they any desire of so doing. 3. Whether Mr. Twining has chosen this ambiguous term that he may with the greater ease insinuate, as occasion requires, the obnoxious idea of a design to overthrow the pagan and Mahomedan religions by force, I shall not de. termine ; but that such is the use that is made of it throughout his pamphlet, is clear. “As long,” he says, “ as we continue to govern India in the mild and toleran, spirit of Christianity, we may govern it with ease; but if ever the fatal day shall arrive when religious innovation shall set her foot in that country, indignation will spread from one end of Hindostan to the other,”—p. 30. Is giving the Scriptures then to the natives in their own languages, and offering to instruct them in their leading doctrines, opposed to the mild and tolerant spirit of Christianity? If it be, sir, neither the Founder of the Christian religion, nor his followers, have yet understood it. Be this as it may, it is not an “innovation; ” the fatal day has arrived more than a century ago. Mr. Twining “hopes our native subjects in India will be permitted quietly to follow their own religious opinions,”—p. 31. We hope so too; but if this gentleman’s wishes could be realized, we should not be permitted to follow ours, nor to recommend what we believe to be of eternal importance to our fellow men and fellow subjects. Yet this is all we desire. If mis- sionaries, or any other persons on their behalf, should so far forget the principles of the gospel as to aim at any thing beyond it, I trust the government will always pos- sess wisdom and justice sufficient to counteract them. The question, sir, which Mr. Twining proposes to submit to a general court of proprietors, whatever be the terms in which it may be couched, will not be, whether the natives of India shall continue to enjoy the most perfect toleration, but WHETHER THAT TOLERATION SHALL BE EXTENDED TO CHRISTIAN MISSIONARIES. I have observed with pain, sir, of late years, a notion of toleration, entertained even by some who would be thought its firmest advocates, which tends not only to abridge, but to subvert it. They have no objection to Christians of any denomination enjoying their own opinions, and, it may be, their own worship; but they must not be allowed to make proselytes. Such appear to be the notions of Mr. Twining and his friends. They do not propose to perse- cute the Christians of India, provided they would keep their Christianity to themselves; but those who attempt to convert others are to be exterminated. Sir, I need not say to you that this is not toleration, but persecution. To- leration is a legal permission not only to enjoy our own principles unmolested, but to make use of all the fair means of persuasion to recommend them to others. The former is but little more than might be enjoyed in coun: tries the most distinguished by persecution; for few would wish to interrupt men so long as they kept their religion to themselves. Yet this is the whole of what some would wish to allow, both in the East and West Indies. In former times, unbelievers felt the need of toleration for themselves, and then they generally advocated it on behalf of others; but of late, owing perhaps to the increase of their numbers, they have assumed a loftier tone. NoW, ADDRESS TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE EAST INDIA COMPANY. 797 though for political reasons all men must be allowed to follow their own religion, yet they must not aim at making proselytes. Men who have no belief in the Christian re- iigion may be expected to have no regard for it; and where this is the case, the rights of conscience will be but little respected. So far as my observations extend, these remarks are ap- plicable to deists in general; and where situations are favourable to their views, they may be expected to rise in their demands. In a letter from Mr. Carey, now before me, of a late date, he writes as follows:—“India swarms with deists; and deists are, in my opinion, the most in- tolerant of mankind. Their great desire is to exterminate true religion from the earth. I consider the alarms which have been spread through India as the fabrications of these men. The concurrence of two or three circumstances in point of time; namely, the massacre at Vellore, the re- bellious disposition of the inhabitants in some parts of Mysore, and the public advertisements for subscriptions to the Oriental translations; have furnished them with oc- casion to represent the introduction of Christianity among the natives as dangerous.” While Mr. Carey was writing this letter, sir, he might not be aware that a number of these men were preparing to embark for Europe, with a view to spread the alarm at home. Assuredly they have a cause in which they are engaged, as well as the Bible Society; and are not wanting in zeal to support it. Mr. Twining would be thought a Christian ; but if so, in what cause is he engaged 3 He may pretend that he is only pleading for toleration ; but, in fact, he is pleading for the exclusion of what he ac- knowledges to be light and truth, and for the refusal of toleration to the religion of his Maker. As “the religious opinions and customs of the natives of India” are a subject on which Mr. Twining's feelings are so “particularly alive,” it may not be amiss to state what a few of these opinions and customs are. It may not be necessary, sir, for your information; but some persons into whose hands this pamphlet may fall may be the better able to judge of the question at issue. In the first place, then, the Hindoos acknowledge oNE SUPREME GOD ; they do not appear, however, to worship Him, but certain subordinate powers, which, they say, proceeded from him. Of these, the three principal are denominated BIRMHA, the creator of all; WISHNoo, the preserver of all; and SEEB, the destroyer of all. Birmha is not worshipped at all; Vishnoo only by a few ; but Seeb (the destroyer) by almost all; their worship, there- fore, is chiefly the effect of superstitious fears. The foulest vices are ascribed to these subordinate deities in their own Shasters; but that which is sin in men, they say, is not sin in the gods. Besides these, they worship innumerable inferior deities, called debtas, chiefly, if not entirely, under an idea that it is in their power to do them harm. The dusts, quarrels, and other vices of these debtas also fill their Shasters, as their images do the country. The chief use that they seem to make of the one Supreme God is to ascribe to him all the evil that they commit, and to per- suade themselves that they are not accountable beings. They have a most firm faith in conjuration, in lucky and unlucky days; and in almost all their civil concerns act under its influence. A. considerable part of their religion consists in self- forment. One will hold up a hand till it is grown stiff * * - e to 5 and he is incapable of taking it down again; another wili lie upon the points of iron spikes, just so blunt as not to pierce him to death, and this for years together ; others on certain days at the beginning of the new year, are sus: pended in the air by sharp iron hooks stuck through the skin on each side of their back, and continue swinging round in that position from five to fifteen minutes. b At the worship of Juggernaut, whose temple is in Orissa, this massy wooden god is borne in a carriage, drawn by the multitude; and, while the air resounds with their shouts, happy are those who throw themselves under the wheels to be crushed to death This, and every other Species of self-torment and self-murder, gains admiration from the spectators. . Besides this, it is well known to be a part of their re- ligion to favour the burning of widows with the bodies of their deceased husbands. Their Shasters pronounce this to be a great virtue, and to render them a kind of celestia! beings. And, lest the circumstance of absence at the time of the husband’s death should prevent it, their laws pre- scribe as follows: “If the wife be within one day’s journey of the place where her husband dies, the burning of his corpse shall be deferred one day for her arrival. If he die in another country, the virtuous wife shall take any of his effects, a sandal for instance, and, binding it on her thigh, shall enter the fire with it.” Thus careful are these sacred laws to secure their victim. And as if it were meant to outrage every vestige of humanity, and to refine upon cruelty, it is an established law that the eldest son, or nearest relation, shall set fire to the pile ! Great numbers of infants also are thrown into the river, as offerings to the goddess ; and others, who refuse their mothers’ milk, are frequently hung up in baskets on the branch of a tree, &c., to be devoured by ants or birds of rey ! Whether all these customs be proper objects of toleration may admit of a doubt. The British government in India seems to have thought otherwise. The governor-general in council, on August 20, 1802, is said to have passed a decree declaring some of them to be murder. We leave this, however, to the civil authorities. Our object is con- fined to remonstrance, persuasion, and the exhibition of truth; and surely, if it be possible by such means to in- duce a people, or any part of a people, to cast away these practices, it must be so far favourable to human happiness. If, sir, there were no hereafter, and we were merely to consult our own national interest, it were worth while, as far as possible, to endeavour to mitigate these evils; but if the good of the governed be allowed to have place in a government, it is still more so; and if there be a judgment to come, where governors and governed must each appear and give an account, it must be an object of the first im- portance. At that bar, sir, the adversaries of those who peaceably endeavour to bring off the Hindoos from these abominations will be ashamed to show their face . I may be told that the particulars above referred to are the most offensive parts of the system, and that other parts of it may be very good. It is true that there are degrees in evil. All things pertaining to Hindooism may not be equally shocking to the feelings of an enlightened mind. I might safely affirm, however, with Dr. Buchanan, “The Hindoos have no moral gods;” neither does any part of their religion produce a moral impression on their minds, but the contrary. As men, they are not worse than other men ; but, by their superstitions, they are be- come exceedingly corrupt. “The natives of India,” Mr. Twining tells us, “are a ºreligious people ; and in this respect they differ, he fears, from the inhabitants of this country.” If, by the inhabit- ants of this country, he means those Christians who are alarmed at the progress of Christianity, I fear so too. If the religion of the natives of India, however, have no in- fluence on their morals, unless it be to corrupt them, it will argue nothing in its favour. And that this is the case, every friend to the morality of the New Testament, who has resided in India, can bear witness. I have read enough, sir, of the communications of men of this de- scription, to make me disregard the praises bestowed on the virtues of these people by others. I find these praises proceed either from deistical writers, whose manifest de- sign is to depreciate the value of Christianity, or from persons residing in the country, who, “despairing,” as Dr. Buchanan says, “of the intellectual or moral improve- ment of the natives, are content with an obsequious spirit and manual service. These they call the virtues of the Hindoo ; and, after twenty years’ service, praise their do- mestic for his virtues.” “I know not,” says Bernier, an intelligent French tra- veller, “whether there be in the world a more covetous and sordid nation.—The brahmins keep these people in their errors and superstitions, and scruple not to commit tricks and villanies so infamous, that I could never have believed them if I had not made an ample inquiry into them.” + ºyages de François Bernier, Tome I. pp. 150, 162, et Tome II. P. º 798 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIAN MISSIONS. “A race of people,” says governor Holwell, “who from their infancy are utter strangers to the idea of common faith and honesty. This is the situation of the bulk of the people of Hindostan, as well as of the modern brah- mins; amongst the latter, if we except one in a thou- sand, we give them over measure. The Gentoos, in general, are as degenerate, superstitious, litigious, and wicked a people, as any race of people in the known world, if not eminently more so, especially the common run of brahmins; and we can truly aver that, during almost five years that we presided in the judicial cutchery court of Calcutta, never any murder, or other atrocious crime, came before us, but it was proved, in the end, a brahmin was at the bottom of it.”% “A man must be long acquainted with them,” says Sir John Shore, governor-general of Bengal, “before he can believe them capable of that barefaced falsehood, servile adulation, and deliberate deception, which they daily prac- tise. It is the business of all, from the ryott to the dewan, to conceal and deceive ; the simplest matters of fact are designedly covered with a veil, through which no human understanding can penetrate.” + “Lying, theft, whoredom, and deceit,” says Mr. Carey, “are sins for which the Hindoos are notorious. There is not one man in a thousand who does not make lying his constant practice. Their thoughts of God are so very light, that they only consider him as a sort of plaything. Avarice and servility are so united in almost every in- dividual, that cheating, juggling, and lying are esteemed no sins with them ; and the best among them, though they speak ever so great a falsehood, yet it is not considered as an evil, unless you first charge them to speak the truth. When they defraud you ever so much, and you charge them with it, they coolly answer, “It is the custom of the country.” Were you to charge any company of ten men with having amongst them liars, thieves, whoremongers, and deceitful characters, however improper it might be, owing to your want of proof, yet there would be little probability of your accusing them falsely. All the good that can with justice be said in favour of them is, they are not so ferocious as many other heathens.” I have said nothing of the Mahomedans; but it is well known that they are not behind the Hindoos in super- stition, and greatly exceed them in ferocity, pride, and intolerance. In short, sir, to every European who places virtue in the fear of God and a regard to men, and not in that which merely contributes to his own interest and inclination, the introduction of the means of Christianity, among both Hindoos and Mahomedans, must appear a matter of na- tional importance. Christianity might not be embraced, at first, by the greater part; but it would, nevertheless, have a powerful influence on society; not only on those who believed it, but, by way of example, on those who be- lieved it not. But Mr. Twining professes to be alarmed at the mea- sure, as dangerous to the British interests in India. He asserts this again and again; but what has he done beyond asserting it? Has he produced a single fact that can bear upon the subject; or preferred a single charge against the conduct of the missionaries 3 Neither the one nor the other. It is rather surprising, indeed, that he should not have discovered something on which to found the appear- ance of a charge ; for I am not ignorant, sir, that the mis- sionaries have on some occasions felt much, and spoken in strong language. They have frequently seen females burnt alive, and have remonstrated against the horrid deed, as an act of murder; taking occasion also from thence to prove to the people that such a religion could not be of God. If at such times there had been somewhat of a local tumult, there had been nothing surprising in it. But the truth is, no such tumult has ever occurred; nor have any means which they have used so much as endangered their own safety. Mr. Twining speaks of alarms among the natives; but what are they 3 When or where did they manifest them- selves If, by “alarms,” he means a conviction that their principles will gradually fall before the light of the gospel, * Holwell's Historical Events, vol. I. p. 228; vol. II., p. 151. there is some foundation for what he says ; for consider- able numbers of them have calmly acknowledged as much as this. But if he mean that, on account of any thing done or doing by the missionaries, they are apprehensive of their religion being suppressed by authority, there is no proof of the fact, nor so much as an attempt to prove it. Nothing can furnish stronger evidence of Mr. Twining's want of materials of this kind, than his reference to “the recent catastrophes of Buenos Ayres, Rosetta, and Vellore,” —p. 27. You need not be told, sir, that none of these catastrophes were produced by an attempt to recommend our religious principles. That alarms may exist in India is very possible ; but if such there be, they are of a date posterior to the Wellore mutiny, and must be traced, it is probable, to the causes which produced that melancholy event. That the labours of the missionaries, either in Bengal or on the Coast, have been productive of any such effect, remains to be proved. The only alarms which they have excited will be found in the minds of Europeans, who, passing under the name of Christians, are tremblingly alive to the danger of Chris- tianity making progress in the earth. If, by “the LIGHT and TRUTH into which the omnipo- tent power of Heaven may some time lead these people,” Mr. Twining means Christianity, his pamphlet exhibits, to say the least, an awkward association of ideas. Of Mr. Twining I know nothing but from the part he has taken in this business, and therefore can have no personal disre- spect towards him : but I cannot understand, sir, how a Christian could be disgusted with the idea expressed by a Suabian Catholic, of “the great Shepherd and Bishop of souls gathering together his sheep from all nations and re- ligions, languages and kingdoms” (pp. 9, 10); how, in searching for something which the British nation values as the Hindoos do their Shasters, and the Mahomedans their Koran, he should overlook the Bible, and instance in “Magna Charta.” (p. 30); how he can be shocked at the downfal of Mahomedism (p. 17); how his feelings can be so “particularly alive ’’ on the religious opinions of the natives of India (p. 29); and, above all, how he can be so alarmed at the progress of Christianity. It is true he pro- fesses to feel on this subject chiefly from his “extreme apprehension of the fatal consequences to ourselves.” But if so, why do his alarms extend to Turkey, and even to China?—pp. 15. 17. Is he afraid that, if the Mashomed- ism of the one and the paganism of the other should give place to the gospel, they would refuse to trade with us? Surely, sir, there can be but little doubt of this gentleman’s being “ of a party,” nor of what that party, is . May I not take it for granted, sir, that a British govern- ment cannot refuse to tolerate protestant missionaries; that a protestant government cannot forbid the free circulation of the Scriptures; that a Christian government cannot ex- clude Christianity from any part of its territories; and that if, in addition to this, the measures which have of late years been pursued in India, without the least inconveni- ence arising from them, can be proved to be safe and wise, they will be protected, rather than suppressed ? I trust I may. Permit me, sir, to copy an extract or two from the let- ters of the missionaries on this subject. “No political evil,” says Mr. Carey, “can reasonably be feared from the spread of Christianity now ; for it has been publicly preach- ed in different parts of Bengal for about twenty years past, without the smallest symptom of the kind. Within the last five years, an edition of the New Testament, of two thousand copies, nearly one of the Pentateuch of a thou- sand, one of Matthew of five hundred, and one of the Psalms and Isaiah of a thousand, besides many copies of a second edition of the New Testament, and of the poetical books of Scripture from Job to Canticles, and many re- ligious tracts, have been distributed among the natives without a single instance of disturbance, unless the abu- sive language of a few loose persons may be so called. To this might be added the experience of the missionaries on the coast, who have taught Christianity for a hundred years, and reckon about forty thousand persons to have embraced it. Such long-continued exertions to spread + Parliamentary Proceedings against Mr. Hastings, Appendix to vol. II. p. 65. ADDRESS TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE EAST INDIA COMPANY. 799 %he gospel, carried on to such an extent and in such dif- ferent situations, without producing the smallest incon- venience, may, we presume, furnish a course of experience sufficient to remove every suspicion of political evil arising from the introduction of Christianity.” “The tongue of slander itself,” says Mr. Marshman, “has not been able to charge us, nor any of the native converts, with the least deviation from the laws and government under which we live. How should it, when we are devoted from our very hearts to the British go- vernment, and this not from a blind partiality, but from a firm conviction of its being a blessing to the country? Had we been sent hither for the sole purpose of conciliating the natives to it, and of supporting it by every means in our power, we could not have been more cordially attached to it, nor have pursued a line of conduct more adapted to the end. Nothing will so effectually establish the British dominion in India as the introduction of Christianity, pro- vided it be merely by persuasion ; and nothing is more safe, and, under the Divine blessing, more easy. “With regard to safety, there is nothing to be feared from the attempt. The Hindoos resemble an immense number of particles of sand, which are incapable of forming a solid mass. There is no bond of union among them, nor any principle capable of effecting it. Their hierarchy has no head, no influential body, no subordinate orders. The brahmins, as well as the nation at large, are a vast num- ber of disconnected atoms, totally incapable of cohesion. In this country, sin seems to have given the fullest sample of its disuniting, debilitating power. The children are op- posed to the parents, and the parents to the children; bro- ther totally disregards brother; and a brahmin will see another brahmin perish with the greatest apathy. Yea, for the sake of a little gain, a brahmin will write against his gods, satisfying himself with this, that the sin belongs to his employer, and that he only does something to sup- port himself. When to this are added their natural imbe- cility, and the enervating influence of climate, it will be evident that nothing is less to be apprehended than a steady, concerted opposition to the spread of Christianity. Nothing will ever appear beyond that individual contempt and hatred of the gospel which are inseparable from the vicious mind, “Instead of the introduction of Christianity endangering the safety of the state, the danger arises from the other side. No one unacquainted with the natives can know the heart of an idolater. We have about a hundred serv. ants in our different departments; and they have been treated with a kindness which, in England, would have conciliated affection, and created attachment. But so far are these effects from being produced in them, that not an individual can be found amongst them who would not cheat us to any extent, or who would not plunder us of every thing we have, were it in their power. How can it be otherwise? Their religion frees them from every tie of jus- tice. If their own benefit can be secured by any action, this renders it lawful, or at least venial, though it were fraud, robbery, or even murder. Often have we heard it affirmed that a robber who should spend the whole night in the most atrocious deeds, and sécure plunder to the amºunt of a hundred rupees, would wipe off all the stain in the morning by giving one of them to a brahmin At- tachment to a master, a family, or a government of a dif- ferent religion, is that which cannot be produced in the Imind of a Hindoo while under the power of his gooroo or his debta. But if they lose caste, and embrace Christianity, not by force, but from pure conviction, they become other men. Even those who, as it may prove, have not embraced it cordially, are considerably influenced by it. If once they lose caste the charm is broken, and they become capable of attachment to government. “These remarks are abundantly proved by what is seen in our native converts. We have baptized above a hum- dred of them; and we dare affirm that the British govern- ment has not a hundred better subjects and more cordial friends among the natives of Hindostan. The gloomy and faithless demon of superstition is dethroned. They cannot fear a brahmin nor a debta as heretofore. While they feel an attachment to us to which they had been strangers, they are also cordially attached to the governors who protect them in the exercise of their religion, and whom they con- sider as their friends and brethren. “Such is the ease with which Christianity, under the Di- vine blessing, could be disseminated, that it may seem to some incredible. No public acts of government are neces- sary. It is not necessary that government should appear in the business; and much less that it should be at any expense whatever. If it be only understood that no one shall be for- bidden to teach Christianity, and no one but the evil-doer receive interruption from the magistrate, the work will go on in the most gradual and yet effectual manner. God is raising up native converts of character and talents suited to it. It is possible for ten of these brethren to enter a district, to go unobserved through the principal towns, sit down in a private circle, gently reason, convey ideas of Divine truth, and turn persons from darkness to light, nearly unobserved. Thus a town, a district, a country, could be leavened with the blessed gospel, almost without the knowledge of the wealthy and great, even of their own countrymen. “The only thing necessary for European missionaries is that, as long as they deserve the confidence of government, they be permitted to fix their residence in those places which will enable them to exercise a necessary superin- tendence, and administer support to these native brethren ; to visit the societies which are formed ; and, as occasion offers, dispense with prudence the word of life. It were the easiest thing imaginable for government to obtain from Buropean missionaries the most ample pledges of good be- haviour, and to withdraw its protection the moment they ceased to deserve it. A good man would feel a pleasure in giving such security; and, what is more, his being a good man would itself be a security. What security could have been exacted from a Schwartz, equal to that which his own wise and benevolent heart afforded ? Nor is this peculiar to Schwartz; it is the feeling of every real missionary. “A permission to itinerate and form missionary stations in the country, so far from being injurious to the British government, would advance its essential interests. In every missionary it would have a friend; a friend whose influence and capacity of rendering service would be con- stantly increasing. What were the advantages which the English derived from one Schwartz in the Mysore coun- try And what would be the effect of their having at this moment a hundred Schwartzes in India, each with his train of pious, peaceable, loyal, and faithful disciples . These messengers of peace and love (and all others we give up) would endear to the inhabitants the very nation to which they belonged. Who are these, they would ask, that so manifestly seek our good, and not their own 3–The an- swer, that they are English, must exhibit an idea of the government and nation which the natives can never have displayed before their eyes too often. “But if a missionary could so far forget himself and his object as to cherish a spirit inimical to government, still, one would suppose, his own interest would correct him. To whom are he and his friends indebted for security 2 Without the protection of government, they would be con- tinually in danger of being massacred. If, however, the folly of any one should render him insensible to these con- siderations, he must abide the consequences. Let him bear his own burden.” Sir, I cannot persuade myself that the East India Com- pany will adopt the principles of Mr. Twining. They have too much good sense to be alarmed at every outcry, too much justice to ascribe danger to causes from which it never arose, and too much wisdom to banish men who have always approved themselves the faithful friends of their go- vernment. Whatever be the mind of individuals, I trust that neither they nor the British government, as a body, are prepared to prohibit the free circulation of the Scrip- tures, or the temperate propagation of Christianity. I am aware, indeed, that persecution has of late made its appearance in our West India colonies; and, if Mr. Twining and his party could succeed, there is too much reason to fear that we should see the same thing in the East ; but I am also aware that, in the first instance, it was disallowed by HIS MAJESTY IN council ; and though it has since been revived on a narrower scale, yet I trust it will not be permitted either in the West or in the East to accomplish its ends. 800 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIAN MISSIONS. It is not difficult, sir, to account for that aversion from religion which is so frequently found in men who have left their country at an early period in pursuit of a fortune. They neither understood nor believed the gospel when at home ; and on going abroad took leave of Christian ordi- nances, and of all respect for them. They may wish, in- deed, for certain reasons, to retain the name of Christians; but that is all: they cannot bear the thing, nor that any about them should be in earnest in the profession of it. But, whatever measures may be taken by men who have become aliens from that which is the glory of their coun- try, I trust there will be found a sufficient number of the rulers and inhabitants of this land to counteract them. If not, let us talk as we may against French atheism, we are fast sinking into it. If, sir, there be a God that judgeth in the earth, the danger lies in making HIM our enemy. It is a principle which cannot be disputed, however it may be disregarded, THAT WHATEVER IS RIGHT Is wise, AND what EveR IS WRONG IS FooLISH AND DANGEROUs. Sir, the tombs of nations, successively buried in oblivion, have this truth inscribed on every one of them. It was by “forbidding Christian ministers to speak unto the Gentiles that they might be saved, that the most favoured nation upon earth filled up the measure of its sins, and drew upon it the wrath of Heaven to the uttermost l” & At a time, sir, when many and great nations are over- thrown, mations which have not possessed our privileges, and therefore have not incurred our guilt—when we are engaged in the most tremendous struggle that this country ever knew, a struggle for our very existence—and when, on certain occasions, we profess to fast and to humble ourselves before Almighty God, shall we raise from its slumbers the wicked system of PERSECUTION ? “Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy % Are we stronger than He?” Mr. Twining may be disgusted at the idea of the Eastern empire being given us by Providence, for the very purpose of introducing the gospel (p. 25); but if it be so, it is no more than God's having formerly given it to Cyrus, “for Jacob his servant’s sake,” Isa. xlv. 1–4. Men may scorn to be subservient to their Maker; but whether they consent or not, it will be so. The conquests of Rome made way for the introduction of Christianity into Britain ; and those of Britain may make way for its general intro- duction in the East. Should Britain be friendly to this object, it may be the lengthening of her tranquillity; but, as an eloquent writer * observes, “If we decline the illus- trious appointment, God may devolve on some less re- fractory people those high destinies which might have been ours. ‘Who knoweth whether we are come to the kingdom for such a time as this? If we altogether hold Quº peace at this time, then may there enlargement and deliverance arise to them from another place, and we and our father's house may be destroyed.’” I am, sir, very respectfully yours, ANDREw FULLER. SECTION II. STRICTURES ON THE PREFACE TO A PAMPHILET ENTITLED “OBSERVATIONS ON THE PRESENT STATE of THE EAST INDIA COMPANY.”. THIS performance, though anonymous, has been gener- ally ascribed to Major Scott Waring; and as I understand that that gentleman has since publicly avowed himself to be the author, I shall consider him as such in the follow- ing remarks. Mr. Twining's performance had scarcely anything tan- gible about it. It was chiefly made up of quotations, with here and there a sentence distinguished by italics, or ca- pitals of different sizes, according, it should seem, to the different degrees of suspicion and alarm which possessed * Mr. Wrangham's sermon, On the Translation of the Scriptures into the Oriental Languages, preached before the University of Cam- bridge, on May 10, 1807,-p. 11. the mind of the author. But Major Scott Waring attempts to reason ; and as he certainly has entered into the sub- ject with all his heart, we may hope from hence to ascertain the real strength of our adversaries. Having given his preface a cursory review, I determined, before I sat down to answer it, to read through his pam- phlet; and, on looking it over, I found that though the “Observations” related chiefly to things beside my pro- vince, yet they contained passages worthy of attention ; especially when compared with others, and with the ge- neral design of his performance. A few of these I shall take the liberty to transcribe. “For many centuries, we believe, Christian missionaries have resided in India, with the free consent of the native princes. These men were generally, if not universally, pure in their morals, and inoffensive in their conduct; and many of them highly respected by the princes of India, who allowed them to preach the gospel, and to make as many converts as they could to the Christian religion,” —p. 9. “Missionaries can do no mischief in India, if they are treated as formerly, neither encouraged nor oppressed ; but if men paid by the British government are encouraged to make converts to Christianity, our empire will be in danger,”—p. 14. “The missionaries now in India, or those who may go thither in future, should be treated by our government as they formerly were by the native princes. In that case they may be as zealous as possible, without doing mis- chief. Mr. Buchanan says that the four Gospels have been translated, and liberally distributed. If that was done at the expense of the Bible Society in England, or of the other religious societies in Europe, the measure was laudable ; but if at the expense of the Company, and from their press, it was most impolitic, and made use of, no doubt, by the sons of Tippoo Sultaun, to excite the seapoys to mutiny. The true line for the British govern- ment to pursue is obvious ; let missionaries make as many converts as they can, but give them no support on the one hand, nor discouragement on the other. Let us copy the example of the native princes in allowing the missionaries of this day to preach the gospel also, but there let us stop,” —pp. 22, 23. “No jealousy was ever entertained, either by Mahome- dan or Hindoo princes, because missionaries were settled in their countries who now and then converted one of their subjects to Christianity. No jealousy will now be entertained of their having similar success, while the British government, which stands in possession of the power formerly enjoyed by the native princes, is content- ed merely with following their example,”—p. 25. As I have no concern in any plan which would be ex- pensive to government, or would require their interference in any way beyond simple protection to the missionaries, and that no longer than their conduct is found to be de- serving of it, I have no dispute with Major Scott Waring on what he has here advanced. If he suspects Mr. Carey to be paid by government, or the translations in which he is engaged to be printed or circulated at their ea pense, I can assure him it is without foundation. The salary which he receives is not as a missionary, but merely as a professor of the Shanscrit and Bengalee languages. Go- vernment knows nothing of him; or his colleagues, as missionaries, any further than, when mentioning certain literary works, to speak of those works as undertaken by “the protestant missionaries at Serampore.” Mr. Carey's salary is the due reward of his labours as a literary man. It is true, he disinterestedly devotes all his savings to the work of spreading the gospel; but the same may be said of more than one of his colleagues, who have no connexion with government, and whose avocations are productive of little, if any thing, less than his. And, whatever has been done by the missionaries in translating and circulating the Scriptures, has been done at the expense of 'societies and individuals. Whether any translations have been printed at the Company’s press, I cannot speak with cer- tainty. I think it is highly probable they have not ; of this, however, I am certain, that those which are enumer- ated by Mr. Carey [in page 121 of this volume] were printed at Serampore. When it was determined to trans- STRICTURES ON MAJOR SCOTT WARING’S PREFACE. 801 late the Scriptures into all the Eastern languages, govern- ment permitted them to advertise in their Gazette for subscriptions to the work; but, to argue from this that they had any pecuniary concern in the undertaking, is absurd ; for if so, what need was there to advertise for private subscriptions 3 Upon the whole, it follows that what has been done is, in Major Scott Waring’s opinion, “Haudable,” and was not made use of to excite the seapoys to mutiny. And here I might take leave of this gentleman, were it not for his preface, with the satisfaction of our labours having obtained his approbation and applause. For as to what he says of the hopelessness of attempting to convert the Hindoos, that is to ourselves. We derive hope from a book with which he may be but little acquainted ; and, so long as we do “no mischief,” why should we be in- terrupted? But when I look into the preface, I find a new and a contradictory publication. Whether the “Observations” were written at so distant a period that he had forgotten them, or whether the late “intelligence from Madras ” proved so alarming to him as to produce an entire change in his principles—whatever was the cause, there is certainly a most violent opposition between the one and the other. Before we proceed to examine this extraordinary preface, which is nearly as large as the book itself, it may be proper to remark that Major Scott Waring knows nothing of the effects of Christian missions in India of late years but from the report of their adversaries. The reader will re- collect what was quoted from Mr. Carey's letter of Feb- ruary 13, 1807, [in page 797, and the intimation there given of a number of persons who were at that time pre- paring to embark for Europe, with a view to spread the alarm at home. These are the men from whom the author derives his intelligence. “Various private ac- counts,” says he, “from men of sense, observation, and character, mention,” &c., p. 1. And again, “I am as- sured, by gentlemen lately returned from India, that,” &c., —p. xlii. These, or some gentlemen like-minded, have been endeavouring by private letters, during the whole of 1807, to excite suspicions against us. But, when told of these things, our answer has been, “Let us not be judged by private letters: let our adversaries come forward and accuse the missionaries; or, at least, give proof of their labours having been injurious.” + I know not who these gentlemen are, and therefore can have no personal disrespect to any of them ; but, whoever they be, I have no scruple in saying that their reports, as given in the performance before me, are utterly unworthy of credit. Of this the reader will be convinced, I presume, in the course of these remarks. Major Scott Waring, as if conscious that private reports were of no use, unless to fill up the deficiencies of what is public and authentic, begins with the Proclamation from the Madras Government, on Dec. 3, 1806; that is, about six months after the mutiny at Vellore. This proclama- tion states that, in some late instances, an extraordinary degree of agitation had prevailed among several corps of the native army of that coast—that, on inquiry into the cause, it appeared that many persons of evil intention had endeavoured, for malicious purposes, to impress upon the native troops a belief that it was the wish of the British government to convert them, by forcible means, to Chris- tianity—that such malicious reports had been observed with concern to be believed by many of the native troops —and that they were utterly without foundation,-pp.i.—v. Such is “ the alarming intelligence lately received from Madras.” From hence Major Scott Waring takes occasion “humbly to submit to the consideration of his Majesty's ministers, the East India Company, and the legislature, a plan for restoring that confidence which the natives formerly reposed in the justice and policy of the British government, as to the security of their religion, laws, and local customs.” And what is it? Nothing less than “THE IMMEDIATE RECALL OF EVERY ENGLISH MIssionARY, AND A PROHIBITION TO ALL PERSON'S DEPENDENT ON THE CoMPANY FROM GIVING ASSISTANCE TO THE TRANSLATION * Private intelligence is proper on some occasions; but, in cases of accusation, no man should be able to take away another’s character without risking his own. or c1RCULATION OF our Holy Scriptures,”—p. xvii. These the author thinks “the most, and indeed the only, efficacious measures.” That they would be efficacious there can be no doubt; and such would be the application of a guillotine for the cure of the head-ache; but whether it be just or wise is another question. If I had written the “Observations,” and had been afterwards convinced that the principles they contained were erroneous, I think I should not have sent out a new edition of them : or, if justice had failed to influence me, a regard to consistency would have prevented my publish- ing them and their refutation in the same pamphlet; but to publish that refutation in the form of a preface is be- yond every thing. To preface his work by contradicting its leading principles is advertising his reader that he has sold him a bad commodity. Should his Majesty’s minis- ters, the East India Company, or the legislature, attend to this gentleman’s performance, in what part are they to regard him # In the preface they are advised “immediately to recall every English missionary;” but, as they read on, they are told that “the true line for the British government to pursue is obvious ; let missionaries be as zealous as they may, and make as many converts as they can, provided they be neither encouraged on the one hand, nor discou- raged on the other, they can do no mischief.” What then are they to do, unless it be to disregard the whole as nu- gatory? And what have these English missionaries done, that they are to be immediately recalled ; and these Holy Scrip- tures, that they are not to be translated or circulated by any one dependent on the Company ? Nothing. As to the former, it is not pretended that they had any hand in the tragical event at Vellore. On the contrary, they are expressly acquitted of it., p. xi. And as to the latter, no accusation has yet been brought against them. But evil-minded men, it seems, have taken occasion, from the increase of the one, and the gratuitous circulation of the other, to misrepresent the designs of government; and, therefore, it is necessary to proceed to this extremity. The author, it must be acknowledged, has hit upon a happy expedient for suppressing the Scriptures; for if he can once get the men who are employed in translating and circulating them recalled, there is no danger of their doing any further mischief. So long as they are locked up in an unknown language, all Asia may continue from generation to generation under the dominion of imposture. But why must the missionaries be recalled immediately 2 It was said by a wise heathen, Ye ought to do nothing rash- ly. Permit us, at least, to ask a question or two before we are condemned. In the first place, WHEN were these misrepresentations made 2 Is there any proof of their having existed before the mutiny, so as to have had any influence in producing it? None at all. But we are told that “it is impossible, impolitic as the measure was, that the mere change in the dress of the seapoys could have produced a general belief that the British government was resolved to compel them to embrace Christianity,”—p. 1. I answer, there is no proof that such a general belief eacisted; no, not six months after- wards, when the proclamation was issued ; for it was then alleged to have extended only to “several corps of the na- tive army on the coast;” and at the time of the mutiny there is no proof of any other belief than what arose from the impositions. With what colour of evidence can this writer pretend that “the great increase of English mission- aries of late years, and the gratuitous distribution of our sacred Scriptures throughout the whole country,” were connect ED with the impositions in dress, in the represent- ations made to the seapoys, when in the same sentence he acknowledges those impositions to have affected their re- ligion 2 Allowing it to be what he calls it, “a religious mutiny,” yet the impositions in dress were competent to produce it. Had he not been determined to bring in these missionaries, and these Holy Scriptures, at any rate, he would have concluded that the other causes were “suf- ficient to create the alarm,” without any thing else being connected with them. But “various private accounts from men of sense, observation, and character mention that the great increase of missionaries, the profuse and gratuitous circulation of the Scriptures, added to the change of dress, 3 F 802 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIAN MISSIONS. were represented as proofs of our resolution ultimately to compel them to become Christians,”—p. 1. Ah that is it ! Major Scott Waring knows of nothing antecedent to the mutiny; the proclamation knows of nothing ; but “private accounts from men of sense, observation, and character,” make known every thing. And what have they to say on this subject 3 They tell of the great increase of English missionaries of late years. It is possible there may be about fifteen or sixteen ; but nine of them, by Major Scott Waring's own reckoning, are in Bengal, where no alarm worth mentioning has existed, except in the minds of Europeans. They also tell of “the gratuitous circulation of the Scriptures, throughout the whole country,”—pp. x. 1. The truth is, I believe, that the gratuitous circulation of the Scriptures has been hitherto confined to Bengal. Thus much, at present, for the private accounts of these men of sense, observation, and character, but for whose inform- ation we could not have known of any misrepresentations being made to the seapoys, prior to the Vellore mutiny. We ask, secondly, WHo were the authors of these mis- representations 2 The proclamation does not inform us; and probably government did not know, or they would have punished the offenders. But whether it be from the pri- vate accounts of these men of sense, observation, and cha- racter, or from some other source of information, Major Scott Waring makes it out that they were “disaffected natives of the Carnatic and the Mysore,”—p. x. This, if applied to what took place subsequent to the mutiny, may have some truth in it, or it may not. The evil-minded persons referred to in the proclamation, who appear to have availed themselves of the mutiny to increase the alarm, might be disaffected natives, or they might be Europeans, who, from aversion to Christianity, and a desire to get the Scriptures suppressed and the missionaries recalled, sug- gested such things to the seapoys as might accomplish their end. It is remarkable that, in the very passage in which this writer speaks in so positive a strain of “the disaffect- ed men of the Carnatic and the Mysore” having taken advantage of our folly, and excited the troops to mutiny, he exonerates the sons of Tippoo Sultaun, whom he had before, with equal positivity, condemned. “We know,” he had said in his Observations, “that the mutiny was ex- cited by the sons of Tippoo Sultaun, whose emissaries in- sinuated that the change which we wished to adopt in the dress of the seapoys was only a preparatory step towards the accomplishment of our great object, which was to com- pel them to embrace Christianity,”—p. 8. But in the pre- face (p. x.) he says, “From later information I have reason to believe that the sons of Tippoo Sultaun are in- nocent of the charge preferred against them ; but the dis- affected men of the Carnatic and the Mysore did take ad- vantage of our folly; and that they excited the troops to a ºreligious mutiny is beyond a doubt.” If this gentleman's knowledge be thus unfounded, though so very minute and particular that he would almost seem to have been an ear- witness, what is to be thought of his conjectures 2 and what to make of this last account more than conjecture I cannot tell. His eagerness to charge the disaffected na- tives looks as if some other people were suspected. Let us hear the other side. Mr. Carey says, “India swarms with deists; and deists are, in my opinion, the most intolerant of mankind. Their great desire is to exterminate true religion from the earth. I consider the alarms which have been spread through India as the fabrications of these men. The concurrence of two or three circumstances, in point of time, namely, the massacre at Vellore, the rebellious disposition of the inhabitants in some part of Mysore, and the public adver- tisements for subscriptions to the Oriental translations, have furnished them with occasion to represent the introduction of Christianity among the natives as dangerous.” Dr. Kerr's Report, dated Madras, July 23, 1807, twelve months after the mutiny, confirms Mr. Carey's statement. He clearly shows that, in his opinion, the evil-minded persons, who industriously circulated reports nearly allied to the above, were not natives, but Europeans hostile to 'religion and its interests. “Various reports,” says he, “have been industriously circulated, by evil-minded per- sons hostile to religion and its interests, that the natives would be alarmed were missionaries allowed to come out to India; but I feel myself authorized, by a near acquaint- ance with many of the protestant missionaries now in India, and a perfect knowledge of the respect which is entertained for them by all descriptions of the natives, to repeat what I have formerly stated to government, that these men are, and always have been, more beloved by the natives than any other class of Europeans; and it is to be accounted for on the most rational grounds—that is, they learn their language intimately; they associate with them in a peaceable, humble manner, and do them every act of kindness in their power ; while, at the same time, the example of their Christian lives produces the very highest respect amongst heathens, unaccustomed to behold such excellence amongst each other. The lives of such men in India have always been a blessing to the country, and I heartily wish that all such characters may be en- couraged to come amongst us.” The above statements from Mr. Carey, and Dr. Kerr, I may venture to place against the anonymous accounts of men of sense, observation, and character; and if they be true, they not only furnish an exposition to the labours of Messrs. Twining, Scott Waring, and Co., but fully account for those apprehensions which, it is said, “existed as late as March, 1807, three months after the date of the procla- mation ; and which induced the British officers attached to the native corps constantly to sleep with loaded pistols under their pillows,” p. xi. An event so tragical as that at Vellore would itself, indeed, suggest the necessity of such a precaution, and that for a considerable time after; and still more so when the flame was fanned by evil-minded persons. Yes, reader, if these statements be true, it follows that the enemies of Christianity, after having themselves excited these alarms, are now actually attempting to trans- fer the responsibility for their consequences to the mis- sionaries. We ask, lastly, let these misrepresentations have been fa- bricated when and by whom they might, Is it JUST, or wise, to recall those persons who are acknowledged to have had no concern in them, or to suppress the circulation of the Holy Scriptures on that account 2 A great outrage has certainly been committed. What was the cause 3 According to Major Scott Waring, the Madras government acted absurdly ; first, in changing so suddenly a native to an English administration, and then in imposing such alterations in the dress of the seapoys as affected their religion. And when, in addition to this, they were told, by evil-minded persons, of the great in- crease of missionaries, and the gratuitous circulation of the Scriptures throughout the country, they believed govern- ment intended to compel them to become Christians; and though the thing was not true, yet it was by no means irrational for them to believe it, pp. ix., x. Supposing this account to be correct, where is the justice of punishing men for their numbers being magnified, and their labours mis- represented by others ? If an atonement be necessary, why select them as victims? If, indeed, the evil-minded incendiaries, who misrepresented their designs and those of government, could be detected, it might answer a good end to punish them ; but if this cannot be accomplished, let not the innocent suffer. Major Scott Waring seems, indeed, to give up the jus- tice of the measure ; but yet contends for it as of “absolute necessity, seeing the proclamation had not lulled the sus- picions of the people,”—p. xi. Such are the Machiavelian politics of this gentleman. Could we suppose him to be sufficiently acquainted with the New Testament, we might suspect that he had taken up this opinion from Caiaphas, the Jewish high priest, who advised the crucifixion of our Lord, on the principle of its being “eapedient that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not,” John xi. 49, 50. “It is necessary to convince the natives,” says this writer, “not only that we never did entertain the wild idea of compelling them to embrace Christianity, but that we have not a wish to convert them,”—p. vi. It cannot be necessary to convince the natives that Major Scott Waring, and all who are like-minded with him, have not a wish to convert them ; and as to others, who may entertain the idea of converting them without compulsion, it deserves to be considered whether the recalling of them would not STRICTURES ON MAJOR SCOTT WARING'S PREFACE. 803 have a contrary effect to that which is pretended. The recall of the missionaries, and the virtual suppression of the Scriptures, would furnish the natives with an important subject of reflection. It would be a tacit acknowledgment, on the part of government, that, till instructed by the Vel- lore mutiny, they had entertained “the wild idea of com- pelling them to embrace Christianity;”, but that now they have become sober, and relinquished it! Whether such a measure would be attributed to respect, or to fear, and what effects it would produce on the army and the country, let common sense determine. As the main design of this preface was to excite “his Majesty's ministers, the East India Company, and the legislature” against the missionaries and their labours, the author, having improved the Vellore mutiny as far as he is able, proceeds to denounce these men, and all who have been in any way abettors of their dangerous designs. The JBritish and Foreign Bible Society, who have aided them as translators; Mr. Brown, and Dr. Buchanan, who have encouraged them ; and Dr. Kerr, who is engaged in the same cause with them ; all come in for a share of his cen- SUl] &S. “Dr. Buchanan conceives,” says he, “ that it is by no means submitted to our judgment, or to our notions of policy, whether we shall embrace the means of imparting Chris- tian knowledge to our subjects or not,”—p. xxv. The Major probably thinks this a very wild opinion; yet it only amounts to this, that God is greater than man, and that what respects the promotion of his kingdom in the earth must not be rendered subservient to worldly interests. But this, he tells us, “ was precisely the doctrine of the Spaniards and Portuguese, when they discovered the new world ; and they extirpated millions of unfortúnate men in propagating their doctrines by the sword.” If there be any force in this remark, (which seems to be a favourite one,) it is because the persecuting conduct of these nations was the legitimate and necessary consequence of the doctrine in question. But why might they not have considered themselves as under indispensable obligation to impart the means of Christian knowledge, without being obliged to follow it with persecution ? Does it follow, because they were not obliged to extend their religious principles by the sword, that we are not obliged to extend ours without the sword Many things are said on the impolicy of Dr. Buchanan’s visit to the Syrian Christians, and that of Dr. Kerr to the Malabar coast. It seems to have given this writer serious offence that the governor of Madras should have given the epithet “important” to an inquiry relating to Christianity, —p. xxix. He calls it “the most trifling of all possible subjects connected with the welfare of our Oriental em- pire,”—p. xxxiii. He speaks of this empire as being “conquered by British valour,”—p. xl. God and religion, therefore, it should seem, can have nothing to do with it. No, let the missionaries go to Africa, to the South Sea Islands, or to the wilds of America ; but let them not come hither! “O thou seer, go, flee thee away into the land of Judah, and there eat bread, and prophesy there : but prophesy not again any more at Beth-el: for it is the king's chapel, and it is the king's court,” Amos vii. 12, 13. Yet this gentleman would be thought, after all, to be a Christian, and “trusts it will not be imputed to in- difference for the eternal welfare of the people of India.” that he advises what he does But as Dr. Buchanan and Dr. Kerr, if they judge it necessary, are able to vindicate themselves, I shall confine my replies to those particulars which more immediately concern me. Many things are said against “the English, and especially the Baptist missionaries.” Such, indeed, is the quantity of misrepresentation contained in these few pages, that, to correct it, it is often necessary to con- tradict every sentence. On this account, the reader must frequently dispense with the ordinary forms of quoting and answering ; and consider those paragraphs which are pmarked with reversed commas as the words of Major Scott Waring, and those which are not as the answers to them. I do not accuse my opponent of wilful errors; but if he be clear of them, his information must be ex" tremely incorrect. “We have now a great number of sectarian mission- aries spread over every part of India,”—p. xii. Those whom Major Scott Waring is pleased to honour with this appellation may amount to fifteen or sixteen, the greater part of whom reside at Serampore, near Calcutta, directly under the eye of the supreme government. “Mr. Carey, the head of the Baptist mission in Bengal, and his assistant missionaries, have been employed, since the year 1804, in translating the Scriptures into the various languages of India.” It may have been from that period that the work of translating has been conducted on so extensive a scale; but for many years before that time Mr. Carey was en- gaged in the same undertaking. An edition of the New Testament, in Bengalee, was printed at Serampore in 1801, a copy of which is now in his Majesty's library. “Mr. Carey is employed in translating the Scriptures into the Chinese language,”—p. xv. The Chinese translation is not the work of Mr. Carey, but of Mr. Johannes Lassar, a learned Armenian Christian, with other assistants. “As the different parts are translated, they are printed, as I understand, at the Company's press, attached to the College at Calcutta.” If this were true, while no man is forced to read them, no danger could arise from it; but there is very little, if any, truth in it. The translations of the mission- aries have been printed at Serampore. “Specimens of these translations have been sent home by the provost.” It seems, then, that they were not engaged in any thing of which they were ashamed. “The natives of India cannot be ignorant of these novel and extraordinary pro- ceedings:”—Especially while their most learned pundits assist in the work. “They can form no other conclusion than this, that if we cannot persuade, we shall compel them to embrace Christianity.” So long as no compulsion is used towards them, they have more sense than to draw such conclusions, or even to believe them when drawn for them by others whom they consider as men of no religion. “In 1781, when it was the fixed principle of the legis- lature that we ought never to interfere with the religion, laws, or native customs of the people of India, a proposi- tion for free schools and Christian missionaries could not have been listened to,”—p. xiii. There never was a period, since the British have had footing in India, in which either free schools or Christian missionaries were considered as an interference with the religious opinions of the natives. If they were, why were Schwartz and his contemporaries tolerated 2 The truth is, the term “interference” has been adopted in this controversy to answer an end, and the idea which our adversaries endeavour to attach to it is alto- gether novel. “The late bishop of St. Asaph, a sound and orthodox divine, and one of the main pillars of our good old Church of England, deprecated all such interference.” He did so ; and Major Scott Waring, with his men of sense, observation, and character, have, doubtless, in his lordship's decease, lost an able advocate. “ The command of our Saviour to his apostles, to preach the gospel to all nations, did not, as he conceived, apply to us—and his opinion in 1781 was universal.” Major Scott Waring may know that this was the opinion of the late bishop of St. Asaph ; but he knows very little indeed of what were the opinions of the Chris- tian world. “Since that period many very worthy and good men are of opinion that, as Christians, it is incumbent upon us to spread the Christian religion as widely as we possibly can ; and highly, indeed, do I applaud their zeal, when it is exercised in countries where we have no political power.” Whatever charges we may exhibit against Major Scott Waring, we cannot accuse him of not speaking out. “I do not exactly know what are Baptist missionaries. I believe they may be classed with Calvinistic Methodists, to distinguish them from the Arminian Methodists,”—p. xv. We can excuse the author’s ignorance on this sub- ject; but when he tells us, in the same page, that there are “spread over India, Baptist missionaries, Arminian Methodist, and United Brethren missionaries,” &c. &c., we see ignorance combined with something worse. The Arminian Methodists have no mission in India, and never had. The United Brethren have formerly had one at Serampore; but I believe, at present, they have none. Before this gentleman writes again, he would do well to consider the justness of the remark made by himself, and to apply it to other subjects, as well as politics : “In 3 F 2 804 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIAN MISSIONS. discussing political questions, a certain degree of acquaint- ance with the subject is supposed to be requisite,”—p. 38. “I am assured, by gentlemen lately returned from India, that, notwithstanding the very great increase of mis- sionaries of late years, the case is not changed since my time ; that they have not made a single Mahomedan con- vert, and that the few Hindoos who have been converted were men of the most despicable character, who had lost their castes, and took up a new religion because they were excommunicated,”—p. xlii. I presume these gentle- men lately returned from India are the same persons whom this writer elsewhere denominates men of sense, observa- tion, and character. The reader will now be able to judge of the value of these boasted authorities. EveRY PARTICULAR IN THIS PARAGRAPH. Is FALSE. There has been no such great increase of missionaries of late years as is pretended. There are Mahomedans, as well as Hin- doos, who have been baptized. Out of more than eighty natives who had been baptized before May 25, 1806, only three had previously lost caste, eight were brahmins, and seven Mahomedans. The whole number which had been earcluded for immoral conduct might amount to eight or wine. As nearly as I can make it out the above is a true statement. The reader may see a list of the baptized, down to Nov. 1804, in No. XV. Periodical Accounts— Pref. p. xiv. I can assure him that the missionaries might have had more proselytes than they have, if they would have received such characters as these men report them to have received; but their object is to make con- verts to Christ, and not proselytes to themselves. Indeed, so little are the assertions of this writer to be regarded, with respect to the character of the native converts, that it would be the easiest thing imaginable directly to confront them by the testimony of competent witnesses. Mr. J. Fernandez, a gentleman who came from India early in 1806, and who is now with Dr. Ryland at Bristol, makes the following declaration :-‘‘There are several Mahomed- an converts among the missionaries, and some very re- spectable Hindoos who have embraced Christianity. To the best of my recollection, there are but two at Seram- pore who had previously lost caste : these had been for a long time reckoned Portuguese, and were not in worse circumstances than other people. Some of the highest class of brahmins have, to my knowledge, embraced the gospel, whom the natives call Mookoorja, Chattirja, Bar- ridja,” &c. As to what is said of their non-success, either by Major Scott Waring or the gentlemen lately re- turned from India, I appeal to the common sense of man- kind, whether, if they themselves believed what they say, they would raise such an opposition as they do. They tell us the natives are alarmed ; but the alarm is with themselves. It is somewhat remarkable that infidelity, which has of late years threatened to swallow up Chris- tianity, should in so short a time be alarmed for itself, and for its pagan and Mahomedan allies. A small detachment from the Christian army, clad in the armour of God, and operating as in a way of diversion, has caused their host to tremble, and to cry out to the civil powers to assist them by recalling these men. This gentleman is sufficiently aware of the prejudice which exists against Protestant Dissenters, and knows how to avail himself of it. He can condescend to call the missionaries, sectaries and schismatics, pp. xliii.—xlv. And would he have liked them better, if they had been churchmen 3 No ; for he speaks of certain gentlemen as “classed under that description of our clergy who are termed evangelical,” and of their being all for “ converting the Hindoos to Christianity,”—p. xv. Clergymen of this description are, in his account, as bad as sectaries and schismatics. The truth is, it is as Christians that we in- cur his displeasure ; only he judges it prudent to attack us under other names. But these missionaries are also represented as “illiterate, ignorant, and as enthusiastic as the wildest devotees among the Hindoos,”—p. xliv. The following extract from the speech of Sir George Barlow, published in a Calcutta Gazette Extraordinary, on Saturday, March 8, 1806, will prove that all men are not of Major Scott Waring's opinion. “I have received with great satisfac- tion the information that, under the patronage of the Asiatic Society, the Society of protestant missionaries at the Danish settlement of Serampore, aided and superin- tended by the abilities of Mr. Carey, professor of the Shanscrit and Bengalee languages, has undertaken the translation of some of the most ancient and authentic works of literature in the former of these languages.” Of the missionaries sent out by the London Society, I do not believe there is an individual who is either “ignor- ant or illiterate ; ” though, doubtless, as in all other bodies of men, there are diversities of talent and learning. And with respect to enthusiasm, after what has been quoted from Major Scott Waring, no Christian need be offended at his calling him an enthusiast. This gentlemen has furnished himself with various re- ports from the Missionary Societies. Among others, he has met with a “Sermon,” preached in May last before “The Society of Missions to Africa and the East,” of which Society Admiral Lord Gambier is a governor. It seems, then, that India is not altogether “thrown into the hands of schismatics.” But at the end of this ser- mon is an account of a brahmin, as given by Mr. John Thomas, in the “Baptist Periodical Accounts.”—Vol. I. pp. 22–26. Let any one that fears God read that ac- count, and compare it with these remarks upon it. “I had the curiosity,” says he, “to inquire after Mr. Thomas and his convert, and I heard that they both died raving mad in Bengal,”—p. xlvi. We may suppose this informa- tion, as well as the preceding, was received from the gen- tlemen lately returned from India. It is worthy of them. Parbotee, however, is neither dead nor insane. And Mr. Thomas, though his mind was deranged for a month or two at one period of his life, yet died same and happy. Mr. John Fernandez, the gentleman before referred to, says, “Mr. Thomas was deranged for a short time ; and after his recovery lived with my father at Dinagepore for a considerable time before his dissolution, when he died very happy. As for Parbotee, I am almost certain that he is still alive. He was so, however, when I left India in 1806. I saw him myself.” It is remarkable that this gentleman is for tolerating the Roman Catholic missionaries, and all others, indeed, except “those who possess this new mania for conversion, so unaccountably taken up,”—p. xlix. We perfectly comprehend him ; and, I hope, shall profit by the hint. It signifies but little with him how many missionaries there are, nor by what names they are called, so that they are not in earnest for the salvation of men. We will fol- low his example:—while we adhere to that denomination which appears to us to approach nearest to the Scriptures, we will recognise the Christian, in whatever communion we may find him. We will rejoice in the good which is done by “The Society for promoting Christian Know- ledge,” even though they are offended with their mission- aries, for nothing that we can conceive but their exercis- ing the common duties of hospitality to ours.” Major Scott Waring, among other missionary reports, has procured No. XVI. of the “Baptist Periodical Ac- counts,” and proposes giving us some extracts from it. Before he does this, however, he presents us with a few particulars by way of introduction ; but all, as the reader would suppose, gathered from this said No. XVI. First, he informs us that “nine English missionaries are employed by this Society in Bengal alone.”—p. liii. What a number then must they employ, the reader would suppose, in all the other provinces of India It happens, however, that in no other province of Hindostan have they ever employed a single missionary. Whether the gentlemen lately returned from India informed the author of the great numbers of these missionaries scattered all over the country, or however he came by the idea, his mind is certainly full of it, and it has led him into a curious train of reasoning. “The jea- lousy and the alarm,” says he, “which has pervaded the * See the last Report of the committee of this Society, No. IV. p. 165. They acknowledge the documents they possess to be quite insuf- Jicient to enable them to form a judgment of the true ground of cer- tain disorders; but “Missionaries from an Anabaptist Society, and from that called the London Missionary Society,” have called upon them, and it seems received some countenance from them ; and there- fore this committee thinks proper to throw out a suspicion that they may have been the occasion of these evils / STRICTURES ON MAJOR SCOTT WARING's PREFACE. 805 whole of the Carnatic and Mysore, has been but partially felt in Bengal, because [there] the efforts of the English missionaries have hitherto not extended beyond a few in- considerable villages, and the populous city of Dacca.”— p. li. They have been more extensive then, it should seem, in the Carnatic and Mysore . The truth is, I believe, that NOT AN ENGLISH MISSIONARY HAS ENTERED EITHER OF THESE countries. Nearly the whole of what has been hitherto done is confined to Bengal ; for though the Lon- don Society has five or six missionaries in other provinces, some of which may be near to the Carnatic, yet the time is so short that they have scarcely been able, at present, to acquire the languages. But in Bengal the Baptist mission has existed for a number of years, and the labours of the missionaries have been much more extensive than our au- thor would seem in this instance to apprehend ; yet there these “alarms have been but partially felt l’” Who does not perceive the consequence 3 THESE ALARMS ARE NOT THE ERFECT OF MISSIONARY EXERTIONS. Major Scott Waring goes on to inform his reader of a number of particulars, in a manner as though he had col- lected them from our own Report. Among other things, he speaks of Mr. Carey as “having apartments in the college for the reception of his brother missionaries when they visit Calcutta,” and repeats the story of “Mr. Thomas and his convert Parbotee dying mad in Bengal.”—p. liii. Did he learn these particulars from No. XVI., or from the gentle- men lately returned from India £ It were singular indeed if a professor in a college had no apartments in it, and were not at liberty to receive any person who may call upon him. “In the Company's list of college officers he is styled Mr. William Carey ; but the Bible Society has given him the dignified title of Reverend,”—p. liii. He might be called Doctor Carey, or Professor Carey. Whether either of these titles would be less displeasing to this gentleman I cannot tell. If not, whenever he has occasion to correspond with him, he may lay aside all titles, and call him, as I do, Mr. Carey. I can answer for it that it will give him no offence. As to the attempts to prove from the missionaries’ own accounts that they have “caused considerable uneasiness among the people of the villages,” Major Scott Waring may make what he can of them. If he had given extracts, as he proposed, and referred to the pages, it would have appeared that no such sensation was ever produced with respect to government. It was confined, as Mr. Carey says, “to abusive language from a few loose persons; ” or, at most, to ill treatment of the native converts, and which, in every instance, they have borne with Christian meekness and patience. No such thing as a disturbance, endanger- ing the peace of society, has occurred. The “alarm ‘’ which the appearance of a European is allowed to excite (p. lviii.) respects him not as a missionary, but as a Eu- ºropean ; and it is for the purpose of avoiding this as much as possible that the labours of the native converts are en- couraged. This writer seems to think it sufficient to dis- credit all missionary attempts, that he can prove from our own accounts that we have strong prejudices to encounter, and judge it expedient, instead of violently attacking them, to proceed in as still and silent a way as possible. . A very heavy charge is preferred against one of the mis- sionaries, as having perverted the words of our Lord: “Think you that I am come to send peace on the earth? I tell you, Nay.” Yet nothing is alleged to prove it a per- Version, except that the gospel inculcates the mild doctrine of “peace on earth, and good will to men,”—p. lix. The direct influence of the gospel is no doubt what he says of it; but what if, owing to the depravity of men, it should in many instances occasion the most bitter enmity and oppo- sition ? Is the gospel accountable for this 3 Christian com- passion has been known to excite the foulest resentment in some men. What then 3 Is Christian compassion ever the worse ? The remarks on the journey to Dacca (pp. liv. lv.) show what Major Scott Waring wishes to prove; but that is all. If what he calls “the proper line for the British govern- ment to pursue " had been pursued on that occasion, the young men had not been interrupted. I say the young ºmen; for it was not Mr. Carey, but Mr. William Carey, his second son, who accompanied Mr. Moore. “They dis- tinguished,” we are told, “between the brahmins and the people at large.” Yes, they had reason to do so; for the people were eager to receive the tracts, but some of the brahmins were offended ; and this is common on almost all other occasions. “Should we be mad enough to make the same distinction, our destruction is inevitable.” One would think, then, the destruction of the missionaries themselves would not only be inevitable, but immediate. As the brahmins are displeased with none but them and the native converts, if they escape, there is no cause for others to fear. The truth is, the common people are not so under the influence of the brahmins as to be displeased with hearing them publicly confuted. On the contrary, they will often express their pleasure at it; and, when the lat- ter remain silent, will call out, “Why do you not answer him 3 '' But “Lord Clive and Mr.Verelst, in the year 1766, were not so mad as to advise a poor creature who had lost caste to abandon his ridiculous and idolatrous prejudices, and to embrace the true religion,”—p. lvi. If I were to say they were not so wise and so good as to do so, I should be as near the truth ; and my saying would bear reflection in a dying hour, quite as much as that of Major Scott Waring. “We may conceive the marrow bigotry by which these men are actuated, by the conduct of Mr. [William] Carey and Mr. Moore to some native Christian Catholics whom they met with in a village when they were driven from Dacca by the magistrate and collector.” And what was it? Why, “to these poor Catholics, they pointed out the errors of popery, and warned them of the danger of wor- shipping and trusting to idols,”—p. lx. And this is bigotry / Such bigots they certainly were and are. To prove the absolute inutility of the dispersion of one edition of the New Testament, and of twenty thousand religious tracts, a letter from Mr. Carey is cited, which speaks of there being “but few months in which some were not baptized ; of three natives having joined them in the last month, and two the month before ; but of their being under the necessity of excluding several for evil conduct,” —p. lx. If Major Scott Waring be not more successful in his opposition than he is in his proof, Christianity may still go on and prosper in India. I suspect it was from a con- scious want of this important article, that he was obliged to fill up his pages with such terms as “bigots,” “mad- men,” “mischievous madmen,” &c. &c. There is nothing so provoking, to a man who is desirous of proving a point, as the want of evidence. “In the course of several years, they have made about eighty converts, all from the lowest of the people, most of them beggars by profession, and others who had lost their castes. The whole of them were rescued from poverty, and procured a comfortable subsistence by their conversion,”—p. xli. That is, reader, thus say the gentle- men lately returned from India, p. xlii. I need not re- peat the refutation of these falsehoods. Before, they were said all to have previously lost caste ; but now it seems to be only some of them. Judge, reader, do these men be- lieve what they say? But “the whole of them were rescued from poverty, and procured a comfortable subsistence by their conversion.” A considerable number of the Chris- tian natives live many miles from Serampore, and subsist in the same manner as they did before their baptism, and without any aid from the missionaries. The subsistence of others, who reside in the neighbourhood of Serampore, is from the same employment as it was before they became Christians; and those who receive pay from the mission- aries are such as are employed by them. Mr. John Fer- nandez says, “I have been present almost every time when the converts have professed their faith before the brethren, and have repeatedly heard the missionaries tell them that, unless they worked with their own hands, they would receive no help from them. Inquirers were always kept for some time on probation.” Some of them were Byraggees, a sort of religious beggars; but they are no longer so when they become Christians. No one is sup- ported in idleness. If any are bettered in their circum- stances, it is by being taught to be industrious and frugal. But many of those whom our author calls “beggars by profession ” lived in much greater fulness by that way of life than they do now by labour; and it is not very likely that they should have relinquished the one, and chosen the other, from interested motives. What is it that kindles t 806 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIAN MISSIONS. • the wrath of this man If a word be spoken against the character of these people while they continue heathens, he is all indignant; but if they become Christians, the foulest reproaches are heaped upon them. Is it because these beggars are become industrious, and cease to live upon the superstitious credulity of their neighbours, that he is so offended ? Does he think the British government would be overturned if all the rest of the beggars were to follow their example? But “one of the missionaries writes to England that a hundred rupees a month would support ten native con- verts with their families, and a still greater number of single brethren ; which,” he says, “is undoubtedly true, because the wages of our common servants are but three, four, and five rupees a month,”—p. lxi. lxii. Why does not our author refer to the pages from whence he takes his extracts As this passage stands in his pamphlet, it conveys the idea that every native convert with a family costs the Society ten rupees a month ; but if the reader look into No. XVI. p. 171, from which the extract is taken, he will find that it is of native preachers that Mr. Marshman writes; who observes that, “while they are thus employed in disseminating the good seed, they can- not be at home supporting their families.” It is one thing, surely, to pay a man ten rupees for the support of his family, and his own travelling expenses; and another to give him the same sum as a common labourer at home. Major Scott Waring may give as many extracts from our publications as he pleases; but he should not pervert the meaning. He may think us wild and foolish to lay out money in such undertakings; he may call it “ri- diculous to talk of the perishing millions of India” (p. lxii.); he may reckon compassion to a great city, wholly given to idolatry, a proof of the want of common sense (p. lxv.); but let him do us the justice of allowing us to think otherwise. We are not surprised at his having no compassion for perishing idolaters, nor indeed at any thing else, unless it be his pretending, after all, to be a Christian ; but let him not represent us as employed in bribing bad men to become hypocrites. “Some of these converts have been expelled for gross immorality.” True, and what then 3 “Such I am con- fident would be the fate of the remainder, were not the missionaries afraid of being laughed at.” But why should he imagine this? Does he think the Hindoos all bad men? or do they become such when they embrace Christianity? And why should the missionaries be supposed to retain bad men in their society for fear of being laughed at 2 Had they feared this, they had never engaged in the work. Did they fear this, they would not exclude so many as they do; or, at least, would not report it in their letters. I may add, it is not long since they had a fair opportunity to have entirely desisted from their work; and that in a way that would not have incurred the laughter, but pos- sibly the commendation of these men. They might also from that time have gone on to accumulate fortunes, in- stead of sacrificing every thing in a cause which they knew, it seems, at the same time to be hopeless. Surely these missionaries must be worse than madmen ; and the government at Calcutta, and the Asiatic Society, cannot be much better, to think of employing them in translating works of literature. Once more, “The new orders of missionaries are the most ignorant and the most bigoted of men. Their com- positions are, in fact, nothing but puritanical rant, of the most vulgar kind; worse than that so much in fashion in Great Britain, during the days of Oliver Cromwell.” We hope the author will furnish us with a specimen. Yes, here it is: “When Mr. [W.] Carey and Mr. Moore were at Dacca, they write on the Lord’s day as follows: What an awful sight have we witnessed this day ! A large and populous city wholly given to idolatry, and not an indivi- dual to warn them to flee from the wrath to come. As soon as we rose in the morning, our attention was unavoidably eaccited by scenes the most absurd, disgusting, and degrading to human nature / " Judge, Christian reader, what a state of mind that man must possess who can call this language vulgar rant, and adduce it as a proof of ignorance and bigotry / “Could men possessing common sense,” he adds, “ have written such nonsense as this is, unless blinded by enthusiasm 3 Had they discovered that a single Englishman was a convert to the Hindoo or the Mahomedan religion, they would have been justified in giving their sentiments to him, as to his apostacy from the true to a false and idolatrous religion ; but to pour out such unmeaning and useless abuse on an immense popu- lation, which merely observed those forms and ceremonies which had been used throughout Hindostan for above 2000 years, is folly and arrogance in the extreme,”—p. lxv. I wonder whether this writer ever read a book called the Bible, or heard of any of its language, excepting a few passages held up, perchance, to ridicule, in some history of the times of Oliver Cromwell ! I presume the reader has had enough ; and as all that follows is little else than a repetition of what has already been answered, interlarded with the usual quantity of low abuse, I shall pass it over unnoticed. I have seldom seen a performance, by a writer calling himself a Christian, so full of barefaced infidelity. May God give him repentance to the acknowledging of the truth. PART II. We certify the king that, if this city be builded, and the walls thereof set up, by this means thou shalt have no portion on this side the river.—THE ADVERSARIES OF JUDA.H. Now Tatnai, governor beyond the river, Shethar-boznai, and your companions the Apharsachites, be ye far from thence: let the work of this house of God alone.—DARIUs. INTRODUCTION. THAT apologies for Christianity should have been neces- sary in heathen countries is easily conceived ; but an at- tempt of the kind in this country, and at this period of time, seems itself almost to require an apology. Who would have thought that the sons of protestant Britain would so far degenerate as to become the advocates of paganism 3 or, though that were the case with a few in- dividuals, yet who could have imagined that a number of men would be found who would have either the power or the resolution publicly to oppose the propagation of Christianity? We may be told that the greater part of our opponents profess to be Christians, and that their opposition is merely on political considerations. I might meet them upon this ground, and might deny that the progress of the gospel in any country, or in any circumstances, can be unfriendly to its political welfare. But it would be compromising the honour of the gospel to rest its defence on this prin- ciple. If Christianity be true, it is of such importance that no political considerations are sufficient to weigh against it; nor ought they, for a moment, to be placed in competition with it. If Christianity be true, it is of God; and if it be of God, to oppose its progress on the grounds of political expediency is the same thing as to tell our Maker that we will not have him to reign over us, unless his government be subservient to our temporal interests. Should we be reminded that we are fallible men, and ought not to identify our undertakings with Christianity, nor to reckon every opposition to us as an opposition to REMARKS ON MAJOR SCOTT WARING's LETTER. 807 Christ, this we readily admit. If we be opposed in rela- tion to any other object than that of propagating the gos- pel, or on account of anything faulty in us in the pursuit of that object, such opposition is not directed against Christianity, and we have no desire, in such cases, to identify our undertakings with it. Let it only be fairly proved that the missionaries are intemperate and danger- ous men, and we will admit the propriety of their being recalled. But if no such proof be given, if the reports circulated against them be unfounded, if the alarms which have been spread in India be the mere fabrications of evil- minded Europeans, and if they themselves be men who work the work of God, an opposition to them may be found to be an opposition to Christ. Let our adversaries, instead of declaiming against us, join issue with us on this point. Let them prove the missionaries to be intemperate and dangerous men, and their cause is gained. We have only one petition to present to our judges; which is that such effects as naturally arise from the preach- ing of the gospel among those who do not believe it, which always have arisen, even from the first preaching of the apostles down to our own times, and which terminate only on ourselves, may not be admitted in evidence against us. Our adversaries allege that, according to our own accounts, the missionaries occasionally excite uneasiness, and that the native Christians sometimes draw upon themselves abusive treatment. We do not deny that in a few in- stances this has been the case ; but we say this effect is no more than what Christianity has always produced, in a greater or less degree, when addressed to unbelievers; and that so long as this uneasiness and abuse are merely directed against the parties, and are no more injurious to the British government than the preaching of Paul and Barnabas was to that of Rome, we ought not, on this ac- count, to be censured. And if a few things of this kind be thrown aside, as irrelevant, we have no apprehension of a single charge being substantiated against us. SECTION I. REMARKS ON MAJOR SCOTT WARING’s LETTER TO THE REV. M.R. O.W.E.N. THERE is a sympathy between kindred principles which is often unperceived by the party who favours them, but which may be expected to betray itself in speaking or writing upon the subject. How is it that our opponents are so anxious for the preservation of paganism and Ma- homedism? They certainly have no intention of becom- ing the disciples of either, nor to convey any such idea to the public ; but when these systems are in danger, they have a feeling for them which they cannot conceal. How is it that Major Scott Waring should so readily find mot- tos for his pamphlets, in “Hints to the Public and the Legislature, on the Nature and Effect of Evangelical Preaching?” He professes to be no sectary, but a true orthodox churchman, believing in the doctrine of the Trinity; may more, considering the belief of that doctrine - as the only thing essential to Christianity, p. 107. Yet the author of these “Hints,” if report be true, while he calls himself “a Barrister,” is, in reality, a Socinian Dis- senter; but, being so exactly of his mind with respect to evangelical religion, his wanting what he accounts the only essential of Christianity is a matter of small account. Finally, How is it that the cause of our opponents should be favoured in most of the Socinian publications, and that they should be so happily united in their wishes for government not to tolerate evangelical religion ? One submits “A Plan to his Majesty’s Ministers, the East India Company, and the Legislature,” proposing to “recall every English missionary;” another suggests “Hints to the Public and the Legislature, on the Nature and Effect of Evangelical Preaching.” The language of both is, We know not what to do with these evangelical men, and therefore humbly request Gover NMENT to take them in hand l—Yet these are the men who would be thought the friends, and almost the only friends, of reason and toleration : If the Major and his new ally have been accused of dealing too much in reason, we answer, with Dr. Owen, They have been unjustly treated ; as much so as poor St. Hierome, when beaten by an angel for preaching in a Ciceronian style. So much for the motto. As to the Letter itself, it con- tains little more than a repetition of things which have no foundation in truth, and which, I trust, have been already answered. The Major having been so ably re- pulsed in his first object of attack, “The British and Foreign Bible Society,” may be expected to direct his force somewhat more pointedly against the missionaries. We have his whole strength, however, in his former Pre- face. No new facts are adduced, nor new arguments from the old ones : almost all is repetition. Thus he re- peats the base calumnies of our bribing beggars to become Christians; of our sending out thousands a year to support them ; of our not having made one good convert; of the converts having lost caste before they were baptized, &c., —pp. 32.87. And thus, seven times over, he has repeated the words of Mr. Marshman, on “an alarm being excited in a bigoted city by the appearance of a European mis- sionary,” which, after all, respects him not as a missionary, but merely as a European. The scope of Mr. Marshman’s argument proves this ; for he is recommending native missionaries, who, in conversing with their own country- men, are listened to with attention, and excite none of that fear and reserve which are produced by the appear- ance of a foreigner.” If the reviling conduct of the inhabitants of a certain village towards the missionaries or native converts, who bore all without resistance, proves the fault to have been with them, it will prove the same of other missionaries whom our author professes to respect, and of other native converts. If he will look into the Report of “The Society for promoting Christian Knowledge,” for 1804, he will see an account of “an extraordinary conversion of several thousands, and of an extraordinary and unexpected per- secution of the converts from their heathen neighbours, and particularly from some men in office, under the col- lector,”—p. 145. Moreover, it will prove that the apostle Paul and our Saviour were accountable for the uneasiness which their preaching excited among the Jews, and for the persecutions which they met with on account of it. We may be told, indeed, that we ought not to compare ourselves with Christ and his apostles ; and it is true that, in various respects, it would be highly improper to do so; but in things which are common to Christ and his followers it is very proper. Now this is the case in the present instance. The disciples of Christ were given to expect that their doctrine would draw upon them the dis- pleasure of unbelievers, in the same manner as that of Christ had done before them. “Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his Lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also perse- cute you : if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also,” John xv. 20. If Major Scott Waring had known any thing of the gospel, and of its opposition to the vicious inclinations of the human heart, he could not have stumbled in the manner he has at Mr. Ward's ap- plication of the words of our Saviour in Luke xii. 51. He had introduced them before, and now he introduces them again and again, -pp. 80. 99. “Suppose ye that I am come to send peace on the earth? I tell you, Nay.” “These words,” he says, “most evidently, considered with their context, apply to the destruction of Jerusalem, which our blessed Saviour predicted would happen before the generation then existing had passed away.” So, then, Christ came to set fire to Jerusalem . But how was it already kindled * Almost any commentator would have taught him that these words have no reference to Jewish wars, but to Christian persecutions, which were predicted to take place at the same time. Neither do they express, as I have said before, what was the direct tendency of the gospel, which is doubtless to produce love and peace, but that of which, through man's depravity, it would be the * See Periodical Accounts, No. XVI. p. 170. 808 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIAN MISSIONS. occasion. In this sense Mr. Ward applied the text, in order to account for the persecutions which the native converts met with ; and I should not have supposed that a man of Major Scott Waring's age and talents could have construed it into a suggestion that the natural tendency of the gospel is to produce division. The Major proposes to the Rev. Mr. Owen that they should “preserve the manners of gentlemen in arguing the question,”—p. 4. Is it then becoming the pen of a gentle- man to write as he has done of Mr. Thomas and the other missionaries? # Or does he think himself at liberty, when dealing with them, to put off that character? If his own motives be arraigned, or his Christianity suspected, he thinks himself rudely treated; yet, when speaking of men who secede from the Established Church, he can allow him- self to insinuate that they do not act from principle,_p. 58. As to the charges of “ignorance and bigotry,” which he is continually ringing in our ears, I refer to the answers already given in my Strictures. It is allowed that “Mr. Carey may be a good Oriental scholar, and a good man ; but he is narrow-minded and intemperate,”—p. 33. The proof of this is taken from the conduct of his son at Dacca. The mistake as to the person is excusable ; but what was there in the conduct of either of the young men on that occasion which showed them to be narrow-minded or in- temperate 3 They felt, though they were not apostles, for a great city wholly given to idolatry; for they had read in their Bibles that “idolaters cannot enter the kingdom of God.” This was narrowness . But when Major Scott Waring proposes to exclude all denominations of Chris- tian missionaries from India, except those of the Estab- lished Church, I suppose he reckons this consistent with liberality.; With regard to intemperateness, I know of nothing like it in the conduct of these junior missionaries. They gave away tracts to those who came to their boat for them, and wished to have taken a stand in the city for the like pur- pose : but, being interrupted, they returned home ; not declining, however, to do that which had been done for years without offence, during the administration of Mar- quis Wellesley—namely, to distribute tracts in the villages. As to the Marquis Cornwallis, or any other person, being absent from Calcutta, it had just as much influence in causing their journey as Major Scott Waring's being at the same time, perchance, at Peterborough House. But their language is cant. The Major, however, might find plenty of such cant in the communications of Schwartz and his colleagues to “The Society for promoting Chris- tian Knowledge,” if he would only look over the East India intelligence in their reports. These, he tells us, were missionaries in his time, and of them he approves; yet if their letters were printed in our accounts, they would equally fall under his censure. The truth is, the language * Having lately received a letter from a gentleman of respectability in Scotland, concerning the calumny on the memory of Mr. Thomas, I shall take the liberty of introducing it in this place, as a further win- dication of this injured character. “DEAR SIR, “An anonymous pamphlet + has this day fallen into my hands, which is ascribed to a gentleman who formerly held a high rank in the East lmdia Company's military service, and of which it is the prin- cipal object to induce the East India Company to expel every protestant missionary from their possessions, and prevent the circulation of the Scriptures in the native languages. “Among the numerous and virulent misrepresentations which this work contains, there is a roost false and scandalous aspersion of the character of the late Mr. Thomas, who was the first missionary of your Society in India, which, from my personal acquaintance with that gentleman, I am enabled to contradict in the most positive man- ner, and which, from my regard for his memory, I deem it my duty so to contradict. “The author asserts, in p. 46, and again in p. 51, of the preface, that Mr. Thomas died raping mad in Bengal. It is indeed true that Mr. Thomas was once afflicted with a temporary derangement; but it was a considerable time before his death. From the summer of 1796, till May, 1801, I held an official situation in the Company's civil service at Dinagepore; and, during the last six months of this period, I had very frequent intercourse with Mr. Thomas, and heard him preach almost every Sunday; and I most solemnly affirm that I never saw the least symptom of derangement in any part of his behaviour or conversation. On the contrary, I considered him as a man of good understanding, uncommon benevolence, and solid piety. “In May, 1801, I quitted Dinagepore, and never again saw Mr. Thomas; but I had more than one letter from him between that time and his death, which happened, I think, in October, the same year. + “Major Scott Waring's Observations,” &c. of a serious mind, formed on Scriptural principles, will always sound like cant in the ears of such men as this author. Major Scott Waring makes a curious distinction between a gratuitous circulation of the Scriptures, and a giving them to petitioners. The former he opposes; but to the latter, he says, “no Christian can object,”—p. 48. Where- in then consists the mighty difference In the one case they are offered for acceptance, if the party please; in the other, the party himself makes the application : but in neither is there any thing done but with his full consent. No difference exists as to the effects; for if an individual petition for a New Testament, as soon as the brahmins or other interested persons come to know it, they will be just as uneasy, and as likely to revile him, as if he had received it without petitioning. But, I suppose, Major Scott War- ing may think that if nothing were done, except in con- sequence of applications from the natives, nothing in effect would be done, and this would please him . After all, I question whther the greater part of the New Testa- ments which have been distributed have not been given as “a dole of charity to petitioners.” An indiscriminate dis- tribution would be throwing them away; it is therefore an object with the missionaries to give Testaments only to persons who desire them, and who are, therefore, likely to read them. So I hope we shall please better as we under- stand one another. It seems to grieve the Major that Christians of almost all denominations are united against him ; but he and his colleagues have to thank themselves for this. Had their attack been directed merely against a few Dissenters, they might have had some chance of succeeding ; but it is so broad that no man, who has any feeling for Christianity, can view it in any other light than as an attempt to crush Čt in our Eastern possessions. It is an attempt to stop the progress of the Bible; and therefore must be absolutely antichristian. Whether Major Scott Waring perceives his error in this respect, and wishes to repair it, or whatever be his motive, he certainly labours in this, his second per- formance, to divide his opponents. First, he would fain persuade them that he himself is a Christian, which it is very possible he may be in his own esteem ; and secondly, he would be very glad to single out these sectarian mission- aries as the only objects of his dislike. It grieves him sorely that they should have been encouraged by clergy- men. If they would but discard these men, I know not but they might obtain forgiveness for being evangelical. But if not, he will do his utmost to prove that they are not the true sons of the church. “I never met with an evan- gelical clergyman,” he says, “who had not a tender feeling for those who have deserted the church of England, though at one time conformists.” Allowing this to be the case, he might have supposed it was for their holding evangelical These letters, which are still in my possession, exhibit no signs what- ever of mental derangement. In the last of them he wrote (with the calmness and hope of a Christian) of his own dissolution; an event which he thought was near at hand, as he felt some internal symp- toms of the formation of a polypus in his heart. “After Mr. Thomas's decease, I had an opportunity of learning the circumstances of it from the late Mr. Samuel Powell, a person whose Veracity none who knew him could question; and I never had the smallest reason to believe or suspect that Mr. Thomas was, in any de- gree whatever, deranged in mind at the time of his death. On the contrary, I always understood that he died in possession of his facul- ties, and of that hope which nothing but an unshaken faith in the gospel of Christ can give. “It is not my present purpose to vindicate the living from the coarse and vulgar abuse of this anonymous author. This you have under- taken, and are well qualified to do; but as he has thought it necessary to insult the character of the dead, and wound the feelings of surviving friends; and as I am, perhaps, the only person now in Great Britain who can, from personal acquaintance with Mr. Thomas during the last year of his life, do any thing to rescue his memory from this un- merited insult; I should think it criminal to have remained silent on this occasion. And I am happy thus to make some return for the in- structions I received from Mr. Thomas as a minister of Christ, and the pleasure I frequently enjoyed in his society and conversation. “You are at liberty to make any use of this letter that you may think proper. Believe me to be, dear sir, very sincerely yours, - “William Cuninghame. “Glasgow, Jan, 15, 1808.” # Such is the notion of liberality and toleration which I ventured to denounce in my Letter to the chairman of the East India Company; and I wish I were able to draw the serious attention of every friend to religious liberty in Britain to the subject. These men talk of liberty, while they are razing it to its foundation. REMARKS ON “A WINDICATION OF THE HINDOOS.” 809 principles in common with themselves, and not on account of their deserting the Church. And whatever feeling they might have toward those Christians who are not of their own communion, it is surely as pardonable as that which this author and his party have toward Mahomedans and heathens. This writer seems to think that, unless the whole popu- lation of India were converted, nothing is done. If forty in a year were to embrace Christianity, that is nothing in his account. He should consider, however, that we be- lieve in the immortality of the soul, and in the importance of eternal salvation. We should not think our labour lost, therefore, if we could be the instruments of saving half that number. We know, moreover, that the greatest and most beneficial events to mankind have arisen from small beginnings. Hence we pay no regard to such objections ; and even the flouts and sneers of our adversaries are far from discouraging us. We compare them with those of “Sanballat the Horonite, and Tobiah the Ammonite,” who were grieved exceedingly that there was come a man to seek the welfare of the children of Israel. “What do these feeble Jews?” said the one: “will they fortify them- selves? will they sacrifice 3 will they make an end in a day? Even that which they build,” answered the other, “if a fox go up, he shall even break down their stone wall.” Yet Nehemiah went on with the work, and the wall was built. The author still continues to revile Mr. [Wm.] Carey, and Mr. Moore, for what they wrote in their journal at Dacca, calling it “downright nonsense;” and still speaks of them as “ignorant men,” on account of it. The reader may see what this nonsense was, by only turning to p. 806. Reader, can you tell us wherein lies the nonsense of this language 3 for we are unable to discover it. Major Scott Waring has been told that, as the language of the young men was taken from the words of Scripture, in re- viling them he blasphemes the word of God. And what is his answer ? As far as I can understand it, it amounts to this: The same things which were very wise in Paul, and in our Saviour, are very foolish in these young men, p. 89. But there may come a time when it shall appear, even to this gentleman, that things are the same, whether they be in an apostle or in any other man ; and that he who re- vileth the words of Christ revileth Christ; and he that revileth Christ revileth Him that sent him. SECTION II. REMARKs on “A vin DICATION OF THE HINDoos, BY A BEN GAL OFFICER.” SINCE the publications of Messrs. Twining and Scott War- ing, another piece has appeared, entitled, “A Vindication of the Hindoos from the Aspersions of the Rev. Claudius Buchanan, M. A.; with a Refutation of the Arguments exhibited in his Memoir on the Expediency of an Ecclesi- astical Establishment for British India, and the ultimate Civilization of the Natives by their Conversion to Chris- tianity. Also, Remarks on an Address from the Mission- aries in Bengal to the Natives of India, condemning their Errors, and inviting them to become Christians. The whole tending to evince the Excellency of the Moral Sys- tem of the Hindoos, and the Danger of interfering with their Customs or Religion. By a Bengal Officer.” This production surpasses all that have gone before it. Messrs. Twining and Scott Waring were desirous of being considered as Christians; but if this writer does not formally avow his infidelity, he takes so little care to dis- guise it that no doubt can remain on the subject. After having ascribed the protestant religion to “reason” rather than revelation (pp. 9, 10)—pretended that the immor- tality of the soul was first revealed in Hindostan (p. 28)— questioned whether Christianity be at all necessary to the improvement of the Indian system of moral ordinances (p. 11)–preferred the heathen notion of transmigration to the Christian doctrine of future punishment (p. 47)—and framed a Geeta of his own in favour of purgatory (p. 48)— after all this, I say, and much more, he cannot, with any consistency, pretend to be a Christian.* If he believe in anything pertaining to religion, beyond the dictates of his own reason, it is in the revelations of his “divine MeNU.” He is fond of calling these insti- tutes by the name of Scripture, and reasons from them against our endeavouring to convince and convert the Hindoos, pp. 15, 16. 22, 23. It is an unfortunate circum- stance that the Hindoo religion admits of no proselytes; otherwise this writer must, ere now, have been invested with the honours of the poitou. The gentleman complains of his want of “eloquence,” —p. 3. There is, however, in his performance, much that tends to dazzle the mind of the reader. But as he pro- fesses “to decline the factitious aid of false appearances,” I shall attend only to facts, and to the reasoning which is founded upon them. I must also be allowed to confine my remarks to what immediately relates to the late Christian missions to India. With an ecclesiastical establishment I have no concern. Thus much, however, I will say, the treatment of Dr. Buchanan, by this writer, is most indecent. . Whatever were the motives of that gentleman, he cannot prove them to have been either mercenary or ambitious. Where then is the justice, or candour, of his insinuations? But why do I complain 3 Candid treatment is not to be expected from any anonymous accuser. This writer's pen appears to have been taken up on oc- casion of a manuscript falling into his hands, “professing to be a translation of an address to the inhabitants of India, from the missionaries of Serampore, inviting them to become Christians,”—p. 1. From this address he has given several extracts; and the chief of his remarks, in the first part of his pamphlet, are founded upon it. But, before he or Major Scott Waring had thus publicly animadverted on a private translation, they should have known a few particulars concerning it. How could they tell whether it was drawn up by the missionaries 7 or, if it were, whether the translation were faithful ? I can assure them and the public that it was not written by a European, but by a native ; and that the translation is very far from being a faithful one. In referring to the former of these circumstances, I do not mean either to disparage the tract or the writer, nor to exempt the missionaries from having a concern in it. They doubtless approved of it, and printed it, and it was circulated as an address from them. All I mean to say on this point is, that some allowance should be made for the style or manner of address as coming from a Hindoo. At the same time, it may be pre- sumed that no Hindoo would call his own countrymen barbarians. With respect to the translation, it was done by a person who did not choose to put his name to it, and apparently with the design of inflaming the minds of the directors and of government against the missionaries. Whether we are to ascribe his errors to this cause, or to ignorance, I shall not determine ; but that the most offensive ideas contained in the translation are not in the original is a fact. Nothing is said in the tract itself about “their books of philosophy;” nor are they said to be “fit for the amusement of children.” The Hindoos are not called “barbarians,” nor their Shasters “ the Shasters of barba- rians,” nor are they desired to “abominate them.” I have before me the translation from which this author appears to have taken his extracts, and another by Mr. John Fernandez, a gentleman who is now with Dr. Ry- land at Bristol, and who will be answerable for its fidelity. I shall present the reader with the first 21 verses of both, in two opposite columns; and as the 14th, 15th, and 20th verses are those which contain the supposed offensive pas- sages, I shall give in them the original words in English characters, so that any person who understands the lan- guage may judge of both the translations. I have also authority to say that any person who can read Bengalee may have one of the original tracts by applying to Dr. Ryland. * In the last two pages he has put marks of quotation to his own words, and represented them as the reasonings of the Hindoos : 810 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIAN MISSIONS. Translation from which the Vindicator appears to have taken his eastracts. THE MESSENGER OF GLAD TIDINGS. 1. Hear, all ye people of the land, hear with attention, how ye may obtain salvation from hell, hard to escape : 2. No one is able to de- scribe it ! the thought of money and riches is vain. 3. All such things are cal- culated only for this life ; let all men observe that this world is not eternal. 4. The enjoyment of all these goods is but for a short time; for at his death no one can take his riches with him. 5. He must resign all his garments, ornaments, and health to his kindred ; for after that he will have no corporeal form. 6. Know, all ye people, that after life comes death ; and after death, the going to heaven or hell. 7. Unless you are cleansed from evil, you will not go to heaven; ye will be cast head- long into the awful regions of hell. 8. What sort of place hell is, or what are its torments, no one knows; no one is able to imagine. 9. Hell is full of inevit- able sufferings, in the midst of fire never to be extin- guished; its extinction will never come to pass. 10. Having fallen into it, brethren, there is then no salvation ; its beginning and its duration are of infinite time. 11. With constant me- ditation, fear lest hereafter ye fall into this dreadful pit of hell ; into that fire which cannot be quenched. 12 Form a remedy, O peo- ple, form a remedy; for with- out a remedy ye shall not obtain salvation. 13. In other Sastras there is not any account of sal- vation ; and yet how many discourses there are upon the rites and ceremonies pe- culiar to people of different countries | 14. Both Hindoos and mu- sulmans have many Sasters; most of which we have ex- amined. Translation by Mr. John Fernandez. THE GOSPEL MES- SENGER. 1. Hear, O people of the world, hear with one mind ; from hell tremendous, how will you find salvation ? 2. None of you are in- quiring about these things; incessantly mindful of ru- pees and cowries. 3. All these things are for this world ; this is a tran- sitory world; see every one. 4. These things are need- ful only for a short time: after death, riches will never go with you. 5. You will leave these riches, jewels, apparel be- hind you : a stop being put to these things, they will be utterly useless. 6. Having once been born, you know you must die; after death you must go either to heaven or hell. 7. Without the pardon of sin you will never go to hea- ven; but headlong you will fall into the thick gloom of hell. 8. What hell is, what tor- ments there are in it, you know not ; therefore you are not concerned. 9. The dreadful hell is full of unquenchable fire; its extinction will never be! 10. Falling therein, bro- ther, there is no deliverance: etermity's bound will only be its beginning ! 11. Fear, lest you fall into this dreadful hell. Be- ware, O beware of this un- quenchable furnace 12. Take refuge in CHRIST, take refuge; without a re- fuge none will receive sal- vation. 13. In other Shasters there is no news of redemption ; they contain so many ex- pressions of national rites and customs. Hindoo mosolmaner bohoo ache Shastor taharboddonto mora koreenoo bistor. 14. Hindoos and musul- mans have many Shasters; we have investigated them thoroughly. Prokritto ooddhar totto naheeka tahay ballyamondo Shastro seye oopokott' har neyay. * See “Periodical Accounts,” vol. I. p. 22. 15. In none of them are to be found the principles of the true salvation ; those your Sastras are fit only for the amusement of children, and your books of philoso- phy are mere fables. 16. Formerly we ourselves had only such Sastras; but, having obtained the great Sastra, we flung those away. 17. The great Sastra of re- ligion contains glad tidings; for in it alone is to be found the way to salvation. 18. The great Sastra of re- ligion had not appeared here: some time since we obtained it, and have now brought it here. 19. Hear, hear, ye people, hear with due attention | Let him who is willing come, and we will cause it to be read. 20. Hereafter do ye and your brethren abominate the discourses of barbarians; the Sastras of barbarians contain not the means of salvation. 21. If you and your bre- thren wish for the means of salvation, be attentive, and hear somewhat of an ex- ample, &c.— 15. True search for deli- verance (from the wrath to come) there is not in them ; children - enticing Shasters they are, like fabulous tales. 16. Ours were formerly such kind of Shasters; but, finding THE GREAT SHASTER, we threw away the other. 17. This holy book is the good news of salvation; the way of deliverance is in this alone. 18. The holy book was not made known here ; some time ago we received it, now we have brought it hither. 19. Hear ye, hear ye, O people, hear with attention 1 Whosesoever wish it is, come —we will cause you to hear. Mlecch'ho bolee ghrinná pache korroho shobbáy mleech’ho Shastro náhhé ey tránner oopáy. 20. Lest you should here- after call it the barbarian’s (Shaster) and should hate it (this is not the barbarian’s Shaster, but a remedy for your salvation). 21. A little of its contents we must declare : hear with your mind, if you wish for a remedy.— * The writer of the tract then proceeds to give a sketch of Scripture doctrine, &c. The reader will here perceive that, instead of calling them barbarians, and telling them to abominate their bar- barian Shasters and discourses, the missionaries merely entreat them not to abominate the Bible as being what they term the Shaster of the M'leeches, or unclean ; for so they denominate all who are not of the caste. It was on this account that a brahmin urged another brahmin who had conversed with Mr. Thomas, and thought favourably of him, to go and wash his clothes; for, said he, he is M'leech (or unclean) if not filthy. The other replied, that filthy men did filthy deeds; whereas he could never say so of this Englishman, and he would not go and wash his clothes.* - Thus has this tract not only been mistranslated, and its mistranslations largely quoted and descanted upon ; but our adversaries have represented its circulation in India as that which must needs have provoked the natives to rise up against the missionaries. It was this that Major Scott Waring alleged as a reason why he should not have wondered if they had thrown them into the Ganges.f. Yet, when the truth comes to be stated, it appears that the inflammatory passages in the tract have been inserted by some unknown person, engaged in the same cause with himself. There is no proof that the tract itself, or any other tract, was ever known to give any such offence to the natives as to cause them to treat the missionaries ill, either in words or actions. I wonder what these men can think of a cause which requires such means to support it ; and whether, when thus detected, they be susceptible of shame like other men. It is not enough for them on the authority of an anony- mous manuscript translation to accuse the missionaries of calling the natives “barbarians,” &c., but Major Scott Waring must add, “this tract has been profusely circu- lated amongst the native troops in Bengal,”—p. 117. It is impossible for me at this distance to be acquainted + “Observations,” Preface, p. lxvi. REMARKS ON A “WINDICATION OF THE HINDOOS.” 8II. with every minute circumstance; but I am almost certain that there is no truth in this statement, and that the mis- sionaries have never gone among the native troops on any occasion. If, however, it be true, let Major Scott Waring prove it. I challenge him to do so by any other testimony than that which, in a great number of instances, has been proved, I presume, to be utterly unworthy of credit. It is owing to such base representations as these, par- ticularly in the pamphlets of Major Scott Waring, that even the friends of Christianity, and of the missionaries, have thought themselves obliged in justice to concede that the latter may have been guilty of indiscretions. It is scarcely possible, while slander is flying about, as in a shower of poisoned arrows, and before they have been re- pelled, not to have our confidence in some degree wounded. fut while I freely acknowledge that there may have been instances of indiscretion, (for the missionaries are men,) I must insist that neither Mr. Twining, nor Major Scott Waring, nor the Bengal Officer, has substantiated a single charge of the kind. The substance of the Bengal Officer’s remarks may be considered under three heads: namely, the morality of the Hindoo system—the moral character of the Hindoos —and the conduct of the missionaries and of the native Christians. OF THE MORALITY OF THE HINDoo systEM.—“The religious creed of the Gentoos,” says Professor White, in his Bampton Lectures, “is a system of the most barbar- ous idolatry. They acknowledge indeed one supreme God; yet innumerable are the subordinate deities whom they worship, and innumerable also are the vices and fol- lies which they ascribe to them. With a blindness which has ever been found inseparable from polytheism, they adore, as the attributes of their gods, the wickedness and passions which deform and disgrace human nature ; and their worship is, in many respects, not unworthy of the deities who are the objects of it. The favour of beings which have no existence but in the imagination of the supersti- tious enthusiast, is conciliated by senseless ceremonies and unreasonable mortifications—by ceremonies which con- sume the time which should be dedicated to the active and social duties, and by mortifications which strike at the root of every lawful and innocent enjoyment. What indeed shall we think of a religion, which supposes the expiation of sins to consist in penances than which fancy cannot suggest any thing more rigorous and absurd; in sitting or standing whole years in one unvaried pos- ture ; in carrying the heaviest loads, or dragging the most weighty chains ; in exposing the naked body to the scorching sun; and in hanging with the head down- ward before the fiercest and most intolerable fire 2°– Sermon X. p. 12. But our author tells a very different tale. He “reposes the Hindoo system on the broad basis of its own merits, convinced that on the enlarged principles of moral reason- ing it little needs the meliorating hand of Christian dis- pensations to render its votaries a sufficiently correct and moral people, for all the useful purposes of civilized society,”—p. 9. Could this be proved, it were no solid objection to Christian missions. To argue merely from what is useful to civilized society is to argue as an atheist. Civilized society is not the chief end of man. If there be an eternal hereafter, it must be of infinitely greater mo- ment, both to governors and governed, than all the affairs of the greatest empire upon earth. This writer, when pleading the cause of “beggars by profession,” (as Major Scott Waring calls the Hindoo by raggees when they have left that profession and become Christians,) can allege that religion ought not to be subservient to mere worldly in- terest (p. 76); but, when his cause requires it, he can turn about, and contend that that which is sufficient for the purposes of civil society is all that is necessary. The cause of God and truth requires that such an atheistical principle should be repelled, otherwise I should have no objection to meet him even upon this ground, persuaded as I am that whatever is right for another life is wise for this. But let us attend to “the excellence of the religious and moral doctrines of the Hindoos,” as taught in The Insti- stutes of MENU, and in other books. From these, espe- cially the former, we are furnished with numerous quota- tions, occasionally interspersed with triumphant questions; such as, “Are these tales for children 3 ° “Are these the discourses of barbarians ? '’ On the Institutes of Menu, I would offer a few remarks:– First, Let them possess what eaccellency they may, they are unknown to the people. The millions of Hindostan have no access to them. Sir William Jones did indeed persuade the brahmins to communicate them to him ; and by his translation, and the aid of the press, the Euro- pean world are now acquainted with them, as well as with other productions to which our author refers us; but to the Hindoo population they are as though they ex- isted not. The lower classes are by their law subjected to penalty for hearing any part of the Vedas read. The young are not taught principles from this work; and it never furnishes a text for discoursing to the adult. There is, indeed, no such thing as moral education, or moral preaching, among the great body of the people. They know far less of the doctrines of Menu than the vulgar pagans of ancient Greece knew of the writings of Plato. It is, therefore, utterly fallacious and disingenuous to quote this work as a standard of opinion or practice among the Hindoo people, seeing it is little more known to the bulk of them than if it had no existence. Secondly, Though there are some good sentiments in these Institutes, yet they contain a large portion not only of puerility, but of immorality, which this writer has care- fully passed over. Sir William Jones says of the work, that “with many beauties, which need not be pointed out, it contains many blemishes which cannot be justified or palliated. It is a system of despotism and priestcraft, both indeed limited by law, but artfully conspiring to give mutual support, though with mutual checks. It is filled with strange conceits in metaphysics and natural philosophy, with idle superstitions, and with a scheme of theology most obscurely figurative, and consequently liable to dangerous misconceptions. It abounds with minute and childish formalities, with ceremonies generally absurd, and often ridiculous ; the punishments are partial and fanciful; for some crimes dreadfully cruel, for others reprehensibly slight; and the very morals, though rigid enough on the whole, are in one or two instances (as in the case of light oaths, and pious perjury) unaccountably relaxed x p The following specimen may serve as a proof of the justness of Sir William's remark, of its being a system of “priestcraft.” Ver. 313. “Let not a king, though in the greatest dis- tress for money, provoke brahmins to anger, by taking their property; for they, once enraged, could immediately, by sacrifices and imprecations, destroy him, with his troops, elephants, horses, and cars.” W. 315. “What prince could gain wealth by oppressing those who, if angry, could frame other worlds, and regents of worlds; could GIVE BEING TO NEw GODS, and mortals?” W. 316. “What man desirous of life would injure those by the aid of whom, that is, by whose oblations, worlds AND GODS PERPETUALLY SUBSIST ; those who are rich in the learning of the Vedas 7 ° W. 317. “A brahmin, whether learned or ignorant, is a PowerFUL DIVINITY; even as fire is a powerful divinity, whether consecrated or popular.” V. 318. “Even in places for burning the dead, the bright fire is undefiled ; and when presented with clarified but- ter, or subsequent sacrifices, blazes again with extreme splendour.” W. 319. “Thus, although brahmins employ themselves in all sorts of mean occupation, they must invariably be honoured ; for they are something TRANSCENDENTLY DIVINE.”* Our author would persuade us that the “Divine Spi- rit” is the grand object of Hindoo adoration ; but he omitted to tell us that the brahmins are above Him, for that worlds AND GODS SUBSIST BY THEIR OBLATIONs, and they can GIVE BEING To NEw GoDs. Amy person of com- mon discernment may perceive, by this specimen, that, let these Institutes be of what antiquity they may, they are * Sir William Jones’s Works, vol. III. pp. 378,379. 812 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIAN MISSIONS. of brahminical origin ; and that, in order to raise this class of men above the control of the civil powers, they not only give them “divinity,” but elevate them “above all that is called God, or that is worshipped.” Thirdly, Even those parts which our author has selected and quoted are very far from being wnexceptionable. On the two great subjects of the unity of God, and the expi- ation of sin, what do the Vedas teach 3 What ideas are we to attach to the following language 3—“Equally per- ceiving the Supreme Soul in all beings, and all beings in the Supreme Soul, he sacrifices his own spirit by fixing it on the Spirit of God; and approaches the nature of that sole Divinity who shines by his own effulgence.”—If there be any meaning in this rhapsody, it corresponds with the atheistical jargon of Spinoza, confounding the Creator with the work of his hands. That which follows is worse:—“The Divine Spirit alone is the whole assemblage of gods; all worlds are seated in the Divine Spirit, and the Divine Spirit, no doubt, pro- duces by a chain of causes and effects, consistent with free- will, the connected series of acts performed by embodied souls,”—p. 26. Such is their doctrine of “One Supreme Being !” Is then the infinitely glorious God to be not only associated, but identified, with the rabble of heathen deities, all which subsist in the oblations of the brahmins 7 Is his blessed name to be annihilated and lost in theirs? Better a thou- sand times were it to make no mention of Him than to introduce Him in such company. Though the last sen- tence cautiously guards the idea of human agency, so much indeed as to possess the air of modern composition; yet it is certain that the brahmins, on this principle, constantly excuse themselves from blame in all their deeds, as they have frequently alleged to the missionaries that it is not they, but God in them, that performs the evil. What follows is still worse:–“We may contemplate the subtle aether in the cavities of his [that is, God’s] body; the air, in his muscular motion and sensitive nerves ; the supreme solar and igneous light, in his digestive heat and visual organs: in his corporeal fluid, water; in the terrene parts of his fabric, earth. In his heart, the moon; in his auditory nerves, the guardians of eight regions ; * in his progressive motion, Wish NU ;f in muscular force, HARA ; ; in his organs of speech, AGNI; $ in excretion, MITRA;| in procreation, BRAHMA.” “I I presume the reader has had enough, and needs no re- flections of mine. Let us hear the Windicator of image worship. “It is true that in general they worship the Deity through the medium of images; and we satisfac- torily learn from the Geeta that it is not the mere image, but the invisible Spirit, that they thus worship,”—p. 44. And thus from Abulfazel: ** “ They one and all believe in the unity of the Godhead; and although they hold images in high veneration, yet they are by no means idol- aters, as the ignorant suppose. I have myself frequently discoursed upon the subject with many learned and upright men of this religion, and comprehend their doctrine ; which is, that the images are only representations of celes- tial beings, to whom they turn themselves while at prayer to prevent their thoughts from wandering; and they think it an indispensable duty to address the Deity after that manner,”—p. 47. If this reasoning be just, there never were any idolaters upon earth ; for what is said of the Hindoos applies to the worshippers of Baal, and of all other heathen deities. But to call this worshipping the Deity through the medium of 2 mages is representing them as connected with Him, when, in fact, they are rivals of him in the hearts of his creatures. The invisible spirit to which their devotions are directed, according to this writer’s own account, is CRISHNA (p. 45); who is not God, but a deified creature that takes place of God : a demon, whose character, as drawn even in their own Shasters, is lewd and treacherous. We might know from these their records, even though an apostle had not told us, that “ the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to DEMONS, AND NOT To GoD.” * Eight points of the compass. + The preserver. # The destroyer. * God of fire. | The sun. T The creator.—p. 27. ** Abulfazel was the prime minister of Ackbar, one of the Mogul . emperors in the sixteenth century, who, perceiving the ill effects of It has been common to speak of the Hindoos as acknow- ledging one Supreme Being, but as worshipping a number of subordinate deities; and I may have used this language as well as others. The terms supreme and subordinate, however, do not appear to be happily chosen. They might as well be applied to a lawful sovereign and a number of usurpers who had set up the standard of rebellion against him. Whatever subordination there may be among these deities with respect to each other, they are all opposed to the true God. What claims can He have, after those of Chreeshna are satisfied, who calls his “THE SUPREME NA- TURE, which is superior to all things f"—p. 45. Our au- thor would wish him, no doubt, to be thought an attribute of the true God, or, as he calls him, “the preserving power of the Divinity;” but this he cannot be, for his character is immoral. He must, therefore, be a rival, taking place of the Divinity. If it be alleged that he is merely an imaginary being, and therefore neither the one nor the other, I answer, while he claims “a supreme nature,” and is worshipped as possessing it, though he be nothing in himself, yet he is something to the worshippers, and an- swers all the ends of a conscious and active usurper of the throne of God. After this, the reader will not be surprised to hear of “repentance, devotion, and pious austerities,” as the means of expiating sin, pp. 29. 36. We cannot wonder at such notions in benighted pagans; but that a writer who has read the New Testament should think of alleging them, as a recommendation of the system to the favourable regard of Christians, is a proof of his having either never understood what Christianity is, or forgotten it amidst the charms of idolatry. As to what these “devotions and austerities” are, be they what they may, when considered as an expiation of sin, they are worse than nothing. But the truth is, they are neither aimed to propitiate the true God, nor do they consist of any thing which he requires at their hands. Such are the excellences of the Hindoo system ; such the arguments which the missionaries are challenged to answer; and such the faith which would be thought to erect her standard by the side of reason : Our author, after enumerating these and other glorious principles, asks, with an air of triumph, “What is it that the missionaries pro- pose teaching to the Hindoos ?” What is it, in religious concerns, which they do not require to be taught ! He allows there are “many reprehensible customs among the Hindoos, the mere offspring of superstition ;” but he contends that “they are not enjoined by the Vedas, and are chiefly confined to certain classes,”—p. 69. “I have no hesitation,” he says, “in declaring that no branch whatever of their mythology, so far as I waderstand it, ap- pears to merit, in the smallest degree, the harsh charges of vice and falsehood,”—p. 97. Yet, to say nothing of things . which it would be indecent to mention, Dr. Buchanan has quoted a number of authorities from their sacred books in favour of the burning of women, and in which such volun- tary sacrifices are declared not to be suicide, but, on the contrary, highly meritorious,ff And the Institutes of Menu, as Sir William Jones observes, are unaccountably relaxed in regard of light oaths and pious perjury. But these things, and a hundred more, stand for nothing with our author, whose admiration of the general system leads him to forget, as trifling, all such imperfections. “Wherever I look around me,” he says, “ in the vast region of Hin- doo mythology, I discover piety in the garb of allegory ; and I see morality at every turn, blended with every tale ; and, as far as I can rely on my own judgment, it appears the most complete and ample system of moral allegory that the world has ever produced l’’—p. 97. How shall we stand against this tide of eloquence 3 I will transcribe a passage from Dr. Tennant. “It is curi- ous,” says he, “to observe how the indifference, or rather the dislike, of some old settlers in India, is expressed against the system of their forefathers. It is compared with the Hindoo institutions with an affectation of impar- tiality, while, in the mean time, the latter system is extolled Mahomedan persecution, endeavoured to reconcile the different re- ligious parties in the empire, and to persuade that of the court to think favourably of that of the country. ++ Memoir, p. 96. REMARKS ON “A WINDICATION OF THE HINDOOS.” 813 in its greatest puerilities and follies: its grossest fables are always asserted to convey some hidden, but sound lessons of wisdom. They inveigh against the schisms, disputes, and differences of the western world, ascribing them solely to their religious dogmata. They palliate the most fanatical and most painful of the Hindoo rites, and never fail in discovering some salutary influence which they shed upon society. Wrapt up in devout ad- miration of the beauty and sublimity of the Vedas, they affect to triumph in their supposed superiority over the simplicity of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. This affectation is the more ridiculous, because it is indulged by those who pretend to great taste, and profound know- ledge of Sanscrit learning.” + Of the Doctor's performance had not been written before that of the Bengal officer, we should almost have supposed he meant to draw his picture. This author may suppose that a system so good-natured as to concede the Divinity of Christ (p. 50) might be ex- pected to receive some concessions in return ; but he had better not attempt a compromise, for the systems cannot agree. If he be a heathem, let him cast in his lot with hea- thens. Let him, if he should get intoxicated, attend to the recipe of his “divine Menu ;” let him, in order “to atone for his offence, drink more spirit in flame till he severely burn his body; or let him drink, boiling hot, until he die, the urine of a cow, or pure water, or milk, or clarified butter, or juice expressed from cow-dung,” p. 41. Let him, if he should be vicious, expect to become a dog, or a cat, or some more despicable creature; or, if he be virtuous, let him hope for his reward in the favour of Chrishna,-p. 46. But we are Christians, and have learned another lesson. We have been taught to revere the authority of HIM who hath said, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thy- self to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God.” OF THE MORAL CHARACTER of THE HINDoos.-This is a subject of great importance in the present controversy; for if Hindooism produce as good fruits as Christianity, the necessity of attempting the conversion of its votaries must, in a great degree, if not entirely, be set aside. It is a subject, too, in which our author has the advantage of us, as it must be more agreeable to the public mind to think favourably than unfavourably of a great people who form now a component part of the empire. Nothing but truth, and a desire to do them good, can justify us in dis- puting these favourable accounts. Considering the importance of the subject, and the weight of testimony which our author must be aware he had to encounter, we may suppose he has brought for- ward all the proof of which he is capable. That the reader may be able to judge on the subject, I will first state the substance of the evidence on the other side, and then inquire what this writer has done towards over- turning it. I have already mentioned three or four testimonies in my Letter to the Chairman of the East India Company.t These I shall not repeat. Tamerlane the Great, when about to die, thus address- ed his sons and statesmen :-" Know, my dear children, and elevated statesmen, that the inhabitant of Hindostan cultivates imposture, fraud, and deception, and considers them to be meritorious accomplishments. Should any person intrust to him the care of his property, that person will soon become only the nominal possessor of it.” “The tendency of this my mandate to you, statesmen, is to preclude a confidence in their actions, or an adoption of their advice.” f “At Benares,” adds Dr. Buchanan, “the fountain of Hindoo learning and religion, where Captain Wilford, author of the Essays on the Indian and Egyptian my. thology, has long resided in the society of the brahmins, a scene has been lately exhibited which certainly has never had a parallel in any other learned society in the world. “The pundit of Captain Wilford having for a consider- able time been guilty of interpolating his books, and of fabricating new sentences in old works, to answer a par- ticular purpose, was at length detected and publicly dis- graced. As a last effort to save his character, ‘he brought ten brahmins, not only as his compurgators, but to swear, by what is most sacred in their religion, to the genuine- ness of the extracts.” $ Captain Wilford would not permit the ceremonial of perjury to take place, but dismissed them from his presence with indignation.” Dr. Tennant, late chaplain to his Majesty’s troops in Bengal, has written very explicitly on the subject, not only stating facts, but pointing out their connexion with the system. As his testimony includes the opinions of Sir James M*Intosh, Sir William Jones, and some other very respectable authorities, and as he himself cannot be accused of any strong predilection for missions, I shall transcribe a few pages from his account. “The native character,” he says, “however amiable in some respects it may appear, is frequently stained with vices directly hostile to society. The crime of PERJURY, from the great defects of their religious system, is remark- ably prevalent, and in many instances renders the execu- tion of justice difficult and impossible. “The prevalence of this vice,” says Sir James M*Intosh, “which I have myself observed, is, perhaps, a more cer- tain criterion of a general dissolution of moral principle than other more daring and ferocious crimes, much more terrible to the imagination, and of which the immediate consequences are more destructive to society.” “Per- jury,” adds Dr. Tennant, “indicates the absence of all the common restraints by which men are withheld from the commission of crimes. It is an attack upon religion and law in the very point of their union for the protection of human society. It weakens the foundation of every right, by rendering the execution of justice unattainable. “Sir William Jones,” continues he, “after long judicial experience, was obliged, reluctantly, to acknowledge this moral depravity of the natives of India. He had carried out with him to that country a strong prejudice in their favour, which he had imbibed in the course of his studies, and which in him was perhaps neither unamiable nor un- graceful. This prejudice he could not longer retain against the universal testimony of Europeans, and the enormous examples of depravity among the natives which he often witnessed in his judicial capacity.” || Again, Having described the state of the country pre- viously to its falling into the hands of the British, Dr. Tennant says, “Thus, within the short space of a man’s life, and almost in our own remembrance, the empire of India fell into anarchy and ruin ; not from the external violence of foreign enemies, but from the inveteracy and eactent of corruption which pervaded the whole of its 7members.” “I Again, “The boasted humanity of the Hindoo system, to all sentient beings, is but ill supported, when we come to a close examination of the customs which it tolerates, the precepts which it enjoins, or the actual conduct of its votaries. Though it be admitted that some of the above horrid customs are a violation of their written code, yet there are other practices equally shocking to which it affords its immediate sanction. The public encourage- ment held out to aged pilgrims who drown themselves in the Ganges, under the notion of acquiring religious merit, is equally repugnant with the practice already noticed to reason and humanity. No less than four or five persons have been seen drowning themselves at one time, with the view of performing a religious sacrifice of high value in their own estimation, and that of many thousands who attend this frightful solemnity.—The recommendation given to a favourite wife to burn herself on the same funeral pile with the dead body of her husband affords not an unfrequent spectacle of deliberate cruelty, which * Thoughts on the British Government in India, p. 141. Note. + See Part I, pp. 797, 798. # Dr. Buchanan's Memoir, pp. 113, 114, “Marquis Cornwallis was never known, during his administration in India, to admit a native to his confidence. Under the administration of Marquis Wellesley there is a total exclusion of native counsel.” % Asiatic Researches, vol. VIII., p. 28. | Thoughts on the British Government in India, p. 54. T Ibid. 77. 814 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIAN MISSIONS. cannot, perhaps, be equalled in the whole annals of su- perstition. “The cruel treatment of the sick, the aged, and dying, if not a precept, is a practical result of this degrading system, far more universal than any of those already men- tioned ; it is of a nature which the most moderate share of humanity would prompt any person to use very zealous efforts to remedy. As soon as any mortal symptoms are discovered in the state of a patient by his physician, or by his relations, he is, if in Bengal, removed from his bed, and carried to the brink of the Ganges, where he is laid down with his feet and legs immersed in the river: there, instead of receiving from his friends any of the tender consolations of sympathy, to alleviate the pain of his de- parting moments, his mouth, nose, and ears are stuffed with clay, or wet sand, while the by-standers crowd close around him, and incessantly pour torrents of water upon his head and body. It is thus, amidst the convulsive struggles of suffocation, added to the agony of disease, that the wretched Hindoo bids farewell to his present existence, and finally closes his eyes upon the sufferings of life. “But waving these particular usages, some of which are perhaps abuses which have sprung out of their primi- tive institutions, it may be contended, on good grounds, that the general spirit of the system has itself a tendency, in many instances, to promote ignorance and encourage vice. “In the Historical Fragments of the Mogul Empire, Mr. Orme has presented the public with a laborious and detailed exposition of all those defects of the Hindoo system. The author, in this work, conveys no very fa- vourable impression of the Indian character; but his ideas are the result of personal observation; they are clear, forcible, and correct. Towards the close of his in- teresting disquisition, he thus sums up the general im- pression which the subject left upon his mind. ‘Having brought to a conclusion this Essay on the Government and People of Hindostan, I cannot refrain from making the reflections which so obviously arise from the subject. Christianity vindicates all its glories, all its honours, and all its reverence, when we behold the most horrid im- pieties avowed amongst the nations on whom its influence does not shine, as actions necessary in the common con- duct of life; I mean poisonings, treachery, and assassina- tion, among the sons of ambition ; rapine, cruelty, and extortion, in the ministers of justice.—I leave divines to vindicate, by more sanctified reflections, the cause of their religion and of their God.”— “The Hindoo system makes little or no provision for the instruction of the great body of the people; a defect the more remarkable when we advert to the number and authority of its priesthood, and the great multiplicity and size of its sacred volumes. Their Vedas, Poorans, and other books held sacred, contain, it is said, a copious system of sound morality; and, from the specimens al- ready translated, this must be partly admitted; but the truths contained in these writings are almost totally ob- scured and rendered useless by a vast mixture of puerile Jictions and frivolous regulations. And, besides, the canonical books of the Hindoos have always been re- garded as a bequest too sacred to be committed to vulgar hands; to the far greater part of the community their perusal is strictly forbidden; closely guarded in the archives of the learned, to the great body of the people they remain, in the most emphatic sense, ‘a dead letter.” “Of the ceremonies of brahminism, some are showy, many are absurd, and not a few both indecent and in- moral. Its temples were formerly in some districts richly endowed ; they are represented by all travellers as main- taining a number of priests, and, what seems peculiar, a number of women consecrated to this service, who are taught to sing and dance at public festivals in honour of the gods. The voluptuous indolence in which they are destined to spend their lives renders them totally useless to society; while the indecency of their manners gives room to suspect that they may injure it by their example. “The temples themselves, which in other countries excite sentiments of reverence and devotion, are in India plenished with images of fecundity, and of creative power, Too GRoss For DESCRIPTION. Similar representations are also displayed by those images which, at certain times, are drawn through the streets amidst the dancing, noise, and acclamations of the multitude. The ruth jatra, or riding of the gods, is a ceremony at once cruel and in- decent. The carriages on which their deities are then placed are of immense height, and supported on sixteen wheels; the whole drawn along by thousands of fanatics, some of whom fall down before these wheels, and, being instantly crushed, are, as they believe, put in possession of immortal bliss. - “It would be, perhaps, rash, after all, to affirm that the Hindoos are immoral and depraved in a degree pro- portioned to the melancholy eatent of their superstitious system, though their minds are strongly withdrawn by it from feeling the due weight of moral obligations. Those [however] who are concerned in the police know well the frequency of fraud, robbery, and murder, as well as the great number of delinquents which have always rendered the prisons more crowded than any other habitations in India. It has not been from them, nor indeed from any class of men intimately acquainted with their manners, that the Hindoo character has received so many encomiums for its innocence and simplicity.” Speaking of their wandering religious devotees, he says, “Mr. Richardson, author of the Persian and Arabic Dic- tionary, has characterized these vagrants, under the article Fakeer, in the following manner:—“In this singular class of men, who in Hindostan despise every sort of clothing, there are a number of enthusiasts, but a far greater pro- portion of knaves; every vagabond who has an aversion to labour being received into a fraternity which is re- gulated by laws of a secret and uncommon nature. The Hindoos view them with a wonderful respect, not only on account of their sanctified reputation, but from a sub- stantial dread of their power. The fakeer pilgrimages often consist of many thousands of naked saints, who exact, wherever they pass, a general tribute; while their character is too sacred for the civil power to take cog- nizance of their conduct.’”* Many other testimonies might be produced. If the reader wish to see them systematically stated, he may find much to his purpose in “Cuninghame's Christianity in India.” Chap. II. We have now to examine what our author has ad- vanced on the other side. Has he attempted to weaken this body of evidence, or to overcome it by testimonies more numerous or more credible 4 Neither the one nor the other. He takes no notice of anything that has been said by others; not even by Dr. Buchanan, though he was professedly answering his Memoir. And as to the testimonies which he produces, lo, they are Two . . . . viz. HIMSELF and ABULFAZEL! From his own knowledge he writes many things. He resided in India many years; has been much acquainted with the people ; has gone into their temples, and never saw any thing indecent in them ; has intrusted money and liquors to a great amount in the hands of Hindoo servants, and never found them unfaithful but stop : we know not who this witness is : we cannot admit of anonymous testimony. No man, while he withholds his name from the public, has a right to expect credit any further than what he advances may recommend itself. I must take leave, therefore, to set down all that he has related from his own knowledge as nugatory. Let us examine the next witness. Abulfazel might be a great and enlightened statesman, and might be aware that the persecutions carried on against the Hindoos in the pre- ceding reigns were impolitic as well as cruel. He might wish to praise them into attachment, and to soften the an- tipathies of the Mahomedans against them. Hence he might endeavour to persuade the latter that the former were “not idolaters,” but, like themselves, “believers in one God, and withal a very amiable and good sort of peo- ple.” But, whatever proof this may afford of Abulfazel's talents for governing, the truth of his statements requires to be confirmed by more disinterested testimony; and where the whole current of European experience is against it, it can be of no account. * Thoughts on the British Government in India, & IX. X. REMARKS ON “ A WINDICATION OF THE HINDOOS.” 815 The reader will draw the inference, that the evidence of Hindoo depravity is not weakened in the least degree by any thing this writer has advanced. * OF THE CONDUCT OF THE MISSIONARIES AND THE NATIVE CHRISTIANs.—On this part of the subject our author is less profuse than his predecessor. There are a few passages in his performance, however, which require notice. He says, “If the conduct of the missionaries has here so unwisely forced itself on the attention of the public, and thus ren- dered them obnoxious to the displeasure of our government in the East, in having, unsanctioned by its authority, as- sumed the dangerous province of attempting to regulate the consciences of its native subjects, to the manifest tendency of disturbing that repose, and public confidence that forms at this moment the chief security of our precarious tenure in Hindostan—if men, thus labouring for subsistence in their vocation, and under the necessity of making converts at any rate, in order to insure the continuance of their al- lowances and the permanency of their missions, rashly ven- ture to hurl the bigot anathema of intolerance at the head of the “barbarian Hindoos,’ and unadvisedly to vilify the revered repositories of their faith—we may find some colour of excuse in the seeming necessity under which they act; but that a member of the English Church,” &c.,-pp. 3, 4. On this tedious sentence, or rather part of a sentence, I would offer a few remarks. 1. If the conduct of the mis- sionaries has been forced on the attention of the public, it is their adversaries that have forced it. Nothing has been done by them or their friends but in self-defence. 2. I do not understand how the private request of the governor- general for Mr. Carey and his colleagues, at a certain cri- tical period, to desist from preaching to the natives, can be attributed to displeasure, when the acting magistrates who delivered the message acknowledged that “they were well satisfied with the character and deportment of the mission- aries, and that no complaints had ever been lodged against them.” 3. If, at the first outset, their undertaking was not sanctioned by authority, and if on that account they settled in the Danish territory; yet government, having known them, and being satisfied that they acted not from contumacy, but from the most pure, upright, and peaceable principles, has always been friendly to them. Under the administration of Marquis Wellesley they lived secure. 4. There never was an idea of their labours disturbing the confidence which the natives place in the British govern- ment, till European adversaries suggested it. 5. The mis- sionary labour of the men referred to is not for their own subsistence ; nor do they subsist by “allowances” from England. At all times this has not been the case; but, at present, the remittances sent from this country are for an- other use. . It is by their own literary labours that they subsist, which not only supply their wants, but enable them to devote a surplus for the propagation of the gospel. Did they act from mercenary motives, they might lay by their thousands, and return, as well as their accusers, in affluence to their native country. 6. If “the bigot anathema of intol- erance,” which this writer endeavours to hurl at the mission- aries, hurt them no more than theirs does the Hindoos, there is no cause for alarm. But who could have imagined that an address to the conscience could have been represented as “assuming to regulate it; ” and that a writer with the cant of toleration in his mouth could advocate the cause of intolerance # This author tells us of “a circumstance having recently come to his knowledge, that exhibits proof superior to a hundred arguments of the impropriety and dangerous con- sequences of injudicious interference with the Hindoos on the score of their religion,”—p. 54. This “circumstance ’’ must surely, then, be of importance, especially at a time when arguments are so scarce. And what is it? A native of Calcutta had lost caste ; he went to one of the mission- aries, and was immediately baptized; soon after this he became a preacher; in addressing his countrymen, he pro- voked their resentment; and, after being assaulted with clods and brick-bats, narrowly escaped with his life. But here I must again take the liberty of reminding the gen- tleman that he is out of his province. An anonymous writer has no business to obtrude himself as a witness, but merely as a reasoner. I know the first part of this story to be a fabrication, and I suspect the whole to be one; but, whether any part of it be true or not, it makes nothing for his argument. He might with equal justice accuse the missionaries of having been assaulted by him, and his friend the Major, with a volley of foul abuse. All our opponents declaim on the danger of tolerating missionaries, and urge the necessity of an immediate sup- pression of their labours. . Yet I cannot learn that the Hindoos, as a body, are an intolerant people. There may be, and doubtless are, exceptions; but in general. I have always understood that in this respect they differ widely from the Mahomedans. And if this be true, how can they be offended with government for being of the same mind 3 Were they themselves an intolerant people, it might be ex- pected that a government, to be acceptable to them, must not only protect them in the exercise of their own religion, but persecute all who might endeavour to convince or per- suade them to relinquish it. Such is exactly the line of conduct which our opponents mark out for the British go- vernment in India : but the Hindoos appear to desire no such thing; and if they did, who does not perceive that it would be mean and degrading for any government in this manner to render itself the instrument of their intolerance # Whether, therefore, these men, in urging such advice on the different departments of the British government, con- sult their honour, or their own inclination, let those high authorities decide. Such is the modesty of this writer, that he allows “it would not perhaps become him to assume the province of dictating the means of suppressing these missionaries; ” but he makes no scruple of asserting that “the government in India stands pledged to the honourable Company, and to the empire at large, by every sense of imperious duty and by every consideration of safety to our countrymen abroad, by the most prompt and decisive interposition of their au- thority” to suppress them. He is also so good as to inform the government with what facility it may be effected, inas- much as the Danish settlement of Serampore is now [pro- bably] under our immediate control, p. 170. If government, whether in England or in India, be of opinion that the accusers of these missionaries have sub- stantiated their charges against them, they can be at no loss for the means of suppressing them ; but if they should think it right to wait for better evidence than has yet appeared, I hope they may stand acquitted of violating their pledge either to the honourable Company or the empire at large. PART III. All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and, lo, I am with you alway, unto the end of the world. Amen.—JESUS CHRIST. PREFACE. If appears to be the design of Providence, by a succes- Sion of events, to effect a more marked distinction be- tween the friends and enemies of religion than has, of late years, subsisted. Through a variety of causes they have long been confounded. . As though there were no standard for either side to repair to, they have each mingled with the other in a sort of promiscuous mass. 816 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIAN MISSIONS. The effect of this junction has been more unfavourable to the cause of Christ than to that of his adversaries; for as holy things would not communicate holiness, but un- clean things would communicate uncleanness, (Hag. ii. 12, 13,) so it has been in respect to these commixtures. Ungodly men who have had to do with holy things have not thereby become holy; but godly men who have had to do with unclean things have thereby become unclean. Hence it appears to be the will of God, by his inscrutable providence, to effect a closer union among Christians, and a more marked separation between them and their adversaries. As though some decisive conflict were about to take place, the hosts on each side seem to be mustering for the battle. The French revolution (that mighty shaking of the church and of the world) has been productive of this among other effects. Great numbers, who had before passed as Christians, perceiving infidelity to be coming into fashion, avowed their unbelief.” Christians, on the other hand, of different denominations, felt a new motive to unite in defence of the common faith in which they were agreed. The same effect has been produced by the sending out of missions to the heathen. The effort itself excited a correspondence of feeling, a communication of sentiment, and a unity of action, and that to a great extent; and now that success has, in some measure, attended it, it has drawn against it a host of adversaries. As the assembling of Israel before the Lord in Mizpeh, (1 Sam. vii.,) though they had neither sword nor spear among them, excited the jealousy of the Philistines, and drew forth their armies in the hope of crushing them at the outset, so it is at this day. It is remarkable what a tendency the genu- ine exercises of true religion have to manifest the prin- ciples of men, and to draw them into a union, either on the side of Christ, or on that of his adversaries. You may now perceive deists, Socinians, and others who re- tain the form of Christianity, but deny the power, naturally falling into their ranks on one side, and serious Christians, almost forgetting their former differences, as naturally uniting on the other. I question whether there ever was a controversy, since the days of the apos- tles, in which religion and irreligion were more clearly marked, and their respective adherents more distinctly organized. But is it Christianity that they attack? O no It is Methodism, Calvinism, fanaticism, or sectarianism, &c. And is it a new thing for the adversaries of religion to attack it under other names 3 Was it ever known that they did otherwise? The apostle Paul was not accused as a zealous promoter of the true religion, but as a pesti- lent fellow, a mover of sedition, and a ringleader of an obnoxious sect. Unless we wish to be imposed upon by names instead of things, we can be at no loss to perceive that the prime object of their attack is THE RELIGION of THE N E w TESTAMENT. Among those who contribute their aid in this important struggle, we shall find the Edinburgh Reviewers just now coming forward. It is one of the professed objects of these editors to “use their feeble endeavours in assisting the public judgment on those topics to which its attention was actually directed.” The attack on missions is pre- ceded by one on Methodism; if for it would have been im- prudent to have fallen abruptly upon the subject. Under this general term, the Reviewer professes to include, in one undistinguished, mass, “the sentiments of the Ar- minian and Calvinistic Methodists, and of the evangelical clergymen of the Church of England 1’’ These he de- scribes as three classes of fanatics, very good subjects in- deed, but “engaged in one general conspiracy against common sense and rational orthodow Christianity 1” These fanatics are denounced as maintaining “ the ab- surd notions of a universal providence, extending not only to the rise and fall of nations, but to the concerns of individuals; the insufficiency of baptism, and of a par- ticipation in the customary worship of the country, with- out the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit, to denomi- nate men Christians;” and what is worse, it seems, as * Many of these, however, when the rage of French principles be- gan to abate, perceiving that they had mistaken the road to prefer- “making a marked and dangerous division of mankind into the godly and the ungodly 1” The party seems to be extending too ; and where it will end the Reviewer cannot tell, nor whether the evil admits of any cure. “All mines and subterraneous places belong to them ; they creep into hospitals, and small schools, and so work their way upwards. They beg all the little livings, particularly in the north of England, from the ministers for the time being ; and from these fixed points they make incursions upon the happiness and common sense of the vicinage.” The Reviewer “most sincerely deprecates such an event; but it will excite in him no manner of surprise, if a period arrive when the churches of the sober and orthodow part of the English clergy are completely deserted by the middling and lower classes of the community.” They have not only made “an alarming inroad into the church,” but are “attack- ing the army and the navy. The principality of Wales, and the East India Company, they have already acquired.” And, what is more still, they have made their way into “the LEGISLATURE; and by the talents of some of them, and the unimpeached excellence of their characters, render it probable that fanaticism will increase rather than diminish l’’ What is to be done with these fanatics : Truly, the Reviewer does not know. He “cannot see what is likely to impede the progress” of their opinions. He is not wanting in good-will, but what can he do $ He “be- lieves them to be very good subjects ; and has no doubt but that any further attempt upon their religious liberties, without reconciling them to the church, would have a di- rect tendency to render them disaffected to the state.” He thinks “something may, perhaps, be done in the way of ridicule ;” but ridicule in some men’s hands becomes itself ridiculous. Ah, well may these Reviewers talk of their “feeble en- deavours in assisting the public judgment l’” They have gleaned from the Methodist and Evangelical Magazines a portion of real weakness and absurdity, though several of their extracts are such only in their opinion ; and with this, by their comments, they have mixed a larger portion of misrepresentation. The best use that the editors of those publications can make of the critique will be to be more cautious than they have been in some instances; but, while they pluck up the weeds, there is no need to plant the deadly nightshade in their place. The Reviewer proposes in a subsequent number to write an article on “Missions.” By the foregoing specimen we can be at no loss what to expect at his hand. - It has been said of the “Edinburgh Review,” that, “with a greater force of writing than the ‘Monthly,” it unites at least an equal rancour against genuine Chris- tianity, without that suspicion of Socinian and sectarian bias under which the other labours; while the barbarity, insolence, and pride, which it displays in almost all its criticisms, is sufficient to give it a prominence amongst the works of darkness.” An attack on missions, from such a quarter, if not to their honour, cannot be to their dishonour; and, if made by the writer of this article especially, will, it is hoped, produce no ill effects. SECTION I. STRICTURES ON MAJOR SCOTT WARING’S THIRD PAMPHLET. THE present performance is of a piece with this author's other productions. The quantity of repetition surpasses any thing that I have been used to meet with in writers of the most ordinary talents. The foul spirit which per- vades it is much the same, upon the whole, as heretofore. It is true, there is much less acrimony towards many of his opponents; but what is taken from them is laid upon the missionaries. The title of it might have been, War with the Missionaries, and Peace with all the World besides. The remarks on the critique of “The Christian Observer” ment, turned about, and assumed to be the patrons of rational and orthodox Christianity/ + No. XXII. p. 341. STRICTURES ON MAJOR SCOTT WARING’S THIRD PAMPHLET. 817 are so many advances for a separate peace. The same may be said of his compliments to the members of the Church of Scotland, to the Arminian Methodists, to the United Brethren, and to all indeed who have not sent missionaries to India. He has found some difficulty, however, in ranking under this head the Society for Pro- moting Christian Knowledge, whom he will not allow to have sent out any missionaries to India, but merely to have given pecuniary assistance ; and that only, it seems, in former times. Their own Reports, however, speak a different language; they express their desire of sending missionaries, provided any could be found to be sent. The sum is, our author and his party are aware of their having erred in their first attack. By making it on so extended a scale, they shocked the feelings of the Chris- tian world, and drew upon themselves their united and indignant censures. But what is to be done 3 Having committed an error, they must repair it as well as they are able; and there is no way of doing this but by endea- vouring to divide their opponents. With all his antipa- thy to the evangelical clergy, the Major would make peace with them, and grant them almost any terms, so that they would be neutrals in his war of extermination against the missionaries. Having requested a friend in town to furnish the Major with the first part of my “Apology,” he had no sooner dipped into it than he proclaimed in his preface that I had “put beyond the possibility of future doubt the cor- rectness of his private information ; ” that is, by publish- ing Mr. Carey’s letter, in which he speaks of alarms which had been spread through India. After this no person, he presumes, will venture to say that an alarm was not spread through India in 1806 and 1807, relative to missionaries, p. vi. But who ever denied that an alarm was spread among Europeans throughout India? I knew that at each of the three presidencies these alarms had been industriously circulated, and strange reports added to them, as that the missionaries, or at least Mr. Carey, were imprisoned, &c. &c. It was of these alarms that I understood and still understand Mr. Carey to have written, and not any which were entertained by the na- tive population of India, which is the point that our author’s private information aims to establish. From the date of the Vellore mutiny, there can be no doubt of alarms having existed throughout the country among Europeans; and, in Mr. Carey's opinion, so far as they related to the plans of Christian missionaries, they were fabricated by deists, who availed themselves of that and other circumstances to answer an end. He adds, “On the 13th of Feb. 1807, Mr. Carey writes, A number of persons were preparing to embark for Eu- ºrope with a view to spread the alarm at home.” Mr. Carey writes no such thing. Whatever merit or demerit there may be in that paragraph, it belongs to the apolo- gist, and not to Mr. Carey. This, if our author had been a little less in a hurry, he must have perceived. Mr. Carey, instead of having communicated it, is supposed not to be aware of it. And though it is there intimated that a number of persons were at that time preparing to embark, with a view to spread the alarms at home, yet it was never imagined that this was their sole view in return- ing to Europe. There is no difficulty in understanding the Major, when he suggests that Mr. Carey must have included the go- vernor of Ceylon, and the governor-general and council of Bengal, among the deists who swarm in India, “ because they have very effectually opposed the plans of the mis- sionaries,”—p. viii. Of the former I have heard nothing, except from our author, and therefore hope it may rº. semble many other things of his communicating. And as to the latter, if any such effectual opposition has been made as he appears to hope for, it is unknown to me. But if it have, it is no new thing for deists so far to con- ceal their motives as to influence public measures, even those in which men of very different principles preside. I have no inclination to follow this writer through one tenth of his wranglings and repetitions; nor is there any need of it. It will be sufficient if, after a few general re- marks, I answer his most serious charges against the mis- Bionaries. The Major intimates, that if his assertion of Mr. Ward's having impiously perverted a passage of the holy gospel could be disproved, that were coming to an issue, p. 22. If it were in the power of evidence to convince him on this subject, he would be convinced by what is alleged by “The Christian Observer.” But the truth is, as Dr. Johnson is said to have bluntly expressed it, in answering an ignorant opponent, We may offer evidence, but we cannot furnish men with understanding. It is still persisted in that missions, or Bibles, sent into a country where we had engaged to preserve to them the free eacercise of religion, amount to a violation of the pub- lic faith, p. 8. The free exercise of one religion then, it seems, is inconsistent with the free offer of another. The next proposal to government may be for the silencing of Protestant Dissenters; for so long as they are allowed to preach in the country, the members of the National Church, according to his reasoning, have not the free ex- ercise of their religion. When converts to Christianity are mentioned, the Major calls out, “Where are they Who are they I can find no account of them in the Missionary Reports,”—p. 18. He speaks, however, in another place, of the “non- sense that we may read in the Missionary Reports relative to the success of the missionaries in making numerous converts to Christianity,”—p. 33. If he has read the last four or five Reports of “The Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge,” he must there have met with the largest portion of this kind of nonsense that has appeared of late years, particularly in the communications of Mr. Gericke. And as he has examined the Baptist Periodical Accounts, he cannot have overlooked the list of the bap- tized in No. XV. down to Nov. 1804. He must there have seen several brahmins among them, and also several Mahomedans, and consequently have known his private accounts to be unfounded. But perhaps he will answer, as in p. 73, “This is an atrocious falsehood.” We leave the reader to judge from what has been said, and what may yet be said, to whom the charge of falsehood belongs. Meanwhile, if our author be determined to disbelieve the accounts, let him disbelieve them ; but let him not say they are not to be found in the Missionary Reports, and at the same time accuse those Reports of nonsense for relating them 1 It is remarkable with what facility the Major picks up the discordant principles of other men, and sews them together in a sort of patch-work. One while the bishop of St. Asaph seemed to be his oracle ; now the barrister is every thing. Getting hold of him he can mimic the Socinian, and declaim against John Calvin. The bishop of St. Asaph would have censured him for traducing Cal- vin, for whom he professed a high respect. But when a man has no principles of his own, what can he do? He had better not borrow those of others, however, till he knows how to use them. By the frequent recurrence of such terms as hot-headed ºmaniacs, madmen, mad Calvinists, mad Baptists, &c. &c., it would seem as if the gentleman himself was scarcely sober. Had this raving kind of diction been confined to his later publications, we might have ascribed it to the goadings of the Reviews ; but as it has been his strain of writing from the beginning, it must belong to his Inature. We have heard much of a certain tract, which calls the natives “barbarians, and their Shasters barbarian Shasters,” and of some thousands of it being distributed among the native troops, and other inhabitants of Bengal. At length we are told that the missionaries, with all their activity, did not visit one military station ; that their abusive tracts were distributed once at Berhampore among the native troops, and that the copy now in England was given by one of our seapoys to his officer, p. 129. We are much obliged to the Major for being so explicit. He may tell us, in his next piece, who translated it ; for he seems to be quite in the secret. At present, I can only observe that, by his account, this obnoxious tract appears to have been scattered among the troops by thousands, if not without hands, yet without a single visit from the missionaries . The Major has not yet finished his labours in defaming the memory of Mr. Thomas. “A man,” he says, “whom 3 G 818 . .” AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIAN MISSIONS. Mr. Thomas puts down as a brahmin, a man of title, was, in fact, a servant of Mr. Thomas, an outcast of society. This fellow, Parbotee, as he is called, robbed his master, Mr. Thomas, and ran away, and, as I understand, died mad at a distant period,”—p. 75. For a writer, on the authority of men whom he will not name, thus to abuse the memory of the dead, is an outrage on decency. Parbotee was and is a brahmin, and never was a servant to Mr. Thomas. When will this man desist from retailing falsehood Speaking of missionary societies, he says, “There is also an Arminian Methodist Society, and a Society of the United Brethren, whose missionaries are well employed in pagan countries; but they have wisely refrained from sending missionaries to India,”—p. 85. Have they 3 Yet we are told in the preface to the “Observations,” p. xv., that there are “spread over India Arminian Methodist and United Brethren missionaries,” &c. &c. And in the letter to Mr. Owen we are assured that, “on most accurately looking over the preface, he could not discover either a misstatement or a misrepresentation l’”—p, 117. Whether he discovered this, or whether he wrote both without dis- covering them to be contradictions, it is not for me to de- termine ; but if the latter were the case, I should not be surprised, for it is easy to perceive that, in many instances, he knows not what he writes. “Mr. Marshman,” says he, “was at Saugur during a great Hindoo festival, where at least 200,000 Hindoos were assembled. He preached to as many as could hear him, and he told the Hindoos that “he did not come, like other Englishmen, to take their money, but to bring the jewel above all price, the grand offer of salvation.” The Hin- doos became clamorous on their devotions being thus dis- turbed, and Mr. Marshman exclaimed, “Well, since you decline it, remember that, as you have received the gospel, you have no longer any excuse for idolatry, but will be damned everlastingly,’”—pp. 36.98. It is the practice of this writer to make no references to the page or book from which he takes his extracts. In cases of accusation this is unpardonable, and is difficult to be accounted for on any principle but that of a desire to escape detection. The only visits to Saugur of which I have any remem- brance, or can find any traces in the Periodical Accounts, are two. One may be found in No. XVI., pp. 225, 226 ; but in this there is no address to the Hindoos of any kind : his quotation, therefore, could not be taken from thence. The other is in No. XIV., pp. 513—522. Here there is an address to the Hindoos ; and as some of the words which are quoted are to be found in p. 521, I conclude it must be to this address that he refers. On reading the whole account, and comparing it with that of Major Scott Waring's, I find in the latter a much larger portion of misrepresentation than of fact. Mr. Marshman was not the missionary who addressed the Hin- doos, but Mr. Chamberlain ; and the circumstance of their “becoming clamorous on account of their devotions being disturbed ” is not in the account, and must, therefore, either have been taken from some other account, and with- out regard to truth applied to this, or be absolutely a fa- brication. Nor is this all : There were no such words spoken as of his being come to bring the jewel above all price, the grand offer of salvation ; nor did he exclaim, Well, since you decline it, remember that, as you have re- ceived the gospel, you have no longer any eaccuse for idolatry, but will be damned everlastingly. These are Major Scott Waring's words, and not those of the missionary. He may pretend that there were things said which are capable of this construction ; but he has no right to quote his own con- structions, be they just or not, as the words of another. I hoped before that the Major, notwithstanding all his mis- statements, had not been guilty of wilful errors; but really after this he hardly leaves one the power of placing any dependence on his veracity. A great deal is said about the number of the missionaries. It is introduced in this pamphlet in no less than seven places. It is said that “the London Society maintain thirteen missionaries on the coast and in Ceylon, and one at Surat; and that three of the number are women,”—p. 15. Are women then to be reckoned as missionaries # If so, we have considerably more than eleven in Bengal. But why did he not take in their children too ! In reckoning the whole number of both the Societies, sometimes they are twenty-three, and sometimes twenty-five, yet both are given as the number “now in India,”—pp. 25. 81. To assist the gentleman in his future reckonings, I will put down the names and places of the missionaries of both Societies. Messrs. Carey, Marshman, Ward, Moore, Rowe, Robin- son, and Felix Carey, at Serampore; Mr. Chamberlain, at Cutwa ; and Messrs. Mardon and Chater, at Rangoon, in Burmah. Besides them, there was Mr. Biss, but he died in 1807. Mr. William Carey, though he accompanied Mr. Moore to Dacca, is not at present a missionary. The number of missionaries, therefore, that we have now in the Company's territories is only eight. The following extract of a letter from the Secretary of the London Society will show what are their numbers and situations. “All the missionaries we have in India are, Messrs. Cran and Desgranges, at Vizagapatam ; Mr. Love- less, at the school at Madras; Dr. Taylor, at Bombay; Mr. Ringletaube, in Travancore; and Messrs. Wos, Erhartd, and Palm, in Ceylon.—Taylor never got to Surat, nor can he go at present ; and he is not at all engaged as a mis- sionary as yet, and never, I believe, preached one sermon to the heathen. None of those now in India have been at Ceylon; but those in Ceylon were first, for a few weeks, at Tranquebar. Loveless and Desgranges are married, as also the Ceylon missionaries; but as their wives did not preach, they ought not to be called missionaries. We have heard nothing of Messrs. Vos, Erhartd, and Palm being sent from Ceylon, and do not believe it.” Now, lest the Major should again be out in his reckon- ing, I may inform him that the whole number of mission- aries from this Society in Hindostan is five ; which, with the three who are or were in Ceylon, make eight; and which, added to the eight in Bengal, make SIXTEEN. Our author has furnished himself with the Baptist state- nent, which seems to have afforded him much new light upon the subject. This statement, the reader should be informed, was drawn up in the spring of 1807, not to be sold, but circulated among the directors, and the members of administration. The design of it was to counteract the influence of a number of private letters which had then arrived from India against the mission; and I have no par- ticular reason to doubt of its having answered the end. Had the Major known the particulars communicated in this statement sooner, he “should not have written one word about Bengal missionaries,”—p, 60. We hope then he will learn, in future, to wait till he understand a sub- ject before he writes upon it. It might be full as credit- able to himself to do so, and some saving to the public. But we must not count too fast on the Major's approba- tion. If he had not written, it had been, not from any satisfactory opinion of the missionaries’ conduct, but from their being laid under an interdiction which he hopes may be sufficient to stop them in their career. It is possible, however, he might have written notwithstanding ; for since he has seen the statement he has written nearly as much as he did before. Our author, in going over the statement, finds the Baptist Society submitting to the consideration of govern- ment the following proposition, as the opinion of the missionaries : “No political evil can reasonably be feared from the spread of Christianity now ; for it has been publicly preached in different parts of Bengal for about twenty years past,” without the smallest symptom of the kind.” “But are the Baptist missionaries,” he asks, “ or their Society at home, authorized by law to determine whether or not a political evil is to be reasonably feared from the spread of Christianity in India?”—p. 69. Un- less our being Baptists deprives us of the right of all other subjects, we have just the same authority as Major Scott Waring, who also has said a great deal to government on what is reasonable and unreasonable. He states what he conceives to be good policy, submitting it to the con- sideration of those who are authorized to determine it, and we have done no more. * Though Mr. Carey had been there only thirteen years, yet Mr. Thomas had publicly preached to the Hindoos in their own language for several years before. STRICTURES ON MAJOR SCOTT WARING’S THIRD PAMPHLET. '819 But the principal materials which our author finds in the Baptist statement are such as enable him to accuse us, as he thinks, of falsehood and even of rebellion. These are certainly very serious charges, and, if we be unable to answer them, must sink us in the estimation of all honest II] el] . guilty of either of these crimes. So far as we know our own hearts, we have from the beginning exercised a con- science void of offence towards God and towards man. If we be guilty, therefore, we must be under the grossest self-deception. And as we never considered ourselves either as liars or rebels, neither have we been able to learn that any other person, high or low, Churchman or Dissenter, friend or enemy, has so considered us, till Major Scott Waring made the discovery. “Not a single instance of disturbance has occurred,” says Mr. Carey, “unless the abusive language of a few loose persons may be so called.” To prove the falsehood of this statement, the Major refers to the old story of a universal alarm being excited by their entering into a city or a village. One of these statements, he says, must be Jalse. But if the alarm mean nothing more than a sens- ation of fear arising from the presence of Europeans, there is no such thing as disturbance included in it. Our author has read the account of the journey to Saugur;” and might have observed that “the people were surprised to see Europeans amongst them, and that some appeared afraid:” yet at that time their errand was unknown. This fear, therefore, could not respect them as mission- aries, but merely as Europeans. Mr. Carey says, further, that “the missionaries on the coast reckon about forty thousand persons to have em- braced Christianity.” “This,” says the Major, “is an- other direct false assertion. Dr. Kerr admits, on the 7th of Nov. 1806, that hitherto it is generally imagined few good converts have been made,”—p. 70. But though this might be generally imagined, yet it does not follow that it was true, or that Dr. Kerr thought it to be true. Or, granting that he did, he might mean it only comparatively. Forty thousand people are but few when compared with the population of the country. In the letter addressed to Dr. Vincent, which was published in the Report of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge of 1800, they are reckoned at “three thousand;” and since that time, according to the Reports of that Society, there have been great accessions; whole villages casting away their idols and embracing the gospel. Whether forty thousand be a just estimate, I cannot tell, and Mr. Carey does not deter- mine ; but, till I have some better proof of his want of Veracity than has yet appeared, I can entertain no doubt of its being agreeable to the information he had received. Thousands of heathens in Calcutta were willing to hear the gospel; “but we,” says Mr. Marshman, “are for- bidden to preach it.” That is, in Calcutta, where they had preached it, “This assertion,” says the Major, “is false; they are allowed to preach it in Serampore, and in their own house in Calcutta.” But the thousands who desire to hear it could not attend in either of those places. . If Major Scott Waring want understanding, who can help it 3. But he should not charge that as false which arises from his own misconstructions. To say that thousands of heathens are willing to hear the gospel, is, he says, “a false and wicked assertion, in the Way in which the missionaries desire to be understood. Curiosity may draw, as it has done, thousands together to hear these men preach, but they are not likely, to UISé the elegant expression of one of the coast missionaries, to catch one (of the thousands) in the gospel net,”—p. 73. The missionaries never desired to be understood’ as if thousands stood ready to embrace Christianity, but merely that they were willing and even desirous to hear it; aná this, whatever were their motives, was the truth. As to the improbability of their being brought to believe it, that is only Major Scott Waring’s opinion, and stands for nothing. “We have baptized,” says Mr. Marshman, “about a hundred of these people, and we dare affirm that the * Periodical Accounts, No. XIV. p. 518. For our parts, we are not conscious of having been British government has not a hundred better subjects, and more cordial friends, among the natives of Hindostan.” “This,” says the Major, “is a most atrocious falsehood. Of their hundred converts, whom they have baptized in thirteen years,f they have dismissed many for gross im- morality,”—p. 73. The number of those who have been dismissed for gross immorality, however, is not so great as this writer would have it thought to be ; but, be it what it may, Mr. Marshman says in the same page, “If they lose caste, and embrace Christianity, not by force, but from pure conviction, they become other men. Even those who, as it may prove, have not embraced it cordially, are considerably influenced by it. If once they lose caste, the charm is broken, and they become capable of attach- ment to government.” But I am weary of contending with this foul opponent. It is time to bring this part of the subject, at least, to a close. As “the most atrocious falsehood * is charged on the missionaries, let us here come to an issue. We will not shrink from it. Let our judges satisfy themselves of the truth of our statements. We will hold ourselves obliged, whenever called upon by proper authority, to give proof of them. If falsehood be found on our side, let our missionaries be ordered out of the country as a set of impostors; but if on the side of our accusers, let the burden which they have laboured to fasten upon us fall upon themselves. But our missionaries are accused not only of falsehood, but with being “in open rebellion.” This accusation is founded on their going out without legal authority, and by foreign ships—on their availing themselves of the pro- tection of Denmark—and on their itinerating in the country without passports, and after a legal permission to do so was refused them. It is easy to perceive that, on this subject, the hopes of our accuser begin to brighten. Like the Pharisees and the Herodians, he thinks he shall be able to entangle us, and bring us under the displeasure of government. Well, let him do his utmost. We acknowledge the above to be facts, let them affect us as they may. It is worthy notice, however, that it is not owing to any thing which our ac- cuser has written that these facts have been brought to light. The substance of them was contained in the State- ment; which statement was, in fact, though not in form, respectfully submitted to the very parties to whom he wishes to accuse us. He is, therefore, a day too late. Our judges were in possession of the facts before he knew of them. There is nothing left for him to do as an accuser, but merely as counsel, to assist the judges in forming a deci- sion, by his comments and learned arguments. And, with respect to these, we must take the liberty of wiping off a part of his colouring ; and truly it can be only a part, for to remove the whole the pamphlet itself must be literally purified by fire. The itinerating excursions, subsequent to the refusal of a legal permission in 1805, were not in defiance of govern- ment, but with their knowledge, and, I may say, their ap-e probation. The refusal of the governor-general did not appear to arise from any disapprobation of the object, or of the means used to accomplish it, but merely from a . hesitation whether the government in India were war- ranted formally to adopt the measure. There was no prohibition whatever at that time laid upon the mission- aries, nor any intimation of even a wish for them to relax in their itinerating labours. On the contrary, when, from the hesitation before mentioned, the governor-general dis- approved of a committee to superintend the translations, he nevertheless gave full liberty to advertise in the “Ga- zette ” for voluntary subscriptions; and added, “Let the missionaries go on in their present line of action.” Our accuser, not knowing what to do with this last sen- tence, contrives to throw it back a year, supposing the re- mark must have been made “prior to the autumn of 1805,” —p. 93. Certainly this supposition is necessary for his argument; but unfortunately it is not true. I cannot ex- actly refer to the date, but have no doubt of its being in 1806. Never till the 24th of August, in that year, was any thing like a prohibition given, and then it appears to + He might have said in six. 3 G 2 820 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIAN MISSIONS. & have arisen more from apprehension than dislike ; and con- sisted not in a written order from the governor-general in touncil, but merely in a private verbal message. If, there- fore, the Major flatter himself that Sir George Barlow is of the same mind with him and his party, he may find himself mistaken. I may add, that the protection of the Danish government was granted at the unsolicited recommendation of the late governor Bie, whose testimony to the good character of the missionaries was not only sent to his own government at Copenhagen, but the same things conveyed in a letter to the Society in England in the following terms:—“Permit me to assure you that I do not consider the friendship and few civilities I have had it in my power to show your brethren here otherwise than as fully due to them. I have received them as righteous men, in the name of righteous men; and I shall never withhold good from them to whom it is due, when it is in the power of my hand to do it. I am happy in possessing them, and shall be more so in see- ing their number increase.”—The missionaries have al- ways acknowledged the kindness of the British as well as of the Danish government; and though at one period they expressed their concern at being forbidden to preach to the multitudes who were willing to hear in Calcutta, yet neither they nor the Society have dealt in reflections, but have contented themselves with simply stating the facts, and the arguments arising from them; and this merely to counteract the underhand measures of their adversaries. We ask only for a calm and candid hearing. We so- lemnly aver before God and our country that we are most sincerely attached to its constitution and government; that we regard its authority with sentiments of the highest re- spect, and hold ourselves bound to be obedient to its law- ful commands. Obedience to the ruling powers we con- ceive to be enjoined in Scripture, where, however, an exception is expressly made in favour of those cases in which the commands of man are directly opposed to the revealed commands of God. These are cases which, in the course of human affairs, may occur; but which no good subject will love to anticipate before their actual oc- currence. Supposing, however, the arrival of an emergence so painful, it surely would be somewhat harsh to stigma- tize with the name of “open rebellion ” the reluctant dis- obedience, in a particular instance, of those who are only yielding to a deliberate, sober, and conscientious convic- tion of their duty. The apostles exhorted all Christians, rather than renounce their faith or disobey the Divine precepts at the command of the state, to “resist even unto blood;’” but we have yet to learn that such injunctions were intended or received as instigations to rebellion. Were it possible to conceive (we merely suppose the case) that the missionaries should be called to the hard duty of deciding between the service of God and obedi- ence to man, we trust that they would be enabled to en- counter, with resignation, the painful sacrifice imposed upon them; but we are thankful to say that they have as yet been spared so severe a trial. Surely nothing but the most uncandid and bitter preju- dice would represent the refusal of an official sanction to their itinerations as an imperative prohibition of them ; or would class the missionaries as rebels merely because, being denied the formal protection of the governing power, they Were content with connivance, or at least with uncove- nanted toleration. Numbers of Europeans are to be found residing in India, though unaccredited by the Company or the British governments; and we have never understood that all these were considered as in a state of “open re- bellion.” Yet we have no objection to be explicit, and will be free to confess that the legality of such a residence for the purposes of private emolument would in our view be more than doubtful, and that we should certainly ab- stain from it. If, upon a candid consideration of all circumstances, it be found that we have, in some instances, deviated from the regulations alluded to, it will be remembered that it has not been for any object of temporal advantage, the illicit pursuit of which it was doubtless the design of those regulations to prevent, though they are necessarily ex- pressed in terms which give them a more general applica- tion. As far, indeed, as the deviation may, even under these circumstances, seem an irregular proceeding, so far we should certainly rest our defence of it on the nature and importance of the objects which it was intended to com- pass; and, in this mild and qualified case, should even ap- peal to the spirit of the principle which has been already mentioned—the principle of a conscientious preference of duty to all other considerations, however pressing. With respect to the question of duty, we are aware that men may be prompted by delusive impulses and erroneous. comments to measures of extravagance, justly censurable by civil authority. But we are governed by no such im- pulses. We have no notion of any thing being the will of God, but what may be proved from the Scriptures; nor of any obligations upon us to go among the heathen more than upon other Christians. If we be not authorized by the New Testament, we have no authority. And as to our comments, if they will not bear the test of fair and im- partial scrutiny, let them be discarded, and let our un- dertakings be placed to the account of a well-meant but misguided zeal. The principal ground on which we act is confined to a narrow compass : it is the commission of our Saviour to his disciples, “Go-teach all nations; ” which commission we do not consider as confined to the apostles, because his promised presence to them who should execute it extends “to the end of the world.” Our accuser is aware that the apostles and primitive ministers went every where preaching the gospel, even though it were at the risk of liberty and life; and this, he conceives, was right in them, because “they were expressly commanded to do so,”—p. 80. His conclusion, that it is wrong in Christians of the present day, rests upon the supposition that the command of Christ does not extend to them ; but we shall not allow him to build on these dis- puted premises. That there were things committed to the apostles, for them to commit to Christians of succeeding ages, cannot be denied. Such must have been the great body of Christian doctrines and precepts contained in the New Testament; and seeing the promise of Christ to be with his servants in the execution of the command reaches “ to the end of the world,” the command itself must have been of this description. Not that every Christian is obliged to preach, or any Christian in all places; but the Christian church as a body, and every member of it individually is obliged to do its utmost in the use of those means which Christ has appointed for the discipling of all nations. To say that because we are not endowed, like the apos- tles, with the gift of tongues and the power of working miracles, therefore we are not obliged to make use of the powers which we have for the conversion of the world, is trifling, not reasoning. What proof, or appearance of proof, is there that the obligations of the apostles to preach the gospel to all nations arose from those extraordinary endow- ments : If our being unable to work miracles be a reason why we should not preach the gospel to all nations as far as opportunity admits, it is a reason why we should not preach it at all ; or, which is the same thing, a proof that the Christian ministry, as soon as miracles had ceased, ought to have terminated. The institution of the Chris- tian ministry is founded in the commission, even that commission which enjoins the teaching of all nations. And if we leave out one part, we must, to be consistent, leave out the other. We ought either not to teach at all, or, according to our powers and opportunities, to teach all nations. - If we believe the Scriptures, (and if we do not we are not Christians,) we must believe that all nations are pro- mised to the Messiah for his inheritance, no less than the land of Canaan was promised to the seed of Abraham ; and we, as well as they, ought, in the use of those means which he has appointed, to go up and endeavour to possess them. It is not for us, having obtained a comfortable footing in Europe, like the Israelites in Canaan, to make leagues with the other parts of the world, and, provided we may but live at ease in our tents, to consent for them to remain as they are. Such a spirit, though complimented by some as liberal, is mean, and inconsistent with the love of either God or man. - - Our accuser, who will neither be a Christian nor let Christianity alone, represents the apostles as “authorized STRICTURES ON MAJOR SCOTT WARING's THIRD PAMPHLET. 821 to act in defiance of magistrates,” to “break the laws of the different countries they visited,” to “despise the orders of men ; ” “ but Christians now,” he tells us, “are ex- pressly directed to obey the powers that be.”. If the prin- ciple acted on by the apostles “be admitted in these days,” he thinks, “we must bid adieu to India,”—pp. 53.79, 80. It would seem by this account of things as if the apos- tles, under a Divine authority, trampled on all law and order among men, and, as far as their influence extended, actually “turned the world upside down.” If it were not so, the conclusion that the same principle acted upon in these days would prove the loss of India is mere unfounded assertion. But were any such effects produced by the la- bours of the apostles? What colonies were lost to the Romans through them ? Let the countries be named which were ruined or injured by their preaching. In attempting to fix a charge upon us, our accuser has libelled the apostles, and even their Master, as well as the Christians of all succeeding ages. Where did he learn that Jesus Christ authorized his apostles to act in defiance of magistrates, or to despise the orders of men 2 What proof has he that they ever acted on such principles 4 Was there any thing like this in the behaviour of Paul before Felix, or Festus, or Agrippa 3 Such a spirit had no more place in his religion than our accuser has been able to prove it to have had place in ours. The apostles were commanded to break no laws but such as were inconsistent with their allegiance to Christ; and in breaking them they never acted with contumacy, but merely as impelled by a superior authority; bearing at the same time the consequences with meekness and fortitude, as their Lord had done before them. The principle on which they acted was that which HE had laid down for them when tempted by certain “hypocrites,” with the intent of rendering him obnoxious to government (not that they cared for government, but were desirous of making it the instrument of their malice); namely, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God’s.” What authority has our accuser for representing the apostles as enjoining on common Christians that subjection to civil government which they did not exemplify in their own conduct? Were not they themselves subject to the powers that were ? Yes, in every thing save in what con- cerned their allegiance to Christ, and this reserve they made for all Christians. Why else did they encourage them to hold fast their profession under the most cruel persecutions; referring them to the last judgment, when God would recompense rest to them, and tribulation to those that troubled them? Could they have submitted their consciences to the ruling powers, they need not have suffered persecution; but they acted on the same principle as the apostles, who, instead of laying down one law for themselves and another for them, exhorted them to follow their example: “Those things,” said they, “which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in us, do.” On the principle of our ãccuser, all those Christians of the first three centuries who had not the power of working miracles, though peaceable and loyal subjects in civil con- Sººs, yet, not submitting their consciences to the ruling £º were rebels. The same may be said of the Eng. lish martyrs in the days of the first Mary. They could not work miracles any more than we, and pretended to no special °ommission from Heaven to break the laws ; but, while they manifested the utmost loyalty to the queen in civil matters, they felt themselves accountable to a higher authority, and submitted to be burnt alive rather than obey her mandates. These characters, whom all succeed- ing ages have revered as men of whom the world was not worthy, Were loaded by the Bonners and Gardiners of the day with every epithet of abuse, and treated as rebels We may be told that the cases are dissimilar: the ; Uney were put to death, but the whole that our accuser aims at is banishment; they suffered for avowing their religious * Considering the pains whi y * sº odium of º:‘...."; º º ...i. thing towards removing it. The truth is, our Opponents care not For the Church, nor have they any dislike to Dissenters, provided they be adverse to evangelical religion. All that they say, therefore, against US as sectaries, is for the mean and crafty purpose of working * * ſº upon the Prejudices of Churchmen; and such vulgar abuse requires no anSWer. principles at home, whereas we might have done this without his wishing to interrupt us. But this dissimilarity relates only to degree ; the principle is the same. If, since the days of miracles, Christians have been under an obligation to submit to the powers that be in religious matters, the martyrs of seventeen hundred years have been, in fact, a succession of rebels. Our accuser may think it a matter “not to be endured” that sectaries should compare themselves with these hon- oured characters : * but with his leave, or without it, we are Christians; and though we should be less than the least of Christ’s servants, yet we must aspire to act upon the same principles as the greatest of them. What is there in these principles which affects the honour of government, or the peace and good order of society? Is it any disparagement to the highest human authorities not to interfere with the Divine prerogative : On the contrary, is it not their highest honour to respect it ! Those go- vernments which, disregarding such men as our accuser, protect the free exercise of religious principle, will not only be prospered of Heaven, but will ever stand high in the esteem of the wise and the good, and when the ferment of the day is over be applauded by mankind in general. A great deal is said by all our opponents on the power of working miracles, as though because we cannot pretend to this qualification we had no warrant to attempt the con- version of the heathen. “It is not to be endured,” says our accuser, “that these men should be compared with the apostles who wrought miracles.” And another wiseacre gravely suggests that “sectaries are not likely to have these extraordinary powers;” as though, had we been Churchmen, we might have stood some chance of attaining them ºf It was the commission of Christ, and not the power of work- ing miracles, that constituted the warrant of the apostles to “go and teach all nations.” The latter was, indeed, an important qualification, and necessary to accredit the Chris- tian religion at its outset; but if it had been necessary to its progress, it would either have been continued till all nations had been evangelized, or the promise of Christ to be with his servants in the execution of the commission would not have extended to the end of the world. If we arrogated to compare ourselves with the apostles, in distinction from other Christians, that indeed were not to be endured ; but nothing is further from our minds. If we compare ourselves with the apostles, it is not as apos- tles, but as Christians, engaged, according to the gifts which we possess, in the same common cause. That there were some things pursued by Christ and his apostles which re- quire to be pursued by all Christians cannot be denied. Why else is our Saviour said to have “left us an example that we should follow his steps ?” And why did the apos- tle exhort the Corinthians to be “followers of him, as he also was of Christ?” It might have been said of Paul, that for him to compare himself with Christ “was not to be endured ; ” and that with equal justice as this is said of us. He did not compare himself with Christ, though he imitated him in those things wherein he was set for an ex- ample; neither do we compare ourselves with the apostles, though we imitate them in those things wherein they are set for our example. . Nothing is more evident, to men who have their senses exercised to discern between good and evil, than that the cause of God is the same in all ages ; and that, whatever diversity of gifts there may be among Christians, there is but one spirit. It is not on that wherein Christianity is diverse in different ages that we found our comparisons, but on that wherein it is the same in all ages. Whatever diversities there were as to spiritual gifts between Christ and his apostles, or among the apostles themselves, yet they each incurred the hatred and opposition of wicked men. The Lord of glory himself was reproached as a madman, and the people who attended to him considered as fools for listening to his doctrine. He was also accused to govern- ment of stirring up the people, merely because he taught + This suggestion is contained in a piece which has lately appeared, under the title of The Dangers of British India from French Invasion and Missionary Establishments. I see nothing in the pamphlet which requires an answer. Government will see to that part which refers to the danger of French invasion, whether they read this performance or not; and as to what relates to the missionaries, it is a mere repetition of things which have been answered in the preceding pages. 822 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIAN MISSIONS. them throughout the country. Such also was the treat- ment of the apostles. So foreign were the things of which Taul discoursed from all the previous ideas of Festus, that, though he spoke only the words of truth and soberness, yet they appeared to the other to be madness. And the charges alleged against him, at another time, before Felix, were, that he was a pestilent character, a mover of sedition, and, what was worse still, a ringleader of the SECT of the Nazarenes. Now when we hear the same charges, for substance, alleged against us, at a distance of almost two thousand years, we cannot help concluding that, whatever disparities there are between Christ and the apostles and Christians of the present day, there are certain common points of likeness, and that all such reproaches prove no- thing against us. We do not wonder, however, that our adversaries should not be able to “endure” these comparisons; for they not only feel annoyed by them, but must needs perceive that, if we are compared to Christ and his apostles, they also will be compared to men of a very opposite character, and this they may not be able to “endure * any more than the other. Another subject on which almost all our opponents dwell is the impracticability of converting the Hindoos. Most of them, as if to screen themselves from the suspicion of being averse to Christianity, acknowledge that if the thing were practicable it would be right. But, in the first place, they speak as though we expected the sudden conversion of the whole population of India; and as though nothing were done, unless it amounted to this ; but we have no idea of the kind. If the work go on in a silent and gradual way, like the operations of a little leaven, as the kingdom of heaven has been used to go on, the whole lump may in the end, though not at present, be leavened. We say the lea- ven has begun to operate, and all we desire is, that its operation may not be impeded. We perfectly agree with our opponents that the Hindoos can never be converted by mere human means, though we are equally persuaded they will never be converted without them. We no more think that “men can accomplish it." than they. We do not use such calculations respecting the expulsion of paganism and Mahomedism from India as might be used concerning the reduction of a country by a certain degree of physical forcé. Our hope arises from the promise of Christ to be with his servants in the execution of their mission to the end of the world. Nor can our ad- versaries consistently object to this, since they also can talk of “the omnipotent power of Heaven leading these people into the paths of light and truth,” and even of “ the outpouring of the Spirit” upon them. The difference is, they introduce Divine influence as something miraculous, and for the purpose of superseding human means; we as an ordinary blessing, promised to the church in all ages, and to encourage the use of means. They argue from what the Almighty can do to what he mºst do, if ever the work be done ; namely, convert them “in an instant:” we con- sider such talk as wild and visionary. Our opponents sometimes declaim against “the enthusiasm * of the mis- sionaries; but nothing like this will be found in any of their communications. Surely they must be hardly driven, or they would not have attempted to conceal their opposition to the progress of the gospel under the mask of fanaticism. Do they really think it more probable that God will con- vert a whole country “in an instant” than that they will be converted in the ordinary use of means? No, they ex- pect no such Divine interference, and, it may be, on this very account give it the preference. If the Hindoos must be converted, they had rather, it seems, that it should be done by the immediate power of God than by us; but it requires no great depth of penetration to perceive that it would please them better still were it to be done by neither. SECTION II. REMARKS ON “A LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE DOARD OF CONTROL ON THE PROPAGATION OF CHRISTI- ANITY IN INDIA.” MY design in noticing this Letter is more for the purpose of explanation than dispute. The “hints’’ suggested to those who are concerned in sending out missionaries to the East, so far as they relate to their peaceable temper and charac- ter, are very good. I can say, in behalf of the societies which have of late years sent out missionaries to that quar- ter, that it has been their aim, from the beginning, to act on the principle which the author recommends. The fol- lowing are extracts from the Instructions of the London and the Baptist Societies. To THE MIssion ARIES GOING TO SURAT. “It is peculiarly incumbent on you for your own comfort, and agreeable to the spirit and teaching of our Divine Master, to avoid all interference both in word and in deed with the Company’s servants, government, and regulations. We cannot sufficiently convey what we feel on the high importance of this injunction, of abstaining from all ob- servations on the political affairs of the country or govern- ment, in your intercourse, and in your correspondence.— The very existence of the mission may be involved in an attention or inattention to this regulation ''' To THE MIssionARIEs GoING TO BENGAL. “Since that kingdom which we, as the disciples of Jesus, wish to establish, is not of this world, we affectionately and seriously enjoin on each missionary under our patron- age that he do cautiously and constantly abstain from every interference with the political concerns of the country where he may be called to labour, whether by words or deeds; that he be obedient to the laws in all civil affairs; that he respect magistrates, supreme and subordinate, and teach the same things to others; in fine, that he apply himself wholly to the all-important concerns of that evangelical service to which he has so solemnly dedicated himself. “Lastly, however gross may be the idolatries and hea- thenish superstitions that may fall beneath a missionary’s notice, the Society are nevertheless persuaded that both the mutual respect due from man to man, and the interests of the true religion, demand that every missionary should sedulously avoid all rudeness, insult, and interruption, during the observance of the said superstitions; recom- mending no methods but those adopted by Christ and his apostles, viz. the persevering use of Scripture, reason, prayer, meekness, and love.” The societies may not, in every instance, have succeeded according to their wishes; but if any of their missionaries have betrayed another spirit, they have not failed to ad- monish them, and, if they could not be corrected, would certainly recall them. The mildness and gentleness of missionaries, however, does not require to be such as that they should not refute and expose the evils of idolatry. No man can be a missionary who is not allowed to do this. This has been always done by Mr. Schwartz and his col- leagues, (whom the author of the Letter justly praises,) as is manifest from their communications to “The Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge,” and of which the Society have approved by communicating them to the public. “Mr. Kolhoff,” say they, “in his intercourse with hea- thens, made it his business to give them a plain and com- prehensive view of all the truths of our holy religion, and to prevail upon them to receive them, by representing the absurdity and sinfulness of their idol-worship, the happi- ness which would attend their obedience to the truth, and the judgments to which they would render themselves liable by a contempt of the only true God, and the offers of his mercy.”—Report of 1798, p. 134. They also tell us of Mr. Pohle, another of their mission- aries, “preaching daily the principles of Christianity to the natives of different religions, and especially the hea- thens, refuting at the same time their errors.” Yet he is said to have been “heard with joy and amazement,”— Report of 1796, p. 129. The following extract of Mr. Kolhoff’s letter will furnish an apology for their earnestness, to those who may think nothing to be proper but simple instruction. “Besides a multiplicity of superior deities, the heathens in this country have a great number of infernal deities (or rather devils) whom they likewise make objects of their ON THE PROPAGATION OF CHRISTIANITY IN INDIA. 823 adoration. The worship or service done to these infernal deities, in order to render them propitious, consists in offer- ing them sheep, swine, fowls, rice, plaintans, and intoxi- cating liquors, which is always done either in a garden, or in a chapel built in a grove, without the city or village. After offering the sacrifice, the priest, and the people by whom the sacrifice is brought, sit down to feast themselves on the things offered. “Such a sacrifice was offered by some heathens in the month of July last, near a village twelve miles to the south of Tanjore. Having offered their sacrifice, they sat down to the succeeding entertainment, in which the priest, hav- ing made too free with the intoxicating liquor, very soon became like a wild beast, and murdered two persons who were near him, with the instrument with which he had killed the victims. Others endeavoured to save themselves by flight, but he pursued after them, murdered a woman, wounded six others, and very likely would have proceeded in his murderous business, if the inhabitants of the village had not brought him down with their sticks, and disabled him from doing further mischief. He was taken a prisoner to Tanjore, and died in his confinement of the wounds he got from the inhabitants. Oh that the heathens would open their eyes to see the dreadful consequences of for- saking their Maker, and doing the devil's drudgery !”— Report of 1798, p. 132. “I believe,” says the author of the Letter to the Presi- dent of the Board of Control, “that in Bengal the matter has been much the same as on the coast, and that no dis- satisfaction has, for perhaps a century, been produced by the preaching of the missionaries, catholic or protestant, with the exception of only a recent instance of disgust, very naturally excited among some Hindoos, from being (if I am rightly informed) coarsely reproached by some vulgar zealot, with the worship of murderers, liars, and so forth,”—pp. 9, 10. I very much suspect that this gentleman has been mis- informed, even as to this exception. No such communica- tion has reached me ; and if any one of the missionaries had, by the use of such language, excited disgust, I think either myself or some other member of the Society would have heard of it. If it were “a fact, and a matter of no- toriety in India,” it is somewhat extraordinary that when, on account of the alarms produced by the Vellore mutiny, Mr. Carey and his colleagues were requested to desist from preaching to the natives, the magistrates at Calcutta, who delivered that request, should have made no mention of it ; and still more so that they should have declared them- selves “well satisfied with their character and deportment,” acknowledging that “no complaint had ever been lodged against them.” But the number of private reports which have of late been circulated is sufficient, for a time, to shake the confidence even of those who are friendly to the object. We can only repeat what we have said before, “Let us not be judged by private letters: let our adver. saries come forward and accuse the missionaries, or at least give proof of their labours having been injurious.” There is, doubtless, a manner of representing things which tends not to convince, but to provoke. If any thing of this kind can be proved against the missionaries, we shall, by nº means defend it. To charge a company of Hindoos directly with the worship of murderers, liars, &c., must be very improper; but it is possible for a charge of this kind to be urged in a less offensive manner. Suppos- ing a brahmin to be in the company, and that, in encoun- tering the missionary, he should appeal to the Shasters for the lawfulness of idol worship; would it be improper for the missionary calmly to prove from those Shasters that the very gods which they command to be worshipped are there described as the most vicious characters "This, I believe, has been done, and that with good effect. No. did I ever hear of an instance of any Hindoo being pro- Yoked by it, except the brahmins, who were thereby COIl- founded before the people. with respect to inculcating “the less controverted prin- ciples of Christianity,” I do not believe that the mission- aries have ever so much as mentioned to the converted natives, and certainly not to the unconverted, any of the controversies of European Christians. On the contrary, they teach them what they conceive to be simple Christi. anity, both in doctrine and practice; and were any thing like a disputatious spirit to arise among them, (which, I believe, has never been the case,) they would utterly dis- courage it. The fears which this writer seems to entertain of “ con- founding the people with a variety of discordant opinions and sects” are, I trust, without foundation; but as I shall have occasion to notice this subject more particularly in the next article, I shall here pass it by. What this author means, and who he can refer to, by “churches overflowing with converts, who do no honour to the cause, but serve rather as a stumbling-block than an incitement to the conversion of others,” I know not. Major Scott Waring, in his third pamphlet, understands him as agreeing with him, that “the hundred converts made in thirteen years by the Bengal missionaries have injured the cause of Christianity in India,”—p. 136. After this, I must say, the author is called upon by every con- sideration of truth, justice, and religion, and in the name of each l hereby call upon him, through some public me- dium, to explain his meaning. The accusations of Major Scott Waring, and his associates, reflect no dishonour; but when taken up" as sober truth by a writer who appears to be not only a man of veracity, but friendly to religion, they become of consequence, and require to be either sub- stantiated or retracted. We may have more hope of the conversion of the Hin- doos, and consequently more zeal, than this author. We certainly do hope, by the good hand of God upon us, to produce something more than merely “an increased esteem for Christianity” among the heathen ; but so far as his advice goes to recommend temperate men and measures it meets our cordial approbation. This writer recommends to government that “the num- ber of missionaries should be limited, and that they should be required to enter into covenants with the Company, calculated to insure their prompt obedience to the restraints which it may be found necessary to impose upon them.” It is possible this gentleman may have formed his idea of the number of the missionaries from the reports circulated in such pamphlets as those of Major Scott Waring, as if “a great number of sectarian missionaries were spread over every part of India.” If he had known that this great number does not exceed sixteen, and that the greater part of them reside at Serampore, under the immediate eye of the supreme government, he would scarcely have thought of such a proposal. As to “covenanting with the Com- pany,” the quotation from Mr. Marshman * proves their willingness to give every possible security for their peace- able and good behaviour. The sum of this gentleman’s advice is, that, “with the growing zeal of this country for Indian conversion, the vigilant control of the India government should keep pace.” A vigilant control and a system of intolerance sound very much alike. I hope, however, he does not mean such control as would impede the work itself; and if no more be meant than a restriction from intemperate language and behaviour, such restraints, I trust, will not “be found ne- cessary to be imposed upon them.” SECTION III. REMARKS ON THE PROPRIETY OF CONFINING MISSIONARY LNDERTAKINGS TO THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH. I AM aware that on this part of the subject I have strong prejudices to encounter, especially from those who know little or nothing of Protestant Dissenters, except from the opprobrious names given them by their adversaries. Of an ecclesiastical establishment for India I say no- thing. We shall rejoice in the success of all who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. Whether such an estab- lishment take place, or not, I am persuaded no force will be used towards the natives ; and I should not have sus- pected a desire to exclude Protestant Dissenters, had it not * See p. 799. 824 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIAN MISSIONS. been expressly avowed in a late discourse before one of our Universities.* There are thousands, I am persuaded, in the National Church, who would utterly disapprove of the illiberal wish, and whose hearts would revolt at the idea of recalling men of approved talents and character, who, with great labour and perseverance, have in a measure cleared the ground and sown the seed, to make way for others to go after them who should reap the harvest. Attached as they are to the Church of England, they would not wish, in this manner, to promote her interests. They would, I presume, consider such a measure as strictly sectarian ; that is, establishing a party at the expense of the general interest of the church of Christ. But should Churchmen of this description be out-num- bered by others of a different mind, we appeal from them to the temperance, the wisdom, and the justice of Govern- MENT. A government distinguished by its tolerant prin- ciples, and which guards the rights of conscience even in Mahomedans and heathens, will not, we trust, exclude Protestant Dissenting missionaries from any of its terri- tories, especially men of learning and character, against whom not a single charge of improper conduct has ever been substantiated. Dr. Barrow says, “Missionaries of various interests, or parties, ignorantly or wilfully differing in their comments, their opinions, and their designs, should not be suffered to appear amongst those whom we wish to convert.” Surely Dr. Barrow might have supposed, from the disinterested labours of these missionaries, and from the good under- standing which they have always endeavoured to cultivate with Christians of other denominations, that they had no “ design º’ in view but that of extending the Christian re- ligion ; but that if they differ from him, or others, in some particulars, it may arise from other causes than either ig- norance or obstimacy. He adds, “If we permit the ministers of various sects and denominations, Lutherans and Calvinists, Arminians and Baptists, to inculcate their respective tenets without restraint, the unlettered Indian will not be able to deter- mine what that Christianity is which we would persuade him to embrace ; and the more learned, convinced that the doctrines of all our teachers cannot be equally true, may be led to conclude that all are equally false.” Plau- sible as this reasoning may appear on paper, experience and fact are against it. There never has been, and I trust never will be, such an opposition in the doctrine of the missionaries as to furnish any stumbling-block to the ma- tives. According to the reasoning of this gentleman, if “the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge ’’ had sent out an English clergyman as a missionary to India, they must at the same time have recalled Schwartz, Gericke, and their fellow labourers, as being “Lutherans.” The errors which exist in the Christian world, to whom- soever they belong, are doubtless an evil, and tend to ob- struct the progress of the gospel. Could we be all of one mind, and that the mind of Christ, we might hope for greater success; but seeing this is not the case, what are we to do? Surely there is no necessity for our all sitting idle; nor yet for one party, which happens to be estab- lished by civil authority, to exclude the rest. Let us suppose an agricultural mission among the American Indians. Fifteen or sixteen experienced farmers are sent to teach the people how to cultivate their lands. After a few years' trial, some good fruits arise from their instructions. But a certain theorist, sitting at home, finds out that these men are not all perfectly of one opinion as to the best modes of husbandry; and therefore proposes to recall them, and to send others in their place. Common sense would, in this case, check the presumption. It would say, Let these men alone. There is no such differ- ence between them as materially to affect the object. There is room enough for them all, so that no one will need to interfere with his neighbour. Even the less skilful among them will do good, perhaps as much as those whom you would send in their place, and who, after all, might be as far from unanimity as they are. Such is the extent of the British empire in the East, that if we could divest ourselves of the sectarian spirit of “de- * See Dr. Barrow’s Sermon before the University of Oajord, Nov. 8, 1807, pp. 13, 14. siring to boast of other men's labours,” no two denomina- tions of Christians need interfere, and all might be helpers one of another. But though it were otherwise, and the evils alleged were allowed to arise from it, yet the mea- sures proposed by this writer would not diminish them. It is by subscribing “the creed of the National Church'' that he wishes all who engage in this work to be united ; but the unanimity produced by subscribing a creed, how- ever good that creed may be, is little more than nominal, and therefore could have no good effect on thinking hea- thens. They would soon discover that there had been almost as many different “comments and opinions” about the meaning of the creed, as about the Scriptures them- selves; and that as great an opposition existed among those who had subscribed it as between them and others who had not subscribed it. The truth is, if we wish to convert heathens to our- selves, we must do as the Church of Rome does, set up for infallibility, and withhold the Scriptures from the people, lest they should read and judge for themselves. But if we wish to convert them to Christ, we shall put the Scrip- tures into their hands, as the only standard of truth, and teach them to consider all other writings as in nowise binding on their consciences, nor even as claiming regard any further than they agree with them. By this rule let them form their judgments of us, and of our differences, should they deem it worth while to inquire into them ; but the aim of a true missionary will ever be to divert their attention from such things, and to direct it to “the truth as it is in Jesus.” It cannot be very marvellous to them that fallible men should not be perfectly of one mind. Whether they be pagans or Mahomedans, they know very well this is not the case with them ; and though the Christian religion professes to contain one consistent doctrine, yet it were highly presumptuous to encourage in them the hope of finding this any where in perfection, save in the Holy Scriptures. However proper it may be for a church to express the leading articles of its faith in a creed, yet to make that creed “A RULE OF CONDUCT, AND A STANDARD of TRUTH, To which APPEALS IN DOUBT AND CONTRO- v ERsy ARE To BE MADE,” is to invade the Divine preroga- tive, and to make void the word of God by our traditions. I have too high an opinion of the Reformers to suppose that they ever intended a composition of theirs to take place of the oracles of God. Should such an idea be held up to the Hindoos as that which was delivered in this sermon, it were indeed to cast a stumbling-block in their way; but if we be contented with giving them the word of God as the only standard of faith and practice, and with being ourselves, in all we say or do among them, measured by it, no material evil will arise to them from our differences. To this may be added, if no great temptations of a worldly nature be held up as motives, it may be presumed that few will engage in the work but those whom the love of Christ constrain eth ; but between such men the differ- ences will not be very important ; and as they know one another, those differences may be expected to diminish. Dr. Barrow recommends “one uniform and general at- tempt, to the earclusion of all others, where we have the power to eacclude them, to be made by the ministers of the National Church, under the authority and regulations of an act of the legislature.” And how many ministers of the National Church does Dr. Barrow think would engage in this undertaking 3 If there be a sufficient number to justify his proposal, why do they not supply the episcopal mission on the coast of Coromandel ? The worthy successors of Schwartz have long proclaimed the harvest in India to be great, and the labourers to be few. Scarcely a report of the “Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge” has appeared since the death of that great man, without calling out for more missionaries. “Mr. Gericke,” says the Society, “laments the want of more assistance at Tanjore. How happy a thing, he ob- serves, would it be if God were to furnish a faithful mis- sionary for the assistance of Mr. Kolhoff, and another or two for the congregations southward of Tanjore. It is delightful to see the growth of the Tanjore mission, and ON RESTRICTING MISSIONARY EXERTIONS. 825 the southern congregations dependent on it. The in- habitants of whole villages flock to it. . What a pity that there are not labourers for such a delightful harvest! At Jaffna, and all the coast of Ceylon, there is another great harvest. We have sent such of our native catechists as could be spared; but many are required for that extensive work.” - Such was the Report in 1803; and did any of the mi- nisters of the National Church offer themselves for the service 3 I believe not; but we are told that “applica- tions had been repeatedly made to the professors at Halle in Saxony to furnish the Society with some new mission- aries.” The Report in 1804, among other things, gives the cheering intelligence of “the inhabitants of four villages being unanimous in their resolution of embracing the Christian faith; and of their having put away their idols, and converted their temples into Christian churches.” It is added by Mr. Gericke, “It seems that if we had faithful and discreet labourers for the vineyard of the pro- testant mission on this coast, to send wherever a door is opened unto us, rapid would be the progress of the gospel.” The following is the answer which the Society was en- abled to make to these solemn and impressive calls: “It is with concern that the Society still has to report that no suitable supplies of new missionaries have yet been heard of, to succeed the good men who have finished their course.” If we look to the next year, 1805, we find “The Society cannot yet report that any new missionaries have been engaged in Europe to carry on the work of promoting Christian knowledge in the East Indies, although many efforts have been used to find out suitable persons to be employed in this labour of love.” In the Report of 1806 the complaints are repeated: but no mention is yet made of any new missionaries; and none in that of 1807, just published. I do not reflect upon the English clergy. There are many among them who, I am persuaded, would willingly engage in any service which appeared to be their duty; but who, from the purest motives, might consider them- selves called to labour in another quarter. Neither do I reflect upon the Society; for how can they send out mis- sionaries till there are missionaries to be sent? I only ask, how could Dr. Barrow, with these facts before his eyes, preach and write as he did? How could he pro- pose to take the whole work of evangelizing India into the hands of the ministers of the National Church, when that part of it which had a special claim upon them was known to be standing still, in a manner, for want of as- sistance 2 Let there be what excellence there may in the Establish- ed Church, (and far be it from me to wish to depreciate it,) it is not thence eacclusively that we are to look for the ac- complishment of this work. To furnish a sufficient num- ber of suitable men for so great an undertaking is not in the power of any one denomination, established or un- established ; nor, as I suspect, of the friends of Christian- ity in all of them united : but if, like her that anointed the Lord's feet, we do what we can, we shall be approved. For many ministers and members of the Established Church I feel a most sincere regard; and sorry should I be to wound their feelings. It is a circumstance that has afforded me pleasure, in this otherwise disagreeable con- troversy, that its tendency is to unite the friends of Chris- tianity in a common cause. If, in my remarks on the episcopal mission in the East, I have seemed to interfere in concerns which do not immediately belong to me, it is because I have found it necessary, in order to repel the propositions of a writer whose Avowed INTolſ. RANCE KNOWS NO LIMITS BUT THE want of Power Whatever this gentleman may allege in behalf of “ one uniform and general attempt, to be made by the ministers of the National Church exclusively,” “the Society for Pro- moting Christian Knowledge” cannot, with any incon- sistency, second the motion. They must know that such a proposal, whatever it may appear on paper, could not be reduced to practice. And surely it is not too much to infer, that if it be right and desirable to introduce Chris- tianity among the Hindoos, others should be allowed to take part in the work as well as they, especially as there is no desire of interfering in any of their labours. Let the Church of England do what it can. Let it send out ministers who are willing to spend and be spent in the work, and we with all our hearts shall pray for their suc- cess. From missionaries of this description we should have no apprehensions. Such men would not wish to “exclude” those who are already employed, whether they could fully accord with them or not. Their lan- guage would be, “Let there be no strife between us, for we are brethren | Is not the whole land before us? If you will go to the left hand, then we will take the right ; or if you depart to the right hand, we will go to the left.” Nay more, their language already is, “GoD BLESS ALL Mission ARY INSTITUTIONs MAY THE work of GoD PROSPER IN ALL THEIR HANDs l’’ # For our parts, observing of late years that Christianity itself was powerfully assailed, we have, in a manner, laid aside inferior objects, and made common cause with the Christian world. We have been less attentive to the things in which we differ from other Christians than to those wherein we are agreed; and to the best of our abili- ties have joined with them in defending the common faith. Our zeal has not been expended in making proselytes to a party, but in turning simmers to God through Jesus Christ. It was in pursuit of this object that we first engaged in missionary undertakings. We had no interest to serve but that of Christ. It was in our hearts to do something for his name among the heathen ; and, if it might be, to en- large the boundaries of his kingdom. Such also we know (as far as men can know each other) were the motives of our brethren, the missionaries. And now that it hath pleased God in some measure to prosper our way, it is our humble, respectful, and most earnest entreaty . . . . HINDER US NOT | We ask not for any temporal advantage, any participa- tion in trade, any share of power, any stations of honour, or any assistance from government; we ask merely for permission to expend such sums of money as may be fur- nished by the liberality of Christians, earned chiefly by the sweat of the brow, in imparting the word of life to our fellow subjects in Hindostan. APPENDIX. RECENT TESTIMONIEs To THE CHARACTER OF THE Mis- SION ARIES, Extracts of a letter from Lieutenant-Colonel Sandys, (who, after twenty-two years' service in India, returned in 1804,) in answer to one addressed to him since the veracity of the missionaries has been called in question by Major Scott Waring. “FROM my acquaintance with Messrs. Carey, Ward, Marshman, &c., before I left India, I feel a repugnance to answer the question on their veracity. I can believe that, as all men are fallible, they in some of their impressions and relations may have been mistaken ; but, as to their veracity, I do not, cannot, dare not doubt it. I can also readily conceive that a common village tumult in India may in England be considered as a very serious affair; but an English mob and an Indian mob are very different things. A missionary may go with a small boat thirty or forty miles to a village market, sit down, converse, and afterwards preach. Perhaps some brahmin will oppose him. This introduces the Hindoo idolatry; and, while he remains calm, they will become vociferous. As he pro- ceeds to his boat, the boys may be encouraged to throw mud at him ; but no personal injury follows; and the missionary, as he is going away, may be asked by a vil- lager when he will come again and hold conversation with his brahmin : but this is all. “Having served at different times in various staff de- partments of the army, particularly in Mysore, under the * See the Rev. Basil Woodd's Sermon, prefixed to the last Report of the cºmittee of the Society for Missions to Africa and the East, pp. 175—178. 826 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIAN MISSIONS. Marquis Cornwallis, I had a great variety of people, of different castes, under my direction, and had full oppor- tunity of observing their customs and manners. “I never heard of any thing worthy of being called a tumult or disturbance occasioned by the missionaries while I was in India, which I think I should if there had been any; and I do not believe that any of their addresses to the natives, either in words or writing, would produce any serious effect of the kind, provided there were no actual interruption of their customs. At the encampment near Surat, a Bengal brahmin sepoy (a soldier of the priest order) went to the river to perform his ablutions, and to say his prayers, according to custom, in the water. An- other sepoy, of the Bombay establishment, going into the stream before him, at the same time and for the same pur- pose, muddied the water. As soon as the brahmin per- ceived it, he instantly left the river and ran to his battalion, calling out that he was contaminated and had lost his caste. The respective battalions to which the parties be- longéd immediately took arms, and, had not their officers exerted themselves with great energy and prudence, the consequence must have been dreadful; but through their interference the business was settled.—The Bombay sepoy might have said what he pleased to the brahmin standing on the bank. He might have inveighed against him in the most bitter terms, and told him that his caste was better than his : the brahmin, I believe, would have returned only a smile of contempt. It is not talking to them, or endeavouring to persuade them, but actual interference that will excite mutiny and disaffection. In all the in- stances of dissatisfaction that I remember, this has been the case. - “A little before my return, I and some others were in company with a Christian native, called Petumber, a very eloquent man. He told us that he had in preaching to his countrymen occasionally met with abuse, but that in gene- ral they heard him with attention. In crossing a river, he said, he passed one of his old acquaintances, a brahmin, who was washing, and praying to his gods, to whom he spoke of the absurdity of his worship. The brahmin only pitied him, and told him that with his caste he had lost his senses. Thus they parted without any thing like anger on either side ; but had Petumber passed the stream above . him, religious hatred and revenge would have followed. As to talking about religion they are fond of it: it is only when they are interrupted or contaminated that they are seriously offended.” Extracts of a letter from WILLIAM CUNNINGHAME, Esq., late assistant judge at Dinagepore, on the same occasion as the foregoing. “If Mr. Carey be accused of falsehood, and if I were called upon to state what I think of this charge, my sensa- tions respecting it would be those of any ingenuous person well acquainted with the great Howard, had he been called upon to vindicate that philanthropist from the charge of inhumanity. I am as well convinced as I can be of any thing which is not the subject of consciousness, that Mr. Carey is totally incapable of being guilty of any falsehood or misrepresentation whatever. “During the last two years of Mr. Carey's residence in the Dinagepore district, he was well known, not only to me, but to all the gentlemen in the Company’s civil service in that station. He possessed, I can safely say, the cordial friendship of some, and the good opinion of all. “In particular, I know that the gentleman who held the office of judge and magistrate of that large and important district had a very high esteem and respect for Mr. Carey's character, which he showed by every proper mark of polite attention. And of that gentleman, the unspotted integrity and the merits as a public servant are well known, and have, I believe, been acknowledged by every successive government of Bengal, from Lord Cornwallis's to Sir George Barlow's. While Mr. Carey resided in the above district, his conduct was uniformly quiet and irreprehensible; and, had it been otherwise, I, from my situation as registrar of the civil court of Dinagepore and assistant to the magis- trate, must have known of it. “After I quitted Dinagepore in 1801, my personal in- tercourse with Mr. Carey became more frequent. I had also an opportunity of becoming well acquainted with Mr. Ward, and knew Mr. Marshman, though, from this last gentleman’s being more confined by his duties as a school- master, I seldom saw him. “I shall say nothing of Mr. Carey's religion, because it is not that which is the subject of dispute; but I will say that the unaffected simplicity of his manners, the modesty of his demeanour, his good sense and information, his un- wearied industry, and the general excellence of his charac- ter, did, as far as I had an opportunity of observing, pro- cure to him the esteem of all those Europeans to whom he was known. * “I also frequently conversed with Hindoo and Ma- homedan natives, rather of the better sort, upon the sub- ject of Christianity and the probable success of the mission, and they generally discussed these things with much free- dom. As far as I can recollect, I never in any conversation of this kind heard Mr. Carey or any of the other mission- aries mentioned with disrespect. On the contrary, I be- lieve their characters were highly respected even by the natives, who, with all their faults, generally form pretty just estimates of the characters of Europeans who reside among them, and are by no means backward in giving their sentiments thereupon. “Though I did not personally know the native converts, I can safely affirm, from my acquaintance with the charac- ter of the missionaries, that their testimony respecting those converts ought to be received, and that full credit should be attached to it. It is a most unfounded calumny to assert that the missionaries have received immoral cha- racters, knowing them to be such, into the church. I am certain they would receive no such characters.” [The two following letters were published by the author in a separ- ate form, at a subsequent period to the above; but as they form an appropriate conclusion to the subject, it is deemed advisable to give them a place in this Appendix.] THE PRINCIPLEs of THE PETITIONERS* TO PARLIAMENT FOR RELIGIOUS TO LERATION IN INDIA : A LETTER TO John wey LAND, JUN., ESQ., OCCASIONED BY HIS LETTER To sIR HUGH INGLIS, BART., ON THE STATE OF RELIGION IN INDIA, SIR, I have read with interest your Letter addressed to Sir Hugh Inglis, Bart., “On the state of Religion in India.” Having been for twenty years past the secretary of the Baptist Missionary Society, the Society which sent out the present Dr. Carey and his colleagues, it is natural that I should be interested in whatever may affect the important question now pending in parliament. The dispassionate, candid, and for the most part judi- cious strain in which you have written, sir, deserves ac- knowledgment. I have no hesitation in saying, it ap- pears to me to come nearer the point at issue than any thing that I have met with. Those gentlemen who assert that, “as the Hindoos and the Christians worship one great Creator, it is indif- ferent whether the adoration be offered to him through the pure medium of Christianity, or through the bloody and obscene rites of the Indian idolatry,” you very pro- perly deem incompetent to judge on the subject. The British legislature I trust will never so dishonour itself as to entertain the question whether the Christian religion be preferable to that of Juggernaut. As to what you have written, sir, of an ecclesiastical establishment, that is not my immediate concern ; but if it be so conducted as to “take a share in the conversion of the heathen,” and do not interfere with the labours of those who are unconnected with it, it will be entitled to our Christian regards, no less than our undertakings are * By the title given to these pages, the author means no more than to express his own principles, and what he conceives to be the prin- ciples of the petitioners in general. Having observed, by conversing with several gentlemen, that the object of the petitions was under- stood to be something incompatible with the security of government, he wished, as far as he was able, to remove those impressions, and to give a true statement of what he conceived to be their object. LETTER TO JOHN WEYLAND, JUN., ESQ. 827. to those of pious episcopalians. The efforts of individuals and societies unconnected with the Establishment are those which immediately concern me, and a large pro- portion of the petitioners. * * Many of your remarks on this part of the subject, 81r, are candid and liberal. Your short and conclusive proof that “no danger is to be apprehended from these efforts, because no danger ever has arisen, though the practice has been going on for centuries, and during the period many thousands of natives have been converted,” must approve itself to every candid and enlightened legislator. It is here, sir, that I wish to offer a few remarks on your proposed regulations, and to state what I consider as the principles of the general body of the petitioners. In order to be a competent judge of the question at issue, you reckon a man must be “free from enthusiasm, either for or against Christianity.” You do not mean by this that he should be “deficient in a warmth of gratitude for the benefits of Christianity;” but merely that, while he engages in real earnest in the propagation of the gospel, he is not to be regardless of good sense and sound discretion. That there are enthusiasts of this description is very pos- sible; but I hope to be believed, when I say that, of all the persons I have conversed with on the subject, I have never met with such a one. Persons whose principal at- tention is turned to the conversion of the heathen, and who are but little acquainted with its political bearings, may dwell more on the former and less on the latter; but I never heard such an idea as this suggested, that “we have nothing to do but to pour into India all the evan- gelical knowledge and zeal we can export, and leave the . result to Providence.” Many of the petitions have ex- pressed a wish for all prudent and peaceable means to be used ; and where this has not been expressed, I believe it has been invariably understood. It is not to prudence, sir, that the petitioners have any objection; but merely to that species of prudence that would not scruple to subject, nor even to sacrifice, Christianity to political expediency. Ought a nation, sir, to set up its power and temporal prosperity as the supreme end, and to require that nothing be done within the sphere of its influence but what ap- pears consistent with, if not calculated to promote, this end ? Is not this to “sit in the seat of God $’’ See Ezek. xxviii. 1–10. Dr. Carey and his colleagues, sir, are acknowledged by the Marquis Wellesley (in a late speech, said to have been delivered in the House of Lords) to be “quiet, pru- dent, discreet, orderly, and learned men ; ” yet no men on earth are further from admitting such a principle as the above than they. We may be prudent without being irreligious. Dr. Marshman has proved that, if the British government be friendly to Christianity, it will by this in- sure its own prosperity; for “whatever is right is wise; ” but to befriend Christianity itself in subserviency to our Worldly interest were to turn that which is good into evil, and, instead of “ placing us under the Divine pro- tection,” might be expected to procure our overthrow. If God be what we are in the habit of calling him, the Supreme Being, he must be treated as supreme, or we cannot hope for his blessing. You allege that “the ultimate conversion of these hea- thens depends, under God, upon the duration of the British dominion.” That the British dominion may be the appointed means of enlightening the eastern world, aS the Roman dominion was of enlightening Britain, is readily admitted. This may be the design of Providence in connecting them. It is also allowed that, on the sup- position of British dominion being used for the ameliora- tion of the condition of the natives, its duration is very desirable, and must needs be desired by the friends of Christianity.; but I cannot allow the prevalence of the kingdom of Christ to depend on the ‘duration of any earthly government. The duration of a government may depend upon its befriending the kingdom of Christ ; but if it refuse to do this, deliverance will arise from another quarter. The great system of God, as revealed in prophecy, Will be accomplished ; the nation and kingdom that re. Juses to serve Him will perish. I am persuaded, sir, that you have no intention to re- duce Christianity to a state of mere subserviency to civil policy, and that if you perceived this consequence to be involved in any thing you had advanced, you would re- tract it. “I do certainly,” you say, “go a little beyond Machiavel,” who was for holding religion in veneration as the means of preserving government. Yet you speak of our being “bound as a Christian country to impart the blessings of Christianity, only so far as it can be done with safety to our dominion.” Be assured, sir, I have no desire to endanger British dominion, nor the most distant idea that the labours of missionaries will have any such tendency. If they have, however, it will be an event of which history furnishes no example. But why set up the safety of our dominion as the supreme object, to which every thing else, even the imparting of the blessings of Christianity, must give way ? If there be any meaning in our Saviour’s words, “He that saveth his life shall lose it,” is not this the way to ruin that very dominion you are so anxious to preserve It was to prevent the Romans from coming to take away their place and nation that the Jews were persuaded to crucify the Lord of glory—a measure which brought on them the very evil that they dreaded. Review, sir, your proposed regulations for confining missionaries to a particular district, and sending them away by a summary power upon proof of any evil conse- quences, not only arising, but “ likely to arise, from their presence.” Does not this suppose that you have adversa- ries to deal with, such as Shimei was known to be by Solomon ; who, therefore, must be confined and watched with a jealous eye, and who require to be punished on the ground of mere apprehension ? Does it not proceed on the principle that every thing must be subservient to political expediency 3 Why should you not treat mission- aries as friends till they prove themselves to be enemies? If they prove to be such, let them be sent home at our expense; or let us be informed, and we will recall them. Of all the missionaries that have gone to India, how many has the government found that deserved the name of ene- mies 3 I believe not one. But their zeal, it has been said, may betray them into indiscretions. It may ; we have never heard, however, of any such indiscretions as those of which military gentlemen have been guilty, in cutting off men’s beards and shooting their monkeys. But allowing that religious zeal may betray them into some indiscretions, and this we do not deny ; yet let them be treated as you would treat a friend ; that is, let them be told of their indiscretions, of which it may be they are not aware at the time. A few such words would go much further with these men than a jealous eye or severe ani- madversion. A friendly feeling, sir, in this case, is every thing. Suppose a missionary stationed up the country; he gives the Scriptures to those who ask for them, and preaches, or rather converses, with the natives (for their addresses are not harangues, but are frequently interrupted by inquiries). The Hindoos are attentive, and desire to hear more ; but two or three Mahomedans, to whom it is almost natural to be of a bitter, persecuting spirit, are displeased, and get a letter of complaints written to government. If government be friendly, it will hear both sides before it judges; if not, the missionary will be im- mediately ordered away. Such, sir, appears to be the summary process which your proposed regulations would justify. Why should imaginary dangers, unfounded in a single fact during the experience. as you say, of centuries, be made the ground of legislative control 3 Surely, sir, your apprehensions of “a premature shock being given to the Hindoo opinions,” while yet you acknowledge that “no danger ever has arisen,” must have been excited by the reiterated representations of those persons whom you reckon incompetent to judge on the question. Why should a course of disinterested labours which in every instance of conversion adds a cordial friend to the British government, even though it were, like the course of an apostle, to be now and then the innocent occasion of a local disturbance, be viewed with so jealous an eye 3 Out of nearly five hundred persons who have embraced Chris- tianity by means of our missionaries, we fear no contra- diction when we say that not one of them has proved himself any other than a loyal and peaceable subject. 828 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIAN MISSIONS. *> If there be any danger of mischief arising from mission- aries, it must affect themselves before it can affect govern- ment. in the frolic of the officers who shot the sacred monkeys, government does not appear to have been so much as thought of ; it was their own life, and that only, that was endangered ; and so long as missionaries stand merely on their own ground, receiving no favour but what is common to good subjects, (and this is all we ask,) it will be the same with them. If any danger arise, it will be to themselves; and of this, after all their ex- perience, they have no apprehensions. Some gentlemen cannot understand what we mean in our petitions, when we profess obedience to government in civil things only. We mean nothing more than to re- serve our consciences for God, according to our Saviour's words, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” We have no reserves but these. Hinder us not in our efforts to carry into execution the commission of Christ, and we are not anxious about other things. We mean by obedience in all civil concerns as much as if we engaged to conduct ourselves in a loyal, orderly, and peaceable way. If it be objected that we are liable to act improperly in religious as well as in civil concerns—we answer, If our conduct, even in the exercise of religion, be injurious to the peace of society, we should allow this to be a breach of civil obedience, and have no objection to be accountable for it; only let us not be punished on the ground of mere appre- hension, nor treated but as being what we are—sincere friends to our country and to our species. I am, sir, re- spectfully yours, ANDREW FULLER. ANSWER TO AN ANONYMOUS LETTER FROM “AN OB- sERVER,” ON HIS OBJECTIONS TO FOREIGN MISSIONS, I SHOULD not have thought it necessary thus publicly” to notice an anonymous letter, had it not afforded me an opportunity of answering an objection to foreign missions, which has been more than once advanced—that of its in- terfering with eacertions in favour of our own countrymen. I shall say but little of the gross misstatement in the letter,f as that my going to Scotland, in 1799, was to “witness the state of that country,” and to “concert measures for doing good; ” that I did not “condescend” to halt, and preach, between York and Newcastle; and that “it cannot be said that one convert has been made ’’ in foreign missions. Such assertions must have arisen from the want of information. My journey was merely owing to a kind invitation given me to go and receive the donations of a number of my fellow Christians, who were willing to contribute to the giving of the Holy Scriptures to a great nation which had them not, as all the country between York and Newcastle has. My excursion was not a preaching one, though I did preach, and that to the utmost extent of my power. If I had taken half a year, I might have stopped much oftener than I did ; but then it is possible my own congregation would have reminded me that “charity begins at home.” Whether success has, or has not, attended foreign missions, the accounts which have been printed of them, so far as human judg- ment can go in such matters, will enable us to decide. The only questión that requires attention is, Whether * This article originally appeared in the Theological and Biblical Magazine, 1802. tº The following is a verbatim copy of this singular communication: “Rev. SIR, “Various and costly have been the exertions made for the propaga- tion of the gospel among foreign nations. However laudable this labour of love may be, yet very considerable blame is attached to it; since the probability of greater success was in favour of a region far less distant, and more deserving, if charity begins at hope. The wil- ful neglect of so large a part of our own land is certainly unpardon- able. It is true that many an expensive and fatiguing journey has been undertaken, from south to north Britain, which has been well repaid by that which has taken and is likely to take place. Yet you, sir, have rode post down to the Scotch metropolis, for the purpose of witnessing the state of that country, with a view to aid in concerting the best means by which good might be done; but neither yourself, nor others, who at least ought to have had more consideration, did condescend to halt by the way, either to preach or inquire into the truly deplorable state of ignorance and irreligion of that large and \ the spirit which, within the last ten years, has prompted Christians of different denominations to engage in foreign missions, has been favourable or unfavourable to the pro- pagation of the gospel at home 2—It is a fact which cannot be disputed, that, within the above period, there have been far greater exertions to communicate the principles of religion to the heathenized parts of both England and Scotland than at any former period within the remem- brance, at least, of the present generation. If I were to say they have been five times greater than before, I think I should not exceed the truth. Nor has that part of the kingdom to which the writer of the letter alludes been overlooked. And how is this fact to be accounted for 3 Will this friend to village-preaching unite with Bishop Horsley, and say it is the effect of political motives ; and merely a new direction of the democratic current, which was interrupted by the Treason and Sedition bills in 1795 % If so, we might ask, How came it to commence two years before those bills were passed ? How is it that it should have prevailed, not so much among those Dissenters who took an eager share in political contention, as those who had scarcely ever concerned themselves in any thing of the kind? And finally, How is it that it should have extend- ed to other nations as well as Britain, and other quarters of the world as well as Europe? But I suppose the writer of this letter would not attribute it to this cause. How then will he account for it? The truth most manifestly is, that the very practice of which he complains has been more conducive to that which he recommends than all other causes put together. It is natural that it should be so. A longing desire after the spread of the gospel, when once kindled, extends in all directions. The same principle which induces some to leave their native land, to impart the heavenly light, induces others to contribute and pray for their success ; and while they are doing this, it is next to impossible to forget their own countrymen, who, though they have access to the written word, yet live “without God in the World.” It is very singular that the example of “Paulinus,” (I suppose he meant Austin the monk, ) who came to Britain as a missionary from Rome, about the year 596, and is said to have baptized ten thousand people in the river Swale,” should be alleged against foreign missions. Allowing Austin's converts to have been real Christians, (which, however, is very doubtful,) according to the “Observer” there was “much blame attached ” to his labours of love, since the probability of greater success was in favour of Italy; a country far less distant than Britain, and more deserving of his charity, which should have begun at home. Unfortunately for this proverb, I do not recollect ever hearing it alleged but for a selfish purpose. Go and ask relief for some distressed object of a wealthy man. His answer is, “Charity begins at home.” True, and it seems to end there. And, by the reasoning of this ob- server, his would do the same. So long as there are any sinners in Britain, we must confine our attention to them. A person of a contracted mind once objected to the ex- portation of our manufactures. “We have many poor people in England,” said he, “who are half naked, and would be glad of them ; and charity begins at home.” He was informed, however, by a merchant, that to send our commodities abroad is not the way to impoverish, but to enrich ourselves, and even to furnish the poor with cloth- ing, by providing them with plenty of good employment. populous tract of country situated between York and Newcastle-upon- Tyne; or in your flight back again, to give one thought towards the reformation of Cumberland, or heathenish Westmoreland. “If we may judge of the success which attended the labours of Paulinus, the first missionary sent into these parts from Rome, the most pleasing benefits would be the consequence, upon the application of proper means. Paulinus is said to have baptized, in one day, ten thousand persons in the river Swale, near Richmond in Yorkshire. The fair Otaheitan, the filthy Hottentot, and cruel East Indian, have each been sharers in missionary boon, at the expense of many thou- sands of pounds, many valuable lives, and the earnest labours of pious and zealous characters; and after all this, it cannot be said that one convert has been made; when, in all probability, if a tenth part had been done in favour of our own nation, some scores, perhaps hundreds, would have been praising God and thanking you, which they might have done to all eternity.—That the time for the calling of the Gentiles may be fast approaching is the earnest prayer of one who is no director in these matters, but only - “AN OBSERVER.” # Fox’s Acts and Monuments, vol. I., p. 132, 9th edition. ESSAYS, LETTERS, &c. ON E C C L E S I A STIC A. L. P. O L IT Y. AN INQUIRY INTO THE RIGHT OF PRIVATE JUDGMENT IN MATTERS OF RELIGION. IN former times liberty of conscience and the right of pri- vate judgment in matters of religion were denied both by ecclesiastics and politicians. Of late they have been very generally admitted, and much has been said and written in their defence. But the nature and extent of these rights, in reference to religious society, have not been so clearly ascertained; and claims have been instituted which appear to be subversive of those very principles so often pleaded in their support. The right of private judgment in matters of religion ap- pears to be THE RIGHT which EveRY INDIVIDUAL HAs To THINK AND To Avow HIs THOUGHTS ON THOSE SUBJECTs, WITHOUT BEING LIABLE TO ANY CIVIL INCONVENIENCE ON THAT Account. The subject in this view has been suc- cessfully supported by writers of ability, and the principle has been acted upon by the great body of nonconformists and Dissenters of later times. There can scarcely be any doubt remaining with respect to the power of the civil magistrate to interfere with the religious sentiments and private judgment of the subject; this is now very gener- ally and very justly exploded. But of late the subject has taken another turn, and men have pleaded not only an exemption from civil penalties on account of their religious principles, in which the very essence of persecution con- sists, but also that they are not subject to the control of a religious society with which they stand connected for any tenets which they may think proper to avow. The right of private judgment now frequently assumed, is a right in every individual who may become a member of a Christian church to think and avow his thoughts, be they what they znay, without being subject to eacclusion or admonition, or the ill opinion of his brethren, on that account. Any thing that is inconsistent with this is thought to be a species of spiritual tyranny, and repugnant to that “liberty where- with Christ hath made us free.” But this appears to be highly extravagant, and is what no man can claim as a right. The following considerations are submitted to the reader. First, The supposed right of the individual is contrary to the principles on which Christian churches were originally jounded. Not only were those who disbelieved the gos- pel refused admission to a Christian church, but those who perverted the gospel, or maintained pernicious errors con- cerning it, were subject to admonition and exclusion. The apostle Paul directed that a heretic after the first and second admonition should be rejected. And, in his Epistle to the churches of Galatia, he expressed a wish that those who troubled them by subverting the gospel of Christ and introducing another gospel were “cut off.” The church at Pergamos is reproved for having those among them who held the doctrine of Balaam and of the Nicolaitans. If the churches of Galatia complied with the apostle's desire, their false teachers might have exclaimed against them as invading the right of private judgment, and with as much justice as some in later times have done against the cen- sures of their brethren. And had the church of Pergamos been formed on the principles above mentioned, they might have replied to the solemn message of our Lord in some such manner as the following: Why are we blamed for having those among we who hold the doctrine of Nicolas ! It is sufficient for us as individuals to think for ourselves, and leave others to do the same. We cannot refuse these men without invading the right of private judgment? If it be objected that inspiration rendered the judgment of the apostles infallible, and that therefore their conduct in this case is not a rule for us, it may be replied, that if the apostles were infallible, the churches were not so, and the blame is laid on them for having neglected to exclude the characters in question. Besides, this objection would tend to prove that primitive Christians, on account of the infallibility of the apostle, did not possess the right of pri- vate judgment; and that the right sprung up in the church in consequence of our being all equally fallible ! But this is contrary to the declaration of the apostle : “Not that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy.” Hence it appears that admonishing or excluding from the primitive church those who held pernicious errors was not reckoned to be subversive of the right of private judgment ; and the churches being exhorted to such dis- cipline by the apostles was exercising no dominion over their faith. Secondly, Not only is this supposed right of private judgment inconsistent with apostolic practice, but it is also contrary to reason and the fitness of things. All society is founded in mutual agreement. It is no less a dictate of common sense than of the word of God, that “two cannot walk together, except they be agreed.” No society can subsist unless there be some specific principles in which they are united. In political societies, these principles will be of a political nature ; in civil ones, of a civil kind; and in those of religion, of a religious nature. According to the degree of importance in which those principles are held by the parties associating, such will be their concern to maintain and act upon them ; and the terms of admittance or continuance in such society must be regulated accordingly. If there be no definite prin- ciples in which it is necessary that a society should be agreed, but every member of it be at liberty to imbibe and propagate whatever notions he pleases, then all so- cieties, civil, political, and religious, have hitherto been mistaken ; for all of them have had in view the attain- ment of some specific object; and this is more especially the case with societies that are purely religious. A com- munity must entirely renounce the name of a Christian church before it can act upon the principle here contended for ; and those who entirely reject Christianity ought, nevertheless, to be admitted or retained in fellowship, if they choose it; seeing they have only exercised the right of private judgment further, If a Christian society has no right to withdraw from an individual whose principles they consider as false and injurious, neither has an individual any right to with- 830 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. draw from a society in a similar case; and then there is an end to all religious liberty at once. Whether it be right for us to think the worse of any person on account of his erroneous principles must de- pend on a previous question ; namely, whether he be either better or worse for the principles which he imbibes? If he be not, then it must be allowed that we ought not to think so of him ; but if he be, undoubtedly we ought to think of one another according to truth. To say that no person is better or worse in a moral view, whatever be his principles, is to say that principles themselves have no influence on the heart and life; and that amounts to the same thing as their being of no importance. But if so, all those scriptures which, represent truth as a means of sanctification ought to be discarded; and all the labours of good men to discover truth, and of the apostles to dis- seminate it—yea, and those of the Son of God himself, who came into the world to bear witness to the truth— were totally in vain. ON CREEDS AND SUBSCRIPTIONS. It has been very common, among a certain class of writers,” to exclaim against creeds and systems in religion as in- consistent with Christian liberty and the rights of con- science; but surely they must be understood as objecting to those creeds only which they dislike, and not to creeds in general; for no doubt, unless they be worse than the worst of beings, they have a creed of their own. The man who has no creed has no belief; which is the same thing as being an unbeliever; and he whose belief is not formed into a system has only a few loose, unconnected thoughts, without entering into the harmony and glory of the gospel. Every well-informed and consistent believer, therefore, must have a creed—a system which he supposes to con- tain the leading principles of Divine revelation. It may be pleaded that the objection does not lie so much against our having creeds or systems as against our imposing them on others as the condition of Christian fellowship. If, indeed, a subscription to articles of faith were required without examination, or enforced by civil penalties, it would be an unwarrantable imposition on the rights of conscience; but if an explicit agreement in what may be deemed fundamental principles be judged essential to fellowship, this is only requiring that a man appear to be a Christian before he can have a right to be treated as such. Suppose it were required of a Jew or an infidel, before he is admitted to the Lord's supper, (which either might be disposed to solicit for some worldly purpose,) that he must previously become a believer; should we thereby impose Christianity upon him He might claim the right of private judgment, and deem such a requisition incompatible with its admission ; but it is evident that he could not be entitled to Christian regard, and that, while he exclaimed against the imposition of creeds and systems, he himself would be guilty of an im- position of the grossest kind, utterly inconsistent with the rights of voluntary and social compact, as well as of Chris- tian liberty. In order to be a little more explicit on the subject, it may be necessary to offer the following remarks:— First, It is admitted that no society has a right to make laws where Christ has made none.—Whoever attempts this, whether in an individual or social capacity, is guilty of substituting for doctrines the commandments of men, and making void the law of God by his traditions. Secondly, The fallibility of all human judgment is fully allowed. A Christian society, as well as an individual, is liable to err in judging what are the doctrines and precepts of Christ. Whatever articles of faith and practice, there- fore, are introduced into a community, they ought, no doubt, to be open to correction or amendment, whenever those who subscribe them shall perceive their inconsistency with the will of Christ. Thirdly, Whatever may be said on the propriety of human systems of faith, they are not to be considered as the proper ground on which to rest our religious senti- ments.—The word of God, and that alone, ought to be the ground of both faith and practice. But all this does not prove that it would be wrong for an individual to judge of the meaning of the Divine word, nor for a num- ber of individuals, who agree in their judgments, to ex- press that agreement in explicit terms, and consider them- selves as bound to walk by the same rule. Fourthly, Whether the united sentiments of a Christian society be expressed in writing or not is immaterial, pro- vided they be mutually understood and avowed.—Some societies have no written articles of faith or discipline; but with them, as with others that have, it is always un- derstood that there are certain principles a professed belief of which is deemed necessary to communion. The substance of the inquiry therefore would be, whe- ther a body of Christians have a right to judge of the meaning of the doctrines and precepts of the gospel, and to act accordingly 3 That an individual has a right so to judge, and to form his connexions with those whose views are most congenial with his own, will not be disputed ; but if so, why have not a society the same right? If Christ has given both doctrines and precepts, some of which are more immediately addressed to Christians in their social capacity, they must not only possess such a right, but are under obligation to exercise it. If the righteous nation which keep the truth be the only proper characters for entering into gospel fellowship, those who have the charge of their admission are obliged to form a judgment on what is truth, and what is righteousness ; without which they must be wholly unqualified for their office. If a Christian society have no right to judge what is truth, and to render an agreement with them in certain points a term of communion, then neither have they a right to judge what is righteousness, nor to render an agreement in matters of practical right and wrong a term of communion. There is a great diversity of sentiment in the world con- cerning morality, as well as doctrine ; and if it be an un- scriptural imposition to agree to any articles whatever, it must be to exclude any one for immorality, or even to ad- monish him on that account; for it might be alleged that he only thinks for himself, and acts accordingly. Nor would it stop here : almost every species of immorality has been defended and may be disguised, and thus, under the pretence of a right of private judgment, the church of God would become like the mother of harlots—“ the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.” It is a trite and frivolous objection which some have made against subscriptions and articles of faith—that it is setting bounds to the freedom of inquiry, and requiring a conformity of sentiment that is incompatible with the va- rious opportunities and capacities of different persons. The same objection might be urged against the covenanting of the Israelites (Neh. x. 29) and all laws in society. If a religious community agree to specify some leading princi- ples which they consider as derived from the word of God, and judge the belief of them to be necessary in order to any person's becoming or continuing a member with them, it does not follow that those principles should be equally understood, or that all their brethren must have the same degree of knowledge, nor yet that they should understand and believe nothing else. The powers and capacities of different persons are various ; one may comprehend more of the same truth than another, and have his views more enlarged by an exceedingly great variety of kindred ideas; and yet the substance of their belief may still be the same. The object of articles is to keep at a distance, not those who are weak in the faith, but such as are its avowed ene- mies. Supposing a church covenant to be so general as not to specify one principle or duty, but barely an engage- ment to adhere to the Scriptures as a rule of faith and practice, the objection would still apply; and it might be said, One man is capable of understanding much more of the Scriptures than another, and persons of more enlarged minds may discover a great deal of truth relating to science which the Scriptures do not pretend to teach : why, there- fore, do we frame articles to limit the freedom of inquiry, or which require a conformity of sentiment incompatible PRINCIPLES OF CHURCH DISCIPLINE. 831 with the opportunities and capacities of persons sº differ- ently circumstanced? The objection, therefore, if admitted, would prove too much. The powers of the mind will pro- bably vary in a future world; one will be capable of coin- prehending much more of truth than another; yet the redeemed will all be of one mind, and of one heart. º Every one feels the importance of articles, or laws, in civil society; and yet these are nothing less than exposi. tions or particular applications of the great principle of universal equity. General or universal equity is that to civil laws which the Bible is to articles of faith; it is the source from which they are all professedly derived, and the standard to which they ought all to be submitted. The one are as liable to swerve from general equity as the other from the word of God; and where this is proved to be the case in either instance, such errors require to be cofrected. But as no person of common sense would on this account inveigh against laws being made, and insist that we ought only to covenant in general to walk according to equity, without agreeing in any leading principles, or determining wherein that equity consists; neither ought he to inveigh against articles of faith and practice in religious matters, provided that they comport with the mind of God in his word. If articles of faith be opposed to the authority of Scripture, or substituted in the place of such authority, they become objectionable and injurious; but if they simply express the united judgment of those who voluntarily sub- scribe them, they are incapable of any such kind of im- putation. THOUGHTS ON THE PRINCIPLES ON WHICH THE APOSTLES PROCEEDED, IN FORMING AND ORGANIZING CHRISTIAN CHURCHES, AND REGULATING VARIOUS RELIGIOUS DUTIES. [Written in April, 1804, for the use of the Brethren at Serampore.] VARIOUs disputes have arisen among Christians respecting the form, the order, and the organization of the church of Christ. It is from different apprehensions on these subjects that most of our religious denominations have arisen. Having been often called upon to give advice in certain cases, and to ground it on Scriptural authority, I have been led to examine with some attention what the Scriptures teach us concerning them. It has appeared to me that some, in looking for Scriptural authority for whatever is done in Christian churches, ex- pect too much ; while, on the contrary, others expect too little. It is a fact, which must strike every attentive reader, that the manner in which the greater part of the worship and forms of the New Testament is prescribed is very dif- ferent from that of the Old Testament. Moses was com- manded to do all things according to the “pattern " showed him in the mount; but no such pattern is given us in the gospel respecting the form and order of Christian worship. All, or nearly all, we know of the matter is from the nar- rative of facts, as stated in the Acts of the Apostles, and from certain counsels addressed to ministers and churches, in the apostolic Epistles. In each of these, several things are incidentally brought to light; but express injunctions, like those under the law, are rarely to be found. We have no particular account, for instance, of the original formation of a single church, nor of an ordination service, nor in what order the primitive worship was generally conducted. What then shall we say to these things Shall we infer that all forms of worship and church government are indifferent, and left to be ac- commodated to time, place, and other circumstances? This would open a door to human inventions, and to all the corruptions which have defaced the church of Christ. Ne- yertheless, this we may infer—that to attempt to draw up a formula of church government, worship, and discipline, which shall include any thing more than general outlines, and to establish it expressly on New Testament authority, is to attempt what is utterly impracticable. The general outlines or principles of things may be col- lected, and these will apply to particular cases. This, I apprehend, is all that we are warranted to expect. If, for example, we look for either precept or precedent for the removal of a Christian pastor from one situation to another, we shall find none. But we are taught that, for the church to “grow unto a holy temple in the Lord,” it requires to be “fitly framed together,” Eph. ii. 21. The want of fitness therefore, in a connexion, especially if it impede the growth of the spiritual temple, may justify the removal of a minister. Or if there be no want of fitness, yet if the material be adapted to occupy a more important station in the building, this may also justify its removal. Such a principle may be misapplied to ambitious and interested purposes; but if the increase of the temple be kept in view, it is lawful, and in many cases attended with great and good effects. This example, instead of a hundred, may suffice to show, if I mistake not, that the form and order of the Christian church, much more than that of the Jewish church, are founded on the reason and fitness of things. Under the former dispensation, the duties of religion were mostly po- sitive ; and were of course prescribed with the nicest pre- cision, and the most exact minuteness. Under the gospel they are chiefly moral, and, consequently, require only the suggestion of general principles. In conforming to the one, it was necessary that men should keep their eye in- cessantly upon the rule ; but, in complying with the other, there is more occasion for fixing it upon the end. The form and order of the Christian church appear to be no other than what men, possessed of “the wisdom which is from above,” would at any time very naturally fall into, even though no other direction were offered them. That the apostles were supernaturally directed is true; but that direction consisted not in their being furnished with a “pattern,” in the manner of that given to Moses; but in enduing them with holy wisdom, to discern and pursue on all occasions what was good and right. The Jewish church was an army of soldiers under preparatory discipline ; the Christian church is an army going forth to battle. The members of the one were taught punctilious obedience, and led with great formality through a variety of religious evolutions. Those of the other, though they also must keep their ranks and act in obedience to command, yet are not required to be so attentive to the mechanical as to the mental, not so much to the minute observance of forms as to their spirit and design. The obedience of the former was that of children; the latter that of sons arrived at ma- turer age. I have said that the form and order of the Christian church are chiefly moral, or founded in the fitness of things, as those of the Jewish church were chiefly positive; for neither the one nor the other will hold true universally. Some things pertaining to the organization of the latter were settled on the same principles as those of the former. The seventy elders, ordained to assist Moses, bore a near : resemblance to the seven deacons chosen to assist the apostles (Numb. xi.; Acts vi.) : both originated in the necessity of the case, and as such were approved of God. On the other hand, there are some things pertaining to the Christian church which are entirely positive ; and, being clearly revealed, require to be obeyed with the same punctilious regard to the “pattern” given as was observed by Moses in constructing the tabernacle. Such are bap- tism and the Lord's supper. They were “ordinances” of God, and required to be kept “as they were delivered,” Matt. iii. 15 ; Luke i. 6; 1 Cor. xi. 2. But in many things pertaining to order and discipline, though we are furnished with nothing more than general outlines, and are obliged to keep within them, yet in the filling up there is room left for the exercise of discretion and forbearance. But, it may be asked, will not the considering of these things as moral, rather than positive, open a way for the introduction of human inventions into the church of God. Why should it? Though the greater part of what belongs to the organization and discipline of the church be founded in the fitness of things, yet the human mind in its present imperfect and depraved state is not of itself, and without Divine direction, sufficient to perceive it. We have so much of the wisdom that is “from beneath" dwelling in 832 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. us that we should be continually erring, if left to ourselves. It is not necessary indeed, in things of this nature, that we should be furnished with precepts or examples with the same minuteness as in positive institutions; but with- out so much of one or other of them as shall mark the outlines of our conduct, we shall be certain to wander. If we were left without a revelation from Heaven, our ideas of the universal rule of right and wrong would be very defective and erroneous. In whatsoever therefore the Lord hath condescended to instruct us, we are not at liberty to prefer what may appear fit and right to us ; but, in like circumstances, are bound to follow it. If I plead for discretion and forbearance, it is only where the Scriptures do not decide; and where, consequently, it was thought sufficient by the Holy Spirit to put us in possession of general principles. I. THAT THE FORM AND ORDER OF THE NEw TESTA- MENT CHURCH WERE FOUNDED IN THE FITNESS OF THINGS wiLL APPEAR, I PRESUME, FROM THE FOLLOWING CON- SIDERATIONS, 1. The general principles expressly mentioned by the apostles as the rule of Christian conduct. “Let all things be done to edifying.—Let all things be done decently, and in order,” I Cor. xiv. 26. 40. Whatever measures tended to build up the church of God, and individuals, in their most holy faith, these were adopted as the rule of their conduct, and rendered binding on them by the authority of Christ.—Moreover, whatever measures approved them- selves to minds endued, as those of the apostles were, with the wisdom from above, as fit and lovely, and calcu- lated to render the whole church effective (like that of good discipline to an army) in the propagation of the gos- pel; these are the rules by which the primitive Christians were governed. And however worldly minds may have abused them, by introducing will-worship and vain cus- toms, under pretence of their decency, these, understood in their simple and original sense, must still be the test of good order and Christian discipline. 2. The way in which the apostles actually proceeded, in the forming and organizing of churches, is a proof that they were guided by a sense of fitness and propriety.— When a number of Christians agreed to walk together in the faith and order of the gospel, they became a Christian church. But at first they had no deacons, and probably no pastors, except the apostles; and if the reason of things had not required it, they might have continued to have none. But in the course of events they found new service rise upon their hands, and therefore must have new serv- ants ; * for, said the apostles, “it is not reason that we should leave the word of God to serve tables: wherefore look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business,” Acts vi. 2, 3. In this process we see no- thing like a punctilious attention to a positive institute, but the conduct of men who were endued with heavenly wisdom. All things are done “decently and in order,” and all “to edifying.” In the course of events, the apos- tles, who had supplied the place of pastors, would be called to travel into other parts of the world ; and then, it is likely, the church at Jerusalem would have a resident pastor or pastors of their own. And as servants were appointed when actual service demanded, so the number of them would be regulated by the same rule. A large church or congregation, where much service was to be done, required seven deacons; and where they abounded not only in numbers, but also in spiritual gifts, they commonly, if not always, seem to have had a plurality of bishops or elders.—With respect to us, where the reason of the thing exists—that is, where there are churches whose numbers require it, and whose gifts admit of it—it is well to follow this part of their example ; but for a small ‘church to have more pastors than one ap- pears to be as unnecessary as to have “seven '' deacons. Such a rule would favour idleness, and prevent useful ministers from extending their labours. To appoint two or three to a station which might be filled by one must have a tendency to leave many other places unoccupied, and so contract instead of enlarging the kingdom of Christ. * A deacon signifies a servant. 3. The principles on which the apostles proceeded may appear by tracing the analogy between them and a com- pany of Christian missionaries in the present day.—The term “apostle” signifies one that is sent. If we subtract the ideas of being sent immediately by Christ, of being endowed with extraordinary gifts and authority, suited to the special purposes of primitive times, he will, for aught I see, be merely a Christian missionary. Let us then sup- pose a church, or society of Christians, to have in contem- plation a mission to the heathen. One of the first things demanding their attention would be the selection of a number of suitable missionaries. Next, they would in- struct them in the things necessary to their undertaking ; and, after this, send them forth to preach the gospel.- Such was precisely the conduct of our Lord towards his disciplés. He first selected them ; then instructed them, during his personal ministry; and, after his resurrection, gave them their commission and a rich effusion of the Holy Spirit to qualify them for the undertaking. The missionaries, arriving at the scene of action, would first unite in social prayer and Christian fellowship ; and this would constitute the first church. Thus the apostles, and those who adhered to them, first met in an upper room for prayer, preparatory to their attack on the worki of the ungodly; and this little band of “one hundred and twenty " formed the first Christian church. And when sinners were converted, and joined them, they are repre- sented as being “added to the church,” Acts i. 41—47. Again, The first missionaries to a heathen country could not be chosen to the work by those to whom they were sent, but by him or them who sent them ; nor would their influence be confined to a single congregation, but extend to all the societies that might be raised by means of their labours. It would be different with succeeding pas- tors, who might be raised up from among the converts. They would of course be chosen by their brethren, and their authority would be confined to the churches which elected them. Thus the primitive missionaries were not constituted apostles by the churches, but by receiving their appointment immediately from Christ; nor was their au- thority limited to any particular church, but extended alike to all. In this they differ from ordinary pastors, who are elected by the churches they are intended to serve, and whose authority is confined to that particular department. Again, The first missionaries to a heathen country would be employed in the planting of churches, wherever proper materials were found for the purpose ; and if the work so increased upon their hands as to be too much for them, they would depute others, like-minded with them- selves, whom God would qualify with gifts and graces to render them assistance. Some one person at least of this description would be present, in the formation and organ- ization of every church, to see that “all things were done decently and in order.” And if there were any other churches in the neighbourhood of that in which such an organization took place, their elders and messengers would doubtless be present; and, to express their brotherly con- currence, would join in it. Thus the apostles planted churches; and when elders were to be ordained, the people chose them, and they by the solemn laying on of hands invested them with the office, Acts vi. 3.; xiv. 23. And when the work still increased upon their hands, they appointed such men as Timothy and Titus as evangelists to “set things in order” in their stead, Tit. i. 5. In these ordinations and arrangements, a Paul or a Titus would preside. The other elders of the church, and probably of the sister churches, would unite in brotherly concurrence, and in imploring a blessing on the parties; and hence there would be the “laying on of the hands of the presbytery,” or elders, 1 Tim. iv. 14. But as the missionaries would die a question would arise : Who should be their successors; or, rather, on whom should the general concerns of the churches devolve? —Strictly speaking, there might be no necessity for any successors. The Christian religion being planted by them might be continued by the native pastors, whom God would successively raise up ; and who, if “faithful men,” would not only be concerned to edify and watch over their own respective charges, but would extend the knowledge of the truth, and plant new churches around them. In PRINCIPLES OF CHURCH DISCIPLINE. 833 cases of difficulty, especially those of common concern, they would call in the advice of their brethren, as the first missionaries had done before them (Acts xv.); judging in all things not as lords over a heritage, but as men who must finally give an account. That this would be the case is more probable when it is considered, that though the first missionaries had an au- thority and an influence which no succeeding pastors would possess, yet it was exercised only in things which it would Öe lawful for others to do as well as themselves. They had no power but what required to be exercised in subserviency to the will of Christ, and for the edification of the churches; and if this rule be retained, and this end answered, it is of no account whether it be done by them or by the na- tive pastors after their decease. If the former planted churches, set them in order, and presided at the ordination of elders over them, it was not because the same things would not have been valid if done without them, but be- cause they would not have been done at all. Let but churches be planted, set in order, and Scripturally organ- ized, and whether it be by the primitive missionaries, or succeeding pastors, all is good, and acceptable to Christ. Such, I conceive, is the state of things with respect to the apostles and succeeding pastors. There never were any men, or set of men whatsoever, that were, properly speaking, their successors. Nor was it necessary that there should, seeing every thing which they did (excepting what was extraordinary, in which respect none can succeed them) was lawful for every pastor to do in his immediate charge. If a necessity existed for any superior office or offices, it must be for the purpose of inspecting and preserving the general interest of the whole body; but even this would be more likely to be answered by occasional conferences among the elders. II. THE FOLLOWING ARGUMENT's ARE of FERED IN PRoof THAT THE OFFICE OF A SUPERIOR, OR OF A GENERAL SUPER- INTENDENT IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, Is Both UNLAwful AND UN NECESSARY. 1. A bishop is the first permanent office in the Christian Church. It was the highest title assumed for many ages after the apostles. But a bishop is no other than a pres- byter, an elder, or overseer of a single congregation; as is evident from each of these names being given to the elders of the church at Ephesus, who met Paul at Miletus, Acts xx. 17.28. Any office therefore, in the present day, which claims the oversight of bishops, must be antiscriptural. 2. It accords with the genius of Christianity that the churches be governed, and all their affairs adjusted, by mutual consultation and persuasion, rather than by coer- cion. But where the power has been vested in one or more superior officers, it has commonly degenerated into a lording it over the heritage, and the people have gradually lost all interest in it. If Christ's kingdom were of this world, its officers might require to be invested with worldly honour, pageantry, and authority. Its members also must be governed “like the horse and the mule, which have no understanding.” But the great Head of the church has told his servants, “It shall not be so amongst you.” On this ground there might be danger in what you propose in your letters, of having European missionaries as superin- tendents of the native pastors. You should indeed super- intend them, but not so as to make it an office, or to set an example of lordly domination in future times among themselves. - 3. The apostles in the exercise of their authority did not act separately from other elders, but in conjunction with them ; by which means they gradually inured them to the discharge of the same duties among themselves after their decease. Paul laid his hands on Timothy, yet not as an individual, in the manner practised by diocesan bishops, but as an elder among other elders, 2 Tim. i. 6, compared with l Tim. iv. 14. In the planting and organizing of churches, the same things which were done by them were done by others ap- pointed by them; and had they been done by elders whom they had not appointed, provided the will of Christ had been properly regarded, they would not, I presume, have objected to their validity. This is certainly true, at least, in some particulars; and I see no reason why it should not be the same in all. Paul left Timothy at Ephesus, that he might “charge some to teach no other doctrine.” But if the Ephesian elders had been of themselves attached to the truth, neither Paul nor Timothy would have been offended with them for superseding the exercise of their authority. The apostle also left Titus in Crete to “set in order the things that were wanting, and to ordain elders in every city.” But if the Cretans themselves had had sufficient wisdom and virtue to have regulated their own affairs by the word of God, would their “order” have been reckoned disorder? And had there been “elders” already ordained amongst them, who were competent to assist in the ordin- ation of others, if we may judge from the tenor of apostolic practice, instead of objecting to the validity of their pro- ceedings, both Paul and Titus would, “though absent in the flesh, have been with them in the spirit, joying, and beholding their order, and the stedfastness of their faith in Christ.” III. I concLUDE THESE BRIEF REMARKS WITH A FEW REFLECTIONS ON SOME PARTICULAR D'UTIES.- If such be the principles on which the primitive churches were founded, is it not more becoming for us to inquire into the spirit, reason, or design of various precepts, and adhere to it, than to be always disputing and dividing about the letter of them ż 1. There are various precepts in our Lord's sermon on the mount, which I am persuaded were never designed to be taken literally. For example, we are commanded to “swear not at all,” Matt. v. 33–37. Hence many good men have objected to the lawfulness of an oath before a magis- trate; yet such oaths were not only aklowed, but com- manded by the law of Moses, Deut. vi. 13. And our Lord declared that it was not his design, in any thing he here said, to destroy or set aside the law, Matt. v. 17, 18. None of his answers were aimed against the law, but against the glosses of the Pharisees upon it. But, to un- derstand him as condemning all kinds of oaths, is to make him condemn the law. Nor is this all ; it would go to condemn many things in his apostles which are written under Divine inspiration, as in the following instances. “The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is blessed for ever,” said Paul, “ knoweth that I lie not.”— “I call God for a record upon my soul, that to spare you I came not as yet unto Corinth.”—“God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers,” 2 Cor. xi. 31 ; i. 23; Rom, i. 9. Each of these is a solemn oath ; yet we never think of their being sinful. The swearing which our Lord forbids relates to our ordi- nary “ communications,” which should be “ yea, yea, or nay, may.” It is this which is forbidden by the apostle James, when he says, “Above all things, my brethren, swear not, lest ye fall into condemnation,” James v. H.2. Though a barren and profane vice, it was very common among the Jews, and is equally so among many who call themselves Christians. Again, Instead of avenging ourselves, “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,” we are commanded “not to resist evil.” Did our Saviour mean by this to censure the law, as appointed of God, (Exod. xxi. 24–27,) and as ad- ministered by the civil magistrate 2 That would be to “ destroy the law,” and not to fulfil it. His design was doubtless to forbid private retaliation and revenge, which the Jews had attempted to justify by a perversion of the Divine command. He did not complain of the law in the hands of the magistrate, nor forbid his followers appealing to it where public justice was concerned ; but they must do nothing from a principle of revenge, or for the sake of retaliation. If the command “ not to resist evil” were understood literally, and without any restriction, and we were literally obliged “when smitten on one cheek to turn the other also,” our Saviour himself would have erred in not setting the example, when he was smitten before Pilate ; for instead of submission he remonstrated: “If I have spoken well, why smitest thou me?” Luke vi. 29 ; John xviii. 23. But though our Lord's command is not to be taken liter- ally, yet if we attend to the spirit of it, we shall find it to contain a very important lesson; it teaches us that we had 3 H 834 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. better suffer insults and injuries, and even the repetition of them, than undertake to avenge ourselves. It is the prin- ciple, rather than the act, which he means to enforce; yet there are cases in which the act itself would be right and praiseworthy. Unbelievers affect to ridicule this precept ; yet who ridicules the conduct of Themistocles, the Athenian general, who in a council of war had the cane of Eurybiades shaken over his head; and who, instead of resenting it, exclaimed, “Strike, but hear me!” This instance of magnanimous patience saved his country. And may not a Christian have a still greater end in view If by his patience he should save his soul from death, however infidels may sneer, he will have a weightier crown awarded him another day than what was decreed for the noble Athenian. The cheerful sufferings of the holy martyrs in all ages have exemplified this principle. kind, the world hated them ; but instead of rendering evil for evil, they practically said—Strike, but hear us! Again, If our Lord’s precepts on almsgiving and prayer were understood literally, (Matt. vi. 1–6,) they would prove it unlawful to join in any public contributions for the poor, and to engage in public prayer; but it is not the act which our Lord has principally in view, but the prin- ciple or motive. His object was to condemn a spirit of ostentation, in the same way as we should understand another prohibition : “Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth,” Matt. vi. 19. Some Christians have con- cluded from hence that all accumulation of property is contrary to the command of Christ. The ill consequences of such interpretation do not lie in their rendering men careless about the world, for there is but little danger of persons who have opportunities of acquiring wealth erring on that side ; but the mischief is, they make men guilty of hypocrisy, in setting them to devise methods by which they may go on in business like their neighbours, and yet find some salvo for their consciences by which to impose upon themselves. If it were the design of Christ to for- bid all accumulation of property, why were the primitive Christians directed to “lay up something for the poor every first day of the week, according as God had prosper- ed them,” 1 Cor. xvi. 2. It will hardly be pleaded that they were to lay by for this purpose the whole of their gains ; but if not, they must have been allowed to labour and trade like other men. Moreover, if they were for- bidden to increase wealth, why are they exhorted to dili- gence, “that they may have whereof to give to him that needeth 3’’ Eph. iv. 28. On this principle also it would be wrong for parents to provide any thing for their children, which both reason and Scripture allow, 2 Cor. xii. 14. Finally, If these words require to be taken literally, why should not others of a similar import be understood in the same way? “Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink.”—“Sell what ye have, and give alms,” Matt. vi. 25 ; Luke xii. 33. literal interpretation were reduced to general practice, it would destroy all distinction of property, and so of rich and poor. This, however, was not our Lord’s design, or he would not have addressed men, much less good men, under the character of rich and poor, James i. 9, 10. The accu- mulation of property, if arising from the blessing of God on our lawful occupations, and considered as a trust to be laid out for him, has nothing wrong in it. The danger is, what our Lord inveighs against, that of making a “trea- sure * of it, or setting our hearts upon it as an idol in the place of God, instead of considering all as his, and as re- quiring all to be employed for him, according to his re- vealed will. It is the desire to be great, to shine, and to indulge in the pride of life, that is destructive to men's souls. This is the evil every where described by such language as the following:—“Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.”—“They that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition,” James iv. 3 1 Tim. vi. 9. 3. * The remainder of this Essay, principally relating to the connex- ion between baptism and the Lord’s supper, is supposed to be lost. Some of the following treatises will, however, convey the author's Bentiments on this subject. * While they sought the salvation of man- Yet if such a. 2. I observe the reason of some duties ceases in a greater or less degree by a change of circumstances.—This remark, I am aware, is liable to great abuse. Some, under the pretence of accommodating Christianity to times and cir- cumstances, may render it a mere temporizing system, to be just what its professors may find it their interest or their inclination to have it be. Yet, after all, the fact can- not be called in question ; and if men will abuse it, they must take the consequence. It is a fact, that for a man in the times of the apostles to have had “his head covered ” in public worship was reck- oned to be “dishonouring his head; ” for, by the custom which then prevailed, it was a sign of subjection, 1 Cor. xi. 4–7. But in our times the reverse is true; a being wncovered is the sign of subjection, and the being covered indicates some kind of superiority. Men are now gener- ally uncovered in the time of worship, not for the purpose of maintaining their dignity, or superiority over the women; but, on the contrary, for avoiding the appearance of assum- ing too much in the presence of God, by seeming to refuse that honour to him which is paid to our superiors among men. The woman, on the other hand, was then required to be covered, as by the custom of those times it was a token of her subjection to the man. But though our females still cover the head in public worship, it is not for this purpose, nor does it convey any such idea. For the same purpose the hair of the man was shorn, and that of the woman worn at length. Each by the cus- tom of the time and place was considered as distinctive of the sexes, which various important purposes in society, and even nature itself, required to be preserved. When the apostle asks, “Doth not even nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair it is a shame unto him 3 but if a woman have long hair it is a glory to her,” (1 Cor. xi. 14, 15,) some have thought that, “by nature,” he means no more than custom. This I apprehend is a mistake. President Edwards has happily expressed what appears to be the true meaning of this passage in the following words:—“It is custom which establishes any outward sign as a token of inward sentiment; therefore, when it had established the wearing of long hair as the sign of a female, “nature itself’ taught that it was a shame for a man to appear in the known garb of a woman.” The truth is, I apprehend, if the proper distinction of the sexes be preserved, by each appearing in that habit which the custom of the age and country makes the distinctive marks of them, the end aimed at by the apostle is fully answered.* A BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE PRINCIPLES OF DISSENT. FROM the first establishment of the Church of England on its present basis, to this day, there have been dissenters from it; but as all dissent is expressive rather of what is disapproved than of what is embraced, it is natural to suppose that the objects of disapprobation will be dif- ferent in different persons. The English Dissenters are commonly distinguished into three denominations ; Pres- byterians, Independents, and Baptists: but there exists, and has existed nearly from the beginning, a distinction of greater importance, and more descriptive of their re- spective grounds of dissent, by which also they are re- ducible to three classes:—viz. Those who have disapproved of the doctrine of the Na- tional Church—those who approved of its doctrine, but were dissatisfied with the degree of its Reformation—and those who also approved of its doctrine, but disapproved not only of particular parts, but of the very principle of Žts constitution. Of the first description, there were individuals from the time of the Reformation in the reign of Edward the Sixth, to the revolution in 1688, several of whom were put to death Nearly allied to the subject of the preceding Essay is a treatise. On Moral and Positive Obedience, and another On the Discipline of the Primitive Churches. See Circular Letters of the Northamptonshire 4ssociation. PRINCIPLES OF DISSENT. 835 for their principles; but till the eighteenth century their numbers appear to have been few. Whateyer we may think of the doctrines which these people imbibed, no person who respects the right of private judgment, and the authority of Him who reproved his own disciples when they would have called for fire from heaven upon his ene- mies, declaring that he “came not to destroy men’s lives, but to save them,” can forbear to regret that the Reformation should at so early a period have been stained with blood. Of the second description were the greater part of the puritans and nonconformists. They were Presbyterians. They did not object to a national establishment of religion; but rather wished to be comprehended in it, provided it had been framed after the model of other reformed churches, which they accounted more agreeable to the Scriptures. Hence, when they left the Church, it was with reluctance, complaining of the terms of conformity, to which they could not conscientiously subscribe. The several attempts for compromising the differences, and admitting them into the National Church, during the reigns of James the First and Charles the Second, respected Dissenters of this de- scription. The third and last class of Dissenters, differed not from the Established Church in the main as to their doctrine, though they might not approve of being sworn to the be- lief of every particular in a human composition, especially of so large an extent as the Thirty-nine Articles. But with respect to its constitution, government, and dis- cipline, their objections were far greater than those of their brethren. Its being an ally, and as it were a branch of the state, and comprehending the body of the nation, good and bad, appeared to them utterly inconsistent with the nature of “Christ's kingdom,” which “is not of this world;” and of a Christian church, which in its own Articles is said to be “a congregation of faithful men.” They had no antipathy to Churchmen, but considered many of them as persons eminent in godliness; nor to this Church in distinction from others, though there might be in them different degrees of good and evil ; but their grand objection was to the Church considered as national. The temporal power of bishops, the imposition of mi- nisters, to the exclusion of the free election of the people, the mixture of godly and manifestly ungodly characters at the Lord’s table, the corruption of worship, the total want of discipline, and all other deviations from primitive Chris- tianity, appeared to them to be no more than might be expected, if circumstances admitted it, to grow out of a national establishment. They, therefore, peaceably with- drew from its communion, with the view of forming churches on the plan of the New Testament. But the leaders in the Establishment considering themselves as the true church, and all who dissented from them as guilty of schism, being jealous whereunto this might grow, and having the civil power on their side, thought good to pre-, vent them. In the reign of the famed Elizabeth, in the year 1593, several of them were actually executed on gibbets—not for any contempt of civil authority, for to this they professed and yielded all due obedience; nor for any matter of wrong, or wicked lewdness, for their lives were unblamable ; but for following what they believed to be the mind of Christ, regardless of ecclesiastical re- straints. The rest fled to Holland for safety. - Among these exiles was Mr. John Robinson, a man Who, for gentleness, modesty, firmness, and solid wisdom, has been rarely excelled. He and his companions in tri- bulation were permitted to form a congregational church at Leyden, which is said to have consisted of three hun- *éd members. About twenty-seven years after their re- sidence in Holland, namely, in 1620, about a hundred of the younger members of the church went over to North America, and formed the settlement of New Plymouth ; *nd as every previous attempt to colonize that country had failed, they may properly be considered as the founders of the American empire. Another of these exiles was the famous Mr. Henry Ainsworth, author of the “ Commentary on the Pentateuch, the Psalms, and the Song of Songs.” He was a teacher of another congregational church at Amsterdam.* * Two of his Treatises, the one entitled The Communion of Saints, and the other An Arrow against Idolatry, have within a few years To this third class belong the greater part of the Eng- lish Dissenters, who in the present day are denominated Independents and Baptists. It is true they have much relaxed in various points of church government and dis- cipline; some, perhaps, to their honour, and some to their dishonour; but the principle on which their churches are formed is congregational. The latter denomination have one additional reason for their dissent from the Established Church above their brethren, namely, their disapprobation of infant baptism ; and in which they also dissent from them. Those who separate from the Established Church on this ground, cannot, consistently with their principles, complain of the terms of conformity as being either too narrow or too wide for them ; neither can they become competitors with it for worldly power. If the government should even offer to make theirs the established religion, however they might be obliged to them for their kindness, they could not accept it without relinquishing their first principles relative to church government. Neither can they, without relinquishing the first prin- ciples of the system by which they are distinguished from other Christians, persecute any man for his religion, what- ever that religion be. They may think and speak of men according to their true character; they may refuse all re- ligious connexion with them ; they may expose their prin- ciples to just abhorrence; but their hand must not be upon them. They can neither call in the aid of the civil power, nor in any way deprive them of their rights; and this, not because they consider error as innocent, but as a species of guilt which is not cognizable by an earthly tribunal. It has been remarked by American historians, that there was a manifest difference, in respect of forbearance, be- tween the government and colony of New Plymouth, who retained the principles of their beloved Robinson, and those of Massachusetts Bay, which consisted chiefly of Dis- senters of the second description, and who went over at different times, between the years 1624 and 1633. Other denominations had great cause to complain of the perse- cuting spirit of the latter, even though they themselves had fled from the persecutions of the English prelates; but of the former no such complaints were heard. Far be it from us, however, to insinuate of any one of these descriptions of Dissenters of the present age that they are friendly to persecution. They, and we hope the most re- spectable part of Episcopalians, have since learned that, in matters of religion, “to our own Master we must stand or fall.” Once more : Dissenters of this description cannot, con- sistently with their original principles, be factious, tur- bulent, disaffected, or in any way inimical to the well- being of the state. It is a maxim familiar with their fathers, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” Obedience, in all civil matters, “to the powers that were,” was an es- sential article of their creed. In this obedience they did not, indeed, include an approbation of every particular measure; but neither did they so explain it away as to make it consist in a merely forced compliance with the laws, for fear of consequences; but in a voluntary, cordial, loyal, and dutiful demeanour. By how much they are impressed also with the truth that “Christ's kingdom is not of this world,” by so much will they become dead to struggles for worldly power; leaving restless spirits to deal in cabals and intrigues, they will “seek peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.” Such, as far as we understand them, are the genuine principles of congregational dissent. We do not pretend to say that all congregationalists have uniformly acted ºup to them. Many do not understand the principles which they profess, and others act inconsistently with them. Our object is to exhibit them, not merely for the informa- tion of other denominations, but for the conviction of Our OWI). If the love of civil and religious liberty (which under God is the only security they have) has had too great a hold on some of their minds; and, in cases where they been reprinted at Edinburgh; to which are prefixed some account of the life and writings of the author. 3 H 2 836 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. have conceived it to be in danger, has betrayed them into language and behaviour which, in the hour of serious re- flection, they must condemn as unchristian; yet it is not in the power of their worst enemies to prove that they have ever, entered into any of those conspiracies which appear to have existed of late years to overturn the go- vernment and constitution of the country. There may, indeed, have been individuals who have done this ; for bad men are known to mingle in all societies: but even of such we have scarcely heard an instance. There are certain violent men, who appear to be galled by the wholesome restraints of the state upon their per- secuting spirit, and who are no less averse to the best, most laborious, and most useful clergymen in the nation, than they are to us, that make it their business to rake together every idle story, and to persuade their readers that Dissenters, as a body, are enemies to the state. From such quarters, village preaching has been ascribed to po- litical motives; and even Sunday schools, as they are called, denounced as the seminaries of sedition. To all these charges we answer by asking for proof. In so large a body of men we cannot undertake to say there are no bad men; neither can our accusers say so of the Established Church. Nay, more, we cannot undertake to vindicate all the conduct of those whom we may account good men. Only let it be proved of any village preacher, or school- master, or catechist, that he diffuses a spirit of disaffection to government among those whom he instructs, and if he be not discarded, or at least reproved, by his connexions, as soon as they know it, let them bear the blame for ever. “It may be objected,” says Justin Martyr, in his Apolo- gy, “that some Christians have been convicted as evil- doers. Well, I will grant the objection, and more; not only that some, but many, and at different times, have been thus duly convicted upon a fair trial; but then I must tell you again that you condemned not the persons aforesaid as criminals, but as Christians. Moreover, we confess that, as all the sects in general among the Greeks went under the common name of philosophers, though extremely different in opinion, so truly among us the pro- fessors of this new wisdom, whether in reality or appear- ance only, go all by the same title, and are denominated Christians. Wherefore we pray that all those who are indicted by the name of Christian may be examined as to their actions; and that every person convicted may suffer as an evil-doer, and not as a Christian.” Such is our prayer as Dissenters. If any man, or society of men, be guilty, let them bear their burden ; but let them suffer as evil-doers, and not as Dissenters. WINDICATION OF PROTESTANT DISSENT.4 THE oppositions which have of late years been made to Christianity have happily induced its friends, of all de- nominations, to come to a better understanding with each. other ; forbearing contentions of less moment, they have joined their efforts in defending the common salvation. On this ground, evangelical Dissenters, though their opinion of a national establishment of religion is the same as be- fore, yet, from a regard to the doctrine, character, and usefulness of many of its ministers, have sincerely rejoiced in their labours. Evangelical Episcopalians have also many of them laid aside smaller differences; and, what- ever they might think of dissent, have esteemed the serious part of Dissenters. Thus far the malignant influence of infidelity has not only been counteracted, but made to de- feat itself. But things have not operated in this way in every in- stance. In various late publications, by evangélical Churchmen, great stress is laid on “regularity,” by which seems to be meant, not only a strict regard to the forms and orders of the Establishment, but the standing aloof from all Dissenters, as “sectaries and schismatics.” A piece in “The Christian Observer,” said to be written by Mr. * Written in reply to the charges of the Rev. Thomas Robinson, M. A., Vicar of St. Mary's, Leicester, in a pamphlet entitled, “A Se. R., an aged and respectable clergyman in the north of England, goes so far as to dissuade ministers of his de- scription from having any acquaintance with them. Such Dissenters as Watts, Doddridge, and Guyse received “great advantage,” it seems, from their acquaintance with certain clergymen ; and employed it in recruiting their congregations at the expense of the Church —Vol. I. No. III. p. 162. It would seem from such insinuations as these, to be dangerous for Dissenters, however distinguished by talents or character, to come near these dignified men ; for if in their lifetime they be treated with civility, they may ex- pect to be reproached for it after they are dead : The celebrated work of Mr. Overton makes quite enough of this “regularity,” and bears hard upon Dissenters. “Sect- aries and schismatics” are names pretty liberally bestow- ed upon them. The same may be said of the “Address of Mr. Robinson.” Whether these gentlemen judge it prudent to take such measures, as feeling their Church- manship suspected by their irreligious brethren, and wish to establish it at our expense, or whatever be the reason, they seem of late, some of them at least, to be not a little desirous of renewing hostilities. Before I proceed any further, I desire it may be noticed that I have no personal antipathy to any one of these ministers; that I have the happiness to be acquainted with several of them, who, I am persuaded, are men of another spirit; that even those on whom I take the liber- ty of animadverting are esteemed by me, and many other Dissenters, for their work’s sake ; that I have no desire to impeach their integrity, in adhering to the Church ; that I utterly dislike all such personal reflections, leaving the judgment of motives to God only ; and, finally, that, whatever objections I may have to particular parts of the Church, they are but little, compared to my aversion from its grand principle—that is, its being national, and estab- lished, and directed by civil authority. I have no desire to “reproach or calumniate” Mr. R. for what he has written ; nor do I blame him for defend- ing the Church as far as he is able, and trying, by fair argument and Christian persuasion, to induce his hearers, who have deserted her communion, to return : only let him not complain if others claim the right of examining the justice of what he advances. He speaks of “a host of disputants” appearing, when he, or any of his brethren, defend their own principles. To me it appears that, for a considerable time, Dissenters have been nearly silent on these subjects; and that what has been written has been chiefly on the other side. - Mr. R. declares his “principal concern is with the per- sons who have left his ministry; that he desires to stir up no contention with others; that he casts no reflections on those who, from conscientious motives, separate from the Church ; and will enter into no altercations, nor answer "the idle cavils of those who delight in strife,”—p. 5. Yet he stigmatizes Dissenters in general as “sectaries,” and charges them with “schism.” It may be said, however, that this is only a necessary consequence of his being a Churchman on conviction ; and that whether he dealt in such language or not, he must, to be consistent, entertain such thoughts of them. Admitting this apology, then, I will conclude Mr. R.'s aversion is not to persons, but things, and, on this ground, will cheerfully join issue with him. With respect to the persons addressed in Mr. R.'s pam- phlet, I do not know that they should complaim of him, unless it be for their “conscientiousness” being tacitly called in question. Their minister expostulates with them, and it becomes them to hear him candidly, especially when he professes to address them with “argument and exhortation, rather than with menace or reproof; assign- ing what appear to him the strongest reasons for conform- ity, and leaving them to their mature deliberation, en- treating that they may regulate their conduct only so far as they perceive their strength and importance.” This is fair and manly. Mr. R. has done well also, before he exhibits the charge of “schism,” to undertake the proof of the Church of rious Call to a Constant and Devout Attendance on the Stated Ser- vices of the Church of England. * WINDICATION OF PROTESTANT DISSENT. 837 England being “truly apostolical.” If it be so, and the justice of its claim on all Christians within the realm to consider themselves as its members can be substantiated, I)issenters must, of course, be “sectaries and schismatics;” and though the state, from political clemency, may toler- ate them, yet will they not be acquitted before a higher tribunal. If, on the other hand, it be not so , or, though it be, yet if it have no exclusive claim, either from God or man, to the membership of all Christians within the realm, it will follow that the names signify nothing more than they did in the mouths of the ancient enemies of the Christians, who stigmatized them as “the sect of the Nazarenes;” and that the only difference between those who call themselves the Church and other Christians is, that, being of the sect which happens to be favoured by the state, they are more particularly exposed to the tempt- ation of assuming supercilious airs, and looking down upon their brethren with contempt. I have said, If the Church of England be truly apostolic- al in the main, yet, if it have no eacclusive claim to the membership of all Christians within the realm, it may not follow that all Dissenters are guilty of “schism,” or that they are any more deserving of the name of “sectaries” than Episcopalians are, in countries where theirs is not the established religion. If the Church of England were al- lowed to be “a part of the church of Christ,” (p. 28,) why may not other churches be another part? Is it prov- able that any of the primitive churches laid claim to the membership of all Christians within a certain tract of country? But though, for argument's sake, I have granted this, yet I do not allow it. I am persuaded the Church of England is not “a true apostolical church,” and have no objection to rest the lawfulness of dissent upon the issue | of this question. Mr. R.'s first argument for it is, “It conforms to apos- tolical example in the different orders of its ministers,”— p. 5. It might have been expected that, under this head, we should have been referred to Scripture proofs. If Mr. R. could have told us in what parts of the New Testament we might find the offices of arch-bishop, arch-deacons, deans, priests, &c. &c. &c., there is little doubt but he would ; but this he has wisely declined. Or, though the names cannot be found, yet if what is done corresponded with what was done in the primitive churches, it might be said that the spirit of things is preserved ; but the proof of this is not attempted. Or if the work of bishops and deacons in the Church of England, whose names are found in the Scriptures, could be proved to be the same as that which pertained to those offices originally, it would be in its favour, so far as it went ; but neither is this attempted. Finally, If it had been proved that one set of pastors were subject to the control of another, who invested them with office and deprived them of it as occasion required, some- thing had been accomplished; but neither is this attempted. Nor is a single passage of Scripture referred to on the subject, except 1 Cor. xiv. 26.40, “Let all things be done to edifying”—“Let all things be done decently, and in order,”—which prove just as much in favour of popery as of modern episcopaey, and have been as often quoted for that purpose as for this. - - What is it then that Mr. R. alleges in proof of his as- Sertion ? Hear him. “ The subordination established among the clergy, and the share of power it has assigned to some of them over others, are REAsoNABLE AND ExPE- PIENT, and such as ought not to be objected to, UNLEss THEY CAN BE PROVED TO BE CONTRARY TO DIVINE INJUNC- TION.” Mr. R. feels himself unable to prove them to be dºy part of what God hath enjoined; but thinks to come 9ff, with referring it to his opponents to prove them for- bidden / Two-thirds of the superstitions of popery and Paganism might thus be vindicated. The baptizing of bells is no more contrary to express Divine injunction than the things for which Mr. R. contends. “It is congenIAL witH THE BRITISH constituTION.” One would hope then it would be allowed not to be an §ssential part of it; for that would be making a thing to be congenial with itself. We admire the British constitu- tion as a monument of human wisdom in civil affairs, and are thankful to live under its shadow; but we do not CHURCH.” be in this assertion, I shall not inquire : it is sufficient for my argument that this does not prove it to be “apostolical.” think it a model after which Jesus Christ formed the go- vernment of his church 1 “The distinction of ministers into bishops, priests, and deacons—the general scheme of Episcopal ordination and Episcopal government, prevailed VERY EARLY IN THE How much of truth, or of untruth, there may Were the primitive bishops overseers of other ministers, or of the flock of God? Were they chosen by a dean and chapter, on being nominated by the civil magistrate, or by the suffrage of the people? Did their authority extend over a country, including a number of congregations; or was it confined to one; or, at most, to that and the branches that pertained to it? When bishops became corrupt, did the purer part of the churches appeal to superior authority to get them removed; or did they only inform the apostles, and the apostles themselves appeal to the churches 3 These questions must be resolved, before the Church of England can be proved to be apostolical, even with respect to her officers. - If Mr. R. had been chosen to his present office by the suffrage of the congregation, instead of being presented to the living by a patron, he would have had an argument to plead with those who have deserted him which now he has not. As it is, he can only say, “I have solemnly pledged myself to attend to your spiritual concerns!”—p. 1. Mr. R. opposes the ordination of the Episcopal clergy to that of self-sent individuals among the sectaries, p. 8. 10. But he must know this is not a general practice among us; and he might know that no communion is ordinarily held with such characters. If this practice were half as general among us, as what he wishes to be considered “accidental” in the Church, there might be some appearance of justice in what he alleges. - In short, all Mr. R.'s arguments for the Church of Eng- land being “apostolical” have hitherto been such as would equally apply to that of Rome. An advocate for that holy and apostolical Church, as she also calls herself, could al- lege that she has her bishops, priests, and deacons ; that the subordination of the people to the clergy, the clergy to the bishops, and the bishops to the pope, is “REAsonABLE AND EXPEDIENT ; ” that all which “is essential ’’ to the system is the appointment of one man of “eminent sanctity and sufficiency, to have the care of all the churches; ” that this, and many other “decent and edifying ” things, ought not to be objected to, unless they can be proved to be con- trary to ea:press Divine injunction 1 Christian reader 1 does any thing belonging to true religion require to be thus supported ? Is this any other than setting up men's threshold by God’s thresholds, and their post by his posts 2 It may appear singular to some that, in proving the Church of England to be apostolical, Mr. R. begins with the “order of her ministers,” entirely passing over what the Church is in itself. A church, we are told in the Arti- cles, is “a congregation of faithful men,” &c. Why then did he not undertake to prove that such was the Church of Bngland 3 that it was a congregation assembling together like that at Corinth, in one place ; and a congregation of faithful men, gathered out of an unbelieving world, and sufficiently distinguished from it? These things Mr. R. has not undertaken to prove, but confines himself to the order of its ministers. The gold of this temple seems greater, in his account, than the temple itself. What should we think of a lady, who should pretend to be queen of the realm ; but, instead of proving that she was the bride, the king’s consort, she alleges the order and subordination of her servants 3 Would she not be told that this was a circumstance which might attach to a pretender as well as to the queen, and therefore proved nothing 3 To the order of her ministers, Mr. R. adds the purity of her doctrine. Here I am willing to allow that, so far as respects the written forms of the Church, it is in the main evangelical. I allow also that doctrine is an article of a thousand times greater importance than the orders of ministers, be they what they may. It is on this account that we heartly wish all who believe and preach these doc- trimes success. There are two things, however, which require to be no- ticed under this head :- 838 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. First, It is possible to magnify articles of faith, of human composition, to the dishonour of the Scriptures, from their agreement with which arises all their value. It is not enough that what we believe is truth, but that we believe it as a revelation from God. To be attached to a set of doctrines, be they ever so true, because the church has taught them, is to put the church in the place of Christ. Our faith, in this case, would stand in the wisdom of man, and not in the power of God; and will be of no account to us, either here or hereafter. Secondly, The articles of faith drawn up for the Church are not the Church, nor can it be collected from them, as Mr. R. says it can, “what those grand doctrines are in which the Church would have all her members instructed and established,”—p. 11. They might, and doubtless did, express what the Church of England that once was would have ; but not that which now is. It is not true that the Church of England that now is would have any such thing. The Church, if a church it be, is the great body of the bishops, clergy, and people : and they manifestly wish for the reverse of what the Reformers did; and could they but fairly get rid of the Articles, would reckon it a most desir- able thing. Church with the Church itself, Mr. R. can go on to tell us what she believes, and what she teaches; though, if we except a comparatively small number of her clergy and members, she neither does the one nor the other. To make this matter more plain, let us suppose one of our dissenting churches, which a century ago subscribed, as articles of faith, the substance of the Assembly's Cate- chism ; but within the last fifty years (though the articles are still retained, and, for the sake of certain emoluments left to the Calvinistic interest in the place, are still sub- scribed) the minister and the body of the members are ac- tually become Socinians—would Mr. R. allow of their being a sound and apostolical church, with regard to doc- trine, on the mere ground of the retention and subscription of the articles 4 And should a Calvinistic individual, fondly attached to the old place, stand up in it with the articles in his hand and boast in this manner, “Possessed as she is of such a treasure as this of Divine truth, who shall calumniate or oppose her ?” (p. 14,) would not Mr. R. pity his weakness, and feel indignant at the delusion by which he imposed upon himself and laboured to impose upon others ? It is not what a community retains in its books, but what is retained in the minds of its members, that determines what it is. “The body without the spirit is dead.” Thus we have seem the substance of what Mr. R. has to offer in proof of the Church of England's being “apostolic- al.” What follows chiefly consists of commendations of her forms and objections to those of Dissenters. We will, however, proceed to examine the whole. “The form of Common Prayer,” he says, “in which you are called to join is truly excellent,”—p. 14. There are doubtless many good, things in it, but it is too much to pronounce upon it in this manner. To mention only one instance, if the burial service were abolished, and what should be said of the deceased were left to the dictates and feelings of Mr. R.'s own mind, I question whether he would utter what is there uttered, however “excellent” he may now profess to think it. But it is not my design to point out the faults of this book. If a liturgy must be used, it may answer the end, upon the whole, as well as another: if a church must be composed of a whole nation, and consequently the great body of its clergy as well as members be prayerless men, it may be necessary to frame prayers for them ; and if to prayers were added sermons or homilies, it might be still better: but “a congregation of faithful men’’ needs not such securities. Mr. R. himself, when he meets with people of this description, and some- times in public worship, can deal in “extemporaneous effusions,” however contemptuously he can allow himself to speak of them in others. It is sufficient also for my argument, that Mr. R. does not undertake to prove that the use of a liturgy formed any part of “apostolic” practice. He proceeds, “We owe it to our country to comply with all its ordinances which are not contrary to a good con- science.” By this Mr. R. must mean all ordinances rela- tive to faith and worship, else it is nothing to his purpose. Yet by confounding the formularies of the But on what authority is this position built? Christians were commanded to be “subject to every ordinance of man,” even when under heathen governments, “ for the Lord’s sake,” 1 Pet. ii. 13, 14. But surely it cannot be imagined that these ordinances respected the modelling of Christian faith and worship. The apostle could not mean to give heathen magistrates any such authority, nor to subject Christians to it. The ordinances of man are ex- plained in the context, of things civil and moral, which undoubtedly ought, in all ages and circumstances, to be obeyed by Christians, and that from a religious motive, or “for the Lord’s sake;” but to apply it to the regulation of faith and worship is dishonourable to the only Lawgiver of the church. A church itself has no right to make ordi- mances of this kind, but merely to interpret and declare what they apprehend to be the mind of Christ, and such interpretations and declarations ought ever to be open to revision and correction, when judged to be at variance with his revealed will. To worship God “ by the command- ments of men” is itself forbidden in the Scriptures, (Matt. xv. 6; Mark vii. 7,) and therefore is contrary to a good conscience. The interposition of human authority, in Divine things, generally corrupts them ; but if not, yet it affects the nature of conformity to them. To believe a doctrine or conform to a mode of worship, even though each may in itself be right, on account of its being ordained of men, renders it merely human religion, destroying the very principle of Christian obedience. If the apostles in planting Christianity had acted upon Mr. R.'s principle, they would not have ordained the same things “ in all churches;” but have framed a different formulary of worship in different countries. Their first business would have been to examine how much of the old materials of heathen superstition, many parts of which might not be contradicted by express Divine injunction, would do to work over again; and what was the civil con- stitution of the country, that they might as far as possible accommodate things to the public mind. I do not wonder that Mr. R. should be partial to this principle ; it is that of his Church and of the Church of Rome before her. Why is it that episcopacy has in it so much of popery, and popery of heathenism 3 The reason in both is the same. They each undertook to convert men by nations. Now, to bring a nation over to a new religion requires that as few alterations be introduced as possible, that old things be retained under new names, and that great sacrifices be made to popular humour. Thus popery, in numerous in- stances, was only heathenism in a Christian garb, and episcopacy was no other than popery purged of its grosser evils.—But thus did not Paul. Wherever he established Christianity “ old things passed away, and all things be- came new ;” or, if not, it was the fault of the people, un- authorized by him. He taught Christians to consider themselves as complete in Christ; so as to need neither the additions of heathen philosophy, nor those of Jewish cere- mony; though each would doubtless recommend itself on the score of “decency,” as not contrary to Divine injunc- tion, and as that which would give Christianity a respect- able appearance,—Col. ii. Mr. R.'s whole scheme rests upon supposition ; namely, the supposed “eminent sanctity and sufficiency of bishops,” and the supposed “solicitousness of civil governments to promote the interest of real Christianity,”—pp. viii. 20. They are both of them, no doubt, supposable cases; such as have occurred, and may occur; but woe to the system that rests upon their being generally true ! Far be it from me to think ill of men in the higher spheres of office, whether civil or ecclesiastical : the former I revere, as or- dained of God; and towards the latter I desire to cherish all due benevolence; but, to suppose of either that which is not generally true, is deceiving both ourselves and them. Surely there is a medium between a spirit of “insubordi- nation” to civil government, and inviting our rulers to frame laws and ordinances for the government of Christ's kingdom within their realm, and then flattering them for their pious intentions. The Episcopalians of this country have not been wanting in zeal for what has affected their own interests and privi- leges. When James II. published his declaration for liberty of conscience, thinking to introduce popery, and command- *-es-- - - - 833 VINDICATION OF PROTESTANT DISSENT. ed the clergy to read it in all their churches, the great body of them refused. By this they said in effect. It appertaineth not unto thee, O king, to dispossess us of our privileges, and to give them to the ecclesiastics of Rome !—I hope then we may be excused if we feel equally zealous for the interest and eacclusive authority of Jesus Christ. If a go- vernment be solicitous to promote the interest of real Christianity, it should not be by making ordinances where Christ has not made them ; but by protecting men in the exercise of a good conscience, and encouraging them to obey the ordinances already made in the Holy Scriptures. Mr. R. holds up the piety of the Reformers: and we could hold up the piety of thousands who have refused conform- ing to their rules, as not answering to the model of the New Testament; and who were persecuted in almost every form on this account, and that by men who should have been “eminent for sanctity and sufficiency.” Mr. R. has hitherto argued chiefly in a way of defence ; but, imboldened by his success, he now commences an at- tack. “Many strong objections,” he says, “may be urged against a different ecclesiastical censtitution,”—p. 25. Let us hear them. “If you be solicited to depart from us, it will become you previously to consider whither you should go.” Very good. “Would any solid advantage be gained by the desertion of our ordinances, by the demolition of our Establishment, and by the appointment of another sys- tem 3–Ah! what incalculable evils would ensue !—How injurious to society and religion : " Mr. R., by “another system,” must mean that of infidelity; and does he call this a “ different ecclesiastical constitution?” I hope the persons whom he wishes to retain in communion are not inclined to this. “Insubordination and excessive profli- gacy” are consequences of leaving Christian worship, and not merely that of the Episcopal church. But allowing the best, that they thought of being Dis- senters, “What is that plan of worship,” he asks, “what the government and principles of that religious society you are invited to join?” Very good;—what are they? “They,” Dissenters, I suppose he means, “ differ from each other as much as they do from the Church,”—p. 26. If by “the Church’’ were meant her doctrinal articles, he might have added, and much more.—But those things should not be alleged against Dissenters which are common to all parties.—It is marvellous that Churchmen should pretend to be of one mind, and that at a time when the most ardent contentions divide them ; one party maintain- ing that the Articles mean this, another that, and a third that they have no meaning, but are merely articles of peace.* Have we Arminians?—So have they :-Arians?—So have they :—Socinians?—So have they :-Traitors, heady, high- minded, lovers of their own selves 3–So have they. The only difference is, our churches being independent of each other, we have no general bond of connexion, so as to com- pel us to hold communion with such people; but they have. We can, if so disposed, stand aloof from all these evils, and so escape the charge of being partakers of other men's sins: but they cannot ; for the church is one, and indivisible, in- cluding all descriptions of men who choose to frequent her assemblies. Her barriers, which protect the sacred symbols of our Saviour's death themselves against interested infl- delity and profligacy, are well known to be very feeble, and such as must, in various instances, give way to worldly ex- pediency. If, indeed, a particular parish church, wherein a godly clergyman officiates, were secluded from the rest of the nation, and he were not accountable for any thing which is done beyond the limits of his own immediate charge, the evil might be considerably lessened ; but it is not so. He that sweareth by this altar, sweareth by it and all things thereon ; actually holding fellowship with all the avowed Arminians, and disguised Arians, Socinians, and infidels, who in different parts of the land are admitted Without scruple to communion. It is further objected that we “almost all agree in giving the supreme direction and control to the people.” i. seems, then, we are agreed in something; in an article too, in which, as ministers, we cannot well be accused of “lording it over God’s heritage.” Whether the power of admitting members be as safe in the hands of the people, * See Overton's Thue Churchman. in conjunction with their pastor, as in those of the pastor alone, or not, surely that of excluding offenders, by a so- lemn act of the whole body, is as consistent with apostolical order as prosecuting them for their sins in a spiritual court; —See 1 Cor. v. 4, 5; 2 Cor. ii. 6. “They abolish all subscriptions to articles of faith.” It is true we do not require our ministers to swear to them ; looking upon the word of a Christian man to be as his oath. But it is not true of perhaps the major part of Dissenters that they subscribe no articles. Our public catechisms, which are used in instructing our children, and which, were they but established by civil aw– thority, would be accounted to contain as great a treasure as the Church Articles, are much more believed and regarded among us than the latter are among them. But, besides these, many of our churches express their leading principles in writing, to which not merely the minister, as in the Established Church, but every member, subscribes his name. And where this is not done, many of them are so attached to the Scriptures, and so well acquainted with one another, that no practical inconvenience arises from it. It is a fact that ought for ever to silence our accusers, that the minis- ters and members of the Church of England, with all their boasted security against error in virtue of their Articles, are become so degenerate that scarcely one in ten believes them ; whereas Dissenters, with all their want of security, do, two out of three at least, believe the doctrines con- tained in them The Church has more believers of her doc- trines among Dissenters than among her own members; and that notwithstanding the proportion of the former to the latter is probably less than as one to seven Yet “a society of Christians thus constituted, without establishing any test of orthodoxy, or forms of public devo- tion, though at their first union they may be sound in the faith, upright in their views, and exemplary in their con- duct, is likely to degenerate.” The word of Christ dwell- &ng richly in them, then, is no competent security, unless it be reduced to proper forms, and established by authority It is true that, “from the corrupt tendency of the human mind,” we are always in danger of degenerating ; but that Mr. R. should confine it to Dissenters, and talk of its being “confirmed by indubitable facts,” is passing strange. The Church of England, owing to her excellent means of pre- servation, is in no danger, it seems, of degeneracy The descendants of the first Reformers have not departed from their purity, either in faith or practice . The subscription of the Articles by the clergy, though scarcely one in ten believes them, has preserved not only themselves, but the people, who do not subscribe them, from error . And buildings—I should have said “temples”—which have once been appropriated to the promotion of evangelical religion, are never known among them to be applied to opposite purposes 1 “They leave the minister at large to offer up prayer and praise, according to the dictates and feelings of his own mind.” Just so ; and thus, for any thing that appears in the New Testament to the contrary, were the primitive ministers left. Where men are destitute of a praying spirit, it may not be safe to leave them “at large :” per- haps the more closely they are confined the better: but they that fear God have no need of being so treated. Those forms which Mr. R. so highly extols were originally the dictates and feelings of fallible individuals; and if it be, as he suggests, that “much evil results from such a mode,” why does he himself practise it? Are the dictates and feelings of his mind, being “a man under authority,” different from those of other ministers ? But the course of things among us tends to encourage “pride and contention.” That these evils are too preva- lent in our churches we shall not deny; they were so in the primitive churches, which also had their Diotrepheses as well as we. And is there no danger of clerical pride, and of many an official Diotrephes, in the Church 3 It de- serves to be considered, whether the peace of which the Church has to boast among her members, instead of being the fruit of meekness and brotherly love, be not rather the ease of indifference, and the stillness of ecchesiastical despotism. Where one man is all, the rest are nothing at all. What is urged under Mr. R.'s last head is built entirely 840 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. upon the validity of what was advanced before it. If the Church of England be not truly apostolical—if her doc- trines be neither believed nor taught by the great body of her clergy—if her forms be not binding on men's con- sciences, and ought not to be made so—if the ordinances of man, to which we are obliged to be subject, be confined to things of a civil and moral nature—the charge of “schism " falls to the ground. I doubt not but that there are many of the people of God in the Church of England; and perhaps Mr. R. will admit there may be some in the Church of Rome; and that it is their duty to “come out of her, that they partake not of her sins, and receive not of her plagues.” It is far from my desire to attack the National Church, or to interfere with its concerns, any further than is necessary to vindi- cate the practice of dissent from the reproaches heaped upon it by such writers as Mr. Robinson, I will not, like some nonconformists, complain of her hard terms of ad- mission; for if they were easier, or even abolished, I have no idea, at present, that I should covet to enter in. I re- gret not the loss of any advantages which I might there possess. Whatever be the articles and forms, or even the belief of a community, yet if it put itself under the control of the civil power in religious matters, for the sake of out- ward advantages, and acquiesce in the disposal of those advantages by interested patronage, this itself is a suffi- cient ground for separation. For where things are thus conducted, “the souls of men” are become an article of merchandise; and the Church is little other than an in- strument of power and aggrandizement in the hands of worldly men. This would have been an insuperable ob- jection to me, had I lived, and possessed my present views, in the purest times of the Reformation. Such a constitu- tion must of necessity confound the church and the world. All the difference between those times and these is, they sowed the seeds, and we have seen the harvest. We see in the great body of the members of this community, not saints, and faithful in Christ Jesus, such as were the mem- bers of the primitive churches; but men of the world ; men who would be ashamed to be thought “saints,” and who scruple not to deride all spiritual religion. A community of this description is not a “congregation of faithful men; ” and so, by the confession of the Church itself, is not a church of Christ. Whatever may be said of “schisms,” or divisions, among Christians, they are things very different from separations from the world. From the latter we are commanded to “ withdraw ourselves: ” not “altogether” indeed from men who make no pretence to religion; for then we must needs go out of the world: but from those who are called brethren, or profess to know God, but in works deny him. From such it is our duty to stand aloof, even in our ordi- nary intercourse ; and much more in solemn communion at the table of the Lord, 1 Cor. v. 9—13. In separating from the Church of England we conform to the Divine precept, “Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness 2'-'. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord ; and touch not the unclean thing ; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.” Not that we consider the whole body as unbelievers; but if the greater part be such, and the principles on which they hold communion make no provision for excluding them, it amounts to the same thing in effect as if they were all such. If a part of the people of God themselves resolve to hold communion with unbelievers, we ought to withdraw from them, lest we be partakers of other men's sins. In so doing, we do not divide from them as Christians, but as “brethren who walk disorderly,” refusing to follow them off their proper ground, or to assist them in breaking down the fences of the church, and so confounding it with the world. If it be objected, that the practice forbidden to the Co- rinthians was not their admitting unbelievers to commune with them in Christian ordinances, but their going to commune with unbelievers at heathen ordinances, this is granted ; but the latter practice is forbidden on principles which equally forbid the former. The impossibility of Christian communion subsisting between them, and their being called to be separate, are each as applicable to the one as to the other. If it be further objected, that where men profess Chris- tianity, we have no right to sit in judgment upon their hearts, but ought charitably to consider and treat them as believers, I answer, If the thing professed were genuine personal Christianity, and there were nothing in the spirit and conduct of the party that rendered his profession in- credible, this objection were valid; but where no pretence is made to any other than traditional assent, which in Turkey would have made them Mahomedans, and in China pagans; where faith is manifestly dead, being alone, or, what is worse, accompanied by the works of the flesh; where the very idea of being “born of God” is derided, and all spiritual religion regarded with contempt; to con- sider such persons as believers is an abuse of charity, and to treat them as such is to foster them in self-deception. The principles, moreover, on which the Corinthians were forbidden to commune with unbelievers in theory, equal- ly forbid our communing with unbelievers in practice. There can be no Christian communion in the one case, any more than in the other. “Light and darkness, right- eousness and unrighteousness,” are as impossible to be united here as there ; and a separation from the world is as impracticable in the latter case as in the former. The 'reason also given for the Divine precept applies in both instances. The apostle intimates that associations with the world, in religious matters, straiten believers, whom he wishes to be enlarged. Thus a lively animal is strait- ened in his efforts, by being unequally yoked with one that is tardy; and thus Christians are restrained from holy freedom, and the proper exertion of themselves in the cause of Christ, by their connexion with worldly men, who will always be throwing difficulties in the way of those pur- suits in which they have no delight. Finally, Notwithstanding what is constantly alleged of the usefulness of good men by continuing in the National Church, (and if there they must be, I wish them to be a hundred times more useful than they are,) I am persuaded it will be found that it is hereby not a little impeded. If the people of God, while they proved themselves to be the cordial friends of civil government and good order in so- ciety, could be Scripturally separated from the world, and act together like a band of men whose hearts God had touched, their usefulness would far surpass any thing that we have hitherto seen. Infidels would not then have to reproach Christianity with being an engine of state, nor to object that the prin- cipal supporters of it were too deeply interested in its tem- poral advantages for their testimony to be regarded as impartial. This is the reason why the writings of a WIL- BERFORCE, and others who are called laymen, make so deep an impression upon the public mind, in comparison of those of dignified clergymen. Many among the evan- gelical clergy, I acknowledge, have proved themselves to be very disinterested. They are far from making so much of their time and talents as they might do in other pur- suits. But the Church of which they boast is as much a place of merchandise as the Royal Exchange. The dis- interested testimony of a few people, who are united to- gether, not by a sectarian, but a truly catholic spirit, and whose life comports with their doctrine, speaks a thousand times louder in the consciences of men than the decrees of a council, enforced by all the authority, ecclesiastical or civil, which the greatest nation, or all the nations of the earth, can muster up. The army of the Lamb, by which he will overcome his enemies, is not described as connect- ed with the states of the respective kingdoms of the earth; but as a select band, acting immediately under his au- thority. He is Lord of lords, and King of kings; and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful. ------—º ON THE PRESENCE OF JUDAS AT THE LORD'S SUPPER. AFTER carefully reading the account of this matter by the four evangelists, it appears to me that Judas was not pre- ON DISSENT. - 841 sent at the Lord's supper, but went out immediately after the celebration of the passover ; and that, if the contrary were allowed, it would not effect the order of the dis- senting churches. With respect to the former of these positions, MATTHEw speaks of Judas as being present at the paschal supper, but says nothing of his being present at the Lord's sup- per, chap. xxii. 19—30. The whole of what he writes is perfectly consistent with his leaving the company im- mediately after the former, and before the commencement of the latter; but it makes no mention of it. The same may be said of the account given by MARK, chap. xiv. 16–26. JoHN is more particular. He tells us that, “having received the sop, he went immediately out,” chap. xiii. 30. Now the act of dipping the bread in wine, and so eating it, pertained not to the Lord’s supper, but to the passover. The bread and the wine were each dis- tributed separately in the former, as is manifest from every account we have of it; but in the latter it was not so, as is clear from Matt. xxvi. 23; Mark xiv. 20. John’s testimony, therefore, is very express, that the time of Judas’s going out was immediately after the passover, and before the Lord’s supper. The only difficulty arises from the account of LUKE, who, after narrating the administration of the Lord’s sup- per, says, “But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table,” chap. xxii. 21. The whole force of the argument taken from this arises not from any thing in the words themselves ; for “the table" may as well signify the paschal table as the Lord’s table; but merely from the order in which they are placed in the nar- ration. And as to this, Calvin, who entertained the opinion that Judas was present, acknowledges neverthe- less that, “though Luke hath set down this saying of Christ after the celebration of his supper, yet the order of time cannot be certainly gathered thereby, which we know was often neglected by the evangelists.” . But whether Judas was present at the Lord’s supper or not, it does not, as I conceive, affect the order of dissent- ing churches. It is no part of that order to sit in judg- ment upon the hearts of communicants, any further than as they are manifest by their words and actions. It is as making a credible profession of Christianity that we are bound to admit them, and not on the ground of any pri- Yate opinion that this profession is sincere. Should we feel in any case a secret dissatisfaction, owing to a want of that union of spirit which a profession of repentance towards God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ or- dinarily inspires; yet if what is professed be true religion, and we know of nothing that discredits the sincerity of the party, we are not at liberty to reject. Now such a communicant was Judas, allowing him to have been one. It appears by the other apostles applying the warning, given by Christ, to themselves in a way of inquiry, that they had no particular suspicion of him. And as to his character being known to Christ as the searcher of hearts, he did not act upon that ground in his treatment of men, but upon the ground of what they manifested themselves to be by their words and actions. If Christ's knowledge of Judas’s character warrants the admission of unbelievers and known hypocrites into the church, it must also war- rant the admission of them to the highest offices in the church; for “Jesus knew from the beginning who it was that believed not, and who should betray him.” ON DISSENT. THE longer a Christian lives, and the more he observes of what is passing before him, the more reason he will see for preferring a candid and impartial judgment of men and things. All parties in their turn declaim against pre- judice and party zeal, but it is not from declamation that We must form our judgment. If we wish to know the truth, we must read those who think differently from us, who, whether they be impartial towards us or not, will be much more likely to detect our faults than we are to de- tect them ourselves. These remarks have been occasioned by reading a cri- tique on “The History of Dissenters,” by Messrs. Bogue and Bennett, and some other kindred pieces, in the “The Quarterly Review for October, 1813.” This article, though manifestly written by one who is no more a friend to the puritans and nonconformists than he is to the present race of Dissenters, and probably no more friendly to evangelical religion in the Church than out of it, yet contains a con- siderable portion of impartiality towards individuals, and even his censures are often worthy of our attention. From reading this Review, as well as from perusing the volumes reviewed, there is one truth of which I am fully convinced; which is, that both eulogy and censure are commonly bestowed with too little discrimination, and often applied to communities where they ought to be confined to in- dividuals. If a few men excel in a community, such is the vanity of human nature that the whole must arrogate to themselves the praise; or if a few be guilty of impro- priety, such is the invidiousness of party zeal that the whole must be censured on their account. Could we be more discriminate, both in our praises and censures, we should be much nearer the truth, and what we write would be far more likely to do good. We can consent for every man to have his due, and to bear his own bur- den ; but are disgusted with those who are continually eulogizing their fathers that they may exalt themselves, and stigmatizing other men’s fathers that they may de- preciate their neighbours. In reading the lives of the puritans and nonconformists, I read the lives of men of whom, with all their faults, the world was not worthy; but if I be impartial, I shall find many of the excellent of the earth who did not rank with either of them; and among those who did, I shall find many whose principles and conduct it will not be in my power to vindicate. Hardly as the puritans were treated, if I had been one of them, and had held those intolerant principles which many of them avowed and carried with them into the new world, I do not perceive how I could have expected different treatment from others who were in power. I might have been treated more rigorously than I should have treated them, had I been in their place and they in mine; but the principle of intolerance is the same. That for which I should have suffered might also have been truth, while that for which I should have caused others to suffer might be pernicious error; but in a question of this nature, I should have had no right to take this for granted, seeing it would have been judging in my own cause. My rule ought rather to have been, to “do unto others as I would they should do unto me.” I am not able to windicate Messrs. Bogue and Bennett, whose praises and censures are both, as it appears to me, much too indiscriminate; but I can perceive that their reviewer, while chastising them, is continually exposing himself to censure for the same things. He seldom detects a fault in his authors without en- deavouring to fix it upon the whole body, by ascribing it to their dissent. Speaking of divisions and separations among Dissenters, he says, “This evil grows out of the principle of dissent. The minister of an establishment has no temptation from vanity, or the love of singularity, or any mere worldly motive, to labour in insignificant distinctions; but amongst Dissenters the right of private judgment is so injudiciously inculcated, that the men who are trained amongst them learn not unfrequently to despise all judg- ment except their own.” To say nothing of the tempta- tions which the minister of an establishment has, though he may not have these, it is sufficient to reply,–If un- lovely separations arise from an injudicious inculcation of the right of private judgment, let them be traced to that cause, and not to dissent; let them be ascribed to the abuse of the right of private judgment, but not to the principle itself, or to any necessary step in order to obtain it. An advocate for despotic government might object to the disorders of our popular elections, and to the violence of our parliamentary debates, and might tell us that in certain countries there is no temptation to such disorder and such violence; but we should readily answer, They have temptations as bad, or worse, of another kind, and the right of choosing our representatives, and that of free parliamentary debate, are of such importance to the well- & | 842 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. being of the nation, that the evils which they occasion are as nothing when compared with it. The right of private judgment in matters of religion is of such account, that we cannot part with it without making shipwreck of faith, and of a good conscience. As to the abuses of it, whoever is guilty of them, let him bear his own burden. The “schism which took place in the Evangelical Magazine” should not have been lugged in by this writer for an ex- ample, without having first made himself acquainted with the true cause of it. If I dissent from antipathy to a particular clergyman, or for the sake of gratifying my own will, or to feed my own vanity, I am what this reviewer considers me—a sectarian ; but if I dissent for the sake of obtaining liber- ty to follow what I verily believe to be the mind of Christ, I am not a sectarian in the ill sense of the term, nor in any sense except that in which Paul avowed himself to be one. By this writer's own account, if I continue in the Established Church, I must make no “profession.” That is, I must not profess to repent of my sins, and to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation : if I do, he will construe it into “a profession of being better than my neighbours,” which he tells me “is inconsistent with Chris– tian humility,” and insinuates that the whole is “Phari- saical hypocrisy.” This is certainly speaking out ; and standing, as it does, in direct opposition to the Divine command of “coming out from among unbelievers, and being separate from them,” renders it easy to determine the path of duty. The writer censures Messrs. Bogue and Bennett for ascribing almost every thing vicious and persecuting to Churchmen; yet he himself ascribes almost every thing Sour, litigious, and splenetic to Dissenters. He represents the intolerance of the puritans as if it were universal, and as if all that settled in America were of the same spirit. But (to say nothing of Roger Williams, whom he himself not only acquits, but applauds, as “the man whose name, if all men had their due, would stand as high as that of William Penn, as having begun the first civil government upon earth that gave equal liberty of conscience”) there was a broad line of distinction between those puritans who founded the colony of New Plymouth, in 1620, and those who a few years after founded that of Massachusett's Bay. The former were the members of Mr. John Robin- son, who had peaceably separated from the Church of Eng- land, and with his friends retired to Holland, for the sake of liberty of conscience; but the Massachusett’s people had never relinquished the principle of national churches, and the authority of the magistrate in matters of faith and worship. And it was among these people, and owing to this principle, that the persecutions in America were carried on. Of this there is a full account given in “Backus's History of the American Baptists,” vol. I. ; and as the Baptists bore a large part of those persecutions, they may well be supposed to know who were their per- secutors, and what were their avowed principles. The work of Messrs. Bogue and Bennett is considered by this writer as a fair specimen of dissenting principles in the present day, or as “representing the general tem- per of those to whom it is addressed.” But, so far as I have had the means of judging, it is considered among Dis- senters in a very different light. Some few may admire it; but all that I have heard speak of it consider it as deeply tinged with party zeal and revolutionary politics, and as being rather a eulogy on their own denomination than a “History of Dissenters.” I am not aware that the French revolution has promoted the cause of dissent; and if it were so, an increase on such principles is of no value. Men may leave the National Church, not on ac- count of what is wrong in it, but of what is right, in which case dissent itself must be wicked. Dissent is not a cause for a Christian to rejoice in, any further than as it includes the cause of Christ. It is ground on which may be erected a temple of God or a synagogue of Satan. That there are many among Dissenters who feel that “moral expatriation” which the reviewer laments is ad- mitted ; but the same is true of Churchmen. The num- bers, however, of both, have of late years considerably diminished.—Dissenters must ever be friends to civil and religious liberty, as it is their only security; but they may be this without turbulence, or envy, or spleen, or any of those unamiable qualities which this writer attaches to dissent. I believe it will be found that, from the be- ginning, those Dissenters who have separated from the Church of England for the purpose of forming churches according to what they consider as the mind of Christ, have been of a much more pacific spirit than those who, retaining the principles of national churches and the au- thority of the magistrates in matters of faith and worship, were always lingering after a comprehension in the Estab- lishment, and finding fault with particular ceremonies and forms that kept them out of it. That this was the case among the first settlers in America has been already noticed; and, so far as my observation extends, it is the case to this day. Those who dissent for the sake of being at liberty to follow up their convictions in promoting the kingdom of Christ will not be averse to the civil institu- tions of their country; and as to the ecclesiastical, unless called to defend themselves against the charge of schism, and such others as are heaped upon them, they would cherish no hostility. Being allowed to follow the dictates of their own consciences, they are willing that others should do the same. They dissent, not so much from antipathy to what they desert as from love to what they embrace; and they love and pray for the government that protects them in the enjoyment of it. They cannot approve of making the political prosperity of their country the supreme object of their pursuit, nor consent that the religion of Christ should be rendered subservient to it; and this, in the esteem of those who are otherwise minded, will often be ascribed to the want of patriotism ; but a wise and good government will know how to distinguish a contumelious behaviour towards them from a conscientious obedience to God ; and, while they properly resent the former, will not fail to respect the latter. STATE OF DISSENTING DISCIPLINE. It may be difficult to determine whether the apostles of our Lord, in the first planting of Christianity, were more intent on the conversion of unbelievers or the building up of believers in their most holy faith. It is certain that both these objects engaged their attention. In our times they have been thought to be too much divided. Towards the middle of the last century, several eminent men were raised up in the Established Church, whose labours were singularly useful in turning sinners to God; but whether it was from the advantages of their situation as Churchmen, or whatever was the cause, they and others, who since their times have been a kind of half Dissenters, have generally been considered as neg- lecting to form their societies after the model of the New Testament. And congregations of this description hav- ing considerably increased, apprehensions have been en- tertained that the order and discipline of the Scriptures would in time fall into general disuse. From a somewhat earlier date, many amongst Protest- ant Dissenters, too much attentive perhaps to the points on which they separated from the Church and from one another, began to neglect the common salvation, and to render the general theme of their ministrations something other than Christ crucified. Even many of those who retained the doctrines of their forefathers preached them in so cold and formal a way, that the spirit of vital re- ligion seemed to be fled. Hence many serious people forsook them in favour of a more lively and evangelical ministry, even though unaccompanied with the discipline and government to which they had been used. Hence arose mutual jealousies, and the distinction of regular and irregular Dissenters. Such, alas! is the contractedness of the human mind, that, while attending to one thing, it is ever in danger of neglecting others of equal if not superior importance. It is a fact which cannot be denied, that many, who have ex- hibited the common salvation with great success to the unconverted, have at the same time been sadly negligent T)ISCIPLINE OF ENGLISH AND SCOTTISH BAPTISTS. 843 in enforcing the legislative authority of Christ upon their hearers ; nor is it less manifest that others, who have been the most tenacious of the forms of church government and discipline, have at the same time been woefully deficient in preaching the gospel to the unconverted. But is it not possible to unite these important objects, at least in a good degree, in the manner in which they were united in the primitive times? One should think it were as natural for a minister, and a people, where God is pleased to bless the word to the conversion of sinners, to be anxious for their edification, as for parents who are blessed with a numerous offspring to be concerned to have them properly fed, and clothed, and educated. It is not enough that a company of Christians unite in a preacher, and make a point of going once or twice in the week to hear him, and after having exchanged compliments with him, and a few of the people, depart till another sabbath. That bids fair to be the true Scriptural form of church government which tends most to promote brotherly love, which bring the members into the closest religious con- tact, and which is accompanied with the greatest faithful- ness one towards another. IDISCIPLINE OF THE ENGLISH AND SCOTTISH BAFTIST CHURCHES. [Extracts from two letters to Mr. M'Lean, in 1796.] As to our churches, it would be very wrong to plead on their behalf that they come up to the primitive model. It is our great endeavour as ministers (and we are joined by a good number of private Christians) to form them in doctrine, in discipline, in spirit, and in conduct, after the example of Christ and his apostles. But after all that we can do, if reviewed by the great Head of the church, and perhaps by some of his servants who may be unconnected with us, there would be a few, or rather not “a few things against us.” Till of late, I conceive, there was such a portion of er- roneous doctrine and false religion amongst us, that if we had carried matters a little further, we should have been a very dunghill in society. Nor can this leaven be ex- pected to be yet purged out, though I hope it is in a fair way of being so. - In discipline there is a great propensity, in some churches especially, to be lax and negligent. In our annual asso- ciations we have been necessitated to remonstrate against this negligence, and to declare that, unless they would execute the laws of Christ upon disorderly walkers, we would withdraw from all connexion with them ; and such remonstrances from the associated churches have produced a good effect. It is not our practice, however, lightly to separate from churches or individuals. We consider the churches of Corinth and Galatia, and the great patience of the apostle amidst the most scandalous disorders; la- bouring to reclaim those whom others of less patience Would have given up, and separated from ; and wish as far as possible to follow the example. Your observations on the difficulty of reforming an old church are very just, and on its being better in some cases to begin by a new formation. ceeded in some places. Carey, for example, when he went to Leicester, found them a Very corrupt people. The very officers of the church had indulged in drunkenness, and the rest were discouraged ; and so discipline was wholly neglected. After advising with his brethren in the minis. try, brother Carey and the majority of the church agreed to renew covenant. Accordingly they appointed a day in Which they would consider their former relation as extinct, all who had heretofore been members, but upon this con- dition, that they subscribed at the same time a solemn declaration,-That they would in future execute and be subject to a strict and faithful discipline. This measure had its effect. Almost all their loose cha- racters stood out; or, if any signed, they were subject to a close watch in future. By these means the church was purged; and Carey, before he went to India, saw the good In this way we have pro- effects of it. A considerable revival in religion ensued, and many were added. Hence you may account for his language afterwards to the church at Leicester.” It is a great fault in some of our churches that they seem afraid to execute faithful discipline upon men of opulence. “The cause, they say, cannot be supported without them.” To this I have more than once replied, That a cause which requires to be thus supported cannot be the cause of Christ; and your business is not to sup- port the ark with unhallowed hands. If by executing Christ's laws your cause sinks, so be it ; he will never blame you for that. Another evil akin to this is a partiality for men of opu- lence, in the choice of deacons. I consider not property, but the use that is made of it, as entitling to religious re- gard. We do not fail publicly and privately to inculcate these things; but habits of this kind are not instantly, Inor easily, eradicated. You observe that “the commission of Christ is not fully executed, unless the converts are taught to observe “all things, whatsoever he hath commanded;’ and are brought into such a state of separation from the world, and of union and order among themselves, after the model of the apos- tolic churches, as puts them in a capacity for doing so.” To the whole of this I freely subscribe, whether we have attained to such a state of things or not. My views, and those of my brethren, are much the same as are ex- pressed in Mr. Booth’s “Essay on the Kingdom of Christ.” I am not conscious but that it is my aim to inculcate and practise “all things, whatsoever our Lord hath command- ed.” Some of Christ's commands, however, I suppose, we interpret differently from you. If I am rightly in- formed, you consider “the washing of feet, the kiss of charity,” &c., as formally binding on all Christians : we do not. We consider neither of them as religious insti- tutes, but merely civil customs, though used by Christ and his apostles to a religious end, as whatsoever they did, they did all to the glory of God. They were in use both among Jews and heathens, long before the coming of Christ. The one was a necessary service, the other a mode of expressing kindness. We conceive it was the design of Christ by these forms to enjoin a natural inter- change of kind and beneficent offices, even so as “by love to serve one another.” The usual forms of expressing this temper of mind were at that time, and in those coun- tries, washing the feet, &c. Christ therefore made use of these forms, much the same as he made use of the custom- ary language of a country, to convey his doctrines and precepts. But as neither of these forms is ordinarily used in our age and country, to express the ideas for which it was originally enjoined, the ground or reason of the injunction ceases; a literal compliance with them would not now answer the original design, but would operate, we conceive, in a very different way. It seems to us, therefore, not only lawful, but incumbent, to sub- stitute such signs and forms as are adapted to convey the spirit of the injunction, rather than to abide by the letter, since that is become as it were “a dead letter ; ” as much so as to disuse the original language of Scripture, and translate it into a language that can be understood. Herein we think we follow Christ’s example; he used the forms and customs of his country to express kindness and hu- mility; and we do the same. Whether we understand these commands, however, or not according to the mind of Christ, I hope, and for myself am certain, that we do not live in the known violation of them. The grounds on which you plead for the washing of feet, I should have no objection to. If you will come and see me, and it be any refreshment to you, I will cheerfully wash yours; and not yours only, but if the meanest Chris- | tian needed it, I do not feel that it would at all hurt my and the church book should be open for the signatures of pride to gratify him. I have pride, as well as other sins, but I think it does not operate in that way. My objection to the kiss of charity is not that it is become so obsolete that people would not understand it as a token of affection, but being confined in England to express the affection of relations, or of the sexes, it would be understood accord- ingly. Let such salutations therefore be ever so pure in * Periodical Accounts of the Baptist Mission, vol. I. p. 132, 844 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. themselves, we should not be able to “abstain from the appearance of evil;” and many scandals and reproaches would be raised. I have carefully, and, if I know my own spirit, candidly, examined the New Testament concerning the time of ad- ministering the Lord's supper. The result is, that I con- sider it as wholly discretional, as much so as the times for various other duties. Such is the form of institution, as repeated by Paul, 1 Cor. xi. 25, 26, “ This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come.” If any thing can be gathered from Acts ii. 42, which says that the disciples “continued sted- fastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers,” it is that it was done as often as they met together for worship ; but this was much oftener than once a week; for they “continued daily with one accord in the temple, and the Lord added to them daily such as should be saved,” ver. 46, 47. From Acts xx. 7, we learn that “the disciples came together to break bread on the first day of the week;” but it does not follow that this was their practice on every such first day. It might be so; but as Christ left the matter open, I sup- pose they acted accordingly. At Jerusalem, soon after the pentecost, it seems to me that they did it oftener than once a week; afterwards they might do it once a week. But if Christ has not fixed it, neither should we, lest we go be- yond the rule appointed us. I think few can have a greater dislike to titles than I have among ministers. That of “brother” is most agree- able to me. My brother Ryland, without his own know- ledge, desire, or consent, had a D. D. next to forced upon him. It was announced by Rippon in his register, and then people would call him by it; but I am persuaded he would much rather not have had it. He is a very humble, godly man, and he now submits to it, because he would not always be employed in resisting a piece of insignifi- cance. For my part, I think with you, but do not know whether any of my brethren think with me, that it is con- trary to our Lord’s prohibition: “Be ye not called Rabbi.” As to academical education, the far greater part of our ministers have it not.* Carey was a shoemaker years after he engaged in the ministry, and I was a farmer. I have sometimes however regretted my want of learning. On the other hand, brother Sutcliff, and brother Pearce, have both been at Bristol. We all live in love, without any distinction in these matters. We do not consider an academy as any qualification for membership or preaching, any further than as a person may there improve his talents. Those who go to our academies must be members of a church, and recommended to them as possessing gifts adapted to the ministry. They preach about the neigh- bourhood all the time, and their going is considered in no other light than as a young minister might apply to an aged one for improvement. Since brother Ryland has been at Bristol, I think he has been a great blessing in forming the principles and spirit of the young men. I allow, however, that the contrary is often the case in academies, and that when it is so they prove very injurious to the churches of Christ. STATE OF THE BAPTIST CHURCHES IN NORTHAMPTON SHIRE. 1. OUT of the twenty-three churches in this county, nine- teen are in villages, and four in market towns. Eleven are in connexion with the Northamptonshire and Leices- tershire association ; the other twelve are in no association. The average number of members in each church is about seventy, and of hearers about three hundred. 2. There are no two of them which meet for worship in the same village or town in consequence of any division among themselves. Such things may be borne with in some instances rather than worse; but they are not among the things which are lovely and of good report. Such things have existed among these churches, but they exist no longer. * This is far from being the case in the present day.—ED. 3. There are only three which meet for worship in towns where there are Independent congregations, or any other preaching which is ordinarily considered as evangelical ; and those are places so populous as to furnish no just ground of complaint on the score of opposition. If our object therefore had been to increase our number from other evangelical connexions, rather than by conversions from the world, we have acted very unwisely in fixing on the places where we should take our stand. It is acknow- ledged that many members of pedobaptist churches have joined us in consequence of their being convinced of be- lievers' baptism being the only baptism taught and exem- plified in the Scriptures; and that many of our members owe their first religious impressions to the labours of a Hervey, a Maddox, and other evangelical clergymen, whose names are dear to them and to us all. But the number of persons of both these descriptions fall short of that of persons who have been in the habit of attending our worship, or have come over to us from the ranks of the irreligious. 4. Of those who are not in the association, three or four are what are called high Calvinists, holding the doctrines of election and predestination in such a way as to exclude exhortations and invitations to the ungodly to believe in Christ for salvation. The rest, whether in or out of the association, consider these doctrines as consistent with ex- hortations and invitations, as the means by which the pre- destined ends are accomplished. There are individuals of a different mind in the other churches; for we distinguish between high Calvinists and Antinomians: with the former we do not refuse communion, but with the latter we do. 5. The greater part of these churches are not of very long standing. In 1689, when a meeting of the elders and messengers of more than one hundred Baptist churches was held in London, there were no messengers from this county. It does not follow that there were no Baptist churches in the county, but they certainly were very few and small. Half the present number at least have been raised within the last fifty years, and many of those which were raised before have much more than doubled their number since that period. The average clear increase of those churches in the county which are in the association during the above period is about seventy-five ; and pro- bably the clear increase of the churches not associated would be much the same. Several of those which are now flourishing churches were formerly small societies; some of them branches of other churches, supplied principally by gifted brethren not wholly devoted to the ministry, but labouring with their hands for their own maintenance, and that of their families. 6. If such has been the progress of things during the last fifty years, what may we not hope for in fifty years to come 3 Were the number of these churches even to con- tinue stationary during that period—and were nothing reckoned on but a diligent perseverance in the stated means of grace, only including occasional labours in ad- jacent villages, reckoning three generations to a century— a testimony will have been borne in each of them to a thousand, and in all of them to three-and-twenty thousand souls. And if on an average they may be supposed to contain fifty truly Christian people—for though we admit none but those who profess and appear to be such, yet it cannot be expected that all are what they profess to be— each church will have reared seventy-five, and altogether seventeen hundred and twenty-five plants for the heavenly paradise. But surely we need not calculate on their remaining stationary. If genuine Christianity does but live among them, it will both “grow and multiply.” If it multiply only in the same proportion as it has done in the last half century, in respect to the number of churches, and of members in each church, it will increase considerably more than fourfold ; and if from each of these churches should proceed only three or four faithful and useful ministers of the gospel—if especially there should arise among them only now and then “a fruitful bough”— say a Thomas, a Carey, a Marshman, a Ward, a Chamber- lain, or a Chater—“whose branches run over the wall” of Christendom itself; who can calculate the fruits 3 From a part of these churches, connected in association DECLINE OF THE DISSENTING INTEREST. 845 with others in the adjacent counties, within the last twenty years, has “sounded forth the word of the Lord,” into the very heart of heathen and Mahomedan Asia; and as the times foretold in prophecy, when “a little one shall become a thousand, and a small one a strong nation,” appear to be fast approaching, it behoves us not only to “ attempt,” but also to “expect great things.” Our chief concern should be that we may not disqualify ourselves for possessing these lively hopes by a relinquish- ment of the doctrine, the worship, the discipline, the spi- rit, or the practice of vital Christianity. That God’s “way may be known upon earth, and his saving health among all nations,” our prayer should be, “God be mer- ciful unto us, and bless us, and cause thy face to shine upon us.” We cannot impart that which we do not possess. I have seen, in those churches with which I have been most intimately connected, many things which have en- deared them to me. Particularly, a lively interest in evangelical, faithful, practical, and pungent preaching ; an attention to things more than to words; a taste for the affectionate more than for the curious ; a disposition to read and think rather than dispute; a spirit to promote the kingdom of Christ; in fine, a modesty, gentleness, and kindness of behaviour. I have been thirty years pastor of one of them ; and if there has ever been an in- stance of unkind or unchristian behaviour towards me, I have forgotten it. These things I have seen in some of our churches, and would fain consider them as the general feature. But truth obliges me to add, I have also seen things of another description. I have seen discipline neglected, apparently lest it should injure the subscription ; and if exercised, it has seemed to be more from regard to reputation in the eyes of men than from the fear of God. I have seen an evil in the choice of ministers; too much attention has been paid to the superficial qualification of a ready, off-hand address, calculated to fill the place, and too little to those solid qualities that constitute the man of God, and the serious, faithful, and affectionate pastor. I have also seen, or thought I have seen, in the choice of deacons, more regard paid to opulence than to those qualifications required by the New Testament. I have seen too much of a worldly spirit, and a conformity to the maxims by which worldly men are wont to regulate their conduct. I do not know that such things are more prevalent in these than in other churches; but, wherever they prevail, they will be a worm at the root of the gourd. It becomes us as ministers to inquire whether a large portion of these evils may not originate amongst us. If we were more spiritual, evangelical, and zealous in the work of God, things would be different with the people. We are apt to think, that if we have but made up our minds on the leading points of controversy afloat in the world, and taken the side of truth, we are safe ; but it is not so. If we walk not with God, we shall almost be certain in some way to get aside from the gospel, and then the work of God will not prosper in our hands. Ingenious discourses may be delivered, and nothing advanced incon- sistent with the gospel, while yet the gospel itself is not preached. We may preach about Christ himself, and yet not “preach Christ.” We may pride ourselves in our orthodoxy, and yet be far from the doctrine of the New Testament ; may hold with exhortations and invitations to the unconverted, and yet not “ persuade men;” may plead for sound doctrine, and yet overlook the things that “ become sound doctrine.” Finally, we may advocate the cause of holiness, while we ourselves are unholy. DECLINE OF THE D1SSENTING INTEREST. PART THE FIRST. ON looking over some of the late numbers of the Pro- testant Dissenter's Magazine, I observed a complaint of the dissenting interest being on the decline. It is true it was not the first time nor the only place in which I had met with this complaint ; I never before, however, found my thoughts so much engaged by this subject, or my mind equally inclined to make inquiry into it. That the dissenting interest has declined in many places I have no doubt; but whether this be the case with the general body is the question. If it be, it becomes us to make ourselves acquainted with it, and with its causes, that if possible the malady may be lessened, if not entirely healed. Yea, though it should not be the case with the general body, but only with a considerable num- ber of Dissenters, yet as “one member cannot suffer with- out the whole body suffering with it,” it is an object well worthy of attention. The present inquiry is naturally divided into two parts; one respects the fact itself, and the other the reasons of it. The present piece will be devoted to the former of these inquiries, which will be followed with a second, if it meets with approbation. Is it then a fact that the dissenting interest, taken in the whole, has, suppose I say for the last five-and-twenty years, been upon the decline 2 I do not pretend but that the subject has its difficulties, and it is very possible that I may be mistaken. The fol- lowing observations are however submitted to the con- sideration of the reader :— 1. It cannot be doubted by persons of observation that the generality of the clergy of this country have of late years lost ground in the estimation of the common people. To say nothing of their ignorance of religion, (the people being equally benighted may prevent their discovering this,) the oppressive disposition of great numbers of them in the article of tithes, their imperious carriage, and great inattention to morals, are matters that all men understand. On these accounts they enjoy but a small portion of the esteem of the people ; and hence perhaps, in part, arises a disposition to hear dissenting preaching in almost every place where it is introduced. Whether it arises however from this cause or not, so far as my observation reaches, it is a fact that there is a far greater disposition to hear dissenting preaching than there formerly was. I have for some time been in the habit of preaching, on the Lord’s day evening, in eight or ten villages round my situation, and never met with any interruption in so doing. The people attend with great decorum, from fifty to five hun- dred in number ; and I have no doubt but such congrega- tions might be obtained in a hundred villages as well as ten, provided ministers could be found that would go and preach to them. Popular prejudice, it is true, was kin- dled against the Dissenters a few years ago, by the disputes concerning the repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts ; but this has now very nearly subsided. Men who enter deeply into party prejudices may continue much the same, but the common people think little or nothing about it. 2. That part of the clergy usually termed evangelical may be said to be more in a state of competition with the Dissenters than any other; and the number both of preachers and hearers of this description has of late years much increased. Instead of considering this circumstance however as a matter of regret, many thinking people have rejoiced in it ; and that not only on account of its being favourable to the salvation of sinners, but as that which will ultimately, and which does already in measure, be- friend the dissenting interest. They collect large audito- ries it is true ; but they are very rarely composed of per- sons who leave our congregations. This is not the case however in the country. Their people are generally, and almost entirely, made up of persons who were always in the habit of going to the established places of worship, excepting some who attended no where. So far then we lose nothing by them. On the other hand, considerable numbers have been gained by their instrumentality, how- ever contrary it may have been to their inclinations. As the situation of such clergymen is not determined by the choice of the people, it often falls out that, after they have laboured in a place for a series of years, they are removed, and succeeded by others of a very different character. The consequence in almost all such cases is that the people turn Dissenters. There may be some difference as to the oper- ation of these causes between large cities and country towns and villages. On the removal of an evangelical 846 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. clergyman from a parish church situate in the former, the people may not be under the like necessity to become Dissenters as in the latter, seeing they can repair to others in the same city; and where this is the case, they may be more likely to form a party, and keep up a kind of compe- tition with the Dissenters. But this is the case chiefly, if not entirely, in London, and a few other populous places. In the country, which includes the far greater proportion of Dissenters, it is otherwise. I am acquainted with several dissenting churches, some of which have princi- pally been raised, and others greatly increased, by persons coming from under what is termed evangelical preaching in the Church of England. Similar observations might be made on the Wesleyan and other Methodists. It is rare that they gather materials at the expense of the Dissenters. But as their hearers be- come truly religious, and begin to read and think for them- selves, they are frequently known, either for the sake of better instruction or a purer discipline, to come off from their societies to ours. If I were inclined to act merely on the principles of a partizan, (which God forbid I should,) I would neither fret myself at their prosperity, nor use any underhand means of persuasion to bring them over. There is no need of either; they will come of their own accord, if they are only treated by us as we wish to be treated by them ; and the same might be said of the ad- herents of the evangelical clergy. 3. It may be difficult to ascertain, with any tolerable degree of precision, the increase or decrease of Dissenters throughout the nation. I am not competent to decide upon the state of things respecting them, especially in the city of London. Of the country, however, that part of it in particular which falls under my own immediate observation, and still more of my own denomination, I think I can form a pretty accurate judgment. In the county where I reside, there are at this time, of one only of the three de- nominations of Dissenters, twenty-four congregations. Twenty-five years ago, as far as my information extends, there were but seventeen. Three of these have since be- come extinct, but they consented to dissolve, and after- wards united with other dissenting congregations in the same towns; they are not lost therefore to the dissenting body. In their place ten new congregations have risen up. Respecting the other fourteen, I believe that none of them have, upon the whole, decreased, and seven of them have doubled, and some of them much more than doubled their number, during the above period. I do not mention this as a specimen of the whole king- dom. It may not be so in all places. If it were, the in- crease of the dissenting interest would be very consider- able ; but I do suppose that nearly the same things might be said of several other counties, as well as of that where I reside. I cannot give a minute account of any one of them, but I know of many new and large congregations in some neighbouring counties. A respectable minister, of a different denomination from myself, who resides in one of them, lately assured me that he believed the number of Dissenters in their county had within the last nine years increased a thousand. 4. If any estimate might be taken from the number of places of worship which have been raised within the last five-and-twenty years, I suppose there must be a consider- able increase. It is true they have not all been new con- gregations, but a considerable number of them have. It is not by these as it is by an increase of buildings in general, in large cities and trading places. These may be accounted for without supposing an increasing population. An increase of wealth, though there should be no alter- ation as to the number of the people, will produce an in- crease of buildings. Add to this, that, the enclosing sys- tem having been carried to a greater extent during the present reign than in any former period, multitudes have been driven from the occupation of husbandry, and other employments dependent upon it, to settle in cities, or large trading and manufacturing towns; by means of which the buildings in those places are of course increased. I know of no causes which will equally account for the increase of places of worship, and therefore am inclined to think it implies an increase of the number of worshippers. These are a few, and possibly but a few, of the mediums by which we may judge of the fact. Persons of more ex- tensive information may perhaps add to their number, and throw additional light upon the subject. Yet even from these alone, I am strongly inclined to think that the dis- senting interest, wbon the whole, is not on the decline. IPART THE SECOND, IN a former paper I offered a few reasons for doubting whether the dissenting interest be upon the whole in a state of decline. I admit, however, that some part of it is so ; and the design of this paper is to inquire into the reasons or causes of it. I have carefully looked over a sketch of a sermon on this subject which appeared in June last, and greatly ap- prove many of the remarks of the worthy author. Indeed there is nothing in his performance but what I do approve, except his passing over matters of a doctrinal nature, and confining his recommendations merely to those of conduct. What I have therefore to offer may be considered as an addition to his remarks. “I am not such an enemy to innovation,” any more than your correspondent, “as to think every principle false which does not exactly accord with the creed of our forefathers; but can easily conceive that in the course of several years, in which this kingdom has been favoured with the use of the sacred writings, some light may have been thrown upon some controverted points.” Neither do I think that, because various points have been disputed since their time, we must needs be nearer the truth than they were ; but, on the contrary, that it is very possible we may, by such blasts as have been suffered to blow upon the church, have moved in a degree from the purity of the gospel. Though we have a right to deviate from our ancestors, provided we can prove them to have been in the wrong; yet if the dissenting interest prospered in their hands, and has declined in ours, it affords a presumption, at least, that they were not in the wrong, and that a change of prin- ciple has been made to a disadvantage. It is a fact suffi- ciently notorious, that the leading doctrines of the great body of the puritans and nonconformists were, the fall and depravity of human nature, the Deity and atonement of Christ, justification by faith in his righteousness, and regeneration and sanctification by the agency of the Holy Spirit.—Now it is not for the sake of “retailing the ca- lumnies of our enemies,” but from a serious concern for the welfare of the dissenting interest, that I ask, Is it not a fact equally notorious, that a large proportion of those dissenting congregations which are evidently in a state of declension have either deserted the foregoing doctrines, or hold communion with those who have 2 I hope I need not repeat, what has so often been said by others, that there is something in these doctrines which interests the hearts and consciences of men, very differently from a mere ha- rangue on the beauty, excellency, and advantages of vir- tue ; or from any other kind of preaching where they are admitted. What is the reason that the generality of the parish churches are so thinly attended ? Is it any violation of Christian charity to answer, because the generality of the clergy do not preach the doctrine of the cross 2 There is nothing in their preaching that interests the hearts, or reaches the consciences of the people. They have “re- jected the knowledge of God, and God hath rejected them from being priests to him,” Hos. iv. 6. They are uncon- cerned about the souls of the people, and the people per- ceive it, and are not concerned to attend upon their minis- try. The same causes will produce the same effects, whether out of the Establishment or in it. If we have rejected the atonement of Christ, it is not difficult to prove that we reject the doctrine of the cross, which is the grand doctrine that God hath blessed, and will bless, to the salvation of men. If we reject the Deity of Christ, besides relinquishing the worship of him, which was manifestly a primitive practice, and withdrawing all well-founded trust in him for the salvation of our souls, we reject the only ground upon which an atonement can be supported, and by resting all its efficacy upon Divine appointment, render it “possible that the blood of bulls or of goats, or the ashes of a heifer, might have taken away DECLINE OF THE DISSENTING INTEREST. 847 sin,” Heb. x. 4. If we reject the doctrine of “justifica- tion by faith” in the righteousness of Christ, we are on a footing with those Jews who “attained not to the law of righteousness, because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law; for they stumbled at that stumbling-stone.” And if we reject the doctrine of re- generation and sanctification by the Holy Spirit, we need not expect him to set his seal to our labours. There are some amongst us who do not reject these doc- trines, but who nevertheless hold Christian fellowship with those that do ; and this, if I mistake not, will tend greatly to undermine their spiritual prosperity. Let no man be persecuted for his religious sentiments, not even an infidel or an atheist; but persecution is one thing, and declining to hold Christian communion with them is another. So- cinians are more consistent than some who would be ac- counted moderate Calvinists. They plead for a separate communion ; and a separate communion they ought to have. The ills which arise from a contrary practice are more than a few. If you admit into your communion, say four or five individuals, who reject the foregoing doctrines, you cannot, without appearing to insult those whom you have acknowledged as Christian brethren, dwell upon them in the ordinary course of your ministry. Generally speaking, there will be a bar to pulpit freedom ; and you must either displease your friends, or hold the leading principles of the gospel as though you held them not. I have no desire that any doctrine should be insisted upon in a litigious manner, or so as to supersede any other doctrine or duty of Christianity. But there are principles which ought to form the prominent feature of, I had almost said, all our discourses. It is a poor excuse for a Christian minister to make for his omitting in some way or other to introduce Christ that his subject did not lead to it. There is not an important subject in divinity, either doctrinal or practical, but what bears an intimate relation to him. And I must say, if any of these important doctrines are with- held, as being of little importance, or because there are individuals in the congregation who disapprove of them, a blast will assuredly follow our labours. Much has been said in favour of what is termed liberal- ity, and enlargedness of heart; but perhaps it may not have occurred to some, that the Christian doctrine of en- largement differs widely from that which is generally in- culcated in the present age. “O ye Corinthians,” says the apostle, “our mouth is open to you, our heart is en- larged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompence in the same —be ye also enlarged.” And to what means does the apostle direct, for the accomplishment of so desirable an object 3 Does he desire them to extend their communion? Not so ; but to contract it.—“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath right- eousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? and what concord hath Christ with Belial? and what part hath he that believeth with an in- fidel?” 2 Cor. vi. 11–15. This direction may to some persons appear highly para- doxical, yet it is founded in the reason and nature of things. For—(1) Christian enlargement depends upon “fellow- ship, communion, concord,” and a mutual participation of spiritual interests. If only a single stranger enter into a sºciety, there is at once a bar to freedom; and if a number of them be admitted, a general silence, or what is next to silence, ensues. The company may be enlarged, but their ºommunion is “ straitened.”—(2.) A union in Christian fellowship with improper Persons tends to impede the pro- gress of good men in the Divine life. It is, as the apostle supposes, like the “yoking” of a sprightly horse to a tardy ass: the latter will be certain to obstruct the activity and usefulness of the former–(3.) By such unions good men are frequently drawn into a sinful conformity to the world. The company we keep will ever have an influence upon our minds and affections, and will tend to transform us in a measure into the same likeness. It may be objected that the apostle does not here forbid them to have fellowship with professed Christians of differ- ºt.sentiments, but with avowed unbelievers, or “infidels.” This is true; but the general principle upon which he Proceeds is applicable not merely to fellowship with pro- fessed unbelievers, but with nominal Christians of certain descriptions. This principle is, that Christian enlargement ts not accomplished by extending our connea ions, but by con- fining them to persons with whom we can have fellowship, communion, concord, and a mutual participation of spiritual &nterests. There are few persons of serious reflection but who have seen and lamented the effects of a union between certain good men in the National Establishment, and others of a very different character, with whom, on account of their continuing in the Church, they are in the habit of associating. They are all professed Christians, and all unite together at the Lord’s supper; but there is no more foundation for Christian fellowship than if the one were what they are, and the other avowed infidels. Some of these good men, it is true, withdraw from all intimate ac- quaintance with persons even in their own communion who do not discover a love to the gospel, and form their acquaintance amongst those who do ; but others have been carried away and drawn into measures highly dishonour- able to their Christian character, and injurious to their usefulness in the cause of God. Now the same reasoning will hold good out of the Church as well as in it. If we form religious connexions with persons in whom there is no proper foundation for “fellowship, communion, con- cord,” and a mutual participation of spiritual interests, we in so doing become “straitened” rather than “enlarged.” Much has been said in favour of unity of affection with- out a wnity in principle. But such affection, if it can ex- ist, is very different from any thing inculcated by the gos- pel. Christian affection is “ for the truth’s sake that dwelleth in us.” It does not appear to me, however, that it can exist. From any thing that I have felt in myself, or observed in others, I cannot perceive any such thing as unity amongst men, except in proportion as they possess a congeniality of principles and pursuits. It is not possible in the nature of things that “two can walk together ex- cept they be agreed.” They may not indeed be agreed in all things ; but so far as they disagree, so far there is a want of union ; and the ground of affection between them is not those things wherein they are at variance, but those things wherein they are agreed. It argues great inatten- tion to the human mind and its operations to suppose that there can be affection, unless it be merely that of good- will, where there is no agreement. Those who plead for such affection are as much united in society by agreement in sentiment as other people, only that sentiment may be of a different kind. They may set aside an agreement in the great principles of the gospel as a ground of union, but they are certain to substitute something else in their place. They have their fundamentals and circumstantials as well as other people. , Whatever things they are which deeply interest the mind, whether they be things evangelical or things political, things which relate to doctrine or things which affect the order, form, and discipline of the church, these are our fundamentals, and in these we shall ever re- quire an agreement, while other things are dispensed with as matters of less importance. I am a Dissenter, and a rigid regard to Christ's kingly authority is in my esteem a sacred thing. For all the honours and emoluments in the Establishment, I would not pollute my conscience by subscribing to its Common Prayer, or conforming to its unscriptural ceremonies. Yet, I do not consider my dissent as the chief thing in religion. So to consider it would in my judgment be making it an idol; and if this were general, the dissenting interest would cease to be the interest of Christ. But I am per- suaded that at present this is not the case. May those things which are amiss amongst us be the objects of our attention, that we may not only repent, and do our first works, but strengthen the things which remain, and which are ready to die. AGREEMENT IN SENTIMENT THE BOND OF CHRISTIAN UNION. [Letter to the Rev. Samuel Palmer of Hackney, in 1796.] I HAVE no partiality, certainly, for the Established Church. I believe it will come down, because it is inimical to the 848 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. kingdom of Christ; yet I respect many Churchmen, and shall not refuse preaching in their pulpits, provided I may go on in my own way. Mr. Eyre pressed me to preach for him ; and, by complying with his request, I materially served the mission. As to Dissenters, I consider a dissent from the Church of England, or any other church, as affording no proper ground of religious union. The thing itself is merely negative. As Dissenters we are not necessarily united in any thing, except that we do not approve of the Church Establishment. We may be enemies to the government of God, and the gospel of Christ ; yea, we may be avowed infidels; and yet hold this. I therefore have no notion of throwing what little weight I may possess into the dissent- ing scale, merely as such ; though, if other things were equal, I should certainly do so. These remarks have no respect to my conduct at Hackney, but are in answer to what you say on that subject in general. The doubts which I expressed respecting your sentiments arose from no one's insinuations, but from reading a pamphlet which you published some years ago. It may now be fourteen years since I read it ; but I then thought it too much in favour of indifference to what I esteemed important truth. Since then, you know, we have conversed together; and, from the whole, I was inclined to hope that your regard to what I accounted evangelical senti- ments was greater than I had supposed it to be. And the general approbation which you have since bestowed upon my Letters on Socinianism left me no reason to doubt that, whatever might be your speculations on the modus of the Divine subsistence, you did not reject either the atone- ment of Christ or his proper Divinity. If I had reason to believe of any man that he did not call upon the name of the Lord Jesus, or rely upon his atoning sacrifice for ac- ceptance with God, I could not acknowledge him as a Christian brother, or pay him any respect in a religious way. But, by whomsoever these great truths are cordially admitted, I trust it will ever be the desire of my heart to pray on their behalf with the apostle, Grace and peace be with them : Now, however, you inform me that you “ reject no doc- trine from any dislike to it.” But if I were satisfied that the worship of Christ is idolatry, I think I ought to reject it with abhorrence. I imagine however you mean that, supposing you are mistaken in any of these matters, it is not from any bias of heart, but from mere mistake. I own that I dare not say so respecting any mistakes of which I may be the subject. I reckon that such is the perspicuity of God's word, that if I err on any important truth or precept, it must be owing to some evil bias to which I am subject, though I am unhappily blinded to it. You have “no precise ideas of the person of Christ, and you suppose that I have none.” We may neither of us fully comprehend that mysterious subject; yet you will admit that there is a material difference between the ideas of one who calls upon the name of the Lord Jesus and one who does not, but considers him as merely a fellow creature. You “despise the man who cannot maintain a brotherly connexion with another, because he thinks for himself.” I wish every man to think for himself, and also to act for himself; but if in the exercise of this right he thinks the Son of God an impostor, and his doctrine a lie, or lives in the violation of his commands, I think myself not only entitled, but bound, to withhold all brotherly connexion with him of a religious nature; not because he thinks or acts for himself, but because in my judgment (and my judgment must be the rule of my conduct) he thinks and acts wrong. We may think and act for ourselves, and yet do both in such a way as shall subject us to the just ab- horrence of every friend of truth and righteousness. The worst of beings thinks for himself: “when he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own.” You “do not desire the friendship of any one who makes a similarity of opinion the condition of it.” I am not fond of calling the great articles of my faith “opinions.” Paith and opinion are different things. If you mean sentiment, I acknowledge I do desire the friendship of many who make a similarity in the one the condition of the other, and am willing they should ask me any question they think proper concerning my faith. Nay, I may say further, I wish to be on terms of religious friendship with no man, unless he be a friend to what I consider the first principles of the oracles of God. Nor can I persuade myself that you, notwithstanding your strong language, will “despise” me on that account. If it be so, however, I must bear it as well as I can, Christian love appears to me to be, “for the truth’s sake that dwelleth in us.” Every kind of union that has not truth for its bond is of no value in the sight of God, and ought to be of none in ours. You tell me there are “those who consider me as unsound in other doctrines, but this does not diminish your regard for me.” Perhaps not : it were rather singu- lar to suppose it should. You have too much good sense, sir, to disregard me for what other people think of me. But if you yourself thought me unsound, you would ; or at least, I should say, you ought; and perhaps it may make you smile if I add, I should think the worse of you if you did not. As to others, who may think me unsound, I imagine they do not as such regard me ; nay, I hope for their sakes that so far they disregard me. I may think they misjudge me, and may wish to set them right. I may think ill of their sentiments, as they do of mine; but, while they judge me unsound, I neither expect nor desire their approbation. I had rather they should disesteem me than pretend to esteem me in a religious way, irrespective of my religious principles. All the esteem that I desire of you, sir, or of any man, towards me, is for the truth that in your judgment dwelleth in me, and operateth in a way of righteousness. I have heard a great deal of union without sentiment; but I can neither feel nor perceive any such thing, either in myself or others. All the union that I can feel or per- ceive arises from a similarity of views and pursuits. No two persons may think exactly alike ; but so far as they are unlike, so far there is a want of union. We are united to God himself by becoming of one mind and one heart with him. Consider the force and design of Amos iii. 3, “Can two walk together except they be agreed ?” You might live neighbourly with Dr. Priestley, but you would not feel so united with him in heart as if he had been of your sentiments, nor he with you as if you had been of his. You may esteem a Churchman, if he agree with you in doctrine, and be of an amiable disposition; but you would feel much more united with him if in addition to this he were a Dissenter. You may regard some men who are rigid Calvinists, on some considerations; but you would regard them more if they were what you account more liberal in their views, and more moderate towards others who differ from them ; that is, if they were of your mind upon the doctrine of Christian forbearance. Men of one age may have quarrelled about religious differences and have persecuted one another, as papists and protestants have done in France; and the same descrip- tions of men in another age may despise these litigations, as the French have lately done, and not care at all whe- ther a man be papist or protestant, provided he enters heartily into revolutionary principles. But all this arises from their having substituted the importance of an agree- ment in a political creed in the place of one that is re- ligious. Agreement in sentiment and pursuit is still the bond of union.—Even those who unite in church fellow- ship upon the principle of what they term free inquiry, or universal toleration, are in that principle agreed; and this is the bond of their union. They consider this as the all in all, and consent to exercise forbearance towards each other in every thing else. Such a communion, I confess, appears to me just as Scriptural and as rational as if a number of persons should agree to worship together, but consent that every one should be at liberty to act as he thought proper, and so admit the universal toleration of every species of immorality. Nevertheless, even here, a similarity of sentiments would be the bond of union. You can unite with men “who are not exactly of your sentiments.”—So can I.-But that in which I unite with them is not any thing in which sentiment has no concern. It is that wherein we are agreed that is the bond of our union; and those things wherein we differ are considered as objects of forbearance, on account of human imper- ON ORDINATION. 849 fection. Such forbearance ought undoubtedly to be ex- ercised in a degree, especially in things which both sides must admit to be not clearly revealed, which are properly called opinions, and are little other than mere speculations. And even in things which in our judgment are clearly re- vealed, there ought to be a degree of forbearance 3. much in the same way as we forbear with each other's imper- fections of a practical mature, where the essential prin- ciples of morality are not affected. You are “not a party man, and hope you never shall be, to please any set of people whatever.” I hope so too; but I wish inflexibly to adhere to the side of truth and righteousness, so far as I understand them, in every punctilio, in order to please God. - “A decided judgment on some points,” you consider as “unimportant, and think there is room for mutual candour.” If those points are unrevealed, I say so too; but I do not consider either the Deity or the atonement of Christ as coming under this description, and I hope you think the same. Without the former, we cannot with any consistency call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, which is the characteristic of a primitive believer; and without the latter, I need not say to you, sir, that the gospel is rendered of none effect. As to “candour,” it is due to all men, even infidels and atheists; but can- dour will not lead me to treat them as objects of Divine favour, but to speak the truth to them in love. Possibly you may think it unfair to reason as I have done from practices to principles, and that we ought to make a wide difference between the one and the other. But the difference, as it appears to me, is only as the dif- ference between root and branch. Faith is not a mere speculation of the understanding, nor unbelief a mere mistake in judgment. They are both of a moral nature, or salvation would not be connected with the former, and final condemnation with the latter. I ought perhaps to apologize for having written so Inuch, in the manner I have done; but I think you will not take it amiss. The collision of thoughts from persons who have been in different habits and connexions is sometimes of mutual advantage. If you should disapprove of my remarks, try and set me right, and you will be entitled to my grateful acknowledgments. . ON ORDINATION. RE-ORDINATION, AND THE LAYING ON OF HANDS. [To the Editor of the Biblical Magazine.] It having been the practice of some dissenting ministers to receive ordination but once, it became a question at a meeting lately held in the country whether a pastor re- moving to another church should be re-ordained. The ministers about to engage in such a service, considering ordination not as a designation to the work of the ninistry, (of which they find no examples in the New Testament,) but as a solemn appointment to office in a Christian church, Were of opinion that a previous ordination had no influence 9m an ºppointment to office in another church. They al- lowed that re-ordination is unprecedented in the New Tes. tament; and so also is the removal of a pastor from one church to another: if the latter were found, they sup- posed the former would accompany it. Sºme conversation took place at the same meeting also on the Scriptural grounds for the laying on of hanas in ordination. In favour of this practice it was alleged—1. That it appears to have been used in all ages of the Church Where persons were set apart to sacred work, Numbºyii. 18–20. That though often connected with the com. munication of extraordinary gifts, yet it was not always $9. It is not certain that it was for this purpose that hands were laid upon the seven deacons of the church at Jerusalem (Acts vi. 6); and it is certain that when the °hurch at Antioch laid hands on Saul and Barnabas (Acts xiii. 3) it was not for this purpose, seeing they were Possessed of extraordinary gifts already. In this case, they were ordinary persons who laid hands upon the ex- traordinary.-3. That when the laying on of hands was accompanied with the conferring of extraordinary gifts, it is doubtful whether they were imposed for that specific purpose only ; see Acts viii. 17–19; xix. 5, 6. 4. That ordination is expressed by laying on of hands: “Lay hands suddenly on no man,” &c. But that which is used to express or describe a practice, would seem to be an important, if not an essential part of it. Two of your correspondents have honoured me with their remarks on the above hints on ordination. If I add a few more, it is with no design to enter into any thing like contention on the subject. “Mr. Howe ?’ was a great and good man ; and, while he considered ordination as a designation to the Christian ministry, it is no wonder he should answer as he did. But I see no evidence de- ducible from Acts xiv. 23 that this is the Scriptural idea of it. Paul and his companions, having formed these be- lievers into Christian churches, proceeded to organize them with proper officers. These elders or presbyters who were ordained by the suffrage of the churches were officers in those churches, and not merely Christian mi- nisters appointed to preach the gospel wherever a door might be opened. Your correspondent C. speaks of “other passages which he forbears to quote.” If he can produce an instance of ordination being a designation to the Christian ministry as such, his argument will be estab- lished, but not else. Candour requires me to acknowledge, in reply to Amicus, that from what he has remarked on Acts xiii. 3, I suspect myself to have been under a mistake in supposing that the laying on of hands in that instance was by the church. My reason for thinking so was that the exercises of fast- ing and prayer were not likely to be confined to the pro- phets and teachers, and therefore not that of laying on of hands; but upon a review of the subject I incline to think that the latter was done by the prophets and teachers in the name of the church. The point however which was there attempted to be proved is not affected by this mis- take. This was, that the laying on of hands was not al- ways for the purpose of conveying extraordinary gifts; but whoever they were that laid hands on Barnabas and Saul, it could not be for this purpose, since it is pretty evident that they were possessed of them before. I may add, I do not consider this as an instance of ordination, but of the designation of two Christian missionaries to the Gentiles. Amicus speaks of “Saul not being yet ordained an apostle.” Surely he is here greatly beside the mark. Is not an apostle one immediately sent of Christ without any human authority? Did not Saul receive ordination to that office at the time of his conversion?—See Acts xxvi. 16–18, compared with Gal. i. 1, 12—17, and 1 Cor. xi. 1. With respect to the general question, on what grounds the practice of ordination rests among congregational churches, and wherein the essence of it consists, I am not prepared to enter into “a complete investigation of the subject; ” a close examination of the Acts and the Epis- tles with this point in view might possibly correct some of my ideas. At present I can only offer a few brief hints. Viewing the subject as I do, namely, as a designation of a person to an office in a Christian church, I find that in such cases the church made the election, and the apostles and other elders set him apart with prayer (as I suppose) and the laying on of hands, Acts vi. 3; xiv. 23; Tit. i. 5. Such is the general ground of my practice when I engage in an ordination. In doing this, I claim not to be a suc- cessor of the apostles, any otherwise than as every faithful pastor is such ; nor pretend to constitute the party ordain- ed a Christian minister, for this he was as being a teacher antecedent to his being ordained a pastor; nor to impart power or “authority to administer gospel ordinances.” It appears to me that every approved teacher of God's word, whether ordained the pastor of a particular church or not, is authorized to baptize 5 and with respect to the Lord's supper, though I should think it disorderly for a young man who is only a probationer, and not an ordained pastor, to administer that ordinance, yet I see nothing objection- 3 I - S50 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. able, if, when a church is destitute of a pastor, it were ad- ministered by a deacon or an aged brother; I know of no Scriptural authority for confining it to ministers. Nay, I do not recollect any mention in the Scriptures of a minis- ter being employed in it, unless we reckon our Lord one. I do not question but that the primitive pastors, whose office it was to preside in all spiritual affairs, did administer that ordinance as well as receive and exclude members ; but as a church when destitute of a pastor is competent to appoint a deacon or aged brother to officiate in these cases, I know of no reason to be gathered from the Scriptures why they should not be the same in the other. The only end for which I join in an ordination, is to unite with the elders of that and other churches in eac- pressing my brotherly concurrence in the election, which, if Čt fell on what I accounted an unsound or unworthy cha- 'racter, I should withhold. Though churches are so far independent of each other as that no one has a right to interfere in the concerns of another without their consent, unless it be as we all have a right to exhort and admonish one another, yet there is a common union required to sub- sist between them, for the good of the whole; and so far as the ordination of a pastor affects this common or ge- neral interest, it is fit that there should be a general con- currence in it. It was on this principle, I conceive, rather than as an exercise of authority, that the apostles, whose office was general, took the lead in the primitive ordina- tions. When the churches increased, they appointed such men as Timothy and Titus to do what they would have done themselves, had they been present; and when all extraordinary officers ceased, the same general object would be answered by the concurrence of the elders of the surrounding churches. Though the apostles and other extraordinary officers in the church had an authority which no ordinary pastor, or company of pastors, possess; yet in many things they did no more than what would be lawful for others to do, if they could and would do it. If they planted churches, set them in order, and ordained elders over them, it was not because the same things would not have been valid if done without them, but because they would not have been done. Let but churches be planted, set in order, and Scripturally organized; and whether it be by apostles, evangelists, or ordinary pastors, all is good and acceptable to Christ. Paul left Timothy at Ephesus that he might “charge some that they taught no other doctrine.” But if the Ephesian teachers had been of them- selves attached to the truth, neither Paul nor Timothy would have been offended for their interference being ren. dered unnecessary. Titus was left in Crete, “to set in order the things that were wanting, and to ordain elders in every city;” but if things were but set in order, and proper elders ordained in the churches of Crete, it were no matter whether Paul the apostle, Titus the evangelist, or the wisest of their own elders, take the lead in it. Let them but have had wisdom and virtue enough in the island to have accomplished these ends, and Paul would have “re- joiced in beholding their order, and the stedfastness of their faith in Christ.” VALIDITY OF LAY ORDINATION. WHILE I was at Aberdeen, I was waited upon by a depu- tation, consisting of the pastor, a deacon, and another member of a little Baptist, church, lately formed at New Byth, near Old Deer, Aberdeenshire. A Baptist minister, now in Norfolk, was the Episcopal minister at Old Deer, till the year 1799. At that time his views were altered concerning baptism ; and he went to London, and was baptized by Mr. Booth. Soon after a Baptist church of ten members, out of his former congregation, was formed in the neighbourhood. The church then proceeded to choose one of their members to be their pastor; and on March 26, 1803, they set him apart to that office by prayer. Some of the members however were not satisfied as to the validity of his ordination, seeing there were no pastor or * Though this article has no immediate connexion with the subject of ordination, its insertion here is deemed advisable from its relation to pastors from other churches present to join in it. A few of them had communed together at the Lord’s table ; but the rest stood aloof, merely on this account. Their errand to me was to request my judgment on the validity of his ordination; and, if I thought it invalid, that I would come and ordain him. I told them, if there had been any other pastors of churches within their reach, it would have been proper to request their concurrence and assistance; and that, if I had been there at the time, I should have had no objection to join in prayer, and in the laying on of hands. But as things were, I could not see how they could have acted otherwise than they had done. And as to my now ordain- ing him, I could do no such thing; partly because it would imply that I thought him not as yet their pastor, which was not true; and partly because it would convey an idea of my having to impart to another minister some power or authority, of which I had no conception. My advice was that they should all be satisfied with what was done. ADMINISTERING THE LORD'S SUPPER WITH_ OTT ORDINATION. [Addressed to a young Minister.] RELATIVE to your question, I must say, it appears to me very wrong to administer the Lord's supper without ordi- nation, as it goes to render void that ordinance. Ordina- tion of elders, in every church, was a practice of the first churches, (Acts xiv. 23,) and we should not make light of it. It is calculated to keep out unworthy characters from the churches. There was a Mr. , that would have settled at 9 if we, as ministers, would have been at his ordination ; but we knew the man to be of a bad character, and refused it. The consequence was, he stopped awhile, and then left, and went into , where he made great havoc of some of their churches. Ordination seems originally intended for guarding against bad characters (1 Tim. v. 22); I have, therefore, been much concerned to see the practice of administering the Lord’s supper obtain prior to it; which tends to set it aside ; and will, I am persuaded, be a source of many mis- chiefs in the churches. I am told of a very respectable church, which has lately fallen a prey to a designing man, whom they have ordain- ed. As none of the neighbouring ministers would attend, they determined to do without them. The consequence, I doubt not, will be mischiefs incalculable.—I do not sup- pose these would occur in your case; but you should not make light of an ordinance of Christ, and which, in other cases, may be of great importance. ADMINISTERING THE LORD'S SUPPER. WITHOUT A MINISTER.3% [Substance of the reply given (in 1805) to a Baptist church in Edin- burgh, who, being destitute of a pastor, had communicated at the Lord's table without the assistance of a minister, and requested the author's opinion of the validity of their practice.] I ToI.D them that probably there were few of my brethren who might be of my mind; but I had long been of opinion that there was no Scriptural authority for confining the administration of the Lord’s supper to a minister. I had no doubt but that the primitive pastors did preside at the Lord’s table, as well as in the reception and exclusion of members, and in short in all the proceedings of the church; and that, where there was a pastor, it was proper that he should continue to do so. But that when a pas- tor died, or was removed, the church was not obliged to desist from commemorating the Lord’s death, any more the topic of the preceding piece, and its amplification of a sentiment expressed in p. 849.—Ed. COUNSELS TO A YOUNG MINISTER. 851 than from receiving or excluding members; and that it was as lawful for them to appoint a deacon, or any senior member, to preside in the one case as in the other. Neither did I recollect that any minister is said to have administered the Lord's supper, unless We consider our Saviour as sustaining that character at the time of its in- stitution; and this silence of the Scriptures concerning the administrator appeared to me to prove that it was a matter of indifference.—Finally, I told them that it was not the practice of our English churches; that they, many of them, would send for the pastors of other churches to per- form this office; and that I for one had often complied with such requests. I could wish however it were other- wise, and that every church, when destitute of a pastor, would attend to the Lord’s supper among themselves. It is the practice of this and all the Baptist churches in Scotland to commemorate the Lord’s death every Lord’s day. I do not think this to be binding, but am persuaded there can be nothing wrong in it, and that probably it was the practice of the primitive churches. COUNSELS TO A YOUNG MINISTER IN PROS- PECT OF ORDINATION. MY DEAR FRIEND, I(ettering, Aug. 30, 1810. As it is very doubtful whether I shall be able to attend your ordination, you will allow me to fill up the sheet with brotherly counsel. You are about to enter, my brother, on the solemn work of a pastor; and I heartily wish you God speed. I have seldom engaged in an ordination of late in which I have had to address a younger brother, without thinking of the apostle's words in 2 Tim. iv. 5, 6, in reference to myself and others, who are going off the stage.—“Make full proof of thy ministry: for I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand 1’’ Your charge at present is small; but if God bless you, it may be ex- pected to increase, and of course your labours and cares will increase with it. If you would preserve spirituality, purity, peace, and good order in the church, you must live near to God yourself, and be diligent to feed the flock of God with evangelical truth. Without these nothing good will be done. Love your brethren, and be familiar with them; not, however, with that kind of fa- miliarity which breeds disrespect, by which some have degraded themselves in the eyes of the people, and invited the opposition of the contentious part of them; but that which will endear your fellowship, and render all your meetings a delight. Never avail yourself of your inde- pendence of the people in respect of support to carry mat- ters with a high hand amongst them. Teach them so to conduct themselves as a church, that, if you were to die, they might continue a wise, holy, and understanding people. The great secret of ruling a church is to convince them that you love them, and say and do every thing for their good. Love, however, requires to be mingled with faithfulness, as well as faithfulness with love. Expect to find defects and faults in your members, and give them to expect free and faithful dealing while connected with you : allow them, also, to be free and faithful towards you in return. There Will be many faults which they should be taught and en- couraged to correct in one another; others will be proper subjects of pastoral admonition; and some must be brought before the church. But do not degrade the dignity of a church by employing it to sit in judgment on the shape of * Gap, or a bonnet; or on squabbles between individuals, Which had better be healed by the interposition of a com: mon friend. The church should be taught, like a regiment of soldiers, to attend to discipline, when called to it, in a P.9per spirit; not with ebullitions of anger against an offender, but with fear and trembling, considering them- *Yes, lest they also be tempted. i.et no one say to another, Overlook my fault to-day, and I will overlook 39"s to-morrow;-but, rather, Deal faithfully with me to-day, and I will deal faithfully with you to-morrow. I have always found it good to have an understanding With the deacons upon every case before it is brought be- fore the church. Neither they nor the members have always been of my opinion ; and where this has been the case I have not attempted to carry a measure against them, but have yielded, and this not merely from prudence, but as knowing that others have understanding as well as I, and may therefore be in the right. In this way I have been pastor of the church which I now serve for nearly thirty years, without a single difference. A young man, in your circumstances, will have an ad- vantage in beginning a church on a small scale. It will be like cultivating a garden before you undertake a field. You may also form them in many respects to your own mind; but if your mind be not the mind of Christ, it will, after all, be of no use. Labour to form them after Christ’s mind, and you will find your own peace and happiness in it. Mercy and truth attend you and the partner of your Cares : I am, &c. A. FULLER. ON THE APOSTOLIC OFFICE. EUBULUs, in what he has written upon the apostolic of. fice, having expressed a wish for the subject to be ex- amined, I take the liberty of suggesting a few hints to his consideration. - Allowing the word apostle to signify a missionary, it does not seem to follow that calling an ordinary preacher, who is sent to publish the gospel among the heathen, by the latter name, is improper or “unscriptural.” The word 6takovstv, which is used of the office of a dea- con, signifies to minister to the wants of others, or to serve. A deacon was a servant ; but it does not follow that the application of the word servant to other persons as well as deacons is improper or unscriptural. A deacon was a servant of a particular kind; and such is the idea which the word conveys; but the term servant is more generic, and therefore is properly applied to persons who serve in other capacities as well as this. Every deacon was a servant, but every servant was not a deacon. It should seem that the same may be said of attoo toxos, the term used to express the office of an apostle. It sig- nifies a messenger or missionary ; but it does not follow that the application of either of these terms to other per- sons as well as apostles is improper or unscriptural. An apostle was a messenger, or missionary, of a particular kind ; and such is the idea which the word conveys; but the terms messenger and missionary are more generic, and therefore are properly applied to any persons who are sent with a message to a distance. Every apostle was a mes- senger and a missionary, but every messenger and mis- sionary was not an apostle. Epaphroditus was the atroo- Toxos, or messenger to the Philippians to Paul (Phil. ii. 25); and those who are called in our translation “the messengers of the churches” (2 Cor. viii. 23) are denomi- nated by the same name, atroatoxoi. The word also that is used for the sending out of ordinary preachers of the gos- pel among the heathen, properly means to send on a mis- sion ; and is the same (with only the difference of the verb and the noun) as that which is rendered an apostle. “How shall they call on him in whom they have not be- lieved 3 and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preach- er ? and how shall they preach, except atrogºta)\wort, they be sent 2'' Rom. x. 14, 15. Upon the whole, I hope EUBULUs will reconsider his censure of the translators, for naturalizing the term attoo- Toxot, when applied to those messengers immediately com- missioned by Christ, by rendering it apostles, rather than translating it messengers or missionaries. The naturaliza- tion complained of resembles, in this instance at least, that of the common name by which we denominate the Holy Scriptures, calling them the Bible, from 343\os, the book. To have translated this, and called it the book, would not have distinguished it from certain parts of it, which also bear that name, Matt. i. 1. But to call it the Bible sug- gests the very idea required ; that is, the book by way of eminence, the book of books. So attoo toxou, if translated messengers, or missionaries, would not have distinguished the twelve disciples from other messengers, or mission- 3 I 2 852 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. aries; but, rendered apostles, it conveys the true idea ; namely, that of messengers of an eactraordinary kind, or messengers by way of eminence. ON TERMS OF COMMUNION. REMARKS ON INFANT BAPTISM AND INFANT COMMUNION. [In reply to some papers written by the Rev. S. Newton, of Norwich.] THE piece by “An Old Congregationalist” seems to in- vite an answer from both Baptists and Paedobaptists. If the following remarks be acceptable on behalf of the former, they are at your service. Whether or not I can convince your respectable corre- spondent, (with whom, if I am not mistaken, I have some acquaintance,) I hope he will allow what I advance to be “friendly,” and as free from “the air of angry contro- versy” as he can desire. That the plea for infant communion is equally valid with that of infant baptism you will not expect me to dispute. If I could be convinced of the one, I see no reason why I should scruple the other. If one of your Paedobaptist cor- respondents should think proper to answer in behalf of his brethren, it will belong to him to point out the grounds for admitting the former while he rejects the latter. My share of the answer is merely to notice the arguments for infant communion taken from the Scriptures, or from other ac- knowledged duties. We are accused at the outset of having, “without a Di- vine precept, separated the children of believers from the church of God.” To this I answer—l. Allowing them to have been in the church under the Old Testament, it does not follow that they should be members of churches under the New Testament. “A Congregationalist” must admit of a very material difference in the constitution of the church under these different dispensations; so material as that the laws of admission to the one are no rule by which to judge of the other. If he will not, however, he must consider as members of the church, not only his own chil- dren, but all that are born in his house, or bought with his money. Or if he refuse this consequence, he brings upon himself his own charge, of separating the poor servants from the church of God, without a Divine precept. Should he in this case allege that there is no precept or example in the New Testament for admitting them, he would fur- mish an answer which is no less applicable to the other.— 3. But before the charge of separating the children of be- lievers from the church of God had been preferred, it should have been proved that they, as such, were ever in it. Unless the whole Israelitish nation were believers, it could not be as the children of believers that their descendants Were admitted to Divine ordinances. If “ the habits and practices of the Jews” prove anything, they will prove too much, at least for a “Congregationalist.” They will not only require the admission of servants born in the house, or bought with money, but the very constitution of the church must be national. Their children and servants must not only be admitted in infancy, but continue in full communion when adults, though there should be no proof of their being any other than graceless characters. . . But Wº agree, it is said, “to take our children to family and public Worship; to teach them to read the Bible with seriousness and attention, instruct them in catechisms and in private Prayer; for all which they have no more under- standing than for the Lord's Supper.” It is not however for want of understanding that we object to it, but the want of Scripture precept or example. If God had re- quired it, or the first churches practised it, we should think ourselves as much obliged to bring our children to the Lord's supper as the Israelites were to bring theirs to the Passover. It appears to me that great mistakes have arisen from confounding moral obligations with positive institutes. The former are binding on all mankind, and therefore re. quire to be inculcated on every one within the reach of our influence ; the latter are limited to a part of mankind, usually described in the institutions themselves. The one being founded in our relation to God and one another, and approving themselves to the conscience, require neither precept nor precedent, but merely a general principle which shall comprehend them ; the other, having their origin merely in the sovereign will of God, require a punctilious adherence to what is revealed concerning them. While we engage in what is purely moral, and what is therefore right for every one to engage in, we incur no re- lative guilt, whatever be the motives or even the manifest characters of those who unite with us, any more than in contributing with an irreligious man to the relief of the poor; but in what is positive, if the parties with whom we unite be virtually excluded by the institution, we are accessory to their doing what, in their present state of mind, they have no right to do. For want of attending to this plain distinction, some have gone so far as to refuse to engage in public prayer in a promiscuous assembly, and even to join in family worship, if any were present whom they accounted unbelievers. Proceeding on the same principle, the “Congregationalist” appears to me to err in the opposite extreme ; arguing from our joining in what is right for all men that we ought to join in what the Scriptures limit to certain characters. The appeal is next made to the New Testament. Here it becomes us to be all attention. “Were not the first churches composed of households?” That there were some households in them is clear; and we have some in many of our churches. But why did not the “Congregational- ist” prove that some of them at least were infants If he could have done this, all his other arguments might have been spared. It might indeed be supposed that households will ordinarily consist of some of this description; and if we were not given to understand the contrary in these in- stances, the presumption might appear in favour of this supposition. But it so happens that each of these house- holds appears from the Scripture accounts to have been composed of believers, Acts xvi. 34–40; 1 Cor. i. 16; xvi. 15. “Were not parents told, if they believed, they and their house should be saved 3” The head of one family was thus addressed : “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” But surely the meaning of this is, that if he and his house believed, they should all be saved. If Paul and Silas meant to say his house should be saved, though he only believed, why is it added in the next verse, “And they spoke unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house ?” The Pharisees seemed desirous of establishing their claim on the ground of having Abraham to their father; but John the Baptist did not allow of it, but intimated that the axe was now laid to the root of the tree, and that every tree which brought not forth good fruit should be hewn down and cast into the fire. Who would have thought that “An Old Congregationalist” could have pleaded, not merely for the admission of children to Christian ordinances in virtue of the faith of their parents, but for their being actually saved 2 I have heard of certain professors of re- ligion in the fens of Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire who hold this opinion with great earnestness, and who on the ground of their forefathers’ faith rest assured of salvation, whatever be their own characters; but I should not have expected such a notion to have found an advocate in your worthy correspondent. “Is there an instance of an adult descendant of a be- liever that was admitted into the church throughout the whole of the New Testament 3’” Yes, several. All the households before mentioned were adults, and some of them were doubtless descendants from the heads of those families. But I suppose your correspondent means there is no instance of there being admitted at a distance of time after their parents. And this I believe is true. But it is equally true that there is no instance of a wife, a husband, or a child, being converted after their partners or their parents ; cases which nevertheless, no doubt, fre- quently occurred. The truth is, the New Testament is a history of the first planting of the church, and not of its progress. If such evidence as this amounts to “a moral certainty” that children were received into the church with their parents, I am at a loss what to denominate un- certainty. - ON TERMS OF COMMUNION. 853 The Scriptures inculcate a strict and holy discipline, both in the church and in the family; and I cannot but consider it as a strong presumption against the practice for which your correspondent pleads, that the command to “bring up our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord’” is addressed not to ministers or churches, but to parents. Nor is there, that I recollect, in all that is said in the apostolic Epistles, to parents or children, a word which implies the latter to have stood in the relation of church members. There is some ingenuity in what is said in answer to objections; and if moral and positive duties must be con- founded, and we are driven to reason from analogy on the one as well as the other, there may be some force in it. But if positive institutes require Scripture precept or ex- ample, the want of these must needs be the grand, and, I suspect, the insurmountable objection. STRICTURES ON THE REV. JOHN CARTER’s “THOUGHTS ON BAPTISM AND MIXED COMMUNION, IN THREE LETTERS TO A FRIEND ; IN WHICH SOME ANIMADVERSIONS ARE MADE ON THE REV. ABRAHAM BOOTH’s APOLOGY.” THE “Paedobaptist” addresses his pamphlet to a Baptist. The first letter gives the author's reasons for his own practice. The two others are in favour of a mixed com- munion between Baptists and Paedobaptists at the Lord's table. We pass over that part of his piece which relates merely to baptism, with only observing that the author in pleading for sprinkling is not so convinced of it as to think his own side “exclusively right.” In the second and third letters, where he pleads for mixed communion, it is observable too that he admits the principle of the strict Baptists; namely, that baptism is an indispensable prerequisite to fellowship at the Lord’s table. But he thinks that each may acknowledge the validity of the other's baptism, and endeavours to persuade his corre- spondent that he ought not, unless he can establish his claim to infallibility, to consider himself as earclusively right ; that is, he would have him allow that those who have been sprinkled in infancy are baptized, though it may be in his judgment not in so Scriptural a manner as himself. He censures Mr. Booth with some severity for assuming in his “Apology” that Paedobaptists are unbap- tized, and that their thinking themselves otherwise is a Jalse persuasion. Finally, he disclaims any dominion over the faith of the Baptists, and thinks the Baptists ought to claim none over his. To the above reasoning we suppose a strict Baptist, it may be his correspondent, would answer nearly as follows: I feel obliged to you, dear sir, for your kindly inviting me and my brethren to unite with you in commemorating the death of our common Lord. I give you full credit for the brotherly affection by which you are influenced, and should be happy if this wall of separation could be re- moved, without our dispensing with an ordinance of Christ. As the ground of our union, you propose to me a principle which, if it could be admitted, would, I ac- knowledge, accomplish the end. But do you not perceive that, in admitting it, I must relinquish not merely my Practice of strict communion, but my principles as a Bap- ºst, or, if you please, as an Antipardobaptist, and either re- fuse to baptize any in future who have been sprinkled in their infancy, which the far greater part have been, or, When I do so, be guilty of rebaptizing them, and thus be: Some in reality, what I have hitherto disowned with ab- horrence, an Anabaptist? ºn your last letter you say, “It is certainly just and right that each should act upon his own principles.” And *9 doubt if a union were accomplished it must proceed on this ground. But your second and third letters require * to relinquish what is essential to our being Antipaedo- baptists, and insist, as I just now said, on our either & Wing, up the practice of baptizing those who have been *Prinkled in their infancy, or becoming avowed Anabap- tists. If indeed our principles as Antipaedobaptists be un- scriptural, they ought to be relinquished ; but I do not perceive, from any thing you have advanced, that they are so ; and, in pleading for mixed communion, it is not your professed object to prove them so. I make no pretence to being infallibly right, neither do you, I dare say, in any of your religious sentiments; yet there are many things in which you certainly consi- der yourself, and those of your mind, as eacclusively so. In the same light I consider my views of baptism. You express astonishment and offence at Mr. Booth’s saying that in our judgment you are unbaptized. But I am no less astonished that you, who have known so much of us, should yet have to learn that it is not possible for a Bap- tist to consider you in any other light. The moment he does so he ceases to be a Baptist. Yes, sir, in our judg- ment you are unbaptized; and our judgment must decide our practice. You have doubtless a right to judge for yourselves, and far be it from us to wish to deprive you of any part of that inalienable privilege; but in a question of communion, in every thing necessary to it, which you. allow baptism to be, our judgment and yours must coincide. If Mr. Booth had been reasoning with you, he would not have taken it for granted that you were baptized. But when reasoning with the Baptists, he had a right to do so; nor is there any cause for you to be offended at it. There would be an end of argumentation, if what is al- lowed on both sides of a controversy to be false may not be called so. Admitting the validity of our baptism, you are willing to receive us to communion ; while we cannot admit the validity of yours, and so cannot consent to commune with you. This you seem to think hard, and consider our conduct as claiming dominion over your faith. But on what ground is it that you admit the validity of our bap- tism : Is it merely because we think ourselves baptized No ; we are baptized in your judgment, as well as in our own. In receiving us, therefore, you are not obliged to act contrary to your principles. But the case is other- wise with us. We verily believe you to be unbaptized, not merely as being only sprinkled, but as receiving it at a time when you could not actively “put on Christ,” which “ as many as were baptized ” in primitive ages did, Gal. iii. 27. In receiving you, therefore, we must of necessity act contrary to our principles, by uniting with those at the Lord’s table whom we believe to be unbaptized. The result is—the dispute between us on mixed communion is at an end. If we err, it is as Baptists, by considering in- fant baptism as invalid. You have no hope it seems of our ever coming together, unless we could allow your baptism to be valid; that is, unless we could retract the principles of antipaedobaptism. There is one other way left, however, and that is, by your retracting those of paedobaptism ; and why should we not hope for the one as well as you for the other ? The controversy on strict and mixed communion, in respect of baptism, is reducible to three questions.—(1.) Is baptism necessary to communion at the Lord’s table 3 (2.) Is a being immersed on a profession of faith necessary to baptism 3 (3.) On whom does the duty of judging what is baptism devolve—on the party baptized, or on the church, or on both 3 The first was denied by John Bunyan; but, being ge- nerally admitted by Paedobaptists, they are not entitled to his arguments. Those who follow Bunyan are chiefly Bap- tists who admit of mixed communion; and Bunyan him- self was of this denomination. Against these Mr. Booth’s Apology is chiefly directed. - The denial of the second is ground proper for Paedobap- tists. But if they make it good against the Baptists, they convict them of error as Baptists rather than as strict Bap- tists. Of the third much has been said by the friends of mixed communion, both among Baptists and Paedobaptists. None, we apprehend, will plead for a church being the judge of what is baptism, to the exclusion of the candidate. The question is therefore reduced to this : Is it for the candi- date exclusively to judge what is baptism ; or is it neces- sary that his judgment and that of the church should co- incide upon the subject? 854 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. If baptism be not necessary to communion ; or, though it be, yet if immersion on a profession of faith be not ne- cessary to baptism ; or, though it be, yet if the candidate for communion be the only party with whom it rests to *udge what is baptism; then the strict communion of the Baptists seems to be wrong. - But if baptism be necessary to church communion, and immersion on a profession of faith be necessary to baptism, and it be the duty of a church to judge of this as well as of every other prerequisite in its candidates, then the strict communion of the Baptists seems to be right. THoughts ON OPEN COMMUNION, IN A LETTER TO THE REV. W. WARD, MISSIONARY AT SE- RAM Por E, DATED SEPT. 21, 1800. “The colours with which wit or eloquence may have adorned a false system will gradually die away, sophistry be detected, and every thing estimated, at length, according to its true value.”—Hall's .4p0- logy.yor the Freedom of the Press. - IN answer to your question, “Do not the bounds of Scrip- twral communion eacterid to all who are real Christians, eac- cept their practice is immoral, or they have embraced dam- gerous heresies 2° There are three different grounds on which mixed com- munion is defended :-1. That baptism is not essential to church communion. 2. That, if it be, adult immersion is not essential to baptism. 3. That, if neither of these be true, yet the right of judging what is and what is not bap- tism lies in the individual, and not in the community. The statement of your question proceeds upon the first of these grounds; to this, therefore, I shall confine my answer. I observe you do not plead for communion with saints as saints; for, if so, you could not refuse it to any one, unless you thought him a wicked man : whereas your question allows that real Christians, if they are guilty of immorality, or if they have embraced dangerous heresies, ought to be excluded. This they doubtless ought to be, and that partly for the honour of God, and partly for their own conviction. They are a kind of lepers, whom the people of God should require to be without the camp. You admit that there are cases in which it is right for good men to be kept from church communion; but you conceive that this should be limited to cases of immorality and dangerous heresy. If there be any difference then be- tween us, it lies in your omitting to add a third case, viz. an omission or essential corruption of instituted worship. Without this, I do not see how you can justify your dissent from the Church of England, or even from the Church of Rome, provided you agreed with them in doctrine and in morals, and were satisfied respecting the piety of your fel- low communicants. - You must admit that, so far as primitive example is bind- ing, it has every appearance of establishing the necessity of baptism previously to communion ; all that were admitted to church fellowship were in those times baptized. And it appears that the one was considered as necessary to the other. John, the harbinger of Christ, came to “make ready a people prepared for the Lord,” (Luke i. 17,) or to prepare materials for the kingdom of heaven, which he an- nounced as being at hand. For this purpose he “baptized with the baptism of repentance,” (Acts xix. 4,) saying unto the people that “they should believe on him who should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus,” Acts i. 42. In other words, his object was to render them Christians and to baptize them. It was thus that they were “prepared for the Lord,” or rendered fit materials for gospel churches. Peter said, “Repent, and be baptized, every one of you.” Paul, in all his Epistles, takes it for granted that all Chris- tians were baptized, Rom. vi. 3, 5; Eph. iv. 5; Col. ii. 12; 1 Cor. i. 13; xii. 13. When baptism and the Lord's sup- per are alluded to, it is in conneacion with each other, 1 Cor. x. 2—4. You do not pretend that any of the primitive Christians were unbaptized. All you allege is from analogy, or that the apostles dispensed with various other things, which you suppose to have been of equal importance; and that, there- fore, if some at that time had neglected to be baptized on some such principle as that on which the Quakers now neglect it, they would have dispensed with this also. It is acknowledged that they did dispense with a uniformity in matters of circumcision and uncircumcision, of days, and meats, and drinks, and whatever did not affect the “king- dom of Christ,” Rom. xiv. 17. But it appears to me very unsafe to argue from abrogated Jewish rites to New Tes- tament ordinances, especially as the one are opposed to the other. “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God,” 1 Cor. vii. 19. Nor does it appear to me, from any thing that is said on the doctrine of forbearance in the New Tes- tament, that the apostles would have dispensed with the omission of baptism. The importance of this ordinance, above every thing dispensed with in the primitive churches, arises from its being the distinguishing sign of Christianity —that by which they were to be known, acknowledged, and treated as members of Christ's visible kingdom : “As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ,” Gal. iii. 27. It is analogous to a soldier on his enlisting into his Majesty’s service putting on the military dress. The Scriptures lay great stress upon “confessing Christ's name before men” (Matt. x. 32); and baptism is one of the most distinguished ways of doing this. When a man becomes a believer in Christ, he confesses it usually in words to other believers; but the appointed way of con- fessing it openly to the world is by being baptized in his name. If, therefore, we profess Christianity only in words, the thing professed may be genuine, but the profession is essentially defective; and as it is not Christianity, (strictly speaking,) but the profession of it, which entitles us to a place in Christ's visible kingdom, our claim to visible com- munion must of course be invalid. Baptism is an act by which we declare before God, an- gels, and men, that we yield ourselves to be the Lord’s ; that we are dead to the world, and, as it were, buried from it, and risen again “to newness of life,” Rom. vi. 3, 4. Such a declaration is equal to an oath of allegiance in a soldier. He may be insincere, yet, if there be no proof of his insincerity, the king's officers are obliged to admit him into the army. Another may be sincerely on the side of the king, yet, if he refuse the oath and the royal uniform, he cannot be admitted. To treat a person as a member of Christ's visible king- dom, and as being in a state of salvation, who lives in the neglect of what Christ has commanded to all his followers, and this, it may be, knowingly, is to put asunder what Christ has joined together.—See Mark xvi. 16. “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that be- lieveth not shall be damned.” By this language he hath bound ws ; though, not having said “he that is not bap- tized shall be damned,” he hath mercifully refrained from binding himself. To dispense with baptism as a term of visible com- munion, is to commive either at a total neglect of an ordi- nance which by the authority of Christ is binding to the end of the world, or at a gross corruption of that ordi- nance; and in many cases at both : for there are great numbers who do not believe themselves to be baptized ac- cording to the Scriptures, who yet content themselves with the baptism they have. To connive at a known omission of the will of Christ must be wrong, and must render us partakers of other men's sins; yet I see not how this can be avoided on the principle you espouse, provided you account such persons to be real Christians. But supposing them to be sincere in their attachment to pacdobaptism, or that they really believe it to be the mind of Christ as revealed in the Scriptures; yet still if you admit them to the Lord's supper, you must connive at what you consider as a gross corruption of the ordinance of Christ—a corruption that amounts to a subversion of every good end to be answered by it, and that has intro- duced a flood of other corruptions into the church. To me it appears evident that paedobaptism opened the door for the Romish apostacy ; and that the church will never be restored to its purity while it is allowed to have any existence in it. The grand cause of the church's having been corrupted so as to become apostate was its being ON TERMS OF COMMUNION. 855 M.INGLED witH THE world. Paedobaptism first occasioned this fatal mixture, and national establishments of religion completed it. The one introduced the unconverted pos- terity of believers; the other all the inhabitants of a country, considering none but pagans, Jews, and deists as unbelievers. The one threw open the door ; the other broke down the wall. It is manifestly thus that the church and the world have been confounded, and will always be confounded, more or less, till paedobaptism is no more. If you admit Paedobaptists to communion, you will not be able for any continuance to secure your own principle —that none but “real Christians” should be admitted. It is like inviting a friend to your table whose company you value, but who cannot come without bringing his whole family with him. In the earlier ages baptized chil- dren were actually and consistently admitted to the Lord’s supper. In national churches they are still generally ad- mitted I believe as they grow up, if no gross immorality appears in their conduct, and in some if it does. And even in congregational churches they are taught to consider themselves, either on account of their birth or baptism, or both, as somehow members of the visible church. Such an idea might in some measure be suppressed, where the great majority were Baptists; but, by admitting members on your principle, it would soon be otherwise. The religion of Jesus was never suited to the spirit of this world. Its subjects require to be born again, and to make an open avowal of it. Therefore, when worldly men took it in hand, they knew not what to make of it, nor what to do with it, till they had framed it to their mind by explaining away these uncouth principles. Paedo- baptism was of essential service to them in this business. Its language was, and still is, “One birth will do, at least for the kingdom of heaven upon earth, provided it be from a believing parent.” And now, the great difficulty being removed, the smaller is easily surmounted. “There is no necessity for an open and public avowal ; a little water in a private house will do.” Thus the two grand barriers that should separate the church from the world are broken down. The seven Asiatic churches are commended or censured in proportion to their purity. One thing alleged against the church at Thyatira was that she “suffered that woman, Jezebel, to teach and to seduce God’s servants,” Rev. ii. 20. The allusion is doubtless to the wife of Ahab, who corrupted the pure worship and ordinances of God in her time, and mingled them with idolatry. Whoever they were that were thus denominated, it was doubtless some person or body of persons that strove to draw off the church from her purity, and to introduce for doctrines the commandments of men. It seems, too, that some of God's servants were seduced by her; good men, whom your plan of admission would have tolerated. And it is worthy of notice that the censure is not directed against her for doing so, but against the church for suffering it. You allow immorality or dangerous heresy, even in good men, to be a just cause of a refusal of communion. But is not God as jealous of his sovereign authority as he is of his truth and holiness? The ruin of mankind was by means of the breach of a positive institution. The cor- ruption of instituted worship forms a large part of anti- christianism, and is to the full as severely censured as its heresies and immoralities. Positive commands, like the bathing of Naaman in Jordan, are designed for the trial of our obedience. And with respect to the gross deviation from the command in question, after it has once opened the door for the grand apostacy, (an apostacy from which we are not cleansed to this day,) shall it be pleaded for as innocent, and ranked with meats, and drinks, and days? Rather ought we not to set our faces against the seductions | of Jezebel; and, instead of conniving at God's servants who are seduced by her, to assure them that much as we love them, and long for communion with them, we must, While we have ears to hear, “hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches 3" Rev. ii. 7. - STRICT COMMUNION IN THE MISSION CHURCH AT SERAMIPO.R.E. [Letter to the Editor of the Instructor, Jan. 28th, 1814.] I By no means wish to obtrude myself on you or your readers; but the letter, by “A Paedobaptist,” which you inserted in your paper of the 19th instant, calls upon me for an answer. It is true that the Baptist missionaries at Serampore do practise strict communion. It is also true that they did so from the beginning, till within the last three or four years, when they agreed to admit of open communion. After this the question was resumed and discussed. The result was that they determined to return to their original practice. As to any injunction, I know of none. Most of our churches in England practise strict communion, but do not “ enjoin’ it upon other churches; and I suppose it is the same with the churches at Serampore and Calcutta. They may recommend whatever they think right, without enjoining it. I can easily conceive that these changes would cause some feelings among Baptists differently minded on the subject, but cannot conceive why our Paedobaptist brethren should take offence at it. Those Baptists who practise open communion do not mean to acknowledge the validity of paedobaptism. Had they rather then be admissible into our churches as unbaptized in the account of their bre- thren, than not at all ? If so, to be sure we ought to feel obliged by their good opinion of us; as, after all that they have said and written and done against us, they cannot really think ill of us. But is it true that our Paedobaptist brethren seriously wish us to practise open communion ? I give them the fullest credit for desiring as Christians to be in fellowship with us, and with all other Christians; and this also is our desire as much as it is theirs. But, as Podobaptists, do they wish us to admit them to communion, without ac- Ánowledging the validity of their baptism 2 This is the question; and from all that I have read of their writings on the subject, however they may complain of strict com- munion, they cannot answer in the affirmative. Dr. Worcester, in his friendly letter to Dr. Baldwin, though he pleads for a free communion between Baptists and Paedobaptists, and avows it to be the object of his pamphlet, yet allows that “if professed believers are the only proper subjects for baptism, and if immersion be not a mere circumstance or mode of baptism, but essential to the ordinance, so that he who is not immersed is not bap- tized, the sentiment of strict communion would be suf- ficiently established.” Now Dr. Worcester's premises are our most decided principles, and this whether we practise strict or open communion. He therefore admits our prac- tice to be sufficiently established, and has only to complain of us for not allowing the validity of their baptism ; that is, for being Baptists. The same is manifest from a review of Mr. Booth’s Apology in the Evangelical Magazine. The reviewer makes nothing of free communion, unless it were on the principle of admitting the validity of paedobaptism. Those Baptists who practise it, he leaves to defend themselves as they can. The result is, that the real objection against us respects us not as strict nor as open communionists, but as Baptists. In other words, that the only open communion that would give satisfaction must include an acknowledg- ment of the validity of paedobaptism, which, for any Bap- tist to make, would be ceasing to be a Baptist. ‘A THE ADMISSION OF UN BAPTIZED PERSONS TO THE LORD'S SUPPER IN CONSISTENT WITH THE NIEW TESTAMENT : A LETTER, TO A FRIEND (IN 1814). ADVERTISEMENT, THAT the following is a genuine letter, written by the hand of our much lamented friend Mr. Fuller, no one 856 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. who is at all acquainted with his manner of writing will deny. In making war upon the common enemy, he was always found in the foremost rank, always among the first to take the field. But when he was called to animadvert on friends and allies, how strikingly different was his conduct. In January last I received a parcel from him, enclosing a letter, in which he says— “DEAR BROTHER, • * * * g e I have sent you Dr. Baldwin, which you may keep till I see you, if it be for half a year. Also a manuscript of my own . . . . and I wish none to see it but yourself, and that no mention be made of it. If any thing be written on the other side, it may, if thought proper, be printed, but not else. Yours affectionately, Rettering, Jan. 16, 1815. A. FULLER.” The above will justify me in withholding the letter till now ; and the long expected publication of Mr. Hall, which has just appeared, equally requires that I withhold it no longer. The manuscript has many verbal corrections and inter- lineations, exhibiting proofs of the care and deliberation with which this letter was composed. It may be proper for me to say, the title was written by the author himself, and the whole is printed with that scrupulous fidelity which I have thought due to the writer, as to one of the greatest men of the age, and one of the brightest luminaries of the Christian church. Stepney, July 25, 1815. WILLIAM NEwMAN.] LETTER, ETC. DEAR SIR, THE long and intimate friendship that I have lived in, and hope to die in, with several who are differently minded from me on this subject, may acquit me of any other mo- tive in what I write than a desire to vindicate what appears to me to be the mind of Christ. So far have I been from indulging a sectarian or party spirit, that my desire for communion with all who were friendly to the Saviour has, in one instance, led me prac- tically to deviate from my general sentiments on the sub- ject; the reflection on which, however, having afforded me no satisfaction, I do not intend to repeat it. You request me to state the grounds of my objections to the practice in a letter, and I will endeavour to do so. I need not prove to you that it is not for want of esteem to- Wards my Paedobaptist brethren, many of whom are dear to me. If I have any thing like Christian love in me, I feel it towards all those in whom I perceive the image of Christ, whether they be Baptists or Paedobaptists; and my refusing to commune with them at the Lord's table is not because I consider them as improper subjects, but as at- tending to it in an improper manner. Many from Ephraim and Mamasseh, Issachar and Zebulun, who partook of Hezekiah's passover, are supposed by that pious prince to have “prepared their hearts to seek the Lord God of their fathers; ” but having eaten “otherwise than it was writ- ten,” he prayed the Lord to “pardon every one of them,” and therefore could not intend that the disorder should be repeated, 2 Chron. xxx. 17–19. I have been used to think that our conduct on such questions should not be governed by affection any more than by disaffection, but by a regard to the revealed will of Christ. A brother who practises mixed communion lately ac- knowledged to me, that “he did not think it was a question of candour or charity, but simply this, Whether there was or was not an instituted connexion in the New Testament between baptism and the Lord's supper. If there was, we ought not, under a pretence of charity, to divide them ; for surely Jesus Christ may be allowed to have had as much charity and candour as we l’. Yet we hear a great outcry, not only from Paedobaptists, but Baptists, against our want of candour, liberality, &c.; all which, if this concession be just, is mere declamation. To what purpose is it, too, that such characters as Owen, Watts, Doddridge, Edwards, &c., are brought forward in this dispute, unless it be to kindle prejudice 3 If it were a question of feeling, their names would doubtless have weight; but if it relate to the re- vealed will of Christ, they weigh nothing. Is there, or is there not, an instituted connexion between baptism and the Lord's supper as much as between faith and baptism 2 If there be, we might as well be asked, how we can refuse to baptize the children of such excellent men, as how we can refuse to admit them to the Lord’s supper. If a man call me a bigot, I might in reply call him by some other name ; but we should neither of us prove any thing, except it were our want of some- thing better to allege. The question respects not men, but things. It has been painful for me to “withdraw from a brother who has walked disorderly;” nevertheless I have felt it to be my duty to do so. I was not long since assured by a Paedobaptist friend, that, “If I could think free communion to be right, I should be much happier than I was ;” and it is possible that in some respects I might. If I could think well of the conduct of a brother whom I at present consider as walking disorderly, or if I could pass it by without being partaker of it, I doubt not but I should be the happier; but if that in which he walks be disorder, and I cannot pass it by without being a par- taker of it, I had better be without such happiness than possess it. The question of free communion as maintained by Bap- tists is very different from that which is ordinarily main- tained by Paedobaptists. There are very few of the latter who deny baptism to be a term of communion, or who would admit any man to the Lord's supper whom THEY CoNSIDER As UNBAPTIZED. Some few, I allow, have pro- fessed a willingness to receive any person whom they con- sider as a believer in Christ, whether he be baptized or not. But this is probably the effect of the practice, so prevalent of late among Paedobaptists, of decrying the im- portance of the subject. I have never known a Paedobap- tist of any note, who conscientiously adheres to what he thinks the mind of Christ relative to this ordinance, who would thus lightly dispense with it. The ordinary ground on which a Paedobaptist would persuade us to practise free communion is that their baptism, whether we can allow it to be quite so primitive as ours or not, is nevertheless walid, and that we should allow it to be so, and conse- quently should treat them as baptized persons by admitting them to the Lord’s table. It is on this ground that Mr. Worcester, in his Friendly Letter to Mr. Baldwin, pleads for open communion.—He allows that if Mr. Baldwin could demonstrate that baptism is to be administered only in one mode and to one kind of subject, and that immer- sion is not a mere circumstance or mode of baptism, but essential to the ordinance, so that he that is not immersed is not baptized, his sentiment of close communion “would be sufficiently established,”—pp. 8, 9. To the same purpose is the drift of the reviewer of Mr. Booth's Apology in the Evangelical Magazine. But to admit the validity of paedo- baptism would not overthrow strict communion only, but baptism itself as performed upon persons who have been previously baptized in their infancy. If infant baptism be valid, it ought not to be repeated ; and he that repeats it is, what his opponents have been used to call him, an Ana- baptist. The ground of argument, therefore, does not be- long to the subject at issue. Its language is, Do acknow- ledge our baptism to be valid, and allow that whenever you baptize a person who has been sprinkled in his in- fancy you rebaptize him ;-that is, Do give up your prin- ciples as a Baptist, in order that we may have communion together at the Lord’s table !!! Very different from this are the grounds on which our Baptist brethren plead for free communion. As far as I am acquainted with them, they may be reduced to two questions. 1. Has baptism any such instituted connexion with the Lord’s supper as to be a prerequisite to it 3 2. Supposing it has, yet if the candidate consider himself as having been baptized, ought not this to suffice for his being treated by a Christian church as a baptized person ; and does not an error concerning the mode or subjects of Christian baptism come within the precepts of the New Testament which enjoin forbearance, and allow every man to be “fully persuaded in his own mind 3’” Let us calmly examine these questions in the order in which they are stated :— First, Has baptism any such instituted conneacion with ON TERMS OF COMMUNION. 857 3. the Lord's supper as to be a prerequisite to it?... No Bap- tist will deny it to be a duty incumbent on believers, but he may consider it as having no more connexion with the Lord's supper than other duties, and the omission of it, where it arises from error, as resembling other omissions of duty, which are allowed to be objects of forbearance. If there be no instituted connexion between them, it must go far towards establishing the position of Mr. Bunyan, that “Non-baptism. (at least where it arises from error) is no bar to communion.” If Mr. Bunyan’s position be tenable, however, it is rather singular that it should have been so long undiscovered ; for it does not appear that such a notion was ever advanced till he or his contemporaries advanced it. Whatever difference of opinion had subsisted among Christians concerning the mode and subjects of baptism, I have seen no evidence that baptism was considered by any one as unconnected with or unnecessary to the supper. “It is certain,” says Dr. Doddridge, “that as far as our knowledge of primitive antiquity reaches, no unbaptized person received the Lord's supper.”—Lectures, p. 511. See Mr. Booth’s Apology, sect. 1. The practice of Christians having been uniformly against us, I acknowledge, does not prove us to be in the wrong; but an opinion so circumstanced certainly re- quires to be well established from the Scriptures. To ascertain whether there be any instituted connexion between the two ordinances, it will be proper to observe the manner in which such connexions are ordinarily ex- pressed in the New Testament. It is not unusual for persons engaged in argument to require that the prin- ciple which they opposed should, if true, have been so ex- pressed in the Scriptures as to place it beyond dispute. This, however, is not the ordinary way in which any thing is there expressed. Nor is it for us to prescribe to the Holy Spirit in what manner he shall enjoin his will, but to inquire in what manner he has enjoined it. A Paedo- baptist might say, If teaching be indispensably necessary to precede baptizing, why did not Christ expressly say so, and forbid his disciples to baptize any who were not pre- viously taught? A Roman Catholic also, who separates the bread from the wine, might insist on your proving from the New Testament that Christ expressly connected them to- gether, and required the one before and in order to the other. To the former of these objections you would answer, Let us read the commission :-‘‘ Go, . teach all na- tions . . . . baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost . . . . Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you . . . . and, lo I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” Is it not plainly the order of things as stated by our Lord Jesus Christ, you would add, that we are first to teach men, by imparting to them the gospel ; then, on their believing it, to baptize them ; and then to go on to instruct them in all the ordinances and com- mandments which are left by Christ for our direction. Thus also to the Roman Catholic you would answer:— Let us read the institution as repeated by the apostle Paul to the Corinthians,—“I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the night in which he was betrayed took bread : and When he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come.” You would add, How dare you put asunder the wine and the bread which Christ hath thus manifestly joined together? The former of these answers must, I think, be approved by every Baptist, and the latter by every protestant. But the reasoning in both cases pro- Seeds on the supposition, that the ordinary way in which the mind of Christ is enjoined in the New Testament, is by simply stating things in the order in which they were &ppointed and are to be practised ; and that this is no less *inding on us than if the connevion had been more fully *Pressed. It is as clear in the first case as if it had been said, Go, first teach them the gospel; and when they have received it, baptize them; and, after this, lead them on in a course of evangelical obedience.—And in the last case, it is no less clear than if it had been said, First take the bread, then the cup, and never partake of the one without the other. But if this be just reasoning with a Paedobaptist and a Roman Catholic, why should it not be so in the present case ? If the above be the ordinary mode of Divine in- junction, we can be at no loss to know what is enjoined respecting the duties in question. All the recorded facts in the New Testament place baptism before the celebra- tion of the Lord's-supper. The first company who joined together at the Lord’s table were all baptized. That Christ was so himself we are expressly informed ; and of the disciples we are told that they baptized others (John iv. 2); which would not have been permitted had they, like the Pharisees and lawyers, refused to be baptized themselves. The next mention of the celebration of the supper is in the second chapter of the Acts. The account given is, that every one of them was exhorted to “repent and be baptized,” and that they who gladly received the word “were baptized;” after which they were “added to the church,” and “continued stedfastly in the apostle's doc- trine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.” The question put by the apostle Paul to certain dis- ciples at Ephesus, who said they had not heard whether there were any Holy Ghost, “Unto what then were ye baptized?” clearly intimates that there were no Chris- tians in those times who continued unbaptized. He does not ask whether they had been baptized, taking this for granted, but merely to what they had been baptized. The nature and design of baptism, as given us in the New Testament, shows it to have been the initiatory or- dinance of Christianity. It was not, indeed, an initiation into a particular church, seeing it was instituted prior to the formation of churches, and administered in some cases, as that of the Ethiopian eunuch, in which there was no opportunity for joining to any one of them ; but it was an initiation into the body of professing Christians. And, if so, it must be necessary to an admission into a particular church, inasmuch as what is particular presupposes what is general. No man could with propriety occupy a place in the army without having first avowed his loyalty, or taken the oath of allegiance. The oath of allegiance does not, indeed, initiate a person into the army, as one may take that oath who is no soldier; but it is a prerequiste to being a soldier. Though all who take the oath are not soldiers, yet all soldiers take the oath. Now baptism is that Divine ordinance by which we are said to put on Christ, as the king’s livery is put on by those who enter his service ; and, by universal consent throughout the Christian world, is considered as the badge of a Christian. To admit a person into a Christian church without it were equal to admitting one into a regiment who scrupled to wear the soldier's uniform, or to take the oath of allegiance. There are instances in the New Testament in which the word baptism does not mean the baptism by water, but yet manifestly alludes to it, and to the Lord’s supper as con- nected with it; e.g. 1 Cor. x. 1–5, “Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual meat; and did all drink the same spiritual drink : for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them : and that Rock was Christ. But with many of them God was not well pleased; for they were overthrown in the wilderness.” The Corin- thians had many amongst them who had polluted them- selves with idolatrous practices, and yet presumed on being saved by Christ. The design of the apostle was to warn them, from the examples of the Jewish fathers, not to rely upon their having been partakers of the Christian privileges of baptism and the Lord's supper while they indulged in sin. The manner in which these allusions are introduced clearly shows the commeasion between the two ordinances in the practice of the primitive churches. Thus also in 1 Cor. xii. 13, we are said “by one Spirit” to be “all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gen- tiles, whether bond or free ; and all made to drink into one 85S ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. spirit.” . The design may be to illustrate the spiritual union of all true believers in one invisible body, as origin- ating in the washing of regeneration, and as being con- tinued by the renewing of the Holy Spirit: but the allu- sion is, I conceive, to the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's supper; by the former of which they were initiated into the body of professing Christians, and by the other had communion in it. See Poole, Henry, and Scott on the passage. From these instances, we have equal evidence that the two ordinances were connected in the practice of the first churches as we have of faith being connected with baptism, or of the bread being connected with the wine in the sup- per. The only difference between these cases is, that the one requires a part and the other the whole of a Divine institution to be dispensed with. Is it for us to make light of the precepts of Christ, under the notion of profiting and edifying his people # If we have any ground to expect his presence and blessing, it is in “teaching them to observe all things whatsoever he has commanded” us. But let us proceed to the second question, Whether, if the candidate consider himself as having been baptized, this ought not to suffice for his being treated by a Christian church as a baptized person ; and whether an error concern- &ng the mode or subjects of baptism be not a subject of Chris- tian forbearance, in which every one may be allowed to be fully persuaded in his own mind. That there are cases to which this principle will apply is certain. Concerning eating or not eating meats, and observing or not observing days, the apostle teaches that every man should “be fully persuaded in his own mind.” “Who art thou,” he asks, “ that judgest another man’s servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth.-Why dost thou judge thy brother ? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother ? for we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ.—Every one of us shall give ac- count of himself to God.—Hast thou faith ? have it to thyself,” Rom. xiv. These passages have often been alleged in favour of free communion between Baptists and Paedobaptists; and if the principle laid down by the apostle applies to that subject, though originally he had no reference to it, the reasoning of our brethren is just and right. The case, I conceive, must have referred to the prohibi- tion of certain meats, and the observance of certain days, under the Jewish law; which being no longer binding on Christians, some would avail themselves of this liberty, and disregard them ; others, not having sufficient light, would regard them. Had it referred to any customs of heathen origin, or which had never been, nor been understood to be, of Divine appointment, it is not conceivable that those who regarded them should “regard them to the Lord.” In this case every man was allowed to judge and act for himself, and required to forbear with his brethren who might be otherwise minded. That we are to apply this principle without restriction few will maintain. Should the first principles of the gos- pel, for example, be rejected by a candidate for commu- nion, few who pretend to serious Christianity would think of receiving him. Yet he might allege the same arguments, and ask, “Who art thou that judgest another man’s serv- ant? To his own master he standeth or falleth. Why dost thou judge thy brother ? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judg- ment-seat of Christ.—Every one of us shall give account of himself to God.—Hast thou faith? have it to thyself.” In this case, we should answer, that the language of the apostle was misapplied; and that it was not his design to affirm that Christians in a state of religious society had no right to judge of each other's avowed principles: for, if so, he would not have desired some to have been cut off who troubled the Galatians, Gal. v. 12. Nor would the church at Pergamos have been censured for having those amongst them that held pernicious doctrines, Rev. ii. 14, 15. Pri- vate judgment is every man's birthright, considered as an 2ndividual; but as a candidate for admission into a volum- tary society, it is essential that there be an agreement, at least, in first principles: for “how can two walk together except they be agreed ?” And as we are not so to apply this forbearing principle in matters of doctrine as to raze the foundations of Divine truth, neither shall we be justified in applying it to the dispensing with any of the commandments of Christ. The meats and days of which the apostle speaks are represented as not affecting the kingdom of God. “The kingdom of God,” he says, “is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost,” ver. 17. But if they had required a positive commandment of Christ to be dispensed with, they would have affected the kingdom of God, and the apostle would not have written concerning them as he did. In short, it is not just to argue from Jew- ish customs, which though once binding had ceased to be so, to Christian ordinances which continue in full force. The tone which the apostle holds in respect of those Jew- ish rites which ceased to be obligatory is very different from that which respects commandments still in force : “Circumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the com- mandments of God,” 1 Cor. vii. 19.—“I praise you, bre- thren, that you remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them unto you,” 1 Cor. xi. 2. If to be baptized be a qualification requisite to Christian communion, (which under this second question I have a right to assume,) it is absurd to suppose that it belongs to the candidate exclusively to judge of it. It is contrary to the first principles of all society for a candidate to be the judge of his own qualifications. Apply it to any other qualification, as faith in Christ, for instance, or a consist- ency of character, and you will instantly perceive its ab- surdity. We must return to the first question: Is baptism prerequisite to the Lord’s supper ? If it be so, it must belong to the church to judge whether the candidate has been baptized or not. But the principle on which the apostle enforces forbearance is often alleged as applicable to this question.—“Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, for GoD HATH RECEIVED HIM.” It is doubtful whe- ther receiving here means admission to communion. Mr. Booth has shown that this is not the ordinary meaning of the term ; but allowing this to be the meaning, and that God’s having received a person furisishes the ground and rule of our receiving him, still there is nothing in our prac- tice inconsistent with it. If receiving a brother here de- note receiving him into Christian fellowship, the meaning is, receive him. To the ordinances, and not to one of them without the other. We are willing to receive all who ap- pear to have been received of God to the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's supper: if we object, it is because they wish to be received to the one without the other, of which there was no example in the first churches. Let it also be particularly noticed, that our brethren who plead for receiving Christians as Christians receive them To THE oRDINANCEs. As UNDERSTOOD AND PRACTISED BY THEM, and this we do. If the prejudices of a pious catholic would permit him to request to join with them at the Lord's sup- per, they would, as we have often been told, receive him ; but to what ? Would they provide a wafer for him, and excuse him from drinking of the cup 3 No ; they would say, We are willing to receive you to the Lord's supper, in the way we understand and practise it ; but we cannot divide the wine from the bread without dispensing with an essential part of the institution. Such is our answer to a pious Paedobaptist. We are willing to receive you to the ordinances of Christ, as we understand and practise them ; but we cannot divide the one from the other with- out dispensing with an institution of Christ. OBJECTIONS. It has been said that “we all practise a worse mixed communion than that with Paedobaptists; that we have covetous and other bad characters amongst us,” &c. If we “bear them that are evil” in things of a moral nature, this is our sin, and we ought to repent of it, and not to argue that because we do wrong in one instance we ought to do so in another. If we omit to admonish and exclude manifestly wicked characters, it is of but little account that we are strict in regard to baptism ; but in reproving us, our Lord would not complain of our not being alike lax in things positive as we are in things moral, but of our not being alike strict in both. “These ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.” INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC IN CHRISTIAN WORSHIP. 859 There is, however, a wide difference between bearing with individuals, even in things which are evil, where that evil lies so much in the motive as to be very difficult of detection, and making it a rule to tolerate men in such vices. It was no reproach to Christ and his apostles to have had a Judas amongst them, though he was a “thief,” so long as his theft was not manifested; but had there been a rule laid down that covetousness and even theft should be no bar to communion, the reproach had been indelible. . . It has been said, “If our practice of strict communion be right, it ought to be to us an act of self-denial, and not of pleasure, inasmuch as charity would be unable to take pleasure in excluding those from communion whom we consider as Christians.” And this so far as it relates to men is true, but it is no less true of many other duties, in which we may be called to act differently from our brethren, and to reprove them. - “But in thus denying ourselves,” it has been further said, “we deny some of the best feelings of the human heart.” This I cannot admit. The best feelings of the human heart are those of love and obedience to God ; and if I deny myself of the pleasure which fellowship with a Christian brother would afford me, for the sake of acting up to the mind of Christ, or according to primitive exam- ple, I do not deny the best feelings of the human heart, but, on the contrary, forego the less for the greater. It is a greater pleasure to obey the will of God than to associate with creatures in a way deviating from it. We may act in this matter from temper or from preju- dice, rather than from a conscientious regard to the mind of Christ; and they who oppose us may act from worldly policy, or a desire to court applause as candid and liberal men ; but neither of these cases proves any thing.—The question is, whether, in admitting unbaptized persons to the Lord’s table, we do not deviate from the mind of Christ. I am willing to allow that open communion may be practised from a conscientious persuasion of its being the mind of Christ; and they ought to allow the same of strict communion ; and thus, instead of reproaching one another with bigotry on the one hand, or carnal policy on the other, we should confine our inquiries to the pre- cepts and examples of the New Testament.—I am affec- tionately yours, ANDREW FULLER. on INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC IN CHRISTIA WORSHIP. - [In reply to a Correspondent.] THAT there are circumstances attending the worship of God, whether it be moral or positive, which are not the objects of Divine appointment, I allow ; such as the tunes in singing, and whether we baptize in a pool or in a river, or drink the wine at the Lord's supper out of a silver or pewter or wooden cup. Each of these is alike indifferent. I do not admit, however, that we have no example of un- inspired preaching. On the contrary, we have no proof, that I remember, that even the apostles themselves were under the infallible inspiration of the Holy Spirit in their sermons, nor in all their writings; though they were in those which have place in the Holy Scriptures. Be that as it may : if what every preacher advanced had been in- Špired, it would itself have contained the oracles of God; but in that case there would have been no propriety in that direction—“If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God,” I Pet. iv. II. - As to our using human compositions in singing, I have sometimes had my doubts whether we ought not to sing the poetical parts of Scripture set to sacred music. I should rejoice to see a book of such Divine hymns intro- duced into all our churches, taking place of a vast load of trash and insipidity. If we had not hymns inspired, ready to our hands, any more than tunes, I should then think that the composing of the one as well as of the other was a circumstance of worship left to human powers. ºut be this as it may, whether the hymns we sing be a discretional concomitant of worship or not, this cannot be said of instrumental music. It was from the first a sub- ject of Divine injunction. The very passage which you have quoted proves this, 2 Chron. xxix. 25–28. You must have seen with what tender regard to Divine au- thority it was introduced. It was “according to the command of David, and of Gad the king's seer, and Na- than the prophet : for so was the commandment of Jeho- vah by his prophets.” If the writer had designed merely to guard against the idea of David’s having done it of his own discretion, he could not have chosen words better adapted to his purpose; and indeed it manifestly appears that this was his design. But, you say, instrumental music “was not instituted by any express command of the ceremonial law ; that it has nothing in it of the nature of a positive institute, and cannot therefore be considered as abolished by the intro- duction of the gospel.” To this I reply— 1. Its not being required by the law of Moses does not prove that it “was not instituted by any express com- mand.” You seem to be aware of this, and therefore have softened your position by adding the words, “the law of Moses.” 2. Its not being required by the law of Moses does not prove that it was “not a part of the ceremonial law which is abolished by the gospel.” A great number of the di- rections relating to the building of the temple, and the regulation of its worship, were ceremonial, though not commanded “by the law of Moses; ” and were all abol- ished when that temple ceased to exist.—See 1 Chron. xxviii. 11—19. These appendages to the temple could not survive the temple, and it appears that instrumental music was a kind of appendage to the sacrifices of those times. So it seems to be represented in 2 Chron. xxix. 25—28; and it was as much abolished when sacrifices ceased as the others were when the temple was no more. 3. If instrumental music was no part of ceremonial worship, it must have been moral ; for what has already been advanced proves that it was not a mere discretional circumstance of worship, concerning which no command- ment was given. That the vocal praising of God is a moral duty, I allow ; but the use of instruments is not so. It is a practice which has every property of a positive in- stitute, and not one, that I recollect, of moral obligation. That all duties, both moral and positive, are commanded of God, is true ; but what is moral is commanded because it is right, and the motive by which it is enforced is not the mere will of the legislator; whereas that which is positive is right because it is commanded. The whole authority in the latter case rests upon the Divine com- mand, and this is the ground on which the practice of in- strumental music is rested in the Scriptures. It was “according to the commandment of David, and of Gad, and Nathan : for so was the commandment of the Lord by his prophets,” 2 Chron. xxix. 25. This is a kind of language which is never used of vocal music, or of any other moral duty, but which exactly accords with what is said of other positive institutions ; particularly those which respected the appendages of temple worship, 2 Chron. viii. 14. Another thing by which moral and positive duties are distinguished is, that the former are binding alike in all ages and nations; but the latter, ori- ginating in Divine appointment, are binding only at those places to which the appointment extends. Now you your- self say that instrumental music “was not in general use till David's time, which was five hundred years after the law.” If it had been a moral duty, it would have been obligatory at all times, before David's time as well as in it; and we should have read of it, as I think we do of every moral duty, in the New Testament. 4. Your argument from the worship of heaven re- minds me of the argument in favour of the surplice, from the heavenly inhabitants being clothed “in fine linen, clean and white, which is the righteousness of saints;” to which Robinson replies, We are sorry to say it is all the righteousness that some saints have 1 But, seriously, the heavenly employments and enjoyments are frequently illustrated by things borrowed from the Jewish ceremonial, which things were once right, but in our day would be “will-worship,” Col. ii. 23. The blessed above are said 860 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. to be “made kings and priests unto God.” In the same chapter in which we read of “harps” we also read of a “temple,” and an “altar,” in heaven, Rev. xiv. 17, 18. But what would you think of an argument derived from this in favour of modern priests, temples, and altars ? In short, instrumental music, the more I think of it, appears with increasing evidence to be utterly unsuited to the genius of the gospel dispensation. There was a glare, if I may so express it, which characterized even the Divine appointments of Judaism. An august temple, ornament- ed with gold and silver, and precious stones, golden can- dlesticks, golden altars, priests in rich attire, trumpets, cymbals, and harps; all of which were adapted to an age and dispensation when the church was in a state of in- fancy. But when the substance is come, it is time that the shadows flee away. The best exposition of harps in singing is given by Dr. Watts— “Oh may my heart in tune be found, Like David’s harp of solemn sound.” I CANNOT forbear remarking the great similarity between your reasoning and that of Episcopalians in favour of cer- tain ceremonies to which the puritans objected. They did not pretend that they were obligatory, but merely lawful; that they had been of Divine authority under the former dispensation, and were now matters of dis- cretion. If this were indeed the case, and they had fol- lowed the example of an apostle, they would have relin- quished them when they proved an occasion of offence. When some of the Corinthians pleaded for the lawfulness of eating the good creatures of God, though they had been offered in sacrifice to idols, Paul replies, granting them their principle, “Meat commendeth us not to God: for neither if we eat are we the better, neither if we eat not are we the worse.” In a similar manner the puritans answered the Episcopalians. Uncommanded ceremonies, granting them to be lawful, commend us not to God; for neither if we use them are we the better, neither if we disuse them are we the worse ; and seeing they create much of. fence, they ought to be relinquished. And thus, though Your principles should be true, your practice may be con- demned. That for which you plead is confessedly not a duty. It commendeth you not to God; for neither if you make use of instruments are you the better, neither if you disuse them are you the worse; and seeing the use of them occasions offence to many serious minds, it ought to be relinquished. . But as Paul, after granting the Corinthians their argu- ment, and condemning their conduct even on that ground, proceeded to prove that the thing itself was unlawful; só I hope to prove the unlawfulness of instrumental music in Christian worship. Instrumental music, I grant, was before the times of David; but if it was for the purpose of promoting civil joy, or, when employed in Divine worship, authorized by Divine appointment, nothing favourable to your argument can be thence inferred. - Musical instruments were first invented by Jubal, a de- scendant of Cain, for the promoting of civil mirth; and to this purpose they have been employed in all ages and nations to this day. That they were used in the worship of God before the times of David is true; but it is also true that there was Divine authority for it. Trumpets were appointed to be used on various occasions by the law of Moses (Lev. xxiii. 24; xxv. 9; Numb. x. 1– 10); also the psaltery, the harp, and the cymbal. You suppose it was not their use in religious worship, but the ºnanner of it, that was the object of Divine appointment. The use of them, you suppose, was discretionary, and not appointed ; seeing mention is made of them previous to their being employed in the temple service. But the phraseology of the passage in 2 Chron. xxix. 25 does not favour such an idea. Matthew Henry thus expounds it: “While the offerings were burning upon the altar, the Levites sang the song of the Lord, (ver. 27,) the psalms composed by David and Asaph, (ver. 30,) with the musical instruments, which God by his prophets had commanded the use of, ver. 25.” It is allowed, however, that the appointment of instrumental music, in the times of Da- vid, respected “the special purposes to which it should be applied ; but this does not prove that it was not pre- viously appointed for other sacred purposes. You seem to take it for granted that nothing was ap- pointed of God, unless that appointment was eacpress ; but God has not always conveyed truth in this manner. Though we read of no express appointment, but merely of things being ordered or done by men who were Divinely inspired, yet the same thing is in many cases clearly to be understood. We are not expressly told that God appoint- ed the means of Naaman’s cure, namely, his bathing seven times in Jordan ; but as a prophet of God directed him to it, we certainly conclude that he did so. The Spirit of God that was in the prophet directed it. Thus, though the use of the psaltery, tabret, pipe, and harp, in sacred things, be not expressly commanded till the times of Da- vid, yet, being used before his time as the means of pro- phetic inspiration, their being Divinely appointed for the purpose cannot be denied, 1 Sam. x. 5; 2 Kings iii. 15. I incline to think that the use of the timbrel by Miriam and the women of Israel was merely civil, Exod. xv. 20. It was an instrument necessary to the dance, and mostly, if not invariably, connected with it. It does not appear to have been used in singing the song of Moses, but at certain intervals. On account of their deliverance from Egyptian bondage, one while they sang praises, and another while Miriam and the women went forth with the timbrel and the dance. It was a great national de- liverance ; and civil joy, with the common expressions of it, were mingled with their praises of Jehovah. But granting it was a part of religious exercises, it was intro- duced by one who in the very act is called “a prophetess,” a name which is no where else ascribed to her; and no reason that I know of can be given for its being ascribed to her here, but that of intimating that she acted under Divine authority. If, as you contend, it was a part of “discretionary” worship, the same must be said of dancing, which accompanied it ; and then it would be lawful in our worshipping assemblies to introduce not only the pipe, but the dance. “Positive institutions,” you say, were confined to time, place, manner, and other circumstances; but instrumental music was governed by such a variety of discretionary con- siderations as find no room in the institutes of Judaism. It might be performed at any other time, as well as at the stated periods of public worship ; in any place, and on various public occasions, which are not specified by any law.” You will allow the offering of sacrifices to have been a part of instituted worship ; yet there are almost all the varieties attending it as those which you have men- tioned. Those of Abel, Noah, Abraham, and Jacob were not “specified by the letter of any law;” but were offered on a great variety of occasions, and, prior to the time that the ark had rest, at as great a variety of places. Instead, therefore, you might say of the offering of sacrifice to God possessing every property of a positive institute, it does not appear to possess any of its essentials. The truth is, that not one of the things you mention afford any proof for or against instituted worship ; each is equally applica- ble to sacrifice and praise, though the one is a positive and the other a moral duty. Some of the occasions you refer to, in which instrumental music is used, might be merely civil. Such appears to be the going forth of Jephthah’s daughter, with “timbrels and dances,” on occasion of his victory over the Ammon- ites; and the female processions on occasion of David's having slain Goliath, and the Philistines being defeated. A band of Bengal music was sent before Messrs. Thomas and Carey in their curious procession to Bote Haut ; * to which, if I had been in their place, I should have had no objection, but rather have enjoyed it, as it was an expres- sion of the civility and friendship of the Booteas. Others I allow were religious ; as the bringing up of the ark, the building of the city wall, &c. But in these instances there are plain traces of Divine authority, and such as in- dicate that instrumental music was approved of God, be- * Period. Accounts of the Baptist Mission, vol. I. pp. 363, 364. INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC IN CHRISTIAN WORSHIP. 861 fore the arrangement of the temple service. The music used on the former of these occasions must have been previous to this, as it was before the ark had rest. Yet the whole of that solemn procession was “before the Lord,” even the exercise of dancing and playing, which exposed David to the revilings of Michal. This was his own de- fence against her, 2 Sam. vi. 21–23. God accepted the worship too, and punished the reviler. But as Paul in- ferred from the acceptance of . Abel's sacrifice that it was offered “in faith,” so may we infer from the acceptance of the worship of David that it was performed in obedience to the Divine will. The conduct of David in praising the Lord with instruments of music is more than once men- tioned as a model of Divine authority for after-times. Not only did they follow his example in the times of Hezekiah, as being according to the commandment of God and his prophets (2 Chron. xxix. 25); but when the foundation of the second temple was laid, the Levites are said to have “praised the Lord with cymbals, according to the ordi- nance of David, king of Israel,” Ezra iii. 10. And after- wards, when the wall of the city was built, the singers are described as having “ the musical instruments of David, the man of God” (Neh. xii. 36); which is a mode of speaking tantamount to their being ascribed to Divine authority. The example of David need not have been alleged, if it had been a mere discretionary matter, and not the performance of a sacred duty. - But, admitting my position, you dispute the application of it to the case in hand; arguing that we are allowed to retain some things which are ceremonial, though not obliged to use them as formerly ; and instance in prostra- tion, in certain times of worship, and certain garments. I do not know that prostration is ever made a part of insti- tuted worship ; it was a posture dictated by a humble spirit in all ages, and is still the same on various occasions. As to garments, we are allowed to use them in a mere civil way, as they were always used, but not as making any part of religious worship. We may wear a linen coat for coolness in summer, and a woollen one for warmth in winter; but if we make them any part of religion, we sin. Such reasoning would justify all the fripperies of modern superstition, most of which may be traced to Jewish origin. The Jews were obliged to worship at certain times, and we may worship at those times. We must worship at some time, and that time may happen to be the same as theirs; but we are not at liberty to choose those times which were then of Divine appointment. If we do, an apostle will be “afraid of us,” Gal. iv. 10, 11. Had you only affirmed that what was obligatory on the Jews is with us discretionary in civil concerns, I should have had no objection, no, not to instrumental music; but if you make them a part of worship, you throw open a door to a flood of corruption. • Of the tribe of Judah, Moses “ saith nothing” concern- ing priesthood. Hence Paul inferred there was nothing. Of priests, altars, sacred garments, and instrumental music in Christian worship, the New Testament “ saith nothing.” Is it improper then to infer that no such things were known in the times of the first Christians ? You perceive nothing in instrumental music contrary to the genius of the gospel. dancing. But suppose you were to read in some ancient Writer that it was the custom of the primitive churches, When assembled together for worship, to sing with psalteries and harps, and cymbals and organs, and to dance like David before the ark. Would you not suspect the veracity of the writer, or conclude that he had been misinformed? Yet why should you, if there be nothing in these things contrary to the genius of the gospel? The New Testament speaks of praising God by singing, but further it says not. “After supper they sang a hymn.” —“I will sing with the spirit, and with the understand- ing also.”—“Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your hearts to the Lord.” . Paul speaks more than once in his Epistle to the Co- rinthians of instruments of music, but not as being used in religion. He describes them as necessary to war, but not to worship ; and speaks of them in language of degrada- tion, as “things without life, giving sound.” If I have not Another might say the same of charity, says he, I am as “sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal.” The history of the church during the first three centuries affords many instances of the primitive Christians en- gaging in singing ; but no mention, that I recollect, is made of instruments. Even in the times of Constantine, when every thing grand and magnificent was introduced into Christian worship, I find no mention made of instru- mental music. If my memory does not deceive me, it originated in the dark ages of popery, when almost every other superstition was introduced under the plea of its ac- cording with the worship of the Old Testament. At pre- sent it is most in use where these kinds of superstitions are most prevalent, and where the least regard is paid to primitive simplicity. I remember lately to have noticed a description of modern Paris, by one of their own writers. “If,” says he, “you are attached to religious solemnities, you will find some of all sorts. Catholics, who offer up their prayers to the Deity with the sound of musical in- struments. Lutherans, who calmly listen to the lectures from the Bible and the gospel. Theophilanthropists, worshipping deists, who flourish in language, and sing as if they were at the opera.” I conclude with reminding you, that on the principle of discretionary worship you may introduce the dance, and commence Welsh Jumpers; the surplice, and become Epis- copalians; and even the mitre, and shake hands with his Holiness. I doubt not but your discretion will keep you from these things; but if there be no bar but discretion, I do not know what right you have to censure them in others. THOUGHTS ON SINGING. I HAVE long considered the manner in which our singing is conducted as equally contrary to Scripture and reason. The intent of singing is by a musical pronunciation of affecting truth to render it still more affecting. To ac- complish this end, the music ought, at all events, to be adapted to the sentiments. As in common speaking there is a sound or modulation of the voice adapted to convey every sentiment or passion of which the human soul is at any time possessed, so I conceive it is in a considerable degree with regard to singing ; there are certain airs or tones which are naturally expressive of joy, sorrow, pity, indignation, &c., and the grand art of psalmody seems to consist in applying these to the sentiments required to be sung. When David had composed a divine song, it was delivered to “the chief musician,” who set it to sacred music ; and the Levites and the people would probably learn both the song and the tune, and sing them on the days appointed for public worship. Our method of singing is the reverse of this. Some person who has a taste for music composes a tune, a mere tune, without any sentiments to be expressed. He divides and subdivides his empty sounds into lines and bars, &c. The poet, instead of going before the musician, comes after him ; and a hymn is conformed to the tune, instead of a tune to the hymn. The tune being composed to four, six, or eight lines, is applied to any song that is written in these respective measures, and repeated over, without any regard to the meaning, as many times as there are stanzas to be sung ! I do not mean to object to the division of music into parts or breaks, so as to afford proper places for pausing ; but this division ought not to be uniform, but governed entirely by the matter to be sung. There ought, I con- ceive, to be no pauses in music, any more than in speaking, but at the conclusion of a sentence, or of some lesser break in the division of it ; and the length of the pause ought to be governed by the meaning in some proportion as it is in reading. Those notes also which belong to words of but little meaning, the mere particles of speech, should be short ; and those which belong to words of full meaning should be long and full of sound. Nothing can be more unnatural than for a congregation to dwell in a long-swell- ing sound upon such words as that, in, and, from, to, &c., while they skip over words expressing the very burden of 862 ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. the song, as if they were of no account; yet this will fre- quently and almost constantly be the case while we make hymns to tunes, instead of tunes to hymns. Our anthems appear to me to approach the nearest to the Scriptural way of singing ; only they possess too much levity for worship, and abound with a number of unneces- sary, because unmeaning, repeats. I have long wished to see introduced into the churches (and I almost believe it will be at some future time) a se- lection of divine hymns or songs, taking place of all human compositions. By divine hymns or songs, I mean the pure word of God translated without any respect to rhyme or number, after the manner of Lowth's Isaiah, and set to plain, serious, and solemn music, adapted to the sentiments. It has been observed by some of the ablest critics, that the spirit of David's Psalms (and the same would hold true of the other poetic parts of Scripture) can never be pre- served in a translation of them into modern verse; but in a translation like our common Bibles, or that of Lowth’s Isaiah, it is generally allowed, I believe, that the spirit of them is well preserved. Why then do we not set them as they are to sacred music? It is of a thousand times more importance to preserve the spirit of a psalm or Scripture song than to have it in numbers, even supposing a uni- formity in numbers were of advantage. What is the reason that Handel's Messiah has had so great an effect? It is in part owing to the Scriptures ap- pearing in their native majesty, without being tortured into rhyme and number, and set to music adapted to the sentiments. I do not mean to say that Handel’s music is in general adapted to Divine worship : it was not designed for it, but rather for a company of musicians who should display their skill. But the same words might be set to plain music without any of those trappings which recom- mend it to the attention of a merely musical audience. Such a sweetness and majesty is there in the poetic lan- guage of Scripture, that if there were nothing offensive in the music, it must needs recommend itself to a serious mind. Without disparaging the labours of any one, there is as great a disproportion between our best compositions and those of the Scriptures, as between the speeches of Job and his friends and the voice of the Almighty. I am persuaded there are but few, if any, Divine subjects upon which a hymn or song might not be collected from the poetic parts of Scripture. In many instances the whole song might be furnished from a single psalm or chapter: and in others it might be collected from different passages associated together and properly arranged. EXAMPLES. I.-A SONG OF PRAISE TO THE REDEEMER. Taken from Rev. v. [Redeemed sinners signified by the living creatures and the elders.] THou art ſhorthy to take the book, And to open the seals thereof: For thow wast slain, And hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, Out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And hast made us unto our God kings and priests : And we shall reign on the earth. [Thousands of thousands of angels join the song with a loud voice.] Worthy is the Lamb that was slain To receive power, and riches, and wisdom, And strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing [The whole intelligent creation in full chorus.] Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, Be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, And to the Lamb for ever and ever ! [Redeemed sinners close the song in humblest prostration.] AMEN. The first should be sung, I think, with a soft tenor only, rather increasing in vigour and rapidity in the fifth and following lines;–the second in bold, loud, and animated notes, but not quick: there ought to be a full swell of sound to each of the seven ascriptions;–the third in full chorus, yet not so loud as the second, but more pathetic ; —the last, in which they who began conclude the song, though it be only one word, yet the notes to it should ex- press a heart full of humility and gratitude. II. —ON RECOVERY FROM SICKNESS, Taken from Hezekiah’s song, Isa. xxxviii. 10–20. I said in the cutting off of my days, I shall go to the gates of the grave; I am deprived of the residue of my years. I said, I shall not see the Lord, The Lord, in the land of the living : I shall behold man no more, With the inhabitants of the world ! I reckoned till morning, as a lion So will he break all my bones: From day to night wilt thou make an end of me ! Like a crane or a swallow, so did I twitter : I did mourn as a dove : * Mine eyes fail with looking upward : O Lord! I am oppressed, undertake for me ! What shall I say? He hath promised, and he hath per- formed ; I shall go softly all my years, Remembering the bitterness of my soul! O Lord, by these things men live, And in all these is the life of my spirit: So wilt thou recover me, and make me to live. Behold, for peace, I had great bitterness; But thou hast in love to my soul Delivered it from the pit of corruption: For thou hast cast all my sins behind thy back. The grave cannot praise thee : - They that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth. The living, the living, he shall praise thee: As I do this day. The father to the children shall make known thy truth. The Lord was present to save me. Therefore will we utter our songs, All the days of our life, in the house of the Lord. I will conclude with two or three remarks:—1. It is im- possible, whatever skill a person may have in music, to compose a tune properly without entering into the spirit of the song.—2. It is manifest, from these examples of sa- cred song, that the original singing was much of it respon- sive ; and that justice cannot otherwise be done to it.—3. The criterion of a good tune is, not its pleasing a scientific ear, but its being quickly caught by a congregation. It is, I think, by singing, as it is by preaching : a fine judge of composition will admire a sermon which yet makes no manner of impression upon the public mind, and therefore cannot be a good one. That is the best sermon which is adapted to produce the best effects; and the same may be said of a tune. If it correspond with the feelings of a pious heart, and aid him in realizing the sentiments, it will be quickly learnt, and sung with avidity. Where this ef- fect is not produced, were I a composer, I would throw aside my performance and try again. * I recollect, some years ago, when in a very dejected state of mind, hearing some turtle-doves cooing to one another. Their mourning notes made a deep impression upon my heart, their tomes being, as I suppose, in unison with its feelings. Had I so much skill in music as to compose a tune to this song, I would ingraft the very moan of the turtle to those words, I did mourn as a dove, MISC E L L A N E O US T R A CTs, Ess A Ys, LETTERS, &c. O N TRUTH. AN ESSAY ON TRUTH; CONTAINING AN INQUIRY INTO ITS NATURE AND IMPORTANCE, WITH THE CAUSES OF ERROR AND THE REASONS OF ITS BEING PERMITTED. THE multifarious and discordant sentiments which divide mankind afford a great temptation to scepticism, and many are carried away by it. The open enemies of the gospel take occasion from hence to justify their rejection of it; and many of its professed friends have written as if they thought that to be decided amidst so many minds and opinions were almost presumptuous. The principal, if not the only, use which they would make of these differ- ences is to induce a spirit of moderation and charity, and to declaim against bigotry. To say nothing at present how these terms are perverted and hackneyed in a certain cause, let two things be se- riously considered :-First, Whether this was the use made by the apostles of the discordant opinions which prevailed in their times, even among those who “acknowledged the Divinity of our Saviour's mission ?” In differences among Christians which did not affect the kingdom of God, nor destroy the work of God, it certainly was ; such were those concerning meats, drinks, and days, in which the utmost forbearance was inculcated. But it was otherwise in dif- ferences which affected the leading doctrines and precepts of Christianity. Forbearance in these cases would, in the account of the sacred writers, have been a crime. Paul “would they were even cut off” who troubled the Gala- tian churches by corrupting the Christian doctrine of jus- tification. And it is recorded to the honour of the church at Ephesus, that it “could not bear” them that were evil; but “had tried them who said they were apostles and were not, and found them liars,” Gal. v. 12; Rev. ii. 2. Secondly, Whether an unfavourable opinion of those who ºréject what we account the leading principles of Christianity, supposing it to be wrong, be equally injurious with a con- trary opinion, supposing that to be wrong 2 To think un- favourably of another does not affect his state towards God : if, therefore, it should prove to be wrong, it only interrupts present happiness. We have lately been told indeed, but from what authority I cannot conceive, that “the readiest way in the world to thin heaven and to re- plenish the regions of hell is to call in the spirit of bigotry.” Far be it from me to advocate the cause of bigotry, or to plead for a bitter, censorious spirit, a spirit that would confine the kingdom of heaven to a party; but I do not perceive how this spirit, bad as it is, is productive of the effects ascribed to it. If, on the other hand, through an aversion to bigotry, we treat those as Christians to whom an apostle would at least have said, “I stand in doubt of you,” we flatter and deceive them; which is really “the readiest way in the world to thin heaven, and to replenish the regions of hell.” Surely there is a medium between bigotry and esteeming and treating men as Christians irrespective of their avowed principles. Certainly, a benevolent and candid treatment is due to men of all denominations; but to consider all * principles as equally safe is to consider truth as of no im- portance. Let us candidly inquire, Christian reader, whether, not- withstanding the diversity of sentiments in the Christian world, truth may not be clearly ascertained ? Whether it be not of the utmost importance % Whether the prevalence of error may not be accounted for ? And, lastly, Whether the wisdom as well as the justice of God may not be seen in his permitting it? WHAT IS TRUTH 3 In attempting to answer this question, I desire to take nothing for granted but that Christianity is of God, and that the Scriptures are a revelation of his will. If Chris- tianity be of God, and he has revealed his will in the Holy Scriptures, light is come into the world, though the dark minds of sinful creatures comprehend it not. It does not follow, because many wander in mazes of fruitless specu- lation, that there is not a way so plain that a wayfaring man, or one who “walketh in the truth,” though a fool, shall not err. The numerous sects among the Greeks and Romans, and even among the Jews at the time of our Saviour's appearing, did not prove that there was no certain knowledge to be obtained of what was truth. Our Lord considered himself as speaking plainly, or he would not have asked the Jews as he did, “Why do ye not under- stand my speech 3’ The apostles and primitive believers saw their way plainly ; and though we cannot pretend to the extraordinary inspiration which was possessed by many of them, yet if we humbly follow their light, depending on the ordinary teachings of God's Holy Spirit, we shall See OUITS, - Truth, we may be certain, is the same thing as what in the Scriptures is denominated “the gospel ”—“the com- mon salvation ”—“ the common faith ”—“ the faith once delivered to the saints”—“the truth as it is in Jesus,” &c.; and what this is may be clearly understood by the brief summaries of the gospel, and of the faith of the primitive Christians, which abound in the New Testament. Of the former, the following are a few of many examples:–“God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.—The Son of man came to seek and to save that which is lost.—I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me.—To him gave all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. We preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling- block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ, the power of God, and the wisdom of God.—I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ and him crucified.—Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the 864 MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS, ESSAYS, &c. gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; by which also ye are saved, if ye hold fast what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain; for I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures.—This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.—This is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.— Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.” - If language has any determinate meaning, it is here plainly taught that mankind are not only sinners, but in a lost and perishing condition, without help or hope but what arises from the free grace of God, through the atone- ment of his Son ; that he died as our substitute; that we are forgiven and accepted only for the sake of what he hath done and suffered ; that in his person and work all evangelical truth concentrates; that the doctrine of sal- vation for the chief of sinners through his death was so familiar in the primitive times as to become a kind of Christian proverb, or saying ; and that on our receiving and retaining this depends our present standing and final salvation. If this doctrine be received, Christianity is re- ceived ; if not, the record which God hath given of his Son is rejected, and he himself treated as a liar. When this doctrine is received in the true spirit of it, which it never is but by a sinner ready to perish, all those fruitless speculations which tend only to bewilder the mind will be laid aside; just as malice, and guile, and envies, and evil speakings are laid aside by him who is born of God. They will fall off from the mind, like the coat of the chrysalis, of their own accord. Many instances of this are constantly occurring. Persons who, after having read and studied controversies, and leaned first to one opinion and then to another, till their minds have been lost in uncertainty, have at length been brought to think of the gospel, not as a matter of speculation, but as that which seriously and immediately concerns them ; and, embracing it as good news to them who are ready to perish, have not only found rest to their souls, but all their for- mer notions have departed from them as a dream when one awaketh. Corresponding with the brief summaries of the gospel are the concise accounts given of the faith of the primitive Christians.—“Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.”—“Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?”— “If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” The sacred writers did not mean, by this language, to magnify the belief of one or two Divine truths at the expense of others; but to exhibit them as bearing an inseparable connexion ; so that if these were truly embraced, the other would be certain to accompany them. They considered the doc- trine of the person and work of Christ as a golden link, that would draw along with it the whole chain of evan- gelical truth. Hence we perceive the propriety of such language as the following:—“He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son hath not life.”—“Who- soever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father.” The doctrine and the faith of the primitive Christians were summarily avowed every time they celebrated the Lord's supper. The leading truth exhibited by that ordinance is the same which John calls “the record;” namely, that “ God hath given unto us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.” Under the form of a feast, of which we are invited to take, to eat, and to drink, are set forth the blessings of the New Testament, or cove- nant, and the medium through which they were obtained; namely, “the blood of Jesus, shed for many for the re- mission of sins; and the way in which they must be re- ceived; that is to say, as a frée gift, bestowed on the un- worthy for his sake. If this simple doctrine were believed with the spirit of a little child, and lived upon as our meat and drink, we might take an everlasting leave of specu- lations on things beyond our reach ; and that without sustaining the loss of any thing but what were better lost than retained. IMPORTANCE OF TRUTH. If the above remarks may be thought sufficient to as- certain what is truth, its importance follows as a necessary consequence. If, as transgressors, we be exposed to the etermal displeasure of our Maker—if a door of hope be opened to us—if it be at no less an expense than the death of God’s only begotten Son in our nature—if, through this great propitiation, God can be just, and the justifier of believers—finally, if this be the only way of escape, and the present the only state in which it is possible to flee to it for refuge, who, that is not infatuated by the delusions of this world, can make light of it? There is an import- ance in truth, as it relates to philosophy, history, politics, or any other branch of science, inasmuch as it affects the present happiness of mankind ; but what is this when compared with that which involves their everlasting sal- vation ? To be furnished with an answer to the question, “What shall I do to be saved 4” is of infinitely greater account than to be able to decide whether the Ptolemaic or Copernican system be that of nature. The temporal salvation of a nation, great as it is, and greatly as it in- terests the minds of men, is nothing when compared with the eternal salvation of a single individual. I}ut many, who would not deny the superior value of eternal salvation to all other things, have yet gone about to depreciate the importance of Divine truth, and to re- present it as having no necessary connexion with either present holiness or future happiness. Such appears to have been the design of those well-known lines of Pope:— “For modes of faith let graceless zealots fight; His can’t be wrong whose life is in the right.” And to the same purpose we have often been told in prose that we shall not be judged at the last day by our opinions, but by our works. If truth and error existed in the mind merely as opinions, or objects of speculation, they might possibly have but little influence upon us; but if they be principles of action, they enter into the essence of all we do. Such is the influence of living faith, otherwise it could not be shown by our works ; * and such is that of the belief of falsehood, else we had not read of the word of false teachers “eating as doth a gangrene.”f The works by which we shall be judged cannot mean actions, in distinction from their principles, (for as such they would contain neither good nor evil,) but as connected with them. All pretences, therefore, to separate the one from the other are as contrary to reason as to Scripture. To render this subject more evident, let the following particulars be duly considered :— First, It is by the belief of truth that sinners are brought into a state of salvation.—Great things are ascribed in the Scriptures to faith; but faith could have no existence with- out revealed truth as its foundation. Whatever import- ance, therefore, attaches to the one attaches to the other. The great blessing of justification is constantly ascribed to faith, not as the reward of a virtue, but as that by which we become one with Christ, and so partakers of his benefits. While unbelievers, we have no revealed in- terest in the Divine favour; but are declared to be under condemnation ; but, believing in him, we are no longer “under the law,” as a term of life and death, but “under grace.” Hence it is that, in the gospel, as heard and re- ceived, we are said to stand. Take away evangelical truth, and you take away the standing of a Christian. Bereaved of this, the best man upon earth must despair of salvation. Secondly, Truth is the model and standard of true re- Jigion in the mind.—That doctrines, whether true or false, if really believed, become principles of action—that they are a mould into which the mind is cast, and from which it receives its impression—is evident both from Scripture and experience. An observant eye will easily perceive a spirit which attaches to the different species of religion; and which, over and above the diversities arising from na- tural temper, will manifest itself in their respective fol- lowers. Paganism, Mahomedism, deism, apostate Ju- * James ii. 18. + Ta'Y'Ypatva, 2 Tim, ii. 17. ON TRUTH. 865 daism, and various systems which have appeared under the name of Christianity, have each discovered a spirit of its own. Thus also it was from the beginning. Those who received another doctrine received with it another SPIRIT ; and hence we read of “the Spirit of truth’” and “ the spirit of error.” He that had the one is said to be “ of God,” and he that had the other “ not of God,” 2 Cor. xi. 4; 1 John iv. 6. Revealed truth is represented as “a form of doctrine” into which believers are “delivered,” Rom. vi. 17. As a melted substance, cast into a mould, receives its form from it, and every line in the one corresponds with that of the other; so true religion in the soul accords with true re- ligion in the Scriptures. Without this standard, we shall either model our faith by our own preconceived notions of what is fit and reasonable, or be carried away by our feel- ings, and lose ourselves among the extravagant vagaries of enthusiasm. Our views may seem to us very rational, or our feelings may be singularly ardent; and yet we may be far from being in the right. The question is, Whether they agree line to line with the Divine model? God saith, in his word, “Seek ye my face.” If our hearts say unto him, “ Thy face, Lord, will we seek,” then does line an- swer to line; and this is true religion. Is it a leading feature of evangelical truth that it honours the Divine character and government? It is the same with true re- ligion in the mind. Does that manifest love even to ene- mies? So does this. Is it the object of the former to abase the pride of man 3 It is no less the nature of the . latter to rejoice in lying low. Finally, Is the one averse from all iniquity, and friendly to universal holiness? The other, dissatisfied with present attainments, “presseth to- wards the mark, for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.” Thirdly, Truth is that which furnishes the motive for every exercise of true holiness.-If once we are enabled to behold its glory, the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, it changes us into the same image, begets and ex- cites holy affections, and every kind of gracious exercise. Hence we are said to know the truth, and the truth to make us free; to be sanctifted through it, and begotten by it, John viii. 32; xvii. 17 ; James i. 18. It is not denied that there is much of what is called mo- rality in persons who know and believe nothing to purpose of evangelical truth. Honour, interest, and the habits of education, will induce men to shun open immoralities, and to comply with things which are reputable and praisewor- thy. But though there be great cause for thankfulness to God, who, by his providence, thus restrains mankind from much evil; yet this is not holiness. Holiness is the love of God and one another; whereas this is mere self-love. All works and worship of this kind are no better than the offering of Cain, which, being without faith, could not please God. And as there may be a semblance of holiness without faith, so there may be a semblance of faith without holi- ness. The doctrines of the Bible, though in themselves practical, yet may be treated as mere speculations, and fre- quently are so by men who profess to believe them ; and, where this is the case, instead of producing holiness, they may have a contrary effect: but this is owing to their be. ing perverted. God’s words do good to the upright. There is not a sentiment in the living oracles but what, if received in the true spirit and intent of it, will contribute to the sanctification of the mind. True religion is, with great beauty and propriety, called walking in the truth. A life of sobriety, righteousness, and godliness, is Christian principle reduced to practice. Truth is a system of love, an overflow of the Divine blessedness, ** is intimated by its being called “ the glorious gospel of the blessed God?” a system of reconciliation, peace, and forgiveness; full of the most amazing condescension, and of Spotless rectitude. To walk in truth like this is to walk in love, to be tender-hearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven us; to be of the same mind with him who “made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant ;” and “ to be holy in all manner of conversation.” Such were the fruits of truth which were actually brought forth by the primitive believers; and, such, in different degrees, notwithstanding the many defects and scandals which abound among us, are the fruits of it in true Chris- tians to this day. Thousands of examples, both in earlier and later times, might be produced, in which men who previously walked according to the course of this world, in rioting and drunkenness, in chambering and wantonness, in strife and envying, on embracing the doctrine of Christ crucified have put off all these, and become as it were new Creatures. e - It is also worthy of special notice, that, in every instance in which the primitive churches deviated from the doctrine of the apostles, they appear to have degenerated as to zeal and practical godliness. A careful review of the Epistles to the Corinthians, the Galatians, and the Hebrews, who departed more than any other churches from the simplicity of the gospel, would furnish proof of the justness of this remark. It was not without reason that Paul observed to the Corinthians, “evil communications corrupt good man- ners;” by which he appears to have meant the communi- cations of false teachers, who endeavoured to undermine the resurrection, and other important truths. And such was the corruption of manners which accompanied these notions, that, degenerate as we consider ourselves, com- pared with the primitive Christians, if any one of our churches tolerated the same things, we should be almost ready to pronounce it a synagogue of Satan. Among other things they divided into parties, boasted of the talents of their preachers, connived at the most unnatural kind of fornication, went to law with one another, communed with idolaters at their temples, and profaned the supper of the Lord by appropriating it to purposes of sensual indulgence! Such were the fruits of error. - If we look into the Epistle to the Galatians, who had been turned aside from the apostolic doctrine of justifica- tion, we shall find fruits of the same kind. They are de- scribed as not obeying the truth, as foolish, as in a manner bewitched ; as having lost their former zeal, and rendered their Christianity a matter of doubt; as needing to have “Christ again formed in them :” and it is strongly inti- mated that they were guilty of biting, and as it were de- vouring one another, of “fulfilling the lusts of the flesh,” and of coveting “vain-glory, provoking one another, and envying one another.”—See chap. iii. 1; iv. 11. 19, 20; v. 7. 15, 16. 26. If the Hebrews had not, in turning aside from the truth, been injured in their spirit and conduct, it is very impro- bable that such language as the following would have been addressed to them : “Wherefore, as the Holy Spirit saith, To-day, if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilder- ness; when your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years. Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do always err in their hearts, and they have not known my ways. So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.—Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of un- belief, in departing from the living God!—Exhort one an- other daily, while it is called to-day, lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin l’’ Neither is it likely, if no symptoms had appeared among them, that they would have been exhorted to “ look diligently lest any man should fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up should trouble them, and thereby many be defiled ; lest there should be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.” Finally, It is not probable that so solemn a warning against whoredom and adultery would have been introduced, and the offenders cited as it were to the tribunal of God, if there had been no occasion for it in their own conduct.—Chap. iii. 7–13; xii. 12, 13. 15, 16; xiii. 4. Whether these instances of the permicious effects of error in the primitive churches be not in direct opposition to the modern notions before stated, let the reader judge. Nor are such things peculiar to the primitive churches. If you see men desert the principles before stated, or hold them in a corrupted sense, you may commonly perceive a change in their spirit. They may retain what is called character, in the eyes of the world; but the savour of godliness is departed. They may retain their zeal; but it will be con- 3 K 866 MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS, ESSAYS, &c. fined to some little peculiarity, to the neglect of the com- mon faith. There will be a want of that lovely proportion which constitutes the true beauty of holiness. A man who chews opium, or tobacco, may prefer it to the most whole- some food, and may derive from it pleasure, and even vigour for a time; but his pale countenance, and debili- tated constitution, will soon bear witness to the folly of spending his money for that which is not bread. Fourthly, The love which the primitive Christians bore to one another was For THE TRUTH's SAKE, 2 John 2; 3 John 1.—Now that for the sake of which we love a person is considered as of greater importance than any thing else pertaining to him. It is that which constitutes his value in our esteem ; and which if he abandon, we should no longer esteem him. Here we may perceive what is essential to the true le- gitimate charity of the primitive Christians. Instead of regarding men irrespectively of their principles, they “knew no man after the flesh.” John, who was the most loving, or charitable, perhaps, of all the disciples of Christ, is so far from considering a departure from the truth as a light matter, and the subject of it as entitled to the same Chris- tian affection as heretofore, that he expressly writes as follows:—Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God.—If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed ; for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” Would not such language, I ask, in our days be reckoned very uncharitable 3 It would. But this proves, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the common ideas of charity are antiscriptural. Charity will not take it for granted that whosoever deviates from our views must needs deviate from the doctrine of Christ; but will carefully inquire at the oracles of God, what is truth? Yet there is no need of being ever learn- ing and never able to come to the knowledge of it. The lady whom John addressed was supposed to be able to dis- tinguish between those who brought the doctrine of Christ: and those who came without it ; and so are Christians in the present day. Charity hopeth all things, and will al- Ways put the most favourable construction upon the mo- tives of others that truth will admit; but without truth, as its ground and guide, it will not proceed. Here also we may see the nature of Christian unity. It is not merely for two or more persons to be agreed; for this they may be in evil. This is mere party attachment. It is natural for men to love those who think and act like themselves, and that for their own sake. But Christian unity is to love one another for Christ's sake, and for the truth’s sake that dwelleth in them. Christ, as revealed in the gospel, forms the great point of union. A number of minds are drawn towards this point; and the nearer they approximate to it, the nearer they approach to a union with one another. If all true Christians were nearer to the mind of Christ, their differences would soon subside; and they would feel themselves, as they approached it, to be of one heart and of one soul. Lastly, Truth is the only solid foundation of peace and happiness.-There are cases, it is granted, in which the mind may rejoice in error, or be distressed by truth. False doctrine will operate like opium, filling the imagination with pleasing dreams; but all is transient and delusive. Truth, on the other hand, when it barely commendeth itself to the conscience of a sinner, may render him ex- tremely unhappy. Such was the effect of Judas's convic- tion of Christ’s innocence; and such is the effect of similar convictions in the present times. But where truth takes possession of the heart–or, as the Scriptures express it, where we “receive the love of the truth”—peace and joy accompany it. This is a fact established by history and experience, and is easily accounted for. Revealed truth carries in it a message of pardon, reconciliation, and eternal life; and all in a way honourable to the Divine character and government. This, in itself, is good news; and to every one who, as a sinner ready to perish, receiv. eth it, is a source of solid and lasting happiness. Truth also pours light upon all the dark and mysterious events of time, and teaches us, while weeping over human misery, not to despond or repine ; but, viewing things on a large scale, to rejoice in whatever is. It exhibits GoD upon the throne of the universe, ordering every thing for the best : and thus reconciles the mind to present ill, by pointing it to the good that shall ultimately rise out of it. Contrast with this the horrible complaints of an infidel. “"Who can, without horror, consider the whole earth as the empire of destruction ? It abounds in wonders; it abounds also in victims; it is a vast field of carnage and contagion. Every species is, without pity, pursued and torn to pieces, through the earth, and air, and water . In man there is more wretchedness than in all other animals put together. He smarts continually under two sources which other animals never feel ; anxiety, and listlessness in appetence, which makes him weary of himself. He loves life, and yet he knows that he must die. If he en- joy some transient good, for which he is thankful to Hea- ven, he suffers various evils, and is at last devoured by worms. This knowledge is his fatal prerogative. Other animals have it not. He feels it every moment rankling and corroding in his breast. Yet he spends the transient moment of his existence in diffusing the misery which he suffers; in cutting the throats of his fellow creatures for pay; in cheating and being cheated ; in robbing and being robbed ; in serving, that he may command ; and in repent- ing of all that he does. The bulk of mankind are nothing more than a crowd of wretches, equally criminal and un- fortunate ; and the globe contains rather carcasses than men. I tremble, upon a review of this dreadful picture, to find that it implies a complaint against PROvIDENCE ; and I wish that I had never been born 1 * * Such is the boasted happiness of unbelievers : And though we should not go these lengths, yet, if we forsake truth, by deviating materially from any of the great doctrines of the gospel, it will affect our peace. Error is the wandering of the mind when it thinks with- out a guide; the issue of which is “stumbling upon the dark mountains.” It is possible, in such circumstances, that the stupor of insensibility may be mistaken for the peace of God ; but if the soul be once roused from its slumber, especially if it be the subject of any true religion, it will find itself miserable. As soon might we expect to find happiness in the mind of one who has lost his way, and knoweth not whither he goeth, as in a mind that has deviated from evangelical truth. CAUSES OF ERROR. If truth be of this importance, it may be inquired, How are we to account for the great diversity of sentiment in the religious world? Whence is it that professing Chris- tians, even the wise and the good among them, should be so divided ? It certainly is not owing to any thing in Christianity itself. This will be found, on the strictest inquiry, to be one consistent whole, and all its precepts tend to unity of judgment, as well as of affection. To this end were all the Epistles addressed to the primitive churches. In some, the writers labour to establish them in the truth ; in others, to reclaim them from error; in all, to promote a holy unanimity in principle and practice. Yet, if we look to fact, we find that the churches, even in the purest ages, were never free from error. It was be- yond the power of the apostles, inspired as they were, effectually to guard them against it. Of this the afore- mentioned Epistles to the Corinthians, the Galatians, and the Hebrews, are standing proofs; and in after-ages things were much worse. Those principles which at first were but the bud, or at most the blade, now became the full ear, and produced a harvest of corruption and apostacy. The history of Christianity, from that day to this, is the history of one continued struggle between truth and error; the mind of Christ, and the reasonings of the flesh. Nor was this state of things unknown to the apostles; they saw, in their times, the mystery of iniquity begin to work, and by the Spirit of inspiration foretold its progress. “In the latter times,” say they, “some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of demons.”—“In the last days perilous times shall come, in which men shall be lovers of their own selves; ever learn- * Woltaire, ON TRUTH. 867 ing, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” And that, “as there were false prophets among the [Jew- ish] people, so there should be false teachers among [Christians], who would bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them ; and bring upon them- selves swift destruction.” What shall we say then 3 Shall we attribute the multi- farious and discordant doctrines of past and present times to diversity of habits, educations, and connexions; to the various tastes and talents found among men ; or to the frailty and imbecility of the human mind? These things may be allowed to have their influence ; but it is not to them principally that the Scriptures attribute the corrup- tion of Christian doctrine or worship. There is an important difference between diversity and contrariety. The former belongs to men as men, which the latter does not. One man comprehends more of truth, another less; this has a talent for discovering one part of truth, and that another; but in all this there is nothing discordant, any more than in a diversity of features, or in the variegated face of the earth, which abounds in divers kinds of flowers, every one of which contributes to the beauty of the whole. It is not so with respect to truth and error, which are as opposite as right and wrong. True doctrines are the plants, and false doctrines the weeds, of the church. They cannot both flourish in the same mind. The one minst be rooted up, or the other will be overrun and rendered unproductive. The causes which the Scriptures assign for the corrup- tion of Christian doctrine are principally, if not entirely, of a moral nature. They represent evangelical truth as a holy doctrine, and as that which cannot be understood by an unholy mind. “The natural,” or mere worldly wise, “man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him : neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” They are “hid from the wise and prudent, and revealed unto babes ; ” and thus “it seemeth good in His sight” whose mind it is to abase the pride of man. If the gospel had been “the wis- dom of this world,” the “spirit of this world” would have sufficed to understand it; and there would be no more errors concerning it than what arise from the imbe- cility of the human mind on all other subjects; but it is not : it is the wisdom that is from above, and therefore requires a state of mind suited to it; or, as the apostle expresses it, that “we receive not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God, that we may know the things which are freely given to us of God.” Now, this being the case, so far as we attempt to judge, preach, or write of the gospel, under the influence of mere worldly wisdom, or in any other than its own spirit, we are morally certain, in some way or other, to pervert it. Here then are opened to our view three grand sources of error; namely, The number of unconverted or mere worldly-wise characters who intrude themselves or are intruded by others into the Christian ministry—the greater number of merely nominal Christians, whose taste calls for antiscriptural preaching—and the large portion of unsanctified wisdom found even in godly men. First, The great number of wºmeonverted ministers. Far be it from me to judge of men otherwise than by what they manifest themselves to be. I abhor the spirit of our modern Antinomians, who would persuade us that they know good ministers from others by a kind of spiritual physiognomy; but who, if the tree be known by its fruits, have much more reason to judge themselves. Yet the Personal religion of many preachers must be allowed by charity itself to wear more than a suspicious appearance; nor is it surprising that it should be so. If, in the purest age of the church, when there were but few attractions for covetousness and ambition, there were “men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith;” men who had “the form of godliness, but denied the power thereof;” is it any Wonder that there should be such in our times 2 And * the introduction of almost every error among the primi- tive Christians is attributed to this sort of characters, is it *ot reasonable to expect that things should move on in the same direction? An unrenewed person, whatever be his education, talents, or natural temper, can never fall in with Christianity as it is taught in the New Testament. If, therefore, he occupy a station in the church, he will be almost certain to trans- form religion so as to suit himself. This, it is clear, was the grand source of the Romish apostacy. No sooner was Christianity adopted by the state than it became the interest of worldly men to profess it. Ecclesiastical offices were soon filled, in a great degree, by unbelievers in dis- guise. The effect was, as might have been expected, the doctrine, worship, discipline, and spirit of the gospel were gradually lost, and a system of corruption was substituted in their place. This has been a source of departure from the truth down to the present times; and that, in different degrees, among all denominations of Christians. If we look into the establishments of protestant Europe, we shall find that, in spite of oaths and subscriptions, devised in former ages for the security of orthodoxy, worldly men have a system of their own, and will explain their articles and creeds according to it. Or, if we look out of establish- ments, wherever worldly men are admitted to the work of the ministry, we shall find things much the same. Some of the greatest perverters of the gospel, during the last century, have descended from pious parents, who, fond of the idea of bringing up their children to the public service of God, overlooked the necessity of personal religion; presuming, as it would seem, that God would in due time supply that defect. The consequence was, the young men, finding evangelical truth sit uneasily upon them, threw it off, and embraced a system more suited to the state of their minds. Observing these things among men of education, many serious people have contracted a prejudice against learning itself; and have preferred the preaching of the most il- literate, for the sake of a pure doctrine. But neither is this any security; for men of assurance and address, pre- tending to extraordinary light and marvellous inspirations, will often obtrude themselves upon the people and draw disciples after them, especially from among the unthinking and light-minded part of Christian professors. In them the words of Peter have been eminently fulfilled : “Speak- ing great swelling words of vamity, they have allured, through the lusts of the flesh, those that for a while were escaped from them who live in error.” Nor has their influence been confined to such characters : sincere people have frequently been misled by their specious pretences. When Judas, professing a solicitude for the poor, con- demned an expression of love to Christ as an unnecessary piece of wastefulness, he drew away the other disciples after him. In short, men who have not the spirit by which the gospel was dictated will not cleave to it. Some may err on this side, some on that ; some having greater talents may do greater injury to it, and others less ; but all in one way or other will pervert it: and, where this is the case, “many will follow their pernicious ways ; and the way of truth,” being confounded with them, “will be evil spoken of.” Secondly, The great number of merely nominal Chris- tians.—In the present state of things, the bulk of mankind are not governed by principle, but by custom—following the course of this world, whatever direction it may take. In one country they are heathens, in another Mahomedans, and in another Christians ; in other words, they are of no religion. The effect of this is, that a large proportion of ministers are certain to be nominated and chosen by men who have no taste for the searching, humbling, and holy doctrine of the gospel, but are utterly averse from it; and, where this is the case, it requires but little discernment to perceive what will be the general tone of preaching. Even in congregational churches, if the people, or the leading individuals among them, be worldly-minded, ambitious, or in any respect loose livers, they will not be at a loss to find preachers after their own heart. Thus error is pro- pagated, and thus it was propagated from a very early period. “The time will come,” said Paul to Timothy, “when they will not endure sound doctrine ; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, hav- ing itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.” Thirdly, The large portion of unsanctified wisdom found even in godly men.—The wisdom of this world, as opposed 3 K 2 868 MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS, ESSAYS, &c. to the wisdom of God, is not confined to mere worldly men. The apostle, after speaking of spiritual men as “judging all things,” and as “having the mind of Christ,” adds, “And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal; even as unto babes in Christ.” And this, their carnality, is represented as ren- dering them unable to understand the great doctrines of Christianity, which are compared to meat, and as leading them to build upon the gospel foundation a mixture of “wood, and hay, and stubble; ” all of which shall be burnt up another day, though they themselves are to be saved, 1 Cor. ii. 6, 7. 12. 15, 16; iii. 1, 2, 12–17. There is a slowness of heart even in good men to be- lieve what God has revealed, especially if it clash with their preconceived ideas. Such was the state of mind of the apostles themselves previously to the resurrection of their Lord ; and such is the state of mind of great num- bers among us. We often hear men in controversy talk of being open to conviction and willing to retract their sentiments if but fairly confuted ; but such professions either mean but little, or at best indicate a great want of self-knowledge. Those who are the most open to con- viction will commonly suspect themselves the most, and of course will not be very forward in the use of such lan- guage. If there were not a slowness of heart, both in re- ceiving truth and relinquishing error, a large proportion of our controversies would soon be at an end. REASONs why ERRoR IS PERMITTED, The foregoing remarks may suffice to account for the prevalence of error, so far as man is concerned ; but it may be further inquired, Wherefore doth God permit it Why is it that the beauty of the Christian church is suf- fered to be marred and its peace invaded by a succession of perpetual discords? This is an awful subject; and if we were left to our own conjectures upon it, it would be our wisdom to leave it to the great day when all things will be made manifest: but we are not. The Scriptures of truth inform us that “there must needs be heresies, that they who are approved may be made manifest.” All the influences to which we are exposed, in the pre- sent life, are adapted to a state of probation, and to do us good or harm according to the state of mind which we possess. We are not only fearfully made, but as fearfully situated. The evidence in favour of true religion is suf- ficient for a candid mind, but not for one that is disposed to cavil. If we attend to it simply to find out truth and obey it, we shall not be disappointed; but if our souls be lifted up within us, the very Rock of salvation will be to us a stone of stumbling. The Jews required a sign in their own way : “Let him come down from the cross,” said they, “and we will believe him.” If he had publicly risen from the dead, say modern unbelievers, none could have doubted it.—Yet he neither came down from the cross nor rose publicly from the dead ; and let them say, if they please, that he could not, and that all his miracles were the work of imposture. It may be our duty, as much as in us lies, to cut off occasion from them who desire occasion; but God often acts otherwise. They who desire a handle to renounce the gospel shall have it. Thus it is that men are tried by false doctrine, and even by the immoralities of professing Christians. The visible kingdom of Christ is a floor containing a mixture of wheat and chaff; and every false doctrine is a wind, which he, whose fan is in his hand, makes use of to purge it. There are great numbers of characters who profess to receive the truth, on whom, notwithstanding, it never sat easily. Its holy and humbling nature galls their spirits. In such cases, the mind is prepared to re- ceive any representation of the gospel, however fallacious, that may comport with its desires; and being thus averse to the truth, God, in just judgment, frequently suffers the winds of false doctrine to sweep them away. Such is the account prophetically given of the chief instruments in the Romish apostacy. The introduction of that mystery of iniquity is thus described : “Whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish ; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should be- lieve a lie : that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” Not only is false doctrine permitted, that it may sweep away hypocritical characters, but the discordance which appears among the professors of Christianity is itself a temptation to many, and that in divers ways. Some, who consider themselves as almost if not altogether infallible, are hereby furnished with a plea for intolerance and per- secution. In this way it operated much in former ages, and a portion of it is still prevalent among us. You see, say they, whither this liberty of conscience will lead men. If they be left to themselves, and form their own notions of religion, there will be no end to their errors and di- visions, and to the sects that will arise out of them. Thus the catholics attempted to discredit the Reformation; and thus some protestants have endeavoured to discredit con- gregational church government, as fruitful of sects and divisions. But if either of them were required to prove that there is less error or opposition among themselves than among their neighbours, they might find it a difficult task. On one side, men find it necessary either not to think at all, or to conceal their sentiments; on the other, they speak and write their minds with greater freedom ; but things are what they are, whether they be avowed or not. He who persecutes men for their errors may at last be found equally erroneous himself; but allowing that he is not, and that his creed is orthodox, yet he is far from being “sound in the faith,” in the Scriptural sense of the words. He “knoweth not what manner of spirit he is of.” He may be willing to fight; but has yet to learn what are those weapons by which the soldiers of the Lamb are enabled to overcome. Others, on the same ground, have rejected all religion. You cannot agree, say they, as to what is truth : settle it among yourselves before you attempt to trouble us with it. Very well ; if you can satisfy your consciences with this evasion, do so. It will not avail you at death or judgment. You will then be reminded that you did not reason thus in things to which your hearts were inclined ; but applied with all your powers, and used every possible means, to ascertain the truth for yourselves, and acted ac- cordingly. On your own principles, therefore, will you be judged. Others, who have not gone these lengths, have yet been tempted to despair of finding out what is the true religion. Amidst the opposition of opinion which continually pre- sents itself before us, say they, how are we plain people to judge and act?—If you mean to intimate that it is vain for you to concern yourselves about it, that is the same as saying, it is vain to attempt any thing that is accompa- nied with difficulties, or to walk in any way that is attend- ed with temptations; and this would lead you to stand still in other things as well as in religion. But if it be the real desire of your soul to know the right way and walk in it, there is no reason to despair. Follow no man as your guide ; but go to your Bible and your God, and there decide the question. You need not say in your heart, “Who shall ascend into heaven 3 or who shall de- scend into the deep?” The word is migh thee. To read controversial books may, in many cases, be useful ; but seldom when it is done with a view to decide the great question, What is the right way to everlasting life? A book, as well as a sermon, may be the means of affording such direction. But when the mind is in a state of sus- pense, it is beyond all comparison the safest to consult the oracles of God. To launch into controversy, without having obtained satisfaction on the first principles of the doctrine of Christ, is to put to sea in a storm without a rudder. One great reason why men are “carried about with divers and strange doctrines” is—their “hearts are not established with grace.” They have no principles of their own, and therefore are carried away with any thing that wears the appearance of plausibility. But one of the worst inferences drawn from the discord- ant doctrines which abound in the world is that doctrine itself is of little or no account. As intolerance and bigotry, under the specious name of zeal, distinguished former ages, so sceptical indifference, under the specious names of can- ON TRUTH. 869 dour, liberality, and moderation, distinguishes this. This is the grand temptation, perhaps, of the present times. It would seem as if men must either fight for truth with car- mal weapons, or make peace with error; either our religious principles must be cognizable by human legislators, or they are neither good nor evil, and God himself must not call us to account for them; either we must call men masters upon earth, or deny that we have any master, even in heaven. It is a favourite principle with unbelievers, and with many professing Christians who verge towards them, that error not only has its seat in the mind, but that it is purely intellectual, and therefore innocent. Hence they plead against all church censures, and every degree of unfavour- able opinion on account of doctrinal sentiments, as though it were a species of persecution. But if the causes of error be principally moral, it will follow that such conclusions are as contrary to reason as they are to Scripture. The above remarks are far from being designed to cher- ish a spirit of bitterness against one another, as men, or as Christians. There is a way of viewing the corruption and depravity of mankind, so as to excite bitterness and wrath, and every species of evil temper; and there is a way of viewing them, that, without approving or conniving at what is wrong, shall excite the tear of compassion. It does not become us to declaim against the wickedness of the wicked in a manner as if we expected grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles; but while we prove ourselves the decided friends of God, to bear good-will to men. It becomes those who may be the most firmly established in the truth as it is in Jesus, to consider that a portion of the errors of the age, in all probability, attaches to them ; and though it were otherwise, yet they are directed to carry it benevolently towards others who may err: “In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God, peradventure, will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.” Finally, There is an important difference between razing the foundation, and building upon that foundation a por- tion of wood, and hay, and stubble. It becomes us not to make light of either; but the latter may be an object of forbearance, whereas the former is not. With the enemies of Christ, we ought, in religious matters, to make no terms; but towards his friends, though in some respects erroneous, it behoves us to come as near as it is possible to do, with- out a dereliction of principle. A truly Christian spirit will feel the force of such language as the following, and will act upon it : “All that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours, grace be unto them, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.—Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity l’” ON THE MANNER IN WEHICH DIVINE TRUTH IS COMMUNICATED IN THE HOLY SCRIP- TURES. IT is a fact which must have struck every attentive reader, that God has not communicated his mind to us by giving us a set of principles, arranged in the form of a scheme; or that we have no such creed as formally includes all the things necessary to be believed in either the Old or New Testament. On the contrary, we see Divine truth intro- duced rather incidentally than systematically. It is scat- tered from one end to the other, through all the historical, devotional, prophetic, and epistolary writings. I have no intention to derive an argument from this, as Some have done, against creeds and confessions of faith ; nor do I conceive that such an argument can hence be fairly derived. We might with equal justice argue against the science of botany being reduced to a system, on the ground of herbs and flowers of the same kind not growing together, but being scattered over the earth in beautiful Yariety. The variegated face of nature is not marred by its productions being scientifically collected and arranged; on the contrary, its beauties are so much the better under- stood. Yet, with respect to the actual position of the pro- ducts of nature, we must needs decide in favour of variety; Deity and humanity of Christ. and the same may be said of the actual position of Divine | truth in the Holy Scriptures: the incidental manner in which it is commonly introduced gives it great energy and beauty. It may be worthy of attention to consider a few of the incidents and occasions on which some of the most important truths are introduced, and to notice the wisdom of God in his thus introducing them. It is a truth which lies at the foundation of all religion, that there is a First Cause and Creator of all things, visible and invisible. But this truth is never introduced, that I recollect, in the form of an abstract proposition. At the commencement of revelation it is rather supposed than as- serted : “ In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.” Moses does not expressly inform us that there was a God who existed prior to this, but leaves us to infer it ; hereby intimating, perhaps, that this is so evident a truth that they who doubt it need reproof-rather than in- formation. The perfections of God are taught abundantly in the Scriptures; yet I do not recollect a single instance where they are introduced merely as a proposition, without some practical end to be answered. When Abraham, through Sarah’s unbelief and impatience, had deviated from his usual conduct, in taking Hagar to wife, hoping thereby to see the Divine promise fulfilled, Jehovah thus reproved him : “I am the Almighty (or all-sufficient) God. Walk before me, and be thou perfect.” When Israel despond- ingly exclaimed, “My way is hid from the Lord, and my judgment is passed over from my God,” he was thus an- swered : “Hast thou not known, hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary 2 There is no searching of his understanding.” In this manner also we are taught the moral government of God, and the accountableness of rational creatures. These important truths, as they stand in the sacred page, do not barely meet our eyes, or our understandings, but our consciences. They give us no time to dispute : ere we are aware we feel ourselves arrested by them, as by an almighty and irresistible force. “They say, The Lord shall not see, neither shall the God of Jacob regard. Under- stand, ye brutish among the people; and ye fools, when will ye be wise ? He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? He that formed the eye, shall he not see ? He that chastiseth the heathen, shall not he correct 3 He that teacheth man knowledge, shall not he know 3 Verily there is a reward for the righteous ; verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth !” Thus also we are instructed respecting the fall and de- pravity of human nature. We have no encouragement curiously to inquire beyond the fact; but we are told that “God made man upright, and he sought out many inven- tions.” If we would wish to flatter ourselves, or our spe- cies, from a partial view of human virtue, we are instantly cut short, in being told that “ God saw that the wicked- ness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagin- ation of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. They are all gone out of the way, they are together be- come unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.” And the substance of this is stated to induce our acquiescence in the doctrine of justification “by free grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” The doctrine of the Trinity is never proposed to us as an object of speculation, but as a truth affecting our dearest interests. John introduces the sacred Three as witnesses to the truth of the gospel of Christ, as objects of instituted worship, into whose name we are baptized ; and Paul ex- hibits them as the source of all spiritual good: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the com- munion of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen.” Again, “The Lord direct your hearts into the love of God, and into the patient waiting for Christ.” In this manner we are taught that great mystery of godliness, “God manifest in the flesh,” or the proper One sacred writer an- nounces, in prophetic language, “Unto us a child is born, and his name shall be called The mighty God.” Again, he describes him as the Lord God, coming with strong hand ; yet feeding his flock like a shepherd, gathering his lambs with his arm, carrying them in his bosom, and gently lead- ing those that are with young. Another directs his fol- 870 MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS, ESSAYS, &c. lowers to him, and says, “This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man who is preferred before me, for he was before me.” A third draws from his quiver an ar- row of conviction : “Ye have killed the author of life ’’ A fourth finds in it a motive of compassion to the mur- derers : “Who are Israelites, of whom as concerning the Jiesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever.” On one occasion, it is introduced as affording a pattern of humility and condescension : “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God ; but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.” On another, it accounts for the wonderful extremes in his character : the sacred writer having exhibited him as GoD, whose “throne was for ever and ever”—as having “laid the foundations of the earth,” and declared the heavens to be the work of his hands—an objection might arise from his being well known to be a man, and to have lived among men. In answer to this he adds, “He was made a little lower than the angels.-The children being partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same.—In all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a faithful and merciful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.” Finally, it is brought in at the close of the Revelation, to seal it with Divine authority : “I Jesus have sent mine angel, to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the qffspring of David.” What a majestic sweetness does this truth afford in these connexions ! It is impossible to enumerate the various occasions on which the Scriptures introduce the doctrine of atonement by the death of Christ. This is, to the doctrines and precepts of the Bible, as the life-blood to the animal sys- tem. The first chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians is often resorted to, as treating on evangelical blessings; but there is a design which runs through that whole chap- ter, nay, almost through the whole Epistle, which is to en- dear the name of Christ, and to eachibit the invaluable worth of his redeeming love. Are we blessed with all spiritual blessings 4 It is “in Christ Jesus.” Were we predestinated to the adoption of children It was “by Jesus Christ.” Are we accepted 3 It is “in the Beloved.” Have we redemption, even the forgiveness of sins 3 It is “through his blood.” And so on. Christ crucified is the substance of the Jewish ceremonial, and the spirit of its prophecies ; the theme of the Christian ministry on earth, and the song of the blessed above : It is not very difficult to discern the wisdom of God in introducing truth in such a manner. If every species of plants and flowers were to grow together, instead of the whole being scattered over the earth, the effect would be very different, and much for the worse; and if all truth relating to one subject were to be found only in one book, chapter, or epistle, we should probably under- stand much less than we do. There are some Divine truths which are less pleasant than others. Even good men have their partialities, or favourite principles, which would induce them to read those parts of Scripture which favoured them, to the neglect of others. But truth being scattered throughout the Scriptures, we are thereby ne- cessitated, if we read at all, to read the whole mind of God; and thus it is that we gradually and insensibly im- bibe it, and become assimilated to the same image. The conduct of God in this matter resembles that of a wise physician, who, in prescribing for a child, directs that its medicines be mixed up with its necessary food. Moreover, Scripture doctrines being introduced in some practical connexion, we learn them in that connexion. The occasions and ends of truth being associated in our minds with the truth itself, the great design of God in giving us a revelation, which is to sanctify our spirits and fit us for every good word and work, is more effectually answered. To one that has learned truth from the Scriptures, and in whom it dwells richly, in all wisdom and spiritual understanding, it is scarcely possible to think of a doctrine but in connexion with its correspondent duties, or of a duty without the principles by which it is enforced. Once more, Truth being introduced in connexion with some case or incident, it more readily occurs to us, when such case, or something similar to it, becomes our own. If, through distrust of the Divine power and goodness, and with hope of better accomplishing my object, I be tempted to turn aside from the straight-forward path of uprightness; having once read and felt the story of Abra- ham, and the admonition that was given him on that oc- casion, it is much more likely to occur to my mind, and to correct my folly, than if I had barely read that God was “Almighty,” or had only found a general admonition to “walk before him, and be perfect.” Or if I be tempted to sink in despondency on account of dark and intricate providences, having read of the promises of God to Jacob, of his subsequent fears, and of the happy issue, such pro- mises are much more likely to be a ready remedy than if I had barely read, unconnected with any particular case, that God will surely do his people good. In the one case truth is laid down, as it were, in abstract propositions; in the other, it is illustrated by particular examples. THE GREAT QUESTION ANSWERED. “And he brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.”—Acts xvi. 30, 31. PART THE FIRST., THAT great numbers of people, even in this Christianized country, are ignorant of the way of salvation, is too evi- dent to be denied. It is manifestly no part of their con- cern, any more than if they were in no danger of being lost, or there had never been such a thing as salvation heard of. Nor is this true only of weak and illiterate people : men, who in all other concerns are wise, in these things have no knowledge, or sense to direct them. The evil, therefore, cannot be ascribed to simple ignorance, which, as far as it goes, tends to excuse; but to being willingly ignorant ; saying unto God, “Depart from us— we desire not the knowledge of thy ways.” God, however, has a witness in every man’s conscience. Every man, whatever he may pretend, feels himself to be a sinner, and to need forgiveness. Ignorant and idola- trous as the Philippian jailer had been all his life, yet, when death looked him in the face, he trembled and cried for mercy. And if it were thus with the heathem, much more with those who have been educated under the light of revelation. The most careless and thoughtless cannot stand the approach of death. The courage of the most hardened infidel commonly fails him at that solemn period. Reader, Are you one of the many who scarcely ever think of these things; and whose chief concern is what you shall eat, what you shall drink, and where withal you shall be clothed ? Let the anxiety of a heathen re- prove you. If, like other animals, you were made only to eat and drink, and figure away for a few years, and then to sink in- to nothing, you might well throw aside every care, except that which respects your present gratification. But you are of an order of beings distinguished from all others in the creation. In your nature is united mortality and immor- tality ; the dust of the ground, and the breath of the Al- mighty. Life to you is but the introduction to exist- ence, a short voyage which will land you on the shores of eternity. You are surrounded by a number of objects, and feel an interest in each. You build houses, plant orchards, rear animals, and form to yourselves a home; but you are not at home. Your feelings associate with these things ; but they are not fit associates for you. You may have a portion in all that is doing in your family, and in your country; yea, in some sort, in all that is done under the sun; but this is not sufficient for you. The time draw- eth nigh when there will be an end to all these things, and they will be as though they had not been ; but you will still live. You will witness the wreck of nature itself, and survive it; and stand before the Son of man at his appear- THE GREAT QUESTION ANSWERED. 871 ing and kingdom. Can you think of these things and be unconcerned ? Or, though you be an immortal and accountable creature, (as your conscience tells you you are, whenever you con- sult it, and sometimes when you would gladly shut your ears against it,) yet, if you had not sinned against your Maker, there would be no cause for alarm. A sinless creature has nothing to fear from a righteous God. The approach of an assize, with all its solemn pomp, does not terrify the innocent: neither would judgment or eternity inspire the least degree of dread if you were guiltless. But you are a sinner, a corrupt branch of a corrupt stock. God placed, as I may say, a generous confidence in our species, and required nothing in return but love ; but we have re- turned him evil for good. You, for yourself, are conscious that you have done so, and that it is in your very nature to do evil. Or, though you be what is called a sinner, yet, if sin were your misfortune, rather than your fault, you might fly for refuge to the equity of your Maker. But this is not the case. Whatever may be said as to the manner in which you became a sinner, and however you may wish to excuse yourself on that ground, your own conscience bears wit- ness that what you are you choose to be, and occasionally reproaches you for being so. You may speculate upon sin as a kind of hereditary disease, which is merely a misfor- tune, not a fault; but, if so, why do you feel guilt on ac- count of it, any more than of the other ? Why do you not also acquit others of blame, where the evil is directed against you ? You do not think of excusing a fellow crea- ture, when he injures you, upon any such grounds as you allege in excuse of transgression against God. If the party be rational and voluntary, you make no further inquiry; but, without any hesitation, pronounce him criminal. Out of your own mouth therefore shall you be judged. The inability that you feel to do good is entirely owing to your having no heart to it. It is of the same nature as that of an unprincipled servant, who cannot seek his master’s in- terest, but is impelled, by his selfishness, to be always de- frauding him. You would not hold such a servant blame- less, nor will God hold you so. You are not destitute of those powers which render us accountable beings, but merely of a heart to make use of them for God. You take pleasure in knowledge, but desire not the knowledge of his ways; in conversation, but the mention of serious re- ligion strikes you dumb ; in activity, but in his service you are as one that is dead. You are fond of news; but that which angels announced, and the Son of God came down to publish, gives you no pleasure. All these things prove, beyond a doubt, where the inability lies. Or, if sin should be allowed to be your fault, yet, if it were a small offence, an imperfection that might be over- looked, or so slight a matter that you could atone for it by repentance, prayers, or tears, or any effort of your own, there might be less reason for alarm ; but neither is this the case. If sin were so light a matter as it is commonly nade, how is it that a train of the most awful curses should be denounced against the sinner ? Is it possible that a just and good God would curse his creatures in basket and in store, in their houses and in their fields, in their lying down and rising up, and in all that they set their hands to, for a mere trifle, or an imperfection that might be overlooked ? If sin were a light thing, how is it that the Father of mer- cies should have doomed all mankind to death, and to all the miseries that prepare its way, on account of it? How is it that wicked men die under such fearful apprehensions? Above all, how is it that it should require the eternal Son of God to become incarnate, and to be made a sacrifice, to atone for it 3 But if sin be thus offensive to God, then are you in a fearful situation. If you had the whole world to offer for your ransom, and could shed rivers of tears, and §lve even the fruit of your body for the sin of your soul, it Would be of no account. Were that which you offered ever 80 pure, it could have no influence whatever towards *toning for your past guilt, any more than the tears of a ºurderer can atone for blood'; but this is not the case; those very performances by which you hope to appease the *Wine anger are more offensive to him than the entreaties 9f a detected adulteress would be to her husband, while her heart, as he well knows, is not with him, but with her * paramours. You are, whether you know it or not, a lost sinner, and that in the strongest sense of the term. Men judge of sin only by its open acts, but God looketh directly at the heart. Their censures fall only on particular branches of immorality, which strike immediately at the well-being of society; but God views the root of the mis- chief, and takes into consideration all its mischievous bear- ings. “ISnow thou, therefore, and consider, that it is an evil thing and bitter that thou hast done; that thou hast departed from the living God, and that my fear is not in thee, saith the Lord of hosts.” Finally, Though your sin be exceedingly offensive to your Creator, and though you can make no atonement for it, yet, if you could resist his power, escape his hand, or endure his wrath, your unconcernedness might admit of some kind of apology. Surely I need not prove to you that you cannot resist his power:—what is your strength when tried ? You may in the hour of health and festivity, and when in company with others like yourself, look big, and put out great words, but they are words only. If God do but touch you with his afflicting hand, your strength and your courage instantly forsake you : and will you go on to provoke Omnipotence? “If thou hast run with the foot- men, and they have wearied thee, how wilt thou contend with horses? If in the land of peace thou hast been over- come, how wilt thou do in the swellings of Jordan 3”— Neither canst thou “escape ’’ his hand; for whither wilt thou flee ? If, attentive to thy safety, the rocks could fall on thee, or the mountains cover thee, yet should they not be able to hide thee “from the face of him that sitteth upon the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb.”—“God hath beset thee behind and before, and laid his hand upon thee. Whither wilt thou go from his Spirit 2 Whither wilt thou flee from his presence 2 If thou ascend to heaven, he is there ! Or, if thou make thy bed in hell, behold, he is there !”—The only question that remains is, whether you can “endure his displeasure ?” And this must surely be a forlorn hope | By the horrid imprecations which we so commonly hear from hardened sinners, who call upon God to damn their bodies and souls, it would seem as if they laid their account with damnation, and wished to familiar- ize it; as if they had made a covenant with death, and with hell were at agreement: but when God shall lay judg- ment to the line, and righteousness to the plummet, these refuges of lies will suddenly be swept away. Readerſ “Can thine heart endure, and thine hands be strong, in the day that he shall deal with thee ?” Think of the “wrath to come.” If it were founded in caprice or injustice, supported by conscious innocence you might pos- sibly bear it ; but, should you perish, you will be destitute of this. Conscience will eternally say Amen to the justice of your sufferings. If you had mere justice done you, un- mixed with mercy, your sufferings would be more tolerable than they will be. If you perish, you must have your por- tion with Bethsaida and Chorazin. Goodness gives an edge to justice. The displeasure of a kind and merciful being (and such is the wrath of the Lamb) is insupportable. If after having heard these things, and lived in a country where they are fully declared, you do not feel interested by them, you have reason to fear that God has given you up to hardness of heart, and that that language is fulfilled in you : “Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive : for the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing; and their eyes have they closed, lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.” Remember that in Old Testament times, when God blessed his people Israel with singular temporal blessings, he punished their trans- gressions mostly by temporal judgments; but now that we are favoured with singular spiritual privileges, the neglect of them is commonly punished with spiritual judgments. But whether you will hear, or whether you will forbear, I will declare unto you the only way of salvation. That which was addressed to the Philippian jailer is addressed to you. “God hath so loved the world as to give his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” He has given him not only to teach us the good and the right way, but to be 872 MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS, ESSAYS, &c. made a sacrifice for sin, and as such to be himself the way. He suffered from the hands of wicked men ; but this was not all : “it pleased the Lord to bruise him. He hath put him to grief,” and made “his soul an offering for sin.” He commanded his sword to awake against him, that through his death he might turn his hand in mercy to- wards perishing sinners. He hath set him forth “to be a propitiation to declare his righteousness, that he might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.” This is the only sacrifice which is well-pleasing to God. All that went before were of no account, but as they point- ed to it; and all the prayers and praises of sinful creatures are no otherwise acceptable than as presented through it. It is not for you to go about to appease the Divine dis- pleasure, or to recommend yourself to the Saviour by any efforts of your own ; but, despairing of help from every other quarter, to “receive the atonement which Christ hath made.” To this you are invited, and that in the most pressing terms. He that made him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteous- ness of God in him, hath on this ground committed to his servants the ministry of reconciliation ; and they as “am- bassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you" by them, “pray you, in Christ's stead, beye reconciled to God.” The blessings of pardon, peace, and eternal life are com- pared to a feast or marriage-supper, which the King of heaven and earth hath made for his Son; and he hath commanded his servants to go forth, as to the highways and hedges, and to invite, without distinction; yea, to “compel them to come in.” Nor is this all; you are ex- horted and commanded to believe in Christ, on pain of damnation. All your other sins expose you merely to the curse of the law; but the sin of unbelief, if persisted in, will expose you, like the barren fig-tree, to the curse of the Saviour, from which there is no redemption. Say not in thine heart, All these things I have believed from my youth up. You may indeed have been taught them, and have received them as a tradition from your fathers; but such faith is dead, and consequently un- operative. It is the same as that of the Jews towards Moses, which our Saviour would not admit to be faith. “If ye believed Moses,” saith he, “ye would believe me, for he wrote of me.” It is no better than the faith of devils, and in some respects has less influenee; for they believe and tremble, whereas you believe and are at ease. But it may be you will say, I have examined Chris- tianity for myself, and am fully persuaded it is true.—Yet it has no effect upon you, any more than if you disbelieved it, unless it be to restrain you within the limits of exterior decorum. Your faith, therefore, must still be “dead, being alone.” Believing in Christ is not the exercise of a mind at ease, casting up the evidences for and against, and then coldly assenting, as in a question of science, to that side which seems to have the greatest weight of proof. To one whose mind is subdued to the obedience of faith, there is indeed no want of evidence; but it is not so much from external proofs as from its own intrinsic glory, and suit- ableness to his case as a perishing sinner, that he feels himself impelled to receive it. The gospel is too interest- ing, and hath too much influence on our past and future conduct, to be an object of unfeeling speculation. It is a “hope set before us,” which none but those who are “ready to perish ’’ will ever embrace. To believe it is to renounce our own wisdom, our own righteousness, and our own will, (each of which is directly opposed to it,) and to fall into the arms of mere grace, through the atoning blood of the cross. If the good news of salvation be not in this manner believed, it signifies but little what speculative motions we may entertain concerning it; for where there is no renunciation of self, there is no dependence upon Christ for justification ; and where there is no such dependence, there is no revealed interest in that important blessing; but the curses and threatenings of God stand in all their force against us. If after all your examinations you continue to make light of the gospel feast, and prefer your farms, merchan- dises, or any thing else before it, you will be found to have no part in it. Yet be it known unto you that the feast shall not be unattended. Heaven shall not go with- out inhabitants, nor Christ without reward, whether you The Stone set at nought by man is Consider then, be saved or lost. nevertheless “the Head of the corner.” take advice, and speak your mind. PART THE SECOND, HAD this question been addressed to the first genius upon earth, unacquainted with the gospel, it could not have been answered. Had it been put to all the great philoso- phers of antiquity one by one, and to all the learned doc- tors among the Jews, none of them could have resolved it to any good purpose. Nor, amidst all the boasted light of modern times, can a single unbeliever be found who would know what to do with it. Yet it is a question which arises in almost every man’s mind at one period or other of his life, and a question that must be resolved, or we are lost for ever. Reader it is possible this important question has al- ready occupied your mind. An alarming sermon, a death in your family, a hint from a faithful friend, or it may be an impressive dream, has awakened your attention. You cannot take pleasure as formerly in worldly company and pursuits, yet you have no pleasure in religion. You have left off many vices, and have complied with many religious duties, but can find no rest for your soul. The remem- brance of the past is bitter; the prospect of the future may be more so. The thoughts of God trouble you. You have even wished that you had never been born, or that you could now shrink back into non-existence, or that you were any thing rather than a man. But you are aware that all these wishes are vain. You do exist; your nature is stamped with immortality; you must go forward and die, and stand before this holy Lord God . If these or such like exercises occupy your mind, the question of the Philippian jailer is yours; and to you let me address a few directions included or implied in the anSWer. If by this question you mean, What can you do to ap- pease the wrath of God, or recommend yourself as a fit ob- ject of his mercy 3 What can you do as a good deed, or the beginning of a course of good deeds, in reward of which he may bestow upon you an interest in the Saviour? I an- swer, nothing. An interest in Christ and eternal life is indeed given as a reward, but not of any thing we have done or can do ; no, not by Divine assistance ; it is the reward of the obedience of Christ unto death. To us it is of mere grace, and as such must be received. Faith, though in itself a holy exercise of the mind, yet, as that by which we are justified, is directly opposed to doing. “To him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt; but to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” He that worketh seeks to obtain life and the favour of God in some way or other as a reward; but he that believeth receives it as a free gift to the unworthy. And let me apprize you that this is the state of mind you must be brought to, or you must perish for ever. So far as you think of doing any thing, call it what you may, with a hope of being pardoned and justified for its sake, so far you reject the only way of salvation, and have reason to expect your portion with unbelievers. Let me deal freely with you. Yours is a most serious situation. The gospel rest is before you ; and if you enter not in, it will be because of unbelief. You know the answer given to the jailer; and this is the only answer that can with safety be given to you. Consider and be- ware, as you regard your eternal salvation, that you take up your rest in nothing short of it. But, in the first place, let me declare unto you the gos- pel of God, which you are directed to believe. If this meet your case—if, rightly understood, it approve itself not only to your conscience, but your whole soul—if it accord with your desires, as it undoubtedly does with your necessities—all is well, and well for ever. I shall not trouble you with the opinions of men as to what the gos- pel is, nor even with my own, but direct you to the ac- counts given of it by him whose it is. The New Testa- ment abounds with epitomes, or brief descriptions of it, delivered in such plain and pointed language that he that runs may read it. Such are the following: “God so loved THE GREAT QUESTION ANSWERED. 873 the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that who- soever believeth in him should not perish, but have ever- lasting life.—Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have re- ceived, and wherein ye stand; by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you, first of all, that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures.—This is a faithful saying, (a truth of such importance as to have become a kind of Christian proverb,) and worthy of all acceptation, that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief. We preach Christ crucified.—I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ and him crucified.—This is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.” It is not meant, by these brief descriptions of the gos- pel, that there is no other truth necessary to be believed ; but that the doctrine of the cross, properly embraced, in- cludes all others, or draws after it the belief of them. The import of this gospel is, that God is in the right, and we are in the wrong; that we have transgressed against him without cause, and are justly exposed to ever- lasting punishment; that mercy, originating purely in himself, required for the due honour of his government to be exercised through the atonement of his beloved Son; that with this sacrifice God is well pleased, and can, con- sistently with all his perfections, pardon and accept of any sinner, whatever he hath done, who believeth in him. What say you to this? The truth of it has been con- firmed by the most unquestionable proofs. It first began to be spoken by the Lord himself, and has been confirmed unto us by them that heard him ; God also bearing them witness, with signs and wonders, and divers miracles. The witness of the three in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, is borne to this ; namely, that “God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son; ” and to this also is directed the witness of the three on earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood. Can you subscribe to this great truth in all its bearings, and rest the salvation of your soul upon it 3 or do you doubt whether you be so guilty, so helpless, and in so dangerous a state as this doctrine supposes? Is it as one of the chief of sinners that you view yourself? or does it grate with your feelings to receive forgiveness in that humble character? In suing for mercy, are you content to stand on the same low ground as if you were a convict actually going to be executed 3 or does your heart secretly pine after a salvation less humiliating, in which some account might be made of that difference of character by which you may have been distinguished from the vilest of men, and in which you might be somewhat a co-operator with God? Does that which pleases God please you? or does your mind revolt at it? It meets all your wants ; but not one of your pre- judices, proud thoughts, or vicious propensities: all these must come down, and be made a sacrifice to it. Can you subscribe it on these terms? I am well aware that the great concern of persons in your situation is to obtain peace of mind ; and any thing which promises to afford this attracts your attention. If this gospel be believed with all your heart, it will give you Peace. ... This is the good, and the old way; walk in it, and you will find rest for your soul; but it is not every thing which promises peace that will ultimately afford it. It is at our peril to offer you other consolation, and at yours to receive it. Consider, and beware, I say again, as you regard your eternal salvation, that you take up your rest in nothing short of Christ —With a few serious cautions against some of Your principal dangers, I shall conclude this address. First, Beware of brooding over your guilt in a way of *believing despondency, and so standing aloof from the hope of ºmercy. Say not, My sins have been too great, tºo numerous, or too aggravated to be forgiven. “The . blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth from all sin:” believest thou this 3 You are not straitened in him; but * Your own bowels. “God’s thoughts are not as your thoughts, nor his Ways as your ways: as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are his thoughts higher than your thoughts, and his ways than your ways.” On the sinner that returneth to our God he bestoweth abundant pardon. It is not, If thou canst do any thing, help me ; but, “If thou canst believe—all things are possible to him that believeth.” Of what dost thou doubt—of his all- sufficiency? “He is able to save to the uttermost all that come unto God by him.” Of his willingness : Ought not his gracious invitations to satisfy thee on this head 3 Can you imagine that he would proclaim, saying, “Whosoever thirsteth, let him come unto me and drink,” and yet be reluctant to gratify the desires of those that come to him 3 Objections on the ground of the greatness of guilt and unworthiness may seem to wear the face of modesty and humility; but, after all, it becomes you to consider whe- ther they be any other than the workings of a self-right- eous spirit. If you could find in your heart to accept of mercy as one of the chief of sinners, all your objections would vanish in a moment. One sees in your very tears of despondency a pining after acceptance with God by something in yourself. Were they put into words, they would amount to something like this:—If I had but some- what to recommend me to the Saviour, I could go to him with assurance; or, if I had been less wicked, I might hope for acceptance. And what is this but making good the complaint of our Saviour ! “Ye will not come to me that ye may have life l’” Such longing after something to recommend you to the Saviour is no other than “going about to establish your own righteousness; ” and, while this is the case, there is great danger of your being given up to imagine that..you find the worthiness in yourself which your soul desireth. Secondly, Beware of dwelling in a way of self-compla- cency on those reformations which may have been produced by the power of conviction. This is another of those work- ings of unbelief by which many have come short of be- lieving, and so of entering into rest. There is no doubt but your convictions have driven you from the commission of grosser vices, and probably have frightened you into a compliance with various religious duties; but these are only the loppings-off of the branches of sin : the root remains unmortified. It is not the breaking off of your sins that will turn to any account, unless they be broken off by righteousness; and this will not be the case but by believing in Christ. The power of corruption may have only retired into its strong holds, from whence, if you embrace not the gospel way of salvation, it will soon come forth with increased energy, and sweep away all your cobweb reformations. Nay, it is very possible that, while the “lusts of the flesh” have seemed to recede, those of the mind, particularly spiritual pride, may have already increased in strength. If, indeed, you dwell on your reformations, and draw comfort from them, it is an un- doubted proof that it is so; and then, instead of being reformed, or nearer the kingdom of heaven than you were before, your character is more offensive to God than ever. Publicans and harlots are more likely to enter into it than you.--Besides, if your reformations were ever so virtuous, (which they are not, in His sight by whom actions are weighed,) yet, while you are an unbeliever, they cannot be accepted. You yourself must first be accepted in the Beloved, ere any thing that you offer can be received. “It does not consist with the honour of the majesty of the King of heaven and earth to accept of any thing from a condemned malefactor, condemned by the justice of his own holy law, till that condemnation be removed.” Thirdly, Beware of deriving comfort from the distress of mind which you may have wmdergone, or from any feelings within you. . Some religious people will tell you that these workings of mind are a sign that God has mercy in reserve for you ; and that if you go on in the way you are in, waiting as at the pool, all will be well in the end : but do not you believe them. They have no Scripture warrant for what they say. It is not your being distressed in mind that will prove any thing in your favour, but the issue of it. Saul was distressed, as well as David ; and Judas as well as Peter. When the murderers of our Lord were pricked in their hearts, Peter did not comfort them by re- presenting this their unhappiness as a hopeful sign of con- version ; but exhorted them to “repent and be baptized, 874 * MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS, ESSAYS, &c. every one of them, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins.” And thus it was with Paul and Silas, when the jailer was impressed with fear and dismay; they gave him no encouragement from thence, but preached Jesus Christ as the only source of hope. If one who had slain a man in Israel had stopped short of the city of re- fuge, and endeavoured to draw comfort from the alarm which he had felt lest the avenger of blood should overtake him, would he have been safe 2 There is no security to you, or to any man, but in fleeing immediately to the gospel refuge, and laying hold of the hope set before you. If you take comfort from your distress, you are in immi- nent danger of stopping short of Christ, and so of perishing for ever. Many, no doubt, have done so ; and that which they have accounted waiting at the pool for the moving of the waters has proved no other than settling upon a false foundation. Indeed it must needs be so ; for as there is no medium, in one that has heard the gospel, between faith and unbelief, he that does not believe in Jesus for salvation, if he have any hope of it, must derive that hope from something in himself. Fourthly, Beware of making faith itself, as an act of Ayours, the ground of acceptance with God. It is true that believing is an act of yours, and an act of obedience to God. Far be it from me that I should convey an idea of any thing short of a cordial reception of the gospel being accompanied with salvation—a reception that involves a renunciation of self-righteousness, and a submission to the righteousness of God. But if you consider it as a species of sincere obedience which God has consented to accept instead of a perfect one, and if you hope to be justified in reward of it, you are still “going about to establish your own righteousness” under an evangelical name. This is the commandment of God, that ye believe on the name of his Son. Faith is an act of obedience to God, yet it is not as such that it justifies us, but as receiving Christ, and bringing us into a living union with him, for whose sake alone we are accepted and saved. If you truly believe in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation, you will think nothing of the workings of your own mind, but of his work who came into the world to save the chief of sinners. Finally, Beware of taking comfort from any impulse, or wnfounded persuasion that your sins are forgiven, and that 8/ow are a favourite of God. Many are deceived in this way, and mistake such a persuasion for faith itself. When a sinner is driven from all his former holds, it is not un- usual for him, instead of falling at the feet of Christ as utterly lost, to catch at any new conceit, however unscrip- tural and absurd, if it will but afford him relief. If, in such a state of mind, he receive an impression, perhaps in the words of Scripture, that God has forgiven and accepted him, or dream that he is in heaven, or read a book or hear a sermon which is favourable to such a method of obtaining relief, he eagerly imbibes it, and becomes intoxicated with the delicious draught. The joy of hope being so new and unexpected a thing, and succeeding to great darkness and distress, produces a wonderful change in his mind. Now he thinks he has discovered the light of life, and feels to have lost his burden. Now he has found out the true re- ligion, and all that he read or heard before, not affording him relief, is false doctrine, or legal preaching. Being treated also as one of the dear children of God, by others of the same description, he is attached to his flatterers, and despises those as graceless who would rob him of his com- : by warning him against the lie which is “in his right land.” I do not mean to say that all consolation which comes suddenly to the mind, or by the impression of a passage of Scripture, any more than by reading or hearing, is delusive. It is not the manner in which we obtain relief that is of any account, but what it is that comforts us. If it be the doctrine of the cross, or any revealed truth pertaining to it, this is gospel consolation ; but if it be a supposed revela- tion from heaven of something which is not taught in the Scriptures, that is a species of comfort on which no de- pendence can be placed. A believer may be so far misled as to be carried away with it; but if a man has nothing better, he is still an unbeliever. To conclude: If ever you obtain that rest for your soul which will bear the light, it must be, not from any thing within you, but by looking out of yourself to Christ as re- vealed in the gospel. You may afterwards know that you have passed from death unto life by the love you bear to the brethren, and by many other Scriptural evidences; and, from the time of your embracing the gospel remedy, you may be conscious of it, and so enjoy the hope of the pro- mised salvation; but your first relief, if it be genuine, will be drawn directly from Christ, or from finding that in the doctrine of salvation through his death which suits your wants and wishes as a perishing sinner THE AWAKENED SINNER. [A Correspondence between Archippus, a Minister of the Gospel, and Epaphras, a young man who had been one of his hearers.] LETTER. I. [Epaphras to Archippus.] MY DEAR SIR, For several years past, you know, I have sat under your ministry. Having lately been removed by providence be- yond the reach of it, many things, which made but little impression upon my mind at the time, have been called to remembrance. My heart often sinks at the thought of the non-improvement of my former mercies, and trembles lest those solemn warnings and tender expostulations which I have heard from you should, on a future day, bear witness against me. You have more than once talked to me on the concerns of my soul; but I could never be frée to answer you. In- deed I did not like to hear of the subject. It always struck a damp upon my spirits, and rendered your com- pany, which otherwise was very agreeable, a burden. But now, seldom seeing your face, I feel a wish to open my mind to you; and the rather because the salvation of my soul has of late concerned me more than at any former period. Though you were well acquainted with my person, you knew but little of my character, or of the things which were at work in my mind. I have been guilty of many evils from my youth. I have also been the subject of oc- casional convictions; and strange thoughts have passed my mind concerning religion. When about twelve years of age, the death of several persons around me impressed my mind with solemn reflections about my own future state. I conceived of God as an almighty Being ; but had no just ideas of his moral character. It appeared to me that, being stronger than we, his will must be our law. I saw no justness or fitness in its being so; but, as we were unable to dispute with him, it must be so. I entertained many hard thoughts of his government, on the ground of our first parent being constituted the head of his posterity, and of the consequence of his sin as affecting us. Some- times I wished I had never been born ; but then again it would recur to me, born I am, and die I must, and after death is a judgment! At other times, my thoughts would turn to the only hope set before us, the salvation of Jesus Christ. I conceived of him, however, as coming into the world, not to satisfy the injured justice of God, but to make us amends for the injury we had received from Adam's transgression, and to give us, as it were, another chance for our life. I thought God must know that he had dealt hardly with us; and, therefore, was constrained by equity to do as he did, in giving his Son to die for us; and that, if he had not done this, we should have had just cause for complaint, whatever we might have as it was. I read in the Scriptures of the necessity of repentance and conversion ; and many thoughts passed through my mind on this subject; but I generally postponed a serious attention to it to some future day. I formed resolutions of amendment, and fixed times when I would return to God by repentance; but as the former seldom proved to be of any account in the hour of temptation, so the latter passed over, and left me where I was. About this time I fell into company, which often drew me into a breach THE AWAKENED SINNER. 875 of the sabbath. During the summer season we used to walk in the fields, to the neglect of public worship. I could not do this, however, without its being followed by keen remorse. . Such was the bitterness of my soul on one of these occasions, that I invoked the curse of the Al- mighty upon myself, and wrote it upon the walls of a building near the outside of the town, if I passed that building any more on the sabbath day, to the neglect of his worship. I now began to think myself a little better; but still suspected I was not right at heart. The words of Christ to Nicodemus would in a manner strike me dead, “Ye must be born again : * The ideas which I formed of the new birth, as nearly as I can remember, were, that I must be in some very deep distress, next to despair; and in that state of mind a voice from heaven, or something like it, was to set me at liberty. I used to go alone into the fields in an evening, and there weep over my condition, and pray that I might be converted; but it always seemed to me that God would not hear me. At length I began to despair. I thought I never should be converted, and so must perish for ever. Sometimes I thought of giving up all concern about it, and enjoying the pleasures of life while I could ; but as I knew not how to shake off my uneasiness, I thought I would try another year, and wait and pray . . . . peradventure by that I might be converted. During this year I was often beset with thoughts like these—Perhaps, after all, there is nothing in religion ; perhaps the Bible is nothing more than the invention of some great man, to keep the world in order; perhaps the Mahomedans have as good ground to believe in the Al- coran as we have in the Scriptures; perhaps there is no hereafter; perhaps there is no God.—My heart, I believe, would willingly have received these principles, shocking as they are; but my conscience would not suffer me do it. I even took pains to convince myself of their falsehood, by walking out into the fields in a star-light evening, viewing the heavens, and inferring thence the being of a God; which, when admitted, the reality of religion followed as a necessary consequence. About this time I read “Alleine's Alarm to the Un- converted.” He said, “There were some who thought themselves converted, but were not so; and others who thought they were not converted, but were so. I over- looked the alarming part of the treatise, and caught hold of this, gathering from it some sort of hope that the latter might possibly be my case. My year was now expired ; and though I had a few hopes, I felt no ground for any satisfactory conclusion, I thought I must be better than I was ; yet how to make myself so I knew not. But my sheet is full ; I therefore at present subscribe myself yours with much respect, EPAPHRAS. LETTER II. [Epaphras to Archippus.] MY DEAR SIR, LET me presume upon your patience, while I resume the narrative of my past exercises of mind. When about fourteen years of age, I remember, as I was one morning musing by myself, and thinking of the number and mag- nitude of my offences, the bitter pangs of despair seized me. Iniquity, said I, will be my ruin. A sigh, as from the bottom of my heart, succeeded this exclamation. But, all on a sudden, I seemed to hear as it were a voice from heaven, saying to me, “Sin shall not have dominion over thee; for thou art not under the law, but under grace.” I instantly burst into a flood of tears, and went on weep- ing for joy, till my weeping powers seemed to be exhausted. In reflecting upon this, I thought, I am now surely con- Verted ; this must be the new birth. I was the subject of transporting joy, and confidence of having found the pearl of price. - From what I have heard you say concerning impressions, even in Scripture language, where it is not the truth con- tained in the words, but the idea of their being an ex- traordinary revelation from heaven made to the soul of the forgiveness of its sins, I have no reason to suppose that your thoughts of this singular part of my experience will accord with what at that time were mine. Indeed, from what followed, I have no reason to think favourably of it myself, for within a few hours all was forgotten, as though it had not been ; and what is worse, I returned to my sins as eagerly as ever, and lived several years after this in the unbridled indulgence of almost every species of iniquity that came within my reach. It is true, I could not sin without occasional pangs of remorse, and such as were very bitter; but my heart was set on evil. I formed in- timacies with dissolute young people, and did as they did. I drew many into my wicked courses, as others had drawn me into theirs; and having never made any profession of religion, I felt the less concern. I seemed to consider re- ligion as a kind of discretional service. Those who made profession of it I thought were obliged to act accordingly; but others, except so far as they might be induced to at- tend to it for their own safety, were at liberty to give scope to their inclinations. My heart was so hardened by repeated acts of sin that God was scarcely in any of my thoughts. His all-piercing eye did not restrain me. There was a poor godly man, however, one of my father’s labourers, whose eye and ear used to strike me with terror. If at any time I had been reading, or had gone a few miles to hear a sermon, or any thing else that looked like religion, I used to imagine that he looked upon me with complacency and hope; but when I had been indulging in sin, I thought I saw in his face the very frowns of Heaven. It was a strange and singular re- gard that I felt for this poor man. His good opinion was what I desired above that of all other persons. When he has been going to worship on a Lord’s-day morning, I have run with eagerness to overtake him; yet when in his company I had nothing to say. If ever I wished for riches, it was that I might be able to confer them upon him. Within the last year my concern has been renewed. Having been deeply engaged in a very ungodly piece of conduct, which was publicly known, I dreaded nothing so much as meeting the eyes of this poor man. He, how- ever, said nothing to me; and I suppose thought no more of it than he would of seeing evil fruit growing upon an evil tree : but my mind from that time became habitually wretched. Like Samson, I strove to shake myself, and to do as at other times; but my strength was gone ; the joy of my heart was fled. From this time, many of my open vices were relinquished ; the love of sin, however, was not subdued. On the contrary, in proportion to the restraints under which my convictions laid me as to some evils, such was the strength of my inclinations towards others. For two or three months together, it was common for me to indulge in sin in an evening ; and when I waked in the morning, to be overwhelmed with guilt and horror. In the hour of dejection I would resolve against future com- pliances. In some few instances I kept to my resolutions; and when I did so I had peace; as also when at any time I had wept over my sin, and bemoaned my miserable con- dition, I enjoyed a kind of secret satisfaction: but when my resolutions failed me, as they mostly did in the hour of temptation, all my peace and comfort would forsake me. I have learned, by these things, that there is no help in me ; and that, if God were to forgive me all that is past, I should in one hour destroy my soul. Formerly I used to sin away my convictions; but have not been able to do so of late. Conscience has seemed to follow me wherever I have gone, or rather, like an angel of God with a drawn sword in his hand, to meet me in my wicked courses. Indeed, I am now afraid of losing my convictions, knowing that eternal ruin must be the con- sequence in that case, whatever it be as it is. O sir! I am a miserable sinner. My crimes have been much more numerous and aggravated than you or any of my friends can have imagined. I have long known my- self to be a sinner; but now I feel it. I often repeat to myself the lamentations of a sinner as described by Mr. Mason— “I have been Satan's willing slave, And his most easy prey; He was not readier to command Than I was to obey. 876 MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS, ESSAYS, &c. If any time he left my soul, Yet still his work went on ; I’ve been a tempter to myself: JAh, Lord, what have I done / ?” I sometimes think I feel the wrath of God, as an earnest of hell, kindled already in my bosom. My former hopes, instead of affording me any encouragement, work despair. It seems to me presumptuous, after so many base and re- peated relapses, to hope for mercy. When I look into the Scriptures, I see, as I have long seen, that except I re- pent, and believe in Christ, I must inevitably perish ; but, alas ! loaded as I am with sorrow, my heart is too hard to repent ; and as to faith, and the prayer of faith, they are things foreign from the state of my mind. I would give the world, if I had it, to be possessed of them ; but oh, I cannot, I dare not, believe; I am unworthy of mercy. I fear I am a reprobate, of whom God hath determined to make an example, and therefore that there is no hope for me. My heart has often revolted at that awful doctrine, and now it overwhelms me. I know you will feel for me ; but whether any relief can be afforded to a soul like mine I know not. Let me conjure you, however, to be plain with me, and tell me, without reserve, what you think of my case; and if you have any counsel to offer, let me en- treat you to impart it. I am, with unfeigned respect, yours, &c., EPAPHRAs. LETTER. III. [Archippus to Epaphras.] MY DEAR YoUNG FRIEND, THE narration with which you have favoured me has deeply interested my feelings on your behalf. My desire and prayer to God for you is that you may be saved. In the early workings of your mind I see much of the enmity and error of the human heart. Your thoughts of God and his government, Christ and his gospel, and of the nature of conversion, are the thoughts of many much older than you ; but they are not the better on this account. These are among the “imaginations and high thoughts that ex- alt themselves against the knowledge of God,” and require to be “cast down, and every thought to be brought into subjection to the obedience of Christ.” - Your temptations to disbelieve the Bible, and even the being of God, were no more than the ordinary operations of a depraved heart, disturbed by the light of the gospel having made its way into the conscience. Your vows and endeavours to repent and be converted appear to have arisen from a mixture of slavish fear and self-righteous hope. You were not sorry for your sin, nor wished to be sorry, from any dislike you bore to it; but you trembled at the wrath to come, and wished to become any thing that you might escape it; and, not knowing the deceitful- ness of your own heart, you flattered yourself that, by putting on a good resolution, you could bend it into a compliance with the will of God. I need not say much concerning the impression by which your mind was filled with joy. You yourself seem suf- ficiently convinced, by what followed, that it was not conversion, but a blossom without fruit. Those who conclude, from such feelings, that they are in a state of salvation, are objects of pity. Concerning your late and present distress, I feel much for you ; not only in a way of sympathy, but of concern for the issue; for many persons have been as deeply dis- tressed about their salvation as you appear to be, who have yet taken up their rest in something short of Christ; which is a much more dangerous state than that from which they were first awakened, and, if persisted in, will render their case less tolerable than if they had lived and died in ignorance. Your sins, you say, “are much more numerous and aggravated than I or any of your friends can have imagin- ed.” Doubtless you have been guilty of things which neither I nor any other creature can have been privy to ; but I apprehend that, at present, you have but a very im- perfect sense of them. So far from thinking that you view the evil of your way in too strong a light, I am persuaded you are a thousand times more wicked in the sight of God, whose judgment is according to truth, than ever you have yet been in your own sight: your heart condemns you ; but “God is greater than your heart, and knoweth all things l’” I write not thus to drive you to despair; for though your sins were ten times more numerous and more aggravated than they are, while the good news of eternal life, through the atonement of Jesus Christ, is held up to you, there is no reason for this. You have learned, you think, “that there is no help in you.” Be it so ; it does not follow that there is none without you. On the contrary, it is by a thorough and practical knowledge of the one that the other becomes acceptable. If the help that is provided without, therefore, give you no relief, I am constrained to think it is because you are not yet brought to despair of help from within. - Let me speak freely to you of the gospel of Jesus Christ. You may think this to contain no news to you; but I am persuaded that hitherto you have neither understood nor believed it. Your despair is like that of a man who gives himself up for lost without having tried the only remedy. You have prayed for mercy, but hitherto you have asked ºothing with a pure respect to the atonement of Jesus. Ask in his name, and you shall receive, and your joy shall be full. Consider well the following passages of Scripture, as ex- pressing the sum of the glorious gospel of the blessed God: “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.—This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief—I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have re- ceived, and wherein ye stand, unless ye have believed in vain—how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures ; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures.—The Jews re- quire a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom ; but we preach Christ crucified.—I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ and him crucified.— God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them ; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech men by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.—If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unright- eousness.—The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.—By him all that believe are justified from all things, from which they could not be justified by the law of Moses.—Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.—Him that cometh I will in nowise cast out.” This, my dear friend, was the all-efficacious doctrine by which the pressure of guilt was removed from thousands in the times of the apostles, and has been removed from millions in succeeding ages. When a perishing sinner in- quired, “What must I do to be saved 3 '' the answer was at hand, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” This was the plenteous redemption which even Old Testament sinners embraced by faith. These were the water, the wine, and the milk, which they were freely invited to buy, “without money, and without price.” This is the wedding supper, which the Lord hath prepared, and concerning which he hath declared, “All things are ready ; come ye to the marriage.” But, you will say, I have read, and considered, and be- lieved all this long ago; and yet I am not relieved. I remember Saul, on a certain occasion, said to Samuel, “I have performed the commandment of the Lord ; ” but Samuel answered, “What meaneth, then, this bleating of the sheep in mine ears; and this lowing of the oxen which I hear?” That you have read these things, and thought of them, may be admitted ; but if you have believed them with all your heart, how is it that I hear of peace and satisfaction arising from tears and moans, and a compli- ance with resolutions? How is it that the magnitude of THE AWAKENED SINNER. 877 guilt, instead of leading you to confess it upon the head of the gospel sacrifice, and to sue for mercy wholly in his name, should induce you to despair 3 How is it that your being unworthy of mercy is made an objection to believing? Indeed, my young friend, these are but too manifest indi- cations that hitherto you have been going about to estab- lish your own righteousness, and have not “submitted to the righteousness of God; ” a course which, if not relin- quished, will ruin your soul. The overthrow of the Jews, in the times of our Saviour and his apostles, was owing to this. They were anxiously concerned about religion ; they 4 followed after the law of righteousness; ” yet they attained it not: and wherefore ? “Because they sought it not by faith; but as it were by the works of the law; for they stumbled at that stumbling-stone : " It is not the magnitude of your sins that will prove a bar to your sal- vation ; if there be any bar, it will be your unbelief. “If thou canst believe—all things are possible to him that believeth !” I am apprehensive that you have never yet cordially ad- mitted the humbling import of the gospel. It is not your believing from the tradition of your fathers that there was a person called Jesus Christ, who came into the world about eighteen hundred years ago, and who is in some way or other the Saviour of sinners. The gospel is a Di- vine system; the wisdom of God in a mystery. It implies a number of important truths to which the corrupt heart of man is naturally averse ; and cannot properly be said to be believed while they are rejected or overlooked. Such are the equity and glory of the Divine law, and the guilty, lost, and perishing condition of those who have transgressed it. More particularly, that God is worthy of being loved with all the heart, however de- praved that heart may be ; that our transgressions against him have been without cause ; that we are justly de- serving of his eternal displeasure; that there is no help in us, or hope of recovery by our own efforts; finally, that we are utterly unworthy of mercy, and must be saved, if at all, by mere grace. These truths are plainly implied in the doctrine of atonement and of a free salva- tion ; , and without admitting them it is impossible we should admit the other. While we conceive of ourselves as injured creatures, and of the gift of Christ and of salva- tion by him as a recompence for the injury, it is no wonder we should imagine it to be confined to the comparatively worthy, or the least criminal, and so begin to despair as we perceive the magnitude of our guilt. Or if in words We disavow all merit, and confess ourselves to be in a helpless, and hopeless condition, yet we shall view it as our misfortune rather than our sin, and ourselves as more deserving of pity than punishment. And while this is the case, our supposed love to the Saviour is certain to operate at the expense of the Lawgiver. You acknowledge that in your earlier years such notions possessed your mind. Let me entreat you to consider whether they have not still a place in you, and whether your present unhappy state of mind be not chiefly to be ascribed to them. If you do not admit what the gospel necessarily implies, and that in a practical way, so as to act upon it, how can you admit the thing itself? There is no grace in Christ's laying down his life for us, and bestowing salvation upon us, but upon the supposition of the justice of the Divine government, and therefore we Cannot perceive any ; for it is impossible to see that which is not to be seen. But if you perceive the rectitude of the Divine character and government, and feel yourself to be a justly condemned sinner without help or hope, or a single plea to offer in arrest of judgment, the gospel will appear in its glory, and all its blessings will be wel- come to your heart. Thus, knowing the “only living and true God,” you will know “Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent ;” hearing and learning of the Father, you will Some to the Son; and thus after every self-righteous effort has been tried in vain, you will, ere you are aware, “re- pent and believe the gospel.” Then you will no longer conceive of God as a being who avails himself of his al- Inighty power to awe you into silence; but as one who has righteousness on his side, on account of which “every Imouth will be stopped, and all the world be guilty” be- fore him. Then, instead of being overwhelmed and driv- en to despair by the doctrine of election, it will appear not only equitable, but the only source of hope. You will perceive that what would have been just towards all man- kind cannot be unjust towards a part of them ; and feel- ing yourself divested of all claim, unless it be to shame and confusion of face, you will throw yourself at the feet of sovereign mercy. I do not say you will be willing to be saved or lost as it shall please God. Some worthy men have worked themselves and others into a persuasion that they were the subjects of such resignation ; but resignation of this kind is not required at our hands, as it would be in- consistent with that importunity for the blessing with which we are encouraged to besiege the throne of grace, and even with love to God itself, which cannot possibly be reconciled to be everlastingly banished from him, and to live in en- mity against him. But this I say, you will feel and ac- knowledge that God might justly cast you off for ever; and that, if he accept and save you, it must be purely of undeserved mercy. You say you dare not believe. If you mean that you dare not entertain the persuasion of your being saved in your present condition, that may be very proper : but has God any where revealed that you shall ? If not, such a persuasion would not be faith, but presumption. That faith which has the promise of eternal life has revealed truth, and particularly the gospel of salvation by Jesus Christ, for its object. And dare you not believe this ? Rather, how dare you disbelieve it? How will you “escape if you neglect so great salvation ?” Is it presump- tion to take God at his word 3 Is it presumption to renounce your own righteousness, and submit to the righteousness of God? Is it presumption to believe that Christ “is able to save to the uttermost all them that come unto God by him " '' Rather, is it not the greatest of all sins to ques- tion these truths, after all that God has said in confirma- tion of them 3 But you will answer, That at which I hesitate is em- bracing the promises, with application to myself. You are not required or allowed to take the promises in any other than their true meaning. So far as that meaning includes your case, so far your are warranted to apply them to it, and no further. For example, if you return to the Lord, you have a right to conclude that you as readily as any sinner in the world shall receive abundant pardon ; if you come to Jesus, you shall in nowise be cast out ; but neither these promises nor any other hold up any assurance of salvation to the impenitent and unbelieving. First be- lieve the promises to be what they profess to be, true, great, and precious, to the renouncing of every other foundation of hope; and then the consciousness of this will afford a ground of persuasion that the blessings contained in them are your own. But you add, you cannot repent, and cannot believe. Consider, I beseech you, what it is that hindereth ; and whether it be anything else than the latent enmity of your heart to God. If you loved him, surely you could repent; nay, surely you could not but repent, and mourn for all your transgressions against him : surely you could not be insensible to the glory of Christ, and the way of salvation by him. . You love yourself, and can mourn on your own account; but for all that you have dome against him you cannot be grieved You love yourself, and would give the world, if you had it, to escape the wrath to come; but, for all that the Saviour has done and suffered, you can perceive no loveliness in him You can see no glory in being par- doned for the sake of his atonement; no comeliness in him, no beauty, that you should desire him : Do I misrepresent the case ? Let conscience answer. O my dear young friend, do not cover your sin, nor flat- ter yourself that the bar to your salvation does not lie in your own heart. With the secret purposes of God you have nothing to do as a rule of conduct: the things that are revealed belong to you ; and these are, that you should repent of your sins and believe in Christ alone for salva- tion. If you be not found an unbeliever, you need not fear being found a reprobate. I am yours, with much affection, ARCHIPPUS. 878 MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS, ESSAYS, &c. LETTER IV. [Archippus to Epaphras.] MY DEAR FRIEND, SEVERAL months have elapsed since I wrote to you, and I have received no answer. Am I to interpret your long si- lence as an intimation that you do not wish for any further correspondence with me on the important subject of your last? If I felt no concern for your eternal welfare, I might not only so consider it, but remain as silent on my part as you do on yours. But I must write at least this once. When I think of your situation, I feel somewhat as the apostle did towards the Galatians—a “a travailing in birth that Christ may be formed in you.” In looking over the copy of my last, I acknowledge I have felt some misgivings of heart. I am sometimes ready to ask, May it not appear to him as though I were unfeel- ing? Though what I wrote was, according to the best of my judgment, the truth of God, yet was there not too much use of the probe for a single letter? Might I not have dwelt less on the searching, and more on the consolatory 3 Yet, after all, I am not sure that I ought. But as the apostle, after addressing a searching Epistle to the Corin- thians, had many conflicts in his own mind concerning the issue, and at times half repented, so it is with me. Yet what counsel or direction have I to offer, which has not already been offered ? If the free grace of the gospel, or the all-sufficient redemption of Jesus Christ, would com- fort you, I could joyfully enlarge upon them. The provi- sions of mercy are free and ample. “All things are ready : ” millions of sinners have already come to the marriage, “and yet there is room.” If there were only a peradventure that you should be accepted, that were sufficient to warrant an application. Thus the lepers reasoned in their perishing condition: “Why sit we here until we die? If we say, we will enter into the city, the famine is there; and if we sit still here, we die also. Now therefore come, and let us fall into the host of the Syrians: if they save us alive, we shall live ; and if they kill us, we can but die.” Thus also rea- soned Esther : “I will go in unto the king, which is not according to law; and if I perish, I perish : ” But in ap- plying to the Saviour of sinners there are no such perad- ventures. To cut off every objection, he has proclaimed with his own lips, “Ho! every one that thirsteth, let him come unto me and drink!”—“Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest : *— “Ask, and it shall be given you ; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you : for every one that asketh receiveth ; and he that seeketh findeth ; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened 1’’ But to all this you repulsively answer, I cannot repent, I can rºot believe. What then can I do 2–If the doctrine of the cross contain no charms which can attract you, it is not for me to coin another gospel, nor to bend the Scrip- tures to the inclination of man’s depraved heart. We must bend to them, and not they to us; or, if not, they will be found to be true, to our confusion. & I am aware that persons in your condition desire above all things to be soothed and comforted by something else than the gospel. They imagine themselves to be willing to be saved in God’s way,+as willing as the impotent man that waited at the pool was to be made whole ; therefore they wish to be directed to wait and hope in the way that they are in, till it shall please God to release them, as by the moving of the waters. It is also grateful to them to be encouraged, on the ground of their present distress, to nope that God has mercy in reserve for them ; for that it is his usual way first to convince of sin, and afterwards to impart the joys of salvation. A company of gentleman (on board a ship that touched at one of the southernmost parts of South America) had a mind to make a short botanical excursion. They accordingly ascended one of the moun- tains. Ere they were aware night came on, and a very cold fog. They felt an unusual propensity to sleep; but a medical friend, who was with them, strongly remon- strated against every indulgence of the kind, as they would be in the utmost danger of never waking again. What would you have thought of this gentleman's conduct, if, instead of urging his companions to escape from the moun- tain, he had indulged them in their wishes 4 The Scrip- tures declare that “he that believeth not the Son shall not see life ; but the wrath of God abideth on him ; ” and surely we ought not to contradict this declaration, either by directing to the use of means short of believing, or en- couraging those who use them to hope for a happy issue. The crucifiers of Christ were in great distress; but Peter did not encourage them to take comfort from this, but di- rected them to repent and be converted—to repent and be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, for the remission of sins. The Philippian jailer was in great distress ; but Paul had no comfort for him on this ground, nor any counsel to offer but believing in Jesus. A necessity is laid upon me, and woe is me if I preach not the gospel ! I have not deviated from this point in what I have hitherto written ; nor will I deviate, whatever be the consequence. Wherefore ? Because I love you not ? God knoweth ! I am determined not to know any- thing but Jesus Christ and him crucified . If this doctrine fail to relieve you, the cause must be looked for, not in the want of encouragement, but of desire to embrace it. But, O my dear young man, consider Jesus Christ, the Apostle and High Priest of our profession . As one that has tasted that the Lord is gracious, though a perishing sinner like yourself, I do most heartily recommend him to you. I was brought low, and he helped me ! The sorrows of death compassed me, and the pains of hell gat hold upon me ; I found trouble and sorrow. Then called I upon the name of the Lord, O Lord, I beseech thee, deliver my soul! By happy experience I can bear witness that gra- cious is the Lord and righteous; yea, our God is merciful. He delivered my soul from death, my eyes from tears, and my feet from falling. O taste and see that the Lord is gracious ! The eyes of many are upon you ; saints and angels stand ready to embrace you as a brother, as soon as you shall embrace their Lord. The Spirit and the bride say, Come ; and he that heareth saith, Come; and Jesus himself, who testifieth these things, exalted as he is in the highest heavens, closes the invitation, saying, “Whosoever will, let him come, and take of the water of life freely.” Pore no longer on your misery; look no longer for any worthiness in yourself; but, as an unworthy sinner, rely for acceptance with God on the righteousness of Christ alone. This is the good old way in which believers in every age have walked ; walk therein, and you shall find rest unto your soul. I am your affectionate friend, ARCHIPPUs. LETTER. W. [Epaphras to Archippus.] MY DEAR SIR, NIY mind has been for some time in so confused and unhappy a state, that though I felt my obligations to you, and by no means intended to slight your kindness, yet I knew not how to answer you. I rather felt a wish to be secluded, at least for a time, that I might bemoan my case by myself in secret. Your first letter, I must say, yielded me no comfort. On the contrary, it wounded me not a little. I confessed to you that I had been a great sinner; you persuaded me that I was much worse than I imagined. I acknowledged the hardness of my heart, and the prevalence of my un- belief; you attributed both to my being destitute of the love of" God. I wanted relief, and you cut off every source of consolation save that which arises from faith in Christ, of which I had told you I felt myself incapable. When I considered my inability to believe, however, I did not mean that I could not believe the gospel; I supposed I could and did believe that : you have shown, however, that in this I was mistaken. My heart, it seems, is that of an infidel. Alas for me ! instead of obtaining any relief, such things sink me deeper and deeper into de- spondence. Your letter seemed to be a kind of message from God; but it was a message of death. After reading it I felt myself locked up as it were in a dungeon, and THE AWAKENED SINNER. 879 loaded with inextricable chains. I could find no words to vent the sorrow of my heart but those of the weeping prophet. “He hath builded against me, and compassed me with gall and travail. He hath set me in dark places as those that be dead of old. He hath hedged me about that I cannot get out; he hath made my chain heavy. Also when I cry and shout, he shutteth out my prayer . " In such a state of mind, you will not wonder that I should have no heart to write. - Since that time, however, I have conversed with different persons, and have heard different ministers; from one of whom, especially, I obtained what I could never obtain before—encouragement. As you may suppose, it was im- possible wholly to conceal my unhappiness of mind from those about me. One day I fell in company with a gen- tleman of very respectable appearance. He, observing in my countenance an habitual dejection, and learning, it should seem, by some means the cause of it, wished to offer me a little advice. I heard what he had to say ; but it did me no good. He observed that there was such a thing as being righteous over-much ; that he did not ap- prehend I had been a greater sinner than other men ; and that if I were sober, just, and devout in moderation, all would be well enough at last. I had too much light to be imposed upon by this. I thought I saw plainly that though he might be a gentleman and a scholar, yet he had not learned to speak a word in season to him that is weary. After this I met with a poor man who appeared to be very zealous in religion. On perceiving my unhappiness, he was very desirous that I should go with him to his place of worship. He told me that their minister would pray for me, and give me the best of counsel; and that great numbers of people in my case had, on going to hear him, obtained relief. They had gone, he said, under the most pungent distress, but had come away pardoned, and justi- fied, and full of joy. He moreover cautioned me against the licentious and horrible doctrines of imputed right- eousness, invincible grace, and predestination. I heard what he said, and it appeared to me that he was very sin- cere in his way : but I thought I had long ago experienced what he called a being pardoned and justified; namely, a strong impression upon my mind, even in the words of Scripture, that I was so, which yet had proved delusive. And as to his warnings, though I had felt many inward struggles against those doctrines, yet I could never per- suade myself to think them any other than Scriptural. I went, however, two or three times to hear at the place which he recommended ; but though they might be very good people, yet the religion which they taught appeared to me exceedingly superficial and enthusiastic. I saw, plainly enough, that almost any kind of unhappiness con- cerning one’s future state would be admitted as godly | sorrow ; and any sudden impression that should fill the mind with joy would be deemed the joy of the gospel. My conscience, therefore, would not suffer me, however desirable consolation would have been to me, to take up my rest with them. One day I was induced to hear a stranger who preached an occasional sermon near to where I reside. In the Course of his sermon he spoke much of the duty and privi- lege of prayer ; and, when addressing himself to the un- converted, observed that they had no power of themselves to turn to God through Christ; but they could pray to the Lord for grace to enable them to do it; and, if they did So, he would hear them, and grant them the thing they Prayed for. At first I caught at this idea, as appearing to exhibit something that was more within my reach than Tepentance and faith themselves : but when I came to the trial, I found it was only in appearance; for unless I Prayed in faith, that is, with an eye to the Saviour in all I asked, God would not hear me. But to pray in faith °ould not be more within my reach than faith itself. I thought of you at the time; and that this was a kind of language that you would not use, on account of its im- plying that a sinner is not to be exhorted immediately to *ěpent and believe in Christ, nor to any thing spiritually good ; but merely to what may be done without repent- *çë, and without faith, as the means of obtaining them. If I understand your sentiments, you would direct an *converted sinner to pray, and to pray for spiritual bless- were removed. miserable creature that he described, who had long been ings, as Peter did the sorcerer; but it must be with re- pentance, and in the name of Jesus ; that is, it must be the prayer of penitence and faith. I also was conscious to myself that I was equally able to repent and believe in Christ as I was sincerely to pray for grace to enable me to do so; and that, if I could once find a heart for the one, I could for the other. I pass over some other interviews and sermons, and pro- ceed to relate what has been more interesting to my heart than any thing else. One Lord’s-day morning, I was very much dejected, owing to some struggles of mind about embracing the scheme of universal salvation. Having read a publication in favour of it, my heart would gladly have acquiesced ; but my judgment and conscience would not suffer me. I saw clearly that that doctrine could never be embraced without offering the most indecent violence to the Holy Scriptures. Indeed, I was conscious that I should never have thought of believing it to be true, if I had not first wished to have it so. These thoughts, however, sunk me into the deepest despondency, as they seemed to darken a gleam of hope which, though faintly, I cherished. In this dejected state of mind, I went to hear a minister whom I had more than once heard spoken of as singularly evangelical, and his preaching as being much in an experimental strain. I attended both parts of that day, and once or twice more, before I obtained any relief. As he generally addressed himself to believers, and dwelt upon the privileges and blessings to which they are entitled, I did not, at first, feel interested in his discourses. At length, he took his text from Matt. xi. 28, “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” I was ghad to hear the passage named, as I hoped that something might now be said suited to my case. I knew I was weary and heavy laden to a great degree, and rest for my soul was the very thing I wanted. He proposed first to notice the characters addressed ; and, secondly, the blessings to which they were invited; or, as he explained it, which belonged to them. Under the first head of discourse he distinguished sinners into insensible and sensible; and endeavoured to prove that it was the latter only who were here invited to come to Christ. He mentioned several other invitations, as, “Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money : come ye, buy and eat, yea, come, buy wine and milk without money, and without price.”—“If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink.”—“The Spirit and the bride say, Come, and let him that is athirst come : and whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely.” Each of these passages was explained in the same way, as descriptive of the spi- ritual thirst of a soul made sensible of its wants. I was apprehensive, at first, that this distinction would exclude me from having any part or lot in the matter ; but when the minister came to explain himself, and to depict the case of the weary and heavy laden, he entered so fully into my experience that all my apprehensions I was conscious that I was just that poor seeking rest, but could find none. He warned us against making a righteousness of our tears and moans, but in- sisted that they were evidences of a work of grace; prov- ing from God’s promises to the “poor in spirit,” to the “broken-hearted,” and the like, that there was hope in Israel for such characters; and that these their distresses were sure signs of their future deliverance, for that whom the Lord wounded he healed, and whom he killed he would make alive. After worship was over, I could not forbear speaking to the minister, and thanking him for his discourse; and the greater part of the congregation being withdrawn, I opened my mind freely to him, told him how long I had been under distress of mind, and that I could never be- fore obtain relief. A few of his most intinate friends were present, who also heard what I said. They affec- tionately smiled, and congratulated me on my having been brought under an evangelical ministry, and by means of it found rest unto my soul. Nor did they scruple to say, that the reason why so many of God’s dear children were held in bondage for so long a time was that the pure gospel was withheld from them, and a kind of linsey- 880 MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS, ESSAYS, &c. woolsey doctrine substituted in its place. I confess my heart had some misgivings at that time, fearing lest I should be cheered by flattering words, instead of the water of life. I told them that I dare not at present con- sider myself a converted man; but that I hoped I should be such. They answered me with a smile, intimating that such thoughts were a sign of grace; and that there was no doubt but that in waiting at the pool of God’s ordinances I should obtain all that peace and joy which my soul desired. - On my return home, I cannot say that I was wholly free from apprehensions; but my heart was greatly light- ened of its load. I have attended at the same place ever since; and have often been encouraged in the same way. I am not without my doubts and fears lest my peace should prove unfounded ; and, by a careful reperusal of both your letters, I perceive that, if your principles be true, it is so. Yet surely my hope is not all in vain . I tremble at the thought of sinking again into the horrors of despondency. I am yours, with much respect, EPAPHRAS. I,ETTER, WI. [Archippus to Epaphras.] MY DEAR YOUNG FRIEND, IF I have been interested by your former letters, I must say I am doubly so by your last. Your case appears to me to be delicate and dangerous. Yet I feel myself in a very unpleasant situation. I cannot speak the truth with- out its having the appearance of a want of feeling towards you, and of something like invidiousness towards those with whom you associate. If I could remain silent with a good conscience, I should certainly do so. It afforded me pleasure to learn that you had refused consolation from several of those sources which heal the hurt of a sinner slightly, crying, “Peace, peace, when there is no peace ; ” but, without taking upon me to de- cide upon the personal religion of the parties, I must de- clare my firm persuasion that you have not refused them all. I cannot think a whit the better of a ministry on account of its being spoken of as “singularly evangelical.” Such language frequently means no more than that a preacher is very orthodox in his own esteem, or, at most, that his preaching is singularly adapted to soothe and comfort his people. But these things are no proof that it is the pure, gospel of Jesus Christ. I do not deny the character of good men, or of gospel ministers, to all who have advanced doctrines like those by which you were comforted ; but I am persuaded that, in respect of these principles, they are anti-evangelical. I have no desire, however, to impbse my opinion upon you. Believe nei. ther of us any further than what we advance accords with the oracles of God. What is it, I would ask, that has given you relief? Is it any thing in the gospel ? any thing in the doctrine of the cross? If so, rejoice in your associates, and let your associates rejoice in you. If it be so, you have no reason to “doubt or fear,” or cherish any “misgivings of heart.” That consolation which proceeds from these sources is undoubtedly of God. But, you will ask, is there no true consolation but what is derived directly from the doctrine of the cross? may we not be comforted by a consciousness of that in our own souls to which God has promised ever- lasting life? I answer, We certainly may : the Scriptures point out many things as evidences of a work of grace; and, if we be conscious that we are the subjects of them, we are warranted to conclude ourselves interested in eter- nal life. But it becomes us to beware of reckoning those things as evidences of grace which are not so, and to which no promises are made in the word of God. If the account which you have given be accurate, the evidence from which your encouragement was drawn was mere distress—distress in which your “heart was too hard to repent,” and under which you “could not believe.” Yet, on account of this distress, you have been complimented with possessing a “broken heart, a poor and contrite spirit;” and the promises made to such characters have been applied to you. If these things be just, a hard heart and a contrite spirit may be found in the same person, and at the same time. To this may be added, though be- lievers derive consolation from a consciousness of that within them to which the Scriptures promise everlasting life; yet this is not the way in which the Spirit of God first imparts relief to the soul. The first genuine consolation that is afforded is by something without ourselves, even by the doctrine of the cross : whilst this is rejected or dis- regarded, we are unbelievers, and cannot possibly be the subjects of any disposition or exercise of mind which is pleasing to God, or to which he has promised salvation ; and, consequently, cannot be conscious of any thing of the kind. - The first relief enjoyed by the manslayer was from a city of refuge being provided : after he had entered in, he would derive additional consolation from knowing that he was within its gates: and thus it is that rest to the soul is promised to them that come to Jesus, take his yoke, and learn his spirit. But the rest which you have found was not by coming to him as weary and heavy laden, but from a consciousness that you were weary and heavy laden, and by being taught that this was a true sign of future deliverance. You have found rest, it seems, without coming to Jesus that you may have life If indeed your spirit is “poor and contrite”—if it be a grief of heart to you to reflect on your conduct towards the best of beings—if a view of the cross of Christ excite to mourning, on account of that for which he died—then is thy heart with my heart; and with the greatest satis- faction I can add, give me thy hand. Yes; if so, your heart is with God's heart, with Christ's heart, and with the heart of all holy beings; and all holy beings will offer thee their hand. But in this case you not only can, but do repent and believe in Jesus. The question is, Is that distress of soul which is antecedent to all godly sorrow for sin, and in the midst of which the sinner is not willing to come to Jesus as utterly unworthy that he may have life, any evidence of a work of grace : If it be, Saul during his last years, and Judas in his last hours, were both gracious characters. If ever men were weary and heavy laden, they were; but neither of them came to Jesus with his burden—neither of them found rest for his soul. Consider, I beseech you, whether that distress of soul which has preceded and issued in true conversion be ever represented in the Scripture as an evidence of a work of grace; or whether the parties were ever comforted on that ground. Do reperuse the cases already referred to, of Peter's address to the murderers of Christ, and that of Paul and Silas to the jailer. Consider impartially whether the distinction of sinners into insensible and sensible, with a design to exclude the former from being the proper objects of gospel invitation, be justifiable. A compliance with the invitation doubtless implies a just sense of sin, and a thirst after spiritual blessings ; and so does a compliance with the Divine pre- cepts; but it does not follow that either the invitations or the precepts are improperly addressed to sinners, whether sensible or insensible. Those who made light of the gos- pel supper were as really and properly invited to it as those who accepted it. Those also who were invited to buy and eat, to buy wine and milk without money and without price, are described as spending their money for that which was not bread, and their labour for that which satisfieth not. The same invitation which, in the begin- ning of that chapter, is given in figurative language, is immediately afterwards expressed literally, and runs thus —“Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.” The thirst, therefore, which they are supposed to feel, could be no other than the desire of happiness, which they vainly hoped to assuage in the en- joyments of this world; but which God assures them could never be assuaged but by the blessings of the gospel, the sure mercies of David. The invitation of our Saviour to the weary and heavy laden is manifestly a quotation from Jer. vi. 16, and the people who were there invited ON SPIRITUAL PRIDE. 881 to stand in the ways and see, to inquire after the old paths, and the good way, and to walk therein, with the promise that they should find rest to their souls, were so far from being sensible of their sin that they impudently answered, « We will not walk therein.” To confine the invitations of Scripture to sensible sinners, and to hold up the bless- ings of the gospel as belonging to them, before and as the ground of their compliance, is to pervert the word of God. But why do I thus write? Is it because I want to plunge my dear young friend into the gulf of despondency? far be this from me ! My desire is to draw him off from all false dependences, and to lead him, if it might be, to rest upon the Rock of ages. Is it consolation that he wants? Let me remind him of what I have said before. If he be willing to relinquish every other ground of hope, and to embrace Jesus as the only name given under hea- ven and among men by which we can be saved, there is nothing in heaven or earth to hinder it. I have no de- sire to persuade you that you are not in a converted state. It may be that what you have said of your being unable to repent or believe in Christ was the language of despond- ency. Hardness of heart and unbelief are found even in believers themselves, and are frequently the objects of la- mentation. There are seasons especially in which it may seem, even to a good man, as if he were void of all tender- ness of heart, and all regard for Christ. Whether this was your case at that time, or not, I feel no regret for having directed you, as a perishing sinner, to believe in Jesus for salvation, rather than encouraged you to think the best of your state, from any supposed symptoms of grace that might be found in you. I would do the same with any religious professor who should be in a state of doubt and darkness respecting the reality of his religion ; for if there be any true religion in us, it is much more likely to be discovered and drawn forth into actual exercise by an ex- hibition of the glory and grace of Christ, than by searching for it among the rubbish of our past feelings. To discover the small grains of steel mixed among a quantity of dust, it were much better to make use of a magnet than a mi- croscope. An exhibition of the name of Christ is that by which the thoughts of the heart are revealed. To him, therefore, as a guilty and perishing sinner, I must still direct you. If you be indeed of a broken and contrite spirit, if true grace have a being in your soul, though it be but as the smoking flax, his name will so far be precious to you. To him your desires will ascend; in him they will centre : on his righteousness all your hope of acceptance with God will be placed ; and, when this is the case, you will find rest to your soul. I am yours, with sincere affection, ARCHIPPUS. SPIRITUAL PRIDE : OR THE occASIONs, CAUSES, AND EFFECTS OF HIGH-MIND- EDNIESS IN RELIGION ; witH consLIDERATIONs ExcITING TO SELF-ABASEMENT. INTRODUCTION. As there is nothing pertaining to holiness which renders us more like our Lord Jesus Christ than lowliness of mind, so there is nothing pertaining to sin which ap- proaches nearer to the image of Satan than pride. This appears to have been the transgression for which he him- self was first condemned, and by which he seduced our first parents to follow his example. It was insinuated to them that they were kept in ignorance and treated as underlings, and that by following his counsel they would be raised in the scale of being : “Ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” All the evil that is in the world is comprehended in three things—“the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life.” Each of these cardinal vices im- plies that man is alienated from God, and that all his affections and thoughts centre in himself; but the last is the most subtile in its influence. It consists in THINKING MORE HIGHLY OF OURSELVES THAN WE OUGHT TO THINK. It is a mental flatulency that pervades all the soul, and puffs it up with vain conceits. It is visible to all about us, but to us invisible. It seizes those revenues of glory which are due to God, and applies them to selfish uses. Strength, beauty, genius, Opulence, science, the success of labour, and the achievements of enterprise, all are perverted to its purpose. Finally, It renders man his own idol; he wor- shippeth the creature more than the Creator; he sacrificeth to his own net, and burneth incense to his own drag. But the particular species of pride which I shall attempt to delineate is that which is spiritual, or which has religious excellence, real or supposed, for its object. Religion is not the only object by which religious pro- fessors may be elated ; but the elatedness occasioned by it is that only which is denominated spiritual pride. SECTION I. THE OCCASIONS, OR OBJECTS, OF SPIRITUAL PRIDE. THOUGH a considerable part of the following remarks will have respect to the faults of good men ; yet not the whole of them ; spiritual pride is not confined to spiritual men. The subject of it indeed must needs be, if not a professor of religion, yet a religious man in his own esteem, but that may be all. One of its principal operations is in a way of Self-righteous hope, which is the reigning disposition of millions who have no just claim to the character of re- ligious; and as this is a species of spiritual pride which appears at a very early period, it may be proper to begin with this, and proceed to others in the order in which they are commonly manifested. The likeness which is drawn by our Saviour of the Pharisees in his time bears a minute resemblance to the character of gréat numbers in every age : all their works are done to be seen of men, and constitute the ground of their hope of acceptance with God. The sentiments of their hearts in their most devout addresses to their Maker, if put into words, would be to this effect: “God, I thank thee that I am not as other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.” It is not common for those who pay any regard to the Scriptures expressly to arrogate to themselves the honour of making themselves to differ. Most men will thank God that they are what they are ; and the Pharisee did the same. Many will now acknowledge, in addition to this, that their hopes of being accepted of God are “through the merits of Jesus Christ;” but it is not by such language that a self-righteous spirit is to be disguised. Nor is it peculiar to those whom we eall decent characters “to trust that they are righteous and despise others;” for the same spirit may be seen in the most profligate of mankind. Judging of themselves by others, they derive comfort; for they can always find cha- racters worse than their own. Reprove a common swearer, and he will thank God he means no harm ; for he is frank and open, and not as that liar. Convict a liar, and he will argue that in this wicked world a man cannot live if he always speak truth ; and he is not a thief. The thief pleads that he never was guilty of murder; and even the murderer was provoked to it. Thus they can each find worse characters than their own : the motto of each is, “ God, I thank thee that I am not as other men.” A minister of the Church of England was some years since appointed chaplain to a certain charitable asylum, where his constant business would be to visit and converse with persons who, by their own misconduct, were reduced to the most deplorable condition. On receiving his ap- pointment, he thought within himself, I shall have one ad- vantage however: I shall not have to encounter a self- righteous spirit. But on entering upon his office he soon perceived his mistake, and that there was no less Pharisa- ism in these dregs of society than among the more refined and sober part of mankind. Much of this spirit is seen under the convictions and alarms of awakened sinners. The conflicts of mind by 3 L 882 MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS, ESSAYS, &c which many for a long time are deprived of all peace and enjoyment, are no other than the struggles between the gospel way of salvation and a secret attachment to self- righteousness. When terrified by the threatenings of the word, or the near approach of death, the first refuge to which the sinner usually betakes himself is the promise of amendment. He vows to reform, and this affords him a little ease. For a time it may be his gross vices are relin- quished; he carefully attends to religious duties; and, while this lasts, he flatters himself that he is a better man, and supposes the Almighty is no less pleased with him than he is pleased with himself. If he rest here, his pride proves his eternal overthrow. But it may be his rest here is short. It commonly proves that the vows and resolutions thus made are like the morning cloud and the early dew that goeth away. A new temptation to some old sin, which was not mortified, but had merely retired during the present alarm, undoes all. Now remorse and fearful apprehension take posses- sion of the soul, not only on account of its having sinned against greater light than heretofore, but for destroying its own refuge. The gourd is smitten, and the sinner, ex- posed as to a vehement east wind, fainteth. Yet even here spiritual pride will insinuate itself and offer a species of false comfort. While he is weeping over his sins, and be- moaning the unhappiness of his case, that he should thus undo all his hopes, a soothing thought suggests itself, Will not the Almighty have compassion on me for these penitential tears? Surely my mournings will be heard, and my lamentations go up before him Many have stopped short here, and, it is to be feared, have missed of eternal life! But it may be he is disturbed from this repose also. Conscience becomes more enlightened by reading and hearing the word. He is convinced that neither tears nor prayers, nor aught else but the blood-shedding of the Sa- viour, will take away sin; and that there is no way of be- ing saved by him but by believing in him. Yet a thought occurs, Can such a sinner as I believe in Christ? Would it not be presumption to hope that one so unfit and un- worthy as I am should be accepted 2 This thought pro- ceeds upon a supposition that some degree of previous fit- ness or worthiness is necessary to recommend us to the Saviour, which is repugnant to the whole tenor of the gospel, and so long as it continues to influence our de- cisions will be an insuperable bar to believing. Self-righteousness, at some stages, will work in a way of despair. The sinner, finding that no duties performed in impenitence and unbelief are any way available, or in the least degree pleasing to God—that no means are pointed out in the Scriptures by which a hard-hearted sinner may obtain a heart of flesh—and that, nevertheless, he is told to repent and believe in Jesus, or perish for ever—sinks into despondency. Hard thoughts are entertained of God. He thinks he has taken all possible pains with himself; and if what he possesses be not repentance nor faith, he has no hopes of ever obtaining them. God, it seems to him, re- quires impossibilities, and can therefore be no other than a hard master, reaping where he has not sown, and gather- ing where he has not strawed. The religious efforts of some, like those of the slothful servant, end here. All is given up as a hopeless case, and the things which their hearts, amidst all their convictions, have been lingering after, are again pursued. * To come to Jesus as a sinner ready to perish, justifying God and condemning self, suing for mercy as utterly un- worthy, as one of the chief of sinners, pleading mercy merely for the sake of the atonement, is a hard lesson for a self-righteous heart to learn. The shiftings of pride in such cases are fitly expressed by the sinner's “going about” to establish his own righteousness, and not sub- mitting to “the righteousness of God.” Like the priests of Dagon, he will set up his idol as long as he can possibly make it stand. But if ever he obtain mercy he must de- sist. There is no rest for the soul but in coming to Jesus. And, if he be once brought to this, all his self-righteous strivings, and the hopes which he built upon them, with all his hard thoughts of God for requiring what in his then present state of mind he could not comply with, will appear in their true light, the odious workings of a deceitful and deceived heart. Such, and many other, are the workings of spiritua. pride in the form of a self-righteous spirit under first awak- enings; but it is not in this form only, nor at this period only, that it operates. You may have obtained rest for your souls in the doctrine of the cross; you may have com- municated your case to others, joined a Christian church, and may purpose to walk in communion with it through life: but still it becomes you to be upon the watch against this as well as other evils to which you are exposed. The apostle, in giving directions for the office of a bishop, objects to a “novice,” or one newly converted to the faith ; and for this reason, “lest, being lifted up with pride, he fall into the condemnation of the devil.” It is here plainly implied that the early stages of even true re- ligion, in persons possessed of promising gifts, are attended with peculiar temptations to high-mindedness. Alas, what numerous examples of this are daily apparent in young ministers! The transition, in many instances, is great : from a dejected state of mind to become guides of others, or from obscure circumstances to be elevated to the situa- tion of a public teacher, attracting the smiles and applauses of the people, is what few young men are able to bear. When alone, conversing with God, or with their own souls, they can see many reasons for self-abasement; but when encircled with smiling crowds, and loaded with indiscreet applause, these thoughts evaporate. Every one proclaims the preacher's excellence; and surely what every one af- firms must be true ! In short, he inhales the incense, and becomes intoxicated with its fumes. Such a man, we sometimes say, possesses talents, but he is aware of it. In one sense a man must needs be aware of it. Humility does not consist in being ignorant of our talents, be they what they may ; but in being pro- perly impressed with the end for which they are given. The attention of a vain mind is fixed upon the talents themselves, dwelling on them with secret satisfaction, and expecting every one to be sensible of them no less than himself. Hence it is that the most fulsome adulation is acceptable. Hungering and thirsting after applause, he is ever fishing for it, and the highest degrees of it, when be- stowed, strike but in unison with his own previous thoughts. Hence the flatterer, whom others can easily see through, appears to be a sensible and discerning man, who has discovered that of which the generality of people around him are insensible. Not so the humble. His at- tention is not fixed so much upon his talents as on the use which is required to be made of them. Feeling himself accountable for all that he has received, and conscious of his unspeakable defects in the application of them, he finds matter for continual shame and self-abasement. In this view the greatest of men may consider themselves as the “least of all saints,” and unworthy of a place among them. Vanity of mind, so far as it relates to our behaviour to- wards man, will frequently effect its own cure. It is certain to work disgust in others, and that disgust will be followed by neglect, and other mortifying treatment. Thus it is that time and experience, if accompanied by a moderate share of good sense, will rub off the excrescences of youthful folly, and reduce the party to propriety of conduct. And if there be true religion as well as good sense, such things may be the means of really mortifying the evil, and may teach a lesson of genuine humility; but where this is wanting, the change is merely exterior. Though the branches may be lopped off, the root remains, and is strengthened by time, rather than mortified. Youth- ful vanity, in these cases, frequently ripens into pride and overbearing contempt. From the earliest ages of Christianity, those who were possessed of spiritual gifts, and official situations in the church, were in danger of being elated by them. Though the eye cannot in truth say to the hand, “I have no need of thee, nor the head to the feet, I have no need of you ;” yet if there had not been something nearly resembling it in the church, such language would not have been used: Neither would the primitive ministers have been charged not to “lord it over God's heritage,” if such things had never made their appearance. The primitive churches had their Diotrephes, who cast out such as displeased him (3 John 9, 10); and such men have not been wanting for successors in every age. This lust of domination has ; ON SPIRITUAL PRIDE. 883 sometimes been formed in preachers, and sometimes in men of opulence among private members; but commonly in persons, whether preachers or hearers, who were the least qualified for the exercise of legitimate rule. The churches of Christ, as well as all other societies, require to be governed, and he has prescribed laws for this pur. pose; but no man is fit to govern but he that is of a meek and lowly disposition. The greatest of all must be the servant of all. The authority which he maintains must not be sought after, nor supported by improper measures; but be spontaneously conferred on account of superior wis- dom, integrity, and love. There are various other things, as well as official situa- tions, which furnish occasion for spiritual pride. Mem- bers of churches being equal, as members, with their pastors, may assume a kind of democratic consequence, and forget that it is their duty to honour and obey them that have the “rule over them in the Lord.” If ministers are called the servants of the churches, it is because their lives are laid out in promoting their best interests; and, when this is the case, they are entitled to an affectionate and respectful demeanour. To be a servant of a Christian church is one thing, and to be a slave to the caprice of a few of its members is another. Whatever it be in which we earcel, or imagine ourselves to do so, there it becomes us to beware lest we be lifted up to our hurt. Those differ- ences which are produced by religion itself may, through the corruptions of our nature, be converted into food for this pernicious propensity. Those who name the name of Christ are taught to re- linquish the chase of fashionable appearance, and to be sober and modest in their apparel and deportment ; but while they are renouncing the pride of life in one form, let them beware that they cherish it not in another. We have seen persons whose self-complacency, on account of the plainness of their apparel, has risen to a most insuf- ferable degree of arrogance ; and who have appeared to be much more affected by a ribbon or a bonnet on an- other's head than by all the abominations of their own hearts. The genuine “adorning” of the Christian is not that of the putting on of apparel; no, not that which is plain, any more than that which is gaudy; but the orna- ment of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.” To value ourselves on account of outward finery, which, where it is followed, is commonly the case, is offensive to God, and inconsistent with a pro- per attention to the inner man; but to value ourselves for the contrary may be still more so. The former, though a proof of a vain and little mind, yet is never considered, I suppose, as an exercise of holiness; but the latter is : great stress is laid upon it, and commonly to the neglect of the weightier matters of religion. In short, a right- eousness is made of it, which of all things is most odious in the sight of God. Those who name the name of Christ are taught also to demean themselves in such a manner as will maturally in- spire respect from persons of character, and this may be- come a snare to the soul. Religion, by changing the course of a man’s conduct, often raises him to a much Superior station in society than he occupied before. From being a drunkard, a liar, or in some form a loose cha- racter, he becomes sober, faithful, and regular in his con- duct. Hence he naturally rises in esteem, and, in some Qases, is intrusted with important concerns. All this is doubtless to the honour of God and religion; but let us beware lest a self-complacent thought enter our heart, and We be lifted up to our hurt. This species of pride will frequently appear in a scornful behaviour towards others Who are still in their sins, and in a censorious and unfor- giving spirit towards such members of the church as have Conducted themselves with less regularity than ourselves. A lowly mind will drop a tear over the evil courses of the \ngodly, and, feeling its obligations to renewing and eeping grace that hath made the difference, will find matter even in a public execution for humiliation, prayer, and praise. The falls of fellow Christians will likewise *Cite a holy fear and trembling, and induce a greater de- 8tee of watchfulness and supplication, lest we should in a *milar way dishonour the name of God; and, if called to *ite with others in the exercise of Scriptural discipline, it will be with a spirit of tenderness; not for the purpose of revenge, but of recovery. Seest thou a man whose re- sentments rise high when another falls, who is fierce and clamorous for the infliction of censure, and whose anger cannot be otherwise appeased, there is little reason to ex- pect that he will stand long. He “thinketh he standeth;” let him “take heed lest he fall!” He whose character is established by a steady and uni- form conduct is doubtless worthy of our esteem ; but if with this he be unfeeling towards others less uniform, there are three or four questions which it might be well for him to consider. Pirst, Whether the difference be- tween him and them be owing so much to the prevalence of Christian principles as to other causes. It may arise merely from a difference in natural temper. The sin which easily besets them may be of a kind which exposes them to the censures of the world; while his may be something more private, which does not come under their cognizance. It may arise from a greater regard to reputation in him than in them. Some men pique themselves much more than others upon the immaculacy of their character. But these are motives which if weighed in the balances will be found wanting. Secondly, Whether a censorious spirit towards those who have fallen does not prove that we arrogate to ourselves the difference, and depend upon our- selves for the resisting of temptation. We may “thank God” in words that we are “not as other men,” and so did the Pharisee; but we may be certain while this spirit prevails that God is not the rock on which we rest. Thirdly, Whether arrogancy and self-dependence be not as odious in the sight of God as the greatest outward vices, and whether it be not likely that he will give us up to the latter as a punishment for the former. We might have thought it a pity that so eminent a character as Simon Peter, one that was to take so important a part in spreading the gospel, should not have been preserved from so shameful a denial of his Lord. He prayed for him that his faith should not fail : why did he not pray that he should be either exempted from the trial, or preserved from falling in it? Surely if his self-confidence had not been more offensive to Christ than even his open denial of him it had been so ; but, as it was, rather than he should be indulged in spiritual pride, he must be rolled in the dirt of infamy. God abhors the occasional exercises of self-confidence in his own people, and still more the habitual self-com- placency of hypocrites. I remember a professor of re- ligion, a member of one of our churches, who for a series of years maintained a very uniform character. He was constant in his attendance on all opportunities. At his own expense he erected a place of worship in his village for the occasional preaching of the gospel. Few men were more respected both by the world and by the church. To the surprise of every one that knew him, all at once he was found to have been guilty of fornication. The church of which he was a member excluded him. From this time he sunk into a kind of sullen despondency, shun- ning all company and conversation, and giving himself up to melancholy. His friends felt much for him, and would often represent to him the mercy of God to backsliders who return to him in the name of Jesus. But all was of no account : he was utterly inconsolable. His sorrow did not appear to be of that kind which, while it weeps for sin, cleaves to the Saviour; but rather, like “the sorrow of the world” which “worketh death,” was accompanied with a hard heart, and seemed to excite nothing unless it were a fruitless sigh. I well recollect having some con- versation with him at the time, and that his state of mind struck me in an unfavourable light. It appeared to me that the man in the height of his profession was eaten up with spiritual pride; that God had let loose the reins of his lust to the staining of his glory, and that now, looking upon his reputation as irrecoverably lost, he sunk into despair.—A few years after, when his friends had begun to despair of him, all at once he wanted to come before the church and be restored to his place. In his confession little was said of the evil of his sin, or of the dishonour brought upon the name of Christ by it; but of certain extraordinary impulses which he had received, by which the pardon of his sin was sealed to him. The church, 3 L 2 884 MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS, ESSAYS, &c. though with some hesitation, received him. They were soon under the necessity, however, of re-excluding him, as from that time he became a most self-important and contentious Antinomian. God in calling sinners by his grace has given great proof of his sovereignty, passing over the wise and prudent, and revealing himself to babes ; the mighty and the noble, and choosing the base ; yea, the devout and the honourable, and showing mercy to publicans and sinners. This is, doubtless, of a humbling nature, and its design was that “no flesh should glory in his presence.” But even in this case there is an avenue at which spiritual pride may insinuate itself; and it seems to have found its way among the believing Gentiles. Hence the following language : “Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off that I might be grafted in. Well, because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not high-minded, but fear.” It is easy to perceive how the same thoughts may be ad- mitted in weak, ignoble, and once profligate characters who have obtained mercy, while others more respectable are yet in their sins. Moreover, the Christian religion tends to enlighten and enlarge the mind. Men that have lived a number of years in the grossest ignorance, on becoming serious Christians have gradually obtained a considerable degree of intelli- gence. They have not only been spiritually illuminated so as to read the Scriptures as it were with other eyes, and to discourse on Divine subjects with clearness and advan- tage ; but have formed a habit of reading many other use- ful publications, and of thinking over their contents. All this is to the honour of Christianity; but through the corruption of the heart it may become a snare. It is true that spiritual knowledge in its own nature tends to humble the soul both in the sight of God and man ; but all the knowledge that good men possess is not spiritual ; and that which is so, when it comes to be reflected upon in unworthier moments, may furnish food for self-compla- cency. Neither are all whose minds are enlightened by the gospel, and whose light is so far operative as even to effect some change of conduct, good men : we read of some who “escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour,” who were after- wards entangled and overcome, 2 Pet. ii. 10. An influx of knowledge to some men, like an influx of wealth to others, is more than they are able to bear, and, if they have not the grace of God at heart as a balance, they will certainly be overset. A disposition for raising difficulties and specu- lating upon abstruse and unprofitable questions, a cap- tiousness in hearing, an eagerness for disputing, and an itch for teaching, are certain indications of a vain mind, which at best is but half instructed, and, in many cases, destitute of the truth. Such characters are minutely de- scribed by Paul in his First Epistle to Timothy: “Give no heed,” saith he, “to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith. The end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith un- feigned : from which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.” If a little knowledge happen to unite with a litigious temper, it is a dangerous thing. Such characters are the bane of churches. If they might be believed, they are the faithful few who contend for the “faith once delivered to the saints;” but they know not what manner of spirit they are of, nor consider that there is a species of “con- tention” that “cometh only by pride.” There were men of this stamp in the times of the apostle Paul, and whose character he described, with the effects produced by their wrangling. Such a one, saith he, is “proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions, and strifes of words, whence cometh envy, strife, railings, evil-surmisings, per- verse disputings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth.” It is to be hoped that some who have mani- fested this litigious spirit may not be altogether “destitute of the truth ; ” and it may be worthy of notice that the persons referred to by the apostle are not thus denominated, but are supposed to kindle the fire which “men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth” keep alive. It is doubtful, however, if not more than doubtful, whether the description given of them will admit of hope in their favour. But if it will, and the same hope be admitted of some litigious spirits in our times, it is doubtless a very wicked thing to furnish the enemies of religion with brands, as I may say, wherewith to burn the temple of God. Another branch of this species of pride is seen in the conduct of professors who will take such liberties, and go such lengths in conformity to the world, as frequently prove a stumbling-block to the weak and the tender-hearted. If reproved for it, they are seldom at a loss in vindicating themselves, attributing it to a more liberal and enlarged way of thinking, and ascribing the objections of others to weakness, and a contractedness of mind. Thus some men can join in the chase, frequent the assembly room, or visit the theatre, and still think themselves entitled to the character of Christians, and perhaps to a place in a Chris- tian church. A case nearly resembling this occurred in the primitive times. The heathen sacrifices were accom- panied with feasts, at which the people ate of that which had been offered to their gods. When a number of Co- rinthian idolaters, who had always lived in this practice, became Christians, it proved a snare to them. They seem to have thought it hard to be obliged to deny themselves of these social repasts. Some of them ventured to break through ; and, when spoken to on the subject, pleaded that the “idol was nothing,” and therefore could have no influence on the food; adding that they were not so void of “knowledge” as not to be able to distinguish between the one and the other. Paul, in answer, first reasons with them on their own principles. You have knowledge . . . . . what do you know * That an idol is nothing in the world, and there is none other God but one. Very well : we know the same. You, it seems, by your superior discern- ment, can partake of the food simply as food, without considering it as offered to an idol, and so can preserve your consciences from being defiled. Be it so ; yet there ts not in every one this knowledge. Granting, therefore, that the thing itself, as performed by you, is innocent ; it becomes an occasion of stumbling to others. Your mental reservations are unknown to them : while, therefore, you preserve your consciences from guilt, theirs may be defiled in following your example. And why boast of your know- ledge 2 “knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.” And if any one think that he knoweth any thing, “ he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.” Having thus condemned their vain conduct, even upon their own principles, the apostle proceeds to show that it is in itself sinful, as participating of idolatry ! “ Flee from idolatry : I speak as to wise men, judge ye what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the com- munion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? Behold Israel after the flesh, are not they who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar'. What say I them 4 that the idol is any thing 3 But this I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons, and not to God : and I would not that ye should have fellowship with de- mons ! Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy % Are we stronger than he 3—Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.” This admirable counsel will serve as a universal test of right and wrong. Instead of vindicating fleshly in- dulgences, and priding ourselves on the superiority of our knowledge to that of others, before we engage, let us seriously ask ourselves whether that which we are about to do be capable of being done “to the glory of God.” We can take exercise, and enjoy agreeable society, with various other things, for the purpose of unbending and recreating the mind. By these means we are enabled to return to the duties of our stations with renewed vigour. In such cases we should feel no difficulty in asking a Di- vine blessing upon them to this end. But can we pursue the chase, frequent the theatre, or unite at the card table with such an object in view 3 Dare we pray for a Divine blessing to attend these exercises before we engage in them 3 If not, they must needs be sinful. * Moreover, Christianity confers great and important prº ON SPIRITUAL PRIDE. 885 vileges upon those who embrace it. “To as many as re- ceived him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.” They are “justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” However they may have been estranged from God, and every thing that is good, they are now “no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God.” The various distinctions of “male and female, rich and poor, bond and free,” are here of no account, “all are one in Christ Jesus.” This is, undoubtedly, one of the glo- ries of the gospel, and that which proves it to be a re- ligion framed for man. In its own nature it is also adapted to fill the soul with humility and gratitude. The natural language inspired by a proper sense of it is, “Who am I, O Lord God, and what is my father's house, that thou hast brought me hitherto 3’ But even this may be converted into food for spiritual pride. To be raised from worse than nothing, and placed among “the sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty,” is a wonderful transition ; and, if contemplated in an unfavourable state of mind, may prove the occasion of evil. A place and a name in a Christian church, though in the esteem of some persons reproachful, yet in that of others may be honour- able ; and the party may be much more affected by it in this than in the other. Members of churches have been known to be more than a little vain of the distinction. In some it has operated in a way of turbulence; leading a member to watch with an evil eye every measure that did not originate with himself, as if it were aimed to raze the foundations of all religion. In others it has operated in a way of meanness. Pleased with the familiarity and friendly treatment which, while their conduct is uniform, they receive from men of superior stations, they have no principle of their own ; their study is to please others, rather than to show themselves approved unto God. The same persons, if guilty of any thing which exposes them to censure, commonly discover far more concern for the dishonour of the thing than for the sin of it; and their confessions wear the appearance, not so much of the humble acknowledgments of a contrite spirit, as of the abject cringings of a mind terrified at the idea of losing its consequence. From an idea of the honour and privileges attached to Christianity, some have been tempted to look down upon their carnal connexions as though they were beings of an inferior nature. Religious children have been in danger of losing a proper filial respect towards their irreligious parents, and religious servants towards their irreligious masters. Indeed, we have heard heavy complaints against religious servants. Some have resolved, on this account, to employ none of them. I hope this is far from being a general case. Within the sphere of my observation there are, I am persuaded, more respectable families who prefer them than otherwise. I may add, that such complaints too often proceed from persons who either are prejudiced against religion, or who possess but a small portion of it. Nor are their declarations confined to servitude; but ge- nerally extended to all dealings with religious people. I have heard men of extensive connexions in the world, however, speak a very different language. “Of mere Professors,” say they, “we have no opinion; but give us ºmen of religion to deal with: others may be held by their honour, and their interest; but that is all: a religious iman is a man of principle.” But true it is that many have acted as though their extraordinary hopes and pri- vileges as Christians tended to free them, in some degree * least, from the ordinary obligations of men; and as though it were beneath them to respect and honour those Persons who are destitute of piety. The repeated injunc- tions of the New Testament on this head, while they ac- Quit Christianity of the evil, imply that Christians are, nevertheless, in danger of falling into it. Nor is this spirit confined in its operation towards the ”eligious: among Christians themselves in their behaviour towards one another it too often intrudes itself. The pa- ** and the children, the master and the servant, the *šistrate and the subject, being all on an equal footing in the house of God, there is danger of the latter forget- *g the inequality when out of it, and disregarding that order and subordination which are essential to the well- being of society. If we indulge in high-mindedness, it will be natural to dwell in our thoughts upon that relation wherein we stand upon even ground with another, rather than upon that wherein we are beneath him ; and thus a parent, a master, or a magistrate, will not be honoured by us in these relations, on account of his being a fellow Christian. If nothing like this had existed in the times of the apostles, it is not likely we should have had the ex- hortation in 1 Tim. vi. 1, 2, “Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour; that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them because they are brethren ; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and be- loved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.” To the above may be added privileges and advantages which, though of a worldly nature, are accidentally attached to religion. The circumstance of being of a party or de- nomination which has the sanction of authority, or the greatest numbers, or people of the greatest opulence and respectability belonging to it, is frequently known to fur- nish occasion for spiritual pride. What airs have some men assumed on account of their religion happening to be established by law and what an outcry have they made against schism as though the true church and the true religion were to be known by human legislation; not con- sidering that the same legislature establishes different forms of religion in different parts of the empire; and that Episcopalians, therefore, are no less schismatical in Scot- land than Presbyterians and other Dissenters in England. What airs also have some men assumed among Dissenters on account of their denomination, or the congregation where they have attended being distinguished for its opulence; as if, since the times of our Saviour and his apostles, things were turned upside down, and that which was then a matter of no account was now become all in all. Even where persons are of the same denomination, the mere circumstance of a regular and strict adherence to its nules, though of little or no importance, becomes the oc- casion of a sort of spiritual pride. We have heard much of the regular clergy, and of the regular Dissenters too, who each value themselves and despise others whom they consider as irregular, though, in many instances, they be men whose worth is superior to their own. Nor is this spirit apparent on one side only. If some are lifted up by being of that party which has the greatest number, others are no less so in being of that which has the smallest. To despise the multitude, and to pique themselves on being among the discerning few, is common with men who have nothing better on which to ground their self-esteem. Pride will also find footing to support it in being irregular, as well as regular. The contempt with which some affect to treat all forms and rules, and those who adhere to them, is far from being to their honour, and bears too near a resemblance to the spirit of Diogenes, who trampled upon the pride of Plato, and that, as Plato told him, “with greater pride.” SECTION II. THE CAUSES OF SPIRITUAL PRIDE, THE operations of this principle may not only be traced by those things which furnish occasion for it, but by other things which have a direct and positive influence in producing it. The occasion and the cause must not be confounded. The one is the object upon which pride fastens, and which it perverts to its use ; the other is the principle by which it is produced. The apostle himself was in danger of being “exalted above measure, through the abundance of revelations that were given him :” not that those revelations tended in their own nature to pro- duce this effect ; but, like all other good things, they were capable of being abused through the remains of in- dwelling sin. To be the occasion of spiritual pride re- flects no dishonour ; but that which in its own nature causes it must needs be false and pernicious. The prin- $86 MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS, ESSAYS, &c. cipal sources of this overwhelming stream will be found among the dark mountains of error and delusion. It may not be in our power to determine with certainty whether the spiritual pride which we see in others ori- ginates in their religion or operates notwithstanding it ; but if we be only able to show that the former may possibly be the case, we shall at least furnish grounds for self-examination ; and if withal it can be proved that certain notions have a natural tendency to produce that very effect which is manifest in the spirit of those who avow them, we shall thereby be able to judge with some degree of satisfaction what is true and false religion. That which worketh lowliness of mind is from above ; but that which produces self-complacency is assuredly from beneath. It requires also to be noticed that these things may prevail in different degrees. The religion of some is wholly false ; and spiritual pride compasseth them as doth a chain : that of others is partly so ; and they are greatly affected by it : but the tendency is the same in both. Once more, It requires to be noticed that the prevalence of true or false religion in individuals cannot be ascertained with certainty by the truth or falsehood of their professed creed. This may be true, and we, notwithstanding, be essentially erroneous; or, on the other hand, it may in- clude much error, and yet the principles which really govern our spirit and conduct may be so different that the truth may nevertheless be said to dwell in us. Such cases may, however, be considered as rare—a kind of exception from a general rule. It is a general truth, manifestly taught in the Scriptures, that spiritual pride is fed by false religion. All the false teachers of whom they give us an account were distin- guished by this spirit. “They loved to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they might be seen of men.—They loved the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and greet- ings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rab- bi.—There was a certain man called Simon, who before- time in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one.—I will come unto you shortly, and not know the speech of them that are puffed up, but the power : for ye suffer if a man bring you into bondage, if a man devour you, if a man take of you, if a man exalt himself, if a man smite you on the face.—Let us not be desirous of vain- glory; if a man think himself to be something when he is nothing he deceiveth himself—As many as desire to make a fair show in the flesh constrain you to be circumcised. Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.—Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility, and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind-Presumptuous are they, self- willed; they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.— When they speak great swelling words of vamity, they al- lure through the lusts of the flesh those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.—Diotrephes, who loveth to have the pre-eminence, receiveth us not.” It should seem, from hence, that though all spiritual pride does not arise from false religion, yet all false reli- gion produces spiritual pride. The best of men, and those who adhere to the best of principles, are in danger of this sin : but as there is a wide and manifest difference between sinning and living in sin, so it is one thing to be occasionally lifted up, and that at a time when the great principles we imbibe are in a manner out of sight, and another to be habitually intoxicated with self-complacency, and that as the immediate effect of our religion. See you a man whose meditation, preaching, or writing produces humble charity, a pure heart, a good conscience, and you may expect to find in him faith unfeigned. But if you perceive in him a fondness for unprofitable themes of dis- course, which “minister questions rather than godly edify- ing which is in faith,” with a forwardness to affirm what he does not understand, you may be almost certain that he has “swerved from the truth, and turned aside to vain jangling.” As true religion principally consists in “the knowledge of the true God, and of Jesus Christ whom he hath sent,” or in just sentiments of the Lawgiver and the Saviour of men ; so almost every species of error will be found in the contrary. If we err in our conceptions of the Divine character, it resembles an error at the outset of a journey, the consequence of which is that the farther we travel the farther we are off. Without a proper sense of the holy excellence of the Divine nature, it will be impossible to perceive the fitness of the law which requires us to love him with all our heart. Such a requirement must appear rigorous and cruel. Hence we shall be disposed either to contract it, and imagine that our Creator cannot now ex- pect anything more at our hands than an outward decency of conduct; or, if we admit that perfect love is required, we shall still perceive no equity in it, and feel no manner of obligation to comply with it. The law will be accounted a task-master, and the gospel praised at its expense. In both cases we shall be blinded to the multitude and mag- nitude of our sins ; for as where no law is there is no transgression, so in proportion as we are insensible of the spirituality or equity of it, we must needs be insensible of the evil of having transgressed it. And thus it is that men are whole in their own esteem, and think they need no physician, or one of but little value. Thus it is that degrading notions are entertained of the Saviour, and di- minutive representations given of his salvation. In short, thus it is that justification by free grace, through the re- demption which is in Christ Jesus, either becomes inad- missible, or, if admitted in words, is considered as a vic- tory over the law, and as exonerating from all obligations to obey its precepts. Here, or hereabouts, will be found the grand springs of spiritual pride. . It is difficult to conceive whence the motion of sinless perfection in the present life, and all the spiritual pride that attaches to it, could arise, unless it was from ignor- ance of the glorious holiness of God, the spirituality of his law, and the corruption of the human heart. A proper sense of these truths would impel the best character upon earth to exclaim, with the prophet, “Woe is me ! I am a man of unclean lips.” And how is it that an obligation to love the Lord su- premely, and with all our hearts, should be so hard to be understood 3 Yet few think themselves obliged to love him. “We are sinners,” say they, “and cannot love him! and if we now and then yield him a little formal ser- vice, though it be by putting a force upon our inclinations, we imagine we do great things, nearly as much as ought to be required of us, and much more than many do whom we could name !” Thus the sin of not loving God from our heart, and our neighbour as ourselves, is made nothing of in the world, though it be the fountain and sum of evil. The conscience itself is so defiled, that if we manifest but a decent beha- viour in our relations among men, it very nearly acquits us. We claim a kind of exemption from every thing else. And whether it be by the dint of repetition with which this claim has been preferred, or whether those who ought to resist it be themselves too much inclined to favour it, so it is, that too many ministers give it up, contenting themselves with exhorting their hearers to things with which they can comply consistently with reigning enmity to God in their hearts—to things which contain nothing truly good in them, and which a sinner may therefore per- form through his whole life, and be shut out of heaven at last as “a worker of iniquity.” There is not a precept in the Bible that can be obeyed without love, or with which a man may comply and be lost for ever: to exhort sinners, therefore, to things which merely qualify them for this world, or even to reading, hearing, or praying, in such a manner as cannot please God, is deviating from the Scrip- tures, and yielding up the first principles of moral govern- ment to the inclinations of depraved creatures. In short, it is no better than to enforce the tithing of mint and cummin, to the neglect of judgment, mercy, and the love of God. On this sandy foundation rests the whole fabric of self- ºrighteous hope, and all the spiritual pride which attaches to it. So long as we are blinded to the spirituality and requirements of the Divine law, we are in effect without the law and alive in our own conceit ; and while this is ON SPIRITUAL PRIDE. 887 the case, we shall see no necessity for salvation by free grace through a mediator, nor any fitness in it. Seeking to be justified, as it were, by the works of the law, we shall continue to stumble at the stumbling-stone. But when the commandment, in its true extent, comes home to the conscience, we find ourselves the subjects of abundance of 'sin, of which we never before suspected ourselves; and then, and not till then, we die, or despair of acceptance with God by the works of our hands. We are clearly and expressly taught what that doctrine is which excludes boasting ; and, by consequence, what it is that nourishes and cherishes it. “Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus: whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus. . Where is boasting then # It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.-- Not of works, lest any man should boast.” But if, in di- rect opposition to this, men be taught, and induced to be- lieve, that Christ came into the world only to give us good instruction, and set us a good example—that there is no need of any atonement, for that “Repentance and a good life are of themselves sufficient to recommend us to the Divine favour”—and that “all hopes founded upon any thing else than a good moral life are merely imaginary;” —where is boasting now 2 Is it excluded ? - Moreover, Though the Divinity and atonement of Christ be allowed, yet if men be taught and induced to believe that the grand object obtained by his death is that repent- ance, faith, and sincere obedience should be accepted as the ground of justification, instead of sinless perfection, the effect will not be materially different.* On this principle, the gospel is as really a covenant of works as the law, only that its terms are supposed to be somewhat easier. Nor is boasting excluded by it. The ground of acceptance With God, be it what it may, must be that which is made our plea for mercy. If faith, considered as a virtue, be that ground, we may then plead it before God, as that for the sake of which we hope to be saved ; and if this be not boasting, nothing is. This, I am persuaded, no real Chris- tian ever did, or dares attempt. Many good men, I doubt not, have been entangled with these disputes in theory ; but, when upon their knees, it is in the name of Jesus that their petitions for mercy are presented, and for his sake only that they hope for their sins to be forgiven them. Faith, in the one case, is paying a composition, and all that in such circumstances ought to be required : but faith, in the other case, is acquiescing in the bestowment of mercy as a free and undeserved favour; not as the re- Ward of any thing good in us, but of the obedience and death of the Saviour. The intercession of Christ, in the first instance, would be an apology for the well-disposed, resembling that which he offered for Mary of Bethany— They have done what they could ; but, in the last, it is What the Scripture denominates it, an intercession for transgressors. Here the Divine government is justified, the conduct of sinners condemned, and the all-prevailing Worthiness of the Intercessor alleged as the only ground, 9, reason, for the sake of which mercy should be bestowed. Thus it is that, while officiating as the Advocate of sinners, he sustains the character of “Jesus Christ the righteous.” Finally, Influenced by the former of these statements, I feel myself on respectable terms with my Creator; though *ot sinless, yet entitled to mercy, as doing my best: in- fluenced by the latter, I approach my Creator as a sinner *éºdy to perish, without a single plea for mercy but what *ises from his own gracious nature, operating through the atonement of his Son. And through my whole life, what- °yer be my repentance, my faith, or the sincerity of my obedience, I never ground a single plea on any of these * This seems to have been the idea of Bishop Butler. “The doc- trine of the gospel,” he says, “appears to be, not only that he [Christ] taught the efficacy of repentance; but rendered it of the efficacy which * is, by what he did and suffered for us; that he obtained for us the benefit of having our repentance accepted unto eternal life: not only that he revealed to sinners that they were in a capacity of salvation, and how they might obtain it; but, moreover, that he put them into this Capacity of salvation, by what he did and suffered for them; put things as a procuring cause of mercy, but invariably desire that I may be “found in him.” There is another species of spiritual pride, very different from any thing which has yet been described, and which originates in what some would call the extremes of ortho- dozy, but which might, with greater propriety, be termed gross heterodoxy, or false notions of the doctrines of grace. I have said it arises from false views of the doctrines of grace ; and this I am persuaded is the case even where the most orthodox language is retained. The same terms may be used, by different persons, to express very different ideas. Thus it is that the doctrines of election, the atonement, justification by imputed righteousness, efficacious grace, and perseverance in a life of faith, are held fast in words, but in fact perverted.ſ. REMARKS ON TWO SERMONS BY W. W. HORNE OF YARMOUTH. [A letter to a friend.] MY DEAR FRIEND, YoU have sent me two sermons by William Wales Horne, entitled “The Faith of the Gospel Vindicated,” request- ing my opinion of them. Why did you wish to impose upon me the task of reading such a performance? I sup- pose it was owing to your being a Norfolk man, and feel- ing interested in anything that is done among the churches in that part of the kingdom. I hope this is not a fair sam- ple of Norfolk divinity. If it be, they are low indeed . It would appear, however, that the author is a man of some consequence, at least in his own eyes, as, by the motto he has chosen, he seems to consider himself as set for the de- fence of the gospel. Defence implies attack. Has any body in Norfolk then been attacking what he calls the gospel? So it should seem ; and I should almost suspect from some passages that the assailants were in his own congregation. He certainly appears to be out of humour with some of them,-p. 32. Indeed, I entertain a hope for their sakes that this may be the case ; for it is grievous to think that a people sustain- ing the character of a Christian church should suffer them- selves to be imposed upon by such flinnsy, incoherent, and erroneous preaching, and reckon it the gospel of Jesus Christ | Of Mr. Horne I know nothing, save from this publica- tion. He seems disposed, however, to give his readers all the information he can respecting himself, and this even in his title-page. From thence we learn, First, That he is not only a preacher, (which we might have gathered from his publishing “Sermons,”) but a “minister of the gos- pel.” Secondly, That he is not an ordinary minister, but one who is peculiarly qualified to repel the attacks of ad- versaries; “set,” like an apostle, “for the defence of the gospel.” Thirdly, That he not only preaches and defends the gospel, but does all “extempore ; ” that is, without writing or studying his discourses before he delivers them. Fourthly, That though he neither writes nor thinks him- self in order to preaching, yet such is the importance of what he delivers, that “James Murden,” a short-hand writer, sits and takes down his discourses, by which means they are preserved for the benefit of posterity. Finally, On the back of the same leaf, we are given to understand that if the public will come forward, and, by a liberal sub- scription, secure him in a pecuniary view, he will give them a whole volume of these sermons, containing 300 pages, all on the most “interesting and edifying subjects.” Whether all this information was necessary, especially that which relates to the sermons being “delivered extempore,” some persons may doubt; thus much, however, may be ac- us into a capacity of escaping future punishment, and obtaining future happiness.” See his Analogy, Part II. Chap. V. p. 305. [The worthy prelate seems, however, to have taken refuge in more Scriptural views in the hour of death.—ED. - +. It is supposed that the conclusion of this Essay is identical with certain parts of the treatise on Antinomianism, as, in the first edition of the works, the reader is referred for the remainder to the Introduc- tion and Part II, of that piece. See p. 334, present edition.—ED. 888 MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS, ESSAYS, &c. knowledged, that if from this time we remain ignorant of Mr. Horne's extraordinary talents, and be either unin- terested or unedified by his writings, it must be our own fault. After a great deal said about faith, in which the belief of the truth is frequently confounded with the truth be- lieved, and much declamation against error, in which we are after all left to guess wherein it consists, the preacher at length comes to the point which he appears to have had in view ; or (as he does not think beforehand) to the point which was impressed upon his mind at the time ; that is to say, that faith is not the duty of either sinners or saints. Mr. Horne asserts that “men in nature’s darkness have nothing to do with the faith of God’s elect.” He does not mean by this that they are destitute of it, for that would be saying no more than his opponents would ad- mit; but that they have no right to believe in Jesus Christ. This he attempts to prove from their being under a cove- nant of works. “The law,” he says, “is their first hus- band; and till they become dead to him they cannot be married to another (that is, to Christ by faith) without being called adulteresses,”—p. 26. If this reasoning were allowed to be solid, it would affect only those who are in “nature's darkness;” whereas Mr. Horne's position is, That faith is not the duty of any man, of believers any more than of unbelievers. “It is not,” he says, “a duty which God requires of his people, but a grace which he gives them,”—p. 26. But the reasoning itself is false. That sinners are alive to the law as a covenant of works is too true ; but that the law in that character is alive to them is not true. The covenant of which the apostle speaks, in the pas- sage alluded to, is that which was made with Israel at Sinai, to which they as a nation were bound by Divine authority till the coming of Christ, but which being then abolished, they were no longer under obligation to adhere to it as a covenant, but were at liberty to embrace a new and better dispensation. This was applicable to the Jews, to whom the apostle addresses himself as to them who knew the law, but is totally inapplicable to Gentiles, who never were married to the law. But whether the cove- nant of works be considered as made with Israel at Sinai or with man in innocence, it is no longer in force ; that is to say, it is dead. In the former view, it was rendered null by the introduction of the gospel: “For in that he saith, a new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.” In the latter view it must have ceased from the time of man’s apostacy. The law has no promise of life to a single transgressor, and never had ; but merely a threatening of death. God is not, therefore, in covenant with sinners, nor they with him : they are not under a covenant of works ; but merely under the curse for trans- gressing it. Thus taking the covenant which way we will, it is dead : and therefore, on Mr. Horne's own principle, sinners ought to be dead to it; and, in virtue of the free invitations of the gospel, are at liberty to be married to another. A desire to be under the law is not now an attachment to a Divine constitution, nor is there any regard to God’s law in it; it is merely a proud and unbelieving reluctance to admit that we have broken the law, and a vain desire to be still claiming life as the reward of our own good deeds. In short, it is no other than an attachment to the idol of our own righteousness; and we might as well infer that while a sinner is joined to idols he has no right to desert them, and return to God, as that he would be found guilty of spiritual adultery by coming off from all dependence on self, and believing in Jesus Christ. If this doctrine were true, our Saviour, instead of complaining of the unbeliev- ing Jews that they would not come to him that they might have life, ought to have commended them for their fidelity to their “first husband.” Nay, if this doctrine be true, I see not why Mr. Horne should exclaim as he does against people being of a Pharisaical or self-righteous spirit; they ought rather to be commended for their chaste adherence to the law, as to their own proper husband. Mr. Horne tells us of some who “strive to enter in at the strait gate, and are not able ;” and that the reason, why they are not able is that they “do not strive lawfully, or consistently with the mind and will of God, not coming to God in his own lawful and appointed way.” “The Jews of old,” he says, “strove to enter in, but were not able ; because they strove, like our modern Pharisees, to enter in by the works of the law,” Rom. ix. 32, 33,-p. 7. Very good; but how can these things hang together? If coming to God by Jesus Christ, and not by the works of the law, accord with the “mind and will of God,” and be God’s “lawful and appointed way,” how can it be un- lawful to walk in it 4 On the other hand, if the law as a covenant be the proper husband of the unconverted, and they ought faithfully to adhere to him, and not to come to God by Jesus Christ, on pain of being called “adulter- esses,” why complain of them for striving unlawfully, and tax them with losing a prize by this their unlawful conduct, with which, after all, they had “nothing to do?” “Self-righteous thoughts and imaginations,” says he, “are as inimical to the attributes of the Deity, and as offensive to the Lord of glory, as the immorality of the profligate part of mankind.” And yet they have no right to relin- quish them by believing in Jesus Christ “A self-right- eous sinner,” he adds, “is in open rebellion against the Lord, and against his anointed Son.” And yet he has no ºright to be reconciled to him, or to come to him that he might have life : “The spirit of the self-righteous is di- rectly opposite to that humility, self-abhorrence, and self- abasement requisite in poor, undone, rebellious sinners, when coming before a God of immaculate purity,”—p. 42. And yet, strange to tell, they ought to be of this spirit, and not of that which renounces these self-exalting notions and depends entirely on Jesus Christ, lest they be called “adulteresses 1’” In most cases, gross inconsistencies are reckoned blemishes : whether they will be so in this, I cannot determine. As the preacher does not profess to think before he speaks, contradiction may, for aught I know, be here in character. “Whatever may be thought of universal exhortations, I am bold to assert,” says Mr. Horne, “that not one of the self-righteous are invited to come to Christ.—Christ ‘ came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance,’”—p. 26. Of Mr. Horne’s “boldness” there is certainly no doubt; but “wherein he is bold (I speak foolishly) I am bold also.” The self-righteous Jews were invited to the gospel supper before the Gentiles. And though they made light of it, yet the kingdom of God at that time came nigh unto them. The same characters were exhorted, “while they had the light, to believe in the light, that they might be the children of light.” Now, whether we should hearken to God’s word, or to the “bold '' asser- tions of Mr. Horne, let Christians judge.—But Christ “came not to call the righteous, but simmers to repent- ance.” True ; and he came into the world to save, not the righteous, but sinners ; yet Paul and many other self- righteous characters were saved by him ; not, however, in their self-righteousness, but from it : and thus it is that self-righteous characters are called to relinquish their vain hopes, and to come to Jesus as sinners for salvation. “Faith,” says Mr. Horne, “is not a natural grace ; it is no duty of the law.” Having no idea what a “natural grace” is, unless it were some ornament of the body or mind, I can make no answer to the former part of this assertion. As to the latter, it is true that obedience to the law and faith in Christ, as mediums of obtaining life, are in the Scriptures opposed to each other. The one receives justification as a reward, the other as a free gift to the unworthy, wholly out of respect to the righteous- ness of another. It is on the medium of obtaining life that the apostle speaks, when he says, the law is not of faith. “The just,” says he, “shall live by faith.” And “the law is not of faith ; but the man that doeth them shall live in them.” Justification by obedience to the law was entirely distinct, therefore, from justification by faith in Christ; the one would be by works, the other is by grace. It does not follow, however, that the law, considered as a standard of right and wrong, is opposed to faith, or that it does not require it. It is manifest that faith is a part of the revealed will of God, being commanded in the Scriptures. “Repent, and believe the gospel.”—“While ye have the light, believe in the light, that ye may be the REMARIS ON HORNE'S TWO SERMONS. 8S9 children of light.”—“This is his commandment, That we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ.” If these commandments have not their root in the moral law, which requires every creature to love God under every manifesta- tion by which he shall at any time make himself known, they must be the requirements of the gospel, under the form of a new law ; a principle which has been generally rejected by the friends of evangelical truth. “Had faith,” says Mr. Horne, “been a duty of the law, the Jews of old would have. obtained that which they sought after (the peculiar favour of God); for they sought it by the works of the law. But faith was not of the law, and therefore they could not obtain it, p. 27. By this reasoning, it would seem as if the carnal Jews really com- plied with the Divine law; going to the utmost of its requirements, and this without finding faith in Christ among them, because it was not there to be found. But has Mr. Horne yet to learn, that in all the attachment of the carnal Jews to the works of the law there was no real conformity to any Divine precept? “For the carnal mind is enmity against God, and is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” Mr. Horne considers faith as the “gift, or work, of God’s Holy Spirit;” and therefore concludes that it can- not be a duty. I have no dispute with him as to faith, and every thing else which is truly good in a fallen crea- ture, being of grace : but it does not follow thence that it is not a duty; for there is no good performed in the world but that which grace produces. If, therefore, nothing be the duty of sinners but that which may be done without the grace of God, it is not their duty to do any thing good : and, if so, all their alienation of heart from God and goodness is not their sin; nor does it require forgive- ness.--"Is it the duty of the unconverted man,” asks Mr. Horne, “to make himself a new creature in Christ; to give himself the Holy Ghost?” No ; but it is his duty to be that which nothing short of the regenerating influ- ence of the Holy Spirit can make him. Finally, “If evangelical faith be a duty, the believer may glory, and boast himself against the unbeliever,”—p. 31. If it were a duty with which he complied of his own accord, making himself to differ, he might; but not else. I suppose Mr. Horne reckons himself a believer, and to have done some good in the world, by preaching and “defending the gospel ; ” and does he glory on this ac- count? He may ; but he cannot have so learned Christ, if so be he have heard him, and been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus. If I could have access to the churches in Norfolk who are connected with Mr. Horne, I would affectionately and earnestly entreat their attention to the subject. Not that I wish them to embroil themselves and one another in furious contentions. Far from it ! I should be very sorry to hear of any minister, whom I considered as embracing the truth, following Mr. Horne's example. It is not by converting the pulpit into a stage of strife, nor by availing ourselves of the silence which decency imposes upon an audience to pour forth personal invective, that truth is promoted. Such conduct may pass with some people for faithfulness; but in reality it is as mean as it is injurious. It is by reading, by calm and serious reflection, by humble prayer, and by a free and friendly communication of our thoughts to one another in private conversation, that truth makes progress. - I do not wish the churches in Norfolk, or any where Slse, to be engaged in unprofitable disputes; but if I could have access to them, I would address them in some such manner as the following:— Be not led away, my brethren, by vain men. Judge for yourselves. If you choose to examine the subject to Which Mr. Horne refers you, read, and read impartially, What has been written upon it.* Or, if things of a con- troversial nature be disagreeable to you, read the lives of ºn Edwards, a Brainerd, and a Pearce; and know—not * speeches of them that are puffed up, but the power. Above all, read your Bible, and carefully notice whether these things be so. Inquire whether the Scriptures do * Articularly, Booth's Glad Tidings to Perishing Sinners; Scott %. The Nature and Parrant of Faith ; and a work entitled, The 9spel h’orthy of all Mcceptation. not exhort, admonish, and persuade sinners to those very things which, where they exist, are ascribed to the grace of God. Do not take it for granted that you are sound $n the faith because such preachers as Mr. Horne exhort you to hold fast your present sentiments. That faith is sound, and that only, which accords with the Scriptures, and finds a use for every part of them. The Scriptures are not written systematically; yet they contain materials for a system. They resemble the stones which were wrought for the building of the temple, previously to their being laid in it: each was prepared for its proper place, and adapted to form a part of a beautiful whole. Some of these materials might have been worked up in any one of those “high places” which were a snare to Israel, or even in a “temple for Moloch; ” but no other building than that which was erected according to the Divine pat- tern delivered to Solomon would have found a use for all. That fabric in which every material finds its place is the true temple of God. Many writers and preachers have formed their favourite schemes, or adopted them from others, and been very eager in defending them ; but, in so doing, a great part of the Bible has been thrown aside as useless, and has rarely been mentioned but for the purpose of explaining it away. Arminianism can find but little use for the doctrinal part of Paul’s Epistles, in which free, discriminating, and effect- ual grace, is clearly taught ; and false Calvinism looks with an evil eye on the exhortations, warnings, and invit- ations to the unconverted, in the four evangelists, and the Acts of the Apostles. Is not this a plain proof that neither of these systems is evangelical ? That, I say again, is the true gospel which gives to every part of Scripture its fair and full meaning; and if the views we have hitherto entertained will not do this, we ought to conclude that, whatever we may have learned, we have yet to learn “ the truth as it is in Jesus.” Judge impartially, my brethren, whether the doctrine taught by Mr. Horne, and others, will admit of such ex- hortations to the unconverted as occur in the preaching of John the Baptist, Christ, and his apostles. If the lan- guage in which they address their carmal hearers were uttered in your pulpits, and nothing added by the preacher to explain away its force, would you not begin to suspect him of error? Yet your so doing ought in reality to make you suspect yourselves ; and to fear lest, while you think you are doing God service, you should be found fighting against him. In calling the doctrine defended by Mr. Horne false Calvinism I have not miscalled it. In proof of this, I ap- peal to the writings of that great reformer, and of the ablest defenders of his system in later times—of all indeed who have been called Calvinists till within a hundred years. Were you to read many of Calvin’s sermons, without know- ing who was the author, you would be led, from the ideas you appear at present to entertain, to pronounce him an Arminian ; neither would Goodwin, nor Owen, nor Char- mock, nor Flavel, nor Bunyan, escape the charge. These men believed and preached the doctrines of grace ; but not in such a way as to exclude exhortations to the unconverted to repent and believe in Jesus Christ. The doctrine which gow call Calvinism (but which, in reality, is Antinomianism) is as opposite to that of the Reformers, puritans, and non- conformists, as it is to that of the apostles. We do not ask you to relinquish the doctrine of salva- tion by grace alone : so far from it, were you to do so we would, on that account, have no fellowship with you. We have no doubt of justification being wholly on account of the righteousness of Jesus ; nor of faith, wherever it exists, being the free gift of God. On such subjects we could say with Job, “We have understanding as well as you ; we are not inferior to you; yea, who knoweth not such things as these?” But we ask you to admit other principles, equally true, and equally important as they are ; principles taught by the same inspired writers, and which, therefore, must be consistent with them. Doctrinal sentiments will have a great influence on the whole of our religion. They will operate powerfully in the forming of our spirit, and the regulation of our conduct. Many people have complained of the unchristian spirit dis- covered by Mr. Huntington and his followers. “We have t 890 MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS, ESSAYS, &c. not so much objection,” say they, “to his doctrine; but such an awful degree of spiritual pride and rancour runs through all he writes—.” For my part, I never make such complaint: I should as soon complain of thistles and thorns for their bearing prickles. Mr. Huntington's spirit com- ports with his doctrine ; and if we receive one, we must receive both. False doctrine will “ eat as doth a canker :” in indi- viduals it will produce self-importance, self-will, and al- most every other selfish disposition; and, if admitted into churches, it will be followed by a neglect of faithful disci- pline and holy practice. Such have been the effects of that doctrine for which Mr. Horne contends in many of the churches in the midland parts of the kingdom; and such, it is to be feared, have been its effects in some of yours. Though the apostles of our Lord renounced all depend- ence upon the works of the law for justification, yet they did not “make void the law,” but established it ; account- ing it “holy, just, and good;” and “delighted in it after the inner man :” but many preachers, who are eager in defending these principles, do not scruple to disown it en- tirely as a rule of life ; and, though Mr. Horne has not done this, yet he continually confounds what the Scriptures distinguish, applying that which is spoken of the law as a covenant, or term of justification, to that which respects it as the eternal standard of right and wrong. But those who scarcely ever mention the law of God without disrespect are not far from disowning it as a rule of life; and those who disown it as a rule of life can hardly be expected to walk by it. Far be it from me to deal in indiscriminate censure. That good men have favoured these principles, I have no doubt; and, where the heart is upright, an erro- neous sentiment, though it be very injurious, will not be the great governing principle of life. It is also allowed that bad men will be found under every form of religious profession. But, so far as my observation extends, there is a much larger proportion of such characters among minis- ters of this description than any others who are accounted evangelical. Many of them are not only known to be loose in their general deportment, but seem to have laid aside all honour and conscience towards the churches. Some, mot having any stated employment, (as well they may not,) wander up and down the country, as if for a piece of bread, sowing the seeds of dissension, and raising a party for themselves, in every place where they come. Others, when invited to preach to a church on probation, after having divided and scattered it by their violence, have been ne- cessitated to leave it; and, finding no other people who would employ them, have frequently been known to retire with a party of their adherents, and to set up an opposite interest in the same place, to the great injury and reproach of religion. Yet these men, if they may be believed, are each “set for the defence of the gospel.” From the pen of an apostle and prisoner of Jesus Christ such language was proper; but the “words of the wise ’’ are not fitted in the lips of every one. Whether these men wish to imitate Mr. Huntington, who takes for his motto the words of Job, “The root of the matter is found in me,” or whether it be natural to them to proclaim to the world the high opinion they entertain of themselves, I cannot de- termine ; but this is certain, that if they and he had each studied to imitate a certain impostor, who “bewitched the people, giving out that himself was some great one,” they could scarcely have acted in stricter conformity to his ex- ample. I have little or no acquaintance with your ministers; but I know something of those in other parts of the coun. try who embrace the doctrine taught by Mr. Horne, and have reason to believe that their preaching is mostly com- posed of ludicrous rant and idle declamation. The princi- pal objects against which they declaim are Pharisaism and the devil; and the method taken to persuade their hearers that they are the greatest enemies to both is telling them that they are so I As to the former, if it consist in trusting that we are righteous, and despising others, perhaps there are few religious professors who can prefer a better claim to it than themselves. And as to their boasting and brand- ishing against the latter, what serious mind, nay, what mind possessed of common understanding, can endure it 3 It may furnish the ignorant and light-minded with a laugh; but every man of sense must be disgusted by it. To hear the low and vulgar jokes which they are continually utter- ing against the grand adversary of God and man, both in the pulpit and out of it, one might be tempted to conclude that, instead of being his enemies, they were on terms of more than ordinary intimacy with him. Mr. Merryman may have high words with his master, for the amusement of the audience ; but he will not hurt him : they understand one another. Sure I am, Satan has no objection to be thus treated. So they have preached, and so too many have believed. Brethren, “Prove all things, hold fast that which is good! And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly: and I pray God your whole spirit, soul and body, be preserved blame- less unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” THE MORAL LAW THE RULE OF CONDUCT TO BELIEVERS. [A letter to a friend.] MY DEAR BROTHER, YoU requested me to give you my reasons, in the brief compass of a letter, for considering the moral law as the rule of conduct to believers. It is painful that a question of this nature should ever have been started among profess- ing Christians ; but this, and other things of the kind, are permitted, that they who are approved may be made ma- nifest. You do not wish me, my dear brother, to encounter the foul dogmas of our pulpit libertines; but to state a few plain, Scriptural evidences, which may be useful to some serious minds, who have been entangled in the mazes of their delusions.—Before I proceed to this, however, it will be proper to make a remark or two in a general way. First, There is no dispute on the ground of our accept- ance with God. We are not justified on account of any thing inherent, whether before, in, or after believing; but merely for the sake of the righteousness of Christ, believed in and imputed to us. As a medium of life, or (as our divines commonly express it) as a covenant, believers are dead to the law, and the law to them, being united to an- other husband. . . Secondly, The question is not whether the whole of Christian obedience be formally required in the ten com- mandments. Certainly it is not. Neither the ordinance of baptism, nor that of the supper, is expressly required by them ; and there may be other duties which they do not, in so many words, inculcate;—but the question is, whe- ther it be not virtually required by them, and whether they be not binding on believers. If we allow our Saviour to be a just expositor, the sum of the ten commandments is the love of God with all the heart, soul, mind, and strength, and of our neighbour as ourselves ; and this includes all the obedience that can possibly be yielded by a creature. If we love God with all our hearts, we shall comply with every positive institute and particular precept which he hath enjoined in his word; and all such compliance con- tains just so much obedience as it contains love to him, and no more. Let an instance of Christian obedience be produced, if it can, which is not comprehended in the general preeept of love. In objecting to the perfection of the ten command- ments, our adversaries would seem to hold with an ex- tensive rule ; but the design manifestly is to undermine their authority, and that without substituting any other competent rule in the place of them. In what follows, therefore, I shall endeavour to prove both the authority and perfection of the law; or that the commandments of God, whether we consider them as ten or two, are still binding on Christians, and virtually contain the whole revealed will of God, as to the matter of obedience. First, To prove that the ten commandments are bind- ing, let any person read them, one by one, and ask his own conscience as he reads whether it would be any Sin to break them. Is the believer at liberty to have other gods besides the true God? Would there be no harm in THE LAW A RULE OF CONDUCT. 891 his making to himself a graven image, and falling down to worship it? Is it any less sin for a believer to take God’s name in vain than for an unbeliever ? Are believers at liberty to profane the sabbath, or to disobey their parents, or to kill their neighbours, or to commit adultery, or to steal, or to bear false witness, or to covet what is not their own 4 Is this, or any part of it, the liberty of the gospel ? Every conscience that is not seared as with a hot iron must answer these questions in the negative. Secondly, It is utterly inconsistent with the nature of moral government, and of the great designs of mercy, as revealed in the gospel, that believers should be freed from obligation to love God with all their hearts, and their neighbours as themselves. The requirement of love is founded in the nature of the relation between God and a rational creature; and cannot be made void so long as the latter exists, unless the former were to deny himself. The relation between a father and son is such that an obligation to love is indispensable; and should the son, on having offended his father, be forgiven and restored, like the prodigal to his family, to pretend to be free on this account were an outrage on decency. Every one must feel that his obligations, in such a case, are increased, rather than diminished. Thirdly, It was solemnly declared by our Saviour, “that he came, not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it ;” yea, “that heaven and earth should pass away, but not a jot or tittle of the law should fail.” A considerable part of his sermon on the mount is taken up in pointing out the true meaning of its particular precepts, and in enforcing them upon his disciples. To the same purpose the apostle Paul, after dwelling largely on justification by faith in Christ, in opposition to the works of the law, asks, “Do we then make void the law through faith ? God forbid ; yea, we establish the law.” But if the law ceases to be binding on believers, Christ did come to destroy its au- thority over them, and faith does make it void in respect of them. The faith of those who set Moses and Christ at variance has manifestly this effect; it is therefore in opposition to the faith taught by our Saviour and the apostle Paul. Fourthly, In executing the great work of redemption, our Saviour invariably did honour to the law; it was written in his heart. He did not ask for the salvation of his chosen at the expense of the law; but laid down his life to satisfy its righteous demands. Now, the essence of true religion is for the “same mind to be in us which was in Christ Jesus.” Hence he prayed that they all might be one, as the Father was in him, and he in the Father, that they might be one in both. The Lawgiver and the Saviour were one ; and believers must be of one mind with the former as well as with the latter : but if We depreciate the law, which Christ delighted to honour, and deny our obligations to obey it, how are we of his mind? Rather, are we not of that mind which is “enmity against God, which is not subject to the law of God, nei- ther indeed can be 3 - Fifthly, The apostle, in what he writes to the Romans and Galatians, (two Epistles in which he largely explodes the idea of justification by the works of the law.) enforces brotherly love as a requirement of the law. “Tove one another,” says he, “for love is the fulfilling of the law— Brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty as an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another; for all the law is fulfilled in one word; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” If the liberty of the Primitive Christians consisted in being delivered from an obligation to obey the precepts of the law, the reasoning 9f the apostle was self-contradictory : Ye are not obliged to love one another because God in his law requires it ; therefore, love one another, because God in his law re- Quires it ! ! Sixthly, If the law be not a rule of conduct to believers, ** a perfect rule too, they are under no rule; or, which 1S the Same thing, are lawless. But, if so, they commit Il O sin; for “where no law is, there is no transgression;” and in this case they have no sins to confess, either to God or to one another; nor do they stand in need of Christ as an Advocate with the Father, nor of daily for- 8"eness through his blood. Thus it is that, by disowning the law, men utterly subvert the gospel. I am aware that those who deny the law to be the rule of a believer's con- duct, some of them, at least, will not pretend to be law- less. Sometimes they will profess to make the gospel their rule; but the gospel, strictly speaking, is not a rule of conduct, but a message of grace, providing for our con- formity to the rule previously given. To set aside the moral law as a rule, and to substitute the gospel in its place, is making the gospel a new law, and affords a proof how Antinomianism and Neonomianism, after all their differences, can occasionally agree. The Scriptures teach us that “by the law is the knowledge of sin;” which clearly implies that there is no sin but what is a breach of that rule. Hence sin is defined “the transgression of the law.” But if sin be the transgression of the law, the authority of the law must be still binding; for no crime or offence attaches to the breach of a law which is abrogated or repealed ; nor can it be known by such a law how much any man hath sinned, or whether he hath sinned at all. Moreover, if there be no sin but what is a trans- gression of the law, there can be no rule binding on men which is not comprehended in that law. Seventhly, The apostle writes as if there were no me- dium between being under the law to Christ and without law, 1 Cor. ix. 21. If we be not the one, we are the other. Paul declares himself under the law to Christ, which im- plies that Christ has taken the precepts of the moral law as the first principles of his legislative code. Believers, therefore, instead of being freed from obligation to obey it, are under greater obligations to do so than any men in the world. To be exempt from this is to be without law, and, of course, without sin; in which case we might do without a Saviour, which is utterly subversive of all re- ligion.—I have been told that believers are not to be ruled by the law, but by love; and that it is by the influence of the Spirit that they are moved to obedience, rather than by the precepts of the law. To this I answer—l. If a believer be ruled by love in such a way as to exclude ob- ligation, this is the same as if a son should say to his father, I have no objection to oblige you, sir: I will do your business from love ; but I will not be commanded ! That is, what he pleases he will do, and no more.—No parent could bear such an answer from a child; and how can we suppose that God will bear it from us : “If I be a father, where is my honour !”—2. The question is not, What moves or causes obedience 3–but, What is the rule of it? It is allowed that all true obedience is caused by the influence of the Holy Spirit; but that to which he in- fluences the mind was antecedently required of us : He leadeth us “in the way that we should go.”—3. If the influence of the Holy Spirit on the mind be made the rule of obligation, and that influence be effectual, it will fol. low that believers are without sin ; for whatever they are effectually influenced to do they do ; and if this be all they are obliged to do, then do they comply with their whole duty, and so are sinless. Thus, methinks, we have arrived at a state of sinless perfection by a sort of back way ! But let us not deceive ourselves :, “God is not mocked; whatsoever a man Soweth, that shall he also reap.” Wher all, my dear friend, evidence, even that which is drawn from the word of God, will have little or no influ- ence on minds which have drank deeply into these corrupt principles. Where men have found out the secret of happiness without holiness, there is something so bewitch- ing in it, that you might almost as well encounter insanity as hope by reasoning to convince them. Indeed, I know of no character to whom the words of the prophet, though spoken immediately of idolaters, will more fully apply: “He feedeth on ashes: a deceived heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is there not a lie in my right hand?” There are, however, degrees in this kind of infatuation; and I doubt not but many sin- cere minds have been infected with it. If some of this description should be recovered, it is worth our ut- most attention ; and even those whose prejudices are the most inveterate are not beyond the reach of omnipotent grace. 892 MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS, ESSAYS, &c. STRICTURES ON SOME OF THE LEADING SENTIMENTS OF MIR. R. ROBINSON. LETTER. I. ON THE IMPORTANCE OF TRUTH AND A RIGHT BELIEF OF IT, MY DEAR FRIEND, WHEN we consider the shortness of time, and the variety of weighty concerns which call for our attention during that transitory period, you will agree with me that what- ever has not some degree of importance attending it has no claim upon our regard. Every object certainly de- serves regard in proportion to its importance. If, then, truth and a right belief of it are things of no importance, or at most of very little, they can assuredly lay claim but to a small share of our attention. But if, on the other hand, truth—Divine truth I mean—should prove to be a matter of great, yea, of the highest importance, then in- attention to it would be a conduct chargeable with the greatest culpability. Were you and I of that fashionable opinion—“that it matters not what we believe, if our lives be but good,”—all attempts to investigate religious senti- ments, it should seem, would be to no purpose ; for why need I put myself to the trouble of writing, and you of reading what I write, if, after all, it is very immaterial what we think or believe in these matters ? Though I know you have no such ideas of things, yet, seeing that the importance of truth is itself a truth on the belief of which our attention and attachment to all other truths depends, you will allow me to begin by establish- ing that.* I have sometimes wondered why it should be thought more criminal to disobey what God commands than to disbelieve what he declares. Certainly, if any master of a family came into his own house and told a plain tale from his own knowledge, and if any of the family were to affect to doubt it, he would take it as ill as if they refused to do what he commanded. Yea, for aught I know, more so ; for to call in question his integrity would pro- bably be more heinous in his view, than merely to disre- gard his authority. There are two passages of holy writ that have especial- ly struck my mind on this subject. One is, that solemn piece of advice given by the wise man : “Buy the truth, and sell it not.” He does not name the price, because its value was beyond all price. As when we advise a friend to purchase some very valuable and necessary article we say, “Buy it, give what you will for it, let nothing part you.” So here, Buy it at any rate . It cannot be too dear! give up ease, wealth, or reputation, rather than miss it ! part with your most darling prejudices, preconceived no- tions, beloved lusts, or any thing else that may stand in the way ! And, having got it, make much of it—sell it not no, not for any price make shipwreck of any thing rather than of faith and a good conscience part with life itself rather than with Divine truth!—But why so tenacious of truth, if after all it is of little or no importance? I remember not many years since hearing a minister preach at a certain ordination from Heb. x. 23, “Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering.” In enforcing his subject he made use of what might be supposed to be the call of the martyrs from heaven. He represented one as crying to us, “Hold it fast ; I died in a dungeon rather than forego it.” “ Hold it fast !” says * If I am not mistaken, this is Mr. R.'s grand defect. He has all along professed himself, I suppose, a Calvinist; but never seems to have been in earnest in preaching or writing on these principles—never seems to have acted as though he thought they were of importance. How differently has he acted concerning the principles of nonconformity, and some other favourite subjects How coldly has he treated those in comparison with these ! Besides acknowledging Arians and So- cinians as “mistaken brethren,” and choosing rather to be “a frozen formalist” than “set on fire of hell,” as he terms it, he openly avows his belief of the innocence of mental error; which, I think, is full as much as to avow the non-importance of truth. Here, by the by, I think it must require a very large stretch of cha- rity to acquit him of manifest known sophistry. After having called those who deny Christ's Divinity “mistaken brethren,” he supposes another, “I bled for it.” “Hold it fast !” says a third, “I burned for it.” These sentiments and motives, I own, met with my warmest approbation. But if, after all, it matters not what we believe, why all this ado? The other passage that has especially struck my mind is that memorable commission of our Lord, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature: he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned.” He that believeth— what? The gospel, no doubt, which they were commis- sioned to preach. As if he had said, Go preach the gos- pel: he that shall receive your message, and evidence it by a submission to my authority, shall be saved; but he that shall reject it, let him see to it—he shall be damned : —This is very awful, and ought to excite us, instead of playing with truth and error, seriously to examine whether we be in the faith ! What is believing the gospel but heartily admitting what it implies and what it declares? What but admit- ting that God is an infinitely amiable Being, and that his law is “ holy, and just, and good?” for, otherwise, the sacrifice of Christ for the breach of it would have been injustice and cruelty. What but admitting that sin is an infinite evil, and that we are infinitely to blame for break- ing God’s law without any provocation ? for, if otherwise, an infinite atonement would not have been required: God would have accepted some other sacrifice rather than have given up his own Son. What but admitting that we are utterly depraved and lost, lying entirely at God’s dis- cretion ? If he save us alive, we live ; or if we have our portion with devils, with whom we have sided against him, he and his throne are guiltless. This is implied in the gospel of a crucified Saviour; for if we had not been utterly lost, we had not needed a Saviour—at least, such a great one. In fine, what is it but admitting that the plan of redemption is a plan full of infinite glory, the de- vice of infinite wisdom, the expression of infinite love, the work of infinite power, and the display of infinite glory, justice, and faithfulness?—a plan originating in the heart of God, effected by means the most astonishing, and pro- ductive of ends the most glorious !—no less glorious than the eternal honour of its author, the triumph of truth and righteousness, the confusion of Satan, the destruction of sin, and the holiness and happiness of a number of lost sinners which no man can number —a plan this, therefore, “worthy of all acceptation '' worthy of being approved and acquiesced in with all the heart! These, I think, are some of the principal truths which the gospel exhibits; and whosoever really believes them shall be saved. On the other hand, what is it to disbelieve the gospel, but to remain under a persuasion that God is not such an in- finitely amiable Being as to be worthy of being loved with all the heart, and soul, and mind, and, strength 3–that therefore his law is too strict, and if it must extend to the heart, too broad, Requiring more than ought to be required, especially of fallen creatures 3–that consequently a breach of it is not so very criminal as to deserve damnation ?—that if God were to damn us, it would be a very hard and cruel thing?—that we are not so depraved and lost but that, if God were but to deal fairly with us, we should do very well without a Saviour, or at least without such a Saviour and such a salvation as is altogether of grace 3–that there is no such excellence in the Saviour that we should desire him, no such glory in his way of salvation that we should choose it—so choose it, however, as to be willing to have our pride mortified, and our lusts sacrificed to it?—in fine, that there is no need for such an ado about the concerns of our souls—no need to become new creatures, to be at an objector would say, But all this argues great coldness to your Lord! and in reply his words are—“I would rather be frozen into a formal- ist, than inflamed with the fire of hell: in the first case I should be a harmless statue; in the last a destroyer like the devil.”—See his Plea jor the Divinity of Christ, near the conclusion. Surely, he must know this to be evasive and sophistical. Could he be ignorant of a medium between cool indifference and a criminal heart 2 If he be, woe be to him 1 Need he be told that the word of God requires us to contend earnestly, though not angrily, for the faith ? His answer is a vindi- cation of one extreme by exclaiming against another. As though a man should say, when reproved for sloth, Better be a sluggard than & robber; for in that case I should do a world of mischief I True ; but is there no medium ? And is not that medium the position which every man ought to occupy { STRICTURES ON THE SENTIMENTS OF MR. R. ROBINSON. 893 war with all sin, and to make religion our daily business? This I take to be nearly what the Scriptures mean by un- belief. However, be my ideas of the gospel right or wrong, that affects not the present question; for be the gospel what it may, the belief of it has attached to it the promise of salvation, and the disbelief of it the threatening of damnation. tº a º You have observed, I dare say, that it is very common to represent truth, and the belief of it, as of small account, and morality as all in all ; nay, more, that the preaching of the former is the way to subvert the latter. And yet how easy were it to prove that this is no other than de- stroying the means in order to effect the end ? Whatever may be pretended, I believe it will be found that all sin springs from error, or the belief of some falsehood; and all holy actions from the belief of the truth. The former ap- pears in that the will of man is so constituted as never to choose any thing but an apparent good. It is impossible we should choose what appears to us at the same time and in the same respects unlovely. Therefore whenever we choose evil we must believe evil to be lovely; that is, we must believe a falsehood. This the Scripture represents as calling “evil good, and good evil.” And thus all vice springs from error, or false views of things. On the other hand, whatever there may be of what is called morality, there is no real obedience to God, or true holiness, in the world, but what arises from a conviction of the truth. Does holiness, for instance, consist in love to God? what love can there be to God, but in proportion as we discern the infinite excellency of his nature ? Does it consist in abhorring sin 3 How can we do this any fur- ther than we understand and believe its odious nature ? Does it consist in repentance for sin 3 certainly there can be nothing of this, but as we understand the obligations we are under, and the unreasonableness and vileness of acting contrary to them. Or does it consist in prizing sal- vation ? this will be in proportion as we believe our lost estate. From whence spring those heavenly virtues of fear, contentment, diligence in Divine ordinances, acqui- escence in the will of God, humility, &c., but from a con- viction of the truth? God proclaims before the universe, “I AM THE LoRD !” This truth realized, or heartily be- lieved, begets a holy fear towards this fearful name. God in his word declares the vanity of all things under the sun, and the weight of future bliss. A belief of these truths damps inordinate anxiety, and raises our desires after a glorious immortality. God declares that a day in his courts is better than a thousand elsewhere. A belief of this will make us earnest and constant in our attendance —will make us leave our farms and merchandise, and all, to come and worship in his house. God has promised, “I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee;”—that “they who trust in the Lord and do good shall dwell in the land, and verily they shall be fed.” A belief of this calms and com- poses the mind under the darkest providences. Thus it was with the prophet Habakkuk, chap. iii. 17, 18. God has told us concerning ourselves that we are “a generation of vipers,”—a race of abominable and filthy beings. A belief of this humbles us in the dust before him. In fine, he has told us that to us belongs nothing but “shame and confusion of face.” A belief of this would prevent peevish- ness under adverse providences. Under the belief of such a declaration we should not wonder if God made us as miserable as we had made ourselves sinful. What in this world ever filled a soul with greater humility than a realizing view of a holy God filled Isaiah 4 Isa. vi. Then, as in a glass, he beheld his own deformity. It was this that made him exclaim, with the deepest self-abasement, ... Woe is me! for I am undone I am a man of unclean lips; for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!” Is it not a “beholding of the glory of the Lord” * “The New Testament is a book so plain, and the religion of it so %asy, that any man of common sense might understand it if he would.” person who has examined a Scripture doctrine, “and cannot obtain *Widence of the truth of it, is indeed in a state in which his knowledge * imperfect; but his imperfection is innocent, because he hath exer- *sed all the ability and virtue he has, and his ignorance is involun- *Y; yea, perhaps he may have exercised ten times more industry and ºplication, though without success, than many others who have ob- tained evidence.”—General Doctrine of Toleration, &c. Any man of common sense might understand it if he would ;” and (which is no more than discerning and believing the truth, for God is glorious whether we believe it or not) that changes into the same image 3 2 Cor. iii. 18. And is not our being made like Christ at last ascribed to our “seeing him as he is ?” In short, I believe it will be found that truth wants only to be universally realized in order to produce universal holiness. Should it be asked, Then why is not universal holiness found in good men who believe the truth? the answer is, Though they believe the truth, they believe not the whole truth, nor perhaps do they wholly believe any truth. When they shall be perfectly delivered from “an evil heart of unbelief,” they shall possess perfect holiness. You will naturally reflect—If these things are so, what an important thing is truth; and what awful evils are error and unbelief; and yet how prevalent are they in the world, and even in the best of men ; True ; and I will add one more reflection, and that is, if your thoughts co- incide with the sentiments expressed in this letter, you will not only be open, but eager to hear any thing that may tend to bring it to light. LETTER, II. ON THE CRIMINALITY OF MENTAL ERROR. MY DEAR FRIEND, IF what has been already said be just, there will be no difficulty in maintaining our ground here. For, certainly, the belief of that which ought to be bought and held fast at any rate cannot be a matter of indifference. An error which has no less than eternal damnation threatened against it must be criminal, and that in a high degree. One main article in Mr. Robinson’s creed is, that the Bible knows nothing of mystery, but is a plain book—so plain as to be level with the common sense of mankind. Whether the Scriptures contain any thing mysterious, or not, it appears to me altogether a mystery that any man of common sense should maintain two such opposite positions as the simplicity of the Scriptures and the innocence of men- tal error: asserting that the Bible is so plain a book that nobody, without either neglecting or doing violence to common sense, can mistake its meaning ; and yet that even a thousand errors concerning this plain book are altogether innocent!” I agree with Mr. R. in believing that, upon the whole, the Bible is a plain book, adapted to the common under- standings of mankind ; and that men in general may un- derstand all they are required to understand, if their hearts are rightly disposed. At the same time, there are things revealed in the Scriptures which must be to us incom- prehensible ; as the incarnation of the Son of God, which even an inspired apostle declares to be “a great mystery.” There are some things also in the prophetic writings which can never be fully understood till their accomplishment. But then our not comprehending these things is not crimi- mal, though the little attention we devote to them may be. In proportion, however, as the Scriptures are plain, and easy to be understood, must be our criminality, if we be endowed with common sense, in not understanding them. If the way of salvation is so plain that “a wayfaring man, though a fool, shall not err therein,” then the errors of men concerning it cannot be innocent. And the same is true of the preceptive parts of Scripture. If error arise not from the obscurity of Scripture, from its being beyond the capacity of men in general, it must arise from other causes ; and what these can be besides indifference, indo- lence, carelessness, prejudice, pride, or aversion, I know not. “Why do ye not understand my speech 3’” said our Lord to the Jews. Was it because it was not important yet many such men may examine it, “ with all their ability and all their virtue,” and “not obtain evidence l’” This is a mystery, let what will be plain. And such a man’s imperfection is innocent, because he hath exercised all the ability and virtue he has If our obligations are to be measured by the degree of virtue we possess, the way to get clear of all obligation is to become totally abandoned to vice. Far be it from me to attach to others more blame than I would acknowledge belongs to myself, if I continue in error. We are all imperfect; but let us not call our imperfections innocent. 894 MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS, ESSAYS, &c. enough to demand their attention, or because it was not plain enough to meet their capacities?—No. Mark the answer. Why? “Because ye cannot hear my word.” What, then, were they naturally deaf 3–No. That had been their felicity. Better have no ears, than ears and fear not. Their deafness was like that of the adder, that “ will not hear the voice of the charmer, charm he never so wisely.” Then would they not listen to his discourses? This does not appear. But they could not receive his doc- trine. This is the import of the answer. And why could they not receive it? Evidently because of their pride, pre- judice, and love of sin. The pride of their hearts could not bear the doctrine which represented them as slaves to ignorance and sin, and proposed their being made free by the knowledge of the truth. With a haughty, contempt- uous air, they spurn the proposal ; replying, “We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man : how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free ?” Their prejudice in favour of their old religion hardened them against con- viction, and their love of sin set them against that gospel which laid the axe at the root of that evil tree. Our Lord, in effect, told them so. “Ye are of your father, the devil, and the deeds of your father ye will do.” As if he had said, You would rather continue slaves to Satan than that “the Son” should make you free : There seems to be a beautiful propriety in our Lord's parable of the sower. It is observable that, of the four sorts of ground, only one received the seed so as to bring forth fruit; and that one is explained of persons who have “good and honest hearts:” plainly implying that, if men's hearts were but honest, they would be sure to embrace the word of God. Indeed, the nature of Divine revelation is such that its rejection implies a dishonest heart. For instance, does the word of God set forth the rights of Deity, and human obligation ? This is what an honest heart loves. That heart cannot be honest which does not rejoice in every one having his due, and consequently in God's having his. Does it represent man as having for- feited all claim to the goodness of God? An honest heart will acquiesce in this, and be willing to receive all as a free donation. Does it exhibit such a way of salvation as provides for the honour of injured Majesty'ſ This is sure to be embraced by an honest heart: such a mind could not bear the thought of being saved at the expense of righteousness. To desire to receive mercy in any other than an honourable way indicates a dishonest heart. Who- ever, therefore, does not cordially approve and embrace the Salvation of the gospel, the reason is plain. Perhaps it will be said these things are spoken of wicked men, and indicate the criminality of their errors. But Surely the errors of good men arise from different causes. Surely they may be innocent. It must be allowed that good men have errors in judgment, as well as in practice; but that the former, any more than the latter, are innocent, does not appear. I wish not to think worse of any man's errors than I do of my own, or of him than of myself, for being in error. No doubt I have mistaken apprehensions of some things, as well as other people ; though wherein is unknown to me: but I would abhor the thought of pleading innocence in such affairs. If my mistakes, be they what they may, do not arise from the obscurity of Scripture, they must arise from some other cause. It is vain to allege that our errors arise from weakness; for the Scriptures can be no otherwise plain and easy than as they are level with common capacities. If the Scriptures were written for the bulk of mankind, and yet the generality of men are too weak to understand them, instead of being plain and easy, they must be essentially obscure. The truth is, our mistakes, as well as the ignorance of wicked men, arise from our criminal dispositions. We are too careless about truth, and so do not search for it “as one searcheth for hid treasure,” Prov. ii. 1–9. Or we are self-sufficient, and think ourselves competent to find out the truth by our own ingenuity and mere reason; and so neglect to pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Or we are prejudiced in favour of preconceived notions, * Saurin's Sermons, vol. III. Pref. p. 7. * This is not mere supposition. It is well known that Mr. R. espoused the cause of some who were expelled from the Homerton Academy for what the tutors of that institution thought heresy. Of and so are apt to stifle evidence. The prejudices of man- kind, of both bad and good men, are almost infinite. There is not a mind in the world without prejudice, in a greater or less degree. And these are the causes why the truth of God’s word is not believed and obeyed. We might as well plead weakness for not obeying God’s com- mands as for not believing his declarations. The one, as well as the other, is a moral weakness; and that, strictly speaking, is not weakness, but wickedness. Doubtless, there is such a thing as eaccusable weakness, both in refer- ence to obeying God's commands and to believing his sacred truth. If a man be afflicted, so as to be incapable of attending the house of God, or if he be detained by the afflictions of others, the command for publicly wor- shipping God ceases, at that time, to be binding. The same may be said of mental debility. If a man be in any way deprived of reason, his weakness, in proportion as it prevails, excuses him from blame, in not understanding and believing the truth. Nay, I think persons of extremely weak capacities are comparatively excusable. If they be weak in other things, as well as in religion, we are bound not to impute it to the want of a disposition, any further than their weakness in both may be imputed to the want of diligent application. The same may be said of persons who never had the means, or the opportunity, of knowing the truth. The heathen will not be condemned for reject- ing the gospel, unless they have, or might if they would have heard it; but for rejecting the light of nature, Rom. i. 18–25. But I believe, if we examine, we shall find the far greater part of our ignorance and error to arise from very different causes—causes of which our Lord complains in his own immediate disciples: “O fools, and slow of heart to be- lieve all that the prophets have spoken.” Our ignorance and errors, like theirs, are owing in a great degree to that dulness to spiritual things of which the best Christians have sometimes reason to complain. The Lord Jesus, so remarkable for his tenderness, and especially to his dis- ciples, would not have rebuked them so severely for an error wherein they were blameless. Besides, they were prejudiced in favour of another system. They had been long dreaming of an earthly kingdom, and, it is to be feared, of the figure they were to cut in it. Their pride, therefore, and carnal-mindedness, tended greatly to warp their judgments in this matter; so that all Christ had said (and he had said much) about his death and resurrection seemed to stand for nothing. Their foolish minds were so dazzled with the false ideas of a temporal kingdom that they were blinded to the true end of Christ's coming, and to all that the prophets declared concerning it. Mr. R. says, “Variety of sentiment, which is the life of society, cannot be destructive of real religion. Mere mental errors, if they be not entirely innocent in the ac- count of the Supreme Governor of mankind, cannot, how- ever, be objects of blame and punishment among men.” “ So far as this relates to a cognizance of the civil powers, or any powers which inflict civil penalties, we are perfectly agreed. But I suppose Mr. R. means to extend it to the opinion and behaviour of churches towards individual members. If, for instance, a member of a church were to become a Socinian, and the church were to blame him for what they accounted apostacy from the truth, and ulti- mately, if he continued in this error, were to exclude him, this would include a part of what is meant by “blame and punishment among men.” And though it is expressly said, “A heretic reject, after the first and second admonition,” Mr. R. would deny that the church had any right to judge, in respect to others, what is heresy. Herein I am of a different opinion; but as I may consider this subject more particularly in my next letter, on Liberty, I shall now offer a few more remarks on the above passage. “Variety of sentiment is the life of society.” True, as one person discovers one truth, and another another; as one views the same truth in this light, and another in that ; and so all together become serviceable to each other : but this does not prove that a variety of false sentiments does their principles I know little or nothing, and therefore cannot judge: but Mr. R. has not only endeavoured to vindicate them from the charge of heresy, but he has also denied that the Society has any right to judge what is heresy. STRICTURES ON THE SENTIMENTS OF MR. R. ROBINSON. 895 any good. I greatly query if Mr. R.; or any one else, would hold this, when it affected themselves. Suppose, for instance, a variety of sentiment concerning his character as a minister : one thinks he is a worthy minister of Christ, as well as a learned, ingenious man, and an honour to the dissenting interest; another thinks him, though very in- genious, not equally ingenuous; and a third, for variety’s sake, might suggest that his principles were even permicious in their tendency. Now it is very doubtful if Mr. R., however he may admire variety of sentiment, would in his heart consider this variety of sentiment good, either in it- self, or as tending to enliven society. It is a question if he would not greatly prefer that people should plod on, in the old dull path of uniformity, and all cordially agree in believing him to be an honest man. And, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, this uniformity of sentiment ought to exist. But why in this case only 3 Why should not people be obliged to unite in thinking highly and honourably of the Lord and Saviour of men, as well as of a creature of yesterday? “But Mr. R. does not positively affirm the entire inno- cence of mental error in the account of the Supreme Go- vernor of mankind.” True ; but he writes as if he thought it very nearly innocent, and as if it were very doubtful whether it is not entirely innocent ; and in one sense, it seems, it is beneficial, as tending to enliven society. “But he guards his language, by saying mere mental error; by which, may he not mean such errors only as arise from mental weakness, and not from disposition ??” If so, we are agreed as to its innocence. But, if so, he would not have scrupled to assert its entire innocence in the account of the Supreme Governor of mankind. It is plain, therefore, that by mere mental error he means errors which have their existence in the mind merely, or which relate to principles, in distinction from those which relate to practice. If he were accosted by a Calvinist, he might illustrate his meaning by an error respecting “the weight of the shekel,” or an error in “chronology,” or something of that kind ; but follow him into the company of Arians and Socinians, and then his meaning extends to their pe- culiar sentiments . This is founded on fact, and not on supposition. Indeed, it is plain by his writings, life, and conduct, that he means to include Arianism and Socinian- ism. But to call these mere mental errors, in the innocent sense of the phrase, is begging the question; it is taking for granted what remains to be proved, that such senti- ments (if they be errors) are in that sense merely mental. Certainly it cannot be pleaded, in behalf of the generality of those who embrace these sentiments, that they are not endowed with the use of reason, or that they are persons of weak natural capacities, or that they have not oppor- tunity to obtain evidence. Should it be said that some of them have given proof of their being honest and sincere, by their frankness in de- claring their sentiments, and relinquishing worldly emo- luments for the sake of enjoying them; I answer, in the Words of Waterland, “A man may be said to be sincere— 1. When he speaks what he really thinks truth. 2. When he searches after truth with impartiality and perseverance.” The former, we believe, many of these gentlemen possess; and we think it very commendable, far preferable to a mean-spirited concealment, or a doubtful and ambiguous declaration of sentiment. But to believe that any who fundamentally err, whether they or ourselves, “search after truth with impartiality and perseverance,” is to dis- believe the promise of God, who declares, “the meek will he guide in judgment; the meek will he teach his way.” I wish it to be considered whether, if not the whole, a great part of Divine truth may not be included under some such general topics as these; viz. Truth concerning God, Christ, ourselves, sin, the world, heaven, hell, &c. Now 9f which of these is it innocent for me to think falsely? Am I at liberty to think more meanly of God than he has re- Vealed himself?—Can I think him such a one as myself, Yithout offending him 3 May I think more meanly of 9%rist than the word of God exhibits him Can I detract from his excellence, and be blameless? Am I allowed to think more highly of myself than the word of God repre- *nts me ! Can I be bloated up with false ideas of my °Wh Super-excellence, and be innocent? May I think better of sin than it deserves 3 Must I not view it as it is represented in the Bible 3 Am I at liberty to put a false estimate on the good things of this life 2 Is not too low an estimate of them ingratitude, and too high an estimate idol- atry : And can either of these be innocent? May I undervalue the life to come? Or ought I not, seeing God has called it a “weight of glory,” to give it its weight in determining my pursuits 3 Lastly, seeing that God has threatened everlasting destruction to the finally impenitent, am I at liberty to qualify these terms, and accommodate them to my own wishes and feelings, and so administer comfort to God’s enemies, as such 3 Am I not bound to believe that God means what he says? May I presume that the threatenings of the Bible were never intended to be executed, but were uttered merely to frighten the vul- gar Ought I not to believe that God is as much in earnest when he threatens as when he promises : If the Bible is a plain book, can I misunderstand it and be in- zzocent 2 Let me conclude with one remark more. Much has been said, of late years, about the Scriptures being the only 'rule of faith, in opposition to all rules of human imposi- tion. In this I agree. But let it be considered whether the avowal of the innocence of mental error be not a virtual denial of the Scriptures being any rule of faith at all. Ac- cording to this sentiment, faith seems to have no rule—at least none that is obligatory ; for there can be no obliga- tion where deviation is no crime. If mental error be in- nocent, the mind can be subject to no law ; and if the mind, which has so great an influence on the soul, and with which the will and all the other powers constantly act in concert—if this be without a law, it can be of very little consequence to the Supreme Legislator whether any thing else in man be left under his dominion or not. While we are so jealous, then, lest others should infringe on our liberty, it becomes us to tremble lest we infringe on the Divine authority. And while we are exclaiming, “Call no man master,” let us not forget, “One is our Master, even Christ.” LETTER III. ON LIBERTY, MY DEAR FRIEND, IT has long been the opinion of many persons, who are by no means unfriendly to liberty, that Mr. Robinson's notions of it are licentious and extravagant ; and in this opinion I cannot help concurring. Liberty seems to consist in the power of acting without control or impediment. But the term, being relative, must be understood in relation to the different objects which are supposed to be impediments. Some have defined liberty the power of doing what we please ; and this definition will doubtless apply to every kind of liberty except moral. But moral liberty, which is of greater importance than any other kind of liberty, does not consist in this. Though we do as we please in the ex- ercise of moral liberty, this is not that by which it is dis- tinguished from other things; no, not from moral slavery itself. Moral slavery is not that state in which a person is compelled to act against his will ; but rather a state in which he is impelled to act against his conscience. A per- son may have the power of doing what he pleases, to the greatest possible degree, and yet be totally destitute of moral liberty, being a perfect slave to his own appetites. Some persons, perhaps justly, have classed liberty under four kinds—physical, moral, civil, and religious. Physical liberty is the power of doing what we please without any natural restraints or impediments. If our actions are not the free result of our choice, that is, if they are directed or impeded by an influence contrary to our will, we are des- titute of this liberty. Moral liberty is the power of doing what is right, without being impeded by sinful dispositions or passions. A libertine, with all his boasted freedom, is here a perfect slave. “While they promise themselves liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption ; for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.” Civil liberty, as it is commonly understood in 896 MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS, ESSAYS, &c. Britain, is freedom from all fear of punishment contrary to law, and from subjection to any laws but those to which a man himself, by his representatives, gives consent. Re- ligious liberty is the power of forming our religious senti- ments, and conducting our religious worship, agreeably to the dictates of our consciences, without being liable to civil penalties. - Now, suppose Mr. R.’s notions of civil and religious liberty be just, yet surely he makes, if not too much of these, yet too little of that which is of far greater import- ance—moral liberty. This is the liberty of which the Scriptures chiefly speak; this is the glorious liberty of the gospel. This is that of which every unregenerate man is destitute, being a slave to sin and Satan. This is the liberty with which the Son makes us free ; without which all other liberty is but a shadow and an empty boast. This is implied in the reply of our Lord to the boasting Jews, who said they were never in bondage to any man : “If the Son make you free, then are ye free indeed.” It is allowed, indeed, that religious liberty, or a freedom to think and act according to our consciences, without fear, is of great value, and perhaps we none of us prize it suf- ficiently; but what is this to moral liberty? Suppose a man liberated from the tyranny of sin and Satan, and de- prived of all religious and civil liberty, groaning under the yoke of powerful persecution, would he not be in an un- speakably better situation than another man, possessed of all the liberty he desired, whose soul was enslaved to sin 3 Is it not strange, then, that whenever Mr. R. finds the term liberty in the New Testament he should reduce it to a simple liberty of doing as we please ? And is it not passing strange that “the glorious liberty of the sons of God” should be thus explained ? Rom. viii. 21. Mr. R., having given us several quotations on the text from Greek and Latin writers, sums up the whole in English, by add- ing—“The amount, then, is this: The heathens expected some great revolution to be brought about by some extra- ordinary person about St. Paul’s time. St. Paul was well acquainted with their opinion : it is natural, therefore, to suppose that the apostle would speak on this article, and direct the eyes of the pagans to Jesus Christ. The passage is capable of such a meaning, and it is highly probable that this is the sense of it. The Gentiles are earnestly looking for such a liberty as the gospel proposes to mankind.” “The question is,” continues Mr. R., “what liberty the gospel does bestow on mankind.” Very good; and now let us see what his “glorious liberty of the sons of God” amounts to. “In days of yore,” says he, “ divines were not ashamed to affirm that liberty of judging and determin- ing matters of faith and conscience was a prerogative of the papal tiara”—and so on ; a long story of this kind, for four or five columns, reducing “ the glorious liberty of the sons of God” to a mere liberty of “judging and determin- ing for ourselves in matters of faith and conscience : ” a freedom from the control of creeds and systems—as though it did not signify what we imbibed so that we acted free- ly. Suppose this freedom were included, yet surely it is not the whole of the meaning. Probably the apostle al- luded especially to the redemption of the bodies of believ- ers at the resurrection. But if Mr. R. were right in ap- plying the passage to the Gentile world, surely he might have conceived of a more glorious liberty than that of thinking and acting for ourselves—a moral liberty—a free- dom from the bondage of sin and Satan, particularly from the slavery of idolatry and superstition. This were a liberty worth while for the Son of God to come from heaven to bestow. Mr. Robinson may be right in censuring the bishops for “sacrificing Christianity to save episcopacy;” but let him beware of undervaluing moral liberty for the sake of that of which he is so tenacious, of an inferior kind. Christi- anity is of greater importance than nonconformity. A re- mark of Mr. Whitefield, when he had attended one of the synods of Scotland, and had heard one of the associate presbytery preach, may not be inappropriate –“The good man,” says he, “so spent himself in talking against pre- lacy, the Common Prayer Book, the surplice, the rose in the hat, and such-like externals, that when he came to the lat- ter part of his subject, to invite poor sinners to Jesus Christ, his breath was so gone that he could scarce be heard.” This passage Mr. R. introduces into his arcana with great approbation, and adds—“This will always be the case : that learning, eloquence, strength, and zeal, which should be spent in enforcing “ the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith,’ will be unprofit- ably wasted on ‘the tithing of mint, anise, and cummin' —on discarding or defending a bow to the east, or a rose in the hat,”—p. 109. How far this describes Mr. R.'s subsequent conduct, I leave you to judge. But not only has he neglected weightier things in de- fending those of inferior importance, but it appears to me that his notions of liberty are latitudinarian, unscriptural, and unreasonable. Though, in regard to men, we are at liberty to act and think as we please in religion, this is not true in regard to God. He requires us to believe the truth, as well as to obey his commands. He has given us a rule of faith, as well as of practice, and requires us to think and act ac- cording to it; and, moreover, it is at our peril that we allow ourselves in the contrary. This, however, is a dis- tinction which I never knew Mr. R. to have made; though I could scarcely have thought he would have avowed the contrary, had he not told me in conversation that no man was bound to believe the gospel—that their only duty was to examine it—and that to make it their duty to believe, as well as to examine, would destroy their liberty, and render their errors criminal But what can be made of such a liberty as this, unless it be a Divine right to do wrong 2 This Mr. R. ridicules in politics (Claude, vol. ii. p. 42) : is it not a pity he should retain it in divinity ? Further, there is a material difference between my being at liberty to believe and act in religious matters without being accountable to the civil authorities, or to any fellow creature as such ; and my having a right, be my religious principles what they may, to a place in a Christian church. If I act with decorum in my civil capacity, I have a right, whatever be my religious principles, to all the benefits of civil government; but it does not therefore follow that I am entitled to the privileges of the house of God. Mr. R. blames the Church of England for not allowing avowed Socinians to continue in its service and receive its emolu- ments (Claude, vol. ii. p. 212); and not long since, unless I am misinformed, he declared in public company, at an ordination, that no church had a right to refuse any man communion, whether he were an Arian, a Sabellian, a So- cinian, or an Antinomian, provided he was of good moral character | If, however, this notion consist with either Scripture or common sense, I must confess myself a stranger to both. The church of God is represented as a city—a city with walls and bulwarks; a city with gates, of which they them- selves have the care and keeping.—It is true they are com- manded to open the gates—but to whom ? To the righteous nation “who keep the truth.” These, and these only, are to enter in, Isa. xxvi. 1, 2. I know the objection Mr. R. would make to this ; viz. Who is to be judge what is truth? But, on this principle, we may doubt of every thing, and turn sceptics at once ; or else consider that to be truth which any man thinks is truth. But if it be in- deed so difficult to ascertain the truth as that we must needs give over judging in that matter, and that must pass for truth which every person thinks to be such, then surely the Bible cannot be such a plain book as Mr. R. represents. Besides, we might on the same principle refrain from judg- ing between right and wrong; for there are various opi- nions about these, as well as about truth and error. Suppose, for instance, a person were to apply to a Christian church for communion who approved and practised polygamy, or who should think that Scripture sanctioned concubinage, and therefore practised it; upon this principle, the church must be silent, for should they object to such practices as immoral, it might be replied—I think they are right; and who are you that you should set up for judges of right and wrong in other men's conduct —Mr. R. therefore need not have been so squeamish in his proposed reception of Arians and Socinians as to provide for their good moral character. Upon his principle, the want of characte; ought to be no objection, provided they are so abandoned in vice as to believe that evil is good, or so versed in hypo- crisy as t say they believe so, whether they do or not. STRICTURES ON THE SENTIMENTS OF MR. R. ROBINSON. 897 I do not see how the church at Pergamos could have been blamed by the Lord Jesus for having those among #hem that held the doctrine of Balaam and of the Nico- laitanes, unless they were authorized, and even required, to judge of right and wrong, truth and error, in relation to ...those whom they received as members. On Mr. R.'s principles, they might have excused themselves in some such manner as this:–“ Lord, we never apprehended we had any thing to do in judging of the doctrines that peo- ple held who became members with us: we came together upon the liberal principles of universal toleration, and never expected to be called to account about any one's sentiments but our own, whatever we were for these.” But, in reply to all such pleas as this, it is sufficient to say —“Thus saith He that hath the sharp two-edged sword, I have somewhat against thee.” As to the bugbear frequently held up—that if we pre- sume to judge in these matters we assume to ourselves in- fallibility, to what does it amount 3 On this principle all human judgment must be set aside in civil as well as in sacred things. No man, nor any set of men, can pretend to this; neither need they. It is sufficient that they act to the best of their capacity, availing themselves of all the means of information they possess. All men, undoubt- edly, are fallible ; it becomes them, therefore, to judge with meekness and fear; and to consider that their de- cisions are not final—that they must all be brought over again, and themselves be tried with them at the great assize But does it thence follow that all human judg- ment must be laid aside 3 Surely not. The great outcry that Mr. R. has made of our Lord's words—“Call no man master,” &c., is no more to his pur- pose than the other. Surely it is one thing to dictate to a man what he shall believe, and persecute him if he does not; and another to require a union of principles, in order that we may unite with him in church fellowship, and have communion with him in the ordinances of Jesus Christ. As an individual, we have nothing to do with him : to his own Master he standeth or falleth ; and we the same. But if he propose to have Christian fellowship with us, it is right that we should inquire whether his principles so far coincide with ours as that the end proposed may be ac- complished. Is there not a wide difference between my persecuting, or wishing to persecute, a deist, and refusing to unite with him in church fellowship I believe also that Mr. R.'s principles are as opposed to *ight reason, to common sense, and to the rules of society in general, as they are to Scripture. In large societies, the government of a nation for instance, they are obliged to be very general, and cannot maintain such a minute regularity as in societies of less extent. But even here some union of sentiment is required. Suppose a Jacobite, for example, were to insist that King George Was not the rightful possessor of the throne, would he have a right to form one of his Majesty's ministry? And suppose he were to express his intention, if opportunity offered, of uniting to dethrone him, would not the government have a right to banish him the kingdom Whether they would invariably use their right is another thing; but the right itself they would undoubtedly possess. In smaller societies, where persons unite for the sake of obtaining certain ends, it is always expected that they should agree in certain leading principles necessary to the accomplishment of those ends. Hence, there is scarcely a Society formed without articles, testifying the agreement of the members in certain fundamental particulars. Suppose, for example, a common club, united for the purpose of as- sisting each other in time of affliction. It is supposed to be a leading principle of such a society, that the lesser num- ber of members should, in all matters of debate, submit to the greater; and another that a certain sum of money should be paid by each member at certain times. Now, Just suppose any one member should dissent from the *ules; common sense suggests the necessity of his being $onvinced or excluded. But it seems a Christian society has not the authority of a common club. It cannot be difficult to prove that a union of faith re- specting the proper Deity of the Great Author of our reli- §on, and the object of our worship, is of quite as much *Portance in religious society as any of the above in civil society. Surely, the dethroning of the Son of God, by the denial of his essential Deity, cannot be less pernicious in the gospel dispensation, than the denial of his Majesty’s authority, and the endeavour to dethrone him, would be in these realms. Some of the grand ends of Christian society are, unitedly to worship God—to devote ourselves to the blessed Trinity by Christian baptism—and to acknowledge the atonement made by the Redeemer, by a participation of the ordinance of the Lord’s supper. But what union could there be in worship where the object worshipped is not the same— where one party believes the other to be an idolater, and the other believes him to be a degrader of Him who is “over all, God, blessed for ever ?” What fellowship could there be in the Lord's supper, for instance, (not to mention baptism,) where one party thought sin to be an infinite evil—that they, being the subjects of it, deserved an infinite curse—that no atonement could be made but by an infinite sacrifice—that the sacrifice of Christ was such, and an in- stance of infinite grace and love—and that the design of the sacred supper is to revive in our minds these affecting truths;–and where the other party believed none of these things—had no conception that sin was so great an evil as to deserve infinite punishment, or to need an infinite atonement—that, in fact, they are not such great sinners as to need not only a Saviour, but a great one º That which is to the one “the glorious gospel of the blessed God” is to the other foolishness, and an insult, forsooth, upon his dignity If ever any professed Christians differed in the essentials of religion, Calvinists and Socinians do. I wish to conduct myself towards a Socinian no otherwise than I believe a Socinian ought to conduct himself towards me, on the sup- position that I am in error. Dr. Priestley acts more con- sistently, and more like an honest man, than Mr. R. He denies the propriety of Unitarians and Trinitarians uniting together in Divine worship, and exhorts all of the former class to form separate societies. This I cordially approve ; for verily, whatever esteem we may entertain for each other as men, in religion there can be no harmony. Either we are a company of idolaters, or they are enemies to the gos- pel—rendering the cross of Christ of none effect. Either they are unbelievers, or we are at least as bad—rendering to a creature that homage which is due only to the Creator; and, in either case, a wnion is the last degree of absurdity. Whatever then, my dear friend, Mr. R. or any one else may suggest, under the specious pretence of liberality of sentiment, I trust you and I shall ever give heed to the bet- ter reasonings of an inspired apostle :-‘‘What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what com- munion hath light with darkness? and what concord hath Christ with Belial 3 and what part hath he that believeth with an infidel 3 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers.” LETTER IV. ON THE NECESSITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT FOR THE RIGHT UNIDERSTANDING AND BELIEVING THE HOLY SCRIP- TURES. MY DEAR FRIEND, I Do not know, from any thing Mr. R. has written, un- less it be his sermon on “The Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures,” that on the subject of the present letter there is any difference between his sentiments and my own. That sermon, which I read some time since, appears to me to contain some things, obscurely expressed, of which, I confess, I can form very little judgment. But I have been lately informed by a friend of unquestionable judg- ment and veracity, and who was far from being prejudiced against Mr. R., that such sentences as this not unfre- quently escape him :-‘‘What more than common sense is necessary to understand the Holy Scriptures 3 Not the Holy Spirit; for then Judas could not have under- stood them.” So also, I have been informed, by equally good authority, that he denies any thing of a principle being created or produced in the soul in regeneration. In the sermon just alluded to he seems to ridicule the idea ; * 3 M 898 MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS, ESSAYS, &c. “A positive act of power (he says) would produce an occult quality, for which we have no name, and of which we know no use.”—Occasional Sermons, V. p. 98. However, if he would adhere to what he says in his notes to Claude, vol. ii. p. 320, I am inclined to think we should agree. “The Holy Spirit proposeth truth in the Scriptures, and formeth, in those who believe, dispositions to admit it.” By this, it would seem as if he thought something more than common sense was necessary to the reception of Divine truth; viz. dispositions formed by the Holy Spirit. With this I am perfectly satisfied. What ideas some may have entertained of the production of a Divine principle I know not; but the whole idea I have of it is, that it is the formation of a disposition. With this representation of the work of the Spirit I am satisfied. For aught I see, it is clear and comprehensive. And I only wish Mr. R. would adhere to it. It supposes three things, on each of which I shall offer a few remarks: —l. That holy dispositions are necessary, in order to the admission of Scripture truth. 2. That men by nature have no such disposition. 3. That the work of the Holy Spirit is necessary to produce it. First, Holy dispositions are necessary in order to the admission of Scripture truth. This, I think, Scripture and common sense concur to prove. Really and properly to understand any writer, it is necessary that we enter into his spirit, sentiments, and feeling. Thus, to under- stand Sir Isaac Newton, we must have a taste for philosophy; otherwise, though we understand the words and sentences abstractedly, we shall never enter into his spirit and views. The writings of a philosopher must be philosophically dis- cerned. So, without a taste for poetry, we shall never enter into the views and feelings of a Milton; his writings must be poetically discerned. And, by a parity of rea- soning, properly to understand the inspired writers, we must enter into their views and feelings, and be, in a sort, inspired too. We must have, in some degree, the same spirit in reading as they had in writing. Hence the apostle Paul, in perfect agreement with the principles of right reasoning and common sense, declares that the things of God, which are spiritual things, must be spiritually dis- cerned. To suppose the Scriptures within the compre- hension of an abandoned, vicious mind, would be to their reproach, rather than to their praise—a far greater re- proach than would attach to the writings of the most pro- found philosopher, were they supposed to be within the comprehension of an idiot. It would be to the eternal dishonour of the sacred writings, if they did not exhibit a beauty and a life utterly incomprehensible to an unholy mind, and to which such a mind is an absolute stranger. Secondly, Men by nature have no disposition to admit Divine truth. The gospel contains a system of principles directly levelled against the evil bias of the human heart. Wherever Divine truth is admitted, pride must be abased, lust be mortified, and every sinful enjoyment abandoned. No wonder, therefore, that the carnal mind should be in- disposed to the reception of this truth. It would be a much greater wonder if it were not thus indisposed. But this aversion blinds the understanding, and warps the judg- ment. Take, for example, four or five Scripture truths— the evil of sin—the justice of God in punishing it with everlasting destruction—the unspeakable love of God in the gift of his Son—the grace of God in saving sinners— and the beauty and bliss of a holy life. Now what un- holy mind can receive these truths He that receives one will receive all ; but he that is blind to one will be blind to all. * | Common sense proves a number of dispositions neces- sary to the right understanding of Divine truth, of which Scripture and experience prove men by nature to be des- titute. One thing absolutely necessary is an earnestness of spirit after it. We must have a heart to know God, Jer. xxiv. 7. We must search for Divine knowledge as one searcheth for hid treasure. “If thou wilt incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to under- standing—if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding—if thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures—then shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God,” Prov. ii. But he that is under the dominion of sin is generally under the dominion of carelessness and indifference to Divine truth ; and, so long as this is the case, all the com- mon sense in the world will be of no avail. A price is, indeed, put into his hand to get wisdom; but it is a price in the hand of a fool, seeing he has no heart to possess it. His attention is absorbed by carnal objects; what cares he for religion ? Hence the complaint—“Whom shall he teach knowledge 3 whom shall he make to understand doctrine º Them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.” So long as people are careless about spiritual things, and know no pleasure beyond that of drinking at the fountains of sensual enjoyments, “pre- cept may be upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line,” over and over again; but they will not hear, Isa. xxviii. 7–13. Or suppose carelessness and sensual indulgences be not the obstacle—suppose a diligent attention to the ac- quirement of religious knowledge—still how many want a spirit of meekness, openness to conviction, self-diffidence, and impartiality / all which are necessary to a right under- standing of Divine truth. The Bereans not only searched the Scriptures daily, but received the word with readiness of mind. God declares “the meek he will guide in judg- ment; the meek he will teach his way.” But the natural man, with all his common sense, is not emptied of self- sufficiency. On the contrary, his heart puffeth him up ; and, while he “thinketh he knoweth anything, he know- eth nothing as he ought to know.” This, I apprehend, was the case with Balaam and Judas, and every other naturally but not divinely enlightened sinner. With all their knowledge, they know not God; nor can they, in such a state of mind, enter into the spirit of his word. I have sometimes wondered that the words of the apostle Paul should seem so difficult to be understood :— “The natural man discerneth not the things of the Spirit of God; neither can he know them ; for they are spi- ritually discerned.” - Any man may affirm, and no man misunderstand him, or doubt the truth of the assertion,--that a careless man cannot find out knowledge, that a self-conceited man can- not be wise, or that a man under the influence of prejudice will not ascertain the truth; why, then, should the words of the apostle be accounted mysterious, and their truth be called in question, or explained away ? - In any common quarrel among men, it is sure to be the case that he that is in the wrong is blind to truth and reason. To a bystander the matter appears plain ; but should he attempt to mediate between the parties—to reason with the offender, and convince him of his evil—he will soon find that a right spirit is necessary to render his mediation successful. The man cannot see this, nor understand that ; he cannot perceive wherein he was to blame in this thing, or so much in fault in the other. And why 3 Surely not for want of a natural capacity; for he is exceedingly ingenious in finding excuses. Should the mediator pro- ceed on the supposition of the man’s being wholly and greatly to blame, and require satisfaction to be made, pro- posing, however, from his regard for the offender, as well as to equity, to make satisfaction for him, only insisting that the offender should acknowledge the offence, and ask pardon ; so long as the man indulged a wrong spirit, all this would be inexplicable. True, he must admit the generosity of the mediator; but he cannot see what neces- sity there is for such a proposition, and especially why so 'much should be made of it; and as to his falling under, and asking pardon, these are terms to which he cannot submit, and the propriety of which he cannot discern. Should these terms be proposed to him in writing, it is a hundred to one but he puts some other meaning upon the words than that apparent to an impartial person, and so excuses himself. If, however, the offended party be a person of power, so that the offender must yield, self-in- terest may dictate a feigned submission ; but, after all, he will secretly think the whole an unfair procedure. The application of this to the quarrel between God and the sinner, the mediation of Christ, and the reception given to it by the unregenerate, is perfectly easy. The sinner has no disposition to see things in their true light. Thirdly, The work of the Holy Spirit is necessary to STRICTURES ON THE SENTIMENTS OF MR. R. ROBINSON. 899 produce a right disposition for the reception of the gospel. This accords with our Lord’s representations to Nicode- mus. We have no reason to think that this “ruler of the Jews" was destitute of common sense. Yet Jesus told him that, unless he was born again, he could not see the kingdom of God. If ever we have a heart to know God, it must be of God's giving, Jer. xxiv. 7. A man may read his Bible, and be mightily pleased with himself for the discoveries he makes by the mere dint of common sense; but if he have no other perception, with all his ingenuity he will be blind to its real glory. Our own times furnish us with too many exemplifications. Let us tremble, lest we grieve the Holy Spirit by undervaluing his influences. If those who think they can do without the Spirit were left to their own ingenuity, He would be just, nor could they complain. I wish our character be not drawn in that of the Laodiceans : “Thou sayest, I am rich, and increased in goods, and have need of nothing; but knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.” May we hearken to the counsel given to that deluded people, and apply to the true source of all spiritual light, for “eye-salve that we may see.” They were wonderfully enamoured with their discernment; but Christ pronounced them blind. They had applied to a wrong source for light. If they wished for knowledge worth obtaining, they must apply to him for it. Oh that we had a heart to hearken to this counsel ! You will not understand, by what I have written, that I think there is nothing in the Scriptures which a man may discern by common sense without the Holy Spirit. Doubtless this is the case with many of the facts of Scrip- ture. All I mean to affirm is, that there are truths in the JHoly Scriptures—truths, too, which constitute the essence and glory of the gospel—truths the discernment and belief of which form the essence of true religion, which cannot be admitted without an answerable disposition ; and that this disposition must be produced by the Holy Spirit. - Whoever may think lightly of his influences, and fondly imagine they can do without them, may it be your prayer and mine—“Take not thy Holy Spirit from me.”—“Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.” LETTER. W. ON THE CANONICALNESS OF SOLOMON'S SONG. * MY DEAR FRIEND, IT is an important observation of an inspired writer, “Happy is the man who condemneth not himself in the thing which he alloweth.” Such is the darkness, and such are the prejudices, of the present state, that a con- sistent character is a rarity. I am naturally led to these reflections by a survey of the course pursued by Mr. R. in relation to the word of God. It is well known that, for many years, he has levelled all his artillery against the practice of sacrificing Scripture to creeds and systems. So far he has done well; but, alas ! how much easier is it to ridicule the foibles and propensities of others than to keep in subjection our own. Here, I think, he has failed. here was a time when he did not hold that there is nothing mysterious in Scripture; as witness the postscript to his plea for the Divinity of Christ, on mystery. But of late years two capital articles of his creed are, “That the Scriptures contain in them nothing mysterious—nothing but what common sense alone is sufficient to understand; and that to explain them in a way of allegory is all froth and *onsense.” He lately preached a sermon from Micah ii. 5, which was taken down in short-hand, in which he Pronounced, among other things, that “Rome first at- *ched the idea of mystery to religion.” Now it is easy tº see that, if Solomon's Song be a Divine allegory, (which * certainly is, if canonical,) it bears very hard upon both m: Before these letters were penned a review of “Williams on Solo- É. had appeared in the “Biblical Magazine,” containing ual i. ‘ºng query—‘Had Solomon in writing this poem any spirit- so *tion in reference to the Messiah, or was it accommodated by *Pious teachers in the Jewish church to illustrate the sublime con- these positions. As to the first, I suppose that Mr. R., with that great share of common sense of which he is un- doubtedly possessed, would find some things here, like what Peter said of some things in Paul’s Epistles, “hard to be understood.” And as to the latter, if this Song be Divine, it must either be entirely neglected, or an allego- rical style of preaching, occasionally, is unavoidable. That I have not misrepresented Mr. R. is evident from his own words, in his Dissertation on Preaching, prefixed to the second volume of Claude : “The fathers were fond of allegory; for Origen, that everlasting allegorizer, had set them the example. I hope they had better proofs of the canonicalness of Solomon’s Song than I have had the pleasure of seeing.” The amount of which is, “The fathers were fond of allegory—Solomon’s Song supported them in it—I do not like allegory—I reject Solomon's Song.” Far be it from me to countenance all that has appeared in the world in the way of spiritualizing Scripture, as it is called. Whether the “fathers,” or the children, were the publishers, it matters not. Doubtless the greater part deserves no better name than that of “froth and nonsense.” Yet there are parts of Scripture which cannot, without doing violence to “common sense,” be under- stood otherwise than as types or allegories. The whole Jewish ceremonial, if thus understood, bespeaks the wis- dom of its author, has an intrinsic glory, and answers to the New Testament exposition of it. But if otherwise, to say the least, it must have been an intolerable load of un- meaning ceremonies. One would think that no Christian could doubt whether the sacrifices under the law were instituted for the pur- pose of pointing to the great sacrifice under the gospel; or that the manna of which the Israelites partook, and the water of which they drank, had a typical allusion, 1 Cor. x. 3, 4. And if any entertain doubts whether their ceremonial purity (consisting in eating none but clean creatures—in their priests wearing none but clean gar- ments—and in their frequent washings) were intended to typify moral purity, they may have those doubts removed, if they wish, by inquiring of an inspired apostle. Compare 1 Pet. i. 16, with Lev. xi. 44. To account for these ceremonial injunctions, as Mr. R. does, in his “Christian Doctrine of Ceremonies,” by sug- gesting the necessity of linen garments, frequent wash- ings, &c., because they had so much “butchery and dirty work to do,” is neither to the honour of God, nor of his people Israel. To suppose the Most High to deliver such injunctions and prohibitions, and to annex such awful pe- nalties, in accommodation to a system of “butchery,” is not much to the honour of his character, or his consummate wisdom. And to suppose that the people of Israel did not know how to do “dirty work,” without such a body of laws and penalties to instruct and to awe them, is not much to the credit of their common sense. I submit to you whether the apostle to the Hebrews had not a much better motion of things, when he styled the whole Jewish ceremonial “a shadow of good things to come 3 '' Heb. x. 1. And what but an allegorical meaning can be attached to the forty-fifth Psalm ? The “Ring,” of whom David sang, can be none other than the Son of God, Heb. i. 8. And throughout the whole Psalm he is described under precisely the same character as in Solomon’s Song. But, not longer to exercise your patience, by remarks on types and allegories in general, allow me to offer a few reasons why I think the Song of Solomon a Divine alle- ory. It is allowed on all hands that this Song was esteemed canonical by the Jewish church before and at our Lord's coming. This is evident by its being retained in the Sep- tuagint ; and nothing appears that in the least degree in- validates the conclusion that it was always received by the Jews as authentic. There are two things which render this fact of weight in determining the question :-l. That to the Jewish church, wntil their rejection of the Messiah, were committed the ora- nexion between the Son of God and his church, as the domestic rela- tion of Sarah and Hagar, Isaac and Ishmael, do that of the two cove- nants?” To this Mr. Fuller wrote a brief reply, which it is not thought necessary to retain in the present edition of his works, as it is embodied and every topic more amply discussed in this letter.-E.D. 3 M 2 900 MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS, ESSAYS, &c. cles of God (Rom. iii. 2); to keep them, no doubt, from all additions and diminutions. Now, had they betrayed their trust, surely our Lord would not have overlooked a matter of such importance. Since, therefore, he never charged them with any such thing, there is every reason to conclude that in this matter they were blameless. It is true, they invented a number of traditions, by which they made void the law of God; but they never pretended that these were Scripture, but simply what they were—the tra- ditions of the rabbies. For making void the law, by these traditions, Jesus rebuked them in the severest terms; but he never once hinted that they had corrupted, added to, or diminished from the Scriptures. On the contrary, 2. Jesus and his apostles, in addressing the Jews, appealed to those very Scriptures of which they had possession, for the truth of their doctrine. “Search the Scriptures,” said our Lord, “for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and these are they which testify of me.” By Scriptures undoubtedly they must have understood him to mean all the books, at that time in their hands, accounted canonical. Had he meant any thing else, he should, and doubtless would, have explained his meaning. For Christ to inveigh so sharply and so frequently as he did against traditions, which were never pretended to be canonical, or a part of the in- spired writings, and at the same time know that the Jews had added a mere love-song to the sacred canon, and yet say nothing about that—but on the contrary, by appealing to their Scriptures in the bulk, allow their purity—is most unaccountable, quite unworthy of such a Divine Instructor, and past all belief. The same may be said of the apostolic declaration, “All Scripture is given by inspiration,” &c. By “all Scripture" the apostle must have meant to include either all those books which the Jews accounted canonical, or only a part of them. If the former, the point is grant- ed; and the apostle may be considered as setting his seal to all the writings of the Old Testament. If the latter, then it became him, as an inspired guide, to detect and expose the forgery, and not to speak of the Scriptures in the gross, knowing that so idle an affair as a mere love-song was universally received as a part of them. In fine, if the Song of Solomon is a corrupt addition to the Bible, either Christ and his apostles were ignorant of the fact, or thought it wnimportant, or designedly avoided its exposure. The first of these suppositions is totally inad- missible, unless we deny the omniscience of the Son of God, and the inspiration of the apostles. The second would imply that they were indifferent to the great end of their mission, viz. to seal up the vision of prophecy, and to perfect the holy canon ; and render null and void all those solemn charges and awful threatenings, to those who should presume to add to or to take from it. And, to suppose the last, is deliberately accounting Christ and his apostles a company of impostors; and then, to adopt Mr. R.'s own words on another occasion, (Plea for Divinity of Christ, p. 50, First edition,) “What becomes of all their fine pro- fessions of declaring the whole counsel of God—of keeping back nothing that might be profitable—of imparting their Own souls—and so on ? Are not all these rather ro- nantic 3’’ . I have no doubt that the veil, covering, or colouring of this Song, is borrowed from an Epithalamium, or marriage song. This certainly appears to be carried on throughout, as it is also in the forty-fifth Psalm ; and probably the speakers introduced, in addition to the bridegroom and the bride, allude to the companions who usually attended at Jewish marriages. Yet it is easy to see, in several ex- pressions scattered, probably on purpose, throughout the Song, marks of its sacred meaning; expressions which are totally inapplicable to any thing but what is Divine. This is observable in many of the Psalms, particularly in the sixteenth, wherein are many things applicable to David, and which the reader would naturally apply to him, with- out thinking of Christ. But as he proceeds, he finds some things which cannot apply to David—such as that God would not suffer his Holy One to see corruption; but show him the path of life; in his presence, fulness of joy ; and at his right hand, pleasures for evermore. Hence it is evident that, though many things were true of David, yet the main design of the Holy Ghost was, under the form of a prayer of David, to furnish a glorious prophecy of the Messiah—his resurrection, ascension, and glorification at the right hand of the Father. Thus the apostles Peter and Paul understood it, and thus they reasoned from it, Acts ii. 25–36; xiii. 35–37. Other instances, equally in point, might be quoted, but this is sufficient. And so here, in this Song of Solomon, it is easy to observe (and that without the help of a wild imagination) a Divine glory, the beams of which are too bright not to be seen through the veil, too resplendent for all this covering to conceal. - To begin with the introduction of the poem—“The song of songs, which is Solomon’s.” It is allowed, I sup- pose, whether it be canonical or not, that Solomon was the author. Now for him to compose a song abounding with idleness and impurity, which is insinuated of this, and to style it “The song of songs,” that is, the most excellent of all songs, bears hard on his character either as a good or a wise man. If he knew the whole was dictated by wanton- ness, and yet, by setting out with such high pretensions, gave the reader to expect great and glorious things, he was an impostor. Or, if he did not intend any imposition, but really thought his poem, though not a Divine allegory, yet a most eaccellent song, then it proves him, so far from being the wisest of men, little better than a fool ; for however, in some parts, it may abound with finer language, equal, and perhaps superior, to any other human composition, yet the self-commendation which, upon this principle, runs through the whole, renders it in the last degree fulsome and dis- gusting. “I am the rose of Sharon, and the lily of the valley—white and ruddy—the chief among ten thousand, and the altogether lovely,” are expressions, I will venture to say, impossible to drop from the pen of any mere crea- ture, if applied to himself, but a stark fool. And either of the above suppositions would invalidate, not this Song only, but the book of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes; which are re- ferred to as canonical by an inspired apostle. Compare Heb. xii. 5, 6, with Prov. iii. 11, 12. And not only so, but the Old Testament, as such, would be invalidated, for representing him as a wise and good man. e Many other things are uttered in this Song, of which I may instance a few, which cannot comport with the idea of a mere love-song. For example : in chap. i. 4, the bride is represented as saying to her beloved, “The wpright love thee.” This, if applied to Christ, is eminently true, and conveys this glorious sentiment—that such is the excellence of his person, character, and conduct, that every “upright” heart must needs love him. But apply this to mere crea- tures, and what uprightness of character is required 3 Especially apply it to Solomon, and some of his associates —I presume they were not pre-eminently “upright” that loved him 7 Immediately after, the bride is represented as calling herself “black, but comely:” and, by black, it is evident she meant the very opposite of comely ; seeing she further compares herself to the black and beggarly “tents of Ke- dar,” as well as to the beautiful “curtains of Solomon.” This, if applied to the church of Christ, sets forth, in a most lively manner, her easternal meanness and deformity in the estimation of the world, and her spiritual beauty in the eyes of Christ. Thus, in the forty-fifth Psalm, the king's daughter is represented as “all glorious within.” But ap- ply the language to a female as such, and I see not how she could be both black and comely, repulsive and beautiful ; and, if this were possible, it is scarcely conceivable that she should so freely acknowledge her uncomeliness, any more than that, consistently with modesty, she should sing of her beauty. Especially apply this to one of Solomon's wives ; and it is scarcely conceivable that she should be a swº- burnt vineyard keeper 1 Again, in the ninth verse, the bridegroom is represent- ed as comparing his bride to “a company of horses in Pha- raoh's chariot.” This, if applied to the church of Christ, is a fine representation of her wmion, order, and activity, in her social capacity. But how a female, as such, can be likened to a company of horses, I am at a loss to conceive. Again, the bride is represented as endeavouring to en- dear her beloved to others, setting him forth in all his beauty; and the consequence is, they are taken with him ; and instead of the scornful question, “What is thy beloved more than another beloved ?” they change their note, and STRICTURES ON THE SENTIMENTS OF MR. R. ROBINSON. 901 ask very respectfully, “Where is thy beloved; that we may seek him with thee " This, if applied to Christ and the church, is a beautiful representation of that concern which occupies every pious breast that others should know and love the Saviour as well as themselves, of their eagerness to proclaim his excellencies, and of the good effects which frequently follow, as in the case of the woman of Samaria. But, to apply it to one of Solomon's wives endeavouring to excite the admiration of others, is most extraordinary, and far enough from the way in which female affection ordi- marily works | gº a º Again, the bridegroom, in expressing his admiration of the bride, declares her to be “terrible as an army with banners.” How this could be a recommendation of one of Solomon's wives I cannot conceive. But apply it to the church of Christ, and it beautifully sets forth the terror with which their testimony, attended with unity, order, zeal, and inflexible piety, strikes the enemies of God. Mary, queen of Scots, declared that she feared the prayers of John Knox more than an army of ten thousand men “But is it not an unseemly allegory 4” I answer by ask- ing, Is there any thing unseemly in virtuous love? Has not the Holy Ghost made use of this imagery throughout the Scriptures? The forty-fifth Psalm will stand or fall with this Song.—See also John iii. 29; Eph. v. 23–32. Moreover, did not the Holy Ghost, in inspiring the sacred writers, make use of their natural propensities, so that each writer wrote according to his turn and taste § Thus David, who had a taste for music, tuned his harp, and wrote an inspired Psalm book. John, who was naturally amiable, treated largely on love. And Solomon, who was famed for wisdom, wrote the Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. Nor was this the only prominent feature in the character of Solomon. God had made him susceptible of the tenderest and most endearing affections, which, under the dominion of virtue, are productive of the happiest social effects. And under the dominion of virtue these affections in Solomon, doubtless, were for a time ; and during that time he was inspired to compose this Song. “But does it not contain indelicate imagery 3” Suppose it should appear so in our age and country, it does not fol- low that it was so when and where it was written. It is well known that words become indelicate in one age which were in another considered pure. Words are but arbitrary signs, and their meaning varies according to the variations of custom. Custom, which is governed by ten thousand accidents, may affix ideas to a word in one age which in another it never included. There are words which our fathers used in English which would offend a modern ear, and which would now convey very different ideas from what they did then. It is also well known that Eastern imagery is widely different from ours, in respect of what We account delicacy, as well as boldness. They would have scorned, if I may so say, to have truckled to our fini- cal rules. If we reject all the scriptures which do not ac- cord with these rules, we must reject much more than Solomon's Song. Mr. R. enumerates a long list of Scripture phrases which he accounts indelicate to repeat in this age and country, and tells of a young clergyman of his acquaintance to whom the mention of some such in a sermon had well migh proved an emetic l–Claude, vol. ii. p. 32. I must confess, I am so attached to Scripture phraseology, that I am not so apt to sicken at the sound as some people may be. Mr. R. has much better expressed my mind on this subject in another Page of the same volume, (p. 341,) where, speaking on “Jºnical delicacy,” he says, “We may observe, on the one hand, that purity and simplicity of manners are generally accompanied with a blunt, rough, rank speech; and, on the other, that depravity of manners generally hides itself under an affected refinement and delicacy of style. The old pro- phets spoke bluntly, but they were very holy. Modern courtiers speak refinedly; but they are, behind the curtain, extremely vicious.” Rowever, as he has selected a number of expressions to be excluded from the pulpit, without rejecting the books Whence they are taken as uncanonical, why should he not do the same by Solomon's Song? Two or three passages at most would have sufficed. Or, if a whole book must be *jected, on account of its containing such and such ex- pressions, why does he not reject the other parts of Scrip- ture, and commence deist at once. Surely I might appeal to all serious Christians whether the reading of this poem has had an improper influence on their minds. I believe, were it not for some wanton would- be-wits, encouraged, I am sorry to say, by such critics as Mr. R., the sentiments of this sacred Song would never have been so awfully perverted. Holy men have, in all ages, found in it a holy tendency—a tendency to raise in their minds a flame of genuine and ardent affection towards Him who is the subject of the Song—“The chief among ten thousand, the altogether lovely , ”—“To the pure all things are pure!” LETTER WI. ON THE INFLUENCE OF SATAN UPON THE HUMAN MIND. MY DEAR FRIEND, IN reply to your observations on the influence of Satan on the human mind, I am free to acknowledge that it is a subject of such a nature that in speculating upon it we may presently lose ourselves. But this is true of every subject connected with the operations of spirit. To the opinion of Mr. R. on this subject I was not wholly a stranger; nor, probably, are you ignorant that it is one of the tenets of Dr. Priestley and the modern So- cinians. That writer thus expresses himself:-* The word devil, or Satan, in the Old and New Testaments, signifies only the principle of natural or moral evil, personified by a well-known figure in rhetoric. The devil is only an alle- gorical personage.” I presume Mr. R. would not go quite so far as Dr. P., to deny the eacistence of evil spirits ; yet he is very little be- hind him in denying their influence on the human mind. It is no contemptible instance of Satan’s policy to get the notions of his existence and influence exploded ; well knowing that, in that case, no prayers would ascend to heaven, and no vigilance be exercised on earth, against his allurements. Nothing would discover more admirable po- licy in a thief or a murderer, who was prowling about the outskirts of a town for the purposes of plunder, than to quiet the alarms of the people by procuring the circulation of an opinion, either that no such person existed, or that, if he did, he could not possibly enter their houses; in fact, that the whole was a popular prejudice, invented by de- signing priests, and perpetuated by a few old women, to frighten the vulgar. It is allowed that the devil has no power over our minds without Divine permission ; yea, further, that he has no such power over us as to draw us into sin without our own consent. I will not say that he cannot suggest sinful thoughts without our consent ; but certainly he cannot, without our consent, draw us into sin. If we yield not, we may be said to be tempted, as Christ was ; but sin does not consist in being tempted, but in falling in with the tempt- ation. Further, It is allowed that the principal and immediate objects of our dread ought to be the snares and allurements of the world.—These are sometimes called temptations, being the means adopted by the god of this world to draw away the heart. But not a fish that swims need fear the most subtle and expert fisherman, provided it keep clear of his nets and baits. Once more, It is allowed that the doctrine of Satanic in- fluence has been greatly abused by some who profess to maintain it; as when they consider themselves merely passive, and that all the evil of their minds is to be charged upon foreign agency; thus imputing all their wickedness to the devil, for the purpose of exonerating themselves. But this is no proof that the doctrine itself is not true. Multitudes abuse the doctrine of human depravity; and by imputing their sinful conduct to their poor wicked hearts, or to the old man, as they express themselves, en- deavour to elude the blame. But shall we, on this account, deny that doctrine 3 Surely not. You will receive my present thoughts on Satanic influ- ence under three observations. First—The language of Scripture on this subject is such 902 MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS, ESSAYS, &c. that nothing but an absolute impossibility of its being under- stood literally show.ld render any other sense admissible. The language of inspiration, it must be allowed, not only represents the devil as a real intelligent agent, but describes him as having an influence on the human mind. Among others, let the following passages be seriously con- sidered : “The god of this world blindeth the minds of them that believe not.—The prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of dis- obedience.—Be sober, be vigilant, because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.—That they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil who are taken captive by him at his will.—For this purpose the Son of God was mani- fested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.—Sa- tan hath desired to have thee, that he may sift thee as wheat.—Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.-Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil: for we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness (or wicked spirits) in high places.” In considering the above testimonies, it is only neces- sary that Satanic influence, literally speaking, is possible; and no man ought to dispute it, unless he can prove it absolutely impossible. But by what mediums will that be attempted 4 Can it be proved that Satan cannot communi- cate ideas to the human mind? That simple finite spirits can convey ideas to each other, and influence each other, cannot be denied, without denying the possibility of re- ciprocal communication between angels, and between the spirits of just men made perfect. And that simple spirit can influence spirits dwelling in bodies cannot be denied, without denying the influence of the Holy Spirit on the souls of men. If there be any impossibility in the matter, it must consist in this: for a finite simple spirit to con- vey ideas to another spirit dwelling in flesh, But wherein consists the impossibility of this? He that can prove it so, let him undertake it. But let him reflect that, in proving this, he will also prove that there has been no fellowship between the spirits of just men made perfect and the spirits of Enoch, Elijah, and our Lord; for their spirits inhabit bodies. On this principle the translation, instead of the death, of Enoch and Elijah, is a disadvantage rather than a privilege; and the resurrection of our Lord’s body must occasion, for the present, an unspeakable loss to the church above. I am inclined to think the man is not yet born who will undertake to prove the impossibility of Satanic influence on the human mind. I have been given to understand that Mr. R. does not reject the sentiment on the ground of its impossibility, but rather on this principle:—“that there is no need to impute that to infernal agency which can be accounted for in a more simple way.” Now, if we had no other source of information on the subject than our own ob- servation, this"maxim might be a good one ; but if God has told us that Satan has an influence on the human mind—(and this, if words have any meaning, he most certainly has)—that ought to put the matter out of all doubt. Otherwise it will amount to this:—That though God declares that such things are the effects of such causes, yet there is no need for believing this, provided we can dis- cover what we conceive to be a more simple way of ac- counting for them And that, having made this import- ant discovery, we are at liberty to explain away the literal sense of the Scriptures, and understand them metaphor- ically But this is setting up our own wisdom as the standard whereby to try the wisdom of God, which is the very essence of Socinianism—the main pillar on which their system rests. Thus they metaphorize the WoRD, or SoN of God, in the first chapter of the Gospel of John, and every thing else that stands in their way. This is the rock on which they split, Mr. R. himself says, “The difference between the Socinians and our churches, on this article, seems to be this : we apply reason to the evidences of revelation ; and they to all its doctrines : ac- cording to us, reason has done its office when it has obtain- ed evidence that God speaks ; according to them, reason is to reject what is spoken, if they cannot comprehend it.” --Claude, vol. i. p. 153. In short, considering the plain import of the forecited passages to any reader of common sense and common honesty, if no such influence existed it would be difficult to vindicate the writers from being either ignorant men, carried away with vulgar prejudices; or, what is worse, designing impostors, pretending to use great plainness of speech, when, at the same time, the whole current of their writings tended much more to deceive mankind, and to conjure up a number of imaginary bugbears, than to com- vey solid and useful instruction. Mr. R. himself adopts this reasoning on another subject. See his “Plea for the Divinity of Christ,” the first two arguments from the lan- guage of the New Testament. Secondly—If the Scriptures on this subject are not to be understood literally, but metaphorically, the influence of Satan meaning no more than moral evil—then the writers must have been metaphor mad. According to this they first metaphorize things into persons, and then again metaphorize these persons into things . It is well known that the devil, in his influence upon men, is represented under the names of a serpent, a lion, fowls of the air, &c. These representations, if de- scriptive of the influence of a real intelligent agent, are proper and beautiful. They are metaphors. But if they are intended to describe a mere principle of moral evil, where is the beauty, where the propriety 2 Is it not all confusion ? First moral evil is personified, or converted into a devil; and then this devil is metaphorized into a serpent, a lion, &c. To suppose Christ, in his explication of the parable of the sower, for instance, when he was stripping it of its parabolical clothing, and giving the plain, literal meaning, to explain one dark metaphor by another equally dark, is most extraordinary. “When any one heareth the word, and understandeth it not,” says he, “then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in the heart: this is he which received seed by the way-side.” A very curious explanation indeed, on this principle ! The wicked one taking the word out of their hearts must have been quite as obscure as the fowls of the air devour- ing it—an explanation which itself needed explaining ! The same might be observed of the parable of the tares. It is said that, while men slept, the enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. In giving the plain and real meaning of this parable, our Lord said the enemy that sowed them was the devil. This, we may pre- sume, he thought sufficiently plain. But if Satan has no influence on the mind, this was perpleaving the subject, not explaining it. In fine, it is easy to see from hence that the easistence and the influence of evil spirits must stand or fall together. If the one is metaphorical, so is the other. The word of God speaks as explicitly and unequivocally in favour of the latter as of the former; and if the one be abandoned, so must the other. And thus the Scripture account of “angels who kept not their first estate being reserved to everlasting chains, under darkness, unto the judgment of the great day,” may be all nothing. There may be no such beings in reality; the whole may be metaphorical. And, in that case, the whole testimony of Scripture is reduced to uncertainty ; and hell, yea, heaven itself, may be an Eastern metaphor—a poetic fiction : Thirdly—If a series of actions take place, which dis- cover some great design, we naturally suppose an agent equal to those actions, as eacercising such design. |Every design must have a designer, every contrivance a contriver. Thus we prove the being and superintend- ing providence of God. We see a creation—a system full of design; and we conclude that there must be a Creator. We see also, in the affairs of the world, a wonderful com- bination of events, operating in many cases without the knowledge of those who are instruments in bringing them to pass, and concurring to produce the most astonishing results; and hence we infer that there must be a Supreme Being, who sits at the helm of affairs, and controls the whole with an invisible hand. Now just apply this reasoning to the case in hand. The opposition carried on against the cause of God, from the very beginning, bears evident marks of design—of de- STRICTURES ON THE SENTIMENTS OF MR. R. ROBINSON. 903 sign far superior to theirs who were the visible and im- mediate instruments. When God instituted sacrifices, to teach mankind the necessity of an atonement, they were presently perverted to purposes of idolatry. When all people were become idolaters, and God separ- ated a people to himself, to serve him, every measure was adopted to oppose and crush that people. Thousands of them were murdered in Egypt in infancy, and the remain- der cruelly oppressed. When in the wilderness, enchant- ments and divinations were employed to curse them. And, from their first settlement in Canaan until the coming of the Messiah, the surrounding nations were leagued to- gether against them. Jerusalem especially, the place where Jehovah had fixed his name, was the mark of their hot displeasure. “Raze it—raze it to the foundation l’’ was their cry. A most marked opposition was discovered to the great Corner-stone of the church—Christ Jesus. When he came into the world, the children of a whole town must be slain, in the hope of slaying him. When he entered on his ministry, an especial effort was made to draw him into sin, to taint his holy mind with distrust, presumption, and vain-glory; and, when that temptation failed, the main object was to get him despatched. - After his ascension, every opposition that could be made to the church of God was pursued with greediness. Per- secution raged in the first three centuries with relentless fury, carrying off its thousands and tens of thousands by the most cruel deaths. At a very early period, heresies and animosities found their way into the bosom of the church. Even the apostles were fully employed in stem- ming the torrent; and, after their decease, a variety of corrupt notions and idle ceremonies tarnished the glory of the church, and introduced that flood of iniquity—the papal apostacy. The same mighty mischief has been planned and executed against the church ever since. In every age, they have been desolated by cruel persecution, poisoned by pernicious principles, or torn in pieces by intestine divisions. If ever any opposition can be said to be carried on by design, surely this must. An opposition so long in dura- tion, and maintained so uniformly, and by such complicated and opposite measures, could not have been conducted without an intelligent agent at the head of it. And, if any credit is to be given to the word of God, such an agent does exist. Of this we have, in the word of God, several striking intimations. The perversion of sacrifices to idolatrous purposes ap- pears very much like a design on the part of Satan to draw off the attention of mankind from the Lord Messiah. Indeed, this seems to be intimated by the sacrifices of idols being designated by an inspired apostle—“The sacri- fices of devils,” 1 Cor. x. 20, 21. The opposition of the nations to Israel may be ascribed to the same cause. In the days of David they repeatedly made war against them, but in vain; for we read that “ the Lord preserved David whithersoever he went.” But when Satan could obtain no advantage over Israel by the sword of his heathen vassals, he took the field him- self; and the next news we read is, that “Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.” He vented his malice against them by moving their chief to sin, and to sin of such a kind as should provoke the Lord to diminish their numbers. And it proved that, by drawing David into sin,_inflating his heart with pride on a review of his numerous forces, Satan slew more Israelites in a few days than his vassals, the heathen princes, could in a succession of years, 1 Chron. xviii. 13; xxi. 1. The efforts that were made to draw Christ into sin, as recorded in the fourth chapter of Matthew, are expressive of the same design. They were matural, from one whose main object was to overthrow the work of human redemp- tion. It might be supposed he would try all he could to undermine the foundation of the church, well knowing that in that case the structure must fall. This is intimated in that memorable saying of our Lord—“On this rock will I build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” The crucifixion of Christ is also attributed to the devil, who is represented as entering into Judas, for the purpose of getting the Son of man betrayed into the hands of sin- ners. Tormented, it seems, with the success of our Lord, and perceiving that his gospel was silently insinuating itself into the hearts of men, he determines to get him despatched out of the way. Every circumstance of this tragical affair unfolds design, all bearing on one point— the crushing of the rising interest. Just suppose Satan to have reasoned thus with himself: —What shall I do? If I let him alone, the world will be- lieve in him. I cannot draw him into sin : he has baffled me in every effort. I will get him despatched; and the more effectually to make an end of him, and of all future attachment to him, I will get him executed in the most shameful manner. He shall be hanged as a common malefactor, at the place of public execution; so that his name shall be had in execration to the end of time. Yea, and, that his memory may be covered with everlasting infamy, I will stir up his own countrymen, the Jews, the only religious people in the world, to put him to death ; and not merely the rabble, but the sanhedrim, the scribes and Pharisees, the very gods of the people, whose reputa- tion is such that all the world will conclude that if he had not been a malefactor he had not been put to death—and thus I hope to overcome him I Were we to suppose, I say, that Satan had reasoned thus, the supposition would only correspond with the facts of the case. This, moreover, seems to be intimated in those scrip- tures which speak of the sufferings of Christ—as “the hour and power of darkness—breaking the serpent’s head —spoiling principalities and powers—making a show of them openly—triumphing over them in his cross.” It was glorious, indeed, that at the very hour when hell was just ready to burst forth into triumph, then it should receive its fatal shock; and that those very means which were designed to crush the Lord Jesus and his rising in- terest, and overturn the work of human redemption, should be made to subserve the overthrow of Satan’s em- pire, and lay the foundation of that very work which they were intended to destroy This was killing Goliath with his own sword—this was making a show of him indeed The persecution that raged against the church, and the heresies that were introduced, are also ascribed to the devil, and equally marked by design. It was said to the church at Smyrna—“The devil shall cast some of you into prison.” And the persecutions which raged are re- presented as a flood coming out of the mouth of the great red dragon, that old serpent called the devil and Satan, against the woman and her seed, Rev. ii. 10; xii. 9. 14—17. Not, indeed, that Satan assumed the office of justice of the peace; but he stirred up his vassals, as he had previously moved Judas, to betray the Lord. When, in the days of Constantine the Great, the Roman empire became Christian, and so an end for a time was put to persecution, then the devil betook himself to an- other method. Popery, that mystery of iniquity, which had long begun to work, now made its appearance, and was soon openly revealed, in a grand though gradual apos- tacy, 2 Thess. ii. 7, 8. Arianism, Pelagianism, and the whole farrago of popery, soon overrun the church. False doctrines are called the doctrines of devils ; and the beast of Rome is said to receive his power from the dragon, 1 Tim. iv. l ; Rev. xiii. 2. And now I leave you to judge, and to consider whether those who deny the influence of evil spirits on the human mind are very far from denying the influence of the Good Spirit, and whether the one may not very naturally pave the way for the other. Indeed, if it be just to metaphorize the Scriptures in the one case, it is equally just in the other. They do not speak more fully and decidedly of the one than they do of the other. Paul was sent forth to turn men “from darkness to light, from the power of Satan unto God,” Acts xxvi. 18. But if the power of Satan be a metaphor, the power of God, in delivering men from it, may be so too. In short, if such a liberty is to be taken in metaphorizing Scripture in this instance, it may in any other; and then nothing will be able to stand before it. There is not a doctrine in the Bible but might be thus metaphorized away. I have made my observations with freedom. My desire 904 MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS, ESSAYS, &c. is that you should do the same in perusing them. Read them, not with the partiality of a friend, but with the non- prepossession of an indifferent person. I may in some things be mistaken. Receive nothing but in proportion to evidence. Though you are bound implicitly to believe God, you are not bound so to believe me or any other creature. Whether all I have said be approved or not, be- lieve me, I am, and desire to remain, your sincere friend, ANDREW FULLER. ON SPIRITUAL DECLENSION AND THE MEANS OF REVIVAL. IT is a matter of complaint too common, as well as too well founded, that the bulk of Christians in the present age are very deficient in spirituality, and come far short of the primitive Christians in a close walk with God. We lament over our unfruitfulness, our want of growth in grace and increasing conformity to Christ. Complaints of this kind, if they arise from the integrity of our hearts, are necessary and proper; but complaining alone will not effect a cure. We may sigh and go backward to the last period of owr lives. One necessary means of effecting a cure is to inquire into the cause or causes of the complaint. An investigation of this nature may, through a Divine blessing, answer some good end upon the minds of those whose desire it is to be searched and tried, that every evil way may be detected. It is not here intended to inquire into all the different causes of unfruitfulness, but only to point out a few of those which are the most obvious. That which I shall in- sist upon in this paper is, THE want of A PROPER REGARD To THE worD OF GOD. It has been the pleasure of God to “magnify his word more than all his name;” and if we are under the influence of a right spirit, we shall magnify it too. It is by the knowledge of its sacred truths that we are freed from the slavery of sin, and our spirits sanctified. In it, as in a glass, “we behold the glory of the Lord, and are changed into the same image, from glory to glory, by the Spirit of God.” - In almost all the remarkable declensions in the church of God, a neglect of the Scriptures has been at the root. On the contrary, in all the seasons of revival and reforma- tion, the Scriptures have been the grand means of their being brought about. During the long and wicked reign of Manasseh, the book of the law of the Lord was lost, was lost even in the temple; and then it was that idolatry prevailed; when Josiah came to the throne, and a reform- ation was brought about, the lost book was found, and read, and regarded. During the captivity, the word of God seems to have been neglected. In the times of Ezra and Nehemiah, a glorious reformation was brought about ; but by what means ? The sum of the account is this: Ezra and his companions stood wipon a pulpit of wood, read the law, and gave the meaning ; and the people understood the law, and wept bitterly, and entered into a covenant with their God. Religion was reduced to a low state at the time of our Lord's coming ; and one cause assigned for it was, that the Pharisees, by their traditions, had “made void the law of God.” On the contrary, the glorious revival which then succeeded, by the ministry of John the Baptist, Christ, and his apostles, was by means of their disseminating the true knowledge of God as revealed in the Scriptures. It is true, they themselves were inspired, but yet even the Lord Jesus Christ appealed to the word, calling upon his hearers to “search the Scriptures.” To what can we at- tribute the great antichristian apostacy, but to a disregard of the word of God? . The original cause, as prophetically given us by the apostle himself, was this, “ Because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved, God shall send them strong delusion, that they should be- lieve a lie.” The foundation of popery was laid in a dis- regard to the Bible, and an overweening attachment to traditions and unscriptural ceremonies. As the apostacy ripened, the Scriptures were neglected; and at length, when it arrived to its height, they were utterly discarded, being absolutely forbidden to be read by the common people in their own language. On the contrary, by what means was the glorious Reformation effected ? Was it not by translating, exposing, and preaching the Scriptures 3 From the foregoing facts, we ought at least to suspect that a want of regard to the Holy Scripture lies at the foundation of our departures from God. There are several ways in which a want of proper regard to God’s word is discovered. I shall mention three in particular :— First, By a neglect of reading, meditating, and praying over it. We have great advantages for knowing the mind of God. He hath told us all his heart. Our advantages are superior, not only to heathens, who walk in the dark, without a revelation, but to those of the church of God itself in any former period. Old Testament saints valued the Scriptures “more than thousands of gold and silver,” more than their necessary food; and yet they had but a small part of the sacred canon to what we have. That which has crowned all, and brought life and immortality to light, was then wanting. The most glorious of all the displays of God has been added since their death. Chris- tians themselves, in former ages, had not our advantages. Till the art of printing was discovered, it must have been very difficult for many families to obtain a Bible; and no doubt a great number of Christians, who were generally a poor people, were denied the pleasure of having those sacred books in their families. Since then circumstances are altered ; we have now, through a kind providence, the most easy access to the Scriptures. But whether we have more of a spiritual understanding into the mind of God than our predecessors had may be questioned; yea, whether the word of God, upon the whole, is read more now by Christians than it was then, may be a matter of doubt. Does not its being common and easy of access seem to di- minish its value in our eyes? Are we not apt to think light of it, as Israel did of the manna when rained in plenty round their tents 3 The sacred Scripture is a rich mine abounding with sub- stantial treasures; but it is a mine that must be worked. If we would read it to advantage, it must be with prayer and meditation. “My son,” said the wise man, “if thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to understanding ; if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding ; if thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; then shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord, and find the know- ledge of God.” A blessing is pronounced upon the man “who meditates in God’s law by day and by night. He shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, which bringeth forth fruit in its season.” If any think to excuse themselves by alleging that they were never taught to read; I answer, if they were interested in a common will, or testament, they would never think of remaining ignor- ant of its contents. If they could not read, they would procure some person to read it to them ; or, if that could not be done, rather than not know its real meaning, they would be at some considerable pains to learn to read it themselves. Now shall all this regard be shown to a com- mon will, and that spontaneously of our own accord ; and no more respect be paid to the invaluable testament of our dying Redeemer? Where then is the sincerity of our re- ligious profession? “Where a man’s treasure is, there will his heart be also.” Secondly, By not reading it for the ends and purposes for which it was written. What those ends are, we are expressly informed in the book itself. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God; and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteous- mess.” To read the Scripture for doctrine is to learn our religious sentiments from it, and form them by it. So far as we are under the influence of prejudice, or receive systems on human authority ; and go to the Scripture not so much with a desire to be instructed in what we know, as to strengthen ourselves in what we have already im- bibed, be it right or wrong; so far we exercise a sinful disregard to the Scriptures, and may justly be given up of God to our own deceits. If we read the word of God to any good purpose, we must suppose beforehand that we do not know every thing, that we are liable to error in SPIRITUAL DECLENSION AND MEANS OF REVIVAL. 905 judgment and evil in practice; how else shall we read it for reproof or for correction ? If we set up our own reason, so as to resolve to admit of nothing as Divine truth but what shall be within its com- prehension, we despise God’s word, and cannot be said to read it either for doctrine or correction. It is not enough that we “call no man master ; ” we must have “one Master, even Christ.” Our own reason is also another word for our own creed; and we are as much in danger of being ruined by our own creed as by that of another man. It matters not by what name we call it, our reason or our creed; if the infallible dictates of the Holy Spirit are to give way to this, adieu to all religion. Where such pre- sumption begins, it may truly be said, religion ends. In reading the preceptive part of Scripture, it will be but of little use to us, unless we read it with an intention and determination, through Divine assistance, to form our conduct by it. To read for instruction in righteousness is the same thing as searching to know what is the good, perfect, and acceptable will of God, with a design to do it, let it grate ever so much with our carnal inclinations. It answers but a poor end to read a chapter once or twice a day in the family, merely for the sake of decency, with- out so much as an intention of complying with what shall be found to be the mind of God. If our judgment or conduct is formed by dreams, visions, or supposed immediate revelations from heaven, and not by the plain meaning of the word of God as it stands in our Bibles, then do we slight the word of God, and God may justly give us up to our own delusions. It is no just plea in behalf of these supposed revelations, that they often come in the words of Scripture. If we infer any thing from certain words of Scripture being impressed upon our mind, either in favour of ourselves, or for the guiding of our conduct, which cannot be proved to have been the meaning of Scripture independent of that im- pression, it is no other than real enthusiasm, and will in the great day be found to be a disregard and perversion of the Scripture itself. Thirdly, By forming a low opinion of the importance of the truths contained in it. It seems to be very much the spirit and opinion of the present age, that it matters not how polluted the fountain is, if the streams are but pure; but the question is whether the streams can be pure, if the fountain is polluted. Actions materially good and beneficial to society may flow from a heart at essential variance with the doctrines of revelation ; but it wants proof that any action can be truly good and acceptable in the sight of God, unless it originate in evangelical prin- ciple. On the contrary, the Scripture is express, that “without faith it is impossible to please God.” Some good people have contracted a strange prejudice against the doctrines of the gospel, accounting them dry and uninteresting matters. They like ea perimental re- ligion the best, they tell us. But I do not understand the distinction of religion into doctrinal and experimental after this sort. I would ask such a person, What is ex- perimental religion ? Is it any other than the influence Qf truth upon the mind by the agency of the Holy Spirit You love to feel godly sorrow for sin; so do I: but what is godly sorrow for sin but the influence of truth upon your heart 3 Is it not the consideration of the great evil of sin, its contrariety to what ought to be, its being com- mitted against light, love, &c., that dissolves your heart in grief? Were you not to realize these truths, it would be impossible for you to weep over your sin. But you love to feel joy and peace in believing; so do I: but must you not have an object to believe in 3 Take away the great doctrine of the atonement, and all your faith, joy, and peace are annihilated. Much the same might be said of other gospel doctrines; instead of being opposed to ex- Perimental religion, they are essential to its existence. That some doctrinal sermons have been dry and unin- *resting is granted; but that must have been the fault of either the preacher or the hearer. If Scripture doctrines Were delivered in their native simplicity, and heard with * heart suitable to their importance, they could not be dry ; they must be like the doctrine of Moses, which “dropped as the rain upon the grass, and as the dew upon the tender herb.” There is another prejudice against the doctrines of the gospel in the minds of many people. They imagine them to be unfriendly to practical religion. That practical re- ligion may be neglected through an excessive attachment to favourite opinions is allowed; but if we imbibe and inculcate the truths of the gospel according to the lovely proportion in which they stand in the Bible, and adhere to them, not because we have once imbibed them, but be- cause God hath revealed them, such a reception of the truth and adherence to it, instead of enervating practical godliness, will be found to be the life of it. Doctrinal, experimental, and practical religion are all necessarily con- nected together; they can have no existence separate from each other. The influence of truth upon the mind is the source of all our spiritual feelings, and those feelings are the springs of every good word and action. The above are some of the different ways in which we are liable to be wanting in our regard to the word of God; and, in proportion as these prevail, it is natural to suppose we shall be wanting in spirituality and communion with God: instead of growing in grace, we shall dwindle like the unwatered plant in the drought of summer. This may be expected on two accounts. First, As an awful chastisement for our sin in such disregard. God’s word is indited by his Holy Spirit; a want of proper regard to that word must therefore be one of those evil things by which the Spirit of God is grieved ; and where that is the case, it is natural to suppose he will withdraw his re- viving, fructifying influences, the consequence of which will ever be a discernible want of spirituality. I call this an awful chastisement; and such it is, because of a spi- ritual kind. As the Holy Spirit is the sum of spiritual good, so his withdrawment is the completion of every spiritual evil. When David was threatened with the loss of all that was dear to him, he deprecated this more than any thing beside : “Take not thy Holy Spirit from me!” “Woe unto them,” saith the Lord, “if I depart from them!” Secondly, As a natural consequence of it. God’s word is that to those who “meditate in it by day and by night” which “the rivers of waters” are to a tree planted by their side. It is that by means of which they “bring forth fruit in their season.” From the want of a spiritual and ex- perimental acquaintance with God’s word proceeds a want of religious principle ; and this seems to be the case of multitudes of professors in the present age. From want of religious principle proceeds a more than ordinary liability to errors in judgment: the house that was empty, though swept and garnished, was ready for the reception of unclean spirits. From errors in judgment proceed errors in spirit and conduct ; if once the truths of God sink into disesteem, his precepts in the spirituality of them will not continue to be regarded. Little sins, as they are accounted, will be indulged, and the most dif- ficult and self-denying duties neglected. And then, if things come to this, that we give way a little, we shall soon go further; want of universal obedience will soon lead to a universal want of obedience ; and thus, if in- finite mercy prevent not, we shall war worse and worse. This is no other than the high road to apostacy, towards which it is to be feared great numbers of professors are verging, and in which great numbers are already walking! Happy should I be if any one by these hints might be led to reflection, and recover himself out of the snare of the devil, by whom he is led captive at his will ! I have only one thought more to add. If a regard to the word of God is of such great importance to Christians, what must it be to ministers 1 A defection in a private cha- racter nearly terminates in himself; but a defection in a minister may affect many thousands. If as ministers we sink into a disregard for Divine truth, to say the least, we shall not preach it with that ardour which is necessary, if at all. It becomes us to tremble, and to inquire whether the defections among our people be not owing in part to the wholesome truths of God being withheld from them, or de- livered in a languid and careless manner; and, if so, it be- hoves us further to consider how we shall endure that cutting rebuke, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me; seeing thou hast for- gotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children!” 906 *s-.' MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS, ESSAYS, &c. IN the last paper, it was supposed that one cause to which declensions in religion might be imputed was a disregard to the word of God; in this I shall attempt to prove that another cause is the manner in which we attend to the duty of PRAYER. Prayer is the ascending of the heart to God. It is one of the ordinary means of our communion with God. A great part of the religious life consists in the exercise of it, either in public or in private, either vocal or mental. It may be supposed that our spi- ritual prosperity will bear some proportion to the degree of fervour and constancy with which this duty is attended to. All our spiritual life is derived from Christ, as that of the branch is from the vine ; and prayer is that by which we receive of his fulness grace for grace. If this duty is either restrained before God, or performed in a careless, carnal manner, our souls must of course dwindle away and lose their fruitfulness. - But as the persons to whose consideration these papers are humbly recommended are such as profess godliness, I shall take it for granted that they make a point of prayer, and shall say nothing of its being omitted, but confine my remarks to the manner in which it is performed. It is a fact, to which I suppose many can subscribe, that it is very common for us to pray to the Lord, and yet for our prayers to remain unanswered. We pray, for in- stance, that the kingdom of Christ may increase in the world, and yet we see but little of that kind taking place: that our sins may be forgiven, and yet sin remains upon our consciences from time to time ; and we lose it, not so much by its being blotted out by God’s pardoning mercy, as worn out by our own forgetfulness: that our graces may be lively and active, yet we remain wretchedly insensible and formal : in a word, that we may enjoy com- munion with God, and conformity to him ; and yet the degree that we possess of either is so small that we have reason to be greatly ashamed, and to tremble lest it should be said of us at last, “Cut it down ; why cumbereth it the ground?” But how is it that our prayers should be thus unan- swered 3 “Is the Lord’s arm shortened, that it cannot save ; or his ear heavy, that it cannot hear 2 " Or is he slack concerning his promise of hearing and answering the prayers of his people? None of all these ; he himself hath told us the reason : “Ye ask, and receive not, be- cause ye ask amiss.” “If I regard iniquity in my heart,” said the psalmist, “the Lord will not hear me.” Let the following questions be seriously considered. First, When we pray, do we really and earnestly desire what we pray for 2 It is awful to think of approaching the Searcher of hearts without meaning as we speak; and yet it is to be feared that a spice of this solemn mockery runs through many of our petitions. It were well for such persons as always pray in a set form of words to ex- amine whether they mean what they say. It is granted that a person may as really pray in the words of others, provided they do but express his case, as in his own; but cases are so numerous in different persons, and so various in the same person at different times, that it is not to be expected that any set of words of human composition should fully answer the end proposed by it. Nor is formality in prayer confined to those who use a form. Persons who pray extempore may fall into a habit of re- peating words without meaning, or words which, however good and proper in themselves, are not the expressions of the heart. Prayers offered up in public are very liable to this abuse, and that both in the speaker and hearer. The speaker is under a temptation to forget the God: he ap- proaches, and to consider himself barely as in the hearing of men, and so to ask, not for such things as he really de- sires, but such as next occur to his mind, as things, if I may so speak, that will do to be prayed for ; and the hearer is apt to consider himself as not immediately con- cerned in the petitions of another, and so to indulge his mind in wandering after other things ; whereas, by jºin- ing in public prayer, we solemnly profess to unite with it : he that prays is to be considered as the mouth of the assembly to God. ** There is one considerable evidence that we do not mean what we say in many of our approaches to God, and that is the want of what the apostle calls watching unto prayer. If a poor man in real necessity ask relief at a rich man’s door, he will not think it sufficient to repeat over a few words and return without an answer; no, he watches and looks with longing expectation after that for which he has been petitioning. And if the party to whom he applies should have previously invited him, and even laid his com- mands upon him whenever he is in want to repair to him, the poor man in that case will not be so apt to consider his applications so much in the light of duties as privileges. It is easy to apply this to our approaches to God. Are we of such a spirit in those approaches as to reckon them a privilege, or do we satisfy ourselves with having gone through the exercise, and performed, as we think, our duty, without waiting, or scarcely thinking of our petitions being granted ? When we say Amen, so be it, at the close of our prayers, do we really desire that so it should be 2 It is a dangerous state of mind to be praying daily for keeping and quickening grace, and yet to be easy without it ; to rest contented with asking communion with God, instead of enjoying it. The least that can be supposed in such cases is that God will punish our indifference, not to say our hypocrisy, by withholding the blessings for which we make request. Secondly, Are we not apt to be less earnest in matters wherein we should take no denial, than in others wherein £t would become us to be submissive 2 There are two sorts of mercies for which we have to pray; mercies which God hath not bound himself to bestow, even though we pray for them in ever such a right spirit—and mercies which he hath. Of the former class are all our earthly comforts, and some things in the religious life; of the latter are all those spiritual blessings essential to salvation. David prayed for the life of his child : God did not reprove him for praying, yet neither did he grant him his request. David desired also to build God a house ; God took it well that it was in his heart, yet he denied him the thing he de- sired. In neither of these cases had God promised to grant the desire of his servant, and he saw fit to counteract it : but, in respect to spiritual and eternal blessings, God has bound himself to grant the desire of the righteous, and to perfect that which concerns his praying people. Now, if things are so, it is easy to see that when we are praying for the one sort of blessings a peculiar submission to the will of God becomes us, which is not required in the other. If we pray, with Jabez, to have our coast enlarged in temporal things, we ought to feel a contented mind, and submit to God, though our prayers should be unan- swered; but if we are praying for an interest in Christ as our spiritual and everlasting portion, contentment of mind is not there required. God does not require us to be willing to be lost for ever; for that would be the same thing as to be wilſing to be for ever employed in cursing and blaspheming, instead of blessing, his holy name. Again, if we adopt the latter part of the prayer of Jabez— “Oh that thou wouldest keep me from evil, that it may not grieve me !”—if by evil we understand the evil of affliction, a resignation to the will of God becomes us; but if by evil we understand the evil of sin, resignation would then become criminal. But if we inspect the generality of our prayers, I am afraid there is more resignation, as it is ac- counted, in respect to the enjoyment of spiritual blessings, where it is not required, than there is in temporal bless- ings, where it is required. In those things wherein we should take no denial, we are too easy ; but in those wherein resignation would become us, we are too urgent. The phrase, “If it be thy will,” which so often occurs in prayer, is perhaps more frequently applied to things in which God requires us to be all importunity than to things wherein such language would be suitable. Thirdly, When we pray for good things, is it always to a good end ? It is possible we may go to God, and really desire the things we ask, and yet, not desiring them to a good end, we fail of obtaining our desires. We may pray for blessings upon our worldly engagements, and it is very right we should do so; but such prayer may be merely for the purposes of sensual gratification. Thus the apostle James speaks: “Ye ask, and receive not, be- cause ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.” And thus the Lord charged Israel, before they entered into the Promised Land, saying, “I know their SPIRITUAL DECLENSION AND MEANS OF REVIVAL. 907 imagination which they go about, even now, before I have brought them into the land which I sware.” If these be our ends, our prayers can be no other than abomination in the sight of God. We may even pray for the success of the gospel, and it is doubtless right that we should do so; but it is possible such desires may be uttered, not out of regard to the prosperity of Christ’s cause, but of our own ; and, if so, it is a low and carnal end, and we cannot expect that God should hear us. Fourthly, When we confess our sins, and pray to be re- stored, do we really lament them, and mean to forsake them 2 I fear too many of our petitions are unanswered, because they do not arise from godly sorrow. We confess from custom or conscience, but do not feel our hearts go out against the sin, so as to return to the Lord with all our soul. Confession is of the nature of a solemn oath, an oath of abjuration; and it is awful to think that we should ever use it without a desire and determination to forsake : Where this takes place, it is no wonder that prayer for the forgiveness of sins and communion with God should be unanswered. This is regarding iniquity in our hearts; and then we are assured the Lord will not hear us. Fifthly, When we pray for Divine direction in matters of faith or practice, are we sincerely determined to follow the dictates of God’s word 2 We may pray to be led into all truth, and yet feel a prejudice in favour of sentiments al- ready imbibed, and against others which may be proposed : in this case, while we pray and search the Scriptures, we shall feel a secret wish to have them speak according to our preconceived ideas of things, not knowing how to en- dure the shame of having been mistaken. Much the same may be said of things which relate to practice. There is such a thing as to go to God for direction in doubtful mat- ters, not with a resolution to be determined by the word of God, but with a hope to find God’s word in favour of our inclinations. This was the motive of Ahab in sending for Micaiah, to know whether he should go up to Ramoth- gilead to battle ; and of the Jews left in Judea, to know whether they should tarry there, or go down to Egypt. In both these cases they had determined what to do; their asking counsel of God, therefore, was mere hypocrisy. “Son of man,” said the Lord to Ezekiel, concerning such cha- racters, “these men have set up their idols in their heart, and put the stumbling-block of their iniquity before their face : should I be inquired of at all by them 3 Therefore speak unto them, and say, Thus saith the Lord God, Every man—that setteth up his idols in his heart, and putteth the stumbling-block of his iniquity before his face, and cometh to the prophet, I the Lord will answer him that cometh according to the multitude of his idols.” Sixthly, Are we not greatly wanting in what may be called *eligious public spirit in our prayers? It is a fact that a great number of Christians in the present day are per- petually harassed in determining the reality of their own Christianity; they are all their lifetime poring upon that subject, and perhaps die at last full of fear and anxiety. The primitive Christians do not seem to have been so much troubled with these thoughts as with their want of con- formity to Christ. Christ taught his disciples to approach daily to God as their Father; and, by the accounts we have, it would seem they generally did so : but such sweet free- dom is now rarely to be found, even among the godly. How is this to be accounted for 3. There is no doubt that such darkness of mind is in a degree pitiable, and that such persons require to be dealt with in a way of wisdom and tenderness. It is a thought, however, that deserves consideration, whether one great cause of this darkness of nind may not arise from an excessive attention to our own safety, to the neglect of the glory of God and the prosperity of Christ's kingdom. Christ enjoins us to pray, “Hal- lowed be thy name, thy kingdom come,” before we ask for the forgiveness of our sins, or even for our daily bread. A Person, that is employed in scarcely any thing else but re- collecting former evidences, for the purpose of being able to answer the question, Am I a Christian * is not likely to gain his object. The means he pursues tend to defeat their 9Wh end. Self-examination, however necessary in a de- §ee, yet, if attended to to the neglect of other things, is like the conduct of a man in trade, who should spend three- - fourths of his time in casting up his accounts that he may determine whether he has gained or lost. It is doubtless very desirable to enjoy a full satisfaction respecting our interest in Christ, and such a satisfaction is to be enjoyed in the present life; but the question is, What are the means by which it is to be obtained? Like reputation, and some other things, to pursue it as an end is the way to lose it. If we care so little about God’s glory as to pray scarcely at all for the advancement of his kingdom in the world, but are continually taken up about our own safety, it is right that God should so order things as that we should be dis- appointed. If we wish for satisfaction on that head, it must be sought only as a secondary object. If we were to seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, these would be among the things that would be added unto us. “Pray for the peace of Jerusalem : they shall prosper that love thee.” Lastly, Do we ask blessings wholly in the name of Christ 2 I do not mean to ask whether we conclude our prayers in so many words, but whether we come to God under a full persuasion of our utter unworthiness, knowing and feeling that while we implore the best of blessings we deserve the heaviest of curses; and desiring all to be given, not for our sakes, but wholly for the sake of Christ. We have reason to believe that if our prayers were more presented in the name of Christ they would be more successful, seeing that it stands on sacred record, whatsoever we ask IN HIS NAME, it shall be given ws. IN the last paper, I considered the manner in which the duty of prayer is attended to as one considerable reason of spiritual declension ; in this I shall propose to consider- ation another cause, as contributing to the same end : it is that of sin lying on the conscience unlamented. When the apostle Paul wrote his First Epistle to the church at Co- rinth, they were sunk into a most wretched condition in- deed. With admirable faithfulness, wisdom, patience, and tenderness, he wrote that Epistle with a view to reclaim them. Many of them were reclaimed; but some, it seems, continued insensible, which induced him, when he wrote his Second Epistle to that church, to express himself thus: “I fear lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you ; and that I shall bewail many who have sinned already, and have not repented of their deeds.” Sin, if not habitually lamented, and removed by repeat- ed applications to the cross of Christ, is like poison in the bones; it rankles within us, and is destructive of our soul’s prosperity. So long as sin remains unlamented, so long we have an habitual liking to it; and so long, to say the least, God has a controversy with us. To assist any one who wishes to make strict inquiry into this matter, I would state a few evidences by which it may be known whether we have sinned and not repented, and point out the danger of such a condition. If there is any particular evil to which we have been especially addicted, and that evil is still persisted in, we may be certain that we have not lamented it sufficiently, or to any good purpose. Saul confessed his sin unto Da- vid; but his persisting in it but too plainly proved that he never truly repented of it. How often soever we may have confessed our sins before God, if these confessions are not attended with a forsaking of them, we are none the nearer, but perhaps the farther off: it is an awful state of mind indeed to be able to persevere, at the same time, in sinful indulgences and religious exercises. Further, Though we should refrain from the evil as to practical compliance, yet if such refraining arises from mere prudential considerations, we may certainly conclude that we have never truly repented of it. If the bias of the heart is towards an evil, and we are withheld merely, or principally, by regard to our reputation, or worldly interest, or fear of hell, and not by the fear and love of God, our condition is very dangerous. If, when we are plied with temptation, the arguments we use to repel it are taken, not so much from its evil nature, or its God-dishonouring tendency, as from the consequences it will produce, let us tremble : surely we stand upon the brink of a tremendous precipice. “That man,” says Dr. Owen, “who opposes nothing to the seduction of evil in his own heart, but fear of shame among men, or hell from God, is sufficiently re- 908 MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS, ESSAYS, &c. solved to do that evil if there were no punishment attend- ing it; which, what it differs from living in the practice of sin, I know not l” Again, Suppose we have been guilty of no one particu- lar sin, either of commission or omission; yet we may have accumulated a load of guilt by small degrees. This is the more likely to go unlamented, because, being con- tracted by little at a time, it has obtained a place in the heart almost unnoticed. But as little and repeated colds, when they settle upon, the constitution, will in the end bring on a fit of sickness, so will these little neglects and indulgences bring on a sore disorder upon our souls. There is not a day passes but we are contracting fresh guilt : unless therefore we maintain an habitual commu- nion with Christ, daily bewailing our sins at the foot of his cross, we may certainly conclude that we have sinned and not repented. Further, If past evils are remembered with pleasure and approbation—if the thoughts and imaginations are fed by dwelling upon them—or if we can take a pleasure im speaking of our former sinful exploits, though it may be at the same time we would be thought to disapprove of them —these are but too forcible a kind of evidence that we have not yet repented of our deeds. To say the least, if we have repented, we have again made the evils our own, by a recommission of them in the mind; which requires renewed repentance and application to Christ, as otherwise we are as much under the guilt of them as ever. True repentance is attended with a holy shame, a shame that will teach us to wish our evil ways annihilated, and the very name of them buried in oblivion. There are some sins which expose us to shame among men; and these it is natural for us to wish to have buried in forgetfulness, whether we repent of them or not : but there are others, very offensive to God, which yet will gain the applause of men ; and here it is the temptation in question lies. True repentance will make us ashamed to repeat these, as well as others. “Thou shalt remember, and be confounded, and never open thy mouth any more, because of thy shame, when I am pacified toward thee for all that thou hast done, saith the Lord God.” In fine, If we have not with holy abhorrence confessed and rejected our sin, we have not yet repented of it. There is such a thing as the conscience being habitually burdened with guilt, and the spirit depressed with long- continued dejection, and yet the soul not be brought to a thorough contrition. The heart seems now ready to dis- solve, but yet not altogether come to a point. Such a state of mind is tenderly described by David in the 32d and 38th Psalms. Both these Psalms were probably writ- ten after his repentance for his remarkable fall ; and in them he describes, not only the breakings forth of godly sorrow, but the previous operations of his mind during the time of his lying under the guilt of that great sin. “When I kept silence,” saith he, “my bones waxed old through my roaring aſl the day long. For day and night thy hand was heavy upon me ; my moisture is turned into the drought of summer! Thine arrows stick fast in me, and thy hand presseth me sore.”—“My wounds stink and are corrupt, because of my foolishness.” Now he comes to the crisis: “I am ready to halt; my sorrow is continually before me ! I will declare my iniquity, I will be sorry for my sin!” The state of mind last described is far less dangerous than any of the above, because it promises to come to a speedy and happy issue ; but yet things are never safe till the soul, dissolved in grief, lies prostrate at the feet of Jesus. We have reason to think that a great deal of re- morse of conscience and depression of mind may come on and go off again ; and there is nothing that we have greater reason to dread than a being so given up of God as that the guilt of our consciences shall wear away by degrees, instead of being washed away by an application to the blood of Christ. A few additional observations, on the danger of having sinned and not repented, shall close this paper. In the first place, it weakens and enervates our graces, and by consequence spoils our usefulness. Godliness, in all its lovely forms, is a tender plant : sin indulged in the soul, like weeds in the garden, will impoverish it, and cause the into the means of revival. tender plant to dwindle away. Righteousness and un- righteousness cannot flourish together. Experience but too plainly proves that carnality indulged damps the flames of love, kills holy resolution, joy and peace fly before its malignant influence, hope sickens into fear, and faith loses sight of invisible realities. When this is the case, of what use are we ? what in the family 3 what in the church 3 what in the world 3 where is now the savour with which our spirit and conversation should be attended ? Alas, we are but too much like salt that has lost its savour, fit for neither the land nor the dunghill ! Further, It cuts off all communion with God. The joys of salvation were withdrawn from David when he withdrew from God. It is well if prayer and all close dealing with God is not neglected; or, if we approach to God in form, still while iniquity is regarded in our hearts the Lord will not hear us. We may go morning and evening, and oftener; but the Lord is not there ! The pleasures of religion are fled. Our soul is removed far off from peace, and we shall soon have forgotten spiritual prosperity. There are only two states of mind which we now alternately experience : we are either locked up in &nsensibility, or pierced with self-reflection. Again, It gives Satan a great advantage over us. It tempts the tempter to apply to us with renewed force. While sin lies unlamented upon the conscience, we are like a besieged city, enfeebled by famine, sickly, and with- out a heart to resist ; and this must needs invite the be- sieger to renew his onsets. It is by resisting the devil that he flies from us ; and so, vice versa, by dropping re- sistance he is encouraged to approach towards us. This in fact is the case with us ; while sin remains unlamented there are generally more temptations ply the mind than at other times. When Samson slept and lost his strength, the Philistines were soon upon him. And now put these all together: our strength gone, the Holy Spirit departed, and temptation coming upon us with redoubled force : alas! where are we ? Well did the psalmist exclaim, “Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, and in whose spirit there is no guile.” Again, Secret sins indulged will, in all probability, soon become manifest and open. It is not in human nature to be able for a long continuance to conceal the ruling bias of the heart. It will come out in some way or other, and it is fit it should. A wise Providence has so ordered it that the heart and conduct shall not be at per- petual variance. It is worthy the character of a holy and a jealous God to show his abhorrence to secret sin, by suf- fering the party to be rolled in the dirt of public reproach. If we regard not the honour of God’s name, can we wonder if he regards not the honour of ours ? “Him that honoureth me I will honour; but he that despiseth me shall be lightly esteemed.” Once more, Does it not hereby become a matter of doubt how it is with us as to our state before God? Though no true Christian will ever sink into total apostacy, yet while sin is unlamented we are in the direct road to it, the same road that those have trod who have apostatized. They once thought themselves right as well as we, and began to sin by little and little : yes, they went on, and presumed it may be that they should be some time or other restored; but, instead of that, have gone on and on, till death has cut them off, and beyond the grave they have found their dreadful disappointment. These things should make us tremble, and consider the danger of trifling with sin, and presuming upon being re- claimed, and so making ourselves easy in impenitence. If we go on in sin, have we not reason to think things were never right with us from the first 3 If the waters are naught, does it not seem to indicate that the spring has never been healed ? HAVING, in the three foregoing papers, pointed out some of the causes of spiritual declension, I come now to inquire But, before any thing can be said by way of direction, two or three things must be pre- mised. 1. That in the use of all means we consider them but as means, place no dependence upon them, but entirely SPIRITUAL DECLENSION AND MEANS OF REVIVAL. 909 upon the Spirit of God as the first cause. We can of our own accord find the way out of God’s path, but if left to ourselves we shall never find the way in again. 2. If we have so backslidden from the Lord as to live in the indulgence of any known sin, whether of omission or commission, that we immediately put away these idols, and that without reserve. God will not hear us while iniquity is regarded in our hearts. If any or all of those things pointed out in the foregoing papers as causes of declension are so indeed, those causes must be lamented and forsaken, or depend upon it the effects will not be removed. 3. In whatever mode we have departed from God, that there be a real desire of returning to him again. Without this, all directions will be in vain, and all means without effect. “Ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.” It may be we are ac- customed to live without close communion with God, and are almost contented with such a kind of life. Perhaps we lay our accounts with going through life without habitual close walking with God. If so, I only say this, Let us not at the same time lay our accounts with dwelling for ever with him at last. But if the above three things may be supposed, there are then other Scriptural directions which may be given. That which I shall insist upon in this paper is as follows: That we closely consider the evil nature of that sin which is com- 7mitted after our conversion to God.—As our first return to God begins with conviction of sin, so must every other re- turn. The ordinary means of obtaining conviction of sin, together with a mournful sense of it, is by seriously and closely reflecting upon its evil nature and aggravating cir- cumstances. “I thought on my ways, and turned my feet unto thy testimonies.”—“Then shall ye remember your own evil ways, and your doings that were not good, and shall loathe yourselves in your own sight for your iniqui- ties, and for your abominations.” Perhaps we cannot obtain a more affecting representation of the evil of our backslidings from God than that which is given us by the prophet Jeremiah, in his address to Is- rael, contained in the second chapter; and as advice from such a quarter comes with Divine authority, I do not think I can do better than to refer the reader to Jer. ii. 1–13, on which I shall now make a few remarks. From this affecting passage we may observe four things in particular, which are represented as aggravating those sins which are committed after we have known the Lord ; they are committed in violation of the most solemn vows, without any the least provocation, are expressive of the blackest ingratitude, and the most extreme and singular jolly. First, They are committed in violation of all those solemn vows and covenant engagements which we made and into which we entered at our first conversion. Not only Was there a covenant between the Father and the Son bé- fore time, but as well there is a covenant between Christ and his people in time. Conversion is a marriage wherein (with reverence be it spoken) Christ resigns up himself, with all he is and has, to us, and we resign ourselves, with all we are and have, to him. Such a union is here alluded to. The love we bore to Christ at that time might fitly be called the love of our *Spoºsals. , Was there not a time when we scarcely wished for any other pleasure than what was to be enjoyed in Communion with himself and his saints—when his name Was as ointment poured forth—when we loved the very image of it? And, when we have seen those who we thought bore most of that in their spirit and conduct, has it not been as though we had seen an angel of God? Was there not a time when closet exercises were reckoned our highest privileges—when the return of public ordinances Was Waited for with eager expectation—in short, when we tºok Christ's cause for our cause, his people for our people, his will for our law, his glory for our end, and himself for °ur portion ? Now these were times from whence we may each say, “ Thy vows, O God, are upon me !” But have Yº not since then strangely forsaken him How is this? Pid we love him too well then? is he not as worthy now * then . If a prince espouse a poor miserable outcast, *nd give himself with all he is and has to her, and only *quire her heart in return, shall she refuse him that? shall she be the first that shall be dissatisfied ? must she go after other lovers, and that in spite of all her solemn vows? And yet may each backslider say, Thus it has been with me! “O my soul, thou hast said unto the Lord, Thou art my Lord ;” thou hast taken him for thy lawgiver and thy portion : how is it that thou shouldst bow down to other lords, and seek satisfaction in that which is not God 3 Secondly, Whatever departures from God have taken place, they have been without any provocation whatever, on his part. “What iniquity have your fathers found in me, that they are gone far from me?” This is a question that ought to cut us to the very soul, and open every spring of sensibility and self-abhorrence While we were in open rebellion against him, was he wanting in forbearance 2 When he saw us in our impoverished and ruined condition, and gave his own Son to die for us, did he act an unfeel- *ng part toward us? Was it hard on our side that Christ should be “ made sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him 3’” Since we have been engaged in his service, has he been a hard master? Has his yoke been galling to us? Did he ever prove to us a barren wildermess, or a land of drought 3 Was ever the path of obedience a barren path ? Is it bet- ter with us now than formerly 3 Has he been a churlish father to us? Did he ever refuse us free access to him in a time of need ? When we have asked for bread, did he ever give us a stone? When he has smitten us, was it not always with a mixture of mercy, and all to do us good in the latter end ? Whenever we have returned to him with our whole heart, has he not been always ready to receive us, and to bury all in forgetfulness 2—Methinks I hear him appeal to the very rocks and mountains (as being less in- sensible than we) for the equity and goodness of his cause: “Hear, O ye mountains, the Lord's controversy, and ye strong foundations of the earth : for the Lord hath a con- troversy with his people, and he will plead with Israel: O my people, what have I done unto thee, and wherein have I wearied thee? testify against me !” Alas, what shall we say unto the Lord what shall we speak 3 or how shall we clear ourselves? “O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto thee, but unto us belongeth confusion of face, as it is this day !” Thirdly, Sins after conversion are attended with circum- stances of peculiar and horrible ingratitude.--This was a part of God’s charge against Israel. He had brought them up out of the land of Egypt, had led them through the wilderness, through a dangerous, barren, and lonesome wil- derness; “a land of deserts and of pits; a land of drought, and of the shadow of death ; a land where no man passed through, and where no man dwelt.” He had brought them also into a plentiful country; but they had polluted it, and even made his heritage an abomination. It is true, God has not done the self-same things for us as he did for them : he has not given Egypt for us, nor Ethiopia for our ransom ; but he has given what is of infinitely greater ac- count—his own blood . Neither has he redeemed us from Iºgyptian thraldom ; but he has “delivered us from the power of darkness, and translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son.” We never were supported by miracle, in the dangerous, barren, and lonesome deserts of Arabia; but we have been led and supplied by a kind hand, both in a way of providence and grace, through a wilderness equally lonesome and barren, and much more dangerous. We never were possessed of the land of Canaan, that plen- tiful country, that rest for the weary Israelites; but we were born in a country but little inferior to it, even as to the enjoyments of this life; and the rest of gospel privi- leges into which we are entered, with a glorious inherit- ance into which we hope to enter, abundantly transcend every thing of that sort, and lay us under far greater obli- gations. If we have any thing ingenuous left in us, surely a spirit and conduct that has slighted and dishonoured a God of such love as this, must, on reflection, deeply wound us. Fourthly, Such departures from God are expressive of the most extreme and singular folly. The Lord charged Israel with folly; and such it doubtless was. We should think so of any people who, in want of water, should re- move their tents from an overflowing fountain, and pro- . 910 MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS, ESSAYS, &c. mise themselves a greater fulness by settling in a desert, and hewing out cisterns which, after all, could hold no water. And yet this is no more than we have done, as well as Israel. We have sought happiness in the creature, to the neglect of God; and all created comforts, when possessed in that way, are but broken cisterns. We have found them so : let us be ashamed of our folly, and return to the Fountain of living waters. Departing from God, and indulging ourselves in sinning against him, is a kind of exchange, but it is a foolish one ; it is an exchange of liberty for drudgery and slavery, of peace of conscience for bitter remorse, of joyfulness and gladness of heart for sorrow and anguish, and of abund- ance of all things for hunger, thirst, nakedness, and want of all things. It is a being weary of the government of the Prince of peace, whose yoke is easy, and whose bur- den is light, and a putting our necks under the iron yoke of a tyrant, which tends to our destruction. Israel was not only charged with folly, but with singular folly. “Pass over the isles of Chittim, saith the Lord, and see, and send unto Kedar, and consider diligently, and see if there be such a thing. Hath a nation changed their gods, which are yet no gods? But my people have changed their glory for that which doth not profit !” There are some foolish people in the world who never know when they are well, but will always be changing and exchanging, though they always continue to lose by it. To be compared to these were enough to shame us; but this is not the worst. Notwithstanding the fickleness of the human mind in lesser matters, they seem in general, each nation, to be firm to their gods, even though they were no gods; so firm, I suppose, that if they could have exchanged wood for silver, or stone for gold, they would not have complied. But Israel, the only people upon the earth who had a God worth cleaving to, Israel must be the only people who desire to change Well may it be added, “Be astonished, O ye heavens, at this, and be ye horribly afraid!” Shall the people of the only true God, and only they, prove untrue 3 But, alas ! we wonder at the sottish stupidity of Israel, and forget that in them we see our own picture. Ex- treme and singular as their folly might be, in their idol- atries, it was not more so than is ours, when we feel re- luctant to draw near to God in close communion, and fly for happiness to sensual and carnal gratification. As one great cause of our departures from God has been supposed to be a neglect of the word of God, it will ill become me, in writing on the means of returning to him, to forget to make use of that unerring guide. Hence it is that I have endeavoured, as much as possible, to intro- duce some particular part or parts of the word of God, as the ground of what has been advanced on every subject. There is much advice given in Scripture respecting the return of backsliders, both as individuals, and as collective bodies. But that which I shall here notice is the counsel of Christ to the church at Ephesus, who had fallen under rebuke for having left their first love. “Itemember from whence thou art fallen, and repent ; and do the first works.” The first thing observable in this piece of sacred coun- sel is, that we remember from whence we are fallen. This might have a tendency to convince us of our sad defects, if we were to compare our spirit with that of the primitive Christians, and consider the difference. They are fre- quently described as “little children,” denoting, no doubt, their littleness in their own eyes, their love one to an- other, their readiness to forgive injuries, their modesty, and above all their godly simplicity. Like little chidren, they were unacquainted with the arts of dissimulation and intrigue. “Laying aside all malice, and guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and evil speakings, as new-born babes they desired and fed upon the sincere milk of the word, and grew thereby.” Is there nothing in this pic- ture of a primitive Christian that makes us blush 3 Sure I am it ought, whether it does or not. In them surely we must see and “remember from whence we are fallen.” Another picture of primitive Christianity is given us in Acts i. 42, “And they"continued stedſastly in the apos- tles' doctrine, in fellowship, in breaking of bread, and in prayers.” From this account we may learn, 1. That primi- tive Christians looked upon 8oundness in the faith as of great importance. They were strangers to that spirit of indifference to truth which loves to represent its doctrines as mere matters of speculation, and insinuates that “it matters not what a man believes, if his practice be but good.” They would have trembled at the thought of deviating from that gospel which had been made the power of God to their salvation. 2. That the fellowship which they maintained with one another arose out of a union of 80n- timents in apostolical doctrines. They were full of chari- ty; but their charity was not of that kind which led them to have fellowship with men of all principles. They loved the souls of men too well to deceive them by countenancing what they believed to be pernicious and destructive errors. 3. They exercised a religious regard to the positive insti- tutions of Christ, as well as to the doctrine of salvation through his name. They not only listened to his instruc- tions as their Prophet, and relied upon his atonement as their Priest, but cheerfully complied with his institutions as their King. 4. They were men that dwelt much with God in prayer. Having obtained mercy themselves, they joined in supplicating the Divine throne for the salvation of others. Nor did they confine their devotions to the church, but carried them into their families and their closets. Let this lovely picture of primitive Christianity be closely reviewed; and let us, by this means, “remem- ber from whence we are fallen, and repent.” Further, It might be of use to compare our spirit and conduct with that which prevailed at the Reformation, It may be difficult to ascertain with precision the differ- ence between that age and the present. But there are two things which I think may be pointed out, which are self-evident. 1. The principles they imbibed and preach- ed were very different from what at this time generally prevail. The doctrines which the generality of the Re- formers held were such as follow : a trinity of Persons in the Godhead ; the Deity and atonement of Christ; justi- fication by faith; predestination; efficacious grace; the certain perseverance of the saints, &c. These doctrines they preached, and looked upon them as consistent with a free and unreserved address to unconverted sinners. How far the body of the reformed churches are gone off from them, I need not say. It is true, the Reformers im- bibing these or any other sentiments is no proof of their being Divine ; but there is one thing that deserves no- tice, viz. their moral tendency. Have not the reformed churches, in proportion as they have forsaken the doc- trines of the Reformers, forsaken also that purity, zeal, and ardour, that uprightness before men, and close walk- ing with God, for which they were distinguished ?. 2. Their attachment to what they accounted Divine truth was very different from ours. To maintain the doctrines and ordinances of Christ, in their primitive simplicity, they hazarded the loss of all things; and great numbers of them actually resigned their lives rather than give them up. It was to enjoy these that they threw off the yoke of popery, and claimed the right of private judgment. We also claim this right, and so far we do well; yea, herein we exceed them, particularly in allowing to others that right which we claim for ourselves. But though we understand religious liberty better than they did, yet it is too eyident we make a much worse use of it. Instead of using it as a means for obtaining truth, great numbers among us rest in it as an end. Religious liberty, how- ever equitable and valuable it is in itself, is certainly of no further use to us than as it is applied to the discovery of truth, and the practice of righteousness. But the spirit of the present age is to boast of the liberty of thinking for ourselves, till we lose all attachment to religious princi- ples, except an overweening one towards our own con- ceits, be they right or wrong ; and this is the same thing as to boast of a means till we have lost the only good end to be answered by it. The temper of the present age, so far as I have had opportunity to observe it, is loudly to cry up the right of judging for themselves, which undoubtedly all men ought to have ; but then they very unjustly infer from this that it matters not what they believe, if they are but sincere in it; that is, if a man's thoughts are but his SPIRITUAL DECLENSION AND MEANS OF REVIVAL. 911 own, it matters not whether they be right or wrong ! Another false inference which they draw is, that because they have a right to think for themselves, without being called to account for it by their fellow creatures, therefore they have the same right in regard to the Governor of the world. The indifference of truth and error being thus admitted, the mind becomes susceptible of any thing that offers ; and thus the great truths of revelation are slighted, perhaps, if for no other reason, because they occupied a place in the creeds of their forefathers. A comparison of times, on these subjects, may assist us in remembering from whence we are fallen. Once more, It would be profitable to recollect the best parts of our lives, and compare them with what we now are. Think, backsliding Christian, what an effect those sacred truths have had upon your heart, which since, it may be, you have held with a loose hand, and have been almost inclined to abandon : think what delight you have taken in those ways which you have since neglected; what abhorrence you have felt against those sins in which you have since thought there was no great harm, and so have yielded to them ; how you have been grieved when you have seen other Christians degenerate into carnality, sloth, pride, or worldly-mindedness : think—ah ! where shall I stop? Do not forget to ask your soul at the close of every thought, Is it better with me now than then 2 We are not only counselled to “remember from whence we are fallen,” but also called on to “repent.” Tepentance is a godly sorrow for sin; and if ever there be any true revival of religion, it must originate in this. When Judah returned to the Lord, after their captivity, it was with bitter weeping : “Going and weeping, they sought the Lord their God.” There can be no well-ground- ed peace or joy restored to our mind while the idols of our hearts remain unlamented. God insists upon these being given up; and that, not in a way of secret reluctance, but with holy abhorrence. Nor are we called upon to lament merely on account of positive acts of sin, but even for our sins of omission—because we have “forsaken our first love.” Some professing Christians seem to have no notion of any obligation that they are under to love Christ and Di- vine things. It is the work of God, say they, to affect our hearts, and enable us to love Christ; we cannot com- mand the influence of the Spirit, nor keep our own souls alive. This is very true, but not in the sense in which they plead it. The hearts of men, even of the best of men, are so very bad that unless a kind of perpetual mira- cle be wrought in them their love will be sure to expire. To preserve alive a spark in the midst of an ocean would not be so great a wonder as preserving the love of Christ in our hearts. But if nothing be obligatory on us but what we can do of ourselves, or, in other words, what we, in this our corrupted state, can find in our own hearts to do, it must follow that we are not obliged to do any good thing whatever; for “without Christ we can do nothing; ” and so it must follow that we have no cause for self-reflec- tion for the contrary, but have a good right to make our- selves easy, and to be contented with that degree of love and holiness which we have, seeing it is such a measure as God pleases to bestow upon us. But, in this case, there could be no propriety in the church at Ephesus being re- buked for having left their first love, or called upon to re- pent for it. Repentance, if genuine, will lead us to the other part of Christ's advice; namely, “Do the first works.” The first works are the works of the best ages of the church, and the best times in our life. If there be any considerable revival in the church, or in the souls of in- dividuals, it will be when the diligence, disinterestedness, tenderness of conscience, generosity, and faithfulness of those times are imitated. In the last paper I attempted to point out some of the means of returning to God, founded on the advice given to the church at Ephesus; in this I shall make a few ob- servations upon the address to the church at Laodicea; whose character, I am afraid, bears but too near a resem. blance to that of the present age. The address of Christ to that lukewarm and self-sufficient people is as follows: “Thou Bayest, I am rich and increased in goods, and have need of nothing ; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked. I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich ; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear : and anoint thine eyes with eye-salve, that thou mayest see. As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten : be zealous there- fore, and repent.” Laodicea seems to have been a place of trade. Trade usually produces riches; and riches, pride, indifference in divine things, and spiritual wretchedness. There were three things of which these people had very wrong notions; namely, riches, beauty, and discernment. They thought an increase of goods made them rich ; that the splendid figure which on that account they cut among the churches made them beautiful; and that their philosophical know- ledge, it is probable, made them wise. But they had been for each of these commodities, if I may so speak, to a wrong market; namely, to the world. If they would pos- sess either, they are told to deal with Christ for it. The counsel of Christ is as if he had said, Trade with me. Part with all your own frippery for spiritual things, and learn to derive these from me. They are articles with which none else can supply you. Count my grace your ºriches, and part with your dross for it ; my righteousness your ornament, and part with your own for it; and my word and Spirit that which is able to make you wise unto Salvation, and come to me as fools in your own eyes. Britain, like Laodicea, is a place of trade; trade has produced riches; and riches, pride, indifference, and spirit- ual wretchedness. If there is any people therefore in the world to whom the counsel to Laodicea is applicable, rather than to others, it seems to be the churches of Britain. What is addressed to them, therefore, I shall understand as if it were immediately addressed to us. The principal thing contained in this counsel is that we DEAL witH CHRIST ; and this is the subject with which I shall close this paper. As Christ is the only way to which we are to point lost sinners to repair for salvation, so he is the only way in which we can make any progress in real religion. “As ye have received Christ Jesus,” says the apostle, “so walk ye in him.” Neither is there any other way of returning to God, when we have backslidden from him. To return home to God is to return to a close walk with him, to a serving him “acceptably, and with godly fear;” and, to this end, we must “have grace ; ” but there is no way of obtaining grace but by dealing with Christ. “It hath pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell ; ” and it is “out of his fulness that we all must receive, and grace for grace.” Christ is a believer's life; the bread of life, the water of life, the tree of life, the vine that communicates life to the branches. Each of these metaphors implies that we cannot live at all spiritually without union to him ; so neither can we be lively and fruitful, without close communion with him. If we be strengthened “with might in the inner man,” it must be by Christ’s “dwelling in our hearts by faith,” or, in other words, by his having place in our thoughts, desires, and best affections. Those three things concerning which the church at Laodicea was counselled—namely, spiritual riches, spirit- ual beauty, and spiritual discernment, can neither of them be obtained but by dealing with Christ. It is not enough for us to be once interested in pardoning and justifying grace; if we would be rich in the sight of God, we must be dealing with Christ as guilty, self-condemned sinners for forgiveness and acceptance. It is not enough that we reckon upon going to heaven when we die ; our conversa- tion must be there even now ; there must be a correspond- ence kept up between Christ and our souls, or we shall be poor and miserable indeed Nor is it enough that we con- fess our sanctification, or spiritual beauty, to come from him ; there must be a daily dealing with Christ for the mortification of sin, and for the increase of grace and peace. Our garments are not to be “made white,” or beautiful, but by being “washed in the blood of the Lamb.” There are very few, if any, of us who are sufficiently sensible of our entire dependence upon Christ for sanctification. But whatever methods we may take to promote it short of deal- ing with him they will not do. We'rmay become beautiful 912 MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS, ESSAYS, &c. i in our own eyes, like Laodicea ; but shall be miserable and naked in the sight of God. What is the reason of the multitude of contradictory sentiments at this day, even upon the great doctrines of the gospel, which are written in the Scriptures so plain that “he that runs may read" them 3 Is it not for want of dealing with Christ for wisdom ? We may think, and rea- son, and dispute all our lifetime; but unless we become fools in our own eyes, and rely upon the word and Spirit of God for instruction, we shall be wretchedly blind to the real glory of the gospel. Spiritual things must be “spirit- ually discerned.” Without this eye-salve, whatever be our conceit of ourselves, we shall not be wise. It is by an unction from the Holy One that we know all things, and without that unction we “know nothing as we ought to know it.” We are not to abandon either thinking, rea- soning, or on all occasions even disputing; but to take heed that they be so exercised as not to interrupt, but pro- mote, our correspondence with Christ. There are certain sentiments and feelings which are ne- cessary and encouraging in our returning to God; such as a deep sense of the evil nature of sin, godly sorrow for it, and a hope of forgiveness on our return ; each of which is produced and promoted by a dealing with Christ. Where can we learn the evil of sin so as it is to be seen in the death of Christ 3 True, it is to be seen in the glass of the law, and in the moral character of God ; but it never was seen, nor can be seen, in so odious a light as that in which it appears on Calvary. And here indeed it is that we not only see the evil of sin, but view the law and moral character of God in all their glory. What an idea must it afford us of God's displeasure against sin to see him pour- ing out his wrath upon his dear and only begotten Son, exposing him whom he loved more than all the creation to- gether to ignominy and death, rather than suffer it to go unpunished Christian, the more thou art acquainted with Christ, the more bitter, unnatural, disingenuous, and shameful will thy sin appear to thee. What will open the springs of godly sorrow for sin like an intimate and close dealing with Christ? If any thing will dissolve the hardness of our hearts, it is the consider- ation of his dying love. If we are brought to “mourn as one that mourneth for an only son, and to be in bitterness as one that is in bitterness for his first-born,” it is by “looking upon him whom we have pierced.” Come, back- sliding Christian, come but to the Saviour's feet, and thou shalt soon be able to wash them with thy tears. Finally, What can afford us any hope and encouragement to return to God, but the name of Christ? It is in him alone that we can obtain forgiveness. He is the Advocate with the Father, to whom they that have sinned are en- couraged to look for relief. It was his blood in which Da- vid prayed to be washed from his uncleanness and blood- guiltiness. Under all our guilt, darkness, and confusion let us not despair. We have an “Intercessor for trans- gressors before the throne; a faithful and merciful High Priest, who was tempted in all points like unto us, yet without sin; and in that he himself has suffered, being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.” Let us consider how he interceded for those that were “in the world.” “I am no more in the world, but these are in the world: holy Father, keep them : " Think of the Lord's having “laid upon him the iniquity of us all; ” even of such as “like sheep have gone astray, and turned every one to his own way”—of his being “able to save to the uttermost all them that come unto God by him,” seeing he “ever liveth to make intercession for us.” Think how he expostulates with us, invites us to return in the most melting language, and stands with open arms to receive us: “Oh that there were such a heart in them that they would love me and fear me, and keep all my commandments al- ways —Oh that my people had hearkened to my voice then had their peace been as a river, and their righteous- ness as the waves of the sea!—Set thee up way-marks, make thee high heaps; set thine heart toward the high- way, even the way that thou wentest.—Return, O thou * This treatise was occasioned by the writer's observing several per- sons, of whom he had formerly entertained a favourable opinion, and with whom he had walked in Christian fellowship, having fallen, either from the doctrine or practice of pure religion. A view of their unhap- backsliding children, for I am married unto you, saith the Lord.—Take with you words, and turn to the Lord ; say unto him, Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously : so will we render the calves of our lips; for in thee the fatherless findeth mercy.—I will heal your backslidings; I will love you freely. I will be as the dew unto Israel; and he shall grow as the lily, and cast forth his roots as Leba- non-Ephraim shall say, What have I to do any more with idols 3–I am like a green fir tree: from me is thy fruit found.” º If this, or any of the foregoing papers, should be the means of reclaiming any from the error of their ways, either mental or practical—if they should tend to excite either myself or others to a closer walk with God, I shall enjoy the satisfaction of not having written in vain. THE BACKSLIDER : OR AN INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE, SYMPTOMS, AND EFFECTS OF RELIGIOUS DECLENSION, WITH THE MEANS OF RE- COVERY, * “I went by the field of the slothful, and by the vineyard of the man void of understanding: and, lo l it was all grown over with thorns; nettles had covered the face thereof, and the stone wall thereof was broken down. Then I saw, and considered it well: I looked upon it, and received instruction.”—SOLOMON. WHETHER the present age be worse than others which have preceded it, I shall not determine; but this is mani- fest, that it abounds not only in infidelity and profligacy, but with great numbers of loose characters among profess- ing Christians. It is true, there are some eminently zeal- ous and spiritual, perhaps as much so as at almost amy former period: the disinterested concern which has ap- peared for the diffusion of evangelical religion is doubtless a hopeful feature of our times; yet, it is no less evident that others are in a sad degree conformed to this world, instead of being transformed by the renewing of their minds. Even of those who retain a decency of character, many are sunk into a Laodicean lukewarmness. Profess- ors are continually falling away from Christ; either to- tally, so as to walk no more with him ; or partially, so as greatly to dishonour his name. Alas, how many charac- ters of this description are to be found in our congrega- tions ! If we only review the progress of things for twenty or thirty years past, we shall perceive many who once bid fair for the kingdom of heaven now fallen a prey to the temptations of the world. Like the blossoms in the spring, they for a time excited our hopes; but a blight has succeeded: the blossom “has gone up as the dust,” and the “root” in many cases appears to be “rottenness.” It is one important branch of the work of a faithful pastor to strengthen the diseased, to heal the sick, to bind up the broken, to bring again that which is driven away, and to seek that which is lost, Ezek. xxxiv. 4. If these pages should fall into the hands of but a few of the above description, and contribute in any degree to their recovery from the snare of the devil, the writer will be amply re- warded. It is a pleasure to recover any sinner from the error of his way; but much more those of whom we once thought favourably. The place which they formerly oc- cupied in our esteem, our hopes, and our social exercises, now seems to be a kind of chasm, which can be filled up only by the return of the party. If a child depart from his father's house, and plunge into profligacy and ruin, the father may have other children, and may love them ; , but none of them can heal his wound, nor can any thing satisfy him, but the return of “him that was lost.” In pursuit of this desirable object, I shall describe the nature and different species of backsliding from God— notice the symptoms of it—trace its injurious and danger- ous effects—and point out the means of recovery. py condition made a deep impression upon his mind. If he has, boen enabled to describe the case of a backslider to any good purpose, it has been chiefly owing to this circumstance. He hopes that, though it was written with a special eye to a few, it may yet be useful to many. THE BACKSLIDER. 913 THE GENERAL NATURE AND DIFFERENT SPECIES OF BACKSLIDING, ON ALL backsliding from God originates in a departure of heart from him : herein consists the essence and the evil of it. “Thine own wickedness shall correct thee, and thy backslidings shall reprove thee : know, therefore, and see, that it is an evil thing and bitter, that thou hast forsaken the Lord thy God, and that my fear is not in thee, saith the Lord of hosts.” But the degrees of this sin, and the modes in which it operates, are various. The backsliding of some is total. After having made a profession of the true religion, they apostatize from it. I am aware it is common to consider a backslider as being a good man, though in a bad state of mind; but the Scriptures do not confine the term to this application. Those who are addressed in the passage just quoted had not the fear of God in them, which can never be said of a good man. Backsliding, it is true, always supposes a profession of the true religion; but it does not necessarily suppose the existence of the thing professed. There is a “perpetual backsliding,” and a “drawing back unto per- dition,” Jer. viii. 5; Heb. x. 39. Such characters were Saul, and Ahithophel, and Judas. Many persons have in a great degree declined the practice of religion who yet com- fort themselves with an idea that they shall be brought to repentance before they die; but this is presumptuously tempting God. Whosoever plunges into this gulf, or con- tinues easy in it, under an idea of being recovered by re- pentance, may find himself mistaken. Both Peter and Ju- das went in ; but only one of them came out! There is reason to fear that thousands of professors are now lifting up their eyes in torment, who in this world reckoned themselves good men, who considered their sins as pardon- able errors, and laid their accounts with being brought to repentance; but, ere they were aware, the Bridegroom came, and they were not ready to meet him 3 The nature and deadly tendency of sin is the same in itself, whether in a wicked or in a righteous man; there is an important difference, however, between the back- sliding of the one and that of the other. That of the hypocrite arises from his “ having no root in himself; ” therefore it is that in the time of temptation he falleth away : but that of the sincere Christian respects the cul- ture of the branch, and is owing to unwatchfulness, or remissness in duty. The former, in turning back, returns to a course which his heart always preferred : the latter, though in what he does he is not absolutely involuntary, for then it were innocent; yet it is not with a full or per- fect consent of his will. He does not sin wilfully; that which he does he allows not; it is against the habitual dis- Position of his soul; he is not himself, as we should say, while so acting.” Finally, The one, were it not for the remorse of conscience which may continue to haunt him and disturb his peace, would be in his element in having made a full riddance of religion; but this is not the case With the other. A life of deviation and distance from God is not his element, nor can he enjoy himself in it. This difference is remarkably exemplified in the cases of Saul and David. The religion of the former never appears to have fitted him; he was continually acting awkwardly With it, and presently threw it aside. If, in addition to this, he could have forgotten it, and lived without being terrified by the apprehension of consequences, he would doubtless have been much the happier for having cast it off. But when the latter had sinned, he was not like the Taven which went forth of the ark, and came no more ; but like the dove which could find no rest for the sole of her foot till she returned. The thirty-second and thirty- Sighth Psalms express the wretchedness of his mind till he confessed his sin and obtained mercy. - But whatever difference there be between a partial and * total departure from God, it will be difficult, if not im- Possible, for the party himself, at the time, to perceive it. So long as any man continues in a backsliding state, the ." It is usual to denominate a character by his habitual or ruling *Position, and not by occasional deviations from it. Thus when we $º of him who was famed for meekness speaking unadvisedly with | reality of his religion must remain uncertain. He may not be without hope, nor ought he to be without fear. The Scriptures know nothing of that kind of confidence which renders men easy in their sins. Paul stood in doubt of the Galatians, and they ought to have stood in doubt of themselves. The species of backsliding are va- rious; some respect doctrine, others practice ; but all are the operations of a heart departing from the living God. In some, a backsliding spirit first appears by a relin- guishment of evangelical doctrine. Where truth is treated merely as a matter of speculation, or as an opinion of no great moment, it is not held fast; and where this is the case, it is easily surrendered. If a plausible book in favour of deism, or any of those vain systems which nearly approach it, fall in their way, they are ready to yield ; and by reading the performance a second time, or con- versing with a person who favours it, they make ship- wreck of their faith, and are driven on the rocks of infi- delity. Such was the process in the days of the apostles; those who “received not the love of the truth” were given up to “believe a lie,” 2. Thess. ii. 10, 11. If these departures from evangelical principles were closely examined, it would be found that they were pre- ceded by a neglect of private prayer, watchfulness, self- diffidence, and walking humbly with God; and every one may perceive that they are followed with similar effects. It has been acknowledged, by some who have embraced the Socinian system, that since they entertained those views they had lost even the gift of prayer. Perhaps they might draw up and read an address to the Deity; but they could not pray. Where the principles of the gospel are abandoned, the spirit of prayer, and of all close walking with God, will go with it. The confession of Peter that Jesus “was the Christ, the Son of God,” is thought to be that which our Lord denominates the rock on which he would build his church. We are sure that the belief of this article of faith was required as a kind of test of Christianity ; and who can look into the Christian world with attention, and not perceive that it still continues a sort of key-stone to the building 2 If this give way, the fabric falls. Backslidings of this nature are infinitely dangerous. He that declines in holy practice has to labour against the remonstrances of conscience; but he that brings himself to think lightly of sin and meanly of the Saviour (which is what every false system of religion teaches) has gone far towards silencing the accusations of this unpleasant monitor. He is upon good terms with himself. The disorder of his soul is deep ; but it is of a flattering nature. The declension of serious religion in him is no less apparent to others than that of the con- stitution by a consuming hectic; yet, as is common in such cases, the party himself thinks he shall do well. In short, “the light which is in him is darkness ;” and this is the greatest of all darkness ; In others, a departure of heart from God is followed by Jalling into some gross immoratity.—There are instances in which a sudden misconduct of this sort has been over- ruled for the awakening of the mind from its stupor, and divesting it of its self-confidence. It was manifestly thus with the apostle Peter. The stumbling of such persons is not that they should fall ; but rather that they should stand with greater care and firmness. But the greatest danger arises from those cases where some lust of the flesh has gradually obtained an ascendency over the heart; so that when the subject of it falls, in the eyes of the world, it is only appearing to be what he has long been in secret; and the first wrong step that he makes, instead of alarming him, and occasioning his going aside to weep bitterly, is only the prelude to a succession of others. This is not the fall of one who is “overtaken in a fault ;” but of one who is entangled in the net of his own corruptions. One sin prepares the way for another. Like the insect in- folded in the spider's web, he loses all power of resistance, and falls a prey to the destroyer. Some have fallen sacri- fices to intemperance, not by being overtaken in a single act of intoxication, but by contracting a habit of hard is lips, we say, This was not Moses; or of him who was distinguished by his courageous avowal of his Lord denying with oaths that he knew him, we say, This was not Peter. Both these great characters, in these instances, acted beside themselves. It was not they, as it were, but sin that dwelt in them. See Heb. x. 26; Rom. vii. 15–25. 3 N 914 *. MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS, ESSAYS, &c. drinking. First it was indulged in private, perhaps un- der some outward trouble, instead of carrying it to a throne of grace. In a little time its demands increased. At length it could no longer be kept a secret; reason was enslaved to sense, and the Christian professor sunk below the man . Others have indulged in impurity. Intimacies which may have arisen from nothing worse than a few improper familiarities—yea, which in some instances have originated in religion itself, have been known; through the corrupt propensities of the human heart, which turns every thing it touches into poison, to produce the most fatal effects. Passions of this sort once kindled will soon possess all the soul. They leave no room for any thing that should resist them ; not only consuming every spi- ritual desire and holy thought, but banishing from the mind even the sober dictates of reason, reducing the most exalted characters to the rank of of fools in Israel. Near these rocks are seen many a floating wreck; and among these quicksands numbers who once bade fare for the haven of everlasting life. Another way in which a departure from God very often operates is by the love of the world.—It is not uncommon for persons who once appeared to be zealous, affectionate, and devoted to God, when they come to be settled in life, and to enter into its necessary avocations, to lose all heart for religion, and take no delight in any thing but saving money. This, it is true, is not generally considered by the world as disreputable ; on the contrary, provided we be fair in our dealings, it is reckoned a mark of wis- dom. “Men will praise thee when thou doest well to thyself.” Such a one, say they, is a discreet man, and one that knows how to secure the main chance. Yet the Scriptures are very decisive against such characters. This is the sin which they denominate “the lust of the eye.” The cares, and riches, and pleasures of this life, are de- scribed as choking the word, and rendering it unfruitful. It is worthy of special notice, that when our Lord had warned his followers “to take heed and beware of covet- ousness,” the example which he gives of this sin is not of one that was a plunderer of other men’s property, an unfair dealer, or an oppressor of the poor; but of a “cer- tain rich man whose ground brought forth plentifully ;” and whose only object appeared to be, first, to acquire a handsome fortune, and then to retire from business and live at his ease. This also appears to be the character which is blessed by wicked men, but abhorred of God, Psal. x. 3. A man who deals unfairly with men gains not their blessing, but their curse. Men in general regard only themselves; so long, therefore, as any person deals justly with them, they care not what his conduct is to- wards God. But it is affecting to think that the very cha- racter which they bless and envy God abhors. The de- cision of Heaven is nothing less than this, “If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” So far is the love of this world from being the less dangerous on account of its falling so little under human censure, that it is the mbre so. If we be guilty of any thing which exposes us to the reproach of mankind, such reproach may assist the remonstrances of conscience, and of God, in carrying conviction to our bosoms; but of that for which the world acquits us we shall be exceedingly disposed to acquit ourselves. It has long appeared to me that this species of covet- ousness will, in all probability, prove the eternal over- throw of more characters among professing people than almost any other sin ; and this because it is almost the only sin which may be indulged, and a profession of re- ligion at the same time supported. If a man be a drunk- ard, a formicator, an adulterer, or a liar—if he rob his neighbour, oppress the poor, or deal unjustly—he must give up his pretensions to religion; or, if not, his religious connexions, if they are worthy of being so denominated, will give him up : but he may “love the world, and the things of the world,” and at the same time retain his cha- racter. If the depravity of the human heart be not sub- dued by the grace of God, it will operate. If a dam be placed across some of its ordinary channels, it will flow with greater depth and rapidity in those which remain. It is thus, perhaps, that avarice is most prevalent in old age, when the power of pursuing other vices has in a great measure subsided. And thus it is with religious pro- fessors whose hearts are not right with God. They can- not figure away with the profane, nor indulge in gross immoralities; but they can love the world supremely, to the neglect of God, and be scarcely amenable to human judgment. And whatever may prove the overthrow of a mere pro- fessor may be a temptation to a good man, and greatly injure his soul. Of this the case of Lot, when he parted with Abraham, furnishes an affecting example. When a situation was put to his choice, “he lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it was well wa- tered every where;” and he took up his residence in Sodom. He had better have dwelt in a wilderness than among that debauched people ; but he consulted worldly advantages, and the spiritual well-being of his family was overlooked. And what was the consequence? It is true, he was a righteous man, and his righteous soul was grieved with the filthy conversation of the wicked from day to day : but he could have very little influence over them ; while they, on the contrary, found means of communicating their odious vices to his family. Some of his daughters appear to have been married while in Sodom ; and when the city was to be destroyed, neither they nor their hus- bands could be persuaded to make their escape, and so probably perished in the overthrow. The heart of his wife was so attached, it seems, to what she had left be- hind, that she must needs look back ; for which she was rendered a monument of Divine displeasure. And as to his two single daughters, though they escaped with him to the mountain, yet they had learnt so much of the ways of Sodom as to cover his old age with infamy. This, to- gether with the loss of all his substance, was the fruit of the “well-watered plain,” which he had fixed his eyes upon, to the neglect of his spiritual interest. Yet how frequently is the same part acted over again In the choice of settlements for ourselves, or our children, how common is it to overlook the immorality of the place, the irre- ligiousness of the connexions, or the want of a gospel ministry; and to direct our inquiries only to temporal advantages | From the same principle, also, many have dealt largely in speculation, and plunged into engagements far beyond their circumstances. The hope of making a fortune, as it is termed, by some lucky hit, draws them into measures which ruin, not only themselves, but many who confide in them. That mere worldly men should act in this manner is not a matter of surprise ; but that men professing to fear God should imitate them . . . . “this is a lamentation, and shall be for a lamentation.” Further, Many have fallen sacrifices not only to the love of the world, but to a conformity to it.—These are not the same thing, though frequently found in the same person. The object of the one is principally the acquisi- tion of wealth ; the other respects the manner of spend- ing it. That is often penurious ; this wishes to cut a figure, and to appear like people of fashion. The former is “the lust of the eye;” the latter is “the pride of life.” We need not affect singularity in things indifferent; but to engage in the chase of fashionable appearance is not only an indication of a vain and little mind, but is cer- tainly inconsistent with pressing towards the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. The desire of making an appearance has ruined many people in their circumstances, more in their characters, and most of all in their souls. We may flatter ourselves that we can pursue these things, and be religious at the same time; but it is a mistake. The vanity of mind which they cherish eats up every thing of a humble, serious, and holy nature ; rendering us an easy prey to temptation, when solicited to do as others do in an evil thing. A Christian's rule is the revealed will of God; and, where the customs of the world run counter to this, it is his business to with- stand them, even though in so doing he may have to with- stand a multitude, yea, and a multitude of people of fashion : but if we feel ambitious of their applause, we shall not be able to endure the scorn which a singularity of conduct will draw upon us. Thus we shall be carried down the stream by the course of this world; and shall either fall into the gulf of perdition, or, if any good thing should be found in us towards the Lord God of Israel, it THE BACKSLIDER. 915 will be almost indiscernible and useless. In short, such characters are certainly in a backsliding state, whether they be ever recovered from it or not. The case of the Laodiceans seems to approach the nearest to theirs of any thing which in Scripture occurs to me. They were “neither cold nor not; ” neither the decided friends of Christ, nor his avowed enemies : they could not relinquish the world in favour of religion, yet neither could they let religion alone. They were vainly puffed up with a notion of their wealth, their wisdom, and their finery; saying, “I am rich, and increased in goods, and have need of no- thing:” but, in the account of the faithful and true wit- ness, they were “poor, and wretched, and miserable, and blind, and naked.” Such a decision ought to make us tremble at the thought of aspiring to imitate people of fashion. . Finally, There is another species of departure from God which it becomes me to notice, as many in the present age have fallen sacrifices to it. This is, taking an eager and deep interest in political disputes.—The state of things in the world has of late been such as to attract the attention, and employ the conversation, of all classes of people. As success has attended each of the contending parties, the minds of men, according to their views and attachments, have been affected ; some with fear and dismay, lest their party interests should be ruined ; others with the most sanguine hopes, as if the world were shortly to be eman- cipated, war abolished, and all degrees of men rendered happy. This is one of those strong winds of temptation that occasionally arise in the troubled ocean of this world, against which those who are bound to a better had need to be on their guard. The flattering objects held out by revolutionists were so congenial with the wishes of human- ity, and their pretences to disinterested philanthropy so fair, that many religious people, for a time, forgot their own principles. While gazing on the splendid spectacle, it did not occur to them that the wicked, whatever name they assumed, would do wickedly. By observing the progress of things, however, they have been convinced that all hopes of the state of mankind being essentially meliorated by any means short of the prevalence of the gospel are vision- ary, and have accordingly turned their attention to better things. But some have gone greater lengths. Their whole heart has been engaged in this pursuit. It has been their meat and their drink: and, this being the case, it is not surprising that they have become indifferent to religion; for these things cannot eonsist with each other. It is not only contrary to the whole tenor of the New Testament, but tends in its own nature to eat up true religion. If any worldly matter, however lawful in itself, engage our attention inordinately, it becomes a snare ; and more so in matters that do not come within the line of our immediate duty. But if, in attending to it, we are obliged to neglect What manifestly is our duty, and to overleap the bound- aries of God's holy word, let us look to it: beyond those boundaries is a pit, in which there is reason to fear great numbers have been lost. There were many, in the early ages of Christianity, who “despised government,” and were “not afraid to speak evil of dignities:” but were they good men? Far from it. They were professors of Christianity, however; for they are said to have “escaped the pollutions of the world, through the knowledge of Christ;” yea, and what is more, they had attained the character of Christian teachers. But of what description? “False teachers, who privily brought in damnable heresies, denying the Lord who bought them, bringing upon them- Selves swift destruction”—whose ways, though followed by Imany, were permicious, occasioning “the way of truth to be evil spoken of.” To copy the examples of such men is no light matter. When a man's thoughts and affections are filled with Such things as these, the Scriptures become a kind of dead ºtter, while the speeches and writings of politicians are the lively oracles: spiritual conversation is unheard, or, if *ntroduced by others, considered as a flat and uninteresting topic ; and leisure hours, whether sitting in the house or Walking by the way, instead of being employed in talking *nd meditating on Divine subjects, are engrossed by things which do not profit. Such are the rocks among which *any have made shipwreck of faith and a good conscience. Whatever may be the duty of a nation in extraordinary cases, there is scarcely any thing in all the New Testament inculcated with more solemnity than that individuals, and especially Christians, should be obedient, peaceable, and loyal subjects; nor is there any sin much more awfully censured than the contrary conduct. It requires not only that we keep within the compass of the laws, (which is easily done by men of the most unprincipled minds,) but that we honour and intercede with God for those who ad- minister them. These duties were pressed particularly upon the Romans, who, by their situation, were more exposed than others to the temptation of joining in factions and conspiracies, which were almost continually at work in that tumultuous city. Nor does the danger belong exclusively to one side. We may sin by an adherence to the measures of a govern- ment, as well as by an opposition to them. If we enlist under the banners of the party in power, considered as a party, we shall be disposed to vindicate or palliate all their proceedings, which may be very inconsistent with Christianity. Paul, though he enjoined obedience to the existing government, yet was never an advocate for Roman ambition ; and, when addressing himself to a governor, did not fail to “reason on righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come.” It is our duty, no doubt, to consider that many things which seem evil to us might appear otherwise, if all the circumstances of the case were known ; and therefore to forbear passing hasty censures: but, on the other hand, we ought to be aware of applauding every thing that is done, lest, if it be evil, we be partakers of other men's sins, and contribute to their being repeated. While some, burning with revolutionary zeal, have imagined they could discover all the wonderful events of the present day in Scripture prophecy, and have been nearly blinded to the criminality of the principal agents; others, by a contrary prejudice, have disregarded the works of the Lord, and the operations of his hand. Whatever may be said of means and instruments, we must be strangely insensible not to see the hand of God in the late overturnings among the papal powers; and if we be in- duced by political attachment, instead of joining the in- habitants of heaven in a song of praise, to unite with the merchants of the earth in their lamentations, are we not carnal 3 There is no need of vindicating or palliating the measures of men, which may be wicked in the extreme ; but neither ought we to overlook the hand of God. The great point with Christians should be, an attach- ment to government as government, irrespective of the party which administers it; for this is right, and would tend more than any thing to promote the kingdom of Christ. We are not called to yield up our consciences in religious matters, nor to approve of what is wrong in those which are civil ; but we are not at liberty to deal in acri- mony, or evil speaking. The good which results to so- ciety from the very worst government upon earth is great when compared with the evils of anarchy. On this prin- ciple it is probable the apostle enjoined obedience to the powers that were, even during the reign of Nero. Chris- tians are soldiers under the King of kings; their object should be to conquer all ranks and degrees of men to the obedience of faith. But, to do this, it is necessary that they avoid all those embranglements and disputes which retard their main design. If a wise man wishes to gain over a nation to any great and worthy object, he does not enter into their little differences, nor embroil himself in their party contentions; but, bearing good-will to all, seeks the general good : by these means he is respected by all, and all are ready to hear what he has to offer. Such should be the wisdom of Christians. There is enmity enough for us to encounter without unnecessarily adding to it. If a Christian be under the necessity of siding with a party, undoubtedly he ought to act in favour of that which appears to him the best ; but even in this case it is not be- coming him to enter with eagerness into their disputes. Let worldly men, who thirst after preferment, busy them- selves in a contested election—(they have their reward)— but let Christians, if called to appear, discharge their duty, and retire from the tumultuous scene. By entering deeply into the party contentions of the 3 N 2 916 MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS, ESSAYS, &c. nation, religious people will be charged, on both sides in their turn, with disloyalty; and, it may be, not always without a cause. Fifty years ago that party was out of power which at present is in power. At that time the charge of disloyalty was directed against them ; and they were then denominated patriots. It is possible that many who now seem to abhor a spirit of disaffection towards ad- ministrative government, would be themselves not the best affected were the other side to recover its authority. But if we enter into the spirit of the gospel, though we may have our preferences of men and measures, we shall bear good-will to all ; and, whoever be at the head of affairs, shall reverence “the powers that be.” Whatever be our private opinion of the men, we shall respect and honour the rulers. That loyalty which operates only with the prevalence of a party, whichever it be, is at a great remove from the loyalty enjoined by the Scriptures. By standing aloof from all parties as such, and approving themselves the friends of government and good order, by whomsoever administered, Christians would acquire a dig- nity of character worthy of their profession, would be re- spected by all, and possess greater opportunities of doing good ; while, by a contrary conduct, they render one part of the community their enemies, and the other, I fear, de- rive but little spiritual advantage from being their friends. oN THE SYMPTOM'S OF A BACKSLIDING SPIRIT, It was reckoned a matter of consequence in cases of leprosy, real or supposed, that the true state of the party should be examined, and judgment given accordingly; and by how much a moral disease is more odious, contagious, and dangerous, than one that is natural, by so much is it more necessary to form a true judgment concerning it. Every spot was not a leprosy ; and every sinful imperfec- tion in a Christian professor does not denominate him a backslider. Paul had to lament the body of death ; he had not attained, nor was he already perfect; yet he pressed jorward; and while this was the case he could not be said to draw back. On the other hand, every departure from God must not be reckoned a mere imperfection which is common to good men. We are extremely apt, in certain cases, to flatter ourselves that our spots are only the spots of God’s children, or such as the best of men are subject to, and therefore to conclude that there is nothing very dangerous about them. We do not pretend to deny that we have our faults; but are ready to ask, “What have we done so MUCH against thee ?” This self-justifying spirit, however, so far from indicating any thing favourable, is a strong mark of the contrary. It is said of Ephraim, “He is a merchant, the balances of deceit are in his hand : he loveth to oppress. And Ephraim said, Yet I am become rich : I have found me out substance : in all my labours they shall find none iniquity in me that were sin.” A more finished picture of a modern oppressor could not be drawn. He studies to keep within the limits of the law, and defies any man to impeach his character: he has im- perfections, but they are only such as are common to good men ; there is nothing criminal to be found in him : yet he is carrying on at the time a system of iniquity. The apostle Paul speaks of a certain state of mind which he feared he should find in the Corinthians; that of their “having sinned, and not repented of their deeds.” This it is which denominates a man a backslider; and which, so long as it continues, deprives him of any Scriptural found- ation for concluding himself interested in forgiving mercy. —What are the particular symptoms of this state of mind is the object of our present inquiry. If our departing from the Lord have issued in some out- ward misconduct, there is no need of inquiring into the proofs of it, as the thing speaks for itself; but if its oper- ations have been at present only internal, the inquiry may be highly necessary, that we may become acquainted with our condition, and that the disease may be healed ere it finishes its operations. Further, though it may be out of all doubt that we have sinned, yet it may be a matter of uncertainty whether or not we have repented ; if we imagine we have when we have not, the consequence may be of the most serious nature. Let the following observa- ations, then, be attended to. First, If religious duties are attended to rather from cus- tom or conscience than from love, we must either never have known what true religion is, or, in a great degree, have lost the spirit of it.—It is possible that we may have been guilty of no particular outward evil, so as to have fallen under the censure of the world, or of even our nearest con- nexions, and yet have so far lost the spirit of religion as to be really in a backsliding state. The exercises of prayer, reading the Scriptures, hearing the word, and giving some- thing to the poor, may be kept up in form, and yet be lit- tle, if any thing, more than a form. The church of Ephe- sus was not accused of any particular outward misconduct; but they had “ left their first love.” Where this is the case, however, much will be neglected, especially of those parts of duty which fall not under the eye of creatures. It is supposed of the church just referred to that they had relaxed, if not in the actual performance, yet in the manner of performing their religious exercises ; therefore they are exhorted to “repent, and to do their first works.” A de- parture from our first love is commonly the first step of a backsliding course. Perhaps, if the truth were known, there are few open falls but what are preceded by a secret departure of heart from the living God. Secondly, If we have fallen into any particular sin, which eaſooses us to the censures of our friends, and in- stead of confessing it with sorrow are employed in defend- &ng or palliating it, it is a certain proof that we are at pre- sent under the power of it.—There are some sins that cannot be defended ; but there are others which will admit of much being said on their behalf; and it is admirable with what ingenuity men will go about to find excuses where self is concerned. People that you would hardly think possessed of common sense, will, in this case, be singularly quicksighted, discerning every circumstance that may make in their favour, or serve to extenuate their fault. The cunning of the old serpent, which appeared in the excuses of our first parents, seems here to supply the place of wis- dom. This self-justifying spirit is a very dangerous symp- tom : while it continues there is no hope of a good issue. We read of the deceitfulness of sin; and truly it is with great propriety that deceit is ascribed to it. Perhaps there are few persons who are employed in justifying their fail- ings, but who are first imposed upon, or brought to think, some how, that they are, if not quite justifiable, yet very excusable. Sin, when we have committed it, loses its sin- fulness, and appears a very different thing to what it did in others. David’s indignation could rise against the man that had taken an ewe-lamb, while to his own conduct, which was much more criminal, he was blinded ! . When any sin is committed by us, it is common for it to assume another name ; and by means of this we become easily re- conciled to it, and are ready to enter on a vindication of it. Covetousness will admit of a defence under the names of prudence, industry, or frugality; conformity to the world may be pleaded for as an exercise of sociability and good breeding ; unchristian resentment, as necessary self-de- fence; foolish levity, as innocent mirth ; malignant con- tentions, as zeal for the truth ; and indifference to the truth, as candour or liberality of sentiment. Thirdly, Though we do not defend or palliate our sin in words, yet, if we continue in the practice of it, we may be certain we have not repented.—All true repentance is fol- lowed by a forsaking of the evil, and where this effect is not produced, there can be no Scriptural ground to hope for forgiveness. There are sins, as before observed, which will admit of no defence. If a person be convicted of them, he can do no other than own himself in the wrong, or at least be silent; yet he may feel no sorrow on their account, nor scarcely any intention to forsake them. When Samuel reproved Saul for his rebellion against the com- mandment of the Lord, assuring him that God had rejected him from being king, and had given the kingdom to a neighbour of his that was better than he, he was con- founded, and compelled to say, “I have sinned:” yet the only concern he discovered was on account of having lost his honour; and as soon as he suspected who was his rival, he sought to slay him. Even Solomon discovered a very similar disposition. Instead of lamenting and forsaking the sin for which he had been reproved, as soon as he knew that Jeroboam had been anointed by the prophet THE BACKSLIDER. 917 Ahijah, he “sought to kill him.” A sullen silence under reproof, and a perseverance in the evil, are certain signs of a hard and impenitent heart. Fourthly, Though we should refrain from the practice of the evil, yet if it be only a temporary effect of conviction, there is no true repentance.—It is very common for per- sons, when they first fall into any gross sin, to feel ashamed and alarmed, to wish they had not acted as they have, and to resolve that they will do so no more ; and this, though the love of the evil be the same, and on the first temptation that returns it is committed again, is nevertheless fre- quently mistaken for repentance. When Saul's life was spared by David, and his groundless malice against him detected, his heart seemed to relent: he felt ashamed, owned his sin, lifted up his voice and wept, and promised to do so no more ; but this was not repentance. David appears to have suspected it at the time ; for he would not trust himself in his hands; but gat him up into the hold : and the event justified his conduct. The first opportunity that offered, Saul returned to the folly that he had con- demned.—A temporary abstinence from evil may also be produced by some alarming providence. When judgments overtake us, and conscience tells us that it is the hand of the Lord stretched out against us for our sin, the mind is appalled with fear, and so ceases to be in a state to pursue its favourite devices. But if, as soon as the pressing hand of Providence is removed, the heart returns, like a spring, to its former position, there is no reason to consider its temporary depression as containing any true repentance. Dr. Owen has expressed these sentiments with that unc- tion of spirit, and deep insight into the human heart, which is peculiar to himself:— “There are two occasions,” says he, “wherein men who are contending with any sin may seem to themselves to have mortified it.—First, When it hath had some sad eruption to the disturbance of their peace, terror of their consciences, dread of scandal, and evident provocation of God. This awakens and stirs up all that is in the man, and amazes him, fills him with abhorrency of sin, and him- self for it; sends him to God, makes him cry out as for life, to abhor his lust as hell, and to set himself against it. The whole man, spiritual and natural, being now awaken- ed, sin shrinks in its head, appears not, but lies as dead before him. As when one that hath drawn nigh to an army in the night, and hath killed a principal person, in- stantly the guards awake, men are roused up, and strict inquiry is made after the enemy; who, in the mean time, until the noise and tumult be over, hides himself, or lies like one that is dead, yet with firm resolution to do the like mischief again upon the like opportunity.—Secondly, In a time of some judgment, calamity, or pressing afflic- tion. The heart is them taken up with thoughts and con- trivances of flying from the present troubles, fears, and dangers. This, as a convinced person concludes, is to be done only by relinquishment of sin, which gains peace with God. It is the anger of God in every affliction that galls a convinced person. To be quit of this, men resolve at such times against their sins. Sin shall never more have any place in them ; they will never again give up them- selves to the service of it. Accordingly sin is quiet, stirs not, seems to be mortified ; not indeed that it has received any one wound, but merely because the soul hath possessed its faculties whereby it should exert itself, with thoughts inconsistent with the motions thereof; which when they are laid aside, sin returns again to its former life and vigour. Of this we have a full instance in Psal. lxxviii. 32–38, ‘For all this they simmed still, and believed not for his wondrous works. Therefore their days did he con- sume in vanity, and their years in trouble. When he slew them, then they sought him : and they returned and in- quired early after God. And they remembered that God was their Rock, and the most high God their Redeemer. Nevertheless they did flatter him with their mouth, and they lied unto him with their tongues. For their heart was not right with him, neither were they stedfast in his covenant.’ I no way doubt but that when they sought and returned, and inquired earnestly after God, they did it with full purpose of heart, as to the relinquishment of their sins. This is expressed in the word returned. To twºrm, or re- turn, unto the Lord is by a relinquishment of sin. And this they did early, with earnestness and diligence; but yet their sin was unmortified for all this (ver. 36, 37): and this is the state of many humiliations in the days of afflic- tion, and a great deceit in the hearts of believers themselves lies oftentimes herein.” + When a professor of religion has fallen into some odious vice, and wishes to shelter himself from the censures of his connexions, you will often hear him allege, “I have re- pented;” whereas it amounts to little more than the shame and alarm above described, as his after-conduct very fre- quently proves. Indeed it is not of the nature of true re- pentance to talk of having repented, and especially for the purpose of evading a faithful censure. Fifthly, Though we should refrain from the open practice of the sin, and that for a continuance, yet if it be merely from prudential or selfish considerations, we may be cer- tain that we have not yet repented it.—Though we had no religion, and pretended to none, we might find various in- ducements to refrain from gross immoralities. They affect our interest, our health, and our reputation. It is on such principles that mere worldly men will guard against them ; and, if we act from the same motives, wherein are we better than they 3 Or if the dread of future punishment may be supposed to have some influence upon us, this is a very different thing from the fear of the Lord, which is to hate evil. And where the motives for abstaining from any evil are merely prudential or selfish, we shall abstain from very little more than that which falls under the eye of creatures. Our watchfulness will respect little, if anything, more than outward actions. The daily care of our lives will be, not how we shall please God, but how we shall conceal the prevailing dispositions of our hearts from those about us—a task this as difficult as it is mean ; for what- ever occupies our thoughts and affections will on various occasions, notwithstanding our utmost care, escape us. Looks, gestures, manner of speaking and acting, as well as words and deeds themselves, betray what is predominant within. Hence it is that we generally deceive ourselves in these matters. We often fancy our character to be un- known when it is well known ; and if it were otherwise, all is naked and open to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do. Of this we may be certain, that while our chief concern is to hide our sins from those about us, should we be summoned to give an account of our steward- ship, it will appear that we have sinned, and not repented of our deeds ; and wherein this differs from going down to the grave with our guilt upon our heads it is difficult to Say. sºils, If we take pleasure in talking of the evil, or in dwelling upon it in our thoughts, it is a certain sign of the same thing. True repentance works in a way of silent shame and self-abasement: “That thou mayest remember and be confounded, and never open thy mouth any more, because of thy shame, when I am pacified towards thee for all that thou hast done, saith the Lord God.” When men can talk and even write of their former wicked courses with lightness, it is a certain proof that, whatever repent- ance they have had, they do not at present repent of it, and though nothing be said or written, yet if such things occupy our thoughts, imaginations, and affections, it is much the same. A mind full of this must needs be lacking of those spiritual exercises which render us that we shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ ; and those that are such are fitly enough described as having “forgotten that they were purged from their old sins.” If old sins are thought of with new delight, they are reacted and persisted in ; and where this continues to be the case, the guilt of them must remain upon us, and may be found upon our heads when we go down to the grave. Lastly, If we trifle with temptation, or be not afraid of putting ourselves in the way of it, or even of being led into it, we may be certain that at present we have not repent- ed of our sin.—It is a saying almost grown into a proverb, He that is not afraid of temptation is not afraid of sin; and he that is not afraid of sin must needs be in danger of being destroyed by it. If, after having been repeatedly drawn into sin by associating in certain companies, or • On the Mortification of Sin in Believers. Chap. V. 918 MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS, ESSAYS, &c. certain pursuits, we can, nevertheless, run into them again without fear, we cannot possibly have repented of our deeds. Nay more, though we should fear to plunge our- selves into temptation, yet if, when Providence brings us into such situations and companies, our hearts secretly re- joice in it, this is no less an evidence of our impenitent state than the other. True repentance will not only teach us to shun the way of evil, but to be averse to every avenue that leads to it. If, therefore, we either run into temptation, or are glad when we are led into it, we are, beyond all doubt, under the power of it. ON THE INJURIOUS AND DANGEROUS EFFECTS OF SIN LYING UPON THE CONSCIENCE UNLAMENTED, It is a dangerous thing to fall into sin, whether secretly or openly ; and the effects of it, sooner or later, will cer- tainly be felt; but to continue in it is much more so. A very heavy threatening is denounced against God’s open enemies for their persisting in sin : “God shall wound the head of his enemies, and the hairy scalp of such a one as goeth on still in his trespasses.” But the same thing, in persons who have known the way of righteousness, must be abundantly more offensive. “He that chastiseth the heathen, shall not he correct 4" There is a remedy at hand of God’s providing; a “propitiation for our sins;” and it is declared, “If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” But if, in- stead of confessing our sins on the head of this propitia- tion, and imploring mercy in his name, we sink into hard- mess of heart, neglect prayer, shun the company of the faithful, and efface the remembrance of one sin only by the commission of another, what have we to expect? I am aware that it is one of the devices of Satan, after having drawn a soul from God, and entangled him in the net of his own corruptions, to persuade him that the prayer of faith, in his circumstances, would be presump- tion, and that it is much more modest and becoming for him to stand aloof both from God and his people. And if by faith were meant what some would seem to under- stand by it, a working up ourselves into a persuasion that, owing to the immutability of God, all is safe and right, whatever be our spirit or conduct, it would be presump- tuous enough ; but genuine faith in Christ is never out of season. The greater our sin has been, the greater reason there is for us to confess it upon the head of the gospel sacrifice, and to plead for mercy in his name. We may not be able to go as Christians, but this affords no reason why we should not go as sinners. The injury and danger of such a state of mind will ap- pear from a consideration of the effects which it produces, and must continue to produce, if not healed by a return to God by Jesus Christ. First, It will necessarily deprive us of all true enjoyment in religion, and, by consequence, of all that preservation to the heart and mind which such enjoyment affords.--The principal sources ºf enjoyment, to a Christian that walk- eth spiritually, are communion with God and his people: but, to him that is out of the way, these streams are dried up ; or, which is the same thing in effect to him, they are so impeded as not to reach him. Guilt, shame, darkness, and defilement have taken possession of the soul; love is quenched, hope clouded, joy fled, prayer restrained, and every other grace enervated. It becomes the holiness of God, to frown upon us under such a state of mind, by withholding the light of his countenance ; and, if it were otherwise, we have no manner of desire after it. Such was the state of David after he had sinned and before he had repented : the joys of God’s salvation were far from him. The thirty-second and thirty-eighth Psalms appear to have been written, as has already been observed, after his recovery ; but he there describes what was the state of his mind previously to it. There is much meaning in what he sets out with in the former of these Psalms: º Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, and whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord im- puteth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile!” He knew the contrary of this by bitter experience. Guilt and defilement had eaten up all his enjoyment. “When I kept silence,” saith he, “my bones waxed old, through my roaring all the day long ; for day and night thy hand was heavy upon me : my moisture is turned into the drought of summer.” It does not appear that he fully de- sisted from prayer; but there was none of that freedom in it which he was wont to enjoy. It was roaring rather than praying; and God is represented as disregarding it. In the thirty-eighth Psalm, he speaks of the rebukes of God's wrath, and the chastening of his hot displeasure ; of his arrows sticking fast in him, and his hand pressing him sore of there being no soundness in his flesh, because of his anger; nor rest in his bones, because of his sin. There is one expression exceedingly appropriate : “My wounds stink and are corrupt, because of my foolishness.” A wound may be dangerous at the time of its being received; but much more so if it be neglected till the humours of the body are drawn towards it. In this case it is hard to be healed ; and the patient has not only to reflect on his heedlessness in first exposing himself to danger, but on his foolishness in so long neglecting the prescribed remedy. Such was the state of his mind, till, as he informs us, he “acknowledged his transgressions,” and was “sorry for his sin.” And as there can be no communion with God, so neither can there be any with his people. If our sin be known, it must naturally occasion a reservedness, if not an exclusion from their society. Or, if it be unknown, we shall be equally unable to enjoy communion with them. Guilt in our consciences will beget shame, and incline us rather to stand aloof than to come near them ; or, if we go into their company, it will prove a bar to freedom. There is something at first sight rather singular in the language of the apostle John ; but upon closer in- spection it will be found to be perfectly just : “If we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another.” But if we are deprived of fellowship with God and his people, from what can we derive consolation ? If we have only had a name to live, and been dead, the joy arising from vain hope may possibly be supplied by carnal plea- sures. We may drown reflection by busying ourselves in worldly pursuits, mingling with worldly company, and, in short, returning “like the dog to his vomit, and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire :” but if we have any true religion in us, we cannot do this ; and then what is there under the sun that can yield us relief? Nor shall we be deprived merely of the enjo ments of religion, but of all that preservation to the soul which they afford. The peace of God is represented as that which ſkeeps, or fortifies, owr hearts and minds. Without this, the heart will be in perpetual danger of being seduced by the wiles, or sunk by the pressures, of this world; and the mind of being drawn aside from the simplicity of the gospel. Secondly, It will render ws useless in our generation.— The great end of existence with a good man is to live to him who died for us and rose again. If God bless us, it is that, like Abraham, we may be blessings to others. Christians are said to be the salt of the earth, and the light of the world ; but while we are in the state above described, we are as “salt that has lost its savour,” which is “good for nothing; ” or as a light that is hid under a vessel. Of what use, with respect to religion, are we in our families, while this is the case ? Neither servants nor children can think well of religion, from any thing they see in us; and when we go into the world, and mingle among mankind in our dealings, in whose conscience does our conversation or behaviour plant conviction ? Where is the man who, on leaving our company, has been compelled by it to acknowledge the reality of religion ? Or, if we occupy a station in the church of God, (and this character may belong to a minister no less than to another man,) we shall do little or no good in it; but be as “vessels in which the Lord taketh no pleasure.” There is a threat- ening directed against vain pastors which ought to make a minister tremble. “Woe to the idol shepherd, that leaveth the flock The sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye : his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened.” Perhaps one of the greatest temptations to blacksliding in ministers may lie in this way: being selected from their brethren, and | chosen to the office of public instructors, they are in THE BACKSLIDER. 919 danger of indulging in self-valuation. A man may labour night and day in his study, and all to get accomplished that he may shine before the people. Where this is the case, the preacher is his own idol, and it may be that of the people. He feels also little or no regard to the charge which he has undertaken, but is ready to desert it when- ever a difficulty arises, or any opportunity offers of im- proving his circumstances. The consequence is, the sword of the Lord is upon his arm—he does no manner of exe- cution in his work; and upon his right eye—whatever proficiency he may make in science, or polite accomplish- ments, he has but little if any spiritual understanding in the things of God. This character may respect ungodly preachers, such to whom the Jewish nation were given up for their rejection of Christ ; but there is no sin committed by the most ungodly man of which the most godly is not in danger. Thirdly, We shall not only be useless, but injurious to the cause of Christ.—Indeed, it is impossible to stand neuter in this cause. If we do no good, we shall do harm ; not only as cumberers of the ground, occupying that place in society which might be better filled by others, but as giving a false representation of religion, and diffusing a savour of death among mankind. If our domestics infer nothing favourable to religion from our conduct in the family, they will infer something unfavourable; and if there be but little good to be seen in our example, it is well if there be not much evil; and this will surely be imitated. Who can calculate what influence the treachery, unchastity, and murder, committed by David, had upon his family $ We know that each was acted over again by Amnon and Absalom. And thus many a parent has seen his own sins repeated in his posterity; and perhaps, if he had lived longer, might have seen them multiplied still more, to his shame and confusion. The servants of God are called to bear testimony for him : “Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord of hosts.” This is done not merely by words, but by deeds. There is a way of bearing witness to the reality and importance of religion, by a zealous perseverance in it; to its dignity, by our firmness; to its happy influence, by contentedness and cheerfulness ; and to its purity, by being holy in all manner of conversation: and this is a kind of testimony which is more regarded than any other. Men in common form their opinion of religion more by what they see in the professors of it than by the profession itself. Hence it was that David by his deed is said to have given “great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme.” They were not contented with reproaching him, but must speak against God and religion on his account. In this view he considered his sin when he was brought to repentance for it. “Against thee, thee only have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight.”—“Do good in thy good pleasure unto Zion : build thou the walls of Jerusalem.” If his sin had not greatly dishonoured God’s name, and, as it were, broken down the walls of Zion, such language would not have appeared among his lamentations. Things operate much the same to this day. Whatever evil is done by a professor, it is ascribed to his religion. In this view we may justly consider our unchristian conduct as bearing false witness of God; for it is giving false representations of his gospel and government to the world. A grasping, selfish spirit is saying to those around us, that, after all which we have professed of living by faith in a portion beyond death, the present world is the best, and therefore we are for making sure of that, and running all hazards as to the other. In like manner, a cruel and revengeful disposition towards those who have offended us is saying that Christianity, after all its professions of meekness and forgiveness of injuries, renders its adherents no better than others. And when a Christian professor is detected of having privately indulged in the lusts of the flesh, the conclusion that is drawn from it is, that there is nothing in religion but outside appearance, and that in secret re- ligious people are the same as others. It is impossible to say how much such conduct operates to the hardening of men in sin, to the quenching of their convictions, to the Weakening the hands of God’s servants, and to the stum- bling of persons who are inquiring the way to Zion. These things, if we be mere professors, may have but ‘little effect upon us. We may not care for God’s being dishonoured, provided we do but get pardoned at last : but if there be any true religion about us, it will be other- wise. An ingenuous mind will feel more for the dishonour which he has done to Christ, and injury to his fellow creatures, than for the reproach which he has brought upon himself. - Fourthly, We are in the utmost danger of falling into future temptations, and so of sinking deeper, and falling further from God.—So long as sin remains upon the conscience unlamented, it is like poison in the consti- tution; it will be certain to operate, and that in a way that shall go on more and more to kill all holy resolution, to harden the heart, and to defile the imaginations and desires. “Whoredom, and wine, and new wine, take away the heart.” It was from sad experience of the defiling nature of past sin that David, when he came to himself, prayed, “Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me.” A mind thus enfeebled, stupified, and defiled, must needs be in a very unfit condition to resist new temptations. The inhabitants of a besieged city, who are weakened by famine and disease, and discouraged by a number of disaffected persons within their walls, have no heart to resist, but stand ready to listen to the first proposals of the besiegers. And in proportion as we are disabled for resistance, it may be expected that the tempter will renew his attempts upon us. If Satan has any influence upon the human mind, it may be supposed that he acts with design, and knows how to avail himself of the most favourable seasons to effect his purpose. And this we find to be true by ex- perience. In proportion as we have yielded to temptation, it will rise in its demands; solicitations, greater in number and in force, will ply our minds. As a resistance of the devil will be followed by his fleeing from wº, so, on the contrary, a non-resistance of him will be followed by re- newed and stronger attempts upon us. One sin makes way for another, and renders us less able to resist, or to return to God by repentance. When once the thief has gained admission into our habitation, he will bid us de- fiance. “Innumerable evils will compass us about, and our iniquities take hold upon us, so that we shall not be able to look up : they will be more than the hairs of our heads: therefore our hearts will fail us.” Samson first yielded to his sensual desires; after this, to the entreaties of his Delilah ; who, in proportion as she saw him pliant to her wishes, increased in her assiduousness, till at length he lost his hair, his liberty, his eyes, and his life. If we be mere professors, these considerations may affect us but little; we shall continue the willing slaves of our own corruptions, hoping it may be, nevertheless, that we shall sometime be brought back again, till, at some unex- pected hour, we are taken out of the world. But if there be any good thing in us toward the Lord God of Israel, this part of the subject must alarm us; for, of all the methods which God takes to punish sin, there is none more awful and more dreaded by a good man than that of being given up to sin. Fifthly, So long as sin remains upon the conscience unla- mented, we are in danger of etermal damnation.—It may be thought by some that such language is inconsistent with the final perseverance of believers; but it is manifest that our Lord did not so teach the doctrine of perseverance as to render cautions of this nature unnecessary. He did not scruple to declare, even to his own disciples, that whoso- ever should say to his brother, Thou fool, should be in danger of hell-fire—that if they forgave not men their tres- passes, neither would God forgive theirs—and if a right hand, or a right eye, caused them to offend, it must be cut off, or plucked out, and that lest the whole body should be cast into hell. The object at which sin aims, whether in believers or unbelievers, is death, etermal death ; and to this it has a natural and direct tendency. The apostle James, in a very affecting manner, describes its process. “Let no man say, when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God can- not be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: but every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin, and sin, when it is finished, bringeth 920 MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS, ESSAYS, &c. forth death.” If it does not in all cases come to this issue, it is not because of its being different as to its nature or tendency in some persons to what it is in others, but because a timely stop is put to its operations. Only let it go on without repentance till it has finished its work, and eternal death will be the issue. Whatever we are, so long as sin lies unlamented upon the conscience, we can have no Scriptural foundation to conclude that we are Christians. No real Christian, it is true, will prove an apostate ; yet while we are under the influence of sin, we are moving in the direction which leads to apostacy. If we are contented with a relapsed state of mind, what ground can we have to conclude that it is not our element, or that we have ever been the sub- jects of true religion ? If the waters continue to be naught, it is a sign that the spring has not been healed. There is no reason to think that Judas himself laid his ac- counts with such an issue of his treachery as actually came to pass. During the ministry of our Lord, while he kept the bag, and sometimes made free with its contents, it is probable he nevertheless reckoned himself a good man. He saw many failings in his fellow disciples, and in all other good men; and he might think this to be his. When he had covenanted with the chief priests, it does not appear that he expected his Master would be eventually taken and crucified. When they were about to lay hands on him, he had often passed through the midst of them, and gone his way; and he might suppose that it would be so again. “When therefore he saw that he was condemned,” he was thrown into a state of terrible amazement, and in the issue “went and hanged himself.” Such was the process of an apostate, and such his end. Surely it behoves us to take heed how we trifle with those things, the end of which is death ! ON THE MEANS OF RECOVERY. WERE it not for the hope of being instrumental in saving some from the error of their way, and of inducing others to a greater degree of watchfulness, I should not have written the preceding pages. It can afford no satisfaction to ex- pose the evil conduct of a fellow sinner, or to trace its dangerous effects, unless it be with a view to his salvation or preservation. It is natural for those who have fallen into sin, unless they be given up to a rejection of all religion, to wish, on some considerations, to be restored. . A backsliding state is far from being agreeable. Hence it is that many have prematurely grasped at the promise of forgiveness, and said to their souls, “Peace, peace, when there was no peace.” It is desirable that we be recovered from our backslidings; but it is not desirable that we should think ourselves re- covered when we are not so. As there are many ways by which a convinced sinner seeks peace to his soul, without being able to find it, so it is with a backslider. Self-righteous attempts to mortify sin, and gain peace with God, are not confined to the first period of religious concern. Having, through the power of alarm, desisted from the open practice of sin, many have laboured to derive comfort from this consideration, with- out confessing their sin on the head, as it were, of the gospel sacrifice. Their sins may be said rather to have been worn away from their remembrance, by length of time, than washed away by the blood of the cross. But this is not recovery : the hurt, if healed, is healed slightly; and may be expected to break out again. The same way in which, if we be true Christians, we first found rest to our souls, must be pursued in order to recover it ; namely, “repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” This is the way to which the Scriptures uni- formly direct us. “My little children, these things I write unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” —“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to for- give us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteous- ness.” This was the way in which David was recovered. He confessed his sin with deep contrition, pleading to be purged “with hyssop that he might be clean, and washed that he might be whiter than snow.” By this language he could not mean that his sin should be purged away by any thing pertaining to the ceremonial law, for that law made no provision for the pardon of his crimes: he must, there- fore, intend that which the sprinkling of the unclean with a bunch of hyssop, dipped in the water of purification, was designed to prefigure ; which, as we are taught in the New Testament, was the purging of the conscience, by the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus. This is the only way in which it is possible to find rest to our souls. As “there is no other name given under heaven, or among men, by which we can be saved,” so neither is there any other by which we can be restored. Whatever be the nature of our backsliding from God, this must be the remedy. If it be a relinquishment of evan- gelical principles, we must return to the way, even the highway whither we went. Paul “travailed in birth" for the recovery of the Galatians; and in what did he expect it to consist? In “Christ being formed in them.” He also strove to bring back the Hebrews; and all his labours were directed to the same point. His Epistle to them is full of Christ, and of warnings and cautions against neg- lecting and rejecting him. If any man had been perplexed concerning the Deity or atonement of Christ, let him hum- bly and carefully read that Epistle; and, if his heart be right with God, it will do him good. If our departure from God have issued in some gross immorality, or in the love of the world, or in conformity to it, the remedy must be the same. It is by this medium, if at all, that the world will be crucified unto us, and we unto the world. If we have no heart to repent, and to return to God by Jesus Christ, we are yet in our sins, and may expect to reap the fruits of them. The Scriptures give no counsel to any thing short of this. They are not wanting, how- ever, in directions that may lead to it, and considerations that may induce it. What these are, I shall now proceed to inquire. In general I may observe, The Scriptures assure us of the eacceeding great and tender mercy of God, and of his willingness to forgive all those who return to him in the name of his Son.—It is necessary that we be well per- suaded of this truth, lest, instead of applying as supplicants, we sink into despair. If an awakened sinner, under his first religious concern, be in danger of this species of de- spondency, a backslider is still more so. His transgres- sions are much more heinous in their circumstances than those of the other, having been committed under greater light, and against greater goodness; and when to this is added the treatment which his conduct must necessarily draw upon him from his religious connexions, he may be tempted to relinquish all hopes of recovery, and to con- sider himself as an outcast of both God and man. Un- happy man thy breach may be great like the sea, and the language of an awakened conscience may suggest, “Who can heal me?” Yet do not despair. “Hear what God the Lord will speak.-He will speak peace unto his people, and to his saints; but let them not turn again to folly.” Hear what he speaks to the backsliding Israelites, reduced by their sins to the most deplorable state of guilt and wretchedness. “The Lord shall scatter you among the nations, and ye shall be left few in number among the heathem, whither the Lord shall lead you. And there ye shall serve gods, the work of men's hands; but if from thence thou shalt seek the Lord thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul: when thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, if thou turn to the Lord thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his voice, (for the Lord thy God is a merciful God,) he will not forsake thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers, which he sware unto them.” The pardoning mercy of God towards those who return to him by Jesus Christ, is not limited by such measures as are framed by creatures in their treatment of one another, or by such expectations as, on this account, they are apt to form. There are circumstances which may render it al- most impossible for forgiveness to be exercised amongst men ; and therefore men are ready to think it must be so with respect to God. But “with the Lord there is mercy, and with him there is plenteous redemption.” He will not only pardon, but pardon abundantly; “for his thoughts are not our thoughts, nor his ways our ways. For as the THE BACKSLIDER. 921 heavens are higher than the earth, so are his ways higher than our ways, and his thoughts than our thoughts.-The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.— If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” The threatenings against the unpardonable sin itself do not af- fect the truth of these merciful declarations; for that sin is all along described as excluding repentance as well as forgiveness, Heb. vi. 6. The party is supposed to be given up to hardness of heart. If, therefore, we confess our sin with contrition, we may be certain it is not un- pardonable, and that we shall obtain mercy through the blood of the cross. But the great question is, How shall we repent of our sins, and return to God by Jesus Christ 2—Undoubtedly it is much easier to get out of the way than to get in again ; to lose the peace of our minds than to recover it. Sin is of a hardening nature; and the further we have proceed- ed in it, the more in extricable are its chains. But how- ever this be, we either do desire to return, or we do not. If not, it will be in vain to address any directions to us. It is right, indeed, for the servants of Christ to point them out, whether we will hear or whether we will for- bear, and there leave them ; but as to any hope of our recovery, while such is the state of our minds, there can be none. If we can think of our sin without grief, and of the cross of Christ without any meltings of spirit, there is great reason to fear that our “hearts are not right in the sight of God,” but that we are yet in the “gall of bit- terness, and the bonds of iniquity.” If, on the other hand, we do desire to return ; if, like Israel in the days of Samuel, we “lament after the Lord,” we shall readily hearken to every direction given us in his word. If my reader, supposing him to have backslidden from God, be in such a state of mind, it is with a mixture of hope and tenderness that I attempt to point out to him the means of recovery. Or, should it even be otherwise, I will, nevertheless, endeavour to show him the good and the right way, that at least I may deliver my own soul. First, Embrace every possible season of retirement for reading the Holy Scriptures, especially those parts which are suited to thy case ; and accompany it with prayer.— God’s word hid in the heart is not only a preservative against sin, but a restorative from it. It both wounds and heals: if it rebukes, it is with the faithfulness of a friend ; or if it consoles, its consolations carry in them an implication which, if properly understood, will melt us into repentance. Read especially those parts of Scripture which are ad- dressed to persons in your situation, as the second chapter of Jeremiah ; or which express the desires of a returning sinner, as the twenty-fifth, thirty-second, thirty-eighth, fifty-first, and hundred-and-thirtieth Psalms. You may not be able to adopt all this language as your own ; but it may be useful nevertheless. To read the genuine ex- pressions of a contrite heart may produce at least a con- viction of the disparity between the frame of mind pos- sessed by the writer and yourself; and such a conviction may be accompanied with a sensation of shame and grief. It is also of importance that you read the Scriptures by vourself. To read a portion of them in your families is right, and ought not to be neglected ; but there is a wide difference, as to personal advantage, between this and reading them alone. Your mind may then be more at liberty for reflection; you can read and pause, and think, and apply the subject to your case. It is of still greater importance to unite prayer with it. Reading the word of God and prayer are duties which mutually assist each other : the one furnishes us with confessions, pleas, and arguments; while the other pro- motes solemnity and spirituality of mind, which goes fur- ther towards understanding the Scriptures than a library of expositions. It was in one of these seasons of retirement that David put up this petition, “I have gone astray like a lost sheep: seek thy servant, for I do not forget thy commandments.” He seems to have had in his thoughts the condition of a Poor, wandering sheep, that had left the flock, and the rich pastures whither it was wont to be led; ranging rather like a native of the woods, than one which had been used to be led, and fed, and protected by an owner. Bewildered by its own wanderings, entangled in the thorns and briers of the wilderness, and exposed to beasts of prey, it feels its forlorn condition, and bleats after the shepherd of the flock Is there nothing in this that may suit thy case? Yes, thou art the man . Thou hast gone astray like a lost sheep, got entangled in thine own corruptions, and knowest not how to find the way back; yet it may be thou hast not forgotten his commandments, nor utterly lost the savour of those happy days when walking in them. Let thy prayer then be directed, like that of the psalmist, to the good Shepherd of the sheep, “Seek thy servant l” Prayer is a kind of religious exercise which is necessary to accompany all others. “In every thing by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known unto God.” Solemn approaches to God are adapted to impress the mind with a sense of sin, and to inspire us with self-abhorrence on account of it. It was by a view of the holiness of God that Isaiah felt himself to be “a man of unclean lips; ” and by conversing with him that Job was brought to “abhor himself, and repent in dust and ashes.” The very exercise of prayer carries in it an implication that our help must come from above ; a truth which, in all cases, it is highly necessary for us to know, and with which, in this case especially, we cannot be too deeply impressed. We easily get out of the way ; but if ever we return to it, it must be by His influence who “ re- storeth our souls, and leadeth us in the paths of righteous- ness, for his name’s sake.” To tell a person who is out of the way that he has no help in himself, and that if ever he get in again it must be by the restoring grace of God, may seem, to some people, paradoxical and disheartening ; but it is a truth, and a truth which, if properly understood and felt, would go further towards our recovery than we at first may appre- hend. Paul found that “when he was weak then he was strong;” and many others have found the same. The more we are emptied of self-sufficiency, the more sensibly shall we feel our dependence, and the more importunately implore that the Lord would save us as it were from our- selves, and restore us “for his name's sake.” This was the way in which we at first found rest for our souls, and this must be the way in which we recover it. An awakened sinner frequently labours hard after peace, without being able to obtain it. Wherefore ? Because he seeks it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law, stumbling at that stumbling-stone. In all his labours there is a large portion of self-righteous hope, or an idea that God will pity him on account of his painful endea- vours to please him. But this is like bad flesh in a wound, which must be eaten out before it can be healed. If ever he obtain peace, it must be by utterly despairing of all help from himself, and falling, as a sinner entirely lost; into the arms of sovereign mercy. This is walking “ in the good old way,” which brings rest to the soul ; and the same sense of our insufficiency which is necessary to find rest in the first instance is equally necessary to find it in all that follow. We may pray from year to year, and all without effect. It is only “the prayer of faith” that succeeds; the distin- guishing characteristic of which is, under a sense of there being no help in us, to lay hold of the mercy and faithful- ness of God, as revealed in the gospel. David for a time “ groamed,” and even “roared, by reason of the disquiet- ness of his heart : ” but he obtained no relief from this. On the contrary, he sunk deeper and deeper into despond- ency. At length, he betook him to another manner of praying. “Out of the depths cried I wºnto thee . . . . and thou heardest my voice l’” We find him here pleading the exceeding greatness of God's mercy, and the plenteous- ness of his redemption. Here he found rest for his soul!— Jonah also, for a time, was in much the same state. With a conscience so far awakened as to deprive him of all en- joyment, he retired to the bottom of the ship ; and, wearied with the load of his guilt, slept away his time. Even the horror of a tempest did not awaken him. At length, be- ing roused and reproved by heathens, and marked out by lot as the guilty person, he confesses who he is, and what he had done, and advises them to cast him into the sea. Humanity, for a time, struggles with the elements, but in 922 MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS, ESSAYS, &c. wain—he must be cast away. Think what a state of mind he must at this time have possessed He is thrown into the deep, is swallowed by a fish, and retains his reason even in that situation ; but no light shines upon his soul. Conceiving himself to be on the point of expiring, his heart sighed within him, “I am cast out of thy sight !” But ere the thought had well passed his mind, another struck him . . . . “Yet will I look again towards thy holy temple !” He looked, and was lightened : “Out of the belly of hell cried I unto thee, and thou heardest my voice l’” Secondly, Reflect on the aggravating circumstances of thine offences, or on those things which render it AN Ev11. AND BITTER THING to have departed from the living God, and to have sinned against him in the manner thow hast done.—Every return to God begins with reflection. “I thought on my ways, and turned my feet unto thy testimo- nies.”—“Commune with thine own heart upon thy bed, and be still.” If the God against whom I have sinned had been like the idols of this world, I might have been jus- tified in departing from him ; but I have acted the part of the backsliding Israelites, who were the only people who had a God worth cleaving to, and yet were the only people distinguished by their fickleness. The world cleave close enough to their gods, which yet are no gods; but I have committed these two evils, at which the heavens are aston- ished, I have forsaken the fountain of living waters, and hewed to myself cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water! If the service of the Lord had been a heavy yoke, and if the way of his commandments had been an unfruit- ful and miserable path, I might have some plea for desert- ing it; but what have I gained, except guilt, and shame, and wretchedness, by leaving him 3 Was he a barren wil- derness to me, or a land of darkness? How can I answer his tender, yet cutting expostulations—“O my people, what have I done unto thee 3 wherein have I wearied thee ? testify against me !” If I had been born and educated a benighted pagan, a deluded Mahomedan, or a superstitious papist—if the oracles of God had been withheld from me—or if I had lived all my days in a state of ignorance and insensibility, like multitudes in my native country—the sins that I have committed had been little in comparison of what they now are. I have verged near to the unpardonable sin. It is against light and love that I have offended. He has been as a husband unto me; but I have forsaken him, and have gone after other lovers. Yet he still invites me to return . . . . And what hindereth 7 I am not straitened in him, but in my own bowels. Lord, save me from myself : Surely “I will return to my first husband, for then was it better with me than now.” Thirdly, Reflect on the goodness of God in having hitherto borne with thee, and prevented thy sins from fully operating according to their native tendency.—It is a common observa- tion, that one sin leads on to another. Of this, history and experience furnish many tragical examples. The saunter- ing indolence of David occasioned his adultery. Adultery, when committed," must be concealed, and this leads to treachery and intrigue. When these fail, recourse is had to murder. And when the murder is effected, to carry on the concealment, the event must be attributed to Provi- dence—“The sword devoureth one as well as another l’” The connexion between uncleanness and blood is strongly marked in the history of human crimes. A large propor- tion of those who have been publicly executed for the one were induced to perpetrate the horrid deed as a covert to the other. And hast thou been tampering with these vices; playing at the hole of the cockatrice den 3 How is it that death and hell have not ere now swallowed thee up 3 Behold that wretch who went but yesterday to suffer the just vengeance of his country, for having murdered the object whom he had first seduced ; and see what thou mightest have been Is it not owing to singular mercy that thy sins have been restrained from their wonted and deadly issues 3 It may be, some who have been companions, or at least contemporaries, with thee in the first stages of sin, have meanwhile been suffered to make more rapid progress. * That which is included in reversed commas is a part of the º: of Archbishop Cranmer; who, through fear of man, had denied his faith, but was, notwithstanding, burned to death. When brought to Their follies have ended in infamy, while thine have been restrained, and comparatively hid. And it is possible, while the public voice has been raised against them, thou hast joined it. “And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness, and forbearance, and long- suffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance 3’” If the recollection of such things leadeth thee not to repentance, it is a dark sign of a hard and impenitent heart, “treasuring up to itself wrath against the day of wrath, and revelation of the righteous judgment of God.” - Fourthly, Reflect on the state and exercises of thy mind in former times.—This was the counsel of the apostle to the Hebrews, who, disheartened by persecution, were half inclined to go back again to Judaism : “Call to remem- brance the former days, in which, after that ye were illu- minated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions.” This was the counsel of our Lord himself to the churches of Ephesus and Sardis : “Remember from whence thou art fallen, and repent.”—“Remember how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent.” Ask thine own soul, Are there no seasons of tenderness in my life which it would be for my profit to recall to mind 3 I have professed repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ; and was it only a profession ? Was there not a time when my sins were more bitter to me than death, and more dreaded than hell ? How is it that I have turned again to folly 3 Has sin changed its nature, or become less odious 3 Rather is not the change in me? Was there not a time when the word of the Lord was precious to my soul—when my sabbaths were my happiest days, and godly people my chosen companions 3 Whence this lamentable change 2 Is Christ or the gospel less precious than here- tofore ? I once thought, that if I might but be found in him, and live for ever with him, and those that love him, I should not care what I lost or suffered in the present world. And was I all this time deceiving myself? Were my repentance, and faith, and hope, and love, and joy, all counterfeit * I endured reproaches and losses, as I sup- posed, for his name sake; and is it all in vain 3 Must I at last be separated for ever from him, and have my por- tion with unbelievers? “O Lord, have mercy upon me, a most wretched caitiff, and miserable sinner . I have offend- ed both against heaven and earth, more than my tongue can express | Whither then may I go, or whither shall I flee? To heaven I may be ashamed to lift up mine eyes, and on earth I find no place of refuge or succour. To THEE, therefore, O Lord, do I run ; To THEE do I humble myself. O Lord, my God, my sins are great; but yet have mercy upon me, for thy great mercy. The great mystery, that God became man, was not wrought for small or few offences. Thou didst not give thy Son unto death for little sins only; but for all the greatest sins of the world ; so that the sinner returns to thee with his whole heart, as I do here at this present. Wherefore have mercy on me, O God, whose property is always to have mercy. Have mercy upon me, O Lord, for thy great mercy. O Lord, I crave nothing for my own merits, but for thy name sake, that it might be hallowed thereby, and for thy dear Son Jesus Christ’s sake.”* This part of our Lord’s counsel would apply not only to those who have fallen into gross immoralities, but to such as have deserted the principles of the gospel. It was asked the Galatians through what medium it was that they first “received the Spirit; by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith.” This question proceeds upon the principle of that being the true doctrine which is pro- ductive of the best effects ; and by the manner in which it is introduced, “This only would I learn of you,” it is intimated that the solution is of itself sufficient to deter- mine what the true doctrine is. And what are the effects produced by a relinquishment of the doctrines usually de- nominated evangelical ? may, I might say, by only a hesi- tation concerning them 4 I appeal to those who have made the trial. Have you the same joy and peace in believing execution, (which was at Oxford, on March 21, 1556,) he uttered the above prayer; and, on the flames approaching him, first thrust into the fire the hand with which he had signed his recantation. THE BACKSLIDER. 1923 your present principles as you had in your former ones? Can you, or do you, go to a throne of grace with the same holy freedom as heretofore ? Do you feel an equal concern for the salvation of your poor ungodly neighbours ? Ra- ther is not the far greater part of your zeal consumed in labouring to make proselytes of serious Christians to your new way of thinking 3 Does the society of those who are like-minded with yourself afford that inward satisfaction which you once enjoyed in the fellowship of those whom you are now taught to pity as enthusiasts If, while pro- fessing these things, you were strangers to them, you may answer these questions in the affirmative ; but if otherwise, you will not. “Remember from whence you are fallen, and repent : * “Remember how you have received and heard, and hold fast, and repent.” Fifthly, Set apart special times to humble yourself before God by fasting and prayer.—Extraordinary cases require the use of extraordinary means. When a great army was coming against Jehoshaphat, it is said, “he feared, and set himself to seek the Lord, and proclaimed a fast through- out all Judah.” But the loss of the soul is of more ac- count to you than the temporal overthrow of a country was to him. When Judah, for its backslidings, was under the frowns of God in Babylon, and had been so for about seventy years, Daniel says, “I set my face unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer and supplication, with fasting and sackcloth and ashes.” The apostle Paul plainly intimates that there are times wherein we are required to “give ourselves to fasting and prayer.” And surely there can be no times in which these means are more necessary than when we have got out of the way, and desire to recover it. . There is much meaning in the words, “He set him- self to seek the Lord ; ” and, “I set my face unto the Lord God.” They denote something more than the ordi- nary exercises of prayer; even a special fixedness of the thoughts, purposes, and desires to a particular object: and God has usually honoured those extraordinary ap- proaches to him, when influenced by a pure motive, with success. It is true, we may attend to duty in a supersti- tious or self-righteous spirit; resting in it as an end, in- stead of using it as a means; but this is not setting our face unto the Lord God, or seeking him. A day devoted to God in humiliation, fasting, and prayer, occasionally occupied with reading suitable parts of the Holy Scriptures, may, by the blessing of the Holy Spirit, contribute more to the subduing of sin, and the recovery of a right mind, than years spent in a sort of half-hearted exercises. Sixthly, To prayer it is necessary to add watchfulness. —Our Lord unites these together as an antidote against temptation. It has sometimes been one of the devices of Satan, after a backslider has been drawing near to God, and strongly soliciting for mercy, yea, after a time has been set apart for this particular purpose, to ply him afresh with some powerful temptation ; and while his mind has been unsuspicious, and, it may be, thinking itself to be somewhat secure, on account of having so lately been en- gaged in earnest devotion, he has been surprised and overcome ! The consequence, as might be expected, has been a future neglect of prayer, under the idea that it must have been mere hypocrisy before, and would now be adding sin to sin. Instead of depending upon spiritual frames for preservation, and especially when they are over, perhaps we ought to expect that our comforts should be succeeded by conflicts. We know it was so in several cases recorded in the Scriptures. Immediately after drinking at the smitten rock at Rephidim, Israel was called to fight with Amalek- Paul’s thorn in the flesh succeeded to extraordinary revelations. Our Lord himself went up from Jordan into the wilderness, to be tempted of the devil. Seventhly, In your approaches to the Saviour, let it be wnder the character in which you first applied to him for ºercy, that of a SINNER.—If you attempt to approach the throne of grace as a good man who has backslidden from God, you may find it impossible to support that character. The reality of your conversion may be doubtful, not only in your apprehension, but in itself. Your approach, therefore, must not be as one that “is washed, and need- eth not save to wash his feet; ” but as one who is defiled throughout, whose hands and head, and every part, need to be cleansed. Do not employ yourself in raking over the rubbish of your past life in search of evidence that you are a Christian. You will not be able, in your present state of mind, to decide that question ; nor would it be of any service to you if you could decide it. One thing is cer- tain : you are a sinner, a poor, miserable, and perishing sinner: the door of mercy is open ; and you are welcome to enter in. Let your past character then have been what it may, and let your conversion be ever so doubtful, if you can from this time relinquish all for Christ, eternal life is before you. The Laodiceans, who, though composing a Christian church, were doubtful characters, are counselled to deal with Christ in the same manner as sinners deal with him, for riches, for righteousness, and for heavenly wisdom. Lastly, In all your supplications, be contented with no- thing short of a complete recovery.' It is possible you may obtain so much ascendency over your evil propensities that they may seem to be slain before you ; or, at least, that you are in no particular danger of yielding to them any more; and yet you may not have recovered that holy rest in God, that sweet peace which arises from confessing our sins upon the head of the gospel sacrifice. But while this is the case there is no security against their revival. The first temptation by which you are assaulted may afford lamentable proof that they are yet alive. Nothing will serve as a preservative against the risings of evil propensi- ties short of walking with God. There is much important truth in that declaration of the apostle, “This I say, then, walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.” Sin is not to be opposed so much directly as in- directly ; not by mere resistance, but by opposing other principles to it, which shall overcome it. It is not by con- tending with the fire, especially with combustible materials about us, that we shall be able to quench it; but by deal- ing plentifully with the opposite element. The pleasures of sense will not be effectually subdued by foregoing all enjoyment; but by imbibing other pleasures, the relish of which shall deaden the heart to what is opposite. It was thus that the apostle became “dead to the world by the cross of Christ.” Do not, therefore, reckon thyself restored till thou hast recovered communion with God. David, though the subject of deep contrition, yet was not content- ed without gaining this important point. Till then the poison would still, at times, be rankling in his imagination. Hence arose the following petitions, “Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence ; and take not thy Holy Spirit from me. Restore unto me the joy of thy sal- vation; and uphold me with thy free Spirit.” Make these petitions thy own ; and if God grant the thing that thine heart desireth, go and sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon thee! ON THE PROGRESSIVENESS OF SIN AND OF HOLINESS. [To the Editor of the Biblical Magazine.] THE PROGRESS OF SIN. WHEN our Saviour spoke of his making men free, the Jews were offended. It hurt their pride to be represented as slaves; yet slaves they were—and such is every sinner, however insensible of it, till Christ has made him free. And the longer he continues in this state, the more he is entangled, and the less capable he becomes of making his escape. Sin is a master that will not suffer its slaves to rest, but is always hurrying them on from one thing to an- other, till, having finished its operations, it bringeth forth death. The way of sin is a way in which there is no standing still—a kind of down-hill road, in which every step gives an accelerated force, till you reach the bottom. Such is the import of those emphatic words of the apostle, “Ye were servants to imiquity, unto iniquity.” To be a servant to iniquity is descriptive of the state of every unconverted sinner. All may not be subject to the same kind of evils: one may be enslaved to drunkenness, 924 MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS, ESSAYS, &c. another to uncleanness, another to covetousness, another to fashion, and another to self-righteous pride ; but these are only different forms of government, suited to different tempers and constitutions: all are servants to iniquity; and all who continue such are impelled in a manner to go on in their work, “servants to iniquity, unto iniquity.” The proofs of this tendency to progression will appear in the following remarks. First, He that yields himself a servant to sin, in any one of its forms, admits a principle which opens the door to sin in every other form. This principle is, that the authority of God is not to be regarded when it stands in the way of our inclinations; if you admit of this principle, there is nothing to hinder you from going into any evil which your soul lusteth after. You may not, indeed, commit every bad practice ; but while such is the state of your mind, it is not the fear of God, but a regard to man, or a concern for your own interest, safety, or reputation, that restrains you. If you indulge in theft, for instance, you would, with the same unconcern, commit adultery, robbery, or murder, provided you were tempted to such things, and could com- mit them with the hope of escaping punishment. It is thus that he who transgresses the law in one point is guilty of all : for HE that forbids one sin forbids all ; and a de- liberate offence against Him in one particular is as really a rejection of his authority as in many. Moreover, if the mind be unrestrained by the fear of God, a regard to man will have but a feeble hold of it. Sin, in various shapes, will be frequently indulged, and, being so indulged, it will soon break out into open vices; for it is not in the power of a man, with all his contrivances, long to conceal the ruling dispositions of his soul. When king Saul had once disregarded the Divine authority in his treatment of the Amalekites, there were no bounds to the evil workings of his mind : full of jealousy, envy, and ma- lignity, he murders a whole city of innocent men, repairs to a witch for counsel, and at last puts an end to his miserable life. Secondly, Every sin we commit goes to destroy the prin- ciple of resistance, and it produces a kind of desperate care- lessness. Purity of mind, like cleanliness of apparel, is accompanied with a desire of avoiding every thing that might defile; and even where this has no place, conscience, aided by education and example, is a great preservative against immoral and destructive courses; but if we once plunge into the vices of the world, emulation is extin- guished. The child that is accustomed to rags and filth loses all shame, and feels no ambition to appear neat and decent. The first time a person yields to a particular temptation it is not without some struggles of conscience; and when it is past, his soul is usually smitten with remorse; and, it may be, he thinks he shall never do the like again : but temptation returning, and the motive to resist being weak- ened, he becomes an easy prey to the tempter. And now the clamours of conscience subside, his heart grows hard, and his mind desperate. “There is no hope,” saith he, “I have loved strangers, and after them I will go.” Under the first workings of temptation he set bounds to himself; “Hitherto,” said he, “I will go, and no further:” but now all such promises are of no account. The insect en- tangled in the spider's web can do nothing; every effort it makes only winds another thread round its wings; and, after a few ineffectual struggles, it falls a prey to the de- stroyer. Thirdly, Every sin we commit not only goes to destroy the principle of resistance, but produces an inordinate de- sire after the repetition of it; and thus, like half an army going over to the enemy, operates both ways against us, weakening our scruples, and strengthening our propensities. —This is manifestly the effect in such sins as drunkenness, gaming, and fornication. It is one of the deceits of sin to promise that, if we will but grant its wishes in this or that particular, it will ask no more, or to persuade its deluded votaries that indulgence will assuage the torrent of desire ; but though this may be the case for a short time, sin will return with redoubled violence. It rises in its demands, from every concession you make to it. He that has enter- ed the paths of the destroyer can tell, from experience, that it is a thousand times more difficult to recede than to re- frain from engaging. The thirst of the leech at the vein, and of the drunkard at his bottle, are but faint emblems of the burnings of desire in the mind in these stages of de- pravity. Fourthly, If we yield to one sin, we shall find ourselves under a kind of necessity of going into other sins, in order to hide or excuse it.—This is a truth so evident that it needs only to be stated in order to be admitted. Examples abound, both in Scripture and common life. When sin is committed, the first thing that suggests itself to the sinner is, if possible, to conceal it; or, if that cannot be, to excuse it. Adam first strove to hide himself in the trees of the garden, and when this refuge failed him, it was the woman, and the woman that God gave to be with him too, who tempted him to do as he did. Nearly the same course was pursued by David. Having outraged decorum, he first betakes himself to intrigue, in hope to cover his crime ; and when this failed him, he has recourse to murder ; and, this being accomplished, the horrible event is, with an air of affected resignation, ascribed to Providence: “The sword devoureth one as well as another ” Nor is this the only instance wherein that which has begun in a wanton look has ended in blood. What numbers of innocent babes are murdered, and one or both of their unhappy parents executed, for that which is resorted to merely as a cover for illicit practices ! Fifthly, Every act of sin tends to form a sinful habit; or, if already formed, to strengthen it.—Single acts of sin are as drops of water, which possess but little force; but when they become a habit, they are a mighty stream which bears down all before it. The drunkard had no natural thirst for strong liquors. Some worldly trouble, or the love of loose company, first brought him to make free with them; but having once contracted the habit, though he knows he is every day wasting his substance, shortening his life, and ruining his soul, yet he cannot desist. Even under the power of stupefaction, he calls for more drink : his very dreams betray his lusts. “They have smitten me,” says he, “and I was not sick; they have beaten me, and I felt it not : when shall I awake 3 I will seek it yet again.”— The gamester, at the first, thought but little of doing what he now does. He fell in company, it may be, with a card- party, or had heard of a lucky adventure in the lottery, or known a person who had made his fortune by a successful speculation in the stocks. So he resolves to try a little of it himself. He succeeds. He tries again; ventures deeper and deeper, with various success. His circumstances be- come embarassed ; yet, having begun, he must go on. One more great adventure is to recover all, and free him from his difficulties. He loses; his family is ruined ; his cre- ditors are wronged; and himself, it is not impossible, driven to the use of such means of support as shall bring him to an untimely end —The debauchee was once, it may be, a sober man. His illicit connexions might originate in what were thought at the time very innocent familiarities. But having once invaded the laws of chastity, he sets no bounds to his desires. “His eyes are full of adultery, and he cannot cease from sin.” Sixthly, When the sinner becomes thus besotted in the ways of sin, there are commonly a number of circumstances and considerations, besides his own attachment to it, which entangle his soul, and, if infinite mercy interpose not, pre- vent his escape. He has formed connexions among men like himself . . . . . . His interest will suffer . . . . . . His companions will reproach him . . . . . The world will laugh at him. Many in such circumstances have been the sub- jects of strong convictions, have shed many tears, and pro- fessed great desire to return from their evil course; yet when it has come to the test, they could not recede : having begun and gone on so far, they cannot relinquish it now, whatever be the consequence. Reader, is this, or something like it, your case ? Permit a well-wisher to your soul to be free with you. Be assured you must return or perish for ever, and that in a little time. Infidels may tell you there is no danger; but when they come to die they have commonly discovered that they did not believe their own words or writings. “Werily there is a God that judgeth in the earth;” and before Him you must shortly give an account. Will you plunge your- self into the pit from whence there is no redemption? PROGRESSIVENESS OF SIN AND OF HOLINESS. 925 That tremendous punishment is represented as not pre- pared originally for you, but for the devil and his angels, If you go thither, you in a manner take the kingdom of darkness by force. Let me add, It is not enough for you to return, unless in so doing you return to God.—“Ye have returned, but not unto me, saith the Lord.” If I felt only for your credit and comfort in this world, I might have contented myself with warning you to break off your outward vices, and cautioning you against the inlets of future evils. Ani- mals, though void of reason, yet, through mere instinct, fly from present danger. “In vain is the net spread in the sight of any bird.” The fishes of the sea avoid the whirl- pool. And shall man go with his eyes open into the net 3 Will he sail unconcerned into the vortex of destruction ? But it is not from present danger only, or chiefly, that I would warn you to flee. My heart’s desire and prayer to God for you is, that you may be saved from the wrath to come. Know, then, that though you should escape the grosser immoralities of the world, yet you may be still in your sins, and exposed to eternal ruin. Your danger does not lie merely nor mainly in open vices. Satan may be cast out with respect to these, and yet retire into the strong holds of proud self-satisfaction. It is not the out- ward spot that will kill you, but the inward disease whence it proceeds. “From within, even from the heart, proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, and blasphemies.” Every outbreaking of sin in your life is a proof of the inward corruption of your na- ture. If this fountain be not healed, in vain will you go about to purify the streams. I mean not to dissuade you from breaking off your sins; but to persuade you to break them off “by righteousness.” But the only way in which this is to be done is that to which our Saviour directed in his preaching . . . . . . “Repent, and believe the gospel.” All reformation short of this is only an exchange of vices. But if you can, guilty and unworthy as you are, renouncing all other hopes and dependencies, believe in Christ, you shall be saved. His blood was shed for sinners, even the chief of sinners. His obedience unto death was so well-pleasing to God, that any sinner, whatever has been his conduct or character, that comes to him in his name, pleading his righteousness and his only, will be accepted for his sake. as you, but is now at the right hand of God, carrying into effect the great ends of his incarnation, life, and death. “Wherefore he is able to save to the uttermost all them that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.” If, reader, thou canst embrace this doctrine, it will heal thy malady. If from thine heart thou canst receive salva- tion as of mere grace, through the redemption of Jesus Christ, it is thine own. If thou canst confess thy sins upon the head of this sacrifice, “God is faithful and just to forgive thy sins, and to cleanse thee from all unrighteous- ness.” God makes nothing of thy reformations, prayers, or tears, as a reason why he should accept and save thee; but every thing of what his Son has done and suffered. If thou canst be of his mind, making nothing of them in thy pleas and hopes for mercy, but every thing of Him in whom he is well-pleased, eternal life is before thee. And at what time this doctrine shall give peace to thy troubled soul, it shall purify thy heart in such a manner that all thy former ways shall become hateful unto thee, and sobriety, righteousness, and godliness shall be thy delight. But if thy heart be still hardened in sin; if Jesus, and salvation by grace through his name, contain nothing at- tractive, but rather offensive to thy mind . . . . . know this, “There is no other name given under heaven, among men, by which thou canst be saved ;” and the remembrance of thy having once in thy life at least been told the truth may not a little imbitter thy dying moments. Happy are all they who returning, in the name of Jesus Christ, to his Father and their Father, his God and their God, are made free from sin, and have their fruit unto holiness . They too are progressive, but it is in a course the opposite of that which has been set before the reader. “The righteous shall hold on his way, and he that hath clean hands shall wax stronger and stronger.” The service of God shall become more easy to him; truth shall He has not only obeyed and died for such appear more evident ; the marks of his conversion shall multiply; his character shall strike its roots deeper; the hope of his perseverance shall continually renew its strength; and sorrow and joy, retirement and society, the dispensa- tions of Providence and the ordinances of grace, shall all contribute to make him more meet for the inheritance of the saints in light. THE PROGRESS OF RIGHTEOUSN ESS. HAVING offered a few thoughts on the progress of sin, in your last number, the following may be considered as a counterpart. Righteousness is no less progressive than unrighteousness. As, in the one case, sinners are “serv- ants to iniquity unto iniquity;” so, in the other, believers are “servants to righteousness unto holiness.” Some, I am aware, have denied that sanctification is progressive ; but this, if they understand what they say, is only a proof, I fear, that they are strangers to it. The fol- lowing remarks may serve to show the tendency of true holiness to aspire after perfection, however far we may be from attaining to it. First, The right discharge of any one duty supposes a principle which will lead us to be holy in all manner of conversation.—Strictly speaking, there is no duty per- formed, nor anything done by a sinner, that is well-pleasing to God, till, repenting of sin, he believes in Jesus for sal- vation. This is the turning point which gives a new di- rection to his future course ; all before it is worse than nothing. When, therefore, the Jews inquired of Christ, “What shall we do to work the works of God 3 '' the answer was, “This is the work of God, that ye believe in him whom he hath sent.” It is on this principle that the apostle declares of him that “doeth righteousness” that he “is righteous.” A single act of righteousness proves that the subject of it is created anew in Christ Jesus unto good works. But where this is the case, there is that in the mind which tends to universal holiness. A few insu- lated services may satisfy a formalist; but he that believeth in Jesus has his heart enlarged, and runs with delight in the way of his commandments. It is not the inquiry of such a person how low a degree of spirituality will consist with true religion, but how high a degree of it is attain- able in this state of imperfection. The religion of a mere professor resembles the legs of the lame, which are not equal. In the house of God he weeps and seems to be all devotion; but if a poor man, or even a poor Christian, call at his door, his heart is shut against him. Or, it may be, he prides himself in his generosity; but then he is dead to every thing spiritual and heavenly-minded. Not so the true Christian ; his religion is uniform. In him, the fear of God produces good-will to men; and his charity to men operates in harmony with zeal for truth, for righteousness, and for God. When a mere professor has once established his religious character, he will com- monly sit down to rest, and leave the young people to be zealous in their turn, as he thinks he has been sufficiently in his ; but love will go on to “bring forth fruit in old age.” When the Lord had given David rest round about from all his enemies, he is said to have “sat in his house; ” not, however, in a state of indolence, as though he had done enough, but meditating what more he could do for God, now that new opportunities were afforded him. “See now,” said he to Nathan, “I dwell in a house of cedar; but the ark of God dwelleth within curtains.” And more than twenty years afterwards, when he was old and grey-headed, and nature worn out with troubles in his family and his kingdom, he still resolves to “go in the strength of the Lord God, and to praise him more and more.” Secondly, Every duty rightly performed prepares the heart for the discharge of other duties.—It was a remark of the great and good Mr. Whitefield, and there is no man's lips whom it would have better fitted, “that the more a man does for God the more he may.” Gracious dispo- sitions strengthen and increase by exercise. The chariot in full motion surmounts hills of difficulty with much less effort than at its first outset. The truth of these remarks is most sensibly felt in exercises of self-denial, and in the \, 926 MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS, ESSAYS, &c. influence of private on public duties. Every act of self- denial for Christ's sake is a victory over temptation, and every such victory doubles our strength for a future onset. Thus, also, the spiritual and retired exercises of the closet prepare the mind for those of the family, and both have a tendency to fit us for those of the house of God. A little religion, it has been said, and with much propriety, will make a man miserable ; but much will make him happy. It is by following the Lord fully, like Caleb and Joshua, that we enter into the gospel rest. Thirdly, Every degree of holiness tends to an increase of spiritual knowledge, which in return produces more holiness.--It has been a question much disputed, whether holiness leads to the knowledge of the truth, or the know- ledge of the truth to holiness ; but both are true : “He that doeth God’s will shall know of his doctrine ;” and, “beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, we are changed into the same image, from glory to glory—by the Spirit of the Lord.” The influence of each upon the other is as that of capital and interest in trade. Capital is a stimulus to interest, and interest increases capital. The influence which humility has, for instance, upon a discovery of the mind of God in his word, and upon the increase of true religion in the soul, is beyond all calcu- lation. God will “guide the meek in judgment; the meek will he teach his way.” He giveth “more grace" to the humble. Fourthly, Holy acts tend to form and strengthen holy habits, which constitute the highest degree of holiness.— In one sense every person who is the subject of true re- ligion possesses a holy habit: religion with him is not occasional, but an habitual pursuit. But the term is more properly applied to those fixed dispositions of the soul which are the effect of repeated exercises. God has so formed the mind, that a number of acts of the same kind, whether good or evil, shall give a tone or direction to it: by this righteousness is encouraged and sin is punished. Every exercise of repentance goes to form an habitual tenderness of conscience, and abhorrency of that which is evil; and every exercise of faith tends to a life of faith on Him who loved us, and gave himself for us. The more we read the Holy Scriptures, the more we shall imbibe their spirit, and be formed by them as by a model. It is thus that the word of Christ dwells richly in us in all wisdom and spiritual understanding. It is worthy of notice, that the general strain of apostolic exhortation is directed to habitual religion. “Simplicity in giving, diligence in ruling, cheerfulness in showing mercy, love without dis- simulation, abhorrence of evil, cleaving to that which is good, being kindly affectioned one to another, with bro- therly love, in honour preferring one another ; not slothful in business, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord; rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing instant in prayer; distributing to the necessity of the saints, given to hospi- tality;” are abl expressive, not of one or two particular acts, but of a life of devotedness to God, and kindness to men. And whatever acts the apostles exhorted to, they were considered only as so many steps in a race, each of which contributed to its success, or to the winning of the prize. Fifthly, Holy habits are friendly to a life of communion with God, by which the soul becomes more and more meetened for the inheritance of the saints in light.—“ He that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in God, and God in him.” The ecstasies of some, whose walk is mani- festly carnal, worldly, fleshly, and even devilish, arise from a fire of their own kindling. But he whose consolations are accompanied with a close walk with God, and render him more and more watchful, diligent, and circumspect, he it is that walks in the light of God's countenance. The enjoyment he finds in the commandments of God enlarges his heart; and, his heart being enlarged, he runs with greater pleasure in the way of his commandments. From the whole we see, 1. The vast importance of a ºright beginning in religion. If we be wrong in the outset, the further we go the further we are off; but, entering in at the door of the sheepfold, we shall go in and out, and find pasture. The reason why so many are not progressive in religion is the want of this. Having no connexion with Christ, they bring forth no fruit, and, as dead branches, are taken away : having no oil in their vessels, the lamp A FEW PERSUASIVES soon expires. 2. The importance of every act of holiness or duty performed with an eye to the glory of God.—lt tells, as I may say, in the divine life. It tends to accu- mulate a store of heavenly wealth, and to meeten us for employments and enjoyments in another and better world. TO “A GENERAL |UNION IN PRAYER,” FOR THE REWIWAL OF RELIGION.” [Addressed to all who love and long for the coming of Christ's blessed kingdom, and whose hearts may be inclined to unite in seek- ing its welfare.] CHRISTIAN BRETHREN . THE business for the promotion of which these few hints are with all due respect recommended to your candid attention is such that we are persuaded you will cheerfully unite in it. Indeed it would be unfriendly in us to sus- pect your readiness to so good a work. Nevertheless, con- sidering the backwardness and inattention common to us all in this world, you will not think it superfluous in this case to urge a few motives, for the purpose of stimulating us to wrestle hard with God. We wish you then, and ourselves with you, seriously to attend to the following considerations :- 1. Consider Christ's readiness to hear and answer prayer, especially on these subjects. We are greatly mistaken if we imagine our Lord Jesus takes no pleasure in his own work, but is loth to prosper it, and only is persuaded by us, or does it to oblige us. He takes infinitely more pleasure in it than we do; and when he does it in answer to our prayers, it is that we may be encouraged, and that his favours may be thankfully received. Christ takes care to let us know how ready he is to hear Frayer, especially in behalf of his own cause, in that he directs us to pray for these blessings; yea, he even commands us to pray for the coming of his kingdom before we ask for our daily bread ; and to “seek first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness,” promising that “all other things shall be added unto us,” Matt. vi. 33. Indeed it may well be supposed that Christ’s heart is in this work; for he laid down his life as a ground whereon to rear the structure. The foundation of this glorious kingdom was laid in blood, not, like too many earthly kingdoms, in the blood of the conquered, but in that of the conqueror. Yes, he died that he might live and see a numerous seed of converts; and might prolong his days, or lengthen out his holy and happy kingdom. When he ascended into heaven, and took the government of all worlds into his hands, it was with a view to the carrying on of this blessed cause. He became Head over all things, but it was to the church, that he might cause every thing to subserve her welfare. And now having thus died to lay the foundation of his kingdom, and thus long presided over all the kingdoms of the world to ripen things for it, it would be very strange indeed if he were indifferent about it ! So far from that, nothing seems to lie so near his heart. He is pleased to look upon the conversion of sinners as reward enough for all his sorrows—as sufficient to make him forget all his trials . As a woman, as soon as she is delivered from travail, remembers no more the anguish for joy that a man-child is born into the world, so it is said, “He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied l’’ Yes, Christians, so far is he from being reluctant to grant us these requests, that he is pleased in these matters not only to command us to ask, but to represent himself as waiting to be gracious ; yea, as being at our command, as ready to bestow these mercies whenever we shall earnestly pray for them. “Thus saith the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me!” See how intent he is upon what concerns his sons, and * This was the author's first publication. See p. xxxix.-ED. IPERSUASIVES TO UNION IN PRAYER. 927 the work of his hands. O let us not be backward on our art. p 2. Consider what the Lord has done in times past, and that in answer to prayer. When Israel, who was God’s church at that time, was in Egypt, and things looked very dark indeed, they cried, and the Lord heard their cry, and came down to deliver them. Their deliverance was the extending of Christ's kingdom ; and God overthrew Pha- raoh and all his host for setting themselves against it. The church in after-ages, when in her low estate at Baby- lon, is represented as making use of this as a plea with God. Thus they cry to him, “Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the Lord ; awake as in the ancient days, in the generations of old. Art thou not it that hath cut Rahab, and wounded the dragon 3 Art thou not it which hath dried the sea, the waters of the great deep : that hath made the depth of the sea a way for the ransom- ed to pass over ?” And was their prayer answered 4 Yes; the Lord presently replied, “I am the Lord thy God, that divided the sea, whose waves roared ; the Lord of hosts is his name !”—Yea, as a kind of echo to their request, “Awake, awake, stand up, O Jerusalem, which hast drunk at the hand of the Lord the cup of his fury.—Thus saith thy Lord Jehovah, and thy God that pleadeth the cause of his people, Behold, I have taken out of thine hand the cup of trembling, the dregs of the cup of my fury; thou shalt no more drink it again.”—See Isa. li. 9. 17. 22. While Judah groaned beneath Babel's yoke, Daniel set his face three times a-day towards Jerusalem ; at length his prayers and supplications are heard, and an angel is sent to comfort him, yea, and to inform him that at the beginning of his supplications the commandment in favour of Judah came forth. . And now God’s conduct towards Pharaoh and all his host shall be acted over again towards Belshazzar and his. Yes, he not only gave Egypt and Ethiopia, but Babylon for their ransom. The church of God was reduced exceedingly low just before the coming of Christ, but what was the conduct of those few that were on God's side 3 Some of them are distinguished by the character of those who “ looked for redemption in Jerusalem,” and others are said to have “continued in prayer might and day.” At length, through the tender mercy of God, their prayers were answered, and “the day-spring from on high visited them l’’ Just before that great outpouring of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, the church was in a low and disconsolate condition, having lost Christ's personal presence; how- ever, they united with one accord in ardent prayer, in an upper room, to the number of about a hundred and twen- ty. Presently, their light broke forth as the morning —a little one becomes a thousand, and a small one a strong nation. Thousands are converted by a single ser- mon, and Satan falls before the gospel of Christ like lightning from heaven.—May we not make the same use of these glorious works of God, with some others in that day, as Judah did in Babylon of what God had done for them in Egypt?–O let us pray to the Lord Jesus that the work may be carried on ; that antichrist may be con- sumed with the Spirit of his mouth, and destroyed by the brightness of his coming; that the kingdoms of this world may become the kingdoms of our Lord and his Christ, and that he may reign for ever and ever. 3. Let the present religious state of the world be con- sidered to this end. Christianity has not yet made its way, even in name, over one-fifth part of the world. Out of about one thousand millions, who are supposed to inhabit our globe, not above one hundred and seventy millions profess the Christian name; all the rest are heathens, Jews, or Mahomédans; and, of those who do profess it, the far greater part are either of the apostate Church of Rome, or of the Greek Church, which is nearly as corrupt. Add to this, what great numbers of real heathens abound in Christian lands, and unbelievers even in the congregations of the faithful. Surely it is high time for us to awake out of sleep, and to send our united cries to heaven in behalf of our fellow creatures 1 4. Consider what God has promised to do for his church &n times to come. For an absolute impossibility we can have no hope, and for what God hath declared shall never come to pass we can have no warrant to pray; but when we pray for the spread of Christ’s kingdom, our object is clogged with neither of these difficulties. On the con- trary, it is accompanied with the strongest assurances of success. Let us not imagine that God has yet done all he intends to do for his church; or that Christ has yet seen of the travail of his soul so as to be satisfied. Be- sides the various promises referred to in the foregoing pages, the first setting up of Christ’s kingdom is compared to a little stone, cut out of a mountain without hands, but which should in time break in pieces all the rest, and be- come “a great mountain, and fill the whole earth,” Dan, ii. 35. The King himself compared this his blessed kingdom in its infancy to a “grain of mustard seed,” the least of all seeds, but when grown, the “greatest of all herbs;” implying, no doubt, that his kingdom in its beginning was apparently the most weak and despicable of any kingdom; but before it should be finished it should be the greatest, most glorious, and extensive, of all the kingdoms that were ever set up—greater than that of Alexander himself, and more durable than that of Rome, Matt. xiii. 31–33. In the same place, he compares it to a little leaven which a woman put into three measures of meal till the whole was leavened. Glorious thought ! Christ has been leavening the world for many hundred years, by the preaching of the gospel; and yet, awful to think, what a great part of it continues unleavened to this day ! But, O blessed be God, it shall not be given up till the whole is leavened 1 Forlorn as the state of the heathem world is, our Lord Jesus has asked them for his inheritance, and he will have them, even the uttermost parts of the earth for his posses- sion, Psal. ii. 8. O blessed period 1 when Jew and Gen- tile, the fair European and the sun-burnt African, with men of every other description, shall all unite to serve the Lord. Must it not be very reviving to see those branches that have been so long broken off the olive tree, because of un- belief, grafted in again 3—to see them return, and, with the bitter tears of reflection, “seek the Lord their God, and David their King, and fear the Lord and his goodness in the latter days 4” Hos. iii. 5. Yes, verily, the receiv- ing of them back again shall be to the Gentiles like “life from the dead!” Rom. xi. 15. Then shall they be re- stored to their own land, and no more be exposed to the hostile attacks of quarrelsome neighbours as heretofore, but “Israel shall be with Egypt and with Assyria a blessing in the midst of the land ; whom Jehovah of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance,” Isa. xix. 23. 25. Then those glorious things spoken of the city of God, in the eighty-seventh Psalm, shall be accomplished. —We shall see “Rahab and Babylon, Philistia and Tyre, with Ethiopia,” given to the church. “ Ethiopia shall stretch out her hands to God,” Psal. lxviii. 31. Oh what encouragement is here to pray ! How long these things will be we know not; but this we know, we are nearer by above two thousand four hundred years than the church was in Isaiah’s time, and even then they that made men- tion of Jehovah were charged, saying, “ Keep not silence, and give him no rest, till he make Jerusalem a praise in the earth,” Isa. lxii. 6, 7. Let us never forget that Je- hovah connects the fulfilment of his own promises with the fervent supplications of his people. “I will yet for this be inquired of by the house of Israel, to do it for them,” Ezek. xxxvi. 37. 5. If we have any regard to the welfare of our country- ºnen, connexioms, and friends, let that stimulate us in this work. Let us remember we have not only heathens, and Jews, and others abroad, to pray for; but few of us are wholly unconnected with heathem neighbours, heathen re- lations, or stubborn and unbelieving children. Let these be borne in the arms of prayer before the Lord. Though they can claim no pity from God, yet they have a right to ours, because we were in the same condition. Let our pity then be extended to those who have none for them- selves, and our prayers ascend for such who as yet call not upon God’s name. Though there be no reason why God should save our children, relations, or friends, before others, yet there is a reason why we should seek their salvation before others, because they are particularly put under our care, or stand in connexion with us. 928 MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS, ESSAYS, &c. To neglect to carry our children to Christ for a blessing from want of love, if such a thing could be in a good man, would be more cruel than the ostrich in the wilderness | So were it possible for a Christian to be amongst wicked neighbours and wicked relations, and, seeing he is safe himself, care nothing about them, surely he must be beside himself! How unlike would this be to the spirit of his Lord and Saviour—he wept over those who wept not for themselves O Christians, for your country’s sake, your neighbours' sake, your friends' sake, yea, your enemies' sake, as well as for the honour of Christ, seek the welfare of Zion, and pray for the extending of his kingdom in the world ! 6. Consider that what is requested is so very small. The Lord does not ask us in this case for our silver or our gold, which, if he did, it were but a trifle to give.-He does not require us to sacrifice our lives, families, or friends, in sup- port of his cause, which, if he did, it is no more than mul- titudes of the best men that ever the world saw have com- plied with ;-but he only says, “Give me thine heart!” Seek the prosperity of His interest who died for yours—of that interest with which your own is so inseparably united —yea, of that interest which is your own; for Christ and you have no separate interests. As to the times for public prayer, nothing can be less burdensome than once in a month—but what did I say, burdensome 4–God forbid that any employment of this sort should ever prove a burden . It is hoped it will be attended to as a privilege rather than merely as a duty. It is hoped that Christians will feel a pleasure, and find a benefit, in these meetings, that will induce them of their own accord to meet together more frequently than this proposes, either on Lord’s-day mornings, or on any conve- nient opportunities, for the same most desirable purposes. 7. And lastly, It will not be in vain, whatever be the im- mediate and apparent issue of it. Could we but heartily unite and make an earnest effort, there is great reason to hope great good might follow. Whenever those glorious outpourings of God’s Spirit shall come, all over the world, no doubt it will be in answer to the prayers of his people. —But suppose we should never live to see those days, still our labour shall not be in vain in the Lord. God would be glorified ; and is this of no moment? It would convey this piece of intelligence to the world, that God has yet some hearty friends in it, who will continue to pray to him in the darkest times.—But this is not all : our peti- tions may prove like seed in the earth, that shall not perish, though it may not spring up in our days. Thus the “pro- phets laboured, and the apostles entered into their labours” (John iv. 38); and what if we should be the sowers, and our posterity the reapers, shall we grudge at this As great an honour at the last day, perhaps, may attend Isaiah, who hardly knew who had believed his report, as Peter, by whose sermon thousands were converted in an hour.— But neither is “this all.—There are different degrees of prosperity bestowed upon different parts of Zion, and these favours are often granted to those particular communities where most ardent prayer, love, and holiness prevail.—Add to all this, the prosperity of our souls, as Christians, is generally connected with an earnest pursuit of God’s glory and Christ's kingdom. Consolation, like reputation, will not do to be sought directly and for its own sake. In that case it will flee from us. But let us seek first the king- dom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to us. One great reason perhaps of so many Christians going so destitute of Divine comfort, is because they care about scarcely any thing else; God therefore justly withholds it from them. If they were more to seek his glory and the extending of his kingdom in the world, they would find consolation come of its own accord. He that cannot lie, speaking of his church, hath said, “ They shall prosper that love her.” THOUGHTS ON CIVIL POLITY. ON ATTACHMENT TO GOVERNMENT, [Written in March, 1808.] THE question proposed for discussion is, Whether the obedience to civil government required in the Scriptures in- cludes ATTACHMENT. It certainly does not include attachment to any thing but what is declared to be “an ordinance of God ;” nor to any person or persons, but as officers executing that ordinance. It does not necessarily include an attachment to the constitution of a country, which, when compared with others, may be very oppressive and unjust ; nor to particular measures, which may be equally so. But even in such cases there is an “honour” due to government, which in its worst forms is preferable to anarchy; and which, notwithstanding the most unjust procedures, is still in itself the ordinance of God. It is thus in parental au- thority. The duty of a child to obey a parent who may be harsh and unkind is not obliterated; nor is it enough for him to yield the obedience of fear, out of regard to his own interest. He ought to do it from a conscientious re- gard to the will of God, who has made him his parent. A violent father once fell foul upon his son, a young man about twenty years of age. The son made no other re- sistance than to ward off the blows, and said, “I could do what I please with you ; but you are my father " Such is the spirit which ought to be cherished towards the worst civil government. The young man not only conformed to those orders which his father might give him, but felt an attachment to him as a father; and was not to be driven from his duty because the other had forgotten his. All this proceeds upon the supposition of our living un- der the worst of governments, which is so far from being the truth that almost any one would think it the best in Europe, if not in the world. A large proportion of those who have left their country, under a contrary impression, have seen cause to repent of their folly and ingratitude. The civil liberty contained in the British government is the very cause of its being worse thought of and spoken against, by one part of its subjects, than that of any other country. Were one of these in France, and even a mem- ber of the legislature, he must not open his mouth in the manner he does in England. It is a part of our civil con- stitution to admit of free debate ; and an opposition to the administration of the day, though generally conducted on mere party principles, is considered upon the whole as a salutary check on men in power. It is a mode of ba- lancing evils, by suffering one set of them to weigh against another. Hence it is that a Tory administration in Eng- land, being watched by Whigs, would not be materially unfriendly to liberty; and Whigs, if not watched by Tories, would soon become as bad as the other. But while these parties are invariably assailing their rivals, in hope of sup- planting them, it is not for the wise and the good to enlist themselves under their respective standards, or to believe half what they say. If, within my remembrance, only a tenth part of what has been foretold by the opposition interest had been true, we should ere now have ceased to be a nation. Oh but, say some, we are going fast to ruin! Provisions rise, farms let for double and treble what they did, and the taxes are enormous. And what does the rise of provisions and of land prove, except that the country is full of money? All buying and selling is only an exchange of commodities; and according to the quantity and demand for any article such is the price. To say that provisions are dear is only saying that money is cheap. Oh, but it is not money, it is paper. So long however as the nation is solvent, and can pay its debts, paper is the same as money. With re- spect to the amount of taxes, it is not of much account so long as we have the means of paying them. A London tradesman might say, My rent and taxes are so high in the city, I’ll go and take a farm or a house in the wood- lands ! Such in effect has been the reasoning of some of our emigrants. Yet, it may be asked, do we not live bet- ter, wear better clothes, and occupy more comfortable THOUGHTS ON CIVIL POLITY. * 929 . dwellings than our forefathers did? and whether, where one fortune was gained a century ago, there be not six or seven now? These things may seem nothing to those who are complainers by profession ; for if God should have determined for our ingratitude and other sins to bring us under a foreign yoke, as he has brought the con- tinent of Europe, we shall then know our present ad- vantages by the loss of them. To form our opinion of the measures of government, by daily reading one class of the opposition papers, is much the same as judging of them from the philippics of the French Moniteur; or making up an opinion of the mission to the East, by purchasing and reading all the pieces of Major Scott Waring! If we choose to be deceived, deceived we shall be and ought to be. If I am attached to government as government, irrespective of the men who administer it, I shall be willing to find their measures right, and unwilling to find them otherwise, unless com- pelled so to think by evidence. I shall never take plea- sure in traducing it, nor in hearing it traduced. If in any case I think it in the wrong, I shall speak of it, if at all, with regret. But if I choose to enlist under the banners of a systematic opposition, and to learn all that occurs from their report, I shall presently enter into their pre- judices, and become their dupe. They are fighting for a substance indeed, but I for a phantom. So when these patriots get into power, I wonder and admire, and am then attached to government, not because the New Tes- tament enjoins it, but because my favourites bear rule; and thus, both when they are out of office and when they are in, I am out of the way of Christian obedience. How can I be said to honour magistrates, while I view all their actions through the representations of men whose interest it is to supplant them; discrediting every thing good, and believing every thing evil? “Buonaparte,” said one of the opposition prints, “is conciliating people of all religions; but our government is going to convert the Hindoos to Christianity 1" Is not such a suggestion sufficient to show what these men are : It is well enough known that our government are not going to convert the Hindoos, and that if they let those men alone who would endeavour to convert them, it is all that can be said or hoped of them. How utterly unprincipled and base therefore must such a writer be . Yet from these men some people form their ideas of the government that pro- tects them. judge righteously, and not by appearance, or from personal regards, John vii. 24. Government may have done wrong in pursuing certain measures, but it is not from their being accused of it by interested men that we ought to believe it. Those who are now in power were lately in opposition, and then they were patriots, and every thing was going to ruin. There never was a period in British history when, in the opinion of what is called the opposition, let that opposition be on which side it might, the nation was not going to ruin; and when its humble adherents did not think so. The New Testament tells us, “they are God’s ministers, at- tending continually upon this very thing.” Now a small acquaintance with things will enable us to perceive that they who attend continually to one thing may in a hun- dred instances have reasons for their conduct of which those who only attend to it as an occasional amusement are very incompetent to judge. Let a disaffected member of a Christian church judge of the measures of its officers, and he will find them all wrong. Should he also be de- sirous of gaining an ascendency, and can persuade a few others to judge of those measures through the medium of his representations, it is easy to imagine what sort of treatment the pastor and his colleagues would be likely to receive at their hands. The minister might feel indignant, and say to his friends, This man wants to be in power, and the rest are his dupes. We attend continually upon this Very thing, and do to the best of our ability. But these Then neither know our reasons, nor wish to know them ; ut, having set us down as bad, conclude that nothing we O can be right. What is that “honour” and “obedience” due to go- Vernment, and that prayer to God “for all who are in *uthority,” which the Scriptures enjoin, (Rom. xiii. 1–7; - 3 o - - If I must judge of public measures, let me . 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2; Tit. iii. 1; 1 Pet. ii. 13–17,) but an at- tachment to them as magistrates, irrespective of their party ? We cannot pray for them as we ought, unless we feel a sincere attachment. There needs not a greater proof of this than the base perversions of God's word which have been made on this subject by some disaffected men. I pray for kings and rulers as men, says one, the same as I pray for other men. Yes, but you are required to pray for them as men in authority. Well, says another, I can pray that God would restrain their iniquity, and prevent their doing mischief, that good people may lead quiet and peaceable lives, in all godliness and honesty. Would you then presume thus to pervert the oracles of God? Can you say that the exhortation in 1 Tim. ii. 2 proceeds on the supposition that civil governors are the parties which you are to pray God to restrain 3 Does it not rather suppose, what is manifestly true, that the great body of wicked men around you would persecute and de- ströy you as Christians, were they not prevented by the civil power The exhortation is to intercede for kings, and for all that are in authority; but this would be in- terceding against them. Without attachment there is no such thing as obedience, whether to parents, husbands, masters, ministers, magis- trates, or to God. A disaffected person may abstain from conspiracies and seditious conversation from mere pru- dential motives; but in all this there is not a grain of honour or obedience. He who thinks otherwise, and imagines that an outward compliance with the laws is all that ought to be required of him, only proves himself to be given up in a great degree to a mind void of judgment. Let such a one ask himself as a father, a husband, a master, or a minister, whether a more outward compliance with his directions would satisfy him. By the same means he may find an answer to all his other objections. What! says an undutiful child, you think, I suppose, every thing. is right that my father does.—No, you reply, your father is a man like other men, and has his faults; but it is not for you to expose them. He is your father, and you are commanded of God to honour and obey him in all his lawful commands.—What and am I bound to esteem him, and to feel attached to him, when he has all along been my enemy, doing every thing for my hurt? The answer is, such a supposition is as unnatural as it is un- dutiful. Have you not contracted this prejudice by as- sociating with persons who have an end to answer by sup- planting him in your esteem t—For me to esteem or be attached to him would be the same thing as to be attached to what is wrong.—Surely this objection can arise from nothing but perverseness. You know there is no neces- sity for this, and no one wishes it. You seem to forget that he is your father, and to think of him only as a bad man; but these thoughts arise from your listening to evil counsel, intended for sinister ends to lower him in your estimation.-Well, I cannot help it.—Such also might be the answer of the worst of beings. A disaffected heart will lead men to talk of Providence, so far as it favours their wishes, but renders them blind to it in every other view: some have pleaded that Providence has favoured the arms of France, and they have subdued their enemies before them ; it is folly, therefore, to resist them. But if it be true that Providence has favoured the military power of France, it is no less true that the naval power of England has been equally favoured and destined of Providence to check the inordinate ambition of our rival and our enemy; and, but for this, liberty would find no asylum upon earth. Yet, were I a subject of the French government, I should think it my duty, while I experienced its protection, to cherish a sincere attachment, and to pray for its prosperity in all its lawful undertakings, whatever I might think of the private character of those by whom the government is administered. I should think it wrong to magnify the faults of such a government, even though I could do it with safety to myself, or to read only those accounts of it which came from a quarter where a systematic opposition was carrying on against it. How much more then ought I to be attached to a legitimate government, under whose protection the church of God, for more than a century, has had an opportunity to live a quiet and peaceable life, in all godliness and honesty | ..” 930 MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS, ESSAYS, &c. Surely you cannot account for my imbibing these senti- ments, but by supposing that I have learned them from the Scriptures. You know me too well to impute to me a spirit that would cringe to any man. You know also that I have no temporal interest to serve, and no preju- dices to gratify. If I have any political predilections, they are on the side of Whiggism. It is true, I have lately per- ceived some infidels amongst them, giving in to a persecut- ing spirit against evangelical religion, and have denounced them in my Letter to the Chairman of the East India Company. And I should not be surprised to find the greater part of them holding these principles when it comes to the trial ; but if it be so, it would be a mortification to me as belonging to the Whig interest. On this account, as well as others, I have said nothing against them as a political party, but have contented myself with attacking the principle. It is a fact, of which few will doubt, that great numbers are attached to government because they are hired, both in church and state. It is no less a fact that great num- bers are disaffected because they are not hired. I accuse neither the one nor the other by the lump; but who can doubt that the cause of disaffection in thousands is that they are not treated in all respects as their fellow subjects; and that, in the present reign especially, the political party which has been used to favour Dissenters and the cause of religious liberty has been kept out of power? this party has ever maintained a war, as all parties do, against their opponents. They have their newspapers, by which they give their own representations of every thing done by the other. They are not scrupulous to state things as they are, but as they appear to their own prejudiced and violent minds. If any person forms his ideas according to these statements, he will soon become an inconsiderate partisan, laying aside not only the Christian, but the man of sober sense, who views both these parties as aiming to supplant the other; and therefore, though he may hear what both advance, and may think it necessary on the whole that the one should watch the other, yet, in forming his own judg- ment of men and things, will take neither of them for his guide. REFLECTIONS ON THE EPISTLE OF JUDE, [Extract of a letter written during the alarm of an invasion in 1803.] I HAVE been much struck of late in reading the Epistle of Jude ; and think I see there the very character of some of our modern democrats. 1. They were wicked men; yet they crept in unawares amongst religious people, ver, 4. 2. They were apostates from the truth, after the example of the devil himself, ver, 5, 6. 3. They were lascivious characters, given over to fornication and all uncleanness, ver, 7. 4. They were despisers and depreciators of civil government, using language concerning their superiors which an angel dare not use of Satan himself, ver. 8, 9. 5. Their real object, whatever were their pretences, was the hope of plunder and of power, ver, 11. 6. The ad- mission which some Christians gave them into their churches was to their reproach, ver, 12. 7. They are characters whose Society we should avoid as we tender our own salvation; for the course which they steer leads to perdition, ver, 12, 13. [A correspondent having intimated that as the descriptions referred to apostates from the truth, and the cases of Cain, Balaam, and Korah, were cited by the apostle as a warning to his contemporaries, the alſº lusion could not be to political, but religious disobedience, Mr. Fuller replied as follows.] IT is certainly true that “the error of Balaam,” Jude 11, was not jacobinism, and that the sin of Cain and of Korah was not committed against civil government. But on a re- perusal of the Epistles of Peter and Jude, it does not ap- pear to me that civil government can justly be excluded from the things against which these men set themselves. There is nothing surprising that they should despise and set themselves against all that which set itself against their Iusts, which every species of legitimate authority did, whether civil or ecclesiastical. It is thus interpreted by all the expositors and lexicons to which I have access. They admit indeed that the passage referred to in 1 Pet. ii. 10 proves a part of their opposition and contempt to have been directed against Christ, and the authorities in his church ; but consider other parts of it as directed against civil go- vernment. The term rendered “government or dominion,” in 2 Pet. ii. 10, and Jude 8, is never applied, I believe, to ecclesiastical authority, but either to that which subsists among the different orders of angels, or to civil govern- ment amongst men, Eph. i. 21 ; Col. i. 16. Christ, it is true, exercises all authority and dominion ; but the dignities which they blasphemed do not seem to relate to his spiritual authority. Moreover, the argument used by the apostle Jude in ver, 9 seems to imply that the authority, or dominion, against which these men set them- selves, had in it a mixture of evil, which afforded them a handle for running it down. Jude's answer is, Be it so, that it has a great many evils attending it, as administered by wicked men; yet an archangel, when speaking to the worst of beings, did not dare to use such language as theirs. The answer supposes that to exist which did not exist in Christ's spiritual government, nor yet in the ec- clesiastical government of the church at that time; but which might well be supposed to exist in the imperial government of Rome, under which the early Christians suffered so much persecution. INFLUENCE OF THE CONDUCT OF RELIGIOUS PEOPLE ON THE WELL-BEING OF A COUNTRY. THE 21st of September, 1803, was fixed upon, by several dissenting ministers in London, as a day of fasting and prayer on account of the state of the nation; and they ex- pressed a wish that their brethren in the country would unite with them. Being at one of those meetings in the country, I was forcibly struck with an idea suggested in a passage of Scripture which was read on that occasion. It was Isa. v. 5, “And now, go to : I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard. I will take away the hedge thereof, and it shall be eaten up ; and break down the wall thereof, and it shall be trodden down.” I had often heard it observed, from the intercession of Abraham in behalf of Sodom, and other scriptures, that God might spare a country for the sake of the righteous few ; but never recollect hearing it noticed before that the sins of professing Christians might also be the principal cause of a nation's overthrow. Certainly the church is here represented as God’s vine, the grand object of his care. He fences it by his providence, cultivates it by the means of his grace, and looks that it should bring forth grapes, or fruit to his glory. But if instead of this it bring forth wild grapes, what inducement can he have to com- tinue the fence # I am more afraid, said the minister on the above occasion, on account of the sins of my country, than from the threat- enings of the enemy; and I am much more afraid for the sins of professing Christians in my country than I am for those who are openly profane. It is true they are wicked, and will not go unpunished ; but God does not look to them for fruit in such a manner as he does to us. If the hedge be taken away, and the wild boar of the wood suf- fered to enter in and destroy, I fear it will be principally, though not wholly, on our account. Our ingratitude, luke- warmness, worldly-mindedness, animosities, divisions, scan- dals, and other evils, may be more offensive to God than all the wickedness of the land besides. If these remarks be just, what a weight lies upon the re- ligious part of a nation; who either prove, like Paul, the salvation of them that sail with them ; or, like Jonah, the principal cause of the storm : PoliticAL SELF-RIGHTEousNess, I HAVE been much edified by some things which appear- ed in print, respecting the present state of our country, especially by those which have been directed against what may with propriety be called political self-righteousness. am persuaded this is a sin which cleaves closer to men, and THOUGHTS ON CIVIL POLITY. 931 even religious men, at the present time, than most of us are aware of; and that we are more in danger from it than from almost all our national sins put together. I have heard it said in conversation, when the sins of the nation have been mentioned as a ground of fear, True ; but we are not so bad as our enemies. Mr. Robert Hall, in his fast sermon lately published,” has shown, with great force of evidence, the folly of this way of speaking. “The thing itself,” considering our religious advantages, he ob- serves, “is very doubtful ; and, if it were otherwise, it has been common with the great Disposer of events to punish a nation that has had a portion of true religion in it by one that has been utterly irreligious, though afterwards he has poured out his wrath upon the latter.” I have heard it still more frequently said, “The Lord has many praying people in this country; surely therefore he will not deliver us up.” A praying people may indeed avert the Divine judgments; but if we trust to the efficacy of our prayers, we shall be more likely to bring them upon us. This notion has been well combated by another cor- respondent; and my soul unites with his in trembling for the consequences of our religious self-complacency. Alas, our navy and our army, it is to be feared, will too gener- ally trust in themselves ; but let not them that fear God do so too. Our brethren in distant countries may hope the best of us; the good minister at Berlin may be allowed to mention “the numbers whose prayers continually rise to God in this country;” but we must not depend upon them ourselves, for this will render them of none effect. There is a passage in that admirable book, the “IHoly War,” which I could scarcely ever read without tears. When Mansoul, in the day of her distress, had drawn up a petition to Emmanuel, a question arose, by whom it should be sent. “Now,” says the writer, “there was an old man in the town, and his name was Mr. Good-deed, a man that bore only the name, but had nothing of the nature of the thing. Now some were for sending him ; but the record- er, Conscience, was by no means for that ; for, said he, we now stand in need of and are pleading for mercy; where- fore, to send our petition by a man of his name, will seem to cross the petition itself. Should we make Mr. Good- deed our messenger, when our petition cries for mercy? Besides, quoth the old gentleman, should the prince now, as he receives the petition, ask him and say, What is thy name 3 and nobody knows but he will, and he should say, Old Good-deed, what think you that Emmanuel should say but this: Aye, is old Good-deed yet alive in Mansoul? Then let old Good-deed save you from your distresses.— And if he says so, I am sure we are lost; nor can a thou- sand old Good-deeds save Mansoul.” We subscribe to all this in matters which respect our eternal salvation, but it is no less applicable to things of time. Instead of religious people flattering themselves with the idea of being the bulwark of their country, it be- comes them to take heed lest they prove the contrary. Though the religious people in a nation may, by their in- terest with Heaven, be its greatest blessings; yet there are cases in which they may prove the reverse. To Paul was given, not only his own life, but the lives of all them that sailed with him ; but Jonah had well nigh been the de- struction of those that sailed with him. God does not look for those things, as I may say, from the ignorant and un- godly, as he does from them that know him. It is their province to stand between God and their country; but if they be loose, light-minded, vain, or worldly, what is to be expected ? We may declaim against the wickedness of the slave trade, and many other things; but are there not with us, even with us, sins against the Lord our God? Thus spoke the Lord by his prophet: “The people of the land have used oppression, and exercised robbery, and have vexed the poor and needy; yea, they have oppressed the stranger wrongfully. And I sought for a man among them that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it; but I found none. Therefore have I poured out mine indig- nation upon them : I have consumed them with the fire of my Wrath,” Ezek. xxii. 29–31. God's ancient people were compared to a vine, and their * “Sentiments proper to the present Crisis.” Oct. 19th, 1803. country to a vineyard: this vine was cultivated with great care and expense, and a hedge of defence was set about it. But when he looked that it'should bring forth grapes, it brought forth wild grapes. What was the consequence 3 “Go to, saith the Lord, I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard. I will take away the hedge thereof, and it shall be eaten up ; and I will break down the wall thereof, and it shall be trodden down,” Isa. v. 5. If God’s vine bear no fruit, the wall that protects it may be expected to be broken down on its account ; and thus our unfruitful- ness may not only dishonour God, and injure ourselves, but render us a curse to our country. I write not thus to promote dismay. I have never for a moment been the subject of such a feeling ; but to cut up, as far as may be, self-righteous hope, and to excite that humble and holy trembling which becomes sinful creatures, whether in respect to this world, or that which is to come. ON THE PROPER AND IMPROPER USE OF TERMS. NotwitHSTANDING the number of words found in every language, they are far from being equal to the number of ideas in the human mind. Hence it is that one and the same term has a variety of meanings; hence also arises the distinction between the proper and improper, the literal and figurative, use of terms. The word his, abib, the first in the Hebrew lexicon, signifies, (1.) verdure, or greenness, Job viii. 12: (2.) an ear of corn on its first appearance, being then of a green colour, Lev. ii. 14: (3.) a month in the Jewish year, falling some where about March or April, when corn in that country began to ear. Here we see the progress of language, and the causes of different ideas being affixed to the same term. When a name is wanted to express an idea, men do not think of making a new one ; but call it by something already known, to which it bears a resemblance; and as this resemblance is frequently confined to one leading property, and some- times to one that is not so, it hence comes to pass that the more objects a term is applied to, the further it commonly advances from the original idea. In mentioning the month Abib, for example, a Jew would think nothing of green- ness or verdure, which is its true and primary meaning; but merely of the time of his forefathers coming out of Egypt, and of the institution of the passover. Yet, in arguments from the meaning of Scripture terms, it becomes us to ascertain the true, primitive, or proper sense, and to measure all secondary and figurative applications by it as a standard. It appears to me that many important er- rors have been introduced and defended for want of at- tending to this rule, which is dictated by common sense. Instead of defining a term according to its proper and primary meaning, and resting nothing upon its secondary or figurative applications, any further than they accord with it, the reverse has been the practice. The proper meaning has been made to give way to the figurative, ra- ther than the figurative to the proper. EXAMPLES, 1. The Universalist, finding the terms used to express the duration of future punishment frequently applied to things which have an end, endeavours from thence to set aside the evidence of its eternity. That is, he grounds his argument on the secondary and figurative application of terms, to the setting aside of that which is primary or proper. Thus atov, though its proper meaning is always being, is made to mean no more than age or ages ; and auwuvos, though it literally signifies everlasting or endless, yet is said to mean no more than age-lasting. Thus, in- stead of measuring the secondary sense of words by the primary, the primary is measured and excluded by the secondary, which goes to exclude all just reasoning and to introduce everlasting wrangling. It were just as reason- able to contend that the English word “turnpike” signi- fies a road made by act of parliament, though it is so called merely in a way of contraction, and because such roads 3 O 2 932 MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS, ESSAYS, &c. have toll-gates, and such gates a turnpike for the accom- modation of foot passengers. 2. The adversaries of the doctrine of atonement have taken the same method. “By a sacrifice,” says Dr. Tay- lor, “is meant a symbolical address to God, intended to express before him the devout affections, by significant emblematical actions; and, consequently, whatever is ex- pressive of a pidus and virtuous disposition may rightly be included in the idea of a sacrifice; as prayers, thanks- givings, expenses, labours, &c.” It is easy to see that the primary notion of a sacrifice is here explained away, or lost in the crowd of secondary meanings; by which any thing may be proved or disproved, as the writer pleases. 3. Let it be dispassionately and impartially considered whether the principal objections brought against the ordi- nance of baptism being administered exclusively by immer- sion do not originate in the same cause. The word 8aar- Tugw, it is said, will not always agree with the idea of immersion. It is applied to the effusion of the Holy Spirit, and to some other things wherein immersion is inadmissi- ble. Be it so ; still it amounts to no more than this, That the term 6attušo, like almost every other term, has its secondary and figurative sense. Its proper and primary meaning is allowed, by the most learned Paedobaptists in all ages, to be that which the Antipaedobaptists contend for; and this is the only meaning which ought to be called in to settle the dispute. By the contrary method, it were easy to prove that the English word immersion does not mean dipping or plunging ; for if a person be very wet by rain, it is common to say he is immersed, merely because he is as wet as if he had been immersed. To generalize the meaning of a term, in order to include its secondary or figurative senses, is the way to lose its true and proper sense; and, if applied universally, might go to undermine all the great doctrines of Christianity. The rule of fair and just reasoning, with respect to the use of terms, as I have always understood it, is, That every word be taken in its literal and primary sense, unless there be any thing in the conneacion which requires it to be taken otherwise. Now apply this rule to the foregoing examples, and the result will be this— The Universalist must either deny that the proper or primary meaning of auwu and auovuos is always being and eternal; or else prove that, when these terms are applied to the duration of future punishment, there is something in the subject which requires them to be taken, not in a proper, but improper sense. The adversaries of the atonement also must either set aside the proof that the proper and primary notion of a sacrifice includes in it the idea of earpiation, or show cause why this meaning should not attach to it when applied to the sacrifice of Christ. Thus also those who object to immersion, as being the only proper mode of baptism, should either disprove what has been acknowledged by more than eighty of their most learned writers,” that the native and proper signification of the word is to dip or plunge; or show cause why it should not be taken in this sense when applied to the ordinance in question. * - [The insertion of the foregoing piece in the Theological and Bibli- cal Magazing, called forth the animadversions of the Rev. Samuel Greatheed. The remaining parts consist of replies to his objections.] THE animadversions of your correspondent require a reply, not so much on account of what relates to baptism as to the general principle which he attempts to overturn. Mr. Greatheed will give me credit that I had no unkind design against my Paedobaptist brethren; but he must ex- cuse me in saying, if paedobaptism will keep bad company, it must take the consequences. By “measuring the secondary and figurative application of a term by that which is proper or primary,” I did not mean to suggest that the primary sense is to be invariably retained ; but merely that it ought to be so, unless there be any thing in the connexion which requires the contrary. The primary, literal, or proper sense of a word is its true sense, and the standard of all others which it may bear * See “Pooth’s Podobaptism Ba'amined,” vol. I. ch. 2, visible. by way of figure or allusion. My mind is sufficiently ex- pressed by Dr. Williams. “The improper or figurative use of terms,” says he, “does not alter the literal sense ; otherwise the very foundation of figures and allusions would be destroyed.” The rule also which I have laid down is the same as his : “It is not fair nor agreeable to the just rules of criticism,” he says, “to interpret the words of an author allusively, improperly, and metaphoric- ally, eaccept when plain necessity urges.”f I do not deny that the figurative sense of a term may, in many cases, be equal, and even of superior importance, to the literal one. If, for instance, we were to understand the first promise, “he shall bruise thy head,” of a descend- ant of Eve occasionally killing a serpent, the meaning would be puerile, in comparison of what it is generally, and no doubt justly, applied to. But here the conneacion requires a departure from the literal meaning. Let the same be proved of any other term, and I acquiesce. Your correspondent does not wish to set aside the pri- mary meaning of a term, in favour of one that is figurative, “when it can be clearly ascertained ; ” but in various cases he thinks it is “very difficult to decide, of two senses, which is its primary and which its figurative meaning.” I suppose he intends to say that words in a long course of time change their meaning; and that the original sense, or that which was attached to a term in the earliest usage, may be lost. There may, for aught I know, be some truth in this remark; but it does not ap- pear to me to affect the argument. Allowing it to be so, and that what was at first only an allusive or figurative sense may have become the earliest sense with which we are acquainted, yet as all words are mere arbitrary signs of ideas, that which is the secondary sense of a term might have been its primary sense, provided it had been so ap- plied ; and if the primary sense be lost, the secondary of course may become primary. In other words, it may be- come by general consent the obvious sense of the term, there being no anterior idea excited in the mind when it is expressed. If them we can ascertain what was the ob- vious meaning of the word at the time when the author wrote, we thereby ascertain, to every purpose of just rea- soning, what is its primary or proper meaning, and ought to abide by it unless the conneacion requires a different one. If this cannot be ascertained, there is no certain conclusion to be drawn from the word, any more than from “selah" in the Psalms, and we ought to rest no argument upon it. With respect to the notion of the Universalists, which is chiefly founded upon the supposed ambiguity of the terms atov and autovios, your correspondent half concedes to them that these terms might originally express only a limited duration. He cannot decide, as it would seem, whether they were “primarily used of visible or invisible objects.” At least, he does not choose to rest his opposition to that system upon such a ground. Yet every lexicographer that I have seen makes no scruple of asserting that the proper meaning of atov is always being, or eternity ; and of auwutos everlasting, or endless. It is an opinion, I am aware, which has been advanced by great authorities, that terms which now signify spiritual and invisible objects were originally applied to those which are sensible and But however true this may be in many cases, it will not hold good in all. Mr. Locke, in what he says on this subject,i argues as if he thought language to have been a human invention, and that men learned it by slow degrees; whereas it was manifestly concreated with man from the beginning. We might as well argue from the gradual progress of strength and knowledge in an infant that Adam must have been created a child, and have grown in wisdom and stature as we do, as that all the names by which he expressed spiritual and invisible objects were first applied to those which are sensible and visible. On this principle we must either suppose him to have had no ideas of his Creator, of his own immortality, or of endless life ; or, if he had, that he had no terms by which to express them. But neither of these suppositions will consist with the important station which he occupied, or the account which is given of his communion with JEHOVAH ELoHIM. To what visible or + “ †: Eacamined,” vol. II. p. 146. # Essay on Understanding, book iii, chap. 1, PROPER AND IMPROPER USE OF TERMs. ‘933 sensible object, I ask, could the names of the everlasting God be applied, before they were applied to him 3 Mr. Greatheed thinks the meaning of a word “may be made perfectly clear and certain by the connexion in which it stands. For example: when the word everlasting is applied to God, it always signifies without end; when ap- plied to a hill, it can only mean of long duration.” To the same purpose says the Universalist, “Where a word is used in relation to different things, the subject itself must determine the meaning of the word.” Whether the ab- surdity of this position has not been proved beyond all reasonable contradiction in my sixth letter to Mr. Vidler, and in the seventh and eleventh letters of Mr. Jerram’s Review,” the reader of those pamphlets will easily deter- II] II.162, If atov and autovios, with their corresponding words in Hebrew, be allowed to have been originally applied to limited duration, and this to be their proper meaning, I acknowledge myself unable to prove, from the use of these terms, the doctrine of eternal punishment or of eternal happiness, or even of the eternal existence of God. I might conclude, indeed, with Mr. Greatheed, that everlast- &ng, as applied to God, plainly signifies without end. This, however, would not be proving the eternity of God from the word everlasting being applied to him ; but merely that everlasting in this case means endless because of its being applied to God, whom we know, from other sources of evidence, to be eternal. Thus the terms by which end- less duration is commonly expressed in the Scriptures are reduced to silence, proving nothing but what can be proved by the subject without them. Your correspondent thinks that “when the term ever- lasting is applied both to the states of the righteous and the wicked, after the day of judgment, nothing but the most inveterate prejudice can interpret it in different senses.” Allowing this to be a solid argument, it only proves that the doctrine may be defended from other sources of evidence as well as from the proper meaning of the term ; but it is giving up the argument from that source. It is allowing that the term everlasting stands for nothing, unless you can prove from the connexion that it must mean endless; whereas, by the other mode of rea- soning, the word itself, wherever it occurs, establishes the doctrine, unless they can prove from the connexion that the proper sense is inadmissible. But further, the above is only argumentum ad hominem, which is adapted to silence an opposer rather than convince him. I do not say it is unfair reasoning with persons who hold the eter- mity of future rewards; but Universalists, rather than admit of eternal punishment, will call this in question. This is actually done by Mr. Vidler; f and if we concede with your correspondent that the word atovios itself proves nothing, I acknowledge that I do not perceive how the doctrine of endless punishment, or of endless rewards, is to be maintained from Matt. xxv. 46. We must, as far as I see, relinquish that important post, and fly to some other source of evidence. We may assert that “the term being applied to the states of the righteous and the wicked after the day of judgment requires it to be taken in the sense of endless ; but we should be told this is begging the ques- tion; the very point at issue being whether every thing that takes place after the day of judgment be endless. Respecting baptism, your correspondent “willingly ad- mits that I might introduce that topic for no other reason than that it appeared to me an apt illustration of the rule I was endeavouring to establish for the interpretation of Scripture, and hopes that I shall as readily give him credit for a proper motive in entering a protest against such an application of my principle.” As to motives, I had no other than a desire to ascertain what is truth ; and I give him credit that such is his. But why must not the prin- ciple in question be applied to paedobaptism as well as other things? He does not mean to suggest, I presume, that this subject is exempted from examination by the courtesy of the country. If the principle be false, or misapplied, I hope we shall be able to discover the fallacy, or wherein the misapplication consists. Mr. Greatheed calls in question two things: (1.) Whe- * Letters to a Universalist. + Letters to Mr. Fuller, p. 95. ther the word 8aart-tgo primarily signifies to immerse. (2.) If it do, whether this be the only meaning that ought to be called in to settle the dispute. With respect to the former, my assertion may, as he observes, be “too com- prehensive to be supported by due evidence in your pub- lication.” I was aware of this at the time, and therefore referred to Mr. Booth’s “Paedobaptism Examined,” vol. i. chap. 2, where no fewer than eighty-two of the most learned Paedobaptists acknowledge the native, primary, or proper meaning of the word to be IMMERSION. Your correspondent, in answer, refers to Dr. Williams’s “Anti- paedobaptism Examined;” and I in reply may refer to Mr. Booth’s “Defence.” The reader who wishes to ex- amine this subject to the bottom will find, I presume, in these three performances all that is necessary for the purpose. Your correspondent asks, in the second place, “If the primary meaning of the word 3attuša, were to immerse, yet why should that be the only meaning called in to settle the dispute.” I answer—(1.) Because, as Dr. Williams says, “It is not fair, nor agreeable to the just rules of criticism, to interpret the words of an author allusively, improperly, and metaphorically, except when plain necessity wrges.” Let it but be proved that plain necessity urges the proper meaning of Battuša, when applied to the or- dinance of baptism, to be given up in favour of one that is improper, and I consent to call it in. (2.) Because, as Mr. Greatheed himself allows, “the primitive sense of a term, when it can clearly be ascertained, ought not to be accommodated to any of its figurative applications;” and that it can easily be ascertained in this case is granted in the supposition. All secondary and figurative meanings, therefore, by his own concession, ought to be excluded in the settling of this controversy. But your correspondent supposes that though the word |3attušo should be allowed primarily to mean immersion, yet a secondary or improper sense of the term might be that on which the primitive Christians acted. “Wherefore is it impossible, he asks, that the first Christians should have used the term with as little idea of immersion, even had that been its primary sense, as the Jews had of green- mess, when they spoke of the month Abib 3’’–Nothing that I have advanced supposes this to be “impossible.” But it lies upon my friendly opponent to prove that it must have been so ; otherwise, according to Dr. Williams's and his own acknowledgment, it is “unfair, and contrary to the just rules of criticism,” to suppose this to have been the case. I can prove that when the term abib is applied to a month it must needs be taken in a figurative sense, as it would involve an absurdity to translate it as in Job viii. 12, by the abstract term greenness. Let him prove the same necessity for affixing a figurative meaning to 3attiğto, and his point is gained. Mr. Greatheed goes further: he affirms that “when the term 3atrºttgo is specifically used for the initiatory ordi- nance of the gospel dispensation its application must be ad- mitted to be figurative.” Indeed . But wherefore ? If instead of this assertion, which appears to me to be utterly unfounded, he had given evidence of it, it had been to purpose. Let him but prove that the word, when applied to baptism, requires to be understood in a secondary or improper sense, or that to understand it properly would involve an absurdity; and, I say again, his point is gained. If he succeed in proving this, however, he will disprove what he says he has “long since been led to apprehend— that its primary meaning is not immersion.” I suppose he means ablution ; for if the primary meaning of Battušo be ablution, and baptism were originally administered by im- mersion, the term, with respect to that ordinance, must have been applied in its literal, and not in a figurative sense. YoUR correspondent intimates that some things in my last tended to “provoke asperity.” Nothing was further from my design ; but if, by what I considered a stroke or two of pleasantry, I have excited any such feelings, I sin- cerely beg his pardon, and will endeavour to avoid every thing of the kind in future. It never was my intention to rank Paedobaptists with Universalists or Socinians, in the manner which his note represents; but merely to point out their agreement in one principle of reasoning ; and I 934 * : * * *** * * MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS, ESSAYS, &c. should think, notwithstanding his assertion, he would be sorry to be put to the proof of it. - With respect to the principle of interpretation, he thinks, “nothing more is necessary than to bring into one point of view the variations in my manner of stating it.” By this it would seem that I have shifted my ground, and in effect conceded the matter in dispute. At first, my statement was thus expressed : “In arguments from the meaning of Scripture terms, it becomes of importance to ascertain the true, primitive, or proper sense, and to measure all second- ary and figurative applications by it as a standard.” After- wards, it seems, I modified this principle, requiring only that every word be “taken in its literal, primary, or pro- per sense, unless there be any thing in the connexion or in the subject which requires it to be taken otherwise.” And, lastly, I am contented with saying, “If we can ascer- tain what was the obvious meaning of the word at the time when the author wrote, we thereby ascertain, to every purpose of just reasoning, what is its primary or proper meaning.” Whether any “change has occurred in my judg- ment on this subject, or whether we have only misunder- stood each other,” he does not determine ; but seems to think that, as to the general principle, we are now nearly agreed. In answer, I must say, there is no alteration in my judg- ment: the whole, therefore, must be attributed to misun- derstanding. With respect to the first statement, it never entered my mind that all words are to be understood liter- ally, or properly; but merely that the literal is the stand- ard sense, or that all allusive meanings are to be measured by that to which they allude. But the answers of Mr. Greatheed proceed upon the supposition that I was plead- ing for the primitive sense of the term “being invariably adhered to.” It is only on this supposition that what was afterwards said could be considered as “a modification of my principle.” The truth is, I held no principle that re- quired modifying. I never for a moment thought of main- taining any other idea than that every word should be taken in its literal, primary, or proper sense, unless there be any thing in the subject that requires it to be taken otherwise. In proof of this, I could refer to two pam- phlets, of which you know that I approve ; and in which this subject is more fully handled than can be expected in these papers. * With respect to my last “variation,” as it is called, it was merely in answer to an eacception which he had made to a general rule, owing to the difficulty in many cases of ascertaining which is the primitive and which the figura- tive sense of a word. To this I answered, that where the primitive sense of a word was lost, or became uncertain, it was sufficient for all the purposes of just reasoning to con- sider the obvious idea conveyed by it at the time when the author wrote as its primary meaning. But this can have nothing to do with words whose primitive meaning is not lost, and therefore nothing to do with the present dispute. The amount of all that I have stated is this:–the primary, literal, or proper meaning of words is their standard meaning, and that which always ought to be adhered to, wnless there be any thing in the connexion which requires a departure from it; and should a case occur in which it cannot be clearly decided what was its primitive meaning, it is sufficient to ascertain what was its obvious meaning at the time when the author wrote.f-In all this I can perceive no “variation” of judgment. To allow of an expedient, in a particular case, is very different from adopting it as a general rule, where that case does not exist. I have contended, and do still contend, that the primitive meaning of the terms autovios and 3amr- Tiša is not lost; that it can be “clearly ascertained ;” and, consequently, that a recourse to the sense in which they are used in the New Testament, in order to determine it, is unnecessary, and contrary to fair reasoning. I have no doubt of what would be the issue of an impartial in- quiry, even upon that ground ; but there is no justice in .* Letters to Mr. Vidler, Letter vi. Scrutator's Review, Letters V11, X1. + Chambers, in his Cyclopedia, says, under the word proper, “In respect of words it denotes their immediate and peculiar signification, or that which is directly or peculiarly attached to them; in which sense the word stands opposed to figurative and metaphorical.” And f setting the meaning of a word afloat, when the ordinary methods of decision in all cases have fixed it. Surely my respected opponent will not deny that the proper meaning of auwu is “clearly ascertained” to be always being, and that of atovios to be everlasting. Is it not to be lamented, then, that he should undermine the argument against the Universalists from this ground, and endeavour to rest the doctrine of endless punishment on the term alwvios being so “obviously used in the New Testament to denote what is strictly everlasting, that he is not aware of any instance in which the connexion requires a different sense to be admitted.” Were I a Universalist, I would not wish for a fuller concession by which to over- turn his principle. To give up, as he does in effect, the original use of the term antecedently to its being adopted by the apostles, and to rest his faith upon its being always applied by them to unlimited duration, is in my opinion, whatever be his design, to betray the truth. A Universal- ist might reply as follows—You are mistaken, sir. It is obvious that autov, though sometimes used in the endless sense, which we never deny, yet in other places is applied to the temporary existence of the present world, and to the ages and times of limited duration, Matt. xiii. 39; xxviii. 20; John ix. 32; Acts ii. 21 ; 1 Cor. ii. 7 ; Eph. iii. 9; Col. i. 26; Heb. i. 2. It is also obvious that autovios, though it sometimes means eternal, yet in other places is applied, like atov, to limited duration ; namely, to the ages, or times, since the beginning of the world, Rom. xvi. 25; 2 Tim. i. 9; Tit. i. 2, compared with Eph. i. 4; 1 Pet. i. 20. See Parkhurst. What proof therefore is there of the endless duration of future punishment from the use of these terms, which are generic, including all degrees of duration, unlimited and limited 3 To this reasoning I should reply by granting that the obvious design of these terms, in certain connexions, is to express the idea of an age or ages ; but that it is not their primary, literal, or proper meaning, and therefore ought not to be applied to the duration of future punishment, wnless there were something in that subject, as there is in the others, which rendered the literal meaning inadmis- sible. But how my opponent could answer the objection, upon his principles, it remains for him to show. To me it appears that, by his method of reasoning, we should always be at sea, and without a compass; able to prove scarcely any Divine truth from the words by which it is expressed, inasmuch as almost all words are used in more senses than one. I wish he would carefully and candidly read “Scru- tator’s” seventh and eleventh Letters on this subject.j: Mr. Greatheed, as if to depreciate the primary sense of the term autovtos, speaks of its being “invented by the heathens,” and thinks that I cannot believe it to have been “created or revealed.” I question whether any language, dead or living, can be proved to have had its origin in human invention. The account of the origin of all languages appears to be given in the eleventh chapter of Genesis; and all that men have done seems to have been to modify, compound, and change them into different forms. But whatever was the origin of this and other terms, they were adopted by the Holy Spirit as the me- dium of conveying Divine truth; and if the sacred writers meant to be understood, they must, one would think, have used them in the ordinary acceptation in which they were used by those who spoke and wrote in the Greek language. That they applied them to new objects is true; but it does not follow that they changed their meaning. In the writings of Aristotle, auwu properly means always being, no less than in the Epistles of Paul." “Upon the same ground,” says Mr. Greatheed, “I have formed my judgment of the terms 8attušw and (3atra-top.os. In whatever sense the heathens, who invent- ed these terms, may have used them, it appears to me that the writers of the New Testament apply them so con- stantly to the signification of a sacred cleansing, that I am not aware of an instance in which the connexion requires Barclay, under the word figure, says, “In rhetoric, any mode of speaking by which words are used in a sense different from their pri- mary and literal meaning.” MS. Note by Mr. Fuller. # Letters to a Universalist, by Rev. Charles Jerram, * Fuller's Letters to Vidler, pp. 53, 54, Note PROPER AND IMPROPER USE OF TERMS. 935 a different sense to be admitted. I therefore consider this the obvious meaning of those words at the time, and in the circumstances in which the authors wrote.” On this passage I would offer the following remarks :- 1. My worthy opponent is sufficiently aware that 8aar- rigo was used originally by the Greek writers to express immersion. But they were “heathens !” + And will he affirm that the word was so applied by heathens only 3 Did not the Septuagint translators of the Old Testament, and Josephus, so apply it? If proofs of this be called for, they will be produced. 2. The word Batta, from whence Barrºw is derived, it will not be denied, is used in the New Testament for immersion. Thus in John xiii. 26, “He it is to whom I shall give a sop when I have dipped it.” Luke xvi. 24, “Send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water.” Rev. xix. 13, “He was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood.” In these sentences there is no idea of “cleansing” of any kind; and, in the last, the reverse of it. - - 3. Dr. Williams, to whose work Mr. Greatheed refers us, allows, and says, “It is universally agreed among the dearned that both 3atta, and Battigo etymologically, and according to their radical, primary, and proper meaning, are justly rendered by the words tingo and mergo, to tinge or plunge.” ‘f But every one knows that to tinge is the opposite of to cleanse. One would think that this ac- knowledgment were sufficient to settle the meaning of the word. And, as Dr. Williams elsewhere says, it is “neither fair, nor agreeable to the just rules of criticism, to interpret the words of an author allusively, improperly, or metaphorically, except when plain necessity urges,” it must lie on him and his brethren, before they plead for any thing short of immersion being Christian baptism, to prove that the primitive sense of the term in this instance involves an absurdity, and therefore that a secondary one requires to be admitted. 4. The term baptism, as applied to the sufferings of Christ, conveys a full idea of immersion, but none of “cleansing.” 5. That water baptism, which is the Christian ordinance, generally includes the idea of “cleansing,” may be allow- ed; but it is only in a secondary or consequential sense, as he that is immersed in water is thereby cleansed. Cleans- ing, in water baptism, is that which its opposite, staining, is in a vesture being dipped in blood; it is not the thing itself, but its necessary effect. Such is the idea conveyed in Acts xxii. 16, “Be baptized, and wash away thy sins.” To render the first of these terms cleansed, would make the sacred writer utter a mere tautology. “If the apostles used the term Baqrtuguos merely for immersion, then, it is said, every person who has been immersed, whether for health, diversion, or punishment, is a baptized person.” True, he is so, though not with Christian baptism. “But if something more than simple immersion is meant, when the apostles speak of the baptism of their converts, and yet the primary and proper meaning is no- thing but immersion, then the apostles used that term in a secondary or figurative sense when they applied it to the initiatory ordinance of the Christian dispensation.” If there be “no flaw” in this argument, Mr. Greatheed thinks his point is gained. I think there is a flaw in it, and that it lies in confounding the act with the end or the design to be answered by it. An act, say that of eating, may be one and the same, whatever be the end of it; whether refreshment, or a showing forth of the Lord’s death. Nor is the term designed to express any thing more than the act : the design is to be learned from other terms connected with it, and not from that. To represent different ends as giving a secondary or figurative meaning to the term which expresses the action, is what I appre- hend no writer ever thought of on any other subject. At this rate, if I be said to walk, simply, or without am end, the term is literal; if for health, or to see a friend, it be- comes figurative; and if to meditate and pray, like Isaac, it becomes still more figurative: The truth is, if I be not * Mr. G., in alleging “ that according to my statement the Scrip- tures are not sufficient to determine the meaning of words, without going among the heathen,” might as well have said, That the grace | greatly mistaken, to baptize, to eat, or to walk, is each ex- pressive of the action, whatever be the end; and the term is no less literally used in the one case than in the other. The last argument of Mr. Greatheed's proceeds upon a principle which should not have been taken for granted; namely, that 6ataruopios signifies any sacred cleansing. The divers baptisms among the Jews (to which the word Batrºtuopios, by the way, is applied, rather than to the Christian ordinance) may relate not to divers modes of baptizing, but to the divers cases in which persons and things were required to be immersed in water, and which cases were numerous and diverse. Thus, or to this effect, it is expressed by Grotius. Were I to speak of divers journeys, which my worthy friend has undertaken, to pro- mote the interest of evangelical religion, it would indeed imply some kind of difference between them ; but it were putting an unnatural force upon the words to understand them as intimating that in every journey he adopted a different mode of travelling. ON THE IMMACULATE LIFE OF CHRIST. THE character and work of Christ form a very consider- able part of the gospel embassy. The attention of Chris- tians in all ages has been deservedly drawn towards this important subject. His Godhead, his manhood, his mi- raculous conception, his life, death, resurrection, ascension, and intercession at the right hand of God, are topics each of them full of the richest consolation to believers. There is nothing pertaining to Christ which is uninteresting. It has lately struck my mind that the immaculate life of Christ is a subject that has not been insisted on, in our sermons and bodies of divinity, in proportion to its im- portance in the evangelical scheme. The thoughts which I have to offer upon this subject will be contained in two parts. In the first, I shall take a view of the evidences with which it is supported ; and, in the second, consider its connexion with the truth of Christianity, and some of its leading principles. The Evid ENCES by which the immaculate life of our Lord Jesus Christ is supported are as follows:— First, His friends, who knew the most of him, and who wrote his life, describe him as without fault. The charac- ters of men are often best esteemed by those who know the least of them. Like works of art, they will not bear a close inspection ; but those who were most conversant with Jesus beheld his glory, and loved him best. Peter tells us, “He did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth.” He describes him as “a lamb without spot.” Paul speaks of him as being “made sin for us, who knew no sin.” John teaches that “he was manifested to take away our sins ; and in him was no sin :” and the whole company of the disciples, in their address to God, speak of him as his “holy child Jesus,” Acts iv. 27. It is true, some of the evangelists do not make express mention of his perfect innocence; but they all write his life as fault- less. There is not a shade of imperfection that attaches to his character, from the beginning to the end of their accounts of him. This evidence derives peculiar weight from the evident impartiality of those writers in other cases; they do not hide each other's faults, nor even their own. The imperfections of the apostles, during Christ's life upon earth, were numerous, and, in some cases, af- fecting ; yet they narrate them with the greatest sincerity. Even those faults which are most degrading to dignity of character, and the most mortifying to reflect upon, they never affect to conceal. They tell of their little foolish contests for superiority, of their carnality in desiring an earthly kingdom, and of their cowardice in forsaking their Lord and Master in the hour of extremity ; but never do they suggest any thing to his disadvantage. Secondly, His worst enemies have never been able to sub- stantiate a single charge against him. Though our friends have the greatest advantages of knowing us, yet it may be of God is sufficient to make a Christian, without being indebted to nature in first making him a man. + Antipaedobaptism. Examined, vol. II. p. 30. 936 2-&#. . MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS, ESSAYS, &c. $y. alleged they are partial, and that the scrutiny of an ad- versary is most likely to discover our imperfections. Be it so ; it is to the glory of Christ's character that it will bear the test of both. A public challenge was given to the Jews, his most inveterate enemies, to accuse him of sin (John viii. 46); and not one of them dared to accept it. That which adds peculiar weight to this evidence is the circumstance that Christ had just before inveighed against them with the keenest severity: “Ye are of your father the devil,” said he, “and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a liar from the beginning; ” and, “because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.” Under such charges from him, if there had been any shadow of a ground for accusation, they would most certainly have seized it. The apostles gave nearly a similar challenge on behalf of their Lord, as he had given for himself. They taxed their countrymen with having “denied the Holy One and the Just, and preferred a murderer before him.” How are we to account for the silence of these adversaries? It was not for want of will; it must, therefore, be for want of power. But there were some who, in the lifetime of Jesus, did accuse him. They said, “He is a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners.” They insinuated that he was ambitious. Jesus having declared, saying, “I am the light of the world,” they answered, “Thou bearest record of thyself, thy record is not true;” and the same objection is repeated by a modern Jewish writer.” They also charged him with blasphemy, in that he, being a man, made him- self God; and for this supposed blasphemy they put him to death. To the former part of these charges it may be answered, that they who preferred them do not appear to have believed them ; if they had, they would have made use of them, especially when challenged to accuse our Lord of sin. As to the latter part of them, I acknowledge, were I to embrace any system of Christianity which leaves out the proper Deity of Christ, I should be unable to win- dicate him. Either his words did mean what the Jews understood him to mean, or they did not. If they did, upon every hypothesis which excludes his proper Deity, he was a blasphemer; if they did not, he ought explicitly, and with abhorrence, to have rejected the idea of making himself God;—but if I admit that he really was God manifest in the flesh, all these objections fall to the ground. It is worthy of notice that modern unbelievers are not very eager to attack the moral character of Christ. Through all their writings, full of railing accusations on every other subject, one cannot but remark, a cautious reserve upon this. Mr. Paine, who in a talent of the highest import- ance to the cause of infidelity—I mean impudence—has had but few equals, even Mr. Paine declines this part of the business. Amidst all his rancour against revelation, he seems disposed to follow the advice of Pilate's wife, to “ have nothing to do with that just man.” “Nothing,” he observes in his “Age of Reason,” “which is here said, can apply even with the most distant disrespect to the real character of Jesus Christ. He was a virtuous and an amiable man. The morality that he preached and prac- tised was of the most benevolent kind.” Whether Mr. Paine can, consistently with these concessions, reject the evangelical history, we shall by and by inquire; suffice it at present to observe, that though he disowns Jesus to be the Son of God, yet he ranks among the witnesses in fa- your of his moral character. But can it be true, we may be tempted to ask, that Mr. Paine, that determined ad- versary to Christianity, should have made such a con- cession in favour of Christ? “Is Saul also among the prophets?” It is even so; nor let it appear a matter of surprise ; the father of lies himself was constrained to unite in this truth: “I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.” - Thirdly, Christ himself, who best knew his own heart, and who never was known to boast, bore witness of himself that he was free from sin. Not only did he challenge his most inveterate enemies, saying, “Which of you accuseth me of sin 3” but declared, what no other man did or could, that he always did those things which pleased God; that there was “no unrighteousness in him;” that when * Mr. Levi. * - the prince of this world should come he should “find no- thing in him ;” and that he was “meek and lowly in heart,” a perfect model for his followers to imitate, and into whose image they were predestinated to be conformed. If it be objected, in the words of the ancient Jews, “He beareth record of himself, his record is not true,”—it might be answered in the words of Jesus, “Though he bare record of himself, yet his record is true; for he knew whence and what he was ;” and as he was never known to deal in empty boasting, his testimony has great weight. Fourthly, The temptations that our Lord underwent, in- stead of drawing him aside, displayed his character to greater advantage. Seasons of temptation in the lives of men, even of good men, are commonly dark seasons, and leave behind them sad evidences of their imperfection. It was not without reason that our Lord cautioned us to pray, saying, “Lead us not into temptation.” There are but few, if any instances, in which we enter the field of contest and come off without a wound; but, to our Re- deemer, temptation was the pathway to glory. There was nothing in him on which it could fasten; its arrows, therefore, rebound .d upon the head of the tempter. “In all points he w tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” He underwent the trials of poverty and want. He was often hungry and thirsty, and “had not where to lay his head ;” yet he bore it without repining; he wrought miracles to satisfy the wants and alleviate the miseries of others; but for himself, strictly speaking, he wrought no miracle. It was upon this ground that Satan first ac- costed him : “If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread:” q. d.—Would I, having all creation at command, know the want of a piece of bread? —But this temptation was repelled in a manner that dis- covered his heart to be wholly devoted to the will of God. Our Lord had also temptations of another kind; he had worldly honours offered him. Not only did Satan present to him “all the kingdoms of the world,” but the Jewish populace would have made him a king, even by force, if he had not withdrawn himself. If Jesus had possessed the least degree of worldly ambition, there were arguments enough to have induced him to comply with the popular desire. They had no king but Caesar, and he was a tyrannic invader, who had just as much right in Judea as the empress of Russia and the king of Prussia in Poland. If the virtue of Jesus had resembled that of the great sages of Grecian and Roman antiquity, he would have embraced this opportunity, and his name might have been enrolled in the annals of fame. Their pride was to be patriots; but that which they called patriotism was abhorrent to the spirit of Christ. He possessed too much philanthropy to enter into national prejudices and antipathies: though the deliverance of his country from the Roman yoke might have been doing a great national justice, and, in this view, very lawful for some persons to have undertaken, yet he declined it ; for it made no part of that all-important de- sign for which he came into the world. He was doing a great work, and therefore could not come down. As his last sufferings drew on, his devotedness to God, and his disinterested love to men, appeared more and more conspicuous. He incurred the displeasure of the Samari- tans by stedfastly setting his face to go up to Jerusalem, even though he knew what would follow upon it. Under the prospect of his sufferings he prayed, saying, “Now is my soul troubled, and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour; but for this cause came I to this hour. Father, glorify thy name.” Never, surely, was such a flood of tenderness poured forth as that which follows in his last discourse to his disciples, and in his concluding prayer for them. Follow him to the Jewish and Roman tribunals, and witness his meekness and patience. “When he was reviled, he reviled not again ; when he suffered he threat- ened not ; but committed himself to Him that judgeth righteously. He was brought as a lamb to the slaughter; and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth. There are two kinds of characters which are common among men,-oppressive tyrants, and cringing sycophants. The first are lords, the last are slaves; but the character given of Christ shows that he was neither the one nor the other. “He did no violence, neither was THE IMMACULATE LIFE OF CHRIST. 937 any deceit in his mouth.” Though the Lord and Master of his disciples, he was among them as their servant; and when brought before Herod and Pilate, he betrayed no signs of fear; but amidst their blustering, imperious, and scornful treatment, maintained a dignified silence. “Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sor- rows.” Throughout his sufferings he manifested the ten- derest concern for sinners, and even for his murderers. “The same night in which he was betrayed ” he was em- ployed in providing for us, by instituting the sacred sup- per; and as he hung upon the cross, and beheld his ene- mies, he prayed, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do I’” Let not fastidious infidelity object his want of fortitude in the garden ; or rather, let it object, and make the most it can of the objection. It is true “his soul was troubled;” it is true he prayed, saying, “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me!” That is, he discovered what, among men of the most refined sense, are always accounted “ the amiable weaknesses of human nature.” Is it an honour under affliction to carry it off, or affect to carry it off, with a high hand? Rather, is it not an honour to feel the hand of God in it, and to acknowledge that we feel it ! And if, amidst these feelings, we be in “subjection to the Father of spirits”—if, while we mourn, we do not mur- mur—this is the highest degree of perfection of which hu- man nature is capable. Such was the spirit of our Re- deemer, and such the conclusion of his prayer in the garden: “Not my will, but thine be done.” That our blessed Lord was not deficient in real fortitude is manifest from his conduct during his trial and crucifixion. He feared God, and put up strong cries, and was heard in that he feared; but he feared not men. There his spirit shrunk under the weight; but here he is firm as a rock. The principal engines with which he was attacked from men were pain and disgrace. By the former they deprived him of life, and by the latter they hoped to wound his re- putation, and cover his name with eternal infamy; but neither the one nor the other could divert him from his course : “He endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.” By the misgivings of Christ's human nature in the gar- dem, together with his firmness before men, we are furnish- ed with very important instructions. From thence we learn that the most dreadful parts of his sufferings were not those which proceeded from men, but those which came immediately from the hand of God. This agrees with what is implied in that pathetic exclamation, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” He could have borne the rest, but this was worse than death ! How can this agree with any other idea of the death of Christ than that of his being a substitute for sinners? Upon no other principle can his agony in the garden, or his ex- clamation upon the cross, be fairly accounted for. From hence also we learn the absolute necessity of Christ's death for our salvation. If it had been possible for the great designs of mercy to have been accomplished without his being made a propitiation for our sins, there is every reason to suppose that his request for an exemption would have been granted. In a former paper I considered the evidences of the im- maculate life of Christ; in this I shall inquire into its importance, as it stands connected with the truth of Chris- tianity itself, and of some of its most interesting branches. First, If the life of our Lord Jesus Christ was immacu- Žate, it must go a great way towards proving the truth of the 90spel which he taught, and of that religion which he incul- cated. If Jesus Christ was “a virtuous and an amiable man,” as Mr. Paine himself acknowledges, he must have been what he professed to be—the Son of God, and the Saviour of the world. To allege, as this writer does, that “Christ wrote no account of himself—that the history of him is altogether the work of other people,” is mere trifling. If the history that is written of him is undeserving of °redit, how came Mr. Paine to know any thing about °ither the amiableness of his character, or the excellence of that morality which he preached and practised? He knows nothing of either the one or the other but through the medium of the evangelical history; and if he admit this history in one case, with what consistency can he reject it in another ? Mr. Paine affects to rank Christianity with other re- ligions—with heathenism and Mahomedism, calling the New Testament writers “The Christian mythologists; ” but what founder or teacher of any religion will he resort to whose character will bear any comparison with that of Christ? Among the sages of antiquity, or the teachers of what is called the religion of nature, there is not one to be found whose life will bear a thorough scrutiny. Natural religion itself must be ashamed of its advocates ; and as to Mahomet, there is scarcely any thing in his character but a combination of ambition, brutality, and lust, at the sight of which nature itself revolts. “Go,” says an eloquent writer, “to your natural religion; lay before her Mahomet and his disciples, arrayed in armour of blood, riding in triumph over the spoils of thousands and ten thousands, who fell by his victorious sword. Show her the cities which he set in flames, the countries which he ravished and destroyed, and the miserable distress of all the in- habitants of the earth. When she has viewed him in this scene, carry her into his retirements. Show her the pro- phet’s chambers, his concubines, and his wives, let her see his adultery, and hear him allege revelation and his Divine commission to justify his lust and his oppression. When she is tired of this prospect, then show her the blessed Jesus, humble and meek, doing good to all the sons of men, patiently instructing both the ignorant and the per- verse. Let her see him in his most retired privacies. Let her follow him to the mount, and hear his devotions and supplications to God. Carry her to his table, to view his poor fare, and hear his heavenly discourse. Let her see him injured, not provoked. Let her attend him to the tribunal, and consider the patience with which he endured the scoff and the reproach of his enemies. Lead her to the cross, and let her view him in the agonies of death, and hear his last prayer for his persecutors, ‘Father, forgive them ; for they know not what they do I’ “When natural religion has viewed both, ask which is the prophet of God? But her answer we have already had, when she saw part of this scene through the eyes of the centurion who attended at his cross; by him she spoke, and said, “Truly this man was the Son of God.’” + - To admit the amiableness of Christ’s moral character, and yet reject the evangelical history of him, is choosing a very untenable ground. The history which the evangel- ists have given of Christ evinces its own authenticity. A character so drawn is a proof of its having really existed, and of those who drew it possessing a mind congenial with it. If Christ had not been that immaculate character which they represent, they could not have so described him. It is not in the power of man to invent any thing like it; the imagination of impostors, especially, would have been utterly unequal to the task; such a picture could not have been drawn without an original corre- sponding with it. Writers of fiction have often produced wonderful characters; they have emblazoned their heroes with extraordinary charms, but they are charms of a dif- ferent kind from what Jesus possessed. The beauties of holiness are not to be collected, in the manner in which the sacred writers have collected them, by the power of imagination; and as the existence of the picture implies the reality of the original, so also it proves the congeniality of mind possessed by those who drew it. Let the moral character of Christ have been ever so fair, a set of impostors could not possibly have drawn it in the manner in which it is drawn; for this, it was necessary that it should be not only observed, but felt, and loved, and imitated. If Judas had written a history of Christ, it would have been a very different one from those which are transmitted to us, even though it had been of a piece with his confession, “I have betrayed innocent blood.” I am not inclined to call Mr. Paine, what he calls the sacred writers, either fool or liar; but methinks it were no great labour to prove him to be both. It certainly was no mark of wisdom in him to acknowledge Christ to be “an amiable character, and that he taught and practised * Bishop Sherlock's Sermons, vol. I. pp. 270, 271. 938 MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS, ESSAYS, &c. morality of the most benevolent kind,” in an attempt to overturn Christianity; and the flagrant manner in which he has belied the sacred writers must be manifest to every one that is in the least acquainted with them, and will take the trouble to compare them with what he has asserted concerning them. - Secondly, From the purity of Christ's character arises an important part of his fitness for his undertaking ; with- out this he could not have been a Priest, a sacrifice, or a Mediator. It was necessary that the priests of Aaron's order should be “without blemish,” and their sacrifices . “without spot,” Lev. xxi. 21 ; Numb. xxvii. 3. 9. 11. This purity, it is true, was of a ceremonial kind, but it was typical of that which was moral ; for in reference to this it is said of Christ, that “such an High Priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners.—We are redeemed, not with silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.—He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the right- eousness of God in him.” The priests under the law were but ceremonially clean ; they needed “daily to offer up sacrifices, first for their own sins, and then for the people's:” but Christ “offered himself once without spot to God,” and thereby “perfected for ever them that are sanctified.” A polluted being might endure the demerit of sin, as the ungodly actually will ; but he cannot make atonement for it, so as to “make an end” of it. The world might have borne its own imiquity, but it is the “Lamb of God” only that can “bear it away.” And as it was an important part of the priestly office to mediate, and make interces- sion for the people, so Christ is our Mediator and Inter- cessor before the throne : “With his blood he entered once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemp- tion for us.” This mediation is founded upon his sacrifice; and the acceptableness of the former depends upon his spotless purity equally with the latter. A mediator could in no case be admitted to plead in behalf of a criminal, unless he himself were innocent. Had Moses been guilty of idolatry at Horeb, he could not have mediated on be- half of Israel. Our “Advocate with the Father is Jesus Xhrist the righteous.” Though he mingled with sinners, yet he must be holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from them ; and though he pleaded for sinners, yet he must not extenuate their sin, but condemn it without reserve, and justify the righteous government of God, by which it was threatened with destruction. It was on this account that the mediation of Christ was so highly acceptable to God, and so gloriously successful, that he gave him the desire of his heart. “Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” Thirdly, From the spotless purity of Christ’s character arises his fitness to be the great Eacemplar after which we should be formed, and which it should be our daily prac- tice to imitate. God hath “predestinated us to be con- formed to the image of his Son.” Jesus saith to the weary and heavy laden, “Learn of me, for I am meek and lowly of heart, and ye shall find rest unto your souls.” One great object of the Holy Spirit is to “glorify Christ;” and this he doth, not only by “receiving of the things of Christ, and showing them unto us; but by working, as I may say, by his spotless life as a model, and forming our souls into a resemblance of it. And as the Holy Spirit “glo- rifieth Christ” in his operations upon us, so also must we glorify him by voluntarily copying after his example. The nature of man is such that he requires an example before his eyes. We all feel a strong propensity to imita- tion. Hence the danger of evil, and the benefit of good company; and hence the superior effect of example, in ministers and heads of families, to mere precept. But where shall a suitable example be found 4 God is too much above us: our weak souls cannot look stedfastly at his glory. With angels we have but little or no acquaint- ance; and men, even the best of them, are stained with imperfections, which it would be dangerous to imitate. If we had been predestinated to be conformed to the image of the best merely human character, we should never “appear faultless before the presence of the Divine glory.” Whatever imperfections attend us in the present state, we require a perfect model, otherwise we shall never attain perfection in any state. The example of Christ is the only one that is adapted to our circumstances. In his face the glory of God is seen, without the eye of the mind being dazzled with its overwhelming lustre. In his cha- racter there is every thing to love, and in conforming to it nothing to fear. Happy are the men who are found “fol- lowers of the Lamb whithersoever he goeth !” ON THE DEITY OF CHRIST. THE DEITY OF CHRIST ESSENTIAL TO ATONEMENT. THE doctrine of atonement by the death of Christ is one of the great and distinguishing principles of the gospel, and its importance is acknowledged by most denomina- tions of professing Christians: yet there are some who suppose that this doctrine is not necessarily connected with the Divinity of Christ; and, indeed, that it is incon- sistent with it. It has been objected, that according to the Scriptures it was the person of Christ that suffered ; but that this is inconsistent with his Divinity, because Divinity could not suffer. To which it may be answered, that though the person of Christ suffered, yet that he suffered in all that pertains to his person is quite another thing. A great and virtuous character among men might suffer death by the axe or the guillotine, and this would be suf- fering death in his person; and yet he might not suffer in his honour or in his character, and so not in all that per- tained to him. A Christian might suffer martyrdom in his body, and yet his soul be very happy. To object, therefore, that Christ did not suffer in his person, because all that pertained to him was not the immediate seat of suffering, is reasoning very inconclusively. It is sufficient if Christ suffered in that part of his person which was susceptible of suffering. It has been objected, that, as humanity only is capable of suffering, therefore humanity only is necessary to make atonement. But this objection proceeds upon the sup- position that the value of atonement arises simply from suffering, and not from the character or dignity of him who suffers ; whereas the Scripture places it in the latter, and not the former. “The blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanseth us from all sin.”—He, “by himself, hath purged our sins.”—Some, who have allowed sin to be an infinite evil, and deserving of endless punishment, have objected to the necessity of an infinite atonement, by alleging that the question is not what sin deserves, but what God re- quires in order to exalt the dignity of his government, while he displays the riches of his grace in the forgiveness of sin. But this objection implies that it would be con- sistent with the Divine perfections to admit, not only what is equivalent to the actual punishment of the sinner, but of what is not equivalent ; and, if so, what good reason can be given why God might not have entirely dispensed with a satisfaction, and pardoned sinners without any atonement? On this principle, the atonement of Christ would be resolved into mere sovereign appointment, and the necessity of it would be wholly given up. But, if so, there was nothing required in the nature of things to exalt the dignity of the Divine government, whilst he displayed the riches of his grace; and it could not with propriety be said that “it became Him, for whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the Captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.” If God required less than the real demerit of sin for an atonement, then there could be no satisfaction made to Divine justice by such an atonement. And though it would be improper to represent the great work of redemp- tion as a kind of commercial transaction betwixt a creditor and his debtor, yet the satisfaction of justice in all cases of offence requires that there be an expression of the displea- sure of the offended against the conduct of the offender, equal to what the nature of the offence is in reality. The end of punishment is not the misery of the offender, but the general good. Its design is to express displeasure against ON THE DEITY OF CHRIST. 939 disobedience; and where punishment is inflicted according to the desert of the offence, there justice is satisfied. In other words, such an expression of displeasure is uttered by the Lawgiver, that, in it, every subject of his empire may read what are his views of the evil which he forbids, and what are his determinations in regard to its punishment. If sinners had received in their own persons the reward of their iniquity, justice would in that way have been satis- fied ; and if the infinitely blessed God, “whose ways are higher than our ways, and whose thoughts are higher than our thoughts,” has devised an expedient for our salvation, though he may not confine himself to a literal conformity to those rules of justice which he has marked out for us, yet he will be certain not to depart from the spirit of them. Justice must be satisfied even in that way. An atonement made by a substitute, in any case, requires that the same end be answered by it as if the guilty party had actually suffered. It is necessary that the displeasure of the offended should be expressed in as strong terms, or in a way adapted to make as strong an impression upon all con- cerned, as if the law had taken its course ; otherwise atome- 'ment is not made, and mercy triumphs at the expense of righteousness. Let it be inquired then whether this great end of moral government could have been answered by the sufferings of a mere creature. Some who deny the Divinity of Christ appear to be apprehensive that it could not, and have there- fore supposed that God, in order, it should seem, to bring it within the compass of a creature’s grasp, required less of his Son than our sins deserved. It is true, indeed, if Christ be only a creature, it must be less, infinitely less, that was accepted, than what was strictly deserved. In the atone- ment of Christ, God is said to have “set him forth to be a propitiation—to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins.” Now this, as well as the nature of things, im- plies that one who makes an atonement must be of so much account in the scale of being as to attract the general attention. But the sufferings of a mere man, whose obe- dience could be no more than duty, or whose humiliation contained in it no condescension below the place that be- came him, would be no more adapted to excite the general attention of the intelligent creation than the sufferings of an insect would be to attract the attention of a nation. It were as rational to talk of the king of Great Britain setting forth a worm tortured on the point of a needle, to DECLARE his regard to righteousness, while he pardoned the deluded votaries of the Pretender, as to talk of a mere creature be- ing set forth as a propitiation for the DECLARATION of the righteousness of God in the remission of human guilt. To suppose, because humanity only is capable of suffer- ing, that therefore humanity only is necessary to make atonement, is to render dignity of character of no account. When Zaleucus, one of the Grecian kings, had made a law against adultery, that whosoever was guilty of this crime should lose both his eyes, his own son is said to have been the first transgressor. To preserve the honour of the law, and at the same time to save his own son from total blind- ness, the father had recourse to an expedient of losing one of his own eyes, and his son one of his. This expedient, though it did not conform to the letter of the law, yet was Well adapted to preserve the spirit of it, as it served to evince to the nation the determination of the king to punish adultery, as much, perhaps more than if the sen- tence had literally been put into execution against the offender. But if instead of this he had appointed that one eye of an animal should be put out, in order to save that of his son, or if a common subject had offered to lose an eye, would either have answered the purpose? The ani- mal, and the subject, were each possessed of an eye, as Well as the sovereign. It might be added, too, that it was mere bodily pain; and, seeing it was in the body only that this penalty could be endured, any being that possessed a body would be equally capable of enduring it. True, they might endure it, but would their suffering have answered the same end ? Would it have satisfied justice? Would it have had the same effect upon the nation, or tended equally to restore the tone of injured authority ? Some have placed all the virtue of the atonement in the ºppointment of God. But, if so, why was it “not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sin!” It does not accord with the Divine proceedings to be pro- digal of blood, especially in a superior character, where one far inferior might answer the same end. When, in order to try Abraham, Isaac was bound, and ready to be sacrificed, a lamb was found for a burnt-offering ; and if any gift from the Divine Father, short of that of his only begotten Son, would have answered the great purposes of moral government, there is no reason to think that he would have made him a sacrifice, but would have spared him, and not freely have “delivered him up for us all.” It has been objected, against the necessity of Christ's being a Divine person in order to his making atonement, that, if he who makes atonement be infinite, it must needs be followed by the salvation of the whole human race. But this objection supposes that the number of the saved is to be proportioned to the ability of the Saviour; and then it would seem that Christ being a mere man, he saved all that his finite merit would extend to. With just as much propriety might it be alleged that the power by which we were created could not be infinite ; for if it had, there must then have been an infinite number of worlds in existence. And the wisdom and goodness by which we are saved cannot be infinite ; for, if so, all the world, and the fallen angels too, would be interested in that sal- vation. In short, the Deity and atonement of Christ have always, among thinking people, stood or fallen together; and with them almost every other important doctrine of the gospel. The person of Christ is the foundation-stone on which the church is built. An error, therefore, on this subject affects the whole of our preaching, and the whole of our religion. In the esteem of the apostle Paul, that which nullified the death of Christ was accounted to be another gospel; and he expressed his wish that those who propagated it, and so troubled the churches, were cut off. The principle main- tained by the Galatians, it is true, did not consist in a de- nial of the Deity of Christ; but the consequence is the same. They taught that justification was by the works of the law, from whence the apostle justly inferred that “Christ is dead in vain.” And he who teaches that Christ is a mere creature holds a doctrine which renders his suf- ferings of none effect. If the Deity of Christ be a Divine truth, it cannot reasonably be denied that it is of equal importance with the doctrine of justification by his right- eousness. If therefore a rejection of the latter was deemed a perversion of the gospel, nothing less can be ascribed to the rejection of the former. DEITY OF CHRIST ESSENTIAL TO OUT CALLING ON HIS NAME AND TRUSTING IN HIM FOR SALVATION, THERE are some doctrines of greater importance than others, and which may properly be termed fundamental truths. Whatever difficulty may attend the specification of those doctrines, it will not be found more difficult than a distinct enumeration of those Christian graces which are essential to true religion. The precise degree of holiness necessary to salvation is not more easily to be defined than the degree of truth to be believed ; yet no one can doubt that a certain degree of truth and holiness is essential to Chris- tianity. The importance of a principle must be determined by the relation it bears to other principles and duties of re- ligion. Truth is a system, though it is not taught in the Scriptures in a systematic form. The gospel is not a mass of discordant sentiments, but possesses a lovely proportion, a beautiful analogy, Rom. xii. 6. The oracles of God contain their “first principles,” (Heb. v. 12,) which sup- pose a scheme or system of principles. To show the im- portance of the doctrine of the resurrection, the apostle proceeds to prove that it involves in it the resurrection of Christ, and that this involves in it the truth of Christianity, 1 Cor. xv. 13–15. There is no part of the works of God but what bears a relation to the great system. The in- finitely wise God does nothing in a loose, unconnected, or inharmonious form; connexion and consistency run through all his works. And it would be strange if redemption, the greatest of all his works, were accomplished without a plan, or without a system. But if the work itself form a 940 MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS, ESSAYS, &c. complete system, just conceptions of it will be the same ; otherwise our conceptions must be at variance with truth. It is from this consideration that a denial of one Divine truth generally leads on to the denial of many others. It is by the gospel as it is by the moral law, “to offend in one point is to be guilty of all.” You cannot break any command, without violating the authority of the Lawgiver; and this being once violated, there are no bounds where to stop. “He that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. And if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art a transgressor of the law.” The same principle which leads thee to despise the Divine authority in one instance would lead thee to do the same in all, as occasion might offer. It is much the same in reference to evangelical truth ; we cannot reject one part of it, especially if that part be amongst its funda- mental principles, without either rejecting or becoming less attached to the rest. At present there are two things which offer themselves to our consideration, in reference to the Deity of Christ; each of which, while it tends to confirm the truth of the doctrine, exhibits its importance. The one is, Calling on the name of the Lord Jesus; the other is, Trusting in him for salvation. These are of importance, or there is no- thing in Christianity which is so; but a denial of the Deity of Christ would render them both improper, if not impracticable. Calling on the name of the Lord Jesus is considered, in the New Testament, as of equal importance with believing in him, having the same promise of salvation annexed to it.—“Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” And seeing it is asked, “How shall they call on him in whom they have not believed 3” (Rom. x. 13, 14,) it is strongly intimated that all who truly believe in Christ do call upon him. This is one of the distinguishing characteristics of the primitive Christians. Paul’s Epistle to the Corinthians was addressed to them, in connexion with “all who in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord,” 1 Cor. i. 2. Now as a rejection of the Divinity of Christ renders it idolatry to worship him, or call upon his name ; so it must involve a rejection of that by which primitive Christians were distinguished, and which has the promise of salvation. And where these things are rejected, there is no longer any possibility of Christian union ; for how can those who consider Christ to be a mere man join in the worship of such as are em- ployed in calling upon his name, and ascribing “blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, unto the Lamb for ever ?” Rev. v. 13. If there were no objection on the part of Trinitarians, there ought to be on the part of Arians and Socinians, to render their conduct consistent.* If we be guilty of idolatry, they ought to come out from amongst us, and be separate, as the Scriptures command Christians to lo with respect to idolaters, 2 Cor. vi. 16, 17. But if they be so indifferent about the importance of re- ligious principle as not to scruple such matters, there is no reason that we should be the same ; and we have no war- rant to acknowledge those as fellow Christians who come not under the description given of such in the New Testa- ment ; that is, who call not upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord. Trusting in Christ for salvation is represented in the gospel as equivalent, and of equal importance, with be- lieving in him.—“In his name shall the Gentiles trust.”— “I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day,” Matt. xii. 21 ; 2 Tim. i. 12. But trust- ing in Christ must be intimately connected with a belief in his proper Deity. Without this, all committing of our- selves to him, and trusting in his ability to keep that which we have committed to him, would be placing confidence in an arm of flesh; and would bring down the curse upon us, instead of the blessing. God has expressly appro- priated trust to himself alone, and prohibited our placing it in a mere creature. “Thus saith the Lord, Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord.”—“Blessed is * A certain Socinian is known to have declined taking any part in the family worship of a Trinitarian, and gave this reason for it: That he could not unite with those who call upon the name of Christ. the man that trusteth in the Lord, and whose hope the Lord is,” Jer. xvii. 5, 7. Every creature is entirely dependent on the Creator, and is totally incompetent to answer the character of a saviour, especially with respect to that salvation which mankind need. That there may exist a proper foundation for trust, the character of a saviour must unite omnipresent and omnipotent power, to control every intelligent creature, and every particle of matter in the universe, and render every thing subservient to the great purposes of salvation. Omniscient understanding to know perfectly, and at all times, their hearts, their dangers, and their wants. In- finite wisdom, to select unerringly, from an infinite num- ber of supposable schemes, for the accomplishment of the great object, that which is best, both with respect to the end, and the infinitude of antecedent means. Absolute immutability, to prosecute invariably the same designs; and infinite love, to rise above millions of provocations, and embrace perpetually the same good. That scheme, therefore, which denies Christ to be pos- sessed of these Divine prerogatives, and considers him as a mere dependent creature, leaves no ground for its abet- tors to trust unreservedly and ultimately in him for salva- tion ; for, according to their principles, Christ cannot be an adequate object of trust. Those who deny the Divinity of Christ may plead that they confide in the truth of his declarations; but they might also confide in the declarations of Peter or Paul, seeing that their testimony is equally true. But to com- mit our souls into their hands would be unwarrantable and presumptuous; and it would be equally so to commit them into the hands of Christ, if he were a mere creature like them. To deny his proper Divinity, therefore, is to destroy the foundation of a sinner’s hope, and to make void the distinctive evidence of primitive Christianity :— Calling upon the name of the Lord Jesus, and committing our souls into his hands for salvation. DEFENCE OF THE DEITY OF CHRIST. [In reply to the Rev. Henry Davis.] YoUR correspondent H. D. seems dissatisfied with the Tri- nitarian doctrine of Christ’s proper Deity, and wishes to substitute the indwelling scheme in its place.—In writing the piece which occasioned his remarks,I did not once think of “Athanasius,” nor of any human writer; but simply of stating what appeared to be the mind of God in his word. Neither was it my object to prove, concerning any denomination of professing Christians, that they are not in a state of salvation ; but merely that those principles which disown Christ’s proper Deity, be they held by whom they may, if fully embraced so as to be acted upon, do not consist with it. Your correspondent asks, “How am I to conceive of this 4 º’ that is, of Christ’s proper Deity. “Am I to con- sider the Deity of Christ as separate and distinct from the Deity of the Father and the Holy Spirit? Is there one Deity of the Son, another of the Father, and another of the Spi- rit 7” If he intend to ask whether the proposition, Christ is true God, mean any thing different from the proposition, the Father is true God 2 I answer, it certainly does. But if whether the Deity of Father, Son, and Spirit be one or more Deities, he must know that the former, and not the latter, is the avowed principle of Trinitarians. I have al- ways supposed that Godhead is common to Father, Son, and Spirit; and that, whatever distinction there is be- tween them, it consists not in their nature, but in their personality. Surely H. D., while he objects to the doc- trine of the Athanasian Creed, must have paid but little attention to it. “There is one person of the Father,” says the writer of that Creed, “another of the Son, and an- other of the Holy Ghost; but the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one.” As there- fore he has mistaken the premises, the consequence of “a division in Deity’’ falls of course. But “something like this,” he thinks, “is the case when the three persons are separately addressed in prayer.” Did not the primitive Christians call on the name of Christ? ON THE DEITY OF CHRIST. 941 Did not Stephen call upon the Lord Jesus to receive his spirit? And was not this praying to him as distinct, though not as “separate,” from the Father ? Yet I suppose Ste- phen will not be accused of making “a division in Deity.” “It is evident that amongst common Christians there are many who, for want of time and inclination to read and examine for themselves, have no other idea of the doctrine of the Trinity than that of three Gods.” To whom is this evident? To me it appears that those Chris- tians who read the least of human speculations upon this subject, and content themselves with the doctrine abund- antly taught in the Scriptures, that “the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, yet that there are not three Gods, but one God,” are the least likely to err. But, “Is not tritheism an error that ought to be guarded against as well as that of Socinianism 3’” The Scriptures plentifully guard us against polytheism ; and if the danger of tritheism was what is here supposed, it is rather surprising that they never guard us against that. Yet so it is. The sacred writers expressly call the Father God, the Son God, and the Holy Spirit God (John i. 1; Acts v. 3, 4); yet they seem never to have thought of Christians so understanding it as to make three Gods, and therefore never guard against it. Neither is there a single caution in all the word of God against making too much of Christ, though there are many against making too little of him. The union between him and the Father appears to me to be so described in Scripture as to leave no room for dishonouring the latter, while we truly honour the former.” On the other hand, a jealousy for the honour of the Father, at the expense of that of the Son, was the error and overthrow of the Jewish nation. The Trinitarian doctrine of the eternal Son of God, the second person in the Godhead, assuming human nature in the fulness of time, appears to me to be “the great mys- tery of godliness; ” and that which ought to be received “without controversy,” or curious speculations how these things are. It will not be expected that I should here enumerate the many passages by which this is supported in the New Testament; I will however mention one, which has lately struck me as possessing peculiar force. It is 1 John i. 1, 2, “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled of the Word of life. For the Life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal Life which was with the Father, and was mani- fested unto us.” On this passage I would remark—1. That there is a manifest resemblance between John's introduction to his Epistle and that to his Gospel, and that the same personage that is there called “The Word ” is here called “The Life,” and “The Word of life.”—2. That as the Word who was “with God,” and who “was God,” was “made flesh,” and the apostles “beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth ;” so the “Life, even that eternal Life that was with the Father, was manifested, and they saw it.” And the manifestation of the Life, in human nature, is given as the reason why he came to be “seen with the eyes, and looked upon, and handled; ” plainly intimating that if he had not thus been manifested he would have been con- cealed from all mortal eyes.—3. It was not the Deity itself, “ personally distinguished as the FATHER,” (for which Dr. Watts in his latter days contended,t) that was manifested; but “that eternal Life which was with the Father.” As to the indwelling scheme, I do not at present suffi- ciently comprehend it. If H. D. will give a brief and clear statement of it, and of the evidence on which it rests, whether in his own words or those of the ablest authors who have written upon it, I will endeavour seriously and candidly to consider what he may advance. * See Calvinistic and Socinian systems compared, Letter vii. FRY.MARKS ON THE IND WELLING SCII.E.M.E. [In reply to the Rev. Henry Davis.] I PROPOSED in my last that you should state the indwell- ing scheme, with the Scriptural grounds on which you supposed it to rest. I wish you had complied with this proposal; merely writing about a subject brings nothing to an issue. I will endeavour, however, to collect your sentiments as well as I can. I agree with you that “attempts to investigate difficult parts of Divine truth should be conducted with humility and candour.” If any thing I have written, or may write, be inconsistent with either of these virtues, I am willing to bear the blame. But I hope an attempt to prove that the denial of Christ’s proper Deity is inconsist- ent with worshipping him, and trusting in him for salva- tion, is not necessarily subject to such a charge. I am far from thinking that every person is aware of the legitimate consequences of his own doctrine, or that in his approaches to God he acts up to them ; and still further from “ex- cluding from salvation all who may not have the same ideas of the subject with myself.” I must add, however, that true candour does not consist in entertaining a good opinion of one another, whatever be our religious princi- ples; but in speaking the truth in love. You may think well of me, and I of you ; and we may go on compliment- ing each other, till we both fall into perdition. As to your personal religion, and that of the “very many ” who you say think with you, I have never called it in question. It is of things, not persons, that I have written. If any of us find ourselves affected by what another advances, it becomes us to examine whether what he alleges be true, and not to content ourselves with exclaiming against his want of candour. If I think the worse of any man on ac- count of his differing from me, that will only betray my vanity and folly; but if I do not think the worse of a man for what I account his differing from the Scriptures, and thereby dishonouring Christ, that is esteeming men irre- spective of the truth that dwelleth in them, and rendering it of no importance; which however pleasing to flesh and blood, may be no less repugnant to the spirit of Christian- ity than the most uncharitable bitterness. You ask “whether, by the proper Deity of Christ, I mean any thing more than his being called God in the Scriptures.” Certainly I do ; or I have all along been deceiving myself and the reader. I mean that he is what he is called. But do I suppose “that he is God in the same sense as the three persons united are one God 4” No ; I do not. The Father is not God in this sense any more than the Son and Spirit. We no where read that the Father is a God, the Son a God, or the Spirit a God, when spoken of in distinction from each other; nor do I recollect any such idea conveyed in the Scriptures; yet each Divine person has every perfection of Godhead ascribed to him. You have twice suggested that the Son and Spirit, having assumed visible appearances, must have a nature different from Deity. You cannot mean that the nature or appearance assumed was different from Deity; for of this there is no dispute ; but the nature assuming. But what proof is there of this? I do not know that the Holy Spirit ever assumed any other nature than his own, though he descended on Christ in the form or appearance of a dove; and though the Son assumed human nature, yet this implies no inferiority to the Father, in respect of what he was antecedently to such assumption. I have no objection to our inquiring, not only into the evidence that the doctrine of the Trinity is contained in Scripture, but, as far as Scripture informs us, what that doctrine is. It does not become us however to take up the principle of the Divine Unity, however true and im- portant, and, having formed an idea of it as being personal, resolve to admit of no other than what shall agree with our preconceived notion; for this were to regulate cer- tainty by uncertainty, the certain light of revelation by the uncertain conjectures supposed to be derived from the + Palmer's Life of Watts, p. 62. 942 MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS, ESSAYS, &c. light of nature. We ought to regulate our ideas of the Divine Unity by what is taught us in the Scriptures of the Trinity; and not those of the Trinity by what we know, or think we know, from the light of nature, of the Unity. It appears to me, by the tenor of your pieces, especially from some passages, that you and your brethren have in this matter symbolized with the Socinians, who, having taken up the idea of God as being one person, reject every thing in the Scriptures that is inconsistent with it; and therefore renounce first the Deity, and then the atonement of Christ; and, in short, almost every thing pertaining to revelation, except what might have been learned without it. I do not say that you go their lengths; but would seriously and affectionately entreat you to consider whe- ther you have not adopted their principle. Do you not make your ideas of the unity of God the standard by which to try the Scripture doctrine of the Trinity; forming, as you say, “the best ideas you can " of the latter subject, and holding nothing fast except the former ? If the ad- mission of Christ's proper Deity, though taught as plainly and much more frequently in the New Testament than the other, cannot be understood so as, in your ideas, to be “fully consistent,” it must be given up, and a “God- like form * of a man, as one of your writers expresses it, substituted in its place. But if, as you acknowledge, “the three Divine persons spoken of in Scripture be in some sense one God,” why should you not suspect, or rather renounce, your own ideas of the unity, as if it must needs be confined to one person ? And, instead of “forming the best ideas you can’” how this is, why should you not be content with believing that it is so, without pretending to pry into that which is above your compre- hension ? Nor ought it to be objected that so abstruse a subject cannot be of any great importance. Can you communicate to me, or form to yourself, any idea of self- existence, eternity, or infinity? Yet, if you do not be- lieve them, you do not believe in God. Your own scheme also appears to be equally incomprehensible as ours; for you do not pretend to “explain how the Son and Spirit derive their nature from the Father.” Here then you can admit of mystery, though, as to the question, “How the three Divine persons spoken of in Scripture are one God,” you are for going about to “form the best idea that you can ;” and, if mone present themselves, conclude that proper Deity belongs only to one of them—a singular me- thod this of answering the question 1 If you think that you believe “the three Divine persons spoken of in Scripture to be Divine, and to be one God,” do you not deceive yourself? You speak of “the Son and Spirit having a derived nature.” If by derivation you mean what is essential and eternal, as expressed by the term begotten, there is no dispute on this head. But if you mean that they were produced by the will and power of the Father, they are mere creatures; and however exalted, cannot be “Divine.” No Socinian, I apprehend, would deny that God dwelt in the man Christ Jesus, enabling him to perform all his mighty works. But he would tell you, and justly too, that this does not prove him to be any thing more than human. Dr. Watts, I am aware, spoke of the indwelling of the Father in such a way as that the Father and the human nature became “one person s” and thus conceived that he maintained the proper Deity of Christ. But, whether he did or not, his conceit of the Father's assuming human nature, which the New Testament invariably ascribes to the Son or Word, or that eternal Life that was with the Father, leads on to the neglect, and by degrees to the disbelief, of this important truth. I scarcely remember ever to have heard a minister of your persuasion introduce the subject in the pulpit ; and much less insist upon it with that earn- estness and delight which is so frequently found in the writings of the New Testament. Have you not symbolized with the Socinians till you have nearly, if not entirely, lost this great doctrine 3 Do you really consider Christ as any thing more than a man eartraordinarily inspired of God 2 If you do, how is it that you should feel yourself hurt when the contrary is maintained ? I advanced nothing in the piece which first attracted your notice but the Divinity of Jesus Christ. I had not the remotest idea of opposing the indwelling scheme. I thought nothing about it; but merely stated a doctrine which your writers, Watts and Doddridge, pro- fessed to maintain. Yet this excites your suspicions. Can it be a matter of doubt whereabouts you are ? Ex- cuse me if I inquire further, Will your scheme allow you to worship Christ, I do not say “separately,” but dis- tinctly from the Father, as the martyr Stephen worshipped him, and prayed to him in his dying moments; and as all the primitive Christians worshipped him, calling upon his name * Finally, Can you, in the full persuasion of this scheme, trust in him for salvation, as one who is able to keep that which is committed to him $ Does it not ra- ther teach you to trust in the Father only, as dwelling in him These are serious things, and require to be answered in some other way than by exclaiming against the want of candour. Candour, sir, requires us to deal plainly and faithfully with each other. By the manner in which you, and writers on your side of the question, express your- selves, it would seem to be a matter of small account what we believe on these momentous subjects, provided we do but think well of one another. But surely that which affects the object of worship, and the foundation of hope, cannot be of trifling importance. Principles form the character in the sight of God : a handful of cockle may seem of but little consequence at seed time, but it will appear different at harvest. Your scheme requires you to symbolize with Socinians in denying our Lord Jesus Christ to be “equal with ” the Father, and to explain away those scriptures which speak of him as such. Thus that glorious passage, in Phil. ii. 5–7, is degraded and martyred : “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” This is made to mean that “his human soul, being in union with the Godhead,” that is, with the Fa- ther, “was invested with a God-like form and glory in all ages. Thus he oftentimes appeared to the patriarchs as the Angel of the Lord, and as God. This seems to be ‘the form of God’ which the apostle speaks of; nor did he think it ‘any robbery,” or presumption, so to do ; that is, to appear and act as God. Yet he “emptied himself,’ or divested himself of this God-like form or appearance, this Divine Shechinah ; and, coming in the flesh, he con- sented to be ‘made in the likeness of other men ;’ nay, he took upon him “the form of a servant,’ instead of ‘the form of God.’ ” + “The form of God’’ means the God-like form assumed by a man | A man, or human soul, thought it no presump- tion to “appear and act as God : " A man consented to be made in the likeness of men. No, this was too gross; therefore the term “other” is added to help out. A man was so humble and condescending as to take upon him the form of a servant And the existence of this man was ne- cessary to the covenant of redemption ; f. that is, till God had formed a creature out of nothing, he had no counsel, plan, or design, what should be done ! And is this Dr. WATTs 3–the sweet singer of our Israel; the man who in his better days taught us thus to worship— “Ere the blue heavens were stretched abroad, From everlasting was the Word; With God he was, the Word was God, And must divinely be adored.” How are the mighty fallen : By the several passages of Scripture which you have in- troduced, in support of the indwelling scheme, it seems to me that you interpret that as being essential which is only economical, just as in other instances you make that to be economical which is essential. Referring to John xiv. 10, you say, “Our Lord appeals to his works to prove that he was in the Father, and the Father in him—the Father in me doeth the works.” All that Christ said or did in the Father's name was indeed a proof of such a mutual in- dwelling as that he who had seen the one had seen the other; but not of our Lord’s Deity consisting in the Fa- ther's dwelling in him. It might as well be alleged from this passage that the Deity of the Father consisted in that of the Son, who is said to be “in him.” This and all * Palmer's Life of Watts, p. 86. + Ib. p. 68. ON THE SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 943 other such passages, which ascribe the works of Christ to the power of the Father, are expressive of the economy of things, and not of the insufficiency of the Saviour. I submit to your consideration the following brief state- ment of my views on this subject. The first measure in the execution of the great work of redemption was that he who was “in the form of God,” and as such “equal with God,” took upon him the form of a servant; and, having taken that form, it was fitting, in the account of Him who hath abounded towards us in all wisdom and prudence, that he should act under it. Now it belongs to the character of a servant that he receive his instructions from him whose servant he is ; and thus did Christ. Though, considered as Divine, “he knew all things,” John xxi. 17; yet as a servant, and as being made in the likeness of men, he grew in knowledge, taught nothing, and knew nothing, as it were, but what he had heard and learned of the Father. “I speak to the world,” says he, “those things which I have heard of him.”—“Ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.”—“I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me,” John viii. 26.40; xvii. 8. Further, It belongs to the character of a servant that he act under the authority and be directed by the will of him whose servant he is; and thus did Christ. Though, as a Son, his throne was acknowledged by the Father himself to be for ever and ever, Heb. i. 8, yet as a servant he learned obedience. He was sent by the Father, and did every thing in obedience to his will. “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do.”—“I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father who sent me.”— “I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me,” John v. 19. 30; vi. 38. Finally, It belongs to the character of a servant that he Öe supported in his work by him who employs him; and thus was Christ. As a Divine person he was acknowledged to be most mighty—the mighty God (Psal. xlv. 3; Isa. ix. 6); yet as a servant, and during his humiliation, he is commonly represented as doing what he did by the power of the Father. He ordinarily ascribes his miracles to this, and not to his own power. It was “the Father who was in him that did the works.” Thus he was “God’s serv- ant whom he upheld, his elect in whom his soul delighteth.” Is it not a pity, sir, that this surprising instance of con- descension, for the very purpose of redeeming us from the Wrath to come, should be converted into an argument against his essential dignity? If it be asked, What is it then which is ascribed to the Divinity of Christ, if his mi- racles and works are ordinarily ascribed to the Father, or to the Holy Spirit; and of what use was it? I answer, It gave value and virtue to all he did and suffered. Thus he is represented as “by himself” purging our sins—“The blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanseth us from all sin.” -“We have a great High Priest, who is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God,” Heb. i. 3; v. 14; I John i. 7. You mention some other passages: as, “God was mani- fest in the flesh; ” by which, I suppose, you would under- stand the Father, or the Deity, without distinction of per- Sons. But who was it that was “seen of angels, believed ºn in the world, and received up into glory?" Was this the Father?—Frequent mention has also been made of Col. ii. 9, “In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily;” as though it was not the second person in the Sodhead only that assumed human nature, but the Godhead itself. To this I answer, If the passage refer to the con- Stitution of the person of Christ, which to me is doubtful, it may without any force be understood of every perfection 9f the Divine nature dwelling in him, in common with the Father. To interpret it of the Godhead, without distinction of persons, is to contradict the whole tenor of the New Testament. “God sent forth his son, made of a woman.” -“The Word that was with God, and who was God, even that eternal Life that was with the Father, was made flesh, or manifested to us,” Gal. iv. 4; John i. 1. 14; 1 John i. 2. God being in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, has no relation, I apprehend, to the constitution of Christ's Hºson, but to the exercise of mercy through his atonement. Thus it is that God in Christ, or for Christ's sake, is said to have forgiven us, Eph. iv. 32. - ON THE SONSHIP OF CHRIST. THE meaning of the terms, “Son of God,” and “only be- gotten Son of God,” must needs be of importance, inas- much as the belief of the idea signified by them was made a leading article in the primitive professions of faith, John vi. 69; iii. 18; xx. 31; Acts xviii. 37; 1 John iv. 15. Whatever disputes have arisen of late among Christians, there seems to have been none on this subject in the times of the apostles. Both Jews and Christians appear to have agreed in this : the only question that divided them was, whether Christ was the Son of God or not ? If there had been any ambiguity in the term, it would have been very unfit to express the first article of the Christian faith. It has been frequently suggested that the ground of Christ's sonship is given us in Luke i. 35, and is no other than his miraculous conception : “The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall over- shadow thee : therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” It is true that our Lord was miraculously conceived of the Holy Spirit, and that such a conception was peculiar to him ; but it does not follow that by this he became the “Son’’ or “only begotten Son of God.” Nor does the passage in question prove any such thing. It has been thought that the phrase “Son of God,” in this place, is used in a peculiar sense, or that it respects the origin of Christ's human nature, as not being by ordinary genera- tion of man, but by the extraordinary influence of God; and that he is here called the Son of God in the same sense as Adam is so called, (Luke iii. 38,) as being pro- duced by his immediate power. If this be the meaning of the term, in the passage in question, I should think it will be allowed to be peculiar, and therefore that no general conclusion can be drawn from it as to the meaning of the term in other passages. But, granting that the sonship of Christ in this place is to be understood in the same sense as it is commonly to be taken in the New Testament, still it does not follow that the miraculous conception is the origin of it. It may be a reason given why Christ is called the Son of God; but not why he is so. Christ is called the Son of God as raised from the dead, and as exalted at the right hand of God, Acts xiii. 33 ; Heb. i. 4, 5. Did he then become the Son of God by these events : This is impossible; for sonship is not a progressive matter. If it arose from his miraculous conception, it could not, for that reason, arise from his resurrection or exaltation ; and so, on the other hand, if it arose from his resurrection or exaltation, it could not proceed from his miraculous con- ception. But if each be understood of his being hereby proved, acknowledged, or, as the Scriptures express it, “de- clared to be the Son of God with power,” all is easy and consistent. Whether the terms, “Son of God,” and “only begotten Son of God,” be not expressive of his Divine personality, antecedent to all consideration of his being conceived of the Holy Spirit, in the womb of the virgin, let the follow- ing things determine :- First, The glory of “the only begotten of the Father,” and the glory of the “Word,” are used as convertible terms, as being the same ; but the latter is allowed to de- note the Divine person of Christ, antecedent to his being made flesh ; the same, therefore, must be true of the former. “The Word was made flesh, and we beheld his glory,”—that is, the glory of the Word, “the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” It is true, it was by the Word being “made flesh, and dwelling among us,” that his glory became apparent ; but the glory itself was that of the eternal Word, and this is the same as “the glory of the only begotten of the Father.” Secondly, The Son of God is said to “dwell in the bosom of the Father;” that is, he is intimately acquainted with his character and designs, and therefore fit to be em- ployed in making them known to men. “The only be- gotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” If this be applied to his Divine person, or “that eternal life which was with the Father, and was manifested to us,” it is natural and proper; it assigns his omniscience as qualifying him for making known the mind 944 MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS, ESSAYS, &c. of God; but if he became the only begotten of the Father by his miraculous conception, or by any other means, the beauty of the passage vanishes. Thirdly, God is frequently said to have sent his Son into the world; but this implies that he was his Son ante- cedently to his being sent. To suppose otherwise is no less absurd than supposing that when Christ sent forth his twelve disciples they were not disciples, but that they became such in consequence of his sending them, or of some preparation pertaining to their mission. - Fourthly, Christ is called the Son of God antecedently to his miraculous conception, and consequently he did not become such by it.—“In the fulness of time God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law ; that he might redeem them that were under the law.”— “God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.” The terms, “made of a woman, made under the law,” are a parenthesis. The position affirmed is, that God sent forth his Son to redeem the transgressors of the law. His being made of a woman, and made under the law, or covenant of works, which man had broken, expresses the necessary means for the accomplishment of this great end; which means, though preceding our redemption, yet fol- low the sonship of the Redeemer. There is equal proof that Christ was “the Son of God” before he was “made of a woman,” as that he was “the Word” before he was “made flesh.” The phraseology is the same in the one case as in the other. If it be alleged that Christ is here called the Son of God on account of his being made of a woman, I answer, if so, it is also on account of his being “made under the law,” which is too absurd to admit of a question. Moreover, to say that “God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh,” is equal to saying that the Son of God assumed human nature : he must therefore have been the Son of God before his incarnation. Fifthly, Christ is called the Son of God antecedent to his being “manifested to destroy the works of the devil:” but he was manifested to destroy the works of the devil by taking upon him human nature; consequently he was the Son of God antecedent to the human nature being assumed. There is equal proof from the phraseology of 1 John iii. 8 that he was the “Son of God” antecedent to his being “manifested to destroy the works of the devil,” as there is from that of 1 Tim. iii. 16 that he was “God” antecedent to his being “manifested in the flesh ;” or from 1 John i. 2 that “that eternal Life which was with the Father” was such antecedent to his being “manifested to us.” Sixthly, The ordinance of baptism is commanded to be administered “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” The terms “ Father ” and “Holy Spirit” will be allowed to denote Divine persons; and what good reasons can be given for another idea being fixed to the term “Son º’’ Seventhly, The proper Deity of Christ precedes his of: fice of Mediator, or High Priest of our profession, and renders it an exercise of condescension. But the same is true of his sonship : “He maketh the Son a High Priest.” —“Though he was a Son, yet learned he obedience.” His being the Son of God, therefore, amounts to the same thing as his being a Divine person. Eighthly, It is the proper Deity of Christ which gives dignity to his office as Mediator ; but this dignity is ascribed to his being the “Son of God.” “We have a great High Priest, Jesus, the Son of God.” His being the Son of God, therefore, amounts to the same thing as his being a Divine person. Lastly, It is the proper Deity of Christ which gives effi- cacy to his sufferings: “by himself he purges our sins.” But this efficacy is ascribed to his being the “Son of God:” “The blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanseth us from all sin.” His being the Son of God, therefore, amounts to the same thing as his being a Divine person. Those who attribute Christ’s sonship to his miraculous conception (those at least to whom I refer) are neverthe- less constrained to allow that the term implies proper Di- vinity. Indeed, this is evident from John v. 18, where his saying that “God was his own Father” is supposed to be “making himself equal with God.” But if the mi- raculous conception be the proper foundation of his son- ship, why should it contain such an implication ? A holy creature might be produced by the overshadowing of the _Holy Spirit, which yet should be merely a creature; that is, he might, on this hypothesis, profess to be the Son of God, and yet be so far from making himself equal with God as to pretend to be nothing more than a man. It has been objected that Christ, when called the Son of God, is commonly spoken of as engaged in the work of mediation, and not simply as a Divine person antecedent to it.—I answer, In a history of the rebellion, in the year 1745, the name of his Royal Highness, the commander-in- chief, would often be mentioned in connexion with his equipage and exploits; but none would infer from hence that he thereby became the king's son. It is further objected that sonship implies inferiority, and therefore cannot be attributed to the Divine person of Christ.—But whatever inferiority may be attached to the idea of sonship, it is not an inferiority of nature, which is the point in question ; and if any regard be paid to the Scriptures, the very contrary is true. Christ’s claiming to be the Son of God was “making himself,” not inferior, but as God, or “equal with God.” Once more, Sonship, it is said, implies posteriority, or that Christ as a Son could not have existed till after the Father: to attribute no other Divinity to him, therefore, than what is denoted by sonship, is attributing none to him ; as nothing can be Divine which is not eternal.— But if this reasoning be just, it will prove that the Divine purposes are not eternal, or that there was once a point in duration in which God was without thought, purpose, or design. For it is as true, and may as well be said, that God must exist before he could purpose, as that the Father must exist before he had a Son; but if God must ex- ist before he could purpose, there must have been a point in duration in which he existed without purpose, thought, or design ; that is, in which he was not God! The truth is, the whole of this apparent difficulty arises from the want of distinguishing between the order of nature and the order of time. In the order of nature, the sun must have existed before it could shine ; but in the order of time, the sun and its rays are coeval ; it never existed a single instant without them. In the order of nature, God must have existed before he could purpose; but in the order of time, or duration, he never existed without his purpose; for a God without thought or purpose were no God. And thus in the order of nature the Father must have existed before the Son; but, in that of duration, he never existed without the Son. The Father and the Son, therefore, are properly etermal. THOUGHTS ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. No sober Trinitarian would take upon him to say pre- cisely to what degree the distinctions in the Godhead ex- tend. It is generally supposed, however, that the term person approaches the nearest to the Scriptural idea of any term that could be applied to this subject; yet those who use and contend for this term, in opposition to that of three names or three properties, do not mean to suggest that the distinctions in the Deity are in all respects the same as be- tween three persons among men. The latter have no ne- cessary connexion or union with each other, so as to de- nominate them one. It is highly probable that there is nothing in creation perfectly analogous to the mode of the Divine subsistence; and therefore nothing by which it can be fully conceived. And what if this should be the case ? Where is the wonder that there should be some- thing in God peculiar to himself, in the mode of his exist- ence, which we cannot comprehend? If Socinians would but modestly consider the weakness of the human under- standing, they would not decide so peremptorily on the other hand concerning the unity of God, as that it must needs be personal, or not at all. If it be too much for us to say with exactness to what degree the distinction reaches, is it not also too much for them to decide upon | ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 945 the precise kind and degree of union which is necessary to denominate the great Creator of the world—the oNE Gon ? The doctrine of a Trinity in unity is evidently a doc- trine of pure revelation, and could never have been dis- covered by the mere light of nature. But, by comparing Scripture with itself, we may plainly perceive that the Divine unity is not a unity of person. Though there are three in the Godhead who are dignified with the same in- communicable titles of Jehovah, God, and Lord—possess- ing the same attributes and perfections, and entitled to the same worship and adoration—yet the Scriptures do not exhibit a plurality of Deities, but teach us that Jehovah our God is one Jehovah. The obvious conclusion is, that these three are one God, and that the Scripture doctrine of unity is of more persons than one in the Godhead. The fol- lowing passages, among many others, are very full to this purpose :— “Go, teach all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.—There are three that bear record in heaven ; the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.—I am one that bear witness of myself—The Father that sent me beareth witness of me.—It is the Spirit that beareth wit- ness.-And the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him ; and a voice came from heaven which said, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. —When the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which pro- ceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me.—Now I beseech you, brethren, for the Lord Jesus Christ's sake, and for the love of the Spirit, that you strive together with me in your prayers to God for me.—Through him (that is, Christ) we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.— Praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.—The Lord direct your hearts into the love of God, and the patient waiting for Christ.—The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.” On reading these and similar passages, together with a great number of others which teach the proper Deity of Christ, we conclude that in a mysterious way, far above our comprehension, there are in the Divine unity three subsistencies; and as the New Testament constantly re- presents each of these three as bearing personal names, sustaining personal offices, and performing personal acts, we think ourselves warranted in accounting them three Divine persons. * Socinians, however, object to the doctrine of the Trinity on account of its being incomprehensible : and Dr. Priestley denies that the first teachers of Christianity taught any “mysterious doctrines, or doctrines in their own nature incomprehensible;” + and insists upon the necessity of “considering in what manner three persons are one God, upon the general principle that every proposition, before it can be believed, must be understood in some sense or other.” + The first preachers of Christianity taught the self-exist- ence of God: Rev. i. 4, “Grace be unto you, and peace, from him who is, and who was, and who is to come.” But the self-existence of God is allowed by Dr. Priestley him- self to be so much of a mystery that “he does not under- stand the manner of it.” He can here distinguish between things which are above reason and things contrary to it. “Though it be above our reason,” he says, “to compre- hend how this original Being, and the cause of all other beings, should be himself uncaused, it is a conclusion by no means properly contrary to reason.” f Now, why might not an atheist demand of Dr. Priestley an account of the mode or manner how God himself can exist, upon the general principle, “that ever proposition, before it can be believed, must be understood in some sense or other?” Why should not this general principle apply to the manner in which God always existed, as an uncaused Being, as Well as to the manner in which three persons are one God? And if it be proper to distinguish between things above ſeason and things contrary to it, in the one case, why not in the other ? * Letters to a Philosophical Unbeliever, Part II. p. 209. + later,to Dr. Horne. P The truth is, it is not necessary that every thing con- tained in a proposition should be clearly understood, in •order to our being rationally convinced that such a propo- sition is true. We ought not to deny every thing we cannot comprehend ; otherwise a man born blind would reason right when he forms this syllogism : We can only know the shape of different substances by feeling them ; but it is impossible to handle them at a distance ; therefore it is impossible to know the shape of different bodies which lie beyond our reach . A blind man, by the concurring tes- timony of all about him, may be convinced that the figure of different bodies may be clearly ascertained by sight, though we cannot handle them. But when convinced of this on the ground of testimony, he never can be made to conceive how this is true. It is therefore a fundamental maxim, in all true philosophy, that many things may be incomprehensible and yet demonstrable, that though seeing clearly be a sufficient reason for affirming, yet not seeing at all can never be a reason for denying. When it is affirmed that in the Godhead there are three, and that these three are one God, it has been objected, not only that the doctrine is incomprehensible, but that the terms themselves involve a contradiction ; to this it might be replied, that if the Divine Being were affirmed to be three in the same sense in which he is said to be one, the objection would be valid; but the contradiction here is only a seeming one, and is no other than what appears in other propositions concerning the Divine Being, which are also true. Suppose it were affirmed that it is possible for God to do evil, and yet that it is impossible he should do evil : this would involve an apparent contradiction; and if the two branches of the proposition were to be under- stood in the same sense of possible and impossible, the con- tradiction would be real. But to say that it is not naturally impossible for God to do evil, were he so inclined, is only affirming what is necessary to his being a free agent, and so of being virtuous or holy; and to say that it is morally impossible for God to do evil is only ascribing to him that perfection of holiness which constitutes the true glory of his character. So to affirm that the centre and surface of the globe are exceedingly remote, and yet so exceedingly near as to be equally the central point of infinite space, is an apparent contradiction, and yet demonstrably true. That the remotest periods of time are alike the centre of infinite duration is also a most evident truth, and yet a caviller might object that the terms of these propo- sitions involve a contradiction; it is like saying that two points may be one, and that one may be two. Yet, oppo- site as the terms may appear, the truth of the proposi- tions is not at all affected by them, but rests on the strong- est demonstration. JUSTIFICATION. ON THE DOCTRINE OF IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSN ESS “This is the name wherewith she shall be called, The Lord our right- eousness.”—Jer. xxxiii. 16. IT may seem too much for the church of Christ to bear a name which is properly applicable only to Christ himself, and is expressly given to him in chap. xxiii. 6 of the same prophecy. Interpreters have attempted to account for this in different ways. Some have rendered the words, “And this is the name of Him that shall call her,” as we should say, by his grace, “The Lord our righteousness.” But the words clearly import an appellation given to the church. Others have supposed the church to be called after the name of Christ on account of her intimate union with him, as a woman is called after the name of her husband. But this is a modern practice, to which there- fore there can be no allusion. The name in the Hebrew is Jehovah-tsidkenaz; and, if I am not mistaken, the use of several other of these com- pound terms in the Old Testament will determine the # Letters to a Philosophical Unbeliever, Part I. p. 46. 946 MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS, ESSAYS, &c. meaning of the passage in question. When Abraham was about to offer up his son, in the very moment of extremity his hand was stayed, and a lamb was provided. Abraham, in commemoration of this signal interposition, called the name of the place Jehovah-jūreh, the Lord will see or pro- vide. When God gave Israel the victory over Amalek, Moses built an altar, and called it Jehovah-missi, the Lord my banner. When Gideon, having seen an angel of God, was apprehensive that he should die, and the Lord com- forted him, saying, “Peace be unto thee, fear not ;” he built an altar, and called it Jehovah-shalom, the Lord send peace. Finally, when the church in the latter day, under the form of a city, is described in prophecy, it is said that its name shall be called Jehovah-shammah, the Lord is there: Gen. xxii. 14; Exod. xvii. 15; Judg. vi. 24; Ezek. xlviii. 35. Now the place where Abraham received the lamb was not Jehovah, nor either of the altars erected by Moses and Gideon. They were only memorials of what Jehovah had wrought. Neither will the city described by IEzekiel be Jehovah ; but the presence of Jehovah shall be so sensibly and manifestly with it, that this shall be its name, or distinguishing character. Thus it is that the church, under the gospel dispensation, shall be called Jehovah-tsidken.w, the Lord our righteousness; not because she is Jehovah, but because her justification, by the right- eousness of Jehovah, forms a kind of prominent feature in her countenance. This leading truth is inscribed upon her in deep and legible characters, like those upon the altars of Moses and Gideon. She is even a standing me- morial of it to all generations. Such, I take it, is the meaning of this prophecy. Let us next inquire whether it accords with fact. If there be a leading principle which distinguishes the gospel church more than any other, it may be expected to occupy a con- spicuous place in the New Testament. It is true, the Old Testament church was accepted of God through the same medium that we are ; but, the righteousness of Jesus not. being actually wrought, it does not form so prominent a feature in that dispensation. As soon as our Lord entered on his ministry, he declared his errand to be, “to seek and to save that which was lost.” The self-righteous Pharisees, who were whole in their own eyes, were most of them left to perish in their own deceivings, while publicans and harlots entered into the kingdom of God before them. Every encouragement was given to faith in the Redeemer. In answer to this the diseased were cured, and the guilty forgiven, whatever had been their former character. Those who embraced the Saviour from among the sect of the Pharisees, and who were righteous in their own eyes, were brought to an open renunciation of every thing of this kind, and to sue for mercy among the chief of sinners. This was particularly the case of Saul of Tarsus, who “counted all things but loss that he might win Christ, and be found in him ; not having his own righteousness, which was of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith,” Phil. iii. 8, 9. When the apostles, commissioned by their Lord, went , forth preaching the gospel to every creature, this was their errand. To the Jews they thus addressed themselves: “Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: and by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses,” Acts xiii. 38, 39. As to the Gentiles, their ad- dress to them was in substance as follows : “Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us, we pray you, in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him,” 2 Cor. v. 20, 21. In almost all the Epistles, we find this great truth writ- ten in legible characters. It is almost the sole object of that to the Romans. To quote all the evidence from it were to quote the Epistle itself. I shall only observe that there are some errors noted in that Epistle, among believers, and which were to be objects of forbearance; but justifi- cation by faith in the righteousness of Christ, to the re- nouncing of all dependence on the works of the law, is not represented as a question that divided believers, but as a principle of such importance as to distinguish believers from unbelievers. “The Gentiles which followed not after righteousness have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore ? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law ; for they stumbled at that stumbling-stone. Being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, they have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God,” Rom. ix. 30–32; x. 3. The disorders of the Corinthians were greater than those of any other of the primitive churches. This, with some who profess to believe this important truth in the present day, would have been thought a sufficient reason for withholding it in this instance, lest it should be abused ; but Paul did not withhold it. “Of him,” says he, “are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption,” 1 Cor. i. 30, 31. He had found them sunk in vice and profligacy. Speaking of fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, abusers of themselves with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, extortioners ; “and such,” says he, “were some of you : but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God,” 1 Cor. vi. 9–11. The Epistle to the Galatians, like that to the Romans, is principally composed of this doctrine. It is here con- sidered of such importance as that the rejection of it “perverted the gospel of Christ.” Those teachers who set themselves against it, and thereby troubled the churches, the apostle wished to have them “cut off?” from among them. And those professors of Christianity who gave into another system he considered as “fallen from grace,” or as having deserted the truth of the gospel ; and told them plainly that Christ was “become of no effect to them,” Gal. i. 7 ; v. 4. 12. The Epistle to the Ephesians, the object of which seems to be to endear Christ, and the knowledge of him, enumer- ates the spiritual blessings with which God hath blessed us in him, and among these is his having made us “ac- cepted in the Beloved.” And again, “By grace ye are saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest any man should boast.” Similar observations might be made on almost all the remaining Epistles. I shall content myself with only re- ferring the reader to the following passages, (Phil. iii. 7–9; 1 Tim, i. 9; Tit. iii. 4–7 ; 2 Pet. i. 1; 1 John ii. 1; Rev. xix. 8,) and offering a few remarks on the apparent inconsistency of Paul and James on this subject. If the justification on which these sacred writers insist were the same, their doctrine would certainly wear every appearance of contradiction, inasmuch as that the one affirms we are justified “by faith without the works of the law,” while the other insists that a man is justified “by works, and not by faith only.” Yea, and what is more, each of them appeals to the case of Abraham, as an example of his doc- trine, Rom. iv. 1–6; James ii. 21—26. But if the jus- tification on which they severally insist be different, dif- ferent things may be affirmed concerning each, without any contradiction. And this is manifestly the case. Paul discourses on the justification of the wagodly, or of sinners being accepted of God, which is by faith in the righteous- ness of Christ, without works; James on the justification of the godly, or of a saint being approved of God, and which is by works. Abraham is said to have been justified by faith, when he first believed the promise, prior to his cir- cumcision; but by works, many years after it, his faith was made manifest, when he offered Isaac his son upon the altar. The one therefore relates to his acceptance with God as a sinner, the other to his being approved of God as a saint. Both together completed his character. “He believed, and it was accounted unto him for righteous- ness ; ” he obeyed, and was “called the friend of God.” Upon the whole, if these observations be just, we are, by this appellation given to the Christian church, furnished with a criterion by which to judge of it. It is composed of such characters as, renouncing all dependence upon their own righteousness, rely only upon the righteousness of Christ for acceptance with God; while at the same time JUSTIFICATION. 947 their faith is not a dead, inoperative opinion, but a vital principle, productive of good works. We also see the justice with which divines have insisted on the importance of this great article of faith. It was with good reason that Luther, in particular, considered it as a kind of corner-stone in the Reformation. Those re- formed communities, whether national or congregational, which have relinquished this principle in their confessions of faith, or which, retaining it in their confessions, yet re- nounce or neglect it in their ordinary ministrations, have with it lost the spirit and power of true religion. IDEFENCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSN ESS, [In reply to a Correspondent, in 1799.] I AGREE with your correspondent, Christopher, that “a manly and Christian avowal of our sentiments tends to the discovery and establishment of truth;” to which also “I devoutly wish that all our differences may verge.” But if I thought that “difference of opinion,” or, as I should call it, the imbibing of opposite religious principles, was any otherwise “unavoidable in the present state” than as every other species of sinful imperfection is so, I should consider the attainment of truth as an object of no import- ance; and ah our labours to rectify our own and each others’ errors as so many attempts to subvert the order of nature. It were absurd to attempt to reduce to uniformity the natural differences of men's tastes and features; and if differences in religion be of the same kind, as your corre- spondent seems to think, it were equally absurd to attempt to lessen them, or “devoutly to wish them to verge to- wards truth.” . But really, sir, I feel at a loss how to enter upon a de- fence ; and this because I cannot perceive that any thing I have advanced is the object of your correspondent’s at- tack. It is true, he begins by expressing his disapprobation of imputed righteousness; but I am not the inventor of that doctrine, or of the terms by which it is expressed. If there be any thing objectionable in either, it is the apostle Paul that must be accountable for it, who in the fourth chapter of his Epistle to the Romans has repeatedly used the very language at which your correspondent has taken offence. If the objection had been made to any explana- tion of the doctrine which I had given, I should have con- sidered myself as called upon to reply; but as what is alleged is against imputation itself, I have no concern in the business. It is on Paul that Christopher has made his attack, and he and Paul must settle the matter. It is true, he has explicitly stated the notion of imputation to which he objects, which he says is this—“To ascribe that to a man which he has not, whereby he is considered righteous, or a good man.” But this is as foreign from any thing I have advanced as darkness is from light. To have answer- ed me, he should have collected my ideas of the subject: if there were none to collect, there could be nothing to an- swer. I have no notion of “ascribing” the righteousness of Christ to the believing sinner personally, any more than he has. I should as soon “ascribe” the unrighteousness of the sinner to Christ as the righteousness of Christ to the sinner. The imputation of sin to Christ, and of righteous- ness to the sinner, appears to me to consist, not in God’s thinking or judging of characters differently from what they are, or declaring them to be what they are not; but in his treating or dealing with them,” not according to their personal merit or demerit, but according to those of another. God neither thought his Son to be wicked, nor declared him to be so ; but he treated or dealt with him as if he had been so. God neither thinks the character of the believing sinner such as his righteous law approves, nor declares it to be so; but he treats or deals with him as if | at were so, out of respect to the righteousness of him in whom he believeth. Of course, by the term righteous, as it is used with refer- ence to justification, I do not mean the same thing as being “a good man.” I should as soon consider Christ’s being * In a subsequent record of his views the author defines imputation as consisting not of treatment, but charging or reckoning, which is the ground of treatment. See p. 951-ED. cation of sinners? Rom. iii. 24–27 ; iv. 2–8. ology of Scripture ? pher whether he be not prejudiced against this phrase ; “ made sin for us” as the same thing with his being made a bad man, as I should our being made “the righteousness of God in him” to be the same thing with our being made good men. This is utterly confounding justification with sanctification, which indeed appears to me to be the drift of the whole piece. The statement which Christopher gives of men's re- covery by Jesus Christ seems to represent sinners not as accepted of God out of regard to what Christ has done, but on the ground of “the Divine life and likeness within us;” and that the righteousness which he disclaims as the ground of his hope is not what he performs under the character of a Christian, but merely what he has performed prior to his sustaining that character, or while he was un- righteous. The connexion in which he has introduced Col. i. 27, “Christ in you the hope of glory,” renders it pretty evi- dent that by “Christ,” in this passage, he understands the | image or likeness of Christ in us. But surely this was not Paul’s meaning ; of Christ, who was in or among the Co- lossians, he adds, “whom we preach.” But it was not the image of Christ in our hearts that was the subject of Paul’s ministry. If even our evangelical obedience be the ground of ac- ceptance with God, I should be glad to be informed—(1.) How is it that works are constantly excluded in the justifi- (2.) How is it that God is said to justify the ungodly 2 chap. iv. 5. I do not suppose that, when a sinner is justified, he is act- ually an enemy to God; for in the same passage he is supposed to be a believer, which character is inconsistent with such a state of mind. But, as Dr. Owen has observ- ed, “To say that he who worketh not is justified through believing, is to say that his works, whatever they be, have no influence in his justification ; nor hath God in justify- ing him any respect unto them.”—(3.) How is it that the righteousness by which we are justified is represented as revealed to faith, and as being to and ºtpon all them that believe? chap. i. 17; iii. 22. Are the dispositions of our own minds “revealed” to us?—(4.) How is it that such objections are made to the Christian doctrine of justification, if holy dispositions were the ground of it? If Paul had taught justification by evangelical works, and only meant to reject those which were done prior to embracing the gospel, with what plausibility could it have been objected that this doctrine gave liberty to sin 3 If the “righteous- ness through which grace reigns to eternal life” (chap. v. 21) meant, as Christopher explains it, “our own righteous dis- positions,” with what propriety does the apostle ask, in the following words, “What shall we say them 3 Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound 3 God forbid l’’ Your correspondent remarks that “ his friend Gaius seems partial to the phrase imputed righteousness.” Is it unbecoming a Christian, then, to be partial to the phrase- What if I should ask friend Christo- and not the phrase only, but the doctrine conveyed by it 3 He might answer, No : I shall allow it in the same sense in which sin is imputed to us, that is, really and truly, by participation of a fallen nature. Then really and truly, friend Christopher, either you or I are entirely out as to the meaning of words. Does the word impute really and truly mean to participate % When Ahimelech pleaded be- fore Saul, saying, “Let not the king impute any thing unto his servant,” (1 Sam. xxii. 15,) did he mean, Do not cause me to participate in a conspiracy 3 When Shimei entreated David, saying, “Let not my lord impute iniquity unto me,” (2 Sam. xix. 19,) did he mean, Do not make me wicked † Does he not rather mean, Do not deal with me according to my desert? And does the imputation of the sin of our first parent to his posterity consist in participation ? That it is connected with it I allow. Could an individual be found who had never made the sin of his first father his own, by partici- pating in it, he would, I suppose, have nothing to fear from its being imputed to him. And much the same may be said concerning righteousness; for until a sinner believes in Christ, which includes an acquiescence in the gospel way of salvation, he has nothing to hope from imputation. These things have an inseparable connexion ; but the plain 3 P 2 9.48 MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS, ESSAYS, &c. meaning of words must be altered before we can consider them as the same. We have the same authority for believing that our sins were imputed to Christ as that Adam's sin was imputed to his posterity. The word “impute’’ is used in neither case, but both are compared to the imputation of right- eousness. “As by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.”—“He hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him,” Rom. v. 19 ; 2 Cor. v. 21. Now will Christopher affirm that Christ was really and truly made sin by participation ? It does not follow from hence that “the old man, any more than the new man, is a mere creature of imputation,” or that the necessity of “repentance and the love of God” is superseded. It is strange that Christopher should have so little regard for the credit of his own understanding as to insinuate the contrary. He who cannot distinguish between the blessings of justification and sanctification, without setting aside the importance of either, has in my opinion yet to learn one of the first principles of the oracles of God. REMARKS ON GOD’s JUSTIFYING THE UNGODLY. [In reply to Dr. Joseph Jenkins of Walworth.] THE passage in my last paper on which J. J. has ani- madverted is as follows—“God is said to justify the un- godly,” Rom. iv. 5. I do not suppose that when a sinner is justified he is actually an enemy to God; for in the same text he is supposed to be a believer, which character is in- consistent with such a state of mind. Now he who controverts these principles may be sup- posed to maintain the contrary; namely, that when a sin- ner is justified he is actually at enmity with God; and that though he is a believer, as the text intimates, yet his being so includes nothing inconsistent with such a state of mind. And such in fact is the statement of this correspondent.— (1.) He endeavours to maintain that when a sinner is jus- tified he is God’s enemy. It is true, he says, “I do not suppose, any more than Gaius, that a man can be justified and at the same time be an enemy to God; ” but he means only to allow that he does not continue an enemy to God after he is justified, concerning which there is no dispute. The question is, In what state of mind is the sinner, with regard to enmity and friendship, antecedent to his justification ? And, by all that J. J. has written, it appears that he considers him as God's enemy “until " he is justified.—(2.) He labours to prove that his being a believer includes in it nothing inconsistent with such a state of mind. The faith which is “counted for righteous- ness,” he supposes, must either mean Christ, the object of faith, or a spiritual illumination of the understanding, in which the mind is passive: at all events, it must include no holy disposition of heart, that is, nothing inconsistent with enmity to God. Before we examine these positions, it seems necessary to have a clear understanding of what is meant by justifica- tion. J. J. distinguishes between justification in the eye of justice, or a sinner's being accepted in the Beloved ; and justification as it respects the sensation or perception of the blessing in a person's own mind; adding, that “his more immediate business is with the latter.” I am cer- tainly obliged to him for this explanation, for without it I should have supposed the question to relate wholly to ac- ceptance with God itself, and not to the sensation or per- ception of this blessing in the mind; and still less to the pleas which the sinner is to “bring forward,” in his appli- cation for mercy. I must say, however, if J. J.'s “busi- siness " lies here, assuredly mine does not ; having never, that I recollect, advanced a single idea on the subject. But if it did, it would not affect the argument; for if we be not in a justified state till we cease to be the enemies of God, it is impossible we should enjoy any previous sensa- tion or perception of it, as no one can truly perceive that which does not exist. To me it appears that the distinguishing of justification into acceptance with God, and the sensation or perception of this blessing which a sinner enjoys, has nothing in the Scriptures to support it. I think it will be found on in- quiry that the former is that which the sacred writings term justification, and that the latter is denominated “peace with God,” which follows on it as a consequence, Rom. v. 1. A sensation of peace is as distinct from justification as a sensation of wrath is distinct from condemnation. As some are justified, that is, exempt from the curse of the law, and entitled to everlasting life, according to the uni- form declarations of the statute-book of heaven, while, owing to a cloud upon their minds, they are far from clearly perceiving it; so others stand condemned, that is, exposed to the curse of the law, according to the uniform declara- tions of the same statute-book of heaven, while, through ignorance and unbelief, they have no proper sense of it. The question is not concerning any secret persuasions in the mind of man, or any secret purpose in the mind of God; but simply this, Do the Holy Scriptures, which form the statute-book of heaven, and fully express the mind of God, pronounce any man pardoned or justified in his sight, while his heart is in a state of enmity against him 3 “It is plainly implied,” says J. J., “in the Lord’s justi- fying the ungodly, that they are ungodly until justified.” But, before any conclusion can be drawn from these words, it is necessary to ascertain the meaning of them, particu- larly of the term “ungodly.” This term, I apprehend, is not designed, in the passage under consideration, to express the actual state of mind which the party at the time pos- sesses, but the character under which God considers him in bestowing the blessing of justification upon him. What- ever be the present state of a sinner’s mind—whether he be a haughty Pharisee or a humble publican—if he possess nothing which can in any degree balance the curse which stands against him, or at all operate as a ground of accept- ance with God, he must be justified, if at all, as unworthy, ungodly, and wholly out of regard to the righteousness of the Mediator. He that is justified must be justified as “ungodly,” in like manner as he that is saved must be saved among the “chief of sinners,” 1 Tim, i. 15. But as Paul's using the latter expression of himself does not prove that at the time he uttered it he was one of the worst of characters, so neither does his using the former concerning others prove that they are at the time of their justification the enemies of God. If it be objected that the term “un- godly" is no where else used but to express a state of en- mity to God, it may be answered that God is no where else said to “justify the ungodly.” The interpretation put upon this term, therefore, is no more singular than the phraseology of the text itself. Both the one and the other ought no doubt to be interpreted by the general tenor of Scripture, and the particular scope of the writer. If the sense here given clash with either of them, let it be reject- ed. To me it appears in harmony with both. When the reader has considered the following observations, let him judge whether it be so or not. 1. It is the uniform language of the Scriptures that “without repentance there is no forgiveness,” Psal. xxxii. 5 ; Prov. xxviii. 13; Mark i. 4; iv. 12; Luke iii. 5; xxiv. 47; Acts iii. 19; v. 31 ; viii. 22 ; 1 John i. 9. The very passage to which the apostle in the context refers, (Psal. xxxii.,) as affording an example of the imputation on which he was treating, clearly holds up the idea of forgiveness as preceded by repentance. It is of no account to allege the difference between pardon and justification ; for, whatever difference there is between these blessings, there is none which affects the argument. They are not so distinct as that the one can in any instance exist without the other. He that is justified is pardoned. If, therefore, repentance pre- cede the one, it must precede the other. But if justifica- tion be preceded by repentance, it cannot be said that a person is an enemy to God “wntil he is justified,” for en- mity and repentance are inconsistent. 2. It is the uniform language of the New Testament, that those whom God justifieth are believers, John iii. 18, 36; v. 24; Acts xiii. 39; Rom. iii. 26. 28; iv. 24; v. 1; x. 4; Gal. ii. 16; iii. 24; Phil. iii. 9. The very persons referred to in the text under consideration are supposed to “believe in him who justifieth the ungodly.” . But faith “worketh by love,” and is therefore inconsistent ON JUSTIFICATION. 949 with a state of enmity to God. If the uniform language of Scripture had been, we believe by or through being justified, we should certainly have concluded that justiff- cation in the order of things preceded believing, and con- sequently that those who are justified were at the same time enemies to God. And as it is the reverse, or that we are justified by or through believing, why should we not equally conclude that faith in the order of things pre- cedes justification, and consequently that they who are justified were at the time not the enemies but the friends of God 3 3. The apostle, in the same Epistle as that which con- tains the passage in question, speaks of justification as preceded by vocation or calling. “Whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate: whom he did predestinate, them he also called : and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified,” Rom. viii. 29, 30. It cannot be pleaded that the order of things is not here preserved. It is allowed on all hands that pre- destination is preceded in the order of nature by fore- knowledge, calling by predestination, and glorification by justification. What good reason then can be given why justification should not from hence be concluded to be preceded by vocation ? But the vocation here spoken of is a holy one, the same with that mentioned in 2 Tim. i. 9, “He hath saved us, and called us with a holy call- ing;” which must therefore be inconsistent with enmity to God. 4. The design of the apostle in the context was to establish the doctrine of free justification by faith in Jesus Christ, without the works of the law—a justification that should exclude boasting, or glorying. Now this design is equally accomplished by the interpretation here defended as by the contrary. I am aware that this ground will be disputed, and let it be disputed. The principle on which I rest my defence, on this part of the subject, is the following:—WHATEveR BE THE STATE of A PERsox's MIND AT THE TIME, IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE AS TO THE GROUND OF JUSTIFICATION. J. J. will not deny this ; he has acknowledged as much himself. “In this case,” he says, “all works, good and bad, are out of the ques- tion ; ” and, if so, doubtless all dispositions are the same. None of them, be they what they may, can avail any thing towards justifying one who has not continued in all things written in the book of the law to do them. But, if so, of what account is it to the doctrine of justification by grace, to maintain their nonexistence at the time ! The existence or nonexistence of things that are “out of the question ” can signify nothing to the argument, and afford no ground of glorying.—Moreover, if the existence of a holy dispo- sition at the time of our being first made partakers of the blessing of justification detract from the grace of it, why should it not operate in the same way afterwards 3 Justi- fication is not of so transient a mature as to be begun and ended in an instant. Though not progressive, like sancti- fication, yet it is a permanent privilege, or state of blessed- ness bestowed on believers. As condemnation is a state of exposedness to the curse, under which every unbeliever, remaining such, continues ; so justification is a state of exemption from it, in which every believer in Jesus abides. It is true we are introduced to this blessed state at the moment of believing ; from that instant we are no more under the law, but under grace ; the curses of the former stand no longer against us, and the blessings of the latter become our portion. But though our introduction to the blessing be transient, yet the blessing itself continues as long as we continue believers in Christ, and united to him, which is to the end. Hence justification and con- demnation are each described in language expressive of their continuity. “It is God that justifieth : who is he that condemneth ? He that believeth on the Son hath ever- lasting life : and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.” Hence also believers, in every stage of life, deal with Christ for justification, desiring mothing more than that they may be found in him, not having their own righteousness, which is of the law ; but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith. And this accounts for Abraham's believing for righteousness, as we shall see presently, not merely when he first believed in God, but after he had loved and served him a number of years; and for David’s having righteousness imputed to him without works on his recovery from a state of backsliding. Now do the holy dispositions of Christians detract from the freeness of their continued acceptance with God? If not, why should the existence of any such dispositions detract from the freeness of their first accept- ance 2 If it be necessary that the mind be at enmity with God “ until " we are first introduced to this blessing, in order to its being merely of grace, why should it not be equally necessary that it should remain so through life, in order to its continuing to be merely of grace 3 5. Neither Abraham nor David, whose cases the apos- tle selects for the illustration of his argument, was, at the time referred to, the enemy of God. “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness; ” and it is concerning his justification that the following reflection is made. “Now to him that worketh is the reward reckoned, not of grace, but of debt.” It is here plainly supposed of Abraham, that if he had “worked,” and so obtained the reward, it had been a matter of debt, and he had had whereof to glory. And did not Abraham work prior to the period to which this refers? He certainly should not have performed a single good work, but have been an enemy to God, according to J. J.'s hypothesis. But the truth is, he had been a believer in God and a true worshipper of him for many years, at the time when he is said to have believed in God, and it was counted to him for righteousness, Gen. xv. 6; xii. 1–3; Heb. xi. 8. Here then is an account of one who had walked with God for a series of years “working not, but believing on him that justifieth the ungodly;” a clear proof that by “work- ing not” the apostle did not mean a wicked inaction, but a renunciation of works as the ground of acceptance with God. “David also,” continues the apostle, “describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth right- eousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Bless- ed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.” Of whom speaketh the psalmist, in this thirty-second Psalm ; of himself, or of some other man 3 Of himself, as is manifest from the whole Psalm. It is one of those penitential songs which he penned after his fall and re- covery. The third and fourth verses describe the state of his mind after he had sinned, and before he had repented. The “blessedness” of which he speaks is a blessedness arising from free forgiveness. Hence the apostle, in the text under consideration, very properly puts this gloss upon his words: “David describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works.” David did not say it was “without works; ” he said nothing about works; but he described the blessed- ness of him who possessed a free forgiveness, which was the same thing. Paul supposed that David “worked not ; ” but had he never performed a “good work” at the period referred to ? Was he at that time an enemy to God 3 J. J.'s hypothesis requires that it should have been so ; but it was not so. Let the reader judge whether the cases of Abraham and David be not decisive, and whether they ought not to decide the controversy, as to the meaning of the passage in question. I had supposed that when a sinner is justified he is not an enemy to God, seeing he is a believer. J. J. attempts, it should seem, to invalidate this argument by so explain- ing faith as that it shall include in it nothing inconsistent with enmity to God. I cannot but remark the unpleasant situation of the writer in this part of his work. With him it seems a very difficult thing to determine what the apostle means by that faith which is counted for righteousness. “If it were to be considered as a work, he supposes it would overturn the whole reasoning of the verse.” If it were considered as a work performed to furnish a ground of justification it would ; but not else. That faith is a work we are expressly taught by one who perfectly under- stood its nature, John vi. 28, 29. But that we are justi- fied by it as a work, or as a part of moral obedience, J. J. knows I utterly deny. But if it be not counted for right- eousness as a work, “it must mean either Christ the ob- ject of faith, or a spiritual illumination of the understand- 950 MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS, ESSAYS, &c. * ing, in which the mind is totally passive.” That it does not mean the former, one should think, is evident, in that it is called believing. “He that believeth, his faith, or believing, is counted for righteousness.” And if it mean the latter, it will go to confound what the Scriptures else- where distinguish. Spiritual blindness is represented as an obstacle to believing, and spiritual illumination as that which precedes it, 2 Cor. iv. 4; John vi. 40. in this passage “must " mean this or that. Perhaps it must, in order to comport with J. J.'s hypothesis; and this spiritual light or discernment must also be supposed to have nothing spiritual in it, or it will be equally incon- sistent with a state of enmity to God as believing. But let him seriously consider whether that hypothesis which requires such forced and far-fetched interpretations of . Scripture to support it can be any part of “evangelical truth.” To me it appears a plain and easy matter to ascertain the meaning of faith in the passage referred to. It is be- lieving ; and this believing is counted for righteousness; nov as a work, but as the prescribed means of interesting us in the righteousness of Christ. Thus it was common for Christ to say to diseased people, whom he had healed, “Thy faith hath saved thee.” Did he mean by this to make a saviour of faith ? No: faith did not cause, nor so much as co-operate, in these cures, which were accom- plished only by his own power; but it was the prescribed means by which they became interested in the exercise of that power. I use the term interest as I do that of justifi- cation, not for what we may have in the secret purpose of God, but for that part or portion which we have in spirit- ual blessings according to the revealed will or promise of God in the Scriptures. The healing efficacy proceeded from Christ, and not from faith, yet without faith they would not have been healed ; and the same may be said of justification. INATURE OF IMPUTATION., [In reply to Ignotus.] I Corpſ ALLY agree with your correspondent, on the neces- sary connexion between the doctrine of Christ's Divinity and justification by the imputation of his righteousness. But the former of the two grounds on which he rests it I would seriously entreat him to reconsider. He represents the imputation of righteousness as consisting in a “trans- fer of surplus virtue ; ” and as every creature, however exalted, owes its all to God, it can have none to spare for the use of others. But if this be the nature of imputation, how are we to understand it in the case of the first Adam & If, instead of transgressing the Divine precept, he had faith- fully obeyed it, there is every reason to conclude that his posterity, instead of being exposed to sin and death, as they now are, would have been confirmed in a state of holiness and happiness; that is, his obedience would have been imputed to them, as is now his disobedience. Yet in this case there would have been no “surplus” of obe- dience, or any thing done by our first parent beyond what was his duty to do. From hence, I conceive, it is clear that the imputation of righteousness consists not in the transfer of overplus of virtue; and that Divinity is not necessarily, and in all cases, connected with it. I shall not here take upon me to decide whether Christ's obedience to the Father was necessary on his own account. Whether it was or not makes nothing as to his being qualified to accomplish our salvation. The imputation of righteousness, as the Scriptures represent it, appears to me to be this —God for wise and holy ends blessed one, or many, in reward of the obedience of another, to whom they are related, in a manner as though it were performed by themselves. Thus, if the first Adam had "continued obedient, God would have ea pressed his approbation of his conduct, not only by confirming him, but his posterity after him, in a state of holiness and happiness. Ánd thus the obedience unto death yielded by the Second Adam is re- presented as that with which God is so well pleased, that, in reward of it, he not only exalted Him far above all But faith principality and power, but bestowed full, free, and eternal salvation on all those who believe in him, how great so- ever had been their transgressions. But, it may be said, if this be the idea which the Scrip- tures give us of the imputation of righteousness, and it be applicable to the first as well as the Second Adam, whence arises the necessity of the Divinity of Christ, in order that his righteousness should be imputed to us? I do not suppose that it was necessary to imputation itself, but rather to its being available to the justification of the un- godly. Imputed righteousness may take place, whether it be that of a mere man or of one who is both God and man ; but the righteousness of a mere creature would not avail for the pardon and justification of rebellious men. There is an important difference between the supposed imputation of the righteousness of the first Adam, and that of the Second. God's promising to bless the sinless posterity of the former, by confirming them in a state of holiness and happiness, had nothing in it which could clash with any of his perfections. He might thus have blessed them without any previous obedience being per- formed on their behalf, as it appears that he actually did the elect angels. His promising to bless the children, in reward of the obedience of the parent, was that, while he expressed his love to both, he might also express his love of righteousness. But, in receiving rebellious sinners to favour, there required a proviso for the security of his honour, that he might appear to be what he was—just, as well as the Justifier. “It became him, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the Captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.” The glory of the Divine cha- racter must not be tarnished. That for the sake of which we are pardoned and justified therefore, be it what it may, must at least be equivalent, as to its influence on moral government, to justice having taken its natural course. Hence arises the necessity of the Deity of Christ, in order to our justification. Though the obedience of a mere creature might be the medium of conveying blessedness to his sinless posterity, yet none but that of a Divine per- | son could accomplish the salvation of sinners; because the obedience of a mere creature could not have done such honour to the Divine law as should have been equal to the dishonour which it had received from us ; nor could the sufferings of any one that was not God have expressed the Divine displeasure against sin in so striking and im- pressive a manner as if every transgressor had received his just recompence of reward. But, admitting the Redeemer to be Divine, all is plain and easy. Hence that which is peculiarly ascribed to the Deity of Christ in regard of his sufferings is their value or virtue. “By himself he purged our sins.”—“The blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanseth us from all sin,” Heb. i. 3; 1 John i. 7. oN IMPUTATION, [From a MS. of the author, without date.] IT has been common to suppose that we are so implicated in Adam’s transgression, or that such a union subsisted between him and his posterity, as that what was done by the one was done by the other; or that we are really ac- countable for his disobedience, it being our disobedience as much as the act of one part of the body belongs to the whole man. Thus, or to this effect, I myself have written in certain publications ; particularly in my answer to Mr. Dan. Taylor.” But since that time I have had different thoughts on the subject, which, however, I at present only put down as thoughts, and not as settled articles of faith. Unless we had full evidence from Scripture of different intelligent beings being so united as that the voluntary actions of one shall properly belong to the other, I ought not to believe that so it is. It is certainly contrary to all our ideas of accountableness, and to every dictate of con- science. If Adam's transgression in Eden were really ours, why do we not repent of it as we do for our other sins 3 Mr. Hall, late of Arnsby, whose ideas on imputa- * See p. 216 ON JUSTIFICATION. 951. tion were entirely such as are here opposed, yet describes repentance as “arising from a conviction of personal blame.”* We may be sorry for the sin of Adam, and of other sinners ; but we never repent of that which we in our own persons have not committed. “ I. Is there not an important difference between punish- ment and suffering 2 All punishment is suffering ; but all suffering is not punishment. If a soldier have his hand cut off for lifting it up against his commander, it is punishment; but if it be shot off in battle, it is mere suffering. II. Though an innocent creature cannot justly be ex- posed to punishment, yet may it not be to suffering 3 If a commander-in-chief order a troop of his best soldiers to scale a wall in the mouth of danger, they are exposed to suffering ; nor would they think of replying, as in case of his ordering them to receive each a hundred lashes, “What have we done to deserve this treatment 2'' But if a human commander, for the accomplishment of a wise, just, and good object, may thus expose his innocent men to suffering, why may not the same be said of the great Master of the universe ? Have we not been too much in the habit of concluding that suffering necessarily supposes the party to have sinned; and so because we saw the hu- man race suffer, even in their earliest infancy, we have concluded that they must have sinned in the person of their grand progenitor. But do not the brute creation also suffer 3 yet they have not sinned. Did not the family of Achan suffer death, as well as his oxen, and his asses, and his sheep? yet they were not transgressors in “the accursed thing,” any more than the cattle. Are we not so linked together in society that in millions of examples one suffers the consequence of another's crime, though he partook not with him in the guilt 3 It may be true that all suffering supposes sin some where. The suffering of the brutes may be a part of the punishment of the sin of man, who has a propriety in them ; and the suffering of Achan's family was undoubtedly a part of the punish- ment of his sin. But yet it does not necessarily suppose sin in the suffering party. III. May not the same event be a punishment to the guilty party, and to the innocent mere suffering 3 The death of Achan’s sons and daughters, and oxen, and asses, and sheep, as well as his own death, was to him a punish- ment, but to them mere suffering. And supposing his children to be grown up, and to be entirely under the in- fluence of the love of God and righteousness, they must have hated their father’s crime, and have acquiesced in the doom ; not on the principle of being participants of his guilt, but of such a measure being a just punishment to him, and on their part adapted to the general good. “Let our lives,” they would say, “be made a sacrifice that may stand as a lasting monument to Israel never more to touch the accursed thing !” In such a case, their death, though a part of their father's punishment, yet to them would be merely an affliction, an affliction that should, through the grace of God, introduce them to everlasting life. Some righteous persons might perish in the overthrow of Judea by the Romans, who had all along sighed and cried for the abominations of the land. To the nation that event was punishment, but to them it might be mere affliction, and of the nature of a blessing. Now what consequence would follow were I to suppose the sentence of death, and of its antecedent miseries, passed upon all mankind in consequence of Adam’s sin, to be to him a punishment, but to them merely an affliction ? There are “other instances” of imputation as well as that of Adam’s sin to his posterity, from which it is pos- sible some light may be derived to this important subject: e.g. our sin was imputed to Christ, and his righteousness is imputed to us. “He was made sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him,” 2 Cor. v. 21. And as both these instances of im- putation are mentioned together, it should seem that they both proceed on the same principle. In what sense then was our sin imputed to Christ, or how was he “made sin 3” Surely not by a participation of it, for he is expressly said in the same passage to have * Circular Letter of the Northamptonshire Association, 1780. Ánown no sin. God did not judge him to be the sinner, for his judgments are according to truth. The whole seems to have been that for wise and gracious ends he was treated as though he had been the sinner, and the greatest sinner in the world. Further, In what sense is Christ's righteousness imputed to us, or how are we made the righteousness of God in him 3 - Not by a participation of it. It is not true, nor will it ever be true, that the holy excellence of Christ is so ours as that we cease to be unworthy, and are deserv- ing of eternal life. The whole appears to be the same as in the former instance, God for the sake of the obedience. of his Son treats us as though we were righteous, worthy, or 7meritorious. Since writing the above, however, I have some doubts whether imputation consist in treatment. Rather, is it not that which is the ground of treatment 3 I have said in “Dialogues, Letters, and Essays,” vol. ii. p. 50, “Impu- tation of sin or righteousness consists in charging or reck- oning to the account of the party in such a way as to im- part to him its evil or beneficial effects.” TO THE AFFLICTED. THose whose Christian compassion induces them fre- quently to visit the sick see and hear things of which others can scarcely form any conception. They see affliction, not merely in easy circumstances, wherein it is alleviated as far as possible by the comforts of life, but as it exists in the poor man’s dwelling, aggravated by privations and hardships, many of which would seem intolerable to some, even in a time of health. They sympathize with you, and as far as they are able, it is presumed, administer to your relief. But there is one thing which has particularly struck the writer of this address; namely, the different manner in which affliction is borne by religious and by irreligious people. He wishes to be understood as speaking generally, rather than waiversally. Some who are thought to be re- ligious are not so ; and some that are truly religious are the subjects of morbid nervous sensibility ; while others, who are not so, have much constitutional patience and equanimity. But other things being equal, he has per- ceived a wide difference in favour of religion. In visiting the dwellings of Christian people in times of affliction, his heart has been cheered by their cheerfulness. Their trou- bles have seemed to be more than balanced by their enjoy- ments. Hope has glistened in their very tears, and sub- mission to the will of God has brightened their emaciated countenances. But on entering the abodes of the irre- ligious, such discontent, despondency, and misery have appeared, that he has come away quite dejected. The smile of hope and the tear of joy were there alike un- known : all was darkness, and the prospect of thicker darkness. Let us try to find out the causes and the cure of this state of mind, which adds so much to the miseries of life. If every one could tell his tale, and would tell the truth, we might hear some such accounts as these :- My heart was set upon certain things, and I seemed al- most to have gained them, when unexpectedly I was seized with this heavy affliction. And now all my plans are broken ; I seem likely to die disappointed ; and, what is worse, I have thought nothing, or next to nothing, of an hereafter. I have lived, says another, a thoughtless and careless life, putting the evil day far from me. I began by enter- taining a dislike to the worship of God, and so forsook it, and turned the sabbath into a day of sports. I kept bad company, and soon began to doubt the truth of the Bible. I drank, swore, and when in company laughed at religion; though a secret persuasion that it would prove true some- times made me very unhappy when alone. I laid my ac- count with living as long as my neighbours; but I am afraid now I shall not recover, and that my soul is lost. Oh how little did I think, a few weeks ago, that I should. 952 MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS, ESSAYS, &c. be so soon arrested in my course : What have I done? What can I do -- I have lived a sober life, says a third, and have not been used to doubt but that through the merits of Christ this would answer every purpose : but since I have been laid aside, I have been thinking, in case I should die, whether this ground will bear me; and the more I think of it, the more it seems to sink under me. I am a sinner, and know not how my sins are to be forgiven. I have been brought up in a Christian family, says a fourth, and have heard the gospel from my childhood ; yet my conscience tells me that I am not a Christian. I heard the truth, but never received it in the love of it, that I might be saved. I conformed to family worship, but my heart was never in it. So much was it against the grain of my inclination, that I longed to get from under the yoke. At length my father died, and I had what I wished for—my liberty. Since then I have been very wicked. And now I am brought down to death's door. I know not what will be the end. The Lord have mercy upon me ! - If any of these cases be yours, or nearly so, allow me to remind you that a time of affliction is a time when God calls you to a serious inquiry into the state of your soul. “In the day of adversity consider.” It is the only time, it may be, in which the voice of religion and conscience can be heard. You may have been “as the wild ass used to the wilderness,” neither to be turned nor restrained ; all those who have sought to reclaim you have but wearied themselves; but as in her month she was to be found, so are you in yours. Consider then that God has laid his hand upon you that he may cause you to feel what he could do, and induce you to hearken while he reasons with you. He has awakened you also to some sense of your danger, that you may feel your need of the salvation of Christ ere it is for ever hid from your eyes. I dare not comfort you on the consideration of your distress of mind as though it were a hopeful sign of salvation. If it lead you to the Saviour, you will be saved; but if not, it may be to you but the beginning of sorrows. Your sins are much more numerous and heinous than you are aware of; it is an evil and bitter thing to have departed from the living God, and to have spent so large a part of the life he gave you without his fear being in you. God might justly cut you off, and cast you into perdition. But consider the faithful saying, “Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners, even the chief of sinners.” You have doubtless heard of this, but perhaps have never considered its import. If Jesus came into the world on such an errand, he must be the Messiah foretold by the prophets, the Son of God, and the Saviour of men. If he came into the world to save sinners, the world must have been in a lost and hopeless condition. If any thing could have been done by man towards saving himself, it would doubtless have been left to him : God would not unneces- sarily have interfered, especially to send his Son to be made a sacrifice for us. It does not comport with the wisdom of God to send his Son to suffer and die, to accomplish that which might have been accomplished without him. More- over, if Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners, he must have come with a design, which is what no mere creature ever did. Whatever design there may be con- cerning our coming into the world, we are not the subjects of it ; but Christ was the subject of design. “He took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men; ” and this from a state of mind that we are called upon to imitate, Phil. ii. 7. His coming into the world was nothing less than the Word being made flesh, and dwelling among men ; or that eternal Life that was with the Father being manifested to us. But if all this be true, sin must be indeed an evil and bitter thing, and salvation from it a matter of the greatest importance. And shall we so pursue our farms and merchandise as to make light of it? “Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners.” It is sufficient to warrant our coming to him that such are we. Finally, if he came to save the chief of sinners, whatever our sins have been, they can furnish no reason for despair. Even the sin against the Holy Ghost is not unpardonable as being too great for the mercy of God, or for the atonement of Christ; but as precluding that which is necessary to an interest in both— 7'epentance, Heb. vi. 6. If therefore our sins be lamented, and we have faith in Christ, however numerous or heinous they have been, we shall find mercy. If a ship founders at sea, and while her company are some floating on pieces of wreck, and others swimming for their lives, a friendly vessel bears down and throws out a rope to every one of them, would it be for any one to hesitate as to his taking hold of it? Many in the day of adversity have, like the prodigal, been brought to a right mind; but many are not so. Some are unaffected, and even hardened, under their af- flictions. Nothing is heard but murmurings and com- plainings ; and nothing seen but sullen discontent, de- pression, and despondency. Others, being deeply intrenched in the persuasion that they have lived a good life, all that is said to them respecting the gospel makes no impression on their minds. Others are secure in consequence of having imbibed some false scheme of religion; and others, who are tender at the time, and appear to believe the gos- pel, are no sooner restored to health than they lose their impressions, and return to their former courses. Let us review these cases. If affliction has been the means of humbling you, and bringing you to a right mind, you have reason, not only to be reconciled to it, but to consider it among your greatest mercies. It has been good for you to bear the yoke of adversity; and this should teach you to be resigned to the will of God as to your future lot. “It was by affliction,” said a good man, “that I was first brought into the way, and by affliction that I have been kept in it. ‘Before I was afflicted I went astray, but now I have learned thy word.’” But if the visitations of God have tended only to harden you, and to provoke you to sullenness and discontent, you have reason to fear lest you should be given up to such a state of mind. “Why should ye be stricken any more ? Ye will revolt more and more.”—“Ephraim is joined to idols : let him alone l’’ If you be full of self-righteous confidence, flattering yourself that your life has been good, and that you have nothing to fear, consider whether you be not in the very condition of those whom our Saviour describes as whole, and so needing no physician. You appear to have no wants; and therefore none of the blessings of the gospel are interesting to you. A very interesting narrative was published a few years since of such a case as this. A worthy minister, on visiting a dying man, was told by him, with great self-complacency, that “he had never been guilty of any particular sins, and was not therefore uneasy on that score.”—“To every thing I said,” says the minis- ter, “he gave that unlimited assent which, when coming from an unenlightened person, has always appeared to me peculiarly embarrassing. To every truth I stated, his monotonous reply was, “Yes, sir,’—To be sure, sir,’— • Certainly, sir,’ and the like. I now felt (as I have often done under similar circumstances) discouraged, perplexed, and grieved; and could not but deeply lament the mental darkness under which the poor man appeared to be en- veloped. After a short pause, I frankly confessed that I knew not what to say to him ; observing that he appeared to have no wants—that the blessings of the gospel were for the poor, the wretched, and the lost—that if he were lamenting his sins, crying for mercy, and inquiring the way of salvation, I thought I should know how to address him ; but that, with his present views, the gospel must necessarily appear to him of very little value.” This faithful remonstrance, together with a charge of having neglected his own salvation for the sake of worldly advan- tage, which charge the minister was enabled to bring home to his conscience, appears to have been the means of awakening him to a sense of his danger. “What I’” said he, “and is it too late 3 Is all lost? Is my poor soul aban- doned ? Have I lived in the neglect of all these things? And is it come to this ? Oh what, what shall I do? O my sins ! O my poor soul! O my God, my God! shall I be cast off for ever ? What must I do to be saved ? Is there no way open for me ! Oh what, what must I do to be saved ?”—The way of salvation being pointed out to him, he appeared with great sincerity to embrace it, and died very happily. But many have died in the very spirit of the Jews, seeking after acceptance with God, without at- THE HEAVENLY GLORY. 953 taining it. And wherefore ? “Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law : for they stumbled at that stumbling-stone.” But your security may be in consequence of your having imbibed some false species of religion, which influences your mind like an opiate, divesting you of all painful re- flection, and filling you with dreams of future happiness. A confidence of this sort is more difficult to be shaken than self-righteous hope itself. Those who have not made much pretence to religion have not so great sacrifices to make in embracing the gospel as those who have. You account your darkness light: but “if the light which is in us be darkness, how great is that darkness : " There is an intoxicating quality in false religion, and in the false joys excited by it : like strong drink, it produces a kind of happiness at the time, and a vehement desire of repeat- ing the delicious draught ; but its end is bitter, Prov. xxiii. 29–35. We have no mind to dispute with you, but wish to declare unto you the gospel of God, and leave it. If the “faithful saying ” above referred to be received, it will issue in your salvation ; if not, we can only deliver our own souls . - Finally, Though your mind may have undergone a change during your affliction, yet recollect that sick-bed repentances are often, though not always, like what is said of the goodness of Ephraim : “As a morning cloud, and as the early dew, it goeth away.” If you abound in vows and promises as to your future life, it is rather a sign that you know but little of yourself than of a real change for the better. An immediate apprehension of death is capable of producing great effects, which are often mistaken for a change of heart. Be confident of the truth of Christ's doctrine and promises; but be diffident of yourself. To doubt his word is unbelief; but to be jealous of yourself is one of the fruits of faith. If God should restore you to health, and you prove by your Christian conversation that his word has taken deep root in your mind, your fellow Christians will rejoice over you, and join in blessing God that the day of visitation has been to you a day of salvation. THE HEAVENLY GLORY. THOUGHTS ON THE NATURE AND PROGRESSIVENESS OF THE HEAVEN LY GLORY, ONE of the leading characteristics by which the religion of the Bible is distinguished from those systems of philoso- phy and morality which many would impose upon us in its place, is, that every thing pertaining to it bears a re- lation to eternity. The object of all other systems is at best to form the manners; but this rectifies the heart. They aspire only to fit men for this world; but this, while it imparts those dispositions which tend more than any thing to promote peace, order, and happiness in society, fixes the affections supremely on God and things above. That such should be the exclusive property of revealed religion is not surprising, since it is this only that assures us of the existence of an eternal hereafter. If we relin- quish this, all beyond the grave is uncertainty, and our attention will of course be confined to the transitory con- cerns of a few revolving suns. . The conclusion of those who doubt the resurrection ever has been and will be, “Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die.” But, be- lieving in the Scriptures of truth, immortality opens to our view. This is the seed time and eternity the harvest. All that is known of God and done for him in this life is preparatory to the joy that is set before us. To this affecting theme, fellow Christians, let us bend our attention. Would we be heavenly-minded, we must think of what heaven is. Would we set our affections on things above, we must know them, converse with them, and perceive their superior value to things on the earth. It is true, when all is done, it is but little we can compre- hend. It is a weight of glory which if let down upon our minds in our present feeble state would overset them. It did not appear even to an inspired apostle, while upon earth, what believers “would be ; ” but if we can only obtain a few ideas of it, a glimpse of glory through the breakings of interposing clouds, it will more than repay us for the utmost attention. What pains do men take by artificial mediums to descry the heavenly bodies 1 Every discovery, whether real or imaginary, is to them a source of rapture and delight. Yet they expect no possession in these supposed worlds of wonder. It is not the object which they discover, but the act of discovery, which by giving birth to a momentary fame is their reward. And shall we be indifferent towards those blessed realities in which every thing that we discover is our own, and our own for ever ? Let us first inquire into the NATURE of that blessedness which God has prepared for them that love him, and then consider its PROGRESSIVE character. I have no desire to indulge in speculations concerning the place; nor to enter on any curious inquiries how spi- rits while separate from their bodies can receive or com- municate ideas; nor to throw, out conjectures upon any thing which God hath not been pleased to reveal. My object is, as far as may be, to collect the Scriptural account of things, or to ascertain wherein consists that fulness of joy which is at God’s right hand, and which will continue to flow as in rivers of pleasure for evermore. The easiest and most satisfactory medium of conception which we have of these things appears to me to be furnish- ed by our own present eacperience. The Scriptures abund- antly teach us that the blessedness of heaven is the same for substance as that which we now partake of by faith. This is clearly intimated in those passages in which grace is represented as the earnest and foretaste of glory. Our Saviour is said to have received power “to give eternal life to as many as were given him.” “And this,” he adds, “is life eternal, to know thee, the only true God, and Je- sus Christ whom thou hast sent.” To whomsoever there- fore Christ gives this knowledge, he gives the earnest of the promised possession, and which, as to the nature of it, is the same as the possession itself. The promises to them that overcome, in the second and third chapters of the Revelation of John, agree with what is actually ex- perienced in measure in the present world, though ex- pressed in highly figurative language, as the “eating of the tree of life,” “partaking of the hidden manna,” a being “clothed in white raiment,” and “made pillars in the temple of God.” Were we to read that sublime pas- sage in the Epistle to the Hebrews, without observing its introduction, we should undoubtedly consider it as a de- scription of the heavenly state, and of that only:—“Mount Sion, the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, the innumerable company of angels, the general assembly and church of the first-born who are written in heaven, God the Judge of all, the spirits of just men made perfect, Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and the blood of sprinkling that speaketh better things than the blood of Abel !” What can this mean but the very heaven of heavens 3 Yet the apostle tells the Hebrews that they were already “come to ” this celestial city, and to all its honours and privileges. On what principle can this be understood but this, that the church below and the church above are one—“the whole family of heaven and earth,” and he that cometh to one branch or part of it cometh in effect to the whole 3 If then we can review the sources of our best and purest joys in this world, or observe those of the saints whose history is recorded in Scripture, and only add perfection to them, we have in substance the Scriptural idea of hea- venly glory. The nature of Canaan's goodly fruits was clearly ascertained by the clusters that were carried into the wilderness. We have seen already that the grand source of spiritual enjoyment in the present life is the “knowledge of the only true God, and of Jesus Christ whom he hath sent.” And what is this but an epitome of the gospel, and the faith of it? To have a just sense of the glory of the Law. giver and the Saviour, and of the harmony between them in the salvation of lost sinners; to see every Divine per- fection as it is manifested in the person and work of Christ; in a word, believingly to contemplate God in a Mediator . . . . . . is eternal life . This was the water 954 MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS, ESSAYS, &c. which Christ imparted, and which to them who imbibed it became in them “a well of living water springing up into everlasting life.” Look at the enjoyments of the Scripture saints, and see if they did not arise from the same spring that shall supply the city of the living God, even in the heaven of heavens. Every thing that manifested the glory of the Divine cha- racter was to them a source of enjoyment; and as all God’s other works were wrought in subserviency to the redemption of the church by his Son, this was the theme which above all others engrossed their attention. What was it that filled Abraham's heart with joy What that eclipsed the world in the esteem of Moses? What that made the tongue of David as the pen of a ready writer? It was Christ. That in the “everlasting covenant” which was all his salvation, and all his desire, was its containing the promise of Christ. If we find any of the prophets filled with more than usual ardour, it is when Christ is the theme : “Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. —Behold, the Lord God will come with strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him : behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him. He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young.—Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion : shout, O daughter of Jerusalem : behold, thy King cometh unto thee; he is just, and having salvation ; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.” It is easy to see in these and similar passages a beam of heavenly glory shining upon the writers. In short, it was eternal life for them to know the only true God, and Je- sus Christ whom he would send. What of heaven there was upon earth during the time of our Saviour's ministry consisted of the knowledge of him, and the knowledge of him involved that of the Fa- ther who sent him. Who can read the interview between Mary and Elisabeth, or the words of Simeon in the temple, without perceiving that a beam of celestial glory had de- scended upon them, and raised them above themselves 7 “My soul doth magnify the Lord ; and my spirit hath re- joiced in God my Saviour !”—“Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said, Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word : for mine eyes have seen thy salvation ''' And when Jesus commenced his public ministry, what a charming interest was excited among the people ! John, observing him as he walked, said to two of his disciples, “Behold the Lamb of God . " They immediately fol- low Jesus. Jesus, turning to them, asks, “What seek ye?” They cannot express all they wish at that time and place ; but, desirous of a more intimate acquaintance with him, ask, “Where dyvellest thou?” The answer was, “Come and see.” Ahd when they had spent the evening with him, one of them (Andrew) goes and finds his brother Simon, and said, “We have found the Messiah : " And he brought him to Jesus. The day following Jesus findeth Philip, and said unto him, “ Follow me !” Philip findeth Nathanael, and said, “We have found him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”—“Can there any good thing,” said Nathanael, “come out of Nazareth 7" The answer is, as before, “Come and see.” The enjoyments of these people were a heaven upon earth ; yet at the same time Christ was nothing to unbe- lievers. “He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.”—“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.”—“ The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among them, (and they beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” Thus it was that of his fulness they all received, and grace for grace. In him the invisible God was in a manner rendered visible ; for he who dwelt in his bosom came down and declared him. In beholding his glory, therefore, they beheld the glory of God, and were partakers in measure of eternal life, John i. 10—18. - It is a remarkable saying of our Lord to Nathanael, when his mind was transported with joy and surprise, “Thou shalt see greater things than these—hereafter you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.” The allusion is, I doubt not, to the vision of Jacob at Beth-el; and what the ladder was to him—namely, a medium on which the an- gels of God ascended and descended, that Christ would be to his church after his resurrection. I say to his church ; for though the intimation is given to Nathanael, yet it was not of any thing which he should see in distinction from. others, but in common with them. The pronoun is plu- ral : “Verily I say unto you, hereafter you shall see hea- ven open,” &c. But what a saying is this 1. When the wrath of God was poured upon a guilty world, it is ex- pressed by this kind of language : “The windows of heaven were opened.” What then can it here denote but that God would, in honour of HIM in whom his soul de- lighted, pour forth a deluge of blessings in his name 3 Then, when Jesus had said unto his disciples, “ Thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should, be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem ;” when thousands of Jews found mercy under a single sermon, and tens of thousands from among the Gentiles partook of the benefits of his death; and when, as the great High Priest of our profession, he had entered into the holy of holies, and consecrated a new and living way for the most intimate communion between God and his people, then was heaven opened. The words of our Lord to Nicodemus are also here in point: “No man hath ascended up to heaven but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man, who is in heaven.” The connexion of the passage will convince us that a personal ascent or descent is out of the question. The meaning appears to be this : No man hath known the mind of God, save He that was always with him, and is still with him, dwelling as in his bosom.—Thus the phrase ascending to heaven is used in Deut. xxx. 12, and Rom. x. 6. The Greek might seek after wisdom, and the Jew make his boast of God ; but no man should be able to find out the wisdom from above, no discover the way of life, but by coming to Christ and taking him for his guide. Nicodemus, though a master in Israel, yet, while a stranger to Christ, stumbled at the very threshold of the heavenly doctrine. Christ told him of earthly things, namely, the new birth, which was only one of the first principles of true religion, a subject confined to the earth, and which every babe in grace was acquainted with, and he could not understand it : how then should he climb up as it were into heaven, and discover the mind of God? Christ taught what he knew, and they that received not his testimony were strangers to the kingdom of God; but they that re- ceived it, looking to him as the Israelites looked to the brazen serpent in the wilderness, found eternal life. The prayer of our Saviour in behalf of his followers shows also that heaven consists in that which has its com- mencement in this world : “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also who shall believe on me through their word ; that they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be ome in ws, that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. What is heaven but to be of one heart with the Father and with Christ, even as they are one 3 Yet this blessed union is not confined to the heavenly state : it was to take place on earth, and be visible to men; how else should the world be convinced ‘by it that Jesus was sent of God? So far then as we enter into the views and pursuits of God and of his Christ, so much we enjoy of heaven ; and so far as we come up to this standard in our social and visible character, so much does our conduct tend to convince the world of the reality of religion. The kingdom of grace, especially the gospel dispensation, is described by Paul, in his First Epistle to the Corinthi- ans, in language equally applicable to the kingdom of glory, and which, indeed, at first, brings the latter to our thoughts: “As it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit.” THE HEAVENLY GLORY. 955 Once more, The prayer of Paul in behalf of the Ephe- sians, and of all saints, is very expressive on this subject : “For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our . Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, that he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith ; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height: and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.” If there be a sentence in the Bible expressive of ultimate bliss, one would think it were this of being “filled with all the ful- ness of God;” yet this is held up as an object not alto- gether unattainable in the present life. But let us look with close attention at the different parts of this wonderful prayer. Observe, First, The character under which God is ad- dressed : “ The Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named.” We sometimes hear prayers among us beginning with a great flow of pompous words, and high-sounding names ascribed to the Divine Majesty, without any relation to what is prayed for : but the more we examine the prayers recorded in Scripture, the more we shall find that all their prefatory ascriptions are appropriate ; that is, they bear an intimate relation to the petitions that follow. Thus Jacob prayed when in fear of Esau : “O God of my father Abraham, God of my father Isaac,” &c. Thus also David, “O thou that hearest prayer, unto thee shall all flesh come.” And thus the souls under the altar, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood?” The same is observable in this prayer of Paul. “ The Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” is supposed to be through him the Father of all that believe in him, even of the whole “family in heaven and earth ;” and to be more ready to impart good things to them than the tenderest father can be to his children. The combining also of the church in heaven and the church on earth, and the representing of them as but one family, though in different situations, seem designed to furnish a plea that all the blessedness might not be confined to the former, but that a portion of it might be sent, as it were, from the Father's table to those children who had not yet passed the confines of sin and sorrow. Secondly, The rule by which the Lord is entreated to confer his favours: “According to the riches of his glory.” By the term “riches,” we have the idea of fulness, or all- sufficiency; and by the “riches of his glory,” that perhaps of an established character for goodness. Taken together, they suggest that, in drawing near to God, whether for ourselves or others, we must utterly renounce all human worthiness, and plead with him only for his name’s sake. This is a plea which has never failed of success. Thirdly, The petitions of which the prayer is composed : “That he would grant you—to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man,” &c. By reviewing these petitions, as quoted above, we shall perceive that the first three are preparatory to those which follow. The import of them is that believers might be girded, as it were, for an extraordinary effort of mind. He prays for their being possessed of certain things “ that they may be able” to comprehend other things. Such is the weakness of our souls for contemplating heavenly subjects, especially “the breadth, and length, and depth, and height” of redeeming love, that, without grace to prepare us for it, it would be utterly beyond our reach. ened with might by his Spirit in our inner man.” We may possess strong mental powers, and by cultivating them may be able to reason high, and imagine things that shall fill our own minds and those of others with agreeable amazement; yet without that might which is produced by the Holy Spirit we may be mere babes in true religion, or, what is worse, “without God in the world.” It is being strong in faith, in hope, and in love, that enables the mind to “lay hold of eternal life.” To this is added, “that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith.” For one to dwell in the heart of another is the | above the skies. The first thing prayed for is that we may be “strength- same thing as to be the object of his intense affection; and as all that we at present know of Christ, and consequently all the love that we bear to him, has respect to his cha- racter as revealed in the gospel, it is “by faith ” that he is said to dwell in us. Did not Christ dwell in the hearts of the Ephesians then already ? He did ; but the object of the apostle's prayer in this instance was, not that they might be saints, but eminent saints; not that they might merely love Christ in sincerity, but in the highest or most intense degree. And as this prayer is preparatory to what follows, it shows that the more intensely we love him, the more capable we are of comprehending his love to us. We may talk of everlasting love, and fancy ourselves to have a deep insight into the doctrines of the gospel; but if his name be not dearer to us than life, it will be little or no- thing more than talk. The deeds of David would appear abundantly more glorious to Jonathan than to those cold- hearted Israelites who had no regard for him. Of all the disciples none were so loving as John, and none have written so largely on the love of God, and of Jesus our Lord. Once more, He adds, “That ye being rooted and ground- ed in love.” If Christ’s dwelling in our hearts be expres- sive of love to him, it may seem as though this part of the prayer was a mere repetition ; but the emphasis appears to lie upon the terms rooted and grounded. They are both metaphorical ; one referring to a tree or plant, and the other to a building. Now, seeing it was the desire of the apostle that believers should soar upward in one respect, he is concerned that they should be prepared for it by de- scending downward in another. If the tree be not well rooted, or the building well grounded, the higher it rises, the greater will be its danger of falling. And what is that in love to Christ, it may be asked, which is analogous to this? It may be its being accompanied in all its opera- tions by a knowledge of his true character. One is greatly enamoured of a stranger who has saved his life, and thinks at the time he should be happy to spend his days with him ; but as he comes to know him, he finds they cannot live together. He regards him as a deliverer, but dislikes him as a man. Another in similar circumstances not only feels grateful for his deliverance, but is attached to his deliverer. The more he knows of him, the better he loves him, and wishes for nothing more than to dwell with him for ever. The regard of the former, we should say, is not “rooted,” or “grounded;” but that of the latter is. It is easy to apply this to the love of Christ, and thus to account for the fall of many fair and towering professors, as well as for the growth of true believers. But what is the object of all these petitions 3 They are only preparatory, as before observed, to what follows. And what is this? “That ye may be able to comprehend what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge.” The love ascribed to Christ is that, no doubt, which induced him to lay down his life for us, and which still operates in the carrying into effect every branch of our salvation. But who can ascertain its dimensions Whether we con- sider the extent of its designs, the duration of its effects, the guilt and misery from which it recovers us, or the glory and happiness to which it raises us, we are lost in the boundless theme. How should it be otherwise, when it “ passeth knowledge,” even that of the most exalted creatures 1 The perception which we have of this great subject, however, is termed “comprehending,” or taking hold of it. It is not peculiar to sublime and elevated genius to soar The Christian, borne on the wings of faith, may adopt the language of Milton, and in a much more real and interesting sense:— “Up-led by thee Into the heaven of heavens I have presumed, An earthly guest, and drawn empyreal air.” One more step remains ere we reach the top of this Di- vine climax. In proportion as we comprehend the love of Christ, we are supposed to be “filled with all the fulness of God.” If there be a sentence in the Bible expressive of ultimate bliss, I say again, surely it is this. To be filled with God, with the fulness of God, with all the fulness of God—what things are these ? Yet by being strengthened 956 MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS, ESSAYS, &c. with might by the Holy Spirit in our inner man, by Christ's dwelling in our hearts by faith, and by being rooted and grounded in love, we are supposed to..be able, in measure, to grasp the mighty theme of redeeming love, and so to partake of the Divine fulness. There is a perceivable and glorious fitness in God’s im- parting his fulness through the knowledge of the love of Christ. First, It is through his dying love that the fulness of the Divine character is displayed. Much of God is seen in his other works; but it is here only that we behold his whole character. Great as were the manifestations of his glory under former dispensations, they contained only a partial display of him. “No man hath seen God at any time,” said John : “but the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”— Secondly, It is through the dying love of Christ that a way is opened for the consistent communication of Divine blessedness to guilty creatures. God’s fulness is a mighty stream ; but sin was a mountain which tended to impede its progress, and so to prevent our being filled with it. This mountain, by the dying love of Christ, was removed, and cast into the depths of the sea. Hence the way is clear: all spiritual blessings in heavenly places flow freely to us through Christ Jesus. God can pour forth the ful- ness of his heart towards sinners without the least dishonour attaching to his character as having connived at sin.— Thirdly, It is as knowing the love of Christ that we imbibe the Divine fulness. To be filled with the fulness of God, it is not only necessary that the object be exhibited, and a way opened for its being consistently communicated, but that the soul be emptied of those impediments which obstruct its entrance. There is no room for the fulness of God in the unrenewed mind; it is preoccupied with other things. All its thoughts, desires, and affections are filled with the trash of this world. If it assume the appearance of religion, still it is so bloated with self-sufficiency that there is no place for a free salvation. But knowing the love of Christ, as revealed in the gospel, all these things are accounted loss, and the fulness of God finds free access. And as it is in the beginning, so it is in the whole of our progress. If we prefer the study of other things to the doctrine of the cross, even of those things which in subserviency to this are lawful, we shall pursue a barren track. We may feed our natural powers, but our graces will pine away. It is by the study of Christ crucified that our souls will be enriched; for this is the medium through which God delights to communicate of his fulness. Having considered something of the nature of the hea- venly blessedness, our next object of meditation is Its PROGRESSIVE CHARACTER. By the manner in which some have spoken and written of the heavenly state, it would seem not only as if all would possess an equal measure of blessedness, but that this measure would be completed at once ; if not on the soul's having left the body, yet im- mediately on its reunion with it at the resurrection. But such ideas appear to me to have no foundation in the Holy Scriptures. There is no doubt that salvation is altogether of grace, and that every crown will be cast at the feet of Christ ; but it does not follow that they shall be in all respects alike. Paul’s crown of rejoicing, for instance, will greatly consist in the salvation of those among whom he laboured; but this cannot be the case with every other inhabitant of heaven. And with respect to the completion of the bliss, there certainly will be no such imperfection attending it as to be a source of sorrow, but rather of joy, as affording matter for an endless progression of know- ledge, and consequently of love, and joy, and praise. There is no sorrow in the minds of angels in their pre- sent state ; yet they are described as looking with in- tenseness and delight into the doctrine of the cross; which clearly indicates a progressiveness in knowledge and hap- piness. God is perfect, and immutably the same ; but it is as he is revealed or manifested to us that we enjoy him as our portion. If, therefore, he be gradually manifesting himself through time, and thereby causing the tide of celestial bliss to rise higher and higher, it may be the same to eternity. Nay more, if heavenly bliss consist in knowing the love of Christ, and that love, when all is said and done, “passeth knowledge,” it must be so ; there must either come a period when the finite mind shall have perfectly comprehended the infinite, and therefore can have nothing more to learn, or knowledge and happiness must be eternally progressive. I might here consider the doctrine as proved; but other evidences will appear by examining the causes of it, as taught us in the Scriptures. That the happiness of saints and angels is now increasing is abundantly evident from the progressive state of various things from whence it rises. Our Lord assures us that there is joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth ; but, if so, the gradual progress of his kingdom among men, from its first be- ginning, must have caused a gradual influx of joy to the heavenly world. The same might be said, no doubt, of other things which are working together for the accomplish- ment of the Divine designs. But I shall select two great events as having an influence in this way beyond any thing else with which we are acquainted. These are, THE FIRST AND SEconD APPEARING OF CHRIST. The one will give us some idea of the increase of heavenly blessedness during the separate state, and the other after it. The person and work of Christ, as we have seen, is the grand medium by which the Divine character is manifested. Every stage of his undertaking, therefore, may be expected to exhibit it with increasing lustre, and so to augment the blessedness not only of saints on earth, but of saints and angels in heaven. The appearing of Christ, whether to save or to judge the world, is an event which the Scrip- tures seem to have marked with emphasis, and God to have honoured by a peculiar manifestation of his glory. Such is the idea suggested by the following passages: “Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own pur- pose and grace, given us in Christ Jesus before the world began ; but is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.” —“Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious ap- pearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.” From the former of these passages we see that the first appearing of our Saviour was the time marked out of God for pouring forth the fulness of his heart, or for manifesting what had been hid in his secret purposes from before the foundation of the world : from the latter we see that his second appearing is not only a time to which Christians may look forward with hope, but that it is itself their hope, “that blessed hope;” as though all other hopes were com- prised in it: and, in that it is denominated “glorious,” it is intimated that the glory of Christ shall in that day be manifested beyond what it has ever been before. The influence which the first of these events had on the happiness of the church on earth surpassed every thing which had gone before it. Not only was the daughter of Zion called to “rejoice greatly.” at the coming of her King, but is directed to “get upon the high mountain,” as if to proclaim the glad tidings to the ends of the earth. Yea, fields, and woods, and seas, and heaven, and earth, are called upon to unite in the general joy, Zech. ix. 9; Isa. xl. 8 ; Psal. xcvi. 11, 12. And is it possible that the blessed above should be uninterested on this occasion ? If the repentance of a sinner gives them joy, what must they feel on the appearance of him who came to save a world ! The ministry of angels, and the appearance of other celestial inhabitants during the Lord's residence on earth, afford some idea of the lively interest which they felt in his undertaking. When the heavenly messengers announced his birth to the shepherds, they did not preach an unfelt gospel; by turning the “good tidings which should be to all people’” into a song of praise, they manifested how much their own hearts were in the subject.—In their ministering to him after his temptations in the wilderness we see a cor- diality resembling that of Melchizedek to Abraham, when he brought forth bread and wine, and blessed him. It was not for them to appear at the scene of conflict, lest the glory of the victory should seem to be diminished ; but they may congratulate him on his return, and furnish him with those things which he refused to obtain by miracle at the instance of the tempter.—The appearance of Moses and Elias on the mount of transfiguration, and their speaking of his decease which he should accomplish THE HEAVENLY GLORY. 957 at Jerusalem, strongly evinces the deep interest which they took in it, and affords a specimen of that which oc- cupied the attention of the heavenly inhabitants. During our Saviour's sufferings, as under his tempta- tions, it seems to have been ordered that the hosts of hea- ven, as well as his friends on earth, should in a manner forsake him ; not as being uninterested in the event, (for legions of them were ready, if God had given command- ment, to have rescued him, or avenged his wrongs,) but that he might grapple as it were single-handed with the powers of darkness, and that to him might be given the whole glory of the victory. Except a single angel, who appeared to strengthen him prior to the conflict, all seem to have stood aloof, and with awful silence witnessed its result. But when, rising from the dead, he began his re- turn from the field of battle, they again met him, as Mel- chizedek met Abraham, with their blessings and congra- tulations. The resurrection of our Lord was at too early an hour for the most zealous of his disciples to be present; but the heavenly watchers were there; and, on his leaving the tomb, were stationed to give information to them that would be seeking him. The question which they put to Mary, “Woman, why weepest thou?” would seem to in- timate that, if she had known all, she would not have wept, unless it were for joy! As from that day Satan had begun to fall before him, a mighty influx of joy must needs have been diffused through all the heavenly regions. If we follow our Redeemer in his ascension and session at the right hand of God, where he is constituted Lord of all, angels, principalities, and powers being made subject to him, and where he sits till his enemies are made his foot- stool, we shall observe the tide of celestial blessedness rise higher still. The return of a great and beloved prince, who should, by only hazarding his life, have saved his country, would fill a nation with ecstasy. Their con- versation in every company would turn upon him, and all their thoughts and joys concentrate in him. See then the King of kings, after having by death abolished death, and brought life and immortality to light; after spoiling the powers of darkness, and ruining all their schemes; see him return in triumph : There was something like triumph when he entered into Jerusalem. All the city was moved, saying, “Who is this?” And the multitude answered, It is Jesus, the prophet of Nazareth ; and the very children sung, Hosanna to the Son of David : blessed be he that cometh in the name of the Lord ; hosanna in the highest How much greater then must be the triumph of his entry into the heavenly Jerusalem : Would not all the city be “moved ” in this case, saying, Who is this 2 See thou- sands of angels attending him, and ten thousand times ten thousand come forth to meet him . The entrance of the ark into the city of David was but a shadow of this, and the responsive strains which were sung on that occasion would on this be much more applicable. “Lift up your heads, O ye gates, And be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors; And the King of glory shall come in. #ho is his Ring of glory? The Lord strong and mighty, The Lord mighty in battle. Lift up your heads, O ye gates; Even lift them up, ye everlasting doors; And the King of glory shall come in. JP'ho is this King of glory? The Lord of hosts, he is the King of glory !” To form an adequate idea of the mighty influx of joy which this event would produce in heaven is impossible: a few particulars of it however are intimated in the Scrip- tures. The angels of God, previously to the appearing of Christ, would learn the Divine character principally from the works of creation and providence. When he laid the foundations of the earth, they sang together ; and when, in the government of the world which he had made, he mani- fested his wisdom, power, justice, and goodness, they cried one to another, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory.” But when the doc- trine of salvation through the death of Christ was revealed, they are represented as fixing upon this as their chosen theme—“Which things the angels desire to look into.” What an idea does this last quoted passage convey of the intense desire and delight of those holy intelligences while exploring the mysteries of redeeming grace : Stooping down, like the cherubim towards the ark and the mercy- seat, their minds are fixed upon the delightful theme. Yet such was its depth that they did not pretend to fathom it, but merely to look, or rather desire to look into it. The gospel was to them a new mine of celestial riches, a well- spring of life and blessedness. Much to the same purpose are the words of Paul to the Ephesians. Speaking of the gospel which was given him to communicate to the Gentiles, he calls it “the mystery which from the beginning of the world had been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known, by the church, the manifold wis- dom of God.” By whatever mediums God had heretofore made known his manifold wisdom, it is through the re- demption of the church that it must “now ’’ be viewed, even by the highest orders of intelligences. And thus it was designed to be from the beginning: all things were ordered in the secret purpose of God, and the fit time of every event determined, “to the intent” that the tide of mercy might rise and overflow with the rising glory of his Son, and that the spoils of his warfare on behalf of men should not only furnish them with an everlasting feast, but a surplus as it were to be distributed among the friendly angels. The foundation of this well-ordered frame was laid in creation itself: for God “created all things by Je- sus Christ; ” that is, not merely as a co-worker with him, but as the end to which every thing was made to fit, or become subservient: “All things were created by him, and for him.” We seem to ourselves to be the only parties under God who are concerned for the spread of Christ's kingdom in the world; but it is not so. The answer of the angel to John, who by mistake was going to worship him, is wor- thy of our notice : “See thou do it not : I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus.” This language conveys an idea not only of the lively interest which those holy beings take in the promotion of Christ's kingdom on earth, but of their union and co-oper- ation with us in every thing pertaining to it. We know not in what manner this is effected ; but so it is ; and as their perception both of the worth and the loss of God’s favour is exceedingly more vivid and enlarged than ours, such in their view must be the importance of saving a soul from death. By how much also their love to God and dis- interested benevolence to men exceeds the languid affec- tions of sinful creatures, by so much more lively must be the interest which they feel in the progress of this work. The joy ascribed to them on the repentance of a sinner is that which might be expected : how much higher must it rise then when the strong holds of Satan give way in a town, a city, or a country, where sinners have heretofore from time immemorial been led captive by him at his will ! While the poor servants of Christ are labouring under a thousand discouragements, and sighing under their own unfruitfulness, they, if they were permitted to speak, would say to each of them, as to Mary, “Why weepest thou ?” It cannot be supposed surely that what has been ob- served of angels is confined to them, and that the ascension of Christ added nothing to the blessedness of the redeemed themselves. It might be presumed that they who are his bone and his flesh would not be the last either in bringing back the King or in enjoying his triumphs. But we need not rest this conclusion on mere presumptive evidence. Though the visions of John, in respect of design, were mostly prophetic of events to be accomplished on earth, yet much of the scenery is taken from the work of heaven, and affords some very interesting ideas of that blessed state. Surely the “new song” of the living creatures and the elders who were “round about the throne" may be con- sidered in this light; and they are represented as not only joining with angels in ascribing worthiness to the Lamb, but as dwelling upon one subject peculiar to themselves: “Thou artworthy—for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.” It is also observable that these living creatures and elders who were redeemed from among men are described as re- 958 MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS, ESSAYS, &c. joicing over the fall of Babylon, and in the prospect of the marriage of the Lamb; which seems to be only a prophetic mode of describing the overthrow of popery, and the ge- neral prevalence of true religion, Rev. xix. But, if so, the church above must be interested in all that is going on in the church below ; and must derive a large portion of its enjoyments from the progress of that cause in defence of which millions of its members have shed their blood. The exaltation of Christ, as King of Zion, adds, therefore, to the happiness of both heaven and earth. In what sense could Christ be said to “prepare a place” for his followers, if his presence did not greatly tend to augment the blessedness of that world whither he went, and render it a sweet resort to them when they should have passed their days of tribulation ? If heavenly bliss consist much in social enjoyment, the arrival of any interesting character must be somewhat of an acquisition. If our present conceptions, however, be any rule of judging, the being introduced to certain dear friends who have gone be- fore us will be a source of pleasure inexpressible. In this point of view every one who goes before contributes in some degree to prepare a place for those that follow after; and as things continually move on in the same direction, the sum total of heavenly enjoyment must be continually accumulating. But if such be the influence arising from the accession of creatures, what must that have been which followed His entrance who is life itself! His presence would render those blest abodes ten thousand times more blessed Hence the grand motive to heavenly-mindedness in the New Testament is drawn from the consideration of Christ’s being in heaven. “If,” said Paul, “ye be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. And what the apostle recommended to others was exemplified in himself; for he had “a desire to depart, and to be with Christ, which is far better.” But to “be with Christ” is not to be shut up with him in such a manner as to be unacquainted with what is going on in behalf of his kingdom in this world. On the contrary, we shall there occupy a situation suited to a more enlarged view of it. Solomon represents every event as having its proper season, and all the works of God as forming a beautiful whole ; but intimates that man in the present life is too near the object to be able to perceive it in all its parts. He is too much in the world, and the world in him, to judge of things pertaining to it on a large scale. “I have seen the travail,” saith he, “which God hath given to the sons of men to be exercised in it. He hath made every thing beautiful in its time : also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the begin- ning to the end.” But to be with Christ is to be at the source of influence and the centre of intelligence. It is to be in company with him that sitteth at the hełm, know- ing and directing all things, and to feel a common interest with him in all that is carrying on. Such are a few of the ideas given us of the effects of Christ’s first appearing; but the New Testament ascribes full as much if not more to his appearing a second time without sin unto salvation. God seems to have determined to honour the appearing of his Son by rendering it the signal for pouring forth a flood of blessedness on the created system. The glory which accompanied his first appearing eclipsed every thing which had gone before it. The dispensation which it introduced is the jubilee of the church, in which millions who sat in heathem darkness have been liberated and brought forth to the light of life. But the glory which shall be revealed on his second ap- pearing will be greater still ; and the increase of celestial happiness will transcend every thing which eye hath seen or ear heard, or which it hath entered into the heart of man to conceive. Believers have received abundance of grace already, and shall receive abundance more on their arrival at their Father's house ; but both are unequal to “the grace that shall be brought unto them at the reve- lation of Jesus Christ.” It is worthy of notice that the glory of that day is set forth in such language as in a manner to eclipse every thing that may be enjoyed in a separate state before it; and on some occasions it is actually passed over as though it had no existence. Thus, when Paul would comfort the last day.” Thessalonians for the loss of their Christian friends, he says nothing of their being immediately present with the Lord ; but of their being raised from the dead, and caught up to meet the Lord on his second appearing. Among the many passages of Scripture which hold up this important truth are the following: “I shall behold his face in righteousness : I shall be satisfied when I awake in thy likeness.-Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.—Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God.—And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, who delivered us from the wrath to come.—Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord the right- eous Judge shall give me at that day; and not to me only, but unto all them that love his appearing.—Gird up the loins of your mind, be sober and hope to the end, for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.—Surely I come quickly. Amen; even so come, Lord Jesus.” The most plausible arguments that are alleged against the doctrine of a separate state have been drawn from these and such-like passages; and though there be no ground for such a conclusion, yet we are hereby taught to expect that the glory which shall at that time be revealed will greatly transcend every thing that has gone before it. The streams of grace have flowed and overflowed in all their meandering directions; but here they meet and fall into the ocean of glory. The following particulars may in some measure serve to account for the strong language of the New Testament upon this subject. First, Salvation will be then completed.—It hath pleased God to accomplish this great work by degrees. We are saved from the curse of sin, by our Redeemer’s having been made a curse for us; from the dominion of it, by the renewing of his Spirit; from the being of it at death ; but the effects of it remain till the resurrection. This last act of deliverance is of such importance as to be the assigned object of our Saviour's second appearance. “He shall come a second time without sin unto salvation.” Christ’s engagements in behalf of those whom the Father hath given him extend not only to the saving of their souls from wrath, but of their bodies from the pit of corruption, and in this have their issue. “This is the Father’s will who hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the This deliverance is called “The adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body;” and is represented as that for which believers, even those who had the first-fruits of the Spirit, groaned within themselves. Every part of the work of salvation is great, and accompanied with joy ; but this, being the last, will, on this account, in some respects, be the greatest. The husbandman rejoices when his seed is sown, and at every stage of its growth ; but the joy of harvest, when he reaps the fruit of his labour, crowns the whole. What the jubilee was to them that were in bondage, that the resurrection will be to the righteous dead. The one was accompanied with general joy, with a public proclamation, with the blowing of the trumpet, and with the liberty of the captives; and so will the other. “The Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and the trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first.” That this should augment the happiness of heaven is easily conceived. The reunion of soul and body will both furnish new matter for joy and enlarge our capacity for receiving it. If Christ watches over our dust as a part of his charge, we ourselves cannot be supposed to be indiffer- ent towards it. We know that in contemplating the grave as our long and lonesome habitation, or as that of our friends, we have felt much. The plaintive language of Job has here often been adopted : “Man lieth down, and riseth not : till the heavens be no more they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep !” But by how much we have sown in tears, by so much we shall reap in joy. To hail the happy day after so long an imprisonment —to find our vile bodies changed, and fashioned like unto Christ's glorious body—to feel ourselves no more subject to corruption, dishonour, and weakness, but possessed of THE HEAVENLY GLORY. 959 incorruption, honour, and immortal vigour, fully adapted to the state to which we shall be introduced—must needs be a source of joy unspeakable. Hence the language of the prophet, which, though it foretells a glorious revival of the church, yet alludes to the joy of the resurrection : “Thy dead shall live; my deceased, they shall arise : awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead.” ” Secondly, The opposition which from the entrance of sin £nto the creation has been carrying on against God shall now come to an end, and all its mischievous effects be brought to a glorious issue.—For this purpose was the Son of God manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil ; and which purpose will now be fully accomplished. Death is represented as the last enemy, which being de- stroyed in the resurrection, it is supposed that every other enemy shall have fallen before it. Here then will be the triumphant conclusion of the war between Michael and the dragon, the Seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. The appearing of Christ, to raise the dead and judge the world, marks the season or “time of the resti- tution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.” Hence the rebellion raised in the dominions of God shall be crushed ; pardon conferred on some, punishment inflicted on others, and law, peace, and order restored to their an- cient channels. Now, as sin, whether in ourselves or others, has been the source of all our unhappiness, to see it in this manner finished, and the cause of Satan utterly ruined, cannot but produce an influx of joy inexpressible. Thirdly, The creatures of God will then be delivered from the bondage of corruption, or the yoke of being subservient to his enemies, Rom. viii. 18–23. To magnify “the glory that shall be revealed in us” at the resurrection, the apos- tles represent it as an object interesting to creation in general, and for which it groaneth and travaileth as it were in pain, longing for our deliverance as the signal of its own. As, when a province rises up against legitimate au- thority, the greater part, if not the whole, of its resources are drawn in, and made to subserve the interest of the re- bels against the rightful sovereign ; so when man aposta- tized from God, all the creatures, whether animate or in- animate, which by the laws of nature were subservient to his happiness, were drawn, as it were, into the confede- racy. Sun, moon, stars, clouds, air, earth, sea, birds, beasts, fishes, and all other creatures which contributed to man's happiness, are, through his revolt, in some way or other made to subserve the cause of rebellion. To this “vanity” they are subjected : “not willingly” indeed (for every creature in its proper station naturally inclines to serve and honour its Creator, and whenever it does otherwise it is against nature); “but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope.” In other words, The great Supreme, having first established the laws of nature, did not judge it proper to overturn them on ac- count of their abuse; but to permit the creatures to go on serving the cause of rebellion, till in his own due time he should deliver them from their servitude by other means. Yet to show their original bent, and how much their pre- sent subjection is against the grain, they frequently rise up, as if to revenge their Creator's cause against their abusers. The sun smites them by day, and the moon by might; the waters drown them ; the air, full of pestilential vapours, infects their vitals; the earth trembles under them, and disgorges floods of liquid fire to consume them ; and the animals revolt against them, and even seize them for their portion. In a word, nature, by a bold figure of speech, is personified and described as labouring under the pangs of child-birth, longing to be delivered of its cumbrous load. And as the “redemption ” or resurrection of our body will mark the period when this disorder shall come to an end, it is considered as the birth-day of a new creation. Hence the interests of the sons of God are described as including those of creation in general. The latter are, as it were, bound up in the former : the glorious liberty of the one being a glorious liberty to the other, each longs for the same event: “The earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.” * Isaiah xxvi. 19. Lowth's Translation. Now, as the new heavens and the new earth will hence- forth be the abode of righteousness, and no more subject to the vanity of subserving the cause of sin, this must needs contribute to augment the blessedness of the blessed ; for as it would grieve a loyal heart to see the resources of his country turned against their rightful sovereign ; so it must rejoice him to see the rebellion crushed, and every thing appropriated to his honour, and the peace, order, and happiness of society. Such are the sentiments expressed in the 148th Psalm, in which every creature in heaven above, and in the earth beneath, according to its capacity, is called upon to join in praising God. Fourthly, The glory of Christ as a Saviour will be mani- fested beyond any thing which has appeared before.—Christ is glorified whenever a sinner is brought to believe in him, and more so when multitudes flock to his standard ; but all this is little when compared to the general assembly of the saved, every one of which furnishes an example of the efficacy of his death. The great Physician appears with his recovered millions, and, in the presence of an assembled universe, presents them to the Father. In that day Christ will no doubt be honoured by his people; but that which is principally held up to us is his being honoured by others for what is seen in them. He shall come “to be glorified &n his saints, and admired in all them that believe.” Now, as every manifestation of Christ's glory has been productive of an influx of blessedness to his people, and is that indeed in which it consists, this being the greatest of all his manifestations, it may well be supposed to be ac- companied with the greatest augmentation of blessedness which has ever been experienced. Fifthly, The mystery of God will be finished, or his great designs concerning the world and the church will be accom- plished.—It has been already noticed that one reason why man labours in vain to find out the work of God from the beginning to the end is his nearness to the object ; or his being in the world, and the world, as it were, in him. Another is, that these parts, though designed to form a whole, resemble at present the detached wheels of a ma- chine, before they are put together. God, who sees the end from the beginning, views them as complete; but this is too much for creatures, even the most exalted. The heavenly inhabitants themselves can know things only as they are manifested. Whatever therefore turns up in pro- vidence which casts a light on God's designs is to them an object of delightful attention, and serves of cou'se to aug- ment their blessedness. But if the successively putting together of every part of this Divine system has gradually heightened their enjoyments, what must be the effect of the whole being completed 3 Innumerable events, of which we in this world were ready to think hardly, and they in the other were unable to perceive the use, will now appear wise, merciful, and glorious. - We have been used to speak of creation, providence, and redemption, as if they were distinct systems : but it may then appear that they were in reality one great system ; and that the two former have all along subserved the lat- ter. “All things were created by him, and for him ; and he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” But it may be said, One great end of Christ's second coming will be “to judge the world,” and that it is diffi- cult to conceive how this can increase the happiness of the righteous, unless they be so swallowed up in selfish feel- ings as to care only for themselves. I answer, The right- eous will not be swallowed up in selfish feelings, and yet their happiness will be abundantly increased. The design of the last judgment is not merely to decide the future state of men, but to manifest the holiness, justice, and goodness of the Divine proceedings. In this world God requires us to confide in his equity, and does not give account of any of his operations; but in that day every intelligent creature shall perceive not only what he does, but why he does it. Such a display of things to the wicked must, I acknow- ledge, be a source of unspeakable misery, as it will deprive them of the small consolation of even thinking well of themselves at the expense of their Creator's character; but that which silences them will satisfy the righteous, and fill them with sentiments of the highest admiration and esteem. Their present feelings will not be so extinguished as to render them hard-hearted towards any creature. They 960 MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS, ESSAYS, &c. will rather be overcome by the consideration of the right- eousness and fitness of the Divine proceedings. If they be swallowed up, it will not be in selfishness, but in the love of God, to whose will all inferior affections ought to be and will be subordinate. There is a satisfaction felt by every friend of justice in the conviction and execution of a murderer. Humanity in this case is not extinguished, but enlarged : it is individual compassion overcome by re- gard to the general good. Thus, in whatever light we consider the coming of our Lord, it is a “blessed hope,” and a “glorious appearing,” to all that love it. The happiness of Jacob in reviewing the issue of that mysterious train of events which brought him and his family down to Egypt must have overbalanced, not only the sorrows which he felt during the suspense, but the joy of his whole life : much more will the happiness of saints, on reviewing the issue of all the dispensations of God, overbalance, not only their former afflictions, but all their preceding joys. Great, however, as their happiness will be at the appear- ing of Jesus Christ, the language used in reference to that period shows it to be but an introduction to greater joys: “Then shall the King say to them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from before the foundation of the world—enter ye into the joy of your Lord!” The likeness of Christ, which is attributed to our “see- ing him as he is,” seems to be expressive of something more than a freedom from sin. It denotes, not a negative, but a positive blessing; not an instantaneous, but a gradual assimilation, like that which is, insensibly contracted by being in the company of one with whom our hearts unite. We shall, doubtless, from our first introduction into his presence, on leaving this mortal body, be so far like him as to have no remains of contrariety to him ; but a posi- tive like-mindedness with him may, nevertheless, be capa- ble of perpetual increase, as his mind shall be more and more discovered by us. The spirits of the just made per- fect are happy, as being free from every degree of misery; but not so filled with positive enjoyment as to be incapa- ble of receiving more : and thus it may be with respect to positive holiness. What is holiness but that in which the whole law is summed up, LovE 2 But love is capable of becoming more rooted and grounded, as well as more in- tense, as the worth of its object becomes more known and appreciated. And as every degree of attainment capaci- tates the mind for greater attainments, and the objects to be known pass knowledge, there is reason to believe that the things which God hath prepared for them that love him include nothing less than an eternal accumulation of blessedness. DEGREES IN GLORY PROPORTIONED To works of PIETY, CONSISTENT WITH SALVATION BY GRACE ALONE, A const ANT reader of the Evangelical Magazine approves of several observations which were made on the parable of the unjust steward (Vol. III. p. 556); but wishes me to show more particularly the consistency of spiritual and eternal blessings being bestowed as a reward of works of piety and charity, and consequently of different degrees of glory being hereafter conferred on different persons, ac- cording to their conduct in the present life, with the doc- trine of salvation by grace alone. I consider the above as an interesting inquiry, and submit the following as an 3. In SWer. In the first place, It seems proper a little more fully to establish the sentiments themselves. Whether we can perceive their consistency, or not, they manifestly appear to be taught in the Holy Scriptures. The same Divine writers who teach the doctrine of salvation by grace alone, teach also that eternal life will be conferred as a reward on those who have served the Lord with fidelity, and suf- fered for his sake in the present world. “Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake : for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” In the addresses to the seven Asiatic churches, eternal life, under various forms of expression, is promised as the reward of those who shall overcome the temptations and persecutions of the present state. Nor is it a mere promise of eternal life in general to those who shall overcome ; but of a reward according to the deeds done in the body. This subject will appear with the fullest evidence, if we consider the nature of that enjoyment of which the heavenly state will consist. First, Heavenly bliss will greatly consist in our being approved of God. There is a day approaching, when “God will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and make manifest the counsels of the heart; and then shall every man have praise of God.” That which Enoch had on earth all God’s faithful servants shall have in hea- ven, testimony that they have pleased God ; and a heaven it will be of itself . But it is impossible that all good men should partake of this satisfaction in an equal degree, un- less they had all acted in this world exactly alike. Secondly, Heavenly bliss will consist in the eacercise of love, supreme love to God. And, if so, the more we have done for him, the more our hearts will be filled with joy on the remembrance of it. The same principle that makes us rejoice in his service here will hereafter make us re- joice that we have served him ; and as love here makes us glory even in tribulation, if God may but be honoured, so there it will make us rejoice that we were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name’s sake. It is thus that our present “light afflictions work for us a far more exceed- ing and eternal weight of glory;” and thus that, by la- bouring and suffering in his cause, we “lay up for our- selves treasures in heaven.” All this supposes that, unless we have equally laboured and suffered for God in this world, we cannot equally enjoy him in the next. Thirdly, Heavenly bliss will consist in ascribing glory to God and the Lamb; but this can be performed only in proportion as we have glory to ascribe. He that has done much for God has obtained more crowns, if I may so speak, than others; and the more he has obtained, the more will he have to cast at the Redeemer’s feet. When we hear a Thornton, a Howard, or a Paul, acknowledge, “By the grace of God I am what I am,” there is a thousand times more meaning in the expression, and a thousand times more glory redounds to God, than in the uttering of the same words by some men, even though they be men of real piety. The apostle of the Gentiles speaks of those to whom he had been made useful, as if such would be his joy and crown another day. But if there were not different degrees of glory in a future state, every one that enters the kingdom of heaven, yea, every infant caught thither from the womb or the breast, must possess the same joyful recollection of its labours, and the same crown, as the apostle Paul. The stating of such a supposition is sufficient to refute it. Fourthly, Heavenly bliss will consist in earploring the wonders of the love of God. Spiritual knowledge expands the soul, so as to render it capable of containing more than it would otherwise do. Every vessel will be filled, as some have expressed it; but every vessel will not be of equal dimensions. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are repre- sented as conspicuous characters in the kingdom of heaven, with whom it will be a blessedness to sit down in com- munion. Peter and Paul, and other such eminent cha- racters, are prepared for a greater degree of enjoyment than Christians in common. - Some have objected against this doctrine, “that we are all loved with the same love, purchased by the same blood, called by the same calling, and heirs of the same inherit- ance; and therefore it may be supposed that we shall all possess it in the same degree.” But if this reasoning would prove any thing, it would prove too much; namely, that we should all be upon an equality in the present world, as well as in that which is to come; for we are now as much the objects of the same love, purchased by the same blood, called by the same calling, and heirs of the same inheritance, as we shall be hereafter ; and if these things be consistent with the greatest diversity in this life, there is no conclu- sion to be drawn from thence but that it may be equally so in that which is to come. What remains is that we prove the consistency of this doctrine with that of salvation by grace alone. If the doc- trine of rewards implied the notion of merit, or desert, the inconsistency of the one with the other would be manifest. THE HEAVENLY GLORY. 96I Man, even in his purest state, could merit nothing at the hand of his Creator; since the utmost of what he did, or could do, was his duty: much less is it possible for fallen, guilty creatures to merit any thing at the hand of an of- || fended God, except it be shame and confusion of face. But no such idea is included in the doctrine of rewards, which is only designed to encourage us in every good word and work, and to express Jehovah's regard to righteous- -ness, as well as his love to the righteous. In the first place, Rewards contain nothing inconsistent with the doctrine of grace, because those very works which it pleased God to honour are the effects of his own opera- tion. He rewards the works of which he is the author and proper cause. He who “ ordains peace for us”— “hath wrought all our works in us.” Secondly, All rewards to a guilty creature have re- spect to the mediation of Christ. Through the intimate union that subsists between Christ and believers, they are not only accepted in him, but what they do is accepted and rewarded for his sake. “The Lord had respect to Abel, and to his offering;” and we are said to “offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.” As there is no sin so heinous but God, for Christ’s sake, will forgive it; no blessing so rich, but he will bestow it; so there is no service so small, but he will reward it. A cup of cold water given to a disciple for Christ's sake will insure a disciple’s reward. Thirdly, God's graciously connecting blessings with the obedience of his people serves to show, not only his love to Christ, and to them, but his regard to righteousness. His love to us induces him to bless us; and his love to righteousness induces him to bless us in this particular mode. An affectionate parent designs to confer a number of favours on his child, and in the end to bequeath him a rich inheritance. He designs also to have his mind suit- ably prepared for the proper enjoyment of these benefits; and therefore, in the course of his education, he studiously confers his favours by way of encouragement, as rewards to acts of filial duty. He gives him a new garment for this, and a watch for that: for his attention to the flocks and herds, he shall have a sheep, or a cow, which he shall call his own ; and for his assiduity in tilling the soil, he shall have the product of a particular field. It is easy to perceive in this case that the father does not consider these things as properly the child's due, upon a footing of equity; but to manifest his approbation of filial obedience. Thus our heavenly Father gives grace and glory. Thus it is that finding is connected with seeking, and crowns of glory with overcoming. It is thus, as well as by the atone- ment of Christ, that “grace reigns through righteousness unto eternal life.” Those who at the last day shall be saved will be sufficiently convinced that it is all of grace, and that they have no room for glorying but in the Lord ; while, on the other hand, the moral government of God will be honoured, the equity of his proceedings manifested, and the mouths of ungodly sinners stopped; even when the Judge declares in the face of the universe, concerning the righteous, “These shall walk with me in white, for they are worthy.” e THE FINAL CONSUMMATION OF ALL THINGS. [Replies to some objections of the Rev. John Newton, St. Mary Woolnoth.] I HAVE received a letter from Father Newton, very highly approving of “The Gospel its own Witness; ” and under- standing that a second edition of the work was now at press, he proposes a few emendations. The worst of it is, that advice offered by such venerable men as him and Dr. John Erskine, and with such a degree of friendship, can hardly be refused; and yet if I were to follow every body's counsel, I might alter all that I have written. His objec- tions, however, are confined to a few expressions.—See p. 44, col. 2, line 20–31. On this statement, accompanied with some other re- marks, Mr. Newton asks:–1. “Why may not “a new heaven and a new earth’ be expounded figuratively, as in other places; and be referred to the kingdom of God upon earth—the gospel state 3’” I answer, No: the new heaven and new earth are represented as following the general conflagration, 2 Pet. iii. 12, 13. In the Revelation, this state is also represented as following the last judgment, chap. xxi. 1, 2-2. “May we not pray that “the will of God may be done upon earth as in heaven,” without look- ing so far forward as the final consummation of all things?” —We may in some degree, but not fully, or without hav- ing a reference to the final state of things. When we pray to be made like Christ ourselves, we always look forward to the time when we shall be perfected, as the period in which our request shall be fully answered. So it is in this case; and as this does not hinder our praying for progressive sanctity in the use of all the means of grace, so neither does the other hinder our praying for the suc- cess of Christ's kingdom. In both cases we cannot pray for the ultimate end, without praying for all the means by which it is effected.—3. “Does not the desire of revisiting the spots and scenes of past transactions belong to our pre- sent situation and conformation ? Will it not, like many of our human and social feelings, have no further influence upon the soul when freed from the body and from the earth 3’’—It may be so ; and I think I shall alter this a little, as well as add something on the second question.— 4. “Suppose we had a desire to visit these places after the conflagration, how shall we find them : We cannot now ascertain where Eden was, and many other things, owing perhaps to the alteration produced in the earth by the flood. But the alteration produced by the final conflagra- tion will probably be much greater.”—Perhaps we may then be better geographers than we are now. Many places are at present wisely concealed from us to prevent abuse from superstition, of which we shall then be in no danger. —Such would be my answers to Mr. Newton, if he were a brother ; but he is a father, and so full of love and kind- ness that I know not what to do with him. R. E. V. I E W S. THE ABUSE OF REVIEWS. [Written under a concealed signature several years before the “Strictures on Sandemanianism.”] THE practice of reviewing the publications of the age as they appear is a species of writing much adapted to a periodical work. It is acceptable to the generality of readers to see in a small compass what is going on in the literary and religious world; and even in works which are not wholly devoted to this object, it is agreeable to trace the leading principles of now and then a particular piece which attracts the public attention. But in these, as in all other reviews, there is need of a much greater portion of judgment and candour than many writers pos- sess. If the editor or principal managers of a work of this kind indulge either a partial fondness for some men, or a censorious dislike of others, their review will become a mere vehicle of flattery or abuse. - These reflections have been occasioned by a friend put- ting into my hands the fourth volume of the New Theologi- cal Repository. On looking it over, it appeared to me not a little tinctured with these faults; the latter more espe- cially. A writer in the Biblical Magazine has already noticed one instance of their petulance, and brought home the charge to the confusion of the writer; and if you judge the following remarks upon the conduct of these gentlemen towards your friend Mr. Fuller admissible, they are much at your service. On looking over the index of the Theological Reposi- tory, I observed under the name of this writer a long list of supposed errors laid to his charge. Now, thought I, surely Mr. Fuller has published some good things since this Magazine has made its appearance But if the other volumes of the work resemble this, and this contain a fair account of him, he must be a very erroneous and danger- ous writer: all he publishes is naught, and deserving of reprobation. It is true, they praise his former productions, written twelve or thirteen years ago; but even this seems rather from a design to give an edge to their present cen- sures than from any thing like a regard to what is good in them. Surely, said I, this is not the simple fruit of a re- gard to truth. Is it owing to some personal antipathy, which they may have conceived against him ; or is a dis- position to censure the element in which they live? I observe there is a great deal of apparent coolness and self-possession in all their animadversions, but this is not always at the greatest remove from unchristian bitterness. Mr. Sandeman was very calm ; yet he has been accused, and perhaps not without reason, of “gross misrepresent- ation, illiberal censure, and sarcastical contempt : ” + and whether in this case the disciple be not as his master, they who are acquainted with the productions of both will easily determine. As to the controversy with Mr. M'Lean, I cannot ap- prove of the conduct of these by-standers, who, as if they doubted whether what their leader has advanced were suf- ficient, must need obtrude themselves as his coadjutors, and attempt to worry his opponent. The lengthened list of errors imputed to Mr. Fuller by these gentlemen is little else than an index to Mr. M'Lean’s * Booth’s “Glad Tidings.” Preface, p. vii. pamphlet; a review, or rather an echo, of which is given in three succeeding numbers of the volume alluded to. It is marvellous what a bone of contention these writers make of that which the Scriptures exhibit as the food of the faithful. They affect to consider faith as a very simple thing, needing no explanation; yet scarcely any writers have said so much to explain it, or made so much of their explanation. A mere review of a pamphlet on this subject shall contain more matter than the original piece which gave occasion for it. The writers in this work, I observe, have accused Mr. Fuller of error on three leading subjects; namely, re- generation, justification, and particular redemption. Per- mit me therefore to make a few remarks upon each of them. 1. Mr. F. is criminated for having pleaded for regener- ation being necessary to believing. He contends, it seems, for “holy dispositions of heart previous to faith.” Does he hold with any self-wrought goodness in the heart of a sinner 3 This will not be pretended. Does he plead that a man may sustain a holy character while an unbeliever ? No. Does he plead for any other holiness of disposition than what is essential to the very act of believing 3 He does not. Now his opponent, notwithstanding the tri- 'umphs of the party, has, if I am not greatly mistaken, conceded almost every thing that Mr. Fuller pleads for on this subject. - 1. He admits faith to be not only an act of the mind, but a holy act. But, if so, unless a mind void of holy dispositions can perform a holy action, one would think it must be, after all, as Mr. F. has stated it.—2. He acknow- ledges faith to be not only “good” or holy, but “an effect of the regenerating influence of the Spirit and word of God.” But if this be allowed, where is the difference between them ? Mr. F. would not object to the influence of the word in regeneration, provided it were granted him that it was not by the word savingly believed ; for it is regeneration by faith that he opposes. His words are, “All that I contend for is, that it is not by means of a spiritual perception, or belief of the gospel, that the heart is, for the first time, effectually influenced towards God.” And if the above concession may be depended upon, as expressing the fixed sentiments of Mr. M'Lean, he does not contend that it is ; for that which is the “effect” of regeneration cannot, for this reason, be the cause or means of it. - 2. Mr. F. stands accused of undermining the doctrine of free justification ; for the fitness of faith to receive it is made, it seems, “to depend on its moral eaccellency.” Suppose it were said, it depends on its being true, living faith ? This undoubtedly is all that Mr. F. intends; and one would think this could not be denied him. In turning to the pages referred to, I find Mr. M'Lean labouring with all his might to prove that his opponent pleads for such a fitness in faith as that we are put into a state of justifica- tion as a suitable testimony of Divine regard towards it. But surely this is up-hill work. How pitiable is the fate of a controversial writer . After disowning a sentiment in almost every form of language, unless it be that of for- ABUSE OF REVIEWS. 963 swearing it, he is still accused of holding it. His words must be tortured and twisted into a thousand forms, to make them mean what he asserts they do not mean. After all, Mr. M'Lean has some diffidence about him, though his reviewer has none. He “thinks” this must be Mr. Fuller's meaning. “If he is not greatly mistaken,” it is so. Yet Mr. F. declares the contrary. He professes to be of one mind with Mr. M'Lean on this subject; but Mr. M. will not allow it. How is this? It has been ob- served that the followers of Messrs. Glass and Sandeman have a singular talent for discerning a self-righteous spirit in all but themselves. A person in that connexion once ralled upon a friend of mine, who was nearly of his sen- timents as to Christian doctrine ; but happening, unfor- tunately, to discover a partiality for believers' baptism, he was instantly condemned as a Pharisee, and assured that he made a righteousness of it. Thus it is that Mr. M. has discovered the self-righteousness of Mr. F. He first in- sinuated something of this kind in some marginal notes of the second edition of his treatise on the Commission, and has ever since been labouring to make good his insinu- ations. If he fail in this, the whole of what he has writ- ten against Mr. F. upon justification must appear to the reader, as he himself justly observes, “a piece of insipid altercation.” But why does Mr. F. plead for the moral excellency of faith, as necessary to justification, if he do not make justi- cation a reward conferred upon it as such Why do Mr. M. and his party plead for true faith, in order to justifica- tion ?, An answer to this question will be an answer to the other. Why does Mr. M. admit the holiness of faith ? By what he has last written, it should seem, he would not allow such a faith as is not holy, “a mere empty specula- tion,” to be justifying. He must admit therefore that we are justified by that which is a holy exercise of the mind, and that which is a duty, though it is not for the sake of any holiness in it, or duty performed by us.* And what does Mr. F. plead for more ? Whether faith contains any holy affection or not, makes nothing as to the freeness of justification; because, whatever holiness a creature may possess short of “continuing in all things written in the book of the law, to do them,” it is of no account in that important article. But if it were otherwise, while Mr. M. and his friends admit faith to be a holy act of the mind, though they will have it to be purely intellectual, the same consequence attaches to their notion as to that which they oppose. Let the reader judge, therefore, whe- ther all they have alleged on this subject be any other than “a piece of insipid altercation.” 3. The heaviest charge is yet behind. Mr. F. is not only erroneous, but self-condemned. He has abandoned his principles, it seems, on particular redemption. He has formerly written well on this subject, but of late has contradicted himself. “A new edition of his former ex- cellent pamphlet,” say these editors, “is a desideratum.” Mr. F.’s late error, it seems, consists in his placing the peculiarity of redemption, not in the degree of Christ's sufferings, or in any want of sufficiency as to the nature of the atonement, but merely in the sovereignty of its ap- plication. And this is an error of such magnitude as ought to sink him in the esteem of religious people ! “What,” say they, “will the Calvinists of the present day say to this view of the subject?” Many of those called Calvinists in the present day are not so. If the words of Calvin upon the very subject in question were printed by Mr. F. as his own, they would be sufficient in the account of great numbers of modern Calvinists to prove him an Arminian. And will the editors of the Theological Re- pository stoop to appeal to popular religious opinion, which on other occasions they hold in such sovereign contempt Ardent zeal, on certain occasions, is very con- descending. It is said of Mr. M'Lean, that he lately ad- vanced sentiments concerning original sin, and the obedi- ence of Christ, which are not commonly received among religious people, nor universally in his own connexions. How is it that these gentlemen, who profess to “respect no man's person,” do not hold him up to reproach ; and ask, What will Calvinists of the present day say to this? * The reader may see this subject clearly and satisfactorily stated in President Edwards's sumo, on Jgunsuion. pp. 13–27. Q “That this is not the Scripture doctrine,” they add, “we think has frequently been shown ; but by no one more satisfactorily than by Mr. Fuller himself.” Does Mr. F. then, in his former pamphlet, place the peculiarity of redemption upon different ground 3 With what face can these writers insinuate that he does? Had they quoted his own statement of the doctrine, the reader would have seen that, whether Mr. F. be right or wrong in his views, he set out on the same principle in that piece which he maintains in his later publications. Let him speak for himself. “I suppose Philanthropos is not ignorant that Calvinists in general have considered the particularity of redemption as consisting, not in the degree of Christ'r sufferings, as though he must have suffered more if more had finally been saved, or in any insufficiency that attended them, but in the sovereign purpose and design of the Fa- ther and the Son, whereby they were constituted or ap- pointed the price of their redemption, the objects of that redemption ascertained, and the ends to be answered by the whole transaction determined. They suppose the sufferings of Christ, in themselves considered, as of infinite value, sufficient to have saved all the world, and a thou- sand worlds, if it had pleased God to have constituted them the price of their redemption, and made them effect- ual to that end. These views of the subject accord with my own.” But, it will be asked, does he not here represent Christ as dying in the character of a shepherd for his flock, a husband for his church, and a surety for his people : He does; but each of these particulars is adduced merely in proof of a speciality of design in the death of Christ, and not of the want of any sufficiency in the nature of the atonement itself. If they prove more than this, they prove more than the writer manifestly appears to have in- tended. Every charge therefore of his having relinquished his sentiments, founded on those arguments, must be nu- gatory. All of them go to establish that the number of the saved was wholly dependent on the purpose of the Father, and the design of the Son; and wherein this dif- fers from “the peculiarity of redemption consisting in the sovereign application of the atonement,” I am not able to perceive. Christ's dying as a shepherd for his sheep, a husband for his church, and a surety for his people, is the same thing in Mr. F.'s account as his dying with a purpose or design that his death should be applied to their salvation, rather than others. It is manifest he then thought, as well as now, that the obedience and death of Christ, in themselves considered, were, like the sun in the heavens, necessary for an individual, but sufficient for a world; sufficient for all, but effectual only to the elect. These gentlemen would persuade their readers that upon Mr. F.'s present principles Christ was equally wound- ed for the transgressions of Judas Iscariot as for those of the apostle John. And if by this were meant no more than that his death was in itself equally sufficient for both, it certainly is the sentiment for which Mr. F. pleads, and that in his earlier as well as his later publications. But if it means that there was the same design towards both, this is not his sentiment; nor is it to be found in his later publications, any more than in his earlier ones, A very unjust and unfriendly insinuation has been made by one of your correspondents, as though Mr. F.'s not having answered his opponent Mr. M'Lean arose from a consciousness of the badness of his cause. That men whose prejudices lie on that side of the question should exult, and labour to provoke him to write, is no more than is common in such cases. But it is well known that Mr. F. has in several controversies suffered his antagonist to have the last word ; and when he has thought proper to write, he has always been so slow in printing that he has seldom answered any considerable work in the same year. From the time of Mr. M'Lean’s pamphlet making its appearance his hands have been so full of more im- portant business as scarcely to afford him the opportunity to read, much less to answer that performance. Whether Mr. F. intends to make any reply is best known to himself. I know, however, that several of his friends have endeavoured to dissuade him from it.—1. From an apprehension that such disquisitions, united with his other labours, may be injurious to his health.-2. Because of the 964 º REVIEWS. illiberality of his opponent, in having interspersed his per- formance with a number of insinuations that Mr. F. had knowingly and wilfully misrepresented him. Such inti- mations become neither the Christian nor the man; they tend also to divert the reader's attention from truth, and to interest it in what is merely personal. Were I disposed, I am sure that I could make out the charge of wilful mis- representation against Mr. M. in as many instances, and on as good grounds, as those which he has preferred against Mr. F.; but I would scorn the attempt. Whatever mis- statements either of them may have given of each other's sentiments, and however difficult it may be to account for them on fair grounds, I am persuaded that neither the one nor the other is capable of doing it knowingly and wilfully; and a writer that will maintain the contrary, whatever be his talents, is unworthy of an answer.—3. Because of the vast quantity of misconstrued and distorted meaning put upon his words, which will require to be set right; and which is a task not a little irksome both to the writer and the reader, and which few men who can better employ their time would wish to undertake. THE REW. THOMAS SCOTT'S “WARRANT AND NATURE OF FAITH,” &c. THE design of this treatise, if we rightly comprehend it, is to discuss various important points advanced in Mr. Booth's “Glad Tidings to Perishing Sinners.” We are happy in perceiving that both these respectable writers agree as to the complete warrant which every sinner who hears the gospel has to believe in Christ for the salvation of his soul, antecedent to all holy qualifications or dispositions what- ever,-a truth which leaves all unbelievers without excuse, which points out the way of peace to awakened sinners, and affords a plain direction to gospel ministers to invite their auditors, without distinction, to a participation of eternal life. This important truth, though plentifully taught in the Holy Scriptures, and generally, if not universally, em- braced by the reformers, puritans, and nonconformists, has been much opposed in the present century. Those writers who have laboured to set aside the gospel offer, as incon- sistent with the doctrines of grace, have with it explained away the free invitations of the gospel as they respect the unregenerate; considering them as addressed only to sin- ners made sensible of their sin, and thirsting after spiritual blessings; and contending that no other descriptions of men have any warrant to embrace them. This notion Mr. Booth has successfully combated, proving, beyond all just contradiction, that the invitations of the gospel are ad- dressed to sinners as sinners. There are several important particulars, however, in which Mr. Booth and Mr. Scott disagree, and which are well worthy the attention of those who wish for clear and accurate views of evangelical truth. Mr. Booth is partial to the term warrant, and seems to have studiously kept the idea of obligation out of sight. Mr. Scott, on the other hand, undertakes to prove that faith in Christ is the duty of all who hear the gospel, and observes that no warrant seems to be required for obedience to a plain commandment. Considering faith however as implying an all-important benefit, he admits the propriety of the inquiry, What war- rant has a sinner for expecting it from his offended God 3 In this view, he observes, “the term warrant signifies a ground of encouragement, authorizing an application, and giving sufficient reason to expect success ; insomuch that he who applies in the prescribed manner cannot be reject- ed consistently with the truth of the Holy Scriptures.” Such a ground of encouragement Mr. Scott allows to exist in the word of God, irrespective of all holy dispositions whatsoever. But Mr. Booth not only denies the necessity of a change of heart to warrant our believing, but explodes the idea of its being necessary to the act of believing itself; or, as he defines it, of relying on Christ for salvation ; contending also that, prior to his justification, the sinner performs no good act, but is an enemy to God. Mr. Scott takes the opposite ground, maintaining that no man ever believed in Christ while under the dominion of sin; that saving faith is the effect of regeneration, or the renewal of an unholy creature to a right spirit; and that those who “work not, but believe in him who justifieth the ungodly,” are not persons who are inactive, but who “cease to work in re- spect of justification; not enemies of God, but, having transgressed his law, are rendered for ever incapable of being justified by any thing done by themselves; or in any other character than that of ungodly, to whom mercy is shown merely out of regard to the righteousness of him in whom they believe. To establish these positions, Mr. Scott confines his at- tention to one leading point, which makes up the body of his performance; namely, that faith is not a mere act of the wnderstanding, but a holy exercise of the heart. Our author seems to have apprehended that, if this idea could be established, his work would be done, and to have reasoned on some such principles as the following:—If faith itself be a spiritual exercise, it must be the effect of regenera- tion; as no sinner, while an enemy to God, can be induced by any influence, human or Divine, to perform that which is spiritually good. Further, if faith be a holy exercise, and precede justification, the sinner when he is justified, though, being a transgressor of the law, he be in the account of the Judge of all “ungodly,” yet is not actually at enmity with God, inasmuch as every degree of holy exercise must be inconsistent with such a state of mind. In the discussion of this leading point—which after all we incline to think Mr. Booth does not deny, though he may have advanced things inconsistent with it—Mr. Scott goes over a great variety of topics, and examines various passages of Scripture, which had been produced on the other side. The most forcible of his arguments appear to be the following :-Our Lord assures us that no man can come to him except he is taught of God, drawn of the Father, and has heard and learned of him. And has this teaching, drawing, hearing, and learning, he inquires, no- thing holy in its nature? Faith in Christ is not only the source of all the obedience which follows after it, but is it- self an act of obedience. But all obedience is the expression of love, and is never performed by an unrenewed heart, not even by Divine influence. Unbelief arises from an evil heart, which “loveth darkness rather than light:” faith therefore, which is its opposite, arises from the love of light rather than darkness. As unbelief is attributed to volun- tary blindness, so faith is ascribed to a holy illumination, to “light shining into the heart,” which gives it a holy bias. Regeneration is assigned as the reason why some believed in Christ while others received him not. Of their believing on his name, this is given as the cause ; “they were born, not of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” Faith in Christ is the effect and evidence of regeneration. “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.” That this is the sense of the passage is evident from similar phraseology being used of other effects and evidences of regeneration by the same writer, and in the same Epistle. “Every one that loveth is born of God.—Every one that doeth right- eousness is born of him.” Repentance is constantly re- presented as previous to forgiveness, and consequently to justification, of which forgiveness is a branch ; it is also generally mentioned as preceding faith in Christ, and in some instances as influential on it. “Repent, and be con- verted, that your sins may be blotted out.—Repent, and believe the gospel.—If peradventure God will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.-Ye re- pented not that ye might believe.” Mr. Booth pleads that the word of God is the means of regeneration, and the seed or principle of spiritual life. Mr. Scott replies, not by denying either of these positions, but by suggesting that we cannot explain the manner in which God uses the word in regeneration any more than that in which animals and vegetables are produced ac- cording to the course of nature. And though the word of God be the seed from whence the fruits of grace arise, yet must the ground be made good ere it will be received so as to become productive. Mr. Booth alleges the case of the prodigal, as favouring BOOTH'S GLAD TIDINGS. 965 his idea of there being nothing good in a man prior and in order to believing. Mr. Scott replies, “And did our Lord in this parable represent the returning sinner as driven merely by distress to seek deliverance from God What did he then mean by the expression “when he came to himself?' Is it not evident that from that time he possessed a right mind 3 and are not all his expressions those of sorrow and humiliation for sin, and of deep self- abasement * * Mr. Booth suggests that the publican, in the parable, far from considering himself as possessing any holy dis- position, appears as a criminal deserving of destruction ; and who dare not lift up his eyes to heaven even when he cried for mercy. Mr. Scott replies, “The question is not in what light the publican viewed himself, but whether there was nothing in his spirit intrinsically better than in that of the boasting Pharisee; and whether his self-abasing cry for mercy was not an exercise of true holiness. That it sprang from humility and contrition, and was not ex- torted by mere terror, the Lord himself testifies. “I tell you that this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for every one that humbleth himself shall be exalted.” This testimony ought to be decisive. Finally, Mr. Booth suggests that, if there be any holiness previous to justification, those characters in whom it is found may be justified, if not wholly, yet in part, by their own righteousness. Mr. Scott replies, by alleging a prin- ciple in which we supposed all Calvinistic divines were agreed ; namely, that no degree of good whatever, in crea- tures who have once broken the Divine law, can in the least avail towards their justification ; and that a re- nunciation of our own righteousness, imaginary or real, is of the essence of faith in Christ. We have felt much interested in this serious discussion. The parties appear in some few instances to have mis- taken each other's meaning, as is commonly the case more or less in controversial writings. On the one hand, the question is not whether a carnal heart will, of its own ac- cord, believe in Christ, but whether it does so, under Divine influence, without any predisposition of the will. On the other hand, the question in dispute is not con- cerning a warrant, but a willingness to believe ; nor in what light it is necessary for a sinner to view himself in his application for mercy, but of what manner of spirit it is necessary for him to be ere he will rightly apply. Neither do we perceive how regeneration by or without the word can affect the question at issue between these writers, which is, whether regeneration precede faith. If faith were understood as a belief of the word, and the mind were allowed to be passive in it, it possibly might; but if the belief of the word be not faith, but, as Mr. Booth considers it, something “presupposed,” the in- fluence of the word upon the soul, whatever it is, and in whatever way, one should think must be the same. The mind is certainly active in its “reliance ’’ on Christ for salvation, and such activity we think Mr. Booth will not assert to be the effort of an unregenerate heart. We earnestly wish those who may have read one of these treatises to read the other, and any thinking serious mind will find himself amply repaid for the perusal. THE REW. A. BOOTH'S “GLAD TIDINGS,” &c. WE have already expressed our sentiments of this work in reviewing Mr. Scott’s “Warrant and Nature of Faith,” which was occasioned by it. In the present edition Mr. Booth has made some alterations, and some additions. We observe with pleasure he has expressed himself with more caution, as to the nature of faith in Christ, than be- fore. In the first edition, “a firm persuasion of his being the promised Messiah, and that the Christian religion is from God,” was excluded from the definition, and only considered as something “presupposed ” in believing. But in this it is “a general persuasion ” of these truths only that is thus represented. This we consider as un- exceptionable. We wish Mr. Booth had been equally attentive in his revision of chap. iii., wherein the objections are answered. As to those persons who plead for any disposition of heart being necessary to warrant an application to Christ, who- ever they are, we have nothing to say in their behalf. But those who, with Mr. Scott, consider regeneration as neces- sary, in the nature of things, to believing, whether they be right or wrong, appear to be rather unfairly treated. Far be it from us to accuse this truly respectable writer of wilful misrepresentation ; we are persuaded he is in- capable of it. But it is no uncommon thing for an author, in the heat of controversy, to be insensibly warped from the line of a fair and impartial statement of the sentiments of his opponent. “It is objected,” says Mr. Booth, “though it be not necessary for a sinner to know that he is born again before he believe in Jesus Christ, yet regeneration itself must precede faith; for, the heart of a sinner being naturally in a state of enmity to the Divine character, he will never turn to God, while in that situation, for pardon and ac- ceptance.” To this he answers, “Before this objection can justly be considered as valid, it must be evinced not only that regeneration precedes faith, but also that it is necessary to authorize a sinner's reliance on Jesus Christ.” But why must this be first evinced? The objection, from whomsoever Mr. Booth took it, appears manifestly not expressive of the sentiments defended by Mr. Scott; who, we are persuaded, detests the idea of any holy disposition awthorizing a sinner to come to Jesus. He contends how- ever that without it he never will come. A state of mind may be necessary, in the nature of things, to our coming to Christ, which is no part of the “warrant” for so doing. Mr. Booth himself admits a speculative change of mind, with a conviction of sin, to be so; yet, as he elsewhere justly observes, “It is not under the notion of being deeply awakened in conscience that sinners must first believe in Jesus, but as transgressors.” Why then may not Mr. Scott, or those of his sentiments, be allowed to argue in the same manner with respect to the necessity of a change of heart? Why does Mr. Booth insist that, if it be neces- sary at all, it must be necessary for the purpose of author- izing him to come 3 Finally, Why does Mr. Booth allege that a persuasion of regeneration being necessary to be- lieving must lead the awakened sinner to “investigate the state of his own soul in search of it, with much the same solicitude as if he considered it as a warrant.” All these allegations appear to be equally directed against what he allows as what he opposes. If conviction of sin may be necessary to believing, without affording any warrant for it, so may regeneration ; and if a persuasion of the neces- sity of regeneration to believing must needs turn the at- tention of a sinner into a wrong direction, such a per- suasion respecting conviction of sin must have the same effect. Again, “It has with confidence been demanded,” says Mr. Booth, “whether, if sinners must not come to Christ as penitent, and as possessing a holy disposition, they are to believe in him as impenitent, and as under the reigning power of their depravity. But this, adds he, like some other objections, is not pertinent ; for the question is, what is the proper warrant for a sinner to believe in Jesus 3" Now, so far as we are able to judge, the contrary of this is true. The question here was not, what is the proper warrant for a sinner to believe in Jesus 2 for that is not a matter of dispute; but, what is the state of his heart 2n the moment when he first believes 2—Mr. Booth's answer appears to be evasive. “A sinner must come,” he says, “neither as penitent nor as impenitent, but merely under the character of one that is guilty and perishing.” The term as, in the objection, means the character which the sinner actually sustains; but, in the answer, the character under which he is to view himself. It is thus, as we ap- prehend, that the objection is evaded. Mr. Booth would not say that, in coming to Christ, a simmer is neither peni- tent nor impenitent; yet, to meet the objection, it is ne- cessary he should say so ; for the question is not, under what character a sinner must view himself in coming to Christ; but what character, with regard to penitence or impenitence, does he actually sustain 3 It is not our object to enter into Mr. Booth's reasonings, many of which we cordially approve ; but barely to state, 966 REVIEWS. in a leading instance or two, wherein we conceive he has not done justice to his opponents. We shall only add a few remarks on the note which Mr. Booth has introduced in answer to a passage in our review of Mr. Scott's “Warrant and Nature of Faith.” It was our design in that review to give, according to the best of our capacity, an impartial statement of the controversy. Mr. Booth however complains of a misapprehension of his meaning. He had said, “If sinners be reconciled to God and his law, previous to believing in Jesus, and to a view of revealed mercy, it should seem as if they had not much occasion either for faith, or grace, or Christ. Because it must be admitted that persons of such piety are already ac- cepted of God, bear his image, and are in the way to hea- ven.” On this passage we remarked, Mr. Booth suggests that, if there be any holiness previous to justification, those characters in whom it is found may be justified, if not wholly, yet in part, by their own righteousness. We have no objection to acknowledge, on a revision of the subject, that Mr. Booth's words did not warrant this construction ; and that it had been better to have quoted them as they were than to have put any construction upon them. We also acquit Mr. Booth of the obnoxious principle alluded to. But, having said thus much, it requires to be added that the above sentence, which stands the same in both editions, appears to be far from defensive. First, It represents that which is pleaded for only as an essential part of a sinner's return to God, as though it were a whole, sufficient to denominate his character as a saint, and to prove his being accepted of God. It was necessary that the prodigal should come to himself, justify his father's conduct, and condemn his own, before and in order to his return ; but the necessity of his return was not thereby superseded, nor was he accepted of his father until he did return. It is true, the father beheld him “while a great way off,” and met the first movement of his heart towards him ; but, whatever were his kind designs, he was not ac- cepted, according to the established laws of the house, till he had actually returned. It was not necessary that while he thus justified his father's character he should be ignor- ant of his readiness to forgive. Without a persuasion of this, however he might have reproached himself, he could have had no encouragement to return as a supplicant. Nor is it supposed that a sinner, in being brought to justify God as a Lawgiver, must needs be ignorant of his being revealed as the God of grace; but the question is, whether, in the order of things, it be possible for him to see or believe any grace in the gospel, beyond what he feels of the equity of the law. He may be persuaded of God's exercising what is called pardon ; and knowing himself to be a sinner, ex- posed to wrath, he may be affected with it: but it cannot possibly appear to him to be a gracious pardon, any further than as he feels reconciled to the justice of his claims as a Lawgiver. To suppose it possible that we should believe the doctrine of grace, without being first made to feel the equity of the law, so as to justify God and condemn our- selves, is to suppose a contradiction. There is no grace but upon this supposition, and we cannot see that which is not to be seen. Whatever promises there may be to the least degree of holiness, if they respect the first movement of the heart towards Christ, it is under the consideration of its issuing in faith in him, without which no works of a sinful creature can be accepted ; such promises therefore ought not to be brought for the purpose of superseding it. “He that cometh to God must first believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” Many promises also are made to believing ; but if from hence we were to infer that a man is sufficiently blessed in believing, so as to render coming to God unnecessary, we should put a force upon the Scriptures. Believing is sup- posed to have its immediate issue in coming, and therefore is treated in the Scriptures as in effect the same thing, John vi. 35. Secondly, It is supposed that, when once a sinner is ac- cepted of God, he has but little occasion for either faith, or grace, or Christ, in comparison of what he had before. “If after a person is reconciled to the Divine character,” says Mr. Booth, “he applies to Christ for justification, he can- not, consistently with his new state, believe in him as jus- tifying the ungodly, nor consider himself as entirely worth- less, and on a level with sinners in general.” But, 1. This supposes him not only to be renewed in the spirit of his mind, but to be conscious of it, which Mr. Booth's oppo- nents do not contend for. 2. Supposing he were conscious of it, did not “Abraham believe on him that justifieth the ungodly,” and that many years after his being a good man and a believer ? and did he not consider himself at that time as “entirely worthless, and, as to acceptance with God, on a level with sinners in general?”—See Rom. iv. 3–5, compared with Gen. xv. 6; xii. 1–3; Heb. xi. 8. We might add, does not every good man stand in the same need of faith, and grace, and Christ, with respect to justi- fication, as at the first moment when he believed ? And, in all his approaches to God for this blessing, does he not consider himself as “entirely worthless, and upon a level with sinners in general * * MR. BOOTH'S SERMON,-‘THE AMEN OF SO- CIAL PRAYER.” [This sermon was one of a series of discourses on the Lord's prayer, delivered at the monthly meeting in London, and published by desire of the ministers who heard it.] THE summary of prayer given by our Saviour to his disci- ples stands unequalled for conciseness and comprehensive- ness. Every petition, and almost every word in such a prayer, may be expected to contain an important meaning. That such a meaning is comprehended in the concluding term, and which forms in itself a perfect sentence, the ju- dicious author of this sermon has fully evinced. Previous to his attempting this, however, he expresses his utter dis- like of the practice of preaching from a single word, as a trial of skill, and offers what must appear to every candid reader a sufficient reason for his complying with the re- quest of his brethren in this instance. Having stated the Scriptural meaning of the term “Amen,” he proceeds to consider various important truths, directions, encouragements, cautions, and reproofs, which are suggested by it. Particularly, That to close our prayers with a suitable Amen they are required to be offer- ed with understanding ; for without knowing the revealed will of God, and our own unworthiness as sinners before him, believing in the all-sufficient atonement and prevail- ing intercession of Christ, and depending on the aid of the Holy Spirit, we cannot hope for success in our petitions— With fervour ; for if we be not in earnest in our prayers, our Amen loses its emphasis, and becomes a superficial for- mality, a mere word in course—Also with eaſpectation ; for the animating principle of our “so be it” arises from the grounds we have to believe that so it shall be. Our obliga- tion to pray is not from hence ; but our encouragement is. We are not warranted to expect an answer to our prayers at the time and in the manner we may prefer; but in God’s time and manner we are. We have no ground to hope for success in prayer against the prevalence of our corruptions, unless we also watch against them ; but, so praying, we have. Further, That the Amen of prayer suggests various re- proofs and solemn cautions, both to those who lead and those who unite in the worship. Particularly in him who leads, or is the mouth of the assembly, it reproves all words which persons of the weakest capacity do not understand; all quaint expressions, or terms or phrases that are adapted to raise a smile, or which in any way savour of wit or con- trivance; all ambiguous language, or words of doubtful meaning ; all contending or arguing for or against a doc- trine ; and every thing like anger, envy, or malignity, or which has a natural tendency to interfere with devout at- tention, deep solemnity, and the lively exercise of holy affections towards God; for to all or any of these things how shall a serious assembly say, Amen 3–In those who silently write in this solemn duty it cautions against, and severely reproves, every degree of negligence respecting their attendance at the place of prayer, before the devo- tional exercise begins ; all wandering thoughts and inat- tention during the exercise; all unkind, unsociable, and MEMOIRS OF REV. JAMES GARIE, 967 immoral feelings towards one another; and all aversion of heart from the genuine meaning of the ascriptions, confes- sions, or petitions, which are presented ; for, with such frames and feelings, how can they with a good conscience say Amen? • The sermon concludes with a very solemn and interest- | Mr. Pearce, has been thought worthy of the patronage of : the religious public. ing address to those who take the lead in prayer, those who unite in it, and those who pay little or no regard to it. On the whole, the writer of this review feels thankful to God, and the worthy author, for having seen this highly interesting publication. MEMOIRS OF REv. jAMES GARIE. IT is good to read the lives of holy men; and the more holy they have been the better. Some readers, it is true, are not satisfied unless they discover in others the same low, grovelling, half-hearted kind of life which they find in themselves. But satisfaction of this sort is better missed than found. It is good to be reproved, and stirred up to labour after greater degrees of spirituality than any which we have hitherto attained. It is good also to observe the difference between the ac- counts of the same person as communicated by a friend, and by himself. As given by the former, the character appears nearly faultless ; as depicted by the latter, it abounds with imperfection. Whence this difference 3 We Know more of ourselves than any other person can know of us. What then will our lives be, when declared by Him who knoweth all things 3 Well might one of the greatest and best of men desire that he might be found in him 1 It is pleasant that in the same years, months, and days that we have been walking in the ways of God ourselves, others, whom we know not, were travelling in the same direction, and with kindred sensations. What a society shall we find assembled, when we get home ! We read the lives of eminently holy men in former times, and, when we come to their decease, are ready to ask with a sigh, Are there any such men to be found in these days? God hath a reserved people, however, in this as well as in every other age. The characters of men are chiefly known by trial. It is not how we may feel and conduct ourselves in times when we have nothing in particular to affect us; but how we bear the temptations and afflictions, the smiles and the frowns, the evil reports and the good reports of the world, that determines what we are. Mr. Garie had his share of these trials. Doubtless there are men who have passed through greater; but his were sufficient to furnish proof of his being not only a true Christian, but an eminent serv- ant of Jesus Christ. In his removals from place to place, he appears to have kept his eye on one object, and in pa- tience to have possessed his soul.” . While, however, we admire his piety, meekness, and patience, it becomes us to learn instruction from the things which befell him. In his first removal we see the danger of congregational churches submitting to the influence and direction of a few opulent individuals, (whose desire it fre- quently is to obtain a minister who shall deal gently with their vices,) till, lightly esteeming their greatest mercies, they are justly deprived of them. s. In determining on the question of joining the Established Church, we find him frankly avowing the influence of early spiritual advantages which he had there received, of the amiable and dear friends he had in it, and of what he ac- counted the leadings of Providence. But no mention is made of his inquiring into the revealed will of Christ upon the subject; nor any intimation given that, after having examined the Scriptures, he was convinced that a national establishment was the most consistent with them. In the repulses he met with, we cannot but perceive the * Mr. Garie encountered great hazards in preaching the gospel in Ireland in 1790, º in Sligo, where his chapel was burned soon after its opening, and his life threatened.—ED. + The introductory part of the following review is omitted, as relat- ing merely to the circumstances under which the “Defence” was writ- ten ; it was occasioned by the representations of Hannah Barnard, an American preacher of the Society of Friends, and of Mr. Evans in his lamentable evils which arise from the church being so con- nected with the world as that the best interests of a Chris- tian congregation shall be decided by the prejudices and intrigues of men, who care not for its spiritual welfare, and the greater part of whom may be strangers to true religion. We are glad to find that Mr. Garie's family, like that of It speaks well for our times that the families of men who have been eminent in disinterested | labours for God are provided for by his people. The spirit discovered in Mr. Garie’s diary will both reprove and pro- voke to emulation those who are in any degree like-mind- ed; and may convince others that religion is not a cun- ningly devised fable, but a solemn reality. º MR. BEVAN'S DEFENCE OF THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES OF THE SOCIETY OF FEIENDS. CoNCERNING the atonement or satisfaction of Christ, Penn and Claridge profess to reject what they term “the vulgar doctrine of satisfaction;” and our author allows them to have disowned “vicarious atonement,” and “ the appeas- ing of vindictive wrath.”t We should be sorry to affix ideas to terms which were not in the mind of the writer; but, if we understand them, atonement is reparation made to the injured authority of the Divine law. “Vicarious atonement” is for that reparation to be made by a substi- tute, who endures the curse of the law in the sinner’s stead ; and “the appeasing of vindictive wrath” is not the changing of God's mind from hatred to love; but having expressed his displeasure against sin, in the death of his Son, justice is satisfied, and he can now consistently dis- play his compassion to sinners for Christ’s sake. We do not think it was the intention of these writers to favour the Socinian doctrine ; but in opposing the crude notion of Christ's having so paid the debt as to lay the Governor of the world under a natural obligation to dis- charge the debtor, and that immediately, or without the intervention of repentance and faith, we cannot but ob- serve that they have made very near advances to it. We earnestly entreat our author and his connexions to recon- sider this subject, and carefully to examine whether they may not renounce this notion, without giving up our Sa- viour's “vicarious atonement,” or his having endured the curse of God’s righteous law in the sinner's stead. Were we to abandon this idea, we could affix no meaning to a great part of the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah ; nor should we feel any solid ground on which to rest our everlasting hopes. In chap. v. and vi. our author proceeds to examine the sentiments of the early Friends concerning the Scriptures. Penn, Barclay, and others, certainly were not Socinians on this subject, any more than on the foregoing ones; but they wrote much to prove that the Scriptures were not the only, nor the primary, rule of faith and manners; for this honour they ascribe to the Spirit as dwelling in man. This position, though wide of Socinianism, yet led them to write in a manner very capable of being turned by an in- genious Socinian to the advantage of his cause. It is with pleasure we find the early Friends acknow- ledging the Scriptures to have been written by Divine in- spiration, and to be the words of God ; and also that “whatever doctrine or practice, though under pretensions to the immediate dictates and teachings of the Spirit, is contrary to them, ought to be rejected as false and erro- neous.” But we do not perceive the consistency between this and their denying them to be the principal rule of faith and manners; that is, the principal rule by which the other is to be judged of. Ought we to try the truth of the Scriptures, them, by their agreement with what we suppose to be the dictates and teachings of the Spirit within us, or the truth of these supposed dictates and teachings by their agreement “Sketch of the different Denominations,” that the original tenets of that Society were Socinian. In Mr. Fuller's republication of Mrs. Hannah Adams’s “View of Religions,” to which he prefixed his “Essay on Truth;” the article “Friends” was supplied by Mr. Bevan, with whom Mr. F. had become intimately acquainted.—ED. s 968 REVIEWS. with the Scriptures 3 be in favour of the latter, and so to decide the question. We readily admit that the Spirit of God is greater than the Scriptures, as God is greater than the greatest of his works; and that by his renewing influence the mind is taught to know what it would never form just conceptions of without it. This we consider as that anointing of which the apostle speaks, by which believers are said to “know all things.” But we do not perceive the propriety of call- ing this “a rule of faith and manners.” The extraordi- nary revelations of the Spirit, such as those of David, concerning his pursuit of the Amalekites; and to Paul, respecting his going into Bithynia, were indeed a rule to them, as much as a written revelation is to us. But it is very unsafe to reason from them to the ordinary teach- ings of the Holy Spirit, since the “sealing up of the vision and prophecy.” The one was a revelation of new truths to the mind; the other enables us to discern the glory of that which is already revealed. The former supplied the want of a perfect rule, while the sacred writings were in- complete; the latter teaches us how to walk by it, now that it is completed. The teaching of the Holy Spirit, we conceive, is that which forms us by the rule, rather than the rule itself. It has been said by Antinomians that it is not the moral law, but the Holy Spirit in their hearts, which is a rule to them. Our answer has been, You confound the rule of a holy life with the cause of it. Whatever is a rule to us must be known or knowable by us; but the Holy Spirit in the heart is a secret spring, of which we can know no- thing but by its effects. It is the source of all spiritual judgment and action ; but the rule by which we are to judge and act is God’s revealed will. Whether this an- swer be just,-and, if it be, whether it does not apply alike to both cases, we hope will be seriously and candidly considered. - With respect to the question between our author and his opponent, we have no hesitation in saying that the early Friends would neither have approved nor endured the opinions of Hannah Barnard. It is true they each set up a rule superior to the Scriptures ; but that of the one is the reason of the individual; the other, the teachings of the Spirit. By the rule of Hannah Barnard, many parts of the present canon of Scripture are rejected as untrue; by theirs, the whole is admitted to be authentic. She re- jects the account of the miraculous conception, of the mi- racles, and of the resurrection of Christ. But Barclay considers it as “damnable unbelief not to believe all those things to have been certainly transacted which are recorded in the Holy Scriptures concerning them.” The seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth chapters contain a review of the charges exhibited against Hannah Barnard, with her answers, &c. The former appear to be worded with great caution, and proved beyond all just contradic- tion. By her answers, in several instances, she departs from Christian ground, and ought to rank as a deist. The partiality discovered for her cause by Mr. Evans, in his “Sketch of the Denominations,” adds another to the mu- merous proofs which have gone before that Socinianism feels a sympathy (as of one that is near akin) with infidelity. The sentiments of the Friends on the unlawfulness of war, under the Christian dispensation, are well known. Hannah Barnard has advanced a step further, maintaining that war is in itself wrong; and consequently that the wars of the Jews with the seven nations of Canaan could not have been made with the Divine approbation. Were we to judge the sentiments of the Friends by those of Anthony Benezet, who considers war as having been suffered rather than approved under the Old Testament, in like manner as men were “suffered to put away their wives,” we must acknowledge that we could not perceive their consistency with the commandments of God to Israel to make war on the Canaanites, and his displeasure against those who re- fused. But as he is not one of the early Friends, and what he has written is considered as only his private opinion, the sentiments of the Society on this subject are to be sought elsewhere. Their disapprobation of all war appears to be confined to the Christian dispensation, and to be founded on such passages as Matt. v. 38, 39, “Ye have heard that it hath The above concession appears to been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you, That ye resist not evil.” They suppose that the law warranted a retaliation of injuries; but that the gospel requires forbearance and forgiveness. We do not think it was the design of our Lord, in this passage, to oppose the genius of the gospel dispensation to that of the law, but to rectify the abuses which had been made of the latter by the false glosses of the Jews, who perverted the lawful punishments of the magistrate, as allowed in Exod. xxi. 24, to the purposes of revenge and private re- taliation. But whatever we may think of this, and of the lawfulness of resisting unjust aggression, or threatened invasion, we see nothing in the principle, as maintained by the Friends, that reflects on the justice of the wars of Israel, which they consider as founded on Divine authority. Upon the whole, though we differ from the Friends in many important particulars, and have, we hope with Chris- tian candour, stated our objections to some of them, yet there are many things in this work which afford us plea- sure. It is gratifying to see so unanimous and decided a stand made against the spirit of infidelity, under the form of Unitarianism ; and to find it conducted with so much calmness and justice. Such cases as those of Hannah Barnard are permitted to try, not only individuals, but societies. It is pleasant also to observe in our author a familiar acquaintance with the writings of others besides those of his own denomination. We cannot but from hence entertain a hope that he, and the Friends in general who may give the foregoing remarks a perusal, will take them in good part, and candidly consider the force of them. It is from such a mutual interchange of sentiments be- tween different denominations, who have been in different habits of thinking, that each is likely to derive advantage. In this way we may be candid, charitable, and liberal, without becoming indifferent to religious principles. The work itself is elaborate, and fraught with informa- tion on the subjects it embraces. It contains much close thinking and conclusive reasoning. We will only add, that, though it is natural and proper for a society to vin- dicate the principles of its first founders when they are misrepresented, yet, in pursuing this object, there is dan- ger of considering their opinions as oracular. “The first of considerations,” as this writer allows, “is not, who has believed ?—but, what is the truth?” THE REW, CHARLES JERRAM'S LETTERS ON THE ATONEMENT. THE many able productions which have appeared in de- fence of this important doctrine might seem to render all future vindications of it unnecessary. But while its ad- versaries write and labour to exhibit it in a false and ex- ceptionable point of light, its friends must write also, though it be only to restate its evidence, and to correct their misrepresentations. By the advertisements at the end of these Letters we learn who was the author of the excellent “Letters to a Universalist,” hitherto known by the name of Scrut AtoR. The occasion of both these pieces appears to be nearly the same. The Universalists in the neighbourhood of Mr. Jerram having been very assiduous, it seems, in propa- gating their principles, he has felt it his duty to vindicate the doctrines which they have attempted to discredit. But how is this? Do Universalists disown the atone- ment # It is well known that the adversaries of the atone- ment have long been friendly to Universalism ; and Mr. Vidler was warned, at the outset of his career, “to be- ware of the whirlpool of Socinianism ; ” but is it so that they have actually formed a junction ? The writer opposed in these Letters does not profess to reject the doctrine of atonement, but to give a new earplanation of it. Such, we recollect, was the object of a pamphlet published not long since by a Mr. John Simpson of Hackney, entitled “Plain Thoughts on the New Testament Doctrine of Atone- ment; ” and the explanation given by him amounted to this, namely, The reconciliation of the mind to God, or conversion | JERR AM ON THE ATONEMENT. 969 But wherein is the difference between the scheme of these writers and that of Socinians in general 3 According to Mr. Simpson, it lies in this : many of the latter, with Dr. Taylor, make atonement to consist in the reconcilia- tion of our heathen ancestors to Christianity, to the super- seding of personal conversion in their descendants; and this, he thinks, renders it almost, if not altogether, a nul- lity. To this we take the liberty of adding, Socinians in general renounce not only the doctrine, but the word atonement, which they are very well aware conveys the idea of satisfaction. But Mr. Simpson, and the Univer- salists, though they agree with their brethren in rejecting ‘the doctrine, yet seem to think it best to retain the word, and to put their own sense upon it. Mr. Jerram considers this merely a piece of artifice. “Under pretence of being advocates for the atonement,” he says, “they have attempted to undermine it, renouncing the doctrine while they retain the name. They have chosen to call this doctrine, as it has for ages been under- stood by all denominations of Christians, any thing but the atonement ; and have appropriated the name to a set of notions which bear no more resemblance to the ideas which it has hitherto been accustomed to designate than the writ- ings of Socinus to the Epistles of St. Paul. This artifice has so far succeeded as sometimes to prevent the alarm which a naked statement of their real sentiments would have occasioned. Persons who have always been taught to consider the atonement of Christ as the only foundation of a sinner's hope might have been startled at an avowed opposition to it; but by retaining the name, though the thing be given up, the change they are persuaded to make appears less formidable. And when such sentiments have been addressed to minds of a speculative turn, and who have never been well-grounded in the principles they profess to believe, they have seldom been without effect. At first they were not disposed to contend for trifles, so long as they conceived the principal doctrine remained unimpeached; and feeling desirous of being ranked among “the candid and liberal inquirers after truth,” they next lent a favourable ear to every thing that pre- sented itself under the mask of improvement. To this succeeded a number of flattering compliments addressed to their vanity—and now the work is done. They pre- sently discover the absurdity of their former opinions, and look down with pity or contempt on those who still hug the chains of prejudice, and creep on in the obsolete path of their forefathers. They commence the zealous disciples of Socinus—the “rational" worshippers of the all-benevo- lent Deity—and all this without relinquishing an iota of the doctrine of the atonement : ” The work before us contains four letters, which Mr. Jerram has addressed to his opponent. In the first he states the question at issue. Declining all contention about the term satisfaction, he endeavours to ascertain the thing which he means to defend. “I collect,” says he, “from your letter, that you mean to set aside every other consideration in the pardoning of sin but the mercy and love of God; you oppose every thing vicarious in the nature of Christ's déath, every idea of making an atonement to Divine justice, or of Christ's suf- fering any thing in the place of sinners.” This doc- trine Mr. Jerram maintains ; and proceeds to answer no less than sixteen objections which his opponent had raised against it. In the second letter, he endeavours to estab- lish the doctrine from the general current of Scripture; in the third, from the nature of the Jewish sacrifices and priesthood; and in the fourth, from the fitness of things. At the close are several valuable notes, taken principally from the elaborate and masterly work of Dr. Magee, on tne same subject. In the last of these notes Mr. Jerram has taken occasion to vindicate his friend, Mr. Fuller, from a very unfair statement given by Mr. John Evans, in his “Sketch of the different Denominations; ” in which Mr. Fuller's views on this important doctrine are ranked with those of Arians and Sabelliams. It would seem as if these writers, like the hero across the Channel, were very much in want of help, or they would not wish to press those into an alliance with them who are known to be averse to their system. If the reader has seen the “Letters to a Universalist,” before referred to, he will observe that the present are less diffuse ; and, what may appear not a little surprising, are written in a very gentle and argumentative strain, and without any reference to the learned languages. The sarcastic “Scrutator” is here the calm, dispassionate, but decided advocate for what appears to him a fundamental doctrine of Christianity. To account for the difference, we must have recourse to the preface to his former pamphlet. “He was not ignorant,” as he then observed, “that when a man sits down to debate a point with another he should avoid every appearance of personality, and, as far as possi- ble, whatever might even indirectly hurt the feelings of his opponent. The investigation of truth is the only ob- ject at which he should aim. But the office of a reviewer is widely different. It is his province to hold up the dis- putants to the view of the world; to praise what is com- mendable, and to correct what deserves censure. It be- longs to him to point out the perspicuity, strength, and conclusiveness of an argument, as well as the candour and ingenuousness with which it is conducted ; , nor is it less his duty, however painful, to expose the petulance of little minds, the arrogance of the sciolist, the unsupported claims to candour of the illiberal, and to wrest the palm of victory from the hand of the vanquished.” THE WOICE OF YEARS. THE late Mr. Huntington was, beyond all doubt, an ex- traordinary man; and his labours have produced extraor- dinary effects. Whatever opinion we entertain of their good or evil tendency, all know that he has gathered to- gether a great body of people, and impregnated their minds with principles which will not soon become extinct. And as he not only preached, but wrote, his labours may be expected to produce effects for many years to come : on this account, it becomes a duty to ascertain their nature and their tendency. The author of the piece before us appears to have been well qualified for his undertaking, both as to his means of knowing Mr. Huntington, and the unprejudiced state of his mind towards him. He is also evidently a man of close observation and serious reflection. There are two questions, however, which, on reading his performance, have arisen in our minds. First, Whe- ther the account which he has given of Mr. Huntington’s “good qualities,” supposing it to be just, includes any in- dications of personal religion ? Secondly, Whether the account of his good and bad qualities can be made to con- sist with each other ? If our object were to ascertain whether, in the judg- ment of charity, Mr. Huntington was, or was not, a true Christian, justice would require us first to ascertain, as far as possible, the correctness or defectiveness of these accounts of him ; but this not being our object, we may suppose them to be correct, and, as far as human observa- tion can extend, perfect. Our inquiry, then, is simply this: Whether those “good qualities” which are here ascribed to him, and weighed against his evil ones, have any thing truly good in them 3 If they have not, and yet are allowed, notwithstanding all his faults, to prove him a good man, the consequence may be fatal to thousands, who shall venture to follow his example. To us it appears that the good qualities ascribed to Mr. Huntington, taken in connexion with the comments by which they are explained, are of an equivocal character : they may accompany true religion, or they may not. There is not a Christian grace, nor the exercise of a Christian grace, necessarily contained in any one of them. No one will say that a “plain and natural ” manner of speaking has any religion in it. If there be any thing of this, it must be looked for in his being “Scriptural, experimental, and evangelical :” yet when by the first of these terms is meant little more than that his discourses abounded in Scripture quotations, supposed to be gathered out of a concordance ; by the next, that, in preaching, he was wont to tell of his own feelings, which corresponded with those of others like-minded with him ; and by the last, 970 REVIEWS. that he dwelt on some of the great truths of the gospel; what is there in all this indicative of true religion ? The same may be said of his being “independent, contempla- tive, and laborious :” they may be connected with true religion, or they may not. They are not the things which prove “the root of the matter to have been in him.” It may be said that the author does not profess to give Mr. Huntington's character as a Christian, but as a minis- ter. It is an unhappy circumstance, however, in a case wherein the good and the bad are to be weighed one against the other, that his good qualities, as a minister, should prove nothing for him as a Christian, while his bad qualities as a minister prove every thing against him as a Christian. His good qualities contain nothing de- cisive of his goodness; but his bad qualities are indica- tions of the predominancy of a spirit which is not of God. We proceed, secondly, to inquire whether the account of Mr. Huntington's good and bad qualities can be made to consist with each other. It has long been common for some, who have disap- proved of Mr. Huntington's spirit and conduct, to speak of him, notwithstanding, as preaching the pure gospel. And our author, though he will never allow him, he says, to have preached it fully, yet seems willing to grant that he preached it as far as he went, and that, upon the whole, he was “evangelical.” Nay, more : he represents him as often expatiating upon the truths of the gospel “with a cheerfulness and fluency which sufficiently testified his own interest in them, and his ardent desire that his hearers should be partakers with him in the blessings of a new and everlasting covenant.” Yet he is described, at the same time, as being conceited, overbearing, vindictive, proud, inaccessible, covetous, and, we may add, blasphem- ous, continually swearing to the truth of his dogmas, by the life of God!!! We do not understand how these things can be made to agree. It is true, as Mr. CECIL observes, that the preaching of Christ is “God’s ordinance ; and that although Christ may be ignorantly, blunderingly, and even absurdly preached by some ; yet God will bless his own ordinance.” But we think there is a material difference between these failings and those moral qualities which are ascribed to Mr. Hunt- ington. We can reconcile the former with true religion, but not the latter. Allowing, however, that God may bless his own truth, let it be delivered by whom it may, yet is there no reason to suspect whether doctrine imbibed by such a mind is free from impure mixture? whether, if the vessel be tainted, the liquor will not taste of it? One thing is clear; they who “ lack virtue, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness, charity,” or are “lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, unthankful, unholy,” are not allowed by the Scriptures to understand or believe the truth. The former are described as “blind, and such as cannot see afar off; ” and the latter as “ever learning, but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth; ” may, as “resisting the truth ; men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith,” 2 Pet. i. 9; 2 Tim. iii. 1–8. How far men may preach the truth without understanding or believing it, in the Scriptural sense of the terms, we shall not decide; but certainly we should suspect whether truth from such a source, or through such a medium, is likely to be very pure. The Scriptures do not acknowledge men of unholy lives as ministers of the gospel, but declare, in the most pe- remptory terms, that “he that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him,” 1 John ii. 4. Our Lord himself, when warn- ing his followers against false prophets, assured them that “a good tree could not bring forth evil fruit,” any more than an evil tree could bring forth good fruit; “where- fore,” saith he, “by their fruits ye shall know them,” Matt. vii. 18–20. We do not say that such was Mr. Huntington’s charac- ter, but barely that, if the account given of him in this performance be just, we do not perceive what else it could be. We suppose, therefore, that either Mr. Huntington’s character must have appeared to this observer of him much worse, or his preaching much better, than it really was. We should apprehend, merely from this performance, and without any reference to his publications, that what- ever portion of truth his preaching might contain, there was a vein of false doctrine running through it, which tainted it to the bone and marrow, buoyed up himself and his admirers in false hope, and rendered his ministry un- worthy of the character of “evangelical.” And if this were to be suspected, without any reference to his public- ations, how much more likely does it appear when they are taken into the account . In all that we have seen of them, the object of the writer appears to have been to exhibit himself. How this can comport with the character of a Christian minister we do not understand. “We preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and our- selves your servants for Jesus' sake.” And if the obedi- ence and death of Christ were in honour of the Divine law, we do not understand how Christ could be either believed in or preached, while the law was degraded. We may degrade the works of the law as a ground of justift- cation ; this the apostle did : but he that thinks meanly of the law itself must think meanly of the gospel, as doing honour to it. If there be no glory in the law, there is none in the gospel. To allege that there are things in the precepts of the New Testament which are not specifically required by the decalogue is mere evasion. This was not the question between Mr. Huntington and “other ministers;” but whether the Divine law, as summed up by our Lord in love to God and our neighbour, does not comprehend all duty, and be not binding on all men, believers and unbe- lievers. It was not the defectiveness of the decalogue, in comparison with the precepts of Christ, that led Mr. Hunt- ington to degrade it. Had this been the case, the subject of “Christian duty,” as inculcated in the New Testament, would have occupied a place in his ministry; but Mr. Huntington, it seems, “never said any thing of that kind!” We doubt whether the apostle Paul would have ac- knowledged such a doctrine to be the gospel, or such a character as that which is ascribed to him to consist with Christianity; and whether, instead of selecting things out of it for imitation, he would not have sought them in other characters. “Brethren,” said he to the Philippians, “be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample. For many walk, of whom I have told you oftem, and now tell you even weep- ing, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ.” We have no doubt, however, of the truth and importance of our author's remarks on preaching Christ. Whatever be our “qualifications,” or talents, if the person and work of Christ be not the favourite theme of our preaching, we had better be day-labourers than preachers. ANSWERS TO QUERIES. ON THE FALL OF ADAM. “Was the fall of Adam foredetermined or only foreseen by God?” THE concern which the decrees of God have with the fall of man has often been the subject of inquiry. I do not see the reason, however, why this particular fact should be singled out from others. There is nothing revealed, that I know of, concerning the fall of man being the object either of the Divine foreknowledge or decree. The Scrip- tures declare, in general, that God knoweth the end from the beginning, from which we may conclude with certainty that he knew all the events of time, all the causes and ef- fects of things, through all their multiplied and diversified channels. The Scriptures also ask, “Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not?” which intimates that the providence and purpose of God are concerned in whatever cometh to pass. The volitions of free agents, the evil as well as the good, are constantly represented as falling under the counsels and conduct of Heaven. Never did men act more freely nor more wick- edly than the Jews, in the crucifixion of Christ ; yet in that whole business they did no other than what “God’s hand and counsel determined before to be done.” The delivery of Christ into their hands to be crucified, as performed by Judas, was a wicked act; yet was he “delivered according to the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God.” The proof that the fall of man was an object of Divine foreknowledge is merely inferential; and from the same kind of proof we may conclude that it was, all things con- sidered, an object of predetermination. That this subject is deep and difficult, in the present state, is admitted, and wicked men may abuse it to their own destruction; but the thing itself is no less true and useful, if considered in the fear of God. There is a link, as some have expressed it, that unites the purposes of God and the free actions of men, which is above our compre- hension ; but to deny the fact is to disown an all-pervading providence ; which is little less than to disown a God. It is observable, in one of the foregoing passages, that Peter unites “the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God” together, and seems to have had no idea of admitting the one without the other. It is also worthy of notice, that, in his manner of introducing the subject, it appears to have no tendency whatever to excuse them from guilt, by throwing the blame on the Almighty : on the contrary, it is brought in for the purpose of conviction, and actually answered the end; those to whom it was addressed being “pricked in their hearts,” and crying out, “Men and brethren, what shall we do * * The decrees of God seem to be distinguishable into eff- cient and permissive. With respect to moral good, God is the proper and efficient cause of it. This James teaches : “Every good and perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights;” particularly the blessing of regeneration, which contains all moral goodness in ern- bryo : as it follows, “Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth.” With respect to moral evil, God permits it, and it was his eternal purpose so to do. If it be right for God to per- mit sin, it could not be wrong for him to determine to do so, unless it be wrong to determine to do what is right The decree of God to permit sin does not in the least ex- cuse the sinner, or warrant him to ascribe it to God, instead of himself. The same inspired writer who teaches, with respect to good, that “it cometh from above,” teaches also in the same passage, with respect to evil, that it proceedeth from ourselves: “Let no one say, when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil; neither tempteth he any one. But every one is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.” And, as if he considered the danger of mistaking on this profound subject, he adds by way of caution, “Do not err, my beloved brethren.” ACCOUNTABILITY OF MAN. “1. Since, on the present constitution of things, men never had a disposition to love and serve God, nor can it be produced by any cir- cumstances in which they can be placed, how can they be accountable for what they never had, and without Divine influence never can have 2 “2. If it be said that man is accountable from his powers and con- stitution, and therefore that God requires of him perfect obedience and love as the result of his possessing a moral nature; still how is it con- sistent with the goodness of God to produce accountable beings in cir- cumstances wherein their rebellion is certain, and then punish them for it ! “3. If the reply to these difficulties be founded on the principle, that, from what we see, we cannot conceive of a constitution which hath not either equal or greater difficulties in it, is it not a confession that we cannot meet the objections and answer them in the direct way, but are obliged to acknowledge that the government of God is too imperfectly understood by us to know the principles on which it proceeds ; “The above queries are not the effect of any unbelief of the great leading doctrines of the gospel; but as every thinking man has his own way of settling such moral difficulties, you will confer a favour on me if you will state how you meet and answer them in your own mind.” IF the querist imagines that we profess to have embraced a system which answers all difficulties, he should be re- minded that we profess no such thing. If it answer all sober and modest objections, that is as much as ought to be expected. The querist would do well to consider whether he be not off Christian ground, and whether he might not as well inquire as follows: How could it consist with the goodness of God, knowing as he did the part that men and angels would act, to create them 3 Or, if he had brought them into being, yet, when they had transgressed, why did he not blot them out of existence? Or, if they who had sinned must needs exist and be punished, yet why was it not confined to them : Why must the human race be brought into being under such circumstances 3 I remember, when a boy of about ten years old, I was bathing with a number of other boys near a mill-dam, and, the hat of one of my companions falling into the stream, I had the hardihood, without being able to swim, to attempt to recover it. I went so deep that the waters began to run into my mouth, and to heave my feet from the ground. At that instant the millers, seeing my danger, set up a loud cry, “Get back get back! get back!” I did so, and that was all.—What the millers said to me, modesty, so- briety, and right reason say to all such objectors as the above, “Get back get back! get back!” You are be- yond your depth . It is enough for you to know that God 972 ANSWERS TO QUERIES. IIATH created men and angels, and this notwithstanding he knew what would be the result ; that he HATH NOT blotted them out of existence ; and that he HATH NOT prevented the propagation of the human race in their fallen state. These being FACTs which cannot be disputed, you ought to take it for granted, whether you can understand it or not, that they are consistent with righteousness; for the con- trary is no other than replying against God. Whatever objections may be alleged against an hypo- thesis, or the meaning of a text of Scripture, on the ground of its inconsistency with the Divine perfections; yet, in matters of acknowledged fact, they are inadmissible. If God HATH DONE thus and thus, it is not for us to object that it is inconsistent with his character; but to suspect our own understanding, and to conclude that, if we knew the whole, we should see it to be right. Paul invariably takes it for granted that whatever God doth is right; nor will he dispute with any man on a contrary principle, but cuts him short in this manner: “Is there unrighteousness with God God forbid!” It was enough for him that God had said to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.” This, as if he should say, is the FACT : “He hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.” He knew what would be the heart- risings of the infidel—“Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? for who hath resisted his will ?” But does he attempt to answer this objection ? No; he repels it as Job did : “He that reproveth God, let him answer it.—Nay, but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thow made me thus f" Let the querist consider whether his objections be not of the same family as those which were made to the apostle, and whether they do not admit of the same answer. Is it inot fact that though sinners “never had a disposition to love and serve God, and no circumstance in which they can be placed will produce it,” yet they are accountable creatures, and are invariably treated as such in the Scrip- tures 2 God requires them to love and serve him just as much as if they were of opposite dispositions, and “finds fault” with the contrary. Instead of allowing for the want of disposition, he constantly charges it as the very thing that provokes his displeasure. Hundreds of proofs might be produced ; but I will only refer you to two or three, Jer. vi. 15–19; Matt. xii. 34–37; John viii. 43— 47. It is upon these FACTs that we rest our persuasion ; and not upon a supposed perfect comprehension of the Divine government, nor yet upon the ground of its “hav- ing the fewest difficulties.” We say, God actually treats the want of disposition not as an excuse, but as a sin; and we take it for granted that “what God does is right,” whether we can comprehend it or not. Howbeit, in this case, it happens that with the testimonies of God accord those of conscience and common sense. Every man’s con- science “finds fault” with him for the evils which he commits willingly, or of choice; and instead of making any allowance for previous aversion, nothing more is ne- cessary to rivet the charge. And, with respect to the com- mon sense of mankind in their treatment one of another, what judge or what jury ever took into consideration the previous aversion of a traitor or a murderer, with a view to the diminishing of his guilt? On the contrary, the tracing of any thing to that origin rivets the charge, and terminates the inquiry. With the united testimony there- fore of God, conscience, and common sense on our side, we make light of objections which, as to their principle, were repelled by an apostle, and which are retained only in the school of metaphysical infidelity. ON MORAL INABILITY. FIRST, You inquire “whether any person by nature pos- sesses that honest heart which constitutes the ability to comply with the invitations of the gospel ?” I believe the heart of man to be by nature the direct opposite of honest. I am not aware, however, that I have any where represented an honest heart as constituting our ability to comply with gospel invitations, unless as the term is some- times used in a figurative sense, for moral ability. I have said, “There is no ability wanting for this purpose in any man who possesses an honest heart.” If a person owed you one hundred pounds, and could find plenty of money for his own purposes, though none for you ; and should he at the same time plead inability, you would answer, there was no ability wanting, but an homest heart : yet it would be an unjust construction of your words, if an advocate for this dishonest man were to allege that you had repre- sented an honest heart as that which constituted the ability to pay the debt. No, you would reply, his ability, strictly speaking, consists in its being in the power of his hand, and this he has. That which is wanting is an honest prim- ciple ; and it is the former, not the latter, which renders him accountable. It is similar with regard to God. Men have the same natural powers to love Christ as to hate him, to believe as to disbelieve ; and this it is which con- stitutes their accountableness. Take away reason and conscience, and man would cease to be accountable ; but if he were as wicked as Satan himself, in that case no such effect would follow. - Secondly, If no man by nature possess an honest heart, you inquire, “Whether, if I be not what you call an elect sinner, there are any means provided of God, and which I can use, that shall issue in that ‘honesty of heart” which will enable me to believe unto salvation ?” Your being an elect or a non-elect sinner makes no difference as to this question. The idea of a person destitute of honesty using means to obtain it is in all cases a contradiction. The use of means supposes the existence of an honest desire after the end. The Scriptures direct to the sincere use of means for obtaining eternal life; and these means are, “Re- pent, and believe the gospel; ” but they no where direct to such a use of means as may be complied with without any honesty of heart, and in order to obtain it. Nothing ap- pears to me with greater evidence than that God directly Yequires uprightness of heart, not only in the moral law, but in all the exhortations of the Bible, and not the dis- honest use of means in order to obtain it. Probably you yourself would not plead for such a use of means, but would allow that even in using means to obtain an honest heart we ought to be sincere; but if so, you must maintain what I affirm, that nothing short of honesty of heart itself is required in any of the exhortations of Scripture; for a sincere use of means is honesty of heart. If you say, “No ; man is depraved ; it is not his duty to possess an honest heart, but merely to use means that he may possess it; ” I answer, as personating the sinner, I have no desire after an honest heart. If you reply, “You should pray for such a desire,” you must mean, if you mean any thing, that I should express my desire to God that I may have a desire; and I tell you that I have none to express. You would then, sir, be driven to tell me I was so wicked that I neither was of an upright heart, nor would be persuaded to use any means for becoming so ; and that I must take the consequences. That is, I must be exposed to punish- ment, because, though I had “a price in my hand to get wisdom, I had no heart to it.” Thus all you do is to re- move the obstruction further out of sight: the thing is the same. I apprehend it is owing to your considering human de- pravity as the misfortune, rather than the fault, of human nature, that you and others speak of it as you do. You would not write in this manner in an affair that affected yourself. If the debtor above supposed, whom you knew to have plenty of wealth about him, were to allege his want of an honest heart, you might possibly think of wsing means with him ; but you would not think of directing him to use means to become what at present he has no desire to be—an honest man Thirdly, You inquire, if there be no means provided of God which I can use that shall issue in that honesty of heart which will enable me to believe unto salvation, “how can the gospel be a blessong bestowed upon me : seeing it is inadequate to make me happy, and contains no good thing which I can possibly obtain or enjoy 3 '' 'If I oe under no other inability than that which arises from a dishonesty of heart, it is an abuse of language to introduce the terms “possible, impossible,” &c., for the purpose of diminishing EXTENT OF THE LOVE OF GOD. 973 the goodness of God, or destroying the accountableness of man. I am not wanting it power provided I were will- ing ; and if I be not willing, there lies my fault. Nor is any thing in itself less a blessing on account of our un- reasonable and wicked aversion to it. Indeed, the same would follow from your own principles. If I be so wicked as not only to be destitute of an honest heart, but cannot be persuaded to use means in order to obtain it, I must perish ; and then, according to your way of writing, the gospel was “inadequate to make me happy, and was no blessing to me!”. You will say, I might have used the means; that is, I might if I would, or if I had possessed a sincere desire after the end : but I did not possess it; and therefore the same consequences follow your hypothesis as that which you oppose. If these things be true, say you, we may despair. True, sir; and that is the point, in a sense, to which I should be glad to see you and many others brought. Till we despair of all help from ourselves, we shall never pray acceptably; mor, in my judgment, is there any hope of our salvation. Let a man feel that there is no bar between him and heaven except what consists in his own wickedness, and yet that such is its influence over him that he certainly never will by any efforts of his own extricate himself from it, and he will then begin to pray for an interest in sal- vation by mere grace, in the name of Jesus—a salvation that will save him from himself; and, so praying, he will find it; and, when he has found it, he will feel and ac- knowledge that it was grace alone that made him to differ; and this grace he is taught in the Scriptures to ascribe to the purpose of God, given him in Christ Jesus before the world began. ON THE LOVE OF GOD, AND WHETHER IT IEXTENDS TO THE NON-ELECT. [An original letter to a friend in reply to the inquiry] “Since God never intended those that are not his elect to know the power of his grace in Christ Jesus, how can we extol the love of God in seeking the salvation of men, except in relation to those whom he designed to save And how can we speak of the love of God to men at large, except on the general ground that it is among the mass of mankind that his chosen can be found, and therefore that they will hear and obey the gospel when preached unto them 2 . In fewer words, What is the love which God hath for those whom he hath not chosen to eternal life?” I CANNoT undertake to free this subject or any other from difficulty; nor do I pretend to answer it on the principles of reason. If I can ascertain certain principles to be taught in the word of God, I feel it safe to reason from them ; but if I proceed beyond this, I am at sea. Respecting the first member of this question, I am not aware of having represented God as “seeking the sal- vation of those who are not saved.” If by the term seek- ing were meant no more than his furnishing them with the means of salvation, and, as the moral Governor of his creatures, sincerely directing and inviting them to use them, I should not object to it. In this sense he said of Israel, “Oh that they had hearkened to my voice l’” In this sense the Lord of the vineyard is described as seeking fruit where he finds none, Luke xiii. 7. But if it be understood to include such a desire for the salvation of men as to do all that can be done to accomplish it, I do not approve of it. I see no inconsistency between God’s using all proper means for the good of mankind as their Creator and Governor, and his withholding effectual grace, which is something superadded to moral government, and to which no creature has any claim. As to the second member, God may be said, for aught I know, to exercise love to mankind, as being the mass containing his chosen people; but I cannot think this idea will answer. It appears to me an incontrovertible fact that God is represented in his word as exercising goodness, mercy, kindness, long-suffering, and even love towards men as men. The bounties of Providence are de- scribed as flowing from kindness and mercy; and this his kindness and mercy is held up as an example for us to love our enemies, Matt. v. 44, 45; Luke vi. 35, 36. And this the apostle extols; calling it, “The riches of his good- ness,” &c., keenly censuring the wicked for despising it, instead of being led to repentance by it, Rom. ii. 4. And what if God never intended to render this his goodness, forbearance, and long-suffering effectual to the leading of them to repentance? Does it follow that it is not good- ness 3 And while I read such language as this, “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life,”—and that the ministry of reconciliation was in this strain—“We are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech [men] by us; we pray [them] in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God,”—I can draw no conclusion short of this, that eternal life through Jesus Christ is freely offered to sinners as sinners, or as Calvin, on John iii. 16, expresseth it, “He useth the universal note both that he may invite all men in general unto the participation of life, and that he may cut off all excuse from unbelievers. To the same end tendeth the term world; for although there shall nothing be found in the world that is worthy of God’s favour, yet he showeth that he is favourable unto the whole world, when he calleth all men without exception to the faith of Christ. But re- member that life is promised to all who shall believe in Christ, so commonly, that yet faith is not common to all men; yet God doth only open the eyes of his elect, that they may seek him by faith.” If God had sent his Son to die for the whole world, and had offered pardon and eternal life to all who should be- lieve in him, without making effectual provision for the reception of him in a single instance, what would have been the consequence 2 Not one of the human race, you may say, would have been saved, and so Christ would have died in vain. Be it so. Though this would not have comported with the wise and gracious designs of God, yet it does not appear to me inconsistent with his justice, goodness, or sincerity. If he had called sinners to repent, believe, and be saved, while he withheld the means of sal- vation, it would have been so ; but not in his merely withholding the grace necessary to turn the sinner's heart. If I mistake not, this second member of the question proceeds on the principle that there can be no good-will exercised towards a sinner in inviting him to repent, be- lieve, and be saved, unless effectual grace be given him for the purpose. But this principle appears to me un- scriptural and unfounded. Supernatural and effectual grace is indeed necessary to the actual production of good in men ; but is never represented as necessary to justify the goodness of God in ea pecting or requiring it. All that is necessary to this end is, that he furnish them with rational powers, objective light, and outward means. . In proof of this, let all those scriptures be considered in which God complains of men for not repenting, believing, obeying, &c.; e. g. in the complaint against Chorazin and Bethsaida, no mention is made of supernatural grace given to them ; but merely of the “mighty works”, wrought before them, Matt. xi. 20–24. The complaint of the want of “reverence for his Son" (which proves what he had a right to expect) was not founded on his having furnished them with supernatural grace, but with objective light, means, and advantages, Matt. xxi. 33–38. God gave no effectual grace to those who are accused of bringing forth wild grapes instead of grapes; yet he looked for grapes, and asked what he could have done more for his vineyard that he had not done? Isa. v. 4. The strivings of the Spirit, which sinners are described as resisting, (Gen. vi. 3; Acts vii. 51,) could not for this reason mean the ef- fectual grace of the Holy Spirit, nor indeed any thing wrought in them, but the impressive motives presented to them by the inspired messages of the prophets: see Neh. ix. 30. And thus I conceive we are to understand the complaint in Deut. xxix. 4, “The Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.” It is inconceivable that Moses should complain of them for the Lord’s not having given them supernatural grace. The complaint appears to be founded on the non-success of the most impressive outward means, which ought to have produced in them a heart to perceive, 974 ~ : . . ANSWERS TO QUERIES. eyes to see, and ears to hear. Such is the scope of the passage—“Moses called to all Israel, and said, Ye have seen all that the Lord did before your eyes in the land of Egypt, unto Pharaoh, and unto all his servants, and unto all his land. The great temptations which thine eyes have seen, the signs, and those great miracles ; yet the Lord, by all these impressive means, hath not given you an heart to perceive,” &c. From the whole, I conclude that there are two kinds of influence by which God works on the minds of men : First, That which is common, and which is effected by the ordi- nary use of motives presented to the mind for considera- tion. Secondly, That which is special and supernatural. The one is exercised by him as the moral Governor of the world ; the other as the God of grace, through Jesus Christ. The one contains nothing mysterious, any more than the influence of our words and actions on each other; the other is such a mystery that we know nothing of it but by its effects.-The former ought to be effectual; the latter is so. * You sum up the question in fewer words by asking, What is the love which God hath for those whom he hath not chosen to eternal life 2 I should answer, The good- will of the Creator, whose tender mercies are over all his works. It is that tender regard for the work of his hands which nothing but sin could extinguish, and which in the infliction of the most tremendous punishments is alleged in proof of its malignity, and to show how much they were against the grain of his native goodness, and that he would not have punished the offenders after all had not the inalienable interests of his character and government required it. Such are the ideas conveyed, I think, in Gen. vi., “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth ;” and in Isa. xxvii. 11, “He that made th m will not have mercy upon them, and he that formed them will show them no favour.” THE PRAYER OF THE WICKED. “Ought a wicked man to pray ?” THE declaimer who denied this position seems to have had an eye to those passages of Scripture which declare “the sacrifice and way of the wicked to be an abomination to the Lord” (Prov. xv. 8, 9); and to have concluded from them that God does not require any sacrifice or prayer at their hands. But, if so, why did Peter exhort the sor- cerer to pray ? Acts viii. 22. And wherefore is the fury of God denounced against the families that call not upon his name 4 Jer. x. 25. An hypothesis which flies in the face of the express language of Scripture is inadmissible, and the framer of it, to be consistent, should avow himself an infidel. If he meant only to deny that God requires such prayers as wicked men actually offer, the prayer of a hard, im- penitent, and unbelieving heart, I have no controversy with him. God cannot possibly approve any thing of this kind. But then the same is true of every other duty. Wicked men do nothing that is well-pleasing to God; nothing which is aimed at his glory, or done in obedience to his authority ; every thing that is done is done for self- ish ends. If they read the Scriptures, it is not to know the will of God and do it; or, if they hear the word, it is not with any true desire to profit by it. Even their pur- suit of the common good things of this life is that they may consume them upon their lusts; hence the very “ ploughing of the wicked is sin,” Prov. xxi. 4. Yet the declaimer himself would scarcely infer from hence that it is not their duty to read the word of God, nor attend to the preaching of the gospel, nor pursue the necessary avocations of life ; neither would he reckon it absurd to exhort them to such exercises as these. The truth is, wicked men are required to do all these things, not carnally, but with a right end and a right In this way Simon Magus, though “in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity,” was exhorted to spirit. *- * See Bellamy's True Religion Delineated, second edition, pp. lll pray; not with a hard and impenitent heart, but with a spirit of true contrition. “Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thy heart may be forgiven thee.” To repent and pray is the same thing in effect as to pray penitently, or with a con- trite spirit. Wicked men are required to read and hear the word, but not with a wicked spirit; and to plough the soil, but not that they may consume its produce upon their lusts. There are not two sorts of requirements, or two stand- ards of obedience, one for good men, and the other for wicked men; the revealed will of God is one and the same, however differently creatures may stand affected towards it. The same things which are required of the righteous, as repentance, faith, love, prayer, and praise, are required of the wicked, John xii. 36; Acts iii. 19 ; Rev. xv. 4. If it were not so, and the aversion of the heart tended to set aside God’s authority over it, it must of necessity follow that a sinner can never be brought to repentance, except it be for the commission of those sins which might have been avoided consistently with the most perfect enmity against God! And this is to undermine all true repent- ance; for the essence of true repentance is “godly sor- row,” or sorrow for having displeased and dishonoured God. But if, in a state of unregeneracy, a man were under no obligation to please God, he must of course have been in- capable of displeasing him ; for where no law is, there is no transgression. The consequence is, he can never be sorry at heart for having displeased him; and as there would be but little if any ground for repentance towards God, so there would be but little if any need of faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ. If in a state of unregeneracy he were under no obligation to do anything pleasing to God, and were so far rendered incapable of doing any thing to displease him, so far he must be sinless, and therefore stand in no need of a Saviour. Where there is no obli- gation, there can be no offence ; and where there is no offence, there needs no forgiveness. Thus the notions of this declaimer, who, I suppose, would be thought very evangelical, will be found subversive of the first principles of the gospel. ASPECT OF. GOSPEL PROMISES TO THE WICKED. [Suggested by certain queries addressed to the writer on his exposi- tion of the beatitudes. See pp. 483, 484.] - THE queries put to me, with so much candour and kind- ness, by a Constant Reader, are such as I feel no difficulty in answering. And I do it with the greater pleasure, because it is not the first time of my being misunderstood on this subject; and I might add, in one instance, largely mis- represented. Your correspondent then will give me credit, when I assure him that I should never think of addressing an awakened sinner in the way in which he supposes I should not; but in the way in which he sup- poses I should. If he be still at a loss how to reconcile this acknowledgment with the passage he calls in question, I must request him to consider whether there be not a mani- fest difference between comfort being held out in a way of invitation, to induce a sinner to return to God by Jesus Christ, and its being given in a way of promise, on the supposition of his having returned. The wicked is invited to forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and to return unto the Lord ; and all this while he is wicked. Mercy also, and abundant pardon, are promised him, not, however, as wicked, but as forsaking his way and his thoughts, and as returning to the Lord. The weary and heavy laden, by which I understand sinners considered as miserable, are invited to come to Jesus with their burdens; but it is as coming to him, and as taking his yoke, that rest for their souls is promised to them. All the comfort contained in the gospel is to be presented to the sinner in a way of invitation; but no comfort is afforded him in a way of promise, but as repenting and believing the gospel. “Say ye to the wicked, it shall be ill with him.”—“There is no peace, saith my God, unto the wicked.” POWER AND INFLUENCE OF THE GOSPEL. 975 Now it requires to be noticed that the beatitudes, which I was expounding, are not invitations to believe, but pro- mises to believers. In saying, “The gospel has no comfort for impenitent, though distressed sinners, in their present state,” I meant, it promises no mercy but on supposition of their coming off from that state to Jesus Christ. My design was not to direct the attention of the awakened sinner to any thing in himself for comfort; but to beat him off from false comforts, by assuring him that mere distress was no proof of his being, as yet, in a state of salvation: If such a one should ask me, What must I do? I should think of nothing but of pointing him to the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world. But if he tell me his tale of woe, under an idea that something may be found in it to which the promises of mercy are made, (and such cases are not uncommon,) I should answer, Think nothing of this, my friend; unless your distress lead you to relin- quish every false way, and to cast yourself as a perishing sinner on Jesus Christ for salvation, it is of no account. The gospel promises nothing to mere distress. , Your con- cern is not to look into yourself for evidences of grace, (the existence of which, at present, is extremely doubtful, and the discernment of it may be impossible,) but to the atonement of Christ, the hope set before you. Power AND INFLUENCE OF THE GOSPEL. “What is the true meaning of those parts of the New Testament which declare the gospel to have a powerful operation in the souls of men, especially in believers? See Rom. i. 16; 1 Cor. i. 18.24; 1 Thess. ii. 13. And is the power of the gospel in any sense to be distinguished from the power and influence of the Holy Spirit; or are they always connected; or do both include one and the same Divine operation : * THAT the gospel of Christ has an influence on the souls of men cannot be denied : as a means it is naturally adapt- ed to this end. Even where it is not cordially believed, it is often known to operate powerfully upon the mind and conscience. It is natural to suppose that it should do so : the human mind is so formed, as that words, whether spoken or written, should influence it. We cannot read or hear a discourse of any kind, if it be interesting, without being more or less affected by it; and it would be very surprising if the gospel, which implies our being utterly undone, and relates to our everlasting well being, should be the only subject in nature which should have no effect upon us. The gospel also being indited by the Holy Spirit, the influence which it has upon the minds of men is ascribed to him. It was in this way, that is, by the preaching of Noah, that the Spirit of Jehovah “strove’” with the antediluvians. It was in this way that he was “resisted” by the Israelites; that is, they resisted the messages which the Holy Spirit sent to them by Moses and the prophets. Hence the expressive language in the confession recorded in Neh. ix. 30, “Many years didst thou testify against them by thy Spirit in thy prophets.” Also the pointed address of Stephen, to those who rejected the gospel of Christ, in Acts vii. 51, “Ye do always re- sist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.” This, for aught I can conceive, may with propriety be called the common operation of the grace of God. As the gospel has an effect upon the minds and con- sciences even of many who do not cordially believe it, much more does it influence those who do. In them it works effectually, transforming them into its own likeness, 1 Thess. ii. 13. Their hearts are cast into it as into a mould, and all its sacred principles become to them prin- ciples of action. The grace, the wisdom, the purity, the justice, and the glory of it, powerfully subdues, melts, and attracts their hearts to love and obedience. The power of God had often been exerted by various means, and to va- rious ends. Thunder and smoke, blackness and darkness and tempest, as displayed on Mount Sinai, were the power of God unto conviction. Overwhelming floods, and de- vouring flames, in the case of the old world, of Sodom and Gomorrah, were the power of God unto destruction. Nor were these means better adapted to their ends than is the gospel to be the power of God unto salvation. It has ever pleased God by this means, weak and despised as it is in the account of men, “to save them that believe.”—“This is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.” - The above is offered as an answer to the former part of the question. But it is inquired, “Is the power of the gospel upon believers in any sense to be distinguished from the power and influence of the Holy Spirit 3" That the power of the gospel in the hearts of believers is the power of the Holy Spirit is admitted. All that the gospel effects is to be attributed to the Holy Spirit, who works by it as a means. It is called “the sword of the Spirit,” Eph. vi. 17; its influence, therefore, is as much the influence of the Spirit as that of a sword is of the hand that wields it. That obedience to the truth by which our souls are purified is “through the Spirit,” 1 Pet. i. 22. Indeed all the means, whether ordinances or providences, or whatever is rendered subservient to the sanctification and salvation of the souls of men, are under the direction of the Holy Spirit. The influence, therefore, which they have to these ends is reckoned his influence. But it does not follow from hence that “the power of the gospel is in no sense to be distinguished from the power of the Holy Spirit, or that the one is always connected with the other, or that they both necessarily, and in all cases, include one and the same Divine operation.” The contrary of each of these positions appears to be the truth. The passages al- ready adduced speak of the influence of the word upon those, and those only, who believe ; and then the question is, How is it that a sinner is brought to believe? The word of God cannot, in the nature of things, oper- ate effectually till it is believed; and how is this brought about? Here is the difficulty. Belief, it may be said, in other cases is induced by evidence. This is true ; and if the hearts of men were not utterly averse from the gospel, its own evidence, without any supernatural interposition, would be sufficient to render every one who heard it a be- liever. But they are averse; and we all know that evi- dence, be it ever so clear, will make but little impression upon a mind infected with prejudice. The Scriptures speak of “sanctification of the Spirit, and the belief of the truth,” as distinct things; and as if the one was antecedent to the other, 2 Thess. ii. 13. They also tell us that “the Lord opened the heart of Lydia, and she attended to the things which were spoken by Paul.” We are said to “be- lieve, according to the working of his mighty power, which he wrought in Christ when he raised him from the dead,” Eph. i. 19, 20. It would not require more power to be- lieve the gospel than any other system of truth, if the heart were but in harmony with it; but as it is not, it becomes necessary that a new bias of heart should be given as a preparative to knowing or embracing it. The Scriptures not only speak of knowledge as the means of promoting a holy temper of heart, but of a holy temper as the foundation of true knowledge. “I will give them a heart to know me, that I am the Lord,” Jer. xxiv. 7. If it be objected that “faith comes by hearing, and hear- ing by the word of God,” I answer that faith must have an object, or it cannot exist. The word of God is the objective cause of faith; but it does not follow from hence that it is its sole or compulsive cause. Eating cometh by food, and food by the blessing of God upon the earth. Food may be said to be the objective cause of a man’s eating, seeing he could not have eaten without food; but it does not therefore follow that food was the impul- sive or sole cause of his eating ; for had he not been bless- ed with an appetite, he would not have eaten, though sur- rounded by food in the greatest plenty. If it be further objected that we can form no rational idea of the influence of the Holy Spirit, any otherwise than as through the medium of the word ; I answer, we can form no idea of the influence of the Holy Spirit at all, either with or without the word, but merely of its effects. We may indeed form an idea of the influence of truth upon our minds, but we cannot conceive how a Divine influence accompanies it. Nor is it necessary that we should, any more than that we should comprehend “the way of the Spirit,” in the quickening and formation of our animal nature, in order to be satisfied that we are the creatures of God. It is sufficient for us that we are conscious of 976 ANSWERS TO QUERIES. certain effects, and are taught in the Scriptures to ascribe them to a Divine cause. THE NATURE OF REGENERATION. “Does the Spirit of God, in regeneration, produce a new principle in the heart, or only impart a new light in the understanding !” THE question, as stated by your correspondent, I consider as important, and as admitting of a satisfactory answer. Whether I shall be able to afford him satisfaction, I can- not tell; but will do the best I can towards it. If we were called to determine how or in what manner the Holy Spirit operates upon the human mind, great difficul- ties might attend our inquiries; but the purport of this question seems to relate, not to the modus of his opera- tions, but to the nature of what is produced. To this I should answer, The Spirit of God in regeneration does produce a new principle in the heart, and not merely im- part a new light in the understanding. The reasons for this position are as follow :- First, That which the Holy Spirit imparts in regener- ation corresponds with his own NATURE : it is holiness, or spirituality. “That which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” But mere light in the understanding, as distinguished from the bias or temper of the heart, has nothing in it spiritual or holy; it is a mere exercise of intellect, in which there is neither good nor evil. The Scriptures, it is true, make frequent mention of spiritual light, and of such light being imparted by the Spirit of God; but the terms light and knowledge, as frequently used in Scripture, are not to be understood in a literal, but in a figurative sense. As spiritual darkness, or blindness, is not a mere defect of the understanding, so spiritual light is not the mere supplying of such a defect. Each of these terms conveys a compound idea ; the one of ignorance and aver- sion, the other of knowledge and love. Hence the former is described as blindness of the heart, and the latter as un- derstanding with the heart. If I understand any thing of the theory of the human mind, there is a kind of action and reaction of the understanding and the affections upon each other. We are not only affected with things by our judgment concerning them, but we judge of many things as we are affected towards them. Every one feels how easy it is to believe that to be true which corresponds with our inclinations. Now, so far as the decisions of the judgment are the consequence of the temper of the heart, so far they are either virtuous or vicious. Of this kind is spiritual blindness. Men do not like to retain God in their knowledge. They desire not the knowledge of his ways. Hence ignorance, in this figurative or com- pound sense of the term, is threatened with the most awful judgments : “Pour out thy wrath upon the heathen that know thee not.”—Christ will come “in flaming fire to take vengeance on them that know not God.” Of this kind also is spiritual light. Hence the following language: “I will give them a heart to know me.”—“God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” This is that holy or spiritual knowledge which it is life eternal to pos- sess; of which the natural man is destitute ; which would lead us to ask for living water ; and which, had the Jewish rulers possessed, “they would not have cruci- fied the Lord of life and glory.”—“Ye neither know me nor my Father,” said our Lord to the Jews: “if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.” The want of this knowledge was the sin of the Jews ; and, as we have seen already, stands threatened with Divine judgments: but the mere want of knowledge, according to the strict and literal meaning of the term, and where it arises not from any evil bias of heart, which has in- duced us to slight or neglect the means, is not criminal ; on the contrary, it excuses that which would otherwise be criminal. Ahimelech pleaded his ignorance of David’s supposed rebellion, before Saul ; and it ought, no doubt, to have acquitted him. If the Jews had not enjoyed such means of knowledge as they did, comparatively speaking, they had not had sin.-Further, Spiritual knowledge, or knowledge according to the figurative or compound sense of the term, has the promise of eternal life; but knowledge, literally taken, as distinguished from the temper of the heart, may exist in the most wicked characters, such as Balaam and Judas ; and though in itself it be neither good nor evil, yet it may be, and generally is, an occasion of greater aversion to God and religion. Thus our Lord told the Jews : “Ye have both seen and hated both me and my Father.” Thus also many among us who have long sat under the preaching of the gospel, and long been the subjects of keen conviction, feel their enmity keep pace with their knowledge; and thus, at the last judgment, sinners will see and know the equity of their punishment; so that “every mouth will be stopped, and all become guilty before God ; ” yet the enmity of their hearts, there is reason to think, will be thereby heightened, rather than diminished. In short, mere knowledge is in itself neither good nor evil, though it is essential to both good and evil; that is, it is essential to moral agency. If knowledge were obliterated from the mind, man would cease to be an ac- countable being. In every condition of existence, there- fore, whether pure or depraved, he retains this, in differ- ent degrees; and will retain it for ever, whatever be his final state. From hence I conclude that what is produced by the Holy Spirit in regeneration is something very different from mere knowledge. Secondly, That which the Holy Spirit produces in re- generation corresponds with the nature of DIVINE TRUTH; but the nature of Divine truth is such that mere light in the understanding is not sufficient to receive it. In proof of the former of these positions, I refer to the words of the apostle, in Rom. vi. 17, “Ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you,” or rather, according to the marginal reading, “into which ye were delivered.”* The gospel, or the “form of doctrine’’ which it contains, is a mould, into which the heart, softened like melted wax, is, as it were, “delivered,” or cast, and whence it receives its impression. Every mark or line of the gospel mould leaves a correspondent line in the re- newed heart. Hence Christians are represented as having the “truth dwelling in them ; ” their hearts being a kind of counterpart to the gospel.—That mere light in the un- derstanding is not sufficient to receive the gospel will ap- pear by considering the nature of those truths which it contains. If they were merely objects of speculation, mere light in the understanding would be sufficient to re- ceive them ; but they are of a holy nature, and therefore require a correspondent temper of heart to enter into them. The sweetness of honey might as well be known by the sight of the eye as the real glory of the gospel by the mere exercise of the intellectual faculty. Why is it that the “natural man receiveth not the things of the Spi- rit of God, neither can he know them ; ” but “because they are spiritually discerned ?” A spiritual or holy tem- per of heart is that in the reception of gospel truth which a relish for poetry is in entering into the spirit of a Milton or a Young. Mere intellect is not sufficient to understand those writers; and why should it be thought unreason- able, or even mysterious, that we must possess a portion of the same spirit which governed the sacred writers in order properly to enter into their sentiments? Thirdly, That which the Holy Spirit communicates in regeneration corresponds with the nature of DIVINE RE- QUIREMENTs. In other words, the same thing which is required by God as the Governor of the world is bestowed by the Holy Spirit in the application of redemption ; both the one and the other is not mere light in the understand- ing, but a heart to love him. The language of Divine re- quirements is as follows:—“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and soul, and mind, and strength.” —“Circumcise the foreskin of your hearts, and be no more stiffnecked.”—“Make you a new heart, and a new spirit; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?”—“Only fear the Lord, and serve him in truth, and with all your hearts.” The language of the promises is perfectly correspondent * Ets Öv trapedo6nre. THE NATURE OF REGENERATION. 977 with all this, with respect to the nature of what is be- stowed :—“And the Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.”—“A new heart will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you ; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh.”—“And I will put my fear in their hearts, and they shall not depart from me.” Fourthly, That which the Holy Spirit communicates in regeneration, being the great remedy of human nature, must correspond with the nature of the MALADY : but the malady of human nature does not consist in simple ig- norance, but in the bias of the heart; therefore such must be the remedy. That regenerationſ is the remedy of hu- man nature, and not the implantation of principles which were never possessed by man in his purest state, will ap- pear from its being expressed by the terms “washing” and “renewing;" the washing of regeneration, the renew- ing of the Holy Spirit; which convey the ideas of restor- ing us to purity, and recovering us to a right mind. Re- generation implies degeneracy. The nature of that which is produced therefore by the one must correspond with that which we had lost, and be the opposite of that which we possessed in the other. Now that which we had lost was the love of God and our neighbour. “Love is the fulfilling of the law :” love, therefore, comprehends the whole of duty ; consequently the want, or the opposite of love, comprehends the whole of depravity. If it be said, No, the “understanding is darkened ”—True, but this is owing to the evil temper of the heart, Eph. iv. 18.* There is no sin in being ignorant, as observed before, any further than that ignorance is voluntary, or owing to some evil bias. This we are sure is the case with wicked men, with respect to their not understanding the gospel. “Why do ye not understand my speech 4’” said our Lord to the Jews. The answer is, “Because ye cannot hear my word.” His word did not suit the temper of their hearts; there- fore they could not understand it. Prejudice blinded their eyes. Here then lies the malady; and, if the remedy correspond with it, it must consist in being “renewed in the spirit,” or temper, “of our minds;” and not merely in having the intellectual faculty enlightened. It may be said, we cannot love that of which we have no idea ; and therefore light in the understanding is ne- cessary to the exercise of love in the heart. Be it so ; it is no otherwise necessary than as it is necessary that I should be a man in order to be a good man. There is no virtue or holiness in knowledge, further than as it arises from some virtuous propensity of the heart, any more than there is in our being possessed of human nature. This, therefore, cannot be the grand object communicated by the Holy Spirit in regeneration. Should it be further objected, That those who plead for a new light in the understanding mean by it more than mere speculative knowledge—that they mean spiritual or holy light, such as transforms the heart and life ; to this I should answer, If so, the light or knowledge of which they speak is something more than knowledge, literally and properly understood : it must include the temper of the heart, and therefore is very improperly distinguished from it. To represent men as only wanting light is indeed ac- knowledging their weakness, but not their depravity. To say of a man who hates his fellow man, “He does not know him—if he knew him, he would love him ;” is to acknowledge that the enmity towards the injured person is owing to mere mistake, and not to any contrariety of temper or conduct. The best of characters might thus be at variance, though it is a great pity they should, especial- ly for any long continuance. If this be the case between God and man, the latter is not so depraved a creature as we have hitherto conceived him to be. The carnal mind is not enmity against God, but merely against an evil being, which in his ignorance he takes God to be. To this may be added, if sin originate in simple ignorance, (which is supposed, in that the removal of this ignorance is sufficient to render us holy,) then it is no more sin; nor is there * Ata thv répoquy ris Kapčías abrov, Through the callousness of their heart. 3 R any such thing as moral evil in the universe. So far as we can trace our actions to simple ignorance, or ignorance in which we are altogether involuntary; so far, as we have already seen, we may reckon ourselves innocent, even in those cases wherein, had we not been ignorant, we should have been guilty. These are serious conse- quences; but such as at present appear to me to be just. The above is submitted to the consideration of Tardus, and the reader, as the result of the maturest reflections of the writer. FAITH NOT MERELY INTELLECTUAL. THE candour and ingenuity of your correspondent induce me, though the subject seemed to be concluded, to offer a brief reply. And if I understand his FIRST QUESTION, it amounts to this, “Whether faith includes any thing more than an exercise of pure intellect or not, yet it will be allowed to include something intellectual ; and is not that a duty ? Surely faith in all its parts is the duty of every one.” I answer, The exercise of the intellectual faculty may be necessary to a holy exercise, and yet make no part of the holiness of it. We cannot perform any spiritual act without the powers of humanity; but it is not as hu- man that they are spiritual or contain obedience to God. If, as the Scriptures teach, “ love be the fulfilling of the law, and all the law be fulfilled in one word, love ; ” all the various acts, whether corporeal or mental, which are the subject of commandment, can be no other than the diversified expressions of love. So much of love as there is in them, so much of obedience, and no more. Take away love from fear, whether of God or our parents, and you reduce it to a mere dread of displeasure as a natural evil, which has nothing holy in it, but may exist in all its force even in devils. Take away love from the exercise of charity, and it ceases to be obedience to God or bene- volence to man. Even those exercises which have their more immediate seat in the intellectual faculty, as knowing and judging, have just so much of holiness or unholiness, and are just so much of the nature of obedience or disobedience, as they contain in them of love or aversion. Knowledge is no further an exercise of duty, nor ignorance of sin, than as the means of Divine instruction are voluntarily used or neglected. The same may be said of judgment. If I decide, though it be in favour of truth, yet if it arise not from a candour of mind that is willing to receive it as the will of God, whatever be its bearings, there is no more obedience in it than in the just notions of the discreet scribe, Mark xii. 28. If, on the contrary, I judge erro- neously, it is no further an exercise of disobedience than as I am warped by an evil bias of heart, which inclines me to reject or neglect the truth. Error which proceeds not from these causes is mere mistake, for which none is criminated either by God or man. If David had been a conspirator against Saul, lying in wait for his life, as the latter suggested, and Ahimelech had erred in treating him as he did, yet knowing nothing of all this, less or more, he ought to have been acquitted. The same remarks apply to faith and unbelief. As to the latter, I suppose it will be allowed to be just so far a sin and no further than as it arises from aversion to the truth, which leads men to reject or neglect it. Yet it may be said of this, as well as of faith, “Does Mr. F. hold the dissent of the understanding to be any part of unbelief? If so, surely unbelief in all its parts is a sin.” But un- belief is not a sin, considered simply as an exercise of the intellectual faculty ; or rather that which is such is not the unbelief of the Scriptures, which is attributed to a cor- rupt state of the will, and from whence alone arises its sinfulness, 1 Pet. ii. 7, 8. And why should not the same be allowed of faith ? If a mere dissent of the understand- ing be not the unbelief of the Scriptures, a mere assent of the understanding cannot be the faith of the Scriptures. So far as any thing is an exercise of pure intellect, unin- fluenced by the disposition of the soul, it is merely na- tural; and duty is no more predicable of it than of the 978 ANSWERS TO QUERIES. sight of the eye, or any other natural exercise. Nothing is duty any further than as it is voluntary, or arises from the moral state of the mind. No duty therefore can be performed by a depraved creature, but in consequence of regenerating grace. This is a truth so clearly taught in the Scriptures that I wonder your correspondent should call it in question. Does he not know that “the carnal mind is enmity against God, and is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be;” and that therefore “they that are in the flesh cannot please God?” If this passage, as well as many others, do not teach us that no obedience is or can be yielded while the sinner is “in the flesh,”—that is, in a state of unre- generacy, —what does it teach But if this be allowed, and faith admitted, as it is, to be an act of obedience to God, it must of necessity be preceded by regeneration ; other- wise they that are in the flesh may please God. If I have not strangely mistaken your correspondent, he admits of as much as this in his last paper. He admits the necessity of candour of heart, or of the mind being purged from prejudices by Divine influence, in order to believing ; and very properly places the duty of men in such an unprejudiced attention to Divine truth. “The gospel,” says he, “proves its author as the sun its Creator; and we need only to attend, and to have the mind purged from prejudices, that we may possess complete conviction concerning both. This is the indispensable duty of all, though no man will perform it but through Divine in- fluence.” Again, “Though the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God, but accounts them folly; yet a person under the influence of the Spirit of God, de- livered from the blinding prejudices common to men, and attentive to the Divine testimony, judges it to be true.” If these be really the fixed principles of your correspond- ent, and not merely a slip of the pen, we are agreed; and there needs no further discussion on the subject. As to the seconD QUESTION, I do not know of anything worth disputing between us. Whether believing Christ, and believing in or on Christ, convey precisely the same idea or not, we are agreed that both are characteristic of real Christianity, and have the promise of salvation. - Whether I be able to maintain what I suggested, that the former of these phrases ordinarily respects Christ as a witness of the truth, and the latter as being himself the sum and substance of truth, or not, I am not aware of any doctrine of the gospel, or any sentiment which either of us embraces, being affected by it. From a brief review of the passages referred to, I have but very little doubt of the phrase, believing in or on Christ, being ordinarily ex- pressive of believing him to be the Messiah, and the only way of salvation, that is, the sum and substance of truth, rather than a witness of the truth. It is true, he sustained both these characters; and accepting or rejecting him in either involved a reception or rejection of him in both. But I wish to examine this matter more closely than I have hitherto been able to do, for want of leisure ; not because I apprehend any consequence to hang upon it, but merely to come at the true meaning of Scripture language. FAITH REQUIRED BY THE MORAL LAW. “In what sense is faith reckoned (Matt. xxiii. 23) by our Saviouſ amongst the weightier matters of the law 7" I HAVE no doubt but that a belief of the gospel of Christ, even such a one as is connected with salvation, is required by the moral law, and is one of its most weighty matters; for the moral law requires love to God with all the heart: and love to God would certainly lead us to embrace any revelation which he should make of himself; such a re- velation especially in which the glory of God is provided for in the highest degree. But the term faith, in Matt. xxiii. 23, I consider as synonymous with fidelity or vera- city, being ranked with judgment and mercy, which are duties of the second table. ON CHRISTIAN LOVE. “As all mankind are alike sinners in the eyes of God, exposed to his anger, under his control, and within the power of his grace, are they not alike entitled to our compassion and regard 7 And as all the saints are alike chosen of God, redeemed by Christ, sanctified by the Spirit, &c., are they not alike entitled to our affection and esteem : Seeing also that much has been said and done to diffuse the gospel, and promote a spirit of brotherly love among real Christians of all de- nominations, is it not inconsistent with this general design that the various friends of missionary societies among Episcopalians, Inde- pendents, Baptists, &c., should appear to be so intent on promoting the particular interests of their respective societies as not to feel an equal concern for the rest? One is fervently praying for the mission- aries in the east, and makes their labours the topic of his conversation, while those in the south are nearly overlooked, or lightly regarded; and vice versa. But why not bestow a like degree of love and zeal upon the common cause !” THE above statement overlooks an important truth ; namely, that though all sinners are alike under God’s eye, control, and anger, and within the power of his grace, yet they are not alike within our knowledge, care, and charge. And though all saints are alike entitled to our esteem, as chosen of God, as redeemed by Christ, as sanc- tified by the Spirit, &c., yet they are not all known alike to us, nor alike under our immediate watch and care. The wall of Jerusalem, considered as a whole, was an object that interested every godly Jew who had a mind to work, yet every man repaired neart unto his own house, and con- sequently was more assiduous to raise that part of it than any other. If any one, indeed, had been so intent upon his piece of the wall as to be regardless of the rest, and careless about the work as a whole, it had been criminal; but, while these were properly regarded, he might be al- lowed to be particularly attentive to his own special work, to which he was appointed. It is wisely ordered that it should be so; for if the mind were taken up entirely in generals, by aiming at every thing, we should accomplish nothing. The Turks and Chinese are alike sinners, and stand in need of mercy as well as the people to whom a minister preaches; but he is not equally obliged to pray for, and seek to promote, their salvation as he is that of the people “over whom the Holy Spirit hath made him an overseer.” The children of heathen families are alike objects of God’s knowledge, anger, &c., as those of our own ; but they are not alike known to us, nor equally objects of our paternal care. It is very possible that Episcopalians, Independents, Baptists, &c. may be each too much concerned about their own party, and too imattentive to the prosperity of others, even in those respects wherein they consider them as con- forming to the mind of Christ ; but perhaps the whole of this ought not to be attributed to a sinful partiality. Let one society speak of the mission to Africa and the East; another inform us of what God is doing by a Wanderkemp and a Kitcherer; and another of what he is accomplishing by Carey and his companions, &c. In all this they only “build against their own houses,” and report progress to their brethren for the stimulating of the whole. Only let them bear good-will one to another, and rejoice in all the goodness vouchsafed to either of them ; and the wall will rise, and in due time the work of one will meet that of another, so as to form a whole. ON CHRISTIAN CHARITY. [From the Biblical Magazine.] THE question proposed in the first number of your Maga- zine, p. 13, is, I confess, attended with some “difficulty;” and, without pretending to “pronounce a decisive sen- tence” upon it, I beg leave to offer a few remarks tending to prosecute the inquiry. Your correspondent, Minimus, “understands by Chris- tian charity the second great command, as confirmed and illustrated by our Lord Jesus Christ.” That he did by his doctrine and conduct illustrate “the second great com- mand,” and display all the virtues of “Christian charity,” CHARACTER NOT DETERMINED BY INDIVIDUAL ACTS. 979 is undoubtedly true; but it may admit of a doubt whether these be exactly of the same import; because—(1.) There seems to be a difference between the nature of Christian charity and that love which is required in the second com- mandment. The latter is love to our neighbour; the for- mer is love to a Christian : the latter is love for his own Sake, the former is love for Christ’s sake : the latter is pure benevolence; the former includes complacency. The Scriptures denominate Christian charity to be a brotherly love, or a love to Christians as brethren : “Be ye kindly affectioned one to another, with brotherly love, in honour preferring one another.”—“Let brotherly love continue,” Rom. xii. 10; Heb. xiii. 1. According to this, the object of Christian love must be one who is esteemed a Christian brother; but the object of the second great command ex- tends to all mankind, irrespective of their moral qualities. (2.) Christian love is by our Lord called “A new com- mandment.” Speaking to his disciples, he says, “A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another,” John xiii. 34. Some, indeed, have supposed that it is so called on account of its being revived by our Lord, after having been neglected by the Jews, and discountenanced by their teachers: others have thought that it is so called by way of excellence; but the peculiar phraseology of the passage is not satisfactorily accounted for by either of these suppositions. It rather seems that Christian charity, or love, is called “a new commandment” because of its being a love to Christians as such, which, though virtually contained in the second great command, yet was not spe- cifically required by it. The church of God was now no longer to be national, but should be formed of Christians individually, amongst whom there should be no other bond of union than that of pure Christianity. Hence it is that this “new commandment” is suited to a new dispensation. If the distinction here attempted be at all just, then “the duties of Christian charity" do not so properly relate to our dispositions and conduct toward our “fellow men '' as toward our fellow Christians ; and, with respect to the latter, it appears to me that these duties are equally con- cerned in “the judgment we form of their actions and characters” as in “our disposition and conduct toward them.” With respect to the question, “Whether charity ought to have any influence on our judgment, or be equally free from a favourable as from an unfavourable bias,” I would answer, No further than to induce us to put a good con- struction upon every thing that will admit of it. If an action will bear a favourable or an unfavourable construc- tion, uncharitableness will induce the judgment to suspect the worst—charity to hope the best. It “hopeth all things, believeth all things.” CHARACTER NOT DETERMINED BY INDI- VIDUAL ACTS. “Was not David a regenerate man when he slew Uriah by the sword of the children of Ammon; and, if so, how can we reconcile his conduct with the apostle's assertion—that “no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him,’ 1 John iii. 25?” THE difficulty here suggested would vanish, if it were considered that, while the quality of actions is determined by their relation to the Divine law, the estimate we form of character must be regulated by the habitual course of the life and conduct. If we were to form our opinion of men from particular events in their lives, we should pro- nounce Noah a drunkard, Aaron an idolater, Jacob a liar, David a murderer, and Peter an apostate ; and each of these characters is excluded from the kingdom of God. But such a judgment would evidently be harsh and erro- neous, because these things were not of a piece with their general character, but most entirely opposed thereto. The apostle, in the words referred to, is describing those who “go in the way of Cain,” and whose character and spirit resemble his. Such a man, he affirms, “hath not eternal life abiding in him.” But in this sense David was not a murderer. His sin, in the matter of Uriah, was not the result of those prin- ciples on which his character was formed, but a melan- choly proof of the force of temptation, even in the case of an eminently good man. ON SATAN’S TEMPTATIONS. “l. Ought we to ascribe any part of our conduct which is not ab- solutely sinful to the agency of Satan? There appears to have been nothing ‘absolutely sinful' in the conduct of the Corinthians towards the incestuous. “2. How are we to know, in all cases, whether our actions be pro- duced by the force of Satan’s temptations, operating on the depravity of our will and affections, or whether those actions be the effects of our depravity merely, without Satanic influence l’” I FREELY confess that I am unable to speak to the second question in any case. Neither do I know what to ascribe to the Holy Spirit, or to holy angels, as being conscious of the influence of either. It is only the effect produced of which I am conscious. I am taught in the Scriptures to ascribe whatever is good to the Holy Spirit. I am also taught in the Scriptures, especially in the prophecies of Daniel, that holy angels have great influence on the minds even of princes, and consequently on the great events of the world. But no one, I suppose, is conscious of any thing of the kind. We all know that the minds of men are influenced by thousands of causes without themselves. Man is a leaf shaken by every wind; the least accident may so affect him as to give a turn to the most important concerns of his life. We also know that no influence from without us destroys our agency or accountableness. If we were to take away a man's life, in order to obtain his property, we should not think of excusing ourselves by alleging that we were influenced to do so by some person having told us that he was very rich. I apprehend we are not so much to consider Satan as working immediately as mediately. He is “the god of this world ; ” the riches, pleasures, and honours of it, to- gether with the examples of the wicked, are the means by which he ordinarily works upon the souls of men. The bird need not fear the fowler, if it avoid the snare; nor the fish the fisherman, if it do but shun the bait. Respecting the occasion of the question, I beg leave to say that the extraordinary exertions of the late excellent minister referred to have, in my judgment, been noticed by some persons with undue severity. Had they pro- perly attended to the account which Mr. PEARCE himself has given of this matter, every unfavourable idea would have vanished; and pity, blended with love and admiration, would have superseded every complaint. In the Memoirs of this dear man, p. 197, when writing to an intimate friend, he thus expresses himself:-‘‘Should my life be spared, I and my family, and all my connexions, will stand indebted, under God, to you. Unsuspecting of danger myself, I believe I should have gone on with my exertions till the grave had received me. Your attention sent the apothe- cary to me, and then first I learned, what I have since been increasingly convinced of—that I was rapidly destroying the vital principle. And the kind interest you have taken in my welfare ever since has often drawn the grateful tear from my eye. May the God of heaven and earth reward your kindness to his unworthy servant, and save you from all the evils from which your distinguished friendship would have saved me.”—To another of his friends he also declared, very seriously, that, “if ever he incurred guilt of this kind, it was through error of judgment respecting the strength of his constitution, and that he adopted a system of precaution as soon as he apprehended danger.” It has also been insinuated by some that his persuasion that he ought to be a missionary must have been a delu- sion, as appeared from the result; for he did not go. But if this be just reasoning, it was delusion also in Mr. Grant; for he was taken away almost immediately after his arrival at the scene of action. The desire likewise of David to build a house for God must have been altogether delusion; though we are assured it was taken well of Him by whom actions are weighed. The truth is, there are but few men who are proper judges of such a character. We are most 3 R 2 980 ANSWERS TO QUERIES. of us at so great a distance from his spirit as to be in danger of thinking such extraordinary zeal to be a species of extravagance. ON THE OBEDIENCE AND STUFFERING OF CHRIST. “1. Did not the law of God require of Christ, considered as a man, a perfect obedience on his own account If it did, how can that obe- dience be imputed to sinners for their justification ? “2. How does it appear to be necessary that Christ should both obey the law in his people's stead, and yet suffer punishment on the account of their transgressions; seeing obedience is all the law re- quires 7 To the former I should answer, The objection proceeds upon the supposition that a public head, or representative, whose obedience should be imputable to others, must pos- sess it in a degree over and above what is required of him. But was it thus with the first public head of mankind 3 Had Adam kept the covenant of his God, his righteous- ness, it is supposed, would have been imputed to his pos- terity, in the same sense as the righteousness of Christ is imputed to believers; that is, God, to express his appro- bation of his conduct, would have rewarded it, by confirm- ing him and his posterity in the enjoyment of everlasting life; yet he would have wrought no work of supereroga- tion, nor have done any more than he was required to do on his own account. - But though, for argument's sake, I have allowed that the human nature of Christ was under obligation to keep the law on his account; yet I question the propriety of that mode of stating things. In the person of Christ the Divinity and humanity were so intimately united, that perhaps we ought not to conceive of the latter as having any such distinct subsistence as to be an agent by itself, or as being obliged to obey or do any thing of itself, or on its own account ; Christ, as man, possessed no being on his own account. He was always in union with the Son of God; a public person, whose very existence was for the sake of others. Hence his coming under the law is re- presented, not only as a part of his humiliation, to which he was naturally unobliged, but as a thing distinct from his assuming human nature ; which one should think it could not be, if it were necessarily included in it. He was “made of a woman, made under the law ; ”—“made in the likeness of men, he took upon him the form of a servant ;” *—“being found in fashion as a man, he be- came obedient unto death.” As to the second question, Obedience is not all that the law requires of a guilty creature (and in the place of such creatures our Saviour stood): a guilty creature is not only obliged to be obedient for the future, but to make satis- faction for the past. The covenant made with Adam had two branches: “Obey, and live; sin, and die.” Now the obedience of Christ did honour to the preceptive part of the covenant, but not to the penal part of it. Mere obe- dience to the law would have made no atonement, would have afforded no expression of the Divine displeasure against sin; therefore, after a life spent in doing the will of God, he must lay down his life; nor was it “possible that this cup should pass from him.” As obedience would have been insufficient without suffering, so it appears that suffering would have been insufficient without obedience ; the latter was preparatory to the former.f. “Such an High Priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners.” And such a meetness could not have appeared, but by a life of obedience to God. As a Mediator between God and man, it was necessary that he should be, and appear to be, an enemy to sin, ere he could be admitted to plead for sinners. Such was our Redeemer to the last, and this it was that endeared him to the Father. “Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above * See Doddridge's Translation of Phil. ii. 7. + 1 use the terms obedience and suffering, the one to express Christ's conformity to the precept of the law, the other his sustaining the thy fellows.” Finally, the sufferings of Christ could go only to the removal of the curse; they could afford no title to eternal life, which being promised on condition of obedience, that condition must be fulfilled in order to in- sure the blessing. Hence it is by “the righteousness of one’” that we partake of “justification of life.” The great ends originally designed by the promise and the threatening were to express God's love of righteous- ness and his abhorrence of unrighteousness ; and these ends are answered by the obedience and sufferings of Christ, and that in a higher degree, owing to the dignity of his character, than if man had either kept the law or suffered the penalty for the breach of it. But if Christ had only obeyed the law, and had not suffered ; or had only suffered, and not obeyed ; one or other of these ends must, for aught we can perceive, have failed of being ac- complished. But his obedience wrºto death, which includes both, gloriously answered every end of moral government, and opened a way by which God could honourably, not only pardon the sinner who should believe in Jesus, but bestow upon him eternal life. Pardon being granted with a view to Christ's atonement would evince the resolution of Jehovah to punish sin; and eternal life being bestowed as a reward to his obedience would equally evince him the friend of righteousness. ON JESU S GROWING IN WISDOM AND FCNOWLEDGE. “How could Jesus grow in wisdom and knowledge, if he were the true God, and consequently infinite in both?” IF there be any difficulty in reconciling these ideas, it must be on the supposition that a union of the Divine and hu- man natures in the person of Christ implies a communica- tion of properties; i. e. that whatever property belongs to him as a Divine person it must, on his assuming human nature, belong to him as human. But I know of no such sentiment being held by any Trinitarian. It is always maintained, so far as I know, that as Christ was very God, he retained all the peculiar properties of Godhead; and as he was made very man, he assumed all the peculiar pro- perties of manhood. The above supposition, so far from belonging to the doctrine of what is called the hypostatical union, is utterly inconsistent with it; for if the union of the human nature to the Divinity imply that it must be- come infinite in wisdom and knowledge, it also implies that it must become omnipresent and almighty. And it might be with equal propriety asked, How could Jesus grow in stature and strength, if he were infinite in power? as, How could he grow in wisdom and knowledge, if he were infinite in both 3 But this is equivalent to asking, How could he be “a child born,” and yet be called “the mighty God?” that is, How could he be both God and mam 3 Further, If a union between the Divine and human na- tures of Christ imply a communication of properties, why should not that communication be mutual 3 There is just as much reason for concluding that all the imperfections of humanity should be imparted to the Divinity as that all the perfections of Divinity should be imparted to the hu- manity. But this would form a contradiction ; as it would be supposing him to retain neither perfection nor imperfec- tion, and so to be neither God nor man. But if we admit the Scripture account of things, no such consequences will follow. If that eternal Life that was with the Father was so manifested to us as to be capa- ble of being heard, and seen with own eyes, and looked wipon, and handled; in other words, if he were a Divine person, always existing with the Father, and was manifested to us by the assumption of human nature, and if each nature, though mysteriously united, yet retain its peculiar proper- ties; all is consistent. Things may then be attributed to Christ which belong to either his Divine or his human na- penalty of it; though, in strict propriety of speech, the obedience of Christ included suffering, and his suffering included obedience. He laid down his life in obedience to the I’ather, ON READING THE SCRIPTURES. 981 ture; he may be a child born, may grow up from infancy to age, increase in knowledge, in wisdom, and in stature ; be subject to hunger, and thirst, and weariness, and pain; in a word, in all things “be made like unto his brethren ; ” and at the same time be, in another respect, “the mighty God,”—“upholding all things by the word of his power.” “If thou be the Son of God,” said Satan, “ command that these stones be made bread.” This was insinuating that it was inconsistent for so Divine a personage, who had the command of the whole creation, to be subject to want; but the answer of Jesus intimates that he was also the Son of man ; and that, as such, it was fitting that he should feel his dependence upon God. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, after asserting the dignity of the great Author of Christianity, as not only superior to angels, but acknowledged by the Father as God, “whose throne was for ever and for ever,” obviates an objection that would arise from his deep humiliation ; showing the necessity there was for his being made like unto his brethren, chap. i., ii. Socinians may amuse themselves and their admirers by talking of the absurdity of God being exposed to suffering, and of a man of Judea being the Creator of the world. They know well enough, if they had candour sufficient to own it, that it is not as God that we ascribe the former to him, nor as man the latter: yet, owing to the intimate union of Divinity and humanity in his person, there is an important sense in which it may be said that “the Prince,” or author, “ of life” was killed ; that “God purchased his church with his own blood ; ” that “hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us;” that “our great High Priest, Jesus, the Son of God, was touched with the feelings of our infirmities; ” and that he who was born in Bethlehem “was before all things, and by him all things consist.” oN READING THE SCRIPTURES. I Do not wish the following remarks to supersede any other answer which may enter more fully into the subject. All I have to offer will be a few hints from my own experience. In the first place, I have found it good to appoint set times for reading the Scriptures; and none have been so profitable as part of the season appropriated to private de- votion on rising in the morning. The mind at this time is reinvigorated and unencumbered. To read a l art of the Scriptures, previous to prayer, I have found to be very useful. It tends to collect the thoughts, to spiritualize the affections, and to furnish us with sentiments where with to plead at a throne of grace. And as reading assists prayer, so prayer assists reading. At these seasons we shall be less in danger of falling into idle speculations, and of perverting Scripture in support of hypotheses. A spiritual frame of mind, as Mr. Pearce some where observes, is as a good light in viewing a painting; it will not a little facilitate the un- derstanding of the Scriptures. I do not mean to depreciate the labours of those who have commented on the sacred writings; but we may read expositors, and consult critics, while the “spirit and life’’ of the word utterly escape us. A tender, humble, holy frame is perhaps of more import- ance to our entering into the mind of the Holy Spirit than all other means united. It is thus that, by “an unction from the Holy One, we know all things.” In reading by myself, I have also felt the advantage of being able to pause, and think, as well as pray; and to in- quire how far the subject is any way applicable to my case, and conduct in life. In the course of a morning's exercise it may be supposed that some things will appear hard to be understood ; and I may feel myself, after all my application, unable to re- solve them. Here, then, let me avail myself of comment- ators and expositors. If I read them instead of reading the Scriptures, I may indeed derive some knowledge; but my mind will not be stored with the best riches; nor will the word “dwell richly in me in all wisdom and spiritual un- derstanding.” If, on the other hand, I read the Scriptures, and exercise my own mind on their meaning, only using the helps with which I am furnished when I particularly need them, such knowledge will avail me more than any other; for, having felt and laboured at the difficulty myself, what I obtain from others towards the solution of it be- comes more interesting and abiding than if I had read it without any such previous efforts. And as to my own thoughts, though they may not be superior nor equal to those of others, in themselves considered, yet, if they be just, their having been the result of pleasing toil renders them of superior value to me. A small portion obtained by our own labour is sweeter than a large inheritance be- queathed by our predecessors. Knowledge thus obtained will not only be always accumulating, but of special use in times of trial ; not like the cumbrous armour which does not fit us, but like the sling and the stone, which, though less brilliant, will be more efficacious. I may add, it were well for those who can find leisure to commit to writing the most interesting thoughts which oc- cur at these seasons. It is thus that they will be fixed in the memory; and the revision of them may serve to rekin- dle some of the best sensations in our life. DIFFERENCE IN THE FRAME OF MIND WHEN ENGAGED IN SOCIAL AND SECRET PRAYER. I TAKE it for granted that Stephanus means to say that at the same time when it was common for him to find great liberty and zeal in public prayer it was usual for him to be lifeless, barren, and uncomfortable in private ; otherwise there would be no difficulty in the case. That such a state of mind should excite a jealousy of himself is not surprising. Stephanus inquires after its cause and cure. As to the former, permit me to ask, Are you not more influenced by the presence of creatures than by His pre- sence who fills heaven and earth 2 Is there not a spice of vanity that prompts you to wish to appear to advantage when in company with your fellow men; an emulation that stimulates invention, and which by a kind of intellect- ual friction, like that of the wheels of a machine, warms your faculties, and works up your powers to an earnestness that is in danger of being mistaken for religious zeal 3 Such has not unfrequently been the case among professors of religion. Let me further ask, Have you not indulged in some besetting sin, to which God and your conscience only have been witness 3 Private prayer is the season for such things to come to remembrance, rather than in the exercise of more public duties. Hence it may be that your face shall be covered with shame, and your soul be struck as by the darts of death, when in private ; while in your more public exercises, not considering yourself as called upon to confess private sins, you may think but little about them. Let me suppose Stephanus to be a young man, and to have offended his father. Should he be admitted into public company with his father, he will not feel so great a difficulty in addressing him there, as if he was introduced into a private apartment, and was obliged to converse with him alone. In the former case, his private feelings, as be- ing unknown to the company, will not be noticed ; in the latter, the conversation can turn upon nothing else. I do not presume to determine that this is the case with Ste- phanus; but this I say, such causes are adequate to such effects, and it becomes Stephanus to inquire if they have no influence in his case. - As to the cure, that is certainly a very improper step which he proposes—declining to engage in public prayer. Let him rather betake himself to private prayer, attended with close examination and humiliation before God : this will render public prayer more easy. If Stephanus had offended his father, as supposed above, and if, after a little free conversation with him in public company, he should feel dejected and sullen, and should be ready to resolve that he would never enter a company again with his father, because, though he could speak freely to him there, yet he was always reserved when alone, would this be lovely 3 Let him rather reflect, and ask, Is there not a cause 3 Let sº º 982 ANSWERS TO QUERIES. him resolve on this wise, I will arise and go to my Father in secret, and will say, “Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.” Let him give no rest to his eyes, nor slumber to his eyelids, till all is reconciled ; otherwise, whether he pray in public or desist, his soul will be exposed to the most imminent danger. NATURE OF INDWELLING SIN. . “Is the love of sin eradicated from the regenerate º Though it lives in them, is it not their sorrow and detestation ?” IF the question had been whether the love of sin be the governing, prevailing, and habitual principle in the re-. generate, there could be no doubt of its being answerable in the negative. Holiness is represented as the law of the believer's mind. It is the governing and habitual principle of his soul, and that which gives it its leading bias. It is that which rules in the ruling power of the soul—“ the mind;” which is equal to saying that it reigns. If a right- ful prince, after being driven from his throne by a rebel- lion, should so far recover it as to rule in the proper place of rule, and compel his enemies to quit the reins of govern- ment, and seek refuge in their private haunts, he is truly said to reign. Thus the grace of God becoming “the law of the mind,” and the power of carnality being driven, as it were, to take its main residence in “the members,” working not by open daylight, but by deeds of darkness, the former, and not the latter, is truly said to have the do- minion over us. And as every being is denominated by his governing disposition, so holiness is that from which believers are denominated in the Scriptures; it is that which gives them their character. There is a sense in which good men, as well as others, are sinners, as every good man will acknowledge ; but when the Scriptures describe them, it is not as sinners, but as saints. The character of sinners distinguishes the un- regenerate. Though, strictly speaking, “there is no man that doeth good, and sinneth not,” yet believers are de- scribed as not doing evil, but good. “He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil is of the wicked one.”— “He that is born of God sinneth not.”—“ He that loveth the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” All these modes of speaking are descriptive not of what is universal, but of what is general and habitual. course of the wicked, but righteousness of the righteous. But to say that the love of sin is eradicated from the re- generate, is saying that sin has no place in their affections, and that their affections are never entangled by its influ- ences; and wherein this differs from saying that they are sinless I do not understand. If sin has no place in the affections, it has no place in the soul ; for the affections are the proper seat of good and evil. As the whole of duty is summed up in love, so the whole of sin may be summed up in the contrary. Moreover, if sin has no place in our affections, it has none in our choice ; for choice is an affection of the mind, by which it prefers one thing to another, or likes this rather than that. When the acts of the will are distinguished from those of the affections, it is rather a distinction of degree than of nature. But if all evil choice were eradi- cated, all sin would be eradicated. Whatever there was, it must absolutely be involuntary ; and that which is such is not sin. It is impossible for the mind to feel any con- scious guilt on account of it, any more than for the contor- tions of a convulsed state of the body. Dr. Owen, in his admirable treatise on “The Nature of Indwelling Sin,” has proved, I think, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the essence of all sin lies in aversion of heart, and that this aversion is “ universal, to all of God, and in all of the soul.” Nor need we have recourse to the judg- ment of Dr. Owen : experience will teach every reflecting mind that he sins not, but as his will and affections are drawn away from God after things which are forbidden. I have observed this opinion to be maintained on very different grounds. Some worthy characters, observing the Sin is the constant loose conduct of certain professors, and their attempts to excuse themselves by pleading that believers are not free from the love of sin, and therefore they ought not to be criminated or suspected on that account, may have been tempted to maintain the contrary, as necessary to the honour of God and religion. But God does not require us to defend his cause by stretching any doctrine beyond what it will bear. Such characters ought rather to be told that every plea for self-indulgence taken from the sins of God’s people indicates a prevailing love of sin, which is inconsist- ent with true religion. In other instances, the same thing is maintained by loose characters themselves, who, while they are living in sin, contrive to transfer the love of it from themselves to the “ old man” that is within them. Paul, speaking of him- self as a renewed man, represents the working of evil in him as contrary to the habitual bias of his soul; as repug- nant to the governing principle of his mind ; and, there- fore, as being not himself, but sin that dwelt in him. Paul, however, was not a loose character; nor did he speak in this manner from a desire to excuse himself in sin. That which he said of himself in an improper or figurative sense, such people understand literally, and infer that sin in them is absolutely involuntary. The opposite principles of good and evil, denominated “ the old and new man,” they con- sider as distinct agents, or as voluntary beings, who carry on a contest, of which the man himself is only an involum- tary spectator. But as in all the exercises of grace it is we that repent, believe, love, &c.; so in all the exercises of evil it is we that sin, and that must be accountable. The querist asks, “Whether sin, though it dwells in the regenerate, be not to their sorrow and detestation.” Un- doubtedly it is ; and herein the experience of Paul is op- posed to theirs who make use of his language to excuse themselves in sin. The body of sin was to him “a body of death,” which rendered him “ wretched,” and from which he longed more than any thing to be “delivered.” But a detestation of sin, unless it were perfect in degree, does not imply the eradication of loye to it. The same soul, as influenced by opposite principles, may be the sub- ject of both hatred and love. In proportion however as one operates, the other must necessarily subside. PRESERVATION AGAINST BACKSLIDING. “What are the best means of preservation against backsliding 7 ° IT is usual with us to confine the idea of a backslider to a good man. I apprehend the Scriptures do not use the term always in this sense. Backsliding always supposes a religious profession; but does not necessarily imply that this profession is sincere. The ungodly Israelites, who had not the fear of God in them, are termed backsliders in Jer. ii. 19. Saul and Judas would be accounted back- sliders, in the Scriptural sense of the term, as well as David and Peter. The backslidings of the latter were partial, and of the former total. But I shall suppose the querist to be a good man, and that he feels a proneness to depart from the living God : perhaps some particular temptation may entangle him, or easy-besetting sin perplex him : he may have had several narrow escapes from open scandal, and may be appre- hensive that in some unguarded moment he may be drawn into that which may ruin his future peace and usefulness. Were I a stranger to such exercises, I should be but ill qualified to write upon the subject. The case of back- sliders has lately been much impressed upon my mind. Great numbers I am persuaded among professing Chris- tians come under this denomination. At present I shall only offer three or four directions to the consideration of the querist, or any other whose case they may suit. Every means should be used that may stop the avenues of temptation, or prevent its coming in contact with the evil propensities of the heart.—If there be nitre in our habitations, it becomes us to beware of fire. Such was the counsel of our Lord to his disciples in a season of peculiar danger; “Watch and pray, that ye enter not into tempt- PRESERVATION AGAINST BACKSLIDING. 983 ation.” He had himself entered that field, and came out a conqueror ; but he knew what was in man, and counselled them rather to avoid than court the contest. In cases where the heart begins to be seduced by temptation, it will soon become restless, solicitous, and importunate ; it will moan after it, and be exceedingly fruitful in devices to get into the way of it; it will persuade conscience, for once, at least, to be silent ; it will blind the mind to the evil, and paint the desirableness of the good; and, if all this will not do, it will promise to be only a looker-on, or that thus far it will go, and no further.—But if thou hast any regard to God or his cause, or to the welfare of thine own soul, consent thou not Temptation leads to sin, and sin to death. Whatever company, amusement, occupation, or connexion has frequently caused thee to Qöend, that is the eye that requires to be plucked out, lest thy soul bleed in the end beneath the stroke of God's displeasure. . 2. Beware of the first stages of departure from God. All backslidings begin with the heart, Jer. ii. 19. From hence are the issues of life. Private prayer, it may be, at first becomes wearisome ; no communion with God in it : it is then occasionally neglected : hence public ordinances cease to afford their wonted pleasure; Christian society is dropped ; the world takes up your attention, and you have little or no time to spare for religion; some carnal acquaintance, perceiving you to be coming, draws you on ; recommends you to read some one of the liberal productions of the times, by which you are to learn that there is no need to be so rigid in religion, and no harm in frequenting the theatre, or in devoting a part at least of the Lord's day to visiting or amusement. These are a few of the seeds of death, from whence have sprung many a bitter harvest. “Beware of sin, then, crush it at the door; If once ’tis in, it may go out no more l’” BUNYAN. 3. If thou hast in any degree been drawn aside, give no rest to thy soul till thy sin is crucified, and thy conscience reconciled by the blood of the cross. It is too common for sin to be worn away from the memory by time and new occurrences, instead of being washed away at the gospel fountain ; but where this is the case, the stain is not re- moved, and its effects will sooner or later appear, perhaps in a form that may cause the ear of every one that heareth it to tingle. “He that honoureth me, saith the Lord, will I honour; and he that despiseth me shall be lightly esteemed.” If we care so little for the honour of God’s name as to be unconcerned for secret faults, we may ex- pect he will care as little for the honour of ours, and will give us up to some open vice that shall cover us with infamy. 4. If some extraordinary temptation or easy-besetting sin perplex thee, bend not thy attention so much to the subduing of that particular evil as to the mortification of sin in general; and this not so much by directly opposing it as by cherishing opposite principles.—We may heal an eruption in a particular part of the body, and yet the root of the disease may remain, and even be gathering strength. We may also be employed in thinking of our sins without gaining any ascendency over them ; on the contrary, they may by those very means obtain an ascendency over us. If we go about to quench a fire by directly contending with it, we shall presently be consumed by its flames; but, by applying the opposite element, it is subdued be- fore us. It is thus that the Scriptures direct us : “Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh.” The heart cannot be reduced to a vacuum ; if spiritual things do not occupy it, carnal things will. It is by walk- ing with God and conversing with the doctrine of the cross that we shall become dead to other things; and this will go to the root of the evil, while other remedies only lop off the branches. MINISTERIAL CALL AND QUALIFICATIONS. “How may a man ascertain his election of God to the ministry of the gospel? And what are sufficient qualifications for that important office 7 ° I conceive an answer to the latter part of the question will enable a person to decide upon the former; it being a principle which may be taken for granted, that whoever possesses the essential qualifications for the Christian mi- nistry is called of God to exercise them. “Every man that hath received the gift” is commanded of God “to minister the same as a good steward of the manifold grace of God.” Only let him take heed that “if he speak, it be according to the oracles of God.” Now the Scriptures are not silent on the qualifications of a bishop : see 1 Tim. iii. 1–7. By a bishop I must be allowed to understand not a lord in lawn, but a Christian pastor. And besides those requisites which belong to his moral and religious character, there are two things which appear to be absolutely necessary to the discharge of this sacred office ; one is, that he have a true desire after it, and the other, an ability for it. The former of these qualifications is included in the terms, “if a man desire the office of a bishop.” It is supposed that this desire shall spring from a pure motive, and not from the love of ease, affluence, or applause ; but from a concern to glorify God and promote the salvation of men. It is necessary, in my judgment, that there should be a special desire of this sort ; a kind of fire kindled in the bosom, that it would be painful to extinguish. The latter qualification is contained in those expressive terms, “apt to teach.” He must possess not only an inventive mind, but a kind of natural readiness in communicating his ideas. e Neither of these qualifications is sufficient in itself. A man may have a desire after the Christian ministry, and that desire may arise from the purest motives; and yet, having no competent ability for the work, he is certainly not called of God to be employed in it. I doubt not but the Lord will take it well that it was in the heart of such persons to build him a house, though their desire may never be accomplished. On the other hand, a person may not only be a good man and judicious, but possess a readiness in communicating his ideas ; and yet, having no special thirst after the work of the ministry, or of thus promoting the salvation of souls, he is unfit to engage in it. Of the former qualification every man must be his own judge; for who else can be acquainted with his desires and motives? Of the latter, those with whom we stand connected. Whether we be “apt to teach" is a question on which we ought not to decide ourselves : those are the best judges who have heard us, and been taught by us. When a congregation of Christians invite a person to serve them in the gospel, it is sufficient proof that they consider him as equal to the undertaking. If a person so invited be but clear as to the former qualification, I conceive he may leave the latter to the judgment of others; and con- clude that, so long as a door is opened for him to preach the gospel, he is called of God to do so. F U GIT I V E PIE C E S. THE NECESSITY OF SEEKING THOSE THINGS FIRST WHICH ARE OF THE FIRST IMPORTANCE. A GREAT part of the evil which prevails in the world consists in an entire neglect of what God commands, or in doing what he has expressly forbidden; but not the whole of it. There may be an attachment to many things which in themselves are right, and yet the whole may be rendered worse than void by the want of order, or a regard to things according to their importance. Our Lord did not censure the Pharisees for attending to the lesser matters of the law, but for attending to them “to the neglect of the greater.” If we pursue things as primary which ought to occupy only a secondary or subordinate place in the system, we subvert the whole, and employ ourselves in doing what is worse than nothing. I think I see the operation of this principle among us, and that to a wide extent. I see it among the unconverted, among the converted, and among different parties or de- nominations of Christians. First, It is by this that great numbers who lay their accounts with obtaining the kingdom of heaven will be found to have deceived themselves. It may be too much to say of them that they do not seek the kingdom of God; but they seek it not as a first or primary object. The world is their chief good, and the kingdom of God only occupies a secondary place in their affections. They wish to attend to their everlasting concerns ; but they cannot spare time. Now we can commonly spare time for that which we love best. The sensualist can find time for his pleasures, and the man of the world for getting money. They can think of these things when sitting in the house, or walking in the way ; and every thing else is made to bend, or give way to them. The result is, this preposter- ous conduct mars the whole ; for God and religion must be supreme, or nothing. There are certain relations, even among us, in which it is impossible to be contented with a secondary place. If a wife give her heart to another than her husband, and aim only to oblige him so far as to keep him in tolerably good humour, it is what cannot be endured : he must be first, or nothing ; and such is the claim of heaven. Secondly, It is owing to this, among other causes, that many Christians go from year to year in doubt, with respect to their interest in Christ and spiritual blessings.—It is very desirable to have clear and satisfactory views on this subject. To live in suspense on a matter of such import- ance must, if we be not sunk in insensibility, be miser- able. How is it that so much of this prevails among us; when, if we look into the New Testament, we shall scarcely see an instance of it among the primitive Chris- tians? Shall we cast off all such characters as unbelievers ? Some have done so, alleging that it is impossible for a person to be a believer without being conscious of it, Surely this is too much ; for if the grace of God within us, whatever be its degree, must needs be self-evident to us, why are we directed to keep his commandments as the means of “knowing that we know him 3’” The primi- tive Christians, however, had but little of this fear ; and the reason of it was, they had more of that perfect love to Christ, to the gospel, and to the success of it, than we have, which tended to “cast out fear.” If we make our personal comfort the first object of our pursuit, (and many attend the means of grace as if they did,) God will make it the last of his ; for it is a general principle in the Divine administration, “Him that honoureth me I will honour; but he that despiseth me shall be lightly esteemed.” If we seek the honour of God, we shall find our own peace and comfort in it; but if we make light of him, he will make light of us, and leave us to pass our days in darkness and suspense. Thirdly, It is owing, if I mistake not, to the same cause that various denominations of Christians, who at some periods have been greatly blessed of God, have declined as to their spiritual prosperity. Several of our religious denominations have arisen from a conscientious desire to restore Christianity to its primitive purity. From this motive acted, I believe, the greater part of the Reformers, the puritans, the nonconformists, and the Baptists. I do not know that any one of these denominations were cen- surable for the separations which they made from other professing Christians. It may be alleged that they have torn the church of Christ into parties, and so occasioned much evil : yet some of them did not separate from the church of Christ, but from a worldly community calling itself by that name ; and those who did, pretended not to be the only people of God in the world, but considered themselves merely as “withdrawing from brethren who walked disorderly.” It is a melancholy fact, however, that no sooner have a people formed themselves into a new denomination than they are in the utmost danger of con- centrating almost all their strength, influence, zeal, prayers, and endeavours for its support ; not as a part of Christ's visible kingdom, wishing all good to other parts in so far as they follow Christ, but as though it were the whole of it, and as though all true religion were circumscribed within its hallowed pale. This is the essence of a sectarian spirit, and the bane of Christianity. I am a Dissenter, and a Baptist. If I confine my re- marks to the faults of these denominations, it is not because I consider them as greater sinners in this way than all others, but because I wish more especially to correct the evils of my own connexions. If we wish to promote the dissenting interest, it must not be by expending our principal zeal in endeavouring to make men Dissenters, but in making Dissenters and others Christians. The principles of dissent, however just and important, are not to be compared with the glorious gospel of the blessed God; and if inculcated at the expense of it, it is no better than tithing mint and cummin, to the omitting of the weightier matters of the law. Such en- deavours will be blasted, and made to defeat their own end. Those Dissenters among whom the doctrines of the puritans and nonconformists have fallen into disrepute are generally distinguished by this species of zeal; and it is principally from such quarters that complaints are heard of “the decline of the dissenting interest.” Where they are believed and taught, and their progress, whether among Dissenters or others, viewed with satisfaction, we hear of no such complaints. It is a curious fact that, while a cer- tain description of Dissenters are inquiring into the causes EVIL THINGS WHICH PASS UNDER SPECIOUS NAMES. 985 of the decline of the dissenting interest, a certain descrip- tion of the established clergy are inquiring into the causes of its increase : If we wish to see the Baptist denomination prosper, we must not expend our zeal so much in endeavouring to make men Baptists, as in labouring to make Baptists and others Christians. If we lay out ourselves in the common cause of Christianity, the Lord will bless and increase us. By rejoicing in the prosperity of every other denomination, in so far as they accord with the mind of Christ, we shall promote the best interests of our own. But if we be more concerned to make proselytes to a party than converts to Christ, we shall defeat our own end ; and however just our sentiments may be with respect to the subjects and mode of baptism, we shall be found symbolizing with the Phari- sees, who were employed in tithing mint and cummin, to the neglect of judgment, mercy, and the love of God. ON PARTY SPIRIT. THERE appears to be a mistaken idea, too commonly pre- vailing in the religious world at present, respecting what is called a party spirit. Many professors, while they endeavour to promote the interests of religion in general, too often neglect to pay that attention which is due to the interest and welfare of that class or denomination of Christians in particular with which they are or have been connected. It is not uncom- mon to see one of these “candid” Christian professors keep at a distance from his own denomination, or party, where that denomination stands most in need of his countenance and support; while he associates with another party, which is sanctioned by numbers and worldly influence. And when the inconsistency of his conduct is hinted at, he will excuse himself by saying, in the cant phrase of the day, That it is his wish to promote the interests of religion in general, and . not to serve a party. I wish some of your correspondents would expose the conduct of such fawning professors in its true colours; and endeavour to convince them that in vain are all pretensions to Christian candowr where consistency and integrity are wanting. ON EVIL THINGS WHICH PASS UNDER SPE- CIOUS NAMES. THERE is something in the nature of evil, which, if it ap- pear in its own proper colours, will not admit of being defended or recommended to others; he, therefore, who is friendly to it is under the necessity of disguising it, by giving it some specious name, in order to render it current in society. On the other hand, there is something in the nature of good, which, if it appear in its own proper colours, cannot well be opposed : he therefore who wishes to run it down is obliged first to give it an ill name, or he could not accomplish his purpose. This species of imposition, it is true, is calculated only for superficial minds, who re- gard words rather than things ; but the number of them is so great in the world, and even in the church, that it has in all ages been found to answer the end. In the times of the prophet Isaiah, there were those who “called evil good, and good evil, who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter;” but as the woe of heaven was then denounced against the practice, it becomes us to beware of going into it, or being imposed on by it. It is not the design of the writer to trace this abuse of language through any part of his history or politics, or any other worldly department; but merely to notice a few terms which are very current in our religious circles :— such as moderation, liberality, charity, &c., on the one hand; and bigotry, narrowness of mind, and ill-nature, on the other. There is a spirit gone forth in the present age which is calculated to do more harm in the church of God than the most erroneous doctrine that has been advanced since the days of the apostles. It bears a favourable aspect towards those systems of divinity which depreciate the evil of sin, the freeness of grace, the dignity of Christ, and the glory of his righteousness as the only ground of acceptance with God; so much so that it is seldom known to oppose them. Or if, for the sake of preserving its reputation, it strikes an occasional blow at them, yet it is with so light a hand as never to hurt them. It takes no decided stand on this side or that, and thereby obtains admission among all parties. If the friends of Christ meet together, it wishes to meet with them, though it be only to oppose every measure which may bear hard upon its favourite designs, and would take it very unkind to be treated as an intruder. If his enemies be assembled, it will also be there ; and, if no un- trusty brother be in company, will commonly manifest itself to be then most in its element. Now, let a spirit of this kind make its appearance in any other department than religion, and observe how it will be treated. In the year 1745, for instance, when the great question in the country was, Shall we support the reigning family, and the constitution; or shall we admit the pre- tender, with popery and arbitrary power in his train what would have been thought of a man who should have pretended to be on neither this side nor that, but talking against war, and in favour of moderation, liberality, and charity towards the unhappy youth, (who by landing on our shores had greatly endangered his life,) made use of all his influence to oppose every decided measure tending to drive him from the country 4 “Sir,” they would have said, “you are on the side of the pretender, and deserve to be taken up as a traitor.” And had he complained of their bigotry, narrow-mindedness, and ill-nature, his re- monstrance would have deserved no regard. But is the cause of God and truth of less importance than the tem- poral prosperity of a nation ? Surely not If, indeed, our differences consist merely in words; or, though they should be things, yet if they do not affect the first principles of the doctrine of Christ, considering the imperfections which attach to the best of men, a spirit of moderation or forbearance is here in character. When we have frankly spoken our minds, we may with a good con- science leave it, and join with our brethren, notwithstand- ing, in the work of the Lord. But in differences which respect the principles above mentioned, compromise would be treason against the Majesty of heaven. There were cases in which an apostle allowed that “every one should be fully persuaded in his own mind;”, but there were cases also in which “the doctrine of Christ” was given up ; and if any man came as a minister without this, Chris- tians were directed “not to receive him into their houses, nor to bid him God speed.” Such conduct in the present times would raise a great outcry of bigotry and illiberality; a plain proof this that what passes among us under the names of moderation and liberality is in a great degree antichristian. What is moderation ? The Scriptures recommend a yielding and gentle disposition in things wherein our own name or interest only are concerned.—Such is the modera- tion enforced by Paul ; but when the continuance of the truth of the gospel was at issue, he refused “to give place even for an hour.” The Scriptures also recommend for- bearance in Christians one towards another; but this is far from that spirit of indifference which would confound truth and error, religion and irreligion, the friends of Christ and the men of the world. What is liberality ? The term denotes freedom, or en- largedness of mind. It is applied in the Scriptures merely to that simple, sincere, and bountiful spirit, which com- municates freely to the needy, and stands opposed to a sinister, close, contracted, and covetous disposition. The application of it to sentiments may be proper, when used to describe that enlargedness of mind which arises from an intimate acquaintance with the Scriptures, and an ex- tensive knowledge of men and things. A rigid attachment to modes and opinions merely of human authority is often seen in persons who have read but little, and thought less. Had they seen more of the religious world, and heard more of what is to be said against the notions in which they happen to have been educated, their tenaeity, we may commonly say, might be abated ; in other words, they 986 FUGITIVE PIECES. might be more liberally minded, and moderate in their censures against those who differ from them. But to at- tribute all attachment to principles, and even modes of worship, to illiberality of mind, is itself illiberal. If an attachment, whether it be to one or the other, be the effect of impartial research, and a firm persuasion that they are the mind of God as revealed in his word, it is so far from indicating a bigoted, contracted, or illiberal mind, that it may arise from the contrary. The more we under- stand of Divine truth, the more our minds will be en- larged, and the more decided will be our opposition to error. To call that liberality which holds all doctrines with a loose hand, and considers it as of no importance to salvation whether we believe this or that, is a gross perversion of language. Such a spirit arises not from en- largedness of mind, or from having read much, or thought much ; but from the vanity of wishing to have it thought that they have. This vanity, when flattered by weak or interested men, induces the most ignorant characters to assume imperious airs, and to exercise a kind of contemp- tuous pity towards those who cannot treat the gospel with the same indifference as themselves. A minister who has wished for the liberty of playing fast and loose with Chris- tian doctrines, without being disrespected by his congrega- tion, has been known to compliment them as an enlightened people, and to praise them for thinking for themselves ; while in fact they have neither thought, nor read, nor understood, unless it were a few political pamphlets, and the doctrine of getting money. It seems to be a criterion of this species of liberality that we think well of characters, whatever be their prin- ciples, and entertain the most favourable opinion of their final state. The writer was some time since in a company where mention was made of one who believed in the final salvation of all men, and perhaps of all devils likewise. “He is a gentleman,” said one, “ of liberal principles.” Such principles may, doubtless, be denominated liberal, that is, free and enlarged in one sense;—they are free from the restraints of Scripture, and enlarged as a net which contains a great multitude of fishes, good and bad ; but whether this ought to recommend them is another question. What would be thought of one who should visit the felons of Newgate, and persuade them that such was the goodness of the government that not one of them, even though condemned, would be finally executed ? If they could be induced to believe him, they would doubt- Mess think him a very liberal-minded man ; but it is likely the government, and every friend to the public good, would think him an enemy to his country, and to the very parties whom by his glozing doctrine he had deceived. It is usual to call that man liberal who thinks or pro- fesses to think for himself, and is willing that every other person should do the same. This, if applied to civil society, is just. Christianity will persecute no man for his religious principles, but meekly instruct him, in hope that God peradventure may give him repentance to the acknowledging of the truth. But apply the principle to religious society, and it is inadmissible. If one member of a Christian church be not accountable to another for what he believes, an infidel, in demanding the Lord’s supper from a Christian minister as a qualification for office, demands no more than the other may conscientiously and Scripturally comply with. In refusing to unite with an unbeliever, or a profligate, or one who in my judgment rejects what is essential to the gospel, I do not impose my faith upon him ; but merely decline having fellow- ship with what I consider as a work of darkness. The writer is acquainted with several dissenting churches at this time, which for some years past have acted upon what they call a liberal ground : that is, they have admit- ted men of all sorts of principles into their communion : and if some who once professed to be friendly to the doc- trines of salvation by grace, the Deity and atonement of Christ, acceptance with God through his righteousness, the necessity of the new birth, &c., become their avowed enemies, they take no notice of them ; but leave them, as they say, to judge for themselves. The consequence, however, is, that many of these churches have in a few years become extinct; and those which remain have be- come mere worldly communities, going into many of the dissipations and follies which are practised by none but people who make no pretence to serious religion. I have generally observed that those who are thus liberal in re- gard to principles are seldom far behind as to their prac- tices. Cards, balls, plays, &c., are with them innocent amusements. Such assuredly was not the liberality of Paul. He was, however, of an enlarged mind, and wished much for Christians to be also enlarged. But how ! By opening their doors to worldly men, and holding fellow- ship with all sorts of characters? Not so ; but by the di- rect contrary.—Read 2 Cor. vii. 11, to the end : “O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you ; our heart is enlarged.—Ye are not straitened in us, but in your own bowels.-Beye also enlarged.—Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers.” From hence it would seem that true enlargedness of mind is inconsistent with an indiscriminate communion with unbelievers or worldly characters. And this accords with universal experience. Those Christian societies who are careful to preclude or exclude the enemies of the gospel are in a good degree of one heart, and will feel themselves at liberty to engage in every good work in their social capacity. But those com- munities which are open to all will never be agreed in any thing which requires self-denial, diligence, or devotedness to Christ. One will make this objection to the measure, and another that ; so that nothing will be effected. This is being yoked together with unbelievers; it is like yoking the sprightly horse with the tardy ass, which, instead of helping, only hinders him, and may in time so break his spirit as to render him nearly as tardy as the other. In vain do we separate from national establishments of reli- gion to corrupt ourselves. Nonconformity to the cere- monies of the church is of no account, if it be attended with conformity to the world. If the seven Asiatic churches had been originally formed on these liberal prin- ciples, how came it to pass that they were censured for having those “among them ’’ who held doctrines incon- sistent with Christianity ? On such principles, they might have excused themselves from blame, inasmuch as those individuals were only permitted to think and act for them- selves. SCRIPTURAL TREATMENT OF RICH AND POOR. CHRISTIANS. It is a glory pertaining to the Christian religion that it embraces in one community all ranks and degrees of men. It admits of civil distinctions, and honours every one to whom honour is due ; but at the house of God all this is required to be laid aside. All are brethren, and no ac- count is made of worldly superiority. I have been led to these reflections by comparing the words of the apostle James (chap. i. 9, 10) with a passage which I have lately met with in an otherwise admired publication. “Let the brother of low degree,” says the apostle, “rejoice in that he is exalted; but the rich in that he is made low : because as the flower of the grass he shall pass away.” We see here that joy is the common portion of all believers, whether rich or poor; and that the highest character which either can attain is that of a “brother.” There is, however, some difference in the considerations which are presented for the purpose of in- ducing joy, according to their different situations in life. The poor brother is supposed to be most in danger of in- ordinate dejection; and therefore, as a proper antidote, he must rejoice in being “exalted.” The rich, on the other hand, is most in danger of being lifted up with his situation ; he must, therefore, rejoice in his being “made low.” The adaptedness of the means to the end, in the former instance, is easily conceived ; but there seems to be something a little paradoxical in the latter. Let us examine them. The poor brother's part, by which he is taught to rejoice in adversity, is one in which every Christian heart will rejoice with him. A state of poverty, viewed by itself, is both chilling and cheerless. Nature revolts at it. A lowly habitation, a dry and scanty morsel, mean attire, SCRIPTURAL TREATMENT OF RICH AND POOR. CHRISTIANS. 987 hard labour, and the want of respect among men, are things which cannot be agreeable. If all were alike, it would be somewhat different; but the poor man is affect- ed by the disparity between his condition and that of others. Plenty daily passes by his door; but he scarcely tastes it. If the fig tree blossom, it is not for him ; there is no fruit on his vine, nor flock in his fold, nor herd in his stall. But, “Let the brother of low degree rejoice in that he is exalted.” Come hither, poor man, says the gospel; art thou but withal a Christian here is a feast for thee. ALTHOUGH thy fig tree blossom not, and there be no fruit on thy vine, nor flock in thy fold, nor herd in thy stall; yet mayst thou rejoice in the Lord, and joy in the God of thy salvation : Say not, I am a dry tree; God hath given thee an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. Art thou a servant ? care not for it; thou art the Lord’s free-man. To be an heir of God, a joint-heir with Christ, a son or daughter of the Lörd God Almighty, a fellow citizen with the saints, is an honour which princes might envy | Nor is it altogether in hope. As there is a meanness in sin which renders the character of the sinner, in spite of all his efforts and pretences, contemptible even in his own eyes; so there is a dignity in uprightness which ennobles the mind, whatever be its outward circumstances. This it was imboldened the prisoner, while the want of it caused his judge to tremble, Acts xxiv. 25. That, on the other hand, which is addressed to the rich brother is no less appropriate. He is directed to rejoice, and we should think with good reason, inasmuch as his enjoyment lies in both worlds; but this is not the ground of it. And though he is, in common with his poor bro- ther, interested in gospel privileges, yet they are not here introduced ; but something more suited to counteract that spirit of high-mindedness of which the rich are espe- cially in danger. He is directed to “rejoice in that he is made low.” He must not value himself on any thing of a worldly nature, because “as the flower of the grass he shall,” in that respect, “pass away.” Rather let him re- joice that he has been humbled, and taught, like Moses, to prefer affliction with the people of God to the pleasures of sin for a season. It is true this is rejoicing in what the world accounts a disgrace; but such was the joy of all who gloried in the cross of Christ. Whatever the world may think, there is a solid reason for the opulent Christian to rejoice in his being made low ; for it is a being led to think justly and soberly of himself as he ought to think, and enabled to withdraw his dependence from those de- ceitful enjoyments which will quickly “fade like the grass before the scorching sun.” It will tend also to heighten his joy, if he compare his case with that of the generality of rich men, who are put off with the present world as their only portion. “Not many” of this description “are called.” It is therefore matter of thankfulness to any who are singled out by Divine grace from their com- panions. Christianity is far from promoting a levelling spirit in one sense of the term ; but it is its professed object in another. “Every valley shall be exalted, and every moun- tain and hill made low.” In all that Christ and his apos- tles have done to propagate it, they have made no account of those things which men are apt to set a value upon. Had human wisdom been consulted, the first object would have been to convert those who, on account of office, rank, fortune, or talents, had the greatest influence upon others; and who, by throwing their weight into the Christian scale, would have easily caused it to preponderate. But though some of this description are to be found among the primitive Christians, yet they appear to have taken no leading part among them ; nor is the success of the gospel ever ascribed to their influence. But, descending from their former heights, they took their place among the brethren, rejoicing that they were made low. You are ready to ask, What of this? And what is the passage you have been comparing with it 3 It is as fol- lows:—“Greatly as I wish the reform of principles, and the suppression of vice, I am not sanguine in my expecta- tions of either event, while rank, and station, and wealth throw their mighty influence into the opposite scale. Then, and not till then, will Christianity obtain the do- minion she deserves, when the makers of our manners ism leads to Socinianism, as that does to deism. shall submit to her authority, and THE PEOPLE OF FAs.IIION become THE PEOPLE OF GoD. Christianity, to be sure, will never obtain the dominion she deserves while any class of society continues to set her at nought; but if its scale should be made at last to pre- ponderate by the mighty influence of rank, and station, and wealth being thrown into it, things must proceed on very different principles from what they have done. If I had no hope of Christianity obtaining the dominion “till then,” I should have little or no hope at all ; for though God is able to turn them, as well as others, to himself, yet it is not his usual way of working in order to promote his own cause. Is it not much too great a compliment to pay to men of rank and fashion, to suppose that Chris- tianity will never prevail till it receives “their mighty in- fluence 3’’ Ought they not rather to be told that, if they decline to engage on her side, the consequence will only affect themselves 3 “Deliverance will arise’’ from another quarter, and God will cause his name to triumph without them . According to all that has hitherto appeared, and all that we are taught in the Scriptures to expect, the people of fashion will be the last that shall enter into Christ's kingdom ; and, when they do enter, it will not be to take the lead, but as rejoicing that they are made low. ON THE DANGEROUS TENT) ENCY OF THE DOCTRINE OF UNIVERSAL SALWATION. As the Scriptures abound in representations of Divine truth, and of its influence in sanctifying and saving the souls of men, so they are no less explicit in declaring the unholy and destructive influence of error. It is said to “increase unto more ungodliness,” and to “eat as doth a gangrene.” The same Divine writer speaks of “strong delusion; ” or the energy, mighty working, or effectual operation of error. It is often alleged, in behalf of the ad- vocates of certain doctrines, that, allowing them to be in an error, yet there is no reason to question their sincerity; and, if so, it may be only an innocent mistake. If by sin- cerity be meant no more than that they really believe what they teach, there is no reason to doubt their being pos- sessed of it; but the same was true of the persons described by Paul. Their doctrine was a lie, yet they believed it. Paul, however, was far from reckoning their error on this account an innocent mistake. On the contrary, he repre- sents it as leading to dammation ; and its abettors as right- eously given up of God on account of their not having re- ceived “the love of the truth,” even while professing to embrace it. Without taking upon us to decide how far, and for how long, a real Christian may be drawn aside from the sim- plicity of the gospel, or what degree of error may be found after all to consist with being “ of the truth,”—it is suffi- cient that the natural tendency of these things is destructive. Every man who sets a proper value on his soul will beware of coming within the sweep of that by which multitudes, in all ages of the church, have been carried into perdition. Under the fullest conviction that what has been said of error in general is applicable to the doctrine of universal salvation, or the restoration of men and devils from the abodes of misery to final happiness, we wish, in the most serious and affectionate manner, to caution our readers against it. To this end, we shall point out a few of its dangerous consequences, which, if clearly ascertained, will be so many Fresumptive proofs of the falsehood of the principle. First, The violence which requires to be done to the plain language of Scripture, ere this doctrine can be em- braced, goes to introduce a habit of treating the sacred oracles with levity, and of perverting them in support of a preconceived system. If he who offendeth in one point of the law is guilty of all, in that he admits a principle which sets aside the authority of the Lawgiver; he who perverts a part of the Scriptures to maintain a favourite doctrine, in the same way perverts the whole, and thus renders the word of God of none effect. Hence it is that Universal- One of FUGITIVE PIECES. the leading advocates of this system was warned of this at his outset; and by his late publications, and those of his party, they appear to have given full proof of the propriety of the warning. Secondly, To explain away the Scripture threatenings of eternal damnation is intimately connected with light thoughts of sin; and these will lead on to a rejection of the gospel. The whole doctrine of redemption by the Son of God rests upon “the exceeding sinfulness of sin,” and the lost condition of sinners ; for “the whole need not a physician.” If these, therefore, be given up, the other will follow ; and this is another reason why Universalism will be almost certain to end in Socinianism. The benevolence which is ascribed to God by the advocates of both is in reality connivance ; it is that which must induce him to pardon the penitent without a vicarious sacrifice, and to punish the impenitent only for a time, and that for their ultimate advantage. The Socimians openly renounce the atonement; and though some of the Universalists may at present retain the name, yet they have abandoned the thing.” The corruption of Christian doctrine among the Galatians went to introduce “ another gospel,” and to make “Christ to have died in vain.” But what would Paul have said of this? Let those who have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil judge. Thirdly, If the Scripture threatenings of eternal damna- tion be set aside, and light thoughts of sin admitted, sin- ners will be more and more hardened in their impenitence. The greatest object of desire to a wicked man is, doubtless, a heaven suited to his inclinations: but if this cannot be, his next object is to be exempted from punishment; on which principle he would gladly be annihilated: but if this cannot be, he would next prefer a punishment of short duration ; and if God be supposed, notwithstanding what has been said of eternal damnation, and of sinners being mever forgiven, to intend nothing more than this, he will naturally conclude that the degree of it will be abated, as well as the duration shortened. The same kind of reason- ing from the Divine benevolence which brings him to be- lieve the one will bring him to believe the other. . It cannot be a very fearful thing, he will suppose, to fall into the hands of a Being who will inflict nothing upon him but for his good ; and therefore he will indulge for the present, and abide the consequence. This is not an imaginary pro- cess : it is a fact that these are the principles by which profligate characters, in great numbers, comfort themselves in their sins. When Rousseau was impressed with the doctrine of eternal punishment, he could scarcely endure his existence ; but a lady, with whom he says he was very familiar, used to tranquillize his soul by persuading him ... that “the Supreme Being would not be strictly just, if he were just to us.” If all such characters were as free in their confessions as this debauchee has been in his, there is no doubt but the same tale, in substance, would be told by millions. It is the hope that they shall not surely die—or, if they die, that the second death will consist of annihilation, or at most of only a temporary and tolerable punishment, that makes them comparatively easy. So Uni- versalists and Socinians preach, and so profligates believe, or at least are very willing to believe if their consciences would suffer them. - Fourthly, It is a principle that will universally hold good, that there is no ultimate risk in adhering to truth, but that the utmost danger attends a departure from it. It is thus that we reason with unbelievers: It is possible at least that Christianity may be true; and, if it be, we have infinitely the advantage. But, allowing that it may be false, yet what risk do we run by embracing it ! While we are taught by it to “deny all ungodliness and worldly lusts, and to live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world,” neither your principles nor your consciences will allow you to deny that we are safe. But if that Saviour whom you have despised be indeed the Son of God, if that name which you have blasphemed be the only one under heaven given among men by which a sinner can be saved, what a situation is yours : Apply this reasoning to the subject in hand. If Universalism should prove true, there * See Letters on the Atonement, by the Rev. C. Jerram; a piece in which the real opinions of the Universalists, concerning this all-im- rortant doctrine, are clearly developed and answered. are few if any dangers that can follow from disbelieving it; but if it should prove false, the mistake of its abettors will be inexcusable and fatal. If we be wrong, we can plead that we were misled by interpreting the terms by which the Scriptures ordinarily express the duration of future pun- ishment in their literal or proper sense ; that we found the same word which describes the duration of future life ap- plied in the same passage to the duration of future pun- ishment ; and thence concluded it must mean the same : moreover, that, if any doubt had remained on this head, it must have been removed by eternal damnation being ex- plained in the Scriptures by never having forgiveness, Mark iii. 29. But if they be wrong they can only allege, that observing the terms to be often applied to limited duration they concluded they might be so in this; and, this sense best comporting with their ideas of Divine benevolence, they adopted it. In the one case, our fears will be disap- pointed; in the other, their hopes will be confounded. If the mistake be on our side, we alarm the ungodly more than need be ; but if on theirs, they will be found to have flattered and deceived them to their eternal ruin, and so to have incurred the blood of souls . If we err, our error is much the same as that of Jeremiah, on supposition of the Babylonians having been repulsed, and Jerusalem delivered from the siege ; but if they err, their error is that of the false prophets, who belied the Lord, and said, “It is not he, neither shall evil come upon us.” Which of these paths, therefore, is wisdom's way, we leave our readers to judge. ON THE MYSTERY OF PROVIDENCE, ESPECIALLY IN RESPECT OF GOD’s DEALINGS witH DIF- FERENT PARTS OF THE WORLD IN DIFFERENT AGES. IT has frequently been objected, that if the religion first taught among the posterity of Abraham, and afterwards among the Gentiles by the preaching of Jesus Christ, be of God, how is it that it has been so partial in its operations? The promulgation of a religion adapted to man, it is said, should be as extensive as the globe. The force of this ob- jection has been felt; and Christian writers, in general, have acknowledged that there is a depth in this part of Di- vine providence which it is difficult, if not impossible, to fathom. There are hints to be found in the Scriptures, however, which may throw some glimmering of light upon the subject; and, when the mystery of God is finished, we shall perceive that he has done all things well. In general, we are given to understand that God is an absolute Sovereign in the dispensation of his favours. He was under no obligation to any ; and he will bestow his blessings in such a manner as shall cause this truth to be manifest to all. Man would fain put in a claim, and ac- cuse the ways of Jehovah with being unequal ; but this only proves the perverseness of his own way. The bless- ings of civilization are undoubtedly adapted to man; yet a large proportion of the human race are mere barbarians: even those countries which have, in past ages, ranked high in this respect, are now sunk far below mediocrity; while others, whom they were in the habit of treating with the greatest contempt, have been raised above them. It is thus that the valley is exalted, the mountain made low, and the glory of Jehovah revealed ; but if God may act as a Sovereign in dispensing the bounties of providence, who shall call him to account for doing the same in the distri- bution of the blessings of grace 3 He has, in all ages, manifested his determination, however, to act in this man- ner, let sinful creatures think of it as they may. With respect to individuals, the things of God have been hid from the wise and prudent, and revealed unto babes ; and the same principle has been carried into effect with nations and continents. When the adversaries of sovereign grace meet with this doctrine in the Scriptures, they endeavour to get rid of it by applying it in the latter sense only; but God’s dealings with nations and continents are of a piece with his dealings with individuals; they are only different parts of the same whole. It is observable, that, in the dispensations of mercy, God THE MYSTERY OF PROVIDENCE. 989 has in a wonderful manner balanced the affairs of men, so as, upon the whole, to answer the most important ends in the great system of moral government. In the early ages, for instance, mercy was shown to the posterity of Abraham, and hereby the world was provoked to jealousy. On the coming of Christ, mercy was shown to the world; and the posterity of Abraham, in their turn, were provoked to jealousy ; and there is reason to believe that before the end of time, and perhaps before many years have passed over us, God will show mercy to both ; and each will prove a blessing to the other. The conversion of the Gentiles shall in the end effectually provoke them to jealousy; and thus, “through our mercy, they shall obtain. mercy.” On the other hand, their return to God will be a kind of moral resurrection to the world. Probably, the conversion of the great body of pagans and Mahometans may be accomplished by means of this extraordinary event. Their fall has already proved our riches; how much more their fulness : “If the casting away of them be the recon- ciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be but life from the dead?” God’s mercy towards them is, at present, righteously suspended, “till the fulness of the Gentiles shall have come in.” The Gentiles were as one behind in a race; let them first come up, and then “all Israel shall be saved,” and become as life from the dead to the world. The fifty-second chapter of Isaiah appears to contain a prophecy of the restoration and conversion of the Jews; but in the last three verses it is intimated that God’s serv- ant, the Messiah, by whom it should be effected, should deal prudently. Now much of prudence consists in the proper timing of things. This glorious work was not to take place immediately; there must ere this be a long and awful pause. “He must first come and suffer many things, and be rejected.” The wrath of God must be poured on the Jews on this account to the uttermost ; and the Gentile nations must be sprinkled with the showers of gospel grace. Such is the import of these last three verses, and the whole fifty-third chapter. Then in the fifty-fourth she that had been “a wife of youth,” but of late “refused and forsaken,” is called upon to sing for joy; and yet the mercy should not be confined to her ; for the Redeemer should not only be called “the Holy One of Israel,” but “the God of the whole earth.”—“O the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God . How un- searchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding Out I’’ If God had called the Gentiles without having first “concluded,” or shut them up as it were, “under sin,” their salvation would not have appeared to be the effect of free promise (Gal. iii. 22); and if he had not in like man- mer shut up the Jews in their wmbelief, his mercy towards them had been far less conspicuous, Rom. xi. 32. As it is, we behold the goodness and severity of God, each blaz- ing by turns in the most lovely and tremendous colours. Something analogous to this is observable in the conduct of God towards the eastern and western parts of the earth. For more than two thousand years after the flood, learning, government, and the true religion were in a manner con- fined to the east; and our forefathers in the west were a horde of barbarians. For the last two thousand years, learning, government, and the true religion have travelled westward; they have been within the last few centuries extended even beyond the Atlantic Ocean. But before the end of time, and perhaps before many years have passed over us, both the east and the west shall unite and become one in Christ Jesus. Such an idea, I apprehend, is con- veyed in Isa. lx. 6–9. The geographical descriptions of nations, as given in prophetic language, is commonly by way of synecdoche, putting those parts which are nearest the Holy Land for the whole, or all beyond them. Thus Europe is commonly called “the isles of the Gentiles,” (Gen. x. 5; Isa. xlix. 1,) because those parts of it which lay nearest to Judea were the Archipelago, or the Grecian Islands. And those nations which lay next to Judea, eastward, include, in the prophetic language, all beyond them, or the whole of Asia. Thus “ the dromedaries of Midian and Ephah, all they from Sheba, the flocks of Ke- dar, and the rams of Nebaioth,” denote the accession of the eastern world to the church of God. On the other hand, “the isles waiting for him, and the ships of Tarshish bringing the sons of Zion from far,” denote the accession of the western world. Thus all shall be gathered together in Christ, and become one holy family. “O the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God | How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out !” One great cause of the mercy bestowed on the western part of the earth was the Roman conquests, which, what- ever were the motives of the conquerors, were overruled for the introduction of the gospel among European nations. And who knows but the British conquests in the east, whatever be the motives of the conquerors, may be design- ed for a similar purpose ? Even that iniquitous traffic which we and other nations have long been carrying on in the persons of men, I have no doubt, will eventually prove a blessing to those miserable people, though it may be a curse to their oppressors. At this day there are many thousands of negroes in the West India islands who have embraced the gospel, while their owners, basking in wealth, and rolling in debauchery, will neither enter into the kingdom of God themselves, nor suffer others who would enter in. God is gathering a people in spite of them. Behold the goodness and justice of God I Men, torn from their native shores and tenderest connexions, are in a manner driven into the gospel met ; the most abject and cruel state of slavery is that by means of which they become the Lord's free-men. Their oppressors, on the other hand, who lead them captive, are themselves led captive by the devil at his will, and, under the name of Christians, are heaping up wrath against the day of wrath. “O the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and know- ledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out !” From the whole we are led to consider the sovereignty of God not as a capricious, but as a wise sovereignty. While those who are saved have nothing to boast of, those who perish perish as the just reward of their own iniquity. Jacob will have to ascribe to distinguishing grace all he is more than Esau ; while Esau, having lost the blessing, has to recollect that he first despised it. THE CONNEXIONS IN WEHICH THE DOCTRINE OF ELECTION IS INTRODUCED IN THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. IT is generally allowed that to understand the Scriptures it is necessary to enter into the connexion of what we read ; and let it be considered whether it be not equally necessary to the understanding of any particular doctrine that we enter into the connexions in which it is introduced in the Scriptures. We have seen, in a former essay, that Divine truths are not taught us in a systematical form, and also the wisdom of God in scattering them through- out his word in a variety of practical relations. What these relations are it becomes us to ascertain ; otherwise we may admit the leading truths of revelation as articles of belief, and yet, for want of a close attention to these, may possess but very little Scripture knowledge; and the doctrine which we think we hold may be of very little use to us. “When I was a youth,” said a minister lately in conversation, “I admitted many doctrines, but did not jeel their importance and practical efficacy.” It would be a good work for a serious, thinking mind carefully to inquire into the various connexions in which acknowledged truths are introduced in the Scriptures, and the practical purposes to which they are there actually ap- plied. I shall take the liberty of offering a brief specimen with respect to the doctrine of election. The truth of the doctrine I may in this place take for granted as a matter clearly revealed in the word of God, observing only a few of its principal connexions. First, It is introduced to declare the source of salvation to be mere grace, or undeserved favour, and to cut off all hopes of acceptance with God by works of any kind.—In this connexion we find it in Rom. xi. 5, 6, “Even so then, at this present time also, there is a remnant ac- 990 FUGITIVE PIECES. cording to the election of grace; and if by grace, then is it no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace : but if it be of works, then is it no more grace; otherwise work is no more work.” All compromise is here for ever excluded, and the cause of salvation decidedly and fully ascribed to electing grace. With this end the doctrine re- quires to be preached to saints and sinners. To the former, that they may be at no loss to what they shall ascribe their conversion and salvation, but may know and own with the apostle that it is by the grace of God they are what they are ; to the latter, that they may be warned against relying upon their own righteousness, and taught that the only hope of life which remains for them is in re- pairing as lost and perishing sinners to the Saviour, cast- ing themselves at the feet of sovereign mercy. Secondly, It is introduced in order to account for the unbelief of the greater part of the Jewish nation, without eaccusing them in it.—This appears to be its connexion in the ninth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. To show that the wide-spreading unbelief of that people was not a matter of surprise, and did not affect the veracity of God in his promises, the apostle distinguishes between those who were Israel and those who were merely of Israel (ver. 6); evincing that from the beginning God had drawn a line between Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau; the former being merely “children of the flesh,” and the latter “children of the promise,” to whom God had an eye in all he had said, and who were “counted for the seed.” The same argument is pursued and confirmed from the declaration of God to Moses: “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and compassion on whom I will have compassion;” intimating not only that a sinner had no natural claim of mercy on God, but that even among the Israelites, who were a people in covenant with him, he ever preserved the right of sovereignty in the forgiveness of sin, and every dispensation of saving grace. The result is, that in God’s leaving great numbers of Abra- ham's posterity to perish in unbelief, and calling a people for himself, partly of Jews and partly of Gentiles, (ver. 24, 27,) he proceeded on the same principle as that on which he had proceeded from the beginning. Paul saw, indeed, that the corrupt mind of man would allege that, if things were so, the agency and accountable- ness of man were destroyed; and therefore introduces the objection, ver. 19, “Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault; for who hath resisted his will ?” This objection affords irrefragable proof that the doctrine maintained by the apostle was that of the absolute sove- reignty of God, in having mercy on whom he would, and giving up whom he would to hardness of heart; for against no other doctrine could such an objection have been made with any appearance of plausibility. This objection is the same for substance as has been made ever since, and that by two sorts of people ; namely, those who disown the doctrine, as being destructive of human agency; and those who contend for the doctrine for that very purpose. The language of those who disown the doctrine is this: If it be so, that the state of every one is determined by the will of God, why are men blamed for not believing in Christ? God has his will, and what would he have more ? The language of those who contend for the doctrine, with the intent of destroying human agency, is, It is true that the state of every man is determined by the will of God; but then it is not right that he should find fault with sinners for their unbelief; for his will is not resisted. It is easy to see that both these positions are at variance with the gospel. With respect to the former, if we follow the ex- ample of the apostle, we shall think it enough to prove that God actually eatercises an absolute sovereignty in saving whom he will, and yet finds fault with unbelievers as much as if no such sovereignty were exercised; leaving him to justify his own conduct, and them who reply against him to answer it at his tribunal. With respect to the lat- ter, if we keep to the principle laid down by the apostle, we shall not deny the truth because they abuse it; but avow it, and at the same time find fault with unbelievers, ascribing their failure, as he did, in the same chapter, to their “seeking righteousness as it were by the works of the law, stumbling at the stumbling-stone.” If on this account we be accused of “self-contradiction,” “saying and unsaying,” “preaching half grace and half works,” “beginning with truth and ending with falsehood,” &c. &c., we have this comfort, that the same things might have been objected with equal justice to the writings of the apostle, as appears from the above remarks, and were in substance actually objected to them. Thirdly, It is introduced to show the certain success of Christ's undertaking, as it were in defiance of unbelievers, who set at nought his gracious invitations. When Esther seemed to hesitate on going in unto the king in behalf of her people, she was answered by Mordecai's order, thus : “If thou hold thy peace at this time, then shall there en- largement and deliverance arise from another place ; but thou and thy father's house shall be destroyed , ” Such, in effect, is the language of the doctrine of election to sinners of mankind, and that on various occasions. It is not designed to supersede universal invitations; but to provide against those invitations being universally unsuc- cessful. Thus, our Lord having upbraided Chorazin and Bethsaida for their impenitence under his ministry, it is immediately added by the evangelist, “At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.” This was like saying, Though Chorazin and Bethsaida have not repented, yet shall I not be wanting of subjects; deliver- ance shall arise from another place —Again, When ad- dressing the unbelieving Pharisees, he applied those words in the czviiith Psalm to them, “The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner,” his words convey the same idea :-Ye builders may set me at nought ; but God will exalt me in defiance of you. God will have a temple, and I shall be the found- ation of it, though you should persist in your unbelief and perish ! Matt. xxi. 42. Again, Those very remarkable words in John vi. 37, “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me,” &c., are introduced in the same man- ner. Addressing himself to those Jews who followed him because they had eaten of the loaves and were filled, he saith, “I am the bread of life : he that cometh to me shall never hunger, and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.” As if he should say, You have no regard to me in my true character, but merely for yourselves, and for the meat that perisheth; but I shall not lose my reward, how- ever you may stand affected towards me. REMARIS ON THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE, ALLowING all due honour to the English translation of the Bible, it must be granted to be a human performance, and, as such, subject to imperfection. Where any passage appears to be mistranslated, it is doubtless proper for those who are well acquainted with the original languages to point it out, and to offer, according to the best of their judgment, the true meaning of the Holy Spirit. Criticisms of this kind, made with modesty and judgment, and not in consequence of a preconceived system, are worthy of en- couragement. But, besides these, there is a species of criticism which offers itself from a more familiar source, and of the pro- priety of which the mere English reader is competent to judge ; namely, the division of chapters, the use of sup- plementary terms, &c. - If the following example of the former kind be thought worthy of a place in the Biblical Magazine, it is probable I may on a future occasion send you more of the same nature. The seventh chapter of John ends with these words: “And every man went unto his own house.” The eighth begins with these : “Jesus went unto the Mount of Olives.” Here, I conceive, the former chapter ought to have ended ; ON COMMENDATION. 991 for here ends the labour of the day, and each party is de- scribed as withdrawing to his place of retirement. The whole passage contains a beautiful representation of the breaking up of a fierce dispute between the chief priests, the Pharisees, the officers whom they sent to arrest our Saviour, and Nicodemus. In the picture which is here drawn of it, we see at one view the very hearts of the different parties; and if the subject were made to end with the retirement of Jesus to the Mount of Olives, it would appear to still greater advantage. The Pharisees and chief priests having sent officers to take Jesus, they return without him. Pharisees. Why have ye not brought him Officers. Never man spake like this man Pharisees. Are ye also deceived ? Have any of the rulers, or of the Pharisees, believed on him # But this people, who know not the law, are cursed. Nicodemus. Doth our law judge any man before it hear him 3 Pharisees. Art thou also of Galilee ? Search and look, for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet. Historian. And every man went unto his own house : Jesus went unto the Mount of Olives. What an exhibition is here given, in a few simple words, of the workings of mind in the different parties . Follow them respectively to their places of retirement, and judge of their feelings. The officers, stunned with conviction and stung with the reproaches of their employers, retire in disgust. The Pharisees, transported with rage and dis- appointment, go murmuring to their houses.—Nicodemus having ventured, though mildly, to repel their outrage, feels himself suspected of a secret adherence to the Gali- lean, and is full of thought about the issue of things. Jesus, with the most perfect calmness and satisfaction, re- tires to the place whither he was wont to resort for prayer and communion with God | * oN COMMENDATION. IT has been observed that sinful propensities are com- monly, if not always, the original propensities of human nature, perverted or abused. Emulation, scorn, anger, the desire of property, and all the animal appetites, are not in themselves evil. If directed to right objects, and governed by the will of God, they are important and useful prin- ciples; but, perverted, they degenerate into pride, haughti- ness, bitterness, avarice, and sensuality. By this remark we may be enabled to judge of the pro- priety and impropriety of bestowing commendation. There are some who for fear of making others proud, as they say, forbear the practice altogether. But this is contrary to the Scriptures. We have only to hear what the Spirit saith unto the seven churches in Asia to perceive the use- fulness of commending the good for encouragement, as well as of censuring the evil for correction. Paul, in his IEpistles, seldom deals in reproof without applauding at the same time what was praiseworthy. This, doubtless, ought to be a model for us. Those who withhold such com- mendation for fear of making others proud, little think of the latent vanity in their own minds which this conduct betrays. If they did not attach a considerable degree of consequence to their own opinion, they would not be so ready to suspect the danger of another's being elated by it. A minister, fifty or sixty years ago, after delivering a sermon and descending from the pulpit, was accosted in rather a singular manner by another minister who had been his hearer. Shaking him by the hand, and looking bim in the face, with a smile, “I could,” said he, “ say something . . . . . . I could say something, . . . . . . but, perhaps, it is not safe ; it might make you proud of your- self.”—“No danger, my friend,” replied the other, “I do not take you to be a man of judgment.” Yet there is real danger of our becoming tempters to one another, by untimely and improper commendation. Man has too much nitre about him to render it safe to play with * The author, supplied another example from Hos. xi. 8, the sub- stance of which is in p. 509.-E.D. fire. Whatever may be said by worldly men, who have adopted Lord Chesterfield’s maxims, and whose only study is to please, it is not only injurious, but by men of sense considered as inconsistent with good manners to load a person with praises to his face. Such characters are flat- terers by profession, and their conduct is as mean as it is offensive to a modest mind; but what is flattery, but insult in disguise Its language, if truly interpreted, is this: “I know you to be so weak and so vain a creature that no- thing but praise will please you ; and as I have an end to answer by obtaining your favour, I will take this measure to accomplish it.” The love of praise has been called “the universal pas- sion,” and true it is that no man is free from it. There are some, however, who are much more wain than others. It is the study of a flatterer to find out this weak side of a man, and to avail himself of it; but good men are incapa- ble of such conduct. If they see another covetous of praise, they will commonly withhold it, and that for the good of the party. It is true, I have seen the vanity of a man reproved by a compliance with his wishes, giving him what he was desirous of, and that in full measure, as it were, pressed down. He did not seem to be aware that he had thirsted for the delicious draught till the cup was handed to him ; the appearance of which covered him with confusion. But this kind of ironical praise is a delicate weapon, and requires a quick sensibility in the person who receives the address as well as in him who gives it. It is, however, hardly consistent with the modesty, gentleness, and benevolence of Christianity. When two or more persons of a vain mind become ac- quainted, it may be expected they will deal largely in compliments; playing into each other's hands: where this is the case, there is great danger of the blind leading the blind till both fall into the ditch. To a wise and humble man, just commendation is en- couraging ; but praise beyond desert is an affliction. His mind, sanctified by the grace of God, serves as a re- finer to separate the one from the other ; justly appreci- ating what is said to him, he receives what is proper, and repels what is improper. Thus, it may be, we are to un- derstand the words of Solomon : “As the fining pot for silver, and the furnace for gold, so is a man to his praise.” The Scriptures never address themselves to the corrupt propensities of the mind, but to its original powers; or, to use the language of the ingenious Bunyan, they have “nothing to say to the Diabolians, but to the ancient in- habitants of the town of Mansoul.” Men address them- selves to our vanity; God to our emulation. If we follow this example we are safe. The occasion of all these reflections was my finding the other day, among a number of old loose papers, the follow- ing tale, which carries in it the marks of being a true one; and with which I shall conclude this paper :—“A young minister (whom I shall call Eutychus) was possessed of talents somewhat above mediocrity ; his delivery also was reckoned agreeable. He was told by one of his admirers, in an evening's conversation, how much his sermons ex- celled those of the generality of preachers. Alas, the same thought had occurred to himself! Hence he easily assented to it, and entered freely into conversation on the subject. On retiring to rest, he endeavoured first to com- mit himself to the Divine protection. It was there, while on his knees, that he first felt his folly. Overwhelmed with shame and confusion before God, he was silent; seeming to himself a beast before him. At the same time, a pas- sage in the Acts of the Apostles flashed like lightning in his mind : And they shouted and said, “It is the voice of a god, and not of a man. . . . . . . And he was eaten of worms, because he gave not God the glory.” There seemed to him a considerable analogy between his case and that of Herod. Herod was flattered and idolized— his heart was in unison with the flattery—he consented to be an idol, and gave not God the glory—for this he was smitten by an angel of God, his glory blasted, and his life terminated by a humiliating disease. “I also have been flattered,” said Eutychus, “and have inhaled the incense. I have consented to be an idol, and have not given God the glory. God, I am afraid, will blast my future life and ministry, as he justly may, and cause me 992 FUGITIVE PIECES. to end my days in degradation and disgrace : ” About the same time, those words also occurred to him, “Woe to the idol shepherd his arm shall be dried up, and his right eye shall be darkened ” He could not pray !— Groaning over the words of David, “O Lord, thou knowest my foolishness, and my sin is not hid from thee,” he retired to rest. The next morning the same subject awoke with him. He confessed, and again bemoaned his sin; entreated forgiveness for Christ's sake, and that his future spirituality might not be blasted. “Cast me not away from thy presence,” said he, “take not thy Holy Spirit from me!” But he could not recover any thing like freedom with God. The thought occurred to him of re- questing one of his most intimate friends to pray for him ; but this only occasioned a comparison of himself with Simon the sorcerer, who importuned Peter, saying, “Pray' to the Lord for me, that none of these things come upon me.” In short, the temptation into which he had fallen not only polluted his mind, and marred his peace, but ren- dered him for some time wretched in the exercise of his ministry. Let hearers take heed, while they give due honour and encouragement to ministers, not to idolize them ; and let ministers take heed that they do not receive, and still more that they do not court, applause. ORATION DELIVERED AT THE GRAVE OF THE REV. ROBERT HALL, OF ARNSBY. [March, 1791.] DEAR FRIENDs, You have often assembled with pleasure in company with vour beloved friend and faithful pastor; but that pleasure is over, and you are now met together with very different feelings, to take your last farewell of his remains ! What can I say to you, or wherewith shall I comfort you ? The dissolving of the union between near relations, and the breaking up of long and intimate connexions, are matters that must needs affect us. That providence which at one stroke separates a husband from his wife, a father from his children, a pastor from his people, and a great and greatly beloved man of God from all his con- nexions, cannot do other than make us feel. Indeed we are allowed to feel on such occasions in moderation ; at the grave of his friend, Lazarus, “Jesus wept.” But should we exceed the bounds of moderation, should our mourning under the hand of God border upon mur- muring against it or thinking hard of it, there are many considerations that might be urged to alleviate our grief; so many, indecd, that under the heaviest afflictions of the present state we may well weep as though we wept not. In this instance, we may not only comfort ourselves with the consideration that it is the common lot of men, the greatest and the best as well as others, and therefore no more than might be expected; but with what affords infinitely greater satisfaction—that this lot is a real and substantial advantage to our deceased brother. There is a pleasure even in the very pain that we feel for those who die in the Lord. Our Redeemer has walked the road be- fore us ; and, by so doing, has abolished death, and brought life and immortality to light. Where the sting of death is extracted, there is little else but the name, the shadow of death to encounter; and the prospect of a glorious resur- rection to eternal life more than annihilates even that. Your husband, your father, your pastor is not dead, but sleepeth; and his Redeemer will come ere long that he may awake him. Nor is this all; he lives already among the spirits of the just made perfect. Though the earthly house of this tabernacle is dissolved, yet the inhabitant is not turned out, as it were, naked and destitute ; but has a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. It was that which reduced the apostle to “a strait betwixt two,” having a desire on the one hand to be profitable to the church of God, and on the other to depart and be with Christ, which, so far as concerned himself, was far better. Could we, but be governed by faith instead of sense, we should rejoice even while we mourned. What our Lord said to his apostles might be said by his faithful followers to their surviving friends, “If ye loved me, ye would re- joice, because I said, I go to the Father; ” and the reason which he alleged, “for my Father is greater than I’’— that is, the glory and happiness which my Father pos- sesses, and which I go to possess with him, is greater than any thing I can here enjoy—would also apply to them. To be with our Father above is much greater and better than to be here. Such considerations as these may moderate our grief, and reconcile us to the will of God : but this is not all ; there are other things that require our attention. As the aged and the honourable are called off the stage, there is the more to be done by us who are left behind. God has said to this his servant, as he said to the prophet Daniel, “Go thou thy way; ” let another, as if he had said, come and take thy place, and acquit himself as well as thou hast done ! Our venerable deceased father had embarked for life, and so have we ; he has finished his course, but we have yet to finish ours. We are apt to feel discouraged at the loss of eminent men, and to think the interests of religion, in their particular connexions, must needs suffer, and it may be so ; but it may be of use to consider that when Moses died the Israelites were not to stand still, but were commanded to go forward ; and it is no small con- solation that God’s cause is still in his own hands, “The government is upon his shoulder.” One thing more deserves our serious attention.—Though the relations before-mentioned are now extinct, yet what has taken place in those relations is not. A great part of the actions of the present life are either those of parents to their children or children to their parents, of husbands to their wives or wives to their husbands, of pastors to their people or people to their pastors; and these are matters that must all come over again. In this point of view, re- lationship, though of but a few years’ duration, is of the utmost importance; it sows, as I may say, the seeds of eternity, and stamps an impression that will never be effaced ; - Consider, dear friends, the events of that relationship which is now dissolved. The various labours of your worthy pastor will not be lost, not even his more private instructions, prayers, and counsels in your families, or his own ; they will not return void, but accomplish the end whereunto they were sent. The great question with you is, Does that end include your salvation ? Can you look back and bless God for the life which is now finished, as having been a blessing to you? Can you remember the sermon, the visit, the reproof, the warning, the counsel, the free conversation, from whence you began to cry, “My father, thou art the guide of my youth ?” Or has this valuable life, which thousands have acknowledged as a public blessing, been nothing to you? You have heard him, and have talked with him, and have witnessed the general tenor of his life, how holily, how justly, and how unblamably he behaved himself among you ; and is all of no account 7 Is the harvest past, and the summer ended, and are you not saved ? Alas ! if this should be the case with any of you in this congregation, (and it is well if it is not,) you may never have such opportunities again; and, if you should perish at last, the loss of your souls will be greater, and attended with more aggravating cir- cumstances, than that of many others. Those of Beth- saida and Chorazin, who rejected or neglected the gospel, were in a worse situation than even the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah. When the books come to be opened, at the great day, they will contain a long and dark list of slighted opportunities, abused mercies, despised counsels, and forgotten warnings! Dear friends, call to remembrance the labours of your minister, and pray to the Lord that none of these things may come upon you. If any of you have been deaf to the various calls of God during his life, yet hear this one which is addressed to you by his death ! If the seed which this dear servant of God has been sowing for nearly forty years among you should yet spring up—if to a future and LINES TO THE MEMORY OF THE REW. R. HALL, OF ARNSBY. 993 happy pastor of this church it should be said, in the lan- guage of Christ to his apostles, “Another has laboured, and you have entered into his labours”—it would afford us no small pleasure, that would serve to counterbalance the painful providence with which at this time we are afflicted. TO THE MEMORY OF MY DEAR AND VENER- ABLE FRIEND, THE REV. ROBERT HALL, Who died in the sixty-third year of his age, on March 13th, 1791. AND is my much-respected friend no more ? How painful are the tidings to my heart And is that light extinguished which so long Has burned with brightest lustre, and diffused, Through all his loved connexions round about, Pure rays of evangelic light and joy 3 Is all that stock of true substantial worth Become as water spilt upon the ground?— That wniversal knowledge, which embraced A compass wide and large, of men and things 3– That well-known solid wisdom, which, improved By long experience, made his face to shine?— That uprightness of character, by which He lived down slander, and of foes made friends?— That ardent and affectionate concern For truth, for righteousness, for Zion's good, Which, with a social kindness, long endeared His name, and renders him a public loss?— That grace that ruled and seasoned all his soul, And as with sacred unction filled his lips, In which as life declined he ripened fast, And shone still more and more to perfect day ?— That tender sympathy that often soothed The sorrowing heart, and wiped the mourner's tear?— That sweet humility, and self-abasement, With which we heard him oft invoke his God ; Which ne’er assumed, though first in counsel skilled, The lordly look, or proud dictator's chair?— That guiltless pleasantry that brightened up Each countenance, and cheered the social hour?— (If he were there, it seemed that all were there: If he were missing, none could fill his place.) That store of excellence, in short, to which (As to a ship well fraught) one might repair, And be enriched with treasures new and old 3– Is ALL, as by a kind of fatal wreck, Destroyed, and sunk at once to rise no more ? Dear friend, (for still I fain would talk to thee!) Shall I discern thy cheering face no more ? And must thy gladdening voice no more be heard 3 And, when I visit thy much-loved abode, Shall I not find thee there as heretofore ? Nor sit, nor walk, as erst with pleasure wont, Nor mingle souls beneath the friendly bower 3 No . . . this is past. . . nor aught seems left for me, Except to walk, and sigh upon thy stone ! Dear friend I saw thee burdened years ago With heavy loads of complicated grief; And grief more complicate, though less intense, I'm told thou didst in earlier days endure ; But tribulation patience in thee wrought, And such a stock of rich experience this, That few like thee could reach the mourner's case, Or ease the burdens of the labouring heart. We saw thee ripen in thy later years, As when rich-laden autumn droops her head : That theme on which thy thoughts of late were penned,” None knew like thee, nor could have touched so well; It seemed thy element, the native air Thy holy soul had long been used to breathe. Such things we saw with sacred pleasure ; yet 'Twas pleasure tinged with painful fear, lest these (As fruit when ripe is quickly gathered in) Should only prove portentous of thy end. O thou great Arbiter of life and death ! Thy ways are just, and true, and wise, and good ; Though clouds and darkness compass thee around, Justice and judgment still support thy throne. Had it been left to us, he still had lived, And lived for years to come, and blessed us still ; But thus 'tis not ; thy thoughts are not as ours. Had poor short-sighted mortals had their will, The great Redeemer had not bled, or died. Teach us to say, “Thy will, not ours, be done,” To drink the cup thou givest us to drink. Dear relatives and friends, his special charge : Bereaved at once of him whose life was spent In unremitted labours for your good, We must not call on you to mourn, but try To stem the tide, or wipe the o'erflowing tear. 'Tis true his course is finished, and your ears Shall hear no more the long-accustomed sound ; But 'tis as he desired, when late we heard Drop from his lips, what seemed his last farewell.f. The prize for which he counted life not dear Is fully gained ; his course with joy he closed. What did I say? the ship was wrecked and lost? No, it is not ; ’tis safe arrived in port, And all the precious cargo too is safe ; His knowledge, wisdom, love, and every grace, Are not extinct, but gloriously matured, Beyond whate'er he grasped in this frail state. A fit companion now for purer minds,- For patriarchs, prophets, martyrs, and for those Whom once he knew, and loved, who went before ; For HIM whose name was dear to him on earth, And whose sweet presence now creates his heaven. Nor is all lost to those who yet survive: Though he is gone, his mantle's left behind.- Kind memory may recall his words, and deeds, And prayers, and counsels; and conviction aid Or cheer the heart, or guide the doubtful feet, Or prompt to imitate his holy life. Nor memory alone, the faithful page Is charged with some remains, in which the man And his communications yet are seen ; In these, though he be dead, he speaketh still.i. Yes, here’s Elijah's mantle : may there too A double portion of his spirit rest Upon us all; and, might I be indulged In one more special wish, that wish should be, That he who fills his father's sacred trust Might share the blessings of his father’s God, And tread his steps ; that all may see and say, “Elijah's spirit on Elisha rests.” THE NATURE OF TRUE WIRTUE. MR. HALL, in his justly admired Sermon on modern Infidelity, has brought forward some very plausible ob- jections to President Edwards's definition of virtue, but which appear to be founded in misapprehension. The definition itself is fairly stated—that “virtue consists in a passion for the general good, or love to being in gene- ral.” Mr. Hall observes that “the order of nature is, evermore, from particulars to generals: we advance from private to public affections; from the love of parents, brothers, and sisters, to those more expanded regards which embrace the immense society of human kind,”—p. 51. And afterwards, in a note, pp. 57, 58, he maintains that, on the President’s principles, “virtue is an utter # Mr. Hall wrote many of the Circular Letters to the churches of the Northamptonshire and Leicestershire Association, most of which have been noticed already, as well as his Help to Zion’s Travellers. He also printed 4 Charge to Mr. Moreton, delivered at his ordination at Kettering, 1771. And a Funeral Sermon for JMrs. Evans, of Fox- * Communion with God, the subject of the Circular Letter for 1789, which was Mr. Hall's last printed performance. g + It has been observed that. Mr. Hall's last public sermon, in his own connexion, was preached at Olney Association, June 2, 1790, from Acts xx. 24, “Neither count I my life dear, that I may finish my course with joy,” &c. 3 S ton, 1775. 99.4 FUGITIVE PIECES. impossibility; because that the human mind is not capa- ble of such different degrees of attachment as are due to the infinitely various objects of the intelligent system ; also because that our views of the system being capable of perpetual enlargement, our attachments are liable to un- due proportion, so that those regards which appeared vir- tuous may afterwards become vicious. And, lastly, that if virtue consists in the love of being in general, or attach- ment to the general good, the particular affections are to every purpose of virtue useless, and even permicious; for their necessary tendency is to attract to their objects a proportion of attention which far exceeds their compara- tive value in the general scale.” “The question is,” as Mr. Hall observes, “what is virtue?” Answer, love. But love to whom, or what? To being, says Edwards; and as the Supreme Being is the first and best of beings, it is to love him supremely, and our fellow creatures in subordination to him. It is objected that we cannot comprehend the Supreme Being, and therefore cannot love him in proportion to what he is in the scale of being. True; and we cannot fully com- prehend ourselves; yet we may love ourselves supremely. “The order of nature,” says Mr. Hall, “is evermore from particulars to generals; we advance from private to public affections; from the love of parents, brothers, and sisters, to those more expanded regards which embrace the immense society of human kind.” But to this it may be replied— 1. Virtuous affection does not consist in natural at- tachment ; if it did, birds and beasts would be virtuous, as well as men. Nor does genuine benevolence arise from those instinctive feelings as their root; if it did, all men who are not “without natural affection” would be virtuous, benevolent characters. It may imply a high de- gree of depravity to have obliterated natural affection, though the thing itself has no moral good in it. Natural affection, however, if exercised in subserviency to the Di- vine glory, becomes virtuous; as are eating and drinking, and all other natural actions that are capable of being performed to a higher end. 2. The question does not relate to the order in which the human mind comes to the knowledge of objects, and so to the actual exercise of affection towards them ; but to the order in which love operates when the objects are known. . If we were free from every taint of original sin, yet we should not love God before we loved our parents; and that because we should not know him first. We can- not love an object before we know it; but it does not follow from hence that, when we know both God and our parents, we must continue to love them first, and God for their sake. That which this writer calls “the order of nature” may indeed be so called, as it is the order estab- lished for our being brought to the actual exercise of our powers; but, with regard to the argument, it is rather the order of time than of nature. “The welfare of the whole system of being must be al- lowed,” says Mr. Hall, “to be in itself the object of all others the most worthy to be pursued; so that, could the mind distinctly embrace it, and discern at every step what action would infallibly promote it, we should be furnished with a sure criterion of right, and wrong; an unerring guide, which would supersede the use and necessity of all inferior rules, laws, and principles,”—p. 55. But it is not necessary to true virtue that it should com- prehend all being, or “distinctly embrace the welfare of the whole system.” It is sufficient that it be of an ex- pansive tendency; and this appears to be Edwards's view of the subject. A child may love God by loving godli- ness, or godly people, though it has yet scarcely any ideas of God himself. It may also possess a disposition the tendency of which is to embrace in the arms of good-will “ the immense society of human kind;” though at the time it may be acquainted with but few people in the world. Such a disposition will come into actual exercise, “from particulars to generals,” as fast as knowledge ex- tends. This, however, is not “private affection,” or self- love, ripening into an “extended benevolence, as its last and most perfect fruit;” but benevolence itself, expand- ing in proportion as the natural powers expand, and af. ford it opportunity. MORALITY NOT FOUNDED IN UTILITY. IN a late excellent sermon * the author combats, with great success, the notion of morality being founded in utility. On looking over some loose papers the other day, I found a short conversation on this subject which took place a few years since between two friends, and which was taken down immediately after they had parted. It will occupy but a small space; and, if you think it worthy of insertion, it is at your service. - C. I have been thinking of the reason why we are re- quired to love God and one another; and why the com- trary is forbidden. - F. And what do you conceive it to be? C. Would there be any such thing as sin in the uni- verse, if it were unproductive of evil consequences? F. You mean, would there be moral evil, if there were no natural evil arising out of it? C.. I do. P. I allow that all moral evil tends to natural evil, as disorder in the animal frame tends to pain and misery; but we do not usually consider the effect of a thing as the reason of its existence. Instead of saying it is wrong be- cause it tends to misery; I should say, it tends to misery because it is wrong. C. What idea do you affix to right and wrong distinct from that of its good or evil tendency? F. That which is in itself fit or unfit, or which agrees or disagrees with the relations we sustain to other beings, whether Creator or creatures. Thus it is commanded : “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.” C. Yes, it is “right ;” but its being so, I conceive, arises from its tendency to render the universe happy. F. Then it has no excellency in itself, but merely a re- lative one. Will you say that, because moral good tends to general happiness, therefore it must needs be what it is on that account 3 - C. What if I were to affirm this 3 F. By the same mode of reasoning I might affirm that truth would not be true if it were not an object of utility; and, as the first of all truths is the existence of God, that God would not exist, if it were not for the advantage of the creation that he should exist. C. This consequence is certainly inadmissible; but I can hardly see how you make it out. - F. Try it again. If moral good be moral good because it tends to general happiness, why is not truth truth be- cause it is of utility ? But further, An action may tend to natural good, though it be performed from the worst of motives, as the relieving of the needy, from ambition; yet with such a motive there is no moral good in it. If therefore you will maintain your position, you must give up all purity of motive as essential to morality; and maintain, with Volney, that intention is nothing. You will also find your opinion largely defended by Hume, who has written a treatise to prove that all vir- tue arises from its utility ; and that, as “broad shoulders and taper legs are useful, they are to be reckoned among the virtues : " I hope you will not be elated with your company. SIN ITS OWN PUNISHMENT. [Sketch of a Sermon delivered at Maze Pond, May 11, 1794.] “Thine own wickedness shall correct thee, and thy backslidings shall reprove thee.”—Jer. ii. 19. WHEN we read such pointed addresses as these to the con- science, it becomes us not to be contented with considering whom they were immediately addressed to. What will it avail you and me barely to read that there were a great number of wicked people in the times of the prophet Jere- miah 3 What immediate use will it be to us to be told that | delivered on occasion of the general fast in 1803. * “Sentiments proper to the Present Crisis,” by the Rev. R. Hall, SIN ITS OWN PUNISHMENT. 995 the judgments of God were threatened against them, and that those judgments were executed upon them, unless we consider this threatening as applicable to ourselves? We ought to conceive that all such language is expressive of the indignation of God against all unrighteousness, and, consequently, against our unrighteousness. I do not take upon me to say that those whom I now address are in all points like unto the people who are here addressed ; pro- bably there is great diversity of character not only between individuals of the same age, but between those of different ages and circumstances, yet I am persuaded there is like- ness enough to afford a ground for inquiry. I am per- suaded that I need not go so far back as the days of Jere- miah to find such a thing as wickedness; that I need not go three thousand years back in order to find characters who are guilty of backsliding from God : no, the word is nigh to us, and the objects which it describes are nigh us. We ourselves are parties herein deeply interested. The terms wickedness and backsliding, perhaps, are not exactly of the same meaning: wickedness seems to com- prehend rather more than backsliding; it seems to be a stronger term ; all backsliding is wickedness, but all wick- edness is not backsliding: backsliding supposes, at least, the profession of religion; wickedness does not necessarily suppose this: backsliding is never attributed but to those who were in the ways of God either in reality or else by profession; that was the case with the Israelites as a ma- tion. But that sentiment which has principally struck my mind is the manner or method that God takes in order to punish wickedness, and in order to punish backsliding. It is here said, “thine own wickedness shall correct thee, and thy backslidings shall reprove thee.” It is not said, thine own wickedness shall be corrected, thine own backslidings shall be reproved, or that they shall be removed on those accounts; but it is intimated that their very wickedness should prove its own punishment, that their backsliding should become the means of its own correction. This I think is the sentiment taught us in the passage, and it is upon this and this only that I mean to dwell, that God in the punishment of sin frequently so orders it that we should See our sin in its punishment. I think if we take a review of the dealings of God with men, both good and bad men, we shall find this idea abundantly substantiated. I. LET US REVIEw THE DEALINGS OF GOD witH Good MEN. 1. I may observe, in the first place, that if our back- slidings consist in a neglect of secret devotion, God will usually punish them by withholding his blessing from all other means of grace. It is often the case, I believe, that backslidings originate in a neglect of private duties. It is rarely known, I believe, that persons fall into foul miscon- duct at once ; there is generally a gradual progress in this business: first, the heart begins a little to be alienated, the thoughts turn and fix upon worldly objects, delight in con- versing with God ceases, the closet ceases to be a privilege and resort in the hour of distress, it becomes rather a dreaded place—a place that we begin to shun, or, if we frequent it, we are driven there rather by the reproaches of conscience than by the desires of the heart. When closet duty is thus neglected, and we cultivate scarcely any other religion than that which is before the eyes of men, God will then cause this sin to become its own punishment; that is, we shall lose by it, we shall be destitute of the pleasures of religion. A great and good man used to say, “A little religion is just enough to make a man miserable, a good deal will make him happy.” A little religion is just enough to keep conscience uneasy, just enough to dis- turb and imbitter all those pleasures which others indulge in without remorse, just enough to make you hang your head like a bulrush ; now this is the punishment that at- tends a neglect of a closet walk with God. It is in this way that God causes our wickedness to correct us, and our backsliding to reprove us. We go lean from day to day, and that not only in the want of closet enjoyment, but, if we neglect dealing with God in secret, we shall not enjoy much from our public engagements: if a man only frequent public worship, but not his closet, God will withdraw his blessing from that public worship ; you may sit and hear the Saviour presented, but you shall not be profited. You may go, but your heart may not be there, and you may find no profit; you may impute it to this or to that ; you may say it is owing to the preacher, or this, or the other, but say what you will you shall not profit, you shall not enjoy God, you shall not enjoy the pleasures of religion while you live in the neglect of close converse with God in secret ; for it is thus that thy wickedness shall correct—that thy backslidings shall reprove. 2. If our backslidings have consisted in the indulgence of secret sin of a positive kind, then we may expect that God will punish it by causing that that sin shall not long be kept secret. God in his providence frequently so orders it that he who can allow himself to sin in secret will not be able long to keep it secret; it shall be exposed in the eyes of the world: him that honoureth God he will honour, but he that despiseth him shall be lightly esteemed. If you care nothing about God’s honour, or so little about it as to violate his will in secret, God will care but little about your honour. If you care only about your own reputation, and watch no part of your conduct but that which falls under the eye of man, God will presently so order it that you shall not preserve your reputation. David had sinned in this manner, and God punished him by making his sins public : “Thou hast done this thing in secret, but I will expose thee before the sun.” It is a very dangerous thing to play with secret sin, to indulge in abominations when we are behind the scene and away from the eyes of mortals: be sure of this, that God will find you out ; his providence will bring secret sins to light; and that which was done in secret he will manifest upon the house-tops; and it is thus that thy backslidings will particularly look thee in the face and reprove thee. Iniquity of every species is a something that it is next to impossible always to hide. A man that falls into guilt feels greatly degraded ; his con- science tells him I am guilty, I am degraded, and every one that meets me will slay me, every one that meets me knows it. Oh, it is a difficult thing to hide what is with- in God thus will surely bring it out, and thus cause our iniquities to reprove us. The slander of the tongue is a method the Divine Being sometimes uses, and we may re- mark in some of his dispensations that he will permit re- proach to be poured upon us, and that beyond the degree of our desert. We find that David was reproached with being a bloody man : this was not true in the sense that Shimei meant, viz. that he had been a bloody man to the house of Saul; it was the language of reproach : but then it was true in a sense in which Shimei did not feel it—he had been a bloody man in the affair of Uriah ; this was it that cut David to the very soul. “Go on, thou bloody man,” says Shimei.-Abishai said unto the king, “Let me take off his head ; why should this dead dog reproach my lord the king?” No, says David, let him alone, God said, Curse David : it is the message of God—what he says is a lie in the sense in which he meant it, but it is true in an- other sense—I am a bloody man ; God has thus permitted the very enemy to reproach me. It is thus that God caused David’s wickedness to correct him, and his backslidings to reprove him. If our backslidings consist in idolizing created good, in making that of it which it ought not to be, or putting it in the place of God, then it is God’s usual method to punish us either by taking away the idol from us, or by continuing it as a curse and a plague to us. When the heart is set inordinately upon any created good, so as that God is ex- cluded from the supreme place in our affections, he fre- quently takes away the object, and thus perhaps we may sometimes account for the loss of some of our dearest friends—of our darling children: it may be they have oc- cupied too high a place in our esteem and affection : it may be owing to them that God had but a small share in our affections. Well, the Lord has taken them away as being his rivals, and it is thus that we read our sin in our punishment: while the heart bleeds on account of the wound which is produced by rending the bone from bone and flesh from flesh, let us remember that this was our sin —to idolize this creature, and therefore God has caused a worm at the root of the gourd in order that it may fade and die. Sometimes he is pleased to continue the object to us, but to continue it as a curse and a plague, as a grievance to us, and this is much more awful and much more to be dreaded than the former. We have a remark- 3 s 2 996 FUGITIVE PIECES. able example of this in the case of Lot. with his uncle Abraham, he lifted up his eyes and beheld the plain of Sodom, and lo, it was a rich and a well-watered plain : indeed! and is there no other tract of the country, Lot, that can satisfy thy desires without pitching thy tent in that infamous country 3 Lot, are you not alarmed for your honour ! are you not alarmed for your family, lest they learn the ways of the wicked Sodomites ? What 1 a rich and well-watered plain is all that Lot consults; he goes, he places his family in Sodom, and what is the con- sequence 3 God lets him have his rich and his well-water- ed plain. I suppose he accumulates wealth to a great amount there, and by and by the wrath of God is poured down from heaven upon the city. While he is there his righteous soul, it is true, is grieved for the filthy conversa- tion of the wicked, but what has become of his family 3 what has become of his children 3 why, here are two or three of them married and settled in Sodom, and they have become so attached to the manners and customs of the Sodomites, that when Lot went to warn them of the ap- proaching destruction his words seemed an idle tale. I imagine they smiled and said, The old man is superannu- ated ; they would not regard any thing he said. Well, this is one of the fruits of his attachment to this rich and well-watered plain ; he has two or three of his children settled there, and they must fall in Sodom's overthrow. Well, there are two of his daughters remain single; he does somehow or other manage matters by the good hand of God so as to accomplish their escape. They are brought out of the city, and his wife along with him ; but what are the consequences as to his wife 3 she has lived so long in Sodom that her heart is wedded to it, and she seems to have left it with such reluctance that she is ready to call her husband, I imagine, a thousand fools as they are going along, to think he should leave it, and she looks behind her, and her heart goes along with her eyes, and God smites her—turns her into a monument of Divine venge- ance : here is another fruit of his choice. Well, he has only his two daughters left ; he takes them and flees to a little city: a little one will now serve Lot and his family: “is it not a little one 3’” Again, they are much reduced, and what follows 3 alas ! the two daughters have learnt so much of the abominations of Gomorrah, that they cover their father's name with infamy, and cause him to go down to the grave with shame. Here are the fruits of a sinful choice, of a man's choosing to settle in the world merely for the sake of wealth, without considering anything about God and religion. What a striking example does it afford us of the method of the Divine procedure—to give us our choice, but to render that choice its own punishment thus our wickedness shall correct us, our backsliding shall re- prove us. 4. If our backslidings have consisted in unfaithfulness towards one another, God will oftentimes punish this sin by so ordering it that others shall be unfaithful to us in return. If men deal treacherously with others, by and by others shall deal treacherously with them. You recollect it was thus in the case of Jacob. Jacob dealt unfaithfully with his brother Esau, and with his father Isaac, and how was he punished 3 many years after he was imposed upon by his uncle Laban, in a manner that proved a trial to him all his future life. Could Jacob help reading his sin in his punishment? 5. If our backslidings have consisted in undutifulness to parents, God will oftentimes punish this sin by causing our children to be undutiful and cruel to us. See that young person who will treat his aged parent with cruelty and neglect—only suppose that he lives to be an aged man, and you may see how he shall be treated in return by his own posterity. I have heard of a cruel, unfeeling son, whom Providence had smiled upon and blessed with worldly affluence ; he had a poor aged father who was reduced to necessities in his old age—he took him into his house, but he treated him as a brute. One day the poor old man, it seems, had offended this cruel son: he called one of his own children, a little boy of about eight or nine years old, to him, and gave him a blanket, and bid him go and give it to the old man, his grandfather, and turn him out of doors, and tell him he should never enter his doors again ;-the little boy took the garment and cut it in two —the father, When he parted astonished at this, required the reason :-‘‘Father,” says he, “I have cut it in pieces in order to give one to my grandfather, and to keep the other to turn you out of doors with when you are old:”—the keenness of the remark, it is said, had its effect. 6. Our backslidings may have consisted in a neglect of family government. Religious professors are often very loose in the exercise of family government. Well, if our backslidings have consisted in this, God will usually pun- ish us by causing us to reap the fruits of it in the looseness of our children and those about us. Many a parent, by neglecting the proper government of his family, has seen such sins in his children as have brought them to infamy before his own eyes; and when a parent in old age comes to see his posterity covered with shame, with misery, and with infamy, what must be his reflections ! What must have been the sensations of Eli when he saw the wicked- ness of his children, and heard of their awful end 7. Once more, If our backslidings have consisted in set- ting ill examples before our domestics, we may expect that God will punish us, by suffering our children to follow these examples. Many a parent (some cases have fallen under my own observation) has set shocking examples be- fore his children ; he has walked vainly and loosely, nevertheless he has not intended that they should follow his example; he has endeavoured by his authority to pre- vent their doing so; but it shall not be so long;-set you but an ill example in your house, and God will probably suffer your children to follow that example as a punish- ment in part to you. What very awful events of this sort there were in the family of David he set an example of murder and uncleanness, and what followed 3–the first news that you hear in his family is, Tamar is ravished; and then as a revenge for it Amnon is slain by his brother Absalom. How soon do we hear of one iniquity upon the back of another —bloody business goes on in David's family—the sword shall not depart from his house.—That was the way in which God would punish him. II. OBSERVE THE SENTIMENT EXEMPLIFIED IN THE DEALINGs of GoD witH THE wiCKED.—There is one de- scription of ungodly persons whose hearts are set upon the gratification of their appetites and passions. , Young man, you have had a religious education—your father has taught you to read the word of God—he has a thousand times prayed for you, and a thousand tears have been shed over you, and a thousand remonstrances delivered before you, but all without effect—your heart is hardened—you are weary of reproof–you wish in your heart, either that the old man was dead, or that you were out of the family, so as that you might have your full swing and go on without remorse. You are tired of this round and round of re- ligion in the family—you hate to hear so much of praying morning and evening—you hate to hear the Bible read— you hate to hear those reproaches rung in your ears—you wish they would but let you alone. Not only this, but these remonstrances have kept your conscience rather awake—you cannot sin so cheaply as many other wicked people do—you plunge yourself into wicked company, but when you get alone there is something will rise within you in spite of yourself, and you cannot go on with that ease and repose which others do. Well, thus your heart fretteth against the Lord—thus you want to be freed from conviction. Now, how may you expect that the Almighty will punish you? probably by giving you your wish—by letting you have your way. Well, young man, you shall be troubled not much longer with these remonstrances. God will take that pious parent out of your way. Hitherto God has been hedging up your way, and building walls as it were to keep you from plunging into hell; these have been a grievous eye-sore to you, and you want to have them removed. Very well, God will probably remove them out of your way—he will take away your godly par rents; and since you want to get rid of this remorse, these convictions, and uneasiness, God will give you up to hard- ness of heart—as you have loved strangers, you shall go after them—as you have chosen delusion, God will choose also your delusion, and let you have your course. And as you have been hitherto, perhaps, used to sit under a faith- ful ministry, a ministry that has come home to your con- science, and you cannot sit at quiet, God perhaps Will i SIN ITS OWN 997 PUNISHMENT. permit you to have one after your own heart—one that will please your ears and never disturb your conscience, and then you may take your course. If there be an awful way of punishing sin, it is surely this—this, indeed, is for our own wickedness to correct us—-this is for our back- slidings to reprove us. Again, I might mention another case, the case of those who have an inward dislike to the gospel. There are many persons who have a secret hatred to the humiliating doctrines of the gospel, and to those searching plain truths that come home to the conscience, and therefore they find some false system of religion—some system or other that is more adapted to the flesh. Now if this be the case with any one, let him expect that God will cause his sin to be- conre its own punishment. You may expect that, seeing you delight not in the truth, God will give you up to a reprobate mind, that you “may believe a lie and be damned:” so the Scripture speaks, because “they believe not the truth, but have pleasure in unrighteousness,” therefore God will give a man up ; seeing he chooses some flesh-pleasing system—something that will lie easier upon his mind, he shall follow his inclinations, and the conse- quences are generally fatal. We may further observe, that the same principle will be found exemplified at death and judgment as well as in the present world. If we be found wicked in the sight of God at the last day, we shall find that there will be something in the nature of the punishment, or of the doom denounced, that will of necessity call to our remembrance the nature of our sin : witness this, when the sinner, with frantic despair, stands calling at heaven's gates, “Lord, Lord, open unto us!” God will say, “I called, and ye refused ; I stretched out my hand, and no one regarded it; therefore will I laugh at your calamity,” I will mock now your fear is come : and when that awful sound “Depart " shall ring in the ears, must it not, think you, call to remembrance the language of a sinner in the world? Have you not been saying all your life, “Depart from me, I desire not the knowledge of thy ways—depart from me, thou faithful minister—depart from me, thou irksome and disagreeable reprover—depart from me, thou faithful friend, and let me have a friend that will merely soothe my passions and flat- ter my vices—depart from me, godly and serious parents— depart from me, all thoughts of God and heaven?” Has not this been the language of thy heart? and now when the Lord comes at last to address thee, “Depart from me ;” oh what a sound will this have what ideas will this re- vive . Thus it is that thine own wickedness shall correct thee. Nay, I might add, in that dreadful world of woe the essence of misery will consist in recollection. Could memory but be obliterated from the soul, the flames of hell would become extinct ; but then busy memory, clear memory, cruel memory will harrow up the feelings—will recall past events and place them before the mind; nor shall we be able to efface the thought, nor give attention to any other object; but the remembrance of the past will thus prey upon the soul for ever;-this will be the worm that dieth not—this will constitute the fire that will not be quenched. It is thus that our wickedness must in the end reprove us, and our backslidings correct us. But I close : if things be thus, how dreadful a thing is sin in all its operations ! Every one of us that indulges in it is only kindling a fire with which to burn himself; he that indulges in it is but whetting a sword to plunge into his own soul ; and, I may add, what reason have we to bless God that our iniquity has not more reproved us than it has ; that our backslidings have been no more | If we review our life, we must remember many periods in it in which we were upon the point of some awful fall; we cannot but remember how we have walked near the precipice, and how Divine Providence has preserved us from falling; how God has either by giving us timely repentance for our sins brought us back to himself, or by his providence has pre- vented iniquities we designed. Who is there but must cover his face with shame, and reckon it a wonder that he is not this day marked among the fools in the gospel ? But beware, beware of sinful indulgence of any sort, or in any degree; for be sure of this, that the Almighty will find you out ; and let it be your concern and mine to cleanse our hands and to repair to the blood of Calvary, that we may be cleansed from all our backslidings and all our wickedness—there is no other radical cure, but to return to the Lord with contrition, and to repair to the blood of the cross that we may obtain remission. It is this and this only that will effect a cure. THE VISION OF DRY BONES. (Ezek. xxxvii, 1–14.) LET us suppose ourselves walking over an extensive plain, where many years ago a great battle was fought, in which vast numbers were slain, and being buried in heaps but a little below the surface, their bodies are now disunited, dried up, and many of them scattered over the surface of the country; such I imagine to be the imagery of this pro- phecy. As to its meaning, we are at no loss, since it is expressly applied to “the house of Israel,” and doubtless describes their low and scattered condition, together with their restoration, which should be to them as a resurrec- tion from the dead. But to what restoration does the prophecy refer 3 It must be either to that of Judea from Babylon, or to that of all the tribes in the latter days. Some very good ex- positors, I allow, have applied it to the former ; but the following reasons induce me to understand it of the latter. 1. What is here predicted respects “the whole house of Israel,” ver, 16–23; but the restoration from Babylon chiefly respected those who were carried captive into Babylon, namely, Judah and Benjamin, and the Levites. 2. It was to be an “exceedingly great army,” ver. 10 : but they that returned from Babylon were about forty and two thousand (Ezra ii. 64); a number that could not answer to this description. 3. The general scope of the prophecy, as it draws towards the close, refers to the times of the Messiah. The “temple,” the “holy waters,” and the “city,” whose name should be called “Jehovah Shammah,” the Lord is there, cannot be literally under- stood, and must therefore refer to the glory of the church in the latter days. 4. There are some passages in this chapter which appear to be inapplicable to any times but those of the Messiah : such are those in ver. 24, 25, where David was to be their king and their shepherd ; compare this language with that in Hos. iii. 7. 2. The restora- tion here predicted was to remain for ever, ver. 25—28. This language, if applied to the few centuries between the restoration from Babylon and the dispersion by the Romans, must be hyperbolical in the extreme. I conclude, therefore, that the restoration here predicted is yet to come, and that it refers to what is foretold in the eleventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, where the receiving of Israel into the church is said to be “life from the dead.” Considering this point, then, as settled, I shall only offer a few remarks on the leading ideas suggested by the pro- phecy concerning “the house of Israel,” viz. on its former glory—its present low and scattered condition—its future prospects—and the gradual methods by which the change will be effected. First, The prophecy implies that the house of Israel, though now in a scattered and forlorn condition, was once otherwise. A contemplative mind would see a number of dry bones scattered over a plain, a once living army; and such must be our reflection concerning the house of Israel. The history of this nation is deeply engraven on our minds. The names of their ancestors are dear to us. In the lives of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Samuel, David, and the prophets, we see not only models of holy beauty, but patterns of faith. In them we recognise the principles which animated our apostles and martyrs. Those all died in faith of the Messiah to come ; these of the Messiah as already come : the Messiah in whom each be- lieved must have been the same, or their spirit and conduct would not have been so. How lovely do this people ap- pear as the worshippers of the true God at a time when all the nations of the earth were gone after their idols : Even an enemy was constrained to exclaim, “How goodly are thy tents, O Jacob, and thy tabernacles, O Israel ! 998 FUGITIVE PIECES. Prom the top of the rocks I see him, and from the hills I behold him : lo, the people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations !” We admire Athens for its science, and Rome for its power and splendour; but what are they to Zion ? “In Judah GoD was known l’’ The remembrance of ancient Zion still excites, tears of affection and grief. Secondly, Let us notice the present condition of this once highly-favoured nation. They who were once as an army going forth to battle are now a number of dry bones; so dry that, to an eye of sense, there is no hope of their being ever revived. Long have they ceased to be a poli- tical body : they are indeed preserved as a distinct people, while all the other nations of antiquity are lost in one undistinguished mass; and this indicates a special provi- dence over them for future purposes; but as to their condition at present, it is that of scattered individuals over the face of the earth. A political existence they have not, nor any thing scarcely deserving the name of religion. They are, in fact, what was foretold by the prophet Hosea, “Without a king, without a prince, without a sacrifice, without an image, without an ephod, and without tera- phim.” Not only are they without their own appropriate worship, but without the resemblance of it. Where are we to look for such holy men of God among them as were found amongst their forefathers ? Where are the symptoms of Jehovah being amongst them 4 There is scarcely the mantle, much less the Lord God of Elijah : Where are the symptoms of brotherly love? There appears to be no bond amongst them, but that of hatred of Jesus. If to an eye of sense there be no hope of their being restored to political life, the case is more hopeless as to the spiritual life. No people upon earth have lived among Christians to so little purpose. The negroes from Africa, though injured and enslaved by men calling themselves Christians, have no such inveterate antipathy to Christ as the Jews. If serious Christians, who carry it kindly to them, recom- mend their Saviour to them, it is not unfrequently with success; but it is rarely known so with the other, who appear to be given up to blindness of mind, and hardness of heart. Other sinners make light of serious religion ; but they are full of bitterness against it. Others are wicked ; yet we can come at their consciences; but their very mind and conscience is defiled. Other sinners are dry bones; but, lo, these are very dry / Thirdly, Let us consider the future prospects of this people. These bones, scattered and dry as they are, and without any hope from ordinary causes, yet, by the power and grace of God, can, and shall live. “O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. And ye shall know that I am Jehovah, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves, and shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I will place you in your own land : then shall ye know that I Jehovah have spoken it, and performed it, saith Jehovah. —And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all. And David, my servant, shall be king over them ; and they all shall have one shepherd.” On this part of the subject, as being yet unfulfilled, it cer- tainly becomes us to speak with diffidence ; but surely it cannot denote less than that the house of Israel shall be restored to their own land, united as a nation, and turned to the Lord. With this accords the prophecy in the twelfth chapter of Zechariah, where, after the restoration from Babylon, it is declared that “Jerusalem should yet again be inhabited in her own place, even in Jerusalem.” And, what is more, that the Lord would “pour upon its inhabit- ants the spirit of grace and of supplications, and that they should look upon him whom they had pierced, and should mourn as one mourneth for an only son, and be in bitter- ness as one that is in bitterness for his first-born 1 '' As to the order in which these great changes will be accomplished, it would seem by these prophecies as if the gathering of the people together would precede the pour- ing out of the Spirit upon them. There are other passages of Scripture, however, in which restoration is promised on their repentance, Deut. xxx. 1. 16; 1 Kings viii. 47. But both these accounts may be fulfilled : some, though ! perhaps not the greater part, may return to their own land as they did from Babylon, “Going and weeping, and seeking the Lord their God,” Jer, i. 4; and God may graciously reckon them as the first-fruits of the whole nation, and restore them in answer to their prayers; and when they shall have arrived from the four quarters of the earth, a still greater measure of the spirit of grace and supplication may be poured upon them. If this, or some- thing like it, should be the case, it certainly furnishes a strong inducement, both to the Jews themselves to repent and turn to the Lord, that they may not only escape that wrath which came upon their fathers to the utmost, and still lies upon them, but be among the first-fruits of their nation, for whose sake God will restore it ; and to those who are seeking to turn them, that they may contribute to the work. - Lastly, Let us observe the gradual methods by which the great change will be effected : “And he said unto me, Prophesy upon these dry bones, and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of the Lord. Thus saith the Lord God unto these bones; I will lay sinews upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live, and ye shall know that I am the Lord. So I prophesied as I was commanded; and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold a shaking, and the bones came together, bone to his bone. And when I beheld, lo, the sinews and the flesh came upon them, and the skin covered them above; but there was no breath in them. Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say unto the wind, Thus saith the Lord God; Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live.” It appears from hence that many things will be done for this people preparatory to their general conversion to Christ; which, in themselves, may be no more than the sinews, the flesh, and the skin of the human body, but which are no less necessary than the breath of life. If all that should be done, or is doing at present, should be only in this preparatory way, still, if it be a part of the Divine process, it is not to be despised. And though the breath of life may not as yet be breathed, so as to produce a general conversion, yet there may be instances of it sufficient for present encouragement. Paul certainly did not expect a general conversion in his day, but merely a few who should be as the first-fruits to the lump; yet he laboured if by any means he might save some. Only let us do what we do with simplicity of heart, seeking not our own glory, but their salvation, and, whether we succeed little or much, we shall obtain the approbation of God. ON THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST, THEOLOGIANs have said much about grace and justice; , yet but few have defined these terms with sufficient ac- curacy to render them intelligible and consistent. Hence it has been asked, If Christ paid the debt for sinners—if he gave himself a ransom, and purchased them with his blood—how can they be said to be pardoned or delivered by grace? If an equivalent price be paid for their re- demption, may they not on the ground of justice demand salvation ? How can those be subjects of forgiveness who owe nothing? If Christ has paid the debt, will it not be injustice to exact it again of the sinner ? By all this it should seem that Christ rendered such a satisfaction to justice as inferred an obligation on justice itself for the deliverance of sinners; and their deliverance by virtue of the atonement is not now to be considered as an act of pure grace. But the Scriptures insist on a full atonement, and yet every where hold up the deliverance of sinners as an act of mere grace. How then are these terms to be understood consistently with each other? By grace we are to understand the exercise of free favour, and consequently the bestowment of good where evil is deserved and may in justice be inflicted. Where there is no exposure to evil, there is no room for the ex- ercise of grace. He who is not guilty is not a subject of pardon 3 he who does not deserve punishment cannot be ON THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 999 said to be freed from it by an act of favour. Grace, there- fore, always implies that the subject of it is unworthy; and that he would have no reason to complain if all the evil to which he is exposed were inflicted on him. Grace and justice are opposite, and their provinces entirely dis- tinct; grace gives, but justice demands. Though they are united, yet they are not confounded in man’s salvation, Rom. xi. 6. Justice assumes three denominations—commutative, distributive, and public. Commutative justice respects property only. It consists in an equal exchange of bene- fits, or in restoring to every man his own. Distributive justice respects the moral character of men; it regards them as accountable beings, whether obedient or disobe- dient ; it consists in ascertaining their virtue or sin, and in bestowing rewards or inflicting punishments. Public justice respects what is right as to the character of God and the good of the universe. In this sense justice comprises all moral goodness, and properly means the righteousness or rectitude of God, by which all his actions are guided with a supreme regard to the greatest good. Justice, considered in this view, for- bids that anything should take place, in the great plan of God, which should tarnish his glory or subvert the au- thority of his law. In what sense then did Christ, by his substitutionary sufferings, render satisfaction to Divine justice? 1. Did he satisfy commutative justice 3–Commutative justice had no concern in his sufferings; men had taken no property from God, and consequently were under no obligation to restore any. But, it will be said, do not the Scriptures represent Christ as giving himself a ransom, and as having bought us with a price. They do; they also represent men, while under the influence of sin, as prisoners, slaves, captives. These expressions are all figurative, borrowed from things sensible, to represent those which are spiritual, and therefore cannot be ex- plained as if literally true. If we have any consistent meaning in the use of such terms, it must be this—that in consequence of what Christ has done we are delivered from sin, in as great a consistency with justice as a debtor is delivered from his obligation, or the demands of law, when the debt is paid ; that is, God extends pardon in such a way, through Christ, that he does not injure the authority of his law, but supports it as effectually as if he inflicted punishment. 2. Did Christ satisfy distributive justice 3 Certainly not : distributive justice respects personal character only. It condemns men because they are sinners, and rewards them because they are righteous ; their good or ill desert is the only ground on which moral justice respects them. But good and ill desert are personal; they imply con- sciousness of praise or blame, and cannot be transferred or altered so as to render the subjects of them more or less worthy. What Christ did, therefore, did not take ill de- sert from men ; nor did it place them in such a situation that God would act unjustly to punish them according to their deeds. . If a man have sinned, it will always remain a truth that he has sinned; and that, according to dis- tributive justice, he deserves punishment. 3. Did Christ satisfy public justice? Undoubtedly he did. His sufferings rendered it fit and right, with respect to God’s character and the good of the universe, to forgive sin. The atonement made by Christ represented the law, the nature of sin, and the displeasure of God against it, in such a light that no injury could accrue to the moral sys- tem; no imputation would lie against the righteousness of the great Legislator, though he should forgive the sin- ner, and instate him in eternal felicity. Perfect justice is therefore done to the universe, though all transgressors be not punished according to their personal demerit. The death of Christ, therefore, is to be considered as a great, important, and public transaction respecting God and the whole system of rational beings. Public justice requires that neither any of these be injured, nor the character and government of the great Legislator disrespected, by the pardon of any. In these respects public justice is per- fectly satisfied by the death of Christ, Rom. iii. 21. 25, 26; x. 4; 1 John i. 9; Isa. xlv. 21. Hence it follows—1. That atonement, and consequently the pardon of sin, have no respect to commutative justice. 2. That the sufferings of Christ did not satisfy distributive justice, since that respects character only; and therefore, with respect to distributive justice, salvation is an act of perfect grace. 3. That Christ's sufferings satisfied public justice; and therefore, with respect to public justice, sal- vation is an act of perfect justice. It will appear from hence that any scheme of salvation which represents Christ as suffering on the ground of distributive justice is quite erroneous; for if justice could demand his sufferings, he was treated according to his own personal character; and of consequence his sufferings had no more merit than those of a transgressor. If these were just, in the same sense as the sufferings of the sinner would be just, then he en- dured no more than he ought to endure. His death, therefore, on this plan, made no atonement for sin. Be- sides, to represent Christ's sufferings to be the same as those of his people, is to destroy all grace in salvation ; for if in him they have endured all to which they were exposed, from what are they delivered ? and in what re- spect are they forgiven Further, If the sufferings of Christ had respect to pub- lic justice only, as the above statement supposes, then nothing can with certainty be inferred from thence as to the number that shall be finally saved. The salvation of the elect is secured and their condemnation rendered im- possible by other considerations; but if the Scriptures had given us no further light on this subject than what we derive from the sufferings of Christ, whether we con- sider them for a part, or for all mankind, we should have been wholly in the dark as to the final issue of those suf- ferings. As their nature and design were to render the pardon of sin consistent, it appears that the atonement is as sufficient for the salvation of millions of worlds as of an individual sinner; for whatever would render one act of pardon of sin consistent, simply as the exercise of mercy, would render another consistent, and so on ad infinitum. The number of instances in which atonement will be ap- plied, and pardon granted through that medium, will de- pend wholly on the sovereign purpose and determination of God. CREDULITY AND DISINGENUITY OF UNEELIEF. AN old man who travelled the country as a philosophical lecturer was one evening entertaining his audience, which consisted chiefly of young people, by attempting to account for that famous pile of stones near Salisbury, commonly called Stonehenge. He supposed it might have been a temple; whether Saxon, Roman, or British, he did not say. Indeed his ideas seem to have gone far beyond every period of history with which we are acquainted. The principal thing on which he insisted was its being used for viewing the heavenly bodies; and from this part of his hypothesis he drew some very singular conclusions. The structure, he supposed, originally faced the south ; but that the points themselves, in a great number of years, change their positions; and as Stonehenge did not now face the south, he concluded it was owing to this cause, and that from hence we might calculate how long it had been erected. By the mode of calculation which he adopted, it was easy to perceive that in his account it must have existed 270,000 years . It is true, he did not proceed so far as to draw the conclusion, as that might have excited prejudices against what he had further to advance; but the thing itself was plainly understood by the company. In his course of lectures he also made mention of some very ancient writings, found in the Shanscrit language, and brought to light by Sir William Jones, in which men- tion was made of this country, as a kind of sacred place, to which pilgrimages were made in those very early ages; and, if I am accurate in my recollection, he supposed Stonehenge might be a place of such resort. Lately, looking into Vol. III. of the Asiatic Disserta- tions, I found something which reminded me of the old lecturer's assertion. It was in a dissertation of Lieut. 1000 FUGITIVE PIECES. Wilford's, “On Egypt and the Nile, from the ancient books of the Hindoos.” I here found that the Puranas, or historic poems of the Hindoos, made mention of “the sacred western islands,” as a place to which pilgrims in those early ages had been used to resort. “Many brah- mins indeed assert,” adds Lieut. Wilford, “that a great intercourse anciently subsisted between India and coun- tries in the west; and, as far as I have examined their sa- cred books, to which they appeal as their evidence, I strongly incline to believe their assertion.” Thus far the supposition of our philosopher seems to be confirmed. The reader may suppose that I now felt a desire to ascertain, if possible, the antiquity of the Puranas. Surely, thought I, they are not 270,000 years old ! On inquiry, I soon perceived that they must have been writ- ten since the time of the flood, by the manifest reference which they make to Noah and his three sons. The fol- lowing translation by Sir William Jones, and which he declares to be minutely exact, though in the hands of the readers of the Asiatic Dissertations, may be new to many others, and will serve to show that Indian literature, in- stead of weakening the authority of Scripture, tends rather to confirm it. FROM THE PADMA PURAN, “To Satyavarman, that sovereigr, of the whole earth, were born three sons: the eldest Shermot, then C*harma, and thirdly Jyapet; by name. They were all men of good morals, excellent in virtue and virtuous deeds; skilled in the use of weapons to strike with, or to be thrown ; brave men, eager for victory in battle. But Satyavarman being continually delighted with devout meditation, and seeing his sons fit for dominion, laid upon them the burden of government. Whilst he remained honouring and satisfy- ing the gods, and priests, and kine, one day, by the act of destiny, the king having drunk mead became senseless, and lay asleep naked. Then was he seen by Charma, and by him were his two brothers called To whom he said, What has now befallen 7 In what state is this our sire 3 By those two was he hidden with clothes, and called to his senses again and again. “Having recovered his intellect, and perfectly knowing what had passed, he cursed Cºharma, saying, Thou shalt be the servant of servants. And since thou wast a laugher in their presence, from laughter shalt thou acquire a name.* Then he gave to Sherma the wide domain on the south of the Snowy mountains. And to Jyapet; he gave all the north of the snowy mountains; but he by the power of religious contemplation attained supreme bliss.” + I will only add a part of the eulogium on the life and writings of Sir William Jones, by the Right Hon. Lord Teignmouth, in his address to the Asiatic Society. “He professed his conviction of the truth of the Chris- tian religion, and justly deemed it no inconsiderable ad- vantage that his researches had corroborated and multi- plied evidences of revelation, by confirming the Mosaic account of the primitive world. We all recollect, and can refer to the following sentiments in his eighth anniversary discourse :—“Theological inquiries are no part of my pre- sent subject ; but I cannot refrain from adding that the collection of tracts which we call, from their excellence, the Scriptures, contain, independently of a Divine origin, more true sublimity, more important history, and finer strains both of poetry and eloquence, than could be col- lected within the same compass from all other books that were ever composed in any age, or in any language. The two parts of which the Scriptures consist are connected by a chain of compositions which bear no resemblance in form or style to any that can be produced from the stores of Grecian, Italian, Persian, or even Arabic learning. The antiquity of those compositions no man doubts, and the unrestrained application of them to events long subsequent to their publication is a solid ground of belief that they were genuine predictions, and consequently inspired.’” The old lecturer's desire of introducing the Asiatic Re- searches, in a way unfriendly to the Scriptures, reminds us of the wish of a certain jealous king, and of his dealing with “the wise men of the east ’’ in order to obtain it. The wise men of the east, it seems, are not to be drawn into such measures. Their business is to do homage to the Messiah, and not to join with his murderers. ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE GLASGOW MISSIONARY SOCIETY. [A letter to Mr. H. Muir, Glasgow.] DEAR SIR, I greatly rejoice in the establishment of your Society. If many were formed, there would be no need of any apology to those which are formed already. There is work enough for us all. The harvest truly is great, and I heartily wish you success. If the exertions of our Society have contributed to excite the public spirit which now prevails through the kingdom, it is no small reward. We have found the undertaking particularly useful in uniting and quickening us in re- ligion; and I trust it will produce similar effects among Christians in general. Where no object of magnitude at- tracts our regard, we are apt to pore on our own miseries; and where nothing exists as an object in which we may all unite, we are apt to turn our attention chiefly to those things in which we differ. It is well for ourselves, there- fore, to be engaged in some arduous undertaking which shall interest our hearts, bring us into contact with one another, and cause us to feel that we are brethren. As to your questions, our experience you know is but small. It is little more than three years since we began, and only two missions have yet been undertaken ; what I have observed, however, I shall with the utmost freedom communicate. You ask— First, “What are the requisite talents and character of a missionary 3” As to talents, there is a considerable difference to be made betwixt a principal and an assistant in any mission. In every mission I conceive there should be one person at least of a clear head, calm, cool, enterprising, prudent, and persevering ; and as it will be an object of the first importance in due time to translate the Scriptures, it would be well for him to have some knowledge of lan- guages. But as to others who may accompany him, no great talents are mecessary; a warm heart for Christ, an ardent love to the souls of poor heathens, an upright cha- racter, and a decent share of common sense, are sufficient. No man is fit to be sent, in my judgment, either as a prin- cipal or an assistant, who does not possess a peculiar desire after the work; such a desire as would render him un- happy in any other employment. I do not mean to plead for enthusiastical impressions; yet an impression there must be, and an abiding one too, that all the fatigues, dis- appointments, non-success, and discouragements of such an undertaking shall not be able to efface. When God has had any extraordinary work to perform, it has been his practice to raise up suitable instruments, and to im- press their minds with suitable views and desires. The wall of Jerusalem needed rebuilding, and God put it into the heart of Nehemiah to go and build it. It was this particular desire which God put into his heart which en- abled him to encounter difficulties and surmount obstruc- tions at which ninety-nine men out of a hundred would have fainted. When the second temple was to be built, God stirred up the spirit of Zerubbabel and of Joshua. It is not every person however who may possess a desire to be a missionary who ought to be accepted. You will probably find many during this great stir who will offer themselves to go, but whose desire upon examination will be found to have originated in a dissatisfaction with some- thing at home. They dislike the politics of their country, and therefore wish to leave it; or they have been chagrined by disappointment in civil and worldly affairs; or they are vain, and conceive it to be a fine thing to attract the atten- * They say he was nicknamed Hasyasila, or the Laugher; and his descendants were called, from him, Hacyasilas. By the descendants of C'harma, they understood, says Lieut. Wilford, the African JYe- groes.—Asiatic Diss. Vol. III. pp. 90,91. + Asiatic Dissertations, Vol. III. p. 262. ! - QUALIFICATIONS AND LOCATION OF MISSIONARIES. 1001 tion and bear a commission from thousands; or they are idle, and wish to ramble up and down the world; or in- considerate, and have not properly counted the cost. Even ministers will be found who are unacceptable at home, and therefore desire to change their situation. But none of these motives will bear. It is true, every one who was discontented, distressed, or in debt, gathered themselves to David; and they might answer his purpose, but not ours. A pure, disinterested, ardent desire to serve the Lord in this work is the one thing needful. When we perceive such desire in a candidate, and he voluntarily offers, or in some way discovers his inclination, we then make inquiry what is his general Christian character. Is he upright, modest, benevolent, prudent, patient 3 if so, we are satisfied.—You ask— Secondly, “What is the best mode of introducing him and the subject of his mission to the heathen * * We at present think it best not to send them in large companies, but two and two, unless they have wives and children, who, of course, would go with them ; partly be- cause we wish to make no parade, but to go on in a course of silent activity, that in case of disappointments and dis- asters, which we ought to lay our account with, the work may not sink in the general estimation; and partly because we wish them to be convinced at the outset that we have no hostile intentions towards them ; and this cannot be done so effectually as by going and throwing ourselves upon their generosity. A large company might excite alarm ; but two or three people going into the midst of them, putting their lives into their hand, would ordinarily have a contrary effect. The extent of the British trade is such that we cannot fail of a passage, by merchant ships, to almost any part of the world. Carey and Thomas, and their families, kept up worship in the ship, though sur- rounded with infidels and profane people; and an infidel who went with them, and is since returned, has said, “If ever there was a good man in the world, Carey was one.” As to the mode of introducing the subject of their mission, that must be according to circumstances. In Hindostan they have an advantage in Mr. Thomas having been first. His method was to go into a town or village. The sight of a European, walking up and down, would excite as much attention among them as a Turk would among us. He would single out some intelligent looking person, and begin to ask him questions. This would draw others round them ; he would then, having the whole village of 400 or 500 people, talk to them, ask them questions, show the evil of idolatry, convict them of sin, and introduce the Saviour. In Africa, all round the Sierra Leone colony, the natives want English people to teach their children to read, write, &c. We therefore direct our missionaries to that country to go to the colony, and get recommended to the natives, first as schoolmasters; and while they taught the children to read, write, &c., to teach the parents, as well as the children, Christianity. Were I to go into a country where no Europeans were to be found, I would go immediately among the natives, and, by signs, convince them that I wished to cast in my lot with them. I would watch the names they gave to things, and write them down as they occurred. Thus a vocabulary would rapidly advance : while thus learning their language, I would live as they lived, and conform to their manners in all lawful things: when they revelled, or sacrificed to their idols, I would stand aloof, and, by my nonconformity, silently reprove them. When I sufficiently understood their language, I would tell them there was a God in heaven—that I was a worshipper and servant of him—that idolatry, and all iniquity, was hateful in his sight —that there was an hereafter, when these things would be brought into account—that, from the love I bore to him and them, I had come amongst them to tell them of these things—that God, in love to sinners, had sent his Son to die, &c., and now commanded all men, every where, to repent ; that he was able and willing to save all that re- turned to God by him ; and that all others would everlast- ingly perish, &c. And now, dear sir, I must conclude. As I am going out to-morrow, for some days, I thought I would answer your letter now, and that of your friend when it arrives. Whether my answer be in point, so as to meet your diffi- culties, I cannot tell ; but I have suggested what appear- ed best to me. Remember me affectionately to your Society. I shall be happy at any time to hear from you, and to communicate any thing in my power. I lately received a letter and a handsome donation from a Mr. David Dale of your city. Remember me affectionately to him. I am, dear sir, with cordial esteem, yours in our common Lord. A. F. IMPORTANCE OF A LIVELY FAITH, Especially IN MISSIONARY UNIDERTAKINGS. [Written in 1799.] I HAVE been a good deal impressed with a persuasion that in our missionary undertakings, both at home and abroad, we shall not be remarkably successful, unless we enter deeply into the spirit of the primitive Christians; particularly with respect to faith in the Divine promises. I am apprehensive that we are all deficient in this grace, and therefore presume that a few hints on the subject may not be unseasonable. When Israel went out of Egypt, they greatly rejoiced on the shores of the Red Sea ; but the greater part of them entered not into the Promised Land, and that on ac- count of their unbelief. The resemblance between their case and ours has struck my mind with considerable force. The grand object of their undertaking was to root out idolatry, and to establish the knowledge and worship of the one living and true God; and such also is ours. The authority on which they acted was the sovereign com- mand of Heaven; and ours is the same. “Go preach the gospel to every creature.” The ground on which they were to rest their hope of success was the Divine promise. It was by relying on this alone that they were enabled to surmount difficulties, and to encounter their gigantic enemies. Those among them who believed, like Joshua and Caleb, felt themselves well able to go up; but they that distrusted the promise turned their backs in the hour of danger. Such also is the ground of our hope. He who hath commissioned us to “teach all nations” hath added, “Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world.” The heathen nations are given to our Re- deemer for an inheritance, as much as Canaan was given to the seed of Abraham ; and it is our business, as it was theirs, to go up and possess the land. We should lay our account with difficulties as well as they ; but, according to our faith in the Divine promises, we may expect these mountains to become a plain. If the Lord delight in us, he will bring us into the land ; but if, like the unbeliev- ing Israelites, we make light of the promised good, or magnify the difficulties in the way of obtaining it, and so relax our efforts, we may expect to die as it were in the wilderness. It is true, there are some differences between their case and ours; but they are wholly in our favour. We are not, like them, going to possess countries for ourselves, but for Christ. They went armed with the temporal sword, we with the sword of the Spirit; they were com- missioned in justice to destroy men's lives, we in mercy to save their souls; they sought not them but theirs, we seek not theirs but them. Now by how much our cause exceeds theirs in the magnitude and beneficence of its ob- ject, by so much the more shall we incur the frowns of Heaven, if we fail of accomplishing it through unbelief. On a certain occasion “the disciples said unto the Lord, Increase our faith ;” and it is worth while to consider what that occasion was, Luke xvii. 3–6. There was a hard duty enjoined, to forgive lamented injuries, even though committed seven times a day. The apostles very properly turn the injunction into a petition, praying for great grace to enable them to discharge so difficult a duty. They said unto the Lord, “Increase our faith.” But why ask for an increase of faith? Possibly we might have said, Lord, increase our love, our self-denial, our patience. Asking for an increase of faith was asking for an increase I 002 FUGITIVE PIECES. * of every other grace ; this being a kind of first wheel that sets the rest in motion. Our Lord's answer intimates that they had chosen a right petition ; for faith, even in a small degree, will enable us to surmount great difficulties —difficulties the surmounting of which is as the removal of mountains. The passage, taken in its connexion, teaches us the efficacy of faith in discharging duties, and surmount- ing difficulties. Where there is no faith in the truths and promises of the gospel, there is no heart for duty; and where it is very low and defective in its exercises, there is but little spirit- ual activity. If a good man be entangled in sceptical doubts respecting the truth of the gospel, or any of its leading doctrines, he will, during that time, be not only unhappy in his own mind, but of little use to others. He admits that God used in former ages to hear the prayers and succeed the labours of his servants, and that there will be times in which great things will again be wrought for the church. But of late, and especially in the present age, he imagines we are not to expect any thing remarkable. This is no other than a spice of that atheistical spirit which said, “The Lord hath forsaken the earth, he regardeth not man; ” the effect of which is an indifference to every ex- ercise and enterprise of a religious nature. Faith operates as a stimulus, unbelief as a palsy. - If faith in Divine truths and promises be low, though we should be drawn in with others to engage in religious en- terprises, yet we shall not follow them up with ardent prayer, or look for the blessing of God with that earnest expectation which generally precedes the bestowment of it. Instead of forgetting the things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, we shall be in danger of resting satisfied in present attainments, and so of losing the things which we have wrought, for want of following up the work to which we have set our hands. All the great things that have been wrought in the church of God have been accomplished by this principle. It was by faith that the worthies “subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed va- liant in fight, and put to flight the armies of the aliens.” It was by faith that the apostles and primitive Christians went forth as sheep among wolves, and, at the expense of all that was dear to them on earth, carried the gospel into all nations. Wherever they went they were previously persuaded that they should go in the fulness of the blessing of the gospel of Christ; and it was so. God always caused them to triumph in Christ, and made manifest the savour of his knowledge by them in every place. Could we but imbibe this spirit, surely we should be able, in some good degree, to say so too. “Believe in the Lord our God, so shall ye be established; believe his prophets, so shall ye prosper.” But why is it that God should thus honour the exercise of faith ? Is it not because faith is a grace that peculiarly honours him $ We cannot do greater dishonour to a per- son of kind and generous intentions than by thinking very ill of him, and acting towards him on the ground of such evil thoughts. It was thus that the slothful servant thought and acted towards his lord. On the other hand, we cannot do greater honour to a character of the above description than by thinking well of him, and placing the most unre- served confidence in all he says. Any man who had a just regard to honour would in such a case feel a strong inducement to answer the expectations which were enter- tained of him. And God himself hath condescended to in- timate something like the same thing. “The Lord taketh pleasure in them that fear him, in those that hope in his mercy.” In believing his word we think well of him, and he takes pleasure in answering such expectations; proving thereby that we have thought justly concerning him. It was on this principle that our Lord usually conferred the blessings of miraculous healing, in answer to the faith of the patient, or of those that accompanied him. “If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth. According to your faith be it unto you.” INFINITE EVIL OF SIN. 1. Is not the whole that is meant by the infinite evil of sin, that, on account of the Object against whom it is com- mitted, it is so great an evil as to involve consequences without end ?–2. Is not the whole that is meant by the infinite value of Christ's sufferings, that, on account of the dignity of the sufferer, they also involve in them conse- quences without end ?–3. Is not the former of these ques- tions consistent with different degrees of guilt, and conse- quently of punishment in the sinner; and the latter with a finite degree of suffering in the Saviour?–4. Does not the merit of obedience sink, and the demerit of disobedience rise, according to the excellency of the Object? THE LEPIER. [A Memorandum, June 30, 1798.] WE sinners in this world are as lepers in a “several house.” The great High Priest from above has deigned, and still deigns, to visit us. Happy will it be for us if, during his visitations, we are purified from our uncleanness. If so, we shall be reunited to the society of the blessed ; but if otherwise, if we die in impenitence and unbelief, what is said of the confirmed leper will be true of us, without the camp must our habitation be ON THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH. [An original letter.] MY DEAR FRIEND, Kettering, Aug. 25, 1805. I RECEIVED yours yesterday, and, though my hands are full, I must write you a few thoughts on the Lord’s day. Your views on that subject, I am persuaded, are injurious to your soul, and to the souls of many more in — It is one of those consequences which arise from an extreme at- tention to instituted worship, to the neglect of what is moral. If the keeping of a sabbath to God were not in all ages binding, why is it introduced in the moral law, and founded upon God’s resting from his works 3 If it were merely a Jewish ceremonial, why do we read of time being divided by weeks before the law . There was a day in the time of John the apostle which the Lord called his own ; and as you do not suppose this to be the seventh, (for, if it were, we ought still to keep it,) you must allow it to be the first. The first day then ought to be kept as the Lord’s own day, and we ought not to think our own thoughts, con- verse on our own affairs, nor follow our own business on it. To say, as you do, that we must not eat our own supper on that day is requiring what was never required on the Jew- ish sabbath. Necessary things were always allowed. Nor did my argument from 1 Cor. xi. suppose this. The ar- gument was—the ordinance of breaking bread being called the Lord's supper proved that they ought not to eat their own supper while eating that supper; therefore the first day being called the Lord's day proves we ought not to follow our own unnecessary concerns while that day cont:- nues, but to devote it to the Lord, and this is a moral duty —that, whatever day we keep, we keep it to the Lord. Your notions of instituted worship, to the overlooking of what is moral, I am persuaded have injured you as to family worship and family government. It is not said of Abra- ham that God gave him a special precept about command- ing “his household after him,” but knew him that he would do it. It was one of those things, and so is the other, of which it might be said, “Ye need not that I write this unto you ; for ye yourselves are taught of God to do these.” But allowing your argument, that there is no sin in at- tending to worldly things on the Lord’s day, yet, according to Paul's reasoning in 1 Cor. viii., you ought to refrain. PICTURE OF AN ANTINOMIAN. 1003 You cause others to offend God by breaking what they consider a Divine commandment. And the reasoning of Paul, in chap. viii. 8, applies to you : If you do these things you are not the better; and if you abstained you would not be the worse. Do you not hereby sin against Christ, and wound those whom you account your weaker brethren? You must also have done harm to your son, and to the waiters at the inn. Reckon me if you please a weak brother. But so fully convinced am I of the invari- able obligation of keeping a day to the Lord, that if I had seen what I did on the Lord’s day morning, it would have marred all my comfort at the Lord’s supper, and I know not that I could have there united with you. I write not because I love you not, but the reverse . . . . but, alas ! the taint of your old principles I fear will remain . . . . Oh that they did not : My dear friend, I see in you so much to love that I can- not but long to see more ; and particularly to see that old leaven purged out. “The knowledge of the holy is un- derstanding.” It is this sort of leaven that makes those few Baptists at — afraid to unite with many of your Baptists; and I cannot but approve of their conduct. They would unite with any individual who comes to them and gives satisfactory evidence of his Christianity, and of his Christian walk; but if they unite with Baptists by whole companies, they are ruined. I was told at —— that the way in which the Baptists in Mr. in members was by merely requiring an account of their faith, that is, a creed, and not of the influence of truth upon their own mind. The consequence is, as might be expected, great numbers of them are men of no personal godliness, but mere speculatists. Churches formed on such principles must (like what I have heard of many SO- cieties) sink into nothing, or worse than nothing, mere worldly communities, a sort of freemasons' lodges. dear friend, flee from the remains of such religion . I mean no reflection upon individuals. I trust Mr. is a good man ; and I have been told his church is in the main one of the best : but, on such a principle, it cannot stand. Affectionately yours, A. F. PICTURE OF AN ANTINOMIAN. UNDERSTANDING that a certain preacher, who was reported to be more than ordinarily evangelical, was to deliver a sermon in the town where I reside, and hearing some of my neighbours talk of going to hear “ the gospel,” I re- solved to go too. I thought that I loved the gospel, and felt a concern for my neighbours' welfare : I wished there- fore to observe, and form the best judgment I could of what it was to which they applied with such an emphasis that revered name. I arrived, I believe unobserved, just after the naming of the text; and staid, though with some difficulty, till the discourse was ended. I pass over what relates to manner, and also much whimsical interpretation of Scripture ; and shall now confine my remarks to the substance and drift of the discourse. - There were a few good things delivered, which, as they are stated in the Bible, are the support and joy of pious minds. I thought I could see how these things might please the real Christian, though, on account of the con- fused manner of their being introduced, not the judicious Christian. Pious people enjoy the good things they hear, and, being thus employed, they attend not to what is erro- neous; or, if they hear the words, let them go as points which they do not understand, but which they think the wiser preacher and hearers do. º I cannot give you the plan of the sermon, for the preacher ’s connexion take My | appeared not to have had one. I recollect however, in the course of his harangue, the following things.-‘‘Some men will tell you,” said he, “ that it is the duty of men to be- lieve in Christ. These men say that you must get Christ, get grace, and that of yourselves ; convert yourselves, make yourselves new creatures, get the Holy Spirit yourselves,” &c. Here he went on with an abundance of misrepre- sentation and slander, too foul to be repeated. He asserted with the highest tone of confidence I ever heard in any place, much less in a pulpit, his own saint- ship; loudly and repeatedly declaiming to this effect—“I must go to glory—I cannot be lost—I am as safe as Christ —all devils, all sins cannot hurt me !” In short, he preached himself, not Christ Jesus the Lord. He was his own theme, I believe, throughout one half at least of his sermon. He went over what he called his experience, but seemed to shun the dark part of it; and the whole tended to proclaim what a wonderful man he was. Little of Christ could be seen : he himself stood before him : and when his name did occur, I was shocked at the dishonour which appeared to be cast upon him. All accurate distinction of character, such as is constantly maintained in the Scriptures, vanished before his vocifera- tion. The audience was harangued in a way which left each one to suppose himself included among the blessed. This confusion of character was the ground on which he stood exclaiming, “I am saved—I am in Christ—I cannot be lost—sins and devils may surround me, but, though I fall and sin, I am safe—Christ cannot let me go—lusts and corruptions may overwhelm me in filth and pollution, as a sea rolling over my head; but all this does not, cannot affect the new man—the new nature is not touched or sullied by this: it cannot sin, because it is born of God—I stand amidst this overwhelming sea unhurt.” All this the hearers were told in substance, and persuaded to adopt ; and it was sin and unbelief not to do so | The whole was interspersed with levity, low wit, and great irreverence. On the most solemn subjects of “hell, devils, and damnation,” he raved like a Billingsgate or blasphemer. On the adorable and amazing names of the ever-blessed God, he rallied and sported with such light- ness and rant as was truly shocking. This was especially the case in his repeating the words of the prophet Isaiah : “Who is among you that feareth the Lord, that obeyeth the voice of his servant, that walketh in darkness, and hath no light; let him trust in the name of the Lord, and stay upon his God.” The manner in which the sacred name was here used was highly profane and impious. On returning from the place, I was affected with the delusion by which some of my neighbours were borne away, crying up the preacher as an oracle, “a bold de- fender of the gospel.” To me his words appear to answer with great exactness to what is called, by the apostle to Timothy, “profane and vain babbling;” and which, from an accurate observation, Paul declared “would increase unto more ungodliness; and would eat as doth a canker,” or gangrene. - Need I ask, Can this be true religion ? The effects which it produces, both on individuals and on societies, sufficiently ascertain its nature. It was and is affecting to me to think what a state the world is in ; so few making any profession of serious religion, and so few of those that do who have their senses exercised to discern between good and evil. To think of Christian congregations who have heard the word of truth for a number of years being carried away with such preaching as this is humiliating and dis- tressing to a reflecting mind. Alas, how easily men are imposed upon in their eternal concerns ! It is not so with them in other things; but here the grossest imposture will go down with applause. Yet why do I thus speak # “There must needs be heresies, that they who are ap- proved may be made manifest.” THE END. G E N E R A L IN T) E X. ABELARD, his character, 69. Ability.—See Inability. Abraham, call of, its peculiarities, 369; promise to, ib.; his equivoca- tion, 370, 382; his noble conduct in the separation from Lot, 371 ; his slaughter of the kings, 372; meets Melchisedek, ib.; justified by faith, 373; covenant with him and his seed, 377; promise to, ib.; entertains angels, 379; intercedes for Sodom, 380; trial of, 385; his death and burial, 391. Accountability of man, 174,216,972. Acts of the Apostles, not a development of principles so much as a his- tory of transactions, 117; the doctrines incidentally developed not Socinian, 118. Adam, our federal relation to him, 168,216, 239, 350; his alleged spirit- ual incapacity in innocence, a fundamental principle of Mr. Button’s reasoning, 203, derogatory to the glory of creation, 205; his pro- bable conversion, 356; his generations, 357; fall of, whether pre- determined, 971. Address, to deists, 45, Jews, 47, Christians, 49; to the afflicted, 951. Adoption, spirit of, peculiar to the gospel dispensation, 491, 606; fruits of 606, 607, in glory, 636. Afflicted, address to, 951; difficulties in conversing with, 952. Afflictions, not to be compared with future glory, 634; consolation in, 666 “Age of Reason,” policy of the title, 3, character of the book, 4; the present, its peculiarity, 294. See Aspect. Agency, free, of man, 350, consists in the power of following the in- clination, 298; all that can be ascribed to any being whatever, ib. ; this sufficient to constitute men accountable, ib.; consistent with Divine decrees, 169, 206, 207, 231, 237. Agnostos, letters of, written by Mr. Fuller, 234. Agreement in sentiment, the bond of Christian union, 847. Agur, his wish exemplified, 427. Ahab deceived by the lying spirit, 508. Aidov, ałęvios, &c., meaning of the terms, 140, 931. Alienation of the heart from God, 617. Allegory, abuse of, in preaching, 758. Alms-giving, obligation of, 489. ‘Auapria, meaning of, 319, Amen of prayer, review of Mr. Booth’s sermon on,966. “Analytical Review,” animadversions on, 130 Anderson, Mr., his views of faith examined, 153. Anecdotes of Mr. Fuller, lxxxix. Angel, flying with the everlasting gospel, 466; conflict of with the kings of Persia, 516. Angels, appearances of, to the patriarchs, 379, 405, 430; desiring to look into the mysteries of redemption, 528; rejoicing in the pro- gress of Christ's kingdom, 956; their ministrations, 517; of the churches, pastors in their representative character, 440. Annihilation, the doctrine of, opposed, 136. Antediluvians, their longevity, 357; wickedness, 358, 359, 531; de- struction, 361. Antinomian, picture of an, 1003. Antinomianism, definition of, 300, 337; fruits of 300, 341 ; distin- guished by selfishness, 335; by low abuse, ib.; defective in its sup- posed conversions, 336; its abuse of the doctrine of providence, 337, and of grace, 341, and gospel liberty, 339; annuls the law of God, 338; furnishes the sinner with excuses, ib. Antinomians, practical religion offensive to, 340, 715; despise the phraseology of Christ and his apostles as legal, ib. ; willing that others should make the law a rule of conduct towards them, 340. Apocalypse.—See Revelation. Apostacy, the result of a faith essentially defective, 267,536; from the truth, occasioned by a superficial acquaintance with it, 562. Apostles, their business in ordinations, &c., 288; their position similar to that of dissenting ministers in this country, 569. :Apostolic office, remarks on, 851. Arógroxos, attoor-taxoort, comments on the words, 851. Approbation, the Divine, necessary to success, 567. Appropriating faith, 152, involves the salvation of all who hear the gospel, 154; views of Messrs. Hervey, Marshall, and Anderson on, examined, 153. - Aristotle, his illustration of the word alſova, 141, note. Ark, the, dimensions of, 360; salvation by, typical of ours by Christ,363. Arminians, their notions of free-will, 299, identical with stoicism, 79, note ; their arguments the same as those of high Calvinists, 167, 168, 173,210, 215, note; apology for the use of the appellation, 210; their scheme does not remove the difficulty it professes to meet, 231, 248; injurious influence of their doctrines, 879, xxvi. Arms, their use not forbidden by Christianity, 577. Articles of a church, no criterion of its character, 837. Artillery, use of, predicted, 453. . - Aspect, of the present age, 49, 294,480,482,563; variety of in the same providence, 567. - Assurance, doctrine of, abused, 152. Atonement of Christ, 83; its design, 316; consistent with reason, 35; with the modern views of the magnitude of creation, 39; with grace, 492, 998; typified and predicted, 461; illustrated in the dealings of God with men, 363, 414; the subject of Abel's faith, 355; its con- solations, 96; Mr. Jerram’s piece on, reviewed, 968.-See Justice, Death of Christ, Redemption. Awakened sinner, the, 874; exercises of, ib. B BABEL, tower of, its date and design, 367. Babylon, papal, her characteristics, 471 ; destruction of, 466,471, 515. Backslider, not addressed by Christ as a believer, but as a sinner, 443; occasion of writing the treatise so called, 912, note; his own re- prover, 995. Backsliding, its nature and different species, 913; manifested by error in doctrine, ib., gross immorality, ib., love of the world,914, worldly conformity, ib., political excitement, 915; symptoms of exhibited in a heartless attention to religious duties, 916, palliation of sin, ib., not forsaking it, ib., or doing so from temporary alarm, 917, or from interested motives, ib., conversing or thinking on the sin with gratification, ib., trifling with temptation, ib.; its continuance de- prives of the conservative enjoyment of religion, 918, renders us useless and injurious, ib., exposes to future attacks, 919; means of recovery from,-reading suitable scriptures, and prayer, 921, re- flection on the aggravations of the past, 922, on the forbearance of God, ib., on former happy exercises of mind, ib., special humiliation, 923, watchfulness, ib., application to Christ as a sinner rather than a backsliding believer, ib., resting satisfied with nothing short of entire recovery, ib., all return must be to God, 925; preservation against, 982. Balaam, said to be descended from Lot, 403; doctrine of 441. Baptism, Christian, its practical uses, 728; of John and Christ sub- stantially the same, ib.; a solemn and practical profession of Chris- tianity, ib.; in the name of the Trinity, ib. ; cleansing from sin, and burial with Christ, represented by the mode of it, 729; separation of the church from the world, ib. ; the frequent means of revival in believers, and conversion of the ungodly, 730; its importance urged, ib.; abuse of it deprecated, ib.; a prerequisite to communion at the Ilord's table, 853, this sentiment, maintained by Paedobaptists, is charged on their brethren as bigotry, ib., 855, 856, the charge de- nied, 856; has an instituted connexion with the Lord’s supper, 857, argued from the order of the commission to baptize, &c., the prac- tice of the first Christians, ib., from the initiatory character of the ordinance, ib. Baptists, a denial of the duty of faith inconsistent with their senti- ments, 163; their principles not opposed to the Abrahamic cove- mant, 377, note; charged with separating their children from the church, 852; the charge belongs to those who, having admitted, have not retained them, ib.; to admit the validity of paedobaptism is to relinquish their own principles, 853, 855. 13arrača, interpreted by Paedobaptists on the same principles as the Universalists translate atov, 931, 933; rules for judging of its meaning, 933, 935; eighty-two of the most learned paedobaptists acknowledge that it properly denotes immersion, 933. Barbauld, Mrs., her testimony to Calvinism, 62, 70. Barnabas, a faithful and successful minister, 546. Barnard, Hannah, her attempts to promote Socinian principles among the “Friends,” 967. Barrow, Dr., his intolerant sermon against dissenting missions, 824. Baxter, the author’s opinion of his sentiments, 325. Beast, the apocalyptic, wounded by Constantine, 463. Being of God, not to be proved but assumed, 348. Believers, review of their past and present state, 617. Believing with the heart, 182. Belsham, Rev. Mr., traduces his own principles, 60; degrades the moral law, 64; pleads for the importance of sentiment, 85 ; his re- view of Wilberforce's Practical Christianity, 131. Benevolence, its nature, 74; distinguished from esteem, ib., 489; af- fected, of inquisitors, 464. - Bengal officer, attack of, on Christianity and missions, 809; his ex- tracts from a Hindoo tract compared and falsified, 810; defends image worship, 812. Berridge, Rev. J., the author's interview with, lxxx. Bethel, memorable for Divine communication, 398, 401, 429. Bevan’s defence of Friends, occasion of it,967; reviewed, ib GENERAL INDEX. 1005 Bible.—See Scriptures. e sº Bible Society, its origin traced, xxxix. ; minute of, on the death of Mr. Fuller, lxxxviii. Biblical criticism, its principles, 93, 132, 931–935; rules of, 141, 143, 932, 934, 990. Bigotry, charge of, against Calvinists, 80; defined, 83. Birmingham riots deprecated, 51. Bishop, a pastor of a single congregation, 833,838. Blood, eating of, forbidden to Jews and Gentiles, 363; a rational pro- hibition, ib. Blosset, Sir H., his encomium on the “Memoirs of Mr. Pearce,” lxi. Bogue and Bennett’s “History of Dissenters,” remarks on, 841. Bolingbroke, Lord, denies the moral character of God, 6; advocates adultery, 10; his testimony to Christian morality, 46. Book, of life, a register of professors, 442; with seven seals written within only, 444, note. Booth, Rev. A., his “ Glad Tidings,” 156; review of 965; denies holy disposition as necessary to faith, 181; considers the gospel itself a warrant to every man for faith in Christ, 964; advocates the uni- versal invitations of the gospel, ib.; review of his sermon on the “Amen of social Prayer,” 966; interviews with Mr. Fuller, and sub- sequent occurrences, 317; value of his counsel, 643. Bow in the clouds, 364. Braybrook church, account of Mr. Fuller's preaching in, lix. Brine, Rev. Mr., his views of the obligation of faith, 158, 160; de- scribes it as a choice of Christ, ib.; deprecates the popular abuse of election, 170. Broad and narrow way, 669. Bunyan, John, maintained the doctrines of election and free invita- tions to the impenitent, xxv. Butler, Bishop, his imperfect views of “the doctrine of the gospel,” 612; rectified in the hour of death, 887. Button, Rev. W., reply to his treatise, 191; his idea of saving faith, 195. C CAIN, his doom, 356; and Abel, offerings of 354. & e Calvin, his persecution of Servetus, 75; his views of imputation, 310; on the obligation of unregenerate sinners to believe in Christ, 168 Calvinism, compared to Socinianism in its moral tendency and influ- ence, 50; this test advanced by Dr. Priestley, 52; defended, 107; appeal to facts, 55, 68, 75; its views of the Divine law, 63, and Di- vine character, 70; its alleged bigotry, 80; promotes happiness, 94, holiness, 97; charged with representing God as a tyrant, 71, 121; its superior motives to gratitude and love to God,97, 123; the use of the appellation justified, 210; its alleged difficulties not removed by the Arminian tenets, 231, 248; charged with licentiousness, 232; the author charged with forsaking its principles, 322. Campbell, his note on John iii. 3, 278; on John xvii. 24, 343. Candour, its nature, 74; counterfeit, exposed, 8l. Catholics, principles and effects of their Chinese mission, 58. Cause of damnation, 164, 236. Changes of time, 673. Character, not determined by individual acts, 980. Charity, considered, 80,978. Charnock, his discourse on the sin of unbelief, 163. Charter of the last India Company, clause obtained in, favourable to missions, lxxx. ; evaded, lxxxii. Chesterfield, Lord, his melancholy reflections at the close of life, 24. Children, concern for their spiritual welfare, 591, 677; in what sense saved by the faith of parents,852; the Baptists charged with separat- ing them from the church, ib.; the charge returned upon Congrega- tionalists on their own principles, ib. Choice of the gospel, what, 160. Christ, the Son of God prior to his incarnation, 943; extent of his death, see Death, &c.; died for the ungodly, 184; worship of him consistent with love to God, 73; his coming from above an evidence that he was not a man only, 87, note; his proper Deity a fundament- al truth, 82, 86; his omniscience, 630; his grace augmented by pre- existent glory, 650; love to him essential to Christianity, 86, want of it anathematized, 663, consistent with love to the Father, 89, 124; the grand object of faith, 153; his kingdom, 289; his immaculate life, 935; imputation of his righteousness, 309; obedience and suf- ferings both necessary, 980; his substitutional sacrifice, 312, 596, 998; victorious foe of Satan, 353; appearances before his incarnation, 379,405, 430, 517; typified by Joseph, 4ll ; prophetic character, 439; his knowledge in this capacity limited, ib. ; his growth in wisdom and knowledge,980; his characters assumed in addressing the seven churches severally taken from the previous symbolical description, 440; arguments against his personal appearance at the millennium, 476; influence of the knowledge of 534; subject of preaching, 570, 690; his love to sinners, 593,664, their only hope, 672; reception of him the turning point of salvation, 604; love to his church, its transforming effect, 596; his life, its security and felicity, 626. Christianity, partial reception of, no argument against its Divine ori- gin, 4; as taught in the New Testament, and practised by sincere Christians, the only object of defence, 5; connexion with the state prejudicial to its purity and influence, ib.; its moral excellence con- trasted with deism, 5–27; its harmony, 28; enjoins the love and worship of God, 7; enlarges the standard of morality, 8; presents motives to virtue, ll; favours universal benevolence, 14; purifies the lives of those who receive it, 14; unfavourable to persecution, 15; its ministers indiscriminately vilified, 17; influence on society, 19, 601; a source of happiness, 24; harmony, of its predictions with history, 28, of its representations with conscience, 30, of its declara- tions with existing facts, 31, of its Scriptures with their own pro- fessions, evinced in their style and spirit, 32, of its doctrine of a Mediator, with reason, 35, with the supposed magnitude of creation, 39; its universal benevolence, 43; its essential doctrines, 82; its spirit, 291; early progress of, #46; its corruptions, 31; antidote to presumption and despair, 628. Christians, address to, 49; real, the salt of the earth, 360, 485; im- mense numbers of in the apostolic age, 446; their mutual obliga- tions, 678, to love, 699, 708, to peace, 704; the joy and crown of their pastors, 708; urged to united prayer for the gospel, 926. Church of Christ, not in danger, 3; its universal extent, 42; present imperfection and future glory of, 594; Christ's love to, 596; bride of Christ, 598;—of Rome, not a church of Christ, 455;-of England, not a true apostolical church, 837; remarks on her doctrines, ib., liturgy, 838; rests her efficacy on the possible piety of individuals, ib. ; her communion corrupt, 840. Churches, Christian, God’s building, 706; instituted for the promo- tion of the gospel, 731 ; principles on which organized, 285,735,831 ; and ministers, their mutual love and faith, 708, 7.09: duties towards inquirers, 732; fellow helpers with their pastors, 700; their sted- fastness the life of their ministers, 701; importance of discipline in, 575, 731; of peaceful dispositions, 704, peculiar importance of mu- tual watchfulness, 727; should avoid undue severity in discipline, 731; their conduct towards those under censure, 726; proper stand- ard of discipline, ib.; exclusion from, when proper, 727 ; Baptist, in Northamptonshire, 844; English and Scottish compared as to dis- cipline, 843. Circular letters of the Northamptonshire association, 714. Circumcision, institution of, 378; perverted application to baptism, ib. Circumstances, men the creatures of, 15. Civil polity, on, 928. Clergymen, episcopal, the author's interview with several, lxvi., lxxx. Commandments, the ten, not abrogated, 890. Commendation, self, 533; influence of, on character, 991; on Mr. IFuller, xlvi., lix. Communion, with God by faith, 538, 539; with the church, prerequisites to, 117,853—859; female, does not require precept or precedent, 289; infant, thoughts on, 852; mixed, unscriptural, 854. Compassion of Christ to sinners, 593. Conditions of salvation, 154, 199. Conflagration of the earth designed to purify, 47, 478 cººlence in its own nature neither good nor evil, 398 ; testimony of, Consummation of all things, 961. Controversy, not desirable for its own sake, 233; care required in reading, 62; deprecated by Mr. Fuller, xxx. Conversation, its character important, 548. Conversations on doctrines between Peter, James. and John, person- ifying Mr. Booth, Mr. Fuller, and Dr. Ryland, 309. Conversion, a leading topic of apostolic preaching, 53; characteristics of, 503, 711; principles calculated to promote it, 53; extent of under the reign of Messiah, 711; sudden, 128; of the Jews predicted, 497– 503,997; account of the author's, xvii. Cºolution of a difficulty respecting the grounds of his salva- tion, 374. Correspondence, influenced by the character of the party addressed, 787; specimens of Mr. Fuller's with his friends, lxxiv. Corruption, inward, blamable, xxxi. Covenant, relation to Adam, 168; of works, ib. ; of God with Noah, principle of, 360; with Abraham by sacrifice, 375; with him and his seed, 377; with God, entered into by Mr. Fuller, xxviii. Covetousness, its character and danger, 667 ; the prosperous, the aged, and religious professors peculiarly liable to it, 668. Cranmer, Abp., his penitential prayer, 922. Creation, its supposed magnitude elevates our views of Christianity, 39; delivered from bondage, 635; united in Christ, 42; part of the subject of the Mosaic history, 347. Credulity of unbelief, 999. Creeds and subscriptions, popular objections to, considered, 830. Cross, doctrine of, the centre of the Christian system, 743; uniform bearing of Scripture upon, 748; a principal theme of sermons, 754; exemplified in Mr. Pearce's ministry, 787. Cunninghame, Mr., his testimony to the character of the Baptist Mis- sionaries, 808, 826. Curse, in what sense Christ was made a, 320. D PI. Count, of the Prussian embassy, Mr. Fuller's conversation with, XX, Daniel, identity of his prophecies with those of John, 451, 455, 457, 462, 471, 477, 480. Days, observance of, 535, 1002. Death, of Abel, 355; power of, 356; punishment of, for murder, 363; hour of, the grand trial of principles, 47, 97; the prospect of it salutary, 99; preparation for, important, 553, to a believer, 552; of a good man, 430, 433, 434; in the Lord, 553; and hell cast into the lake of fire, 478; of Christ, its aspect on the salvation of men, 38, note, 223, 244, 247, 249, 251, 252, 626, moral influence of Calvinistic views of it, 98, its efficacy, 137, 148, characters assumed in it, 224, its limitation consistent with the love of God, 226, with unlimited invitations, 229, in what sense for the world, 226—229, 252, 313, the Reformers distinguished between its sufficiency and efficiency, 249, conformity to, 623, motives of, 625, spirit with which endured, ib. Debt, simile of, employed to illustrate the doctrine of redemption, liable to misapplication, 312. Declension in religion, causes and cure, 718, 904; occasioned by disre- gard or improper use of the word of God, 905, manner of attending to prayer, 906, retaining sin unlamented on the conscience, 908; re- 'moved by reflection on particular sins, 909, regard to the word of God, 910, comparison of ourselves with the best of God’s people, ib., recollection of the best seasons of our own life, 911; remarks on the Laodicean church, ib.-See Backsliding. Decrees of God.—See Predestination. Deism, its immorality, 5–27; its absurdity, 28–45; overlooks the moral character of God, 6; refuses to worship him, 7 ; contracts the standard of morality, 8; destroys motives to virtue, l l ; restricts the exercise of benevolence, 13; hypocrisy and impure lives of its advocates, 14, 18; influence of on society, 19; a source of unhappi- ness, 24; its profession a plea for immorality, 46; inconsistency of its concessions, ib. ; fails of affording support in death, 47; not re- cognised in prophecy, 49; the frequent offspring of Socinianism, 105. 1006 GENERAL INDEX. Deists, speculations of, on creation, &c., 348; credulity and disin- genuity of, 999. Deity, proper, of Christ, its importance to the whole system of Chris- tianity, 82, 86,938; its influence on invoking his name, 940; the doctrine defended, ib.; the indwelling scheme examined, 941. Dejected, advice to the, 587, 630. Delay, danger of, in religion, 550. Deluge, how accomplished, 361; subject of history, mythology, and geological discoveries, 363; typical of the baptismal flood, ib. Depravity of human nature, evidences of 301, 617; total, 200, 301, 358, 360; a doctrine of the English church, 302; objections con- sidered, ib.; the subject illustrated by a simile, 305, by historic facts, 434, 531, 568, consequences resulting from this doctrine, 306, 363; relief from in heaven, 554. Descriptive characters of the lost sophistically distinguished from the causes of their damnation, 164, 201. Desires of the righteous, when granted, xxxv. Pºir, contrasted with contrition, 356; Christianity an antidote to, 2 Devotion to God, motives to it supplied by Calvinistic principles, 97. Dialogues and letters, 294. Diplomas conferred on Mr. Fuller and refused, lxxii. Distribution, the second act in creation, 348; its effect on the motion of the water, 349. Disciples of Christ, their ignorance of the atonement considered, 84. Discipline in Christian churches, importance of, 575, 731 ; familiar parable on its relative importance, lxy. ; anecdote illustrating its usefulness, lxxiii.; proper standard of, 726; undue severity in, to be avoided, 731 ; heresy an object of, 726 ; of the English and Scottish Baptist churches compared, 843. Discrimination of character necessary in applying censure, exemplified by Paul, 494. Dispositions, power to change, not necessary to free agency, 241, in- volves an absurdity, ib., 298. I)issent, vindication of, in reply to the Rev. T. Robinson, 836; as much in the Established Church as out of it, 839; remarks on the Quarterly Review of Bogue and Bennett's History of, 841; disci- pline of, 842. Dissenters from the Established Church, their principles stated, 834; of three kinds—those who disapprove her doctrines, those who are dissatisfied with the degree of her reformation, and those who dis- approve of her secular constitution, ib. Dissenting, ministers, charged with political motives, 570, note; in- terest, alleged decline of, 845. Distress of mind, no evidence of grace, 257, 873, 876, 878, 880. Divine influences.—See Holy Spirit. Divinity, systematic, letters on, 740. Doctrine, its connexion with practice and experience, 296. Doctrines, test of true, 523; effects of false, 594; of the Church of England, remarks on, 837, 838; connexion in which introduced in Scripture, 869. Drunkenness a parent sin, 364. Dry bones, vision of, 497,997. Dublin, Mr. Fuller's visit to, lxxi.; statement of its religious aspect, ib. Dumah, burden of, 514. I)uty of sinners to believe in Christ, 155, 157; maintained by Calvin, Owen, Charnock, Bunyan, &c., 194, note; said to be a doctrine “distressing to saints,” this thought to be an advantage, 209. Dwight, Dr., his correspondence with Mr. Fuller, lxxii. E EARLY piety, advantages of, 656. Ecclesiastical polity, tracts on, 829. Ecking, Mr., identifies the faith of devils and Christians, 266; his views of man’s inability, 274. Iºden, garden of 350. Edom, destruction of, 514. Edwards, President, success of his preaching, 150; on “freedom of the will,” 151; on the influence of the understanding on the will, 188, note, 274; his views of justification, 324; his sermons distin- guished by unity of design, 756; effect of his pamphlet on united prayer, xxxix. Elders and living creatures in heaven, representatives of the ministers and church of Christ, 444. IElection, its abuse, 66, 67, 169, 248, 341; involved in the doctrine of necessity, 67; supposes a limited aspect in the death of Christ, 225; none but the elect saved, 249; the same conclusion affects the sub- jects of Divine foreknowledge, ib.; a result of the doctrine of human depravity, 306; holy and humbling in its tendency, 341; importance of regarding it in its Scriptural connexions, 741, 989. Elijah, his vision of the wind, earthquake, and fire, 507. Elliott, effect of his labours on the mind of Mr. Fuller, xxx. Elohim, probable design of the appellation, 348. Englishmen, their excesses abroad, 23. Enoch, his walking with God, 357 ; his translation, 358. Epistles to the seven churches, actually addressed to the churches specified, and intended to apply to those who in all future ages should resemble them, 440. Etrothorev, use of the word in 2 Cor. v. 21, 319. Error, innocence of, examined, 126, 296, 893–895; causes of, 866; the love of God preserves from, 622; ministers required to eradicate, 684; reasons of its permission, 868. Fsau, his birth and character, 392; rejection of the birthright, ib., 396. Establishments of Christianity detract from its purity and influence, 5, illustrated in the “Age of Reason,” ib. Eternity, proper, 147. Evangelical, misapplication of the epithet, 970, Everlasting, eternal, for ever, remarks on the words, 135, 140, 142. Evidence, its influence dependent on the state of the heart, 186; ne- cessary to faith, 539. Lvils, irremediable, how to bear, 675. 12xample, the grand end of final punishment, 45; its influence in forming our sentiments and character, 720, 733. Excommunication, proper grounds of 726; anecdote illustrating its beneficial effects, lxxiii. Experience, Christian, 296; its use, 590. Experimental religion connected with doctrine and practice, 296. Exposition of the Scriptures, letter on, 752. Exhortations to unconverted sinners, 157, 177, 179, 257, 308. Eye, offending, to be plucked out, what, 487; light of the body, 493. F FAITH, definition of, 181, 196; in what sense appropriating, 152, 153; includes an application of the gospel to our own case, 196; not as: Surance, 153; revealed truth its only object, 153, 205, 539, note, 540, 571; terminates not in self, but in Christ, 205, 257; examples, 153; in what sense conditional, 154, 199; saving, 154; a duty incumbent on all hearers of the gospel, 155. 157, 181, argued from its claiming obedience, 161, ascribing unbelief to depravity, 162, 163, the punish. ments threatened to it, 164; its connexion with other spiritual duties, 165; required by the moral law, 160,204, 221, 246, 978; these views advanced by Augustin and Calvin, 167; opposite views founded on Arminian principles, ib., 168,173, of recent date, 205, note; trusting in Christ rather a result than faith itself, 155; not merely intellectual, 174, 258,977; a Divine principle necessary to, 174, 211; a holy dis- position essential to, 179, 259,269,270, 898; with the heart, 182; not a duty only, but a blessing, 175; Justification by, 175,279, 355, 373, 613; no ground of acceptance with God, 180; counted for righteousness, 613; relation to hope and charity, 186; an act of the mind, 262; importance of walking by, 538; especially in missions, 1001; not opposed to spiritual sight, 538, but to corporeal, 540, to mere reason, 541, to ultimate vision, ib.; its importance in communion with God, 542, in prayer, 591, in trials, 543, to churches in affliction, 544, in glorifying God, 545, in the work of the ministry, 544, 549; history of the author’s controversy on, x}. Fall of man, remarks on, 168,216, 238, 239, 351; whether predeter- mined, 971. False teachers, criterion for detecting, 108,495; selfishness their ruling motive, 496. Fasting, Christian duty of, 493. Father of the faithful, assumption of the character by modern be- lievers, 377 Teelings, importance of, in religion, 96; not to be so much attended to as the objects calculated to influence them, 257. Feet, Christ washing the disciples’, 524. Flattery, self, its folly and danger, 662. Fool, how to be answered, 532. Forbearance, Christian, described, 863, 985. Foreknowledge, as liable to objection as predestination, 249. Forgiveness, Christian, principle of, 520. Freedom of the will, defined, 628, note; self-contradictory, 298. See Agency, Disposition. Friends—review of Mr. Bevan’s defence of their doctrines, 967. Fuller, Rev. Andrew, Memoirs of, xv.–xciii.; Mrs. Sarah, affecting narrative of her last illness, liv.; Mrs. Ann, obituary of, xcii., testi- mony concerning Mr. Fuller, lxxxviii.; Miss Sarah, her father’s ex- ercises of mind during her illness and death, xlviii.-lii.; account of Mr. Fuller's second daughter of that name, Xc.;, Robert, account of, lxii.; Joseph, narrative of, lxxviii. Future state, doctrine of, suggested by the phraseology of early reve- lation, 410. G. GARIE, Rev. James, review of his Memoirs, 967. General professions unsatisfactory, 82; redemption, removes none of the difficulties attending the scheme it opposes, 231. Genesis, book of, expounded, 347–435; its value as a history, 347; sublimity of its introduction, ib. ; contains evidences of its Divine original, 434; exemplifies the enmity of the wicked against the right- eous, 435; exhibits the most concise and comprehensive record of character extant, ib.; admirably discloses the mysteries of provi- dence, ib. Giants in the family of Cain, their conduct and moral influence, 358. Gill, *i; his exposition of John v. 40, opposed to his avowed princi- les, 163. gº and lending, Scriptural duty of, 488. “Glad Tidings to Perishing Sinners,” review of, 965. Glory, of God, the first subject of prayer, 491; future, its magnitude, 634; * in, proportioned to piety, consistent with salvation by grace, 90U. God, his being, not announced but assumed by Moses, 348; his attri- butes, natural and moral, 749, importance of the latter to the right direction of the former, 6, 297, the distinction denied or overlooked by deists, 6; his character as displayed in the atonement, 70; his glory the end of creation, 72; in what sense vindictive, 71, 121, 122; his attribute of love, 122, 148, 226; fear of him, what, 125; his wis- dom and goodness displayed in creation, 348; invisible to mortals, yet seen by Jacob, 533; deeply reverenced by inspired writers, 744. Godwin, Mr., represents sin as simply the effect of ignorance, denies human depravity, guilt, crime, &c., 274; expatiates on the valour and excellence of Satan, ib. Golden rule of conduct to men, its connexion with our prayers, 495. Goodness of God, in creation, 348. Gospel, the, what, 652, 687; summary of 863; a warrant, 175; a test of obedience, 161; its aspect towards unbelievers, 176, 178, 185, 229, 257, 271, 305,886; the only means of universal peace, 598; the grand subject of ministration, 653,787; its power and influence,975; “Its own Witness”—see Christianity; “Worthy of all Acceptation,” oc- casion of writing, xxvi., 150; publication of, xl. ; importance of the controversy, 151, 152, points of agreement, 15l. Goths and Vandals, their invasion of IRome, 450. Government, parallel of human and Divine, 71, 122; national prefer- able to universal, 368; principles of attachment to, 928; no form of, a security against wars, 600. & Grace, sovereign, the cause of Salvation, argued from faith being GENERAL INDEX. I007 ascribed to the effusions of the Spirit, 212, from the design of God in the promotion of his cause, 213, from the character of the unconvert- ed, ib., from the efficiency ascribed to the Holy Spirit, ib., from the Scriptural ascription of differences to God, ib., from the total de- pravity of man, 306, 434; the author's hope in his dying moments, Ixxxiv., his solemn and final depregation of the abuse of it, ib. ; Ar- minian motion of, 220; reality and efficacy of 234; consistent with satisfaction, 492, 998. - Greatheed, Rev. S., his controversy with the author on the meaning of the word flatrrºo, 932. “Great Question Answered,” 870; occasion of writing, lxxvi., 256. Guidance of God earnestly invoked by Mr. Fuller on all important occasions, xxiii. Guilt, not transferable, 311. H HAGAR, her distresses and probable conversion, 376, 384. Hall, Rev. R., sen., commencement of his acquaintance with Mr. Ful- ler, xxv.; funeral oration on, 992; lines to his memory, 993; Rev. R., jun., M. A., Mr. Fuller's early interviews with, xxxix., xlvi. ; his views of virtue examined, 993, 994; his letter to Mr. Fuller relative to Mr. Sutcliffe's memoirs, lxxxi.; his testimony to Mr. Fuller's character and writings, lviii., lxxxvii. Ham, fulfilment of the curse on, 365. Happiness, promoted by Christianity, 24, 27, by orthodoxy, 94, by the contemplation of things beyond our reach, 96. Heart, use of the expression in Scripture, 273. g Heaven, prepared by Christ, 666; its employments, 99; progressive- ness of its glories, 953; a state of rest, 554; magnitude of its inhe- ritance, 604; superior to the separate state, 958; its enjoyments bear relation to our conduct here, 564, 565, 689, 961; kingdom of, taken by force, 519; new heaven and earth, 961. Heavenly bodies, their use, 349; motions of, ib. Herbert, Lord, his apology for lewdness, 10. & Heresy, a proper ground of exclusion from Christian churches, 726. Hervey, Rev. James, his views of appropriating faith examined, 153. Hindoos, their opinions and customs, 797; distinguished for lying and fraud, 798, 811, 813; alleged danger of preaching Christianity to them, 799. e Holcroft and Oddy, founders of the dissenting churches of Cambridge- shire, xv. Holy disposition, necessary to faith, 179, influence of this on justifica- tion by grace, 182; argued on the fitness of things, 186, alleged in- consistency of a “godly unbeliever,” 189. & sº Holy Spirit, necessity of the influences of, to induce a compliance with our duty, 173, 530, to spiritual perception, 187; reveals no new truths, but infuses a holy susceptibility, 188; in what sense suscep- tible of resistance, 237, 238; striving with sinners, 353, 358, 531; importance of, to a minister, 546; inward strength of, implored, 659; praying in, 638; promise of, the grand encouragement in promoting the gospel, 737; connexions in which introduced, 742. Holiness, always the same in quality—natural and spiritual, a sophis- tic distinction, 204; progressive character of, 925. Hope, in the last extremity, 670; its excellency and utility, 714; qua- lities by which distinguished, ib.; its foundation, Christ received by faith, ib. ; false, exposed, 715; not an impression only, ib. ; objects of, 716; influence on effort, ib., 717, on the state of the mind, 717; sup- ports under trials, ib.; its value in death,718; an incentive to purity, ib. Horne, Mr. W. W., remarks on his Antinomian sermon, 887. Human, laws, no standard of morality, 9; nature, knowledge of, essential to a minister, 681. Hume, Mr., ridicules self-denial, 10; advocates adultery,ib.; his antipa- thy to Christian ministers, 17; his concession in favour of theism,96. Humility, Calvinistic principles favourable to it, 78. Huntington, W., “Voice of Years” concerning him reviewed, 969. Hyper-Calvinism, its character and mischievous effects, 257, 879.-See Faith, Duty, Means, &c. I IDOLATRY, supposed origin of 7; pernicious influence on the peo- ple of God, 402,409. Ignorance, charged upon the apostles by the Hebrew hierarchy, 568, 5 Immaculate life of Christ, evidences and importance of, 935. Important things demand the first attention, 984. Imposture, religious, foretold, 469. Impulses and impressions not to be relied on, 5ll. Imputation, definition of 309; of Adam's guilt, 216, 947, 950; of sin to Christ, and his righteousness to sinners, 309,945, 950; not an act- ual transfer of character, 309, 310, 319; a charging or reckoning to the account of the sinner, 951; of righteousness to Abraham, 374, Imability, to do the will of God and keep from sin discussed, xx., lxx.; natural and moral, 163, 171, 208, 216, 217, 220, 237, 529, 972; the distinction virtually admitted by all, 172; illustrated, 174, 245; both cannot exist in the same relation, 172, 203—207; the former can- not be removed by a spiritual influence, 208. Inconsistences of good men, 370, 392, 395. Indifference to religion not favourable to the acquisition of truth, 50, 60. hº of the Deity in Christ, examined, 941; sin in the Chris- tian, 982. Infidelity, its convenience explained by a peasant, 17, note.—See Deism. Influence, physical and moral, 279; of our sin on others, 564. Intercession of Christ, 630, Antinomian abuse of, 343; of Abraham for Sodom, 380; of Judah for Benjamin, 423. Internal evidence of Christianity discussed in the “Gospel its own Witness,” 4, et seq.; its value illustrated, ib. Intolerance the prominent feature of the ages preceding the Reform- ation, 295. Invasion, duty of Christians when threatened with, 576. Invitations of the gospel, consistent with a limitation in Christ's death, 229, with the necessity of Divine influence, 176, 755; to whom ad- dressed, 257, 880, 881. Isaac, promised, 378; birth of, 383; sacrifice of, 385; his marriage, 387; deceived by Jacob, 396. Ishmael, his character and posterity, 384, 391. J JACOB, his extraordinary birth, 392; his conduct towards Esau rela- tive to the birthright, ib., and the blessing, 395; vision of the ladder, 398; wrestling with the Angel, 405; seeing God, 533; piety under bereavements, 420; vision at Beersheba, 426; his blessing on Pha- raoh, and his confession, 427, 428; his blessing on the tribes, 430; his death and burial, 433. Jamaica, intolerance of its legislature counteracted, lxx., 799. J *:::::: doctrine of justification reconciled with that of Paul, 532, 2 * ~ * Japheth’s enlargement, 365. Jenkins, Dr., the author’s reply to, on justification, 948. Jerram, Rev. Charles, review of his Letters on the Atonement, 968. Jesus the true Messiah, 579.-See Christ. Jew, Mr. Fuller's conversation with a, lxviii. Jews, address to, 47; sermon to, 579; passages relating to the con- version of, 497–503, 997; ancient and modern oppositely regarded by deists, 48; their ideas of the Sonship of Christ, 58; their senti- ments on Dr. Priestley’s letters to them, 59; their national destruc- tion alluded to in the Revelation, 446; their sacrifices and cere- monies to be superseded by Christ, 579; their prophecies fulfilled in him, 580; their unbelief predicted, 582; objections of, examined, John the Baptist, his testimony to the Messiah, 523. Johnson, Mr., of Liverpool, his sentiments on the decrees of God, xxiv. Jonah, hope of, in extremity, 670. Joseph, a type of Christ, 411, 412, 414, 417, 418, 423, 425, 432, 433; temptation of, 414; swearing by the life of Pharaoh, a justifiable policy, 419 ; mysterious conduct to Benjamin, 421; disclosure, 424; the terms on which he sold corn to the Egyptians, whether equita- ble, 428 ; blessing on, 432. Joy, deficiency of, in Christians considered, 721. Judah, his admirable intercession for Benjamin, 423; Jacob's remark- able blessing on, 431. Judas not present at the Ilord’s supper, 840, Jude, reimarks on the Epistle of 930. Judging the heart, 108, 116, 494, 495. Judgment, day of, test of principle, 496; its speedy approach declared by the apostles, 536; value of mercy at, 640. Justice, moral, not pecuniary, the basis of the atonement, 38, 322; Dr. Priestley's definition of, examined, 64; consistent with mercy in the gospel, but not requiring it, 343; of God in visiting the sins of the fathers on the children, 365. Justification, progress of the author's views of xxvi.; meaning of, 609; by faith, and by grace, 175, 179, 182, 259, 279, 355, 373, 610, 611; by imputation of Christ's righteousness, 945; a consequence of human depravity, 306; modified by Mr. Baxter, 325; perverted by Anti- nomians, 344; of Abram by faith had immediate respect to the Messiah, 374; its influence on forgiveness, 492, not a manifestation thereof, 6ll; by works considered, 532,614; the doctrine of Paul and James on, consistent, 532, 614, 946; of the ungodly, 184, 259, 270,948. IC RENTISH, Mr., title of his sermon begs the question in dispute, 120 ; evades the arguments of his opponent, ib.; charges Mr. F. With judging the hearts of individuals, ib.; his six prefatory remarks ex- amined, ib. ; his heads of inquiry, 121; dishonours the Holy Spirit, 123; his notions of love to Christ, 124; fear of God, 125; trust in God, ib.; overlooks trust in Christ, ib.; his definition of the cri- minality of error identical with Mr. Fuller's views, 126. Kettering, the author's invitation to the church at, Xxxiii.; removal to, XXXVII. Kingdom of God distinguished from that of Christ, 44; of Christ, its nature and subjects, 289; desired, 653; encouragement to promote, 637, 738; yielded to the Father, 535. Knowledge, not the criterion of conversion, 259, 976; and affections, their influence mutual, 272, 273; distinguished as simple, or as in- clusive of approbation, 272; Scripture examples, ib.; of truth, should be deep, 560, 719; sorrow attending, 631. L LABAN, his sordid disposition, 399, 401; an ancestor of Balaam, 403. Labours, abundant, of the author, lx., lxi., lxv., lxxxii., lxxxiii. Language, deficiency of, 135; division of, 367. Laodicean church, description of, 443, 911. Latitudinarianism, the prominent feature of the present age, 294, 985. Latter days, their detecting character, 518. Law of God, moral, the standard of right and wrong, 63; how a co- venant of works, 171, 189; faith in Christ required by it, 160, 205, 221, 246; its excellence, 299; its spirituality, 486; Mr. Baxter's view of it, 325; a rule of life, 339, 486, 890. Leper, the, a memorandum, 1002. Letters on Socinianism, 50 ; to Mr. Vidler on universal salvation, 133: of Agnostos, 234 ; on Sandemanianism, 256; between Crispus and Gaius, 302; to Dr. Ryland on the controversy with Mr. Booth, 317 ; on Mr. Martin's publication, 325; on systematic divinity, 740; on preaching, 752; to Rev. S. Palmer on sentiment, 847; to Rev. W. Ward on communion, 854; to Dr. Newman on the same, 856. Levi, David, his opinion of Dr. Priestley’s letters to the Jews, 61 ; ar- gument against Christ founded on them, 104. . Liberality, frequently a mere party watchword, 675; affected, 986; of sentiment, §. Liberty, moral, not the power of doing as we please, 895. Licentiousness, the frequent precursor of blood, 357, 382, 407. Light, distinguished from the sun in creation, 348. Lindsey, Mr., his want of candour,76; degrades the Scripture and the character of God, 92. 1008 GENERAL INDEX. Llewellyn, Mr., his frantic abuse of Calvinism, 65. Locke, his notion of traditional revelation, 4. Longevity of the antediluvians, its use, 357. I,ord’s, day, obligation of keeping, 285, 1002; military exercise on, un- lawful, 579 ; prayer, exposition of, 490; supper, its weekly celebra- tion not binding, 288; propriety of partaking of in the absence of a pastor, 850. Lot, his choice of the well-watered plain, 371, its consequences, 381; fate of his wife, 382. Love, the grand bond which unites creation, 299; not a rule of life, but a motive, 339; to Christ,-see Christ; of God to his creatures, 121, 148; consistent with a limited design in the death of Christ, 226, 973; to God, test of, 123, its universal obligation, 160, 622, what is included in it, 161, would lead a fallen creature to embrace the gos- pel, ib., 205, 586, declension in, anticipated by some as a matter of course, 440; to Christ, of imperative necessity, 663; to enemies, principle of 488; to souls, 678, 788, inspired by faith, 549, 591, by conformity to the death of Christ, 626; of Christ to his church, 596; of a minister to his people, see Minister, exemplified in the author, xxxiii.; universal, its beauty and efficacy, 644; to the church, 699, 978; both exemplified in Mr. Pearce, 788; distinguished from meré esteem, xix. Loyalty of Christians, 577. Lukewarmness censured, 443. M M‘GILL, Dr., his views of the Divine law, 64. M“Lean, Rev. A., disowns any thing holy in faith, 179; inconsistency with himself, 185, 262,283; his disclaimer equally applies to repent- ance, ib.; allows faith to be an act of the mind, but possessed of no . moral quality, 262, yet admits unbelief to be a sin, 264; advocates free invitations to the unconverted, yet denies faith to be an exercise of the will, 265. Mahomedism, its establishment predicted, 451. Mammon of unrighteousness, wealth, why so called, 520. Man, creation of, important, 349; the Divine image in, ib.; his fall, 351; his sentence, 354; beauty and susceptibility of his organic structure, 668; his free agency—see Agency; his total depravity, 301 ; his lost condition, 306; his need of a great Saviour, ib. Marriage, Mr. Fuller's first, xxvii.; second, lix, ; importance of reli- gious principle in contracting, 358,388, 397, 531 ; violation of its integrity incalculably mischievous, 357, 376, 382, 397, 410, 413, 430; of Isaac, 387; of the LAMIB—the Millennium, 473. “Marrow of Modern Divinity,” 153. Martin, Rev. John, his sermon, urging on the unconverted the duty of believing in Christ, xxv.; remarks on his extraordinary publication on the duty of faith, 325. Means of grace for the unconverted considered, 174, 176, 206, 257, 608, 665, 732, 878, 879, 881, 886,972. Mediation of Christ rejected by Socinians and abused by Antinomians, 343 Mediocrity in wisdom and virtue satirized, 512. Melchizedek, royalty and priesthood of, 372. - Members of Christ's body, their dependence on each other, 526; pe- culiar honour on the weaker, ib. Memory, a principal channel of misery to the lost, 564,997. Menu, remarks on the Institutes of, with extracts, and the opinion of Sir. W. Jones, 811. Mercy in the gospel consistent with justice, but not required by it, 343. Metaphor, abuse of, 902. Metaphysical distinctions, their importance, 258. Methodists, their success, 56, 57. Michael the prince, conflict of, with the kings of Persia, 517. Mººn, nature of, 475; Old Testament predictions of, 503—505, 572, 712. Milton, his lines on creation, 348, on the Waldenses, 456. Ministers, the gift of Christ, 698; fellow labourers with God, 685; servants, 688; grounds of their authority in preaching, 568; call of, ascertained, 983; qualifications and encouragements of 546, 680, 682, 683, 684, 688, 692, 693, 696,983; their duty in addressing the unconverted, 176, 216; manner of preaching, 687; to preach not self, but Christ, 690; making full proof of ministry, 697; reward of, 566, 637, 689, 707; not to be despised, 685; causes of their want of success, xlvii.; their ministry influenced by the people, 702, 703, 731; their widows and orphans entitled to the benevolent regard of Christians, 738; unconverted, a great source of error, 867. Ministry, occasion of Mr. Fuller's engaging in the, xxii. Miraculous conception of Christ, 943. Mission, the Baptist, its formation, lvii.; simplicity of its origin, lx. Missionaries, disappointment of the Baptist, in their first embarkation, lviii.; Mr. Fuller's correspondence with, lxxiv.; instructions to, 822; qualifications and location of, 1000; importance of a lively faith in, 1001. - Missionary, efforts, predicted in the Apocalypse, 466, explained and enforced, 694; apology for, 796; testimony of Sir G. Barlow, 804; the miserable charge of interested motives in the converts examined, 805; on the propriety of confining missionary efforts to the Establish- ed Church, 823; letter to J. Weyland, jun., esq., 826; answer to an anonymous letter of objections to foreign missions, 828; prayer meetings, their origin, xxxix. Mºº universal, contemplated in the erection of Babel, 367; its evils, 368. - - “Monthly Review,” its superficial character, 60,77, note; profane wit- ticism on Divine punishment, 71; degrades the Scriptures, 129; animadversions on, 130, 241, note. Moral, influence of principles, a test of their truth, 52, 107, affirmed and denied by Socinians, 107, 109, 130, the application of the prin- ciple to them made wholly on their own concessions, 109, 121, 126, 127, criterion, 126; and positive obedience, 284, 350, 733; import- ance of the distinction in the baptismal controversy, 734, 852. Morality, its standard, 9, 63; resolved, by deists, into self-love, hu- man laws, personal feeling, law and light of nature, 9, 10, modified by Unitarians, 63, the only foundation of their hopes, 79; of the ancient heathens, 19; of the modern pagans, 20; of the French re- Volution, 22; universally advocated, and traduced under other nam es, 5; promoted by Calvinistic principles, 65–70; our own views of it no criterion, 121; not to be distinguished from religion, 307. Moravians, their missionary efforts and success, 59. Morland, Sir Samuel, charged by Archbishop Usher to make inquiry respecting the Waldenses, 456. Moses, his history of the creation, its value and sublimity, 347, relates only to that part which concerns us, 348; his choice of affliction with the people of God, 657. Mosheim, animadversions on his ecclesiastical history, xxxiv.; classes the Waldenses among the seditious heretics, 455. Motive, importance of pure, 493. - Mount, sermon on, its design, 340; not all to be taken literally, 833; exposition of, 483. Murder, the frequent accompaniment of lust, 357; to be punished with death, 363. - Music, instrumental, in worship, unlawful, 859. - Mystery of providence, 410, 411, 416, 419, 420, 423,435, 509, 988. N NAMES, specious, applied to evil things, 985. Nation, its moral condition, 568, 578; influence of the conduct of pro- fessors on its interests, 930; injured by political relf-righteousness, Nations, origin of, 366. Natural, religion, misrepresented, 157; inefficient, ib.; affection not virtuous, 181, 304,994; man, use of the term as descriptive of the unregenerate, 202; and spiritual holiness, an unscriptural distinc- tion, 204. Necessity, doctrine of, 66, 67. New, the term as applied to the regenerate contrasted with corrupt, 203; heaven, new earth, new Jerusalem, comprised in the world purified by the conflagration, 478,961; year, meditation on, 673. Newman, Dr., his testimony to Mr. Fuller, lxxxviii. Newton, Rey. John, reply to, on the new heaven and new earth, 961; his Christian excellence, ib. Nicolaitanes, doctrine of, 441. Nimrod, his character and pursuits, 366. Nineveh, repentance of, 166. - Noah, character of 359; preacher of righteousness, 361; covenant with, 360, 363; his burnt-offering, the first, 362; prophecy concerning his children, 364; his generations, 366. - Nominal Christianity, a source of error, 867. Novelty, its supposed influence in conversion, 55–57; love of, inju- rious, 653. Number of the beast, 465. O OATHS, in what sense forbidden, 487. Obedience, to the gospel, 161; moral and positive, 284, 733; of churches to pastors, 573; and sufferings of Christ, why both should be required, 980. Obligation, measured by natural power, 246. Oddy.—See Holcroft. Offering, Noah's, the first burnt, 362. Old age, value of religion in, 655; hope in, ib. Opinions not principles, 53. Ordinances, their obligation, 284, 350, 379, 734. Ordination, apostolical, considered, 837; not a designation to the mi- mistry, but to an office in a church, 849; lay ordination, validity of, 850; a prerequisite to the administration of the Lord's supper, ib.; advice to a young minister in prospect of, 851; of Mr. Fuller, at So- ham, xxv., at ICettering, xxxviii. Original bias to evil, 216, 237; blameworthy, 216, 238, more recent views, from MS., 950. Overton, Rev. Mr., interview of Mr. Fuller with, lxvi. Owen, Dr., his sentiments on the duty of faith, 163, on the abuse of predestination, 170, on preaching the gospel, 178, on the alleged dis- tinction of natural and spiritual holiness, 204, on Divine influence conveyed through motives, 279; his view of &aaptia, 319, of the being of God, 746. P PAINE, Mr., his tactics against prophecy, 28; his presumption ex- posed, 34, 40; overlooks the moral excellence of God, 6; his testi- mony in favour of Christianity, 46, of Christ, 936, 937. Pardon, daily required, 492. Particular redemption, wherein it consists, 314, 322; consistent with unlimited invitations, 171, 207, 322. Party spirit, evil of, 675; affected disclaimer of, ib., 985. Passions, distinguished from vicious propensities, 488, note. • Pastor, origin and nature of the office of, 287 ; obedience due to, 573, 686; visits of, 574, 681, 686, 952; his account, 575; address of, to Christian hearers, 730. •. - Patriotism, Christian, 576. Paul, supposed reply to his speech at Athens, 81; his ardent love to Christ, 87; his ironical refutation of the charge of guile, 527; appa- rent contradiction in the account of his conversion, 536; his doc- trine of justification reconciled with that of James, 532, 614, 946. Peace, universal, by the gospel only, 598; of God, its influence in for- tifying the soul, 646. Pearce, Rev. Samuel, conversion of 761; baptized at Plymouth, ib.; enters the academy at Bristol, ib.; distinguished by pious friend- ship, ib.; perplexed with Socinian doctrines, 763, these fail him in the prospect of death, ib. ; afflicted by Antinomianism in his con- gregation at Birmingham, ib.; friendship with Mr. Summers, ib. ; visiting pernicious to him, 764; offers himself as a missionary, 765; presents a narrative of his experience on the subject to the com- mittee of the Baptist mission, ib.; extracts from his diary during the interval, 767–770; injurious effect of night studies, 768, note; GENERAL INDEX. 1009 extraordinary resignation to the Divine will, 771, 777; beneficial effects of his visit to Ireland, 772 : strenuous efforts to retain him there, 773; interesting correspondence, 775, 779, 790; advice to a student, 779; last sermon, ib. ; correspondence during his afflic- tion, ib., with the church at Cannon Street, 782; his MS. history of jºions, ib.; his dying exercises, 786; outlines of his character, 4 & 4. People of God, blessedness of belonging to the, 657; fellowship of, in evil times, 664. Perfection, sinless, a delusion, 492. Persecution, assumes the Divine prerogative, 463; unjustly charged on Mr. Fuller, lxxvii., on Trinitarianism, 75, on Christianity, 15, the charges retorted on its enemies, ib. ; of Servetus by Calvin, ib. ; of Davides by Socinus, ib.; of the Baptists by Cranmer, 76; of the first Christians, 447; in the West Indies, lxx., 799. Perseverance of saints, 231 ; abuse of the doctrine, 345. Pººl, sign of Christ at the millennium, inconsistent with Scrip- ture, 476. “Persuasive to Union in Prayer,” occasion of the author's writing, XXXIX. - . Philanthropos, reply to his observations, 210; believes in final per- severance, 231.-See Grace. - - Places, influence of, upon our recollections, xxix. Pleasing men, in what sense commendable, 531. Plurality of persons in the Godhead, 107. Fºal, controversy, favourable to infidelity, 3; self-righteousness, Polity, ecclesiastical, 829; civil, 928. Polycarp, his faithful testimony for Christ, 441. Poor and rich, their relation in the church of Christ, 986. Popery, its origin predicted, 451, 453; a revival of paganism, 464. Population, its influence on morals, 23, 358. Portsea, the author’s visit to, lxx. - Practical religion, its connexion with doctrine and experience, 296. —See Antinomianism. Prayer, circumstantials of, 490; efficacy of, 405, 495; united, 449, 926: for the nation, 578; difference of mind in secret and social, 981; of the wicked, 974; the Lord's, 490. Preaching, character and success of, exemplified in the Moravians, 59, Methodists, 56, Edwards, Elliott, Brainerd, &c. &c., ib., 150 ; suit- able to the unconverted, 176, 215, 258; to the awakened, 589, 590; departure from apostolic precedent, in, 177, 179, 257; lamentable effects of a compromising style of 177, 209; universal, of the gospel, predicted, 466; Christ the proper subject of, 570, 653; practical, abused, ib.; qualities essential in, 680–698; importance of simplicity in, 706, of earnestness in, 754.—See Ministers. Precept and precedent of Scripture necessary only in relation to posi- tive institutions, 286, 288, 734, 831 ; applied to the case of the Bap- tists, 286, 289, to the organization of churches, 286. Predestination, not capricious, 52; no rule of conduct or bar to obli- gation, 169, 206, 207; its abuse exposed by Mr. Brine and Dr. Owen, 170, inadvertently so by Mr. Button, 206; to moral evil, not efficient, but permissive, 230; to wrath considered, 145, 148, 229.- See Election. Pre-existence of Christ's human soul, absurdity of the notion, xxiv. Presumption, antidote to, 628. - Pride, its subtlety, xxix. Priestley, Dr., libels his own principles, 60; definition of justice, 64; accusations against Calvinism, 65 ; maintains its leading principles, 66,67; his concessions in its favour, 65, 97; want of candour, espe- cially in his treatment of Mr. Badcock, 77; charges Christ and the sacred writers with ignorance, 78, the Mosaic history of creation as a lame account, 90; contradictory views of the infallibility of the apostles, 91; his doctrine of the cross, 83; laxity of sentiment, 85; deprecates the anticipation of death or heaven, 99, 100. Principle, vital, in creation 349; of love, alleged as a rule of life in- stead of the moral law, 339; a Divine, in what sense necessary to faith, 174, perversion of this sentiment illustrated by a syllo- ism, ib. Płºś. first, of the gospel, 558; the proper test of 52, 107; gene- ral, applied to the organization of churches, 285, 735. Private judgment, right of, wherein it consists, 726, 829; does not ex- tend in its full latitude to terms of fellowship, 829; asserted, 838. Profession of Christ, its present importance, 552. Progressive nature of apostacy and corruption, 403, 408,923; of right- eousness, 925. Promises, application of 877; importance of pleading them in prayer, 495, 571; absolute, their application, 709; aspect of to the wicked, 97 Property, lawfulness of retaining and increasing, 285, 493. Prophecy, its agreement with history, 28; importance of its study,436, encouragement to it, 439, success not dependent on literary attain- ments, ib; design of, not to open a clear view of futurity, 468; ge- nerally obscure in relation to the commencement or close of any specific term of years, 480; relating to the present times, ib., 504, 738; zeal of Jehovah pledged for its fulfilment, 513; Jewish, fulfilled in Christ,580; of the future glory of the church, 602.-See Revela- tion. - - Proportion of doctrinal, practical, and experimental religion disre- garded, 295, 296, 683. Ipoorayton it, meaning of the word, 606. Prosperity of soul the standard by which other prosperity is safely regulated, 651. “Protestant Dissenters’ Magazine,” animadversions on, 130. Providence displayed in the creation of the vital principle, 349; lead- ings of, traced, 387, 415, 416, 429, 435; liable to be mistaken, 493; mystery of, 509, 988; adverse, 588; more recognised in the earlier § the world than now, 744; Antinomian abuse of the doctrine OI, Prussia, civil and ecclesiastical constitution of, lxx. Psalmody, present, defective, 861. Fº spirit, essential to the work of God, 676; worship, its nature, 5. Punishment, Divine, principle of, 71; supposes personal criminality, - 3 T - 310; commonly awarded in kind, 419,994; proofs of endless, 139, capital, for murder, 363; grounds of civil, ib , note. Puranas, Indian, their antiquity examined, 1000; their confirmation of the Mosaic history, ib. Puritans, their morals, 108. Purity of mind, its influence on objects presented to it, 712; promoted by hope, 718. Q QUAKERS.—See Friends. Queries, three, to deists, 46; answer to, 971. R. RACOVIAN Catechism, testimony of, to the Scriptures, 104. Hºrius, a monk, his malicious testimony in favour of the Waldenses, l - Rational Christians, the inconsistent assumption of the title, 58, note. Reason, the proper ground of controversy with deists, 4; sufficiency of the leading tenet of deists and Socinians, 100; its insufficiency shown, 745. Reconciliation to God, twofold, viz. by the atonement, and by the in- dividual application thereof, 315. Redemption, illustrated, 36; efficacy of 610; general—see Death of Christ; particular—see Particular; object of evangelical research, Reflection, solitary, recommended, 584. Reformation, the, celebrated by a celestial chorus, 465. Regeneration, various Scripture uses of the term. 188, 277; the soul necessarily_passive in, 66; essential to faith, 187, 211, 214, 276; by the word of God, 187,211,277, 529, 975; by the Spirit, 187,235; by especial influence, 212, 236; by a new moral principle, 976. Religion, genuine, its importance to the temporal interests of society, 360; personal and social, 660; a business, 7.19; ascertained in the last judgment, 496. Repentance, respects the Lawgiver, but faith the Mediator, 269; na- ture of 54; its universal obligation, 166; merely external. offensive to God, 158, 166; distinction into natural and spiritual, examined, 271 ; genuine, a return to God, 169; its necessity in order to faith in Christ, 182, 269,271, to forgiveness, 263; ascribed to God, 531. Pesentment, proper under some circumstances, 72. Resistance of evil, in what sense forbidden, 488. Respectable congregations, comment on the phrase, 441. Rest of heaven, 554. Restitution of all things, 136, 525,989. Rººn, the first, not corporeal, but moral, in the millennium, { {, Revelation, necessity of 10, 745; its testimony universally binding, 159; internal, 205; book of, expounded, 436, importance of its study, ib., 439, scheme of the prophecy, 436, the whole comprised in the seals, the seventh of which is divided into trumpets, of which the seventh is subdivided into vials, 445, the scenes not strictly suc- cessive, ib., embraces only the principal events affecting the church, ib., commences with Christ's ascension, 446, identity of its prophe- cies with those of Daniel, 451, 455, 457, 462, 471, 477, 480. Reviews, 962; abuse of, ib. Revivals of religion promoted by Calvinistic doctrines, 56. Revolution of the planets, a blessing, 349. Rewards, Christian doctrine of, consistent with the disinterested love of virtue, 13, with the doctrines of grace, 563, 565; bears a relation to the deeds done in the body, as harvest to the seed, 564, 565, 689; of faithful ministers, 566. Fiºnd poor, Christians, Scriptural treatment of, 986; churches, 441, Richmond, Rev. L., letter of, to Mr. Fuller, lxxx. Right of private judgment, examined, 117, 726, 829; asserted, 838. Ryland, Dr., the author's first acquaintance with, xxv. Robinson, Rev. Robert, attests the efficacy of evangelical principles, 56; his subsequent asperity towards Calvinists, 77; said to have been saved from infidelity by Dr. Priestley, 100, note, 103: his views of the innocence of mental error, 893, his lax notions of liberty, 895, his views of the Holy Spirit, 897, of the Canticles, 899, of the influence of evil spirits, 901. Roman empire, invasion of, by the Goths, &c., 449, by the Huns and Scythians, 450. Rousseau, J. J., his “Confessions,” 18; encomium on Christianity, 33. Russel, Lady Rachel, her exemplary charity, 337. S SABBATH, its institution, 349; design of, ib.; typical allusion of, ib.; perpetuity of 362.-See Lord's day. Sacrifice, superseded by Christ, 57.9; of Christ, 596; its connexion with sanctification, 597, with justification, 615. - Sanctification, progressive, 925; by the word of God, 561, 597. Sandeman, Mr., his vituperative language, 259; charges his opponents with making a righteousness of faith, 260; represents faith as a passive addmission of truth, 262. Sandemanianism, strictures on, 256; its separating influence, 258; selfishness, 259; undermines repentance, 263; destroys the obliga- tion of faith, ib, ; withholds the invitations of the gospel, 265; iden- tifies the faith of Christians and of devils, 266, and thus virtually un- dermines the work of the Spirit, 268; makes repentance an effect of faith and a sense of forgiveness, 269; exhibits self-love as the ruling principle of the Christian, 271 ; monopolizes the doctrine of justifi- cation by grace, 279; peculiarities of the system in relation to church intercourse, 284, 734, 843, family worship, 284, Lord's day, 285, washing of the feet, ib., kiss of charity, ib., love feasts, ib., its plu- rality of bishops, 287, unanimous legislation, 289, its promotion, 290; the spirit of the system opposed to Christianity, 291 ; occasion of publishing the strictures on, xliii. Sandys, Lieut. Col., his testimony in favour of the Baptist missionaries, 1010 GENERAL INDEX. Salt, Christians compared to, 360, 485. Sarah, her death and burial, 386. Satan, curse of, 3.3, includes a blessing on man, ib.; ignorant of the plan of redemption, 528; reality of his character and influence, 902; nature of his temptations, 979. . Satisfaction of Christ, consistent with salvation by grace, 492, 998. Schism, the charge inapplicable, unless the Established Church is the only Christian community, 837. Scotland, Mr. Fuller's first reception in, lxi. Scott, Rev. T., his views accord with Mr. Fuller's, 964; his “Warrant and Nature of Faith,” 156, reviewed, 964; his sermons, subject- matter of, 753, composition of, 755. Scott Waring, Major, his opposition to missions, 801; inconsistenc with himself, ib., 800; his anonymous witnesses exposed, 801, 804, 805; his consummate ignorance of facts on which he writes, 804, 805; his letter to Rev. Mr. Owen, 807; charges the missionaries with ignorance, 808; his third pamphlet replete with abuse, 816; denies to the Baptist missionaries the common rights of all British subjects, 818. Scriptures, agreement of, with their own professions, 32; their defi- ciency of scientific information accounted for, 41 ; their popular phraseology defended, ib.: veneration for them, essential to piety, 89; inspiration of, ib , 129, 746; harmony with themselves, 529; the only standard of truth, 559; their excellent qualities, 747; know- ledge of, important to ministers, 682; abuse of their consolations, 715; best manner of reading,981; connexions in which they exhibit truth, 869, 989. . Sealing the servants of God, denotes preservation from heresy, 447. Seals, in the Revelation, comprise the , whole prophecy, 445, com- mencing from the ascension of Christ,446. Secret and social prayer, different frames in, 981. Self-love, the morality of deists, 9; its ascendency inimical to being, ib. ; defined, 12; its operation in an awakened sinner, 268. Self-righteousness, its deceitfulness, 589,617,619, 662; political, 930. Sensible sinners, remarks on the term and the use made of it, 257,880. Sentiment, a plea for apostacy of manners, 46; its importance, 85, 892; indifference to, checks free inquiry, 85; occasion and con- sequence of Mr. Fuller's change of, xxiii., xxvii. Separate state of spirits inferior to final heavenly bliss, 958. Serampore, fire at, elicited much Christian liberality, lxxix. Serpent, the, an instrument of Satan, 351. Servant, Abraham’s, an example of fidelity and discretion, 388. Servetus, his fanatical prayer to Christ, 69; persecuted by Calvin, 75. Shaftesbury, Lord, satirizes the Scripture representations of God, 6. Shalem, not a city, but a symbolic appellation, 406. Signs of grace exhibited in the preaching of Christ, 483. Simile illustrative of redemption, 36. Simon Magus, Peter's exhortation to, 159, 197. Simplicity in the Christian character and ministry, 707. Sin, resisted by the application of opposing principles, lix, not pro- perly a debt, 38, 492; in what sense infinite, 88, 1002; “exceeding sinful,” 88,624; permission of it decreed, 230; produces shame and misery, 352; its effects acknowledged rather than itself, ib.; of fathers visited on their children, just, 365; its personal visitation consistent, 532; its progressive character, 403,923; the unpardonable, 505–507; its influence on our connexions, a subject of future remorse, 564; its own punishment, 994; indulged, destroys the principle of re- sistance, 924; national, 578; of believers cleansed, 630, Singing, thoughts on, 861. Sinners, great, encouraged, 665, 672; awakened, 874.—See Sensible. Slaying of the witnesses, preceded the Reformation, 458. Socinians, the use of the term in controversy justified, 51, 84, 114; union with them for the attainment of civil rights improved for dis- seminating their principles, 51, Episcopalian animadversions on it, 50; their undue assumption, 51, 58, note; their boast of sincerity considered, 53; palliate sim, 54; their glosses on Scripture, 55 ; their views unfavourable to missionary efforts, 60; their alleged successes, ib.: character of their converts, 60—63; charge their opponents with idolatry and blasphemy, but deprecate their illiberality, 64, 83, 107, 123; judge the heart, yet deny the right to others, 112, 116, 126; their views of the Divine law, 64; influence of their principles on society, 69; the more serious lean to Calvinism, 62, 70; degrading views of the Divine character, 72; monopoly of candour, 74–78, 126; of charity, 80–86; consistent in ascribing idolatry to Trini- tarians, 84; weaken the authority of Scripture, 90, 92, 102, 104, i29; labour hard to prove—what no one disputes—the unity of God, 123, and the humanity of Christ, 91 ; charge of Scripture interpolations, 93; advocate irreligious cheerfulness, 94; indifference to religion their characteristic, 96, defended, 60, 114; alliance with infidelity, 100, 115; regard reason as sufficient, and principle as unimportant, 100, 102; deficient in motives for love to God, 97, 123, and Christ, 124; important concessions, 109, 121, 126, 127; relinquish the ground of controversy, 130, 132; their publications oppose the toleration of evangelical religion in India, 807 Socinus, his persecution of Davides, 76. Sodom, king of, his worldly character, 373; Abraham's intercession for, 380; destruction of, 381. Selfishness, the prevailing feature of Antinomianism, 335; of false teachers, 496. Soham, Mr. Fuller's distress in prospect of leaving, xxviii.-xxxviii. Solomon’s song, evidence of its canonicalness, 899. Sonship of Christ, xxiv., prior to his incarnation,943. Soul, prosperity of, 649; value of, 677; state of, on departure, 639; lost by delay, 551. Sovereignty of God.—See Predestination and Providence. Spira, IFrancis, awful end of, 497. Spirit of God.—See Holy Spirit. Spiritual, pride, charge of it against Trinitarians considered, 78; treatise on, 881; occasions and objects of, ib.; found in the profli- gate, ib., in the awakened sinner, ib., in the ministry, 882, church members, 883, in plain apparel, ib., in respectable deportment, ib, in worldly conformity, 884, in the use of Christian privileges, 885; causes of it, ib. ; acts, universal obligation to, argued from the total depravity of man, 307. - Spiritualizing passion, mistaken for spirituality, 759. Spirits, trial of, 523; evil, their influence examined, 901. Spots of the church of God, 594. Star, the fallen, the bishop of Rome, 451. Steinbart and Semler, their treatment of the Scriptures, 93. Strict communion, defended, 854,856; not a question of candour, but of principle, ib.; unjustly identified with bigotry, lxxxiii. Students, address to, at Bristol academy, f26, at Stepney, 697. Substitution of Christ, its justice, 39; its extent, 313, 321. Superficial knowledge of truth, danger of, 560, 718, 719. Superintendant, a general, in the Christian church, an unauthorized office, 833, 837. Superstition of the Catholic church, 461 ; the parent of infidelity, 360. Sutcliff, Rev. J., commencement of Mr. Fuller’s acquaintance with, xxv.; his share in the establishment of the Baptist mission, 641; his death, lxxxi.; account of, 641. . Syrophenician woman, her faith and success, 591. System, its absolute necessity in the discovery and practical use of truth, 939, illustrated by examples, 560; importance of a true sys- tym, 740. T TABLET, inscription on Mr. Fuller's, lxxxvii. Taylor, Rev. Dan, opposes the author under the signature of Philan- thropos, 191; his second publication, 234. Temporal mercies, a subject of believing prayer, 593. Temptation, not compulsion, 351; its insinuating nature, ib.; suita- ble conduct under, 414; difficulty in distinguishing from the work- ing of depravity, 979. Terms, use of, 141, 143, 311, 931. Texts, apparently inconsistent, how to be treated, 168, examples, 529. Themistocles, his magnanimous forbearance, 488. Thief, converted, case of 521. Time, changes of, 673; “shall be no longer,” meaning of, 454, note. Times, signs of the present, 49, 480–482. Toller, Rev. T., his funeral sermon for Mr. Fuller, lxxxv. Toulmin, Dr., evades the ground of argument adopted, 106, 111 ; proves the efficacy of Unitarianism from the successes of the apos- tles, 106, 112, 115, 130; defines his principles in the language of Scripture, and invites an attack on them, 106, llā; his argument for unity of person in the Godhead, 107; his “review of the Acts” to- tally irrelevant, 112, examined in Appendix, 117; his omissions, 118. Traditional belief, 155; revelation, examined, 4. Translation of the Bible, remarks on the English, 990. Treasures, accumulation of, in earth and heaven inconsistent, 493. Tree of life, 350, 479; of knowledge, 350. Trials, past, a plea for future mercies, 672. Tribes, prophetic blessings on, 430. Toleration, extraordinary construction of, 796. Trinity, evidences of the, 750, 944; in the Godhead, not incompatible with unity, 51, 84, 114; the, argued from the use of the plurals Elo- him, us, our, &c., in Gen. i., 348; baptism in the name of the, 728; doctrine of the, said to oppose the conversion of the Jews, &c., 57. Trumpets, the seven, their connexion with the vials, 468. Trust in Christ, a necessary result of faith in him, 156, 195; distin- guished from credit, ib.; described, 221. Truth, its importance, 85, 126, 233, 295, 864, 892; its nature, 558, 863; intimate knowledge of, important, 557; necessity of a systematic study of it, 559, 560; partial exhibition of, dangerous, 653, 683; manner of its communication in the Scriptures, 869,989. Twining, Mr., his opposition to the spread of Christianity, 796; his insinuation relative to the Vellore mutiny, 798; his awkward at- tempt to support the character of a Christian, ib. U UNRELIEF, a sin, 162, 163; the result of evil disposition, 181. Unbelievers, character of modern, 7 ; their prospects relative to the state of society, 26. Unconverted, their awful condition, 308; what they must do to be saved, 174, 176, 268, 269,271, 305, 308, 608, 666, 732, 870, 878. Ungodly, how justified, 184, 259, 270,948. Unpardonable sin, 505 ; characteristics of, 506; its influence on the prayers and addresses of ministers, 507. Union, in a bad cause temporary, 32; of the whole creation with the church of Christ, 42; with Christ, importance of, 605; of public and private interests in the service of God, 676; in prayer for the cause of religion, 926. Unitarians, the assumption contained in the term, 51, 84, 114.—See Socinians. - TJniversal salvation, 133, 525; dangerous tendency of the doctrine, 987; its alliance with Socinianism, 138, 149, with Satanic agency, 139, 552; at variance with Scripture, 136, 139, with itself, 137, 145. TJnjust steward, parable of, 520. V VANITY of the human mind, 661. Vials, poured out, 467, 468; their analogy with the trumpets, ib. Vidler, Mr., affectionate remonstrances with on his universalist views, 133, 145 ; his animadversions on Mr. F.'s remonstrance, 134; his vanity Qxposed, 139, 142, 143; his rule of interpretation considered, 143 Vindictive character of God explained, 71, 121. Virtue, the term misapplied, 53,993; not existing in the unregener- ate, 303; nature of true, 994. Vision, of Jacob at Beersheba, 398; of Elijah, at Horeb, 507; of the living creatures, by Ezekiel, 516; of the dry bones, 497, 997; of Daniel, relative to the Persian court, 516; of John at Patmos, 439, 44 Visiting the sick, 789. “Voice of Years” concerning W. Huntington reviewed, 969. Volney, denies the criminality of intention, 17. Voltaire, overlooks the moral character of God, 6; his testimony to PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE ILLUSTRATED. 10] I the influence of religion, 17; threat of destroying Christianity—his death, 47, note; his melancholy picture of the world, 866. W WALDENSES and Albigenses, the witnesses of the Apocalypse, 69,455. Waldo, Peter, some account of 455. - Walking by faith, nature and importance of 538. Wallis, Mr., the author's correspondence with, xxxiv., xxxv., xxxvi.; lines on his tomb, liv.; Mr. Beeby, account of, 556. Warrant of faith, injurious consequences of certain notions relative to, xviii.; of the gospel, 156, 159, 175; illustrated, 198; restriction of it confirms Arminians in their principles, 199. . - Wars and contentions, their origin and remedy, 26, 31, 359, 599,601 : g|Michael and the dragon—the Reformation, 461, 462; when lawful, Washing feet, &c., religious obligation of, considered, 284,735, 843. Washington’s testimony to religion, 23. . Watts, Dr., his views of the person of Christ examined, 942. Wayman, Mr. Lewis, his treatise on faith, 152, 160. Weightier matters of the law, 984. - Whitefield, Rev. G., his remark on the º of giving a prominence to minor differences of religious opinion, 896. Wicked, the nature of their obligations to prayer, 974. Widows and orphans of ministers, plea for, 738. Wilberforce, W., esq., M. P., specimen of Mr. Fuller's correspondence with, lxxxi. - - Wilderness, apocalyptic, the refuge of “the woman,”—Piedmont, &c., 461; the second refuge, North America, 462. Will, the, influences belief, 263. Wisdom, of God, in creation, 348, in providence, 509, in the gospel, 607; of Christ, how susceptible of increase, 980; proper to man, 509; true, 219; sorrow attending, 631. Wi; Dr., his gross misrepresentations of the author's sentiments, 2, note. ... -- Witherspoon, Dr., effect of his “Ecclesiastical Characteristics” on the Socinian cause, 113. Witness of the Spirit to the soul, 510. Woodd, Rev. Basil, letter of, to Mr. Fuller, lxxx.; his liberality to missions in general, 825. Woman, her proper station in society, 351, 354. Word of God, regeneration by the, 187, 211, 277, 529; sanctification by, 561, 597; knowledge of, important to ministers, 682. Words, how to judge of their meaning, 141, 143, 311, 931. Works, how opposed to faith, 260; of deceased believers follow them, 555; justification by, considered, 532, 612, 614,624. World, creation of-see Creation; its conflagration designed to purify, 44, 478; in what sense Christ died for, 226, 247, 249, 254. Worship, beauty of public, 665. Y YOUNG, sermon addressed to the, 656; Mr., his lines on the atone- ment, 96. Youth, blessings of religion in, 656. Z ZALEUCUS, his propitiation for the adultery of his son, 939. PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE ILLUSTRATED. GENESIS. - - PAGE i.—l. . . .347–435 ii. 17 . . 619, note vi. 6 . . . . 531 viii. 22 . . . 532 xiii. 17 . . . ib. xxiii. 17, 18 . ib. xxxii. 30 . . . 533 xlv. 6. . . . 532 xlix. 10 . . . 580 EXODUS. xx. 5 . . . . 532 xxxiii. 20. . . 533 NUMBERS. xiv. 8 . . . . 567 xxii. 5 . . . 403 DEUTERonomy. iv. 29 . . . . 665 JOSHUA. xxiii. 11 . . . 621 I. SAMUEL. xv. 29 . . . 531 II. SAMUEL. xxiv. 1 . . . 533 I. KINGS. xiii. 30 . . lxxxv. xix. . . . . 507 xxii. 21—23 . 508 II. KINGS. vii. 3, 4 . . . 221 Is CHRONICLES. P.A.G.E. v. 1, 2 . . . 429 XXi. 1 . . . . 533 xxix. 29, 30 . 673 EZR.A. vii. 10 . . . 682 NEHEMIAH, iii. 28–30 . . 676 vi. 3 . . . . 695 JOB. xii. 6—25 . . 509 xxviii. . . . ib. PSALMS. ii. 11, 12 . . 157 iv. 4. . . . . 584 xiii. 2 . . . . 587 xxii. 27 . . . 711 xxiv. 7–10 . . 957 xxxv. 3 . . . 510 xxxvi. 9 . . . 758 xl. 6–8 . . . 579 xl. 8 . . . . 204 lxii. 12 . . . 136 lxviii. 18 . . 698 lxviii. 26–28 . 665 lxxi. 9 . . . 655 lxxxv. 8 . . . 510 xc. 14 . . . 656 xc. 15 . . . 672 xc. 16, 17 653, 737 xciv. ll . . . 661 cxvi. 9 . . . xlv. cxix. 42 . . . 156 cxxxix. 14 . . 668 cxlv. 16 . . 755 cxlv. 19 . . xxxv. PROVERBS. JEREMIAH, MALACHI. PAGE FAGE PA.G., viii. 25–31 . . 42 | xxxiii. 16 . . 945 iv. 5, 6 . . . 598 xii. 1. 3.5 . . 511 | xxxiv. 18, 19 . 375 | iii. 16, 17 . . 664 xiii. 11. 14. 19 # EZERIEL. MATTHEW. xiv. 2. 6, 7 . . 512 xiv. 8 . . . . 674 i. x. . . . . 516 iv. 1–11 . . . xxxix. xvi. 7 . . . 537 xvi. 4–8 . . 175 v. vi. vii. . 483–497 xxii. 17, 18 . . xlvii. xvi. 44—63 . . 148 v. 16 . . . . 534 xxvi. 4, 5 . . 532 | xviii. 20 . . . 532 vi. 1 . . . . ib. xxvii. 2 . . . 533 | xxxvi. 26 . . 203 vi. 10 . . . . 44 xxvii. 21 . . . 991 | xxxvi. 37 . . 213 vi. 33 . . . . 984 xxx. 24–28 . 512 | xxxvii. . . . 497 vii. 7, 8 . . . 533 vii. 13, 14 . . ; AST tº vii. 13—20 . . 5 ECCLESIASTES I)ANIEL vii. 15, 16 . . 108 i. 15 . . . . 675 vii. 5, 6 . . . 29 ix. 30 . . . 534 i. 17, 18 . . . 631 viii. 3–24 . . 29 | xi. 12, 13 . . 519 vii. 15—19 . . 512 ix. 24 . . . 136 | xi. 14 . . . 534 x. 13 . . . . 516 | xi. 28. . . . # xiii. 33 . . . 2 ISAIAH. HOSEA. xv. 21–28 . . 591 ix. 7 . . . . 512 tº e º gº & xviii. 23, &c. .. 519 xi. xii. . . . 500 i.ii., iii., , , . . 498 | xxi. 38 . . . 534 xxi. 11, 12 . . 514 | xi. 8, 10, 11 - 499 | xxiii. 23 . . . 978 xxvi. . . . . 503 | xii; 3. . . . . 392 | xxiv. 36 . . . 439 xxvi. 9 . . . 504 | xiii. 14 . . . . 499 || xxv.21 . . . 688 xxvii. 1–3 . . ib. xiv. 4–8 . . 500 | xxviii. 19 . 75l xxxviii. 10–20 862 xxviii. 19, 20 - 164 xliii. 25 . . . 515 JONAH. - His . . . ;|ii. 1 . . . . 670 MARK, liv. 5 . . . 228 i. 15 . . . . 161 lv. 1 . . . . 257 HAGGAI. v. 19 . . . . 534 lv. 1–7 . . . 157 i. 2 . . . . 550 | xi. 24 . . . . lii. xiii. 32 . . 439 JEREMIAH. ZECHARIAH. xvi. 15, 16 . . 164 i lo . . . . ssal iv.2, 3.11, 12 : 138|*" * ii. 1–ia . . . §og | x; 4...' ... ; - ?? LUKE ii. 19 . . . . 994 | Xi Xil. Xul. 1 : 502 * vi. 16 . . . 157 i. 35 . . . 943 xxix. 7 . . 576 MALACHI, i. 33 . . . 535 xxxi. 15–21 .. 500 l iii. 18 . . . . 517 | ii. 52 . . . . 980 1012 PAssAGES OF SCRIPTURE ILLUSTRATED. ILUKE. >A G E ACTS. YpAGE ii. 42 . . . 910 iii. 17 . . . 534 iii. 19 . . 526 iii. 21 . . . 136. I. CORINTHIIANS. ~. xv. 10 . . . xv. 24 xvi. 22 JPAGIS 533 535 166 663 COLOSSIANS. YPAGE 147 947 943 687 vii. 29, 30 . . 163 xii. l5 . . . 667 xiii. 24 . . . 533 xvi. 1—12 . . 520 xvii. 10 . . . 208 xix. 27 . 164, 201 xxiii. 39—43 . 521 JOHN. i. 3 . . . . 748 i. 10. 12 . . . 604 i. l 1—13. . . 277 i. 21 . . . . 534 i. 5l . . . . 398 - ω . . 954 iii. 3. . . . . 278 iii. 8 . . 278, note iii. 13 . . . 954 iii. 18 . . 164, 201 iii. 22—36 . . 523 iii. 28—3l . 87, note iii. 36. . . . 195 iv. 1 . . . . 523 v. 5—9 . . . 207 v. 3l . . . . 535 v. 25 . . . . 277 v. 35 . . . . 680 v. 40 . . . . 163 . . . . 529 vi. 29 . . 158, 197 vi. 44 . . . . 163 vi. 44, 45. 64, 65 529 vii. 45—53 990, 991 viii. 1 . . . . ib. viii. 14 . . . 535 ix. 4l . . . . 505 X. 26 . . . . 200 xii. 36 . . . 158 xii. 42, 43 . . 186 —— . . 505 xiii. 1—17 . . 524 xiii. 34, 35 . . 699 xiv. 2—4 . . 666 xiv. 10 . . . 942 xiv, 28 . . . 129 xvi. 8, 9 . . . 163 xvii. 24 . . . 343 . 616, note xx. 17. 27 . . 535 xx. 21 . . . 694 xx. 29 . . . 535 xxi. l6 . . . 679 ACTS. ii. 23 . . . . 971 . . . . 525 vii. 5 . . . . 532 viii. 22 . 159, 197 . . . 505 viii. 37 . � • • • ' 182 ix. 7 . . . 536 x. 2. 4 374, note xi. l4 . . ib. xi. 24. 546 xiii. 27 . . . 534 xvi. 30, 31 . . 870 xxii. 9 536 ROMANS. i. 12 . 709 i. 16 975 i. 20 . 744 ii. 14 . 535 iii. 24. 608 iv. 4, 5 184 v. 10 . 3l5 vi. 17 . '278 vi. 19*. . '923 vii. 6. . 203 vii. 13 88 $ii i5—25 1 . 9i3 vii. 19, 20 . . 299 viii. 18—23 . . 634 959 ix. . . . . . 990 ix. 31, 32 . •. 197 x. 8, 9 . . lxiv. xi. 5, 6 989, 990 xi. 32, 33 . . 989 xiv. 5 . 535 xiv. 19 704 I. CORINTHIANS. i. 18. 24 . . . 975 i. 21 . . . . 746 i. 26—29 . . 248 ii. 8 . 534 ii. ll . . . 752 ii. 14 . . 202, 278 iii. 9 . 685, 706 viii. 8—13 . . 537 x. 12 . . . 883 X. 13 . . . . 536 x. 20, 2l. . . 537 X. 33 . . . . 531 xi. 19 868 II. CORINTHIANS, i. 8 536 i. 12 706 iv. 5 690 iv. 7 . . . . 88 | iv. 13 . 696 v. 7 . . . . 538 v. l5 . . . 228, 252 V. 17 . 203 v. 19, 20. 162 v. 21 . . 310 xii. ll 533 xii. l6 527 xii. 2l 907 GALATIANS. i. 10 53] iii. 24—27 728 ii. 16 . 532 iv. 10, ll 535 v. 13 . . 708 v. l6 lix. vi. 2. 5 536 vi. 7, 8 563 JEPHIESIANS. i. 10 . . . 42, 136 i. 13, 14 . 214 ii. 2 294 ii. 3 . 535 ii. 13 . 617 iii. 9 . 957 iii. 14—16 (,59 iv. 21 . . 743 iv. 22—24 203 v. 25, 26 . 250 IPHILIPPIANS. i. 9—11 . . 644 ii. 5—7 . 942 980 iii. 10 . 623 iv. 5 . . . 536 iv. 7 646 COLOSSIANS. i. 19, 20 . 42 i. 20 . . . . i. 27 . . . . ii. 9 . • . • iv. 3, 4 . I. THESSALONIANS. JOHN CIIII, DS AND soN, PRINTERS. ii. 13 . . 975 ii. 7, 8 693 ii. 19 . 707 iii. 8 . . . 70] iv. l6 . 477 II. THESSALONIANS. ii. 2 . . . . 536 ii. 4—8 . . 451, 453 ii. 10—12 . 164, 201 1. `IMoThy. i. 13 . . . 505 ii. 6 . . . 227 iii. 1—7 . 983 iv. l0 . . 136 iv. l5, 16 692 II. TIMOTHY. l i. 13 . . 710 ii. l5 . 755 ii. 25 . 269 iii. 12. 537 iii. 16. 746 iv. 5, 6 . 697 iv. 22 . . 69] TITUS. i. 15 . 712 ii. 13 . . 714 ii. 15 . . 684 HEBREWS. v. 12—14 557 vi. . . . . . 505 viii. 10 . l99, note ix. 27, 28 . . 678 x. 23 . . . . 892 x. 26 . 505 xi. 4 • . • 355 xi. 13, 14 . . 428 xi. 24—26 . . 657 xi. 33. 39 535 xiii. 17 . 573 JAMES. ¥AGY. i. 9, 10 . . 986 ii. 13 . . 136 ii. 14—20 . 266 ii. 2l . . 532 I. PETER.. i. 12 . 528 i. 23 . . . 529 ii. 22 . . . 935 ii. 4, 5 660 II. PETER. i. ll . . . 642 ii. 20 ® «• ę 506 iii. 7—13 147 I. JOHN. i. 8 . . . . 536 i. 9 • 920 ii. 1 • • • • ib. ii. 2 . . . 227, 228 iii. 9 . . . . 536 V. � 75 1 v. 16 . 506 v. 19 . . 301 v. 20 . . 195 III. JOHN. 2 . 649 8 . 700 4 . 702 JUIDE. 3 . . 652 20, 21 637 REVELATION. i.—xxii. . 436—482 i. 18 . . . 626 ii. 1 703 ii. 5 . . . 9I0 . iii. 17—19 . 9] ] v. 9 . e 250 xiv. 3, 4 . . . ib. xiv. 11 . . l35, 141 xiv. 13 553 xix. 957 xxi. . 136 xxii. 9 . . . 957 } ºw- g § | º * , ºrº 2- +. - * f . i i. | i. | ::::::: S. º }. appºiºiºſp ºlº.rº Ilºilº à tº #: | hº º (ºutſiliſi # iſ. : | % # § % ~. ę- § ##E gº 5. 6 §: º§ ºº -.*l: ºº;ſ gsºc.3º, º- ~-; *- i >- # D. : : i : : º º ||||||||||||||I|| EC. º.º.º.º. ºººººººººº. tºº º *-sº | TIHIE ( ; IFT Ol." THIE T.V. 1 > 1 > \N R21& 12s; : Y - TH: R H .V N A SSOC I .", "R" H ( ) N | º ºr's ºes sº sº a sºciºecº tº scº º dº Emmºniº lºſſrººmsºmºmº E. \", ºf: !!!t! Lili | 2. ; 2" ...' 2’27 2 | || . A. 9. 3× daeae aetae ， ， ſae -- « ， ç’ºſ ºſ ºxxewººººººº **** ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ！ ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ſº:SI ?***** ≡ t. t.*; •••·-· ∞ №tes，- **~~~~ ： ~~~~）; **********- ·-ff;$ is +，-，-，*********ſ-º ！！ ！！3 · · * * · * * · *~e， ~º ~~~~·№ae， №. ！！ ！！！！！！！！·- ·************************ ----- ·- -ºrš， * ， ， ; ******， ！ }）;§§…ſaeſ， º į „sae|-· ·· · ſaeſºxae:-，-，-，*， ***-·، ، ، ، ، ****************** ºſſ，r. •* • • • •*; ********~*~§. - }·-ºg №. ！！ ! ！ ！ ！ſaevaer-se-ae-wºº ºssºvº-******** ±Eſae.§.3，~~~~ ~~~~sº！！！！!！！！！ ！！！！- ， ！ ± − × × × ، ， ， ， ， ！ ·ſpºsºs， ſº ºff· ）; ∞ √æ√æ√∞- §..…*y******…*…*…***·· §），· -- |× （~~~~ svº sve z vlae ***· · ·· ∞----&#!！！！！!！！！！!！！！！！！！!！！！!！！--· ·…- ： »…º.º.i.sas *********|- ſaeſaeſº，---- ----t. ， ！|- ·----★ →ſ， →z， errº: ***********- ******----º-…ae aewºr:-±gą， resºs:sae E----…--~~~~）; w ºº！！！！！！！*******· -··- ----， ！ ·· -· -№ caeſae） ~~~~ ~~~~ *** }}£; £::::：::::::::::::|:：::::::::::::::::::::::::::------ ·} ：---·- -№！ · ſaeae， wºsº ººº！！° ***®-№vº :•،::：：：:：-！·| №·。 。ſae aerºase ºwº º --~§:::：:::::::：::::：：:::：：:：:：：：:::：-|-~-------·~- -- -·ae، ， ，ae ………！！！--~~~~）; ************· :---…..…….（，，，，，， ，，sraewº， ºss? : ': ******************· ·ſaei，º·•«，·· …№eeae aerºs : ******|- ºff （* ****************·ſy , ， ， ， *********** -****·„ſae·· m.#*******************·· •ſaesaer！！！！！！！**********#！***！sae- -~ ·№ºrs s-ºsºrºzºrºesº·}wºz， sº ！ · aerº， --*****！«■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ *-º-:-****************）- -|-sae; sºYº，º，$£§！！！، ، ، ſ.，.）.-|-zí z · · --~~ ~ ~ ~ -.. * * * * · · -： º ： · * * ·„……*…*…*…*…********************** ： ， ， , ， „ºnº- №ſ，#§:::::::::::::::::::::ſae aer º º ， ！ ！··●- ſae3，84·łº:siae*** ！！！！!！!！！！!！!! ----·！！！！！!！··∞ºſºvesºs · „š.） ，，，******* №tae--- ， （* º. º №: ***:-- ſię， w łºſº…----- ſae：ſºr，|- ·----· -----№h， w º…*******#!***！ ſaesaer，*********** №t!！！！！!！！ ！ ¿? ¿######### ∞ √° √æ√∞'， × §§§）: ·--º---.--->******）·####ÈËĶ; -§§§§§ģ*Ě •��ęæș**+ę， żºłę，！！! ！！ ！！ ！! ！！ <！--b， 'ae'-- ș;:e::::::::：:::::::：:::::::：:::::::::::::::：::#5ĒĒĖĖĘĘĢĒ、、、。 §§ 、、、、、、、、****** ºrºsſs!！！-… ···:------:is：№ſſae §§· -*±-§§§